There is a huge difference between information and knowledge. Information can be random, infinite, overwhelming, exciting, motivating, daunting, etc... Information becomes knowledge when it has been received, assimilated and digested. It sparks the creative process when it is used to produce something else - a work, a thought, an idea, an image. There is an inherent limit to the amount of information a human being can ingest, transform and reissue without becoming overwhelmed. As we are exposed to more and more information, we push the boundaries of those limits and become better, faster, more efficient at sifting through what is available to take in what is important to us personally. We become better, but we still can't cope with infinite. Unless I am missing something, most technology is concentrating on speed and availability. Google is one of the few early companies to concentrate on helping people to work more efficiently and look at the success it has had.
Over the course of my career I've worked in several different countries. Culture changes certain things but human nature is remarkably similar everywhere you go. Where technology has trouble getting off the ground, the issue is most often that users are overwhelmed and need help with the adoption process. A small percentage of each population is comfortable, even revels in, the liberating process of the new technology. The large majority, however, needs help at first to see how it is relevant to them personally.
I agree that the potential is there to transform world education, but I think we have reached the point where technology needs to factor in what the human being needs and how human society functions in order to make technological uptake more efficient - especially in those countries that most need to be integrated.
Look at early Apple and Microsoft. Apple was hands down technologically advanced, but Microsoft came in and made it EASIER for people to step into the waters - easier file sharing, cheaper entry cost, decreased compatibility issues. While Apple was concentrating on getting the technology right, Microsoft was concentrating on getting it to the masses. Apple was almost made irrelevant by its own inflexibility. We all know that they eventually bounced back, but now they're getting clobbered by Samsung and they don't have Steve Jobs to help them envision the future - the drama is playing out again in a similar fashion.
A short time ago I read an article about a free course on how to set up MOOC's crashing:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/04/coursera-forced-call-mooc-amid-complaints-about-course
Obviously, the audience was there. The interest is high but the technological framework was not sufficient to support delivery. I think there is a need for someone - company, individual, inventor, visionary - to be able to see the framework from a higher perspective and develop something that pulls together all or many of the existing media forms into a more manageable form. This framework should be flexible enough not to limit what the information is used for but structured enough to facilitate connection of relevant (or even not relevant) pieces of information so that new knowledge areas can be created and acted on more efficiently. It should enhance connectivity not restrain it. Any ideas who is farthest along in this perspective? #CMC11