 Dwi'n gwybodaeth i gynllunio'r llunio a'r llunio arweithio, as Amor mwynhau, eich llunio arbwyntio gwirionedd, neu bwysig, byddai hynny, felly rydyn ni'n gwybod y llunio, a'r llunio ar gyfer rhai, mae hynny'n amlwg y Llywodraeth Cwmiddig, mae hwn o'r Llywodraeth Cymru, maen nhw ddim rhaid i'w credu eich llunio. Mae gael, mae'r llunio i'ch credu. fel y bob yw hefyd yn y gwybod. Felly, y cwmwyng y cyd-dweithiau, ac mae'r llwyddo ychydig, gan gwael y baeth yma'r hyn, eich ddweud am y dyfodol i'r ymddangos a'r bydd yn fwy i'r ymddangos, mae'r gwael yma'r gwaes yma, mae'r gwael yma'r gwael yma, mae'r gwael yma'r gwael yma, mae'r gwael yma yn ddweud yma. Mae'r gwael yma'r gwael yma, mae'r gwael yma, mae'r gwael yma, ond mae e ddw-a'n mynd yn i gyd ddweud ond mae'r ddim yn dweud i ddweud a'r mynd ar y gynhalau cyhoedd o'r ddefnyddio o unrhyw ffasol ar ôl. Dwi'n cael ei ddweud i'r llog y ceiladau a'n adm eich widerau a'r llogion gynnigau. Ond mae'n cael ei ddweudio o'r dwy o'r llogion gynnig, ni'n rhaid. Mae'n cael ei ddweudio, mae'n cael y cilio i ddweud, mae'n cael ffasol i ddweud y cilio i ddweud,онwys y tîm wneud y rŷl fwylltidol ti'n bydd ystod yn eich ddrwynt. Ac tu fydden nhw'n rhan o'r ffryfryd, mae gynnig yn ymwiel yn ei wneud. Mae'n gwybod efallai yn ei ddweud beth. Ond mae'r nghymru grafyn lle yn ymwyffrit, mae'n mynd i ddweud dda chi cîm yn bwynt yma. Ond oes ddweud o'r ddweud. Ac oes ymwiel yn iawn gan gynnig yn ceisio rarefynu'n hyfforddau. Mae'n bod yn eich cyffredinol wedi'i gweld i dweud y maen nhw. Felly, mae'n fwy o'r ffyrdd yn yr unigau cyfnodol a'r Ffrentiau. Mae'n fwy oedd yn fwy oedd, oherwydd mae'n meddwl yma yn fwy o'r mynd i ddweud. Yn fwy o'r ffyrdd, mae'n meddwl wedi bod yn oed yn fwy o fwy o'r ffrindiau. Felly, mae'n meddwl i'r Ffrentiau. Mae'n meddwl i'r Gwym yn ei fawr i'r ffrindiau. yn y periodd, ac mae'n gwybod i gael i gael eu cyfnodd yr ydym ni'n gwneud o'r Ffrent Republic. Yn ystod, rwy'n cael ei fod yn iawn i ddweud yn y brifau bod y byddai'r gwybod. Mae'r gwybod i'r penderfynu o'r cyfnodd yng Ngwyloedd o'r cyflwyno oeddennol, ond rwy'n cael ei gweithio'r gwybod i'r methaforau sydd yw'n gwybod i'r gwybod i'r gwybod. I want to take a brief kind of detail in to talk about some of the routes of open education because it's a quite a nebulous term in many ways. And then explore some of those battle fronts that we'll talk about. Looking at particular aspects of open access, MOOCs and OERs and then some conclusions. So, why call it a battle? I think there's some things that come with that metaphor that are useful exploring. So, if you think about what's common to lots of battles, there are three things, I think, that are interesting. Often they are about ideological battles, different belief systems are coming together here, people are fighting for their what they believe, and you begin to see that in terms of openness now, there are people that believe openness should do and what openness means, I'll talk about that later. But actually, although they pretend to be about ideology, they are actually about money. There is real value to be run around open education and education in general. felly mae'r ddweud yn ystod gan y ffordd ar y ddweud, ac mae'n ddylch chi'n gael ei ddweud yn ymweld. Mae'r ddweud yma yng Nghymru, mae'n ddweud yn y cyfnodau yma, ac mae'n ddweud yn yr ysgol y gyfrifio'r ddweud. Felly mae'r gweithio'r parwysiau gyda'i'r rhywbeth o'r hynny yw ymddangos yn y ddweud. Mae'n ddweud yn y ddweud, ac mae'n ddweud yn y ddweud. Mae'r ddweud yn y ddweud, Felly gyd, mae'r dda wedi bod bod y ddelch chi'n siŵr. Mae'r ddweud o'ch peth o'r ddelch chi, mae'n hynny'n gwybod cyffredinol i'r ddefnyddio. A dwi'n ddod o'n gwybod i'r ddweud, mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly, mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o ddweud o'r ddweud. Yr 1st yw'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae yna gorau a'r ddweud, i'w gyd, y papur ar y dweud, mae'n hollwch ar y ddweud o'r ddweud yw'r ddweud yw'r hollwch ar y cofie, lefwyd, yn eu ddweud o'r ddweud Mae'r ddweud yn y modd yn ydechyniad mae'n gweithio'r dyfodol o'r ddweud o'r ddweud sy'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud A dyna'r ffocws yn oed yn ddweud o'r ddweud a'r ddweud o'r ddweud Felly, yn fwy o'r ddweud, ydy'n rhaid i'w ddweud Mae'r ystafell yn gweithgaredd ac mae'r ysbêl amdanoedd, ond ei gweithio ar gyfer i'r ddweud o'r edrych yn eu ddiwylliannol. Felly, ythafodd, mae'n gweithio bod ddim yn gweithio'r edrych. Oni'n gweithio'n gweithio'r edrych ar gyfer y gweithio, yna'r eich ddweud o'i gweithio. Ond nid o'n ffocos o'r edrych o'r gweithio a'r gweithio'r meddwl, mae'n ystafell sy'n gweithio i ddweud o'r sylfaenau. The second area is the idea of free software and open source software. There's the subtle distinction between these two. The free software movement was really about having a focus on rights. You could take a piece of code, adapt it, share it with someone else... ..and they developed licenses to do this, the GNU license. Diolch o'r ddweud o'r fawr yn dda i'r ychydig iawn, fel David Wiley, un o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, wedi'i mynd i weithio ganoddau gyda'r Llyfrgellau Gynwyll Raddlu i'r ddweudio ar ddweudio'r cyfnoddau, a dwi'n mynd i'n fawr i'r ddweud y bydd gydig eu chyfnoddau. Dyna'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweudio'r cyfnoddau. Ond efallai mae'r rai arfer cerddw i ddau iawn i'r hyn ymlaen iawn, a'r drwy iawn i ddau iawn. Mae'r fflawn wedi'u cyffredin iawn i'r ddefnyddio'r sorg open source, ond mae'r cerddw i'n dda i'r stymlu a'r ddau iawn i gael ddau iawn i'r cyffredin iawn i ddau iawn. A dyno, y cyffredin iawn y dyna ymlaen iawn y cyffredin iawn i ddau iawn i'r cyffredin iawn i ddau iawn. Felly, mae'n ddweud eich hunain ffilosoforol. Mae'n gweithio i'r gweithio'r gwasanaeth gynnig o'r gweithio. Rwy'n ni'n meddwl ar y cyfnod y cyfnod i'r sefydling. Roedd yn gwneud eu gweithio'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r bobl o'r gwell. Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio i'r gweithio. Mae'n ysgrifiad i'r eich ei ddadfyn. Felly, mae'n ddweud eich holl o ddweud eich bobl. Mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud. ac ydy o'r gwaith o'r gwaith yw mae'n meddwl ar y cwmwysgrifethau efo'r gwaith, i ddod i'r gwaith i'r gwaith yn 10,000 o'r llwyffydd ar y cyfnodd, ac mae'n gweithio'r gwaith o'r 3 gwaith o'r gwaith a'r gwaith o'r cyfnodd. Mae'r idea ydy o'r gwaith yn ei meddwl, i ddwy'r gwaith yn ymhynghori gwybodol yn ei meddwl a fe ydych chi'n gweithio'n gwaith. Mae'r dros ymddydd dros eich bod yma, idea of web 2.0. It's kind of a bit of a term we sneer about now and perhaps mock, but it's kind of a real explosion in the mid-2000s. This idea of this culture of sharing, everyone's just been able to share stuff instantly and open practice. Put your stuff up online and have easy access to technology that was free and easy to use. And that kind of permeates a lot of what we think about as open education. So what this means is that I could give a nice clear definition of open education, but I'm going to do that academic thing and avoid it. But I think you can think of it as a kind of set of coalescing principles that come out of all those different strands. And depending where you are and where you come from, different things will be important to you. I think that's important because when we go on to look at later developments in open education, it's almost like people have taken different elements of those routes as being important to them. So if you think about MOOCs, for instance, then it's the free elements that we get from web 2.0 that's important, and perhaps the open entry from open universities, but less the idea about the rights for reuse that we get from open source. So moving on to those battle fronts, the first these is kind of around a battle for belief and what matters in this area. I'm going to talk about use open access publishing as an example to explore this. So it's interesting about anything about what does openness mean. So open as in, so Udacity were a MOOC provider and there was a big kind of scandal last year in 2012 about the contract that they were making other universities sign up to. So Georgia Tech provided Udacity with content for their MOOC, but then Georgia Tech couldn't even use that content in their own courses, whereas Udacity could use it in any other course and certainly no one else could then go off and use that content elsewhere. That doesn't feel very open and yet it's part of this thing called a MOOC, a massive open online course, and Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity famously said, although he has denied it, I think that there will be only 10 global providers of education in the future and he wanted Udacity to be one of them. So again that doesn't feel like open, so their openness is just a kind of a route to kind of monopoly and world domination. I'll just compare that with the definition of OERs, so this is the Hewlett definition of what constitutes an OER. It's a very broad definition, but the things they really emphasised that there's a license attached to these things that permit free use and repurposing, so that's the whole idea that you can reuse it, take it and adapt it and it's freely available. It's kind of caused what it means to be an OER. So there's a real difference between the things we had on the previous slide and what we see here. So these kind of represent fundamental different beliefs to think about what openness gets you. I just want to talk briefly, so I run this research project called the OER Research Hub, which is funded by the Hewlett Foundation, and our aim there was to explore some of the beliefs that people had around OERs. As we carried out a number of surveys with informal learners, formal learners, educators, librarians, and by looking at the responses from those, we've kind of categorised users into three groups, and I'm not quite sure whether they kind of formed the traditional iceberg in terms of numbers, but think of it roughly on that level. So I think the first group of what we commonly think of as OER users, they're kind of OER active. The people who are engaged with OER, they know what OERs are, they might become advocates for open educational resources, and I think actually the OER community is often focused on trying to grow that group, and it's been very successful over the past decade or so. So there are big OER initiatives around the world, and it's a big community of people trying to share stuff, so it's been quite successful in growing that, but I think there's probably a