An examination of the construct of legitimate peripheral participation as a theoretical framework in literacy research

Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/edurev

Review

An examination of the construct of legitimate peripheral participation as a theoretical framework in literacy research Annamary L. Consalvo a, Diane L. Schallert b, *, Elric M. Elias b a b

School of Education, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA Dept. of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 12 July 2014 Received in revised form 24 June 2015 Accepted 4 July 2015 Available online 14 July 2015

This review critically examines the use in literacy research of Lave and Wenger's (1991) construct of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP), a view of learning as participation by which newcomers adopt a group's ways, moving from periphery to the center of a practice. From a search through 10 literacy-relevant journals from 1991 to the present, we purposively selected 20 pieces that relied centrally on LPP and analyzed these for ways in which practice and apprenticeship were instantiated. Regarding practice, we inquired about legitimacy and engagement; regarding apprenticeship, we asked about the deployment of experts' attention and the cost of newcomers' mistakes. Using the benefit of the 20þ years since the original publication, our critique offers six principles to evaluate researchers' use of LPP and community of practice as constructs to describe learners' experience, and summarizes how some of our 20 studies made felicitous use of the constructs and others less so. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Legitimate peripheral participation Communities of practice Conceptual review Marginality and centrality Literacy research

1. Introduction More than twenty years ago, Lave and Wenger (1991) published Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, a seminal work that described learning as the product of novices being ushered into a practice by experts who provide varying degrees and qualities of support. Their book became “a rallying point for those seeking alternatives to the cognitive account” (Billett, 2007, p. 55). Lave and Wenger used the term legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) to refer to what the newcomer, or novice, is doing while learning. Through its contribution, “(a)cquisition was replaced by participation as the key metaphor and € m, 2007, p. 43). The immediate acceptance of the theory and its meteoric ascendance as a mechanism of learning” (Engestro new approach to learning is revealed in the numbers of citations when related terms and keywords were entered into Google Scholar on June 26, 2014: legitimate peripheral participation “about 141,000”; Lave and Wenger (1991) “about 37,800.” In this same search, the original book title showed that it was cited “38,373” times and is still garnering more than 1000 citations each year across many disciplines. The concept of LPP is attractive, then, almost 25 years later, in that it appears to have been widely hospitable to descriptions of an array of learning situations, even as it may have lost some feel of originality. In the interest of bounding our review, and because we see ourselves as literacy researchers, we selected articles from a literacy tradition, one of the several disciplines that has welcomed the construct as a productive metaphor for what happens when

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.L. Consalvo), [email protected] (D.L. Schallert), [email protected] (E.M. Elias). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.07.001 1747-938X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

individuals develop such foundational skills. Its popularity in the field of literacy is underscored by the fact that citations to LPP in Google Scholar drop to “about 43,600” when literacy is added to the original search, still a large number. However, the concept fascinates us, if only because of a worry we have about the spatial metaphor at its heart, of students being on the periphery of a practice, that sits crossly with our own views of students in classrooms. It is difficult to reconcile the central societal roles ascribed to schooling and children, and educational researchers' focus on learning with the LPP model, in which experts and expertise are at the center of a “community of practice” and learners are on the periphery. When Lave and Wenger (1991) first defined legitimate peripheral participation, they immediately linked it with the concept of community of practice: The concept of community of practice underlying the notion of legitimate peripheral participation, and hence of “knowledge” and its “location” in the lived-in world, is both crucial and subtle…A community of practice is a set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice. A community of practice is an intrinsic condition for the existence of knowledge, not least because it provides the interpretive support necessary for making sense of its heritage. (p. 98) They then went on to locate participation as the crucial process of learning: Thus, participation in the cultural practice in which any knowledge exists is an epistemological principle of learning. The social structure of this practice, its power relations, and its conditions for legitimacy define possibilities for learning (i.e., for legitimate peripheral participation). (p. 98) With the advent of New Literacies studies (New London Group, 1996) come responsibilities to re-examine well-established notions of learning, communication, and practice in terms of their continued utility, given the new geographies/topographies, charted and uncharted, of 21st century literacy research. Thus, our purpose here was to consider ways in which the construct of legitimate peripheral participation has been used, and perhaps misused, by examining literacy studies that have relied centrally on LPP. Before turning to our critique of key pieces that have made use of legitimate peripheral participation as an explanatory construct, we begin by examining the theory itself a bit more closely. Lave and Wenger's (1991) LPP theory shares similarities with, and in fact derives from Vygotsky's (1978) idea of zone of proximal development. In Vygotsky's analysis, learning occurs as a result of the relationship between more and less knowledgeable individuals; in the LPP framework, the emphasis is on apprentice and master. Lave and Wenger explained that learning occurs within communities where “learning is an integral part of generative social practice in the lived-in world” (p. 35). They were careful to problematize their own terminology, pointing to the binaries their language invites: legitimate/illegitimate, peripheral/central, participation/marginalization. Moreover, they noted that relations in communities are necessarily inveigled with issues of power, thereby pointing to yet another binary e insider/outsider status. Unpacking these ideas, Davies (2005) emphasized that mere desire to join a community is not enough; novices need the sponsorship of someone with hierarchical status in order to make progress into a group's practice. Moreover, integral to their theory, Lave and Wenger (1991) separated teaching and learning from schooling, noting the paradoxical nature of schooling as a cultural institution in the West: “…the organization of schooling is predicated on claims that knowledge can be decontextualized, and yet schools as social institutions and as places of learning constitute very specific contexts” (p. 40, emphasis added). Concerns about context bring us directly to the construct of practice as it applies in LPP. Practice, when used as a verb, is both a repeated action, as one would practice reciting multiplication tables and a way of acting in the world. Practice, as a noun, is a field of endeavor and expertise that is situated in historical and lived contexts. Action, in turn, is central to Lave and Wenger's view of learning as situated, as resulting from participation. Indeed, Hanks, in his forward to Lave and Wenger's (1991) volume reflected, “if learning is about increased access to performance, then the way to maximize learning is to perform, not to talk about it” (p. 22). Here, the words perform and practice are linked, just as they are in Postill's (2010) practice theory: “Practice theory is a body of work about the work of the body” (italics original, p. 11), with explicit connections to Bourdieu's (1998) construct of doxa referring to “field specific presuppositions that …are not up for negotiation” (Postill, p. 8) and that become invisible through such assumptions. Together with habitus (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), these constructs articulate ways in which practitioners (of a given practice) take up field-specific identities and enact them in the world. Having described our purpose and introduced the key constructs of Lave and Wenger's (1991) views, we next turn to other extensions and critiques of the construct of LPP.

2. A review of other critiques of LPP as theory We are certainly not the first to offer critique of LPP (Boylan, 2010; Fuller, Hodkinson, Hodkinson, & Unwin, 2005; Hughes, Jewson, & Unwin, 2007; Petrone, 2010; Rogers & Fuller, 2007; Roth & Lee, 2006), as others have provided useful nuances to the construct. We are encouraged by Hughes' (2007) pointing to the need for ongoing dialog about LPP and his admonition that educators and others not replace “a one-sided view with another, equally one-sided version: from one in which formal education in schools is privileged as the guiding metaphor for learning to another in which the same is true of apprenticeship” (p. 39). Responding to his invitation for continued consideration of LPP, we drew upon conceptual papers and empirical

