Quality controls for open educational resources

For open educational resources, a proper examination of the matter should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators.

Application to quality controls for open educational resources

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

In examining quality controls for 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.

For open educational resources, analysis should make its decision rule explicit. Broad intentions should be converted into decisions capable of review. Across the defined scope, this supports consistent review and reduces the risk of redefining the basis of judgement after an adverse result appears.

A narrow control over corrective action may create false assurance. In the present context, uncertain responsibility for learner support, content altered without adequate review and inaccessible resources may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. For open educational resources, adverse cases should form part of the sample wherever they may reveal a material control weakness.

Data used for the intended improvement should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. For open educational resources, changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result. Currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance.

Controls for quality controls for open educational resources

Implementation of open educational resources can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. The method for the corrective action is to prioritise actions by learner impact and control weakness, establish dependencies, test implementation at suitable intervals and retain unresolved items until effectiveness is verified.

For open educational resources, records relating to quality controls for open educational resources should preserve both the conclusion and its limits.

• Does each action address a stated cause?
• Is the problem defined by evidence?
• Are dependencies and resources identified?
• Who confirms sustained effectiveness?
• What measure will establish success?

Review of quality controls for open educational resources

Public reporting on open educational resources should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Across the defined scope, material revisions should be traceable to their reason and effective date.

A decision to close improvement work on open educational resources should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation.

• Monitor use without overstating learning.
• Provide correction routes.
• Maintain or withdraw outdated material.
• State whether assessment or credit is available.
• Review content and accessibility.

Implications for quality controls for open educational resources

In examining quality controls for open educational resources, open access can widen participation, but users require clear information about authorship, licence, quality, accessibility, maintenance and the status of any learning or assessment.

Conclusions concerning the corrective action require careful treatment of scope and evidential limits. Availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. When examining open educational resources, improvement data should not be selected only because it is readily available.

For authorities and providers, the present development requires a clear account of how the corrective action is implemented and how its effect is established.