Ken asks if CCK08 is failingStephen(?) George  replies in The Daily that the course is succeeding in that it exists.  Lisa commented on Ken’s post.  I find myself pretty much agreeing with her.

Given the high proportion of working educators in the MOOC, pushing the more concrete topics late into the course schedule was frustrating.  Furthermore, after providing copious reading material earlier in the course, the leaders have now, just when we got to the role of the teacher (a very practical topic),  seemed  to step back, ostensibly to allow folks time to work on their second papers. This just as many are chomping at the bit to have a wide ranging discussion about something that matters ‘on the ground’.

I would also agree that The Daily, whether it was intended to or not, has become an important filter for most people. The choices of featured posts do a lot to shape the discussion.

Does this mean that CCK08 is a failure? Maybe not.

Perhaps the lack of material on how one applies connectivism with actual learners is a sign that connectivism is so new that nobody’s gotten around to seriously addressing that question yet.   So let’s start. What does a connectivist class (within the constraints of credit hours and grading that we all live with) look like? Is what’s happening with the for credit CCK08 students a working model?

Tom Whyte asks about a different kind of connectivist failure.  This reminds us that the quality of a connected learning experience depends, in large part, on whether those in your network have a clue. This ties in to the idea of information literacy, but instead of evaluating articles or web sites, one has to evaluate people. Especially in dealing with Tom’s student population, this is a thorny issue. So, what ought we tell people about how to choose their network?