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

3

studies that have criticized the construct to shape our own understanding of its utility as well as limitations when used in literacy studies. We see three main avenues of critiques. First, a critique has been made along the lines of the complexities of power that exist in communities of practice. For example, Fuller et al. (2005) investigated the utility of LPP in describing modern workplace settings. Having lauded Lave and Wenger's (1991) holistic, relational, and ecological approach, Fuller et al. introduced as paradoxical that the construct seems to echo aspects of a transmission model of education because of its focus on newcomers mastering a practice, as if such a practice is a singular endpoint or “center.” The authors cautioned that this mechanistic cast of LPP can lead to an overly simplified view of workplaces as learning environments with little distinction between whether one is talking about the tailors or midwives in Lave and Wenger, or individuals and groups functioning in complex ways in technologically-oriented business campuses that represent “more dynamic settings, where power relations and inequalities are more explicitly addressed” (p. 53). Focusing on case studies of U.K. steelworkers, Fuller et al. concluded that oldtimers, or those considered experts in a particular context, continue to learn; that newcomers, or those new to a practice, have information and skills to impart as much as do senior members of a practice; that structured courses can be a form of LPP especially when embedded in the actual practice; that newcomers draw identity from a community and also infuse their new community with elements of their own identities; and, that power is always in play and affects how resources, including opportunities to learn, are ra€m (2007) lamented that in neither the original work nor Wenger's (1998) further development of the notion tioned. Engestro were there “discussions on the conditions of implementing communities of practice in highly rationalized hierarchical massproduction organizations, or in settings driven by financialization, outsourcing and fragmentation of work, or in various networks, partnerships and strategic alliances” (p. 43). Rogers and Fuller (2007) added that some of a group's resources may be distributed in ways that “privilege some people…more so than others and can serve just or unjust ends” (p. 80), and that communities of practice are often sites of tension where “conflicting goals, aspirations, and histories of participation” (p. 80) may lie. Thus, applications of LPP have tended to underplay issues of power, overlooking the complexities of practice-based groups where learning may not always be easy and where competition, withholding, and unequal distribution may hamper learning. If the construct of LPP is fraught with infelicities when applied to workplace learning, it may be even more of a bad fit when used to explain learning in formal schooling contexts. This second line of critique is exemplified by the work of Boylan (2010) who contended that LPP has limited utility when talking about classrooms, particularly those that focus on “the transmission of facts or procedures” (p. 69). He saw the construct as useful when identifying the shortcomings of classrooms or “formal” settings when contrasted to workplace settings or “informal” contexts like the U.K. steelworkers of Fuller et al. (2005), or the tailors and midwives in Lave and Wenger's (1991) work. Noting that Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 117) remarked that “everyone's participation is legitimately peripheral in some respect,” Boylan (2010) expressed two understandings of LPP. First is the binary that its language implies, that LPP is “an antithesis of full participation” (p. 63). Second is that all participants are actually positioned in “peripherality to the practice” (p. 63). Arguing for a more complex way of conceptualizing LPP, he proposed an “ecological metaphor” to describe practice as it “offers a moving centre” (p. 68). Boylan indicated that from the point of view of the practice itself, Lave and Wenger (1991) had underemphasized the ongoing learning of those considered experts in the practice. Indeed, Lave and Wenger recognized this aspect of LPP when they described the necessary freshness that newcomers bring with their “constructively naïve perspectives and questions” (p. 117). Thus, the participation of all is peripheral to the practice, or to what Lave and Wenger called the “future of a changing community” (p. 117). A third line of critique has been offered, perhaps in a more subtle way, by describing how learning occurs in cultural spaces with different configurations of individuals learning from and with each other. Thus, others have offered alternative constructs to that of community of practice, such as affinity spaces (Gee, 2005), collectivity-of-practice and knowledge collectivities (Lindkvist, 2005), and knowledge communities (Earl, 2001). In understanding how groupings form around particular areas of knowledge, Earl (2001) developed a taxonomy of knowledge management that identified the different kinds of work groupings within “technocratic, economic, and behavioral” frameworks (p. 217). Lindkvist (2005) used the idea of collectivityof-practice to refer to a process by which “project groups within firms…engage in swift socialization and carry out a prespecified task within set limits as to time and costs” (p. 1190). Often online, these convergences, like Earl's varied groupings, are commerce-generated and temporary. In Gee's (2005) affinity spaces, individuals come together because of their interest in the task at hand, and participation is frequently temporary, with experts and novices equally welcomed for their input, expertise, questions, and attempts to improve the object of interest. Affinity spaces, as the name suggests, have to do with individuals' preferences and interests and thus, may be at odds with traditional forms of schooling. The idea has, more recently, been extended by Gee and Hayes (2011) into the concept of passionate affinity spaces. They offered several criteria as essential for the “right conditions…in which people engage in passionate affinity-based learning” (p. 70) in virtual and material spaces, with the following most relevant to our consideration of LPP: individuals are recognized as belonging because they share in an endeavor, not because of their credentials; all participants are welcomed as makers and producers, not just as consumers and listeners; leadership shifts, and teaching and learning relationships are flexible; knowledge resources are distributed among the participants; and such spaces take in newcomers easily. From these examples, it appears that variations in how to view learning from participation continue to multiply. Recalling Gee's use of the term spaces, our own critique of the construct of LPP focused on the spatial connotations it implies. Although the construct has particularly excited educators and classroom practitioners, it seemed surprising, and troublesome to us, to think of students in a classroom as peripheral to the purpose of the classroom. Billett (2007) noted that

4

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

since LPP has been taken up with such gusto by literacy researchers, the communal aspect of these studies has been foregrounded somewhat uncritically. As Alexander, Schallert, and Reynolds (2009) argued, a topographical look at learning can yield a useful multidimensional understanding of the forces acting on learners. Echoing Boylan's (2010) ecological metaphor of practice as a moving center, we wanted to consider the spatial aspect implied by calling students peripheral participants. 3. The current project Our project focused on an examination of published studies from the past 20þ years, with an eye to exploring the ways that legitimate peripheral participation has (and has not) been helpful in elucidating research findings. In contrast to the reports mentioned above that took up and critiqued the construct, we analyzed several studies that had more unproblematically incorporated Lave and Wenger's (1991) model of learning in explaining the literacy processes of learners in several different situations. For each of these, we examined how centrality and peripherality of participants' learning experiences was addressed, and the ways in which LPP was or was not a felicitous conceptual tool in explaining findings and implications. Three questions formed the overarching analytic framework. Because establishing whether researchers had or had not clearly conceptualized the field of their study as a practice, we asked first, What was the practice into which the learners/participants were supposed to be apprenticing? Second, because a portrayal of learners as apprentices entails seeing them as making authentic contributions to a focal practice, it seemed important to examine each study for the role that learners played by asking how legitimate was their participation in the practice at hand? And, finally, because we were particularly interested in how our authors had addressed the peripherality idea from LPP, we asked, how did the author(s) spatialize the notions of legitimacy, learners, and participation? 3.1. General approach In its methodology, our project is a type of literature review. Rather than involving a meta-analysis in which empirical effects are aggregated across studies and effect sizes re-calculated, ours is closer to what Kennedy (2007; see also Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009) called a conceptual review, one that provides a conceptual, and usually critical, description and analysis of published works associated with a phenomenon, in order to develop understanding and offer the field a new organizational framework or perspective. Our general approach was to examine systematically the literacy literature to determine how the construct of LPP had been researched, critically evaluating how well the researchers had made use of the construct, with all its affordances and constraints, to explain their data. 3.2. Locating the key pieces In order to identify key studies for our analysis, we searched ten peer-reviewed journals in which scholarly pieces related to the field of literacy are typically reported: Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Literacy Research, Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Research in the Teaching of English, College Composition and Communication, Journal of Educational Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Teaching and Teacher Education, and the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. Although this list of journals is not exhaustive, we believe that it fairly represents the general literacy field trends. The first five are clearly outlets for literacy research. The next three are broader venues for educational research that often publish substantive reports of literacy studies. For example, we selected the Journal of the Learning Sciences to reflect the work of educational researchers. Because literacy researchers are often involved in the preparation of future teachers of literacy, the field has been interested and involved in research on teacher preparation, hence, the selection of the last two journals. Even though other journals might have yielded interesting candidate treatments of LPP, we elected to inscribe our review around a consistent lens, that of a selection of high-level, peer-reviewed journals that primarily or frequently report literacy studies. For each journal, we first identified all articles that cited Lave and Wenger and used the constructs of LPP and community of practice through a combination of online and hand searches. We saw immediately that many of these citations were brief mentions or mere parenthetical citations, and thus not useful for our analysis. We therefore developed a rating scale to help us identify key pieces that would be useful for our analysis. On the 5-point scale, a “1” was assigned to articles that cited Lave and Wenger but did not mention either of our key constructs; a “2” to articles that mentioned LPP once or twice but made no substantial use of the construct; a “3” to articles that included the construct of LPP to some minor degree; a “4” to articles that made central use of some other construct but used LPP as an important part of the explanation; a “5” to articles that made central use of LPP, mentioning community of practice repeatedly. For all subsequent analyses, we used only articles that had received a “4” or a “5,” choosing 20 that relied robustly on the constructs of LPP and community of practice, and that addressed literacy-related issues, as defined in current usage, including such aspects as discipline-specific communication practices. These pieces, 20 in all, represented a variety of uses of the constructs, different contexts, and publication time since Lave and Wenger's original publication. For ease of navigability, we grouped the 20 into four domains: (1) preservice education and new teacher development, (2) reading and writing in the classroom, (3) New Literacies, and (4) learning theory development.

