 All right, so the next panel as I noted the last one actually of this morning is focusing on the builder's perspective. Similar set of questions roughly speaking what are the challenges and opportunities when we want to increase the impact of open resource on education but this time from from a builder's perspective. It's a fantastic panel with a wonderful moderator, great friend Katerina Marake from Kai University. Again a partner in crime over many years already a close collaborator with the Berkman Center. Of course Katerina has also a rich experience from other contexts including creative comments where she served as the international director so lots of expertise from actually really the supplier side. It's a very special day for Katerina too because it's actually her birthday. I will not sing but happy birthday and I know you're leaving tonight so it's not the most practical gift but symbolic gift and we owe you more flowers when we're back in Tokyo. Thank you so with that over to you Katerina. On stage because I hate to be on stage especially by myself. I can talk here I think yeah. Yeah welcome back everyone it's a pleasure to have you all here for what I think is a very important topic when we talk about open educational resources and looking at open educational resources from the different stakeholder perspectives which is our panel talking about the builders perspective. So the first question I asked myself when looking at these different stakeholders is what exactly is the difference. So what is the difference between learners facilitators and builders and especially what's the difference between learners and builders and I personally think there's not much difference. There's actually huge overlap and that becomes clear when we think about the way how we create materials and how we produce materials because we're not only producing it out of anything we are learning from others from colleagues from students using materials by creating new materials. So I personally think there is a lot of overlap and a lot of similarities between this. There is one difference especially between the learners and the builders perspective which is that as a builder if you look at it from the supply chain perspective we have the responsibility we have the choice to think about how we want to make the stuff available. So do we want to encourage others to use it. Do we encourage others to use it efficiently for collaboration and so on and so forth or do we just want to have it out there. And I recall quite well a long discussion I had with a colleague of mine a while ago. What is the priority for OER in the future. Is the priority to just make more materials available or is the priority to think about the ways how we make it available and what kind of license we are using what kind of infrastructure we are building and so on and so forth. These are two questions that I would like to discuss with the panel. There is one more issue I just briefly want to raise and that is the perspectives of the different learning environments. So when we look at OER is it that the future is really about the informal learning environments and I know that Philip Schmidt is here so the peer to peer university is probably the most successful example and project for the informal learning environment where OER can play a very important role. But what kind of role can open educational resources play in the formal learning environment. And yesterday someone put it quite accurately I think in a question in the beginning of the heat map discussion. Where is the link between O and E in the OER term. So these are only a few questions that I would like to raise. We discussed briefly last night we actually would love to have much more involvement with the audience. We just want to make it very brief with the statements and then run around and get your input and questions. So that we have a little bit more of a discussion compared to the other sessions that we had this morning. Let me start with a brief introduction of our distinguished panel. We have Hal Abelson. Hal is a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. And he's also a founding director of both Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation. So he is a long term expert in the area of openness. We have S.J. Klein. He is for me the face behind the one laptop per child project. He's the director of outreach for the foundation. But he has also created various Wikipedia projects and he serves on the board for the Wikimedia Foundation. And last but not least we have a close friend of mine and a colleague and a long term expert also in the area of OER. He has I think dedicated more than half a decade of his life to work in this field. He's a project manager at MITE, which is the Institute, the Monterey Institute for Technology and Education. He also is a consultant for various foundations and projects. And he serves on the board of different foundations and different institutions and peer to peer university just to mention one. So I think we are in the circle of the family here. So with this maybe I can start and ask Hal would you like to briefly give us a statement or an overview and then we can move on with the very short thoughts of you before we run around and take your questions. Okay. So this part of the conference is supposed to be about the state of play in OER and we're supposed to be giving the tech perspective. And Caterino also said we're supposed to be short and that we're supposed to provoke people into a discussion. So let me see if I can do all of that. Let me start a little personally. So as you know, the whole name Open Educational Resources comes from the UNESCO conference early early in this millennium. That was talking about things based on MIT OpenCourser and the like. So I was present at the