Policy expectations for transparent implementation of open educational resources

In 2012, consideration of open educational resources must take account of the Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 and the responsibilities it places before education systems. In work concerning transparent implementation of open educational resources, the significance of the present development lies in implementation: public commitments require an identifiable allocation of authority, resources and accountability. The appropriate administrative form will depend on the jurisdiction and the allocation of lawful responsibility.

Failure in relation to the measure may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include inaccessible resources, unclear permission to reuse or adapt, confusion between participation and recognised achievement, and uncertain responsibility for learner support. In the context of transparent implementation of open educational resources, review should consider whether an exception is prolonged, recurring or capable of affecting learners outside the cases examined.

Regulatory context

Implementation of open educational resources should be organised around a decision that can be tested. When examining transparent implementation of open educational resources, oversight should test whether formal commitments are reflected in decisions, resource allocation, provider conduct and accessible routes for review. Resources and activity should be reconciled with the operating evidence and result for which the responsible function is accountable.

The Paris OER Declaration adopted in June 2012 provides a policy reference for the policy position. For decisions concerning transparent implementation of open educational resources, this distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation.

In work concerning transparent implementation of 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.

As regards transparent implementation of open educational resources, implementation requires more than dissemination. Responsible actors must understand the change, receive the authority and resources to apply it, and be able to identify cases that require advice, exception or escalation. Within the scope under review, an imprecise scope or measure may produce a credible-looking record that does not answer the relevant decision question.

• State whether assessment or credit is available.
• Monitor use without overstating learning.
• Provide correction routes.
• Verify rights before publication.
• Maintain or withdraw outdated material.

Operational effect

Care is required in drawing conclusions about open educational resources. Availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. For the policy position, a policy direction should not be presented as a uniform legal obligation where national implementation differs. For transparent implementation of open educational resources, providers remain responsible for identifying the requirements that apply to their own activities. A finding should not be separated from limitations capable of changing how it is understood or applied.

Assurance of implementation should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include academic and technical review, licence and provenance records, correction and withdrawal controls, version and maintenance information, and clear statements on support and assessment. In the context of transparent implementation of open educational resources, system-wide assurance cannot be inferred from a favourable case chosen after the event.

When examining transparent implementation of open educational resources, records relating to the policy position should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. The correction record should state what the new evidence changes and which earlier conclusions or decisions require review. The correction process should identify prior users and decisions where published information has had material effect.

Required governance attention

Authorities and providers reviewing open educational resources should proceed in a defined sequence. Review of the arrangements should translate the policy objective into controlled procedures and decision criteria, prepare affected staff and learners, test readiness, monitor early cases and correct ambiguity promptly. In the context of transparent implementation of open educational resources, review whether implementation differs across sites or delivery partners. Findings should state the affected scope and required action; an observation should not be represented as evidence of conformity or effectiveness.

The implementation record for the issue should identify the instrument being applied, its status, the competent authority, the affected jurisdiction and the action expected of each responsible body. Legal obligation, policy position and institutional response should each retain their proper status. In work concerning transparent implementation of open educational resources, a staged implementation record should set out transition dates, interim safeguards and the readiness review point.

• What do early cases show?
• Have affected users received clear information?
• Are responsibilities and resources in place?
• What operational decision changes?
• Where is implementation inconsistent?

Evidence and accountability

The system and institutional dimensions of open educational resources should be considered together. 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 work concerning transparent implementation of open educational resources, neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.

Accountability for transparent implementation of open educational resources should follow decision-making authority. Where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.

For the policy position, the implementation record should distinguish binding duties, policy expectations and institutional choices, including any transition or jurisdictional limitation. For transparent implementation of open educational resources, public confidence cannot be separated from an institution's ability to identify responsibility and substantiate its conclusions.