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

5

3.3. Analytical approach The 20 pieces in our final set were examined for the degree to which the constructs of LPP and community of practice were well suited to the data presented and resonated with results as described by each article's authors. Using as our methodological guide the qualitative research methods described by Corbin and Strauss (2008), an interpretivist stance (Merriam, 2009), and descriptions of content analysis (Krippendorf, 2013), we then returned to the articles and coded them according to a loosely structured heuristic that we had generated from our understanding of the constructs and our original research questions about the utility of the construct of LPP in explaining how learners in classroom settings appropriate new knowledge and skills. These categories and criteria are presented as a list of analytic questions/themes in Table 1, divided into two overarching categories, practice (what practice were the learners learning and to what degree were learners legitimately included in the practice) and apprenticeship (the relationship of experts to learners and of learners to the practice). In the discussion, we present a third layer of analysis in which we turned our analytic questions into statements of principles about LPP and its use in research, and we then added the result of this evaluation into our summary tables, using plus and minus symbols, to show the degree to which each study met the principles. As we evaluated each article with these analytic questions, we used our author team with which to consider carefully each article's characteristics, establishing consensus as a form of reliability. 4. Findings We present the results of examining each article domain by domain, addressing how each illustrated the themes from our analytic grid associated with LPP and communities of practice. Last, we end each domain with a critique of one or two representative studies' adoption of LPP. Note that each table lists our evaluation of how each study answered the analytic questions we had constructed from our analysis of the key literature on LPP and community of practice. The rows with pluses and minuses are relevant to principles we derived from our summative evaluation and will be taken up in our discussion section. 4.1. Preservice education and new teacher development In this first category, we located five studies focused on the literacies and multiliteracies of preservice and new teacher development, in which LPP figured prominently (see Table 2). 4.1.1. Practice-related questions The five studies ranged from new teachers of basic literacy and numeracy to prisoners in the United Kingdom (Bhatti, 2010); first-year U.S. teachers participating in a 4th, 5th, and 6th grade teacher study group led by a university teacher educator of literacy (Lambson, 2010); experienced teachers updating their multiliteracies of design technology (Stein, McRobbie, & Ginns, 2002); a novice, in the midst of student teaching, and how she was progressively mentored into the practices of literacy teaching (Mosenthal, 1996); and a group of teachers who aimed to undertake, conduct, and share classroom research as part of professional development of the teaching of writing (O'Donnell-Allen, 2001). In response to the question of to what degree were learners legitimately engaged in the community that they were joining, again the five studies we analyzed showed some variance. For example, in Lambson's (2010) study of first-year teachers undertaking departmentally required professional development, the new teachers seemed at first reluctant to contribute, but as time passed, their input increased, but not consistently. By contrast, Mosenthal's (1996) student-teacher started her semester functioning like an educational aide, but steadily gained and practiced literacy teacher skills with the twin supports of her mentor teacher and her university supervisor. Her participation was legitimate, as she was a valued and contributing member of the work of the classroom. Bhatti's (2010) new teachers of prisoners were legitimately contributing to the practice they sought to join in that these new teachers actually taught while oldtimers (experienced and practicing teachers of prisoners at the same institution) gave them useful advice. Thus, these learners were fully engaged as teachers and part of a

Table 1 Analytic grid. Analytic questions/themes Related to the construct of practice 1. What was the practice that the learners/participants were supposed to be apprenticing into? 2. To what degree were learners legitimately engaged in the community they were joining? 3. To what degree were learners immersed and engaged in what they were learning? Related to the construct of apprenticeship 4. What was the proportion of learners to experts? 5. How was the attention of experts deployed? Did experts regard learners as conversational partners? Or did the experts prefer to communicate mostly with other experts? 6. In terms of the cost of mistakes, did the “community” employ an apprenticeship model in which peripheral participants handle the valuable products created by the practice? Or, did learners seldom control the actual products of a practice?

Article 1

Article 2

6

Table 2 Analytic questions applied to studies on preservice and new teacher education.

Related to practice 1. What was the practice that the learners were supposed to be apprenticing into?

3. To what degree were learners immersed and engaged in what they were learning? Related to apprenticeship 4. What was the proportion of learners to experts?

5. How was the attention of experts deployed? Did experts regard learners as conversational partners? Or did they prefer other experts?

6. In terms of the cost of mistakes, did the “community” employ an apprenticeship model in which newcomers handle the valuable products created by the practice?

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

TTE Lambson, 2010  New teachers joined a mandatory teacher study group þ/  Participation expected as part of their jobs as teachers

TTE Bhatti, 2010  How to be prisoners

of

TTE Stein et al., 2002  New methods for design and technology instruction

JLR Mosenthal, 1996  How to be a literacy teacher

RTE O'Donnell-Allen, 2001  How to be a community of action researchers

þ  New teachers taught while oldtimers gave them useful advice

  No group of experts, nor a clear community of practice to join.

þ  Student teacher took increased responsibility while expert present

þ/  No group of experts, nor a clear community of practice to join

þ  New teachers were participating with varying degrees of engagement þ

þ  New teachers were in the midst of actual teaching and needed help þ

  Teacher-learners tried to use a new curriculum

þ  Student teacher enacted many practices of a literacy teacher þ

 Participants expressed varying degrees of engagement and tensions e

 Eight experts to three novices

 Four new teachers; expert n not identified

 One learner and two experts; teacher and supervisor

þ  Experts spoke to everyone, including novices

þ  Experts spoke to each other and to new teachers

 One researcher-facilitator; seven teachers at varying career stages   Occasional interactions with university professors (other than the researcher), on an as-needed basis

þ  Product of study group e learning to be a better teacher. Despite their diffidence, learners could participate

þ  Real teaching, real students

þ

þ

teachers

þ  One researcher, three teachers, full classes of students (n unspecified).   Teachers reflected mostly to themselves and the researcher about their own performance and regarded students in a traditional sense þ  Teachers directly handled their own performance; students handled their own technology. Not an apprenticeship model þ/

on

þ  Teacher held many conversations with student teacher; supervisor held two conversations.

þ  Student teacher handled the actual “product” of the classroom, student learning

þ  Some participants handled their own classroom research projects; but cohesion of the group itself was the focus of the study

þ

þ/

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

2. To what degree were learners legitimately engaged in the community that they were joining?

Journal Author Year

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

7

larger corps, or community of practice, of teachers. By contrast, teachers in Stein et al. (2002) were experimenting with a curriculum that parroted scientific action. The students played at designing technology (a “pizza-making machine”) on paper for a single three-hour stretch. There was no group of experts, nor a clear community of practice for the teachers to join, so that they could then, more legitimately engage their students. In O'Donnell-Allen's (2001) study, practicing teachers came together as a study group with a goal of creating a community of practice of teacher inquiry. Although the group as a whole seemed to move toward their goal, refining it along the way, they did not seem to be joining a group of experts. As a third analytic question, we asked of our studies to what degree were the participants immersed and engaged in the practice of the community, fully aware of what others were doing, even if, as learners, they remained on the periphery. Another way that this analysis took form was to judge the degree to which the participants in these studies were taking on the roles of the practice, “playing for real” rather than perfunctorily going through the motions. Except for O'Donnell-Allen's (2001) study of a group of present and former teachers attempting to lay the groundwork for a supportive community of teacher researchers where there had been none before, the participants in these studies of preservice and new teacher development were generally fully engaged and took up the roles they were offered as they played at the practice. We found it interesting that in two of these studies, Stein et al. (2002) and O'Donnell-Allen (2001), there were no established communities of practice to join, nor were there established experts to which the novices could look up. By contrast, for Bhatti's (2010) new teachers of prisoners and Mosenthal's (1996) student teacher, the engagement in the actual practice, surrounded by a community of practitioners, seemed real. 4.1.2. Apprenticeship-related questions The second set of analytic questions all dealt with the degree to which learners in a community or in a practice, were included by more expert individuals in what was the focus of the practice. Again, our five studies ranged in the proportion of learner to expert in each community, from a proportion of one-to-one for the student-teacher of literacy in Mosenthal (1996), and eight experts to three new teachers in Lambson (2010), similar to the four new teachers in Bhatti (2010). For our second analytic question in this apprenticeship-related category, we examined how the attention of expert(s) in a community was deployed. We saw the fact that experts in a group might speak to each other as a sign that they were focused as much on producing something, on accomplishing some end, as on introducing newcomers to what the practice entails. In fact, in some of Lave and Wenger's (1991) examples of communities of practice, learning occurred often simply as a result of newcomers overhearing experts discuss the matter at hand. The five studies in this category seemed to have experts speaking to learners and to each other almost equally. Thus, the tendency was for most of the talk to include all present, learners and mentors, rather than being restricted to talk among experts. Lastly, regarding the cost of mistakes and whether learners were allowed to handle the valuable products of a practice, Bhatti's (2010) new teachers of prisoners did actually teach the prisoners even as they also garnered helpful insights from insiders as did Mosenthal's (1996) student-teacher. However, Lambson's (2010) first year teachers appeared fearful of making mistakes in front of experienced colleagues and only infrequently risked loss of face. 4.1.3. Critical examination In this section, we take up for critical examination two of the studies, Lambson (2010) and Bhatti (2010), focusing on suggestions for reconceptualizing the original theoretical framework of each. First, electing to sidestep the composition, size, and attendance patterns of the study groups, and instead focusing on utterances that represented the questions asked by the new teachers, Lambson identified early group meetings as showing evidence of peripherality, or to put it in visual terms, of marginality. Then, one mid-year meeting was portrayed as the watershed moment e with similar results not occurring in subsequent meetings. The portrayal of participants as legitimately participating in a community of practice seemed opaque to us. A different analysis using, for example, Bakhtin's (1982) lenses of authoritative and internally persuasive discourse, and/or centrifugal and centripetal discursive forces might have explicated the disruptive pressures identified by the new teachers that seemed to silence them. Bhatti's site does reflect a community of practice. Although her writing does justice to the extraordinary circumstances in which the teachers of prisoners were rendering service, and explains much of what she observed in a nuanced and sensitive manner, we offer that somehow the ideas of caring and learning were merged in the analysis. In spatial terms, the teachers' caring for marginalized persons put the longtime teachers at the center of the practice of teaching prisoners, but relegated them to an inferior status in the larger corps of teachers in the greater society. Perhaps Noddings' (2003) theory of care may have afforded a more precise explanation of teacherestudent interactions, permitting Bhatti to focus her community of practice/LPP discussion to the place where it fit most felicitously, the informal in-house mentoring of the newcomers by oldtimer teachers of prisoners. Another possible construct might come from Cook-Sather's (2006, p. 110) reconceptualization of Turner's (c.f., 1974, 1995/1969) theory of liminality as a “betwixt and between” state that offers figurative and literal spaces to initiands (e.g., preservice or new teachers), providing them opportunities for the “contemplation of mysteries and reversal of hierarchies” (p. 110). Perhaps this theory can stand as an example of frameworks that could better elucidate subtle shifts in identity and space. 4.2. Reading and writing in the classroom In this category (see Table 3), classroom studies of literacy practices and processes being taught/learned, we located six studies that used the constructs of community of practice and LPP.

Table 3 Analytic questions applied to studies on reading and writing development.

Related to practice

Journal Author Year Journal Author Year Journal Author Year Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

CCC Brent, 2005

TTE Pane, 2010

JAAL Nussbaum, 2002  How to develop “critical discourse” skills for the purpose of constructing an argument þ/  Teacher was the “expert”, no expert group of arguers, nor of city planners  Language minority students mentored into community of language majority students þ/  Students, both language minority and majority, were immersed in the experience of argumentation in class discussion. þ

RTE Rowe, 2008

RTE Dong, 1996

JLS O'Neill, 2001

1. What was the  Conduct content  How to be active  How to write as a  How to research  Classroom newspaper writing scientist and write earth writers who write area research in practice the science academic for real purposes first year writing learners were research and precourses supposed to be tend “publication” apprenticing into?

 þ þ þ/ þ/ 2. To what degree  First-year stu-  Children wit-  They were actual  Teams had “tele-  Students were fully mentors” (scienwere learners dents looked at scientists working engaged in the nessed authentic tists or graduate legitimately the classes as in labs, on proclassroom activity workplace writing students) via email. engaged in the reasonably helpful jects as doctoral and production of tasks These scientists community that research classes;  Children students the class coimparted domain they were joining? but assignments authored notes newspaper knowledge, and were regular class and stories with adults. worked to help projects to do and students think like get done with scientists

e þ þ þ/ þ were were  Writing was very  All three doctoral  Students were fully  Students 3. To what degree  Students immersed in proengaged in the students were real for these twodoing research but were learners ducing classroom practice of doing engaged and year olds; they not for the “real” immersed and news-papers to the science, and were immersed wrote notes to research of the engaged in what degree they were mentored by “real” each other as faculty. Faculty, they are learning? able professionals and they'd seen adults not students, were scientists do passionate and driven  Related to apprenticeship 4. What was the  Four classes of students (First proportion of Year Seminar) learners to with one profesexperts? sor in each; professors and students met oneon-one þ/ 5. How was the  Professors attempted to attention of exengage students perts deployed? as conversational Did experts regard partners as part of learners as the effort to conversational mentor them into partners? Or did their content the experts prefer practices' CoPs to communicate mostly with other experts?

þ

þ

þ

þ

 The study involved  Teacher and one  Two teachers; 67 students: classroom of stuone teacher, 61 focus was on dents. No n students (divided four cases: Two available. into teams of two language maor three). jority and two  One “telementor” language per team. minority þ/  þ/ “critical addressed  Re:  Experts mostly  Not discussion directly. Implied is addressed students skills,” there tendency for exand vice versa. were no real perts (i.e., the Telementors edited experts. teacher; skillful or their language, to oldtimer students)  Re: “language make it compremajority disto converse with hendible to stucussion skills,” one another with dents, but their the two experts the common goal attention was on spoke directly of producing the students, not the to the learners, paper teacher. saw them as partners e þ/ þ þ/ þ þ/ valuable  Dissertations or  Ultimately, these  Cost of mistakes  Re: 6. In terms of the  Learners or ap-  Actual “critical papers weren't articles were real products of the prentices are not cost of mistakes, discussion are real in that the going to be pubproducts of the practice were handling prodid the “commuskills,” there class newspaper lished in an actual practice writings e valufessors' research, nity” employ an was no product was a shared projscientific journal. able and lowwhat would be apprenticeship handled more ect with public  Costs had to do stakes. Each the actual prodmodel in which by experts. presence and purperson (big or ucts; mismatch of newcomers pose. So mistakes  Re: “language with team cohesmall) was doing expectations of handle the valumajority reflect on whole sion, grades, and his/her own “masters” and able products discuss skills”: group of students, one-to-one writing for own “apprentices” created by the the two lang. teacher, school. interactions. purposes practice? minority students did come to use language majority talk.  þ þ  þ þ/  Researcher and  One-to-one or as mentee/mentor two preschool (dissertation teachers and 18 advisor/student) two-year olds  Children at writing table often had 1:1 with the adults þ/ þ  Experts spoke to  One expert gave little attention; the children, and another expert did think-alouds gave a moderate for their own amount of attenwriting in the tion to student, presence of the and the third children mentor gave a lot, by comparison.

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

9

4.2.1. Practice-related questions The six studies included some rather diverse contexts and foci of what was being learned: from two-year-olds learning what it meant to write for authentic purposes by observing, imitating, and being guided by the adults around them (Rowe, 2008) to graduate students learning how to write like scientists for their dissertations (Dong,1996). In response to the question of to what degree were learners legitimately engaged in the new practice community, again the six studies showed some variance. For example, in Brent's (2005) study of first-year writing classes, the professors were invested in creating a mentor/mentee relationship, a vision that infused their interactions at every level. However, for the most part, students were unreceptive/unable to engage on the level envisioned by their teachers. Instead, the students looked at the classes as reasonably helpful research classes, and at the projects as regular class projects that needed to be done and over with. The work of the students was not “real” in the research community. By contrast, the students in Pane (2010) were creating a class newspaper that they then shared with the rest of the school and the community. Their participation was a legitimate experience of producing something that would be shared with a broader audience, and not simply their teacher as grader. Students were fully engaged in classroom activities and in the production of the class newspaper, but not in the community of journalists. In Dong's (1996) study, “dissertating” students were actual scientists working in labs and on projects, and thus, their participation in the community of scientists was legitimate, though some more positive than others. For example, Sam's supervisor did not offer him experience in an ongoing project, largely ignoring him, whereas Helen's supervisor held regular and helpful conferences about her progress and writing. As a result, Sam experienced more isolation, error, and time lost. Still, they were participating legitimately in the community of scientists that they sought to join as full-fledged members. In O'Neill's (2001) research, high school students' participation in the community of earth scientists was legitimate. Teams of high schoolers corresponded via email with “telementors” who were actual, practicing scientists e graduate students or professionals in the earth sciences. These scientists answered questions about domain knowledge, but also actively encouraged their young mentees to “think like scientists think” (p. 236). As the high schoolers worked on a quasi-professional paper, the very process of “doing science” was being modeled by insiders or “oldtimers.” If the community of practice is thought of as people who know how to practice science, then the learners were legitimately engaged. If the community is thought of as people who have actually published scientific research, the engagement was, perhaps, less legitimate. Less clearly engaged in a community of practice were the participants in Nussbaum's (2002) study who were learning how to construct and deploy arguments. There was no expert group that one could identify as a community of practice. Yet, it can be argued that language minority students' participation into a language majority classroom's practice constituted legitimate participation in the new language community. For our third question, we evaluated the degree to which study participants were immersed in a community's practice, fully aware of what others, especially mentors, were doing. Except for Brent's (2005) study of freshmen taking first-year writing classes, the participants in these studies of reading and writing development were generally fully engaged and took up the roles they were offered as they played at the practice. Even in Nussbaum's (2002) study of how sixth grade students were learning to think critically and to lay out a persuasive argument, there was a sense of commitment to wanting to be heard. This was especially true for the language minority students in the class, as they were being scaffolded into the ways of using language like the language-majority students managed. By contrast, Brent's (2005) study offers a cautionary tale about the construct of mentoring in the context of classroom instruction: are the mentees truly looking for membership in the mentors' professional community, or, because of the complex and institutional nature of school, are they simply looking to get a grade and move on? 4.2.2. Apprenticeship-related questions The second set of analytic questions dealt with the degree to which the experts included learners in the practice. Again, our six studies ranged in the proportion of learner to expert in each community, from a one-on-one proportion in Dong's (1996) study of graduate students learning to write their dissertations and in many of the instructional conversations between adults and two year-olds in Rowe's (2008) study, to a much more uneven distribution in other studies. And yet, interestingly, even when there were far fewer adults for the number of students in a class, as in Nussbaum's (2002) study in which two teachers taught a total of 67 students, the author explicitly mentioned that more knowledgeable peers acted to introduce the practices under study to less knowledgeable peers. Complexities of what exactly counted as a community of oldtimers abounded in O'Neill's (2001) study of learning how to do earth science research in which one teacher acted as a facilitator to several twoand three-person teams in a class of 61 students, with science-expert “telementors” assigned to each team as a resource. For our second analytic question related to apprenticeship, we identified whom did the expert(s) in a community address: were they intent on accomplishing some goal, or were they interested in the newcomers' development? In this category, the studies reported a tendency for experts to speak to learners much more than to each other, a behavior that may be seen as illfitting the apprenticeship model. Perhaps this is not surprising as these studies were situated in formal schooling settings. Thus, the talk tended to be between learner and mentor rather than among experts, although again complexities were introduced by studies such as Nussbaum (2002) and Pane (2010) in which “experts” were often simply learners who had been around a bit longer than true “newbies.” One exception was Rowe (2008), who specifically mentioned that the children were learning by overhearing adults talk to each other and to themselves, thereby providing models of authentic workplace writing. Finally, we analyzed to what degree were learners allowed actually to engage in a community's practices and to make costly mistakes. Our metaphor here was how master potters might only gradually allow an apprentice to have charge of more

