Etienne and Beverly Wenger (2015) once described communities of practice as the following:

…people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression, a group of engineers working on similar problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school, a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope.

The above description positions communities of practice broadly. This concept, both in theory and practice, exists in several professions including corporations, health care, and the education sector (Baker & Beames, 2016; Sprute et al., 2019) both in-person and virtually (Valenti & Sutton, 2020).  Its beginnings date most formally back to the early 1990s, to an increase in presence during the Covid-19 pandemic (Rand & Snyder, 2021), particularly among teachers, both veterans, and novices to the profession.  

The purpose of this literature review is to present an understanding of the origins of communities of practice, the theoretical frameworks associated with the field, contexts within the field of education in which community of practice research is occurring, and current debates. 

Wenger et al. (2002) defined communities of practice as groups of people who share an interest or concern, meeting regularly to strengthen their understanding of the issues which connect them. A key feature of communities of practice is that they can exist in any profession or field and in different dimensions of space and time, including in-person, virtually, and blended environments (Baker & Beames, 2016; Farnsworth et al., 2016; Wenger, 2010).

Often associated with Etienne Wenger solely, communities of practice fall within the field of social learning theories out of which present understandings were born. Bandura (1977) proposed social cognitive theory, arguing that much of what humans learn is through some form of interaction with others, through processes like observation and modeling. Lave and Wenger (1991) published their seminal work, “Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral publication”, the contents of which parallel Badura; the two argued that learning is “increasing participation in communities of practice” (p. 49) rather than a passive process of receiving knowledge; it is here that the concept for communities of practice was coined. Wenger attributes the origins of this theory to earlier works by other theorists in the field of psychology and learner development (Lave, 1988; Foucault, 1980), primary among them Vygotsky’s Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (1978). Vygotsky contrasted the differences between learning processes for children and adults, proposing the zone of proximal development. Defined by Vygotsky as “…the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86) the psychologist argued that learning happens within a social context. Similarly, the meaning-making that occurs in collaboration between people with shared interests is the foundation of communities of practice as a theory (Wenger, 2010).

In the years since their initial inception, communities of practice and their components for successful implementation have evolved. Wenger’s (1998) initial recommendations regarding the application of a community of practice structure included three key dimensions for recognizing membership: mutual engagement (the interaction and establishing of group norms and common understandings), joint enterprise (the collaboration toward shared goals) and shared repertoire (the community’s resources, artifacts, activities, etc.). Over time, Wenger (2010) proposed a shift in focus from individual participation in communities of practice to the adoption of communities of practice on an organizational level, prompting a revision of the aforementioned dimensions, though a number of recent studies in this literature review (Akinyemi et al., 2020; Ching, 2021; Johnson et al., 2019) continue to describe communities of practice using the three original dimensions. Wenger et al.(2002) presently assert that for a group of people to be considered a community of practice, three components are thought to be present: domain, community, and practice. Eddy et al.(2022) define domain as the knowledge, interests, issues, and/or competencies that group members share. Baker and Beames (2016) define community as not only the members of the group but also the values the group holds related to the shared domain. Lastly, practice denotes the actions that the community takes to learn, improve, and/or innovate (Rand & Snyder, 2021). Figure 1 illustrates examples of activities and guiding questions that members of a community of practice may engage in:

Figure 1

Sample Community Practices and Guiding Questions

 Note. Introduction to communities of Practice. Wenger-Traynor. (2022, September 4). https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

Wenger (2010) suggests that the function of communities of practice is often further defined by directly contrasting them to other social groups that, on the surface, seem interchangeable. Farnsworth et al.’s (2016) interview with Wenger allowed the theorist to speak to these distinctions:

A team is defined by a joint task, something they have to accomplish together. It is a task-driven partnership, whereas a community of practice is a learning partnership related to a domain of practice. Members of a community of practice may engage in the same practice while working on different tasks in different teams. But they can still learn (Wenger, as cited in Farnsworth et al.,p. 143).

