Feedback can originate from users, reviewers, your team, or through organizationally mandated updates. Some strategies for soliciting feedback include:

• Mention that you want feedback on the homepage of your OER website by either providing your contact information or a link to a feedback page or electronic form. Consider repeating this information on every web page and avoid placing it at the bottom of the page.

• For textbooks, invite corrections in the preface or introduction, use an external annotation tool, enable comments on the platform where you publish your textbook, or encourage learners to submit a review.

• Ancillary materials, such as assessment banks, slide decks, workbooks, and instructor materials are also sources for feedback, so be sure to solicit feedback there.

• Add a feedback/revision log page as a separate page on a website or in the front or back matter of a textbook. This will illustrate to the user that you are serious about receiving feedback and may motivate them to provide theirs.

• Make sure you describe the type of feedback you need and how they can provide it. Ask users to provide specific information about the location of the discrepancy or improvement as well as how they would correct or improve it.

• Ask learners, instructors, trainers, and instructional designers to submit a review of the instructional materials.

• Maintain an awareness of changes in the field or discipline that may influence theory, discourse, and practice. (Council of Australian University of Librarians)

Think about how often you intend to make updates to the instructional materials, which are often on an annual, quarterly, or  semester basis that is dependent upon your organization’s resources. Approach maintenance changes such as typos and broken links as an ongoing task you can complete without necessarily setting a schedule. Major updates such as adding or replacing sections and restructuring the materials is a more complicated task and will need a collaborative effort and scheduling.

Whatever your organization decides regarding a maintenance schedule, place this information and the date of the most recent revisions next to information about how users can provide feedback. This shows that you take making improvements to the materials seriously and may encourage them to participate in the revisions.

Now that you have feedback, what are you going to do with it? This depends on the type of feedback received, such as errors, proposals for adding new information and resources, or a complete overhaul of the organization of the material.

Your initial follow-up should always include appreciation for the feedback and might include asking clarifying questions.

Correct spelling and grammatical errors right away.

Correct reported errors associated with links and embedded multimedia immediately. Consider setting up a schedule for looking for and correcting broken links routinely.

If the feedback involves making decisions or conducting additional research, you will want to bring in additional reviewers such as colleagues, peers, and possibly students. Consider approaching the original author for guidance who may have already started thinking about how to improve their product.

When receiving feedback through a formal review, decide on its usefulness by considering whether it is accurate, comprehensive, constructive, and concise. If you do decide to adapt your instructional material based on a formal review, publishing a review statement will provide credit to your reviewers and let your users know that the material has undergone a review. A review statement may look like this:

This book has been peer reviewed by [name(s) of reviewer(s)]. [Each web page/chapter/text/ancillary item] received a review from [number of] reviewers, based on their area of expertise. The reviewers were largely [academics/professionals/institutional staff] with required specialist knowledge in [specify concepts, topics or fields in your discipline].

An uncomplicated way to evaluate feedback from reviewers and proposed edits is through a rubric that measures the actual and potential effectiveness of the instructional material edits by answering some of the following questions:

• Does the content and learning activities align with the goals and objectives?

•  Does the content provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of the topic?

• Is the information accurate?

• Is the information appropriate for the learner?

• Is the information clear and written in plain language?

• Are there any grammatical, spelling, or typographical errors?

• Is there consistency in the design, organization, structure, and flow of the topics, content, and activities?

•  Is the information current and relevant?

• Is the information culturally relevant and promotes inclusion?

• Is the content licensed to allow you to comply with the 5Rs?

• Is the information accessible to students with disabilities?

Accessibility 

Issues related to accessibility and ease of use may arise during the review process. You may wish to use an accessibility checklist to update and make revisions of materials. Consider:

•  Is the content, including tables, compatible with third-party reading applications?

• Do the images have alternate text for reading?

• Is closed captioning enabled in videos? Is there a transcript?

• Can learners access instructional materials quickly and easily?

• Is the content organized to allow for ease of  navigation?

• Are hyperlinks descriptive and stand out from other text?

• Is the font adjustable for zoom capabilities to 200%?

• Are interactive elements compatible with assistive technology?

While this list is not exhaustive, any feedback regarding accessibility should be attended to quickly. (Wesolek, et al., 2018)

How will you let your users know that you have made changes to the OER? Users will want to know how your changes will impact their teaching and learning. Record changes on an erratum or if creating a totally new version, create a versioning history, which is dependent upon the amount of and significance of the changes.

Errata sheets should include a list of the date of the edit, the specific location of the edit, a description of the error, and a description of the correction. If you are using abbreviations for several types of corrections in your errata, include a legend. Avoid including every change, such as corrected typos, grammar corrections, and repaired web links; however, include substantial edits that will affect your users.

If publishing a new edition of your OER, provide updates from the previous edition to the new publication. This allows users of the older edition to make educated decisions about continued use of the material.