In the perspective of situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), a learning environment that provides authentic learning contexts and support both collaboration and interaction is highly required. In other words, students will learn most effectively when they have to deal with real problems and complete authentic tasks. This will also include a social interaction with the real practitioners who work with them and assist their learning. Such collaboration can lead to an elaboration of strategies that can be discussed and further enhance generalizing facts as knowledge. Community of Practice is considered as a good learning environment that meets these criteria: authentic learning context and social environment.

Community of Practice (CoP) can be defined as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) Some other definitions denote the similar points (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). It is clear that the heart of a CoP is the common concern or interest and the interaction through which the members learn something. Members of CoP are voluntary, bound only by the shared practice and the value of the group. Comprising some practitioners, CoP is a good environment where the members learn through experiences of interactions.

With the advance technology of the Internet, providing many tools of communication, there are now many virtual communities of practice. People gather in an online space where they communicate and interact with each other. Such virtual space includes real-time forums such as chats, or delayed ones like bulletin boards or mailing lists.

This essay discusses how a CoP functions as a learning environment for language learners. The discussion will specifically focus on the points of CoP that are beneficial for language learning.

Language learning environment in a community of practice

Firstly, Community of Practice is a good language learning environment in the sense that CoP connects so many people. This allows the members to interact with other people who are usually out of their reach. In language learning context, this will give language learners opportunities to find the real audience with whom they can use the target language in a real, natural communication. Using chats, for example, learners will learn some language aspects crucial for communication, which sometimes it is difficult to learn in the traditional language class room (Toyoda & Harrison, 2002). In addition, as what Chapelle (1997) maintains, interaction in the target language provides opportunities for learners to comprehend message meaning, produce modified output, and attend the target language form which helps them develop their linguistic systems. Moreover, by participating in a chat forum, members have an opportunity of reading and revising before sending their messages to their virtual partners. It is also worth noting that in electronic discussion, all members have the equal opportunities to participate (Warschauer, 1996). The concept of CoP really gives the equal opportunities to all members to be take part in the group activities.

Secondly, the mutual engagement of the CoP members can stimulate learning for the members. The members, especially the core members, will contribute ideas based on their backgrounds and experiences that in turn stimulate responses from other members. Such mutual interaction then will promote negotiation of meaning through learning can be achieved. It is worth noting here that such interaction will benefit not only the core or active members, but also the peripheral ones. The latter type of members can learn by observing the interactions of the more active members, then, when they are confident enough, they will contribute their own views. In more simple words, the activities in a CoP provide both mutual mentoring and self-reflection.

Next, a CoP is created and maintained by a group of people who share a common concern, a set of problems, or interest in a topic (Wenger, 1998). It is highly possible that the members come from different levels of expertise. The heterogeneity then benefits the members. In language learning context, the novice learners can see the expert members as their consultants and other novice members as their peers. The least proficient members can learn from the interactions of the more fluent ones. It is also possible that the members are even both language teachers and language students, like what happens in “Writing for Webheads” (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-vstevens/files/efi/webheads.htm).

Another positive point is that CoP provides opportunities for collaboration process. This especially benefits those who feel inhibited in the traditional classrooms. Computer-Mediated-Communication (CMC) is believed to facilitate collaborative and comprehensible interaction while providing learner-centered interaction (Kitade, 2000). This idea is then echoed by Roed’s study concluding that virtual environment is likely to reduce the language anxiety usually exists in physical environments (Roed, 2003). The available communication tools allow students to interact, exchange information, and share their problems. By participating in a discussion board, or a whiteboard, members can collaboratively solve the problems of each other. In short, CoP fills the need of a learning environment in which language acquisition has a potential to be supported by authentic social action of learners (Debski, Gassin, & Smith, 1997).

Finally, another extra point gained from learning through a CoP is that the learners will also learn other skills: computer and information literacy, communication skills, and organizational skills. By being active in the virtual activities, they will be accustomed to working with computers and Internet. The real-time communications in a CoP also give opportunities for students to learn how to start, interrupt, or end a conversation, and other communication skills. Also, the engagement in the virtual discussions will give them exposure to lessons on how to interact with others and manage an organization. This practice is in line with Chapelle’s idea that the computer applications in language learning should give other positive impacts beyond its language learning potential (Chapelle, 2001).

Conclusion

In conclusion, using the online communication tools, a Community of Practice can serve as a language learning environment. What is required is high motivation and willingness to be active in the CoP activities. This is because the life of a CoP depends on the members. In other words, if members want to learn something and do not want the CoP to disappear, they have to maintain its existence by actively engaging themselves in the group activities.

References:

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Debski, R., Gassin, J., & Smith, M. (Eds.). (1997). Language Learning through Social Computing (Occasional Papers No. 16 ed.).

Kitade, K. (2000). L2 Learners’ Discourse and SLA Theories in CMC: Collaborative Interaction in Internet Chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-166.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Roed, J. (2003). Language Learner Behaviour in a Virtual Environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2-3), 155-172.

Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of Text Chat Communication Between Learners and Native Speakers of Japanese. Retrieved 25 April, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/TOYODA/

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in Second Language Classroom. Retrieved 2 February, 2005, from http://calico.org/journalarticles/vol13/vol13-2and3/Warschauer.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.