El hogar y la familia se complejizan: relaciones de poder por debajo de la mesa

The term community of practice is usually attributed to Lave and Wenger’s ground- breaking book on situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), although the term was simultaneously in use by Brown and Duguid who worked with Lave and Wenger

23

(Brown & Duguid, 1991), and can be traced back to work by Julian Orr (1990) and even earlier to Edward Constant (1987). Constant (1987) argued that the

combination of “practice” and “community” was the best grain size at which to

describe knowledge. Constant (1987) highlighted how knowledge was embedded in practices, and how communities of practitioners who shared practices might be the correct unit of analysis to examine knowledge. Orr (1990) discovered that work groups solved challenging problems by recounting stories of past issues to one another and by finding in the stories clues about how to resolve the issues. Brown and Duguid (1991) posited that the spread of knowledge can be described by looking at communities of people who share practices.

Subsequently, Wenger’s descriptive Communities of Practice theory advised that groups of people with shared concerns, beliefs and knowledge collaborate to

achieve an aim and better their practice (Wenger, 1998). Viewing the social theory of learning as the foundation of a CoP, learning takes place within the context of our experiences (Wenger, 1998). Wenger (1998) argued that CoPs are a central part of life, albeit that they are informal. Learning that takes place for the individual learner but also as part of a community and group comprises mutual engagement and shared practices. Sharing practices, our comprehension is further advanced and negotiated and subsequently becomes the basis of unity (Wenger, 1998).

Over time, the concept of community of practice has evolved from a descriptive one (Lave, 1987; Lave & Wenger, 1991) to a more prescriptive one (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). The prescription concept is not about making space for people to appropriate a joint enterprise, as it was in communities of practice; rather, the idea is to create or foster new groupings of people who work effectively on similar or

parallel, not joint, practices, to invent new practices. As this study focused on ICT and engineering teachers jointly appropriating mobile TEL initiatives, and not on inventing new mobile TEL practices, the descriptive concept was more appropriate. Thus, Wenger’s descriptive Communities of Practice theory is the second theory that framed this research. It is suitable for answering my primary research question, providing the basis for collaboration among participants as they sought to learn more about mobile TEL adoption and implementation.

24

Kahan (2004), Pyrko, Dorfler, and Eden (2017), and Wenger (2007) suggested identity, engagement and innovation as important reasons for the development of CoPs for improving professional practice.

Identity

CoPs have been defined as paths to “learning and knowledge sharing because they are driven through social interactions” (Kahan, 2004, p. 31). Wenger (2007) argued that human interaction was crucial for the creation of one’s identity. As these

interactions may occur anywhere and anytime, CoPs may exist wherever people meet, share knowledge, and learn to improve practice (Fitzsimmons, 2007). In today’s digital world, the concept of identity has changed (Fitzsimmons, 2007; Kahan, 2004). Consequently, interactions may occur informally during breaks at work, a field setting or virtually through social networking, blogs, and discussion forums (Kahan, 2004; Pyrko, Dorfler, & Eden, 2017; Wenger, 2007) or indeed via mobile interactions when members communicate via mobile technology such as smartphones (Kietzmann et al., 2013). As a member’s interactions increase, their social circle grows also (Kahan, 2004).

Engagement

Wenger (2007) asserts that the identity of individuals or groups is directly related to their engagement in society. Consequently, the objective of a CoP is to achieve active member engagement (Pyrko, Dorfler, & Eden, 2017). Such engagement enables individuals or groups to solve problems and communicate stories of their practice (Kahan, 2004; Wenger, 2007). The ensuing interactions generate the

identity of the engaged individuals or groups (Pyrko, Dorfler, & Eden, 2017). Wenger (2007) contended that making experiences, knowledge and therefore stories explicit is a crucial element in creating value between professionals in a CoP.

Innovation

When experiences are revealed, the resultant knowledge becomes an innate element of the community culture. Wenger (2007) believes consequently the CoP starts to value the distribution of knowledge and innovation, as members reveal their teaching practice. To facilitate this, however, engagement and communicating stories are essential as they encourage members to “act out these stories” (Wenger,

25

2007, p. 170) to improve practice. The key to engagement is “to learn what kind of community activities would allow them to engage their professional identities in the process of knowledge sharing and knowledge creation” (Kahan, 2004, p. 31). The benefits of mentoring and teacher-led CoPs during the adoption of technology initiatives was researched by Kopcha (2010). The research found that they inspired teachers to investigate new uses of technology, whilst helping them to overcome obstacles and thus it was useful for answering research questions 1.1 and 1.4. Additionally, choices on adopting the new technologies were based on both their own beliefs about technology and on how their contemporaries received the new technology (Kopcha, 2010). Thus, it was useful in answering research question 1.3. CoP theory was appropriate for answering research question 1.2, as teachers instinctively work together during teacher gatherings and professional learning groups to debate issues and resolutions.

In summary, CoP theory was appropriate for this research as it provided the basis for the collaboration among participants as they sought to learn more about mobile TEL and its adoption.

26