It's a nice example of how the Web 2.0 and education world is still controversial, or how diverse responses are. The Chronicle of Higher Education reflects on the Horizon Report*, and reflects darkly:
Colleges Are Reluctant to Adopt New Publication Venues
The article begins:
Academe has been slow to accept new forms of scholarship like blogs, wikis, and video clips, according to a report released last week that examines emerging technology trends in higher education.
Ars Technica picks up on story, and headlines its reflection:
Report: Ivory tower to meet Web 2.0
The article then summarizes the 2007 Horizon Report, working through implications, and considering what education could look like. Same report, two very different responses.
The Chronicle commits two errors. The report is actually about the next few years, and not about the current state of affairs. That's clear throughout the document, from its stated methodology to the timeline explicitly framing the prognostications. Notice the tense differences between the two commentaries, with the Chronicle referring to the present and recent past, with Ars using the future.
The second error is bibliographic. "[A] report released last week"? That's last January, folks, nearly a full year ago. In a few weeks the next one's coming out, as the Horizon site plainly states. Alan Levine gently points this out in his comment, so far unreplied-to.
**full disclosure: I'm on the HR's board.
"The Chronicle commits two errors."
Only two? It must be Christmas.
Posted by: Tanya | December 22, 2007 at 14:40
Thanks for picking up the Ars Technica story, who ironically, sadly too completely skipped the research step of reporting this as new. Their "discussion" is even worse, it sounds like a food fight at recess.
Its been a few days, the Chronicle has yet to retract, correct, or acknowledge sloppy reporting. Its becoming one of my new favorite examples to show of the dying way of operating in the networked world.
Posted by: Alan Levine | December 22, 2007 at 19:58