Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among Pre-service Teachers

Chapter 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among Pre-service Teachers Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz, José Miguel Correa-Gorospe and Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz Abstract Since more and more schools of teacher education all over the world are adding on-line asynchronous discussions to their pre-teaching education requirements, education practitioners need research to gauge their potential contribution to the development of future teachers’ identity and, in particular, to the development of their shared repertoire. Ryan and Scott (Teach Teach Educ 24(6):1635–1644, 2008) already pointed out that these discussions offer opportunities for student teachers to link theory and practice, to identify discrepancies between the two, to set up problems, to uncover implicit assumptions in teaching and learning, etc. Nevertheless, we still felt the need for an assessment of these asynchronous discussions, given that they may easily become mere monologues where students uncritically repeat theories they have heard in their classes or just describe what they have seen in schools. In this chapter we analyse the discourse generated in order to ascertain the degree of interactivity and identify instances of negotiation of meaning. We propose that this particular type of interaction helps to develop a shared repertoire, one of the three characteristics of a community of practice. Keywords Pre-school and primary school teachers Teaching identity Computer-mediated communication Shared repertoire Teacher education

25.1

Introduction and Purpose Motivated both by growing accountability pressures in schools of education and critical voices that question the value of computer-mediated communication as a tool for professional growth among pre-service teachers (see Zydney et al. 2011 for A. Martínez-Arbelaiz (&) University Studies Abroad Consortium, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain e-mail: asuncion@usac.unr.edu J.M. Correa-Gorospe
E. Aberasturi-Apraiz Universidad Del País Vasco-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 J. McDonald and A. Cater-Steel (eds.), Communities of Practice, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2879-3_25 525 526 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. a review), we decided to analyse the outcomes of the forum discussions among our student teachers. After several meetings and discussions about how to approach this data, we decided to analyse the logs that resulted from the asynchronous group discussion against social theories of situated learning and Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). In our preliminary analyses of the discussions, we realized that student teachers were juggling a double identity: (1) they positioned themselves (Harré and van Langenhove 1991, 1999) as students in the on-line discussion groups, and (2) they also self-positioned as beginning teachers in the periphery of the Community of Practice in the schools where their respective practicum was taking place. These two identities corresponded to their potential membership in at least two different communities: the emerging professional community of future teachers in the forum and the actual schools where they carried out their practicum. The two types of belongings became clear in the analysis of our logs, but their natures were very different. First, it was not clear to us that the forum constituted a real or even an imagined Community of Practice (CoP). It is true that the discussion of their experiences and incidents during the practicum could be considered a joint enterprise—which they had to do through mutual engagement, and we questioned whether there was a shared repertoire being built. Although traces of the attributes of a CoP–joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire—can be found in the interactions in the on-line forum, we need more research before we can confirm that the group of students in the practicum constituted a CoP. In this chapter, we focus on the third feature of the CoP, and analyse the on-line discussions in order to see whether there was some evidence that student teachers were developing a shared repertoire. If this is the case, we can say that one of the fundamental pillars of a CoP is formed. Moreover, we can prove the value of the discussions in forging a shared set of tools to collaboratively debate and discuss concepts relevant to education. The present chapter, then, sits at a crossroads between assessing the value of the on-line discussions and their role in the building of a professional identity by pre-service teachers. Related to this professional identity, the background provided by the different CoPs that the student teachers belonged to helped us understand the meaning of the students’ contributions. 25.2 Identity, Learning and Participation in Communities of Practice The constructs of “subjectivity” (Weedon 1987, 1997) and “identity” (Bauman 2001) have made their way into practically all areas of the social sciences and are currently at the core of research that seeks to understand and account for any human behaviour. Postmodern views on identity have moved away from the traditional view of the self as a fixed or compartmentalized entity; rather it is conceptualized as being in constant evolution and going through multiple, and sometimes painful, 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 527 contradictions, emphasizing its fragmentations and gaps. Thus, Weedon proposes “a subjectivity which is precarious, contradictory and in process, constantly reconstituted in discourse each time we think or speak” (Weedon 1997, p. 32). This view of identity relies heavily on discourse, since as Bucholtz and Hall (2005) clearly formulate in their “Emergence principle”, “identity is best viewed as the emergent product rather than the pre-existing source of linguistic and other semiotic practices and therefore as fundamentally a social and cultural phenomenon” (p. 588). In other words, it is through discourse, without discarding other semiotic practices that are beyond the goals of this study, that an identity is performed. But discourse and, consequently, identity enactment take place in the context of a community, since any identity has to be recognized by others. An individual has to create an intelligible self, so that others can recognize him or her. This process is what (Bucholtz 2003, p. 408) calls “authentication”, that is, “the assertion of one’s own or another identity as genuine or credible”. Authentication occurs when the members of a given community accept the symbolic behaviour of an individual as appropriate and “real”. Similarly, Gee (2001) calls this process “recognition work”. Thus, a given identity has to be recognized though acts and discourse. This display that is necessary for identity recognition or authentication is roughly equivalent to what Wenger calls the shared repertoire, which usually consists of “routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its existence, and which have become part of its practice.” (Wenger 1998, p. 83). From this perspective, learning entails acquiring the shared repertoire and displaying it through participation in social activities. This participation shapes not only what we do but also who we are and how we interpret what we do. In this sense, learning shapes our identity (Wenger 1998, p. 227). Through