assessing the value of the community help the as well as potential members “members and other stakeholders understand the real impact of the community” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 61). The sixth principle, familiarity and excitement” emphasises “Combine the need for the community space to offer members a safe familiar space but also a space for conferences and workshops where the latest ideas are discussed. a “Create rhythm for the community”, the seventh, and final principle highlights the idea that rhythm of a community is the strongest indicator of its aliveness” (Wenger et al., “the 2002, p. 63). The rhythm of the community needs to be regular and at a pace that gives the community a of movement and liveliness. If the beat is too fast, the community … feels breathless; people stop participating because they are overwhelmed. When the beat is too slow, the community feels sluggish. (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 63) Communities of practice can develop naturally, but appropriate amount of design “an can be a powerful tool for their evolution [and] growth” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. … 63). Evidence of design according to these principles in the SAIDE ACEMaths community will show the extent to which it was designed, functioned and can continue to function as a community of practice. 2.4.3 Enabling peripheral participation in communities of practice Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that learning takes place through “legitimate peripheral participation”. This requires that to a community become “newcomers” involved in the activities of the community and ultimately change their status from to through participation in the community. “newcomers” “old-timers” The key to legitimate peripheral participation is access by newcomers to the community of practice and all that membership entails. But though this is essential to the reproduction of the community, it is also problematic at the same time. (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 100) The problem to which Lave and Wenger refer is the potential for access to the community to be manipulated in a way that prevents legitimate peripheral participation. They say that can be denied by not giving productive access to “access activity in communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 103). One finding from Mary Lea’s investigation of university students’ first engagement with academic
assessing the value of the community help the “members as well as potential members and other stakeholders understand the real impact of the community” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 61). The sixth principle, “Combine familiarity and excitement” emphasises the need for the community space to offer members a safe familiar space but also a space for conferences and workshops where the latest ideas are discussed. “Create a rhythm for the community”, the seventh, and final principle highlights the idea that “the rhythm of a community is the strongest indicator of its aliveness” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 63). The rhythm of the community needs to be regular and at a pace that gives the community … a of movement and liveliness. If the beat is too fast, the community feels breathless; people stop participating because they are overwhelmed. When the beat is too slow, the community feels sluggish. (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 63) Communities of practice can develop naturally, but “an appropriate amount of design can be a powerful tool for their evolution … [and] growth” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 63). Evidence of design according to these principles in the SAIDE ACEMaths community will show the extent to which it was designed, functioned and can continue to function as a community of practice. 2.4.3 Enabling peripheral participation in communities of practice Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that learning takes place through “legitimate peripheral participation”. This requires that “newcomers” to a community become involved in the activities of the community and ultimately change their status from “newcomers” to “old-timers” through participation in the community. The key to legitimate peripheral participation is access by newcomers to the community of practice and all that membership entails. But though this is essential to the reproduction of the community, it is also problematic at the same time. (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 100) The problem to which Lave and Wenger refer is the potential for access to the community to be manipulated in a way that prevents legitimate peripheral participation. They say that “access can be denied by not giving productive access to activity in communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 103). One finding from Mary Lea’s investigation of university students’ first engagement with academic
Sapire,%20Ingrid%20-%20Dissertation.docx