Lesser and Strock (2001) differentiated between teams and communities of practice through the lens of power dynamics; for example, teams are often assigned goals by people outside (often hierarchically above) the team whereas communities of practice establish their goals internally. Within the field of education specifically, communities of practice are often discussed in contrast to professional learning communities, wherein several differences are present. Dufour and Eaker (1998) and Hord (2004) described traditional professional learning communities as mandatory group structures, organized in K-12 settings by administrators with formal leadership roles and responsibilities. Membership in communities of practice is, conventionally, voluntary and does not rely on a typical leadership structure; values, tasks, learnings, and outcomes are collaborative and often organically created (Rand and Snyder, 2021). While K-12 settings often rely on professional learning communities as the principal collaborative and developmental structure within a school, research into communities of practice as an alternative has emerged. The next section of this literature review will explore the theory of communities of practice in greater detail.

Research in the field demonstrates that the concept of communities of practice are often regarded as a practice itself, but also function as a theory. Lave and Wenger (1991) developed communities of practice theory based on the analysis of several case studies in which apprenticeships were used to exemplify situated learning. The theorists, having analyzed the unique contexts of apprentices in a variety of fields, from midwifery to butchers, noted the following:

In all five cases described in the preceding chapter, in fact, researchers insist that there is very little observable teaching; the more basic phenomenon is learning. The practice of the community creates the potential "curriculum" in the broadest sense - that which may be learned by newcomers with legitimate peripheral access. Learning activity appears to have a characteristic pattern. There are strong goals for learning because learners, as peripheral participants, can develop a view of what the whole enterprise is about, and what there is to be learned. Learning itself is an improvised practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991, pp. 92-93).

Community of practice theory positions itself in contrast to traditional learning, wherein one person within a group (a teacher) is responsible for the learning of the other group members (students). Instead, members within a community of practice experience learning because of being in community together; all are teachers, and all are students (Honig, 2006). Lave (1988) argued that learning occurs best in an authentic state; it is embedded naturally in actions and experiences, thus making it “situated” (Korthagen, 2010). Within a situated context, learning occurs because of the social interaction of participants at multiple levels, with novice learners experiencing what Lave and Wenger (1991) identified as legitimate peripheral participation. Legitimate peripheral participation is the introductory, often lower-stakes learning that occurs for participants new to social learning groups; their participation being described as peripheral while they become increasingly more knowledgeable of the situation and tasks in question (p. 35). Within communities of practice, most learners are novices and regarded as being on the peripheral, in opposition to other participants who are described as core members (Kezar et al., 2017) or expert members (Baker & Beames, 2016; Kimura, 2018); the latter two categories of membership describing learners who often take on leadership roles within the community. Figure 2 further illustrates the relationship between novice and expert members.

Figure 2

Model of Situated Learning

Note. Egbert, J., & Roe, M. (2022, December). Situated Learning Theory. Theoretical models for teaching and research. https://opentext.wsu.edu/theoreticalmodelsforteachingandresearch/chapter/situated-learning-theory/

Wenger (2010) describes the origins of communities of practice from the perspective of anthropology, sociology, and social learning, explaining the function of the theory as part of the concept of a broader social learning framework, in which meaning-making occurs. Meaning-making within the theory of communities of practice, according to Wenger (1998; 2002; 2010), relies on two processes: participation and reification. Smith el al. (2017) defined participation within a community of practice as the physical action and interaction of members. The term reification describes the production of artifacts created through the shared meaning-making that occurs because of participation (Wenger, 1998). From a theoretical standpoint, participation and reification are regarded as complementary yet distinct, in that each component can exist independently but are necessary in some combination within a social learning context.

