Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice: Participation Support Structures for Newcomers in Faculty Student Councils

Participating in communities of practice (CoPs) is an important way of learning. For newcomers in such communities, the learning process can be described as legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). Although a body of knowledge on LPP has been accumulated from qualitative case studies, mostly focusing on the use of practices, the concrete mechanisms that shape the LPP process have not yet been systematically analyzed. In this study, we examined participation support structures with a focus on activities that senior CoP members demonstrate to foster newcomers’ participation. The use of 8 distinct participation support structures was identified in interviews with experienced members of faculty student councils. A hierarchical linear model based on data from 68 newcomers in 14 faculty student councils was computed. The model showed that in addition to exposure time and CoP size, 2 participation support structures (recruitment strategies and accessibility of community knowledge) were predictive of the newcomers’ level of participation. We conclude that senior members’ specific participation support structures can facilitate or hinder newcomers’ participation in CoPs and that the original LPP approach needs to be enhanced by taking participation support structures into account.

[1]  Dawn Lambson Novice teachers learning through participation in a teacher study group , 2010 .

[2]  P. Hodkinson,et al.  Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: a reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning , 2005 .

[3]  Neil E. Fassina,et al.  Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model , 2007 .

[4]  Michele Back Legitimate Peripheral Participation and Language Learning: Two Quichua Learners in a Transnational Community , 2011 .

[5]  J. Hox,et al.  Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling , 2005 .

[6]  A. Sfard On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[7]  J. Dawson,et al.  It's what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes , 2001 .

[8]  S. Barab,et al.  Designing System Dualities: Characterizing a Web-Supported Professional Development Community , 2003 .

[9]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[10]  Ruey-Shiang Shaw,et al.  The relationships among group size, participation, and performance of programming language learning supported with online forums , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[11]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Toward a theory of organizational socialization , 1977 .

[12]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[13]  Elizabeth A. van Es,et al.  Participants' Roles in the Context of a Video Club , 2009 .

[14]  Bethan L. Davies Communities of practice: Legitimacy not choice , 2005 .

[15]  John M. Levine,et al.  Creating the Ideal Group: Composition Effects at Work , 2018, Understanding Group Behavior.

[16]  Michael F. Young,et al.  Principles of Self-Organization: Learning as Participation in Autocatakinetic Systems , 1999 .

[17]  John M. Levine,et al.  Culture and socialization in work groups , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[18]  William Snyder,et al.  Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge , 2002 .

[19]  E. Cohen Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .