It was clear from the discussion that this was not an isolated event. The teacher wanted the young people to embed their knowledge of the basic structure of a cell through an active task in which they made a representation of their knowledge in order to more thoroughly learn these fundamentals. The process of drawing and labelling was designed not simply to give information but to support the learning process. This was constructivism in action and I instantly saw parallels between the ‘learning is the same as information’ debates which seem to rule the eLearning 2.0 discussions of the moment. Is the process of looking something up on wikipedia or describing google as a learning tool any different from what these rebellious teenagers were arguing?   Is interacting with information so that it is internally digested now out of fashion with both learning designers and learners alike?

The essence of constructivism – that learners construct knowledge through making meaning by combining previous knowledge with input from a facilitator or from an information source – has been adopted to work on line – especially where learners are required to interact with online tasks to activate previous learning and to show what they know and have a chance to contribute their own knowledge. (If constructivism as a theory of knowing and learning is new to you, a good overview can be found here: http://www.learning-theories.com/constructivism.html).

The key to the read/write use of technology – so called web 2.0 - is the extent to which learners and subject matter experts use the available technology to contribute and engage in debate. At its best, it provides a knowledge construction and management opportunity in which individuals review comments and add to them or amend them with alternatives of their own.

However it is not an alternative to well designed guided learning which has been created to enable learners to move through a learning cycle in a logical process from theory through to practice and reflection. In some senses, web 2.0 has been embraced by those in the ‘training’ world who do not see the difference between providing information and creating learning experiences. As a flat, informational medium – with interaction limited to those who have something to contribute – there is a debate about whether the content is that user friendly and whether information presented in this way is brain friendly. In that it is difficult to recall after having read it, it becomes instant information which is available to be looked up by skilled information seekers. This is valuable in and of itself, but the opposite of learning, which has at its base the ability to file information and experiences in the brain and recall this knowledge when required (having worked out first when it might be required.)

For more on constructivism in an online environment see: http://www.brighthub.com/education/online-learning/articles/38850.aspx

So what do we do with this acknowledgement that linking to images or diagrams or online models in and of itself is not enough to help learners construct knowledge? It seems to me that providing links to other, web-based information is useful, but that in order for it to meet its potential we need to require our learners to do something with what they have discovered. We also need to adequately guide them to resources which will help. We should support them in being media literate enough to interrogate their searches and choose between the credible rather than the downright dodgy (see my previous blog: Can we trust the web? https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/blogs/robinhoyle/robin-hoyle039s-blog/can-we-trust-web)

Further opportunities to help learners construct meaning may involve them in contributing to discussions – not simply as passive recipients of the outpourings of the expert, but as people who can contribute their own understanding and by so doing apply the old fashioned maxim: “To teach is to learn twice.”

It seems we may have responded to the bolshie teenager in all of us by attempting to make it easy for learners to access information as an alternative to learning things. This may be of value in some situations and with some subjects, but both we and those teenagers about to enter the workforce must recognise that learners do need to actually learn some things and that cutting and pasting won’t equip us to handle life in the modern organisation.