Philip H. Knight Dean of Libraries Distinguished Speaker Series

Notes for my talk at the University of Oregon

A Very Brief History of Open Education

1840s: Distance Education eliminates time and place requirements

1970s: Open University of the United Kingdom eliminates most admissions requirements

1990s-2000s: Open content, then OpenCourseWare, open educational resources, and open textbooks eliminate registration requirements for access to course content

Examples: MIT OCW, Flat World Knowledge, OpenStax

2000s: Open Teaching, then MOOCs, eliminate registration requirements for access to teacher and peer interaction and feedback, as well as credentials

Examples: University of the People, Peer 2 Peer University, Change11, Udacity, Coursera, EdX

2010s: Open Badges eliminate technical and legal barriers to using credentials to gain employment or additional education

Examples: Badges displayed on my blog, badges awarded in my IPT692R class, Degreed, Learning Jar

How Many Licks Does It Take to Get To The Center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

How Many Layers Do You Have To Penetrate To Get a Job Via Formal Post-secondary Education?

Admission – fees and past academic success
Registration – tuition, fees, and course availability
Attendance – being present at a prescribed place and time
Verification – signature and fee for access to an official transcript

The historical trend of open education, and its future path forward, is the systematic removal of all barriers to educational opportunity.

Open Access and New Metrics

Academic publishing is horrifically, and arguably irreparably, broken
The Truckers Tale

Faculty are complicit because they keep signing copyright agreements
Administrations are complicit because they keep rewarding (or punishing) faculty for signing copyright agreements (or not)

Reporting the impact factor of a journal in which you publish is a PROXY for the actual impact of your article

Can you imagine a highly cited article appearing in a low IF journal? Can you imagine an article that never gets cited being published in a high IF journal? What is our tolerance for Type I and Type II error here? How concerned are we about over or underestimating the impact of our work?

Why settle for a PROXY measure of your impact when you can have a DIRECT measure (e.g., Google Scholar)?

Buy One, Get One – Pizza in Ohio, and the 98% / 2% Contribution

So What Happens Now?