10

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

and more of the actual production of pottery pieces. Again, we found that our studies ranged on a continuum, starting with Brent (2005) in which the learners saw that the research they were doing in their class was not “real,” and certainly not central to their own focus, even though the course they were taking had been designed to follow the idea of apprentices learning how to do research alongside an experienced master. By contrast, Dong's (1996) learners showed poignant variation with one student whose advisor rarely met with him and who had to learn mostly on his own, and another student whose advisor was clearly invested in helping her learn to write like a scientist. 4.2.3. Critical examination In this section, we consider two of our studies in more detail, examining in particular whether the authors had made good use of LPP. Rowe (2008) drew upon Lave and Wenger's (1991) concept of participation as a key element in literacy learning, and, despite the fact that she did not assert that the preschool was a community of practice, it may well have been one given the authenticity of the writing tasks of both children and adults. Pane (2010), in contrast, elected to call the newspapermaking classroom a community of practice, without sufficient evidence that what she had was a legitimate practice and not simply a legitimate community. We wondered what was the practice to which she referred. Acknowledging the literacy learning accomplished and the reputational strides Pane's (2010) participants made through their participation in this classroom's activities, we nevertheless surmise that the case for students' learning-through-participation might have been more clearly made by focusing on the students' learning through identity work. It may have been more helpful to view this particular class as a discourse community, for example, and bringing in Gee's (2012) idea of an identity kit associated with affiliation into a new social group with its own mores and expectations, and its own discourse. Gee's construct, may have been more generative in articulating the kinds of learning that occurred for the youth, speaking to the complexity of engagements in various social contexts: “We are each of us not a single who, but different whos in different contexts” (Gee, 2012, p. 148). Similarly, Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain's (1998) construct of figured worlds as “socially produced, culturally constituted activities” (pp. 40e41) allows for explanations of identity production, such as the students in Pane's classroom study experienced. Thus, whereas Rowe's (2008) use of LPP seemed appropriate and useful in highlighting aspects of the learning environment one might have overlooked, Pane's (2010) reliance on the construct of community of practice seemed less apt. 4.3. New literacies studies Five studies in this category addressed multiliterate/multimodal practices and processes that were being taught/learned from a New Literacies perspective that made use of LPP as an explanatory construct (see Table 4). 4.3.1. Practice-related questions The five studies included community contexts ranging from youth and young adults learning what it meant to be skateboarders (Petrone, 2010); to fanfiction writing and online fan art (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003) and online journaling practices (Guzzetti & Gamboa, 2005); to classroom settings such as a high school architectural drafting class (Smagorinsky, Cook, & Reed, 2005) and a classroom of students designing and creating software, some of whom had done it successfully before and served as oldtimers (Kafai & Ching, 2001). As our second question, we asked to what degree were learners legitimately engaged in the community that they were joining. The five studies in this category showed surprising commonalities in that in each, the participants were legitimate participants even as they faced the trials of being a learner. Three studies, two of online communities and a third focused on the world of skateboarding, were focused on genuine, practice-based communities for which the real products were part of the practice itself. In Chandler-Olcott and Mahar's (2003) study, the two youths' participation in their community was recognized as genuine, so that, even if some of their earlier efforts may not have been very good, their work was encouraged and recognized. Similarly, participants in Guzzetti and Gamboa's (2005) research were accepted as full-fledged participants in their respective online journaling communities and gave and received guidance as to how to write better and to participate in a community of writers. In Petrone's (2010) study of skateboarding communities, novice skaters genuinely wanted to engage in the practice while experienced skaters monitored the novices' behaviors via a reward and punishment system. As engagement in the skater community was not without conflict, the more experienced skaters would “school” the novices during participation using accepted practices of scolding and physical intervention. These encounters point to newcomers being considered legitimate, even if novices. In the other two studies, the classrooms ran parallel to communities of architectural and software designers, respectively, never putting the learners' products in the actual marketplace. In Smagorinsky et al.'s (2005) study, both the student Rick and his teacher Bill knew that Rick's architectural plans would not actually be made into a house. Still, Bill could not help but channel the criteria of his field as he responded to Rick's house plans. In this way, Rick was being treated as a legitimate apprentice. Even though Rick experienced only a low to medium degree of engagement with the community of architects, his teacher responded to Rick's plans like one architect to another. In Kafai and Ching's (2001) research, all students were directly involved with participation in the same task, newcomers participating legitimately in the same task as oldtimers, though the oldtimers learned new content as well, both about science and about project design. Still, the task was more a school project than an engagement in the community of software designers. As a third analytic question, we asked to what degree were the participants fully engaged in the practice. In the skateboarding and two online studies, participants were avidly “playing,” working diligently at their avocations. The student in

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

11

Table 4 Analytic questions applied to studies on new literacies.

Related to practice

1. What was the practice that the learners/participants were supposed to be apprenticing into? 2. To what degree were learners legitimately engaged in the community that they were joining?

3. To what degree were learners immersed and engaged in what they are learning?

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

RRQ ChandlerOlcott & Mahar, 2003  Adolescent#1: Fanfiction writing  Adolescent#2: Fan art þ  Both were engaged in their CoPs as mentors to those less knowledgeable and as others' mentees  Their participation was recognized in their CoP's as genuine þ  Engagement is full and committed; both adolescents strove to become better in their areas of interest þ

RRQ Smagorinski et al., 2005

TTE Petrone, 2010

JLS Kafai & Ching, 2001

RTE Guzzetti & Gamboa, 2005

 Architectural design  How to do skate-  How to imagine and  Online journaling by adolescents, as a litercreate “science softboarding and how to drawing of a house to acy practice ware design projects” “be” a skateboarder enter into a competition þ þ þ þ newcomers  Both youth were fully skaters'  The  Low to medium de-  Novice fledged participants in participated legitiengagement in the gree of engagement mately in the same skater community was with the community of their respective online task as the oldtimers, real though not architectural journaling commuthough the oldtimers without conflict e the designers nities where they learned new content as more experienced  Both the student and learned not only how to well, both about sciskaters would “school” his drafting teacher be in a community of ence and about the novices during knew plans would not writers, but how to designing a project. participation, pointing actually be made into write better to newcomers being a house. considered legitimate.

þ þ þ þ could  For both newcomers  Ability to freely express  Student was very  Skateboarding themselves appears to and oldtimers, activity be seen as play; yet, it engaged in what he have been full and real was real in that they was “work” to them in was trying to do; in creative writing. did actually create a that they were cared deeply about his piece of science passionate, strove to design and was trying software become better, and to create a design that raised funds to would win the state continue competition þ þ þ þ

Related to apprenticeship groups of were  One student and one  Mostly 4. What was the propor-  Experts skaters would congreteacher, exemplifying the general tion of learners to gate at the park e as the perfect one master internet public experts? lone skaters or in eone apprentice groups of 2e3, or of 5 model. e8 often simultaneously  Experts focused on their own practice e all happening smoothly e or experts would intervene þ þ þ  Teacher definitely  More expert-to-expert 5. How was the attention  Experts talk; if they obeyed spoke to student addressed each of experts deployed? the rules learners directly; possibly this girl on particDid experts regard could be is a characteristic of ular matters learners as conversaconversational architectural detional partners? Or did partners signers that they work the experts prefer to rather independently communicate mostly and get feedback as with other experts? they learn þ þ þ 6. In terms of the cost of  Cost of errors  At stake was the state  In that the “product” was smooth skating competition. Archiwas real in that mistakes, did the and the regard of tectural designers fanfiction and “community” employ fellow skaters, miscordoned off the risk fan art were an apprenticeship takes concerning the d/ of newcomers' bluncreated for and model in which newDiscourse of skating ders through the by members. comers handle the held consequences of contest. valuable products humiliation and created by the ostracism practice? þ þ/ þ

 If oldtimers constitute  Experts did talk to learners for purposes of experts, then the ratio bringing them into of learners to experts alignment with norms was about 1:1 (in of community (e.g., groups of about 4). practices like “flaming”  If the teacher or rewere censured) but searchers are experts, these girls were experts the ratio is closer to a and talked to other standard classroom experts.

