Frame the course
Start with the course outline and other guiding documents, then turn the course requirements into a rubric with clearly defined evidence and rating levels.
The short version
The dots describe course fit, not overall quality. They show how much meaningful, teachable coverage of a specific course criterion appears in a resource.
They do not certify a book, choose it for you, or turn the resource into one overall score.
The FIT Method
The method is designed to be transparent enough to inspect and structured enough to replicate.
Inspect the OER
Apply the same rubric to likely or widely used OER. AI helps with scale, organization, and locating possible evidence.
Test the findings
Open the resource, verify the evidence, revise unsupported claims, and add human context before anything is published.
How to read the dots
The criteria change by course, but the dots always describe the same thing: how much explicit, teachable coverage appears for that criterion.
Strong alignment
Substantial, explicit instruction that can carry a meaningful share of teaching in that area.
Meaningful alignment
Useful direct instruction, but some range, depth, or support may still need supplementation.
Limited alignment
The topic appears, but treatment is brief, secondary, or not enough to teach it independently.
Not a significant focus
Little or no direct instruction in that area.
Three dots does not mean “best book.” Fit depends on the course and the resource's teaching role. The same OER may look very different in C1000, C1001, C1002, and C1003.
The full method
If you want to inspect how the review is built, open each section below. You do not need this detail to use the course pages.
Building the course rubricBuild the rubric from the course, not from the textbook.
- Start with the course outline and other guiding documents. For this project, that includes statewide Common Course Numbering expectations and related curriculum guidance. In another setting, that might be a local course outline of record (COR), C-ID descriptor, professional standard, or another document that guides the course.
- Translate broad expectations into separate instructional criteria. This makes it possible to see where a resource is strong and where it is thin without reducing everything to one grade.
- Define what visible evidence looks like. A topic in a table of contents is not enough; stronger fit requires explanation, modeling, guided practice, scaffolding, or sustained instruction.
- Calibrate before scaling up. Test the rubric on sample resources and refine criteria that reasonable reviewers could interpret very differently.
The rubric is an analytical tool developed for this project. It is not an official CCN, C-ID, articulation, curriculum, or institutional compliance instrument.
Reviewing the OERUse the same rubric to locate possible evidence across the resource.
- Use one rubric consistently. Candidate resources are reviewed against the same course criteria so differences are easier to compare.
- Sample across the whole resource. The first pass looks beyond the table of contents to opening material, multiple chapters or units, later sections, appendices, and support material when present.
- Ask for locations, not impressions. Draft findings should point to a chapter, section, page, heading, or stable URL whenever possible.
- Keep AI ratings provisional. AI can help locate likely strengths, gaps, and evidence, but nothing becomes a published finding until the source is checked.
AI is not the evidence. The OER itself is the evidence.
Verifying the findingsVerify the source and make the final human judgment.
- Open the source. Check the underlying material rather than accepting an AI summary or isolated quotation at face value.
- Ask whether the evidence really supports the rating. A citation can be real and still be too thin for the proposed level.
- Revise overstatements, gaps, and uneven findings. Ratings and notes change when the source shows something different from the first pass.
- Add practical context. The published review can note likely teaching role, supplementation needs, and other adoption context that helps faculty use the finding.
A published finding should be traceable
Another faculty member should be able to see the criterion, the rating, the source evidence, and any important limitation or supplementation need.
Editorial course fit and teaching notes stay separate
They answer different questions and should not disappear into one blended score.
Editorial course fit
Asks: What does this resource appear to teach in relation to this course?
It comes from the course rubric, source evidence, and the review process above.
Teaching notes
Asks: What happened when someone actually taught with it?
Teaching notes can reveal sequencing, student response, accessibility barriers, assignment possibilities, and other realities an initial review cannot.
Other labels you will see
Start Here
A practical shortcut for a resource that appears especially worth investigating early. It is not an award or official endorsement.
Best Role
A practical judgment about whether a resource may work best as a main course text, readings collection, or supplement.
Adoption Guide
Deeper planning context for likely main course texts, such as useful chapter sequences, supplementation needs, edition differences, available platforms, or teaching materials.
Teaching Notes
Classroom observations contributed separately from the editorial course fit review so readers can see which kind of evidence they are reading.
What OER Fit does not determine
OER Fit observations should not be treated as official CCN compliance reviews, curriculum approvals, articulation decisions, accessibility certifications, licensing audits, or endorsements by ASCCC, ASCCC OERI, the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, or an individual college.
Faculty remain responsible for reviewing resources in relation to their own course outline, local requirements, students, assignments, accessibility expectations, licensing, and instructional goals.
See the English implementation
The course rubrics show what the method looks like when applied to current California Community College English courses. Use the accessible HTML grids to inspect each course rubric, compare criteria, resize text, and navigate with row and column headers.
Want to use the process yourself?
The method is meant to be adaptable. Start with your own course documents, build and calibrate a rubric, use AI only for provisional initial analysis, and verify every substantive finding against the resource itself.