The society defines the learning objectives. The teachers job is to teach this predefined skills. To reach his goal, he develops an educational strategy. The teacher will use various kind of methods and media to fulfill his assignment. The web 2.0 can be considered as one type of media. By the use of the Web 2.0 the teacher can prepare himself for his assignment, exchange ideas with his colleagues, or publish, for example, the definition of a task on a network available for each student in a class. There are many possibilities to use the Web 2.0 in class. Students using the Web 2.0 can create an interactive way of education. On this way students can learn actively, what can increase their motivations as well as the success of learning. The teacher even can find out the reaction of the students referring to his educational strategy. The students, for example, can give feedback online. This enables an early control of the learning success which can be performed even before the actual assessment of the training success (e.g. exams). The out coming “actual state” can now be compared to the “target state” and the teacher can optimize the educational process.
In this model you can see three (four) dark blue arrows. This arrows are representation of the interaction between a specific actor and the school 2.0/ classroom 2.0. Every actor in this model can interact with the school 2.0/ classroom 2.0 and therefore can get in contact with the other two actor groups. For example, parts of society who want to know how the students are picking up the predefined learning objectives, could visit a Weblog of a class, make a remark, get in contact with the publisher and additionally create an opinion towards the learning process.
I see that Cube’s regulation-circle impressed you.
I think your observation about informing society of educational process by web 2.0 applications is very good and interesting. But I think the educational process might be in some degree intimate. Where is the border?