 Dr. Vijay Kumar has been an active advocate in increasing the availability, quality and use of open educational resources. His work includes writing, research as a principal investigator of OKI, the Open Knowledge Initiative, and he also works as a member of the faculty advisory committee of MIT OpenCourseWare. Also at MIT, he leads the Office of Digital Learning. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Vijay Kumar, Associate Dean of the Office of Digital Learning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thank you. Good afternoon. That isn't me as you can tell. I guess I have to defend MIT now after all the wonderful comments that Michael made, but I was struck what a hard-hitting forward-thinking presentation that was. It actually took me off the zone that I was in in terms of my own talk, but that's good. You know, we always want to be there. First, I wanted to thank Michael, thank Jeff for inviting me to share some perspectives largely drawn from my experience at MIT, but elsewhere also. A couple of things I always point out, you know, I have been at MIT for 21 years. My preparation is as a chemical engineer, industrial management, lots of operations research, but my doctoral work was in future studies in education. So I came into educational technology or digital learning, not as a technologist, but as someone who was thinking about how to generate or preferred futures for education. And so it was not surprising that I had this bias for open education. And here in this room, I see a lot of my colleagues, I mean folks that I have worked with before in the realm of open education. And I must, I'm sure you share what I feel as I listened to, you know, I have been associated with Saylor before. The feeling that I get that this thing has grown legs, you know, and a lot of us were involved in championing the potential value of open education. And now sort of seeing its transformative possibilities being realized in various ways, you know, whether it's reduce the cost of education, whether it's to provide extensive access. So it's really gratifying and some of the things that I want to say really touch upon what was started several years ago as part of the open education movement. It is an opportune time. It's an important time for all the reasons that Michael pointed out, you know, the need to move from fragile to agile, which I thought was a very powerful statement. For all those reasons, today the timing is terrific. About a month ago, MIT, we launched something called the Jameel World Education Lab. And I'll be talking more about this. But its intent is to actually spark a global renaissance in education. But it really draws upon all the kinds of things that we talk about. How can we make the affordances of digital learning, affordances of open education, technology, what we are learning, you know, contemporaneously about learning science. How do you bring these forces together in a very aggregated focus way to make large-scale change in education possible? So I'll be saying more about that. But the timing of this invitation I thought was particularly terrific because of what's been happening at MIT recently. So the timing and the need and the case, I typically like to draw up on my demand supply stuff. The, you know, and a lot of people today have made the case, you know, some of the, when I was listening to presentation from the Minister of Maryland, other presenters, the various demand factors that make this an important moment in time. I know I work a lot in India, you know, as with universities over there, with the Planning Commission over there. And India is a country which is sort of galloping for rapid development. And you need educated human resources in every sector, carpenters, electricians. And, you know, as many people pointed out, our traditional institutions do not have the capability, the capacity to build or to develop those kinds of capabilities at the scale that they're required. So there's this rapid development agenda which drives us. There's a very, the other thing about education that sort of got peripherally touched upon is the linkage between not the first job, but the earning profile of people who get higher education, who get credential, et cetera. In fact, I'll go up, I was just in Sao Paulo last week, and I pulled up this data where there's both data about America and also Brazil, where you look at university graduates earning on an average 2.5 times as much as those without degrees. So it's not about the first job, but your progression, your earning capabilities that seem to be directly correlated to higher education, to getting more and more educational opportunities. And this is not just a phenomenon in the U.S. over here, but in other countries also, as I was looking at OECD data. There is another, the unaffordable, unmanageable cost of education, a lot of people have talked about. This is what draws into lots of projects with open education. And one of the things that got touched upon, and I think Dr. Cheney said it very well, when she emphasized quality, one of the things that those of us who have been working a lot with open education have seen is, and this is, you know, I'm going to channel John Daniels, you know, who talked about the fact that before access, cost, and quality, the relationship between these factors was seen to be immutable, meaning if you increase access, the general assumption was that the quality will dip. If you increase quality, the general assumption was that the cost would become unmanageable, or there would be a disproportionate increase in quality. And what we have seen is through this confluence of forces, open in technology, that you can actually have, there are, say, agility in this priability, that this triangle is not an iron triangle, that there is flexibility in that triangle, that you can actually have sort of like a scalene triangle. You can have extensive access without a proportional increase in cost. You can have extensive access without diminishing quality. And some of those things I'll talk about from the examples that we have from online education. But the cost is a driving force on the demand side. There is one thing that we are beginning to see a lot, and this is what I think is a very important notion, which is the new generation of diverse learners. We've been working a lot with refugees, people, displaced learners. And the non-traditional learners are typically, when we thought about non-traditional learners before, we thought about adult learners. We thought about non-traditional age women. But there's this whole other population, which is becoming larger and larger today because of a socio-political crisis like the one in Syria. Tomorrow it could be because of global warming, or because jobs are moving. So there is this real need to be educating with quality, upscale, displaced learners. That's a new family of traditional learners, and autonomous learners. More and more of us are becoming autonomous learners. We don't always go to formal settings to learn. We learn on our own. We do our skills update, our knowledge updates on our own. So the new generation of diverse learners is a very important demand factor that we have to address. And that we, I think, are able to address from the projects that at least I'm engaging in, in a much better fashion that we could before because of open education resources and technology. So on the supply side, of course, are my two favorite factors, open education resources and technology. Speakers before me, Michael, emphasize these two dimensions, these two supply side factors. Now I am going to add a third dimension, some of which came up in Mario Wiltraut's comments. This new dimension of learning science, the fact that we are learning a lot about the science of learning, which can bring as a third force in designing quality interactions, interventions, quality educational opportunities. So I'm just going to add a third vector over here. There's open education. There is technology and learning science. And this, a triad of forces, if it really points to important opportunities for innovative transformation of education. By the way, just to go back for a second over here, this also got talked about a lot. This was a data I quickly introduced while we were listening, which is sort of what everybody was talking about. The relevance dimension. We think we are doing very well, but that's not what the marketplace or the purchasers of the products of our system. When I say purchasers in systems language, it's not just the industries who are employing you, but institutes of higher education. People in this educational progression, they say, look, you think you're doing great, but there's a delta there. Maybe you're not doing good enough. And how do you close that gap? And of course, the cost piece about the student loan debt. Now, like I said, one thing that when I look at the demand supply in our stock, this is also a quick slide that speaks to exactly, I think, what, in my mind, Michael was emphasizing. This exponential growth in technology and its capabilities, but the human capacity that we're developing to leverage that is not happening. There's this big, and the human capacity is about the soft skills, about the new mindsets, about creating different kinds of culture. And how do you do that at scale so that you can indeed leverage the potency of technology and be able to do different kinds of things? And these are the kinds of gaps that we want to sort of address through technology, through learning sciences, and not to do a very blatant plug for things like the world education lab initiative that we have launched. Because we really want to see, how do you do capacity building at scale? Not in the ad hoc by project basis that we're typically used to, particularly institutions like ours. So my old favorite slide, all of us, people who have been in open education, will recognize this. I've been using this for 10 years with different variations. But essentially it says, all the stuff called technology. And please think of technology generously, not just as hardware and software, but visualizations. Think about data, all the kinds of affordances that machine learning brings now, massive open online courses, things like AI, virtual reality. So think generously of the definition of technology of that dimension. And in a similar fashion, think generously about the term open. We were, for the longest time, thinking of equating open to open content. MIT launched OpenCourseWare. People were doing other OpenCourseWare. But it was all about content. But when I'm talking about open, it is about open technology, open architecture, legal and policy enablers of open. All that is in the open bucket. And my simple supply side theory is that the confluence of these two, along with this new factor that I mentioned about learning sciences, can really lead to some wonderful, innovative possibilities for education to close those gaps between the exponential growth and the linear human resource development to address some of the things that I talked about cost, about educating displaced learners, about frequent knowledge updates, where domain knowledge is increasing so rapidly. So I'm going to take you back a little bit. And this is a little progression up to here, a brief history of the future and where we are going. So at MIT, when we said, today we call it digital learning, educational technology has been a part of life, of DNA for a long time. So I've been there for 21 years, different kinds of projects. This thing over here, Project Athena, large project. MIT did IBM, Digital Equipment Corporation, out of which came some wonderful products, X Windows, on which a lot of your windowing software is based, was a product of that. Large parts of courseware came out. And so the premise at that time was, if you threw a lot of computational horsepower, made them available to faculty and students, good things could happen for education. Some good things happened for education. We thought about scale, some courseware, some software was produced. And we also really thought about how do you manage large distributed educational environments efficiently? That happened. But other kinds of things happened over those 20 years. Physics interactive video tutorials, Java applets for teaching concepts in math, simulations, for deeper learning. So a variety of these things, technology-enabled TLC, which was the active learning, studio-based learning for physics, a lot of technology interventions, supplements, innovations were introduced, some to build the infrastructure, some to take advantage of how the world was changing, some a lot for deeper learning of subjects and topics. And then some, which was tried to extend what we knew about education to communities that we typically don't serve. So I point to this because I can draw a line between any of these projects to certain fundamental things that MIT believes in, if you look at this. One is that MIT places a lot of emphasis on active learning, hands-on, minds-on doing. So many of these, so the core value that we really, MIT's motto is men's at minus, right? So doing active learning, minds-on, hands-on is very central to MIT education. So when we think about education, technology, digital learning, we want to make sure those principles are emphasized. So regardless of all the new affordances, we don't want to lose some invariance of quality. Hands-on active learning is an invariant of quality for us, and we try to preserve that. Another thing that we'd say is, how can we bring the joy, the tools, the practice of research into undergraduate education? So many of these technology elements will be driven by that. An important dimension, and this has been going on for a long time, is we talk about saying how can we influence good educational practice? And I'm saying this with a lot of humility. This is not a technology imperative kind of statement. How can we influence good educational practice based on what we learned elsewhere in the world? So in the 60s, for instance, MIT was influential, and it worked with other institutions, the Ford Foundation, et cetera, to create the Indian Institute of Technology in India. The first one, I'm actually, I'm a product of that institute, our vice president for open learning, who has championed a lot of the initiatives that we talk about, is from that institute. That was 60s. You fast forward to 1999 to 2000, MIT launched OpenCourseWare, and it said, look, you can have the content of all its courses available on the web for free to the world for education. And millions of users accessed it, and the intent was to say, look, we can't, at that time in 1999, we don't know how to do the kinds of quality things that we value online. But here you can take a picture of what goes on in our classrooms, and we'll put it out there so that you can show you how we teach, so that from there, you can use it as a model to develop curriculum, you can use it as supplemental materials, but the idea was to make our pedagogy, our education resources to influence education elsewhere. That was then. Fast forward to 2012, we are doing that with edX, saying, you know, we have learned to think about online education, there's other stuff that's happening with learning science, et cetera, and we can actually do large-scale online blended or blended education without sacrificing quality. But the idea is to extend educational opportunities. So openness, extending educational opportunity, global education has been in the DNA, and we keep thinking about how to do it in different ways. And what open education resources, the open movement, and networks, and the increasing digitalization has offered is more and more interesting, innovative ways of doing, of meeting our intent towards global education of working with other institutions. So, and, so edX I talked, so one thing that, you know, and edX actually is a good example, edX and MITX, of course, a good example of technology and open were brought together in order to do large-scale quality education. There is something about this also when we think about global education, global education change. We, I mentioned advanced research there. What something like edX or these massive open online courses provide is humongous amounts of data, right? Data that helps us think about, you know, how are autonomous learners learning? How do they form groups? What is a progression that they are taking? Why do people, some people stay, why is there this much retention? Why is there not? So there is a lot of research that can happen on learning practices that can feed back into the design of good education experiences, right? So now, quick thing about the progression of open learning, the impact that it has happened or at least the access that it's provided, you're looking at over there, you know, what is this, two million people who have enrolled in the MITX massive online courses since it was launched, 200 million people around the world who have used open courseware, that's the power of open. One of the things we constantly tried to point out, you know, I thought Wayne might do it when he was there is it was not the fact that all these people came and looked at MIT open courseware materials, but the fact that upwards of 215 institutions launched their own open coursewares and made that available. So that was the, you know, that was the movement that got created. So there's a progression around our intent on open. One thing I want to quickly say that, and this goes back to the quality point that was being made. When we think about these online courses, open online courses, how we are really rethinking and quality, these are re-engineering exercises. This is not just taking something, this is exactly what Mary does. There's, you know, working with faculty or with her own courses or with her colleagues to take courses and re-engineer them so that they can really take in the affordances of technology and be able to deliver quality experiences at scale. So this is an introductory chemistry course that actually got blended. It was an edX course and that was adopted for residential use at MIT. So, and you can see it was largely online. All the assessments were online, but people took their exams in proctored settings and there were some early results that were shared that I will show you which really pointed to why this could be a lovely thing in terms of quality. So you see this. This was data on the outcomes in a particular course. If you look at the 2012 data, let's just look at a topic like atomic structure, a concept like atomic structure, the first vertical bar over there. If you see the blue bar in 2012, about 18 or 19% of the people mastered that concept. This was the pre-blended version of the course. If you look at 2013 and you look at that, same topic, atomic structure, about 89%, 90% of the students are mastering that particular concept. That gets us excited. So in this combination, there is something that is happening in the way this course has been re-engineered, this exercise. And it's not rocket science, you'll see because that some of this is happening. It's not rocket science because one of the things that's happening in this design is that people are looking, there are online lectures, there are online assessments, they go and do their proctored exam. And based on the results