Abstract
Transition to school is a challenging and pivotal moment for children and their families. This article explores the use of a digital tool to facilitate a Community of Practice (CoP) in support of families’ transitioning from various early childhood education (ECE) settings to the same primary school class in New Zealand. It focuses on my experiences as a teacher-researcher, where I facilitated families through the transition process by providing information and creating opportunities for varying levels of participation in a CoP, via a dedicated Facebook group. Using a qualitative case study approach, data were collected from 20 families with children entering the school over a 7-month period, using Facebook activity and online questionnaires at the start and end of the transition process. Findings highlight that key CoP elements such as a shared domain of interest and practice in the Facebook group enabled families to participate, share experiences, collaborate and access resources specific to the primary school their child was transitioning to. The platform’s flexibility allowed families to choose how and when they engaged, ensuring they received timely and relevant support for their child’s transition. The research highlights how the CoP approach accommodated both experienced and first-time families, responding to their diverse needs. My analysis of families’ participation in this online space, highlights the potential of social media platforms like Facebook to foster a sense of community and enhance family agency in the transition process. The findings highlight the importance of offering various ways for families to participate, as their involvement helped me understand their needs and identify resources to support their transitions.
Keywords
Introduction
The transition to school represents a pivotal moment for children and their families, involving children, parents and educators from both early childhood education (ECE) and primary school settings (Armstrong et al., 2024). 1 A substantial body of literature has focused on the child’s experience during this transition, particularly examining the factors that support or hinder the move from ECE to school (Ackesjö, 2013, 2014; Cronin et al., 2022; Kienig, 2017; Sandberg et al., 2017). This research often centres on the child’s emotional and social adjustments as they adapt to the demands of a new educational environment. Whilst valuable, much of this literature tends to overlook the role of the parents, caregivers, and the wider family context. The transition from ECE to primary school is a significant milestone for both children and their families. Given the complex nature of transition, it is essential to explore ways to support not just children, but also their families as they navigate their own transition into the role of school parents (Brooker, 2008; Raittila et al., 2025).
In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the important role that families play in supporting children during the school transition process. Studies highlight that families are central to facilitating a positive transition experience, yet limited attention has been paid to these experiences, including the involvement of extended family members and caregivers (Krinninger and Schulz, 2017; Miller et al., 2011). Dockett (2017) alerts us that families, as well as children, must adapt to new roles and responsibilities. Effective support at home, including preparing the child for school and fostering positive relationships with the new educational environment plays a significant role in easing their transition (Dockett et al., 2012). The confidence parents feel in their ability to support their child has been shown to be closely linked to how well the child adapts to school life (Santisi et al., 2018). For parents navigating their first transition to school, receiving affirmation from the school or more experienced parents that they are “doing a great job” offers “authoritative reassurance” (Kriewaldt et al., 2025: 3). Additionally, “consequential reassurance” (Kriewaldt et al., 2025: 3) comes from witnessing the positive impact of their own learning about the transition on their child’s experience, which, in turn, boosts their confidence in managing their new responsibilities as parents of a school-aged child. Moreover, studies affirm that the way in which families engage with the school setting, through open communication with educators and active participation in the school community, can further significantly influence a child’s experience (Armstrong et al., 2024; Nuske et al., 2019; Woodhouse et al., 2024).
This article emerges from my PhD study, which explored the development of a collaborative social media-based community to support transition from an early childhood to a school setting. Specifically, it focuses on the family Facebook group I established in the role of New Entrant (NE) 2 teacher-researcher and discusses how I used this to foster collaboration between families and myself as their child’s schoolteacher during their child’s ECE-to-school transition. Using a case study approach, I traced the experiences of 20 families whose children were transitioning from various ECE settings to where I was teaching. Data were collected through online questionnaires at the outset of the research to inform the design of the Facebook group, and again after the 20 participating families and their children had transitioned to school to evaluate the effectiveness of Facebook as a transition to school tool. Facebook posts were also used as data. I used Wenger et al.’s (2002) Communities of Practice (CoP) framework to understand how families engaged within the Facebook group – viewing information, seeking support and building connections with other transitioning families. Findings reveal a consensus that the essential elements of a CoP framework (Wenger et al., 2002) were evident in the Facebook group. They show that the CoP framework provides a generative perspective for understanding and enhancing the potential of online communities to support family participation throughout the transition process.