Wenger (1998) theorized that learning within a community of practice occurs due to three additional dualities apart from that of participation and reification: identification-negotiation, local-global, and designed-emergent. Fracchiolla et al. (2020) describe identification-negotiation as the distribution of power needed to shape the participation of individuals as well as the community. Sarid and Levanon (2022) define the local-global duality as the recognition of community members who construct learning experiences and members who gain new learnings from those experiences. The designed-emergent duality argues that a community of practice must make room for both innovative thinking and doing, as well as “prescriptions of practice” (Smith et al., 2017) like plans and guidelines.

Wenger et al. (2011) proposed a value creation framework to accompany the theory in practice. The researchers proposed five cycles of value that community members can assess to reflect on the implementation of their practice: immediate value, potential value, applied value, realized value, and reframing value. In the first cycle, immediate value, value exists simply by participants interacting (Kezar et al., 2017). In the potential value cycle, activities that were not realized in cycle one are identified as “knowledge capital” to be used at a different time (Wenger et al., 2011, p. 22). Cycles three and four reflect a critical examination of how knowledge and practices have been utilized (applied value) and later an evaluation of results from those practices (realized value). Reframing value describes the process of revision and the creation of new criteria for successful implementation (Smith et al., 2017). Figure 3 provides a visual depiction of activities that can be assigned value at each stage of the framework.

Figure 3

Value-creation matrix

Note. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Rapport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University of the Netherlands.

Community of practice theory is not without critique, and that criticism often lies within the ambiguity of how the theory translates into practice. For example, Lindkvist (2005) describes the ongoing evolution of communities of practice as the cause of their lack of coherence in practice. Li et al. (2009) argued that as frameworks for the theory evolve, differences between communities of practice and similar social learning dynamics, for example, project teams in professional settings. Though Wenger has defined communities of practice in contrast to alternative social learning structures, organizations looking towards implementation may use the terms interchangeably. Fischer (2001) defined a seemingly similar structure, communities of interest, as a convening of members of different communities of practice who collaborate on a specific project, and later dissolve at the project’s conclusion. Though distinct in that traditional communities of interest have a definitive ending, community of practice principles (shared domain, joint enterprise, and mutual engagement) are integral to a community of interest’s ability to operate.

Critics of community of practice theory also cite the danger of power dynamics as a flaw in the transition from theory to practice. Roberts (2006) posited that as peripheral participation of novice members is assumed for communities of practice to function organically participants in a community of practice may never move beyond the peripheral due to the identity of other community members, for example, those with more experience or credentials in the field of practice. Handley et al. (2006) argued in their critical review of community of practice theory and challenges with implementation, that newcomers can, in the perspective of core or expert members, threaten the livelihood of the group if new practices and knowledge are proposed, despite a shared domain. Lave and Wenger (1991) name power dynamics between peripheral and expert members as unavoidable in their study of apprenticeships, but Roberts (2006) argued that community of practice theory does not define how to avoid or successfully navigate challenges with power that are likely to occur.

Over the years, the community of practice theory has evolved to include additional considerations. Regarding participation and reification, Wenger et al. (2014) identified the following principles related to the transition from theory to practice:

1. Communities of practice continuously evolve in terms of purpose.
2. Outside voices and resources should be welcomed when appropriate.
3. Members will, and should, differ in their level of participation.
4. Both public and private communication among group members is necessary.
5. Communities of practice should encourage the opportunity for self-reflection of group members.
6. Communities of practice should offer members both a sense of familiarity and the opportunity for innovation.
7. Communities of practice should adopt a natural pace (for meeting, completing tasks, etc.); this pace will adapt as membership changes, artifacts are produced, and/or the domain evolves.

Smith et al.’s (2017) literature review of studies using communities of practice theory as a framework for research published from 2000-2014 analyzed a sample of 61 studies, in which 41 used the theory as the primary framework in their research. When community of practice theory was not in use within research related to the actual practice, similar antecedental theories served as primary frameworks for study.