start of OpenCourser along with the start of Creative Commons they happen very much together. So I can say I was one of the people present at the creation. And from that perspective, let me kind of say how I see the OER field. First thing I want to say is I see it incredibly expansive and and being really successful. It's a good thing I didn't make slides I would have made the same slides that Kathy did. You know, even in the last week, right, we saw the the stuff from South Africa, we saw the stuff from Poland, we saw the stuff from UNESCO, Kathy already described that. And I want to say, wow, that's that's really great. So as a movement, we are starting, we're starting to win. But you know what happens that when movements expand, they, they kind of shift a little bit towards the center, they get big, they get big, the initial founding visions get diluted a bit. It was great that Joey started off with this, this sort of very non establishment view of education. And what I really learned this morning is that I am absolutely in love with Vicki Davis. Yeah, Vicki, you wonder if Vicki used Vicki used the the magic word, which is empowerment. And I want to distinguish the kind of stuff that Joey and Vicki were saying from what I see as the the influences and the pressures on OER, because the pressure on OER right now is to move towards the mainstream. In the case of OER, we're seeing more and more. You have to pay attention to the people who want to use this stuff. You've got to make it easy to find easy to use and not nearly enough to the infrastructure about making it easy to make. And that's really what, and I just feel that that emphasis is getting a little bit towards, use word Vicki said, towards consumerism, not consumerism of the kids, but making this easy to stuff to digest and not really thinking about where the next generation of stuff is supposed to come from. See, from my perspective, what's really good about open educational resources, it's not that you can kind of get them without paying money or something, or not even that you can, you can make lots of uses of them, is that it is really, really easy to make incremental improvements. Because the promise of open educational resources is that the stuff should get better. And the way it gets better is by making it easy for lots and lots of people to make it better. So when I put on my computer science hat, you know how you make things better is by making standard interfaces to small pieces. Here Joey talked this morning about small pieces loosely joined. We don't have that. We don't have a way that if you take some piece of curriculum unit or a piece of test away that that one of Vicki's kids can put something not only in a wiki someplace, but back really into the common. You heard a lot of talk. What's the what's the standard example? The standard example everybody shouts is Wikipedia, right? What is it that makes Wikipedia great? What's the thing that let it get off the ground? It's the fact that you can sit there and edit a little bit of stuff. And then it goes back into the corpus of Wikipedia. We're not thinking about enough. So in terms of where the Euler Foundation should be looking, with all the people talking about make it easy to find. There's a whole other technological agenda which is make it easy to so that everybody can incrementally improve this thing. Let me say one more thing. Another provocative thing talking about Wikipedia. What is it that let Wikipedia get off the ground? What is the thing that let it sustain? If you look at the license on Wikipedia, it's share alike. And one of the things I see, and from Creative Commons and from from me and all of us on the Creative Commons board is really starting to recommend taking off the share alike provision and saying we want to make this as open and as easy to use as possible. And you have to kind of ask ourselves, why are we doing that? Is that because we're trying to become popular? Or is that because we're trying to build a commons? And I think we as I think now a successful movement, I mean really all we are is becoming successful. We have to think about what is it that we want? Do we want a lot of people to use it? Do we want the broadest tent possible? Or do we want to make sure that this notion of real sharing and real improvement and really building a commons stays there? Maybe people want to comment on that, but I think that's a critical issue in how we go forward. Okay. Thank you. I love going after hell. I just want to second that that essence of collaboration. I love the comment earlier today. The quote we're from Fukushima over here to help. That's the spirit of learners becoming the facilitators and the builders. And that's what the internet has has made. That's our modern culture. Our job is to help make that easy, to help make that possible. I don't like lecturing. I want to flip this engagement a little bit. So I posted my ideas and questions on the on the etherpad for the event. I hope everyone can go there and spend the next half hour just focusing on how we build things together. Please edit those questions, come up with ideas, draft the things you're going to ask us in a few minutes. I just have one comment to make and and I want to give you one anecdote mainly because I wanted a reason to show pictures of more children. We don't have very many children here. The comment is is related. It's that K through 12 has really lagged behind higher education when it comes to OER investment and thinking and even the philosophy we espouse. But many more students go through primary education and there are many fewer topics to cover. So that's something we can all we can all move towards together. These are students in Peru. I work with elementary students in rural places all around the world. And the part that I like