Main characteristics and impacts of communities of practice on education workers: a systematic review of the literature

ABSTRACT

This study aims to present a systematic literature review of the main characteristics and impacts of Communities of Practice in the educational sector. Empirical studies in Portuguese, English, and Spanish were included without temporal limitations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocol was applied and after consulting five databases, 1,179 studies were returned, whose sequential filtering resulted in 59. In the analysis, we described the characteristics of the communities investigated and carried out a classification of the impacts they produced. This categorization was carried out by three judges, based on two theoretical models — one for evaluating training and development results and the other for value-generation from Communities of Practice. The results indicate a prevalence of impact on the level of learning and the potential value. We present gaps in the literature and a research agenda on these social learning spaces.

Keywords:
Communities of Practice; Education Workers; Professional Development; Systematic Literature Review; Impact Assessment

RESUMO

Este estudo visa apresentar uma revisão sistemática da literatura das principais características e impactos das Comunidades de Prática do setor educacional. Foram contemplados estudos empíricos em português, inglês e espanhol, sem limitação temporal. Foi aplicado o Protocolo Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) e, da consulta a cinco bases de dados, retornaram 1.179 estudos, cuja filtragem sequencial resultou em 59. Na análise, descrevemos as características das comunidades investigadas e realizamos uma classificação dos impactos que elas produziram. Tal categorização foi realizada por três juízas, com base em dois modelos teóricos — um de avaliação de resultados de treinamento e desenvolvimento e outro de geração de valor das Comunidades de Prática. Os resultados sinalizam para uma prevalência de impacto no nível da aprendizagem e no valor potencial. Apresentamos as lacunas da literatura e uma agenda de pesquisa sobre esses espaços sociais de aprendizagem.

Palavras-chave:
Comunidades de Prática; Trabalhadores da Educação; Desenvolvimento Profissional; Revisão Sistemática da Literatura; Avaliação de Impacto

RESUMEN

Este estudio pretende presentar una Revisión Sistemática de la Literatura de las principales características e impactos de las Comunidades de Práctica del sector educacional. Se contemplaron estudios empíricos en portugués, inglés y español, sin limitación temporal. Se aplicó el Protocolo PRISMA y, de la consulta a cinco bases de datos, retornaron 1.179 estudios, cuya filtración secuencial resultó en 59. En el análisis, describimos las características de las comunidades investigadas y realizamos una clasificación de los impactos que ellas produjeron. Tal categorización fue realizada por tres juezas, a partir de dos modelos teóricos – uno de evaluación de resultados de entrenamiento y desarrollo y otro de generación de valor de las Comunidades de Práctica. Los resultados señalan hacia una prevalencia de impacto en el nivel del aprendizaje y en el valor potencial. Presentamos las brechas en la literatura y una agenda de investigación sobre esos espacios sociales de aprendizaje.

Palabras clave:
Comunidades de Práctica; Trabajadores de la Educación; Desarrollo Profesional; Revisión Sistemática de la Literatura; Evaluación de Impacto

INTRODUCTION

The concept of a Community of Practice (CoP) was introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991) based on studies with diverse groups, including midwives, tailors, sailors, supermarket butchers, and members of Alcoholics Anonymous. This conceptualization emerged from efforts to understand the fundamentally social nature of human learning (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978; Giddens, 1984; Lave, 1991).

Currently, a CoP refers to a self-organized, fluid, and spontaneous social process in which members, through collaboration, share a concern or passion for a common topic. Through sustained interaction, members not only develop competencies but also refine their practices (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). Nevertheless, the literature presents multiple definitions, some emphasizing the sharing of practices and knowledge management, while others focus more explicitly on competency development (Kirk and MacDonald, 1998; Mitchell, 2002; Snyder, Wenger and Briggs, 2003; Mega, Araujo and Veit, 2020).

Etienne Wenger-Trayner and his collaborators (Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDemortt and Snyder, 2002; Wenger-Trayner e Wenger-Trayner, 2020; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023) identify three core and interrelated elements of CoPs: domain (what), community (who), and practice (how). Domain encompasses identity, shared interest, and collective commitment, distinguishing CoP members from other groups and spaces. Community refers to members' engagement around shared interests and the relationships that facilitate interaction and joint learning. Finally, practice, going beyond the mere sharing of interests, involves the collective construction and critical reflection on experiences, stories, tools, and approaches shared by members (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2015).

In addition, Wenger (1998) proposes three interrelated dimensions: mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Mutual engagement fosters interpersonal relationships and sustains CoP cohesion by integrating the competencies of all members toward shared goals. Joint enterprise reflects trust, mutual accountability, and the rhythm of interactions, while the shared repertoire encompasses ideas, routines, tools, and practices collectively developed and shared among members (Wenger, 1998).

From this perspective, drawing on different authors (Wenger, 1998; Snyder, Wenger and Briggs, 2003; Gohn, 2016; Ramos-Rodríguez, Flores Martínez and Ponte, 2017; Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2020; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023), CoPs can be understood as presenting a set of essential characteristics. These characteristics include: intentionality in action; lack of formal structure; bonds of belonging and identification with mutual engagement; networked functioning with collaborative activities and a shared repertoire among peers; and a focus on a joint enterprise that involves competency development, knowledge management, and value creation.

Regarding the life cycle of CoPs, up to six stages of development have been identified, contributing to an understanding of their maturation. These stages include: potential, coalescing, establishment, commitment, evolution, and dispersion. While the initial stage of potential signals the possibility of CoP formation, subsequent stages involve the formation, consolidation, and conclusion of activities, leaving a legacy of practices, relationships, and identities (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023).

The practices produced and negotiated within CoPs play a central role, as they contribute to the collective structuring of knowledge and to guiding members' learning. Through participation, reification, and value creation, it becomes possible to understand and maximize impacts both within and beyond the Community. Lave and Wenger (1991) explore these processes by emphasizing participation and reification as inseparable and foundational to the construction of CoP identity, which plays a significant role in the development of knowledge, identity, and professional practice (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2014).

Reification plays a central role in CoPs, as it entails the concretization of experiences into tangible and shareable artifacts that become part of the CoPs' shared repertoire (Lave and Wenger, 1991). However, although participation is foundational to members' identification, material reification may entail limitations in practical application and professional impact, thereby requiring a more nuanced analysis of its effects (Farnsworth, Kleanthous and Wenger-Trayner, 2016; Souza, 2021).

The assessment of CoP impact can be conducted through the value creation cycle, which involves examining different types of value, ranging from immediate to transformative values (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). This approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of CoP effects and underscores the importance of members' contributions to identification and learning processes (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2020).

Despite the relevance of outcomes and effects of CoPs, the literature reveals a gap regarding reification processes, with a predominance of anecdotal and speculative approaches rather than empirically grounded analyses of the results produced by these communities. The existing literature tends to focus on the feasibility and formation of CoPs, as well as barriers and operational dynamics, but offers a limited in-depth evaluation of the impacts of these communities on professional development (PD).