Family involvements in the transition from ECE to school
Family understanding and involvement with their child and the school have a substantial impact on the nature and quality of their child’s transition to school. As parents adapt to their new role and manage the changes associated with shifts in responsibilities of supporting a child’s transition, research has called for schools to have a greater appreciation and understanding of the changes that families cope with and need to adjust to (Webb et al., 2017) given many families have only a limited understanding of how to best support this transition (Dockett et al., 2012). This is particularly true for families who are sending their first or only child to school because, as Ackesjö (2017) observed, these families often require additional guidance and support from teachers to navigate this unfamiliar process.
The increasing interest in understanding supporting families through the transition process (Miller et al., 2011) aligns with the growing role of digital communities in offering social support and promoting interaction between school and home (Canale et al., 2022). Digital communities are virtual spaces where individuals with shared interests can connect. These communities transcend geographical boundaries and enable individuals with shared interests to engage with each other over time and space (Tucker et al., 2023). Unlike traditional, passive information communication systems, digital communities promote active, intentional engagement that can benefit both individuals and the collective (Tucker et al., 2023).
The role of digital communities in supporting families through the transition to school with platforms that facilitate peer support, enable individuals to share advice and ask questions and to receive and provide emotional reassurance is of particular interest in this paper. Importantly, Giles and Newbold (2011) demonstrate that online communities can foster a sense of camaraderie, where helping others often leads to personal benefits arising from experience that their knowledge is useful. These benefits align with findings in the school transition context that indicate maintaining ongoing communication and relationship-building is essential for families to feel confident and supported throughout the transition process (Armstrong et al., 2024; Nuske et al., 2019; Woodhouse et al., 2024). Seen this way, digital communities can become critical “community assets” (Tucker et al., 2023: 667) by offering a platform for the exchange of knowledge and collective problem-solving (Hwang and Foote, 2021) that aids families in navigating the school transition. This paper explores families’ engagement as part of transition to school through a focus on the research question: How does varying participation in a Facebook group impact members’ experiences within a Community of Practice?
The concept of Communities of Practice (CoP) was introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991) to explore the learning dynamics between experts and novices, but Wenger et al. (2002) expanded on this, emphasising how CoP participation shapes personal development. They noted that individuals often belong to multiple CoPs across various contexts including work, education and personal interests and that their participation levels can vary because people participate in a CoP for various reasons, such as gaining value, forming connections or learning. Wenger et al. (2002) identified three types of engagement: core, active, and peripheral participants. Core participants, who comprise 10%–15% of a community, are highly engaged and drive the agenda. Active participants, around 15%–20%, engage intermittently, while the largest group, peripheral participants (approximately 65%), observe but rarely interact.
CoP members do not need to know each other personally or professionally but are connected through shared interactions. Through collaboration, sharing ideas, and mutual support, they build a shared body of knowledge, tools, and practices and develop a collective identity. However, for a group to be considered a CoP it must exhibit three key elements: domain, community, and practice (Wenger et al., 2002). Domain refers to the shared interest or problem that unites the group. Community provides the social context for learning, fostering interaction among members. Practice encompasses the actions, tools and resources that contribute to knowledge development. These elements underpin collaborative learning and shared knowledge. Wenger et al. (2002) stress that a CoP’s sustainability relies on a facilitator who organises, connects members, and ensures ongoing engagement. Facilitators are especially important in the early stages, as they create a sense of belonging, encourage interaction and foster collaborative learning. In this paper, the CoP that is explored is an online Facebook group which I facilitated.
The study context
The study was conducted in a large primary school (761 students) in the North Island of New Zealand. A late school staffing change led to me taking on both the researcher and NE teacher roles, which provided me with an insider’s perspective on the transition process and the opportunity to engage directly with participating families as the facilitator of the study Facebook group. As the NE teacher responsible for overseeing transitions, I was familiar with the school’s culture and practices and in my role as facilitator of the Facebook group I translated this knowledge into accessible content for the group, answering questions and clarifying school procedures. Through my participation in the Facebook group, I responded to families’ interactions to steer group members towards the information and the support they required in a way that was tailored to their individual needs and aligned to their chosen level of participation. Roux et al. (2017) describes this role as a “bridging agent,” an individual skilled at connecting external knowledge with community members (p. 172). Roux et al.’s concept of a “bridging agent” aligns closely with Wenger et al. (2002) idea of a group facilitator, as both roles emphasise guiding participants towards relevant knowledge and fostering connections that support individual engagement and collective growth within the community.
