Recommendations

Based on these observations, we propose the following recommendations to improve the next iteration of the Equity through OER Rubric:

• Provide a high-level, one-page version of the Rubric.
• Take further steps to provide a shared language and vocabulary through the use of a glossary to ensure level setting for practitioners, students, and decision makers at all levels of their journey with open education. This can be supplemented through signposting and linking to relevant resources.
• Acknowledge the challenges and opportunities associated with various types of institutions (small and large student populations, rural and urban locations, individual campuses and multi-campus systems, etc.).
• Provide guidelines on how to adapt the Rubric into different languages and linguistic contexts.
• Emphasize the importance of linguistic equity for institutions with student bodies that are not exclusively English speaking.
• Incorporate the various activities required to translate and localize an OER into a given context into the Rubric, recognizing that adoption and uptake might require more labor for lower-resourced languages.
• Include learning frameworks and taxonomies as methods for designing equitable student learning experiences.
• Acknowledge the political climate in the U.S. in ways that facilitate engagement with the rubric for all interested users, regardless of where they are located.

Ultimately, the learning and experiences of the grantees synthesized above reveal and reinforce key points that the Equity Working Group is now charged to bring into a planned revision of the Rubric and an anticipated additional round of grant funding and support. The Rubric would benefit from a glossary and evidence-based resource section that provide foundational knowledge and point to how users can dig deeper into some of the categories, including but not limited to topics like inclusive and culturally responsive teaching and learning. Even more, alongside pedagogies as indications of equitable teaching practices (what teachers do), consider incorporating learning frameworks and taxonomies in the Rubric as strategies to foster equitable learning experiences (what students do). The research-based Universal Design for Learning framework is a key example and model.

The length, comprehensiveness, and complexity of the Rubric seems to be both a strength and a barrier to its usage. Grantees expressed this but also amplified that despite its comprehensiveness, the Rubric was nonetheless incomplete. They identified missing components to be included and expanded, not only culturally responsive pedagogy named above, but also more intentional integration of student voices, student and practitioner agency, and automatic textbook billing programs, among other topics. In the Rubric 2.0, each of the overarching categories–Students, Practitioners, Leadership–and the dimensions within each of them should be reviewed, expanded, and revised, where needed.

The Rubric needs to find ways to better recognize the variety of institutions and institutional types, as well as their challenges and opportunities, as it guides users to focus on the Rubric categories and dimensions. This needs to include consideration of small and large student populations, rural and urban locations, individual and multi-campus institutions and systems, to name a few. Finally, the Rubric needs to emphasize more explicitly its aspirational components, both in terms of the “Emerging” and “Established” dimensions, and the Leadership & Accountability categories.

The Equity Working Group/DOERS3 will be revising the Rubric towards the end of 2024. Please visit the DOERS3 website to read or use the next iteration of the Rubric.