From Isolation to Collaboration: Adapting Communities of Practice and Collaborative Planning for Online Adult ELT

Introduction

Professional development in English language teaching is often described through appealing terms such as reflection, collaboration, innovation, and growth. In teacher education literature and institutional discourse, collaboration is frequently presented as an unquestionably positive force, one that enriches lesson planning, strengthens materials design, and helps teachers refine their practice. Yet the lived reality of collaboration is usually more complicated than these polished descriptions suggest. In actual teaching contexts, especially in online adult English language teaching (ELT), teachers often work under time constraints, institutional pressure, technological demands, and the emotional fatigue that comes from teaching learners who themselves arrive to class after a full workday. In such settings, collaboration can certainly be transformative, but it can also become uneven, frustrating, symbolic rather than truly productive, or even quietly exploitative.

My reflections from the British Council course TeachingEnglish: How to Adapt Resources, particularly Module 2 on adapting and selecting lesson plans, invited me to revisit these tensions from my own professional context. Although several examples in the course seem more naturally suited to school environments or younger learners, the principles behind collaborative planning, material evaluation, lesson adaptation, and communities of practice can still be highly valuable for those of us who teach young adults and working adults online. However, such principles cannot simply be transferred unchanged from one teaching reality to another. They need to be (re)interpreted, filtered, and (re)adapted to the professional, emotional, and institutional realities of adult online teaching.

This essay argues that collaborative planning, co-created materials, and communities of practice can play a powerful role in the professional development of online adult ELT teachers, but only when they are grounded in context rather than treated as abstract ideals. Drawing on the British Council course, my own reflections, and scholarship on teacher reflection and communities of practice, I argue that collaboration works best when it is purposeful, realistically structured, and responsive to the pedagogical needs of adult learners. In online adult ELT, collaboration can become a source of better lesson design, richer professional dialogue, and much-needed emotional support. At the same time, if collaboration is poorly organized or disconnected from the realities of teachers’ workloads, it can become quite deserted in practice, reduced to storage for files rather than a living professional exchange, or even subtly devious in the way it disguises unequal labor under the rhetoric of teamwork.

Collaboration as a Professional Necessity Rather Than a Decorative Ideal

One of the central ideas in the British Council (n.d.) course is that creating and adapting lesson plans and materials takes time, and that collaboration can reduce the burden while improving quality and contextual relevance. At a general level, this is a compelling claim. Teachers who work together can share tasks, compare ideas, notice weaknesses in materials, and create resources that are more suitable for their learners. In theory, collaboration is efficient and intellectually stimulating at the same time. Yet the practical value of collaboration depends less on the mere presence of other teachers and more on the quality of the relationships, the commitment of the participants, and the clarity of the shared task.

This distinction matters to me because my own experience with collaborative work has been mixed. In my course reflections and notes, I have acknowledged that I have worked with other teachers in different parts of Costa Rica to create materials and summative assessments for shared university courses, and I have also collaborated frequently with colleagues in curriculum development at the language school where I hold a leadership role (Acuña Solano, 2026). However, the outcomes of these collaborations have not been equally productive. Reflecting on one university collaboration, I noted that “the advantages of collaborating with another college professor… turned out to be disadvantageous” because the colleague in question was not sufficiently committed to the task and I ended up “putting proposals on my own and based on my expertise” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 1). By contrast, collaboration with my curriculum-design teammates tends to be more fruitful because there is stronger commitment, a clearer sense of shared purpose, and what I described as “healthy and hearty discussions as to what can be the best achievable product we can get based on our deadlines” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 1).

This contrast illustrates an important truth: collaboration is not inherently valuable simply because several professionals are involved. It becomes meaningful when there is accountability, reciprocity, and professional trust. Otherwise, collaborative work can become little more than an institutional performance in which one or two committed people carry the load while others merely appear to participate. In such cases, the language of “teamwork” can become devious, not because collaboration itself is dishonest, but because the rhetoric of collegiality can conceal very unequal distributions of labor.

For teachers of adults in online environments, this issue is especially important because planning and materials design already demand considerable invisible labor. A teacher preparing a class for working adults is not only selecting grammar or vocabulary tasks. That teacher is also considering the online platform, pacing, interaction patterns, digital tools, contingency plans for connectivity problems, and the emotional state of learners who may log in after a long day of work. Collaboration can ease that burden, but only if it is genuine.

