1

Open Educational Resources for Personalized and Innovative Teaching and Learning Models

​

[Summary Findings -- March 2019]

​

p. 1

2

Overview: Charting a future for open instructional materials in innovative schools

The Learning Accelerator (TLA) undertook a six-month project to investigate the state of open educational resources (OER) in innovative personalized teaching and learning models. This document summarizes key findings and actions for leadership. (Separate guidance for implementing practitioners is available here: https://practices.learningaccelerator.org/problem-of-practice#open-educational-resources)

3

• Every child deserves a highly effective, engaging, and equitable education that equips them for a lifetime of learning (including the mastery of rigorous academic standards as well as mindsets and non-academic capacities) and to reach their full potential.
• Students are unique-- they vary widely in prerequisite skills, strengths, motivations, and interests. Educators across the nation are developing new innovative approaches to instruction that seek to more dynamically meet individual needs, offering greater levels of personalization, mastery, and deeper learning.
• Instructional materials (content, assessments, and guidance) are a key, research-based component for improving student achievement and for making these emerging models possible and successful. Materials must evolve in response to these changing approaches, including being more dynamic and deployable across analog and digital environments.
• While this is true across all schools, it is especially true for students currently “furthest from opportunity”; we must seek to remedy gaps in access and quality urgently. OER are a critical lever for increasing equitable access to high-quality instructional resources as well as allowing for the reallocation of dollars to higher-impact activities in resource-constrained environments.
• Effective implementation of instructional materials, including OER, relies on teachers working day-to-day in classrooms with students. These teachers are professionals, operating at different levels of content and learner management mastery, and they must be able to have flexibility to enact discretion to best serve students in their classrooms.

​

​

Project Background: Key assumptions that guided this work

​

4

​

Curriculum: the “what, why, how, and when students should learn” (UNESCO)

Instructional materials: tools-- physical, analog, and digital--used to support the process, delivery of, and engagement with curriculum in service of achievement of learning objectives. These materials vary in form and include content, tasks, assessments as well as guidance for implementation. **While this study focused on OER implementation (defined below) many of the findings in this document apply to the broader instructional materials landscape.**

Open Educational Resources (OER): teaching, learning and research materials in any medium – digital or otherwise – that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. (Hewlett Foundation).

Personalization: the act of designing or tailoring to meet an individual's specifications, needs, or preference (Dictionary.com).

Personalized learning: a student-centered instructional approach deployed in schools that individualizes learning for each student based on strengths, needs, interests or goals. In these approaches, educators allow for differentiation of path, pace, place, or modality and create greater opportunities for student agency and choice-making (TLA).

Innovative learning environments and approaches: In this document, used as a shorthand for the constellation of schools and classrooms where educators are using new processes, tools, and models to provide more personalized, mastery-based, and deeper learning experiences to equitably engage and meet the needs of every student.

​

​

​

​

​

Project Background: Key terminology used in this document

For the purposes of clarity and consistency, the following definitions and notes apply throughout

5

Project Background: Urgency for change

​

Engaging, rigorous grade-level curriculum (and the instructional materials that support access to it via content, assessments, and guidance) is a key, research-based component for improving student achievement. Particularly in a world where students who need access to the kind of instruction that curriculum allows the most tend to be the less likely to get it.

​

At the same time, simply training teachers to lead students through standardized instruction without paying attention to individual needs, community context, and motivators is not a sufficient strategy for accomplishing the task.

​

High-quality, open or low-cost materials (such as OER) that support personalization to meet unique needs, close gaps in access and engagement are a significant, high-potential tool for students and teachers.

​

​

Source: TNTP Opportunity Myth (2018)

6

Project Methodology: Tapping into expertise of 50+ leaders across the sector

​

Practitioners

• 17 interviews with school and system leaders in 15 states who report using OER in their innovation practices
• 7 deep-dive site visits to explore and document approaches

Resource and Support Providers

• 28 leader interviews

+ Additional conversations with researchers, thought-leaders, and funders

7

Summary Research Finding: Capitalizing on momentum to evolve approaches

Through interviews and site visits, we found that the future of OER for innovative learning approaches is bright, but we have collective work to do to build an ecosystem of resources and support to realize its potential to transform experiences and outcomes.