best is that when they have an excuse to get together and to make something and then to post it. They're so excited. I mean, it's the best thing in the world for them. And the teachers in part because they recognize that and in part because they're doing unusual things. This is a class which every year would do environmental studies in their community. It's hard for them to get that from the texts and the workbooks that are out there. So they were just getting online through old PC through one laptop per child. And they had access to hundreds of books that were theoretically relevant for them. But the teachers ended up using Wikipedia for most of their classroom projects because they could find something that was granular enough that related to what they had to do. And when it didn't cover what they cared about, they could go and update the source and then just reuse it with their students. So they loved that. And when the students found out about this, the students went and posted information about their town. They got very into it. So thank you. You want to use the slides. They have a few quick comments. I'll start off with a short thought as a preface. We often talk in education that if you're teaching, but then your students didn't learn anything, were you really teaching? Similarly, if you're innovating and nobody actually uses what you built, were you really innovating? So thinking from a builder's perspective, when you ordered your new computer was this what you had in mind? Or maybe that? For OER? You were seeking algebra OER? Did you have this notion that you were going to collect this miscellaneous bunch of objects and that was the thing you were seeking? Or were you seeking something fairly neat, preassembled and tidy, or maybe something in between? So just echoing what you heard from SJ and how I think builders in particular are really struggling to understand their responsibility to the communities we serve. Just sending people the internet and saying, look at all the excitement. Get in. Start playing. We're finding it's not very useful, but maybe that's the point. Maybe what we're trying to do is not build to sort of counteract what Hal said a little bit, the best stuff. Maybe we're just trying to build things that enable pedagogies, ways of learning, collaborating and so on, that we couldn't do before, at least not very easily. And so I would just ask a few questions. OER for whom? OER for what? And how? And then we'll talk. Thanks. Well, a big thank you to the panelists. I would say the floor is yours. We would like to get your input and take your questions on this and maybe we take two questions and then hand the microphone right so that the panelists can actually have input on that. Ariel Diaz with Boundless Learning. And I thought you guys had some great points. And one thing that everyone kind of touched on from a slightly different angle is how to build some of the great products and how to continue improving that. And one thing that I think the community has a whole struggles with is how to do that while still being fragmented and not in a bad way. But with having multiple platforms that are all trying to leverage OER, it's a logistical challenge to continue to improving that. And I think one thing that Wikipedia does in particular is centralizing those efforts. So it's just, I'd be interested in thoughts on how to keep the spirit of this fragmented content while also trying to create great products and centralize the innovation and improvement of the content itself and how to balance that. Creative Commons thinks about removing obstacles. So Ariel, when you talk about that, there's technology and then there's kind of sociology. So in technology, I think the path is actually pretty clear. It's the way that, it's the way you build modular structures in any large system. There's that great book by the dean of the Harvard Business School, called Design Rules, which talks about modularity. You talk about interoperable standards. You talk about all sorts of boring computer sciencey kind of stuff. The real question is what's the social issue about how do you feel about the fact that you make something and you put it into Wikipedia and it goes into you largely anonymously. How do you get the people who are going to be the contributors to either have an infrastructure where they get some recognition. So remember in Creative Commons when we started, it did not have a share alike provision. And what we found is that 95% of the people who wanted to put a Creative Commons license on the thing wanted to have an attribution provision on there. And why was that? Because we were going to the universities and you know faculty and universities pretend they're not they're not worried about money or credit but you know attribution is money to faculty members so everybody said oh we'll put an attribution license in it now in Creative Commons you can't even not get an attribution license. And the question is how does that compare with the world of something like Wikipedia where people are happy to do things anonymously. And again when you think about what's your view about you're building a commons. What's it mean that you're taking a commons? Is a commons here's this cathedral and here's the brick with my name on it or is the commons a big thing that's made by all of us and I don't think the answer is obvious and I think that's something we ought to be thinking about so your question goes right to the core of this. I would say build shared namespaces, plan for collaboration from the start. When you plan for collaboration that should mean think about how you expect things to merge with other things. Don't oversell ownership so that people are scared and their expectations are shattered when that happens. And just you as the owner of one piece of this