Collaborative Checklists as Shared Professional Judgment

The British Council course emphasizes the value of working with other teachers to create checklists for selecting and adapting materials. At first glance, a checklist may sound administrative or even uninspiring, but I believe it can become one of the most practical collaborative tools in adult online ELT. A checklist is not merely a list of boxes to tick; it is a record of what a teaching team has learned to notice. It reflects collective professional judgment.

The course suggests that collaboration improves a checklist because teachers contribute different perspectives, different levels of experience, and different contextual knowledge (British Council, n.d.). I agree with this. A teacher with many years of classroom experience may identify practical concerns that a newer teacher misses, while a less experienced teacher may be more aware of how confusing certain instructions or task designs can be. Likewise, a colleague who teaches morning groups may notice different learner needs from someone who teaches adults at night. When these perspectives come together, the checklist becomes stronger because it reflects the complexity of real classrooms rather than a single teacher’s assumptions.

My own reflections have helped me notice this complexity. When I described the benefits of collaborative checklist work, I highlighted the value of “different perspectives,” “improved practicality,” “different experience levels,” “different contexts,” and “group reflection” (Acuña Solano, 2026). Those categories matter because they remind us that materials do not function in the abstract; they function in a context shaped by teacher expertise, learner profiles, and institutional realities.

In adult online ELT, such a checklist can be especially useful because lesson materials must be evaluated through several layers at once. It is not enough to ask whether the language level is appropriate or whether the topic is interesting. Teachers also need to ask whether the task is realistic for adults who may be tired, distracted, or under time pressure; whether the instructions are sufficiently clear for an online setting; whether the material can be adapted if the internet connection becomes unstable; and whether the task respects adult learners’ professional identities rather than talking down to them.

A collaboratively designed checklist, then, becomes a kind of landing place for collective pedagogical reasoning. It is where a team can say, in effect, these are the things we have learned to care about in our teaching context. It also becomes a form of storage, not just storage of materials, but storage of criteria, reflections, and institutional memory. In many teaching contexts, materials circulate without explanation. Someone uploads a worksheet, a PowerPoint, or a reading task into a folder, but nobody records why it worked, why it failed, or how it had to be adapted for a specific learner group. A good checklist interrupts that pattern by making evaluation visible. It asks teachers to articulate what makes a resource useful and what must be changed before it reaches the classroom.

For adult online teaching, I imagine such a checklist including questions like these:

·	Is the topic relevant to adult learners’ personal, professional, or academic realities?
·	Can the activity be completed comfortably within the time available online?
·	Does the task promote meaningful interaction rather than passive screen watching?
·	Are the instructions concise and clear enough for an online setting?
·	Does the material assume technological skills or access that some learners may not have?
·	Can the activity be simplified or modified if technical difficulties arise?
·	Does the material respect the maturity and life experience of adult learners?

Questions like these may seem simple, but they can radically improve planning because they force teachers to examine materials through the lens of their actual learners rather than an abstract syllabus.

Collaborative Lesson Planning and the Visibility of Pedagogical Thinking

Another major component of the British Council course is collaborative lesson planning. The course frames this as a cycle of planning, teaching, observing, discussing and improving, applying, and reflecting (British Council, n.d.). This process resembles lesson study and other inquiry-based models of professional development in which teachers jointly examine a lesson, implement it, and then analyze what happened. Although I cannot say that I have regularly co-planned complete lessons with other teachers in the formal sense, I have certainly discussed lesson plans with colleagues teaching the same unit, and I have worked with pre-service teachers to help them understand how lesson planning works as an integrated process rather than a mechanical form.

In my reflections, I have frequently admitted that I could not readily recall planning an entire lesson with another teacher, but I did remember “talking to partners about our lesson plans for the same unit we all were teaching” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 2). Among my reflective journaling, I have also reflected on my experience as a teacher educator, noting that as a pre-service teacher instructor I often went “over the basics of lesson planning and different types of formats for planning,” and that at the beginning it was challenging “to have people notice the importance of each element in the lesson plan and how it is intertwined with the other elements” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 2). That observation is important because it points to something that collaborative planning does particularly well: it makes pedagogical thinking visible.

