Professional Identity or Best Practices?—An Exploration of the Synergies between Professional Learning Communities and Communities of Practices

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.34070

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.4, 457-460

Published Online August 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34070

Professional Identity or Best Practices?—An Exploration of the

Synergies between Professional Learning Communities and

Communities of Practices

Daphnee H. L. Lee, Imran Shaari

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Email: daphnee.lee @nie.edu.sg, [email protected]. sg

Received May 4th, 2012; revised June 10th, 2012; accepted June 20th, 2012

This paper attempts to find the synergies between Professional Learning Community (PLC) and Commu-

nity of Practice (CoP), with the view to enhance teacher professionalism. Based on the review of litera-

tures, we highlight the different motivations of PLCs and CoPs, and the value-assumptions informing the

two initiatives. We argue that both initiatives serve critical functions in augmenting teacher autonomy.

Although conceptually distinctive, the underpinning values of the approaches to organizing teacher pro-

fessional communities are complementary. Therefore, a two-prong approach is proposed. One seeds

teacher professionalism through emergent best practices. The other consolidates these best practices into a

coherent teacher professional identity through the introduction of structural affordances.

Keywords: Communities of Practice; Professional Learning Community; Teacher Professionalism;

Professional Identity/Autonomy; Best Practices

Introduction

This paper attempts to find the synergies between Profes-

sional Learning Community (PLC) and Community of Pract ice

(CoP), with the view to enhance teacher profe ssion ali sm. B ased

on the review of literatures, we highlight the different motiva-

tions of PLCs and CoPs, and the value-assumptions informing

the two initiatives. We argue that both initiatives serve critical

functions in augmenting teacher autonomy. Although concep-

tually distinctive, the underpinning values of the approaches to

organizing teacher professional communities are complemen-

tary. Therefore, a two-prong approach is proposed. One seeds

teacher professionalism through emergent best practices. The

other consolidates these best practices into a coherent teacher

professional identity through the introduction of structural af-

fordances.

Literature Review of the Conceptual Premises of

PLCs and CoPs

Confluences in Practice

The Professional Learning Community, within the education

context, refers to the active engagement in professional learning,

with the aim of enhancing teacher professional identity. The

notion takes root in John Dewey’s proposition that the resolu-

tion of recurring knowledge gaps hinges upon a continuous and

cyclical process of reflection (Dewey, 1986). The PLC practi-

tioner is, thus, one who actively acquires professional identifi-

cation through reflective and collaborative dialogue with like-

minded teacher professionals. The process involves participa-

tion in cycles of collaborative inquiry (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker,

& Many, 2010; Levine, 2010; Nehring & Fitzsimons, 2011;

Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006; Wong,

2010), reflection (Campbell, 2005; Falk & Drayton, 2009;

Louis & Marks, 1998; Musanti & Lucretia, 2010; Nehring &

Fitzsimons, 2011; Pella, 2011; Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio, Ross,

& Adams, 2007; Wiley, 2001; Wong, 2010), action research

(DuFour et al., 2010; Levine, 2010; Webster-Wright, 2009) and/

or lesson studies (Foo & Lee, 2008), for the purpose(s) of re-

forming pedagogy and curriculum (Harris, 2011; Little &

Veugelers, 2005), and/or transforming school/ education culture,

values, vision and action (Cranston, 2011; Falk & Drayton,

2009; Hoffman, Dahlman, & Zierdt, 2009; Little & Veugelers,

2005; Nehring & Fitzsimons, 2011; Pella, 2011; Servage, 2008;

Webster-Wright, 2009; Wong, 2010). Teacher identity is said to

be enhanced by a corresponding enhancement of their profes-

sional capacity, which is, the ability to “achieve better results

for the students they serve” (DuFour et al., 2010: p. 11).

The CoP is, according to Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder

(2002), a congregation of practitioners who seek to deepen

knowledge expertise (4). It is through the process of ongoing

practice that members develop professionally (Lave & Wenger,

1991). To associate practice and community, Wenger (1998)

emphasizes the importance of a shared repertoire of practices

that is emergent from mutual engagement in reflective dia-

logues. As with PLCs, the structure of CoPs are loosely defined

and “members” are usually part of networks or other larger

organizations. In schools, this implies that the teachers may be

part of small networks (e.g. dedicated to improvements in as-

sessment) or a large cluster of schools (e.g. groups of schools in

a district) (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).

However, the similarities between the two constructs stop

there and scholars agree on how they differ (McDermott &

Archibald, 2010; Raven, 2003; Wenger & Snyder, 2000).

Divergences in Organization

Based on the review of literatures on the key PLC attributes

D. H. L. LEE, I. SHAARI

propounded by its supporters, engagement in PLC signals the

commitment to embrace alternatives to traditional notions of

professional learning. Departing from the preoccupation with

“quick solutions and immediate results” (DuFour et al., 2010: p.