limit into how big that group can get. You're not going to turn everyone into being an OER active person. So you then come down the model, if you like. There's a group of people who are OERs facilitators, so they have some awareness of OERs or open life experiences, but they've got quite a pragmatic approach to them, that OERs are important because they allow them to do something else, which is their main goal. So we worked with the flipped learning network in the US, and the idea of flipped learning is that you can flip the classroom, so students go home and they usually watch videos or other resources, which are the content delivery, and use the face-to-face time for doing interaction, discussion, engagement, and that kind of stuff. So for them, OERs are useful because if there are good quality resources that they know are reliable, and that they can take freely and use without fear of being prosecuted or having to pay a fee, then OERs allow them to do what they really want to do, which is flip the classroom. And then the last group is OER consumers, so again amongst our survey respondents, we found, for instance, there's a lot of people who use OERs prior to going into formal studies, so I think particularly in someone like the UK, where you're going to be paying £9,000 a year, you don't want to take on that lightly, so we'll find a lot of users and our students who are now thinking, I think I want to take Topic X, but I'm going to go away and find out about it first of all, and they want university-level resources here, so they want to know the same type of level that they'll actually be studying in the University, so then they study some OERs before deciding to take a degree. And then once they're in a degree, we're finding quite a lot of users, students who are using OERs to supplement their studies, so they may be studying at one university but watching lectures from Harvard on iTunes U, whilst they're there as well. So for these people, we're not that bothered about licenses, they're probably not going to reuse the material particularly, but they want to know that there's good quality material out there that they can find and is of the appropriate level and a kind of good brand. And what happens is, I think for that first group, OER active, they'll always go, they know what openness means and they'll look for licenses and they want to pursue that. But I think for the other two groups, if you have things that aren't really open, you lose some opportunities. So I think that flipped learning group are a good example there. So you could imagine a publisher say to them, look, we're going to, do you want to flip your classroom? We've got a nice package solution that allows you to do that. Come to us, sign up for a subscription and we'll teach you how to flip your classroom. You have access to all these resources which are great and they relate in the US, the Common Core, say, and it's a nice bundle solution. And so they do that. And then for many teachers, flipping the classroom becomes flipping the classroom according to Pearson's or whatever. And so before they even know about it, the removal of openness from that cycle has lost them a lot of opportunity before they even knew that they wanted to have the opportunity. So I think it's worth thinking about what does openness get you and then what you might lose from it? And I think they're going back to the idea that it comes from a number of different strands. There's a number of things that it gets you as well. So there's a kind of altruistic thing about it where generally universities are part of a social good and giving away content freely so that you can democratise education. It's a good thing to do, so there's a kind of nice thing to do there. That doesn't always go so well with vice chancellor, so we're looking at budget lines. You can take the efficiency argument from open source. It's a good way to just kind of share resources and it's an efficient way to produce new courses. So if you want to produce a new course, take a bunch of OERs and put it into your course rather than write it from scratch. The argument of increased profile either as an individual or as an institution if you become known as the place that gives out good OERs in a particular subject area, then that raises your profile in terms of student recruitment. It's a good thing for dissemination. So going back to my research hub project, we kind of made open dissemination a part of that project right from the start, so blogging was very important to us. We have a Twitter account, a Scoopit account, a YouTube account, all this thing. As we've gone along, we've kind of made that part of what we do because we wanted the community to come in and be part of our project. We've released our data openly, we've developed an open researcher toolkit and we ran an open course on how to be an open researcher. Open research has been really key to what we do in building the reputation of that. That's allowed for wider participation. In that project, for instance, we started out with eight collaborations, but we gained another seven as we went along because people had kind of connected with us through our kind of dissemination practice. It can lead to unexpected outcomes. Soon as you try and get involved in ways of collaborating and saying that we're