the six key elements of an active and thriving community
TRANSCRIPT
The Six Key Elements of an Active and Thriving Community of Practice
Abstract
Communities of practice offer situated, social, and distributed learning experiences that support
the professional growth of teachers. However, while some communities of practice are successful,
others flounder. This manuscript reports the findings of a qualitative study that examined
teachers’ experiences in the Discovery Educator Network, a blended community of practice that
positively impacted teacher growth, in order to identify the elements that shaped teacher
participation and learning. Data was collected through in-depth interviews with 26 members of
the Discovery Educator Network. Data analysis resulted in the identification of six key elements
that were critical to the success of the community of practice: leadership roles, personalized
learning, guiding principles, organizational support, social learning, and purpose.
2
“The DEN [Discovery Educator Network] is like nothing I have ever seen before. When I say like
we’re a family, we really are. I have five friends that I consider to be some of my best friends that
I did not know until I met them through the DEN. There are so many friendships that have come
out of the DEN, aside from sharing of technology ideas, there are people that go to each other's
weddings, and there's birthday clubs.”
- Mrs. H, elementary school Assistant Principal
The Discovery Educator Network (DEN) is a blended community of practice, consisting
of K-12 teachers, staff, and school leaders, that is supported by Discovery Education. As part of a
larger study, we interviewed 26 leaders in the DEN about their experience with the network.
These participants consistently described the DEN as “family.” One of the participants reported
that in the DEN there is always someone available to provide help and “that comes back to being
that supportive family member. You know you are not literally blood, but you're still family,
you're a community.” While a number of researchers have explored teacher learning and
participation in online and face-to-face communities of practice (Cho, 2016; Dunne, Nave, &
Lewis, 2000; Hollins et al., 2004; Louis & Marks, 1998; Author, 2015; Wesely, 2013), few
studies have uncovered the passion, loyalty, and dedication we witnessed when interviewing
these DEN members.
The DEN offers a unique opportunity to examine what makes an effective community of
practice. In our recent study, our findings indicated that the DEN created reciprocal growth
opportunities in which the participants were able to grow as professionals in their practice and
schools, while also contributing to the development of the DEN (Authors, 2016). All of the
participants reported that engaging in the DEN positively influenced their learning and practice
and the majority felt that their engagement also shaped student learning. These teachers believed
3
that by making changes to their practice based on what they learned from the DEN, their students
were able to engage in deeper learning with the content and they became more active, empowered
learners. Thus, this blended community of practice facilitated positive changes for both teachers
and students.
Communities of Practice
A community of practice is a group of professionals who learn together and support one
another in developing their practice (Wenger, 1998). Since the term community of practice was
coined, it has been defined, expanded, and utilized often in educational literature. Johnson (2001)
described the three common traits of communities of practice: (1) members with varying levels of
expertise, (2) fluid movement from novice to expert, and (3) authentic problems that allow
learners to collaborate and devise solutions to problems arising in settings. Hur & Brush (2009)
characterized communities of practice as “groups of practitioners who share knowledge,
concerns, and values within a supportive culture” (p. 280), while Brooks (2010) described
communities of practice as “dynamic social structures,” that are “activated through interactions”
(p. 264).
Common throughout all of the definitions is the framework of social learning. Wenger
(1998) described learning in a community of practice as a socially constructed process of
participation, interaction, negotiation of meaning, and developing shared knowledge. Members in
a community of practice often engage in solving authentic problems and designing resources and
materials to support their practice. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) contended that meaningful
learning occurs when knowledge is situated in the social context where learning takes place. In
the context of teachers in school settings, communities of practice provide situated learning
experiences where teachers can work together to solve authentic challenges they face in the
4
classroom. Additionally, within communities of practice, knowledge is distributed among
multiple individuals (Hutchins, 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Communities of practice bring
together teachers with varying levels of expertise and provide an opportunity for the teachers to
learn from the communal knowledge of the group.
