 Thank's, Aidan. I think being a co-chair and then doing the keynote is a bit like that guy who always assists on singing at his own wedding or something, didn't it. But what I thought... it was my job to get the keynotes in. I think I have done a fantastic job of getting really good keynotes, but I didn't want to use up a posiwc at the last session, because somebody was going home. Even if I'm really crap, I think asaniello has almost said, three out of four aren't bad. So you've done okay. I just want to say the open education community is my favourite group of people, I think you are fantastic. Rwy'n fydden nhw'n gweithio i chi ar ymlaen. Nid yw ddiw i'r gwahoddiad ar gyfer. Rwy'n ymlaen gweithio. Rwy'n gweithio i'r Paddington. Rwy'n gweithio i'r quino. Rwy'n gweithio ar y gyfer. Rwy'n gweithio ar y book. Mae'r llwydd gyda'r cc, rwy'n gweithio ar ddiwyd y cyfaint. Rwy'n gweithio ar gyfer. Rwy'n gweithio ar gyfer. Yn ei ddechrau, yr ebook, mae'n gweithio ar gyfer, o'r amfirmysg wrth i ddefnyddio hwn y bwrdd hyn yn gyhoedd instructoraeth yn fy hyn. Ond mae'n cais i ddim yn hyn yn awr yn oed, ac mae'r ysgolion rywodol yn y gweithio gwaith yn y ddechrau geirio, ac mae'n yn son yn gyhoedd cyffredigol, yn bobl, rywodol iawn, bydddsod darloed yn brannol. Mae'r cyffredig hwn yn wir, byddwn ni'n meddych yn d Moghfeydd, mae'n meddych â'r hwn yn agor'u cyfridd gan y cyfridd rydw. felly mae'r bysfer yn mwy o bryd yn oir y ddechrau, ond mae'r gweithio'r Gweithwyr sy'n rhai oedd yn enw. Mae'r rhain wedi cael eich ysgrifennu oes arno fel gwnau o'r thysgu oherwydd gwaith. Mae'r bysfer yn y fwrdd icyngu, neu os yw wedi eu gwnau i'r yr unig o'r rhain. Mae'n gweld yn y peth yn yr ysgawb. Yn ddysgawdd, y gweithwyr, ar y cyfnod fit rwy'n ei fod ychwanlai gan bobl o'r battle, efallai ei gweithio'r gweithwyr, If I can defend my choice of being a battle, then I want to talk about some of the roots of open education. I think that's quite interesting actually, where you've come from in open education, inference is what you think it should be about. Then I want to talk about three of those battle fronts and explore them in more detail and some conclusions. That's why I call it a battle, by the way I'm a big ice hockey fan, so my daughter is my daughter, so she makes me put in an ice hockey picture in every presentation, so there it is. I think there's three reasons why I think it's a battle. The first is that there are real things to be fought over, so this is cable in a previous life, leaving the troops, sign the license, but there are real what people believe about and what's important is being fought over. But like most battles and wars, actually it's often about money. It's almost impossible to say how much the global education market is worth, but someone in the US said in Department of Education that it's worth $6 trillion globally. Elsevier, the science publisher has a $2 billion revenue for science publishing, so there's kind of real money to be fought over here and when there's real money it gets people's interest. Lastly, that kind of saying that the victor gets to write history. There's a really interesting battle around narrative and who tells the stories about open education, which we'll come on to. First of all, just to go back to those kind of roots of open education, I think there are kind of three interesting strands that come together. The first is, I'm from the Open University, so Open University, some people will say this is the kind of true start of open education. It's always interesting when you look at kind of historical trends, you can actually go back much further than this and there's really good paper that marks the use of coffee houses for instance as kind of vehicles for open education. In kind of modern history, Open University is often given the kind of start list. For Open University, what was really important was the idea of, anyone could come and study with you and open entry, you didn't need qualifications to come and study with you, so they kind of developed all these methods which are based on distance education, part-time study, study any time, anywhere. So it wasn't really about things being free, so much as they kind of assumed that these things would be ways of finding it, so that was kind of one model. Another kind of starting point people often give is the idea of free or open source software, and there's a kind of subtle distinction between these. So free here is as in freedom and rights, so free software, there's freedom and rights. When you have a piece of software, you have the right to change that software and then redistribute it. Open source software kind of took the same principle, but really their emphasis was on efficiency, the same is giving enough eyeballs all bugs and shallots, they were just saying simply by making your code open, that's a really efficient way to work. There's a really nice link here to open education, so if you look for, there's a talk by David Wiley about rights, and he, when he was first thinking about publishing a book openly, he looked at the work that they've done on licenses for free software and adapted that for his early licenses, and then that was what formed the kind of basis for creative comments. There's a kind of a direct link there through David. And lastly, it's a bit of an