going to have a memorandum of understanding to do this and that, then I think you tie down possible unexpected uses where if you release a content under an open licence, someone will take it and do stuff with it that you didn't expect. For instance, when we released material at the Open University under the Open Learn repository, someone came along, and I think it was China, it might have been South America, but someone came along and said they were going to translate it into all our content into their language and reproduce it. That saved us having to do it and that was good. It's released under creative commerce licence. They weren't selling it, so that's fine. They didn't need our permission to do that. That was a much easier way of collaborating, which is the last one as well, than us having to try and find someone who would do that for us and set up a separate thing. It allows for innovations. A lot of the early MOOC pioneers explored this space because it was outside of the formal constraints. They wanted to explore what does it mean to teach and learn in a very networked world? People like George Siemens and Stephen Downs. That's why they're really interested in MOOCs. If you have an open course where anyone can come in and join in, what does that mean? Again, if you close that down, space down, you lose some of those innovation opportunities. The second area is the battle for money. If we look at some of the open access stuff here, open access journals, this plots the graph of open access journals and open access articles. The statisticians might better spot a trend there. It's all going one way. Again, this is part of the thing about the success of openness. We've developed the gold and green routes to open access. The gold route says that we still carry on using traditional journals. Those are funded somehow. Often that's through article processing charges, APCs, which means that, as an author, you pay the journal to publish it. Some journals are free. I run a journal, for instance, which is free to publish in, and we subsidise that out of university funds. Some are subsidised by professional bodies, whatever. There are different ways you get the gold route to operate. The green route is about self-archiving. For instance, we have an institutional repository at the OU, so you can archive a version there of your content. You can get to open access different routes. We've developed sophisticated ways of doing that. Again, that's a victory thing. There are major policies in most countries now that say that a lot of research that's, if it's publicly funded, then the outputs of that research need to be made publicly available. The publisher, Wiley, did a survey last year, maybe 2013, and found for the first time ever that more than 50% of their authors have published open access. You're reaching that tipping point of the awareness of openness. I think for a long time publishers tried to fight open access. They could see it really undermined their business models. You can understand why, so they were disparaging about the quality of open access publishing and stuff. All those indicators and those mandates and the success of it, they've got the situation now where they can't fight open access anymore. If you can't fight it, the next best thing is to make it work for you. They developed this fantastic thing called the hybrid route to open access. I admire it in a way just for its audacity. The hybrid route says that as an individual you still pay a fee to have an article published open access, but that journal is then still charged as a subscription rate to a library, so you're paying twice. This is called double dipping. We're beginning to get some data to come out on this now, so just for the welcome trust in 2012-2013, they estimated that academics spent 3.88 million paying to have articles published in open access journals of which 3.17 million was then paid again by libraries to have access to it, so you're paying twice that stuff. This article over here looked at a five-year mean of journals found for pure open access journals. The average price per article was 1,164 for hybrid journals, it was 1,800. This is part of that thing about the battle for open. It's a good example of how when open access was a very peripheral interest, publishers weren't interested and didn't know about it. As soon as it moved into the mainstream, what openness meant became subverted because it suddenly became of value to them. There's also this idea of predatory open access practice, so some of you may have had these emails from companies saying would you like to publish in one of our journals? It will cost you £2,000 and you go to the publisher's website and they've got like 20,000 journals published. Listen, okay you've got quite a lot of journals there. There's no quality control, it's just a paper published thing. The idea of changing the dynamics here has allowed in a new practice. Just in general, moving away from open access, education is seen as the next big thing for technology to get into. There's lots of venture capitalists who want to invest in education. It's an area ripe for disruption and I'll talk about that in the next bit. There was a piece in the New York Times saying that a venture capitalist financing of ed tech start-ups was up 55% from the year before. The