Participants
In Aotearoa New Zealand, children are eligible to start school anytime between the ages of five and six, as such, each child’s individual starting date can vary, with many beginning around their fifth birthday. Those who begin at this stage are known as New Entrants (NE; Education.govt.nz, 2022). An important aspect of this study is that the participating children started school on different dates, reflecting the variability of school entry in New Zealand. The staggered start dates made each family’s transition unique, requiring me to carefully consider how to provide support tailored to individual needs while also building a sense of collaboration and community.
Twenty children were enrolled to join my NE class across two school terms, starting as each child turned 5 years old. As their prospective teacher, I had access to the family contact emails and ethical approval from my institution and ethical consent from the school to reach out to families prior to their child starting at the school. All 20 families participated in the research, with the understanding that participation was voluntary and that families could decline without consequence.
An initial questionnaire revealed that 19/20 of respondents had their own personal Facebook account, making this an accessible way to collaborate. Several families opted for both parents to join the Facebook group, meaning the total number of group members was 33, of which 10 parents were experiencing transition to school with their first child.
Ethical considerations
This research involved two key ethical considerations: ensuring transparency about my dual role as teacher and researcher and protecting participants’ privacy in a social media environment. As the children’s teacher, all 20 families transitioning into my class were invited to participate in the research. It was made clear that there would be no disadvantage to a family that chose not to participate. Families were informed that their involvement in the research would take place in their own time. Another important ethical focus for families was the need for parents to consider that their child might appear in shared group posts, and to discuss participation together as a family before deciding whether to take part. As a significant portion of people’s social lives now takes place on social media (Snelson, 2016). I was conscious of ethical implications regarding participants’ privacy and the protection of their identities. Chalklen and Anderson (2017) highlight the “privacy paradox” (p. 2), whereby individuals share personal information online while simultaneously expressing concerns about privacy noting this presents a continuous ethical challenge regarding what information is shared, with whom, and how participants’ identities are managed. For my study, I set up a “closed group,” on the Facebook platform, meaning that only invited participants could join, and all membership requests were verified by me as the group administrator. Nonetheless, participants’ identities were visible to other members of the group. To address any privacy concerns, prior to them consenting to participate, I advised families to review and adjust their Facebook privacy settings to ensure their profiles were set to a level of privacy they were comfortable. I set the group privacy settings so that families could not re-share content with individuals outside of the group. These precautions were taken to ensure that participants’ online interactions were secure, and privacy and confidentiality were respected throughout the research process.
Materials and methods
Data were collected through online questionnaires at the outset of the research to inform the design of the Facebook group, and again after all 20 children had transitioned to school to evaluate the effectiveness of Facebook as a transition to school tool. The Facebook data generated by families in the group space over a 7-month period, which offered a continuous record of their participation, was used as data in my study.
Initial Questionnaire
The initial questionnaire was completed by all 20 families. The responses provided a baseline understanding of the families’ needs and preferences, which helped to guide my design and timing of the Facebook group. Based on families’ feedback, the Facebook group was established approximately 3 months before the first child was due to start school, in line with when family responses indicated they would be ready to begin discussing the transition. The questionnaire also helped me to identify topics that families wanted more information about, from school processes to concerns related to children’s allergies. I used these responses to create targeted online content for the Facebook group, addressing the specific concerns families expressed.
Facebook group interaction
Families were invited to join the Facebook group at two points during the data collection period, June and August depending on their children’s starting dates. Once the first group of nine parents joined the Facebook group, I regularly posted information and resources, initially based on the needs identified in the family questionnaire responses and subsequently based on feedback via the group posts. Aligned to Wenger et al.’s (2002) research, almost instantly it was apparent that some families chose to participate actively, while others were more peripheral in their engagement.
Final Family Review Questionnaire
At the end of the research period, 5 weeks after the 20th child entered school, a final questionnaire was shared with the families to gather their perspectives on if and how the Facebook group had enabled them to participate in their child’s transition to school. This questionnaire aimed to assess whether families felt their needs had been met through the group and to understand how they perceived the value of the group in facilitating their child’s transition and their own adjustment to becoming parents of school-aged children.
Analysis
The primary aim of this article is to elaborate on the participation of families within the Facebook group I established, focusing on types and levels of participation. To do this I tracked family member’s engagement with the Facebook group on a fortnightly basis. I identified “Type” as visually measurable evidence of families” participation within the Facebook group as follows:
“Seen by”: Only visible to me as the group administrator, this action indicated that a group member had viewed a post. I used this feature to track how many times a post had been viewed and who had viewed it.
Emoji usage: I counted the emoji used by each participant to express validation or acknowledgement of a post.
