There's been such a great discussion all week about the definition of CoPs that I was rather surprised that the list was so quiet today.

In finishing up week 2 in the next 24 hours of so, perhaps we could address the last question on the assignment: Tell what characteristics would deter you and/or have deterred you from continuing your involvement in a CoP. Briefly explain why these characteristics make a difference for you.

Chris Jones

Anecdote 1 : The university where I did my M.Ed in TESOL was very much into student-centered learning. Fine. We had endless classes (and some of them felt like they would never end) in which the "content" was introduced by student-led discussions. I eventually learned not to take these classes. There are some contexts in which transmission of knowledge is necessary and expected, and cannot be generated through negotiation by inexperienced learners. Plus, if leadership is going to be rotated, you have to have confidence in the leadership skills of everyone in the group, otherwise you're going to waste a lot of time. In a goal-oriented context (getting a univ degree), classes/communities/whatever need goals and they need to reach them. From your comments, I'm not sure a CoP is necessarily a good way to do this.

Anecdote 2 : In my other life, I co-founded a student theatre group. Our initial ethos was rather CoP-like, a "company of players" without hierarchy (other than a director and producer for each play), no committees, everything decided by majority vote, etc etc. This worked very well for about six months when there were 20 company members and the same two people (the 2 co-founder) were either producing or directing. However, as the company grew, it became clear that "chaos navigation" was going to tear the group apart, and I persuaded the company to create one elected leadership position (a sort of chairman). And this has worked rather nicely. Idealism should always, in my opinion, give way quickly to realism.

So, my points would be this: I would hesitate about participating in a CoP where there was something specific I wanted to attain, and I would be wary of making a commitment to a group that did not have a leader, with whom the buck could stop (as WiA does of course). I am no expert on CoPs, and have only had time to read the listserv messages, not the online papers, so please correct me if I'm way off track. Also, if someone could show me the relevance of CoPs to language learning, I might be a bit less in the dark.

Nigel

Thanks for your well-explained anecdotes about problems with CoPs.

I can think of a few reasons why I wouldn't stay in a CoP myself. The first one relates to discussion lists such as TESL-L. I've joined various lists over the past six years and dropped out of almost all of them within a short time. I either didn't have enough interest to take the time to read the messages or there were so few messages that it didn't seem worth my while. I've stayed with TESLCA-L because I still get good tips from there and can help others from time to time.

Other reasons I've dropped out is because the general level of discussion is way over my head, so I don't understand much of what's going on. I've joined techy groups about software, etc. and found it didn't help me. I suppose it was also lack of interest in getting into the software so deeply.

Something I haven't run into personally is the arrogance of other group members. If I were treated like my opinions or questions were beneath the majority of the active members, I wouldn't stay with the group.

Chris Jones

>Also, if someone could show me the relevance of CoPs to language learning, I > might be a bit less in the dark.

Hi everyone,

Before plunging into Week 3 I would like to address Nigel's question regarding relevance of CoPs to language learning. I have already posted to this list evidence (I think) of how members of our online Writing for Webheads have operated as a CoP in the past (and this is a group of language learners and teachers). I won't repeat that here.

But more practically speaking, my last few Arabic classes have been organized essentially as CoPs. I have long ago (for my own purposes) given up on the idea of traditional language courses except for absolute beginners in a language (which is when it helps to learn something of the structure of a language). The Arabic courses I have organized since then have always had just two components. One is a teacher who serves as facilitator and informant. This teacher can put aside his/her ideas of 'teaching' grammar and vocabulary. The second component is a group of students who agree that when meeting in the class they will interact purely in the target language. The teacher and students then both bring materials to the class. For example, I might record off the radio or pick up a newspaper on my way to class, or even create a web page on a topic with links to Arabic sites that we can explore in class (Arabic songs are a good example of this). With all teachers and students working to contribute in this way to the course materials, we in effect form a community of practice where all collaborate on the content of the class, scaffold each other, and have fun. Even if you want to discuss grammar, as long as you do it in the target language, that's fair game.

This has informed my teaching as well. In one class I was teaching in Oman my students had to prepare presentations in English. When they complained this was too difficult I offered to model the first presentation, only in Arabic. To prepare, I did it in my Arabic group first. Essentially we discussed the topic I was to present (just a conversation, on the UN). Did I mention I would typically record these sessions (and play the tapes back on long road trips)? From the tape, I fine tuned the vocab I would need. After I gave my presentation in class my students could hardly complain about doing the same in English.

Ok, off to read the flurry of postings while I was sleeping, and I'll work up a drum roll for Week 3 shortly (or have I missed that already).

Vance

> what characteristics would deter you
> and/or have deterred you from continuing your
> involvement in a CoP. Briefly explain why these
> characteristics make a difference for you.

I've been wondering about this because I see when people leave Webheads. I often wonder what makes them go. I guess it's like giving a presentation at a TESOL conference, that back door is revolving all the time, people coming and going, in and out. You have to assume that if they need to leave, fine, it was nice they spent a few minutes at your presentation, and there are lots of reasons they have to go. They are busy, they have other appointments, they got what they needed from you and and now feel they could best spend their limited time somewhere else. And you are focused on the audience here and now and hardly note their departure.

In the Webheads lists, several people sign on and populate our rolls for a few weeks then just as silently unsubscribe. I guess these people didn't feel they were able or wanted to integrate into our community. Or perhaps it didn't seem to meet their needs. I have joined groups which I didn't feel comfortable with because they were making too many assumptions about each other, and the topic wasn't right on target for me personally, so the bulk of emails was interpersonal and wasn't justifying what I was getting from the reading load.

The ones I hate to see go are the ones who HAVE contributed in the past, who have sent their photographs, and who have joined us in online chats, but who decide for whatever reason that it's time for them to move on. It could be a shift in personal fortune or a change in direction professionally, or as Chris pointed out, they are too far above or beneath our level of discourse. I would like to know more about why people leave under these circumstances but once they are gone it's too late to ask.

In a sense this is what Chris is asking now while you are all still with us, so if you are considering leaving, it would be interesting to know why.

I don't really expect an answer. And anyway, I'm focused on the here and now. And we're moving on to Week 3.

Vance