they go, they either go read up, they correct themselves. So there's a lot of formative assessment that's happening, they're able to correct themselves and go back and do the tests. It's a different randomized example of tests that's been given to them. And what's happening is this is like drill and practice in the old days. They're able to do that in time and be able to master the concepts. So this mix, what it's allowing us to do is really force or advance mastery of concepts and topics. And it seems very simple and trivial, but the fact that you're frequently testing people, allowing them to change, you're not using the testing to fail out people but to correct themselves and be able to do it with the efficiency in that time is what's leading to results like this. And this gets us excited, meaning this is being done over millions of people in courses like this. So this is quality at scale. So when I think about it, why this combination of open and digital and technology and what we're learning allows us to do these remarkable things, why I get very optimistic about global education and meeting all these demands is that what it's allowing us to do is innovate in every dimension of a course, in how lectures are done, how homework is done, how exams are done and how credentials are issued. So innovation is possible at each one of these which really challenges and does away, disrupts all existing structural arrangements between the learner, the institution, the credentialing mechanism and that allows us to really do quality things at scale for global education. And just to give you some standard examples. So when we think about an online course, let's say the physics course and so I might get a six minute video segment on a topic. Let's say this is an electromagnetism course. As soon as the video lecture is over, I don't understand the concept. Immediately I can have a visualization like this which allows me to imagine fields which allows me to understand concepts of fields better. It makes it clearer. So just in time when I need clarification, I can get an elaboration, a simulation which explains the concept. So take another course. This is from Anand's early, Anand Thagarwal is the guy who launched edX from his circuits course on edX. They do, there's a video segment as a concept but immediately after that, there's a game like environment that they can create to test the application of what they have learned. So they create this, they can test out, they learn, they can quickly check whether they have learned the concepts or whether it is resistance or currents. The point is that this application of a concept happens without latency. They learn a concept. They do not have to wait for six months or a lab at the end of two weeks. It is happening at times of the latency between when they're exposed to a concept and applying it is reduced, right? So this is what is happening in construction and then sometimes like in these courses, immediately after you are exposed to a concept, you do an application. You can be tested in time, in real time at that time and then corrective measures can be made or they can be sent off to different places to learn. So what, when you deconstruct the course or when you re-engineer the course in this online world, you're not just taking what's happening in class and putting it out there. You're bringing in these things and why I point out the fact, when you think about the fact that it's frequent formative testing, the fact that you have reduced the latency. So even in a Bloom-Stuxonomy kind of way, the learn, apply, testing that sequence is not riddled with latency. It's happening approximately. Each of these phases are happening approximately to each other. And so these are the kinds of things that are learning, that lead to learning games and better learning outcomes. So, and I bring this up because that these kinds of things are not just, they're not coming out of thin air. They're based on good learning science principles. Some of these are old learning science principles. Some of these are contemporary based on, for instance, the thing about mind wandering, the fact that the mind wanders about 10 or 15 minutes. So you can reduce it with some kind of interpolated testing. You can make lectures short so that they don't become long like this. I'm sure all your minds are wandering by now. So, but that's the thing. So the having short lectures, short video segments, having interpolated testing, this comes from a lot of research that the mind wanders after 10 or 15 minutes. What can we do? How can we engineer the learning experience so that we can compensate for that? There is that when we talk about retrieval practice, for instance, that short term formative testing helps learning. That's retrieval practice. You can have modules with tests at the end to help mastery learning. You can long, you can break long lectures to small segments. You can have short video, online videos followed by tests. So this re-engineering of the course in the online environment, in the digital environment, is informed by a lot of contemporary learning science and content practice. And that's what allows us the opportunity to do quality at scale so that some of these myths that we have about digital and quality online and quality open and quality can indeed be challenged through examples like this. So what we are saying is, what these things tell you when you start looking at this is let's look at this combination of online and onsite and see how can we judiciously combine these two for providing quality educational opportunity. Do onsite where onsite is better, do online where online is better. Frequent formative testing, for instance, it is very difficult to do. A good teacher can do it with one person that doesn't scale. So technology, the frequent formative testing that you can do with hundreds, thousands of students is possible because of digital learning. It's not something you can do at scale over here. So that's something I would do. If you want to have lots of engaged hands-on practice, I would do that onsite. So what you have is this extra resource in your arsenal and allows us the opportunity to think about what is the learning outcome that we want to achieve? How can we combine online and onsite or online and on land in judicious ways in order to be able to do what we want to do much more effectively, much more efficiently? There is one thing, this is a site comment. So many of us, when