embarrassing term now, and we all pretend we didn't use it, but Web 2.0 was quite important, I think, to just kind of get this whole idea of sharing out there. So people got used to sharing stuff very quickly, very easily, you didn't need memorandums of understanding, you could just kind of share stuff and anyone could do it. So what we ended up with is this kind of set of coalescing principles for open education, and depending where you've come from, different things will be important to you. So for some people it's all about free, it's all about paying money. For other people it's about rights that are really important. For other people it's about opening up education. So although those things kind of overlap, they're not always the same. So sometimes I think that's why when we talk about open education, you can have a conversation with someone else, and actually you're talking about two different things. So I think there are some common themes that come through here, some kind of recurring themes. It starts out from a belief that openness is a public good, it's a good thing to do, it's all advocates and evangelists that kind of drive it forward. Initially that's kind of resisted, people say it's unworkable, it's low quality, so when the open university started, for instance, they said no, this is education, that's kind of got a really bad reputation, you can't do a proper way, and all the kind of traditional universities try to resist it and say it couldn't be done. So I think that's a little side story. So we used to have summer schools at the open university and initially no universities would let us come onto their campus. At one point they were seriously considering hiring a cruise liner and just kind of sailing around the UK for summer school, but luckily we did manage to get campuses. Then it tends to become mainstream, so to carry on with the open university example, so the open university was set up, and then that model was adopted in lots of other countries around the world. And finally it becomes kind of adopted and adapted, so to carry on with the open university example, other universities, kind of traditional universities, then started doing versions of continuous education and blended learning and all those kind of things. But I think it's important to realise that that's not an inevitable cycle, so any university from the resisted point, I think it can fizzle off and die, it can become a real just a niche interest, it can become a big commercial interest, but it doesn't need to follow that pattern, but that's kind of where we've got to with those three themes in open education. So I thought I was going to talk about three battles. The first is this kind of battle for... So what does openness mean? So open as in, so Udacity, the moot company, had a contract with Georgia Tech, where Georgia Tech were giving them their content, but then Georgia Tech couldn't use its own content even in other courses at Georgia Tech, but Udacity could use it elsewhere if they wanted to, and that doesn't feel very open. And famously Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity said, there will be only 10 global providers for education in the future, and we want to be one of them. And again, they're very open, they didn't feel like... I was coming from about open education. I'll just compare that with the Hewlett definition of OER, which I think Cable put up early, so it really emphasises the point of a licence that allows free use and repurposing. So here there's very strong principles and beliefs about what openness means. I just want to take an example here that relates to OER, as you know, I lead the OER research hub and a lot of the team are here. And so looking at our work, we've kind of thought of three different types of users of OER. So the first are what we might call OER active, and that's us, basically. So people who know what OERs are, are interested in them, are prepared to be advocates, those kind of things. And I think what we've done so far is we've tried to concentrate on growing that group and what we've done over the past 13 years. So we've kind of got this global community and stuff. And I think if we're talking about mainstreaming, then there are other groups you kind of need to reach now. And so I've classified these as OERs facilitator. So they're people for whom OERs allow them to do something else, and it's something else that they're really interested in. So we work in the network, for instance. And for them, what they're really interested in is flipping their classroom. So to do that, they want to have good quality resources they can give the kids to learn at home. So OERs allow them to do that. And then there's OER consumers. These people don't really care about licences, but they want it stuff to be free and good quality. So we've found, for instance, that a lot of students, before they come in to study at university, are trying stuff out through OERs to make sure that they're kind of ready to study. Or once they're in university, they're using OERs to supplement what they're learning. I think for us, for the OER active people, we could probably carry on. But if stuff stops being open, there's a big group of people which is kind of much bigger than our community who won't know the opportunity that they've