Independent review of open educational resources

Against the background of the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012, education authorities and providers should review how open educational resources are defined, implemented and evidenced. The central issue is the meaning of the expectation in practice, including its scope, the evidence needed to demonstrate it and the circumstances in which it may not apply. The proportionality test should consider both the identified risk and the consequences of the control for affected learners.

For 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.

A proper review of the applicable expectation should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. Examination of the matter should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. In the context of open educational resources, suitability, authorised variation and the date for reconsideration should be established when the arrangement is approved.

Applicable scope

When examining 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 the applicable expectation, 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.

• Monitor use without overstating learning.
• State whether assessment or credit is available, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.
• Verify rights before publication.
• Review content and accessibility.
• Provide correction routes.

Implementation and evidence

Review is independent when the reviewer is sufficiently separate from the design, operation and approval of the matter to reach and report an impartial conclusion. Organisational location alone does not establish independence.

Risk assessment for the assurance conclusion should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. A provider should also consider uncertain responsibility for learner support and confusion between participation and recognised achievement.

Assurance concerning the applicable expectation should state the scope examined, evidence relied upon and any condition preventing a complete conclusion. Unsupported elements should remain open. Useful records include licence and provenance records, version and maintenance information, correction and withdrawal controls, accessibility checks, and academic and technical review. In work concerning open educational resources, evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases.

• Who decides the response?
• Does the reviewer have a relevant conflict?
• Is competence established?
• Can adverse findings be reported without alteration?
• Who designed and operates the control?

Assessment of conformity

For the applicable requirement, the reviewer should define the review question and criteria, record competence and conflicts, preserve access to relevant evidence, and protect the reviewer’s ability to report adverse findings. Assign acceptance of residual risk to an authority outside the reviewed activity. As regards open educational resources, averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.

Interpretation of open educational resources should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence.

Proportionality in relation to the control does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. Review of the applicable requirement should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment. Each outcome requires separate evidence. Review of the assurance conclusion should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event.

For open educational resources, accountability and effective correction both depend on a record that can be followed from evidence to decision. For the applicable expectation, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. A material amendment should record its reason and effective date, preserving the information basis of earlier decisions.

In the context of open educational resources, where responsibilities for delivery are shared with partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. The division of responsibilities should cover records, communication, escalation and the power to require correction. Multiple delivery partners do not justify fragmented accountability or remedy.

The objective for open educational resources should be explicit, the evidence proportionate and learner impact visible. Where evidence concerning open educational resources cannot support assurance, the limitation should be reported and corrective work should remain open.