310894_Cover.pdf 7/12/11 11:46:58 AM

ii • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

Publ icat ions andD isseminat ion Projec t(PDP):The PDP, an initiative of JESNA’s Learnings and

Consultation Center (LCC), aims to improve the delivery

of Jewish education in North America by bringing the

expert procedural and content knowledge that resides

within JESNA to practitioners and policymakers in the

field. JESNA’s research and evaluation functions —

performed primarily by the Berman Center for Research

and Evaluation in Jewish Education — have generated

valuable lessons and useable data, which have been

collected over the years through our work with

communities. Intellectual capital is one of the primary

resources JESNA contributes in order to lead the field of

Jewish education toward consistent excellence. The role of

the PDP is to leverage this intellectual capital by bringing

it to the public arena using multiple media.

The PDP:

• Produces print and electronic publications on topics

of importance to the Jewish education field based on

the coupling of Berman Center evaluation studies

and research projects with secondary sources.

• Distributes utilizable research and evaluation-based

knowledge about Jewish education to those in the

field through written, electronic, and face-to-face

media.

• Publicizes lessons learned at academic and communal

conferences and convenes thematic consultations and

colloquia.

© J E S N A . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D. T H I S R E P O R T A N D I T SCO N T E N T S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F J E S N A A N D M AY N OTB E R E P R O D U C E D W I T H O U T W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N .

Methodological Preface:The Publications and Dissemination Project (PDP), an

initiative of JESNA’s Learnings and Consultation Center

(LCC), brings JESNA’s knowledge and expertise to

practitioners and policymakers in the field by means of

print and online media.

Each report of the PDP focuses on lessons learned about

an aspect of Jewish education based on research and

evaluations (performed primarily by JESNA’s Berman

Center for Research and Evaluation), as well as on-the-

ground knowledge (primarily gleaned from JESNA’s

LCC staff who work directly with Jewish educators in the

field). The PDP reports are vehicles through which

JESNA interprets and disseminates lessons learned in the

various modes of our practice as a way to enhance Jewish

education delivery systems. This issue of Making Jewish

Education Work considers Communities of Practice.

Learnings are derived from three primary sources:

• Evaluation reports developed by JESNA’s Berman

Center for Research and Evaluation (to learn more

about the programs referenced, please see Appendix

A);

• Tacit knowledge from JESNA’s Learnings and

Consultation professionals; and

• Literature from the general education field about

Communities of Practice

It should be noted that the Berman Center evaluations

referenced in this report deal with Communities of

Practice with varied contexts, formats, participants and

target audiences.

Acknowledgements :JESNA wishes to thank the following people who

contributed their insights and energy to this report:

Leora Isaacs, Steven Kraus, Lily Lozovsky, Kate O’Brien,

Shira Rosenblatt, Devorah Silverman, John Smith and

Dena Stein.

JESNA’s Publication and Dissemination Project is funded by a generous grant from the Mandell L. and Madeleine H. Berman Foundation.

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page ii

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • iii

Table of Contents

Making Jewish Education Work: Communities of Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Works Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendix A:Descriptions of Initiatives Evaluated by the Berman Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App-1

Appendix B:Stewarding Technology for Communities . . . . . . . . . . App-3

Other publications in the “Making Jewish Education Work” series:

• Making Jewish Education Work #1: Community Hebrew High Schools

• Making Jewish Education Work #2: Mentoring Jewish Educational Professionals

• Making Jewish Education Work #3: Complementary School Change Initiatives

• Making Jewish Education Work #4: Professional Development for Educators

• Making Jewish Education Work #5: Jewish Service Learning

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page iii

““

[ M y Co P] h a s b e e n o n e o f t h em o s t c r u c i a l re s o u rce s t h a t h a se n a b l e d [ my p ro g ra m ] to s t a ya h e a d o f t h e c u r ve a n d re m a i nv i a b l e w i t h i n n ova t i o n , b e s tp ra c t i ce s, a n d n e t wo r k i n g.

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page iv

1 Genesis 2:18.

2 E. Wenger, R. McDermott, & W. M. Snyder, Cultivating

Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing

Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,2002, pp. 233.

3 E. Wenger, “Communities of Practice — A BriefIntroduction.” Retrieved on December 23, 2010 fromhttp://www.ewenger.com/theory/.

4 A. Ardichvilli, V. Page, & T. Wentling, “Motivation andBarriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge Sharingin Communities of Practice.” Journal of Knowledge

Management, 2003, 7(1), pp. 64-77. Retrieved onDecember 23, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice.

5 As noted below, another characteristic of CoPs is thatthey typically include some members who areextremely engaged (“core”), some who are moderatelyengaged (“active”), and others who are less engaged(“peripheral”). Most members rotate among thosecategories of engagement during their involvement ina CoP.

“[My CoP] changed whathad been a solitary jobinto a job with nationalcolleagues. I’m not aloneanymore.”

