{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-6baa67a88d48dc6e","slug":"2012-11-16-setting-effective-measures-for-provider-responsibility-for-open-content","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2012-11-16","last_modified_date":"2012-11-16","title":"Setting effective measures for provider responsibility for open content","summary":"Describes how improvement in setting effective measures for provider responsibility for open content can be planned, measured and maintained through clear responsibility.","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":"Open licensing and quality controls","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The open licensing and quality controls provide the immediate reference point for consideration of provider responsibility for open content in 2012. A decision concerning the improvement objective should recognise that the purpose of an improvement method is not to produce an action plan; it is to change a material condition and verify that the change is sustained. The response should be proportionate to risk while preserving access, learning, fair treatment and reliable learner information.","The governing expectation for the corrective programme should be capable of consistent application. Oversight of setting effective measures for provider responsibility for open content should reflect the principle that a complete improvement record should define the baseline, affected scope, causal hypothesis, responsible owner, resources, milestones and measures of effectiveness. Definitions should provide a stable basis for decisions while allowing relevant differences to be identified and justified."]},{"heading":"Defining the problem","paragraphs":["The historical reference basis is the open licensing and quality controls. Its relevance to provider responsibility for open content should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.","The system and institutional dimensions of the corrective programme should be considered together. A decision concerning the improvement objective should recognise 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. In relation to setting effective measures for provider responsibility for open content, authorities and providers hold different responsibilities, both of which must be discharged for the arrangement to operate reliably. Each level should be able to demonstrate the decisions and controls for which it is accountable."],"bullets":["Maintain or withdraw outdated material.","Identify authorship and version.","Review content and accessibility.","Verify rights before publication.","State whether assessment or credit is available."]},{"heading":"Improvement method","paragraphs":["The analysis of provider responsibility for open content should make its decision rule explicit. Oversight of the practice should reflect the principle that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process. 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, unclear permission to reuse or adapt and inaccessible resources may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.","Relevant evidence for the corrective programme will normally include version and maintenance information, accessibility checks, clear statements on support and assessment, licence and provenance records, and correction and withdrawal controls. Currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. Contradictory evidence should be investigated and resolved, not omitted from the record."],"bullets":["Who controls each stage?","Where do exceptions occur?","Which evidence establishes operation?","What action is required by the finding?","What outcome is intended?"]},{"heading":"Measures and review","paragraphs":["A proportionate method is available for provider responsibility for open content. Review of the intervention should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.","A decision to close improvement work on the issue under review should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation.","Proportionality in relation to the corrective programme does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. The analysis of the intervention proceeds on the basis that availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. A decision concerning the practice should recognise that correcting an individual record does not establish that the process which produced the error has been corrected.","Records relating to the improvement objective should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. In relation to setting effective measures for provider responsibility for open content, new evidence should trigger a traceable correction and review of decisions materially affected by the earlier conclusion. Where reliance has occurred, correction may require review of affected decisions as well as amendment of published information.","Accountability for the corrective programme should follow decision-making authority. Where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.","No individual measure is sufficient to establish effective operation of the practice across the affected scope. A conclusion should be revised when stronger evidence materially changes the assessment of implementation, outcome or risk."]}],"word_count":749,"content_hash":"sha256-38bcf3206a554d9bae98ec01b66337b7760b44afdb16adcfe847a8810ffd0bf3","seo_keywords":["setting effective measures for provider responsibility for open content","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}