Communities of Practice

UConn HNS looks to capitalize on the benefits of cultivating communities of practice as a vehicle for formal professional development on UConn’s campus and alongside partners in Hartford and across the state of Connecticut.

Communities of practice are everywhere; in our workplaces, schools, and within social settings (Clayton & Cuddapah, 2011). In some we are core members and have a voice in determining the direction of the community, while in others we are on the sidelines occupying the role of the observer, taking in information with less of an active role, but still feeling influenced by our participation in the community of practice. The primary focus of community of practice as a concept is on learning as social participation, looking at participation as engagement in events and certain activities (practice) with certain people (community), but also as the process of being active participants in practices of a social community and constructing identities in relation to these communities (Wenger, 1998).

In looking at the community of practice framework, a community of practice is often defined along three dimensions; joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire (Cheng, E.C.K & Lee, J.C.K 2013; Akerson V., Cullen T., Hanson D, 2009; Wenger, 1998).

• Communities of practice are a joint enterprise, meaning that the common sense of identity and purpose is shared by group members, with the understanding of the practice being a result of a continual and collective negotiation by members (Cheng, E.C.K & Lee, J.C.K 2013; Wenger, 1998). The community of practice negotiates its meaning and relevance which are continuously regenerated by its members, this mutuality also creates accountability among members and membership.
• Mutual engagement speaks to the engagement that happens and holds members together in the creation and existence of the community of practice. Wenger (1998) explains that “practice does not exist in the abstract. It exists because people are engaged in actions whose meanings they negotiate with one another” (p. 73). The practice endures because there are invested community members who engage in action whose meaning they negotiate with one another, each member brings their own unique identity to the practice and also gains a unique identity through the process of engaging as a member in the community of practice. In bringing unique identity and experiences to the community members are able to share ideas or questions, ask questions and seek to learn new information, and admit ignorance in the pursuit of learning from others (Cheng, E.C.K & Lee, J.C.K, 2013).
• Communities of practice define themselves with some shared set norms that include routines, words, ways of doing things, artifacts and symbols, this shared repertoire tends to evolve and adapt over time and is heavily influenced by the members of the practice (Cheng, E.C.K & Lee, J.C.K, 2013; Wenger, 1998).

A community of practice is much more than the technical knowledge that it takes to get the job done. It underscores the importance of the relationships that grow over time and the community that develops around things that matter to the people within the community. They allow us to see past the more formal structures of an organization and experience the structures as they are defined by the engagement including all of the informal learning that comes along with it (Wenger, 2009). Oftentimes learning that is acquired through a community of practice is seen as informal learning (Boud and Middleton 2002; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger 1998), however Lumpe (2007) suggests that professional development programs should aim to develop learning opportunities using research-based strategies. They note that research has shown the quick-fix or one time professional development programs are ineffective ways to change practice. Rather, if we aim to develop a shared structure for learning, the Communities of Practice framework can encourage the consistent opportunity for collaboration and working together, leading to a more effective way for learners and practitioners to refine their skills (Lumpe 2007, Akerson et al 2009).

Citations: Clayton & Cuddapah, 2011; Wenger, 1998; Cheng, E.C.K & Lee, J.C.K 2013; Akerson V., Cullen T., Hanson D, 2009; Wenger, 2009; Boud and Middleton 2002; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Lumpe 2007, Akerson et al 2009; A Brief Introduction to CoPs; Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier; Seven principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice.

Critical Service Learning

Critical Service Learning informs collaborative partnerships and shared learning between community participants, partners, professional staff, and college students. Rather than engaging in service and engagement with a savior mentality, critical service learning focuses on authentic relationship building, a social change orientation, and working to redistribute power among diverse participants (Mitchell, 2008).

Citations: Mitchell, 2008; Add more when ready; What is Critical Service Learning?; Building Relationships for Critical Service Learning; Critical Information Literacy and Critical Service Learning

Social Ecological Model

The social ecological model is a framework that examines how multiple levels of influence interact to shape individual and community behaviors. It consists of five interconnected layers: the individual, interpersonal relationships, community and organizational factors, societal norms, and government policies. This model helps understand how these factors contribute to health and well-being, making it a valuable tool in public health and social science research.

Sport Based Youth Development

Husky Sport employs the conceptual and practical components of the Sport Based Youth Development (SBYD) framework to inform stakeholder teaching and learning within a campus-community partnership. Working to provide a larger system of support for youth development and youth development practitioners, SBYD outlines an avenue for positive relationship building and collaborative network development amongst diverse community members (Sherry, Karg, & O’May, 2011; Smith & Westerbeck, 2007).  With sport as an initial hook (Perkins & Noam, 2007) for shared participation in physical activity, Husky Sport programs and partnerships also engage curriculum focused on youth attainment of knowledge and application of healthy nutrition, transferable life skills, and academic enrichment.

In providing a structure for sustained engagement amongst youth participants and UConn students-volunteers, Husky Sport builds upon the power of sport to facilitate social exchanges between similar and dissimilar others, while investing in the process of developing of trust and loyalty amongst diverse participants. Once the foundations of positive relationships are in place, the integration of learning and individual development opportunities (Burnett, 2006; Sherry, 2010; Sherry & Strybosch, 2012; Tonts, 2005) can occur, often formally and informally before, during, or after structured SBYD programming (Schulenkorf et al., 2011).

The outcomes of Husky Sport’s SBYD efforts should reveal progress toward the following objectives:

• Increased self esteem/self worth as the participants gain interest, knowledge and improved their physical abilities
• Increased accountability/responsibility for self as part of a small program with considerable individual attention
• Increased connections to community/sense of belonging through working closely with mentors and peers
• Increased knowledge/acquisition of nutrition/physical activity/life skills/academic skills from the curriculum
• Application of those skills both within program and at home
• Active participation/recognizing one’s own influence on self/others through power-sharing

Citations: Bruening, Dover & Clark, 2009; Burnett, 2006; Sherry, 2010; Sherry & Strybosch, 2012; Tonts, 2005; Sherry, Karg, & O’May, 2011; Smith & Westerbeck, 2007; Perkins & Noam, 2007; Pittman, et al., 2002; Schulenkorf et al., 2011; National Institute on Out-of-School Time at Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Harvard Family Research Project After School Program Quality Assessment Categories of Standards, DC Standards for Out-of-School Time, The Community Network for Youth Development’s Youth Development Framework for Practice, Team Up For Youth’s Building Blocks for Quality Youth Sports.