... my opinion which might change: ...it is an extension to the traditional concept of the "the wisodm of the crowd" with two additions: (1) It is more instantaneous, current and more accurate and (2) the crowd now includes machines! ... X-)
Short answer: Not Yet.
Long answer: Connectivsm creates a new paradigm where "acceptance" is determined by the "connected masses" and not necessarily by the academicians.
So, if you are asking if it is academically accepted, the answer is "not yet", for the academics will require a long time to decide (I have seen academic researches with and against the idea). But the process is still going*.
If you are asking if it is accepted by the masses? The answer is another "not yet". The number of individuals who are accepting the concept is increasing. But it did not reach a critical mass to call it a global acceptance. I think it will get there soon*.
In my opinion, connectivism and collaboration are different.
As of today, I understand connectivism to be "connection(s) that induce learning". While collabrotion, on the other hand, is "connection to reach an outcome". They will be the same if, and only if, the outcome is learning.
Note that, in connectivism, collaboration is not essential; especially when the connection is established with a none human entity (like Google search or a database!)...
I do not think they are mutually exclusive and tend to think of them both as, perhaps, contiguous and both contained in the flow of processes in learning. What is learning? How, and by whom, is learning determined? The short answer, for me, is ... it depends :-) ... there are many variables and possible permutations.
The FCC released the "white spaces" - the unused spectrum between broadcast television channels — will lead to a so-called “Super Wi-Fi” or “Wi-Fi on steroids.” This means we will have "80 Mbps and above long-range wireless speeds and 400-800 Mbps short-range wireless networks. Perhaps this means that wireless Internet can now actually be “faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound". Google chipped in to utilize the bandwidth.Katy: Maybe I am looking at PLNs a different way, as a newcomer to the idea - I think that a PLN is mostly people. People who make up the network, whose expertise or viewpoint or experience "rubs off on you" as you interact and connect and communicate with them. Yes, some nodes are one-way (as with a website that shows a presentation from an expert) but most nodes are two-way, like colleague who points you toward the site with the presentation and who you get into discussion with about the presentation and whose other friend disagrees with the expert and gets into the discussion.
Me: @Kate: you are right, but not in the CCK11 context. In connectivism, knowledge resides with people as well as machines... so, we cannot limit it to people only! Unorthodox, I know!
Katy: @Anas: So the site where the expert's presentation is housed is part of the PLN as well as the expert and the friend who tells you about the site? That makes sense. But it's not just the sites - a collection of site bookmarks on someone's computer doesn't tell you about the connections between them and -more importantly- how the human people in that person's PLN have made sense of the sites and connections between the sites and the people and the problems needing to be solved.
Me: @Katy: like you, I am still trying to make peace with this concept. This is what Connectivism advocates, not me, at least not yet :-) Machines as machines contribute to the knowledge. The closest example is Google: the information generated by google is collected, collated and compiled by some creepy entities (called bots or spiders) that sniff the whole world wide web and present them to us in a format we understand. Some of this information is created by other bots! Similarly Wikipedia, bots contribute to the creation of its articles. So, the machine started to contribute to our knowledge, not people only... creepy. Right?
Katy: @Anas - maybe by the end of the course I will see more eye-to-eye with Connectivism on this idea! Machines contributing to the knowledge is easier for me to deal with than the idea of machines 'creating' the knowledge = information is not the same as knowledge, is it>?
Jaap: @Katy What do you think of this example? a machine can make a diagram of your contacts in Linkedin, this machine creates information/knowledge that was not there before.
Me: @Katy: mhmm... Good point. To me, information is different from knowledge. Information is public, while knowledge is personal. The moment I communicate my knowledge to you, it becomes information to you. How you interpret it becomes your knowledge. We might end up having different knowledge although we "consumed" the same information. At this end, I should agree with you: machine creates "information" and we create our "knowledge". This makes me think: does the machine has its own "knowledge"? Can we call it knowledge? I like this mooc thing. Thank you for drifting my attention to a real issue.
Katy: @Jaap- yes, the machine creates patterns from information. Those patterns, that new information can open our eyes to new possibilities. But I don't think that we can equate information with knowledge @Anas- good point about 'consuming' the same information, yet generation different knowledge. We all have different backgrounds, experiences, prior information that cause us each to process the connections between information bits differently= each of us make unique knowledge of the world. And the different, unique knowledge is what our PLNs are exploring, right? If we just wanted to hear the same opinions and information over and over again, we'd go to a faculty meeting or a family reunion (joke) instead of investing time in cultivating a PLN to broaden and deepen our knowledge.
"A digital scholar is yet to be defined. Traditionally, scholars are those who received formal education, recognized by a group of scholars and, to some degree, "retain the knowledge in their brain". I advocate to leave the term "scholar" ...to the traditional school system and device a new descriptor for the digital arena. I suggest something like "connected".
Don't forget, in connectivism, you will not retain the knowledge yourself, but you master the skill to mine for it when needed."
then I added:
"Google "invisible college" which is the precursor to "scholarship". You will discover that connectivity for the sake of creation of knowledge outside academia is very old and is still popular till today. Even between distant individuals. Technology just made it instantaneous and more accessible to the layperson."
Just thought to share. Any reactions?