þ/  Oldtimers interacted evenly with newcomers and other oldtimers  Teacher mostly guided groups and tasks, though there was some direct instruction on science content þ/  The newcomers directly handled the actual software product, as did the oldtimers; so errors would directly impact the group, but not actual marketplace

þ  Experts tended to talk to each other; communication with novices more likely occurred on a conversational partner level with compliant learners

þ/

þ

þ  Cost of errors is real in that online journaling is created for and by members.

12

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

Smagorinsky et al. (2005) was designing a house he knew would never get built, but, because he was well-mentored, and because he was entering his design in a state competition, the lines between play and work became blurred through intense engagement. 4.3.2. Apprenticeship-related questions As for our analytic questions that dealt with the degree to which learners in a practice were included by more expert individuals, again, our five studies ranged in the proportion of learner to expert in each community, from one-to-one mentoring in the architectural design class, to an interesting mix of one-to-one interaction in online communities with an unknown number of overhearers and lurkers that the Internet provides; and, to individuals and small groups guiding and critiquing each other in the skateparks as well as in the software design class. Second, we identified whom did the expert(s) in a community address. In these five studies, there was a tendency for experts to speak to each other, as in the Petrone (2010) study of skateboarders, and in the online study by Guzzetti and Gamboa (2005). Within school contexts, the teacher in Smagorinsky et al. (2005), who had worked on construction sites and drafted plans before becoming a high school teacher, only had his student with whom to interact, although he consulted the state competition guidelines and his brothers who were building contractors. In Kafai and Ching's (2001) study, the more experienced software designers interacted as much with those less experienced as with one another. Lastly, regarding the cost of mistakes and whether learners were allowed to handle the practice's valuable products, Petrone's (2010) skateboarders certainly faced the results of their own performances with either acceptance or the sometimes derisive correction called “schooling” from more experienced others. In Chandler-Olcott and Mahar's (2003) study as in Guzzetti and Gamboa's (2005), participants were encouraged, corrected, and supported as newcomers, but the cost of errors was real in that fanfiction or online journaling is created for and by members. More than a mere classroom exercise, what was at stake for both mentor and learner in Smagorinsky et al.'s (2005) study was the state competition with real architects as judges of the quality of submissions. Finally, in Kafai and Ching's (2001) study, the elementary school students, or newcomers, directly contributed to the actual software product, alongside oldtimers, with a real potential of impacting the group's work if errors were made. 4.3.3. Critical examination We next review two of the studies in a more fine-grained manner in order to evaluate their use of LPP in explicating multiliteracies and New Literacies. In their careful 18-month documentation of the literacy practices of adolescent girls who were engaged in out-of-school technology use, Chandler-Olcott and Mahar (2003) emphasized the ways in which popular culture was appropriated and re-tooled in the girls' online work. What was remarkable in both cases was how genuine and authentic were the communities of practice, with contributors creating the sense of community and taking on at various times the role of expert to help community members with particular design obstacles. Communities of practice seemed clearly present in that the work undertaken by the two participants was treated as serious work, and both participants had come to feel central and legitimate in the practice. It may well be that the constructs of communities of practice and of how participation in such communities may proceed from periphery to centrality may be particularly felicitously applied when describing young people's online practices in out-of-school self-sponsored activities. Second, the study by Smagorinsky et al. (2005) also illustrates the power of multiliteracies to allow for a re-envisionment of literacy practices. In this case study of the high school student in a drafting class, the authors brought out clear instances of how two visions of the community of practice to which the student should (or did) aspire could result in an extended clash and in tension between the teacher and student. In designing his “dream” house, the student had one vision that the teacher considered naïve and as reflecting an unacceptable understanding of what successful architects designing family homes for a modest neighborhood would do. However, the student's vision might very well have been accepted by a different group of architects, a different community of practice. Through many exchanges over the design, the student was able eventually to convince his teacher that his design was innovative and offered promise, becoming ever clearer with each iteration that he wanted to hold fast to a house plan that allowed him to envision a future possible self he very much admired. What was particularly fascinating about this study was the way it allowed for communities of practice to become more clearly defined through the struggles between the student and teacher. With this study, as with the Chandler-Olcott and Mahar (2003) study, we saw a much better fit for the constructs of community of practice and LPP, perhaps because it is the nature of New Literacies to create more authentic communities for learners in which to pursue their learning trajectories. 4.4. Learning theory Among our 20 key studies, there were four that used the construct of LPP to advance new conceptions of what it means to learn (see Table 5). 4.4.1. Practice-related questions The four studies in this category ranged from Manyak's (2001) research with first and second graders whose home language was Spanish and who were learning to read and write in English by participating in a daily news activity, Kong and Pearson's (2003) study of fourth and fifth grade students learning and doing literacy in a literature-based instructional program, Hay and Barab's (2001) study of sixth- and seventh-grade students learning the multiliteracies of designing simple

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

13

Table 5 Analytic questions applied to studies on learning theory development. Journal Author Year Related to practice JLS Hay & Barab, 2001 1. What was the practice that  Constructionist group e used computers to create a the learners were supvirtual solar system, stateposed to be apprenticing house, or theater into?  Apprenticeship group e scientific practice: creating authentic research projects in several disciplines þ 2. To what degree were  Constructionist group e intentionally less legitilearners legitimately mate. Learners were legitiengaged in the community mately engaged in the that they were joining? community of the camp, but less legitimately engaged in the community of science, government, or drama. Somewhat more legitimately in the community of computer software  Apprenticeship group e intentionally very legitimate. Real content was used to create valid research, to be presented to peers and mentors þ 3. To what degree were  Constructionist group e Although they learned real learners immersed and technology-use, engaged in what they are participants application learning? was schoolish e that is, to complete a task for the sake of getting through it  Apprenticeship group e Participants' research was actual scientific research presented to peers, and valid according to justlearned research method guidelines þ Related to apprenticeship 4. What was the proportion  Constructionist group e of learners to experts? Two mentors: one education grad student, one technology grad student to six learners  Apprenticeship group e Two mentors e one science teacher and one research scientist- to approximately four learners þ 5. How was the attention of  In both groups, mostly experts spoke to the learners. experts deployed? Did experts regard learners as conversational partners? Or did the experts prefer to communicate mostly with other experts? þ/ 6. In terms of the cost of  In both groups, learners handled the products of mistakes, did the “comtheir practice, and munity” employ an apprenticeship model in

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

RTE Kong & Pearson, 2003 JLS Roth et al. 1999  Reading, writing, and talk-  Simple machine building ing about books in a literature-based 4th and 5th grade instructional program

Journal Author Year JLR Manyak, 2001  Learning to read and write in English and Spanish by doing a daily news activity in 1st/2nd grade classroom

þ/ þ/ þ were fully  Participation was legiti-  Learning was manipulated  Learners engaged and legitimately via artifacts and social conmate because each step engaged as they were the figurations, and students along the way was scafones providing the news built actual simple mafolded by the teacher and learning how to be chines, but not with actual “expert” into the skills they students in the class people who professionally would need for their next built machines book club encounters

þ/ þ/ þ  Students were engaged in  Students actually created  The children seemed simple machines. fully engaged in the jobs discussion and supporting of reporter and tasks necessary to have a interviewee literature discussion

þ

þ

þ

 One teacher, and 25 stu-  Standard teacher/student  About half the students had been through the ratio dents (10 fifth graders and whole process the year  Direct instruction was used, 15 fourth graders) before and could serve as but so were self-selected “experts” to newcomers small student-only groups

   Early stages of book clubs  Teacher to student, but also student presenting to much more teacherteacher and peers, and, dominated than later student-to-student e stages though all students were “newcomers” to the same degree þ þ/  Within the classroom book  Students handled actual models of simple machines, clubs, the students handled and grappled with mistakes the actual practice

þ  Experts (the teacher and other students) spoke to each other and learners all the time

þ  Learners as classroom “news reporters” did get to produce copy for (continued on next page)

14

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

Table 5 (continued ) Journal Author Year which newcomers handle the valuable products created by the practice?

