Explains competence requirements in relation to open educational resources, covering scope, evidence, decision authority, material exceptions and continuing assurance.
The Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 provides the immediate context for open educational resources. A standard is effective only when its terms lead to consistent decisions without displacing professional judgement or applicable law. The response should be proportionate to risk while preserving access, learning, fair treatment and reliable learner information.
For open educational resources, responsibility should be identifiable at the point where consequential decisions are made. Evidence is sufficient when it is current, attributable, representative of the relevant scope and capable of being reconciled with other available records.
Meaning in practice
In the context of open educational resources, the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 provides a policy reference for open educational resources. This distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.
For decisions concerning open educational resources, 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.
Review of the applicable requirement should be based on a stated method rather than general assurance. For the applicable requirement, the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. In reviewing open educational resources, a review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process.
A narrow control applied to the relevant process may create false assurance. In the present context, unclear permission to reuse or adapt, confusion between participation and recognised achievement and uncertain responsibility for learner support may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.
In work concerning open educational resources, the evidential record should be limited to material that can answer the question under review. For the assurance conclusion, the most relevant material is likely to include accessibility checks, use and completion data interpreted cautiously, version and maintenance information, and clear statements on support and assessment. Independent records should be reconciled, with disagreement and uncertainty reported alongside the finding.
Responsibilities and material risks
A competent review of the assurance conclusion should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Review should determine whether correction can remain case-specific or must extend across the system. Within the scope under review, the review record should preserve exceptions capable of showing a weakness in design, implementation or coverage.
Decisions concerning the applicable requirement should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. For open educational resources, a revision should state whether the change concerns the underlying condition, the evidence, the method or the interpretation. Without this distinction, a reporting change may be mistaken for improvement or deterioration in educational practice.
- Which evidence establishes operation?
- Where do exceptions occur?
- What outcome is intended?
- What action is required by the finding?
- Who controls each stage?
Basis for a reliable conclusion
Accountability for open educational resources should follow decision-making authority. Evidence of material risk should be placed before the body with authority to act, together with a traceable decision. Delegation of delivery does not remove the need for a named authority to oversee material learner impact.
Interpretation of open educational resources should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence.
- State whether assessment or credit is available.
- Identify authorship and version.
- Provide correction routes.
- Verify rights before publication.
- Maintain or withdraw outdated material.
Maintaining effective oversight
For open educational resources, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. Open access can widen participation, but users require clear information about authorship, licence, quality, accessibility, maintenance and the status of any learning or assessment.
Interpretation of the applicable expectation 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. Availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. In reviewing open educational resources, a prescribed method should not be treated as the only acceptable method where another approach establishes the same outcome with equivalent evidence.
Progress on competence requirements supporting open educational resources under review is not the amount of policy or documentation produced.