Planning is not simply about filling in aims, procedures, and timing. This process is about revealing what a teacher values, anticipates, worries about, and assumes about learners. When teachers talk through a lesson plan together, they reveal whether they prioritize interaction, timing, grammar clarification, concept-checking, task sequencing, learner autonomy, or digital engagement. Collaborative planning makes these priorities visible, and that visibility is one of its greatest strengths.

In online adult ELT, collaborative planning may be even more valuable than in other contexts because online lessons often require more careful sequencing than face-to-face classes. The British Council’s guidance on live online teaching suggests that online lessons usually need more detailed planning, fewer but better-selected resources, and flexibility to deal with technical problems (British Council, n.d.). I would add that adult learners intensify these demands. A class of working adults logging in at the end of the day often has less patience for confusion, awkward transitions, and poorly staged activities. They are not in class because school schedules have placed them there; they are in class because they have chosen, or needed, to study English amid other responsibilities. That means the lesson has to justify their effort. It has to feel coherent, efficient, and worth their energy.

For that reason, collaborative planning can become a hive of ideas for planning in adult online ELT. It allows teachers to pool not only activities but also foresight. One teacher may suggest how to make a breakout room task more accountable. Another may know how to reduce teacher talking time in a grammar stage. Another may know how to adapt a reading task into a speaking task that feels more relevant to adults. Yet another may be particularly skilled at designing slides that reduce visual clutter and support comprehension. In a good collaborative planning session, these strengths do not compete; they complement one another.

My own reflections on discussing lessons with colleagues support this point. Going through pages of my reflective journaling, I found notes that state that when talking about what we had planned for the same unit, “I was able to witness how each of us interacted differently with the unit content and how we focused various aspects of the lesson differently, too” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 2). That is precisely the kind of insight collaborative planning can generate: it helps teachers notice that there is no single inevitable way to approach a lesson, and that pedagogical choices are shaped by both expertise and context.

Research supports the pedagogical value of this kind of collaborative inquiry. Uştuk and De Costa (2021) argue that lesson study can help teachers engage in reflection as a form of meta-action, allowing them to examine teaching not just retrospectively but as a dynamic professional practice. Qin (2024) likewise shows that collaborative inquiry in lesson study can deepen instructors’ understanding of teaching and learning processes. These findings matter because they suggest that collaborative planning is not merely a matter of efficiency; it is a mechanism for professional learning. It invites teachers to test assumptions, examine learner responses, and revise lessons with evidence rather than intuition alone.

The Challenges of Collaborative Planning in Real Teaching Contexts

Despite these benefits, I remain cautious about idealizing collaboration. One reason is that collaboration depends heavily on institutional culture. Based on my teaching practice, I have often admitted uncertainty about whether a full collaborative planning cycle could realistically take place in my own context. Reflecting on the possibility of carrying out a structured lesson-study-like process, I have noted that “I’m not sure I can carry out a process like this with the language institute teachers since they are in a ‘professional phase’ where they think they know it all and they are doing things rightly” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 2). I added that with university professors, I could easily imagine the response being, “I don’t have time to do this in this moment,” which in my context can subtly mean, “don’t bother me with these ideas of yours” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 2). These comments are not cynical for the sake of cynicism; rather, they reflect the reality that collaborative planning does not occur in a vacuum. Teachers do not enter collaborative spaces as neutral participants. They bring previous disappointments, anxieties about judgment, exhaustion, and beliefs about what counts as professional competence.

This is why collaborative planning cannot be romanticized. If institutions present collaboration as a grand, permanent, and vaguely defined initiative, teachers may disengage before it even begins. If, however, collaboration is framed as a focused, occasional, and useful intervention, perhaps once per term, centered on one problematic lesson, one assessment task, or one recurring online teaching difficulty, it may be more sustainable. Adult ELT professionals do not necessarily need a permanent committee; they may need a concise structure that respects their workload and still invites professional exchange.

The British Council course itself acknowledges several practical barriers to collaborative planning: lack of time, difficulty generating ideas, differing opinions, fear of criticism, and even limited internet data (British Council, n.d.). I find this realistic and useful because it reminds us that collaboration should not be built on ideal conditions that rarely exist. It should be designed with constraints in mind. In online adult ELT, that may mean planning asynchronously in shared documents, using voice notes instead of lengthy meetings, or conducting one small collaborative cycle each term rather than expecting teachers to engage in constant joint planning. In other words, collaboration must adapt to the rhythm of professional life rather than pretending that teachers are endlessly available.