Communities of practice provide an avenue for teachers to engage in authentic, ongoing,
learning opportunities with their peers in order to co-construct knowledge and develop their
professional skills (Wenger, 1998; Brooks, 2010). Many scholars have identified these
characteristics as critical success factors for teacher learning and professional growth (Bayar,
2014; Chen & McCray, 2012; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009;
Hunzicker, 2011). Teacher engagement in communities of practice can also lead to transformative
learning outcomes (Herbers, Antelo, Ettling, & Buck, 2011). Specifically, professional learning
communities, which foster deep, critical reflection and communicative learning, can encourage
and facilitate changes in the way teachers think about teaching and conduct their practice
(Herbers, Antelo, Ettling, & Buck, 2011; Servage, 2008). Carpenter (2015) noted that
professional development activities that feature collaboration, teacher-driven inquiry, and agency,
like communities of practice, have been praised for their transformative potential.
Online Communities of Practice
Communities of practice are no longer limited to face-to-face interactions; instead,
individuals can use web-based platforms to blur and traverse spatial and temporal boundaries
(Wenger, 2006). Wenger, White, and Smith (2009) contended that “technology extends and
reframes how communities organize and express boundaries and relationships, which changes the
dynamics of participation, peripherality and legitimacy” (p. 11). Online communities of practice
extend the traditional notions of a community of practice into the virtual realm (Johnson, 2001;
5
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2011). Commonly used tools
and platforms include online discussion forums, listservs, blogs, wikis, and social networking
sites. Studies by researchers suggest that K-12 teachers participate in online communities of
practice in order to build their networks beyond their face-to-face contacts, receive emotional
support, overcome feelings of isolation, seek advice and help, and instantly access new
knowledge and ideas for improving their practice (Author, 2012, 2013; Hew & Hara, 2007; Hur
& Brush, 2009).
However, there is limited research about whether online communities of practice support
collaborative mentoring and relationship building, which are critical elements of a community of
practice (Author, 2015). The majority of studies about online communities of practice focus on
participants’ knowledge sharing actions, rather than whether members collectively support
newcomers in becoming full participants (Hew & Hara, 2007; Hur & Brush, 2009). For example,
Author (2015) found that most teachers visit the Edmodo math subject community to find and
share knowledge rather than to build relationships and support one another. Seo (2015)
discovered that the majority of teachers in an online community remained passive observers
rather than becoming full participants. Seo suggested that teacher learning in an online
community of practice could be enhanced through collaborative knowledge construction and the
negotiation of shared meaning.
Blended Communities of Practice
Blended communities of practice incorporate both in-person and virtual interactions that
complement one another and extend learning opportunities (Allan, Hunter, & Lewis, 2006;
Brooks, 2010; Vaughan, 2004). For example, members in face-to-face communities can continue
their conversations and collaborative projects at anytime and from anywhere in a virtual
6
community of practice, while members in a virtual community of practice can benefit from face-
to-face interactions which often facilitate deeper relationship building and mentoring (Brooks,
2010; Vaughan, 2004). While the face-to-face and virtual interactions hold a reciprocal, and
complementary, relationship, Vaughan and Garrison (2006) contended that the face-to-face
interactions are more influential in shaping and extending learning in virtual spaces.
The term “blended community of practice” seems to be relatively new in the field of
education. A search for literature about this term on Proquest, ERIC, and Google Scholar turned
up only a few articles. Upon exploring these articles, we identified three foundational studies that
provide important insights for this study. Allan, Hunter, and Lewis (2006) conducted a
longitudinal study of the impact of higher education professionals’ participation in a blended
community of practice. They found that participation in the blended community of practice
shaped members’ identities and workplace practices. They also reported that participation in the
community had a positive long-term impact on work-based performance. Cesareni, Martini, and
Mancini (2011) designed and studied a blended community of practice that supported preservice
teachers in improving their practice. They found that the blended community of practice
facilitated collaboration, enhanced learning, and extended opportunities for interaction beyond
face-to-face meetings. Vaughan and Garrison (2006) studied blended faculty learning
communities in a higher education context. They discovered that blended learning communities
are optimal for faculty who need ongoing community support, but have limited time for learning.
The researchers in these three studies demonstrated the potential of blended communities of
practice for fostering ongoing learning and professional growth opportunities for teachers.
However, these studies focused on formal blended communities of practice in higher
education settings. A number of K-12 teachers use social media and web-based tools to engage in
7
informal learning activities that blend face-to-face and online communities of practice. For
example, teachers can use Twitter to extend the connections and conversations at a conference
into the digital realm (Skyring, 2014). Or, teachers can use social media to organize a local
unconference (aka Edcamp) to connect face-to-face with other educators (Carpenter, 2015).