Posting in response or reply: This category captured participants who actively responded to posts made by others (via text). Sometimes replies would “tag” a particular group member. Tagging group members’ names generates an alert to the named member and ensured that information and questions were not missed.
Initiating a new posting or conversation: This captured the participants who started new discussions or shared new information as part of a new conversation.
A bi-weekly data review allowed me to monitor periods of activity, inactivity and overall level of interaction. This review proved sufficient information for me to adjust content to meet families’ immediate and changing needs. If engagement dropped or discussions focused on a specific transition aspect, I was able to tailor posts accordingly. Low-engagement posts could be replaced with new topics and previous posts that generated a lot of interest could be revisited.
Each interaction, “seen-by” notification, emoji use, response, or post initiation, was tracked and used to measure the level of participation. These interactions were categorised by me into three levels of participation, as outlined by Wenger et al. (2002): core, active and peripheral.
Core participants were those who frequently initiated posts or contributed consistently to discussions, playing a central role in the group’s learning and engagement.
Active participants engaged regularly but with less frequency than core participants, often responding to others’ posts or commenting on shared material.
Peripheral participants were those who viewed posts sometimes sporadically, rarely involved in group discussions.
I analysed the types of engagement used by members and aligned this to levels of participation using Wenger et al.’s (2002) concepts of core, active and peripheral participation. This approach allowed me to explore how families chose to participate, what their participation looked like, and whether their involvement reflected efforts to seek support, share advice and build connections with other families navigating their children’s transition to school.
I also collated the postings made by each participant throughout the life of the Facebook group. By examining the interactions of each participant over a 7-month period, I was able to assess their engagement with both the content and one another in the Facebook group.
Findings
The findings section begins with the “types” of participation followed by the levels of participation as they relate to the research question: How does varying participation in a Facebook group impact members’ experiences within a Community of Practice?
Types of interaction: Family/facilitator initiated and family/facilitator response
Figure 1 plots the differing methods and counts of participation in the Facebook group. The horizontal axis plots the 2-week data points, and the vertical axis indicates the counts or total number of each action that occurred during each identified 2-week period. The coloured lines on the graph represent the five different types of interaction identified: facilitator-initiated posts, family-initiated posts, facilitator response post, family response post and facilitator’s use of emoji. For example, the graph shows that during period 1 (the initial 2 weeks of the data collection) I initiated 21 postings, the families initiated 0 postings, and five of my initiated postings were responded to. It also shows that during period 6, I created 10 postings, but these postings received 23 family posted responses. The stars beneath the horizontal access indicate the two entry points of the families to the Facebook group.
Frequency of the different types of Facebook interaction collection period.
Kinds of participation
As outlined above I analysed the nature of family posts in terms of seen by, emoji usage, tagging (posting in reply) and initiating a new post/conversation. Next, I discuss each of these in turn.
“Seen by” participation
Figure 2 presents data related to the families’ activation of the “seen by” function showing the number of views of each post over the 2-week periods. Over the timeline of postings, periods 11–13 were those where most postings were viewed. However, it was not possible to differentiate whether the same person revisited a particular post several times.
Families use of “seen by” over the research period.
I was interested to note that when new families were added to the group in period 8 there was no evidence that the new group members retrospectively reviewed prior postings from period 1 to 6.
Emoji usage
By period 2 some members had begun to use emoji. Using emoji allowed group members to show their interest or approval of a post without having to write a response. This use of emoji served to reveal participants’ willingness to make their presence known within the group without committing to more involved participation. Figure 3 (below) presents group members’ use of emoji.
Families’ use of emoji over the research period.
The graph shows that from period 6 onwards, members increasingly used emoji to acknowledge, react to a posting, and or included emoji within their own postings.
Tagging (Posting in reply)
By period 3 families had begun to “tag” others into their responses. In one example of this was when a parent tagged me into a post, that shared a photo of her child writing his name on the whiteboard when he arrived at school. Being alerted to the post, I was able to respond via the group and thank her for sharing the moment.
Initiating a new post/conversation
As the research progressed, family group members began responding more frequently to each other’s posts. For example, during period 10 (Figure 4 below), families responded to a posting regarding a question from a parent about their son starting school. The blue circle represents the initial posting, cream and green circles identify replies from the group and my response using emoji are represented by a grey circle.
Posting showing parents offering advice and support to each other.
Assigning levels of participation
Data analysis revealed clear distinctions in the levels of participation aligning with the three categories of engagement proposed by Wenger et al. (2002): core, active and peripheral participation. Table 1 provides a snapshot of the data assigned to each level of participation based on the profile of one family group member assigned to this category.