514), teachers take charge and reflect upon their daily work

processes, and professional identity takes shape from this col-

laborative reflection. The acquisition of teacher autonomy is

less daunting when like-minded professionals congregate in

collaboration to this effort, rather than attempt to do so in the

private practice of one’s isolated classroom.

The PLC’s emphasis on collaboration and reflection differ-

entiates teacher professional learning from traditional notions

of it. However, casting the exclusive focus on the two attributes

conflates PLCs and CoPs (Campbell, 2005; Dooner, Mandzuk,

& Clifton, 2007; DuFour et al., 2010; Falk & Drayton, 2009;

Levine, 2010; Louis & Marks, 1998; MOE, 2010; Musanti &

Lucretia, 2010; Nehring & Fitzsimons, 2011; Stoll, et al., 2006;

Vescio et al., 2007; Webster-Wright, 2009; Wiley, 2001; Wong,

2010), rendering them conceptually indistinguishable. As con-

ceptual distinctions exist between the two concepts that could

result in dissimilar outcomes in the way teacher capacity is to

be enhanced, we deem it crucial to identify these distinctions, in

view of the implications that can be drawn for teacher profes-

sional development.

PLCs and CoPs diverge in the lens they adopt towards

teacher development. Although both models promise to be the

counter-cultural force for enhancing teacher efficacy, the CoP

appears more promising in performing this function than its

counterpart in question. If an initiative is to remain true to the

profession of “teachers taking charge”, the organic approach

taken to form communities appears much more attractive. (Falk

& Drayton, 2009) In contrast, PLC implementations tend to

be predominated by top-down initiatives targeted at shaping

teacher identities. The empirical reality of how the two initia-

tives unfold on the ground makes sense in the light of the dif-

ferent priorities that take precedence between the two models.

The more practice-based approach of CoPs makes learning

more immediate to the learner (Aguilar & Krasny, 2011; Bou-

chamma & Michaud, 2010; Chambers & Armour, 2011; Do-

oner et al., 2007; Falk & Drayton, 2009; Levine, 2010; Lewis,

Koston, Quartley, & Adsit, 2011; Musanti & Lucretia, 2010;

Parker, Patton, Madden, & Sinclair, 2010; Thang, Hall, Muru-

gaiah, & Hazita, 2011). Bottom-up initiatives may be more

attractive to the ground practitioner than abstract notions of

professional identity acquisition, which requires a vantage point

from the top. It may also be tedious to engage in distant asso-

ciations of “teacher learning for student outcomes” (Louis &

Marks, 1998; MOE, 2010; Nehring & Fitzsimons, 2011; Stoll

et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2007; Wiley, 2001), or high-brow

notions of an emergent value-system from the convergence of

value-identities (Levine, 2010).

Nevertheless, being less attractive does not correspondingly

mean being less vital. The PLC serves crucial functions in en-

acting change more effectively than CoPs under specific con-

texts. In environments that are already highly institutionalized,

such as the school environment, change initiatives may be inef-

fective when solely employing CoP approaches. As Levine

cautions, the trajectory of practitioners advancing to core ex-

pertise from the periphery may or may not happen with CoPs

(2010).

Implications

Conceptually, there appears to be an irreconcilable dichot-

omy between PLCs and CoPs. When operating in reality, how-

ever, the differences are much less defined, and may even be

complementary. That is, communities operating under the mo-

niker of PLCs may in practice possess strong elements of CoP,

and vice versa. For instance, while embarking upon the onerous

process of professional identity formation, PLC practitioners

may be concurrently engaged in sharing best practices more

immediate to the challenges of classroom management. Like-

wise, CoP practitioners may come to adopt more defined forms

of professional identification when membership criteria take

shape. Viewed from the vantage point, there is much empirical

convergence between the two constructs, despite their theoreti-

cal divergences. While some applaud the co-existence of paral-

lel movements dedicated to teacher professional development,

others question if duplicate movements unnecessarily overload

the already time-challenged teachers. Our take tends towards

the former view. Indeed, much controversy remains over the

differentiated conceptual grounds and empirical fuzziness of

the two. Although these debates address important issues, our

concern tends towards how the ultimate end embodied by these

communities, nevertheless, serve the critical function of teacher

professional enhancement. Both movements entail the em-

bracement of a learning culture that is no longer about passive

transmission of knowledge, acquired through an active co-

creation process, which will empower teachers with the capac-

ity to exercise professional autonomy. While it is important to

not conflate the two to ensure the best of both elements are

integrated in professional development, the view that teachers

are unable to apply both concepts into practice is overly me-

chanistic.

