Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-centered OER creation: A collaboration across six public higher education institutions

This panel will speak to the unique structure of the multi-year, multi-institutional Textbook Success Pilot program in Massachusetts: Remixing Open Textbooks through an Equity Lens (ROTEL): Culturally Relevant Open Textbooks for High Enrollment General Education Courses and Career and Professional Courses at Six Public Massachusetts Colleges. Panelists with multiple perspectives will discuss the many moving parts to achieve an ambitious goal of adapting and creating 72 open textbooks within three years. OER users of all levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced) are welcome. We will begin by giving a brief overview of the grant project, our infrastructure, and our process for establishing cultural and marketplace relevance as a core component of our content creation. Panelists will speak to the professional development partnerships we have made with Rebus, acquisition of the Pressbooks Content Management System (CMS), construction of an Industry Advisory Board, and our goals in alignment with the COUP framework (Cost, Outcomes, Usage, Perceptions). Panelists will also take a deep dive into the uniqueness of this grant work: centering equity, diversity, and inclusion; building support teams across six institutions; and prioritizing accessibility. We will share the Key Performance Indicators developed for this project and their importance to assessing impact using a COUP Framework (i.e., Cost, Outcome, Usage, and Perceptions). Attendees will participate in an interactive activity to reflect on potential opportunities for OER at each individual institution

Curriculum Reform as a Means for Creating Transformational Change at an Historically Black University

This study examined the extent to which the reform of an undergraduate academic curriculum led to institutional change at an Historically Black University (HBU). Four research questions were addressed: 1) How did Douglass University (pseudonym) implement institutional change to address external and internal challenges? 2) How did an HBCU mission and history affect the institutional change process at Douglass University? 3) To what extent did reform of the academic curriculum serve as a fulcrum for institutional change at Douglass University? Finally, 4) to what extent were the outcomes of the change process at Douglass University transformational? The research was conducted using a single case study research design, and data gathered through semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. Study findings indicated that several external, institutional, and unit-level factors influenced the curriculum change process at Douglass. The external factors included economic pressures, competition from other universities, and the broader mission and history of HBCUs. Two institutional factors had positive effects on the change process: a high level of commitment to the institution among administrators, and the institutional identity at Douglass. Three institutional factors had negative effects on the change process: perceptions of lack of administrative acumen, lack of institutional resources, and institutional inertia. At the unit-level, passion for the institution and faculty/staff engagement had positive effects, while lack of trust had a negative effect. The change process was characterized by an extensive program evaluation initiative that included data-based assessments of each academic program. The change process resulted in many isolated changes (deep, but not pervasive) and several institutional changes (pervasive, but not deep). Only the changes related to interdisciplinary curriculum development appeared to be transformational for the institution (both deep and pervasive). Several forces undermined the transformational potential of this initiative, including constant change in leadership, lack of strategy formation, and lack of an effective post-implementation communications plan

Massachusetts: A Collaborative & Unique Approach to Building Open Educational Resources Policy & Practices

The Open Educational Resources initiative in Massachusetts is the result of three potent forces. First, are Commissioner Carlos Santiago’s three goals for the public higher education system in Massachusetts: access and affordability, closing achievement gaps, and increasing completion. Second, has been increasing interest by the Legislature resulting in the filing of several bills over the last few years addressing the trend of rising textbook costs. Finally, the Student Advisory Council (SAC) presented a resolution to the Board of Higher Education (BHE) on May 8, 2018 to explore and identify opportunities for broader implementation of OER in Massachusetts. Over the past decade, several public higher education institutions had already been innovating with OER. These efforts received an assist from Department of Higher Education (DHE) utilizing Performance Incentive Fund (PIF) grants over the last two years. However, it became clear that a more coordinated effort was required. Thus, through the creation of the OER Working Group, a unique and collaborative policymaking approach is being employed by the DHE. The OER Working Group is comprised of representatives from the three segments and external stakeholders. We believe this grassroots approach will result in the development and recommendation of more useful and cost-effective OER policies and practices. Thus, this session will inform the audience about the early PIF OER grant initiatives, the work of the SAC, and highlight the unique approach the OER Working Group is undertaking to develop and recommend thoughtful, deliberate, and inclusive policies to the BHE that will encourage greater OER utilization