Recent efforts to support mainstream adoption and effective use of OER across the United States (and beyond) have produced significant momentum to provide greater access to the instructional materials needed to offer a world class education to every student. At the same time, as schools have been developing new personalized, technology-supported approaches to effectively reach and engage each student, they are increasingly searching out and using these open tools to support differentiation, choicemaking, and deeper learning.

Bright spots abound, but there is more work to be done to build a robust, interoperable *ecosystem* of resources, supports, and practical guidance.

As we imagine this ecosystem, critical actions to be taken include:

• Building OER that is both instructionally rigorous (academically, intellectually, and personally challenging) but also more customizable to move away from one-size-fits all scopes and sequences as well as to support modifications to increase relevance, tailor to individual learning levels, and offer greater choice and flexibility for students.
• Ensuring interoperability across resources, with aligned data and assessment infrastructures, to support ecosystem learning across organizations and actors.
• Capacity building to support educator learning and practical implementation (including OER for teacher learning).
• System and practitioner collaboration to create economies of scale in curation and development as well as to share practices about and modifications to OER in innovative instructional models.

This work will require actors (leaders in systems, vendor/provider organizations, and funders of instructional materials, including OER) to shift away from “standalone” and “content building” mindsets towards more holistic, cross organizational- and tool- problem solving approaches.

​

​

8

​

​

​

Building on Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER in innovative settings (1/12)

Over the last five years, the instructional materials market has experienced tremendous expansion in availability and use of K-12 OER. In more innovative learning environments, particularly with the support of technology, educators are leveraging these resources to meet unique needs and create deeper learning opportunities. There is work to do, but we are beginning to tap into the potential for larger impact and scale.

Key “bright spots” include:

• Educators report “open” resources as a key to providing differentiated and personalized approaches, though with many modifications and the “unbundling” of materials to smaller grain sizes
• Schools and systems report seeing OER as a lever for deeply engaging, collaborative professional learning
• OER adoption is supporting the reallocation of resources to other critical areas (e.g. professional learning)
• Some systems have identified and are using common bars for defining quality (such as EdReports and EQuIP) and are also developing mechanisms and economies for vetting and curation
• Some resource providers are undertaking initial steps to innovate digitally
• School systems are “giving back” as participants in the instructional materials market, offering curated and locally-developed materials to the broader ecosystem

​

Details on each of these bright spot findings are provided on the following pages.

9

​

​

​

Building on the Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER (2/12)

​

Educators report “open” resources as a key to providing differentiated and personalized approaches, though with many modifications and unbundling of material

​

Given the dynamic nature of personalized instruction, educators report turning often to open digital instructional resources to develop student-centered lessons, playlists, and small-group activities. They further report the newer OER (e.g. Illustrative Math, EL Education) is designed for more active and deeper engagement (e.g. through simulations, support for language learning, etc.).

• The adoption of platforms (e.g. Learning Management Systems, Gooru, Cortex) support this shift by allowing for rapid iteration (pulling standards-aligned resources/assessments) and data collection (performance, modification tracking, and feedback).
• Educators are defining “open” broadly-- OER in itself is “not the selling point” but practitioners see quality, freely available materials as a key tool for their work. Given the cost of trying these materials is low, educators are iterating quickly with them. (Additional context on the challenge side of this is provided on slides 18 and 23.)

10

​

​

​

Building on the Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER (3/12)

​

Educators report “open” resources as a key to providing differentiated and personalized approaches, though with many modifications and unbundling of material (cont.)

