Horizon Report 2007: über Web2.0 hinaus

Der neue Horizon Report behandelt diesmal nicht nur genuine Web2.0-Technologien. Selten findet man in der aktuellen Debatte so fundierte Beiträge zu Fragen der „emerging technologies„. Der Horizon Report wird erstellt als Expertenbefragung vom New Media Consortium, TX, zusammen mit Educause Learning Initiative (vgl. mein Beitrag zum letzten Report).

As it does each year, the Horizon Advisory Board again reviewed key trends in the practice of teaching, learning, and creativity, and ranked those it considered most important for campuses to watch. Trends were identified through a careful analysis of interviews, articles, papers, and published research.

Die meisten „Prognosen“ aus dem letzten Jahr sind mindestens eingetreten. 2006 stand noch stärker als jetzt die Frage nach neuen Formen des Lernens im Mittelpunkt; diesmal kommt eher auch die Frage nach scholarship allgemein durch. Viele wichtige Anregungen, Praxisbeispiele, further reading und die Möglichkeit zumindest über collective tags bei del.icio.us mitzumachen.

Nach NMCs Prognose sind folgende Technologien bedeutsam für Lehren und Lernen, also Wissensproduktion im Hochschulkontext:

Time-to-Adoption: one year or less:

  • User Created Content
  • Social Networking

Time-to-Adoption: two to three years:

  • Mobile Phones
  • Virtual Worlds

Time-to-Adoption: four to five years:

  • The New Scholarship and Emerging Forms of Publication
  • Massively Multiplayer Educational Gaming

Besonders die beiden letzten sind spannend: die Zukunft des Buches zum Einen und die Gaming Generation zu Anderen…

Einzelne Trends aus der executive Summary (meine Hervorhebungen!):

  • Information literacy increasingly should not be considered a given. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the information literacy skills of new students are not improving […]. At the same time, in a sea of user-created content, collaborative work, and instant access to information of varying quality, the skills of critical thinking, research, and evaluation are increasingly required to make sense of the world.
  • Academic review and faculty rewards are increasingly out of sync with new forms of scholarship. The trends toward digital expressions of scholarship and more interdisciplinary and collaborative work continue to move away from the standards of traditional peer-reviewed paper publication. New forms of peer review are emerging, but existing academic practices of specialization and long-honored notions of academic status are persistent barriers to the adoption of new approaches. Given the pace of change, the academy will grow more out of step with how scholarship is actually conducted until constraints imposed by traditional tenure and promotion processes are eased.
  • The notions of collective intelligence and mass amateurization are pushing the boundaries of scholarship. Amateur scholars are weighing in on scholarly debates with reasoned if not always expert opinions, and websites like the Wikipedia have caused the very notion of what an expert is to be reconsidered. Hobbyists and enthusiasts are engaged in data collection and field studies that are making real contributions in a great many fields at the same time that they are encouraging debate on what constitutes scholarly work—and who should be doing it. Still to be resolved is the question of how compatible the consensus sapientum and the wisdom of the academy will be.

Stephen Bell beklagt jedoch im ACRLog, dass im Editorial Board des Horizon Reports keine Bibliothekare zu finden sind.