Open for antiracism: supporting educators to use open education for antiracist teaching

Purpose – The Open for Antiracism program supports faculty to change their teaching practices to be antiracist through the affordances of open educational resources (OER) and open pedagogy. This study aims to raise questions about how professional development impacts student outcomes, and how faculty perceive the utility of OER and open pedagogy to support antiracist teaching and learning. Design/methodology/approach – An evaluation plan examined how faculty participants perceived the effectiveness of OER and open pedagogy to make their classes antiracist. Students compared their experiences in treated classes with those in other classes. Participating faculty completed pre-and post-surveys anda subsetsat forinterviews. Findings – Faculty participants felt prepared to implement antiracist practices using OER and open pedagogy. Eighty-seven percent reported they were highly likely to recommend the program and 80% plan to continue using open pedagogy. Eighty percent of students reported they were more active or engaged than in other classes andthat they examined biasesof thediscipline. Originality/value – This study raises the question of how antiracist teaching approaches impact student outcomes over a longer term. Further, how can changes to teaching strategies impact institutions? Do teams of instructorsoffer supportin ways that lead toa greater voicewithin aninstitution?


Introduction
The murder of George Floyd in May 2020 created an inflection point in American public perception of racial injustice. In the aftermath, colleges and universities issued public statements pledging to address racial and economic inequities on their campuses. A year later, Inside Higher Ed (Whitford, 2021) summarized a report issued by National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, the professional organization for student affairs administrators, and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, which found only 10% of public statements contained actionable next steps for the institution and only 2% of statements were crafted with faculty or student input.
With limited faculty or student involvement in institutional pledges, there was little guidance on how to address racism in classroom practices and materials. In response to this gap between promise and practice, Open for Antiracism (OFAR) launched in fall 2020 to support faculty wishing to learn how structural racism manifests within institutions and to change their teaching practices to be antiracist, using the affordances of open educational resources (OER) and open pedagogy.

Definitions
OFAR is informed by three approaches to education that combine theory and action: open pedagogy, antiracist pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching and learning (CRTL). While each approach has its own focus, they share a concern that educators should enact change through the active participation of learners. This perspective can be broadly described as critical pedagogy, with social justice being an explicit aim of education. This is often associated with the work of Paulo Friere: "The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption" (Freire, 1971). Indeed, some scholars find the roots of open pedagogy in Freire's claim that "we make the road by walking" (Cronin, 2017;Horton and Friere, 1990).
Open educational resources. OERs are any type of educational materials in the public domain, or released with an open license, that permits legal and free use, copying, adaptation and resharing. First introduced in 2002 at a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) event, OERs have been used in many contexts and educational settings to enhance equity and access to learning particularly for underserved groups UNESCO (2022). The practices associated with OER usage, referred to as open educational practices (OEP), draw upon open technologies that facilitate flexible learning opportunities and the ease of sharing teaching materials and practices with other educators (Cape Town Open Education Declaration, 2007).
Open pedagogy. Open pedagogy encompasses a set of theories and practices that center students in their learning experience through using OER and OEP. Scholars describe open pedagogy "as an access-oriented commitment to learner-driven education AND as a process of designing architectures and using tools for learning that enable students to shape [. . .] public knowledge [. . .]" DeRosa and Jhangiani (2017). Openly licensing instructional materials provide instructors and students greater access and agency to adapt for local needs, including by reflecting the lived experiences of students. Engaged as curators and co-creators of knowledge, students are invited to demonstrate their learning through projects that are situated, collaborative and renewable. Renewable assignments differ from singleuse assignments in that students own their creative outputs and may decide how to license and share (Riehman-Murphy and McGeary, 2021). Overall, open pedagogy can be viewed as a "site of praxis, a place where theories about learning, teaching, technology, and social justice enter into a conversation with each other and inform the development of educational practices and structures" (DeRosa and Jhangiani, 2017).
Antiracist pedagogy. That higher education rests on a racialized and exclusionary structure is well established in the literature (Carnevale and Strohl, 2013;Cole and Harper, 2017;Ash, 2020) Indeed, the California Community College Chancellor's Office speaks of its "ambition to transform the college system and dismantle the remnants of historical structures that reproduce systemic inequities" (Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges, 2020). Antiracist pedagogy recognizes that racism exists in our lives, the lives of our students, and the fabric of our institutions, and that we can take action against this racism in our classrooms. Kendi (2019): Anti-racist pedagogy is not about simply incorporating racial content into courses, curriculum, and discipline. It is also about how one teaches, even in courses where race is not the subject matter. (Kishimoto, 2018, p. 540) For OFAR, race and racism are not explicit objects of inquiry, but rather are recognized as parts of participants' lived experience. Being race conscious in teaching would mean a willingness to speak about race, rather than elide the topic. Still, the ideas of "white privilege" and implicit bias inform OFAR, whether through the seminal writings by McIntosh (1988), popular works (DiAngelo, 2018) or official guidance from the California Community College Chancellor's Office (Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges, 2020).
OFAR's working (and evolving) understanding of antiracist pedagogy includes the following: (1) Be race conscious Acknowledge your identity and social position Recognize that implicit bias exists (2) Think systemically and structurally Expose systemic and/or structural racism (3) Examine a discipline's history Ask how knowledge is defined and accepted Ask who gets to have a voice in the discipline (4) Include voices and perspectives from many peoples and groups (5) Invite students to contribute their own perspectives and experiences Culturally responsive teaching and learning. CRTL refers to teaching practices that recognize and incorporate students' familial, linguistic and cultural backgrounds and identities into the classroom. This approach, rooted in learning theory and cognitive science, recognizes that students bring different backgrounds with them to learning and validates their cultures. Teaching that promotes congruence between students' cultures and teachers' classroom practices increases student engagement, sense of belonging and ultimately success (Gay, 2000;Hammond, 2015). CRTL can help students build intellective capacity, also called "fluid intelligence and intellectual competence" (Hammond, 2015). A culturally affirming learning experience centers the diverse experiences and cultures of students throughout (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Overall, OFAR uses open pedagogy, antiracist pedagogy and CRTL to help faculty learn how to leverage these same educational practices and perspectives to achieve their own stated goals of making their teaching antiracist.