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • 1

Making Jewish Educat ion Work:Communit ies of Prac t iceThe biblical creation narrative teaches that one of God’s initial observations about the

first human being was that it wasn’t good for him (Adam) to be alone.1 From that

moment on, people have been coming together for a variety of purposes. Initially,

clusters or groups were limited to people who were in close geographic proximity to

one another. Over time, however, technological advances have offered myriad

convening mechanisms. People gather in person, but also virtually through conference

calls, webinars, listserves and other means. Moreover, people affiliate with groups for

social purposes and for professional reasons as well. Like many other fields, the field of

Jewish education sponsors many such groups.

JESNA has facilitated professional networks for decades. These precursors to CoPs

served many of the same functions, but with the advent of technology, the ways in

which the groups were structured and convened changed. JESNA launched CoPs as

one of its strategies for advancing Jewish education, and JESNA educated its

constituents about the theory of CoPs, and ways to practically apply the theory. The

following report focuses on key aspects of Communities of Practice, and offers insights

about how they can positively influence the field.

What are Communities of Practice?

The term “community of practice” was coined in 1991 by Jean Lave and Etienne

Wenger in the context of studies of traditional apprenticeship. They found that the

learning process was less about “students” learning from “masters,” and more about the

relationships that formed between “journeymen” and “more advanced apprentices.”2

Lave and Wenger observed the dynamic learning and sharing that existed between

people, and suggested that this “community of practice” was the curriculum guiding

ongoing learning.3 Wenger later suggested that a Community of Practice (CoP) is “a

group of people who share an interest, a craft, and/or a profession.”4 He posited that

members of a CoP could come together in order to learn, or the learning could be an

incidental outcome of their convening; in either case, the shared learning itself was

what led to increased performance and knowledge development.5

Lave and Wenger’s original insights led to the use of the concept of CoPs as an

important element in the emerging field of knowledge management. Today, communities

of practice strategies are used within various and diverse settings, including the fields of

business, education, professional associations, and in everyday life. They note that we are

likely to be involved in them, even if we are not consciously “joining” them.

In later writings Wenger identified three elements that distinguish CoPs from other groups.

1. The CoP is defined by a shared domain of interest or joint enterprise; members

are committed to that domain, and to a shared competence in that domain.

2. Members form a community and convene. Through mutual engagement they

build relationships with one another, in person and/or virtually, to learn with and

from each other, to share information, and to share experiences.

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 1

6 M.K. Smith, “Communities of Practice,” theencyclopaedia of informal education. Informationretrieved on December 23, 2010 fromhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.

7 Ardichvilli et al, 2003.

2 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

3. Over time, members develop a shared repertoire or practice and resources to

support that practice.6

Even as CoPs are characterized by common structural elements such as domain,

community and practice, they vary greatly in format, style and/or size. Some include

few members while others have many. Some CoPs are comprised of members in close

proximity to one another and others are inter-continental. Some rely on technology;

others convene in person. Some are limited to affiliates of one organization and include

members from various hierarchical ranks; others include members from multiple

organizations who hold the same position. Some are well supported by various

sponsors; others are completely self-organizing.

It is commonly believed that CoPs form for one (or more) of the following reasons:

• Members’ shared interest;

• Opportunities to solve problems;

• To share, cultivate or gain knowledge; and/or

• To validate, disseminate, and apply specific practices, ideas and/or products.

Regardless of the differences among CoPs, their members learn with and from one

another, often through the process of sharing information and/or experiences. The

ensuing learning provides opportunities for both personal and professional

development.7

JESNA’s Work with CoPs

JESNA strengthens communities and their educational offerings by debating tested

“solutions”, leveraging partnerships, promoting synergies, and building the connections

that strengthen us all. One central strategy that JESNA employs to fulfill this role is

convening CoPs that create community-wide and continent-wide networks and

forums to build cohorts of knowledgeable Jewish educators and lay leaders.

The CoPs that JESNA facilitates are geographic (meaning that members are from the

same city or region) and/or topical (meaning that members work on the same topic or

with the same constituency — for example, professional development for educators).

CoPs that JESNA currently is facilitating include:

• Accessing Government Benefits for Jewish Day Schools: members include Executive

Directors of central agencies for Jewish education and federation staff with the

government relations portfolio

• ACRE (Alliance for Continuing Rabbinic Education) CoP on Technology and Social

Media: members include representatives of ACRE Participating Organizations

who have a special interest in how to use technology and social media to promote

their programs

• ECE Directors in Small Communities: members include Directors of Jewish early

childhood programs in small communities

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 2

8 JESNA. Making Jewish Education Work: Professional

Development for Educators. 2010.