already lost, but they didn't even know they needed stuff to be open. So that flip learning network wouldn't get to have those lovely OERs if stuff was just kind of packaged and sold to them. The second area is the battle for money. So I want to talk about open access here. So this article plots the growth of open access journals and articles, and you might be able to spot a trend there. So it's kind of all going one way. We've established the gold and the green roots to open access, so I think there are debates to pad about these around, which is the best way to do it, whether they're fair and what kind of stuff, but we have put in place a framework that allows you to reach open access for lots of people. There are now major policies for open access in most countries that kind of mandate that any researcher comes out of publicly funded research projects needs to be made open access. This is kind of a really good example of that victory of openness. It's kind of broken through, as Cable was saying at lunch. There's no academic right at the moment who can really be unaware of open access, and that's a major victory. There was a widely survey published recently, and for the first time ever, more than 50% of the authors have published in open access. So we've kind of reached that tipping point, I think. So I'm going back to that common threads thing. They've been resisting it. There isn't as good quality as the traditional publishing. You can't go with that stuff. Anyone could publish it. It's not sustainable, all those kind of things. And they've reached a point where they've gone, oh, crap, we can't fight this anymore. And you have to admire them. It's just kind of genius in a way. So there's what's called the hybrid route swindle. So you end up paying for some articles to be published as open access in the journal, and at the same time, libraries are still paying. You're paying twice, which is called double dipping. And that's been going on long enough now to start to kind of look at some of the effects of that. So the Wellcome Trust, kind of just one research body, estimated across 2012 to 2013, the academics spent $3.88 million to publish articles in open access journals. So they were paying the gold route to have those articles published open access, of which $3.17 million was then paying again to the universities to have access to those journals. So, hey, we get paid twice, but who wouldn't want that? So, and someone's done a five-year mean study of these people just for straightforward open access journals, the average cost per article is $1,164, and for hybrid journals, $1,849. So this is a really good example of that. If we don't control the direction other people come in and take over what open this means. And also we've got this idea of what we call predatory open access practice. So suddenly if you're paying for an article to be published, that changes the nature of that relationship between author and journal. So all these journals have sprung up from all over the place, I'm sure of emails, and come and publish in our journal on filling the subject here. And you go to that publish, you've never heard of them before, and they've got something like 4,000 journal articles, and basically it's just a paid-to-published model. And looking beyond open access, education is kind of seeing the next big target for a technology venture capital. So last year it was up 55% to 1.87 billion, the sort of money coming in. So they kind of looked around, done health, we've done these kind of things, education. There's a lot of money in education, let's go down. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that people are now ironing you up with different things. So I wouldn't be a key note of this conference if I didn't mention open washing. Josie, you didn't know open washing at all. You get a special badge. So I'm the third one to mention open washing. I think we'll probably tell you something, but it's time. So open washing is the idea, as we've heard, that you can use the idea of openness to try and sell a product. So Udacity and Google and a bunch of others, for instance, formed this Open Education Alliance. And if you read what they say it is, it's an industry-wide alliance of employers and educators in the service of students throughout the world. It provides access to cut-edge and relevant post-secondary education that powers individuals to pursue successful careers in technology. I think in there about it being free, open access, you can reuse it in that material. So it's kind of got openness in the title, but it's not followed through in any of the kind of definition of what it's about. So, as a kind of sense, have any of you ever been to a safari park in your car, and these little cute monkeys jump in your car and you think, they're nice and friendly, and look at their smile in their jumping up, and then they might be showing you their bottom, you know, that kind of stuff. And then they jump on the roof and they start pulling off the arrow and that kind of stuff. And that's kind of what it's felt a bit like with openness. All these new people came in, and these new companies and it was great, great. And then they started sort of stripping it apart. I'll take this on to the third idea, which is the battle for narrative. It's David