Context
Community colleges serve a larger proportion of minoritized, first-generation, low-income and working adult students than other higher education sectors (College Board, 2016). California Community Colleges (CCCs) provide a diversity of 116 institutions in which to pilot the OFAR program. Serving two million students, CCCs comprise the largest system of higher education in the USA, and are the largest provider of workforce training in the country (California Community College, 2020). Twenty-five percent of all community college students in the USA attend a CCC.
The CCCs boast a diverse student population. Seventy-two percent of California's black undergraduates are enrolled in a CCC, making this the primary source of higher education for black Californians. Seventy-seven percent of black students attend part-time, because of employment, family and other commitments and 63% of these students leave without completing a credential or transferring (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2019). Latinx students account for 44% of CCC students, with 58% of these students leaving without completing a credential or transferring (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2019).
With CCCs' tuition the lowest in the nation (College Board, 2016), textbooks can cost more than a course. These expenses are disproportionately experienced by marginalized groups. Black students borrow money more frequently than white students. Both Latinx and black students are more likely to pay for their own education than others who receive family support (Nusbaum, 2020). Thus, the cost of higher education reinforces socioeconomic inequities.
Conventional wisdom in the field of open education holds that using OER to remove the cost of textbooks reduces equity gaps by ensuring that all students are able to access instructional materials. A University of Georgia study (Colvard, 2018) found that when OER was introduced, grades for all students increased, and grades for Pell recipients and nonwhite students increased at a greater rate. The study concludes "OER is an equity strategy for higher education: providing all students with access to course materials on the first day of class serves to level the academic playing field" (Colvard, 2018, p. 273).
When open pedagogy is used, students report increased agency as scholars contributing to knowledge rather than passively consuming information. They report developing improved critical thinking skills, which may be due to their roles as curators and synthesizers of information (Clinton-Lisell, 2021, p. 260).
Building on the background described above, two propositions motivated the OFAR program design: (1) faculty want to change their classroom practices to be antiracist and need guidance on promising practices and a place to explore with their peers; and (2) OER and open pedagogy can be effective tools to transform classrooms to be antiracist.