“I can’t say enough aboutthe sharing, thefriendships, thecollegiality, and supportI have received. Ithelped a lot in thisrelatively lonelyfield…”

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • 3

• Enriching LIFE Fellows/Mentors: members include both fellows and mentors in the

newly launched Enriching LIFE Fellowship for alumni of JESNA’s Lainer-Masa

Israel Fellowships

• Grinspoon-Steinhardt Award Winners: members include teachers who are current

and previous winners of the Grinspoon-Steinhardt Award for Excellence in Jewish

Education

• NAACCHHS (The North American Association of Community and

Congregational Hebrew High Schools): members include Directors of

NAACCHHS schools

• PD Network: members include professionals based in central agencies for Jewish

education whose portfolios include the coordination of professional development

opportunities for local Jewish educators

JESNA-facilitated CoPs engage in myriad activities. Among those most commonly

cited are: sharing information, solving problems, seeking experience, identifying and

developing resources/assets, creating joint programming, enhancing knowledge

management and articulating needs. Perhaps the most important contribution that

JESNA’s CoPs have made to the field is that they have provided opportunities for

networking and information/experience sharing that often led to people doing the jobs

more effectively. The importance of such opportunities cannot be overstated, and have

been cited by members of JESNA’s CoPs. CoPs provide much-needed support from

colleagues and peers that helps combat the isolation experienced and bemoaned by

many Jewish educators. That alone is important, but CoPs offer much more. Other

related benefits include forming/expanding collaborations, the cross-fertilization of

ideas, increased opportunities for innovation, and the more rapid dissemination of

practices for operational excellence. Additionally, learning from the experiences of

others encourages risk taking, fosters the sharing of best practices, and highlights tacit

and dynamic (as well as more explicit) aspects of knowledge.

There is strength in numbers. CoPs provide vehicles through which members increase

their commitment to their domain(s). CoP members express that investing time exploring

issues as a group can advance their areas of focus more than efforts of individuals. And, as

a CoP, members have more and better opportunities to advocate for the domain of interest

and/or for themselves and other individuals working in the domain.

JESNA has long advocated professional development for educators.8 Within the

construct of CoPs, members participate in shared learning and professional

development opportunities. They report that sharing these experiences together as a

collective with other CoP members makes the experiences richer, and enables them to

build their own core capabilities, skills and knowledge competencies more effectively.

What Does It Take to Facilitate a “Successful” CoP?

Much has been written and learned about how to launch and run a CoP successfully.

From the outset, it is important to understand that there are stages to the lifecycle of a

CoP. During each stage, its structure should evolve in order to maximize its potential.

JESNA’s “on the ground” experiences with CoPs in various stages of development

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 3

9 E. Wenger, R. McDermott, & W. M. Snyder, Cultivating

Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing

Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,2002, pp. 70-71

10 Ibid, 96-97.

4 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

supports findings from evaluations of CoPs conducted by JESNA’s Berman Center.

The early stages of development of a CoP are filled with what Wenger et al. call

“potential.”9 During this early phase, it is important for the launcher(s) to establish

consensus among members about a sense of purpose and potential direction(s) for the

CoP, and to determine its initial design. It often takes a lot of effort to recruit

members. CoPs with members from one regional or local community are frequently

recruited in person with the facilitator taking time to explain, often one-on-one, the

likely benefits of membership and participation. One critical component of this stage is

the building of trust among members. Participants need to feel that the CoP is a “safe

space” in which they can candidly, honestly and reflectively discuss their own

experiences and share challenges and accomplishments. Initial interactions among

members are often cautious with sharing limited to “just the facts.”

Middle stages in the lifecycle of a CoP are characterized by multiple opportunities to

clarify the CoP’s roles, and to determine what members will do together as a group.

This is likely to evolve and change several times during the life of the CoP. As the

CoP becomes more “mature,”10 members move beyond a guarded sharing of

experiences, ideas and resources. With appreciation for the expertise that resides within

the CoP, they learn how to use their colleagues more effectively and efficiently, seeking

out opinions, constructive critique, and creative feedback from one another. CoP

conversations tend to include rich opportunities for collective brainstorming and

experimenting with new knowledge. This type of interaction supports members who

want to test the practical application of new ideas and skills in their own settings.

Toward this stage in the lifecycle of a CoP, it becomes easier to recognize the three

“categories” of members mentioned previously:

• A “core” group that includes approximately 10-15% of members who are the most

involved and deeply engaged CoP participants. During the middle stages of the

CoP’s lifecycle, the facilitator usually begins to share some of the responsibilities

associated with running the CoP with this core group. Most of JESNA’s CoPs

include Steering Committees which advise their activities. Each of these Steering

Committees includes the CoP facilitator and a small handful of core participants

who invest time and are empowered to identify and facilitate their CoP’s agendas.

• An “active” group usually includes approximately 15-20% of members who

participate in CoP offerings occasionally, some more than others, but without the

regularity or intensity of the core group.

• A “peripheral” group that includes the balance of CoP members generally keep to

the sidelines of the CoP, often observing the interactions between core and active

members. Some remain on the periphery because they do not feel that they have

valid contributions to make to the CoP; others because of time constraints.

CoP members often move fluidly between these groups throughout their affiliation

with the CoP.

As the CoP matures further, subgroups often form comprised of people with more

specific interests and needs in common. As the goals and roles of the CoP are clarified,

some members seek opportunities to move in specific directions, and the facilitator

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 4

11 B. Gray, “Informal Learning in an Online Communityof Practice,” Journal of Distance Education, Spring2004, 19(1), pp. 20-35.

“Right now, I see myselfas a peripheral memberjust because I have nothad that much time toinvest in becoming whatI would consider to be a“core” member.”