a process called “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave and Wenger 1991), newcomers, those who are learning, interact with old timers within the community and gradually become more experienced in the practices that characterize the community. Lave and Wenger help us pay attention to the practices of a community, recognizing that some groupings can either limit or facilitate movement towards full participation. CoPs correspond to the different subject positions (Harré and van Langenhove 1991, 1999), performances or enactments that individuals adopt on a moment-to-moment and day-to-day basis, and indeed throughout their lifetimes. Individuals gain entry by means of the abovementioned “legitimate peripheral participation”. This peripheral participation is achieved via exposure to “mutual engagement with other members, to their actions and their negotiation of the enterprise, and to their repertoire in use” (Wenger 1998, p. 100). While identity is conditioned by social interaction and social structure, at the same time, it conditions social interaction and social structure. Thus, interaction is crucial since it is constitutive of and constituted by the social environment. This is the two-way action commonly described in the work of sociologists such as Bourdieu (1985) and Giddens (1995). 528 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. Summarizing, Lave and Wenger claim that the identity of the novice or the beginner is built through performing tasks and the subsequent reflection and automatization of the new concepts and activities. According to Wenger (1998), the sources of coherence in a CoP are mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire. The meaning of belonging to a community is negotiated in practice through participation in a dynamic that is characterized by social interaction among participants through the contribution of their competencies and personal experiences. This negotiation is a fundamental feature of identity since it involves both the creation and adoption of meaning. 25.3 CoP Theory and Teaching Identity The theory of CoP has been mainly developed through an anthropological perspective, with an examination of practices such as Yucatan midwives, native tailors, navy quartermasters, meat cutters (Lave and Wenger 1991), as well as insurance claims processors (Wenger 1998). Nevertheless, there are growing attempts to extend this framework to education in general (Barab and Duffy 2000; DePalma 2009; Gee 2005; Warriner 2010) and teacher education research in particular (Bathmaker and Avis 2005; Clarke 2009; Correa, Martínez-Arbelaiz and Gutierrez 2014; Kwan and Lopez-Real 2010; Niesz 2010; Sim 2006; Yandell and Turvey 2007; Woodgate-Jones 2012). In this body of research the situation of student teachers is discussed with analytical lenses provided by the CoP Theory and it shows that in these schools, student teachers are entitled to legitimate peripheral participation, learning in an apprenticeship fashion. Thus, they are gradually given some responsibilities in the schools, although they are not fully responsible for the students, they do not attend meetings and they follow the lesson plan the practicum instructor designs. They usually follow a trajectory from peripheral to hopefully full participation once they reach graduation. In addition to being members of the CoP of their practicum school, student teachers are also members of their classes in the School of Education, where they interact with other student teachers and their practicum supervisor. Interactions are often face-to-face through regular discussion format, but they also happen via mandatory on-line asynchronous discussions. Although some researchers (see Haneda 2006) have argued that classes can become CoPs, others, such as Hanson-Smith (2006), cast doubt on the notion by noting that classroom communities are usually too short lived and homogeneous to allow a genuine CoP to develop. Our own view is that we do not assume that simply participating in a forum discussion with other pre-service teachers leads to membership in a CoP. We believe, following Wenger, that “[m]embership is not just a matter of social category, declaring allegiance, belonging to an organization, having a title, or having personal relations with some people” (p. 74). Thus, we do not have enough evidence to assert that a CoP has formed through these interactions, but at the same time we cannot deny the idea that the existence of a CoP is possible. In this chapter 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 529 we analise the on-line discussions of student teachers in order to gauge their value in building a teaching identity. As we will discuss further, the student teachers that were doing the practicum were engaged in the teaching practices but to the eyes of the CoP of the school, they were still considered students. 25.4 Liminality and the Practicum This double membership reflects the liminality involved in being a student teacher. Although the concept of liminality has been applied to novice teachers (Pierce 2007) since they are caught in between two stages and they are in transition, we believe that this notion can also characterize the situations lived by student teachers. During their practicum they no longer act as students, but they have to start forging a new professional identity, in this case a teaching identity, for the first time (Beauchamp and Thomas 2009). The transition is gradual and as was pointed out above, they are allowed legitimate peripheral participation in the schools that act as CoPs. As opposed to novice teachers, student teachers do not have what Gee (2001) calls I-identity, since a given school of education has not yet granted them a degree, although this is obviously not enough to be considered a teacher. Applying Bucholtz’s (2003) construct to education, newly-qualified teachers still need the authentication of the CoP, in this case, the school where they start their careers. We have proposed elsewhere that the role of colleagues in student teachers’ (Correa et al. 2014) and newly qualified teachers’ (Correa et al. 2015) first encounters with the profession are crucial. Nevertheless, when we discuss the trajectory of student teachers, the roles of both the instructor in the schools (the practicum instructor) and the university professor that supervises the student teachers (the practicum supervisor) should not be underestimated. The university professor in charge of the practicum and also one of the authors of this study asked student teachers to post 600 words about an experience that was considered to be a critical incident, and the rest of the group members were required to reply to the initial posting. This pedagogical intervention is reminiscent of case-based pedagogy, which has been advocated by some teacher educators (Harrington et al. 1996; Hsu 2004). The main difference between the case-based approach and the one described here is that in both Harrington et al. and Hsu, the case studies came from a textbook or were presented by the professor. In contrast, in our project, the student teachers had to narrate an experience related to their teaching in the schools. Thus, the cases and discussion were not only relevant to the members of the group, but also highly realistic. Student teachers were given a definition of critical incidents (Flanagan 1954), in which critical incidents are those events in our professional practice that cause perplexity, doubts, surprise or that have bothered or worried us because they lack coherence or they are unexpected. Critical incidents are events from daily life that impact us or surprise us and thus trigger reflection. In the case of teachers, for 530 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. Kelchtermans (1994) a narrated event is a critical incident because that is how the teacher perceives it. Pre-service teachers’ participation in asynchronous on-line discussions has been a crucial and mandatory part of the teaching practicum in the School of Teacher Education in Donostia-San Sebastián (University of the Basque Country, Spain) since 2004. From the onset of this experience, the benefits and possibilities of these on-line discussions became apparent (Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. 