in the audience. Thank you, David, for the image, the much-used image. And so I think this is another area to look at, and MOOCs are kind of a really good example for this. So this is using Google Trends. By the way, a little tip for you, you need a slide, just do a Google Trend picture. It works fine. The blue line is OERs. Kind of just ticking along nicely, increasing in awareness, and then suddenly, 2,000 people from nowhere, MOOCs, bam, it's got a big explosion and we're all over the place. The next slide is just a reminder, just that we're not very important. So if everyone could also do this, do a comparison against Kim Kardashian, because that shows what the internet really cares about, to what we're caring about. So we're not actually that important. So the big MOOC explosion is a bunch of MOOC providers just springing up going on on a weekly basis. Like, here's a new MOOC provider, hey! And millions have been, like, pick a number, 50 million, 70 million, 100 million, I don't know. So there are millions of people involved in courses, which is a good thing. I think it's very easy to sell that those numbers don't mean anything because most of them drop out and stuff. But if we've got millions of people looking at OERs, that's great. It's the kind of thinking about learnings. I think that that's all good stuff. We had major media coverage and we went from, you know, I couldn't get my dogs to listen to me about OER, you know, you'll get a news night on the phone to you and the vice chancellor, tell me about MOOCs somebody. Somebody get me a MOOC. So, you know, it was kind of really exciting. So George has this quite funny quote and it says that if education is like grunge rock, the MOOCs were like nirvana, the kind of breakthrough act that suddenly everyone wants to have a piece of. What this led to was kind of a really interesting narrative that you saw emerging through this kind of coverage and called the Silicon Valley narrative. It starts off in this idea that education is broken. This is stated as absolute fact, kind of incontrovertible fact. It's not even worth arguing about, obviously education is broken. So there's a report out last year from Pearson's, what's called the avalanche report. And the models of higher education that marks trampoline across the globe in the second half of the 20th century are broken. Clay Shurkey said that the education space is massive and very broken. There's a company called degree.com who had a campaign saying that education is broken, someone should do something, someone being them. Sebastian's on this, well I might get this on a t-shirt. Education is broken. It's so broken, it certainly ends. It requires a little bit of Silicon Valley magic. So only Silicon Valley can come in and save you. There's also an obsession with this idea of disruption. So disruption comes from Clayton Christensen's work, where he looks at the kind of, the way digital technologies disrupt traditional industries. And actually it wasn't a bad idea. He looked at things like that. So the way digital cameras disrupted the analog camera was kind of really quite profound. But it's one of those things like, here's a good idea, let's apply it to everything. And within Silicon Valley, technology in general, there is disruption, because the idea about disruption is that it means you sweep away and you gain a whole new market. So it relies on new cameras into the market. So you immediately find people within that sector don't have any value and can't change it. So you often see quotes like that. So Christensen himself says, disruption is a necessary and overdue chapter in the public schools. That avalanche report I mentioned again justifies itself by saying elements of the traditional university are threatened by the coming avalanche. Universities are right for disruption. And of course tomorrow I was looking at OERs and he kind of dismissed them because they hadn't disrupted the practice. If you haven't, the only measure of success is disruption. So here we have a kind of irresistible storm in many ways for the media to cover. So your education is broken, so that means you've got to do a complete change. It's right for disruption. We know that. It's a technological solution. And MOOCs are often seen as a technological solution. And the key to that is outside of the new ideas. It's not just us within the industry or sector kind of coming up with ideas. People are on a white horse riding in, a technology white horse riding into a kind of savers for themselves. So that's kind of very interesting because that happened and then learned behold sort of two years after the year of the MOOC, three years after that, we haven't completely changed the entire world. Why is that? Why are 10 providers of global education? Who knew? So there's this book out called The End of College and now they're inventing a new map narrative about why MOOCs failed. I don't think MOOCs did fail. I think MOOCs are really interesting. They do great stuff because the failure of MOOCs to keyword disrupt higher education has nothing to do with the quality of the courses themselves, many of which are quite going to get better. College is a whole technology at bay because the only thing MOOCs find is access to world-class professors and unbeatable clients. So it's our