In this context, the present systematic literature review (SLR) investigates work-related learning and its role in PD, understood as a process that involves not only vertical progression but also identity transformation and continuous learning. Professional development, understood as the construction of competencies through practice, is crucial for identifying gaps, learning opportunities, and future perspectives within short-, medium-, and long-term development trajectories (Guskey, 2000; Illeris, 2011; Mourão and Monteiro, 2018).

To conduct this SLR, the following research question was formulated: "What are the main characteristics and impacts of CoPs on education workers?" This type of investigation seeks to identify, select, evaluate, and synthesize the relevant evidence available on the topic. The references used, such as Guskey (2000), Illeris (2011), and Mourão and Monteiro (2018), support the relevance of the proposed approach and the PD process.

METHOD

The present study was conducted as an SLR, a protocol-driven methodological approach widely used to synthesize evidence on a given topic. Emphasizing reproducibility, this approach explicitly reports the databases consulted, search strategies, selection and analysis procedures, as well as the limitations of both the included studies and the review itself (Moher et al., 2009; Siddaway, Wood and Hedges, 2019; Page et al., 2021).

The SLR followed the nine stages outlined by Donato and Donato (2019). The first stage involved defining a research question to guide subsequent stages. In the second stage of selecting the investigation protocol and its registration, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses — PRISMA (Page et al., 2021) protocol was adopted to support the development of SLR articles with greater rigor and quality.

In the third stage, inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Inclusion criteria comprised scientific articles with the following characteristics: empirical studies on CoPs published at any time; publications in Portuguese, English, or Spanish; with education workers as the target population; and with at least one citation up to March 2024. Exclusion criteria were: duplicate publications across databases; articles with full texts in languages other than those established; studies without a defined target population; studies that do not contribute to answering the guiding research question (main characteristics and impacts of CoPs on education workers); and studies with research methods that failed to meet minimum quality standards as assessed by the reviewers.

The fourth stage concerned the operationalization of the review procedures. As a core component, the following were defined: consultation of five databases: Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Web of Science (WoS), Redalyc, Scopus, and Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC); and the use of the following keywords and Boolean operators: "Community of practice" OR "Virtual community of practice" OR "Online community of practice" AND "Educational institutions" OR "Educational environment" OR "Schools" OR "Educational sector" OR "Field of Education" AND NOT "Student" OR "Pupil" OR "Preservice teacher" OR "Undergraduate" OR "Internship."

The fifth stage involved study selection. A total of 549 studies were initially identified, and the abstracts of all records were screened. When abstract screening proved insufficient to determine inclusion or exclusion, the methods section was examined to establish eligibility. Following this stage, 59 scientific articles were retained as the final sample.

The completion of the first through fifth stages of the PRISMA protocol enabled the construction of a flowchart illustrating the article selection process, organized into three main phases: identification, which involved a broad search for potentially relevant materials across databases, without exclusions; screening, which entailed the removal of duplicate records, records without access to full texts, or those outside the scope of the SLR; and inclusion, corresponding to the final set of scientific articles selected for the review. Figure 1 illustrates the pathway followed in developing the present SLR.

Figure 1
Study selection flowchart according to the Preferred eporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol.

In the sixth stage, the PRISMA protocol (Page et al., 2021) was used as a quality assurance tool to ensure the rigor of the SLR, enabling a systematic assessment of methodological quality and reporting across all included studies. In the seventh stage, data extraction was conducted through a detailed reading of the selected articles, using predefined variables to support a descriptive analysis of the studies. This phase was crucial for identifying and compiling the bibliometric information relevant to this review.

The eighth stage consisted of data synthesis and quality appraisal, comprising: identification of variables in each study; grouping of these variables into thematic categories with independent evaluation by a judge; theoretical alignment of empirical categories with the foundational theories; and classification of studies according to empirical categories and theories. Finally, the ninth stage involved disseminating the results in this publication (Donato and Donato, 2019). The following section presents the main characteristics of the analyzed CoPs, their impacts, the results obtained, and the discussion grounded in the literature relevant to the field of study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To provide an overview of the literature on the main characteristics and impacts of CoPs on education workers, a brief bibliometric analysis was conducted of the studies included in this SLR. This analysis enabled identification of, among other aspects, the number of journals addressing the topic across the databases searched, the years of publication, the countries in which the studies were conducted, the target populations, and the study designs.

Regarding databases, WoS, ERIC, and Scopus returned the highest number of records (665, 198, and 169, respectively). When duplicates were identified, records were retained in the database with the largest number of articles. Consequently, WoS contributed 37 studies to this SLR, followed by Scopus, ERIC, and Redalyc, each contributing six articles, while SciELO contributed four. This lower number of Scopus database records reflects an overlap with WoS and ERIC databases. Regarding the year of publication, no initial time limit was established; however, the earliest identified publication dates back to 2003, allowing the construction of a 20-year landscape of research on the impacts of CoPs on education workers.

Figure 2 displays the total number of publications between 2003 and 2023. Articles are grouped by time intervals, allowing the identification of a growth trend in research on the topic. For clarity, the figure also shows the number of publications in Brazil, represented by the black line.

Figure 2
Number of publications on the impacts of Communities of Practice (CoPs) on education workers over the last 20 years.

The data indicate that 13 articles were published during the first decade (2003–2013), increasing to 38 in the subsequent decade. A similar trend was observed in Brazil, where publications rose from one to six. This growth may be associated with the more recent work of Etienne Wenger-Trayner, whose publications over the past five years have expanded discussions on the processes of creation, sustainability, impacts, and value generation in CoPs, particularly in organizational contexts. These publications may have contributed to increasing interest in CoPs across different fields of knowledge and professional practice.

In terms of geographic distribution, most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 14), followed by Brazil (n = 7), South Africa and Ireland (n = 4 each), and New Zealand, Australia, China, Canada, Colombia, and Israel (n = 3 each). Other countries contributed only one or two publications. Clearly, these findings are influenced by language restrictions (Portuguese, English, and Spanish). However, it is noteworthy that countries such as Portugal and Spain do not appear among the countries with the highest number of publications on CoPs, which may suggest that this phenomenon is less frequent in these countries than in others, such as Brazil. As expected, given the databases and languages considered, most articles were published in English (86.4%). Notably, some of the publications in English were authored by Brazilian researchers whose studies were conducted in Brazil.

Regarding research approaches, eight studies employed mixed-methods (quantitative-qualitative), 51 employed qualitative designs, and no exclusively quantitative studies were identified. Qualitative studies comprised case studies (n = 10), action research (n = 5), phenomenological studies (n = 3), ethnographies (n = 2), and one interpretative study. The predominance of qualitative research on CoPs in the education sector may be associated with a tendency in the field toward this approach and/or with challenges in quantitatively measuring the values generated by CoPs.

