Wenger (2011) defines a community of practice as “groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (p. 1). Some examples he gives of such communities are “a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression, a group of engineers working on similar problems” and “a clique of students defining their identity in school” (p. 1). Wenger points out that his definition allows for but does not require intentionality; that the community may come together seeking to learn something from one another collectively, or the learning can take place incidentally, as a product of the individuals with an mutual interest or concern coming together. He also states that not all communities are communities of practice (for example, he points out that a neighborhood is a community, but usually not a community of practice).

In order for a community to be considered a community of practice, Wenger (2011) writes, three criteria must be met: (1) the domain: the community’s identity is defined by a “shared domain of interest” (p. 1), unlike in the example of the average neighborhood community; (2) the community: members must “engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information” in the pursuit of their interest in the domain (p. 2), as opposed to working solely individually; (3) the practice: as opposed to a community of interest (e.g. horror movie enthusiasts), members of a community of practice “are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems….” (p. 2).

Wenger (2011) explains that he and anthropologist Jean Lave initially coined the term “community of practice” while researching apprenticeship as a learning model. Rather than a one-way relationship between a master and an apprentice, “studies of apprenticeship reveal a more complex set of social relationships through which learning takes place, mostly with journeymen and more advanced apprentices” (pp. 3-4). The practice of such a community is “dynamic and involves learning on the part of everyone” (p. 4).

Wenger (2011) notes that once he and Lave articulated this model of apprenticeship as a complex set of social relationships through which everyone learns from one another in the community, they began to notice communities of practice everywhere, “even when no formal apprenticeship system existed” (p. 4).

Indeed, in the age of new media and the participatory web, communities of practice are ubiquitous and can involve members from all over the world. In online new media spaces, we can connect the idea of communities of practice with Jenkins’ (2009) five features of online participatory culture: low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, support for creating and sharing projects, informal mentorship, a belief in the value of contributions, and a feeling of social connection.

For example, Lindgren (2012) analyzes the community created between DIY YouTube video creators and followers in their comment sections as affinity spaces (see Gee, 2005). In DIY videos’ comment sections, followers thank the YouTubers for sharing their knowledge, share their success in completing the DIY project themselves, and provide feedback with suggestions for improvements on the video (perhaps from more advanced learners among the overlapping affinity space of video makers), or how to better complete the task (advanced learners who are engaged in sharing knowledge related to DIY projects). Lindgren (2012) concludes that in the affinity spaces created by these YouTube videos and their comment sections, the shared interest of completing a DIY project is at the center of the affinity space, rather than the identity of the group or individual participants. DIY YouTube videos seem to be sort of a hybrid of the traditional teaching model (what Dr. Cope evoked in the video lecture in which he discussed the “flipped classroom” as using new technology to basically deliver the same type of teaching as in the traditional teacher-student model), with the creator of the video sharing knowledge and in some way claiming a role as “expert”, but allowing others to comment (and validate or improve upon the shared knowledge) and thus contribute to the conversation in order for all members of the affinity space to learn.

To apply this to education, the flipped model could be enhanced to incorporate a comment section on the videos in which learners respond to points made in the video and share information they’ve learned related to the video lesson. Ideally, the instructor or creator of the video would actively check the comments in order to learn and respond, thus further participating in building collective intelligence.

References:
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. Beyond communities of practice language power and social context, 214-232.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Mit Press.

Lindgren, S. (2012). ‘It took me about half an hour, but I did it!’ Media circuits and affinity spaces around how-to videos on YouTube. European Journal of Communication, 27(2), 152-170.

Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.