Family member’s types /frequency of engagement with aligned level of participation.
My categorising of individual participant’s types of responses according to Wenger et al.’s levels meant I was able to identify the different ways different family members were using the Facebook group to support their children’s transition to school. The varying levels of participation suggested that families had different purposes for engaging with the Facebook group. Core members not only visited regularly, but they also actively engaged with other group members, appearing to value the social and emotional comradery by connecting with other families going through the same transition process (evidenced in their postings). Active members sometimes responded to other group members or posted a specific question requiring information. The peripheral participants were involved more passively as they observed what was posted and appeared to gather relevant information without the need of active participation in discussions. This difference in levels of participation highlights the flexibility of the Facebook group as a space where families could access support in ways that suited their individual needs and preferences as demonstrated through their selected types and frequency of participation.
Building on the characteristics shared in Table 1, Figure 5 shows the level of group participation across all members of the Facebook group. The “blue bubbles” in Figure 4 represent the analysis of each group member’s levels of participation and their assigned category.
Families’ levels of community participation.
Aligning Figure 5 with Wenger et al.’s (2002) CoP framework the most active participants, core members, formed a small portion of the group − 12% in my study compared with 10%–15% of the total membership noted by Wenger and colleagues. These core members were the most engaged,
My analysis showed that members who were either core or active participants were most likely to form social connections within the digital group. They engaged with other members, offering and receiving support, frequently posting, responding and offering advice to others. Active members, who engaged with the group but less consistently than core members, typically represent around 15%–20% of a CoP according to Wenger et al. In the Facebook group, 15% of members fitted this category, contributing regularly through posts or comments but at a slightly lower frequency than the core group. This is at the lower end of Wenger et al.’s projected range.
Wenger et al. (2002) state that the largest portion of a CoP are likely to be peripheral members. Their research advises that around 65% of members can be expected to be in the peripheral group. In my research, 73% of the group displayed peripheral levels of involvement. These members were characterised by sporadic participation, activity limited to observation and infrequent contribution, usually indicated by emoji. I found that peripheral members often used the Facebook resources primarily for information only. Their engagement was marked by their lack of visible participation in the group space, signified through their activation of the “seen-by” function, observing content without engaging with other group members. Despite this passive participation, or “lurking” (Matyas, 2017: 146), peripheral members regularly returned to the group to keep updated with information. As Wenger et al. (2002) suggest, CoPs allow for a spectrum of participation, so although peripheral members may not contribute to the collective dialogue in overt ways, they are still able to benefit from the knowledge shared within the group.
Reflection on participation in the Facebook CoP
Family member responses, to the end of research period questionnaire, provided valuable insights into if and how the family Facebook group had met the diverse needs of members during their child’s transition to school. Three key themes were identified through my analysis: Preparing my child for school, building connections and providing reassurance. These themes suggest the multifaceted role a CoP can play in supporting families, offering insights into how families’ varying levels of participation may influence how their needs are met.
Preparing my child for school
One of the primary needs addressed by the Facebook group was helping families prepare their children for the transition to school. Group members found the resources and content shared within the group particularly useful in familiarising their children with the new school environment and routines. For instance, one parent noted, “Made a huge difference. . .helping him (and me!) to feel confident about starting schoo,.” Another mentioned having access to information, such as their child’s daily school routine, allowed them to better prepare their child for school each day. These findings illustrate how the domain of the CoP was directly relevant to the families’ needs and helped them feel more confident in navigating the transition process. The shared knowledge and resources served as the building blocks of a CoP and the CoP acted as a space where members could contribute and access helpful insights, further motivating them to remain active in their participation with one parent sharing; “[The Facebook page] has given me a good window to his learning and created opportunities to ask questions about his da,.” Another parent shared that after her child’s initial school visit, she valued seeing, “her[child] on Facebook with all of her new friends who made her feel welcome.” Additionally, Facebook became a “check-in plac,” as one parent elaborated, “if I had a question, I could look, as someone may have already asked it or provided the information.”
Building connections
For families without prior connections to others transitioning to the same school, Facebook played a crucial role in helping them build relationships with other families. One parent shared, “Great for connecting, especially coming from a daycare where we had made many strong bonds, and these families are now at other school.” This response shows that participation in the Facebook group provided opportunities for this family to build a support network during the transition process, which can be isolating as families move away from the support of their ECE setting (Ackesjö, 2013).