Method
The long-term goal of OFAR is to demonstrate how the adoption of OER and open pedagogy can empower faculty to transform classroom practices to engage students who have been marginalized by systemic oppression in the curation and co-creation of knowledge that acknowledges and validates their lived experiences.
Open for antiracism program design OFAR is designed to provide training and support for faculty who wish to make their teaching antiracist by leveraging OER and open pedagogy. The program lasts approximately one academic year. The first four weeks consist of a facilitated, asynchronous online workshop available in Canvas Commons and focused on four major questions: Q1. What is antiracism?
Q2. What are OERs and how can they support antiracism? Q3 . What is open pedagogy and how can it support antiracism?
Q4. What is your antiracism action plan?
The workshop uses small-and large-group discussions throughout to build community as potentially sensitive topics are explored. Each participant produces an action plan describing what they will change in their classes and how they will use OERs and engage students in knowledge creation. Furthermore, they are asked to consider longer-term goals that could be achieved beyond the current semester and how they could engage others to expand their reach. Open pedagogy is modeled in the workshop through small-group assignments in which participants craft questions for the large group, as well as through multiple peer feedback opportunities. Throughout the implementation phase, participants meet in peer groups with coaches, attend workshops on "nuts and bolts" of OER and attend webinars featuring inspirational researchers and practitioners on topics related to antiracist classroom practices, instructional materials and activism for equitable outcomes.
In recognition of the significant commitment and desired professional growth, faculty receive a stipend for successfully completing the intensive four-week workshop and receive a more substantial payment for completing the subsequent semester-long phase of the program. This includes implementing their action plan with students, participating in program research, sharing their learning and course modifications at their institutions and presenting their project through showcase webinars at the end of the program.

Procedure
In the fall of 2020, CCC faculty received an invitation to participate in OFAR through various statewide email lists. These included those of the Academic Senate, Distance Education Coordinators, California's Zero Textbook Cost Degree grantees and the California Virtual Campus Pathways OER/ZTC participants.
In Year 1, over 300 applications were submitted for 17 available spaces by faculty from 75 out of 116 CCCs. To ensure a diverse pool of participants, applications requested information about participants' gender, ethnicity, years of teaching and experience with open education and antiracist or culturally responsive teaching practices. Furthermore, applicants identified why and how they might transform their classrooms to be antiracist and what impact they hoped their participation would have on their students and institutions.
Applications were sorted by the seven regional state zones designated by CCCs to ensure geographic distribution of participants across California. A weighted rubric was used to evaluate candidates. Participant demographics included 59% faculty of color and 41% white. English, Social Sciences, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics accounted for 83% of participants' disciplines. Career Education fields were represented including Administration of Justice, Business, Early Childhood Education, and Emergency Medical Technician (Table 1).

Data collection and analysis
An evaluation was conducted to identify how the program influenced teaching practices and students' learning experiences in the classes implementing strategies learned in OFAR. The experiences of faculty were documented using a mixed-methods approach; triangulating information from surveys administered to faculty (Appendices 1 and 2) and students (see Appendix 3), semi-structured interviews and informal discussions with faculty. The following research questions guided data collection: RQ1. What are faculty experiences with antiracist teaching practices?
RQ2. In what ways did teaching practice(s) of faculty and learning experiences of students change based on faculty's participation in the program?
RQ3. What lessons (successes and opportunities) emerged that could improve the program and better support faculty with implementing an antiracist learning environment?
All faculty participants completed two online surveys (pre/post) to provide feedback about the program's orientation, pedagogical practices and training and perceived impact on their teaching and learning. Survey responses informed the development of a semi-structured interview protocol focused on learning about faculty's overall experience in the program including their observations and reflections on the perceived effectiveness and impact of the pedagogical practices they implemented in their own teaching and students' learning. A convenience sampling of willing faculty and the program's ability to host ten interviews was used to select a subset of faculty to participate in semi-structured interviews. Each faculty was interviewed once for approximately 1 h.
Two hundred and five students with at least one from each participating community college completed a survey designed to understand students' learning experiences in classes where faculty implemented strategies learned through OFAR.
Analyses occurred throughout the data collection process. Fixed choice items in faculty and student surveys were aggregated and summarized. Open-ended survey items and semistructured faculty interviews used an inductive thematic content and narrative analysis. Faculty interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and read several times to identify themes and categories within the context of focused evaluation questions.