• While some schools have adopted full-course materials (i.e. year-long scope and sequence intended to be delivered as primary materials) as a core resource for particular content areas, they are making significant modifications to make them work, including:
• Adaptation for cultural relevance (e.g. changing pictures/readings to mirror student demographics and experience), student interest (e.g. offering more options for tasks and projects), and voice and choice (e.g. one school surveys students annually on what units they enjoyed best, and then chooses new topic to be designed for in the next year)
• Unbundling full courses to unit-based materials (e.g. multiple lessons, particularly for interdisciplinary and project-based environments) and “collections” to support more pathways through materials (e.g. choose your own adventure through playlists)
• Sample “personalization points” where educators adapt materials often include:

​

Differentiation to instructional need

​

• Address specific unfinished or already finished learning

​

• In-the-moment adjustments

​

​

​

​

Supporting student agency

​

• Offer choices/ pathways

​

• Variable pacing

​

​

​

​

​

​

Engaging through relevance and interest

​

• Modification for personal and/or cultural relevance

​

• Tailoring to interest

​

​

​

11

Material Adaptations: Sample educator modifications of OER to personalize (4/12)

12

OER as part of “suite” of materials in innovative classrooms: (5/12)

Given the aims and dynamic nature of personalization, educators are rarely choosing one standalone set of instructional materials. Rather, they often use a suite of materials, including content and assessments, to accomplish different tasks. Typically, a “core” set of materials are used as a foundation for overall instruction, but this core may be drawn from one resource or many depending on approach. Additional materials are used to supplement this core, providing opportunities for remediation, deeper engagement, acceleration, student choice-making, and specific interventions (e.g. language learning).

Typical approaches to “core” materials

Sample supplementary materials pulled into, added alongside, or replacing core items

Task collections

Portfolios and reflection tools

Additional projects

Practice items + diagnostics

Translation,assistive tools

Tools (e.g. calculator)

Adaptive practice

Alternate lessons

Project-based or topical units: Modular groups of lessons mapped to specific learning standards and grouped together.

Playlists of Tasks: Activities focused on a learning standard, grouped into a playlist and intended to be interacted with serially (though not all tasks may be required)

Full course materials: Comprehensive set of resources intended to cover all learning standards over a set period

13

Implications for implementation depending on “core” approach: (6/12)

The approach chosen for materials for curricular core instruction pose different benefits and challenges to users. Explicit choice-making about which approach to take helps teams mitigate risks while maximizing benefits. A good metaphor to consider is the idea of baking from a kit versus from scratch-- one offers consistency but limited change to modify, the other offers significant customization but ups the ante and potential work.

Project-based or topical units: Modular groups of lessons mapped to specific learning standards and grouped together. These units (content + assessments) are often developed by curricular teams pulling tasks and lessons across sources

​

(EG Hacking a mix or combining)

Playlists of Tasks:

Activities focused on a learning standard, grouped into a playlist and intended to be interacted with serially (though not all tasks may be required), often with standard-level assessment and mediated by technology

​

(EG Baking scratch)

Full-course materials: Comprehensive set of resources intended to cover all learning standards over a set period of time, often broken into units of lessons + assessments that build coherently and interdependently

​

(EG Baking from a pre-set mix)

• Coherent by design
• Easier to vet/use
• Not meant to be modified/broken apart
• Rigid, one-size-fits-all

​

• Work to create coherence
• Effort/expertise to vet, variable quality
• Modular, modifiable by design
• Highly flexible, lots of choice

Common Building Blocks: Systems and approaches common to adopters (7/12)

The work of implementing these materials with rigor and personalization was reported to be difficult but achievable. While context (funding, system demographics/type) varied, we observed common supports and strategies at the school and system level.