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory of legitimate peripheral participation among apprenticeships served as the foundation of communities of practice, somewhat naturally leading to the practice itself being utilized within workplace settings in several professions. Allee (2000) suggests potential benefits for the implementation of communities of practice within an organization, distinguishing those benefits at both a structural level as well as among individual employees, as depicted in Figure 4.

FIgure 4: 

Benefits of Communities of Practice By Level

Note. Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of practice. OD Practitioner: Journal of the Organizational Development Network, 32(4). http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html

Wenger et al. (2002) argued that though communities of practice will likely form regardless of an organization’s direct input, it is advantageous for companies to encourage and help foster their formation to reap the benefits of social capital. Lesser and Strock (2001) studied the presence of communities of practice and their ability to increase social capital within seven different companies ranging in fields from banking and finance to software development. Findings indicated that employees noted increased trust among coworkers and a greater understanding of company and employee functions as results of community of practice formation. Additionally, from a managerial perspective, communities of practice within the study had positive effects on company performance due to a decrease in the learning curve of newer coworkers and an increase in innovation among members.

Before emerging within the field of education, early research into the implementation of communities of practice was primarily studied in corporate environments, notably in the fields of technology and healthcare. Orr’s (1996) study of the Xerox corporation using informal communities as a method of driving innovation as the organization transitioned from its predecessor, Haloid Photographic Company. The ethnographic study how the merging of formal work structures with the often-informal collaboration and sharing of information between employees helped drive necessary changes at a structural level, in this case, a new way for technicians to service the company’s machines. Similarly, Swan et al (2002) presented early research on the topic of innovation within communities of practice, presenting a case study of Medico, a drug manufacturing company responsible for introducing a new prostate cancer treatment. To increase buy-in from medical professionals, managers at Medico constructed informal communities of practice as a “rhetorical tool” for explaining and justifying organizational changes because of the new treatment implementation. In both cases above, the concept of a community of practice was used to drive results among employees, though neither community of practice theory itself, nor the guiding principles of practice proposed by Wenger, were formally implemented.

A commonality among professional fields in which communities of practice are present is the need for a transfer of knowledge among employees. Ardichvili et al. (2003) argued that a workplace environment could best distribute knowledge among employees through interaction and collaboration, as the inner workings of an organization’s intangible knowledge only exist through its people. The researchers studied the motivation behind the sharing of knowledge through several virtual communities of practice within Caterpillar Inc., a global corporation. Qualitative interviews indicated that both employees and managers used the organization’s online communities of practice to share information to both support the culture of collaboration, and for employees with more experience to assist more novice employees to pay forward knowledge that is more intrinsic. Wenger et al. (2002) described a notable flaw in the implementation of communities of practice in professional settings: power dynamics within the ownership of knowledge. Referred to as “the knowledge police” (p. 142) some communities of practice take a proprietary stance. Ardichvili et al. (2003) concluded that one barrier to successful participation in communities of practice in the Caterpillar Inc. study was “information hoarding”, though not regarded as significant as some community members’ fears of disseminating knowledge that could be considered inaccurate or insignificant by coworkers (p. 69).

Amin and Roberts’ (2008) literature review within the field of business indicated that 543 studies conducted from 1992-2007 included the search term “communities of practice”, though the researchers indicated the use of the term to be inexact; some studies used the term without employing community of practice theory or its principles when referring to any professional community. Hildreth et al. (2000), on the contrary, examined two case studies in international commercial organizations in which the principles were present. In one case, elements of community of practice theory including domain, community, and practice were observed. The communities were considered legitimate to researchers due to their self-formation, peripherality of members, and the co-creation and sharing of artifacts representing “soft knowledge” related to company operations.