we started our careers, we were systems analysts. We came from the old IBM days and everybody was in a rush to automate either their financial system or their accounting system. That was the first jobs you'd have. And the first thing that you do when you do any kind of automation job is you study your existing system. And in many cases, you find that, you know, some papers are just going to some people who are not doing any action. It becomes more of a method study and that technology has got nothing to do with improving the efficiency. It can crunch numbers faster. The point I want to make is the one consistent benefit that technology digital learning affords us is an opportunity to look at how we were doing things in the first place. Just to examine our learning practice. Even ask questions. Things like learning outcomes have become part of the language of the Lingua-Frankwa of education that did not exist, it was not as prevalent before. So now we ask, what are the learning outcomes? Can this help you do that better? So the fact that you're able to look at what you're doing and like I said, that's a persistent benefit of thinking about digital learning, you know? Forget about all the stuff about great lovely simulations, visualizations and being able to use networks with the masses. The fact that you can re-engineer your course and make it more aligned with the learning, that's worth the price of the ticket. So that's a little bit of this thing. A little bit of extra commentary over there. So like I said, every aspect, whether you think about the lectures, whether you think about the supplemental exams, every aspect of the learning cycle is prone to innovation, credentials. So about one and a half years ago, we launched the MicroMasters program. How many of you have heard of this program at MIT? Good, there are at least 10 people who'll correct me if I'm wrong. So the idea was simple. The idea was to make, the big success story over here is a supply chain management course that was offered and which thousands of people around the world are taking. Masters level course, the supply chain management course is a, actually I might have some detail over here. This seems to be stuck over here. Let me just put this up. Essentially the MicroMasters program says, like in the case of supply chain management, it's a graduate level course, a series of courses in the supply chain case, five courses that are offered to anyone in the world. No prerequisites, people who want it can take it, working professionals, et cetera. Everybody takes a course. People who do, there are exams when they take proctored exams, they get MIT excredentials. So for taking the course. And, but the thing is, there are some people who succeed in the courses, who become eligible for the terminal masters. So people who take, as such, the course is available to all. So lots of working professionals around the world. In fact, this was one of the courses that had a lot of interest from people who are supporting refugee education because they had displaced populations who wanted to make sure that new kinds of professional opportunities opened up for them. So they, so the course is available to all. People take the exams, they get MIT excredentials for succeeding there. Some who succeed become eligible for coming to do a terminal masters at MIT or in other participating institutions. So, but they get a buy for all the courses that they have done. So they get a one semester's buy. So for a one semester residency at MIT, and therefore also, you know, by deduction about half the cost, and in fact it's one-third the cost, they get a terminal masters degree in that area. So you can imagine the possibility. This is sort of a very, so you have introduced different kinds of credentials. They get the MIT excredentials for what they have done. But it also puts them on the path to a terminal degree in an institution if they're interested in that. So initially it was just MIT's credentials. Now we are having a whole bunch of universities who are signing up to offer credentials themselves, meaning you take these courses and you can come and do the one semester residency at our institute and we'll give you a master's certification from our institute. So what we have done is really opened up the marketplace of credentialing. We were hearing Michael talking about automating, you know, the credential business and the credential currency business. So this is the kind of stuff that can put us in a pathway to thinking about providing different kinds of professional learning opportunities around the world and then which also has pathways to terminal degrees, different kinds of certifications. So this is the thing, I mean career development, career change, option to apply for a terminal degree, all that becomes possible. The other thing, and I'm talking about blending over here, a lot of our folks were doing online courses. MIT introduced this notion of doing boot camps in particular tops. These are intensive on-site experiences, short period. So they take a bunch of online courses, let's say an entrepreneurship, very popular topic, on innovation and entrepreneurship, now on internet of things, let's say, and then they come for an intensified two week session, very intense session, for intensive learning experiences of the boot camps, right? So you're providing that kind as an alternative methodology that sort of coupled with the online experiences. So you're thinking about blended in a different way where people take these online courses, but they say, look, I want to be face to face with practitioners in the field, I want to not only talk to the professors at MIT, I want to engage with the ecosystem of entrepreneurs, and that's the thing. Now it started off, when you look at the MicroMasters, it's becoming quite dramatically popular in August, 2014. We had this first boot camp, and what's happening as a result of these boot camps, you know, and you have to think, it's preceded by this online experience, is that people are launching startups, we've had in the first boot camp itself, representation from 24 countries, and you see there were 47 people in the first one, if you look at the second one, which also happened in 2015, but now there are assorted countries which are signing up in Melbourne, we just finished a couple of ones in Turkey, there's one that just happened in China, so what we are doing is doing these boot camps, not just in Cambridge, Mass, but