Results/findings
The organization of case study findings is as follows: faculty profiles and their experiences with OER, open pedagogy and antiracist teaching practices before their involvement in OFAR; faculty experiences participating in the program; faculty perceived impact on teaching; and faculty and student perceived impact on student learning.

Faculty profiles
Results from the pre-survey indicated that most faculty had experience with OER, commercial textbooks and materials available through their institution's library. Nearly half were new to incorporating open pedagogy into their classes and a fifth had no experience integrating OER or antiracist teaching practices. About one-third indicated that their institution did not provide any regularly scheduled training or resources related to open pedagogy, antiracist teaching practices, OER or CRTL. Faculty who chose to participate in interviews were excited about their acceptance into a program focused on preparing them to incorporate OER, open pedagogy and antiracist content and practices. Participants said their motivation to apply to OFAR came from the program's intentional focus on antiracist curriculum, a recurring theme across interviews and informal feedback. Faculty Experiences in Program: The program's facilitators modeled open pedagogy, which effectively engaged participants in the process of learning about OER, open and antiracist pedagogy in the four-week facilitated OFAR course and subsequent implementation phase. Faculty appreciated having a voice and choices in how they approached reflections on the concepts imparted by the program, how they wanted to receive feedback, and being invited to create a public product. One participant observed: We had reflections each week on what we were learning, and [the facilitators] allowed me to turn mine in as oral recordings and videos, which I loved. I felt like they were modeling open pedagogy by allowing that. I thought that was a really smart and effective way to teach.
Program participants also valued peer-learning opportunities. Interaction with faculty from different disciplines allowed them to hear different perspectives and learn different approaches. Instructors also appreciated monthly speakers who took them beyond the basics of OER into a deeper understanding of issues that affect institutions and communities.
The majority of faculty noted that assigned reflections increased their confidence to speak about race and introduce antiracist curriculum early in their course to engage students. Others described increased confidence to be vulnerable with students when discussing issues around race. As two faculty shared: OFAR gave me the starting point to the confidence I needed to be frank and vulnerable with my students, [especially] when it comes to race and privilege and how they themselves engage, perhaps perpetuate, and benefit from racism. OFAR allowed me that space, especially as a faculty of color, to reflect on how my students of color also experience education. I can't be an antiracist educator, or a de-colonizer or an abolitionist and then create oppression in my own class. For me, this journey was more than just recreating my class. It was really about recreating myself. I learned a lot about myself, and the type of teacher and instructor I want to be.