fault that MOOCs failed because we're kind of evil colleges. So I think there's so much stuff in there. So I MOOCs failed because they didn't disrupt. So, regardless of whether people found them useful, they kind of helped people, that doesn't matter at all, but also they didn't fail because there's anything to do with the product or the way that learners need to support all the stuff that we kind of know that they failed because universities were fighting it. And I kind of get the sense that if you don't tell your story then someone will tell it for you and so you get asked after setback online courses are rethought. The whole way that any of us have been involved in education technology, you've been teaching online courses for some time but now MOOCs and online courses are synonymous. That's the only thing that exists for an online course is that it's a MOOC. So I know all the other work you've been doing about supported online courses. You will have seen all the different acronyms for MOOCs that suddenly appeared. Small private online courses which are just online courses I think. But suddenly if you get some kind of variation of the MOOC acronym you can do it. So I'm guilty of this. I dusted off all my old research proposals that have been rejected and just did search and replaced MOOCs and there we are. But there's a kind of sense that someone else has taken over the story and it's getting away from you. And I think what happens it creates this kind of false dichotomies. You're either a good unicorn or an evil unicorn. There's the kind of two choices you've got. So you're kind of pro MOOC or anti MOOC. You're open or closed. The point that Sheila made really well in her keynote was actually it's a lot more subtle about that. And if you force people into these two camps it doesn't help either camp I don't think. So last time I'm going to talk about some lessons from the VLE or LMS. I think I kind of have some reference in the open world. So I was the VLE director briefly at the Open University and I think VLEs are actually really good things. When they came along in sort of the early 2000s they really helped. If you think e-learning can get any learning promotives a good thing they kind of really helped in that goal. Different systems. You could have a universal system across the university. You could get staff training for those people. They were really easy to use. So suddenly you could upskill a lot of people and they could all start doing e-learning. You didn't have to go off and learn all that kind of stuff. But they came at a price really. So first of all we kind of outsourced sort of expertise to companies like Blackboard. Secondly this kind of process of sedimentation built up around the VLE. So we started putting in place process and admin that's to deal with Blackboard or Moodle or whatever it is. So instead of thinking of e-learning you would just think about what's our process for Blackboard and you'd employ smart ed tech people and maybe become your Blackboard officer and then you'd have a policy about everything going up or rather than how can we do this? What's the best way to do this in e-learning? So Brian was in the audience he's written a really good paper with Jim Groom sort of laying out some charges against the VLE or LMS as you would call it. I kind of had five main charges. First of all we kind of systems that privileged this kind of technology management mindset. You kind of had to manage the technology. It created silos. You kind of operated separately from everywhere else. You weren't kind of going out in the open. Use a system. It wasn't really like anything else to then go on to learn that you'd leave university and you wouldn't have to meet a VLE elsewhere. Calf is a really important one so it kind of drains the financial and also the human resource. You've only got so much money and that all goes into the VLE. So if you go along and say I'd like to explore a WordPress install it's like it does not compute, it's not a Blackboard function you can't have it. And they also got the idea of confidence so you get in these kind of really exciting ed tech people and then just kind of grind them down as they became the kind of Blackboard. So I think there's a kind of interesting history lesson there of the very recent past about how something got us so far but then it became a barrier to further progress. I think we're kind of coming out of that now and there's kind of been a phase where people have got used to VLEs and I think actually wouldn't one move from beyond that. I think the same happens with openness. We might get so far very quickly but then we need to kind of move on from there. So to conclude. Openness is not just a peripheral interest now it's kind of moving away from that peripheral interest and I think the fact that this conference is about mainstream we've been hearing lots of really good stuff about people really moving out about policy driving this kind of stuff but really it's about a battle of ownership who decides the direction for openness. So I wanted to kind of just think about two things really to go away from this conference. First of all why does openness really matter is it just that helps you solve a particular problem is it an altruistic thing is it you know inevitable but why do you