The research conducted by Diaz et al. (2024), looked at the interaction between university education and industry practice in engineering through the theoretical framework of Communities of Practice (CoP). Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, 2014). The authors investigated how Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) can bridge the “gap between theory and practice between the university and industry” (Diaz et al., 2024, p.5). Using a grounded theory approach, Diaz et al. (2024) collected data from 27 students’ course evaluations and 14 interviews, “[involving] current students, alumni, and company supervisors, and the instructor’s notes, observations, and perceptions” (p.20) between 2017 to 2022. The analysis followed a constant comparative method, involving an iterative process that began with course evaluations, “where the data was broken down into dimensions” (Diaz et al., 2024, p.10). One of the key findings is that tools and software (e.g., Navisworks, Revit) as boundary objects that connect classroom learning with workplace practices. These tools enabled students to apply their theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios (Diaz et al., 2024). In addition, the study demonstrates that students build brokerage skills by exchanging ideas and concepts between the university and the workplace. They also learn to contextualize shared boundary objects according to the specific CoP (Diaz et al., 2024). Companies, in turn, provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful work experiences, which should be structured to help students progress from peripheral to full members of their professional community, known as Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP). The research has strong connections to my own study on instructor continuous professional development, particularly regarding how grounded theory and Communities of Practice can enhance professional learning environments. The iterative, comparative method used in this study parallels the process of continuous professional growth for instructors, where learning occurs through real-world experiences, reflection, and adaptation. By applying grounded theory in my research, I can explore how professional development for instructors follows a similar path to that of students in WIL programs. Instructors can act as brokers, participating in two communities within their own Communities of Practice, transferring teaching innovations between academic environments and the practical needs of their learners. The concept of boundary objects can also support my focus on how instructors use shared tools, teaching strategies, and educational technologies to connect theory with practice in their professional development journey.
Azevedo (2013) explored the relationship between hobbies, particularly amateur astronomy, and the design of engaging learning environments. He argued that “hobbies are paradigmatic examples of interest-driven practices and thus they offer an excellent window into truly interest-related phenomena and processes” (Azevedo, 2013, p.462) because they show how people stay motivated and involved. The research focuses on how individuals adapt their practice through available resources, collaboration, and personal goals. He emphasized that participants’ engagement is shaped by “an extensive and varied material infrastructure” (Azevedo, 2013, p.491) as well as the process of “collaboration and idea sharing”. He further suggested that individual engagement arises from interactions with both the community and the environment. The concept of “intent participation” implies that “individuals closely observe and learn from their peers, anticipating their roles in collaborative endeavours” (p.465). The research and methodology of Azevedo’s paper align well with my work on continuous professional development for instructors, as it emphasizes the role of context and community in shaping participation and engagement. His iterative approach to data collection and analysis mirrors how I can design PD training, continuously refining insights based on real-world interactions. Azevedo’s grounded theory method, which ensures that “the resulting, stable conceptual categories must cover the whole data corpus” (p. 472), supports a personalized and adaptable approach to PD. Instructors, like hobbyists, benefit from learning environments that are flexible and responsive to their evolving needs. Their engagement grows through ongoing interactions with both their peers and their educational context. By using this approach, PD training can be designed to not only address common instructor needs but also to customize the learning experience to fit individual goals. This personalization makes the development process more meaningful and impactful.
Horn (2005) investigated how high school mathematics teachers learn through their everyday job, particularly through interactions with their colleagues at two high schools. Using a comparative case study, Horn (2005) explored how teacher learning is shaped by their communities and the resources available to them, such as classroom tools, the way they categorize students, and discussions with colleagues. This idea of learning through professional communities can directly connect to how I think about instructor continuous professional development (CPD), which also emphasizes the importance of learning from others in the workplace. Horn (2005) identified three key resources for learning: reform artifacts, informal classification systems, and the rendering of classroom practice in collegial conversations. These resources are integral for fostering professional growth, and this framework can directly support CPD research. Ongoing professional development can benefit from integrating similar resources to help instructors engage in reflective practices and reform ideas.
