OER Reviewed: Mechanics and Fields and Circuits

Reviewer: Jennifer Kirkey, Instructor of Physics and Astronomy, Articulation Chair of Physics and Astronomy, Douglas College

Rating

Each criterion asks the reviewer to rate it on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very poor and 5 = excellent).

Comprehensiveness – Rating: 2

The OER covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary.

This is not a book, but a series of online modules directed at self-directed students to supplement a physics course.

To quote the authors from the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada “These ten modules support the development of basic skills in Physics, in the areas of Newtonian Mechanics. The content includes the core concepts studied in a first-year calculus-based introductory physics course taught at the university level. Following a typical semester‐long structure, the ideas of kinematics, dynamics, Newton’s laws and conservation laws will be presented.”

It ends at Simple Harmonic Motion.  It does not cover waves.

It has no index and no glossary, but it is not a book so that is not surprising.

Content Accuracy – Rating: 5

Content, including diagrams and other supplementary material, is accurate, error-free, and unbiased.

What is there, is very well done.  The videos are well made, with good animation and they  have close captioning.  The voice over hand written videos are also very well done.

Relevance/Longevity – Rating: 2

Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the OER obsolete within a short period of time.  The OER is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement.

The content is up to date but it cannot be updated as it is a series of videos.  It would be easy to make up supplementary questions in a PDF file, but they could not be integrated into the links that are embedded in the modules and videos.

Clarity – Rating: 5

The OER is written in lucid, accessible prose, and provides adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used.

What is there is extremely well written.

Consistency – Rating: 5

The OER is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

Very well done videos and practice problems.

Modularity – Rating: 2

The OER is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (i.e., enormous blocks of text without subheadings should be avoided).  The OER should not be overly self-referential, and should be easily reorganized, and realigned with various subunits of a course without presenting much disruption to the reader.

It is done as a series of ten modules, but it cannot be reorganized or realigned.

Organization/Structure/Flow – Rating: 5

The topics in the OER are presented in a logical, clear fashion.

This OER follows the classic flow of the topics in a first year physics course and are presented in a logical and clear fashion.

Interface – Rating: 5

The OER is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader.

The videos and practice questions and PDFs with more printed practice questions and problems are seamlessly integrated.

Grammatical/Spelling Errors – Rating: 5

The OER contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

I could find no grammatical or spelling errors.

Diversity and Inclusion – Rating: 2

The OER reflects diversity and inclusion regarding culture, gender, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, education, religion. It does not include insensitive or offensive language in these areas.

There are actually very few images and the videos are quite short and heavily text based so very little diversity is shown.  It does not include insensitive or offensive language in these areas.

Recommendation

1. Do you recommend this resource for the specific course taught in the first-year engineering common curriculum (in place of a commercially available resource)?
   I do not recommend this resource on its own. It could be used as a supplement or to prepare students for the course but it cannot be used in place of a commercially available resource or other available OER. I was very impressed with the quality and will be recommending it to my students to use this way.
2. If not, why not? What improvements, if any, could be made? 

   This is a nice series of 10 short modules.  To quote the creators “These ten online modules support the development of basic skills in Physics, in the areas of Newtonian Mechanics. The content follows the core topics typically presented in most first-year calculus-based introductory physics courses at the university level, including kinematics, dynamics and Newton’s Laws, and conservation laws. The modules are designed to allow for self-study so students can use them to prepare in advance or to support their learning in courses such as PHYA10/PHYA11.Instructors can use the modules to  assign preparatory material for lecture discussions or to provide additional support for students working through the material in courses similar to PHYA10/PHYA11.”

   The only course outline I could find online was from 2016 and in it the professor used the textbook Knight and these modules were only used as a supplement.

3. What gaps in content have you identified?
   There are 10 modules which end at Simple Harmonic Motion.   PHYS I includes all of the material in these 10 modules as well as waves.As well, there are not enough questions and problems for the modules that they have created.   For example, Module 05 Newton’s Third Law, Lesson 04 is on Tensions Strings and Pulleys.  It has 2 questions and 1 problem.