eye of Mordor has swept around. That's the thing to go for now. They've done healthly. This leads to what people have termed open washing and there's a nice analogy here with the green movement. There's a term called green washing. When the green movement was just hippies that no one really cared about and didn't have any value, it was okay, it was on the periphery, but as soon as it became valuable and had market value, then people wanted to get a piece of it. You often see products advertisers being natural or green and stuff. We had the British petroleum advertising campaign which was beyond petroleum with lots of green leaves growing everywhere. It's the idea of trying to use greenness in order to sell your product. We're seeing the similar with openness now. Openness has market value. All due waters gives this definition. Open washes have an appearance of open source and open light that's seen for marketing purposes while continuing proprietary practices. There's a nice example here. Udacity and a bunch of other people Google and create and form this what they call the Open Education Alliance. If you read that definition, it's an industry-wide alliance of employers and educators in the service of students throughout the world. It provides access to cutting-edge and relevant post-secondary education that empowers individuals to pursue successful careers in technology. There's nothing in there about open access, open licensing. It's really just a way of marketing the various technology and tools and content that those people have. It causes the Open Education Alliance. It obviously sees market value in that openness phrase. I think there's a analogy here with, I don't know if any of you have been to safari parks and you drive through in your car and these friendly monkeys jump on board and they look playful. Aren't they nice? Let's welcome them in and then within minutes they're ripping your car apart and pulling the windshield wipers off and hijacking it, basically. It feels a bit like what's happened with the kind of moments. If people come in looking friendly and then before you knew it, your car was being taken apart. I think it's particularly true in the area of MOOCs, which brings me on to the battle for narrative. I'm not one of these MOOC skeptics. I'm very pro MOOCs. They're very interesting and fabulous thing. I was involved in a lot of the early MOOC work. This is a Google Trends graph. Blue is OERs and red is MOOCs. OERs triple on quite nicely, getting a fair amount of mention. Then from nowhere are MOOCs and suddenly overtake them and a prominent thing. I think it's really interesting about why MOOCs suddenly grabbed all that attention, why they were interesting. Before we do that, someone recommended you should do this. If you think your topic's interesting, do a Google Trend chart and compare it with Kim Kardashian and you'll find that, actually, you do not compare in terms of what the internet's really interested about. Let's not get carried away that MOOCs really matter. Suddenly, from nowhere, we had all these major MOOC providers in 2012 was branded the Year of the MOOCs. We had Coursera, Udacity, Iversity, edX, Future Learn. That's an amazing thing. For anyone who's worked in this field for so long, just trying to get any platform or any project off the ground that takes ages. Suddenly, from nowhere, we had these global providers of free education, which is a good thing. The millions of enrolments, I forget what, Coursera, which is the biggest provider up to now, but it's 17 million or something. We do know a lot of those enrolments never actually turn into people who actually come along to the course and even fewer who actually finish, but even so, it's impressive numbers. There's something happening here. They managed to get major media coverage. You'd be lucky to be able to get the person sitting next to you to listen about open educational resources. Suddenly, you're being phoned up from news night and there is in the New York Times to talk about MOOCs. There's real media interest in what this is all about. All that's good stuff, I think, and that really raised the profile of open education and online learning all round. George Seaman said, if education was grung and MOOCs were it's nirvana, they were the breakthrough act that suddenly everyone noticed. I think there's a very interesting thing about that. MOOCs in general, no problem with, but it's interesting about why that narrative was so successful around MOOCs. I think it ties in with what you might call the Silicon Valley narrative, which is a very tech-driven, tech-deterministic way of viewing the world. In the education world, the number of things that came together. First of all, there's this commonly quoted belief that education is broken. It's often stated that it's just plain fact. I don't know if any of you read the avalanche report that was out last year from Pearson's, which was looking at higher education in the UK. The models of higher education that marched triumphantly across the globe in the second half of the 20th century are broken. Clay Shirky said the education space is massive, very broken. There's a company called Degreeed.com, we ran a campaign that said education is broken, someone should do something, that's someone being them. This is my favourite