2008), particularly in providing opportunities for pre-service teachers to link theory and practice, to identify discrepancies between the two, to raise problems for discussion, to uncover implicit assumptions in teaching and learning and in schools in general (Tyack and Tobin 1994), etc. Nevertheless, some critical voices (Aviv et al. 2003; Pawan et al. 2003; Ryan and Scott 2008; Zydney et al. 2011) claim that the discourse in asynchronous forums can easily turn into mere monologues, without real interaction, particularly if the instructions and tasks are not carefully designed. In those cases, students uncritically repeat theories they heard in their classes or just describe what happens in schools. Even worse, since students may feel they are in a panopticon (using Foucault’s metaphor) and observed by the teacher, they may tend to avoid certain topics or repeat the “official curriculum”. This is why we decided to look critically at the discourse student teachers produced in the forums. By analyzing the discourse we can see if there is evidence of the emergence of a shared repertoire, one of the three characteristics of a CoP. 25.5 The Problem of Meaning: Negotiation of Meaning and the Development of a Shared Repertoire According to Gee (2004), situated meanings do not simply reside in individual minds. Instead, they are negotiated between people through communicative social interaction. In the logs of the discussions among the student teachers, we want to see if there are instances of what has been called “negotiation of meaning” (Varonis and Gass 1985). In our research those would be cases where student teachers crucially co-constructed meaning regarding issues pertaining to education. These instances of negotiation of meaning were identified and codified using a fixed scheme developed by Garrison et al. (2001) and modified by Lee (2011). This schema consist of Triggering (the utterances that cause the interactive episode to develop), Exploration (where doubts, concerns or inconsistencies are expressed), Integration (when the student who uttered or wrote the critical incident discusses, expands, explains or tries to clarify or solve the misunderstanding) and Resolution (where there is an acknowledgment by any student that the episode can be considered closed). In applying this simple and intuitive coding schema to the discourse generated by student teachers, we were able to see whether there were instances of negotiation of meaning with regard to their practices in the schools. The negotiation of meaning is not only a sign that there is interaction among the forum participants, but it also indicates that they are engaging in the development of 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 531 a shared repertoire or a conceptual toolbox whose meaning they are negotiating together. This shared repertoire is the one that can facilitate further discussion and critical thinking about issues in education. Thus, the research question we want to address in this chapter is whether the discourse generated in the forums contains any evidence of the negotiation of a shared repertoire. If this were the case, we could claim that the pedagogical intervention fostered the development of thinking tools for student teachers’ participation in future professional CoPs. 25.6 Methodology In order to ascertain whether the discourse was produced collaboratively and whether it showed episodes of negotiation of meaning, we analysed the logs of three random groups in the School of Teacher Education: (1) a group of 6 students in 2007–2008, (2) a group of 5 in 2008–2009 and (3) a group of 4 in 2009–2010. The ideal number of students that should interact through a computer is hotly debated in the literature on education, and the literature usually points to the benefits of small sized groups (Hewitt and Brett 2007; Schellens and Valcke 2006), like the ones analysed here. In addition, one or two practicum supervisors participated in the discussions, although they did not act as discussion leaders. In fact, there were some discussions where they did not participate at all. The first group held its discussion in Spanish while the last two did so in Basque. The language choice was determined beforehand as part of the course description of the practicum students opted to register for. In our logs there were no language switches and the students and supervisors adhered to the language listed in the course description. All the postings of the student teachers and the instructors were collected in the form of logs, which told us the date and the name of the student who was in control of the discussion. Each week a student teacher explained a critical incident and opened the discussion, and the other student teachers were required to participate. In order to codify the discourse, we applied (Lee’s 2011) adaptation of Garrison et al.’s (2001) model. If there were doubts among the three researchers, these were discussed until we reached agreement about what constituted an instance of negotiation of meaning and what could not be considered one. 25.7 Results: Instances of Negotiation of Meaning in Student Teachers’ On-Line Discussions In what follows we reproduce verbatim the discourse that was used by the student teachers to co-construct the meaning of relevant constructs in education. We have coded the postings according to the role they have in the development of the 532 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. negotiation of meaning. In terms of their frequency, they are rather serendipitous and there were many forums in which we could not find any. However, when student teachers engaged in one of these negotiated interactions, we could actually observe the steps in the collaborative construction of the shared repertoire. We have selected four instances of negotiation of meaning which illustrate different approaches to this co-construction of meaning: in the first one, two students discuss the meaning of a commonly repeated phrase, “learning for life”, which they adopted from the lectures of a previous professor. In the second case, the initial posting triggers a cascade of questions, which the student teacher responded to and integrated one by one; not surprisingly this critical incident describes a complex situation of a child with a hearing impairment. The third case crucially discusses the behaviour of the practicum instructor, who seems to have a wonderful rapport with the children and she never forces them to do anything. Finally, the fourth case deviates a little from the previous three, since what the students negotiate is their feelings about the practicum and the anxiety that posting in this forum entails. The