the onsite experiences are happening in different places. So you're really thinking about the ecosystem of education changing in different ways, people have these online experiences that are universal, and then they have very, very focused onsite experiences in different places for different kinds of intense engagements. So what this means, and this is why when I think about global education, and saying we've really started opening out possibilities through open technology, is that if you look at massive open online courses, millions of people taking these courses, online courses, and as I've asserted and shown, they are quality, I mean there's an expression saying they are MIT hard, so these are quality online, then you have boot camps, you have things like MicroMasters, which says do these things online, you can get an MIT excredential, but you can couple it with an onsite experience semester to get a degree. What you're creating is different kinds of pathways to meet the motivations and needs of different kinds of learners, and that's what I meant when we think about the new learner, the new learner does not necessarily come from a foreign experience, the new learner is not necessarily the 17 year old. The new learner comes in at different points in the educational value chain, gets what they want, they have different interests, they have different motivations, they have different aspirations, but what we are trying to provide for people around the globe is different kind of pathways to achieve their motivations. So this is why I said this potent combination really leads to some very innovative possibilities. Now, I said a brief history of the future, this has been happening, what I've just described is the history, and this is all that happened the last two and a half years, so you can see the rapidity with which it's happening. What preceded it? So as my ex-boss who's now the president of BU, Bob Brown who was a provost is to say, on reflection it almost looks like we had a strategy. So this is very interesting because about two years ago, three years ago, our president Rafael said that in five years MIT education is not going to look anything like it does. So we launched this task force on the future of higher education and the intent was to really, there were three significant areas to say, look, and it was motivated by the fact, this increasing centrality of digital learning and open education and saying, look, what does this mean for how we do education here, residentially? What does it mean for global education? And when you said global education, I was in the task force that worked on global education along with Sanjay who's our vice president and global did not mean international alone. Global meant how does this change the nature of our engagement, remember ecosystem, with communities that we don't interact with lots. What does this mean for MIT's engagement with pre-K through 12 education? What does it mean for MIT's education with community colleges? What does it mean for MIT's education with non-formal education? So all, so that set the basis and so many of these initiatives were launched as an expression coming out of the recommendations. So for instance, when you look at the catalyzed ongoing research learning and innovation about the future of, so we actually launched a large research initiative called the MIT Integrated Teaching Learning Initiative which is really looking at, and I'll show you a slide on that, looking at how are the foundational sciences, neuroscience, cognitive science, affecting brain science, affecting learning science. What do we know about brain science that can influence how we address learning for dyslexic learners? What does it mean for how we design educational experiences over here? So there was that, there was these two, I've highlighted, if you look at recommendation seven, nine and 10. Recommendation nine led to a very, very significant acute engagement in K through 12 education. Now we've always had, in fact my colleague, Claudia, she went and did a survey and pulled there are 120 projects at MIT that touch K through 12 education, ad hoc projects like that, but we sort of said, look, let's really think about how MIT should engage centrally with pre-K through 12 education. We've launched initiatives coming out of that. We talk about global education, some of these initiatives that we've launched. When I look at the recommendations, there were two dimensions that I wanted to pull out. That all the recommendations pointed out the need to be much more modular in our offerings, you know, modular not in terms of, modular you can look at it as disaggregation also. Concept based, modularity in the curriculum, modularity in programs, being able to pack it stuff so that you can, with agility, do combinatorials to serve different kinds of audiences and needs. And the notion of blurred boundaries that what we have thought about as very discreet and separate sectors pre-K through 12 higher education, community colleges, MIT education, those membranes, these things are much more permeable, blurred boundaries became a very, very central notion when we think about, the point of that blurred boundaries was to really think about bidirectionality. This was not saying we got all this good stuff in MIT here, have it, you know, but the interaction helped us modify our education, our learning practices and that, so that dimension of global education when we talk about open, I think Mary, you pointed out, reuse, revise, re-edit, redistribute. The open characteristics is a bidirectionality characteristic in the sense that when we engage, it is influencing how we think about learning at 02139 at MIT itself. So that, so we have to be open to that change. So this is a research initiative that I mentioned, which is really bringing, I like to think about this, you know, when I came to, this is the K through 12 efforts we have launched, one of the things that I like to think about is when I look at the Integrated Teaching Learning Initiative, it's really looking at contemporary brain science, early childhood education, you know, and how it's affecting, and this is having such a dominant role in thinking about new learning experiences. So in the mid-80s, when I was doing my PhD, the big forces were AI and education, the work that Minsky and Papert were doing at MIT, logo, I taught logo in Africa in elementary schools, but AI was such a big force at that time thinking about