Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ...

Wenger's later work (Wenger 1998) continues to disregard the value ofteaching and
even goes as far as asking: "How can we minimize teaching so as to maximize learning?"
(ibid.:267).
Lave and Wenger's work opens up several issues. Their pre-occupation with learning at
the expense of teaching in their assertion that teaching is not a precondition for learning
begs the question: Where is teaching in learning? It also suggests an alternative way of
interrogating conceptions of teaching so as to maximise learning.
Another key difficulty is the over-emphasis on the notion oflegitimate peripheral
participation as the most important learning process in all situations in a community of
practice. The focus appears to be primarily on the learning ofnewcomers. The concept
legitimate peripheral participation is less effective in analysing the learning of
established, experienced members ofa learning community.
Adopting a notion ofsituated learning tends to downplay knowledge that is
decontextualized, abstract or general. Learning could well occur that is seemingly
unrelated to a particular context or life situation. Situated learning foregrounds the fact
that new knowledge and learning are conceived as being located in communities of
practice. Strong communities ofpractice may inhibit entry and participation and the
generation ofnew knowledge. Furthermore, Lave and Wenger acknowledge the risk of
romanticizing communities ofpractice. However, their disregard for, or under­
appreciation of, the uses ofmore formal structures and institutions for learning is an issue
for contestation.
Lave and Wenger present contradictory understandings ofhow learning occurs. On the
one hand they argue that membership ofa community ofpractice is an essential condition
for all learning, yet at the same time they suggest that communities ofpractice create
certain conditions in which only certain learning can flourish. Furthermore, they fail to
acknowledge that for some members, membership ofthe community ofpractice may
have relatively little significance.
77