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • 5

should make every effort to encourage these subgroups to engage. For example, certain

CoP participants may wish to delve more deeply into a given subject area (e.g.,

pedagogy, technology, programming, etc.). The facilitator should ensure follow-up

opportunities for those interested. Even if only for a small subset, this is an easy way

for needs to be met by and through the CoP.

Roles of Facilitators of CoPs

Some CoPs function independent of facilitators, though all that are affiliated with

JESNA, or that have been evaluated by JESNA feature(d) facilitators. Much has been

written about facilitators of CoPs in literature from the general education field and in

Berman Center program evaluations, such as the skills they should have mastered and

the characteristics they should embody. There seems to be consensus that the roles of the

facilitator evolve over time in healthy CoPs in response to the group members and the

rhythm of the group. JESNA’s experiences suggest that CoP facilitators should embodystrong knowledge bases, well honed personal qualities, and specific facilitation skills.Certainly, there are numerous types of knowledge. In order to “successfully” manage

CoPs, facilitators should have knowledge about the domain of interest and aboutcommunication technology. Some have asked whether CoP facilitators should have

more domain knowledge than participants. Gray (2004) suggests that the facilitator

should have sufficient knowledge so that s/he can demonstrate credibility and so that

members feel that the facilitator “gets it.”11 For example, CoP facilitators must learn

and take into account the work cycles of their group members so that they provide

support but do not overwhelm these professionals during their busiest times.

In terms of technology, whether members of the CoP are in the same

region/community or not, they will almost certainly rely on certain technological tools

to advance their efforts. Facilitators should be familiar with techniques and strategies

that can advance the work of the CoP and its members, and should share this

information. S/he should experiment with and model technology appropriately (e.g.,

webinars) to provide worthwhile professional development opportunities for members.

There are many personal qualities that enhance a facilitator’s work. Those cited most

often as important to CoPs are presence and authenticity. There are times during the

life of the CoP when the facilitator will need to be the “mover and shaker,” instigating

action and response. There are other times when s/he will need to take a back seat to

CoP members who are leading the groups’ activities. Having the presence to lead the

group, and insight about when and how to do so are important qualities. Facilitators’

authenticity, and authentic investment in the growth of the CoP is important as CoP

members look to him/her for guidance, leadership and support.

Finally, there are specific skill sets that CoP facilitators should possess that will help

them guide a CoP effectively. The most successful CoP facilitators are:

• Strong administrators who coordinate logistics of the CoP and often serve as its

“hub” and “clearinghouse”;

• Fluent with group dynamics and adept at addressing related issues, such as

empowering members, being open to questions and challenges, tolerating

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 5

6 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

ambiguity, keeping discussions focused, and adjusting the pace of the CoP as

needed (e.g., changing from brainstorming to action planning to evaluation, or

from feeling to thinking);

• Active listeners who truly can hear and be in tune with CoP members, knowing

when to stay quiet and noticing what is not said, as well as what is;

• Knowledge managers for the CoP who extract and organize content in

meaningful ways; and

• Community-builders — both within the CoP and between the CoP and other

related organizations and institutions.

Often times, facilitators play “prodding” roles in CoPs. Throughout the lifecycle of the

groups, facilitators provide technical support and orient newcomers, but there are also

times when they need to generate thinking. When the listserv has been “quiet” for a

while, for example, the facilitator will stimulate dialogue by asking a question or

sharing a resource — just to get it going again. Participants sometimes rely on the

facilitator to be in touch in between more formal communications (e.g., e-newsletters,

webinars). When participants do not suggest topics for focused attention, the facilitator

plays that role. S/he also manages the “back-channel conversations” likely to occur in

CoPs.

As noted in one Berman Center-evaluated initiative, “being a facilitator of a CoP is, in

reality, more than a part-time job.” Unfortunately, many CoP facilitators do not have as

much time to invest in the CoP as its members would like or may need.

Technology in CoPs

With what has been called “today’s increasingly mobile workforce,” people often feel

more closely aligned to their professions and/or their positions than to the

organizations where they work.12 In addition, access to the internet has literally brought

the world within reach. It is therefore important that particularly within work-based

CoPs, standard technologies are central so that people can be connected to peers and

colleagues outside of their geographic locales. Effective CoPs use technology not for

technology’s sake, but rather to advance the goals of the CoP and meet members’

needs. In fact, Wenger, White and Smith suggest that technology can be configured to

“tap into and amplify” the value of CoPs.13,14

In reflecting on the uses and importance of technology within CoPs, participants have

shared both positive and negative feedback. On the upside, learning technology is, in

and of itself, a professional development opportunity; learning and mastering these

skill sets positions members well within their organizations. On the downside, using

technology (e.g., listservs and wikis) can bring an almost constant flow of information,

placing unrealistic pressure on members to keep up with it all. Also, for some, the more

technology they experience, the less connected they feel with the people on the other

sides of their computers. It is precisely because of the relative role technology plays in

geographically-diverse CoPs that in-person gatherings are so important. They provide

a foundation for relationships to sustain connection across technology — without those

opportunities to “see and touch” fellow participants, CoP members run the risk of

12 V. Allee, “Knowledge Networks and Communities ofPractice,” OD Practitioner, Fall/Winter 2000, pp. 1-15..

13 E. Wenger, N. White, & J. Smith, “Curating ourPersonal Technology Configurations,” Digital Habitats:

Stewarding Technology for Communities, 2009.Retrieved on June 23, 2011 from http://technologyforcommunities.com/2011/05/curating-our-personal-technology-configurations/.

