Why Learning Is Not a Solitary Endeavor: Thinking Through Lave & Wenger's "Communities of Practice"

In the previous article, through Wittgenstein's perspective, we explored the idea that meaning does not reside in the mind, but rather in the usage of language.

The meaning of the word "understood" cannot be confirmed by looking inside one's head.

• Can you solve the problem?

• Can you explain it using a different example?

• Can you teach it to a friend?

• Can you apply it in a new situation?

• Can you paraphrase it in your own words?

It is through such usage that the meaning of "understood" becomes apparent.

In other words, knowledge is not information stored in the mind.
It is something that gains meaning by being used.

However, this raises a further question.
Where do we acquire those ways of using language?

• What does it mean to "explain" something?

• What does it mean to "think"?

• What state does "understood" refer to?

• What does it mean to be "able to do" something?

We do not know these things from the start.

In classrooms, club activities, workplaces, and laboratories, we gradually acquire the language and behaviors of that setting.

In short, ways of using language are learned within concrete settings.

So, how does a person become a member of such a setting?

To address this question, this time we will look at the ideas of Lave and Wenger.

□ Lave and Wenger: "Legitimate Peripheral Participation"

Lave and Wenger viewed learning not as an event occurring within an individual's mind, but as the process of participating in a community of practice.

They called this concept "legitimate peripheral participation."

It is a somewhat difficult term, but the concept itself is very natural.

People do not start learning as central figures from the beginning.

• Watching

• Imitating

• Taking on simple roles

• Observing the methods of seniors and experts

• Learning the language and etiquette of the setting

• Gradually deepening the level of participation

That is how one becomes a member of a community.

For example, it is easy to understand if you think about club activities. New members are not at the center of the team from the start.

• First, watch the flow of practice.

• Learn where the equipment is kept.

• Observe the movements of seniors.

• Help with setup and cleanup.

• Participate in simple practice sessions.

• Gradually learn the team's language and atmosphere.

In doing so, they learn not only techniques but also how to behave in a way that is characteristic of that club.

When to speak up. What is valued.

How do you recover when you fail?
How do you interact with seniors and peers?

What does it mean to be 'capable' in a given situation?

These are not things handed to you in a list from the start, like in a textbook.

They are things you acquire little by little while participating in that setting.

This is the essence of legitimate peripheral participation.

□ Knowledge is embedded within the community

What is important in Lave and Wenger's approach is not to place knowledge solely inside an individual's head.

Knowledge is embedded in the practices of the community.

For example, even the same word, 'explain,'
changes its meaning depending on the setting.

Explaining in mathematics.
Explaining in literature.
Explaining in club activities.
Explaining in the workplace.

The way an explanation is required differs in each case.

In mathematics, the logical path might be emphasized.
In literature, the evidence from the text might be emphasized.
In club activities, the conciseness of conveying information while moving might be emphasized.
In the workplace, conveying information so that the other person can take the next step might be emphasized.

In other words, the knowledge or skill of being 'able to explain'
does not exist in the abstract.

It holds meaning within the purpose and values of that setting.

Therefore, true learning is not simply memorizing information.It is knowing what is valued in that setting.

• What kind of questioning is considered good?

• What kind of evidence is required?

• What kind of failure becomes a learning experience?

• What kind of behavior is trusted?

• What kind of language should be used to make sense within that community?

Knowledge, including these practices, resides within the community.

□ The Classroom Is Also a Community of Practice

From the perspective of Lave and Wenger, the way we view the classroom changes.

The classroom is not a place where knowledge is distributed.
It is not a place where the teacher explains and students store that information in their heads.

The classroom is a community of practice.

Within it, there is a language unique to that classroom.

• What does it mean to 'think'?

• What does it mean to 'explain'?

• How is 'making a mistake' treated?

• What does it mean to 'listen'?

• What state does 'being able to do' refer to?

These are shared little by little within the classroom.

In other words, what the teacher is creating is not just a lesson.
They are creating a community of practice called a classroom.

