Week13+questions

How does Wenger's (1998) paradox "no community can fully design the learning of another" yet "no community can fully design its own learning" (p. 234), constitute itself in education? (JE, 4/12/10)

Wenger states that "teachers need to 'represent' their communities of practice in educational settings" (p. 276). I'm having trouble giving that statement a precise meaning. Should a mathematics teacher represent the mathematical community of practice? (RK, 04/12/09) - or should teachers represent the educational community of practice? (JH, 4/13)

In Coda II, engagement, imagination, and alignment were seen to work best in combination. In chapter 10, the four dimensions of design for learning must be considered together with the modes of belonging. Table 10.3 presents a matrix of how this can be done. An example of horizontal combination was given (p. 239). How can the vertical and horizontal combination work well for learning? I think a fair balance is needed. (NA)

Is there a mathematical community of practice? I really am not convinced of this. (RK, 04/12/08)

How can communities of practice revive their organizations or institution? (NA)

Wenger (1998) presents the main pedagogical issue as "interaction of the planned and the emergent" (p. 267). This makes me wonder about fidelity of implementation. If such a perspective was adopted in studying such a construct, I wonder what kind of a balance or 'interaction' would be desirable. (NF, 4/12/07)

Even after three weeks of reading Wenger's book, I am still wondering what community of practice we are "grooming" our students to participate in- the community of practice of students? the community of practice they want to participate in when they get out of school? (JH 4/13)

In response to Janice's question, I think we are grooming students for multiple communities of practice -- within our classrooms, the school as whole, their future careers, etc. Is that right?? In light of this, I repeat my question from last week: Is our class a community of practice? If so, how do we know? How does it fit in with the mathematical community of practice? How do we convince Rob that it exists? (The last one was a joke, of course). :) CZ 4/13

I am intrigued by Wenger's assertion that "learning cannot be designed: it can only be designed for - that is, facilitated or frustrated" (p. 229). What are your responses to this statement? CZ 4/13

I am left thinking of Anderson Et. Al.'s question: What does the theory of community of practice give us that we can't get from an alternative theory? For instance: Wenger asserts that "learning cannot be designed: it can only be designed for..." (see above). Doesn't constructivism claim the same thing by stating that all learning is constructed, and as a result, learning and knowledge cannot be transferred? Are there other ideas of Wenger's that have analogues in other theories? Are there examples of ideas which are totally unique to the community framework? (JDS 4/13)

Aside: How is Wenger’s (1998) theory on communities of practice similar to and different from other social theories of learning (e.g., situated learning, social constructivism, socioculturalism)? (NF, 4/13) -- I think I helped to answer my own question by referring to the opening part of this book in which Wenger defines his social theory of learning to be situated as a tension between theories that emphasize social structure and theories that emphasize action (see p. 12).