While the term blended in the field of education often refers to a fusion of face-to-face
and online learning activities (Brooks, 2010; Cesareni, Martini, & Mancini, 2011), for the
purpose of this article, we broadened the definition of blended to include formal and informal
types of learning. Thus, a blended community of practice consists of a group of practitioners who
engage in a mix of face-to-face, online, formal, and informal learning activities (Allan, Hunter, &
Lewis, 2006). Further research is needed to examine how blended communities of practice might
support or extend formal and informal learning opportunities for teachers.
Teacher Learning
The roles and responsibilities of teachers are constantly in flux with changing standards,
curriculum, administrator requirements, district rules, parent demands, new technologies, and an
increasingly more diverse student population. To keep up with these changes, teachers need
learning opportunities that are flexible, situated in their work contexts, and ongoing (e.g., Author,
2016; Webster-Wright, 2009). Yet, teachers are often only provided with one-size-fits-all, formal
learning opportunities within their schools or districts that focus on developing their content or
pedagogical knowledge, where “attendance is mandatory but learning is not” (Kennedy, 2016, p.
29). It is not surprising then, that the majority of teachers, “do not believe that professional
development is helping them prepare for the changing nature of their jobs, including using
technology and digital learning tools, analyzing student data to differentiate instruction, and
8
implementing the Common Core State Standards and other standards” (Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2014, p. 3).
Due to the multifaceted and fluctuating work of a teacher (Kennedy, 2016), many teachers
have sought out and engaged in informal learning opportunities. In contrast to formal learning
opportunities, which scholars define as highly-structured and institutionally-sponsored (Dabbagh
& Kitsantas, 2011; Kyndt, Gijbels, Grosemans, & Donche, 2016), informal learning opportunities
are considered to be serendipitous, unplanned, experiential, and owned and directed by the learner
(Czerkawaski 2016; Hall, 2009; Kyndt, Gijbels, Grosemans, & Donche, 2016). There are many
types of informal learning activities in which teachers engage, including collaborating, learning
from others, sharing, experimenting, looking up information, reflecting, and getting involved in
extracurricular activities, such as Edcamp unconferences (Carpenter, 2015; Kyndt, Gijbels,
Grosemans, & Donche, 2016). Researchers have found that teachers prefer the self-directed,
flexible nature of informal learning compared to formal learning activities and many teachers feel
that informal learning activities positively impact their practice (Edsurge, 2014; Lom &
Sullenger, 2011). Kyndt and colleagues (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of 74 scholarly journal
articles related to informal teacher learning and identified three learning outcomes from engaging
in informal events and activities: improved subject knowledge, enhanced pedagogical skills and
knowledge, and changed professional attitudes and identity.
While there are clear benefits to engaging in informal learning activities, teachers can
enrich their overall learning experiences by creating an ecosystem that blends formal and
informal learning activities. Hall (2009) suggested that blending formal and informal learning
activities optimizes the individual's’ overall learning experience. Blending informal and formal
activities allows individuals to combine the strengths of both of types of learning. For example,
9
teachers might benefit from having structured and supported formal learning activities that bring a
diverse group of individuals together at the same time to collaboratively learn about a specific
topic. Teachers can then strengthen and supplement their formal learning experience by engaging
in informal activities, such as experimenting, reflecting, and sharing.
The DEN offers a unique learning experience for teachers that blends both face-to-face
and online learning with informal and formal activities. Teachers can direct their own informal
learning by engaging in conversations with other DEN members, experimenting with ideas shared
by the DEN community, reflecting on their practice, and sharing professional knowledge with
others at events or online via the DEN social networking sites. The Discovery Education team
and DEN leaders also organize and host events for all members, such as local conferences, a
summer institute, and Days of Discovery, which are planned, structured, and institutionally-
sponsored. While these events fit the definition of a formal learning activity, their differences
from the type of formal learning that happens within a school or district must be noted. These
formal events offer teachers the opportunity to learn about the DEN, connect with other DEN
members, and increase their engagement with the DEN community.
Since the DEN provides members with a unique nexus of learning opportunities, we
organized this study to learn from teachers in the DEN community. Specifically, we sought to
examine teacher participation, activities, and learning in the DEN in order to identify factors that
shaped the success of this blended community of practice. The following research question
guided the study: What are the elements that fostered an active and thriving blended community
of practice?
