Dear diary,

In light of recent events, I was considering giving up on my idea and trying something else. By seeing the presentations of my colleagues’ projects, it seemed to me that my project was inconsequential in terms of content. However, Professor Chrisi convinced me that every idea is valuable and that the paths we take are important. Perhaps I am aiming too high, maybe even too ambitiously? At the moment, I am a bit confused, but I am trying to find a way.

3 key takeaways, critically applied to our future OE evaluations

(taken from the ICDE (2015) recommendations)

  1. Support contextualisation of OE quality evaluation (take into consideration e.g. access to internet and other tech, supportive/participatory environment etc.).
  2. Enhance knowledge transfer (from open to traditional learning and vice versa, e.g. use of tech-based solutions).
  3. Strengthen professional development of reviewers (first check their awareness about OE)

Thinking about the evaluation of OER, I created my own scale, using Kawachi, P. (2014):


  1. The license is clearly visible and open, granting the right to share, adapt, and combine with other content.
  2. Each part of the OER is openly licensed: if other sources are used, they are accurately cited and included in the references; images or multimedia are properly attributed.
  3. It is easily accessible, shareable, suitable for printing, as well as mobile usage.
  4. Technical quality implies clear readability, high-quality sound without noise, and satisfactory video quality.
  5. The technical format allows for maximum reuse and combination. It includes metadata tags about the content, enabling easy searchability.
  6. Navigation through the content is natural and intuitive.
  7. It provides information on the expected learning duration and the anticipated level of difficulty.
  8. It contains the production date or the date of the last revision.
  9. The content possesses authentic access and is appropriately localized (adapted to specific needs).
  10. The content is self-contained as a standalone unit for independent learning, without direct reliance on external links, and can be easily integrated into other OER.
  11. The content is easily searchable.
  12. The access is user-centered and aligned with the needs of a specific designated user age group.
  13. It employs authentic methodology and pedagogy.
  14. It highlights the purpose, goals, and potential uses.
  15. The language used is clear, understandable, and avoids discriminatory expressions (hate speech) or inappropriate language.
  16. It fosters learning-to-learn skills.
  17. It includes relevant tasks aligned with real-world problems.
  18. It stimulates intrinsic motivation for learning, for example, by arousing curiosity through interesting anecdotes.
  19. It includes various self-assessment and reflection models for the learned material.
  20. It is uniquely designed.
  21. The knowledge and skills acquired by the user are scientifically validated, contemporary, accurate, and reliable.
  22. It is appropriate and relevant to its purpose; it does not contain excessive material and does not divert attention from the topic.
  23. The content’s design supports equality, promotes social harmony, inclusiveness, respects the laws of the Republic of Serbia, and does not discriminate based on any criteria.


  • Lübben S, Müskens W., and Zawacki-Richter O. (2023) Quality of OER: Test Theoretical Development and Validation of an Assessment Tool In book: Distributed Learning Ecosystems (pp.139-160) DOI:10.1007/978-3-658-38703-7_8, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368761640_Quality_of_OER_Test_Theoretical_Development_and_Validation_of_an_Assessment_Tool
  • Austin Community College Office of Instructional & FacultyChecklist for Evaluating Open Educational Resources (OER) Available at:https://pgcc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=57241844
  • UMGC OER Quality Guide (2019) Available at:https://pgcc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=70526742
  • Kawachi, P. (2014). Quality Assurance Guidelines for Open Educational Resources: TIPS Framework. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA). Available at http://hdl.handle.net/11599/562
  • Ossiannilsson E, Williams K, Camilleri A & Brown M (2015) Quality models in online and open education around the globe. State of the art and recommendations. Oslo: International Council for Open and Distance Education – ICDE. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b99664675f9eea7a3ecee82/t/5bb8e9dde79c70e0435dc9aa/1538845155098/qualitymodelsexecutivesummary3.pdf

Оставите одговор