Communities of Practice: From Platform to Professional Culture

The British Council course also explores the role of communities of practice (CoPs) in sharing and adapting materials. Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015) define communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or passion and learn to do it better through regular interaction. This concept resonates strongly with language teaching because teaching expertise is not only an individual achievement; it is also socially developed through exchange, reflection, and participation in a professional culture.

My own experiences with online communities of practice have ranged from energizing to disappointing. I have participated in teacher communities through Ning and Blackboard, and some of those communities were vibrant while a course or institution actively sustained them. One community I joined through Lewis & Clark College had strong momentum while the course lasted, but that momentum faded afterwards. A Blackboard-based CoP at Laureate Languages Online was robust and productive, with active exchange of lesson plans, ideas, and questions. By contrast, a Ning community I currently belong to has remained mostly dormant despite having valuable content and a video library. Reflecting on that experience, I have noted through my reflective journaling that I have remained in the community “ever since we started it, but it is rather dormant because it seems to be that people join just because and not because they want to explore the video library this platform has” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 3). I added that I have not seen “any activity taking place even when I had posted a triggering question linked to ELT or classroom practices” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 3). That description captures a phenomenon many teachers will recognize: a professional space may exist technologically, yet still feel “quite deserted” in social and pedagogical terms.

This distinction matters because institutions often assume that building a digital space is the same as building a professional community. It is not. A folder full of resources, a WhatsApp group, or a learning platform can support a CoP, but none of those things automatically creates one. A genuine community of practice requires regular interaction, shared purpose, and a sense that participation matters. Teachers need to feel that the space is not just a repository but a place where their professional questions are taken seriously.

In adult online ELT, a CoP should ideally address the actual dilemmas teachers face every week: how to maintain interaction in classes where cameras are off, how to deal with tired learners who want practical English rather than textbook abstraction, how to make breakout rooms more productive, how to adapt materials for professionals in specific fields, and how to balance rigor with empathy when students are clearly overwhelmed. A CoP that becomes a professional “landing place” for these concerns has a chance to thrive. A CoP that functions only as “storage” for files will probably become passive and eventually deserted.

Emotional Support as a Serious Professional Need

One of the strongest points in the British Council (n.d.) materials is the claim that emotional support can be just as important as material sharing in a community of practice. I find this especially relevant to online teaching. It is easy to assume that teachers who work online are well connected because they spend so much time interacting through screens. In reality, online teaching can be deeply isolating. A teacher may teach several classes a day and still feel professionally alone because there is little meaningful exchange with colleagues about what is happening in those classes.

My own reflective journaling aligns strongly with this point. When the course asked why emotional support can be as important as sharing materials in an online community of practice, I thought immediately of a teacher I met while teaching a master’s degree course in qualitative academic research. That teacher was working in a remote indigenous community on the Caribbean side of Costa Rica under extremely demanding circumstances. In my notes, I wrote that “being part of a group of teachers was indeed important to release tension, frustrations, and the like” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 3). I continue to find that observation important because it frames emotional support not as a sentimental extra, but as a professional necessity.

In online adult ELT, isolation is not only geographical; it is pedagogical and emotional. Teachers may be the only ones in their program trying a new digital tool, the only ones teaching a difficult late-evening group, or the only ones openly struggling with burnout or disengagement. In such cases, a community of practice can offer something that formal workshops often cannot: solidarity. It can create a space where frustration is acknowledged rather than hidden, where challenges are discussed without shame, and where teachers are reminded that difficult lessons do not automatically mean personal failure.

Burhan-Horasanlı and Ortaçtepe (2016) emphasize that reflective online discussions can help teachers engage in collaborative reflection and professional learning. I would go further and say that such spaces can also help teachers remain emotionally viable in demanding contexts. Professional growth is not sustained only by methods and theory; it is also sustained by the sense that one belongs to a “crew” of practitioners who understand the complexity of the work.

Sharing Reflections: Turning Experience into Collective Learning

The British Council (n.d.) course also highlights the importance of sharing reflections after lesson planning and teaching. This struck me as one of the most valuable elements of the module because it reframes lesson planning as a cycle rather than a one-off act. A lesson plan is not finished when the class ends; it only becomes professionally meaningful when the teacher returns to it, considers what worked and what failed, and then uses that reflection to refine future teaching.