Providing reassurance to families
Reassurance played a crucial role for families navigating their first child’s school transition. For instance, one parent, initially anxious about her child starting school, found consequential reassurance through the daily updates showing her daughter happily settled. She expressed, “It was so great to see her so happy and being creative, OMG, my heart melts, thank you.” The reassurance of these updates helped alleviate her concerns. Additionally, the Facebook group served as a space for authoritative reassurance, where families with experience of transition could share their experiences and advice. In one example a parent posted about her son not eating his lunch, and another suggested using a cookie cutter to make sandwiches more appealing. After trying the suggestion, the first parent returned to share that it worked, reinforcing the supportive nature of the group. This interaction serves as an example of authoritative reassurance as group members were viewed as valuable sources of evidence, shaping other parent’s sense of competence and confidence in their role as a parent of a school-aged child. Evidenced by one parent sharing, “It was valuable to hear other parent voices, connect, share feelings, and offer suppor.” Overall, the sense of community and access to answers offered reassurance, while shared experiences and resources helped alleviate concerns and support families during the transition
Discussion
Transition to school is a challenging time for children and families but only limited attention has been given to family experiences. This study explored the use of a Facebook group to form a digital Community of Practice to support parents in the transition process. CoPs have been found to be effective in meeting the diverse needs of members, with success dependent on the level and nature of members’ engagement. Within this study it became clear through an examination of group member’s engagement that some families were seeking only informational updates, while others needed emotional support for challenges like separation anxiety. Core and active participants, particularly experienced parents, played a crucial role by offering advice, personal stories and emotional support, which was especially helpful for first-time parents. As Pyrko et al. (2017) highlight, CoPs can effectively address common challenges through the exchange of solutions, resources, and emotional support. First-time parents benefitted from the guidance of group members receiving authoritative reassurance based on the personal experience of more “expert” members, those who had previously supported older children through the school transition. This reflects Kriewaldt et al. (2025), who highlight the importance of individualised support (Ackesjö, 2017).
While core and active members regularly contributed to discussions through their postings, peripheral members participated less frequently and less visibly usually through activating the seen-by function and visiting the group mainly for information rather than emotional support. This resulted in an unequal distribution of the social and emotional benefits. Ellis et al. (2004) and Usoro et al. (2007) note that for a CoP to be effective, members must feel safe and valued. Despite the challenges of building trust within a digital environment, the group’s focus on a shared experience, the school transition, along with the families’ familiarity of Facebook, helped core and active members feel comfortable engaging. Features like emoji reactions also allowed members to express emotions and build connections despite the absence of face-to-face cues (Dubé et al., 2005; Fontainha and Gannon-Leary, 2008).
Practice within the CoP was shaped by the contributions of core and active members who helped create resources and offered advice (Smith and Kollock, 1999). While peripheral members participated less, they still benefitted from the resources and advice generated by the more active members, and at their own pace.
The level of participation in a CoP impacts the extent to which needs are met. Matyas (2017) suggests that “lurking” (p. 146), or passive participation can be valuable as it allows members to observe and absorb information. Although peripheral members were not as actively engaged, they still visited the group and interacted with its resources and postings to gather the information needed for their family’s transition. This supports the idea that all members, regardless of their level of involvement, are practitioners within a Community of Practice (CoP; Wenger et al., 2002).
The study has highlighted that core, and active participation allows for deeper connections and more personalised support, while peripheral participation allows all group members to benefit from the knowledge generated and shared within the community. As Smith and Kollock (1999) state, ongoing participation is crucial for meeting members’ needs, but even peripheral members can gain insight and benefit from participating in a CoP.
Conclusion
Adopting a CoP to facilitate a collaborative transition to school provided a flexible framework that effectively met the diverse needs of the family group. Rather than offering a one-size-fits-all transition process, the strength of the CoP lay in its ability to accommodate varying levels of participation, allowing families to engage based on their unique needs, preferences and pace. As the group facilitator, I learned that managing and supporting these varying levels of participation was key to the CoP’s success. Having a significant number of peripheral participants did not indicate a failure to meet families’ needs; rather, it demonstrated the CoP’s ability to support different engagement styles. This flexibility ensured that, even if not all families participated equally, the CoP still provided valuable support-whether through active sharing or passive information absorption. Facebook served as a digital community space where families could develop their own support network, drawing on the experiences of others going through similar transitions.
Footnotes
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by Division of Education Ethics Committee at the University of Waikato, 14th May 2017, Approval Number: FEDU039/17.
Consent to participate
All participants provided signed informed consent.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.