E-flections

Jump to Comments

here is my profile statement for my pg cert

Sharing Knowledge: Building a Community of Practice at Post Graduate level.

Knowledge is dynamic. Knowledge is not static. It is continually in motion. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p10)

The PG Cert has given me the incentive to further explore areas of pedagogic theory and how that might be applied both to my own teaching practice and to the development of my course, and helped me set my own role as a course director into a context from which I can further engage with developing teaching and learning at LCC and UAL in general in my secondment to CLTAD. As a direct result of this, I have been fortunate enough to have a paper outlining my approach to building a community of practice on the Masters accepted at several leading educational conferences.

There are two main areas I wish to reflect on in this statement; the enhancement of the individual leaner and their abilities in relation to the collaborative group learning experience; and the issues involved in pedagogic innovation, particularly in  technology enhanced learning and teaching.

Major influences on my pedagogy

Through the PGCert, I have deepened my understanding and engagement with the theories and concepts of several major theorists and attempted to integrate their insights into the delivery of my course and my teaching, particularly the writings of Donald Schon and Etienne Wenger. Although I was familiar with their concepts before the PG cert, the course has given me the encouragement to examine their work more deeply, and to try to apply their concepts in a more proactive way to my teaching. One very satisfying element of this process has been the validation of much of our course’s existing teaching practice that is based to a great extent on professional experience as practitioners; it has been reassuring to discover that much of our approach, acknowledging tacit knowledge and understanding, relates directly to the theories put forward by both Schon and Wenger.

Another significant influence on my teaching is Michael Wesch at Kansas State University. Wesch teaches an undergraduate course in social anthropology focusing on new media, and has for me some of the most engaging insights into how education needs to respond to the wholesale shifting of the landscape that has been engendered by the rise of technology as a mediator of our lives at every level. Wesch argues that

As we increasingly move toward an environment of instant and infinite information, it becomes less important for students to know, memorize, or recall information, and more important for them to be able to find, sort, analyze, share, discuss, critique, and create information. They need to move from being simply knowledgeable to being knowledge-able. (Wesch, 2008)

I will return to how I have applied his concept of ‘purpose driven research’ (2009) later, but for now suffice to say that his analysis has led me to engage with the relationship between the delivery of my vocational course content and the need to equip students with the new skills of digital literacy necessary to operate in the 21^st century arena of social media.

Tutoring the Reflective Practitioner

Reading Schon in parallel with Wenger, I was struck by the similarities between his ideas and those of the community of practice model. Schon’s concept of the ‘Reflective Practitioner’ closely mirrors the experiences we have had on delivering the course, especially in tutorial sessions where much of the work revolves around establishing a sense of the student as a professional, and much of the debate and discussion centres on how the student can work out the solution to a problem for themselves. As Schon notes, this requires a certain leap of faith from the student,

The paradox of learning a really new competence is this: that a student cannot at first understand what he needs to learn, can learn it only by educating himself, and can educate himself only by beginning to do what he does not yet understand (Schon, 1987, p 93)

Schon’s work has made me even more convinced that in tutorials especially, there has to be as open and supportive an environment as possible, so that the interactions can be as honest as possible,

A student’s learning is enhanced when she can voice her confusions, describe elements of what she already knows, or say what she makes of a coaches’ showing and telling. (Schon, 1987, p301)

A major part of this ‘coaching’ is the use of established industry figures as tutors and guest lecturers on the course, enabling them to share their wealth of professional experience. However, Wenger points out that  it is key to ensure that this is not simply a one way process of information flow but rather a ‘generational encounter’ (Wenger, 1993), in which the energy and excitement of the aspiring entrants to the profession interacts with the wisdom of the established practitioner, in what he characterises as ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (1993). My reading of Wenger and Schon has cemented this understanding that there must be certain equity in the relationships between students and mentors,

An expert will certainly have more power than a novice, but this power derives from the ability to contribute to the knowledge of the community, not from the formal authority to control resources, give orders, or grant promotions. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p43)

The tutorial session  must provide a relatively safe place, in which the students can experiment with problem structuring and solving, building up an Schonian  ‘repertoire’ (1983) of experiences that they can then apply in their future professional lives. Wenger supports this concept that a supportive collaborative environment is an excellent way to share knowledge,

