{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-043f86606712cda3","slug":"2021-09-27-strengthening-digital-inclusion-through-documented-follow-up","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2021-09-27","last_modified_date":"2021-09-27","title":"Strengthening digital inclusion through documented follow-up","summary":"Sets out a controlled approach to strengthening digital inclusion through documented follow-up, linking diagnosis, accountable action, outcome measures and verification.","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":"Persistent connectivity and device gaps","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["In 2021, consideration of digital inclusion must take account of the persistent connectivity and device gaps and the responsibilities it places before education systems. For the corrective programme, improvement should begin with a defined problem, a credible account of its causes and a measure capable of showing whether the response has worked. Assessment should consider learner impact, institutional accountability and stewardship of entrusted resources."]},{"heading":"Defining the problem","paragraphs":["For digital inclusion, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. For the intervention, a change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment. Learner protection requires intelligible information and a timely means of reviewing consequential mistakes or unfair decisions."],"bullets":["Test access before requiring use.","Support staff and learners before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome.","Provide alternative routes for material barriers.","Define the educational purpose of the technology.","Assure assessment validity."]},{"heading":"Improvement method","paragraphs":["The contemporaneous context is established by the persistent connectivity and device gaps. It does not, without setting-specific evidence, demonstrate the operation of digital inclusion.","The technical issue within the practice concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. Oversight of the corrective programme should reflect the principle that effectiveness is the demonstrated change in the condition the action was intended to address. In relation to strengthening digital inclusion through documented follow-up, completion of training, publication of guidance or installation of a system is an output and should not be reported as an outcome without further evidence. The judgement should state its supporting evidence and any condition limiting application to the declared scope."]},{"heading":"Measures and review","paragraphs":["Responsibility for digital inclusion should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. The analysis of the intervention proceeds on the basis that a complete improvement record should define the baseline, affected scope, causal hypothesis, responsible owner, resources, milestones and measures of effectiveness. Escalation should follow whenever the available record cannot support a safe conclusion for the affected learners.","The principal risks in relation to the issue under review are inaccessible content or interaction, reduced opportunities for timely support, assessment methods that do not support valid judgements, and supplier dependency without continuity controls. The risks are interdependent; failure of one control may conceal or disable another. In relation to strengthening digital inclusion through documented follow-up, documents should be tested against the decision process they record and the outcome that followed."],"bullets":["What was the baseline?","Did the effect reach the intended group?","When should an effect be visible?","What condition should change?","Has the improvement been sustained?"]},{"heading":"Residual risk and follow-up","paragraphs":["Relevant evidence for digital inclusion will normally include assessment validity and integrity reviews, supplier performance and exit arrangements, accessibility and usability testing, delivery-mode design and approval records, and teacher capability and workload information. The record should retain disagreement between sources until its cause and effect are understood.","Implementation of the improvement objective can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. In reviewing the intervention, responsible bodies should set a baseline and success measure before intervention, define the review period, compare the result with the intended outcome and examine adverse or unequal effects. Continue monitoring long enough to determine whether the improvement is sustained. The assurance record may draw on existing sources, provided their limitations and fitness for the current purpose are examined."]},{"heading":"Residual risk and follow-up","paragraphs":["A decision to close improvement work on digital inclusion should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation.","The analysis of the intervention should remain within the limits of the evidence. A decision concerning the corrective programme should recognise that correcting an individual record does not establish that the process which produced the error has been corrected. In reviewing the improvement objective, 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. Material uncertainty should result in further enquiry or an expressly limited finding.","Decisions concerning the issue under review should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. A revision should state whether the change concerns the underlying condition, the evidence, the method or the interpretation.","Accountability for the issue under review should follow decision-making authority. Where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.","Assessment of the issue under review should reconcile more than one source of evidence and control. The final judgement should connect the applicable expectation to implementation and outcomes while identifying unresolved risk."]}],"word_count":741,"content_hash":"sha256-bf01923ba82ea4aadd14f9efc140eba9f17afc2edbbc66d772022d0080b36d73","seo_keywords":["strengthening digital inclusion through documented follow-up","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}