Scanning the Horizon July 3, 2010Posted by IaninSheffield in CPD, Inspiration, research, Web 2.0.
Tags: EDUCAUSE, Horizon, NMC, report, research, timeline
Each year, the New Media Consortium, in collaboration with EDUCAUSE, produce and release the Horizon Report – an exploration by a large group of leading forward thinkers what technologies are likely to be of influence in the short (this year), medium (2-3 years) and longer (3-5 years) terms. Predominantly aimed at Higher Education, there is still much for my sector (Primary/Secondary Ed.) to learn from the suggested emerging technologies, the key trends and the challenges we’re facing. Begun in 2002 and available in digital form since 2004, the previous editions are available to download and distribute under a CC license. Even better is that the last two years have seen the release of a special K12 edition of the report. This year I noticed that NMC had considerately made all previous reports available in a single PDF – the ‘boxed set’ version. And that set me thinking . . .
There’s a heap on interesting information in here which could stimulate further discussion . . . but encouraging colleagues who don’t share the same passion(?) for ICT that I do to read and analyse that whole archive was a non-starter. So I began thinking how I might summarise the main findings of all the reports and also begin to explore the chronology of the emerging trends and how accurate the reports have proven over the course of time.
I thought a timeline application might suit, so scanned back through my Delicious links, finally settling on TimeGlider, an online offering which satsified the first criterion of being free and also offered most of the other functionality I was chasing. I decided that in addition to the six significant technologies each report focused on (2 for each term), I’d also include the key trends which influenced these choices. Much cutting and pasting later, the data is in TimeGlider, but here’s the rub. The CC licence under which the reports are released allows for duplication and redistribution in full, but not for derivative works. So is what I’ve done a ‘derivative’ work? Since I’m not sure, before I publish the timeline, I thought it would be wise and courteous to contact NMC and see what they think . . . so we’ll wait and see.
Think the next post is already writing itself itself and could go either of two ways . . .