Faculty's perceived impact on teaching
In the postfaculty survey, 90% indicated that the program improved their teaching practices. Interviews with faculty revealed that they felt incorporating students' perspectives and lived experiences into the classroom were keys to CRTL and open pedagogy. As one faculty illustrated: My goal was to "openly" license a Black Lives Matter module I created. [Through OFAR], I ran across the idea of open pedagogy and learning how to create resources with students. I ended up adding a discussion board to the Black Lives Matter module that asks [students] to post their own pictures, things that they have seen if they participated in Black Lives Matter, something that they did themselves. [The work that students uploaded] would be a living document of their participation in Black Lives Matter, in the movement. They loved it.
Additionally, many faculty were excited by the concept of renewable assignments, which allow both instructors and students to work collaboratively to create resources that contribute to a larger body of knowledge outside the classroom. The idea of renewable assignments pushed faculty to think more deeply about open licensing of student work. As one interviewee shared: I know that the kids have unique stories that aren't in archives, so I want them to be archivers [and] creators.
[OFAR] has expanded my tool kit to be able to do that. The whole concept of licensing things to showcase student work was very new to me and I think it was new to a lot of the faculty participants; there was a bit of a learning curve. Getting comfortable with how to generate those open licenses makes me feel good about putting things online. As a historian, I am glued [to] this idea of open pedagogy, and involving students in the text-making process.
Several faculty mentioned community agreements as a critical tool for introducing antiracist pedagogy and setting expectations for having challenging but respectful conversations in the classroom.
Lastly, numerous instructors indicated making their course policies and procedures more flexible, realizing that not all students begin with the same resources and students' lives are disrupted in different ways. As one interviewee highlighted: [OFAR has] made me more empathetic; it has even changed my policies. When I first started teaching, I had this absolute; I don't take any late work. I don't care what happened. I had this binary way of looking at the world. Now I say to my students, "Listen, there are due dates here, they're important" and I explain, "Here's why they're important." Then, I say "If you submit something seven days late, I might impose a 10% penalty, but just tell me." I now accept almost everything because I believe that every single student is here to be as successful as they can be, and I recognize that we're all on a journey and at different starting places -so it's made me much more empathetic.
Faculty perception of impact on student learning Over half of faculty survey respondents reported that changes to their teaching practices significantly enhanced the learning environment. Over 80% believe the level of student engagement was significantly or slightly higher than in previous classes and students appeared more engaged and empowered. One faculty interviewee shared: I had a [bi-racial] student say, "I didn't know there were words to describe what I'm experiencing.
[The class] really opened my eyes to who I am and my place in society. I'm now learning how to talk about this issue in ways that I didn't know how to talk about before." I was, "Oh, wow! Wow!" It felt good that he felt validated. It's really rewarding in a lot of ways because I see [students] learning things that I know and I understand, but for them it's brand new. [What students are learning] is explaining their world in a way that's authentic to them. This is happening even with White students, or the LatinX students. This is happening across the board. Students are making some strong strides in acknowledging how privilege and oppression are very complex.

Student experience
At the end of the spring 2021 semester, instructors were asked to administer a 22-item online student survey to identify whether students' experiences in their classes differed from past courses or others they were enrolled in. A total of 215 students completed the survey. Over 80% of student survey respondents reported that they felt more active or slightly more engaged than in other classes. As one student shared: The professor really encourages his students to get to know one another, to get to know him, and engage in the classroom all together. In other classes, it has been much more difficult for me to reach [out] for help. However, his approach to getting to know his students and building a rapport with them makes it much more encouraging for me to reach out when I need to, without being afraid.
A follow-up question asked students why they reported the way they did. The primary reasons were: faculty made an effort to engage students; the specific content covered in the course; and the interactions required with other students in the course.
Course content comparison. Overall, students who completed the survey reported that the content of the course compared positively to that of other courses. Ninety-three percent indicated that they were almost always or often allowed to provide their perspectives and experiences. About 92% indicated almost always or often examining the history of the courses' discipline, and 83% reported almost always or often using the content to identify and challenge biases.
In open-ended responses, many students mentioned using videos and recorded lectures as course materials that supported their learning. Recorded lectures allowed students with busy schedules the flexibility of watching these at times convenient to them. The videos helped clarify topics discussed in the course when the text or readings did not. As one student shared: All of the videos that were presented were very helpful! We were able to see different perspectives and hear from the people directly, rather than dictated to us from a book. There is something about hearing people's voices and facial expressions that makes me learn more.
Perception of equitable learning environment. Overall, students commented that their interactions with the instructor teaching the OFAR course was favorable compared to other classes. About 87% reported they almost always got the same opportunity to contribute and ask questions, and 84% indicated that they almost always got the same encouragement from their instructor as other students.
When asked to describe a specific assignment that supported their learning, students commonly cited topics related to reflections on personal experiences and histories. Students described how these assignments made them think differently about the issues and connect them to their backgrounds. As one student shared: The entire lesson made me learn more about my ancestors and the struggles they went through. I was not aware of how much Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were mistreated.
Students also reported that faculty created a positive learning environment by requiring significant interactions with other students through group work or discussion that increased their engagement and learning. For student survey respondents who indicated that their level of engagement was the same as for other classes, they generally reported similar levels of engagement in all courses regardless of class or instructor. Those who reported decreased engagement primarily mentioned the online environment or external circumstances affected their ability to engage fully.