14 Ibid. See Appendix B for pictorial representations ofuses of technology in CoPs.

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 6

15 School of Psychology and Education of the Universityof Geneva (TECFA). EduTech Wiki. Retrieved onDecember 23, 2010 fromhttp://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Community_of_practice.

16 S. Kerno. “Limitations of Communities of Practice: AConsideration of Unresolved Issues and Difficulties inthe Approach,” paper presented at the 2007 annualconference of the Midwest Academy of Management.Retrieved on April 12, 2011 fromhttp://www.midwestacademy.org/proceedings/2007/papers/mam07p10.pdf.

“My CoP taught me howto make technologytools active. When thereare ideas and materialsavailable, you should bestrategic to drive peopleto access them.”

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • 7

feeling distanced and disconnected from one another. It is important that CoP

facilitators seek technological strategies to provide both functionality and a sense of

“social presence and being there” to best support the work of the CoP.15

As summarized in one Berman-Center evaluated initiative:

“A successful CoP plans and implements technology that facilitates communication within

the CoP as a body (and among various subgroups) without inundating participants. That

said, the facilitator and participants must be willing to experiment with new technologies

and also to stick with protocols that work. In addition, regardless of the level and extent of

virtual communications, some face-to-face meetings seem to be important to maintain and

enhance the collegiality of the CoP.”

JESNA advocates a hybrid strategy for CoPs that includes both in-person gatherings

and virtual meetings. Members clearly value technologically-based interactions such as

webinars, conference calls, e-newsletters and especially listserves, but there is no

substitute for opportunities to connect with colleagues in person. JESNA staff observe

less “aliveness” (see below) in CoPs where members rely exclusively on technological

exchanges.

Limitations of Communities of Practice

It is clear that there are many potential benefits of CoPs, including the relatively low

cost for relatively high impact on participants and the field, possibilities for ongoing

interactions with members situated across North America, and asynchronous

communication. It is important, though, to understand that CoPs are not the answer to

every organizational or professional challenge; they certainly have limitations.

CoPs are not “magic bullets.” They do not enable organizations to seamlessly

disseminate knowledge, or to overcome organizationally or socially constructed

barriers.16 For example, CoPs have very real time constraints that manifest themselves

in different ways. First, when participants live in different time zones, even finding a

time for “live” interactions (e.g., via webinar) is challenging. Also, when professionals

must choose between fulfilling their responsibilities (e.g., meeting deadlines) and

participating in their CoP, they likely focus on the demands of their jobs first, making

their availability for synchronous CoP activities more limited.

When/How to End a CoP

Though much has been written about when and how to launch a CoP, there are far

fewer sources offering guidance about when and how to end a CoP. In part, this is

because of the inherent lifecycle of the networks; while the CoP may have outlived its

usefulness for more veteran members, newer members are likely to have joined. Such is

the fluid nature of CoP membership.

It is important to consider opportunities to create “spin offs” of existing CoPs, and/or

to reformulate them in different ways. As noted, sometimes subsets of CoP members

want to explore a particular issue or opportunity in depth (e.g., developing a

collaborative program, reimagining marketing materials, etc.). In these cases, it is

important to form a CoP subgroup (similar to subcommittees in traditional

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 7

8 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

hierarchies). Maintaining the primary CoP while subgroups do their work is

important, as is updating the larger group periodically about the subgroup’s activities.

This allows members to keep abreast of developments, even as they do not have the

time or interest in being more integrally involved in each aspect of the CoP.

There are, however, at least two situations in which it is advisable to close a CoP: (1)

the inactivity of the group over a to-be-determined period of time; and (2) the context

or field has changed resulting in no work being left for the CoP to address. In such

instances, those running the CoP should consult the group’s members before making

the final decision to close the CoP. If there is agreement, the facilitator should ensure

sufficient time for group processing that includes recapping the CoP’s history,

recognizing the group’s achievements, and acknowledging its member’s contributions.

Participants should be given the opportunity to share their reflections as well. If

appropriate, efforts should be made to capture the knowledge gained through the CoP

so that it can be shared even after the CoP ceases to exist.

Facilitators should be encouraged to maintain connections with participants after the

CoP closes through periodic group or individual emails or through personalized

outreach efforts. This will help to alleviate some of the sense of “loss” that members

will experience.

Indicators of Success in CoPs

Defining “success” in CoPs is difficult, largely because they exist for such varied

reasons. Nevertheless, field leaders have offered their expert opinions about this

important topic.