four cases illustrate the possibilities of the forum as a site for critical thinking and sharing emotions during this liminal stage that is a hallmark of being a student teacher. Case 1: “Aprendizaje para la vida” or learning for life A student teacher (Luisa) writes about a critical incident where a young girl receives physical abuse from a young boy on the playground. After describing the events in chronological order and sharing with the other student teachers her contradictory feelings about how to react, the student teacher remembers and brings to the forum a sentence heard from a university professor in one of their previous classes. This quote is the triggering of an instance of negotiation of meaning, since another student teacher (Amaia) interprets the university professor’s quote differently. This second student’s posting is the Exploration, where there is evidence that there has been some misunderstanding or the former message has to be negotiated so the students come to an agreement. After Amaia says that she understands “education for life” to mean something else, Luisa has to explain her understanding of the quote further. We call this phase Integration, where the source of the misunderstanding is revised by the first student, former assumptions are challenged and eventually, there is agreement. In this interaction, there is a resolution, since the student who initiated the routine also closes it by saying that the meaning of the sentence is now clear. Triggering: Luisa: Esto me dio mucho que pensar y me vino a la cabeza una frase que nos ha dicho varias veces un profesor de Universidad: “La educación obligatoria sirve para lograr aprendizaje para la vida”. This made me think a lot and a sentence repeated several times by a university professor came to mind: “Compulsory education helps lead to learning for life”. Exploration: Amaia: La escuela para aprender a manejarte en la vida, como comentabas, ¿qué significa? Que esa niña tiene que comerse ese malrato (sic) e irse acostumbrando a que la vida es así? Pues no sé, no sé si somos los maestros las personas adecuadas para dar un 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 533 abrazo, o simplemente ofrecer afecto mediante una conversación amable, hablando del tema y ofreciendo herramientas para estas situaciones. School is for learning how to handle things in daily situations, as you commented, what does it mean? That the child has to come to terms with the bad treatment and get used to the idea that life is like that? Well, I do not know if we teachers are the appropriate people to hug her or simply offer affection through a nice conversation, talking about the issue and offering tools for these situations. Integration: Luisa: Hola a tod@s! He leído los comentarios sobre lo que escribí y, al leer el comentario de Amaia me han entrado dudas sobre si había quedado claro lo que yo quería expresar. Cuando escribí que en la educación obligatoria se aprende aquello que nos va a servir para la vida, me refería a que durante esta etapa escolar se aprender a leer, a escribir, a realizar funciones matemáticas y conocimientos de cultura general, es decir, aprendizajes funcionales que luego nos servirán para la vida. No me refería para nada a que se deban permitir todo tipo de situaciones (abusos, agresiones…) en la escuela porque también nos lo vamos a encontrar en la vida. (…) Hello, everybody! I have read the comments about what I wrote and when reading Amaia’s comments I had doubts about whether what I wanted to convey was clear or not. When I wrote that in compulsory education we learn those things that are needed for life, I meant that during schooling we learn to read, to write, to do math and general cultural knowledge, that is, functional learning that is good for life. I did not mean that all types of situations (abuse, aggression…) could be allowed in the school because we are going to find them in real life (…) Resolution: Amaia: Hola Luisa, creo que has explicado perfectamente tu planteamiento… Hello, Luisa, I think you have explained your proposal clearly. This long interaction between the two members of the group shows how a coined phrase that has been repeated and taken from a former university professor without much thinking needs to be further explained in the context of the practicum. Where do we place the violence that is occurring in our schools? How should the ideal teacher react to it? Should student teachers get used to it? These are relevant questions that student teachers posit in this discussion, and in the negotiation of the meaning of the phrase “learning for life” they decide to leave aspects related to abuse or aggressions out of the definition. Case 2: The Roma child with a hearing impairment Not all negotiation of meaning occurs in a dyadic fashion. In the following case, after the first student teacher describes the critical incident, there is more than one student who needs further explanation, reformulation or clarification. The on-line nature of these discussions facilitates different negotiations of meaning at the same time. This is something that could not take place in face-to-face interaction, where floor-sharing conventions rule (Sacks et al. 1974). In this discussion, the student posted a case of a Roma child who has a serious hearing impairment and has not acquired a sign language. In addition to this, he seems to have some behaviour problems. This first posting triggers four additional messages that explore the intended meaning of the original posting. Two of those messages come from the university professor who supervises the practicum. 534 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. Triggering: Susana: El no tener lenguaje más que el labial también provoca un conflicto de intereses en el colegio ya que se le tiene muy sobrepotegido sobre todo en el aula. Aunque también provoca muchos conflictos en el comedor porque el chaval se siente agredido por ejemplo en el comedor y se pelea con todo el mundo ya sean compañeros o personal del comedor. Not having any language other than lip reading also causes a conflict of interest in the school because he is overprotected, particularly in the classroom. Although he also creates many conflicts in the lunchroom because the kid feels attacked, for example in the lunchroom and he fights with everybody, be they schoolmates or lunchroom personnel. Exploration 1: Itziar: ¿cómo se relaciona con el resto de niños de la clase? ¿han aprendido a hablarle de manera que él pueda llerles (sic) los labios? Y, ¿con otros niños sordos, que supongo que no mueven los labios como el resto? ¿Cómo comunica él sus necesidades? How does he relate to the other children in the class? have they learned to talk so he can read their lips? And, with other deaf children, who I suppose do not move their lips like the others? How does he communicate his needs? Exploration 2: Begoña (practicum supervisor): ¿Cómo se comunica la P(edagoga) T(erapeuta) con él? ¿Y la tutora? ¿Y el resto del profesorado? ¿Qué esfuerzo real de acercamiento y de implicación en crear un vínculo afectivo se lleva a cabo? ¿Qué sentido tienen las horas fuera de la clase ordinaria? ¿Y encima con contenidos alejados de su momento cognitivo? How does the E(ducational) T(herapist) communicate with him? And the tutor? And the rest of the teachers? What kind of real effort is being made to get closer and involve themselves and create an affective link? What meaning do the hours outside the regular classes have? On