Discussion and implications
Responses to Year 1 surveys and interviews indicated that OFAR provided participants with professional development opportunities to make their classes antiracist using OER and open and antiracist pedagogy. A majority (87%) reported that they were "highly likely" to recommend the program to their colleagues. Student responses also were encouraging with over 80% reporting that they were more active or slightly more engaged than in other classes and that they almost always had opportunities to examine the biases of the discipline and share their own experiences and perspectives in class (Nguyen and Valenzuela, 2021).
Participant responses suggest they would benefit from more training and support. While 90% of participants stated their institutions offer some training on OER, at least 30% of participants did not know whether their institutions offered training on antiracism and open pedagogy. Indeed, significant numbers of faculty wish for continuing support with incorporating antiracist practices (44%) and open pedagogy (56%). In addition, several reported not feeling fully prepared to facilitate interactions where students expressed resistance in classroom discussions about antiracism.
The vast majority of faculty (87%) stated that they will continue to engage students in the co-creation of materials for an antiracism module and incorporate student voice by including nonmainstream perspectives and points of view. Further, 80% of participants said they will continue to implement inclusive images, data and media, and move from commercial course materials to OER. To what extent do these intentions result from the ongoing support of the OFAR program and interaction with a like-minded cohort of peers? What potential exists for replicating select but less labor-intensive strategies to support ongoing evolution of teaching and learning?
The original hypotheses that motivated OFAR program design seem to have been confirmed: the number of applications for the first cohort (300þ for 17 spots) as well as for the second cohort (68 team applications for 8 team spots) demonstrates a significant and ongoing desire by faculty to change their classroom practices to be antiracist and to explore best practices in a safe environment with their peers; research results from the first cohort discussed above show that participants find OER and open pedagogy to be effective tools for faculty to transform their classrooms to be antiracist, so much so that the vast majority of participants will continue to use OER and open pedagogy.
Based on Year 1 feedback, OFAR identified areas of improvement for Year 2, focusing on program reach, research and training. Year 2 participation expanded from 17 individuals to 8 college teams, with more than 40 participants. Applications required institutional letters of support, with administrators invited to participate in some program activities. Both changes aim to support faculty to implement change beyond their classrooms and to impact their broader institutions. Finally, additional training opportunities are envisioned to promote students' sense of belonging through course materials and prepare faculty for responding to resistance from students and colleagues.
Directions for future research This study examined student perceptions and not learning outcomes. Understanding impact on student learning is an important future direction. Some limited studies on learning outcomes for classes using open pedagogy have not shown a significant difference (Clinton-Lisell, 2021, p. 261;Bloom, 2019;Tillinghast et al., 2020). For OFAR's second year, the evaluation explicitly explores this question. Researchers will analyze disaggregated student outcomes data from three semesters before OFAR implementation, from the implementation semester, and from the semester immediately following implementation. Determining whether participation in the program has a lasting impact on student outcomes raises the question of which strategies contribute to the best outcomes for students. How do faculty define and understand the strategies they proposed in their action plans and subsequently implemented? Would they consider their strategies to be antiracist pedagogy, OER adoption or creation, open pedagogy or CRTL? Can differences in student outcomes be identified that align with the different strategies used?
In addition, Year 2 is structured so that participants may have an impact not only on their classrooms, but also on their institutions. Do teams of instructors support one another in ways that lead to having a greater voice within the institution? When administrators participate in some activities, does this result in more institutional space or support for antiracist perspectives? system for over 10 years. Ms Nguyen has contributed on a variety of system-wide projects about California community colleges, including the Multiple Measures Assessment Project, a project that identified effective placement models using multiple measures, and Through the Gate, a study that examines what levers promote transfer.
Ireri Valenzuela has creatively blended her passion for organizational change, team coaching, qualitative research, adult education and program design to support structural reform efforts in California Community Colleges for the past 17 years. Since 2014, Ireri has worked for the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group). As a Senior Researcher, she conducts research focused on advancing reforms intended to increase student success. Ireri is also Director of Leading from the Middle, a change-focused leadership development program that equips middle leaders from California community colleges with skills and strategies to lead transformational efforts focused on moving community colleges into equity-and-student-centered institutions.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com