Programs associated with open education and equity have an inherent demand for the institution to have enough internal resources to improve aspects of the given programs and make substantive changes. Responses to participant exit interviews often included remarks on the importance of having dedicated time and well-informed staff and faculty devoted to both OER and equity work in order for things to improve, and there was some uncertainty surrounding the wording in the Rubric that even in a best-case scenario the participant institutions’ improvement would not be enough to achieve the upper levels (Emerging or Established dimensions) of the Rubric.

Observations

Importance of Institutional OER Point Person

A core marker of base-level institutional capacity was having at least one dedicated open education leader connected to the national/international field. A shared strength in institutional capacity across all teams was the establishment of at least one point person in the institution to advocate and provide support for open education in tandem with support for equity. Institutions differed in size and projects and therefore differed greatly in their scope, with some institutions involving large teams of librarians, designers, administration, and instructional faculty, while others could involve only one or two instructors or librarians. While goals and capacities differed greatly, one common outcome occurred: every participating institution left this pilot grant program with an informed and engaged OER leader in at least one department.

Time and Resources to Achieve Established Levels in the Rubric

Institutions lacked the time and resources to achieve Established levels in the Rubric. Participants often remarked in exit interviews that their participation in the DOERS3 Annual Convening (October 2023) made them feel like they were connected with a larger network of OER advocates and that this networking was crucial to sustain and improve capacity at their institutions. Given that some institutions may only have one or two people involved in OER work over the span of many years, it may be important in future rounds of grants for the Equity Working Group to emphasize cross-participant communications for individuals across institutions in order to sustain this capacity sooner in the project.

The “Established” dimension of the Rubric contains multiple aspirational goals which involve an additional allocation of resources and staff in order to reach this level. Goals involving a significant amount of institutional capacity include:

• A comprehensive, institution-wide plan to increase the availability and implementation of OER with focused attention to targeted student populations
• A communication plan with responsibilities across departments to inform students about their options in OER as well as either no-cost or low-cost courses
• Sustained and ongoing professional development, technical support, and funding for the implementation and creation of OER
• Full recognition for OER publications and open education labor and time in tenure and promotion processes
• OER implementation and sustainability work by instructional faculty across all general education and gateway courses
• The creation of new full-time staff positions, including open education librarians and instructional designers
• Comprehensive bookstore engagement in making OER options transparent and reporting OER adoption data
• Leadership accountability and action, starting with including open education in strategic plans
• Regular provision of disaggregated and anonymized student data for analysis on effects of OER implementation

Indeed, the capacity to achieve this level of open education engagement is admittedly barely attainable by institutions with the most established OER programs. While this works as a high benchmark for aspiring programs, the Equity Working Group must make it clear that the upper levels of the Rubric are not expected to be reached within a year of the program, and that while institutions may never be able to achieve everything within the Established dimension of the Rubric, they can still be used as longer-term aspirational goals.

Plan Changes due to Administrative and Participant Turnover

Administrative and participant turnover led to drastic plan changes for grantees and often lowered expectations for project outcomes. Unfortunately, a common pain point in improving any aspect of open education and equity programs at grantees’ institutions was the lack of capacity among other faculty and staff members, particularly when turnover among either team members or program supporters at the institution occurred. After unexpected turnover, grantees at Front Range Community College (FRCC) and University of Baltimore found themselves taking on multiple roles for the project and needing to quickly learn new skills midway the project timeline in order for the project to continue. Turnover and an early retirement program at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts led to a significant and unexpected shrinking of the grant team that spurred a period of complete project disruption before the team could recover, resume work, and reset the team’s expectations for the project’s outcomes.

Recommendations

• Emphasize cross-institutional communications throughout the cohort as early as possible in order to grow and sustain a network of institutional open education leaders.
• Advise teams to attempt to align project goals to institutional strategic plans as much as possible, including any strategies affecting enrollment and retention, thus prioritizing and justifying further support for open education work.
• Advise teams to have a contingency plan in the event of turnover within the group, including alternate members.
• Make clear among grantees that teams do not need to tackle all aspects of the Rubric.
• Adjust and re-word the Rubric to allow for teams to use the Rubric past the point of the project as a source of continuous improvement year-on-year.

It is important to acknowledge that turnover in any organization is inevitable, and a growing precarity in academic positions, including the adjunctification of previously full-time positions, accelerates turnover. While DOERS cannot make the problem of frequent faculty and staff turnover disappear from the open education landscape, the Equity Working Group can further advise teams on ways to stay flexible during significant project disruptions and stay visible by keeping the program relevant in the eyes of executive leaders.