Reform artifacts, as described by Horn (2005), help teachers “make sense of their practice.” At South High, the slogan “Less is more” was interpreted differently by teachers. One teacher, Dan, understood it as teaching “math in terms of characteristics rather than in terms of problem sets” (p. 218). This limited interpretation led to minimal changes in their teaching practice, as “South had recultured as a school, yet these changes did not trickle down into the mathematics classrooms” (p. 218). In contrast, at East High, teachers used “group-worthy problems” as a guiding principle for their work. They defined these problems as ones that “illustrate important mathematical concepts” and “allow for multiple representations” (p. 219). This concept was more effective because it was used consistently in discussions and teaching, helping teachers emphasize student engagement and deeper learning. For CPD, this shows that reform efforts need to be actively discussed and applied in practice to ensure their success.
Horn (2005) also highlighted how teachers use informal classification systems to categorize students based on perceived “ability and motivation” (p.222). At South High, teachers used categories like “regular,” “not-quick,” and “lazy” to sort students discussion. “The curriculum provided the bins. Their work was first to make sure that the right kinds of bins were in place and then sort the students accordingly” (p. 223). This reflected a limitation of the South High approach, where the curriculum and student sorting were prioritized over meaningful engagement with the subject matter. In contrast, East High teachers questioned these labels, with one teacher, Guillermo challenged the notion of “fast” and “slow” learners, suggesting that teachers should “think of the ones that you think of as fast learners and figure out what they’re slow at” (p. 222-223). This more flexible approach helped teachers think more about their students’ abilities and help them to create a more inclusive environment for students.
Horn (2005) highlighted the importance of “teaching replays” and “teaching rehearsals” (p.225), where teachers discuss specific classroom experiences. These discussions allow teachers to reflect on their work and learn from each other. At South High, these conversations were less common and mostly focused on practical issues like classroom management. However, at East High, teachers often used these conversations to analyze student learning. For instance, one teacher, Guillermo, modelled a possible classroom interaction for a new teacher, saying, “Angel, it was great that you asked a question. David, you tried to answer it, but did you see what happened?” (p. 228). These reflective conversations helped teachers improve their teaching. For CPD, this highlights the importance of creating opportunities for instructors to talk about and reflect on their teaching experiences, allowing them to learn from one another and grow professionally.
The three articles offer insightful similarities and differences in their exploration of learning within professional communities. Diaz et al. (2024) use a CoP framework to examine how WIL allows students to act as “brokers who can participate in and mediate across the two communities” of academia and the workplace, with boundary objects serving as critical tools in this process (p. 6). Similarly, Horn (2005) investigated teacher learning in high school mathematics departments, finding that teachers’ learning is situated in their community interactions and highlighting “the social and situated nature of teachers’ pedagogical reasoning” (p. 207). Azevedo (2013) took a different approach by looking at how hobbyists engage in amateur astronomy communities, showing that people are able to shape their engagement based on their specific interests and goals . Although the studies focus on different groups, engineering students, high school teachers, and hobbyists, each study emphasizes the importance of social participation and situated learning, though they differ in how structured and goals within these communities.
These three studies directly relate to my research on continuous professional development for instructors by highlighting the role of community-based, situated learning. Diaz et al. (2024) discuss how the ability to bridge “class learning and job site learning” (p. 3), a challenge that mirrors the difficulty instructors face when applying new teaching strategies from professional development into their classrooms . Horn (2005) emphasized that teacher learning occurs “through everyday interactions in reforming schools” (p. 208), reinforcing the need for ongoing, situated learning experiences within professional communities to support meaningful growth . Hobbyist learning from Azevedo (2013) shows the value of personalized, interest-driven engagement, suggesting that professional development for instructors should also allow for flexibility and individualized pathways, much like how “hobbyists fashion themselves highly tailored versions of the practice” (p. 463).
References
Azevedo, F. S. (2013). The Tailored Practice of Hobbies and Its Implication for the Design of Interest-Driven Learning Environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 462–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.730082
Diaz, B., Delgado, C., Han, K., & Lynch, C. (2024). Using communities of practice to investigate work-integrated learning in engineering education: a grounded theory approach. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01225-x
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the Job: A Situated Account of Teacher Learning in High School Mathematics Departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_2
Wenger, E. (2014) Communities of practice: a brief introduction, accessed 26 September, 2014
Leave a Reply