 Thanks everyone for being here. So we just wanted to have a discussion really about the things that are common and the things that are maybe different about open education and open science. Cable said this morning in his talk that open education, everyone in the open education movement shares a vision. And to the extent that that is true, it's great and it's taken many years to get here, I would say. But if you scratch down into the details, it's not entirely true. And the conversations that the community has been having over the course of the last few years to figure out what do we all actually mean by open education have been hugely constructive and productive. So we wanted to, kind of in the spirit of experimentation and exploration, have a similar conversation about what do we really mean about open and the world of open science and open education to see if there's something to learn there. And to become more aware as there are more open movements showing not open access to data, open science, open education. Where can we assume that when we use the word open we're all talking about the same things and where do we need to kind of keep our radar and keep our ears open for what differences might lie in the meat. Yeah, and this was in theory of questioning your assumptions sessions. It's like questioning your assumptions light, I guess. I guess it's only half an hour. But in some ways, just to help set up the frame, we were talking about how I imagine if there were two meetings going on in this hotel right now. One was this one. And all people here remember open education, all the rest. And in some rooms, maybe just down the hall, there's a totally separate meeting on open science and they're having all their conversations and there's none. And imagine if one of you got lost, just took the wrong turn, wandered into a room and you sat down and you were sitting there and you were listening. How long would it be before you realized you were in the wrong meeting? How long would it take before you said, wait a minute, the way they're talking about these issues and the sort of driving goals behind their work and the language they're using and so on and so forth is different. Would it be just immediate? You'd say, whoa, I'm in a different space. They're advocating for different policies. They're doing different things. Or would it just be literally the session's over and you're going, huh, I'm in the wrong room, but it all made sense to me. I'm right there with you. I understand why we talk about open data and why we talk about citizen science and so on and so forth. So we're both scientists and we're also both very active in the open education space and so I dance among the two and there's times when I feel like I'm very comfortably transitioning towards the other and there's times when I don't and I find that if I use an open education phrase, we should make it so everything is remixable because that's part of customization and adaptation. And I'm talking to a group of scientists who are worrying about something like sharing data sets. They start freaking out on you because they go, wait a minute, what are you talking about? Our data need to stay intact and they have to have this sort of internal integrity and we don't want people mixing that stuff up. We might want people to have access to it, but remix absolutely not. And so it just became interesting to us to start thinking about whether we as a group could have a conversation, brainstorm a little, the places where there is and isn't commonality and actually I think the next slide captures. So we threw up a few broad areas that at least I've heard in these two different domains quite a bit meaning areas of general concern and concern doesn't necessarily mean they're always worries, it's areas that they either see strong advocacy for or areas where people feel that openness has a real problem. There's a problem to answer. So quality control, quality control of resources, for example, and of education. In science we usually talk about it as publications, these are the journal articles. What is the intersection of open of those things? How does open either make quality control harder or quality control perhaps easier to open up new avenues for? More of data or of outcomes, methods. So outcomes in education, presumably that means learning gains. Outcomes in science, that means something like, well, you actually got valid results, right? You used a good methodology and you ended up with something that was worthwhile. Expectations of expertise, expertise plays really interesting, interestingly in the open space. Is there a place for expertise? Where? When don't we need them? When do we absolutely need them? Expectations of remix. Remix is a buzzword in many domains, they have very different perceptions of what remix is. Distributed collaboration, one of the supposed great possibilities here with the internet, social networking tools, that sort of thing. How does that play into the way we understand both the opportunities and the risks in education and then similarly opportunities and risks in science? So I guess the next slide. So we thought what might be interesting, because we have relatively little time, is to ask all of you to stop facing here and find each other and you can pair up, again, groups four or have a big pow-wow of ten in the corner. It really doesn't matter to me how you want to organize yourselves that much. But maybe a first show of hands. How many people here feel they have some idea of what open science means or you have a scientific background and feel like that's something you can speak to? Just raise your hands. Higher. So can you kind of look around, identify a few people who are self-anointed as being able to at least speak to some of the issues on the science side and be nice if maybe one of those people was present. It's not necessary, but you might think about that, just gathering yourselves a little bit. And we would love for you to kind of, I mean, these are just prompts. But so for example, with quality control around, say, educational data. For whom is quality control and educational data an issue? Why do we care about that? Who's responsible for ensuring that it happens? Why