Sharing tacit knowledge requires interaction and informal learning processes such as storytelling, conversation, coaching and apprenticeship of the kind that communities of practice provide (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p 9)

Harnessing the power of the collective

A major shift in my thinking over the last year has been in moving from a position focused on the individual learner to one that situates the student as part of a much larger collaborative enterprise. As Kevin Kelly remarked, ‘Nobody is as smart as everybody’ (Kelly, ). Again, Wenger provides a useful formulation of this

The days of Leonardo da Vinci are over. We need others to complement and develop our own expertise. This collective character of knowledge doesn’t means that individuals don’t count. In fact, the best communities welcome strong personalities and encourage disagreements and debates. Controversy is part of what makes a community vital, effective and productive. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p10)

I have therefore explored how Wenger’s concepts of communities of practice can be applied to the delivery of postgraduate higher education. Much of his writings centre on their use in corporate and business environments; but as the concept relates so intimately to the professional sphere, and our courses are vocational, the translation from one arena to another makes sense. However, although in my exploration of the literature I have found considerable research of how communities of practice can be used by professional educators to support their teaching and learning practice and the dissemination of knowledge and experience (Kimble, Hildredth & Bourdon, 2008), there seems relatively little on how they can be used to deliver teaching and learning itself in a higher education context.  In this light, I was been particularly struck by Schon’s concept of a ‘practicum’, and have now taken this onboard as a key underpinning to the course, providing a ‘sandbox’ in which the students can develop their professional practice in a controlled environment. As he elaborates:

‘The practicum is a virtual world, relatively free of the pressures, distractions, and risks of the real one, to which, nevertheless it refers. It stands in the intermediate space between the practice world, the ‘lay world’ of ordinary life, and the esoteric world of the academy’ (Schon, 1987 p37)

To attempt to enhance collaboration on the course, I have therefore introduced a variety of group collaborative projects on the course this year. In negotiation with the students we collectively discussed what possible projects the group might work on and then chose ones that seemed to benefit the whole class. However, these have not been without their problems, especially in one project where the group built a portfolio website to showcase their individual projects. This resulted in a minority of participants carrying out the bulk of the work required to build the website because it demanded relatively specialist skill sets. It was difficult to manage the relative workloads and contributions to the project of the whole class; this caused  problems in assessment too when it was clear that a small number of students had essentially produced the final product to a high standard, their work deserved a distinction but is was hard to justify this level of award for the groups’ efforts as a whole. I therefore explored alternative models for group working which led me to trial one of Michael Wesch’s approaches, which is also the subject of my action research for the PG Cert.

Purpose driven research

One significant issue that I have wrestled with in delivering the course to date is the balance between a practice based, problem solving approach that seeks to replicate as much as possible real world scenarios, with the need to ensure that a level of academic rigour is also applied to the course. To this end, I introduced Michael Wesch’s concept of ‘purpose driven research’ (Wesch, 2009) to the theory element of the programme this year.  This concept seeks to ensure that as much of a students activity as possible is based on activities that have a real world outcome, and that students are involved as collaborators, co-researchers and co-producers  with the staff as expert ‘guides’ and principle researchers. In this way, the learning is authentic and natural. Wesch’s approach stresses that the art of collaboration is trying to find a balance between individual responsibility and trying to leverage the group energy so that the end is greater than sum of parts. Within this, every student has own specific assignment or role in the group, and develops their own project within the larger project. This should result in more motivation and a better project, as they know more about their own expertise and knowledge than the staff, and are better able to formulate their own research questions.

Following Wesch’s model, we initiated a one year research project into the field of citizen photojournalism, with 3 consecutive groups of students from both the full time and part time modes of the course each working on their own individual research paper on the subject, but then sharing their results together in the form of a collaborative wiki. The intention is for the final group of students to also work as editors for the wiki, to ensure that the research of the other students is of an acceptable level; and then to make the whole enterprise available to the general public as an open resource on the subject. So far the results have been very promising, with some excellent and insightful pieces of research that fill substantial gaps in the available research and literature on this area.