Semi-structured interviews were the most frequently employed data collection technique (n = 49), accounting for 83.0% of the studies. In 15.2% of them, this technique was used as the sole data source. In most cases, it was combined with other methods, such as participant or non-participant observations, field notes, and/or document analysis. Notably, 88.1% of studies adopted a cross-sectional design, and only seven collected data with the same participants at two or more time points. This finding indicates that studies in this field are generally not characterized as follow-up research on CoPs, with few studies adopting a longitudinal design.

Concerning the research samples, this SLR considers education workers broadly across formal, informal, and non-formal contexts, including teachers and professionals in administrative, planning, inspection, supervision, guidance, leadership, coordination, and pedagogical advisory roles. However, 47 of the 59 studies (79.7%) included only teachers in their samples, and only 12 involved other workers, such as administrative staff, municipal managers, consultants, researchers, and mentors. This pattern may indicate that teachers have greater knowledge of and/or interest in CoPs, or that this group operates under more favorable conditions for fostering and sustaining CoPs.

Another aspect examined concerns the data analysis process. Detailing this process in research is essential, as it relates to the construction of meanings and interpretations grounded in the consolidation and understanding of participants' accounts, as well as in what was observed and reviewed by the researcher. Data analysis is a complex and non-linear process that seeks to justify why a given procedure is more appropriate for the study in terms of its alignment with the research objectives (Minayo, 2016).

Among analytical procedures, thematic analysis (n = 18) and grounded theory analysis (n = 15) were the most frequently employed. The remaining methods included: narrative unit analysis (n = 5), interpretative analysis (n = 3), descriptive analysis (n = 2), factor analysis (n = 2), and hermeneutic analysis (n = 2). The semantic fields model, paradigmatic analysis, and phenomenological analysis each appeared in a single study. Notably, ten articles described their analytical strategies as deductive and/or inductive approaches, in some cases combined within a mixed methods design.

Among the journals, Teaching and Teacher Education had the highest number of publications (n = 5), followed by Professional Development in Education (n = 4). Five journals had two publications included in this SLR, and an additional 40 journals were represented by a single publication each, indicating both a dispersion of research outputs and an openness to this topic among a wide range of journals. Chart 1 presents a synthesis of the main bibliometric information discussed thus far.

Chart 1
Bibliometric information of the reviewed articles.

Country of the studies	Journals with the highest number of publications	Data collection instruments used	Approach	Analysis procedures
United States (14)	Teaching and Teacher Education (5)	Individual interview (49)	Qualitative (unspecified) (30)	Thematic analysis (18)
Brazil (7)	Professional Development in Education (4)	Observation (28)	Case study (10)	Grounded theory (15)
South Africa and Ireland (4, each)	Boletim de Educação Matemática (2)	Field notes (21)	Mixed-methods (8)	Narrative unit analysis (5)
China, Canada, Australia, Colombia, Israel, New Zealand (3, each)	International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education (2)	Document analysis (18)	Action research (5)	Interpretative analysis (3)
Countries with 2 studies (1)	International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2)	Focus group (8)	Ethnographic (2)	Analyses applied twice (3)
Countries with 1 study (10)	Irish Educational Studies (2)	Survey (7)	Phenomenological (3)	Analyses applied once (3)
	South African Journal of Education (2)		Interpretative (1)
	Journals with one publication (40)

Having outlined the main bibliometric information of the articles included in this SLR, the following section examines the main characteristics of the CoPs addressed in the selected studies. This characterization is essential for a more nuanced understanding of their reported impacts.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

The first aspect examined was whether CoPs operated in face-to-face, online, or hybrid formats. Online and hybrid modalities reflect adaptations to virtual contexts, in which knowledge construction and interaction occur, in whole or in part, through synchronous or asynchronous digital activities (Ferreira and Silva, 2014). In 18 studies, CoPs were face-to-face; in 15, virtual; in seven, hybrid; and in 19, the format was unspecified. The predominance of CoPs using virtual spaces (55%) suggests a growing trend toward blended real-virtual interaction in learning environments.

Regarding the platforms used for member interactions or for content storage, half of the publications examining online or hybrid CoPs provided this information. Among these, eight used social networks, four employed proprietary websites, three utilized virtual learning environments, three relied on WhatsApp, and two used videoconferencing platforms. In some instances, the same CoP used more than one platform.

Another aspect analyzed was the year in which the CoPs were established; however, only 26 articles (44.1%) reported this information. Based on the available data, the oldest CoP dates to 1983, and the most recent to 2021. The absence of this information makes it challenging to identify the stage of development of the CoPs, limiting readers' understanding of the status of these communities, and constraining the formulation of precise and operationalizable research questions and hypotheses (Gil, 2010).

The duration of CoP follow-up across the studies reviewed ranged from less than one month (n = 3) to eight years (n = 1), with the most frequent period being one to 11 months (n = 16), although seven studies lasted one year and 14 ranged from one to six years. Among the reviewed studies, 18 did not specify the follow-up period. These findings indicate that it is not always possible to evaluate CoPs through cross-sectional studies, underscoring the need for more extended follow-up periods.

Regarding facilitators, 29 of the 59 articles reported on this aspect. Facilitation arrangements were highly diverse, with the presence of one facilitator (n = 10) or two facilitators (n = 5) being most common. Three CoPs reported having three facilitators each, one reported four facilitators, and another reported seven. Five studies mentioned a facilitator but did not specify the number. Notably, four CoPs were reported as having no facilitator, despite the central role of facilitation in encouraging and sustaining member participation, as well as in supporting strategy development, conducting activities, and providing technical assistance (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023).

With respect to the establishment of CoPs, in 28 studies the group was constituted as a CoP from the outset. In contrast, in 29 others the CoPs emerged from a pre-existing collective, whose members subsequently came to recognize themselves as a CoP or adopted this new objective for the group. Two studies did not report the Community's origin. Regarding the initiative for creation, teacher-led projects predominated (n = 30), followed by initiatives originating from the educational institutions with which the CoPs were affiliated (n = 9). The remaining sources were: professional development programs (n = 8); government initiatives (n = 5); and research projects/groups or graduate programs (n = 4). In three studies, the source of the initiative was not reported.

Regarding recognition, based on Wenger-Trayner et al. (2023), 24 studies classified CoPs as legitimized (their existence and outcomes were recognized despite the absence of formal support), 16 as institutionalized, and 17 as autonomous (emergent), while two did not report this information. This distinction is relevant because it directly and indirectly shapes community dynamics, particularly with respect to the recognition of produced knowledge, members' availability, dissemination processes, activity support or sponsorship, and the overall reach of the CoP.

Only a limited number of studies reported the frequency and/or duration of meetings. Of the 59 articles, 21 reported meeting frequency (39%), with monthly (n = 8) and biweekly (n = 6) meetings the most common. Weekly meetings were also identified (n = 4), as well as less typical schedules, such as semiannual, bimonthly, or daily meetings (n = 1 each). Only five articles reported the average meeting duration, which ranged from one hour (n = 1) to three hours (n = 2), with two-hour meetings also reported (n = 2).