intelligent tutors, and that was my selective draw into education, into, you know, thinking about education. It had such an influence on thinking about learning, Papert's work, Piaget's work. Today, what I see is the same kind of influence, same kind of effect being exercised by brain science and cognitive science, you know. So we are, it's not just the dramatic influence of technology and networks and open education, but we are learning a lot about brain science and cognitive science, how the brain works, you know, which is really allowing us to provide differentiated education in a variety of ways. So when we think about global learning, accessible learning, the thing, and any time, anywhere learning, when I think about anywhere learning, it is not just about, it's not a geographical statement about meeting learners where they are, it's about meeting learners where they are in terms of preparation. They come with differentiated motivations, preparation, how do you enable the success, how do you meet, and brain science, cognitive science is telling us a lot, and then the technology affordance comes in so that we can really address differentiated learners in different kinds of ways. There's an excellent project which I won't go into, give you a glimpse of, which is called Fly By Wire. Karen Wilcox is a professor in aeronautics, and she and I are co-PIs, it's a department of education project, which is really looking at the fact that how do you provide different kinds of education experiences for learners who come with different preparation and enable them to succeed, and we are working with a couple of community colleges, Rappaho Community College in Colorado, and Quinn-Sigman in the Boston area. So, like I said, the task force happened, lots of micro-masters, lots of this initiatives happened. I'm just going to tell you very quickly about two initiatives that came out of this K-12 Global Education. This is a project that we do in India. It's called CLICS, 1,100 schools in underserved schools. These are in rural areas. These are what in India we call government schools, and we're trying to look at, this is grades eight through 12, trying to think about open resources, game-based teaching, and mapping it onto the science curriculum, science, math, English, and we are touching about 150,000 students, about 35,000 teachers. Now, for the course delivery, we had started using edX, we're not yet using edX, but for the teacher professional development, we are using edX, along with, you know, this is about going where people are, and I should have mentioned this to Michael. In India, everybody uses WhatsApp and Telegram. That's where they live. So the teachers have their own forums on WhatsApp and Telegram, so although we are delivering segments through edX, we are leveraging the forum of WhatsApp and Telegram and mapping it to edX for the teacher professional development activity. So it's a very exciting initiative that we have launched. One of the things that we are learning from this project is if you really need this kind of change, there is an ecosystem involved. This is the anchored institution in India is a university called the Tata Institute for Social Sciences. This is funded by the Tata Trust, but there's an ecosystem of players. There's a group called Eklavya, which does science curriculum. There's a Tata Institute for Fundamental Research, which does math curriculum. Lots of players and you need, just for these four states alone, you need a complex web of people in order to realize the potential of this change. So, I mean, and I really like to emphasize the point, you can have great curriculum, you can have great digital affordances, but the capacity building portion and engaging different players in order to make lasting changes very important. Fly by wire that I mentioned, this is the project with teachers. It's one word about fly by wire because it's a very interesting, enticing title, like I said, Karen Wilcox is a professor of aeronautics, so the title is not surprising. So, when she conceived of the project, she said, look, today most of the flights if they land, automatically they land, right? So they said a pilot today is confronted with all kinds of data. There's lots of data, sensors, we know from the various instrument panels, weather data, landing point data, this data, that data, data about each item in your plane, it's a very complex system. There's lots of data and the pilot has to interpret all, the fact that there is data is good because it's telling you what you have to do, but the pilot has to interpret this data, right? And make calls so that he or she can land this plane successfully under different kinds of adverse weather conditions, okay? So the analogy of a teacher is a pilot. Lots of data coming, analytics, performance data, this data, and how do I interpret the data and what kind of tools can I bring so that I can take the student to successful learning experiences? Good teachers, one-on-one, with students, they do it. How do I scale that experience? And now, particularly because you want to be able to take advantage of all that, we are creating intelligent tutors, we are trying to get to the conceptual miscellaneous turning that students have, that's a fly-by-by project, would not have been possible without the kinds of digital tools, intelligent tutors that we have at our disposal today, the kind of open architecture that we have, which allows us to take advantage of different kinds of applications, the okay, I kind of based open architecture would not have been possible if we didn't think about pedagogy very, very seriously. So my last thing over here, I started off by talking about the fact that we have launched the World Education Lab. We've been doing projects, global projects, employing digital technologies, drawing upon our scholars and instructors like Mary, and we work with projects in India, in Bahrain, in Dubai, launch places like the Singapore University of Technology and Design projects. And we said, this is great, but we don't have enough of us to go and engage, right? And it's not sustaining from our perspective and it's not sustainable, meaning you come and have that one-time great interaction. What happens after that? That's one thing. And considering that the knowledge is changing, pedagogy is changing. So through the largest of Mohammed Jameel who actually launched the Poverty Action Lab 13 years ago at MIT, on May 2nd we launched something called