Journal Author Year

products e the responses presented those products and discussions to peers, family, and mentors  Cost of mistakes was similar for each group e high in that participants owned the final product and low in that mistakes were expected þ/ þ

Journal Author Year

Journal Author Year

 Not part of the community of machine builders at large in the world

þ/

inclusion in class library volume

þ

machines, and Roth, McGinn, Woszcyna, and Boutonne's (1999) study of middle and high school students enrolled in two summer camps and learning the science literacies of developing virtual worlds or scientific research projects. In response to the question of to what degree were learners legitimate contributors to the practice, these four studies varied. On the one hand, Hay and Barab (2001) intentionally designed two contrasting instructional experiences, one that encouraged less legitimate participation in the practices that were the focus, and the other that was designed to follow an apprenticeship model. In the latter, a content teacher and a scientist worked with students as they developed a research question, gathered data, and learned how to present their results to peers and mentors. In Manyak's (2001) study, through a news reporting and writing activity, the students were learning the “micropolitics of classroom interaction,” and were positioned authentically to learn how to “do” school. Learners were fully and legitimately engaged as they were the ones providing the news. By contrast, in Roth et al. (1999), learning was manipulated via artifacts and social configurations, and students built actual simple machines, but not with and for actual people who professionally built machines. The science behind simple machines (as well as how to build one) was being taught/learned, but it is not fully clear what community, if any, the participants were joining. Thus, it was more difficult to think of the learners in Roth et al. (1999) as legitimately being introduced into a practice. In Kong and Pearson's (2003) study, the children's participation was legitimate because each step along the way was scaffolded by the teacher “expert” who introduced the skills they would need for their next book club encounters. Even through tough times, the children were legitimately engaged in the process of “doing” book clubs. Our third analytic question focused on the degree to which participants were engaged in the practice of the community, even if, as learners, they remained on the periphery. In these four studies, the learners seemed similarly fully engaged, intent on playing their roles well, and taking up the activities they had been assigned. Even in the one group in the Hay and Barab (2001) study that was designed to reflect less of an apprenticeship model, the students were fully engaged in creating virtual worlds with the help of their content expert and technology teacher. 4.4.2. Apprenticeship-related questions The second set of analytic questions all dealt with the degree to which experts included learners in their practice and saw the learners as apprentices to the practice. Again, our four studies ranged in the proportion of learner to expert in each community, from a proportion of one-to-many in two of the studies that involved classroom groups (Kong & Pearson, 2003; Roth et al., 1999), to the much more even distribution of expert to learner in the Manyak (2001) study where the second graders acted as mentors to the newcomer first-grade students, to the smaller proportion of learner to mentor in the summer camps in which middle and high school students worked on projects with guidance from practicing scientist-researchers (apprenticeship group) or teachers (the constructionist group). We next evaluated these studies in terms of whom did the expert(s) in a community address because we saw the focus of address of experts as an indicator of whether the experts themselves were authentically involved in a practice or whether they were actually more focused on teaching newcomers. In the four studies in this category, experts more often spoke to learners than to each other, even though the second graders in Manyak's (2001) study and the fifth-graders in Kong and Pearson (2003) were as likely to be conversing with partners who were equally expert in the practice as they were to find themselves engaging with newcomers. Lastly, regarding the cost of mistakes and whether learners were allowed to handle a practice's valuable products, in these four studies, the learners seemed on the one hand to have been allowed to handle the actual practice of book club discussions (Kong & Pearson, 2003), or of virtual world design (in the constructionist summer camp in Hay & Barab, 2001). Yet, in some ways, the learners were protected from the “real” world of the practice, treated as fledglings in the relative safety of a classroom nest, where the worst outcome they may have suffered was loss of face with co-learners. 4.4.3. Critical examination In this section, we turn to a critical examination of two of the studies. First, Kong and Pearson (2003) were focused on extending Vygotskian notions of learning as taking place through an internalization between more and less knowledgeable 's (1984) model of learner movement through public and private learning spaces, and individuals. They interwove Harre illustrated how specific guided participation provides the activity settings necessary for student learning through gradual

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

15

release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). We find the authors' carefully woven and explicated theories of learning helpful in clarifying the construct of LPP, particularly with their emphasis on nuances of participation. In the second study by Roth et al. (1999), the students were being taught the science behind simple machines. It is not fully clear, however, what community, if any, the participants were joining. As young students, it seems farfetched to suggest they were joining a community of those knowledgeable about science, for example. Yet, students did not “play at” creating simple machines, they actually were creating such machines, allowed to handle actual models of simple machines and to grapple with mistakes in the process of building. Direct instruction, teacher to student, was used, but learning also occurred in selfselected small groups of students. The description makes clear that a sense of classroom community existed and that students were learning through their participation; and, it may be that through their work, the students became aware of the practices of communities of machine builders. We wondered whether a more successful capturing of this experience would have come , 1998) from a focus on student participation in their classroom learning community, perhaps using positioning theory (Harre to demonstrate how discourse can foster learning. 5. Discussion and implications In this paper, we set out to examine how the construct of legitimate peripheral participation, with its 20þ years of history, had helped literacy educators and scholars consider (a) learning from a perspective of newcomers in the process of taking up the ways of a practice; (b) the ways that a community that supports and constitutes a practice welcomes newcomers as legitimate, if peripheral, members; and (c) whether learners are fully engaged in what they are learning and allowed to handle the actual products of a practice. In any review of research, salient points about the body of literature as a whole are drawn. Here, we draw upon Merrill's (2002) notion of first principles to capture the essence of what can be distilled from our review. Where Merrill identified five “first principles of instruction” (p. 43) distilled from his review of the literature, we draw six principles to capture a way to think about LPP and how the work associated with community of practice may be useful to literacy researchers. In drawing these principles, we found that the analytic grid we had used to evaluate our focal studies could be turned from somewhat neutral questions to statements that could represent criteria by which to judge whether LPP and community of practice were being properly applied. These principles are listed below with the first three related to practice and the next three related to apprenticeship: Principle 1: There is an established and bounded practice that creates and supports a community into which learners are apprenticing. Principle 2: Learners/apprentices have a legitimate role in the community and its practices. Principle 3: Newcomers show a high degree of interest and mental and physical commitment to the practice. Principle 4: The proportion of learners to experts is low, fewer, in general, than 5:1. Principle 5: Experts generally prefer to communicate with other experts but allow for some “showing” and some explaining to newcomers along the way. Principle 6: The learners handle the real product(s) of the practice in some way. These principles seem to represent, we believe, what is at the core of the constructs introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991) and taken up so enthusiastically by literacy researchers. The model of learning offered is that of apprentices watching experts busily engaged in the practice at hand, at first staying on the periphery but gradually being asked to help with a few simpler tasks of the practice until with time, the apprentice is allowed to take over important aspects of the practice. Thus, the need for an actual practice is important for such a learning model as is a way that learners can watch, fully engaged but nevertheless on the periphery, the ways of the experts in the practice. As well, such a model of learning necessitates Principles 4 and 5, that there be a relatively low proportion of learners to experts and that experts direct most of their talk to other practitioners because their focus is more on the practice than it is on learners. We then revisited our initial two levels of analysis returning to the summary tables a third time and assigned for each study, under each question, a plus (þ), a minus (), or a plus/minus (þ/) to indicate the degree to which each study did or did not meet robustly the principle associated with the analytic question. In this third layer of coding, a plus represents that a study has met in the affirmative the principle connected to the question, and a minus indicates our judgment that a study has not met the condition represented by the principle associated with a question. The plus/minuses we assigned are explained in each cell in which they appear and account for ambiguous instantiations of LPP-like situations illustrated in a given study. Thus, having distilled principles from our examination of the theoretical and empirical literature associated with Lave and Wenger's (1991) work, we were in a position, aided by hindsight of more than two decades of development of the literacy field, to evaluate the aptness of the claims made by the authors of our 20 focal papers that their work centrally relied on the LPP constructs. Notwithstanding that these papers do have clear strengths and offer the field insights about literacy situations, we found that in an examination of the degree to which each study did or did not meet each of the first principles of LPP, some of the studies met all six principles well (like Bhatti, 2010, and Dong, 1996) and others were not deemed to represent these principles well (like Brent, 2005, and Roth et al., 1999) even if these latter certainly presented interesting insights to the field. Our position is that in the nearly 25 years after the development of LPP, we need, as literacy researchers, to strive to articulate nuanced theoretical possibilities. As Moje (2009) stated, “researchers need to……compare across studies to generate richer and more complete theoretical insights” (p. 357).