10
Methods
Since teaching and learning are complex, highly contextualized processes, we adopted an
interpretivist perspective to guide our data collection and analysis methods. We aimed to
investigate teachers’ experiences with the DEN by engaging in conversations and negotiating
meaning with the participants. Our goal for the study was not to generalize the findings to other
communities of practice or learning opportunities for teachers, but instead to understand the
meaning that the participants made when they engaged in learning opportunities with a
community of individuals who shared similar interests and goals.
Instrument
We designed a semi-structured interview guide to collect qualitative data about the DEN.
The design of the interview guide was informed by the literature (Wenger, Traynor, and de
Laat’s, 2011). The guide featured four main topics: DEN, Teacher Learning, Student Learning,
and Limitations. In the first section, the participants were asked to share how and why they
participated in the DEN. They were also asked to describe the benefits of participation. In the
Teacher Learning and Student Learning sections, participants were queried about how their
engagement in the DEN shaped their learning, practice, and student learning. In the final section,
the participants were asked to share any limitations or challenges to learning in the blended
community of practice in order to reduce some of the potential bias of having participants who
were leaders in the DEN community and self-selected to be part of the study.
Data Collection
This study was part of a collaborative project between the ISTE Teacher Education
Network and Discovery Education. Members of the ISTE Teacher Education Network (TEN)
were offered the opportunity to connect with DEN members to conduct a research study about
11
teaching and learning with technology. One of the authors of this study is a member of TEN and
submitted a proposal outlining the research study. Our proposal was selected by the TEN
leadership and Discovery Education teams. We developed a request for participation document,
which included a description of the project and list of interview questions, and sent it to the
Discovery Education team. The Discovery Education team emailed the document to all DEN
members. Members who were interested in participating were asked to fill out a short survey,
which included a consent form and questions about the participants’ teaching experience (e.g.,
grade level, subject, years of teaching). The consent form provided an overview of the study and
asked participants for permission to use the data they provided for the study. A total of 26 DEN
members signed up to participate in the study and electronically signed the consent form. These
participants engaged in 30- to 60-minute interviews via phone (n=19), Google Hangout (n=3), or
Skype (n=4) since they were located in many different states across the country.
Participants
The participants were K-12 teachers, coaches, and administrators located in the United
States (see Appendix Table A1). While the DEN is positioned as a global community, the
majority of participants are located in the United States. However, there is a small, but growing
number of participants located in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. All of
the participants had substantial teaching experience, ranging from 8 to 36 years, with an average
of 15.5 years. Fifteen of the participants worked in elementary schools, six worked in middle
schools, and three worked in high schools. One of the participants worked in a university setting
and also supported K-12 technology integration and one worked in a district level position.
All of the participants were STAR Discovery Educators (STARs). STAR stands for
“Share something you've learned about using Discovery Education resources with your
12
colleagues, Teach your colleagues about this idea or strategy, Assist your colleagues as they
implement this idea or strategy, and Report what you've done” (Discovery Education, 2015). Any
Discovery Education member can apply to be a STAR Discovery Educator. Over the past 10
years, the number of STAR Discovery Educators has grown exponentially to more than 10,000.
The application process involves viewing a video and completing a short quiz. In order to
maintain STAR status, Discovery Educators have to present, share, or teach what they learned
from Discovery Education, or the DEN, to their colleagues. The participants’ years of experience
as STARs ranged from 3 to 10 years. The STAR program has been around for 10 years, meaning
that some of the participants had partaken in the program since its conception.
Data Analysis
We conducted a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the dataset in order to search
for patterns of meaning across the interview data. The interviews were transcribed and imported
into an excel spreadsheet. Both researchers completed an initial reading of the entire dataset and
then conducted open coding for eight randomly selected transcripts. This produced 47 codes. We
met to discuss the codes and our interpretation of the data. The data and codes were reanalyzed,
which subsequently produced 15 categories. We met to discuss and explore the relationships
between these categories. Then, we derived six themes based on connections between the
categories and important concepts related to our research question. Braun and Clarke (2006)
contended that “the ‘keyness” of a theme is not necessarily dependent on quantifiable measures
but rather on whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research question”
(p. 82). After coding three interviews separately, we reviewed each other’s codes and discussed
and reconciled differences. We then coded the entire dataset. Upon completion of the coding, we
developed a document with a description of the themes and sent it to the 26 participants for
13
member checking. The participants reviewed the document and provided feedback. We
incorporated their feedback into our analysis.