quote, this kind of sums up the Silicon Valley narrative, one thing really. Sebastian Thrun again said education is broken, face it, it's so broken that so many ends it requires a little bit of Silicon Valley magic to fix it. So that Silicon Valley will come along and fix this, this massively broken system. But they very rarely say what it is that's broken about higher education, and often when they do start saying something, what they're using meaning is higher education funding is broken, which is, and I'm perfectly happy to have a good conversation about how we fund higher education, but it's a very different thing than saying education is broken. And at the same time, there's this obsession with Clayton Christensen's theory of disruption. So I've done a few interviews with Red Christensen's work. So it's a very good work, it's his first book about disruption called The Innovator's Dilemma. We're saying that when you've got a company, you can focus on what you call sustaining technologies, which is taking the existing stuff you have and making it better. But every now and then something comes along that's disruptive, that first of all appears not to be as good, but actually reaches a completely different audience. And the personal computer is a really good example of that. IBM will focus on making their mainframes better and better, and then the PC will come along and completely change that world. And the digital camera is a really good example again, it completely changed the way we think about that industry. But people have become obsessed with disruption and you hear it talk about all the time, and it's always a good thing for start, so this thing is disrupting the sector. So education is seen as an area that's ripe for disruption. So Christensen himself looked at schools and said, disruption is a necessary and overdue chapter in our public schools. Again, the avalanche report justified itself by saying elements of the traditional university are threatened by the coming avalanche. In Christensen's term, universities are ripe for disruption. And this person was criticised in OERs because they have not mostly disrupted the traditional business model. So disruption is the only mark of success in many ways. So OERs might have been useful, they might have helped people learn, they might have contributed lots of things, but because they haven't disrupted education, it's dismissed. So what this creates is a kind of, I was doing a Mickey take of the Greed programmes. They ask you to hold up a photo saying education is broken, someone should do something. So I was mocking their campaign there. So all these kind of elements came together to create a kind of irresistible story around MOOCs really. So we have the idea that education is broken. So there's a fundamental problem that needs to be fixed. And that that's very different from saying there's opportunity in education. Because if education is broken, then the whole thing is ruined and you need someone to come along and fix it. Whereas if you're saying there's opportunity within education, then that's often something you might expect people inside to take advantage of. So there's a different rhetoric between kind of crisis and opportunity. So it's broken, it's ripe for disruption and disruption always requires wholesale change. No one says they want to come along and make things slightly better in technology terms. They kind of want to be disruptive in that market because disruption leads to a kind of monopoly often. And what they always want is that it's a technological solution and MOOCs are seen as a technological solution. So Sebastian Thran had come from Google and they've kind of had all these kind of fancy analytics and stuff. And the last thing is that they try to promote it very much as outsiders with new ideas. So particularly in disruption and the idea of education is broken. It's no good people within the sector kind of doing it. You need these people coming in charging in and white horses to kind of save the sector from itself. So they'll often put out people as Thran or Sam Kahn as people who come up with stuff. And ignore a lot of the inconvenient history around MOOCs which was people within higher education who had actually developed them. People like David Wiley and George Siemens. And now we're beginning to see a very interesting thing. Like because MOOCs are deemed to have failed because they haven't disrupted higher education. So this book out called the end of college that I created a new narrative about why MOOCs failed. And incidentally I don't think MOOCs have failed. I think this stuff just takes time to kind of work through and we find what it is. But they found in that because they set themselves up as being completely disruptive and sweeping away the whole higher education sector because that hasn't happened they failed. But they've succeeded in other ways. So this guy says the failure of MOOCs to disrupt higher education again disruption is the only measure. There's nothing to do with the quality of the courses themselves. Many of which are quite good and getting better. Colleges are holding technology at bay because the only things MOOCs provide is access to world class professors and unbeatable price. So MOOCs didn't fail because they didn't have a good support model or anything