When asked about the advantages of sharing reflections on lesson plans with a group, I have come to state that such collaboration could generate “shared experiences, joint efforts, teamwork, collaboration, a growth mindset being developed by teachers, age-adapted activities, better lesson delivery, use of technology (Google Drive), teachers being recognized by team members, [and] solidarity among teaching professionals in various regions of a country” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 4). I find this list revealing because it moves beyond the narrow idea that reflection is simply about “fixing” a lesson. Reflection can also build recognition, solidarity, and a more visible sense of professional identity.

For teachers of adults online, sharing reflections may be particularly useful because it allows colleagues to document not just whether a task worked, but how and why it worked in a specific online environment. A shared reflection might note that a breakout-room task only became effective after the instructions were simplified, or that an adult group responded far better to a workplace scenario than to a generic textbook role play, or that a grammar lesson needed shorter stages because the learners were joining class after a full workday. These observations are small, but they are pedagogically significant. Over time, they become a source of institutional knowledge that is far more valuable than a folder of isolated files.

Sustaining a Community of Practice Over Time

The course also asks teachers to think about what happens when communities of practice continue beyond their initial meetings. I appreciated this question because it shifts attention from formation to sustainability. Many communities begin with enthusiasm and then lose momentum. My own experiences with Ning and Blackboard confirm this pattern. A community may feel dynamic at first, especially when tied to a course or a new initiative, but once the external structure fades, participation often declines.

When reflecting on the advantages of a CoP that continues meeting over time, I imagined what such continuity could make possible. Among my reflective journaling notes I wrote that teachers could “create professional bonds that can help them coach one another by telling each other of paid or free online course they can take together, local conferences or online webinars they can participate [in] together, share academic writings such as journal articles, free online books… and continue to cocreate content that can eventually become a research project” (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 4). I must confess that this vision felt somewhat like a “daydreaming world” because, knowing the demographics of ELT professionals in my country, I could “barely find a handful of enthusiasts” willing to do this without immediately foregrounding personal or academic inconveniences (Acuña Solano, 2026, p. 4).

I still think that tension is important. On the one hand, sustained communities of practice can deepen trust, encourage long-term professional relationships, and generate more ambitious collaborative work. On the other hand, they are difficult to sustain if participation depends entirely on goodwill. This is why Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner’s (2015) emphasis on shared purpose, manageable group size, regular interaction, and clear expectations remains useful. A CoP does not survive on idealism alone. It needs enough structure to protect momentum without becoming bureaucratic.

For online adult ELT, that may mean keeping the group small at first, rotating leadership, establishing one manageable shared task per cycle, and creating a culture in which contributions are practical rather than performative. If every meeting produces one revised lesson, one reflective note, or one resource that others can genuinely use, then the CoP remains tied to real teaching rather than drifting into abstraction.

Why Adult Learners Change the Collaborative Agenda

An important part of adapting the British Council course to my own context is recognizing that adult learners change the pedagogical agenda. Many teacher-development resources are designed with children or adolescents in mind, and although the principles may still be useful, the classroom realities are not identical. Young adults and working adults bring very different expectations, motivations, and constraints to English learning. They may be studying because they need English for employment, promotion, travel, migration, university, or personal growth. They are often balancing class with jobs, caregiving, commuting, or financial pressure. They are also less likely to tolerate activities that feel infantilizing, purposeless, or disconnected from their goals.

As a result, collaboration among teachers of adults needs to focus on different questions from those that might dominate school-based planning. Instead of asking primarily how to keep children on task, adult ELT teachers may ask how to make lessons professionally relevant, how to respect learners’ time, how to reduce unnecessary cognitive load online, and how to sustain participation without forcing artificial enthusiasm. Collaboration becomes useful when it helps teachers address these realities directly.

This is one reason I believe communities of practice for adult ELT should include not only lesson plans and worksheets but also reflective accounts of what happened in class. A shared folder of materials can be useful, but without commentary it remains incomplete. Teachers need to know not only what the activity was, but how adults responded to it, what had to be cut, what instructions caused confusion, what digital tool worked, and what modifications made the lesson feel more authentic. In that sense, the most valuable collaborative resources are not always the most polished ones; sometimes they are the most honest ones.

