Independent review of open educational resources

Against the background of the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012, education authorities and providers should review how open educational resources are defined, implemented and evidenced.

In examining independent review of open educational resources, for open educational resources, the 2012 Paris OER Declaration calls on states to foster awareness and use of openly licensed educational resources, support enabling policy and infrastructure, strengthen capacity, encourage adaptation and promote research and sharing. Open licensing addresses permission to retain, reuse or adapt material; it does not by itself establish accuracy, accessibility, curricular suitability or the status of any assessment or award.

A proper review of the applicable expectation should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. Examination of the matter should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. In the context of open educational resources, suitability, authorised variation and the date for reconsideration should be established when the arrangement is approved.

Application to independent review of open educational resources

In examining independent review of open educational resources, when examining open educational resources, the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 provides a policy reference for open educational resources.

For the applicable expectation, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. Open access can widen participation, but users require clear information about authorship, licence, quality, accessibility, maintenance and the status of any learning or assessment.

• Monitor use without overstating learning.
• State whether assessment or credit is available, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.
• Verify rights before publication.
• Review content and accessibility.
• Provide correction routes.

Controls for independent review of open educational resources

Review is independent when the reviewer is sufficiently separate from the design, operation and approval of the matter to reach and report an impartial conclusion.

Risk assessment for the conclusion should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. A provider should also consider uncertain responsibility for learner support and confusion between participation and recognised achievement.

Assurance concerning the applicable expectation should state the scope examined, evidence relied upon and any condition preventing a complete conclusion. Unsupported elements should remain open. Useful records include licence and provenance records, version and maintenance information, correction and withdrawal controls, accessibility checks, and academic and technical review. For open educational resources, evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases.

• Who decides the response?
• Does the reviewer have a relevant conflict?
• Is competence established?
• Can adverse findings be reported without alteration?
• Who designed and operates the control?

Review of independent review of open educational resources

For the applicable requirement, the reviewer should define the review question and criteria, record competence and conflicts, preserve access to relevant evidence, and protect the reviewer’s ability to report adverse findings. Assign acceptance of residual risk to an authority outside the reviewed activity. For open educational resources, averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.

In examining independent review of open educational resources, interpretation of open educational resources should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence.

Proportionality in relation to the control does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. Review of the applicable requirement should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment. Each outcome requires separate evidence. Review of the conclusion should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event.

For open educational resources, accountability and effective correction both depend on a record that can be followed from evidence to decision. For the applicable expectation, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed.

In the context of open educational resources, where responsibilities for delivery are shared with partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service.

The objective for open educational resources should be explicit, the evidence proportionate and learner impact visible. Where evidence concerning open educational resources cannot support assurance, the limitation should be reported and corrective work should remain open.