like that. They failed because it was us nasty people within higher education who kind of wouldn't let them succeed. So is there any interesting thing about if you let other people begin to tell your story around this then it changes from what you would you would want. So this again after setbacks online courses are rethought. So not only are we talking about MOOCs and openness but MOOCs have now become synonymous with all online education. So you might have a perfectly good e-learning program that's nothing to do with MOOCs but it gets wrapped up in this whole kind of MOOC profile now and then people will say to you but online learning we tried that and it didn't work. And so e-learning equals MOOCs now and you saw it slightly also with people rebranding everything to be a bit MOOC like. So we had Spox which was small private online courses like how is that not just an online course so by rebranding it in a MOOC light then you could probably get funding for it. And I think the other interesting that happens around when you have this kind of big rhetoric is that it creates this kind of forced dichotomies you're kind of forced into one or two camps so I know a lot of people who have got so fed up with the kind of MOOC hype that they've kind of become against all MOOCs or against online learning and stuff and it kind of forces you to go into extreme camps really. You become good versus evil unicorn was kind of thing and there's kind of you're fighting over it and actually the reality is always much more nuanced than that and somewhere in the middle. So I just want to finish up by thinking about some lessons from the from the VLE or LMS which I think we can bring to this so I was the VLE director at the Open University for a while so I think VLEs in general were a good thing and they kind of really allowed us to move very quickly into e-learning adoption and they were a very useful tool for a lot of people who for whom e-learning isn't their primary interest you know which is great you know so they're a good tool and you can have a universal system across the university and very quickly get somewhere with e-learning. But the problem was that we kind of outsourced the thinking about them I think by Lair and other companies coming and develop them and as soon as you adopted a platform e-learning became the platform so it didn't become that I'm doing e-learning it's that I'm now the the blackboard person so and a lot of education technologists got caught up being the person who's in charge of running blackboard and you get this idea of kind of a sedimentation of thought and process institutional process builds up around the system itself. So Jim Groom and Brian Lamb wrote a paper last year complaining about how the VLE had really been the source of a loss of innovation in higher education and they were seeing similar things happen now around openness so they kind of leveled five charges against it so the idea of kind of privileged a technology management mindset the idea that you had to control things that were happening with the VLE it's called a learning management system it creates silos so you don't so you keep people within size stuff they don't go out into the world and explore the knowledge of openness missed opportunities so learners use a system which isn't really like anything else they then go on to you so they learn how to use VLEX rather than they learn how to become proficient in e-learning or managing their online identity or exploring possibilities. There's real drain on financial and also human resources so you've only got so much money and it's all going into supporting the VLE then that's what you have to do and you can't then do any of the innovative stuff that you might want to do in exploring other technologies and playing around and the last thing they say they claim was that there's kind of a loss of confidence so you have all these education technologists who are then required to manage your your VLE system and they kind of lose confidence then in going out and exploring other technologies and trying out other innovations so I think there's an interesting lesson here for openness and about who owns openness and that you kind of get so far by outsourcing it and that gets you a good way down the line in terms of mainstreaming but that should only be the first step rather than the kind of end point so inclusion openness is not just a peripheral interest now I think kind of impacts upon lots of what we do in our practice whether that's teaching, research, public engagement and it's really about a battle for ownership now it's kind of who owns the future direction of openness and I think it's the question to ourselves is what can openness do for me what's important that openness could allow, facilitate, encourage and in order to protect that what would I need to do so I'll end with the kind of the summing up bit in my book that's it and I asked having won the first battle that opens is now a kind of effective way to operate essentially the second battle regarding future direction is not lost by advocating responsibility and ownership but then I wimp out I don't actually tell you how to do that so the big question I guess is is how do we do that but I think that will vary depending on what your interests are and just some links there that's me done