In their book Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge

(2002), Wenger, McDermott and Snyder suggest that because of the voluntary nature

of CoPs, the measure of their success is:

“their ability to generate enough excitement, relevance, and value to attract and engage

members. Although many factors, such as management support or an urgent problem, can

inspire a community, nothing can substitute for this sense of aliveness.”17

Of course, designing a CoP for “aliveness” is challenging; it cannot be dictated and it

does not happen automatically. CoPs require a purpose, “enough” of the “right”

participants, and skilled facilitation. They require flexibility, they must be responsive to

their members and their environment(s), and allow for organic growth.18

Wenger, McDermott and Snyder suggest that there are seven principles that can guide

CoPs to become “alive.”

1. CoPs should be “designed for evolution.” CoPs that are “alive” are formed to

highlight their organic and evolving nature. It should be expected that they will

re-invent themselves throughout their lifecycle.

2. CoPs should “open dialogue between inside and outside perspectives.” Insiders

are “in-the-know,” influencing the agenda(s) of the CoP, and interacting with its

members. Outsiders bring different perspectives, often helping members consider

alternatives. Successful and “alive” CoPs infuse insiders with outside perspectives.17 Wenger et al., 50.

18 Ibid, 51-64.

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 8

19 Ibid.

20 Ardichvilli et al, 2003.

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • 9

3. As noted above, CoPs are almost always characterized by “members withdifferent levels of participation”: core, active and peripheral. Given that

members will have wide ranges of availability and interest in the CoP, this is

normal and to be expected. “Alive” CoPs have core, active and peripheral

members.

4. “Alive” CoPs have “well developed public and private community spaces.”

Public spaces include offerings open to all members, both in-person and virtual

opportunities. Private spaces exist between members whose relationships are

cultivated through their participation in the CoP. In successful CoPs the

facilitator both actualizes experiences in the public spaces, and nurtures the

private spaces between those experiences.

5. CoPs thrive when they “deliver value” to their members (and/or their

organizational sponsor). Often, this value changes during the lifecycle of the

CoP. For example, initial value may come from addressing specific challenges;

subsequent value may come from developing a body of knowledge or advocating

for a constituency’s needs. “Alive” CoPs let the value emerge, and then determine

how to “harvest” it for maximum effect.

6. Successful CoPs “combine familiarity and excitement.” They provide

opportunities for members to engage in the expected (teleconferences and

webinars to address themes of interest) and the unexpected (divergent thinking

and unexpected conference sessions). As the authors note, “routine activities

provide the stability for relationship-building connections; exciting events

provide a sense of common adventure.”19

7. “Alive” CoPs “create a rhythm for the community” that includes ongoing

interactions (teleconferences, webinars, listserv postings). In fact, the rhythm is

the clearest indicator of the success of a CoP; it will adjust and change over the

life of the CoP, as needed. When the rhythm is “right,” members feel a sense of

aliveness. If it is too slow, the CoP will feel lethargic; if it is too fast, members

will feel overwhelmed.

JESNA’s experiences facilitating and evaluating CoPs amplifies what other experts in

the field have shared.

There should always be “enough” core members (i.e., participants deeply engaged in

the work of the CoP). Members often move back and forth between core and

peripheral participation in the CoP; those transitions are often gradual and are a

natural part of the lifecycle of CoPs. As noted in one Berman Center-evaluated

program, “JESNA’s field experience confirms that group expansion and contraction,

and changes in levels and types of group members’ participation, necessarily shift over

time as a successful CoP emerges.”

Motivation to share knowledge is critical to the success of CoPs. “Studies show that

members are motivated to become active participants in a CoP when they view

knowledge as meant for the public good, a moral obligation and/or as a community

interest.”20

“[Participating in a CoP]was valuable to myprogram in that theresources inspired meand helped me toimprove.”

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 9

In order for CoPs to succeed, the facilitators and supporters of CoPs must have

enough time to devote to the process, and a great deal of patience. As noted, there are

certain skill sets that are necessary for successful CoP facilitation. Just as important,

though, is the ability to “go with the flow” and allow for CoP members and group

process to steer the network. It often takes a long time to establish a CoP and to see it

crystallize as a community. Some CoPs report that this process can require up-to two

years.

JESNA has long lauded the importance of reflective practice and evaluation as tools

for making data-driven decisions in programming. These processes are important to

ensure CoP success. CoP facilitators and participants should have opportunities to

reflect on and articulate their experiences with the CoP, and to determine the extent to

which their related needs are being met. CoPs should invest in both formative and

summative evaluation that focuses on any or all of the following potential indicators of

success:

• Members’ satisfaction

• Impact of participation in the CoP on members and their organizations

• Length of time invested (e.g., to develop solutions, share information, nurture

relationships)

• Number of members

• Resources generated (their use and usefulness)

Evaluators frequently use a combination of quantitative and qualitative research

methodologies to assess the implementation and impact of CoPs. Additional vehicles

for exploring and reporting research findings include case studies, contribution analysis,

participant/institutional histories, and outcomes mapping.21

How Do CoPs Influence the Field of Jewish Education?

