High-level, One-Page Version of the Rubric

The length, comprehensiveness, and complexity of the equity Rubric may be both a strength and a barrier to the use of the Rubric. A one-page, high-level version of the Rubric would be helpful to introduce and onboard others to the use of the Rubric. However, care should be taken to ensure that this one-page, high-level version of the Rubric does not become the primary version of the Rubric. The depth of explanation within each section, dimension, and criteria of the Rubric continues to be a strength of the Rubric and critical to capacity building in doing both OER and equity work. One way to ensure that both versions of the Rubric remain relevant is to link between them in each dimension.

Glossary

While the equity Rubric contains terms that are specific to practitioners, there is a desire and need for the Rubric itself to account for new-to-OER practitioners. Therefore, some ground setting would be beneficial as an addendum to the Rubric. While the terms and concepts included in the Rubric are likely familiar to those practitioners and students already at least tangentially engaged with open education in the North American context, it is possible and likely that there are potential users who are completely unfamiliar with some of the concepts that inform the Rubric itself. For example: what does it mean to “center equity”? What is an “adoption” of an OER, and what does this actually entail? What is “inclusive pedagogy”? These concepts may be familiar to practitioners and happened to be familiar to the participants of the pilot, but the Rubric would benefit from ensuring a standardized definition for all those who aim to use the Rubric at their institutions. This shared vocabulary would also provide guidance to transferring OER uptake and use into an institutions’ strategic plan, for example.

The comprehensive and complex descriptions of each criterion sometimes include business and educational terms that study participants were unfamiliar with and/or participants were unsure how a particular criterion influences equity and OER. A glossary defining key terms, explaining the connection between the role of the criterion in advancing equity through OER, and identifying supporting research would be helpful for future users of the Rubric.

To illustrate the need to create an accompanying glossary, consider the phrases “inclusive pedagogy” and “cultural responsiveness”. The Practitioners section of the equity Rubric calls attention to inclusive pedagogy (2.1 Instruction & Pedagogy) and cultural responsiveness (2.2a Content: Quality of OER Content), however, unless the user is familiar with the depth that these two umbrella terms suggest, they may see these as specific pedagogies and not be able to accurately reflect and identify where their open education program scores within the Rubric. A focus on these two as specific pedagogical approaches as representative of equitable teaching practices implies that other types of pedagogy provide less equitable teaching practices and may inadvertently limit how teaching and learning experiences with open educational resources, pedagogy, and practices may create equitable learning experiences.

Different Types of Institutions

Study participants indicated that the Rubric does not take into consideration the challenges and opportunities associated with different types of institutions. For example, individual colleges with small student populations may have fewer available personnel and financial resources than multi-campus system institutions with larger student populations to meet the aspirational criteria of an ”Established” OER program as defined in the Rubric.

Learning Frameworks and Taxonomies

Revisions to the rubric could also incorporate learning frameworks and taxonomies to help users assess the student learning experience. For example, the research-based Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework considers that learning environments should be proactively designed to be inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the diverse needs of all learners, regardless of their backgrounds, abilities, or learning preferences. These UDL guidelines apply a multiple-means of action, engagement, and representation approach for all students to access learning experiences. UDL 3.0, released in July 2024, maintains the multiple-means approach while doing more to incorporate student voices, agency, and identity, which supports open educational practices and open pedagogy. Additionally, UDL 3.0 incorporates cultural responsiveness.

Therefore, incorporating UDL 3.0 into sections 2.1 Instruction & Pedagogy and 2.2a Quality of OER Content into the Equity Through OER Rubric will expand the opportunities for users of the Rubric to meet the diverse learning needs of students across various institutions and disciplines through the application of open educational resources, practices, and pedagogy. This promotes access and enhances the overall learning experience for all students, fostering a more inclusive and equitable educational environment.

Language and Linguistic Adaptations

An important context is that the equity Rubric is currently only available from the Equity Working Group (EWG) in English for a North American context. While its licensing allows for translation, this does put the onus of translation and usage onto often underserved linguistic populations. Additionally, the linguistic landscape of North America is varied and not exclusively Anglophone.

