Conclusion

The interactive nature of Web 2.0 tools and platforms have realised the true purpose of the internet, as envisaged by the first collaborators many years ago. Today, Web 2.0 has become synonymous with a new culture of learning that is supported by a constructivist theory, in which the digital generation have become responsible for creating a wealth of information. The consequence of sharing vast amounts of information, either for social purposes or cognitive development, has seen a change in the thought processes required for the expansion of existing knowledge and the construction of new knowledge. Evidence of neuroplasticity supports the biological evolution of Web 2.0 users; however, fortunately it is not just confined to the early formation of the brain. Re-wiring continues throughout our whole lives, opening up the possibility that digital immigrants can also adapt to the world of the digital native.

While there is widespread acceptance that didactic methods of teaching and learning may no longer be appropriate in the digital age, it is also clear that absolute constructivism and unguided learning may be equally inappropriate for vocational training. Therefore, the skill of the facilitator to coach and mentor the learner cannot be under estimated if meaningful learning is to take place. The emphasis with Web 2.0 tools is to encourage learning by discovery as oppose to a passive acceptance of facts. At the heart of this process is critical thought, which requires higher-order thinking skills, collaboration and motivation on the learner’s part to take responsibility for their own cognitive development.

The thought of implementing a constructivist approach to learning with a situated methodology presents the opportunity to blend social and educational spaces in a socio-constructivist  environment. Evaluating the benefits of such an environment would require further inquiry; however, Web 2.0 as a tool for learning, or Web 2.0 as a culture of new learners are both significant considerations for vocational education establishments when providing contextual spaces for interaction.

Finally, analysis of blog responses.

Opinions appear to support Anderson (2007) in that Web 2.0 is more than a set of applications; rather, it is a cultural change in the way the digital generation interact with each other through technology.

The responses seem to suggest that Web 2.0 tools for vocational training would be of some benefit to the present generation of learners, however there was recognition that facilitators would also need to embrace the technology. Some comments have raised concerns over the IT infrastructure to support the use of Web 2.0 and the spaces provided by some establishments, although it would be wrong to generalise on this issue.

Based on f2f feedback as well as blog comments, there is a positive attitude towards the use of Web 2.0 tools for cognitive development, although most seem to favour the guided approach as suggested by Mayer (2004) and Kirschner et al. (2006). One comment highlighted the rapidly evolving nature of technology by reminding us that while some providers are still considering the use of Web 2.0 tools for learning; Web 3.0 is already on the horizon.