Early research into the implementation of communities of practice in educational settings appears to utilize community of practice theory and its intended processes for the management of knowledge sharing among educators more explicitly than some of the research above. For example, Palincsar et al. (1998) described their study as the “birth” of a community of practice among 18 elementary school science teachers. The mutual engagement within the community focused on professional development to learn a new curriculum and instructional model around inquiry. The researcher practitioners documented members’ experiences meeting, providing feedback on teaching practices, and qualitative reflections on how classrooms were transforming as part of the new instructional inquiry model. Hodges’ (1998) argued their experiences as a cohort member in an early childhood teacher preparation program were likened to that of a community of practice. The narrative study accounted for such principles as the legitimate peripheral participation of student teachers in the professional community, and how that level of participation changes over time. The next section of this literature review will continue examining communities of practice in several educational subgenres.

The following section will review research on communities of practice theory and implementation within the field of education.

Significant gaps in research on communities of practice within educational settings are sometimes linked to vagueness in implementation. Li et al. (2009) argued that as the key principles and options for practical application evolve over time, findings into the success and challenges of communities of practice could be unreliable. Though Wenger (2002) provided guidelines for an organization’s use of communities of practice by identifying key components for operation (domain, community, and practice), this literature review found examples of recent research absent of discussion of these quantifiers. For example, Roberts’ (2021) study of library science doctoral students participating in communities of practice to support participants’ research and writing practices makes no specific mention of the three components; the presence of domain, community, and practice are, it could be argued, implied. Valenti and Sutton (2020) briefly define domain, community, and practice as part of their description of the theoretical framework used in their study on virtual communities of practice, but do not explicitly discuss the elements as part of their study design or findings. Without a direct discussion of how a community of practice is being implemented for study in the field of education, it is unclear whether the evolution of the theoretical concept is interpreted as intended, or if groups are being incorrectly labeled as communities of practice.

Within the subfield of professional development, additional research into the effects of teacher participation in communities of practice on student outcomes will help broaden the understanding of the benefits and limitations to this social learning structure. Several studies presented in this literature review (Akinyemi et al, 2020; Eddy et al., 2022; Romero & Vasilopoulos, 2020) present qualitative analysis of teacher experience as participants in a community of practice, reporting positive outcomes related to the learning of new instructional methods. However, results are self-reported and are not aligned to student experience and performance. An opportunity exists for more mixed-methods research implementation, wherein teachers can continue to self-report their experiences as members of communities of practice as researchers analyze quantitative data related to academic performance of their students to see what trends exist.

As more research into the presence of communities of practice in higher education settings emerges, a focus on the structure as part of online teacher preparation, including degree granting and certification programs, can help inform decision-making on curriculum changes to support novice and pre-service teachers. Rand and Snyder (2021) explored the programmatic shift of a traditional educator preparation program to a distance learning model, with communities of practice supporting students’ navigation of their graduate student experience. However, study results are presented as a retrospective reflection; the researchers made conclusions about the graduate student experience after the semester ended, recognizing elements of community of practice theory and praxis in their analysis. Cho (2014) sought out to examine the positive qualities and challenges in implementation of a community of practice model in a teacher preparation program. Participants were five bilingual preservice teachers along with the researcher-practitioner who served as a member of the community. While findings on positive effects including a cohort-like culture that students found supportive in their studies, and challenges including frustrations with a lack of participation from some members can help inform practice in the field of teacher preparation, the community members met in person. Much of the research on communities of practice among preservice teachers does focus on traditional in-person degree and certification granting programs; as teacher preparation programs make larger shifts to online learnings environments, the gaps within this subfield will narrow.

This literature review sought to introduce communities of practice, from both theoretical and practical lenses, stemming from the tentative research question: How do participants in an online educator preparation program experience communities of practice in terms of improving their teaching and feeling a sense of belonging with classmates? The review defined key terms related to the theory as well as precursors and theories of influence. A narrower understanding of the implementation of communities of practice within the field of education was explored, including in the context of institutions of higher education, K-12 teacher professional development, and virtual environments.

While communities of practice, within and outside of educational spaces, is often associated with the seminal research and posits of theorist Etienne Wenger, the concept continues to evolve. Opportunities for additional research into how online teacher preparation program participants could benefit from participating in communities of practice as part of their training will broaden the field.