The article opposes the statement that the technology should follow the learning and teaching objectives.

The main argument of the text is that cyberspace allows for a different from traditional structure. The tree-shaped organisation of traditional knowledge (from biology to linguistics) allows for one way of learning – following an ordered sequence of what elements of knowledge are to be learnt one after another. The tree stems from a root, from which we can proceed via branches to growths. This leaves a learner with a duly pre-arranged sequence of learning, with little space for individual experimenting, moving to certain parts of knowledge more interesting to the particular learner.

According to Cousin, cyberspace compares well to the structure of rhizome. With all elements connected to any other ones, all parts of a given knowledge can be accessed at any given time, adjusting the learning sequence to one’s personal interests and requirements.  Learning becomes custom-made, bespoke, personal, thus interesting and engaging. That seems to be advantageous for the learners, since the pace, difficulty level, and personal interest are factors that can greatly affect one’s learning progress.

There are certain drawbacks of such personalised online learning, however. Those mentioned by Cousin include e.g. high negotiability and reliability of learning sources and available materials. With near-endless resources the obvious problem is where to start reading. Sieving the right from the wrong creates learners who engage in the never-ending search for information, merely ‘surfing’ on the surface of knowledge, rather than reaching deep into it and acquiring it.

Moreover, the power of the internet lies in its social structure, in the WEB 2.0 participatory creation, interoperability, and cooperation. High individualism focuses excessively on taking and using rather than collaborating in creation, thus reducing the role of social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies, all such useful in the cyberspace learning.

Such ‘cherry-picking’ learning style, characteristic of the Net-Generation, may highly diminish the role of an in-depth research, too. Students may be satisfied with snaps of information that may be available quickly, with little critical thinking.

All this does not change the fact that the contemporary learning style is and will continue to change as the technology available constantly develops. I do agree with Cousin on that technologies are not instruments of our identities, they are its constitutive elements which not merely influence but change our social practises and the way new generations learn. According to Cousin, “technologies work dynamically with pedagogics, not for them. The moment a new device of communication is invented it changes our way of thinking, recreates our minds, creates new opportunities for thought.”

Undoubtedly, more large-scale research is needed to ascertain to what extent the personalisation of online learning is best to be allowed. We are facing a paradigm shift in the conception of the role of technology in pedagogy and we would better be thoroughly prepared for its arrival.