14

Organization-wide commitment to + vision for instructional materials (including funding mechanisms through reallocation of $s)

Strong, centrally adopted planning, implementation, iteration, improvement systems and processes

Driving “expert” curricular/instructional materials leader

Common platform for managing materials

Curricular teams + on-site coaching for teachers (who are seen as deep instructional experts)

Dedicated structures + time for ongoing planning, collaboration and professional learning

Supportive connections to/collaboration with wider curricular communities

Clearly defined standards for learning (rigorous, grade-level aligned)

Common Building Blocks: Systems and approaches common to adopters (8/12)

While context (funding, system demographics/type) varied, we observed common supports and strategies

15

16

​

​

​

Building on the Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER (9/12)

​

Schools and systems are seeing OER as a lever for deeply engaging, collaborative professional learning

Many schools report that the shift to OER requires significant training. This is true for the implementation of any instructional material, but even more so given the need to support effective creation and modification in OER. However, training in OER is also opening up doors for building teacher expertise in standards, lesson development, and instructional planning. Leaders shared that collaborative planning around OER has enabled, if not been the key lever for, much more productive, and objective, conversations about content and has helped teachers develop more open and critical eyes towards lessons as well as deepened subject-area knowledge. (The exception was where systems were developing/modifying all OER centrally and therefore not engaging teachers in this way.)

• In some cases, districts are doing this work internally (both through PD to use existing OER as well as to create and develop units of curriculum comprised of modular resources)
• In other cases, though not mutually exclusively, districts are also tapping into emerging early-stage professional development organizations to provide deeper training in instructional standards and curricula. E.G.:
• Teaching Lab training partnership with state of Louisiana
• modEL Detroit, Learnzillion partnership with EL to offer “guardrails” and “scaffolds” with digitized teaching slides
• TNTP partnership with Concourse Village ES to provide standards and planning training as “boost” for curriculum planning

​

“The ability to create and curate a collection of OER for classroom instruction allows educators to build their muscles around deep understanding of learning standards and aligned content in a way traditional rigid textbook materials did not allow. Educators are able to speak about instruction at the daily level and encouraged to share the classroom work they were often doing behind closed doors and to learn from each other and iterate depending on what was working for students. This sharing, in turn, helped educators become more informed of what they teach and why.”

Dr. Jeannette Westfall, Executive Director of Curriculum, Instruction & Staff Development for Liberty Public Schools

“Teachers are now much more open to discussing what good lessons and instruction looks like. In the past, they wouldn't ever self-reflect or evaluate lessons, but looking at lessons that are not their own gives them the opportunity to look at all the the content with a critical eye.”

Greg Gazanian, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer of Arcadia School District

17

​

​

​

Building on the Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER (10/12)

​

OER adoption is supporting the reallocation of resources to other critical areas

A hope for OER is that cost reductions could allow schools to divert resources to other critical areas, such as professional learning, collaboration time, infrastructure development (e.g. connectivity and devices), and the purchase of products for specialized student support and interventions. Schools are reporting that OER adoption is helping them do this.

• In Hollister R-V Public Schools in Missouri (a #GoOpen district) administrators reallocated to give teachers time with grade level or subject area teams on planning, creation, curation, and execution of content. Sandy Leech, Assistant Superintendent, stated that “due to the demand they have initiated early release Friday so teachers can collaborate and either create new curriculum or iterate and update parts that may not have worked.”
• The chart to the right shows reallocation of funding in Garnett Valley (PA) from textbooks (yellow) to other areas, such as professional learning (pink), other learning materials (green), and OER (dark blue, which includes implementation costs) over a four-year period. (Light blue is the district’s summer remediation academy.)

18

​

​

​

Building on the Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER (11/12)

​

Some systems have identified and are using common bars for defining quality (such as EdReports and EQuIP) and are also developing mechanisms and economies for vetting and curation

Most systems TLA identified as relying on OER for more innovative and personalized approaches do not report using a single full-course curricula (either OER or non) and are supplementing with additional resources. Given this, leaders are building mechanisms to ensure quality