Through the facilitation of several CoPs, JESNA has learned a great deal about the

roles CoPs play in the Jewish education field. The following are examples of the ways

JESNA CoPs are making a difference.

• JESNA CoPs have led to the “de-island-ization” of their members. So many CoP

participants have shared stories illustrating how they had felt isolated and alone,

like they were the only ones in their positions or advocating for their “causes” until

they participated in a CoP with peers and colleagues.

• JESNA CoPs have generated investments from funders and grant makers. Ideas

that percolated through CoP discussions have resulted in new initiatives to further

advance Jewish education. For example, JESNA’s CoP for Grinspoon-Steinhardt

Award Winners was formed in part because of the realization that it would

provide opportunities for ongoing professional development in ways that one

onsite conference could not, and that many more award winners could participate

in CoP activities than could be convened at any one point in time.

10 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

21 Institutional Learning and Change Initiative,“Evaluation of Communities of Practice: Impact ofCoP.” Retrieved on April 12, 2011 fromhttps://sites.google.com/a/cgxchange.org/evaluation-cop/

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 10

• JESNA CoPs have fostered opportunities for sharing best practices between and

among CoP participants. Sharing resources (e.g., curricula, programs, and

professional development experiences) has meant that schools and central agencies

for Jewish education have a wider array of offerings available to implement.

• JESNA CoPs have nurtured opportunities for coordinated efforts among sister

organizations. The CoP focusing on Accessing Government Benefits for Jewish

Day Schools has enabled executive directors of central agencies for Jewish

education and federation staff to explore and coordinate advocacy efforts, resulting

in the ability of some schools to access government funding.

• JESNA CoPs establish programmatic connections between organizations to

enhance offerings for “end users.” NAACCHHS is working with Hillel: The

Foundation for Jewish Campus Life to generate resources that Hebrew High

Schools can implement to assist college applicants and their parents in making

Jewish choices as they select colleges.

Nex t StepsAs we continue to strategize ways to maximize the impact and effectiveness of CoPs,

JESNA suggests that the field consider:

• Developing additional approaches to assessing the impact of CoPs on their

members and on the Jewish education field at-large, and creating mechanisms to

share lessons learned as widely as possible;

• Determining optimal models of CoP communication and interaction to establish

hybrid models that include in-person and virtual experiences;

• Exploring ways to incorporate additional means of social networking (blogging,

co-editing documents, etc.) among CoP participants; and

• Providing training opportunities for CoP facilitators so that they can learn from

the experiences of the general and Jewish education fields.

Conclus ionHillel taught: Do not separate yourself from the community.22 There is much wisdom

in this brief directive. Today, Jewish educators have a broad array of opportunities to

learn with and from colleagues within and outside of their geographic locale. JESNA

has launched and continues to facilitate Communities of Practice to provide these

kinds of opportunities, and to nurture and develop leadership for the field of Jewish

education.

To learn more about JESNA’s CoPs, or to discuss launching a new CoP for Jewish

educators, please be in touch with Devorah Silverman (dsilverman@jesna.org).

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • 11

18 Pirkei Avot (Ethics of Our Fathers) 2:4.

“[My CoP] is my favoriteorganization —probably because it'sthe most specific. All ofus are doing the samework to a great degreeand our supportnetwork is fantastic.”

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 11

12 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

Works C i tedAllee, V. (Fall/Winter, 2000). “Knowledge Networks and

Communities of Practice.” OD Practitioner, 1-15.

Ardichvilli, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003).

“Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual

Knowledge Sharing in Communities of Practice.” Journal

of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77. Retrieved on

December 23, 2010, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice.

Culatta, R. InnovativeLearning.com. Retrieved on

December 23, 2010, from

http://www.innovativelearning.com/teaching/communities_of_practice.html.Genesis 2:18 in Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS

Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text.

(1985). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Gray, B. (Spring, 2004). “Informal Learning in an Online

Community of Practice.” Journal of Distance Education,

19(1), 20-35.

Institutional Learning and Change Initiative. “Evaluation

of Communities of Practice: Impact of CoP.” Retrieved

on April 12, 2011, from https://sites.google.com/a/cgxchange.org/evaluation-cop/.JESNA. (2011). Assessment of Three JESNA Projects:

NAACCHHS, Berman Center Consulting, and the WOW

Project. Unpublished document.

_____. (October, 2010). Final Evaluation Report: Darim

Online. Unpublished document.

_____. (August, 2010). Final Evaluation Report: Kehilliyot

Da’at Meta-Community of Practice. Unpublished

document.

_____. (2010). Making Jewish Education Work: Professional

Development for Educators.

_____. (March, 2010). Memo of Evaluation Study

Findings: LA BJE Communities of Practice. Unpublished

document.

Kerno, S. “Limitations of Communities of Practice: A

Consideration of Unresolved Issues and Difficulties in the

Approach.” Paper presented at the 2007 annual

conference of the Midwest Academy of Management.

Information retrieved on April 12, 2011, from

http://www.midwestacademy.org/proceedings/2007/papers/mam07p10.pdf.Pirkei Avot 2:4 in The Complete Metsudah Siddur. (1990).

