1. Communities of Practice: A Constructivist-Based Model of Professional Development in 4-H Science Martin H. Smith, Ed.D. Associate Specialist in Cooperative Extension University of California – Davis

2. To be effective, nonformal education programs require educators who develop a level of competency with respect to science content, process skills, and effective pedagogy. Specific to 4-H, there is a documented need for professional development of 4-H staff and volunteers regarding science education (Schmitt-McQuitty, Carlos, & Smith, in prep.; Smith, 2008). Educator Professional Development in Science

3. “…groups of people who share a concern, 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 (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4).” Theoretical underpinnings: constructivism; situated learning; and reflective practice. Communities of Practice

4. A knowledge-based social structure (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) whereby educators work toward shared learning (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003). Learning within CoPs occurs “within the context of social relationships with other members of the community who have similar, if not identical, issues and concerns from the realm of practice” (Buysse et al., 2003, p. 267). Communities of Practice

5. Communities of practice provide educators with a forum for reflection where they can address issues associated with content and pedagogy and help them recognize parallels between their learning and the learning of their target audiences (Goodnough, 2008). Communities of Practice

6. Participants co-construct knowledge through social interactions that are situated in real-world contexts (Chan & Pang, 2006). Individuals enter into CoPs on the periphery; through time, the level and complexity of their interactions increases. Referred to as legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) Communities of Practice

7. CoPs offer educators continued motivation, acknowledgment, and support of self-development efforts (Mycue 2000). Participation in CoPs often saves time later; increases participants’ confidence; and advances knowledge and skills of participants and organization (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). CoPs provide a forum to mentor novices (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Benefits of Communities of Practice

8. Looking beyond the obvious… Some of the greatest value of CoPs “lies in the intangible outcomes, such as the relationships they build among people, the sense of belonging they create, the spirit of inquiry they generate, and the professional confidence and identity they confer to their members (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 15).” Benefits of Communities of Practice

9. Shifting our perspective: Moving from the idea that mastery resides with the experts to mastery residing within the members of a CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Making a longer-term commitment to a form of open- ended professional development (Buysee, Sparkman & Wesley, 2003). Sustaining the CoP over time. Challenges of Communities of Practice

10. Domain o What topics and issues are we going to address? o Connection to the organization’s strategy? Community o Who are members? What roles will they play? o How and how often will we meet? o Community norms and ground rules? Practice o How will the CoP be proactive in taking charge of the development of its practice? (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) How to Develop a Community of Practice

11.  Some CoPs are small; some are large.  Key points to consider (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002: o A critical mass is needed to sustain interactions and provide multiple perspectives. o Groups that are too large can inhibit direct interactions among participants. < 15 = intimate. 15 – 50 = functional. > 50 = subgroups based on topics or geography. Size of Community of Practice

12.  CoPs have stages of development, proceeding from early potential through steps of growth that lead to maturation.  Key elements to consider to help ensure success (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 15): 1.Design for evolution. 2.Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives. 3.Invite different levels of participation. 4.Provide space for public and private interactions. 5.Focus on value. 6.Combine familiarity and excitement. 7.Create a rhythm. Cultivating a Community of Practice

13. Alternating meetings: California’s CoP on Evaluation will meet 1-2 weeks prior to the first Webinar on Evaluation in September, and then meet again approximately 2 weeks after each Webinar. Establish CoP ground rules, including egalitarian discussions, shared ownership and responsibility, openness to new ideas and views, honoring our commitment to the group, remaining on task. We will discuss: a) “lessons learned”; strategies for applications to county and state 4-H Science programming; questions and ideas. Rotate leadership and note-taking responsibilities. California’s Proposed Strategies

14. The types of group interactions among peers working in a CoP are essential for educator professional development (Mycue, 2001). Lambert et al. (2002) and Lesser & Storck (2001) describe how CoPs advance not only the growth of educators, but also the educational institution as a whole. “Take Aways”

15. Martin H. Smith, Ed.D. Associate Specialist in Cooperative Extension Veterinary Medicine Extension University of California – Davis Tel: 530-752-6894 E-mail: mhsmith@ucdavis.edumhsmith@ucdavis.edu Contact Information