Schools league tables “preserve the systems of education” without considering individual learning (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 6-7). Some innovating pedagogies such as MOOCs have a low retention rate amongst its learners, which could be considered a disadvantage (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 10). However “similar trends for open educational resources show, not surprisingly, that viewing is far higher than engagement and that there are different types of participant, including the viewer, the volunteer student, and the social learner” (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 10). MOOC badges as an incentive may help to increase learner motivation to persevere (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 12).
Data-driven analysis of learning activities and environments includes “collection of data from the physical environment, including gestures and both eye tracking and sensor data” (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 15) which strikes me as rather invasive.
Seamless learning includes use of smartphone “tilt sensor recording the angle from the ground to the top of a tree or building in order to measure its height through the application of basic trigonometry” (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 17). This indicates how it can be used as a physical learning tool in addition to its mlearning function.
Crowd learning cites Wikipedia as an example, seeming to state that it is under-valued. However sites such as these are not considered reputable because of the multi-editing facility and its reputation for those who like to make mischief (Sharples et al. 2013, p. 21). Therefore this is not, for me, a good example.
Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T. and Gaved, M. (2013) Innovating Pedagogy 2013: Open University Innovation Report No. 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University; also available online at http://www.open.ac.uk/ blogs/ innovating/ (last accessed 4 March, 2014).