{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-f96e95e2f0cbee0e","slug":"2025-02-10-transparency-requirements-associated-with-learner-agency","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2025-02-10","last_modified_date":"2025-02-10","title":"Transparency requirements associated with learner agency","summary":"Explains how transparency requirements associated with learner agency should be applied in practice, including scope, evidential sufficiency, accountable decisions.","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":"Automation and human-centred education policy","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The policy and evidence context for learner agency has been materially shaped by the automation and human-centred education policy. The analysis of the control proceeds on the basis that the requirement should be read as an assurance obligation: the provider must be able to explain the control, show its operation and account for material exceptions. Proportionality is demonstrated where learner safeguards and decision reliability correspond to the assessed risk.","The governing expectation for the relevant requirement should be capable of consistent application. Oversight of the control should reflect the principle that conformity should not be inferred from a policy document alone; operating records and outcomes should show that the stated arrangements are in use. In relation to transparency requirements associated with learner agency, terms governing eligibility, support, assessment, reporting or review should prevent materially different treatment without recorded justification."]},{"heading":"Scope and application of transparency requirements associated with learner agency","paragraphs":["The contemporaneous context is established by the automation and human-centred education policy. It does not, without setting-specific evidence, demonstrate the operation of learner agency. Reporting should preserve the different status of facts, public expectations and choices made by institutions. That distinction should remain visible in the decision record, public reporting and later review.","The technical issue within the issue under review concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. For the assurance question, 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. Any condition preventing complete assurance should appear with the evidence on which the judgement relies.","Risk assessment of the assurance question should give particular attention to unclear responsibility between providers and suppliers, opaque use of personal or inferred data, and unverified outputs entering teaching or assessment. A provider should also consider automation bias in consequential decisions and unequal performance across learner groups. The control response should reflect whether an affected learner can identify the error and obtain an effective remedy in time.","Evidence should be selected against a clearly defined question. For the relevant requirement, the most relevant material is likely to include data provenance and access controls, pre-deployment and periodic performance testing, learner information and accessible challenge routes, and records of human review and overrides. In relation to transparency requirements associated with learner agency, confidence is strengthened by corroboration, not by the volume of records drawn from the same underlying source."]},{"heading":"Evidence required","paragraphs":["The review method for learner agency should be reproducible. Review of the assurance question should identify material information across the learner journey, assign source ownership, reconcile public statements with controlled records and retain corrections. Test whether a reasonable user can understand status, cost, obligations, support and routes for redress. Documentation should be sufficient to reconstruct the judgement without relying on unrecorded explanation.","The assurance record for the assurance question should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. Revision should not remove an earlier conclusion from the record where reliance has occurred."],"bullets":["Is the information available before commitment?","Does it identify material conditions and limitations?","Who approves changes?","Are corrections prompt and traceable?","Can it be reconciled with the controlled source?"]},{"heading":"Decision criteria and exceptions","paragraphs":["Public reporting on learner agency should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should be traceable to their reason and effective date.","Interpretation of the assurance question should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence."],"bullets":["Classify uses by effect on learners, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.","Prohibit uses for which evidence or authority is insufficient before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.","Notify users of material limitations.","Review incidents and supplier changes before it informs a consequential decision.","Retain accountable human decision-makers."]},{"heading":"Continuing assurance","paragraphs":["The system and institutional dimensions of learner agency should be considered together. The analysis of the control proceeds on the basis that technology may support teaching, administration and access, but consequential educational decisions must remain accountable, explainable and open to effective review. Neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.","Conclusions concerning the issue under review require careful treatment of scope and evidential limits. A decision concerning the stated expectation should recognise that a technical capability is not evidence that a use is educationally justified. Accuracy measured in one setting may not transfer to another population, language, curriculum or decision context. For the control, a prescribed method should not be treated as the only acceptable method where another approach establishes the same outcome with equivalent evidence. Limitations should be prominent wherever the finding may influence a consequential decision.","Application of the stated expectation should distinguish mandatory conditions, recommendations and illustrative methods. An alternative method may be accepted where it demonstrates the same outcome."]}],"word_count":800,"content_hash":"sha256-b7d8bd340ead407d9023483fe69fb64ead28155b6d7e3cc2ec29634e77f87f44","seo_keywords":["transparency requirements associated with learner agency","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle","related_resources":[{"label":"ICEQC Standards Register","path":"/standards"}]}