• Adoption of common definitions of quality through rubrics like Achieve’s EQuIP as well as through external vetting mechanisms like EdReports (though practitioners note these tools must improve assessment of digital components)
• Providing training and tools to help teachers better understand how to maintain rigor of the instructional design while modifying materials (e.g. moDELl Detroit as a scaffolded tool to help teachers understand “allowable” changes to EL Education’s ELA curriculum)
• Platforms are supporting this shift by building in process workflow that helps educators understand allowable changes. for example, adopting vetted OER “libraries” such as has been done in Middletown, NY and at the state level, such as #GoOpen Michigan. Or by creating explicit processes such as in Garnett Valley’s “module flowchart” that helps teachers understand opportunities for modification.
• Platforms are also beginning to aggregate data on implementation and quality

​

19

​

​

​

Building on the Momentum: Current “bright spots” for OER (12/12)

​

Some resource providers are undertaking initial steps to innovate digitally

While, overall, practitioners feel that much existing OER is simply a digitization of existing textbook formats, some resource providers are pursuing innovations to make their content more dynamic and integrated with other tools and products (E.G. Illustrative Mathematics is developing a new “guided customization tool” that will help educators modify materials and is also pursuing tighter integration with Desmos (an open graphing calculator tool)).

Providers report motivation to do this an extension of their efforts to increase material engagement as well as improve fidelity of implementation. Karl Nelson, COO of Illustrative Mathematics, explained, “Our materials are designed for a rich in-class experience, which encourages conversations among partners, small groups or the whole class. We do offer extensions for students ready for more advanced content as well as scaffolded content to reach students with learning differences or English language learners.”

School systems are “giving back” curated and locally-developed materials to the broader ecosystem

Some systems and districts have developed significant internal curriculum, both in core subjects as well as “orphan” subject areas that are currently underdeveloped in the market (e.g. languages, HS math/science). Several of these systems are positioning themselves as partners to others, offering these resources back as OER for others to use, including:

• Achievement First’s Core Knowledge-based humanities curriculum on Cortex
• Washington Leadership Academy’s literacy tool and assessments, which are being developed with Common-Lit/Center Point Solutions
• Grossmont Union HS resources in HS Biology, Space and Earth Science offered on CK-12 Flexbook spines

​

(It’s worth noting that in several of these efforts, school systems are choosing more restrictive licenses, for example, those that prohibit commercial use, which limits use of these resources in distribution channels and networks. Further, to the extent this work is the product of inability to find aligned or quality materials, it could be seen as the product of effort redundancy.)

​

​

20

Pushing Further: Challenges to fully realizing the potential (1/8)

While access to OER is a critical lever for practitioners, there are critical tensions to navigate and challenges to overcome in environments where educators are seeking to instruct students more dynamically based on specific needs, interests, and motivations. These challenges fall at the level of the classroom, where they impede practical implementation, as well as the market, where gaps and misalignments slow ecosystem progress.

Details on each are provided on the following pages.

21

Pushing Further: Challenges to fully realizing the potential (2/8)

​

Educators are “hacking” OER in to make them work in more innovative teaching and learning approaches.

Most (though not all) OER available today are designed for traditional classrooms, where teachers execute a set scope and (often time-based) sequence, with little room to customize for different learning levels, relevance, and/or utilization of other tools and products. Educators in innovative approaches are having to adapt, modularize, and modify these (often analog) resources.

​

This leads to:

• Time and resource consumption: Teachers spend a lot of their time piecing together resources from a variety of places (often to offer multiple learning options or adjust to specific needs) and making customizations for their students and communities as well as specific instructional models. Adding in the time to find as well as curate OER along with actively iterating on their lessons based on student data, outcomes and tasks, teachers are struggling. The iteration process can be very time consuming and difficult to prioritize given other tasks and resources.
• Redundancy and fatigue: Many educators and systems are doing work in parallel, with few ways to share out results or influence curricular creators. In several cases, while conducting diligence to identify OER adopters, several leading districts and schools in the personalized learning space noted that they’d simply given up on using new full course OER-- they felt that a better investment of time would be to focus on professional collaboration in-house to build teacher skill while developing unit-based courses. Creating spaces for these educators to come together with resource providers and supporters could help bridge these gaps.
• Difficulty balancing OER to individualize with bigger-picture course coherence: Given recent focus on ensuring equitable access to rigorous grade-level instruction (such as is highlighted in TNTP Opportunity Myth report), educators in innovative models are trying to bring OER coherently together to support both individualized remediation and acceleration as well as into full courses. They are struggling with the right “grain-size” for modularity and customization (standard-level, unit-level, or course-level) and need more practical guidance to balance needs.