It’s Just Another Filter: Course marking in the Northeast

Join the New England Board of Higher Education and local practitioners at various stages of planning, implementing and assessing course marking efforts to share the experiences of several practitioners who have been involved in course marking at their own institutions, systems, or state. Participants can expect to walk away with a better understanding of what course marking is and better insight into some of the challenges involved with implementation. Additionally, our panelists will pose new questions and ideas pertaining to course marking outside of the standard pros and cons. Attendees will be engaged via real time polls as well as a live Q&A towards the end of the panel discussion. This session is open to all levels and interests. Individuals of particular interest may include practitioners and administrators tasked with learning more about course marking

Advocacy and Beyond - OER Course Marking Panel

The Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, OER Advisory Council, has provided Course Marking Implementation Guidelines to provide guidance to Massachusetts public institutions of higher education based on the experiences and best practices from the ten Massachusetts public institutions that have already developed course marking systems. Following that guidance, each public institution will be gathering and reporting OER usage to their institutional constituents and the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. Dr. Robert Awkward and Suzanne Smith, MA DHE, will speak to this initiative and the assessment efforts that will progress during the next few years. The panel will include two speakers from the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education and five Massachusetts institutions of higher education: Dr. Robert Awkward, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Effectiveness, MA DHE Suzanne Smith, Director of Research & Evaluation, MA DHE Sue Tashjian, Coordinator of Instructional Technology, Northern Essex Community College Bernadette Sibuma, Director of Online Learning, MassBay Community College Ceit De Vitto, AIDE Senior Special Programs Coordinator, Bunker Hill Community College Donna Mellen, Director of Academic Technology, UMass Lowell Marcel Raisbeck, Student, UMass Amherst Dr. Robert Awkward will facilitate the panel. We will leave time at the end of the program for attendee questions. Attendees are welcome to attend from beginner to advanced level, this panel will provide information that will appeal to a mass audience. What is course marking? Course marking is “the process of assigning specific, searchable attributes to courses” (Ainsworth, Allen, Dai, Elder, Finkbeiner, Freeman, Hare, Heige, Helregel, Hoover, Kirschner, Perrin, Ray, Raye, Reed, Schoppert, & Thompson, 2020). The effort to create course marking of open educational resources – both free and low-cost - throughout public higher education is being pursued, in part, because the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education voted unanimously on October 22, 2019 (AAC 20-03), to adopt this recommendation and encourage its implementation. The Board vote noted “OER courses should be designated in the course management systems for all public higher education so that the use of OER may be encouraged by faculty and students, and tracked and reported” (Mass. DHE, 2019). Therefore, it is imperative to develop a system that will identify which courses are OER to encourage students to enroll in these courses, to identify course type, i.e., those that are OER (i.e., free) versus those that are low-cost (i.e., cost $50 or less) versus traditional textbooks. It will also encourage faculty to select OER materials – if they believe it is the best alternative for students – to meet the demand of students for free and low-cost teaching and learning materials. Our ability to establish and implement key performance indicators to track, measure, and assess the cost, outcomes, usage, and perceptions of OER requires course marking to know what OER resources are being utilized in what classes/sections and to discern the cost savings and the impact on student learning, equity, and completion. Our session title, “Advocacy and Beyond” will be discussed on many levels during the panel. Our guests will elaborate on the efforts of the OER Advisory Council and Student Advisory Council to move this agenda forward. We have students attending our public institutions that struggle to pay for the rising cost of their education and often are food insecure. Many students make choices between buying expensive course materials and paying rent or buying food