New York: Metsudah Publications.

School of Psychology and Education of the University of

Geneva (TECFA). EduTech Wiki. Information retrieved

on December 23, 2010, from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Community_of_practice.

Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009). “Communities of practice.”

the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved on

December 23, 2010, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_ of_practice.htm.

Wenger, E. ( June, 2006.) “Communities of Practice — A

Brief Introduction.” Retrieved on December 23, 2010,

from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/.________. ( June, 1998). “Communities of Practice —

Learning as a Social System.” The Systems Thinker, 9(5),

1-10.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002).

Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing

Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. (2009). “Curating our

Personal Technology Configurations.” Digital Habitats:

Stewarding Technology for Communities. Retrieved on June

23, 2011 from http://technologyforcommunities.com/2011/05/curating-our-personal-technology-configurations/.The World Bank Institute. “Communities of Practice:

Questions and Answers.” Retrieved on April 12, 2011,

from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/CoP_QA.pdf.

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page 12

Appendix A: Descriptionsof Initiatives Evaluated by the Berman Center

Darim Online

Founded in 2000, Darim Online is dedicated to

helping Jewish organizations thrive in the digital age.

Darim offers training, consulting and knowledge

sharing and support for staff and lay leaders to

strengthen Jewish organizations’ use of technology for

marketing, communication, education and

community-building. Darim Online’s Community of

Practice (CoP), the Darim Online Learning

Network, expanded in 2008 to include a subgroup

specifically for Jewish educations to provide a

knowledge sharing and experimentation program to

help congregational educators who have unique

challenges to incorporating technology in their work

(few classroom hours, most work part time, many are

sheltered from this professional development, etc.)

The goal of the Darim Online Learning Network for

Educators is not to only inspire and support a few

dozen congregational educators who participate in

webinars and are chosen as fellows for more intensive

coaching, but also to encourage a “sea-change” in

congregational education by encouraging participants

to question assumptions about the structure and

function of their programs to help them align their

work for success in the 21st century.

The Darim Online Learning Network will achieve

these outcomes by supporting the creation of new

models and best practices, and by supporting a

widespread technological evolution to better serve the

needs and interests of Jewish youth and their families.

Addendum: The 2011-12 cohort of the Darim

Online Learning Network for Educators kicks off in

Fall, 2011. Darim will be accepting applications for

the 2012-13 cohort in Spring, 2012. The Darim

Online Learning Network for Educators has been

generously funded by The Covenant Foundation.

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • App-1

A

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page App-1

Kehilliyot Da’at (KnowledgeCommunities)

Knowledge Communities is dedicated to promoting

knowledge, sharing and innovation in organizations

by helping them build their capacities to launch and

support the growth of learning communities,

especially as it pertains to developing and

implementing Communities of Practice (CoPs).

In 2006, the Covenant Foundation (“the

Foundation”) awarded Knowledge Communities a

three-year Signature Grant to launch and grow

Kehilliyot Da’at, a meta-community of practice

(CoP) designed to provide specialized resources to

build the capacities of national Jewish umbrella

organizations that promote Jewish education and

heritage to launch and sustain CoPs in their

respective communities

LA BJE

The mission of Builders of Jewish Education is to

enhance quality, increase access, and encourage

participation in Jewish education throughout the

Jewish communities of Greater Los Angeles. BJE

independently and in collaboration with schools and

other community institutions is an advocate, planner,

catalyst, and creative leader for strengthening and

advancing Jewish learning, with special emphasis on

children and youth, early childhood through high

school, their educators and parents.

The LA BJE initiated two Communities of Practice

(CoPs) to respond to the needs of local Jewish

educators working in Jewish schools and in informal

Jewish educational settings: one for Jewish service

learning professionals/educators and one for special

needs professionals/educators. The LA BJE also hired

one facilitator (also called a “steward”) for each CoP.

The facilitators were charged with recruiting members

and creating these CoPs from the ground up.

NAACCHHS

The North American Association of Community and

Congregational Hebrew High Schools

(NAACCHHS) is a membership-based umbrella

organization for the field of community and

congregational Hebrew High Schools. When

founded in 2006, it served community Hebrew High

Schools only; in 2010, the organization expanded to

include congregational Hebrew High Schools, as

well. NAACCHHS advocates for approximately 50

member schools while creating, supporting,

exchanging, and disseminating innovative programs,

curricula, best practices, and resources to enrich

Jewish education in community and congregational

Hebrew High Schools across North America.

NAACCHHS provides member schools and their

directors with forums for communication,

information sharing, and mutual support to improve

the quality of the educational experience offered to

Jewish high school students. Specific vehicles include

an annual conference, network-wide conference calls

and webinars, quarterly e-newsletters, and a very

active listserv.

App-2 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page App-2

Appendix B —Stewarding Technologyfor Communit ies

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 6 • App-3

B

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page App-3

App-4 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

310894_Gutz_Layout 1 7/12/11 11:58 AM Page App-4

310894_Cover.pdf 7/12/11 11:46:58 AM