22

Pushing Further: Challenges to fully realizing the potential (3/8)

​

Practical barriers cont...

• Questions of rigor: Teachers are unsure as to how to modify and/or mix OER while ensuring rigor (often thought of as mastery of standards with a high level of cognitive engagement) with coherence. The lack of content item-level tags to standards as well as quality assessments (EdReports assesses full curriculum) means teachers are unsure as to how to do this well. Most full curriculum OER, intended for standalone deployment, are not built to be modularized in this way. As one provider noted “our tasks are designed to be deliberately “unstable”-- any modification might compromise the rigor of the learning experience.” Educators need better guidance from providers on how to make appropriate remixes and modifications, and providers need to think about how to better serve these users (beyond simply demanding fidelity of implementation).
• Copyright/fair-use confusion: While technically OER are licensed clearly, many cases other “open” (free) materials are not. On some platforms, OER licenses are deeply buried in terms of use rather than shown clearly for each material object. Educators are confused about how to use tools properly, particularly once they use resources modularly. For some, this leads to avoidance of materials for fear of running astray with copyright law. For others, the opposite is true. Educators clearly need more guidance here as-- both through training as well as in day-to-day use through better labelling and clear terms of service and use.
• Mis-matches/Lack of fit with more progressive, student centered models: Schools using inquiry-based (e.g. project- and challenge-based) approaches report that they struggle significantly finding flexible unit materials and tasks. One leader noted “there just isn’t anything good enough… especially ‘off the shelf.’” Educators in these systems are making significant modifications; the same leader noted “ I didn’t want teachers doing this ‘DIY’, but it’s become necessary.”

​

23

Making the shift: Evolving our vision for OER to meet future practice state (4/8)

Nine shifts to allow OER to serve in classrooms as “backbone” of core materials to be supplemented to solve challenges, serve unique populations, and engage/motivate students in a personalized fashion

​

24

Pushing Further: Challenges to fully realizing the potential (5/8)

Market gaps that impede sector progress

No centralized infrastructure for finding or iterating in a data-driven way on curricula:

While there are some content libraries (supported mainly by ISKME), there is no (and will likely be no) “one” platform for OER. The lack of consistent tagging structures, meta-data, or repositories is impeding searchability as well as the provision of data back to content providers about modifications and efficacy of content items and units. Absent this infrastructure, educators continue to use (potentially) lower-quality sources such as Google search, Pinterest, and Teachers-pay-Teachers.

Lack of networks for supporting practitioners and developing economies of scale:

Given the nascency of some of these newer models, leaders feel isolated (as one principal noted, “I’m the ‘lone ranger’ in my district”) and there aren’t easy ways for them to connect to other practitioners trying to do similar work. (For example, several schools reported using Schoology to develop and iterate on open, unit-based courses, but there are no mechanisms for connecting this work. This was also true for schools seeking to develop more culturally relevant options as well as projects and learning tasks.) This leads to a significant redundancy of work across schools and systems. Finally, because of this lack of connection, OER creators don’t experience any level of aggregated “demand” to evolve or produce offerings for these educators. As one CEO in the curricular space noted, “We don’t feel urgency around this change.”

Lack of aligned assessments:

Most OER content provides assessments aligned to the unit or lessons they have created, so it can be very difficult for teachers to find and pull rigorous learning-objective level questions that align to how they have modified or restructured the unit or lesson. The end result is that educators are creating their own assessment questions without a clear sense of the rigor (e.g. appropriate challenge at grade-level) or alignment to standards and learning objectives.