very diverse puzzle should define who you expect to interact with whose namespaces you expect to merge with over time. Set that as a community standard and then everyone will know. And in my experience when people know that coming into some kind of project they're very happy when it happens and if they don't know it they're surprised and unhappy. Gary Matkin from University of California Irvine. OER seems to work better when you know what you want to know. The problem in getting some people more use I think is that people just sometimes have a very general idea of what they want to know and they lack a map or a way to enter a general feel like say modernist architecture or something. As you build things do you think about the map that helps people focus on particular subject and choose among options within a field. I'll say no one's updated the Encyclopedia Britannica Propedia in a long time and sadly people ended up not using it to find knowledge. So when an organization builds a central one of those maps they often don't get used but if you let people build their own map as it matters to them and suddenly you have the map that applies to everything related to Fukushima that works really well. So if your space is flexible enough that people can actually change the space itself and the people who care about an introduction to that kind of architecture can build the introduction. You end up developing things over time that are really meaningful to people looking for that knowledge. I would just say certainly for mighty you know frankly the curricular structure we've had forever is actually pretty useful for that. In K-12 they still you know their physics concepts they need to know then they turn to what's understood and has been understood for ages what the physics curriculum looks like. So that actually serves as a very useful guide for people to then get in the ballpark for what they need. What we're probably not marrying well with OER as a community is what is our conception of what they're going to find when they get there. So is it just another physics textbook that happens to have some different properties or is there a diversity of options within a specific topic that kind of shows proof I guess of the claim that we're trying to build lots of different ways of getting a handle on a concept or is it a I don't know is it an ecosystem where maybe you encourage them to build something themselves that just you know happens to get at that topic they're interested in but certainly for K-12 you know we don't need to throw out like the definition of a discipline it's actually a very useful starting point. I'm David Harris with Connections and I work mostly in the higher ed side and how we'll talk to earlier about crossing over into the mainstream and that makes movements a little bit more conservative. So I'd just like to hear your opinions on the notion of adaptation. I think when we look at early OER adaptation was the driving force the major reason for adoption but as you crossing to the mainstream you just mentioned the physics book faculty don't have a lot of time to go and assemble lots of different pieces and so my question is do you think we're going to move from a period of adapt to adopt to then providing people with adoption to adapt so that we give them a lot more turnkey and then that will drive innovation because they can add resources around it. Yeah I mean so I think I'm answering your question. When you especially when you heard from the previous panel and I'm thinking in particular of the teachers the flip classroom and the teachers making videos and that sort of thing and then there was this talk about constraints. We have to I think it's useful to remember that many of those constraints have a really good reason for being there or at least people think they do and a big one for the constraints on massive innovation teachers going out and finding whatever building so on is is one that really just boils down to trust. So who do taxpayers of the community whomever trust to actually spend the money that's been set aside for education in like reasonable ways and unfortunately the way that kind of enforcement mentality we must ensure nobody cheats tends to play out as policies get passed we empower certain people to make those decisions. They're presumably under some duress to do it well right so there's a lot of elements of that that need to be dealt with first before I think we're really going to see the moment when we celebrate empowering teachers and say yes we trust you as the proper agents to make this decision. Ideally technology plays a role in that the way so one approach we've taken is to really just say that as an organization that's focused on production we know that we can bring the right people together to validate or produce something that is high quality and has integrity and is actually accurate and then we try to build them to small enough size that when we hand them to the teachers they see that they can mix and match them and rearrange them adapt them so to speak but at a I guess a level of granularity that doesn't destroy all the values that were embedded in their creation and we're finding that to be a very effective way of sort of turning those screws getting teachers to understand we are giving you the power to make these decisions but by making those decisions you're not undermining the trust that the broader institution has in expecting you to use valid materials things that are accurate etc etc and maybe that's a stepping stone to the grander vision of just build it yourself we're going to trust you at that level I don't really know but that's we're kind of threading that needle right now I actually think it's a complementary question and it's a question that I also wanted to ask to joy early today because I