For any work in translating the Rubric, it would be worthwhile to intentionally engage members of the targeted language group, rather than rely exclusively on human or machine translation. While much of the initial translation can be done through vendors, subject matter experts (SMEs) should be brought in to evaluate the accuracy of the translation and whether it accurately reflects the lived experience of members of the linguistic group in their specific contexts. Rather than rely exclusively on the emotional and physical labor of non-Anglophones, SMEs should be recognized and brought in with the recognition that the work of translation is not simply transposition – we strongly believe that the Rubric must be localized, as well as translated. While it remains agnostic to education systems and levels, there are lived experiences and systemic inequalities at play for non-Anglophone educators and learners.

For educators in the Canadian context, this might involve, for example, the realities of French being one of two official languages in Canada but remaining a minority language outside of the province of Quebec. Francophone educators are less likely to publish in French, given the advantageous nature of publishing in English and a lack of resources. For staff, a bilingual institution might still conduct a meeting in English to accommodate a single Anglophone. For those working in the American context, this process could involve engaging Spanish speaking educators, learners, and staff at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI). The federal HSI designation is given to accredited, degree-granting higher education institutions with a full-time equivalent student body encompassing at least 25% Hispanic or Latinx students. These are two ways we can imagine the need for language translation even when within the North American geographic location.

The linguistic realities of a given institution will also impact the availability of resources and OER. We see this in sections such as 1.1 Availability of OER, which ranges from Not Present where “OER are not adopted in any programs or courses, and hence not available to students” to Established, where there is a “Comprehensive plan is developed with implementation underway to increase availability of OER to students institution-wide, with focused attention to targeted student populations by ability, income, race/ethnicity, gender, geographic location, and majors” – for some contexts where it is possible that OER might be available in English, but the translation and subsequent validation of that translation into the target language are barriers to use and access. Subject specific gaps also differ, depending on the language and context.

For educators, it would be important to establish recognition of their engagement with OER beyond adoption or net new creation. Therefore, some guidance and language around the recognition of adaptation related to language should be included in section 2.1, Instruction & Pedagogy. Section 2.1 ranges from Not Present, where “no attention [is] paid to inclusive pedagogy” to Established, where “faculty of diverse voices, perspectives, career stages and identities are represented equitably among instructors using OER institution-wide.” Inclusive pedagogy and diversity of voices should also include linguistic diversity. “Established” also indicates that all instructors have access to grants and development that  “incentivize and support adoption and creation of OER, and culturally and ability inclusive OER content.” Simple adoption of an OER may not be possible if it is not available in the language or dialect used in the classroom. As such, time spent adapting an OER, including translating, testing, validating, and localizing, should be reflected for those practitioners who work in a language that isn’t in the original language of publication.

Political Climate Surrounding Equity in the U.S.

Anti-equity legislation that has an impact on education and beyond has been implemented in numerous states (10 as of writing) in the U.S. These restrictions are state-dependent and are used to dismantle and ban funds from being used for  initiatives, offices, and training focused on or perceived to be focused on goals to advance equity and related endeavors. Similar legislation has been proposed in other states.

The political landscape in the U.S., where many  of the DOERS3 Equity Working Group (EWG) members are situated, is currently inhospitable to work that seeks to increase equity in education. Given that this Rubric is explicitly devoted to Equity through OER, the EWG has grappled with questions of next steps. While there is not currently a consensus or answer on how to proceed, whether to rename the Rubric or provide a version that has been adapted for jurisdictions where equity legislation impacting education has passed, the EWG will continue to monitor the political landscape and work towards adapting and updating this Rubric to ensure the work associated with it can continue. The Rubric, in this and any future iterations, will remain hopeful, will recognize and honor commitments to equity, and will strive towards advancing equity through OER in the robust and nuanced ways in which equity is positioned throughout the rubric as a constituent component of academic quality, institutional effectiveness, and the work of improving the success of all students.