Learning-Communities in Classrooms: A Reconceptualization of Educational

Practice
Katerine Bielaczyc – Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and Boston College
Allan Collins – Northwestern University and Boston College

Chapter 12:

Values:
-pedagogy
-autodidactism
-dealing with complex issues
-working interpersonally
-learning as a collective effort
-respect for and appreciation of diversity

Methods:
-Community Growth (emphasis on sharing)
-Emergent Goals (co-constructed with students, emerging from their activities)
-Articulation of goals (both by teachers and students)
-Metacognition (consistently relating current procedures to eventual goals)
-Innovation of thought
-Respect (student interdependence)
-Acceptance of failure
-Depth > Breadth
-Diversification of expertise via intercommunication
-Diverse participation styles (forming questions, gathering information, sharing) and roles
(researcher, expert, moderator)
-Negotiation based on logic and evidence (assisted with modeling and coaching)
-Efforts should tend towards communally valued ‘products’
-Group > Individual learning format

Outline of paper:

1) Introduction:
a. Learning-Community = Advance Collective Knowledge  Support Individual
Knowledge
1. Reference (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994)
ii.Diversity of expertise among members
iii.Shared objective
iv.Emphasis on ‘learning how to learn’
v.Mechanisms for sharing knowledge
b. Learning-Community Problem Solving Technique
i. One problem, many solvers
ii.No one individual needs to possess all expertise
1. Individuals should be aware of who in the community possesses
this knowledge
iii.Departure from traditional, individualistic approach to schooling (the
belief that all students learn at similar rates)
2) Why Learning-Communities?
a. Students need to be able to direct their own learning
1. Reference (US Department of Labor’s SCANS Commission
Report, 1991)
2. Reference (Murnane and Levy, 1996)
ii.Students must work with and listen to others
 iii.Students must develop ways of dealing with complex issues and
problems that require different levels of expertise
b. Arguments
i. Social-Constructivist
1. Reference (Dewey and Vygotsky)
2. People learn best via a knowledge-construction process, not
assimilation of lecture
3. Should be modeled on surrounding communities
ii.Learning-to-Learn
1. Reference (Smith, 1988)
2. Reference (Brown, Ellery and Campione, 1998)
3. Students learn from the characteristics of the people they
admire
a. No one can learn in school all things they will need to
know in life.
b. Technology can carry out low-level tasks, therefore
works must think abstractly
c. “Children will learn to be learners by joining a ‘learning
club’”
iii.Multi-Cultural Argument
1. In order to prepare students to operate in a culturally diverse
world, schools must construct students’ ability to
intercommunicate.
c. Framework for Viewing Learning-Communities
i. Eight Dimensions
1. Goals:
a. Learning-Community – foster a culture of learning via
shared individual effort and perspective synthesis.
b. Status Quo – foster learning individually, at same pace
as group, and in similar content areas
2. Learning Activities:
a. Learning-Community – must provide for individual
development and collaborative construction of
knowledge, sharing and making processes visible and
well-articulated.
i. e.g. group research, class discussion, cross-age
tutoring, group presentations, collaborative role-
based learning.
b. Status Quo – Activities can be used to inculcate
particular knowledge.
i. Reference (Cohen, 1985; Damon & Phelps, 1989;
Slavin, 1986; Brown and Campione, 1996)
3. Teacher Roles and Power Relationships:
a. Learning-Community – Teacher as organizer and
facilitator, instead of director (power shifts as students
gain confidence. Students self-assess.
b. Status Quo – Teacher as authority figure and assessor.
4. Centrality / Peripherality and Identity:
a. “The degree to which people play a central role and are
respected by other members of a Learning-Community
determines their sense of identity (Lave & Wrenger,
1991).”
b. Learning-Community – Central roles directly contribute
to collective activities, but peripheral roles are also
 valued. Centrality / Peripherality is context-dependant—
individuals become experts.
c. Status Quo – Students work on the same things and are
expected to attain the same base level of understanding.
Students measure themselves against this base level.
Centrality / Peripherality is develops an
excellent/remedial dynamic.
d. Reference (Schofield, 1995)
5. Resources:
a. Learning-Community – Both the content learned and the
processes of learning are shared—both the collective
knowledge and skills of the community and the
members themselves are important resources.
b. Status Quo – Students play a smaller resource role,
emphasis is placed on outside material.
6. Discourse:
a. Learning-Community – Language for describing ideas
emerges through interaction and co-construction among
members of the community. Discourse motivates
research and reflection by raising new questions.
Students interact via feeback.
b. Reference (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993)
c. Status Quo – Formal academic language is promulgated
from teachers and source material. Discourse is a means
of conveyance.
d. Reference (Schofield, 1995).
7. Knowledge:
a. Learning-Community – Emphasizes development of
individual expertise and collective knowledge. Experts
must develop in-depth understanding about their topics.
Topics should not be randomly chosen but focus on key
principles that are generative for understanding a broad
array of other topics. Interplay between growth of
collective and individual knowledge.
b. Status Quo – Breadth over depth.
8. Products:
a. Students who adopt performance goals tend to give up
when they fail.
b. Reference (Dweck, 1986)
c. Students who adopt performance goals from mistakes
pursue learning in the face of failure.
d. Learning-Community – Culminating events can focus
class energy. Members work together to produce
artifacts or performances that can be used by the
community to further their understanding.
e. Reference (Bruner, 1996)
f. Status Quo – Individual or small group assignments with
little sharing or collective products, over short periods of
time.