The CoP’s focus on unstructured practice forms an important

basis for exploratory inquiry and authentic learning. Where

teachers possess limited capacity for systematic inquiry, novice

learning by simulation (i.e. “legitimate peripheral participation”)

CoP-style provides the unstructured learning with the space for

exploration (Lambsom, 2010). The loose community relation-

ships allows for a dynamic bottom-up learning initiative that

adapts with the learning priorities of the time. However, when

left as it is, a community formed on the basis of the CoP model

can take a long time for an emergent organization principle, if it

emerges at all. CoPs may lose its capacity to generate emergent

insights if its communities are obligated to devolve systematic

capacities. PLCs are able to complement CoPs with the capac-

ity for more sustained organization efforts. The development of

conceptual expertise requires concerted action steered beyond

immediate learning priorities. It requires the dissemination of

common epistemologies that reflects guiding values of an es-

teemed profession. While the PLC’s preoccupation with struc-

ture and identity puts limits on possibilities, it also consolidates

a common lingo that characterizes the professional identity of a

discipline. PLC practitioners, as members of a profession, are

intuitively oriented as professionals based on the shared identi-

fication with the values propounded. It will be all the better, if

professional values are shaped by the everyday practices de-

rived from CoPs. Optimal learning requires conditions that

provides for both systematic inquiry and organically emergent

insights. This need for system-emergent capacity can be pro-

vided for if teacher professionals subscribe to both CoPs and/or

PLCs.

458

D. H. L. LEE, I. SHAARI

Summarily, a dialectical engagement with system (PLC) and

emergence (CoP) is beneficial to sustainable teacher profes-

sional development. As a further elaboration of the global-local

duality in Wenger’s (1998) theorizations of CoP, Bertram

charts the trajectory of professional communities with the anal-

ogy of “building an airplane in the air” (Bruce, 2009). We ex-

tend upon this proposition that while the sky is the limit when it

comes to scaffolding for innovative practices, building an air-

plane that flies requires innovation to eventually take institu-

tionalized forms. Both community models can be present in

schools concurrently and contingently, depending on individual

school requirements. For instance, if School A is just beginning

to experiment with devolving from traditional schooling meth-

ods, a radical departure into overly exploratory approaches may

create strong teacher resistance. The school may opt for PLC-

style communities predominantly, while making some provi-

sions for CoP-inspired groups to emerge. School B may be

characterized by weak leadership, which necessitates teachers

to play a more proactive role at exploring their own learning

direction within poorly defined professional boundaries. Under

this circumstance, the adoption of CoP predominant communi-

ties, coupled with some initiative for identity-shaping PLCs

may be a prudent option. School C may have enjoyed success-

ful track records of compiling innovative professional practices

from current CoP communities. The school may chart a trajec-

tory of surfacing more PLC-like com-munities, so that loosely-

linked practices can be solidified into translatable practices that

can be scaled system-wide based on consistent core values.

This shift may take place with some groups embarking upon

the PLC trajectory, while others remain committed to explora-

tory endeavors in CoPs. This view of continuous dialectical

engagement can be likened to a (mid)top-down consolidation of

emergent bottom-up phenomena (i.e. professionalization), for

the enablement of sustainable innovation in professional learn-

ing (McDermott & Archibald, 2010).

Conclusion

PLCs consolidate teacher identifications into professional

identities, organizing and connecting teachers as a professional

community. CoPs engage teachers as professional practitioners,

with amorphous community obligations to allow for the emer-

gence of professional innovation. With regard to teacher pro-

fessionalization and professional development, the two share a

symbiotic relationship. The distinctive models converge in the

ultimate goal of enhancing teacher professional standing. Though

not necessarily mutually exclusive, the means to enhancing

teacher professional standing differ, and hence, the end results.

If professional community organization obligates the selection

of one form over another, the end goal may still be partially

achieved, but not at the optimal capacity. Teachers are lesser

professional members if their craft is not constantly reviewed

for rejuvenation. Likewise, teachers are also lesser professional

practitioners if their craft is unguided by a common identity.

The trajectory of teacher professional development lies in

seeding, growth, integration, dissemination, consolidation, in-

stitutionalization, and renewal. When integrated, CoPs and

PLCs offer the sustainable means to this end.