think we are thinking a lot about how to reshape our spaces like physically right and for me there is attention now in the OER movement because it's funny to see that many of us are going back to build textbooks right and we struggle with space we struggle with rethinking how we put our tables in our classroom and how to engage kids building things but then we go back to textbooks do you think this is a necessary movement to communicate with the act the current system to to understand again the incentive systems and maybe to all to move in the future to a more flexible way so how do you see this tension in the OER movement right we we have a lot of critics to the traditional system but we are still going back to textbooks right I know about all the legitimacy and trust it etc but how do you see that in like five ten years you know what is the role of the open textbooks in this let's maybe take one more question before we get back that makes it more efficient Pete Forsyth with wiki strategies I wanted to pick up on the point that Hal Abelson was making about about the significance of attribution in projects like Wikipedia and I just I want to suggest that something that we I don't think we really think or talk about enough in terms of motivation with something like Wikipedia is not not attribution but is the quality of the learning community and and as a as a as a wikipedia I mean in my background I was I sort of had the the privilege of going to what's considered one of the better public high schools in the country right here in Newton I went to what a lot of people would consider one of the better better liberal arts conference based colleges read college and I would say neither comes close to the quality of the learning community that I've experienced in wikipedia by you know experiences like working on an article about something I'm learning about and then coming back and finding out that someone else improved it while it was gone and that that person is interested in engaging in discussion I'm learning things from them I'm teaching things to them I'm building relationships and I think that you know alongside the concept of that attribution I think we would really do well to explore you know how do we make that kind of experience accessible to more people because my path to finding that was not necessarily an easy one or an easy one to replicate but we should be looking for ways to replicate it I think that if you combine that with what Ariel said is a a central critical question for us as a community because when you put something into wikipedia or someone puts something into wikipedia part of the motivation is that there's this thing called wikipedia and you said wow I made it better right Ariel says do you want that world of centralized things or do you want a hundred wikipedia's you have to ask yourself whether a hundred wikipedia's could exist would you get the same thing and I I think this is I think this is a really hard choice I don't think it's as obvious at all but it's something that we all should be thinking about and for people who are guiding how the infrastructure is built that's something we should be thinking about and if we do break down knowledge and educational resources into what is infrastructure and what's layered on top and is really more interactive and a service of teachers and mentors in the community the parts that our infrastructure should be centralized and we should all be supporting them and they shouldn't be supported from education budgets they should be supported from general government and civic budgets and I think one of the things we can do as divisionaries who are showing people what openness can mean is to help pass that idea on I to quickly answer the earlier question about why we're still coming back to approaching textbooks I think OER today is definitely trying to prove something in the along the lines of of traditional education and we could in some ways that we're making the biggest strides in places that don't consider themselves OER they're saying we're just going to go do something new and this is a lot of fun and the internet is a great way a great channel for transmitting fun so wikipedia certainly didn't think of itself as OER to use your example it just thought of itself as a group of people who wanted something that didn't exist so they were going to go make it and as it happened it's used a lot in classes I think if we if we make sure we're supporting that as well as supporting these traditional things beautiful beautiful things will happen yeah I I guess I would echo that I really think going after the mainstream means identifying the wedges finding finding ways in that allow objects that have greater abilities than perhaps they were originally conceived when they were adopted to then be discovered and leveraged and I mean this may be a bad example but I often think when people first started buying the iPod they probably weren't thinking in their head I'm never going to buy an album again right like that wasn't that wasn't the logic of buying the iPod the iPod was this really cool thing that enabled them to listen to music it was only once they had it in their hand and they started understanding the way they could engage their music in this completely different way in terms of the modularity of the media that they started thinking gee I could just get one song at a time that's a that's just a different way of building relationships with your music and your bands and everything else we need to be coming up with similar models I think in OER these sort of infection points where now all of a sudden people start thinking differently about what's possible I'm Jeff Mao from the State of Maine Department of Education I just wanted to kind of toss out my thoughts on you know we've been talking about