The living curriculum

This has led me to interrogate what kinds of knowledge and what approaches to working with that knowledge are appropriate at Master’s level discourse. A significant problem with this lies in the exponential speed by which new paradigms of interacting with the world are emerging, which affect our students not just in their academic lives, but also in their practice fields and in their personal spheres as well. Many of the tools I now use to deliver both my face to face course but more especially my online course did not even exist when we first validated it, nor did many of the necessary critical engagements with the technology that are needed to make sense of it. This throws up significant issues for course development, how to maintain a cutting edge feel that is responsive to rapid changes, but simultaneously retain the rigorous underpinnings in terms of academic quality that university education demands. Matching learning outcomes for a course that was validated 5 years ago when platforms like Twitter and You Tube were unknown to the needs of contemporary media practice is a challenging one. Again, the community of practice model helps navigate this complex issue by emphasising that much of the experience is embodied within the community itself,

What makes managing knowledge a challenge is that it is not an object that can be owned, stored and moved around like a piece of equipment or a document. It resides in the skills, understanding and relationships of its members as well as in the tools, documents and processes that embody aspects of this knowledge. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p11)

I have increasingly tried therefore to adopt a course design philosophy that is organic, and operates as a ‘living curriculum’ (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p31)

in collaboration with the student body, referring and negotiating with them changes and modifications as much as possible. I have also taken an ‘edupunk’ (Groom 2007) or ‘best of breed’ approach to finding the most suitable available technological tool to solve the particular pedagogic problem at that point, abandoning it in the future if a better alternative emerges. This approach acknowledges the concept that the world is in ‘perpetual beta’ (Boyd, 2008), with a pace of change that is so fast that course design needs to be flexible and responsive, whilst  recognising Wenger’s advice that the focus should always be on creating a learning environment which is student led

Design and development are more about eliciting and fostering participation than planning, directing and organising their activities (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p13)

As much as possible then, in trying to establish a community of practice with the students, we have used the introduction of new features to the course to enhance collaborative spaces rather than imposing a top down vision of how things must be. Some elements have worked better than others, some have met with resistance from the students, some have  been abandoned and others are still to be explored, but  Wenger’s idea of ‘design for evolution’ (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p15) now underpins my thinking. As he emphasises, course development must be flexible to accommodate the needs of the students, not a fixed, monolithic structure that cannot be modified,

Rather than designing finished structures, it uses design as a catalyst for community growth and development. This approach intermingles design and implementation, making design a recurring aspect of the life of the community, not a precursor to its existence – a part of the community itself, not an outside-inside activity (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002, p64).

Conclusion

In conclusion then, for me the major insight of the last year has been the necessity of equipping our graduates with a set of relationships both to themselves, their peers and to a wider social context that can guide them in their burgeoning careers, and how a community of practice model can enhance this. Again, Wenger et al provide an excellent summation of my current philosophy in this regard

It is still important to remember that some of their greatest value lies in intangible outcomes, such as the relationships they build among people, the sense of belonging they create, the spirit of inquiry they generate, and the professional confidence and identity they confer to their members. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p15)

The major challenge for the future for me is how to maintain a course development that is innovative and forward thinking whilst retaining academic credibility and without alienating the students with an overload of technology; my pedagogic research is now focusing on how to obtain this balance.

References

Boyd, D. (2008). Understanding Socio-Technical Phenomena in a Web2.0 Era. MSR New England Lab Opening, Cambridge MA, September 22 http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/MSR-NE-2008.html (last retrieved 25 09 2009)

Groom, J. (2008) Groom, Jim (2008-05-25). “The Glass Bees“. Weblog bavatuesdays. http://bavatuesdays.com/the-glass-bees/. Retrieved May 12 2009

Kimble, Hildredth & Bourdon, (2008) Communities of Practice, vol I&II

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 09 2009)

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: a guide to managing knowledge.

Wesch, M (2008). From Knowledgable to Knowledge-able: Learning in New Media Environments. Academic Commons http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/knowledgable-knowledge-able (last retrieved 25 08 2009)

Wesch, M (2009)  Purpose driven research, online presentation April 15h 2009