“[It] is by its very practice— not by other criteria—that a community establishes what is to be a competent participant, an outsider, or somewhere in between. In this regard, a community of practice acts a logically negotiated regime of competence.” Etienne Wenger.

This update focuses on the idea of dynamics and Communities of Practice. We’ve all been in one – but what Etienne Wenger highlights is that they are often “informal” and so it’s the idea that the COPs in which we often engage are formal – at least the ones we know about. Of particular interest was the idea of COPs in which we often don’t know we are a part. For example, in my work as a teacher I find that ideas shared by my colleagues on social media and via group emails about what works and what doesn’t in a classroom situation is a less formal COP – and the ones where I find the most useful information. I find formal COPs rather tedious – and they come under the rubric of “professional development” and for which I get a certificate. I don’t get certificates from the informal chats in which I glean some of the best tips, such as how others are integrating IT into the classroom or how to engage certain students with whom I struggle to teach.

But when I think of COPs – informal and formal – I think of people who use a certain language or jargon. Crypto-traders, for example, have their own language. For example, check out this quizlet test I made up:

https://quizlet.com/268262997/flashcards

Computer hackers and their like are very much engaged in COPs and it takes both shared knowledge, jargon and unique etiquette to even be accepted. They are Black Hats or White Hats, etc. and often dress alike, speak alike and live similar lives. They are outsiders – but insiders with their COP, and that’s the only COP that matters. Every job has their own COP and you know you’re actually accepted when you start using the same language. Below is a look at a black hat talk: 

In my work as an IB teacher in China, I found that the IB terminology used was strange and somewhat creepy. At first, I refused to use the jargon. In time, I did because not doing so was a form of rebellion. True believers in the IB system of Education used it, so why didn’t I? Of particular interest to me was the use of a Learning Management System called ManageBAC. It forces the teacher to use precise IB language – and to do anything less was penalized. You weren’t just a rebel – you were a lousy teacher. I once used the word “scaffold” instead of “spiral” and an ominous hush filled the room.

Here is a look at the IB Humanities assessment guide with the jargon, which now that I'm a more experienced teacher, isn't particularly different from many other curricula. 

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/share.nanjing-school.com/dist/6/32/files/2012/09/Humanities-updated-2012-1fgbcbr.pdf

So these COPs are good and bad – they have their limits. But I really think that jargon and language play a major role in COPs today, either informal or formal.

Reference:

Wenger, Etienne. http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/wenger-on-learning-in-communities-of-practice