kind of adoption of OER and how we're going to make this you know really move and I'm speaking purely within the context of kind of K-12 United States which is where you know my work is and and I think the environment of K-12 U.S. is very different than most places so what needs to be done here may not need to be done elsewhere but I think what we need to look at and there's been some comments today for example about say assessment too much testing too much testing we also wish we had less testing right we're teaching to the test not good these kinds of things but I think we also need to think about some of the basic physics of all of this stuff right there's inertia and what we're looking at in the K-12 system is a huge amount of inertia and right now the system is headed in a direction and one of those directions is assessment right U.S. government put 350 million dollars into the Smarter Balanced and Park Assessments Consortia there's lots of momentum there and legislators with whether we like it or not like assessment and it's a money train right and money is what drives the system when we talk about system things you know and I work in government so you can tell I work in government so I think we need to think about in the K-12 space we need to use the Trojan horses that we have and use the momentum that exists and we talk about kind of OER research and what should we be researching I think at the start the first thing of research that needs to be done is simply that OER does no less harm than the other stuff right because the first thing we need to do is simply and the easiest thing to do is to recognize that if you simply replace the book that I bought from Pearson or you know whoever with say a C-K-12 book you know I mean roughly it looks exactly the same basically it's just maybe it's a PDF file instead but I can teach my class with absolutely no changes as a teacher because that's an easy adoption for teachers you know there's lots of great things I think we see as promise that we can do with electronic media in general whether it's a proprietary or not but from an adoption standpoint we've just got to go with the flow teachers have a certain way about their business give them something that's easy and that's kind of the notion of falling back to the textbook and then use that as a Trojan horse get OER in there and the Trojan horse that OER represents is the fact that it's free right but people will say in the US well but I don't have a computer so how is this useful right when Arnold first said we're going to do these open textbooks in California I was like yeah but California you don't have access devices what's the point right so the point is if you can prove that OER does no more harm than the other stuff it's equivalent and it's just as easy to teach with you don't have to change anything but you do need an access device that's the trick is getting school systems to start to move at the state federal and local levels cost shift move the money once the money is moved over and they stop buying the book they start buying the access device once that momentum hits now you ride that inertia train because once they start to go down that road they're stuck just like we're stuck now in a certain rut and they will have the access devices that's when you can start to actually change the way you design the OER from a builder's perspective to become this more future version of learning more socialized collaborative these kinds of pieces because now they have the access devices which right now is the barrier that's staring them in the face right the broadband and the access device so let them get there by letting them do the things they already know how to do get the inertia going get them to shift their money because once the money moves getting it back I mean that's the hardest thing to do in in government and public policy is to move money right because it was spent here and you got to spend it somewhere else because we're not going to make new money so that that's my thought I guess is and you know curious to what you think about this idea that we need to just go with the flow get the money to move once the money's moved then we can start doing what we know is the right thing which is in order to improve education you have to change your practices changing practices is mighty mighty hard and I think if we try and do adoption of OER and changes of practice at the same time you're doomed it's too much the system can't handle it thank you any direct comments to that ask the panelists I would only make I guess one comment to that which is that the number of different ways you could change practice and the form of the things that get adopted is quite vast and so thinking back to Alex's comments and others is that an OER problem or is that just we need to shift as many of the bits and pieces of this fairly stable as Kathy said ecosystem as we can do we as a community celebrate any shift or do we freak out because the object that was adopted doesn't meet our conception of what OER is or because it's being used in a way that we consider to be sub optimal given what we know its capacities to be right that does kind of get at the heart of how are we I often asked like what would Pearson have to do to get this community jump up and shout and celebrate other than demolish itself yeah yeah right like what what what is it that would be seen as positive movement irregardless of the fact that they might be the ones that are involved in doing it I think in in history when there's been disruptive technologies they happen because it's easy to use and people start using it I think the more you think about changing practices and do and all these are very relevant but if we thought about the example of mp3s you know we didn't think about using mp3s and thinking okay