16

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

Thus, we believe it is important for researchers in their use of these constructs to pinpoint the practice in which learners are peripheral participants. The nature of specific learning environments may be better illuminated when researchers identify links to particular practices. Most relevant for classroom research, claims that a particular setting is a community of practice need substantiation of what practice is being joined, as it may be more felicitous to conceive of the classroom as a learning community (Brown & Campione, 1994; Maloch, 2008; Rogoff, Turkanis, & Bartlett, 2001). For example, communities of inquiry may provide ways for students to see links to communities of practice, even though it may be only in a metaphorical way that second-graders or fourth-graders or eleventh-graders are, in any way, apprentice mathematicians or scientists. Identifying the practice, and what is being taught and/or learned and the degree to which the learners in a study are moving within or toward a particular practice, may help literacy researchers contribute to our shared understanding of the kinds of participation, and thus of learning, that are imaginable and possible. Our second point is that some researchers seemed to find the LPP construct so compelling that considerations of either the legitimacy or peripherality of learners and students in the context being analyzed were sidelined to make room for showing how slices of activity reflected legitimate peripheral participation. Such an approach to LPP as a model of learning seems to us surprising in that schooling seems far more focused on learners as the central point of concern, rather than reflecting an apprenticeship model. As much as Lave and Wenger's (1991) original writing gave credit to Vygotsky's (1978) sociocultural perspective on learning, the Vygotskian concept of learning emanating from interactions between the learner and a more knowledgeable other seems more germane to understanding classroom life than does the metaphor of an apprentice learning incidentally in the process of helping a mentor accomplish some focal task. Even though Vygotsky's ideas are themselves often over-extended, with the concept of scaffolding inappropriately left in the hands of the more knowledgeable other rather than in the learner's hands (see Ko, Schallert, & Walters, 2003, for a discussion), there are no worries in a Vygotskian perspective that the learner will be ignored, as there may be such worries in an apprenticeship model. Perhaps the issue lies in conflating practice as a verb with practice as a noun. In LPP, it is practice as a noun that is emphasized, with its attendant connotations of all that is entailed with what participants in a practice are accomplishing. Yet, the underlying model of learning in the LPP framework is the idea of learning by participating, thereby pointing to the use of practice as an action descriptor. Our third point continues the previous concerns with what it means to practice, to engage fully with a practice as one participates in a community. The question of the role of play can be helpful in thinking about participation here. When one is playing, the level of engagement is typically high. Immersed in play, humans are fully engaged, unselfconsciously devoted to the emergent goals of an activity. When researchers speak of participants as peripherally involved in a community of practice, are they thinking of marginalized onlookers or are they imagining fully engaged but less expert players who are expected to contribute to a practice? Realizing that full engagementdplaydmay well look different in different practices, we offer other constructs that may contribute to a more nuanced look at learning. Worth keeping in mind, we believe, are theoretical tools we described earlier, including Cook-Sather's (2006) liminality; Holland et al.'s (1998) figured worlds; Gee's (2012) identity kits and affinity spaces (2005); Gee and Hayes' (2011) passionate affinity spaces; and Bakhtin's (1982) centrifugal and centripetal discursive forces. Moreover, as they theorize about the nature € m's (2007) view of learning as social production, as of practice and participation, researchers might draw from Engestro “expansive swarming,” that involves “not just hectic active movement …[but displays]… multiple rhythms of improvisation and persistence that correspond to the dual dynamics of swift situational concerted action and pursuit of a repeatedly reconfigured long-term perspective” (p. 49). The restrictive pressures of standardized testing notwithstanding, we offer that improvisation and persistence, whenever allowed in classrooms, help learners become deeply engaged with what they are learning. The gusto with which the participants in Chandler-Olcott and Mahar's (2003) and Guzzetti and Gamboa's (2005) online communities took up their learning may well be examples of such improvisation and persistence. 6. Conclusions In light of the complexities of contexts for literacies and literate practices, we believe that asking these kinds of questions is what is needed as we continue, as a field, to examine and expand definitions of what counts as literacy and how literacies are taken up. Dressman's (2007) study of 69 articles that were published in three key literacy journals between 1986 and 2006 persuasively indicated that the field was redefining what counted as literacy in important ways: “For what most unites the 69 studies is not method or topic but an orientation toward conceiving of literacy as a thoroughly social practice” (p. 349). Thus, literacy researchers have been redefining literacy and recalibrating how to think about the construct. Finally, we wondered what Lave and Wenger (1991) would say. In looking back over the last two decades, certainly the idea of communities has undergone change with online communities unheard of in 1991, as well as d/Discourse communities (Gee, 2012), and, what Schallert, Song, and the D-team (2009) termed thought communities. Because, at heart, LPP is about who one is relative to context and where one is, explicit attention to the details of each learning situation and how individuals participate in it will help us describe ways of thinking about what counts as legitimate, or peripheral, or even as participation.

References Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176e192.

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

17

Bakhtin, M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: four essays. In M. Holquist, & C. Emerson (Eds.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). Bhatti, G. (2010). Learning behind bars: Education in prisons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 31e36. Billett, S. (2007). Including the missing subject: Placing the personal within the community. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 55e67). New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1998). On television and journalism. New York: Pluto. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boylan, M. (2010). Ecologies of participation in school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 61e70. Brent, D. (2005). Reinventing WAC (again): The first year seminar and academic literacy. College Composition and Communication, 57(2), 253e276. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McKilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229e270). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). “Tech-savviness” meets multiliteracies: Exploring adolescent girls' technology-mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 356e385. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Newly betwixt and between: Revising liminality in the context of a teacher preparation program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 37(2), 110e127. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Davies, B. (2005). Communities of practice: Legitimacy not choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(4), 557e581. Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformation: Non-native doctoral students' dissertation writing in science. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 428e457. Dressman, M. A. (2007). Theoretically framed: Argument and desire in the production of general knowledge about literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 332e363. Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215e233. € m, Y. (2007). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives Engestro (pp. 41e54). New York: Routledge. Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49e68. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. In D. Barton, & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214e232). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, critical perspectives on literacy and education (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York: Routledge. Guzzetti, B., & Gamboa, M. (2005). Online journaling: The informal writings of two adolescent girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(2), 168e206. , R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harre , R. (1998). Positioning theory. Boston: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Harre Hay, K. E., & Barab, S. A. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 281e322. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cane, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hughes, J. (2007). Lost in translation: communities of practice e the journey from academic model to practitioner tool. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 30e40). New York: Routledge. Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (2007). Introduction: Communities of practice: A contested concept in flux. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 1e16). New York: Routledge. Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students' science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323e363. Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 139e147. Ko, J., Schallert, D. L., & Walters, K. (2003). Rethinking scaffolding: Examining negotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 303e324. Kong, A., & Pearson, P. D. (2003). The road to participation: The construction of a literacy practice in a learning community of linguistically diverse learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(1), 85e124. Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lambson, D. (2010). Novice teachers learning through participation in a teacher study group. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1660e1668. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lindkvist, L. (2005). Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: A typology of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1189e1210. Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational texts in a second grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3), 315e362. Manyak, P. C. (2001). Participation, hybridity, and carnival: A situated analysis of a dynamic literacy practice in a primary-grade English immersion class. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(3), 423e465. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43e59. Moje, E. B. (2009). A call for new research on new and multi-literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 348e362. Mosenthal, J. (1996). Situated learning and methods coursework in the teaching of literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 379e403. New London Group (NLG). (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60e92. Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California Press. Nussbaum, M. (2002). The process of becoming a participant in small group critical discussions: A case study. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 488e497. O'Donnell-Allen, C. (2001). Teaching with a questioning mind: The development of a teacher research group into a discourse community. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(2), 161e211. O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you've brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223e264. Pane, D. M. (2010). Viewing classroom discipline as negotiable social interaction: A communities of practice perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 87e97. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317e344. Petrone, R. (2010). “You have to get hit a couple of times”: The role of conflict in learning how to “be” a skateboarder. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 119e126. Postill, J. (2010). Introduction: Theorizing media and practice. In B. Br€ auchler, & J. Postill (Eds.), Theorizing media and practice (pp. 1e32). New York: Berghahn Books. Rogers, R., & Fuller, C. (2007). “As if you heard it from your momma”: Redesigning histories of participation with literacy education in and adult education class. In C. Lewis, P. Encisco, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 75e113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogoff, B., Turkanis, C. G., & Bartlett, L. (Eds.). (2001). Learning together: Children and adults in a school community. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

18

A.L. Consalvo et al. / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 1e18

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2006). Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 27e40. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3e4), 293e347. Rowe, D. W. (2008). The social construction of intentionality: Two-year-olds' and adults' participation at a preschool writing center. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(4), 387e434. Schallert, D. L., Song, K., & the D-Team. (2009, December). Shifts in positioning, trajectories in thought communities, and “wobbly” identities in computermediated classroom discussions. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference/Literacy Research Association, Albuquerque. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Reed, P. M. (2005). The construction of meaning and identity in the composition of an architectural text. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 70e88. Stein, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2002). Implications of missed opportunities for learning and assessment in design and technology education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 35e49. Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Turner, V. (1995/1969). Liminality and communitas. In The ritual process: Structure and antistructure (pp. 94e130). New York: Walter DeGruyer, Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.