think it matters and secondly what can it do for you what would be valuable in your everyday life that it would help you do. So I just want to go back to those common themes so the belief in openness is public good that's where we started off with open education it's kind of been resisted and open access is unworkable, low quality and we've kind of come out of that now so I think we're there now just before it goes into mainstream and there isn't inevitable that it goes into the mainstream so although I've kind of said it's one it's not necessarily the case it could go elsewhere so we kind of get to decide so you are part of that battle I think I think it's very easy when you're working away in your project to think nobody's listening I'm not getting around to struggling nobody's downloading my OER this isn't working but I want you to kind of realise that the work you do is actually really important and valuable and I think the thing that happens in education changes very very slow and it's very very quick and it must be very very quick so this is my table thumping moment so a quote from Robert Cannabis isn't it few will have the greatness to bend history itself but each of us can work to change a small proportion it's from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped and that's where we are now an online audience wanted to ask questions so if anybody does if they want to send a tweet to ask them out of the deep well they'll help them out for us and they haven't got any technology to do that unlike at the old conference when we do so let's take one from the audience first and then we'll see if anybody comes in online afterwards please yes Andy go on there's a mic coming towards you Martin going back to the issue of using the metaphor of battle actually using that metaphor of battle implies there are two sides which reinforces some of the things you're saying you're trying to avoid and say we shouldn't be trying to have the dualities wouldn't it be better to use a metaphor a struggle that we're all struggling to do things and other people on the other side are struggling to do things and there might be different things and green things but it means there could be many other different competitors so it's taking the idea of struggle in terms of perhaps an ecological concept in terms of the struggle of survival, fitness survival of species and the like I think that's true in the book I try using the idea of resilience to kind of think about openness as well I think you're right that there is a kind of sense of victory and us vs them in battle the reason I start with it is that it's a slightly cool title so you always have to go with that those three elements and the characteristics of a battle I think are worth exploring but with any metaphor you use you gain some stuff and you lose some stuff so I think it's the only metaphor I thought Sheila's garden metaphor was very good as well so I think you get some stuff and I totally get what Sheila's saying it's a hard thing to come into every day I'm going to fight the battle I want to come and do some gardening that's a nice thing but I think there's something about the idea of certainly this sense of we've kind of won a major victory and that idea that actually often after those initial victories that's when the real direction of things to decide so often in history we've kind of seen it with a lot of the Arab Spring and these big revolution they've won but actually as we now see as that kind of plays out now's the time when actual direction of stuff is really decided okay anyone else on the front somebody's going to have to run quite a long way oh sorry Chrissy was there we'll get them myself to Donald for that question go on Chrissy please first time I saw you in the flesh presenting I really really enjoyed it my question is you left us with the question at the end which I think helps us focus and refocus on why we are doing it what would be your answer to why open matters right answer my own question I'm a keen old I think actually there are a couple of answers there one is actually it is just a very efficient way to work so the idea of the open source movement they just adopt it as a pragmatic approach actually it wasn't really about core beliefs so writing a book and releasing it under an open access licence is actually just a much more efficient way to get your stuff out there you're never going to be rich writing academic textbooks you might as well just try and get it to such a wide of reach response actually it's just a very efficient and pragmatic way to work but also there is a core belief why did I come into education to help people to share as David Wise is now education is about sharing so it does feel that we've allowed a system to become created that seems almost odd with our core beliefs that's what we're here to do just going to be a metaphor one first I want to echo you're saying about the the revolution I'm a child of the velvet revolution in the Czech Republic and we used to have the saying that the best day after the revolution is the first one and then you have the slow or rapid dissolution man after that but I just want to go back to the slide that we had the phases or steps you started with the openness is a public good but actually I'm thinking it makes it seem