is it important? Why do we care? Who suffers if it's lacking? And then how would we know? And it would be interesting to do that for the science side and the education side. And you could have a conversation about it. And obviously you don't have to do all those things and necessarily answer any questions. But it's a way of starting to get this group, which I think would be a great group to think about this stuff, to start putting a language to how if we're talking about major drivers or major barriers to the growth of open education or open science or both together, where do we need to be careful about what we say? Because they might actually be very different. Or where is it essentially the same statements, right? Get up and hear the same keynotes and they're advocating for the same thing. Is that making any sense? People kind of following that at all? And then once you've conversed for 10 minutes, we would love for people to just share a few thoughts about, okay, what we see is this idea of an education, this really works for these audiences, and this is a big plus when we promote this. Whereas maybe in open science, we can see why people would struggle with this concept. Or you can have very different conclusions depending on what you look at. And we can just kind of hear those. And what we'll do is certainly compile all those and share those down. And that's really it. To help with that though, if in your groups, if one of you has a computer open, just take some notes and just take the notes, write in an email to Arash, and he'll have all the notes from all the groups even if one did not hear them. Yes? This big group of someone just very briefly Sorry, I hate to interrupt. You're talking but for you all, listen. We're going to be done in two minutes. Let's just hear quite a few thoughts. We want to kind of focusing around the dialogue. If I'm a scientist and I could not call this data, should I allow my data to be clearly used and manipulated and we know this is a perversion world that we live in. And that data could be manipulated against us. And some of us feel very strongly against that and most of us do. But that data should remain intact and finding other, finding these results and so on. Interesting. So open in that case is just access. Right. This, you know, science dictates you can't cross this line back and forth. There's a method you have to follow that. Interesting. Anyone want to respond to that? I mean, just a question, one thing we continually see come up. So I'm in a university where none of our scientists have data. The university has data. The university owns the data and retains ownership to it. And so whereas with our scholarship, our papers and our educational materials, our employee agreements, transfer copy right back to us, we can share it as we wish. The data and sort of a lot of the other products or the processes of the intellectual work are university-owned. And so to even get to that question of can we share this, it means a whole different set of stakeholders and data governance policies. Didn't we have one that on the education side? I think that the statement about there being a specific method to handle the status, correct? But then equating that method with specific individuals isn't incorrect, right? Because there are people who can do science who are not part of the official apparatus or are not motivated by profits and therefore do not have the resources to access that thing. So that's part of the issue. And I think we really marginalize those people. Like, now that's just Joe Blow in his garage. What impact is he going to have? But we're starting to see increasingly there are people outside of commercial structures that are actually doing real innovation. I'm just curious, did you, did this group get into the question of that was on the science side? What about educational data? Outcomes data, students advocacy data on resources, that sort of thing. Do you have a similar problem with research that comes out of that? We didn't focus on the research side. We did go onto the education side and said that, you know, as science, we should make all those topics of science freely available based on quality research. What are the groups back here? So we had a lot of discussion, mainly about the groups outside of the typical apparatus and structure of the science and engineering community and how they can be marginalized and be affected by the lack of materials, especially people, you know, in countries like this working outside of the grid, and not necessarily a hobbyist in his garage. But we also talked about people living in in developmentations where they don't have material or resources to get 100-year-old documents of power engineering to construct a power grid in a place like that. And that can really curb those countries and set them back even further. And so it's the advocacy state that's opening up a lot of those materials, non-carved research, and even some-carved research. Well, and I think one of them was that in this particular example we were talking about all the time through the lead and the fact that there's potentially documents that are enclosed under, you know, access costs that are in fact in the public domain. And this is kind of crazy. And so in terms of advocacy, I think that's liberate those things personally. I mean, it's literally, there's no copyright rules in closing that, and you have to pay 49.95 to get a document. That makes no sense to me. Anyone discuss the idea of allowing derivatives of published journals whether you thought that was a good or a bad idea? All right, I'm so sorry. We've got to switch to the next session. Sorry, not a session coming right now. We're going to take a break, but we have a few time to discuss it. I know, I know. That's fine. Any last thoughts? Anyone else need to share? All right, well, you can feel free if you want. I would love it, actually, if there were any insights that you had. Any particulars or catchphrases, really anything at all that you want to e-mail me. And I'll throw all of that on to the 2011 site. Otherwise, feel free to come around and share your thoughts. Hopefully, it sparked a little thinking about these two events. Thank you.