Regarding the number of participants, nearly half of the articles (49.1%) did not provide this information, which is a limitation, as CoP size is related to its operational dynamics (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). Among the studies reporting this information, ten CoPs had up to ten members, ten had 11–20 members, three had 21–30 members, one had 31–40 members, and six had more than 40 members. Notably, one CoP was reported to have more than 70 thousand members, which raises questions about its operational strategies, as these are only briefly described in the text.

With respect to scope, three CoPs had an international scope, six were national, and eight were interregional or statewide. The scope of the remaining CoPs was reported by affiliation, with nine encompassing more than one educational institution, 17 limited to a single educational institution, and five restricted to a program, department, research group, or laboratory. Among the 59 studies reviewed, 11 did not specify this information. Chart 2 summarizes the main characteristics of the CoPs.

Chart 2
Main characteristics of the Communities of Practice (CoPs).

Type	Scope	Total number of members	Meeting frequency	Recognition
Virtual (15)	Program/department/research group/laboratory (5)	Up to 10 members (10)	Daily (1)	Legitimized (22)
Face-to-face (18)	Single institution (17)	11 to 20 members (10)	Weekly (4)	Institutionalized (16)
Hybrid (7)	More than one institution (9)	21 to 30 members (3)	Fortnightly (6)	Autonomous (17)
Not specified (19)	Interregional/statewide (8)	31 to 40 members (1)	Monthly (8)	Not specified (2)
	National (6)	More than 40 members (6)	Every two months (1)
	Global (3)	Not specified (29)	Semester (1)
	Not specified (11)		Not specified (38)

Regarding the CoP domain, verbs used to describe objectives were grouped by semantic similarity. The analysis shows that some objectives focus on internal processes (e.g., learning, reflecting), whereas others emphasize impact-oriented purposes (e.g., improving, implementing, producing). Certain verbs, such as developing and sharing, function as intermediaries between processes and outcomes. Notably, both the verb and its complement shape the definition of the CoP objective; for example, "providing learning" reflects a process-oriented goal, whereas "providing results" denotes an outcome-oriented one. These objectives align with those described by Wenger-Trayner et al. (2023). The most frequent verbs are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3
Verbs defining the domain and objectives of the investigated Communities of Practice (CoPs).

Among the challenges faced by CoPs, the most prevalent include recognizing the knowledge produced by the communities within the workplace, limited time availability among members, sustaining engagement, and technological constraints. In addition, limited or absent prior knowledge of the topics addressed, discomfort with openness to new ideas, sharing one's own practice, and engaging in critique were also reported.

The activities developed within CoPs were also organized according to similarities in meaning. Chart 3 presents the ten identified activity clusters, along with an analysis of the corresponding stages of informal learning, according to the classification proposed by Coelho Junior and Mourão (2011). These authors argue that each stage of informal learning (acquisition, retention, maintenance, generalization, transfer, and application) requires distinct psychosocial support strategies. From this perspective, the learning activities described in the empirical studies on CoPs were found to relate to more than one stage of the Psychosocial Support Model for the Different Stages of Informal Learning proposed by Coelho Junior and Mourão (2011). This finding highlights the dynamic nature of social learning in CoPs, in which stages may occur simultaneously or overlap to varying degrees.

Chart 3
Activities conducted in Communities of Practice (CoPs).

Learning actions	Stages of informal learning
Dialogues, reflections, socialization, and sharing about practice (50)	Acquisition | Retention | Maintenance
Formal and informal events: workshops, videoconferences, lectures, seminars, workshops, and field trips (15)	Acquisition | Retention | Maintenance
Peer assessment (discussion of materials and artifacts) (15)	Acquisition | Retention | Maintenance
Research and study (6)	Acquisition | Retention | Maintenance
Asynchronous activities: games, exercises, and forums (5)	Acquisition | Retention | Maintenance
Support and monitoring of activities outside the CoP (5)	Generalization | Transfer | Application
Production of manuals, teaching materials, books, projects, work proposals, reports, and articles (5)	Transfer | Application
Mentoring/Training (4)	Transfer | Application
Sharing (posting) materials/content (4)	Acquisition
Development and discussion of reflective writing (3)	Retention | Maintenance

The most frequently identified stage of informal learning was the acquisition of competencies, which appeared in six of the ten learning activities and accounted for a high overall frequency across the studies (n = 95). This result is expected, as acquisition represents the first stage of the learning process and underpins all subsequent stages of the model (Coelho Junior and Mourão, 2011). The stages of retention and maintenance of competencies exhibit substantial similarity to acquisition-related activities, with considerable overlap observed among them (n = 91; n = 94, respectively). In contrast, the stages of application and transfer of informal learning are far less frequent (n = 14 for both), suggesting that achieving the stage of generating impact is considerably more challenging (Coelho Junior and Mourão, 2011; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). A further challenge is evident in the generalization stage, which appeared only rarely in reports from empirical studies on CoPs (n = 5).

These results are noteworthy because, within the concept of CoPs, "learning is only relevant insofar as it changes what happens in practice" (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023, p. 14). In other words, knowledge sharing alone is not sufficient; a continuous cycle is required in which ideas are generated and tested in practice (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). This necessary linkage to improving practice is precisely what differentiates CoPs from other learning groups. Given the challenges identified in achieving the outcome-oriented objectives of CoPs, investments in diverse strategies to support informal learning are required, in line with what was proposed by Coelho Junior and Mourão (2011), as a condition for producing concrete impacts of CoPs, whether in the short, medium, or long term.

In conclusion, the CoPs examined across the 59 studies display a high degree of heterogeneity. An analysis of their predominant characteristics points to a Community profile characterized by a face-to-face modality (n = 18), legitimized status (n = 24), the presence of a single facilitator (n = 10), origin in a pre-existing collective (n = 29), teacher-led initiation (n = 30), monthly meetings (n = 8), membership ranging between 10 and 20 participants (n = 20), limited to a single educational institution (n = 17), a domain oriented toward the development of specific knowledge, skills, or attitudes (n = 17), and learning actions were primarily focused on dialogue, reflection, socialization, and the sharing of practice (n = 50). When conducted for research purposes, follow-up periods most ranged from one to 11 months (n = 16). Having completed the analysis of the main characteristics of CoPs, the following section addresses the guiding research question of this SLR by examining the impacts of CoPs on education workers.

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE BASED ON THE REVIEWED STUDIES

In this section, the 19 impacts attributed to CoPs across the 59 studies included in this SLR are presented. To categorize these impacts, both Hamblin's (1978) training and development evaluation model and the value creation model proposed by Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020) were employed. The former examines five outcome levels: reaction; learning; job behavior; organization; and final value, whereas the latter focuses on identifying the value generated, taking into account the expected value creation cycle of CoPs.

