PLN or CoP?

Type "PLN and CoP" into Google, and you're likely to be redirected to a currency conversion site (PLN is the abbreviation for Polish Zloty and COP stands for Columbian Pesos). That's quite an apt result because Google and many of the other large, supposedly 'free' social media tools are very much focused on making money to sustain their operations. But this post is not about money. Nor is it about the morality of social media companies. But it is about making connections for learning through the 'free' tools we have at our disposal - social media.

In the context of this post, PLN stands for Personal Learning Network, and CoP stands for Communities of Practice. PLNs have been described as informal networks of people one specifically interacts with within their personal learning environments. From a connectivist perspective, PLNs can emerge through our often random and serendipitous connections with others whom we encounter on the Web. Communities of Practice are described as groups of people who share a common interest and can be instrumental as a network within which learning can take place because of the critical mass of contributions from the group's members.

PLNs and CoPs sound so similar, we could be forgiven for thinking that they are more or less synonymous. A quick search reveals that not a lot has been written about the juxtaposition of the two. Little if any research seems to have been conducted into a comparison between them. Are PLNs and CoPs therefore one and the same? After all, both involve learning, both represent the interactions between individuals who have similar interests, and both exhibit personalised activities positioned at the heart of a rich social context. Yet if we examine the theories behind the two concepts, we see there are some subtle differences. Let me give you my perspective:

One of the key differences I see between the two is that in PLNs, connections can be fairly random and interactions largely informal. Often there is a common ground such as a mutual interest or shared concern, but generally those who make up my PLN are a fairly ad hoc group of friends, colleagues, family and also those who have casually connected with me either through my instigation or theirs. In CoPs, connections are generally more deliberate, focused upon practice, often of a professional nature, and the interactions are focused largely upon the shared business of that community of practice.

Secondly, according to Lave and Wenger, for a CoP to exist, there needs to be a domain of expertise. The domain needs to be shared, and it needs to be formalised. A CoP is rarely a loose, informal network of friends, but instead exists as a central resource where community members learn more about their common expertise and can share, manage and disseminate their understanding for the greater benefit of the entire community. PLNs can be less focused, made up of disparate kinds of people spread across an entire spectrum of abilities, competencies and domain expertise.

Finally, CoPs are usually something you subscribe into. You work your way inwards by way of legitimate participation from the periphery to the core of your community of practice, as you become more expert in the domain your CoP specialises in. Conversely, in your PLN, you are at the centre of the group from the outset. It is your personal network developed by you and for you, and you decide on the membership. All the other members are potential resources that support your learning, as you develop connections with them and gain access to their knowledge.

That's my interpretation of the differences between Personal Learning Networks and Communities of Practice. How do they differ from yours?

Photo by Steve Wheeler


PLN or CoP? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.