Segmento al que se dirige el proyecto:

As previously outlined in Section 2.3.1, learning is situated in the social practices of a community, which Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to as a community of practice. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) define a community of practice as a self-organizing system comprising a group of people "who share the same interest, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis" (p. 4). According to Wenger (1998a) "we all belong to communities of practice" (p. 6) either at school, at work or at home, amongst other contexts. Wenger et al. (2002) state that a community functions as a social learning system "where practitioners connect to solve problems, share ideas, set standards, build tools, and develop relationships with peers and stakeholders”. Wenger (1998a) states that the focus within the community of practice is on learning and social participation, whereby the members in the community do not only engage in activities amongst each other but also become "active participants in the practices of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these communities" (p. 4). According to Wenger (1998b) communities of practice come in different forms, some

are small, some are at the core of a large group of people, and some are located in companies and organizations, amongst others.

Wenger (1998a & 2000) distinguishes communities of practice through three dimensions (see also Figure 2.1 below):

1) A joint enterprise that convenes members together in a social unit. The shared domain of interest creates the identity of the members and the members become committed to it. Members are able to construct their identity from the shared domain of interest.

2) Mutual engagement that exists between members in order to get involved in activities and discussions of the community they belong to. They have trust in each other and develop relationships that enable them to provide help to one another and share knowledge with each other. There is regular interaction that goes on in the community for them to contribute to the enterprise. The members also come to an agreement through decision making in order to respond to problems collectively. Wenger (1998) says that this involves a process of "negotiating meaning" where people try to interpret what is happening in the environment and take action in order to respond to the changes in the environment (p. 54).

3) Shared repertoire, also known as the practice developed amongst members in the community, relates to the language (words, symbols and gestures), routines, and ways of doing things, stories, tools, actions or concepts regarded as shared resources of the community of practice. Each member is aware of the practices of the community so as to contribute to its development.

Figure 2.1 shows the dimensions of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998a, p. 73)

In this research, the joint enterprise of the Seychelles Eco-School programme is to promote sustainability through Environmental Education in the daily running of the Eco-Schools.

Mutual engagement exists between the teachers, students, parents and organizations referred

to as stakeholders in the research. Some of the shared repertoire are within the six elements of school community such as leadership, management and administration of the programme, environmental teaching and learning, resource use and management through environmental projects and activities, management of physical surrounds of the school through environmental management projects and activities, to name a few (see Section 2.5 and Chapter 4 for a description).

According to Wenger (2000) the three dimensions are inter-linked. All members are accountable to the joint enterprise of the community of practice that they belong to. They interact regularly to contribute knowledge and experiences in the practices of the community (Wenger, in Illeris, 2009). Koliba and Gajda (2009) claim that in this process of social interaction members in a community do not only share knowledge but are also able to construct knowledge with the help of each other. Koliba and Gajda (ibid) add that "Communities of practice are said to exist at the intersection of intellectual and social capital - through which social networks serve as the basis of knowledge creation and transfer" (p. 100).Wenger (1998a) expresses that "what we dare consider knowledge is not just a matter of our own experiences of meaning or even our own regimes of competence. It is also a matter of the positions of our practices with respect to the broader historical, social and institutional discourses and styles" (p. 141). The community members engage in meaningful practices with access to resources within the community so as to develop their level of participation while they learn through "actions, discussions and reflections that make a difference to the communities that they value" (Wenger in Illeris, 2009, p. 215).

Participation in a community of practice therefore facilitates the process of collective learning and actions amongst community members. Community members have the opportunities to learn from each other’s experiences and also contribute in different ways in the practices of the community. As a result of the former, participation within a community of practice has some kind of educational value and provides opportunities for people to participate at different levels through the practices of the community (see Section 2.7) in pursuit of the joint enterprise of the community. This could be seen in relation to Tilbury

manipulation to a level where it a shared course of actions and to a level where stakeholders are fully engaged in decision making and the end results. White (2000) states that the primary focus of participation is not only to enable individuals to participate “… but ensuring that they participate in the right ways” (p. 154). The ‘right ways’ implies that people are engaged in meaningful participatory processes that are in their best interests and the best interests of others. This could be seen in relation to Rhanema’s (ibid) argument that participation could be strengthened, helping people to recover their inner freedom “… to learn to listen and to share, free from any fear or predefined conclusion, belief or judgement” (p. 128). Rahnema (ibid) adds that no one should be "robbed of their possibilities of relating and acting together" (p. 126), but rather given their rights and freedom to react and participate in any given situation without any form of manipulation (see also Lotz-Sisitka, 2004). Such freedom helps to empower people such as students and adults to succeed in life by using their own knowledge to solve problems and support other individuals who are also striving for a more desirable life.