OERu/Planning/Quality review project/Second meeting

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

OERu Quality Review Project

Meeting: September 1, 2017 Link to the meeting recording: <insert link here>..

Present: Carina Bossu, Danielle Dubien, Adrian Stagg

Agenda Working Party members to add agenda items

ACTIONS from the last meeting

Adrian: to set up monthly meetings for all participants and provide the Zoom link (Completed)

Adrian: to contribute a link to the USQ StudyDesk Expectations (review document) on the planning page (Completed)

Wayne: to contact Alberta eCampus for access to the quality documentation and toolkit eCampusAlberta site no longer exists, but traced a snapshot of the quality tools via the Internet Archive Wayback machine.

Adrian: to contribute a link to the TIPS v2.0 Framework for consideration by all team memebers (Completed)

Wayne: to determine if there are linkages between this work and that undertaken by the OERu Curriculum & Planning Group.

All members: to become familiar with the linked documents, to contribute others as appropriate, and to be prepared to discuss the documentation at the next meeting.

Note: all members have agreed to use the Quality Review Project website, the chat.oeru.org tool, and the OERu Community tool to support open and transparent planning processes and accountable communication. In addition, all future meetings of this group will be recorded to become part of this record.


The team has discussed the role of quality checks for all courses and the purpose and facets for doing so. It has been agreed that the quality dimensions of the activity need to distinguish between instructional design elements, open design for reuse, and technical elements.

The other factor to bear in mind is that this activity differs from traditional course quality approaches. In a traditional university environment, part of this check would include constructive alignment across the program. The OERu - by design - does not mandate specific course pathways for learners and as such programmatic approaches cannot be implemented. This did, however, raise the issue of prior knowledge required/demonstrated with courses. for example, if a set of courses are labelled 1001-1004, there needs to be specific expectations outlined to the learner about engagement. Does the author recommend that each course is taken sequentially (again bearing in mind that we cannot mandate) and include a self-assessment tool for learners at each stage? Or are the courses designed as four 'stand alone' learning experiences linked by theme? In either case, this needs to be communicated to the student.

Additionally, a larger review of assessment using the USQ program mapping tool was discussed. This type of macro-document would indicate the style and format of assessment across all OERu courses, and may identify dominant assessment types (or gaps). Again, whilst the OERu does not mandate pedagogical approach, such information would be useful in light pf bringing together courses for accreditard sequences.


Next Meeting: via Zoom (to be recorded): [1] (last Friday of the month) 10.30-11.30 am (AEST)