With no hard rules to establish an authoritative voice, is it possible that “cult of personality” could be the deciding factor on who the experts will be? Could the information they provide be biased, or could their position be bought and paid for? (The latest Wikipedia scandal is a good example of this).

You raise an important idea about leaving courses as they are and adopting OERs, social learning approaches, etc. to extend the learner’s experience. I would suggest, however, that at some point, this model will require changes to courses themselves…if learners get used to freedom and control over their learning content, it’s possible the course model will no longer be able to sustain their interests.

George

George

1. Who are these experts? The best model I can think of is what I’ve encountered with edublogs. The people who are in the field mentor/link/comment on the work of others who are joining. It is the sustained involvement in (and connections to) the community that fosters learning. But that’s not that far off of traditional peer review, is it? Profs aren’t paid to review journal articles. But to do so is an indication of prestige and a giving back to the network one belongs to.

2. Criticism of accreditation from holistic, and courses from atomistic – good observation. In the presentation, I put forward several distinct aspects (I’m posting on this on my connectivism blog soon…so hopefully this will clarify things): content creation, content aggregation, and accreditation or determination of competence. Regardless of courses or non-courses, accreditation is holistic. While my criticism was directed at courses, my discussion of accreditation was derived from how learning might be evaluated in a non-course model. In that sense, I think the discussion is not of atomistic/holistic level.

3. Underlying epistemology – finding the information they need vs. finding learning they need. Again, good distinction:). Information assumes they need a missing piece, but they already have roots in the field. Learning needs are more broad in my eyes…and requires building a base of knowledge. Example: when I want a bit of a refresher on a learning theorist, I use Google Scholar to find a paper. But I know it exists in some capacity and I’m just filling an information need. However, if I know nothing about a field, I need to form a base before any single piece of information will provide much value.

4. A new pecking order? I’m afraid that will likely happen. With one slight shift from our current pecking order. Power laws and small worlds exist online, much like they do in regular society. In regular society, however, the feedback loop is closed due to position, wealth, etc. Online (in theory at least), a feedback loop is more accessible. I guess the issue here becomes one of human nature, control, and power. We don’t shed our existing aspirations (vices?) when we move online. Those who crave attention/power/control will bring those attributes to how they desire to organize the virtual environment.

5. How would a connected university not be hierarchical? I would suggest, with much idealism, that a connected university would be more permeable in how it assists learners in forming learning networks outside of the academy. How it collaborates between depts in bringing different ideas together, and demonstrating how biology influences physics, etc. Greater cross-dept discourse…and so on. But that is non-hierarchical view of learning. Of greater interest for me is how the administration of the university could be set up to be more adaptive and flexible. I haven’t thought on that enough to even begin to give you a coherent answer .

6. Might a connectivist notion work in an existing model? Yes, I think it would. I wonder, however, how long we can adopt innovations in classrooms and universities before we are forced to make some significant systemic changes.

Thanks for your questions, Mark.

George