the Jameel World Education Lab. To do this, and the intent is to bring MIT's resources, digital learning resources, pedagogy's, faculty creativity in a very focused way to serve educational ends. So you see a lot of the assets, OpenCourseWare, MITx, MicroMasters, and then the idea is to leverage them and then have collaboratives around PK through 12, around higher education, workplace learning in order to go towards the change that we want to do. Of course, very, very trivial goals we want to reinvent PK-12, the new higher education, Rewireta is working place, but we really are focusing on the next generation of professionals. And there are some things that we are, we are looking at underserved audiences, emerging economies, developing countries as a primary focus areas, which has been the aspiration for open education, getting to folks who didn't typically have quality access. Like I said, so it's the resources and the communities of collaboration, collaboration around each of these things. And what we want to do is engage people in this sort of flow, they come and explore the possibilities, they go through design, designing, it could be curriculum design, it could be institutional design, it could be blended learning design, and then they move towards reform of a program of the institution. So we want to take them to the chain. And so offerings, resources on the supply side, leveraging the communities around PK-12, that those are the collaboratives. And the third dimension of the JBL model is to have these weeks of learning. So remember I talked about boot camps. So this is sort of an analog. So three times a year, we want to have these very intense weeks of learning that members come. And they come for presentations on how do you design a blended learning course, they come on presentations on research briefings on, you know, from learning sciences. They will come to do design workshops and this will be had three times a week. It's rhythmic. So we said, we will be providing online offerings. We have all that stuff, but we also want to have this on-site rhythmic set of experiences so that people can keep coming back to it. So people who become members of this can keep coming back for these experiences. Your policy makers might come, they might send the next cadre of people for different kinds of experiences. So this is what we have launched as our next big step in saying, we have had OpenCourseWare, we've had MicroMasters, we've got all these pieces. Now, how do we take this to another level to really impact transformation at scale? This is sort of a picture of, you know, what a week of learning might look like. We are hoping that the first week would happen sometime in October. Stay tuned. And I'm hoping that, you know, to invite some of you over there. And like I said, both because of the sponsor, the key sponsor so far, and because of MIT's own predisposition, we're addressing some, there's a lot of focus on these audiences, but the idea, this is not just for outside. This is education that is happening in our institution. So somebody wants to start a new science program. We say, look, this is the vehicle through which we will do that. Simple goals, and this we have preserved as a motto in all our efforts. So you want to really see how can we globally affect the world through creating different kinds of learning experiences, potent learning experiences. And then through learning sciences, learning technologies, how can we really change the world of learning itself? So that's my story and of change of global learning. And what's the line? And I'm sticking to it. I'm very happy to have this opportunity. I hope I didn't lull all of you to sleep at the same time. Do I have 15 seconds? I do. So if I haven't lulled you to sleep, I think first of all, thank you. I hope you can see the exciting journey that we're on in terms of global learning that I've been able to connect what we know about open and technology to global learning. But the story, I'm about to tell some of you might have heard before, but I'm compelled to say it because this is a post-lunch gathering and you've all been extremely kind and patient. And I did not see one person drop off if you did, you were hiding it very well. But I am reminded of the challenge of sessions like this. Many years ago, I worked in a small campus in the University of Maine system, right? In Machias, most of you might not have heard of Machias, it's Down East Maine. Those of you who think there's one United States go to Down East Maine. It's different. You know, it's a third poorest county. Washington County is a third poorest county in the country. And I was involved in writing there, working with a group of people in developing a proposal for interactive telecommunications across the state for all the campuses, seven campus system. And George Connick was a president of the Augusta campus. He was our leader. And a band of us used to go from campus to campus to champion, you know, to talk to our presidents because, you know, you needed legislative support. And so I was talking with Fred. Fred was my president at the Machias campus, small campus. And I said, Fred, this will be a fantastic thing for us. 76% of our students are non-traditional age women. They come, you know, forbidding geography. You know, in winter, it's tough to get over here. And we're not a very rich campus. We won't need our French instructor. We can use the one from Prescott. You know, all the typical cases for distance education and telecommunication. So Fred says, yes, yes, Vijay, you're right. You're making a very good case for this. But remember what you told me about Jim X? I'm saying X to preserve his anonymity over here. He might be in the audience. So Jim had the luck of the draw. Jim used to teach history, first of all. And he had the luck of the draw. He had that dreaded one o'clock post-lunch class. Okay? So three days a week, and his class was three doors away from my office. Three days a week I'd go by his office, his class. There'd be an atlas. Jim would be talking to his atlas. And there'd be 50 or few students sort of dropping off. And one day jokingly, I had mentioned to Fred that this is what I'd seen. So Fred says, if Jim can do that to 40 students in a class, imagine what he could do over a statewide network. So I'm not learning you all to sleep. And thank you very much. And if there are any questions, anything that I'd be happy to take, or very good. Thank you all.