Hamblin's (1978) model enables the description of the results of a learning intervention by collecting information on its effects and, based on the levels achieved, determining the value of that intervention (Borges-Andrade, Abbad e Mourão, 2012). This model was adopted because CoPs are understood to generate results at different levels, ranging from simple satisfaction with participation to final value, namely the concrete achievement of their mission. The objective of a CoP extends beyond the mere pursuit of knowledge acquisition, as repercussions for PD are expected through the internalization of skills, attitudes, and values, similarly to what is expected from training and development actions (Vargas and Abbad, 2006). From this perspective, Borges-Andrade's (2002) observation is pertinent: the boundary between the concepts of training and development has become increasingly blurred, as both aim to promote learning capable of producing changes in the workers' ways of thinking and acting.

It is at this juncture, then, that we establish the link between Hamblin's (1978) training and development evaluation model and the analysis of CoP impacts, given that CoPs can be understood as development-oriented actions focusing on learning and competency formation. Within this framework, Hamblin's (1978) model supports the assessment of CoP impacts in terms of the applicability of what members have learned to their professional activities, the sustainability of these effects, and their personal and professional repercussions (Hamblin, 1978; Borges-Andrade, 2002; Dutra, 2004; Vargas and Abbad, 2006).

In Hamblin's (1978) model, impact levels are examined systematically and sequentially, whereby each level is interconnected with the next, creating the necessary conditions for progression and the potential attainment of final value. In a similar vein, Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020) argue that each impact generated by a CoP, regardless of its level, carries value that may or may not accumulate toward the outcome-oriented (final) level.

Based on Hamblin's (1978) model, Chart 4 presents the classification analysis conducted by three judges through a consensus-based procedure. At the learning level, impacts were categorized into two subcategories: personal gains and interpersonal gains. In parallel, each impact was examined at its corresponding stage within the value creation cycle proposed by Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020).

Chart 4
Classification of impacts attributed to Communities of Practice (CoPs) and their values according to Hamblin's (1978) Model.

Impact levels	Gains	Impacts attributed to CoPs (n)	Value
Learning	Personal gains	Increased belief in one's own capacity and professional performance (42)	Potential
		Greater awareness of one's own practice (27)	Potential
		Change in professional identity (17)	Transformative
		Sense of individual learning and professional development (16)	Potential
		Professional revitalization (16)	Potential
		Re-signification of the professional trajectory (valuation, responsibility, and dedication) (15)	Transformative
		Increased personal satisfaction and well-being (11)	Potential
		Increased creativity and planning in the face of daily constraints (7)	Potential
		Broadening of perspectives regarding the macro context (5)	Enabling
		Increased self-esteem (2)	Potential
	Interpersonal gains	Gain in social capital and relational skills (12)	Potential
		Reduction in the feeling of professional isolation (11)	Potential
Job behavior		Refinement in ways of working (30)	Applied
		Production of artifacts (15)	Applied
		Application of what was learned at work and in other contexts (12)	Applied
		Better management of time and workload (3)	Realized
Organization		Changes in the institution after engagement in the CoP (13)	Realized
		Promotions and career progression, new roles or functions (11)	Realized
		Recognition of professional contribution (11)	Realized

An examination of Table 4 indicates that the impacts of CoPs were concentrated at the intermediate levels of Hamblin's (1978) model, with no impacts reported at either the first level (reaction) or the final level (final value). On the one hand, the absence of reported impacts at the reaction level limits readers understanding of participants' satisfaction with engaging in CoPs; on the other hand, it suggests that researchers did not focus on merely positive evaluation of the communities, instead prioritizing more concrete outcome levels. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the absence of impacts at the final value level may stem from the difficulty of achieving and measuring this deeper level of outcomes.

At the learning level (n = 12), ten impacts were classified as personal gains and two as interpersonal gains. At the individual level, the most prominent impacts involved increased belief in one's own capacity (self-efficacy) and professional performance (n = 42), followed by greater awareness of one's own practice (n = 27). At the interpersonal level, gains in social capital and relational skills (n = 12), and a reduction in feelings of professional isolation (n = 11) were identified. The predominance of learning-related impacts relative to other levels, as well as the disparity between personal and interpersonal gains, may indicate either that CoP impacts are primarily individual in nature or that different types of impacts are shaped by social, cultural, and organizational structures that hinder their emergence and/or the identification of their effects (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023).

With respect to the value creation cycle proposed by Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020), at the learning level, nine impacts were classified as potential value, two as transformative value, and one as enabling value. This distribution suggests that learning can generate a substantial number of impacts in the form of potential intangible resources, which may lead to changes in professional practice, professional trajectories, and/or the ways individuals relate to the institutions in which they work, respectively.

At the job behavior level, four impacts were identified, with a refinement of the ways of working (n = 30) emerging as the second most frequently cited impact across the reviewed articles as a whole. This was followed by the production of artifacts (n = 15), the application of what was learned at work-related and other contexts (n = 12), and, finally, improvements in the management of time and workload (n = 3). These findings indicate that the values attributed to impacts are oriented toward the application and effective realization of the potential and intangible resources acquired at the learning level.

At the organizational level, the three impacts identified were categorized as realized value, indicating that learning generated within the social spaces of CoPs extends beyond individual-level outcomes. These impacts included recognition of professional contributions (n = 11), promotions and career progression through new roles or functions (n = 11), and institutional changes following participation in the CoP (n = 13).

Taken together, these results indicate a convergence between the two theoretical models, as Hamblin's (1978) impact levels align with the value-creation cycle proposed by Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020). On the one hand, the absence of results at the reaction level corresponds to the lack of impacts classified as immediate value. On the other hand, the gap in results at the final value level is consistent with a similar gap in terms of strategic value. It is also noteworthy that the enabling value, which relates to the organization and facilitation of CoPs, was not identified. This finding may be explained by the research question guiding in this SLR, as the focus was placed on the characteristics and results of CoPs rather than on the conditions underlying their functioning.

Although Hamblin's (1978) model is compatible with the context of CoPs, it presents limitations by assuming a linear sequence of impacts. Given the dynamic nature of CoPs, in which learning occurs through interaction and experimentation, it is challenging to identify and measure distinct impact levels and their transitions clearly, an issue that may have influenced the findings of this study. Similarly, the value creation cycle proposed by Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020) also encounters constraints, particularly in identifying "transformative" and "strategic" values, whose assessment depends on data and evidence that are difficult to obtain. Despite these limitations, both models demonstrate substantial analytical potential, as reflected in the results presented here.

The comprehensive analysis of these results underscores the crucial role of CoPs in fostering meaningful reflection on knowledge and practices that are essential for understanding and articulating the nuances of professionalism in the education sector (Marques, Loureiro and Marques, 2011; El-Hani and Greca, 2013; Silva and Bartelmebs, 2013; Furtak and Heredia, 2014). The data indicate that the emphasis on procedural activities and objectives, present in nearly all of the reviewed articles, does not preclude identifying CoP impacts that extend beyond the mere acquisition of knowledge. Particularly noteworthy is the strong presence of impacts related to social learning and to some key constructs of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (1986), such as processes of human agency, self-efficacy beliefs, and self-regulation.

