{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-e80a0d6fee2be577","slug":"2012-09-20-quality-controls-for-open-educational-resources","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2012-09-20","last_modified_date":"2012-09-20","title":"Quality controls for open educational resources","summary":"Provides an evidence-led method for improving quality controls for open educational resources, from definition of the problem to review of effectiveness and residual risk.","category":{"code":"QUALITY_IMPROVEMENT_METHODS","label":"Quality Improvement Methods"},"article_type":"Quality improvement method","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The policy and evidence context for open educational resources has been materially shaped by the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012. Oversight of the practice should reflect the principle that the method set out here treats improvement as a controlled cycle of diagnosis, action, measurement and review. The decision should address both public impact and the responsibilities attached to entrusted educational resources. Suitability should be judged within the relevant system rather than against a presumed universal administrative model.","A proper examination of the matter should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. A decision concerning the improvement objective should recognise that follow-up should determine whether the change is embedded in ordinary operations and whether it has created new risks or unequal effects. In relation to quality controls for open educational resources, the basis for selection, authority for exceptions and timing of reassessment should remain traceable."]},{"heading":"Scope of the improvement","paragraphs":["The instrument identified by the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 provides a formal policy reference for open educational resources. This distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.","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.","The analysis of the improvement objective should make its decision rule explicit. Oversight of the intervention should reflect the principle that an improvement plan should connect a verified problem with a specific intervention, accountable ownership, resources, milestones and a measure of effect. Broad intentions should be converted into decisions capable of review. This supports consistent review and reduces the risk of redefining the basis of judgement after an adverse result appears.","A narrow control over the corrective programme 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. Adverse cases should form part of the sample wherever they may reveal a material control weakness.","Data used for the improvement objective should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. 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. In relation to quality controls for open educational resources, conflicting records require reconciliation before a complete assurance conclusion is reached."]},{"heading":"Implementation responsibilities","paragraphs":["Implementation of open educational resources can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. The method for the intervention 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. Amend the plan where evidence does not support the original causal assumption. The assurance record may draw on existing sources, provided their limitations and fitness for the current purpose are examined.","Records relating to the practice should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. A changed evidential position should be applied to the affected scope, including prior decisions that may no longer be reliable."],"bullets":["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?"]},{"heading":"Testing effectiveness","paragraphs":["Public reporting on open educational resources should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should be traceable to their reason and effective date. Changes to definitions or evidence should be recorded separately from changes in educational performance.","A decision to close improvement work on the intervention should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation."],"bullets":["Monitor use without overstating learning.","Provide correction routes.","Maintain or withdraw outdated material.","State whether assessment or credit is available.","Review content and accessibility."]},{"heading":"Maintaining the result","paragraphs":["The quality significance of open educational resources follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. The analysis of the intervention proceeds on the basis that 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 intervention require careful treatment of scope and evidential limits. Oversight of the practice should reflect the principle that availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. The analysis of the intervention proceeds on the basis that improvement data should not be selected only because it is readily available. Material limitations should be stated with the finding presented to decision-makers and affected learners.","For authorities and providers, the present development requires a clear account of how the intervention is implemented and how its effect is established."]}],"word_count":801,"content_hash":"sha256-fd03f2645ac04e17a102b640a85ac9e2be5491a4a33ca4964604746095bc73b8","seo_keywords":["quality controls for open educational resources","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}