District-level communities of practice
The term community of practice is generally defined as a group of people "who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis" (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2001, p.4). While communities of practice have often been considered informal and voluntary, they are increasingly being used as a formalized, explicit strategy for generating and managing knowledge in organizations. In this study, I explore how formalized and structured communities of practice can be used to facilitate ongoing learning among district-level educational leaders. Guided by a theoretical framework that I developed based on a review of relevant literature, I conducted a qualitative study using multiple-case study methodology, exploring the work of three district-level leadership teams that are intentionally trying to operate as communities of practice. My research questions were as follows: In what respects, if any, do three school district central office teams function as communities of practice? To what extent does each district's theory of action (its intended theory) align with its theory in use (its enacted theory)? In all, the case studies reveal that each district team embodies the dimensions of the theoretical framework in varying degrees. The stories bring to life how communities of practice really function, lending depth and nuance to our understanding of the phenomenon. For example, the data confirm that district-level communities of practice work on setting district priorities for the improvement of teaching and learning, as described in the theoretical framework, but also highlight that communities of practice talk explicitly about how to do so within the unique political context. Additionally, the data confirm that district-level communities of practice focus on strengthening district improvement strategies through continuous inquiry, but call special attention to their focus on the development of principals as instructional leaders as a major strategy for improvement, as well as their attention to common barriers that arise during implementation, like lack of coherence and poor communication. Finally, the data confirm that district-level communities of practice benefit from particular structures, arrangements and routines that foster shared learning, and point to a few structures and arrangements that I hadn't anticipated, like the use of external consultants, district-level organizational structure, and focused attention to team composition. With that said, these district-level communities of practice are still in development and face several challenges that prevent them from fully aligning intention and action. Specifically, the data stress that power dynamics, lack of data, and lack of trust serve as common impediments to their work as communities of practice. Their stories reveal the particular ways in which these barriers arise. Ultimately, this study produced descriptions of district-level communities of practice that have not previously existed in the literature. It also produced a new descriptive framework that more accurately depicts the district-level community-of-practice phenomenon, shedding light on its purpose, the content or practice discussed in meetings, and the supports that foster shared learning. I believe this study lays the foundation for follow-up studies that explore issues around effectiveness.