top of content that is far away from his cognitive situation? Exploration 3: Miren: Lo que no entiendo muy bien es que conozca tan pocos signos estando escolarizado en una escuela bilingüe, donde la lengua de signos se supone que está tan presente como la lengua oral. What I do not understand is how he knows so few signs being in a bilingual school, where sign language is supposed to be as present as oral language. Exploration 4: Miren: Y en cuanto al desarrollo cognitivo y emocional, creo que en este caso lo necesario sería darle al niño una vía de comunicación por la que pudiese expresarse y recibir la información de su entorno, favoreciendo tanto el desarrollo cognitivo como el emocional. (…) Pero lo que no tengo muy claro es cuánta repercusión tiene sobre el desarrollo cognitivo, ya no tanto la sordera como la no disposición de una lengua o sistema que posibilite la comunicación con el entorno, perdiéndose la mayor parte de lo que pasa. Regarding cognitive and emotional development, I think that it is necessary to provide this child with some communication tool so that he can express himself and receive information from his environment, thus favoring his emotional and cognitive development. But I have doubts about the impact of not only deafness but the lack of a language or communication system on his cognitive development, because he is missing the most of what is going on. At this point the student in charge of the critical incident opts to respond to each one of the explorations one after the other: 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 535 Incorporation: Susana to Practicum upervisor 2 (Begoña): En cuanto al uso o no de la lengua de signos, que no lenguaje, Begoña preguntas con quién va a poder comunicarse en el tiempo que pase alejado del entorno escolar usando la lengua de signos, pues con el resto de personas sordas con las que tarde o temprano va a terminar juntándose. Todos necesitamos relacionarnos con los demás, y por mi experiencia, te puedo decir, que las personas sordas, buscan la compañía de personas sordas, estando entre ellos, o con personas oyentes ussarías (sic) de lengua de signos, es cuando se sienten plenamente integrados, donde acceden a la información y participan realmente en una conversación, sienten que pertenecen al grupo. Regarding the use of sign language, not sign language capacity, Begoña you ask who he can communicate with during the time he is away from the school environment using sign language, well, with all the rest of the deaf people he will sooner or later meet with. We all need to engage with others and according to my experience, I can tell you that deaf people look for deaf people´s company, being among them or with hearing people who use sign language; that is when they feel totally integrated, where they can access information and really participate in conversations; they feel they belong. Incorporation Susana answers to Miren: En cuanto a la escuela, tiene que facilitar el acceso a la información y a la comunicación de las personas sordas, ¿cómo? En mi opinión (sic), contando con profesionales sordos y oyentes, técnicos/as de lengua de signos, asesores sordos e intérpretes de lengua de signos. No debemos olvidar que las nuevas tecnologías podrían ayudar mucho en el contexto escolar. La información y la formación sobre las necesidades del alumnado sordo van a ser imprescindibles para su desarrollo y autonomía. Regarding the school, it has to facilitate deaf students´ access to information and communication, but how? In my opinion, with the help of deaf and hearing professionals, experts in sign language, deaf counselors, sign language interpreters. We should not forget that new technologies can help a lot in the school context. Information and training about deaf students’ needs are going to be indispensible for their development and autonomy. Incorporation: Susana to Miren: En cuanto al desarrollo cognitivo se refiere, debemos tener en cuenta todas las cosas, todos los estímulos que nosotros recibimos por el oído, todas las cosas que aprendemos simplemente porque las oímos ellos no tienen esa posibilidad, por lo que hay que aprovechar cualquier situación cotidiana para explicar cosas, hacer que les llegue la información a través de vivencias, imágenes, explicaciones, etc. (…) Regarding cognitive development, we have to take everything into account, all the stimuli that we receive through the ear, all the things we learn just because we hear them, they do not have this possibility, that is why we should take advantage of every single daily situation to explain things, so that they get the information through experiences, images, explanations, etc. (…) Incorporation: Susana to Itziar Itziar preguntaba que como mostraba el (sic) sus necesidades, pues de una manera oral con la poca comunicación que tiene y por diferentes gestos que los han ido creando en la escuela. Itziar was asking how he shows his needs, he does it orally with the little communication he has and through different gestures that they have been developing in the school. Incorporation: Susana to Miren and also to Practicum Supervisor 2: Además en la escuela como ya dije estan dando lengua de signos pero con el vocabulario del día a día, y los niños oyentes tambien (sic) están aprendiendo diferentes palabras. La P 536 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. (edagoga) T(erapeuta) y el resto del profesorado se comunica con el (sic) a partir de la lectura labial y con la lengua de signos. In addition, as I told you, they are studying sign language in the school, but with everyday vocabulary and the hearing children are also learning different words. The E(ducational) T (herapist) and the rest of the teachers communicate with him through lip reading and sign language. Estoy de acuerdo con Miren que la lengua de signos es necesaria para que llegen (sic) a comprender en su totalidad el mensaje, y que lo que al fin y al cabo se quiere llegar a conseguir es que Ibon sepa desenvolverse de una manera normal en la sociedad. I agree with Miren that sign language is necessary so that they completely understand the message and, when all is said and done what we want is for Ibon to learn how to function normally in society. In this particularly lengthy discussion of a critical incident, the student teachers do not give closure to the multiple explorations afforded by the initial posting. In other words, we do not find a resolution. However, after the forum was closed (each one lasted a week), the student teacher continues giving detailed explorations of the case: Resolution: Susana: Hola ya se (sic) que el foro está cerrado pero es que ayer anduve liada y no saqué tiempo para contestar. Volveros a dar las gracias y contestar a Miren, los niños oyentes si saben las pautas que deben seguir con los niños sordos, se les ha ido enseñando, por otra parte dos veces al mes mas (sic) o menos recineb (sic) una clase de lengua de signos, donde los niños sordos son los principales protagonistas. Hello I know that the forum is closed but I was busy yesterday and I did not have time to answer. I want to say thanks again and answer Miren, hearing children know the guidelines they have to use with deaf children, they have been taught to, on the other hand, twice a month more or less, they receive a class in sign language, where the deaf children play the starring role. The discourse helped student teachers to face disabilities that they had never encountered before. Very often, hearing problems affect speaking abilities and in this case, since the child did not receive any early intervention, his sign language development seems very low. The situation triggers a great deal of curiosity and student teachers negotiate their understanding of children with special needs. Although we as readers of this discussion are left with a very superficial understanding of what it means to have a child with disabilities in a class, this is not surprising since no expert of inclusive education was part of it. In their research with high school teachers, Vermeulen et al. (2012) found that there could be negative beliefs and emotions among teachers in response to the inclusion of deaf and hard of hearing students. In particular, they “recommend teacher educators and school principals to create opportunities for teachers to gain positive experiences with inclusive education” (p. 181). Case 3: What does the teacher do if children do not collaborate? In the third case, the student teacher responsible for posting the critical incident writes about the rapport the practicum instructor has with the children. The student teacher describes the behaviour of this teacher in great detail and with admiration. 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 537 She observes that the practicum instructor does not have to force the children to do anything, but she convinces them that it is the best thing to do. This ideal situation where no coercion or threats are used triggers a negotiation of meaning, since another student teacher is not sure if she has properly understood the situation. In fact, this second student teacher, Sofia, casts some doubts on the techniques this ideal practicum instructor (Izaskun) uses to motivate her students. Triggering: Sara: Izaskunek ez die ezer egitera behartzen. Normalean haurrek egin beharrekoa ondo hartzen dute eta hobeto edo okerrago egin egiten, badakitelako “hala” egin behar dela. Kasua ematen bada batek ez duela lan konkretu bat egiten (gutxitan, baina gertatu da). Instructoreak zera esaten dio: “Bueno, zuk ikusi, bi aukera dituzu: bat kareta bukatu eta arratsaldean jarrita eraman etxera, edo bestea, ez egin eta arratsaldean karetarik gabe joango zara, beste laguntxo guztiak ez bezala. Zuk ikusi”. Hau da, aukerak aurkeztu, ondorioak ere, eta berak erabaki dezala. Izaskun does not force them to do anything. Normally, the kids have a good attitude and they do their tasks better or worse because they know they have to do them. In the case that someone does not want to do something (seldom, but it has happened), the instructor says: “OK, you will see, you have two options: finish the mask and take it home with you in the afternoon, or don’t do it and go home without the mask, unlike your little friends. You can choose”. That is, she presents options, consequences, and he chooses. Exploration: Sofía: Baina nire duda zera da, haur batek fitxa bat egin nahi ez duenean Izaskunek ze nolako aukerak eskaintzen dizkio? Hau da, egin edo ez egin? Edo bihar egingo duzu gaur egin ez duzuna? Edo nola? But my question is the following, if a child does not want to finish his or her assignment, what kind of options does Izaskun give? That is, do it or not do it? Or you can finish tomorrow what you have not finished today? And how? Incorporation: Sara: Haur batek fitxa egin nahi ez duenean Izaskunek zer eskaintzen dion galdetzen duzu, edo zer egiten duen. Normalean haur guztiek egiten dituzte fitxak, gustora batzuk, ez hainbeste besteek. Inoiz ez zen gertatu tematu eta fitxa egiten hasi nahi ez izatea. Gerta liteke bat asko moteltzea edo gogorik ez izatea. Orduan Izaskun motibatzen saiatzen da, edo pizten pixka bat, esanez “orain ez baduzu bukatzen hurrengo txokoan bukatu beharko duzu”, edo “zuk ikusi, gero karpeta polit-polita eta lan guztiekin txukun-txukun etxera eramaten dituztenean ez da bertan zure lana egongo eta pena izango da”, edo horrelako zerbait. (…) You are asking what Izaskun asks or does if a child does not want to do his or her assignment. Usually all the kids do their assignments, some with pleasure, others not so much. It has never happened that a child becomes stubborn and does not want to finish the task. It might happen that they are slow or they do not feel like it. Then Izaskun tries to motivate them or give them energy by saying “if you don’t finish now, you will finish it in the next room” or “you’ll see it, but when you bring home your beautiful portfolio with your neat assignments, this one won’t be there”. Resolution: Sara: Espero dut zure zalantzak argitu izana. I hope I have clarified your doubts. In this particular negotiation, the student teachers go in depth into what to do when children do not participate and the modeling of the practicum instructor becomes the main source for learning teaching techniques. In this discourse, we see the power of 538 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. observing and reflecting on the practices of the experienced teachers, which are shared and discussed collaboratively. In this fashion, a particular feature of the shared repertoire of the CoP of the school where Sara is doing her practicum, namely, how to treat uncooperative children, is shared with the group of the student teachers in the forum. We can thus see how by delving deeper into the questions that student teachers posit, the shared repertoire gets refined and its meaning is being built. Case 4: Negotiation of emotions The last case we selected and discuss shows the emotions, particularly tension and dissatisfaction that emerge from the liminal situation of the student teachers. The discussion of the critical case is abandoned, and the student teachers and the practicum supervisor discuss the strong emotions that the teaching situation generates. As we have argued elsewhere (Correa et al. 2014), the delicate and liminal position that student teachers occupy makes them very vulnerable, and in some cases, this feeling of being on the periphery in the CoP of the school makes them pay an emotional toll. Usually, their ideas and proposals are not taken seriously, as Woodgate-Jones (2012) already observed. This is why in this context it is particularly valuable that student teachers can talk to each other and share the emotional rollercoaster they experience. In the forum exchange we reproduce below, besides using some metaphors to express these emotions, such as standing before the sea, the other student teachers recognize that they all have similar feelings and they can relate to the feelings being described. We reproduce the discussion between Aintzane, Ana, who had posted a previous message, and Alicia. Aintzane: Esperientzia hau bestelakoa da: itsasoaren aurean egotea bezalakoa. Sakona, misteriotsua, erakargarria, errespetua sortzen duena, nondik joko duen ez dakizu eta horrexegatik kontzentrazio maila izugarria da. Bere pozak izugarrizko poza sortzen dizu. “Berritzaile hauek ez dute ikasgelako errealitatea ezagutzen”. “Egunerokoak, eginbeharrak definitzen ditu”. Aditutako komentario bat. Aintzane: This experience has been different, like standing before the sea. Deep, mysterious, attractive, one that brings respect, one that makes you feel lost and because of this, it requires concentration. Their satisfaction creates an incredible feeling of satisfaction inside of you. “These innovators do not know the reality of the classroom” “The daily routine and work that has to be done define it” Comments that I have heard… Aintzane to Ana: Zure animoak eta