□ Connecting with Vygotsky and Wittgenstein

Here, let's think about this by connecting it to previous articles.

Vygotsky believed that understanding is not born solely within an individual's mind, but rather emerges through interaction with others.

Wittgenstein believed that meaning does not exist in the mind, but rather
in the use of language.

At this point, learning expanded to include the use of language.

And Lave and Wenger believed that those ways of using language and interacting
are acquired through participation in a community of practice.

Following this progression, our view of knowledge changes significantly.

Knowledge is not something confined within a single person's mind.

It is born through interactions with others.
It gains meaning through the use of language.
It is acquired by participating in the practices of a community.

This has been the main flow of the article so far.

□ "Teaching" means creating an entrance to a community

From the perspective of Lave and Wenger, the role of the teacher also changes.

A teacher is not a transmitter of knowledge.
They are not merely someone who possesses knowledge and delivers it into the students' minds.

The teacher's role is to
create an entrance so that students can participate in a community of practice.

First, enable participation from the periphery.

Do not demand the finished form right away.
Assign simple roles.
Allow them to express their thoughts along the way.
Ensure they can recover if they fail.
Make the thinking processes of experts visible.
Guide them toward central participation little by little.

For example, in class, if you suddenly say
"Explain this," some students will find it difficult.

In that case, start by having them explain using fill-in-the-blank exercises.

Next, have them choose the rationale from options.
Next, have them explain in pairs.
Next, have them explain briefly in their own words.
Finally, have them explain using a different problem.

By designing stages of participation in this way,
students can gradually enter into the practice of that subject.

In an information technology class, instead of having them freely create programs right away,

first have them read the code.
Next, have them change a part of it.
Next, have them add conditions.
Next, have them design according to their own goals.

In this way, they can progress from peripheral participation to central participation.

A teacher is not someone who hands out answers.
They are someone who prepares scaffolding so that students can participate in that world.

And they are someone who, while gradually removing that scaffolding,
enables the students themselves to function within the practice.

□ The strengths and points of caution regarding Lave and Wenger

Adopting this perspective significantly changes the meaning of lessons and the classroom.

However, there are some points to keep in mind.

While communities generate learning, they can also confine people.

For example, what if a culture where 'making mistakes is embarrassing' develops in a classroom?

In that community, not making mistakes becomes the correct behavior.

As a result, students stop taking risks.
They become unable to say they don't understand.
They start looking only for safe answers.

Also, if a group has a culture where 'only those who can do it speak up,' students on the periphery will remain on the periphery forever.

They may appear to be participating, but in reality, they are not participating deeply.

This is a major problem.

In other words, simply having a community is not enough.

The question is what kind of community it is.

Is it a community where beginners can easily participate?
Is it a community where mistakes are treated as learning?
Is it a community where those on the periphery can move toward the center?
Is it a community where it is easy to speak up?
Is it a community where diverse ways of participating are accepted?

If you do not design for this, the community will not be a place of learning, but rather
a place that solidifies hierarchy and silence.

That is precisely why teachers need a perspective for designing communities.

□ Conclusion

A classroom is not a place to distribute knowledge.
It is also not a place to transfer the knowledge the teacher has into the students' heads.

A classroom is a place where knowledge is born.

Someone's comment advances someone else's understanding.
One person's question becomes a question for the whole class.
Through a friend's explanation, the words in the textbook begin to have meaning.
A failed way of solving a problem becomes a stepping stone to the next level of understanding.

At that moment, knowledge does not exist only inside one person's head.

It is on the blackboard.
It is in the notebooks.
It is in the conversations with friends.
It is in the teacher's follow-up questions.
It is in the atmosphere of the class.
It is in the practice shared on the spot.

That classroom has its own language, its own way of asking questions, its own way of making mistakes, and its own way of explaining. By participating in that, students gradually become members of a community of learning.

"Knowing" is not about storing correct answers in your head.
I believe it is about being able to use that knowledge to think, speak, engage, and create meaning within practice.

□ Related Articles