Limitations
This study is limited by voluntary response bias and self-report data. The participants self-
selected to be part of the research study, which means that these participants were motivated to
share their experiences. Since the participants were part of the DEN and were given perks, such
as the opportunity to apply to the free Summer Institute, it is likely that they were more motivated
to participate in the study and share a positive view compared to other DEN members. To address
this bias, participants were asked to discuss any limitations of learning with the DEN and describe
what changes they would like to see happen to improve their learning experience.
Additionally, the data is based on participants’ self-reports of how engaging in the DEN
shaped their practice and student learning. The researchers did not observe the participants’
classrooms or schools to verify these self-reports since the participants were located in multiple
states across the country. However, studies have shown that teacher self-reports can be just as
reliable as classroom observations (Desimone, 2009). Although there are limitations in this study,
the findings provide important insight into the value of engaging in learning in a blended
community of practice.
Findings
Upon exploring the DEN through participants’ experiences, we identified six key
elements that were critical to the success of the community of practice: leadership roles,
personalized learning, guiding principles, organizational support, social learning, and purpose. In
the following section, we will provide details about each of these key elements, before sharing
recommendations for school leaders.
14
Leadership Roles
Within the DEN, there are many roles that members can apply for to become leaders in
the community of practice, including DEN STAR, DEN Ambassador Program Facilitator, DEN
Leadership Council, DEN Gurus, and Program Champions. Each of these roles plays a critical
part in supporting and shaping the growth of the DEN. For example, DEN STARs share their
classroom experiences and expertise with other members, while DEN Leadership Council
members host events, mentor new members, and create content for the DEN. The DEN
Ambassador program facilitators recruit and introduce new members to the DEN. These
leadership roles foster a member-driven community of practice. In contrast to traditional teacher
professional development where teachers are told what and how to learn, the leadership roles give
DEN members agency in defining their learning experiences and shaping the growth of the DEN.
Empowering members to enact different roles ensures that the community of practice
continues to thrive. Namely, the individuals who take on a leadership role are more likely to
participate, share knowledge, and provide support to other members. This ensures that the
community remains an active space for connecting and learning. Additionally, the majority of
participants reported that they recruited teachers in their schools and districts to join the DEN,
which means that the DEN continues to evolve with an expanded membership base.
Personalized Learning
The DEN offers a wealth of learning opportunities, including a weeklong summer
institute, local professional development events (e.g., Days of Discovery, DENapalooza), virtual
conferences, unconferences, blogs, and social networking sites. This cornucopia of learning
activities gives members the opportunity to personalize their learning based on their professional
interests, needs, and goals. One of the participants, a middle school math teacher, described a
15
stark contrast between traditional professional development and learning with the DEN, “I felt
like before [joining the DEN], you might be selective in what was available in your area, what
your district would let you drive to, and what they would pay for...but now...you can just pick and
choose and grow professionally that way.” Rather than waiting for a conference or workshop, this
teacher was able to design her own learning experiences. Since every teacher works in a unique
classroom context, providing a diverse range of learning opportunities ensures that all members in
the community of practice are able to grow their craft.
Guiding Principles
According to our participants, DEN members are encouraged to follow explicitly stated
and implicitly understood guiding principles. The explicitly stated principles can be found on the
Discovery Education website. For example, in order to maintain STAR status, DEN STARs need
to, “Share something you've learned about using Discovery Education resources with your
colleagues, Teach your colleagues about this idea or strategy, Assist your colleagues as they
implement this idea or strategy, and Report what you've done” (Discovery Education, 2015).
These guiding principles encourage collaborative learning, teaching, and sharing both within and
beyond the DEN.
The implicitly understood guiding principles were described by the interview participants
as being positive and supportive within the DEN. One of the participants, an elementary school
instructional specialist, commented, “It’s real easy to get down and sucked into that negativity [in
schools], but when you go to DEN events, the best thing is everybody is so amazingly positive
and everybody loves their job, everybody’s super passionate about it, and it’s not just about
technology, it’s about kids.” These guiding principles established a set of best practices that set
the tone for the community of practice and encouraged members to share and give back.
