So this is mostly an article by Clayten Christensen on types of innovation, but towards the end he mentions education and the kinds of skills we should be teaching future innovators and entrepreneurs to make sure our economy runs.
The article highlighted the different agendas of the administrator (who brings the budget), educator (who is concerned with lesson objectives), and game designer (who wants to create an engaging game). I think that if students are not sufficiently engaged by the game, the educational objectives would probably not be delivered successfully either. If budget cuts ended up taking the fun out of an educational game, perhaps it might be worth rethinking if it should still be a game?
Kind of like Professor Dede's post about McGraw-Hill's interest in e-learning, here is a blog post from Pearson about MOOCs. I think his take (Jeff Borden, one of their VPs) is pretty accurate, in that we need a version 2 where it's not as lecture-based as version 1. I would guess that they are working on their own "version 2" solution (perhaps with Knewton?).
In a couple of weeks a bunch of Pearson people are spending a couple of days at MIT Media Lab learning about the future of learning. Specifically they are interested on how to capitalise on technology and how to make education of all kinds for all ages more widely accessible, more affordable, more effective.
Should be interesting, the lab will be doing demos all day of all the projects in the Media Lab.