If so much of our assessment strategies are based on the ability to recall information, so where might such enhancements leave us? Is there a link to the Bayne (2014) paper here, with regards to our assumptions about ‘enhancement’ and ‘learning’?

Having further looked at possible future scenarios this week, such as us being one day able to download information in a pill form, with nanobots attaching to our brain’s synapses and uploading information straight into our memory I would be willing to concede that this, for all intents and purposes, could be considered “technologically enhanced” learning. The big differentiator of such technology compared to a Moodle platform, for example, would be its passive nature. Current learning technologies, no matter how sophisticated, are still only able to facilitate the active act of learning and creating understanding within the mind.

Yes, this kind of augmented reality technology seems to be progressing swiftly. However, what if we compare this corporate promotion with the first video you mention, “This Will Revolutionize Education”? Where might the ‘no significant difference’ stand here?

From what I’ve been learning from other MSCDE courses people learn better the more you engage them emotionally and the more senses you involve in the act of learning. I presume that holograms will allow for many novel use cases that make use of these principles. If students can interactively see and manipulate things right in front of their eyes it is much more likely to involve their spatial centres in the brains than if they were to learn about these things from a 2D textbook. Again, it’s not so much about teaching a topic via a new medium, but rather about utilising technology to create the right conditions that allow for a student to be more involved with the topic which will in turn allow learning to happen.

from Comments for Mihael’s EDC blog http://edc15.education.ed.ac.uk/mkiseloski/2015/01/23/recap-week-2/#comment-22
via IFTTT