16
Organizational Support
The DEN is supported by Discovery Education, which provides funding for learning
opportunities, infrastructure for the community, and a dedicated team of staff members. While
DEN members who take on leadership roles do not receive any funding, they get perks such as
the opportunity to be selected to attend a weeklong all-expenses-paid Summer Institute or the
chance to pilot test new digital resources (e.g., Discovery Education Techbooks). Discovery
Education also provides the community infrastructure in the form of digital spaces and tools
where members can connect, get involved, and learn. This infrastructure is pivotal for expanding
the membership base, connecting members, and helping members stay current with the latest
events and learning opportunities.
The Discovery Education team supports the DEN in a variety of ways. They organize
local and national events, such as DENapalooza and Days of Discovery, and support members
who want to host their own events. They provide guidance and assistance to DEN members in
leadership roles. They create content for the DEN community, such as the Spotlight on Strategies
(SOS), which are various techniques for engaging students in learning. Many of our participants
noted that the Discovery Education team members previously worked as teachers, so they have an
authentic understanding of their needs. The team also fosters connections among members in the
community in order to support the growth of the DEN. One of the participants shared, “The
people who run the DEN, Porter, Lance, Steve, Brad, Kyle, they go out of their way to make sure
that relationships are built not just with themselves and the DEN members, but also they go out of
their way to build camaraderie between the DEN members themselves.” All of the participants
consistently praised the Discovery Education team and attributed the success of the DEN to this
group of individuals.
17
Social Learning
Like all communities of practice, learning within the DEN is a social process. Our
participants described how learning was a communal experience in which they learned from more
knowledgeable others, but also had the opportunity to share their expertise. One of the
participants commented, “At the Discovery conferences, you can learn from the presenter, but the
presenter is equally willing to learn from you.” This type of reciprocal learning environment
seemed to be prevalent throughout all of the DEN events.
One unique aspect of the DEN is that it offers the close-knit connections of a face-to-face
community of practice, while also spanning geographical and temporal boundaries. The DEN is a
worldwide organization composed of anyone with access to Discovery Education's services. Yet,
many of the interview participants reported that they knew exactly who to go to when they
needed specific information or faced a problem. One of the participants, an elementary teacher,
shared, “If you give me a piece of information I could probably tell you what DEN member to go
to to find the answer. If you were looking for iPhone photography you would go to Tim, if you
are looking for something about K-5 science, you’d go to Dana, if you’re looking for grants,
you’d go to Daisha.” While online communities of practice allow educators to extend their
connections beyond their face-to-face networks, these spaces often fail to facilitate the type of
close-knit relationships we witnessed in the DEN (Author, 2015). By providing members with
opportunities to connect face-to-face and then continue building their relationships online, or
connect online and then meet face-to-face, the Discovery Education team has found a way to
overcome this limitation.
Another key aspect of the DEN is that it has a diverse membership base. One of the
participants described the DEN as a, “diverse group of members, [in terms of] ethnicity, in terms
18
of areas of where folks teach - from rural to urban to very poor districts to very wealthy districts -
to skill levels, and also from levels [within schools] - teachers, counselors, admin, technology
coordinators, superintendents, so there really is a wide range of folks.” This diverse membership
base allows for distributed learning in which teachers do not have to be experts in everything,
instead, they can tap into the distributed expertise within the DEN to learn and develop their craft.
Purpose
The purpose of the community plays a pivotal role in shaping member participation (Carr
& Chambers, 2006; Jones & Preece, 2006; Booth, 2012). Participants found the purpose of the
DEN to be very noteworthy because the focus was on teacher growth, innovation, and learning in
order to improve student achievement rather than the promotion of Discovery Education products
and events. One participant shared, “When they [the Discovery Education team] do events,
they’re not selling the product, it’s already been sold. So, their focus is teacher improvement, and
so, being able to go in and just know that I’m going to learn about things that can improve my
teaching and can improve education for kids. And, some of it’s going to be Discovery related, but
some of it’s not going to be related to Discovery at all, and they’re okay with that, which is the
coolest thing. Because they promote good teaching.” Many organizations, researchers, and school
leaders have attempted to design communities of practice to no avail because the purpose of the
community did not align with teachers’ needs. In the case of the DEN, the purpose of the
community is aligned directly with members’ interests in developing their practice and enhancing
student learning.
Recommendations for School Leaders
The DEN offers unique insights about what makes an effective community of practice.