In sum, the findings of this SLR support the conclusion that learning fostered within these social spaces yields outcomes at both the personal and professional levels. Likewise, it is evident that CoPs play a fundamental role in the recognition of legitimate peers, thereby providing a basis for a deeper understanding of professional identities (Chinn, 2006; Philippou, Papademetri-Kachrimani and Louca, 2015; Gretton, Bridges and Fraser, 2017). Moreover, in some CoPs, indirect impacts were identified that extend beyond individual members' learning gains.

Although learning in communities has long occurred organically, criticisms persist regarding the applicability of CoPs in organizational contexts, particularly the argument that managerial interventions may lead to their dissolution (Smith and McKeen, 2002) or distance them from their original essence. However, in light of the findings of the literature review conducted here and in alignment with the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), it is argued that CoPs do, in fact, require institutional support in order to develop, and that such support is essential for their effectiveness. It can be inferred that, although CoPs cannot be directly controlled, they can be recognized, fostered, and integrated into institutional strategies by allocating dedicated time and space in which professionals, as members of a CoP, can draw on their experiences to promote joint learning.

In this context, institutions must validate such participation by recognizing its value and the activities undertaken, as well as by providing adequate time and support (Baronio, 2021; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). The literature further supports this perspective by demonstrating that CoPs generate positive transformations in work contexts by promoting commitment, imagination, and alignment among participants, thereby fostering a more critical stance toward the redefinition of professional practices (Furtak and Heredia, 2014; Tallman and Feldman, 2016; Souza, 2021).

In this SLR, the main impacts of CoPs on the workers were identified, with particular attention to education professionals in a broad sense — formal, informal, and non-formal. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that CoPs play a significant role in the PD of these workers by functioning as social spaces that support work-related learning. They enable members to assume collective responsibility for learning, thereby establishing a direct link between learning and practice and, consequently, professional performance, which corroborates the reflections of Wenger-Trayner et al. (2023).

The literature in this field emphasizes that, from the perspective of participation and identification/affiliation, CoPs represent a key mechanism for PD (Akinyemi et al., 2019; Pyrko, Dörfler and Eden, 2019). The findings of this literature review suggest that CoPs offer opportunities to integrate personal, professional, and organizational development through learning processes in which thinking and doing become collectively committed (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023). Moreover, the results concerning the effects of CoPs indicate that, within practical contexts of reflection, reinterpretation, and work transformation, opportunities for value creation materialize through institutional engagement and the questioning of conventional approaches. Continuous improvement among workers is also evident in terms of innovation, change, and the emergence of new perspectives on professional practice. These findings reinforce the effects of CoPs that are widely documented in the literature (Akinyemi et al., 2019; Pyrko, Dörfler and Eden, 2019; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023).

The findings of this study indicate that CoPs hold strong potential to positively influence public education policies, particularly when integrated into continuing education programs and PD strategies. Rather than relying exclusively on isolated training courses, educators increasingly depend on ongoing spaces for exchange, reflection, and collaborative learning. From an educational policy perspective, this represents a more dynamic and sustainable approach to PD, grounded in situated learning processes, in contrast to traditional training models.

A promising pathway for integrating CoPs into policy frameworks lies in recognizing them as institutional development strategies that encourage both intra- and inter-institutional communities. School principals and pedagogical coordinators may be guided to foster professional engagement by aligning these initiatives with school-level objectives and broader national goals. Achieving this integration requires a commitment from education systems to provide adequate structural conditions, such as protected time within work schedules, resources, and institutional support, as well as formal recognition of participation through certification, career progression mechanisms, or funding opportunities.

In vulnerable contexts, such as priority education intervention territories (TEIP), CoPs play a strategic role by strengthening support networks among professionals, students, and families, thereby promoting a sense of belonging, cohesion, and local agency. They also contribute to the development of more adaptive and effective pedagogical practices.

From a monitoring and evaluation of CoPs perspective, the combined use of qualitative and quantitative metrics is recommended. These communities can function as spaces for dialogue and systematic data collection concerning demands, challenges, and solutions. Indicators such as professional collaboration, pedagogical impact, and organizational improvement support the assessment of their effectiveness and inform policy refinement, in alignment with strategic objectives advanced by organizations such as the OECD and UNESCO.

Although, in Brazil, many CoPs continue to emerge from individual initiatives, international experiences illustrate their successful institutionalization, including the Training Centers of School Associations (CFAE) in Portugal; Teachers' Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in the United Kingdom; the networks of the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) in countries such as Kenya and Zambia; and the Experiential Learning Community of Practice of the Institute of Experiential Learning. These examples reinforce the transformative impact of CoPs, especially when they are strategically embedded within public education policies.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The present study employed an SLR to investigate the main characteristics and impacts of CoPs among education workers. Following the PRISMA protocol, 59 articles relevant to the analysis were identified. The review revealed a diversity of sources and origins underlying the formation of CoPs in the field of education, including a substantial presence of virtual and hybrid CoPs, with varying scopes and areas of activity. The findings also indicated an upward trend in publications focusing on the impacts of CoPs, alongside a predominance of qualitative research approaches.

From a theoretical-practical perspective, this investigation enabled the identification of a considerable body of studies on CoPs in the education sector and a detailed examination of their main structural characteristics, the activities developed, and the challenges encountered. This analysis provides a solid foundation for understanding the connections and divergences between theory and practice that underpin this phenomenon. Moreover, it enables the identification of the most frequently reported positive variables associated with the CoPs examined, yielding a consolidated set of potential impacts of these communities on education workers.

Finally, the impacts identified in this investigation can be translated into concrete actions to improve educational environments through CoPs and their integration into public policies. Among these actions, the need for PD policies that formally recognize the contributions of CoPs, such as through mechanisms for teacher career progression, stands out. It is also essential to ensure adequate institutional conditions, including protected time within work schedules and dedicated resources, so that participants can apply the knowledge acquired in their pedagogical practices. Encouraging inter-institutional networks further strengthens schools' social capital by promoting knowledge exchange and collaborative solutions. These networks also facilitate coordination among administrators, educators, and policymakers, thereby broadening the understanding of the relationship between local practices and broader educational goals. This articulation reinforces the active role of schools within the education system and in their wider social function.

This review underscores the need for a more comprehensive research agenda. Future studies should incorporate more diverse and representative samples, encompassing different professional roles and areas of activity within the education sector. In addition, the inclusion of control groups in future research would enable more precise comparisons of results. Longitudinal studies are likewise recommended to achieve a deeper understanding of the actual impacts of CoPs on education workers, given that the existing literature is largely limited to self-reported accounts. This issue is particularly relevant in light of the complex and often unrecognized nature of learning acquired beyond formal education, as highlighted by Borges-Andrade (2015).

