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