Upon collaboratively exploring the DEN with 26 community leaders, we identified 6 elements
19
that are critical to the success of a community of practice: membership roles, guiding principles,
personalized learning opportunities, organizational support, social learning experiences, and
purpose. Based on our findings, we offer the following suggestions for school leaders who are
interested in developing and fostering communities of practice within their schools:
1) Provide members with opportunities to enact leadership roles (e.g., Face-to-Face
Learning Activity Developer, Social Media Coordinator, Online Learning
Organizer, Recruitment Lead). We recommend co-designing these roles with the
community members and ensuring that the roles represent the needs of the
community as well as members’ professional interests and goals.
2) Give members voice and choice in what and how they learn. This can be done by
allowing members to design and lead their own learning activities, offering a
variety of learning opportunities, and providing multiple ways for members to
engage in learning (e.g., lunch and learn, Twitter chat, weekly newsletter,
unconference).
3) Collaboratively develop a set of guiding principles with members that set the tone
for the community. The guiding principles should include expectations for
participation, the responsibilities of leaders, and community norms (e.g., etiquette
for communication, privacy and sharing, trust). The members and leaders in the
community should agree to collectively uphold the guiding principles.
4) Provide substantial support for the community. There are many ways to support a
community of practice, including building the community infrastructure (e.g., a
community of practice website or online forum), funding learning activities (e.g.,
unconferences, guest speakers, small grants for teacher-lead learning events),
20
training and assisting leaders in the community, and rewarding community leaders
(e.g., awards, classroom release time, professional development credits). We
suggest designating a dedicated staff member or team of staff to provide ongoing
support for the community.
5) Create opportunities for social learning. Learning should be a communal process -
members should have the chance to be both learners and facilitators of learning
activities. It is important to develop a community that is diverse in terms of
subject, grade level, position, experience, interests, and expertise. This will ensure
that members are able to crowdsource ideas, overcome challenges, and learn from
others with similar experiences. For small schools or districts, we recommend
encouraging members to act as bridges between national and international
networks and their school or district community of practice in order to bring
valuable knowledge and diverse perspectives to the community. We also
recommend making the expertise and interests of members visible (e.g., profile
pages, “teacher in the spotlight” feature, database of participants) so that members
know who to go to for specific needs.
6) Build a sense of community. The Discovery Education team was able to foster a
strong sense of community by providing intensive in-person events (e.g., Summer
Institute), ongoing learning opportunities (e.g., DEN Ambassador Program), and
encouraging leaders to host social activities (e.g., photo walks).
7) Co-develop the purpose of the community with the members. Instead of focusing
on student test scores or specific topics (e.g., standards-based grading), identify a
21
purpose that meets teachers’ holistic needs, including the social, emotional, and
cognitive aspects of professional growth.
Scholarly Significance
The prospect of designing and implementing a blended community of practice, such as the
DEN, within a school or district is not without innumerable possible benefits. However, while
some communities of practice are successful, others flounder. This study offers insights into the
elements that shape teacher participation and learning in a blended community of practice and
might offer a way to design a school- or district-based community of practice that not only
survives, but thrives.
22
References
*Note: 4 articles by the authors have been removed for the peer review process.
Allan, B., Hunter, B., & Lewis, D., (2006). Four years on: A longitudinal study assessing the
impact of membership of a virtual community of practice. Networked Learning
Conference 2006. University of Lancaster.
Bayar, A. (2014). The components of effective professional development activities in terms of
teachers’ perspective. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 319-327.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2014). Teachers know best: Teachers’ views on
professional development. Retrieved June 20, 2016 from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/edtech-production/reports/Gates-PDMarketResearch-Dec5.pdf.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brooks, C. F. (2010). Toward ‘hybridised’ faculty development for the twenty‐first century:
blending online communities of practice and face‐to‐face meetings in instructional and
professional support programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
47(3), 261-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498177
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
Carpenter, J.P. (2015). Unconference professional development: Edcamp participant perceptions
and motivations for attendance, Professional Development in Education. 42(1), 1-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1036303
Cesareni, D., Martini, F., & Mancini, I. (2011). Building a community among teachers,
researchers and university students. A blended approach to training. International Journal
of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 625-646.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9126-8
Chen, P., Lee, C. D., Lin, H., & Zhang, C. X. (2016). Factors that develop effective professional
learning communities in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 248-265.
Chen, J. Q. & McCray, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for teacher professional development:
The whole teacher approach. NHSA Dialog, 15(1), 8-23.
