Adaptivities in Teacher Learning Within the Context of Communities of Practice: A School District’s Learning Journey

Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)


Communities of practice (CoPs) can be platforms for teacher learning. CoPs enable teachers to collaborate with others, share experiences, and form new understandings. Wenger (Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998) identifies four dualities for designing learning in CoPs: (1) participation–reification, (2) designed–emergent, (3) local–global, and (4) identification–negotiability. This paper postulates a teacher learning framework which adopts the participation-reification duality and unpacks the learning processes from a social constructivist stance. We conjecture learning as the interplay between individuals and social-others and describe the learning processes in six duality pairs: (1) first person–third person experiences, (2) interpretation–dialogue, (3) personal–established theories, (4) identity–fellowship, (5) confidence–mutual trust, and (6) individual–social regulation. These duality pairs focus on the experience, cognition, and embodiment aspects of learning. Using this framework, we describe a school district’s learning journey to level up teacher professionalism. Interviews were conducted and data that supports the learning dualities are discussed. Findings show that the learning dualities enable adaptivities through teacher learning when supported by principal and district structures. Designs for teacher learning can be created with top–down and bottom–up structures by infusing informal learning designs with existing formalisations.


Tacit Knowledge Teacher Learning Interaction Session Established Theory Domain Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from other at work: Communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozarth, J. (2008). The usefulness of Wenger’s framework in understanding a community of practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, D. L. (2003). Self-regulation and collaborative learning in teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. Celep, C., Konakli, T., & Recepoglu, E. (2011). Organizational learning: Perceptions of teachers’ in Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 474–493.Google Scholar
  8. Center for Collaborative Education. (n.d.). Turing points – Transforming middle schools: School structures that support learning and collaboration. Retrieved from
  9. de Laat, M. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2002). Collective learning: Theoretical perspectives and ways to support networked learning. European Journal for Vocational Training, 27, 13–24.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, T. (2013, January 18). Lessons from Silicon Valley. Today, 19–21.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, M., & Arnott, D. (2007). The use of focus groups in design science research. In M. Toleman, A. Cater-Steel, & D. Roberts (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Australasian conference on information systems (pp. 327–337). Toowoomba, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.Google Scholar
  12. Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottlieb, H. (2001). Learning communities/communities of practice/learning circles. Creating the future. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from
  14. Hoyle, E. (1982). The professionalization of teachers: A paradox. British Journal of Educational Studies, 30(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hung, D., Looi, C. K., & Koh, T. S. (2004). Situated cognition and communities of practice: First-person ‘lived experiences’ vs. third-person perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 193–200.Google Scholar
  16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Toronto, Canada: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  18. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives (Vol. 3). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams people working across boundaries with technology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. McDermott, R., & Archibald, D. (2010, March). Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harvard Business Review: The Magazine (pp. 82–89). Retrieved from
  21. McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social constructivism and the World Wide Web – A paradigm for learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Memidex. (2008). Atom (substance). Retrieved April 3, 2013, from
  23. Ministry of Education. (2009). Contact: The teachers’ digest, 4.Google Scholar
  24. Mittendorff, K., Geijsel, F., Hoeve, A., de Laat, M., & Nieuwenhuis, L. (2006). Communities of practice as stimulating forces for collective learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(5), 298–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (1995). Designing team based organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (n.d.). Lev Vygotsky revolutionary scientist. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved April 3, 2013, from
  27. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petras, Y., Jamil, H., & Mohamed, A. R. (2012). How do teachers learn? A study on the policy and practice of teacher professional development in Malaysia. KJEP Journal of Educational Policy, 9(1), 51–70.Google Scholar
  30. Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raven, A. (2003). Team or community of practice aligning tasks, structures and technologies. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work (pp. 292–306). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. ScienceDaily. (1995). Cognition. Retrieved December 31, 2012, from
  35. Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21(3), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skinner, J. (2011). Social media and revolution: The Arab spring and the occupy movement as seen through three information studies paradigms. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 11(169). Retrieved from
  37. Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Wooworth, S. (1998). In the company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a community of teacher learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Violet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self-and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watson, T. J. (2006). Organising and managing work. Edinburgh, Scotland: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  42. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  45. Wenger, E. (2010). Social learning systems and communities of practice. UK: The Open University/Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from
  47. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.Google Scholar
  49. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Wylie, E. (Ed.). (2008). Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  52. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations