{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-e28647d117677460","slug":"2009-02-09-transparency-requirements-associated-with-online-learning-delivery","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2009-02-09","last_modified_date":"2009-02-09","title":"Transparency requirements associated with online learning delivery","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to transparency requirements associated with online learning delivery.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Growth of technology-supported provision","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The growth of technology-supported provision provides the immediate context for online learning delivery. A decision concerning the stated expectation should recognise that consistent application requires a clear distinction between the required result, recommended methods and examples that may assist implementation. Any indicator used in relation to the assurance question should distinguish description from causal explanation. Material variation and uncertainty should be reported together with any restriction on wider application. The governing expectation for the control should be stated precisely enough to support consistent decisions without displacing applicable law or justified professional judgement."]},{"heading":"Meaning in practice","paragraphs":["The historical reference basis is the growth of technology-supported provision. Its relevance to online learning delivery should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. In relation to transparency requirements associated with online learning delivery, the international development warrants attention, but a consequential conclusion still requires current, attributable and representative evidence for the affected scope.","The system and institutional dimensions of the control should be considered together. For the issue under review, a change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment. Public authorities establish the legal and policy setting; providers remain accountable for the quality and integrity of provision within their control. Each level should be able to demonstrate the decisions and controls for which it is accountable.","In practical terms, the assurance question should be reviewed against a stated method rather than general assurance. In reviewing the issue under review, public information should be accurate, current, complete in relation to material matters and presented before a learner is required to make a consequential commitment. Qualifications and limitations should receive comparable prominence to the principal claim. The method, assumptions and limitations should be stated in terms suitable for responsible decision-making.","A proper review of the control should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. Reporting on the assurance question should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should retain their reason and effective date. The basis for selection, authority for exceptions and timing of reassessment should remain traceable.","Risk assessment of the issue under review should give particular attention to unclear identity and participation records, reduced opportunities for timely support, and assessment methods that do not support valid judgements. A provider should also consider technology access determining educational access and inaccessible content or interaction.","Assurance of the relevant requirement should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include assessment validity and integrity reviews, accessibility and usability testing, service availability and incident records, supplier performance and exit arrangements, and learner access and participation information. Review of the control should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment."]},{"heading":"Responsibilities and material risks","paragraphs":["A proportionate method is available for online learning delivery. Reporting on the issue under review should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Test whether a reasonable user can understand status, cost, obligations, support and routes for redress. In relation to transparency requirements associated with online learning delivery, the review record should preserve exceptions capable of showing a weakness in design, implementation or coverage.","The final record on the relevant requirement should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Departure from an illustrative method may be justified where equivalent outcome and evidence are established. Unresolved limitations should be stated with the conclusion and carried forward for action.","Interpretation of the assurance question should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. Oversight of the stated expectation should reflect the principle that digital participation data should not be treated as a direct measure of learning. Log-ins, connection time and activity counts require interpretation alongside assessment and learner experience. A decision concerning the assurance question should recognise that an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the relevant requirement, 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. The record should prevent a later amendment from being treated as if it applied when an earlier decision was made.","For the assurance question, governing bodies should receive a concise account of the intended result, affected scope, principal risks, evidence limitations and unresolved exceptions. The action record should identify who is responsible and when implementation is due. Evidence of outcome, rather than completion of tasks, should determine whether corrective work can close.","The measure of progress on the relevant requirement is not the amount of policy or documentation produced."]}],"word_count":807,"content_hash":"sha256-0e6eaad86a7abf1f764386e61b618819c2f51e9043418c59580d792aa314c082","seo_keywords":["transparency requirements associated with online learning delivery","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}