interesak hunkitu naute. Mila esker ezer baino lehen. Foroaren asunto honek antsietate apurtxo bat sorzen dit eta gaia atsegin duzula jakiteak aurrera jarraitzeko indarra eman dit. Aintzane to Ana: Your interest and support have moved me. First of all, thank you. This forum thing is making me anxious and to hear that you liked the topic has given me strength to move on. Alicia: Zuk sentitutako amorru eta ezintasun berdina sentitu dudala uste dut. I think I have felt the same anger and the anxiety that you have felt. Aintzane: Mila esker nire kontutxoak jasotzeko eta ideak gakoak identifikatzen laguntzeko. Uste dut magisteritza hasi nintzenetik ez naizela hain “taldekide” sentitu. Entzuna izana, 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 539 feed-back konstruktiboa jasotzea edo zure ideia osatuta edo buelta emanda ikustea esperientzia potentea da, oso. Thank you very much for telling me these little stories and for helping me to identify the key ideas. I think that this is the first time that I have felt “part of a group” since I started studying teacher education. Being heard, receiving constructive feedback or seeing your idea completed or changed is a very moving experience. In this last case, the value of these interactions is not to enhance the toolbox or shared repertoire that will make them gain authentication as teachers, as the first three cases showed, but their value comes from sharing emotions that, as Aintzane said, tied the group together. Her actual words cannot be more revealing: “I think that this is the first time that I have felt ‘part of a group’ since I started studying teacher education”. This shows that it is not only the sharing and co-construction of concepts, ideas or techniques regarding education that can make us part of a CoP, but also the sharing of feelings and emotions. As was mentioned earlier, these emotions are particularly salient in the confrontation with the experienced teachers or the practicum instructor in the schools, as the comments Aintzane heard at her school show. 25.8 Discussion We started this chapter by casting doubt on the value of on-line discussions in the overall professional identity-building of the teacher of the future. Besides reducing their sense of isolation while they complete their practicum, we wondered whether this discourse was helpful in terms of developing a CoP of professionals, where the shared repertoire was negotiated. By applying the model of negotiation of meaning, we have been able to document that student teachers discussed and problematized important concepts in education. Specifically, we observed how student teachers discussed among themselves what is meant by “school learning is learning for life”, what it means to have students with special needs in our classroom, how to motivate students and how to cope with the emotions that being a student teacher and not a regular teacher entails. Thus, to clarify our initial doubts, the analysis of the on-line discourse reported here has proved to be very interactive and we have observed that there are some instances of negotiation of meaning in the discussions. In addition, the presence of two practicum supervisors did not seem to induce variation in the amount of breakdowns in communication. We can conclude that this particular form of interactions is rich in terms of presenting explorations and incorporations from different members of the group at the same time, as was seen in Case 2. The practicum supervisors did not always act as an expert. In fact, in Case 2 the student teacher corrects the supervisor’s expression “lenguaje de signos” for the one commonly used in Spanish, “lengua de signos”. Through this discourse move, the student self-positions herself as the expert. Recent studies in the field of language acquisition, such as Reichert and Liebscher (2012), contend that the division 540 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. between experts and novice is “an unrealistic model for students working cooperatively to carry out activities. The display and acceptance of expertise is strongly situated in interaction.” (p. 607) In our data, the practicum supervisors not acting as experts reduced the opportunities for negotiations of meaning. However, there could be an additional explanation for the absence of negotiations initiated by the practicum supervisors. It may very well be that student teachers do not want to give an image of incompetency. Adopting Goffman’s (1959) understanding of how individuals project a self-image, it is clear that pre-service teachers will do everything they can to hide gaps in their knowledge of pedagogical theories or constructs. They are in this liminal stage where they want to be perceived as competent, and indicating that something needs to be further reformulated can be a face-threatening discourse move. The forum is clearly a public space, which means that everybody is reading what everybody says and drawing conclusions about the teaching identity of the others. Thus, misunderstandings, which could interfere with the authentication process (Bucholtz 2003), should be kept to a minimum, unless someone clearly points to the source of confusion and asks for further elaboration. In the discourse analysis presented here some explorations were made explicit, and these were usually resolved. This happened at a comfortable rate that let the interactions flow at an adequate speed. Summarizing, the interactions described and analysed here are evidence that collaborative thinking is at work. They also give evidence of the negotiation work required to construct what (Wenger 1998) named the shared repertoire, which can act as a thinking tool to reflect on their experiences in the schools. By shaping this shared repertoire, one of the ingredients of the CoP is built among the student teachers discussing in the forums. We do not want to conclude that this is enough to state that a CoP has been built, but minimally there is evidence that the student teachers are on their way to forging a professional CoP. Finally, we believe it is crucial for teacher education programs to address the feelings of frustration among the future teachers, which are reflected in the forum discourse in Case 4. We should not forget that teaching, also in teacher education, involves not only enhancing critical thinking and giving the student teachers the theoretical tools they need, but also caring for and forming relationships with them. Although the value of forums in teacher education has been convincingly shown through the analysis of the discourse with the documentation of instances of negotiation of meaning, we should acknowledge the role of the forums as a valuable venue for expressing the feelings of frustration and vulnerability that being in the periphery entails. This is an area that has been marginally addressed in this chapter, but it will undoubtedly have to be further discussed by those in charge of preparing teachers for the schools of the future, including the authors of these lines. 