​

25

Pushing Further: Challenges to fully realizing the potential (6/8)

Market gaps that impede sector progress (cont.)

Lack of OER interoperability:

Many OER creators producing rigorously aligned, full course materials have few incentives to make resources truly interoperable with other tools and products-- doing so could likely reduce their market share. However, the reality is that in many environments educators are seeking to at least modify and/or supplement materials with additional resources. As a middle school teacher at Liberty Public Schools stated “when I find a piece of content that I would like to include in my lesson, I have to make sure I spend time to make sure it aligns back to our essential standards.” Shared tagging and data standards, as well as alignment across local learning standards, such as those being piloted via Open Content Exchange, are mechanisms to consider to make work much easier as well as help ensure alignment.

Insufficient professional development landscape:

Practitioners are discovering that proper implementation of OER requires significant investment in professional learning and training. While, as noted in the “bright spots”, there are some emerging examples of how leaders can tackle this in-house as well as through the hiring of providers, many existing consultants focus on implementation of just one curriculum or tool, rather than on building broader teacher understanding of standards and implementation. More support, and therefore investment, is needed (including training for teachers, coaches, and leaders). This includes investment in open training content leaders can leverage in-house.

Need for measurement focused on OER implementation and practical strategies:

While there are some studies on individual products, there is a need for large scale efficacy research at the K-12 level to demonstrate improved outcomes from OER practice. This is doubly true for more innovative environments, such as personalized learning, where research on emerging instructional approaches is also nascent. In particular, practitioners report the need for specific studies on both practice (how OER is used) and content efficacy (which OER is useful for which students, under what conditions) to be undertaken in personalized approaches. Additionally, leaders want more data on how building teachers’ content knowledge through OER work leads to greater student achievement.

​

​

26

Pushing Further: Challenges to fully realizing the potential (7/8)

Misalignments that impede sector progress

Need to consider teachers as product end users:

Teachers are the primary implementers of instructional materials, OER included. They vary greatly in experience, skill, and motivation. OER designed for one-size-fits-all implementation (“following the program”) can feel disempowering for educators across the spectra. Even though the content is highly valuable, it does not get used due to the inflexibility in how it is expected to be delivered. There is need for more “user centered” design focused on teachers.

One teacher leader described the range of teacher users as existing on the “pinterest-user to page-turner spectrum.” Some educators want to exert significant control in deciding how to use instructional materials, while others seek to ‘follow the program.” While neither extreme is ideal, how might resource creators support educators residing towards either end of these extremes in feeling excited by and supported in delivering materials?

Under-resourced “orphan” content areas:

Recent investment in core ELA and math products has been helpful, but practitioners report struggling to find resources in key content areas, such as foreign languages and high school math and science courses. Some districts and early stage organizations (e.g. OpenSciEd) have started developing these resources, but lack mechanisms for sharing them broadly. At the secondary level, there is an opportunity to better connect efforts in higher education with high school level subjects.

Differences between OER definitions in theory versus practice:

While the OER community has done significant work to clearly define OER, educators think differently when it comes to the realities of day-to-day practice. They consider many tools and products that are not strictly OER as “open” and integrate them into their curricular decisions. This is particularly true in digital environments, where educators are supplementing core resources with other proprietary and free products. Further, school systems creating and sharing curricular resources may or may not be aware of the larger OER community and context, and are releasing their own tools under different licenses. Given how flexibly practitioners think about what “Open” resources are, we need to develop a more complex picture of challenge and potential action for capitalizing on all high-quality resources available and for unifying efforts (next slide).

​

27

A complex ecosystem: Segmenting the “open” instructional materials field (8/8)

Practitioners are tapping into many “open” resources that don’t meet the strict definition of OER but play a current instructional role. Specific sector interventions to influence quality and adoption differ by segment.

28

High-Potential Starting Points: Recommendations for School and System Leaders

Provided a clear, shared vision for quality and process, OER can be a powerful tool for meeting the needs of students as well as deeply developing educators within system.

