Sets out outcome measurement as an evidence-led approach to provider responsibility for open content, covering responsibility, outcome evidence and sustained effect.
The open licensing and quality controls provide the immediate reference point for consideration of provider responsibility for open content in 2012. The purpose of an improvement method is not to produce an action plan; it is to change a material condition and verify that the change is sustained. The response should be proportionate to risk while preserving access, learning, fair treatment and reliable learner information.
For provider responsibility for open content, the applicable expectation should be capable of consistent application. A complete improvement record should define the baseline, affected scope, causal hypothesis, responsible owner, resources, milestones and measures of effectiveness. Definitions should provide a stable basis for decisions while allowing relevant differences to be identified and justified.
Defining the problem
Open licensing and quality controls provides the reference point for this analysis. Its relevance to provider responsibility for open content should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.
The system and institutional dimensions of corrective action 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. For decisions concerning provider responsibility for open content, authorities and providers hold different responsibilities, both of which must be discharged for the arrangement to operate reliably. Each level should be able to demonstrate the decisions and controls for which it is accountable.
- Maintain or withdraw outdated material.
- Identify authorship and version.
- Review content and accessibility.
- Verify rights before publication.
- State whether assessment or credit is available.
Improvement method
The analysis of provider responsibility for open content should make its decision rule explicit. The subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process. Within the scope under review, this supports consistent review and reduces the risk of redefining the basis of judgement after an adverse result appears.
A narrow control over corrective action may create false assurance. In the present context, uncertain responsibility for learner support, unclear permission to reuse or adapt and inaccessible resources may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.
Relevant evidence for corrective action will normally include version and maintenance information, accessibility checks, clear statements on support and assessment, licence and provenance records, and correction and withdrawal controls. For provider responsibility for open content, currency, provenance and representativeness should be established before evidence is used for assurance. Contradictory evidence should be investigated and resolved, not omitted from the record.
- Who controls each stage?
- Where do exceptions occur?
- Which evidence establishes operation?
- What action is required by the finding?
- What outcome is intended?
Measures and review
Review of the corrective action should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. In the context of provider responsibility for open content, averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.
A decision to close improvement work on provider responsibility for open content should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation.
Proportionality in relation to corrective action does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. Availability is not equivalent to accessibility, participation or learning. Each outcome requires separate evidence. As regards provider responsibility for open content, correcting an individual record does not establish that the process which produced the error has been corrected.
For decisions concerning provider responsibility for open content, records relating to the intended improvement should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. New evidence should trigger a traceable correction and review of decisions materially affected by the earlier conclusion. Where reliance has occurred, correction may require review of affected decisions as well as amendment of published information.
Accountability for provider responsibility for open content should follow decision-making authority. Where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.
No individual measure is sufficient to establish effective operation of the relevant practice across the affected scope. A conclusion concerning provider responsibility for open content should be revised when stronger evidence materially changes the assessment of implementation, outcome or risk.