REFERENCES

Aguilar, O. M., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Using the communities of

practice framework to examine an after-school environmental educa-

tion program for Hispanic youth. Environmental Education Research,

17, 217-233. doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.531248

Bruce, B. C. (2009). “Building an airplane in the air”: The life of the

inquiry group. In J. K. Falk, & B. Drayton (Eds.), Creating and sus-

taining online professional learning communities (pp. 47-67). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Bouchamma, Y., & Michaud, C. (2010). Communities of practice with

teaching supervisors: A discussion of community members’ experi-

ences. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 403-420.

doi:10.1007/s10833-010-9141-y

Campbell, E. (2005). Challenges in fostering ethical knowledge as

professionalism within schools as teaching communities. Journal of

Educational Change, 6 , 207-226. doi:10.1007/s10833-005-7107-2

Chambers, F. C., & Armour, K. M. (2011). Do as we do and not as we

say: teacher educators supporting student teachers to learn on teach-

ing practice. Sport, Education and Society, 16, 527-544.

doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.589648

Cranston, J. (2011). Relational trust: The glue that binds a professional

learning community. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57,

59-72.

Dewey, J. (1986). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.),

John Dewey: The later works (Vol. 12, pp. 1-506). Carbondale:

Southern Illinois.

Dooner, A.-M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2007). Stages of col-

laboration and the realities of professional learning communities.

Teaching and Teacher Educatio n, 24, 564-574.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.009

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by

doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work

(2nd ed.). I n d iana: Solution Tree Press.

Falk, J. K., & Drayton, B. (Eds.). (2009). Creating and sustaining

online professional learning communities. New York: Teachers Col-

lege Press.

Foo, K. F., & Lee, H. P. (2008). Building a professional learning com-

munity in east zone through lesson study. The APERA Conference:

Educational Research for Innovation & Quality in Education: Policy

& Pedagogical Engagements across Contexts, Singapore, 26-28 No-

vember 2008.

Harris, A. (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the fourth way. Jour-

nal of Educational Change, 12, 159-171.

doi:10.1007/s10833-011-9156-z

Hoffman, P., Dahlman, A., & Zierdt, G. (2009). Professional learning

communities in partnership: A 3-year journey of action and advocacy

to bridge the achievement gap. School-University Partnerships, 3,

28-42.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,

meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cam bridge University P ress.

Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative

teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher

community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37,

109-130.

Lewis, L. A., Koston, Z., Quartley, M., & Adsit, J. (2011). Virtual

communities of practice: Bridging research and practice using web

2.0. Journal of Educ at io n al Technology S ystems, 39, 155-161.

doi:10.2190/ET.39.2.e

Little, J. W., & Veugelers, W. (2005). Big change question: Profes-

sional learning and school-network ties: Prospects for school im-

provement. Jour nal of Educational Change, 6, 277-291.

doi:10.1007/s10833-005-8254-1

Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community

affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in re-

structuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.

doi:10.1086/444197

McDermott, R., & Archibald, D. (2010). Harnessing your staff’s infor-

mal networks. Harv a rd Business Review : The Magazine. URL.

http://hbr.org/2010/03/harnessing-your-staffs-informal-networks/ar/3

MOE, (2010). Schools as professional learning communities (2nd ed.).

D. H. L. LEE, I. SHAARI

460

Singapore: MOE.

Musanti, S. I., & Lucretia, P. (2010). Collaboration and teacher devel-

opment: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navi-

gating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37, 73-89.

Nehring, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2011). The professional learning com-

munity as subversive activity: Countering the culture of conventional

schooling. Professional Development in Education, 37, 513-535.

doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.536072

Parker, M., Patton, K., Madden, M., & Sinclair, C. (2010). From com-

mittee to community: The development and maintenance of a com-

munity of practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29,

337-357.

Pella, S. (2011). A situative perspective on developing writing peda-

gogy in a teacher professional learning community. Teacher Educa-

tion Quarterly, 38, 107-125.

Raven, A. (2003). Team or community of practice alighning tasks,

structures and technologies. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.),

Virtual teams that work (pp. 292-306). San Francisco: Wiley & Sons .

Servage, L. (2008). Critical transformative practices in professional

learning communities. Teacher Educat i on Quarterly, 35, 63-77.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006).

Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Jour-

nal of Educational Change , 7, 221-258.

doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

Thang, S. M., Hall, C., Murugaiah, P., & Hazita, A. (2011). Creating

and maintaining online communities of practice in Malaysian smart

schools: Challenging realities. Educational Action Research, 19, 87-

105. doi:10.1080/09650792.2011.547724

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2007). A review of research on the

impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice

and student learning. Teaching and Te a che r Education, 24, 80- 91.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through

understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational

Research, 79, 702- 739. doi:10.3102/0034654308330970

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating com-

munities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Har-

vard Business School Press.

Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The

organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78, 139-145.

Wiley, S. D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School

leadership and professional community. Journal of Educ at i o na l C h ang e ,

2, 1-33. doi:10.1023/A:1011505709050

Wong, J. L. N. (2010). What makes a professional learning community

possible? A case study of a Mathematics department in a junior sec-

ondary school of China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 131- 139.

doi:10.1007/s12564-010-9080-6