I suppose there is a risk of this all getting a bit *circular* – being on a connectivist course about connectivism. There are two complementary routes to achieving the learning outcomes; engaging with the content and artefacts about connectivism and reflecting on the connectivist learning experience itself. Does this complicate matters? Would it be better to help people learn about connectivism by stealth – perhaps by running a MOOC on ‘the nature of knowledge’, for example…? Wouldn’t that be lovely – allowing people to truly discover connectivist learning for themselves? (The facilitators would have to keep schtum about all the papers they’d already written about it though – difficult).
I just had a horrible, paranoid thought. Maybe connectivism is just a ploy cooked up by George and Stephen et al in order to ensure the prevalence and immortality of their own ideas…? It’s brilliant – you invent a theory and offer a course where a vast number of people are motivated to bookmark, link to and comment on your ideas, ensuring the connections to connectivism grow at an exponential rate to a point at which you’ve basically taken over the internet…!!
…and *back in the room*…
It makes sense that these MOOCs are heavily populated with learning technologists, but it *does* mean the artefacts produced have a disciplinary skew. My own aim for CCK11 is to consider connectivism in the contexts my students and I work in – art teaching, acting, fashion marketing, pattern cutting, educational development. How is connectivist learning impacting on these fields? Are individuals in these fields learning in this way and, if so, are they *aware* of it? If not, what are they missing and how can I help?