Another gap in the literature concerns the limited number of studies that systematically and explicitly examine the impacts of CoPs across different contextual levels: local, institutional, and national. Future research should investigate how CoPs shape pedagogical practices and collaborative dynamics in school contexts, identify the barriers and facilitators that emerge in their institutional implementation, and examine how local experiences can be scaled up to inform national policies, thereby linking grassroots practices to broader strategic objectives. Addressing these questions is essential for advancing understanding of the transformative potential of CoPs and for guiding strategies to consolidate and expand them.

The theoretical models adopted in this SLR offer a promising foundation that can be adapted to the educational context. Hamblin's (1978) model, with its hierarchical impact levels, can be adjusted to analyze CoP members' reactions, transformations in pedagogical practices, changes in the school context, and effects on learning outcomes. The value creation cycle proposed by Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2020), in turn, contributes to the assessment of the values generated in, by and through CoPs, for individuals, the Community, and the institutional context. The integration of these models, combined with more contextualized and dynamic analytical approaches, has the potential to enhance research capacity and to strengthen evaluative frameworks for assessing the impacts of CoPs on the PD of education workers.

Regarding the limitations of this review, only articles published in Portuguese, English, and Spanish were included; future studies could benefit from incorporating additional languages. Moreover, despite efforts to compile a comprehensive set of search terms, the Boolean operators employed may not have captured all relevant combinations, potentially influencing the selection of studies. Despite these limitations, the findings of this review offer meaningful contributions to the field.

It is anticipated that the results of this review will encourage greater recognition and promotion of CoPs in organizational contexts, particularly in education, to foster work-related learning and generate positive impacts on PD. Furthermore, this SLR is expected to serve as a valuable resource for future research, including studies that examine the intersections among formal, informal, and non-formal learning within social learning environments involving education professionals, as well as related phenomena in psychology, education, and allied fields.

• Funding:
  Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), no. 001.

Data availability statement:

Research data is only available in the body of the article.