as if once it becomes mainstream the public good argument goes away but education openness is good because it makes good open things that are the public good so it's not the process it's the result education wasn't always seen as a public good and it had to be made that way but now it's mainstream but it's still the public good and people keep making that argument because they have to justify more spending reform and things like that so I think perhaps it's important to say the public good is kind of more as an environment in which we have to exist in order for the mainstream to actually sustain itself over the long run the reason why I said to Dominic is it going to be a metaphor question he runs a really good blog called metaphor hacker so I should probably have that as a kind of a cycling away because I wasn't implying that once it gets adopted and adapted it's not in many ways that's how it achieves it's public good so if you're taking the open university example the fact that the OU exists but then all the other because it's successful all the other universities then start doing forms of open education is a really good result it's a great thing OK Terry please Hi Terry McAndrew Higher Education Academy the metaphor of battle offers the opportunity to support the concepts of battle on us what should we be awarding medals for Terry and I were supposed to come up with awards for this conference I think what Terry wants me to say is next year when we do OER conference what would be good things for us to give awards out for paper but I think if we were to give the open thing for the Victoria Cross the open equivalent of the Victoria Cross I wouldn't want to go down the metrics it's not like the person has the most hits or the most reuse these kind of things about innovative use and also I think just effective use for a particular community I think that's really interesting stuff really makes a difference and it could be to quite a small community but actually really makes a difference I think it's really valuable OK thank you Simon please Martin this is a question I don't like having you know when somebody asks you to look to the future but do you think perhaps we'll ever get to the point where we have to begin to argue for closed rather than argue for open absolutely I think it's easy when you forget when you're here all openness is good and that's absolutely not the right thing and I think I want to avoid the other side I want to avoid is this kind of open style and we start trying to expose to better people with it it's never a good approach and there are absolutely times when you should be closed and it's an appropriate thing to do I think Sheila mentioned a lot of our learners for instance particularly at the open university people who come to the OU are often nervous they're unsure about learning so I wouldn't want to force them to operate all in the open right from the start it's good for them because you'd lose them they would kind of learning is a very vulnerable process it is absolutely right things to do so I think there are many of good arguments of being closed but I think what I'd like to kind of see is I think Cableof needs to disphrase open by default so assume you're open stuff is open and then work from there it's like well actually in this case we're happy to be closed or closed a bit in these ways because of these reasons rather than the other way around okay I'm going to draw an end to questions we've got two more things to do before the end of the conference and I'd like again to thank Martin on behalf of you all for this as ever at the end of the conference it would mean we could be here for another conference because there have been so many people involved who have made the conference so good I do however today want to say a special thank you to one of our colleagues who is not able to be here because of her mother coming close to the end of her life and who spent most of the last year working to make this conference happen so Debbie I know you probably are watching us live at least you were about 20 minutes so Debbie Baff I know all of us have great work you put into this we are sorry you can't be here and we wish you all the best in these difficult days difficult few days thank you very much Debbie's done an exceptional job of keeping the links together but the rest of the people who have been involved have been a huge group 20 people on the conference committee the team from the conference services of the University of South Wales and the Royal Welsh College team and all of you who have attended the conference it's been a real sense of community somebody asked in one of the tweets did everybody know each other in advance and in fact for me not so much but I know most of you now and that's one of the things that's been really great about this conference that we have interacted, engaged and related both face-to-face so for all of you who are involved work to lead this conference I know for me and Martin we'd meet once a month as co-chairs to catch up with anything else that needs to be done after the social initiatives and you know who you are looked after the tweeting and the Facebook activity the teams who looked after the networking the wider networking activity the two people who did all the work on the abstracts