Our assignment is to post our thoughts to the blog about an online
community. In Wenger's text "Communities of Practice - Learning as a
Social System" he writes about communities of practice. Are
communities of practice and online communities exactly the same thing?
Mike Bogle:
I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive and applies to all locations where they might exist; online communities are more specific relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well.
Gabriela Sellart
I think CoP have a learning objective. Maybe that's the difference.
Derek Chirnside:
Not all communities have some attributes that a community of practice has. Blonging, identity, learning, roles, a practice, glue, rhythms, nurture.
Most of these (I think) need to be present.
They may or may not be there in a little online community that meets up as fans of a music group (no practice) for example.
Hi everyone,
In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated components; domain, community and practice.
So he sees community as a part but not the whole, not all that holds to group together. I agree with this. Whether a group is a CoP or not really depends on the practice. For instance, I am fascinated by forensic science and I love to partake of discussions about it - but I do not work in the field nor ever aspire to, I do not practice it. I have an interest and could talk about the science of it from a spectators view. But a CoP for forensic scientists is made up of thise who practice it and would want to share knoweldge gained from within their practice not just knowledge of it.
To be a CoP you need to be readily able to identify the practice. I think this FOC08 group is on its way to being, even if only temporary (17 weeks), a CoP. Facilitation in online communities is our practice and we are all at various stages of our development of that practice - we do all aspire to practice it.
So to me community exists as a component of many kinds of groups - learning communities, CoP, communities of interest, online communities, etc etc etc and the notion of community is both the same and a little different in each. Does that make sense?
~ Bron
Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2), 15-28.
Thanks Violetta for offering this fine example of a CoP. Practice does indeed not mean a job or means of earning a living as such but something that you practice (and care passionatley about) . So raising a child in a Christian faith is a set of beliefs, knowledge actions that these parents all practice. They are not just interested in how parents raise christian children they are doing it. The practice in question is readily identifiable.
For me a worrying area is when people call a class of learners a CoP and say that learning is the practice.
That is really too large and amorphous to be one practice. A class of students learning accounting by engaging in scenarios as practitioners, possibly with real practitioners in the class as mentors is beginning to take on a CoP approach.
For me the dynamicism of CoPs and the difference between them and other groups lies is a distinction made by John Seely Brown.
Seely Brown (2002) effectively exploits a Bruner analogy to unpack the concepts of practice and knowledge when he describes the differences between learning physics and being a physicist. "Learning to be a physicist (as opposed to learning about physics) requires cutting a column down the middle of the diagram, looking at the deep interplay between the tacit and explicit. That's where deep expertise lies. Acquiring this expertise requires learning the explicit knowledge of a field, the practices of its community, and the interplay between the two." (Brown, 2002, p. 20)
Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2), 15-28.
What do you think?
Thank you for clarifying my initial doubt about the difference between an online community and a community of practice. I particularly found the link that Violeta mentioned to Greg's blog very clear. Greg's post differentiating communities, groups, teams and networks is very helpful to understand the differences among them.
This thread seems to be a good example of an online community. What do you think?
I very much thank you all.
Joao
P.S. Leaving right now for a few days holiday. Will get in touch with you soon.
Hamman, R. B. (2000). Computer networks linking network communities: A study of the effects of computer network use upon pre-existing communities [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 18/04/04 from http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/mphil/short.html.
Hamman, R. B. (2001b). Computer networks linking network communities. In C. W. M. Mowbray (Ed.), Online Communities (pp. 71-96). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20, 111-123.Poplin, D. E. (1979). Communities: a survey of theories and methods of research (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.
~ BronMost people use the phrase "online community" very loosely. You will hear educationalists use it to refer to communities of practice, classes, groups, professional bodies, teams, networks, you name it - they have all been referred to as communities at some stage, and when they prodimantly operate through the Internet they are called online communities. But what is an online community really - especially if we want to relate the words to their true and common meaning? Is it a group of people who communicate online, and through that connection they share a sense of belonging and responsibility for one another? Is an online community like this necessary for work teams, classes, professional bodies and all those other things that have been called communities? In this course we will be looking for online communities in very different places. It is important that we try and develop an understanding of what exactly we are looking for, and techniques for looking. What is an online community?
V wrote:
What I understand from that is that you associate the community with the emotional component, the support, the nurturing that they bring to their members ¿? Am I closer?
On 13/08/2008, at 1:03 PM, Amy Lenzo wrote:
> I love where your train of thought (looking at “community” beyond
> the “community of practice” model) is going... And I appreciate your
> piping in – personally I don’t subscribe to the notion of a good
> facilitator being “outside” the conversation – and besides, your
> perspective is too valuable to miss out on!
I believe effective facilitation mostly requires you to be neutral or
outside the conversation. But, that isn't *always* practical, and
often the facilitator has something to contribute (such as in this
case). I like the way Leigh has modelled being part of the
conversation as a facilitator - he's made it transparent and let us
know what hat he's wearing (or role is operating from). Thanks Leigh.
Cheers, Daryl
-- Daryl Cook --
email: daryl...@gmail.com
mobile: 0410437938
skype: daryl.cook
_-@
--\ --'
.. .. .. __________(*)'_(*)