Let's return to the argument between Downes and Stager. In his critique of Web 2.0 proponents, Stager says, "There is no educational philosophy inspiring the development of the Web 2.0 tools or their use."
Downes says that Stager is wrong, and that the users of Web 2.0 in schools "adopt explicitly Constructivist theories to inform their design and development … [or] follow the Connectivist approach, as outlined by George Siemens." In short, Web 2.0 tools help students construct knowledge, rather than simply consume knowledge presented by teachers and textbooks, and they help students connect to a web of people and information within which to create and use that new knowledge.
But Downes goes on to rebut Stager by pointing out that talking of an "educational philosophy" is itself old-school, hierarchical, command-and-control thinking. Downes asks: "Why would we need a specifically educational theory? As though learning is some practice or discipline totally separate, totally unrelated, to the rest of our lives?"
So, scholars, what is your theory of learning (you've been doing it all your life, so you should know how it works) and how does Web 2.0 fit into or modify that theory? Can business tools work in a school? After all, pencils, paper, books, typewriters, and photocopy machines seem to work in school, though they were first invented for business. What do the constructivist and connectivist theories have to do with the way you are learning your course of study? Say you.