making it easy for us to do the final selection of those of you who are here it's astounding how much work there was but how almost just asking for it to happen and people went away and made it so it was a real gift to us and I think that's true for both of us it's been a really easy job for everybody to do anything to welcome you all to Wales and so again, thanks very much to everybody who has been involved and so we come to the big reveal because of course as Martin has reminded us there will be I know we are 16 and as we as co-chairs hand over to the new co-chairs I'm very glad to say that having invited you to this Celtic Nation our sister Celtic Nation of Scotland is going to invite us to the next we are and so I'd like to invite Laura Campbell and Melissa Highton the new co-chairs to come and present of our next year's conference Thanks very much Will we get our slides up there? There we go Thank you very much Hayden Martin for passing over co-chair to Melissa and I I've been every single one of the OER conference I really feel this is my conference it's one I come to every year and I remember sitting in one of the very first ones listening to John Daniel giving his keynote an elbowing Joe Wilson who was emphasising, it would be great if we could do this in Scotland so now it gives me immense pleasure to announce that we will hold OER 16 in Edinburgh Melissa and I will co-chair it together and one of the themes of the conference will focus on the value proposition for embedding open culture in the context of institutional strategies so open culture is going to be the theme for OER 16 and you can interpret that how you will fostering a culture of openness within your institution or opening access to cultural heritage collections for education some of the themes that we hope to focus on and you'll see some of them are picking up from themes that have already been explored during this year's conference but I really hope that we can bring together some of the open communities as well because I think we are in danger of siloing ourselves that we have the open knowledge community and the open education community the open access community the open data community and one thing to want to do is to really bring these together and we also want to focus as well on looking at how can we open access to all these wonderful collections of resources that we have to make sure that they're available for use in education to some extent we're maybe going to turn the focus back on to open educational resources I'm going to pass over to Melissa now who's going to welcome us to the University of Edinburgh Thank you University of Edinburgh is delighted to provide the venue to host the conference next year it's a wonderful university the main history of openness and widening participation Scottish education system is very proud of a very broad base and wide access in participation and the University of Edinburgh of course has a long history in the extension movement and throughout our history in the university settlement and being a civic institution founded on the idea of educating as openly as we could to as many people in the city and the nation and now globally Edinburgh has taken a very a number of very bold moves in the digital education space and I think that part of having you all as our guests will be exciting to talk about the range of ways in which as we were talking about who our allies around openness are to try to bring, as Lorna said the many different groups of people but also connecting with digital education and Edinburgh's also it's a very beautiful city it's also very famous for being a festival city and in April next year we've managed to attract three large conferences to the University of Edinburgh all of which we're sort of discussing possibly around trying to create a festival of digital education so we have learning at scale learning analytics and OER16 all coming to Edinburgh around the same time that those should overlap or dovetail or back to back is still in some discussion if you have opinions about that please come and contact us and join the conference committee because we need your help and getting all of those things together but I think that will bring some cross-fertilisation between various different groups of people who are all interested in some of that same kind of ideas that will open up education please do come and join us in Edinburgh we have a a holding page a landing page for the conference which you'll be able to find and we do need your help and the conference has been so well run the sunshine has been wonderful I can promise that friend but we'll certainly try but the conference has been so well run and I'm sure that the efforts of many many people and this is what is nice about being part of a community of people sometimes people say is it a community what is the OER community but I think the nice thing is that everybody shows up together and participates in making it possible for this event to happen so please stay in touch sign up, keep up to date the dates will come out soon but as I say if you have opinions as to whether you would want those three conferences to bump up together in a live overlap or whatever I'd be interested to hear so thank you very much and we will see you this time next year thank you