References

• AKINYEMI, Adeola F.; REMBE, Symphorosa; SHUMBA, Jenny; ADEWUMI, Toyin M.; SERPA, Sandro. Allocation of time in communities of practice: A strategy to enhance continuing professional teachers' development of high schools teachers'. Cogent Social Sciences, v. 5 n. 1, artigo 1583629, fev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1583629
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1583629
• BANDURA, Albert. Social foundations of thought and action Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1986.
• BARONIO, Jonas. Comunidade de prática, aprendizagem organizacional de forma colaborativa e formação humana integral: Um estudo na práxis de gestão e fiscalização de contratos do IFRS. 2021. 219f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação Profissional e Tecnológica) – Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2021. Disponível em: https://dspace.ifrs.edu.br/xmlui/handle/123456789/479 Acesso em: 8 jan. 2024.
  » https://dspace.ifrs.edu.br/xmlui/handle/123456789/479
• BORGES-ANDRADE, Jairo Eduardo. Desenvolvimento de medidas em avaliação de treinamento. Estudos de Psicologia, Natal, v. 7, n. esp., p. 31-43, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2002000300005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2002000300005
• BORGES-ANDRADE, Jairo Eduardo. Aprendizagem no trabalho. In: BENDASSOLLI, Pedro F.; BORGES-ANDRADE, Jairo Eduardo (org.). Dicionário de psicologia do trabalho e das organizações São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo, 2015. p. 69-76.
• BORGES-ANDRADE, Jairo Eduardo; ABBAD, Gardênia da Silva; MOURÃO, Luciana. Modelos de avaliação e aplicação em TD&E. In: ABBAD, Gardênia da Silva; MOURÃO, Luciana; MENESES, Pedro P. M.; ZERBINI, Thaís; BORGES-ANDRADE, Jairo Eduardo; VILAS-BOAS, Raquel (org.). Medidas de avaliação em treinamento, desenvolvimento e educação Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2012. p. 20-35.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre; PASSERON, Jean-Claude. Reproduction in education, society and culture Londres: Sage, 1977.
• CHINN, Pauline W. U. Preparing science teachers for culturally diverse students: Developing cultural literacy through cultural immersion, cultural translators and communities of practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, Holanda, v. 1, n. 2, p. 367-402, jul. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9014-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9014-0
• COELHO JUNIOR, Francisco A.; MOURÃO, Luciana. Suporte à aprendizagem informal no trabalho: Uma proposta de articulação conceitual. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, São Paulo, v. 12, n. 6, ed. esp., p. 224-253, dez. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712011000600010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712011000600010
• DONATO, Helena; DONATO, Mariana. Etapas na condução de uma revisão sistemática. Acta Médica Portuguesa, Portugal, v. 32, n. 3, p. 227-235, mar. 2019. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.11923
  » https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.11923
• DUTRA, Joel Souza. Competências: conceitos e instrumentos para a gestão de pessoas na empresa moderna. São Paulo: Atlas, 2004.
• EL-HANI, Charbel N.; GRECA, Ileana M. ComPratica: a virtual community of practice for promoting biology teachers' professional development in Brazil. Research in Science Education, Holanda, v. 43, n. 4, p. 1327-1359, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9306-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9306-1
• FARNSWORTH, Valerie; KLEANTHOUS, Irene; WENGER-TRAYNER, Etienne. Communities of practice as a social theory of learning: a conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of Educational Studies, Reino Unido, v. 64, n. 2, p. 139-160, jan. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1133799
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1133799
• FERREIRA, Andréia de Assis; SILVA, Bento Duarte da. Comunidade de prática on-line: Uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento profissional dos professores de História. Educação em Revista, Belo Horizonte, v. 30, n. 1, p. 37-64, mar. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-46982014000100003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-46982014000100003
• FURTAK, Erin M.; HEREDIA, Sara C. Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Estados Unidos, v. 51, n. 8, p. 982-1020, out. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21156
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21156
• GIDDENS, Anthony. A constituição da sociedade São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1984.
• GIL, Antonio Carlos. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa 5. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2010.
• GOHN, Maria da Glória. Educação não-formal, participação da sociedade civil e estruturas colegiadas nas escolas. Revista Pedagógica, Chapecó, v. 18, n. 39, p. 59-75, set./dez. 2016. https://doi.org/10.22196/rp.v18i39.3615
  » https://doi.org/10.22196/rp.v18i39.3615
• GRETTON, Anneke L.; BRIDGES, Terry; FRASER, James M. Transforming physics educator identities: Tas help Tas become teaching professionals. American Journal of Physics, Estados Unidos, v. 85, n. 5, p. 381-391, maio 2017. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4978035
  » https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4978035
• GUSKEY, Thomas R. Evaluating professional development Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, 2000.
• HAMBLIN, A. C. Avaliação e controle do treinamento São Paulo: McGraw-Hill do Brasil, 1978.
• ILLERIS, Knud. Workplaces and learning. In: MALLOCH, Margaret L.; CAIRNS, Len; EVANS, Karen; O'CONNOR, Bridget (org.). The SAGE Handbook of workplace learning Londres: Sage, 2011. p. 32-45.
• KIRK, David; MACDONALD, Doune. Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Estados Unidos, v. 17, n. 3, p. 376-387, abr. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.17.3.376
  » https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.17.3.376
• LAVE, Jean. Cognición en la práctica Barcelona: Paidós, 1991.
• LAVE, Jean; WENGER, Etienne. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• MARQUES, Margarida M.; LOUREIRO, Maria João; MARQUES, Luís. Planning innovative teaching practices in a community of practice: A case study in the context of the project IPEC. International Journal of Web Based Communities, Reino Unido, v. 7, n. 4, p. 429-441, out. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2011.042989
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2011.042989
• MEGA, Daniel Farias; ARAUJO, Ives Solano; VEIT, Eliane Angela. Centro de tecnologia acadêmica da UFRGS como comunidade de prática e possibilidade de criação de espaços não formais de aprendizagem: um estudo etnográfico. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Belo Horizonte, v. 22, e12139, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1590/21172020210128
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/21172020210128
• MINAYO, Maria Cecília S. (org.). Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2016. (Série Manuais Acadêmicos.)
• MITCHELL, John. The potential for communities of practice Melbourne: John Mitchell and Associates, 2002.
• MOHER, David; LIBERATI, Alessandro; TETZLAFF, Jennifer; ALTMAN, Douglas G.; THE PRISMA GROUP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, Estados Unidos, v. 6, n. 7, e1000097, jul. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
• MOURÃO, Luciana; MONTEIRO, Ana Claudai. Desenvolvimento profissional: Proposição de um modelo conceitual. Estudos de Psicologia, Natal, v. 23, n. 1, p. 33-45, jan./mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.22491/1678-4669.20180005
  » https://doi.org/10.22491/1678-4669.20180005
• PAGE, Matthew J.; MCKENZIE, Joanne E.; BOSSUYT, Patrick M.; BOUTRON, Isabelle; HOFFMANN, Tammy C.; MULROW, Cynthia D.; SHAMSEER, Larissa; TETZLAFF, Jennifer M.; AKL, Elie A.; BRENNAN, Sue E.; CHOU, Roger; GLANVILLE, Julie; GRIMSHAW, Jeremy M.; HRÓBJARTSSON, Asbjørn; LALU, Manoj M.; LI, Tianjing; LODER, Elizabeth W.; MAYO-WILSON, Evan; MCDONALD, Steve; MCGUINNESS, Luke A.; STEWART, Lesley A.; THOMAS, James; TRICCO, Andrea C.; WELCH, Vivian A.; WHITING, Penny; MOHER, David. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v. 372, n71, mar. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• PHILIPPOU, Stavroula; PAPADEMETRI-KACHRIMANI, Chrystalla; LOUCA, Loucas. ‘The exchange of ideas was mutual, I have to say': negotiating researcher and teacher ‘roles' in an early years educators' professional development programme on inquiry-based mathematics and science learning. Professional Development in Education, Reino Unido, v. 41, n. 2, p. 382-400, mar. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.999381
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.999381
• PYRKO, Igor; DÖRFLER, Viktor; EDEN, Colin. Communities of practice in landscapes of practice. Management Learning, Reino Unido, v. 50, n. 4, p. 482-499, set. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619860854
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619860854
• RAMOS-RODRÍGUEZ, Elisabeth; FLORES MARTÍNEZ, Pablo; PONTE, João P. da. An approach to the notion of reflective teacher and its exemplification on mathematics education. Systemic Practice and Action Research, Estados Unidos, v. 30, n. 1, p. 85-102, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9383-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9383-6
• SIDDAWAY, Andy P.; WOOD, Alex M.; HEDGES, Larry V. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, Estados Unidos, v. 70, n. 1, p. 747-770, jan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
• SILVA, João Alberto da; BARTELMEBS, Roberta Chiesa. Comunidade de prática como possibilidade de inovações na pesquisa em ensino de ciências nos anos iniciais. Acta Scientiae, Canoas, v. 15, n. 1, p. 191-208, jan./abr. 2013. Disponível em: http://www.periodicos.ulbra.br/index.php/acta/article/view/416/371 Acesso em: 16 mar. 2024.
  » http://www.periodicos.ulbra.br/index.php/acta/article/view/416/371
• SMITH, Heather A.; MCKEEN, James D. Creating and facilitating communities of practice. In: HOLSAPPLE, Clyde W. (org.). Handbook on knowledge management: knowledge matters. Berlim: Springer Verlag, 2002. p. 393-407.
• SNYDER, William M.; WENGER, Etienne; BRIGGS, Xavier de S. Communities of practice in government: Leveraging knowledge for performance. The Public Manager, v. 32, n. 4, p. 17-21, 2003.
• SOUZA, Douglas Grando de. O cultivo de comunidades de prática para a formação continuada de professores na interface escola-universidade: um olhar histórico sobre as vivências do núcleo de pesquisas em inovação curricular. 2021. 210f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ensino de Física) – Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2021. Disponível em: https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/222911 Acesso em: 23 jan. 2024.
  » https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/222911
• TALLMAN, Karen A.; FELDMAN, Allan. The use of journal clubs in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, Reino Unido, v. 27, n. 3, p. 325-347, mar. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9462-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9462-7
• VARGAS, Miramar Ramos M.; ABBAD, Gardênia da Silva. Bases conceituais em treinamento, desenvolvimento e educação – TD&E. In: BORGES-ANDRADE, Jairo Eduardo; ABBAD, Gardênia da Silva; MOURÃO, Luciana (org.). Treinamento, desenvolvimento e educação em organizações e trabalho: fundamentos para a gestão de pessoas. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2006. p. 137-175.
• VYGOTSKY, Lev S. Mind in society. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1978.
• WENGER, Etienne. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• WENGER, Etienne; MCDEMORTT, Richard; SNYDER, William. Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Brighton: Harvard Business Review Press, 2002.
• WENGER-TRAYNER, Etienne; FENTON-O'CREEVY, Mark; HUTCHINSON, Steven; KUBIAK, Chris; WENGER-TRAYNER, Beverly. Learning in landscapes of practice: boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning. Londres: Routledge, 2014.
• WENGER-TRAYNER, Etienne; WENGER-TRAYNER, Beverly. Introduction to communities of practice: a brief overview of the concept and its uses. Sesimbra: Wenger-Trayner, 2015. Disponível em: https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice Acesso em: 16 mar. 2024.
  » https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice
• WENGER-TRAYNER, Etienne; WENGER-TRAYNER, Beverly. Learning to make a difference: value creation in social learning spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
• WENGER-TRAYNER, Etienne; WENGER-TRAYNER, Beverly; REID, Phil; BRUDERLEIN, Claude. Communities of practice: within and across organizations a guidebook. Sesimbra: Social Learning Lab, 2023.

Edited by

• Responsible Editor:
  Maria Alfredo Moreira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0699-1197

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  02 July 2024
• Reviewed
  03 Apr 2025
• Accepted
  09 May 2025