23
Czerkawski, B. (2016). Blending formal and informal learning networks for online learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3).
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-
regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Discovery Education. (2015). Become a STAR discovery educator. Retrieved June 6, 2015 from
http://www.discoveryeducation.com/what-we-offer/community/become-a-den-
educator/index.cfm.
Discovery Education. (2016). Welcome to Discovery Education. Retrieved October 1, 2015 from
http://www.discoveryeducation.com/.
Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: Online communities as a source of
professional learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 324–340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00953.x
edSurge. (2014). How teachers are learning: Professional development remix. Retrieved June 20,
2016 from https://www.edsurge.com/research/guides/how-teachers-are-learning-
professional-development-remix.
Hall, R. (2009). Towards a fusion of formal and informal learning environments: The impact of
the read/write web. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 7(1), 29-40.
Herbers, M. S., Antelo, A., Ettling, D., & Buck, M. A. (2011). Improving teaching through a
community of practice. Journal of Transformative Education, 9(2), 89-108.
Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online
knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573-595.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2
Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do teachers
want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12 teachers? Journal of
24
Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279–303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782532
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist.
Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 177-179.
Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265-288.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1
Johnson, C.M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The
Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-
7516(01)00047-1
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of
Educational Research, 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Kynt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional
development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes.
Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi:
10.3102/0034654315627864
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lom, E., & Sullenger, K. (2011). Informal spaces in collaborations: Exploring the
edges/boundaries of professional development. Professional development in education,
37(1), 55-74.
Owen, S. (2014). Teacher professional learning communities: Going beyond contrived
collegiality toward challenging debate and collegial learning and professional growth.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 54.
Seo, K. (2014). Professional learning of observers, collaborators, and contributors in a teacher-
created online community in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(3), 337-350.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77.
Skyring, C. (2014). Professional learning in 140 characters. In Conference Proceedings of the
Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, 422-429. Australian Council for
Computers in Education (ACCE). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499746
25
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2011). Connect and inspire:
Online communities of practice in education. Retrieved from
https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resource-collections/profile-706.
Vaughan, N. (2004). t New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 101-109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.137
Vaughan, N. & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development
community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139-152.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739. doi:
10.3102/0034654308330970
Wenger, E., (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. [online] http://wenger-
trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for
communities. Portland, Oregon: CPsquare.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in
communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Rapport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum,
Open University of the Netherlands
Wesely, P. M. (2013). Investigating the community of practice of world language educators on
Twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 305-318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487113489032
26
Appendix A
Table A1
Participant Demographics
Pseudonym Years
Teaching
Experience
Years as
a STAR
Subject/Position Grade
Level(s)
Location
Adriana 15 4 Spanish/Technology
Integration
2-8 Maryland
Brittany 16 5 Technology Integration
Specialist
District North Carolina
Chris 9 5 Multiple Subjects 5 California
Denise 29 8 ELA, Math, Character
Education
2-5 Georgia
Derek 15 7 Library Media Specialist K-4 Wisconsin
Diana 35 9 Music K-5 Wisconsin
Elizabeth 17 5 Instructional Specialist TK-5 California
Erika 8 6 Science 6-8 Maryland
Evan 20 9 Technology Integration
Specialist
District &
College Level
Kansas
Elyse 31 7 ELA, Math, Social
Studies
4 Massachusetts
Gillian 21 5 Gifted Students K-5 Florida
Irene 23 9 Assistant Principal K-5 Virginia
Kennedy 17 7 Multiple Subjects 5 Pennsylvania
Lisa 16 5 Multiple Subjects 5 South Carolina
Leah 36 10 AP English, Library
Media, Journalism
7-12 Arkansas
Lena 29 8 Social Studies, Science,
Gifted
K-5 Georgia
Laura 10 5 Technology Engineering 6-8 North Carolina
27
Design
Lyla 23 3 Multiple Subjects 2 Idaho
Mary 8 7 STEM 7-12 Texas
Melissa 16 6 Math, ELA 4-6 Illinois
Olivia 10 9 Technology 6-8 South Carolina
Nellie 10 6 Science 6-8 Georgia
Quinn 17 6 Physical Science 8 Georgia
Tina 25 5 Library Media,
Instructional Technology
K-3 Georgia
Taylor 22 5 Math 8 Kansas
Vance 14 9 Assistant Principal 9-12 Tennessee