three-horizons-learning-transition-mapper

三个地平线学习转型映射

此技能的作用

引导学生开展「三个地平线」映射练习，帮助他们理解当前系统正在发生怎样的变化、他们希望培育怎样的未来，以及哪些创新确实在推动这一未来。此技能会生成一份结构化的三个地平线图，其中包括：当前主导模式承受压力的证据（地平线 1）；对理想未来模式的描述及有依据的实例（地平线 3）；以及经过分类的转型创新列表，区分 H2+（培育理想未来）和 H2-（用新说法延续旧模式）。

「三个地平线」不是时间线。三个地平线在当下并存：H1 要素目前占主导地位，H3 的萌芽如今已经存在，H2 创新如今则处于争夺之中。此技能融入了一套引导逻辑，让这种共存关系清晰可见，并具有分析价值。

证据范围与证据强度

此技能融入了 H3Uni「三个地平线」方法，这是一套用于未来思考和转型变革引导的实践框架。

组成部分的证据

• Curry 与 Hodgson（2008）的多重地平线（初步）：这篇奠基性论文将「三个地平线」框架描述为战略未来思考的工具，为 H1/H2/H3 的区分及 H2+/H2- 分类提供了概念基础。该论文偏重理论和实践，并非对照研究。
• Sharpe 等人（2016）的路径实践（初步）：这篇生态与社会领域的论文将「三个地平线」描述为一种参与式转型路径工具，并记录了该方法在专业和社区场景中的应用。该论文提供了最系统的学术方法论介绍，包括 H2+/H2- 的区分和引导流程。该论文不包含随机对照或比较研究设计。
• Sharpe 与 Hodgson（2019）的预期框架（初步）：本章将「三个地平线」置于有关预期和未来意识的更广泛文献之中，并将其与关于群体如何形成共同未来思维的认知和社会学论述联系起来。
• H3Uni 的「三个地平线」教程和引导指南（实践框架）：H3Uni 的资源库包含逐步引导指南，介绍如何在政策、生态和组织场景中与成人群体开展「三个地平线」映射。这些是实践资源，而非经同行评审的评估研究。

综合证据

此技能所采用的课堂改编方案——包括引导流程、学生工作表提示、质量关卡，以及 H2+/H2- 的区分——由 Gareth Manning 为 REAL School Budapest 的学龄学生开发，参考了 H3Uni 的开放引导指南和上述学术论文。此改编方案尚未经过独立评估。核心思想框架来自 H3Uni；课堂实践方案则由实践经验综合形成。

H3Uni 方法由 H3Uni 以 CC BY-SA 4.0 发布。H3Uni 由 Anthony Hodgson 和 Bill Sharpe 创立，其正式运营于 2026 年 5 月结束；资源库由 Future Stewards 作为开放共享资源维护。

此技能不应宣称的内容

H3Uni「三个地平线」方法旨在供成人引导者与政策实践者、战略团队和专业群体共同使用。此处的课堂改编方案不宣称有经同行评审的证据证明其能够改善学生的未来思维、提升转型设计成果，或培养可迁移的系统变革能力。教师应将其视为一套理论基础扎实、经过专业实践检验、目前正在适配课堂的方法，而非经过验证的教育干预方案。

适用场景

在完成范围界定练习后使用此技能；条件允许时，也应在完成六边形映射后使用。当学生已经仔细思考过调查内容，并对系统结构形成了一些共同认识时，这张图最能发挥作用。避免将其作为独立的首次活动——如果没有事先界定范围，学生往往会在 H1 中罗列抱怨，在 H3 中描绘幻想，而不是进行有依据的结构分析。

输入架构

教师必须提供：

• 已界定范围的主题： 探究主题，最好取自已完成的范围界定陈述。主题应足够具体，以便学生为 H1 提供具体证据，并指出 H3 中真实存在的局部实例。
• 价值维度： 小组关心并希望放在纵轴上的价值或品质。这并不是在道德上评判 H1 是坏的，而是共同声明小组试图保护或发展的目标。

可选：

• 学生水平： 年级或年龄范围，用于调整语言和抽象程度。
• 现有证据： 关于当前情况的数据、观察、学生调查、故事或社区反馈。
• H3 种子： 已在某处存在的理想未来的具体实例。
• 先前的六边形图： 如果学生已完成六边形映射练习，可提供其中的关键集群或见解。

提示词

You are facilitating a Three Horizons mapping exercise. Students will map a complex topic across three coexisting patterns: the current dominant system under strain (H1), the preferred future pattern they want to grow (H3), and transition innovations (H2) sorted as H2+ (grows toward H3) or H2- (extends H1 in new language).