29

High-Potential Starting Points: Rec’s for Resource and Support Providers

Providers and support organizations interested in better serving emerging innovative models should study approaches emerging and determine how to make the instructional shifts needed to improve and evolve.

30

High-Potential Starting Points: Rec’s for the Funding Community

Existing “market” forces are unlikely to produce robust, equitable OER ecosystem on their own. The funding community is uniquely positioned to support development of this system

31

Practitioner Guidance: Guidance for the Educators

TLA has released “Problem of Practice” resources as a companion to this set of research findings, which provide overall topical guidance as well links to specific strategies for educators to consider. They can be accessed here: https://practices.learningaccelerator.org/problem-of-practice#openeducationalresources

32

Field Contributors: Thanks to the leaders who provided project insight and input

Funding Community

Nirvani Budhram (Robinhood), Angela DeBarger (Hewlett Foundation), Jaymes Hanna (Gates Foundation), Britt Neuhaus (Overdeck Family Foundation), Amber Oliver (Robinhood)

Other Education Support Orgs

Gwen Baker (Bellwether Education), Colleen Broderick (AltSchool), Alex Caram (AltSchool), Eric Hirsch (Ed Reports), Kristina Ishmael (New America), Meredith Jacob (Creative Commons), Sarah Johnston (Teaching Lab), Helayne Jones, Meredith Liben (Achieve the Core/Student Achievement Partners), Doug Levin (EdTech Strategies), Steve Midgley (Learning Tapestry), Monica Milligan (TNTP), Al Motley (Techademics), Morgan Polikoff (USC), Sarah Trettin (#GoOpen),

Curricular and Service Providers

Mark Luetzelschwab (Amazon), Mindy Boland (ISKME/OER Commons), Michelle Brown (CommonLit), Kate Gerson (UnboundEd), Erin Gutfreund (EL Education), Amee Evans Godwin (ISKME/OER Commons), Carl Hanley (CK-12), Scott Hartl (EL Education), Eli Luberoff (Desmos), Karl Nelson (Illustrative Mathematics), Prasad Ram (Gooru), Jessica Reid Sliwerski (Open Up Resources), Jim Ryan (OpenSciEd), Shalinee Sharma (Zearn), Scott Sibley (Journeys Map), Eric Westendorf (LearnZillion)

Val Emrich (Maryland Dept of Ed), Daniela Fairchild (Rhode Island Dept of Ed), Tim Farquer (Wiliamsfield School District, IL) Anthony Gabriele (Garnett Valley SD, PA), Greg Gazanian (Arcadia Public SD, CA), Dan Lawson (Tullahoma City SD, TN), Sandy Leech (Hollister R-V SD, MO), Ernest Longworth (Chesterfield County Schools, VA), Amalia Lopez (Lindsay Unified SD, CA), Ann-Marie Mapes (Michigan Dept of Ed), Jessica Marcianao (PS 306Q, Woodhaven, NY), Dan McDowell (Grossmont Union HS District), Zach Miller (Summit Public Schools, CA), Rebecca Morales (Broken Arrow Public Schools, OK), Janice Mertes (Wisconsin Dept of Ed), Barbara Soots (WA Office of Public Instruction), Alexa Sorden (Concourse Village Elementary School, Bronx, NY), DeLaina Tonks (Mountain Heights Academy, UT), Kerry Tuttlebee (360 High School, RI), Jeanette Westfall (Liberty Public Schools, MO), Joey Webb (Washington Leadership Academy, DC), Sarah Weston (Mountain Heights Academy, UT)

Practitioners (Educators and School and System Leaders)

33

This presentation was created by

The Learning Accelerator (TLA) team in March 2019 with support from the Hewlett Foundation. For further information please contact us

at info@learningaccelerator.org

​

For further information about The Learning Accelerator and for access to free and open tools to support your work, please visit

www.learningaccelerator.org

​

p. 33