13 A Rubric for Open Education
Open Education Course Rubric
| Licensing and Attribution | 5 – Met 0 – Not Met |
To demonstrate that licensing is applied ethically in the course the lead reviewer will conduct an audit for the following: 1) All intellectual property included within the course uses open licenses that allow for reuse, remix, redistribution, retention, and revision, or clear permission from the copyright holder is granted to retain and distribute the work as part of the course. 2) The course includes a “For Teachers” file that describes the course, materials selected, and how to attribute the course if adapted/adopted. 3) Materials in the course are properly attributed as defined by the Pierce College OE Project. 4) A list of all materials used in the course is included in the “for teachers” course file and is labeled so that other instructors can find the list. 5) The course includes a statement of licensure that explains how future adapt/adopt efforts should attribute the creator of the course. This criterion is met when bullets 1-5 are fully met as assessed by the lead reviewer. A course designer might make adjustments as suggested by the lead reviewer before the course is referred to content-area reviewers. |
| Academic Standards | 3 – Met 0 – Not Met |
• Does the open education material present, as appropriate, a complete and unbiased exploration of the course topic? • Is the material sufficient to address disciplinary perspectives? • Where appropriate does the material address controversies within the discipline with enough scope to present a full picture of how the discipline addresses controversy? • Are course materials consistent in the presentation of major ideas for the topic, so that one theory or idea isn’t weighted in value over others? This criteria is met if the course meets expectations at least eighty percent of the time. |
| Multiple Perspectives | 3 – Met 0 – Not Met |
Materials should present multiple points of view on the course topics, including diverse disciplinary discourse. Where appropriate review for materials including perspectives of varying cultures should be included in course materials. Content area reviewers search for evidence of bias, inconsistent coverage of disciplinary values, and areas of influence. This criteria is met as long as the material meets reasonable expectations of diversity at least 80% of the time, however specific constructive feedback should be included so that future improvement can be made. |
| Alignment of Content | 5 – Met 0 – Not Met |
The course scores as met on this criteria as long as the alignment of content meets expectations at least 90% of the time. To meet this criteria the course material should align to course outcomes and assessments. Content in the course should fit the scope and topic of the course. Reviewers should determine: • How does this material address the course outcomes? • Are there any times when the content is too detailed, or too general, to address the general course topics? • Is there any content included in the course materials that isn’t addressed by the course outcomes? Constructive feedback in this area should relate specifically to the course outcomes as listed in the course catalog. Suggestions for topics that might be needed are welcome. |
| Achievement of Outcomes | 5 – Met 0 – Not Met |
To meet expectations in this area, reviewers should be able to easily tell what materials students will interact with in order to meet specific outcomes. The “achievement of outcomes” criterion differs slightly from alignment of content because it focuses on how students know what materials are necessary to interact with in order to complete course assignments and demonstrate mastery of outcomes. The criteria is met as long the course meets expectations at least 80% of the time. Reviewers should assess the following questions.
• How can students tell which course materials to interact with, in order to complete assignments and demonstrate mastery of course outcomes? |
| Engagement | 3 – Met 0 – Not Met |
In the engagement criterion, reviewers are assessing the ways that students will engage with course materials. The reviewer should seek evidence that students will be sufficiently encouraged to find and use course materials. The reviewer should also seek evidence that students will know why they are interacting with materials, and that they are incentivized through course design to engage with course learning objects. The criterion is met as long as the course meets expectations at least 80% of the time. • Do students have sufficient impetus to interact with course materials? • Is it clear how students should interact with materials? • When appropriate, is there clear description of how long students should spend interacting with course materials? |
| Finding and Using | 5 – Met 0 – Not Met |
This criterion relates to students being able to easily identify and use learning materials. All students should be able to access course materials on the first day of class, and all students should have the ability to download and keep openly licensed materials. Directions for how to download and retain materials that are openly licensed should be available to students. • Students can easily find and access course materials as needed, particularly beginning the first day of class. • Where appropriate, the course materials are available, and retained, so that students have persistent access to learning materials. (Retention should only apply to materials where legally and ethically allowed, and is demonstrated by downloadable copies, materials loaded directly into the learning management system, or instructor description for how to gain perpetual access to materials.) At least 80% of materials for the course should meet the criteria as described, unless the instructor provides a description of why materials should or could not meet this criteria. |
| Introduction to Open | 3 – Met 0 – Not Met |
The course should include a description of open education materials to students, so that learners can understand why a traditionally published textbook is not included in course materials. The description should tell students what they will to do access materials. Where appropriate there should be a description of how much time students will need to invest interacting with materials online. There are multiple ways to address this criterion, but the following statements should direct the reviewer’s evidence that this criterion is met: • Open education materials are explained, and students can define differences between OE courses and courses using traditionally published materials. • This explanation can reside in a course syllabus, in a letter to students, or in a description for how to access course learning materials. |
| Multiple Access Points | 3 – Met 0 – Not Met |
One value of open education is the flexibility of options for sharing learning materials. Reviewers should look for evidence that materials are available for download, printing, reading online, and mobile technology wherever possible. Some key points to consider are: • Students can access materials in multiple formats. • Printable options are available in text-based materials, for students who prefer hard copies of materials. |
| Accessibility | 4 – Met 0 – Not Met |
Open courses should show evidence of designing for people of multiple abilities, so that students don’t need accommodation, but are empowered to succeed. All attempts should be made to ensure courses don’t need retrofitting for disability services after the course is complete. A reviewer can review for accessibility by evaluating the following: • Accessibility and Universal Design principles are applied to materials used. • Documents and text are screen-reader compatible • Images include appropriate alternative tags for screen readers • Course content is “chunked” to ensure easier reading and comprehension • Videos and audio content includes captioning • Students are advised of alternative ways to access materials/information as desired/necessary. |