CRITICAL SEQUENCE: Always map in this order: H1 → H3 → H2. Never H1 → H2 → H3. Without mapping H3 first, it is impossible to distinguish H2+ from H2-. H2 innovations can only be classified once students know what future they are testing them against.

CRITICAL FRAMING: H1 is not "bad" and H3 is not "good." H1 elements persist in any real system and supply functions that must not be lost. H3 pockets already exist in the present. Frame the map as change dynamics, not moral categories.

Inputs:
Scoped topic: {{scoped_topic}}
Value dimension: {{value_dimension}}
Student level: {{student_level}}
Existing evidence: {{existing_evidence}}
H3 seeds: {{h3_seeds}}
Prior hexagon map: {{prior_hexagon_map}}

Step 1 — Map Horizon 1 (current pattern under strain):
H1 is the dominant current pattern: the dominant assumptions, practices, structures, metrics, and relationships that currently govern the topic. The vertical axis measures the value dimension. H1 is declining not because it is evil but because it is losing fit with changing conditions or values.

Ask: What evidence shows the current pattern is under strain? What keeps H1 in place even as it loses fit? Who benefits from H1 continuing? What does H1 still provide that we need?

Generate:
- Evidence of H1 strain: specific, observable examples showing the value dimension is being compromised
- H1 persistence factors: the structures, incentives, habits, or beliefs that sustain H1 even under pressure
- What H1 still provides: valuable functions any transition must preserve

Step 2 — Map Horizon 3 (preferred future pattern):
H3 is the pattern of life the group wants to grow: the values, norms, relationships, and practices that would represent genuine improvement in the value dimension. H3 is not a fantasy — it must be grounded in pockets already visible somewhere.

Ask: What would this system look like if the value dimension were genuinely flourishing? Where can we already see pockets of this future — in other schools, communities, projects, or places? What values and norms characterise H3?

Generate:
- H3 pattern description: what the preferred future looks, feels, and works like
- H3 pockets: real examples already existing somewhere that embody elements of H3
- H3 values: the shared values or principles this future is built on

Step 3 — Map Horizon 2 (transition innovations, sorted as H2+ or H2-):
H2 innovations are the experiments, projects, practices, and actors responding to pressure between H1 and H3. Some grow the preferred future (H2+). Others extend the old pattern in new language — they look like change but reinforce H1's core logic (H2-).

For each H2 item, test: Does this innovation genuinely move toward H3, or does it adapt H1 to survive? H2- items often use H3 language (sustainability, wellbeing, innovation) while leaving H1 structures intact.

For each H2 item generate:
- Description of the innovation or experiment
- Classification: H2+ or H2-
- Reasoning: why it grows H3 or why it extends H1

Step 4 — Tell the transition story:
Write a narrative (3–5 sentences) describing: what is declining in H1, what is emerging in H3, which H2 innovations are genuinely transitional, what is contested, and where the group might focus action.

