Student representations of a community of practice

The communities of practice (COP) framework is useful in understanding the effort to expand physics education into professional preparation. This framework prompts physics educators and physics education researchers to consider “what counts as doing physics” that we want to prepare students for and how we can model professional physics practice in our classrooms. We argue that this focus on community omits an important consideration of the student’s perceptions of the physics community, which informs how they navigate the community. We introduce the idea of a COP model to describe a student’s internal representation of the community’s goals and practices and their sense of membership within the community. The student develops their COP model in response to legitimate peripheral participation within the community and uses this model to extrapolate their experience of the local community to the global community. We describe how this construct shares similarities with other frameworks but retains distinct features that make it a helpful tool for analysis. We demonstrate the use of the COP model in the review of student interviews about the use of computational practices in the physics community. The COP model helps us interpret student responses in terms of their COP models’ alignment and misalignment with the physics community. We discuss implications for instruction and reflect on the utility of the COP-model construct.

Figure 1

Wenger conceived of several possible trajectories a learner might take in relation to a community of practice: insider trajectories (remaining central), peripheral trajectories (accessing the community without becoming a full member), inbound trajectories (peripheral-to-central), boundary trajectories (between two or more COPs), and outbound trajectories (exiting the COP) [2].

Figure 2

The construct of a COP model. The student’s mental model includes their trajectory history [$\overrightarrow{r}(t)$], their next step ($\mathrm{\Delta }\overrightarrow{r}$), and their understanding of the community’s sense of joint enterprise. Their next step is informed by their current sense of alignment with the sense of joint enterprise. All these elements are shaped by the legitimate peripheral participation in the local COP. We apply this construct specifically to the use of computation in physics education, but believe it can offer insights into all STEM communities.

Figure 3

Pie charts representing possible internal representations of the physics community’s practices that a professional physicist (left) and first-year physics major (right) might adopt based on their differences in experience. A professional is likely to give comparable space to computation, experiment, and theory, while a first-year major might have limited experience with computation, leading to different expectations of the practices used by the physics community.