A Realistic Community of Practice for Online Adult ELT

If I imagine a community of practice that could genuinely support online adult ELT teachers in my context, it would not be large, bureaucratic, or overloaded with obligations. It would probably begin with a small, committed group rather than a mass invitation. Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015) note the value of shared purpose and regular interaction, and I think that principle is crucial. A small group of six to ten teachers with a clear focus is far more likely to become functional than a large community where most members remain silent.

Such a CoP might include the following elements:

·	A clear purpose, such as adapting online lessons for adult learners or improving participation in evening classes.
·	A regular but realistic meeting schedule, perhaps once a month rather than weekly.
·	One shared task between meetings, such as trying an adapted activity, bringing a reflection, or uploading a revised lesson.
·	A well-organized digital folder where materials are categorized by level, skill, and teaching objective.
·	Short reflective notes attached to materials, explaining how they were used and how learners responded.
·	A non-punitive tone, where reflection is focused on lessons and learners rather than on blaming teachers.
·	Rotating leadership, so that the same person is not always carrying the initiative.

This kind of structure would help ensure that the community does not become merely symbolic. It would also reduce the risk of collaborative work becoming “devious” in the institutional sense, that is, appearing collective while depending disproportionately on the unpaid labor of a few enthusiastic teachers. If collaboration is to be sustainable, it must be bounded and transparent.

Conclusion

The British Council course on adapting resources offered me a valuable opportunity to rethink collaboration not as an abstract pedagogical virtue, but as a professional practice that must be adapted to context with honesty and care. Its emphasis on collaborative checklists, lesson-planning cycles, reflective discussion, and communities of practice provides a useful framework for teacher development. Yet for those of us who teach young adults and working adults online, these ideas only become meaningful when they are translated into our own realities: technological constraints, learner fatigue, institutional cultures, and the professional complexity of adult education.

My own reflections suggest that collaboration is neither automatically effective nor automatically equitable. It can generate better materials, richer lesson planning, and stronger professional reflection, but it can also expose low commitment, unequal labor, and professional resistance. In that sense, one of the most important contributions of the course is that it invites teachers to think not only about whether collaboration is desirable, but how it can be structured in a way that is professionally viable.

At its best, collaboration can become a source of shared pedagogical intelligence. A checklist can become a record of collective wisdom. A planning session can become “a hive of ideas for planning.” A community of practice can become a “landing place” for teachers who would otherwise work in isolation. And a committed group of colleagues can become a crew that helps one another teach more thoughtfully, adapt more effectively, and endure the demands of online adult ELT with a little more clarity and a little less solitude.

The challenge, then, is not to ask whether collaboration is good in theory. It is to ask what kind of collaboration is possible, sustainable, and worthwhile in the contexts where we actually teach. For me, that means imagining professional spaces that are not grand or performative, but useful: spaces where teachers of adults can share resources, reflect honestly, support one another, and continue refining their craft together. If communities of practice, collaborative planning, and co-created materials are built with that spirit, they can move from being institutional buzzwords to becoming genuine engines of professional development. 

San José, Costa Rica

Sunday, August 2, 2026

Blog Post #577

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (2026). Personal reflections on collaborative planning, communities of practice, and materials adaptation in online adult ELT [Unpublished course notes for the British Council course TeachingEnglish: How to Adapt Resources].

British Council. (n.d.). TeachingEnglish: How to adapt resources [Online course materials]. TeachingEnglish. https://open.teachingenglish.org.uk/

Burhan-Horasanlı, E., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2016). Reflective practice-oriented online discussions: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-on, in and for-action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.002

Qin, X. (2024). Collaborative inquiry in action: A case study of lesson study for intercultural education. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9, Article 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00294-w

Uştuk, Ö., & De Costa, P. I. (2021). Reflection as meta-action: Lesson study and EFL teacher professional development. TESOL Journal, 12(7), e531. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.531

Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Wenger-Trayner. https://www.wenger-trayner.com/communities-of-practice/

Key Concepts and Reflections on Teacher Collaboration and Communities of Practice

Key Concepts and Reflections on Teacher Collaboration and Communities of Practice by Jonathan Acuña

Click to enlarge the infographic

From Isolation to Collaboration Adapting Communities of Practice and Collaborative Planni by Jonathan Acuña