English

Replication guide

Use OER Fit for your own course.

The English reviews are one example. The process begins with your course outline and other guiding documents, turns those requirements into a defensible rubric, uses AI only where it can reduce repetitive initial review work, and keeps final academic judgment with people.

The detailed workflow inside Frame → Inspect → Test

Frame → Inspect → Test is the overall FIT Method. The five phases below unpack that three-step method into a more detailed replication workflow: define the course, build and calibrate the rubric, inspect comparable OER, test the findings against the sources, and maintain the work over time. View the FIT Method for the shorter overview.

1Define the courseStart with the course outline and identify what the course actually requires.

Start with the course outline and other guiding documents

Use the document that officially guides the course, usually the course outline of record (COR), and add other documents only when they apply.

  • Local COR or official course outline
  • CCN template, when applicable
  • C-ID descriptor, when applicable
  • Required outcomes, objectives, content, or discipline standards
  • Local requirements that materially shape the course

Map what the course requires

Pull the important requirements out of those documents and organize them so you can see what repeats, what differs, and what is non-negotiable.

  • Record which guiding document supports each expectation
  • Group related expectations into instructional domains
  • Note which requirements are explicit and which are interpretive
  • Keep local requirements separate from statewide or external ones
2Build and test the rubricTurn the course requirements into observable criteria before reviewing a large set of OER.

Build the course fit rubric

Define what meaningful instructional coverage would actually look like. Avoid generic textbook criteria unless they are genuinely part of the course.

  • Score domains independently
  • Define the four coverage levels: Strong, Meaningful, Limited, and Not a significant focus
  • Distinguish instruction from mere topic presence
  • Add calibration examples so different reviewers interpret levels similarly

Test and refine the rubric

Try the rubric on a few very different resources before you scale up.

  • Look for categories that overlap too much
  • Identify descriptors that are vague or impossible to verify
  • Check whether the rubric rewards breadth when the course requires depth, or vice versa
  • Revise before reviewing the full set
3Review comparable OERCompare resources meant to do similar jobs, then use AI only for a provisional first pass.

Choose resources that can be fairly compared

Decide what each resource is meant to do before applying the rubric.

  • Group likely main course texts together before applying a full course fit rubric
  • Treat anthologies and other reading collections as collections rather than incomplete textbooks
  • Evaluate focused supplements against the specific instructional job they are meant to do
  • Keep resource role labels visible so faculty can interpret the findings correctly

Run an AI-assisted first pass

AI can reduce repetitive labor by scanning large resources against the rubric, but every finding remains provisional.

  • Ask for analysis of each criterion
  • Require specific supporting locations or citations
  • Ask the model to distinguish explicit instruction from simple presence
  • Have it flag uncertainty rather than force a rating
4Verify and publishOpen the OER yourself, correct the draft, and publish transparent observations rather than certifications.

Verify every finding in the OER

Check the passages, chapters, activities, and context behind the draft findings.

  • Correct fabricated or overstated evidence
  • Revise ratings that do not match the rubric
  • Check whether examples are isolated or sustained
  • Add practical notes about likely course role and supplementation

Publish transparent review notes

Make the criteria, limits, and review process visible without implying official compliance, articulation, or approval.

  • Show the rubric
  • Explain how AI was used
  • Separate editorial course fit from classroom experience
  • State what the review does and does not establish
5Keep the work currentRevisit the rubric and review when the course, the OER, or the evidence changes.

OER change. Course requirements change. Better evidence appears. Treat the rubric and reviews as living faculty work.

  • Date substantial updates
  • Invite corrections
  • Record version changes when practical
  • Revisit the rubric when the course framework changes

Use AI for scale. Keep judgment human.

AI can help with

  • Comparing the course outline with other guiding documents
  • Drafting a course requirements map
  • Testing rubric wording for ambiguity
  • Scanning large OER for possible evidence
  • Organizing criterion-level notes
  • Flagging possible strengths, gaps, or inconsistencies

Human reviewers should decide

  • Which course outline or guiding documents apply
  • Whether the rubric represents the course fairly
  • Whether cited evidence actually supports a claim
  • How much instructional depth is present
  • What context or supplementation matters
  • What final observations are published or used

What you will create

Each phase should leave behind something another faculty member can inspect, reuse, or revise.

1. Course Requirements Map

Lists the course requirements, which guiding document each one comes from, and where requirements overlap or differ.

2. Course Fit Rubric

Defines the instructional domains and the evidence needed for each coverage level.

3. AI Review Prompt

Applies the rubric consistently and requires specific evidence, uncertainty flags, and reasoning for each criterion.

4. Verification Checklist

Requires the reviewer to open the source, verify evidence, revise claims, and document important context.

5. Review Template

Separates course fit observations, source evidence, likely role, adoption planning context where useful, and Teaching Notes.

Quick quality check

  • Another faculty member can see which course outline and guiding documents shaped the rubric.
  • The rubric defines observable evidence rather than relying on broad impressions.
  • The same criteria are applied across resources.
  • AI output is treated as provisional, not as evidence.
  • A human checks the underlying OER before a finding is published or used.
  • Ratings describe course fit, not overall quality or official compliance.
  • Course-specific teaching notes can remain visible as a separate kind of evidence.
  • The process can be revised when better evidence or updated course expectations appear.

Want to see the process in action? OER Fit: English uses separate course rubrics for ENGL C1000, C1001, C1002, and C1003, then applies those criteria to individual OER.

View the C1000 Rubric or view the FIT Method.

Browse English OEROpen The OER Promptbook