we have to do all this research and we have to think about the practices of how people use CDs and you know and then and we understand that I you know education is a very sensitive market but I do think to house point that if there's a unified easy to use environment to utilize resources for education that the that the audience will come the users will use it wikipedia is a great example of that it is being used in K-12 today and I don't think that there has been so much research or so much thought in terms of changing practice the practices naturally change because the innovation came into that market and I think innovation and disruptive enough and easy enough then change will happen Hi I'm Patrick McCandrew from the Open University and when we're walking across to dinner last night went past a church on Harvard campus which got a sign saying was doing a sermon on the blessedness of brokenness I don't know what it's really about but it made me think about what what what advantages are in spotting the bits that are broken around the system and we're getting some traction ourselves and work we're doing with sort of entry into community colleges because that's a gap it's a gap where you can't get funded work so sort of free resources are wanted are there any sort of broken bits that you can see that really call out for some free solutions well they're easy I mean some of this is easy right in Chelsea, Massachusetts one of the broken bits is that students aren't allowed to take books on right I mean you know some of this is easy some of this is deep but some of it is kind of glaringly obvious I don't know that I'm gonna speak to a specific broken bit I can think of a bunch but they're not new I think what I'm actually interested in is broken bits in many ways serve as a as raw material for doing interesting things and I'm not speaking so much from like the builders we must build but rather from a teaching and learning perspective so I think part of what makes gravity to say wiki pdr or any of these other places interesting is your perception that it can be improved right so it's not done and that works really well for an encyclopedia entry that starts to break down when you think about other objects that we might take a shared interest in I mean are you really gonna you know whip out Mona Lisa and say you know can improve on it right it just doesn't really make any sense and I think there's a tension there between this belief in OER as a enabler of constant iteration and improvement versus OER as a space in which people can create and maybe even just recreate simply because they're entitled to do that again and again and again and it's in the act of doing that that the learning actually happens not in the product at the end so you know when we look at something as being unfinished is that a feature or a bug I think it really depends on what you're trying to do right is it's unfinished state actually the best state for the purpose of learning or is it unfinished state something that people say the builders in the room are thinking oh god we got to fix that I think it's a tension that for the most part people haven't really resolved in their head and maybe it differs depending on the objects we're dealing with I love that question go ahead I think Jeff was absolutely correct about you know giving people something familiar that they can adopt and use and use that as a trojan horse I think it's a very practical way to go and I just caution this when we bring up disruptive models that we don't always just apply commercial disruptive models because the market we're dealing in it's very different you've got intersection of for-profit players you've got policy intersections you've got local intersections and so I would be interested to know if there are models disruptive models that have taken place in that type of environment describe the type of environment you mean well all those could also be commercial environment so if you look at the education environment where you have you have for-profit players that provide the piercings of the world who provide the resources they're responding to the public sector that sets learning goals and learning standards and some of these things are out of their control and that puts a lot of barriers to entry in and so have are there any other market examples where you have those types of barriers where disruptive technology or solutions come in and able to overcome those barriers they're certainly other sectors they're suffering similarly medicine comes to mind right away but yeah I'm not I mean it's a tricky question because you're you're you're sort of asking if there is a space in which either the barriers were somehow eliminated through policy reform or just mass movement and then opportunities emerged or where someone slid in sideways and the whole thing just kind of crumbled I think we're trying more the second one but obviously a lot of the policy level work that is of interest to many people in this room they're also tackling it the other way and no I can't think of anything I'll talk my head I think the traditional example which has little to do with policy is offset printing right remember there was a time when you couldn't actually make a reasonable quality quality printed stuff right and there's still an industry that does very high quality offset printing but for most people you don't have to go through that and that wasn't a policy issue it was just some technology came out that made the thing really easy for everybody to do and fulfilled you know 85 percent of the market okay so I've got a sign that unfortunately we are running out of time but I would like to echo what my co-moderator said and I encourage you to take the discussion to the cluster meetings and yeah I think it's time for lunch right excellent