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 25.9 541 Concluding Thoughts Drawing on a wide range of notions coming from CoP theory, we have examined data from the on-line discussions of three groups of students while doing their teaching practicum. Following previous research (Correa et al. 2014; Yandell and Turvey 2007; Woodgate-Jones 2012), we assumed that these student teachers were in the periphery of the CoP represented by each of the schools where each student did the practicum. In addition, we questioned whether a CoP of future teachers was being forged among them with the participation of the practicum supervisor through the computer-mediated discussions. We understood that the discursive moves which are part of the negotiation of meaning are indicators that student teachers were building a shared repertoire. The model of negotiation of meaning was a useful model against which the generated discourse could be analysed. It proved to be a simple tool that allowed us to identify the development of a shared repertoire of a number of concepts regarding the field of education, such as learning for life, children with special needs, motivation, as well as how to cope with the emotions that arise during the practicum. Schools of education and professors in particular should think critically when implementing technology-based innovations, but a close analysis of the outcomes, like the one exemplified here, can give them some understanding of their role in the building of students’ professional identity. Acknowledgments The authors are members of the Elkarrikertuz Research Group (IT 563 13) and REUNI+D, The University Network for Educational Research and Innovation (http://en. reunid.eu/). This chapter is part of the research project entitled “Building the identity of pre-school and primary education teachers during initial training and the first years of work” (EDU2010-20852-C02-02, 2010–2013), funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain. We thank Wendy Baldwin for her editing help and particularly for making sure that the English translations of the student teachers’ words maintained the same register and tone. References Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bathmaker, A. M., & Avis, J. (2005). Becoming a lecturer in further education in England: The construction of professional identity and the role of communities of practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31(1), 47–62. Bauman, Z. (2001). Identity in the globalizing world. Social anthropology, 9(2), 121–129. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189. Bourdieu, P. (1985). ¿Qué significa hablar? Economía de los intercambios lingüísticos. Madrid: Akal, DL. 542 A. Martínez-Arbelaiz et al. Bucholtz, M. (2003). Sociolinguistic nostalgia and authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 398–416. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. Clarke, L. (2009). The POD model: Using communities of practice theory to conceptualise student teachers’ professional learning online. Computers and Education, 52(3), 521–529. Correa, J. M., Martínez-Arbelaiz, A., & Aberasturi-Apraiz, E. (2015). Post-modern reality shock: Beginning teachers as sojourners in communities of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 66–74. Correa, J. M., Martínez-Arbelaiz, A., & Gutierrez, L. P. (2014). Between the real school and the ideal school: Another step in building a teaching identity. Educational Review, 66(4), 447–464. DePalma, R. (2009). Leaving Alinsu: Towards a transformative community of practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(4), 353–370. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education, 25 (pp. 99–125). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning languages as a matter of learning social languages within discourses. In M. R. Howkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 13–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice. Language, power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (1995). Modernidad e identidad del yo: el yo y la sociedad en la época contemporánea. Barcelona: Península. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (4), 807–826. Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21(4), 393–407. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Harrington, H. L., Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson, L. (1996). Written case analysis and critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–37. Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1258– 1271. Hsu, S. (2004). Using case discussion on the web to develop student teacher problem solving skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 681–692. Kelchtermans, G. (1994). Biographical methods in the study of teachers’ professional development. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 93–108). London: The Falmer Press. Kwan, T., & Lopez-Real, F. (2010). Identity formation of teacher–mentors: An analysis of contrasting experiences using a Wengerian matrix framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 722–731. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 25 Communities of Practice and Negotiation of Meaning Among … 543 Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner autonomy and intercultural competence through study abroad. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 87–109. Martínez-Arbelaiz, A., Gutierrez Cuenca, L. P., Jimenez de Aberasturi, E., Correa Gorospe, J. M., & Ibañez Etxeberria, A. (2008). ICT in teacher education: Designing a practicum for reflection and inquiry. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 3341–3346). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Niesz, T. (2010). Chasms and bridges: Generativity in the space between educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 37–44. Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C.-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction amongst in-service teachers. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 119–140. Pierce, K. A. (2007). Betwixt and between: Liminality in beginning teaching. The New Educator, 3(1), 31–49. Reichert, T., & Liebscher, G. (2012). Positioning the expert: Word searches, expertise, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 599–609. Ryan, J., & Scott, A. (2008). Integrating technology into teacher education: How online discussion can be used to develop informed and critical literacy teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1635–1644. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education, 46(4), 349–370. Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences—Incorporating pre-service teachers as ‘communities of practice’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 77–83. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. Vermeulen, J. A., Denessen, E., & Knoors, H. (2012). Mainstream teachers about including deaf or hard of hearing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 174–181. Warriner, D. S. (2010). Competent performances of situated identities: Adult learners of English accessing engaged participation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 22–30. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Weedon, C. (1997). Teaching post-structuralist feminist theory in education: Student resistances. Gender and Education, 9(3), 261–269. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Woodgate-Jones, A. (2012). The student teacher and the school community of practice: An exploration of the contribution of the legitimate peripheral participant. Educational Review, 64 (2), 145–160. Yandell, J., & Turvey, A. (2007). Standards or communities of practice? Competing models of workplace learning and development. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 533–550. Zydney, J. M., de Noyelles, A., & Seo, K. J. (2011). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers and Education, 58(1), 77–87.