Step 5 — Quality check:
Apply these gates:
- FLAG if H3 is empty or contains only vague aspirations with no grounded pockets (cannot distinguish H2+ from H2- without a concrete H3)
- FLAG if no H2 items are classified as H2+ or H2- (H2 listed without analysis)
- FLAG if H1 contains only complaints or blame without structural analysis (H1 needs evidence of strain AND persistence factors)
- REJECT if the output frames H1 as "bad" and H3 as "good" without nuance
- FLAG if H3 has no real-world pockets — aspiration only with no connection to present reality

Return exactly:

## Three Horizons Map: [Topic] — [Value Dimension]

**Scoped topic:** [topic]
**Value dimension:** [what the group cares about protecting or growing]

---

### Horizon 1 — Current Pattern Under Strain

**What H1 looks like:**
[Description of the dominant current pattern]

**Evidence of strain:**
- [Specific, observable example]

**What keeps H1 in place:**
- [Persistence factor — structure, incentive, habit, or belief]

**What H1 still provides:**
- [Function or value that any transition must preserve]

---

### Horizon 3 — Preferred Future Pattern

**What H3 looks like:**
[Description of the preferred future — grounded, not utopian]

**Pockets of H3 already visible:**
- [Real example — a school, community, project, or practice already embodying elements of H3]

**H3 values:**
- [Shared values or norms characterising this future]

---

### Horizon 2 — Transition Activity

| Innovation or Experiment | H2+ or H2-? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| [name] | H2+ | [grows toward H3 because...] |
| [name] | H2- | [extends H1 in new language because...] |

**H2+ opportunities worth supporting:**
- [Key H2+ innovations with brief explanation]

---

### Transition Story
[3–5 sentence narrative: what is declining, what is emerging, what is contested, where action might help]

---

### Quality Gate Results
- [ ] H3 is grounded with at least one concrete pocket: [pass/flag]
- [ ] H2 items are classified as H2+ or H2-: [pass/flag]
- [ ] H1 includes structural analysis, not only complaints: [pass/flag]
- [ ] Map avoids moral framing of H1 as bad, H3 as good: [pass/flag]
- [ ] H3 is a pattern of life, not a list of innovations: [pass/flag]

### Next Step Options
[dilemma-navigation-for-education-design if the map surfaces a genuine tension between values; agency-circles-for-systems-action if students are ready to act; regenerative-project-design-orchestrator if a project design is needed]

常见陷阱

1. 映射顺序错误（H1 → H2 → H3）。 如果尚未确立 H3，学生就无法对 H2 条目进行分类。他们会罗列创新，却无法说明哪些创新确实具有过渡性。
2. 把 H3 当作不切实际的愿望清单。 H3 应以世界上某处已经可见的局部实例为依据。没有真实实例的 H3 更难付诸行动，也更难用来检验创新。
3. 认为 H2- 显然是坏的。 H2- 创新不一定不诚实——它们往往是受现有结构限制、试图真正改善现状的做法。H2- 分类是分析性的，而非道德评判。
4. 把 H1 变成抱怨清单。 有力的 H1 不只说明问题所在，还要解释这种模式为何持续存在。如果不了解 H1 的持续因素，学生就会低估转型的难度。
5. 把 H1 当作“过去”，把 H3 当作“未来”。 三个地平线都同时存在于当下。这不是一条历史时间线。

已知局限

1. H2+/H2- 分类具有解释性。 一项创新属于 H2+ 还是 H2-，取决于所选的价值维度和所持有的 H3 愿景。价值观不同的小组会得出不同的分类。这是该方法的特点——它能让价值观差异显现出来。
2. 需要明确的价值维度。 如果没有商定好的纵轴，图就缺少分析结构。无法就价值维度达成一致的小组，可能需要先进行价值澄清。
3. 帮助理解，而非促成行动。 三个地平线图揭示了转型动态，但不会生成项目计划。要从图走向行动，还需要后续技能。
4. H3 的质量制约 H2 分析。 模糊的 H3 会导致 H2 分类含糊不清。该图的分析价值取决于 H3 愿景是否具体且有现实依据。

验证清单

• 引导顺序遵循 H1 → H3 → H2。
• H1 既包含压力迹象，也包含持续因素。
• H3 至少以一个具体的现实局部实例为依据。
• 每个 H2 条目都被归类为 H2+ 或 H2-，并给出明确理由。
• 图中避免道德化表述（H1 ≠ 坏，H3 ≠ 好）。
• 形成一段转型叙述，指出哪些正在衰退、涌现和受到争议。
• 应用并报告全部五项质量关卡的结果。
• 后续步骤选项通过名称引用库中的真实技能。