OER Reviewed: Chemistry 2e (OpenStax)

Reviewer: Duane Friesen, Professor, Vancouver Island University, Chemistry Department

OER previously used for teaching by reviewer with modifications/additions from Chemistry Department.

Rating

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

Comprehensiveness – Rating: 3

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

The text covers the required concepts for a first year chemistry course in a typical engineering program at a basic first year level.  It has less detail that a typical commercial text, but the important topics are covered clearly and adequately.  The end of each chapter includes a useful summary of key terms, equations and concepts.  The end-of-text index is quite rudimentary relative to other texts.  The questions at the end of each section tend to be very basic, and I’ve needed to supplement these with more in-depth questions from other sources.

Content Accuracy – Rating: 3

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

The main content is fine, but we have found that the text has an uncomfortable number of typos, and some errors with formulas and constants, etc., which has required repeated editing to correct.  For example, the simplified form of the Nernst equation on page 913 has two different errors, and the temperature (298 K) is not specified.

Relevance/Longevity – Rating: 4

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 change in the core material in any first year chemistry text over time is relatively small.  The main changes are in the supplementary “additional interest” material.  The structure of the text makes changes relatively straightforward.  We have been able to edit and expand the text as needed for the last 2-3 years to suit our needs of first year chemistry in our department (and to address the typos and errors mentioned above).  The main issues we have encountered have been with the time and workload required to make the necessary changes, and the quirks associated with the editing software.

Clarity – Rating: 4

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

The text is clear, if somewhat basic.  Explanations tend to be quite simple and understandable for most students.  May not be “in-depth” enough for some students continuing in physical sciences, for whom additional material would be useful (and can be added).  However, should be adequate for most students in engineering who require a one-semester course in chemistry as part of their program.

Consistency – Rating: 3

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

The consistency of the overall framework is comparable to other first year chemistry texts.  Terminology is consistent.

Modularity – Rating: 4

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.

The chapters are divided into subsections of reasonable length.   Specific chapters and subsections can be rearranged or edited into a custom textbook for a course (which we have done for our first year chemistry for engineers).  If desired, the chapters can be separately converted to PDF’s which can make them easier for students to download and print.

Organization/Structure/Flow – Rating: 4

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

The presentation of the topics (review material, thermochemistry, structure of the atom, bonding, phases of matter, kinetics, equilibrium, etc.) is similar to those in many other first year chemistry textbooks.

Interface – Rating: 3

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 quality of the figures is generally lower than that of a typical commercial text, but not to the point which would adversely affect following the material.  The text contains hyperlinks to the WWW for more information; however, some of them cannot be accessed and need to be updated or removed by editing.

Grammatical/Spelling Errors – Rating: 2

The OER contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

See comments given above in criterion 1.  Many errors and typos in the text were identified and corrected during the creation of the version that we use.  The adopter of the text is strongly advised to go through the material in the text to ensure that errors are addressed before releasing the text to students.

Diversity and Inclusion – Rating: 5

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.

No issues regarding diversity and inclusion have been identified during the time we have adopted a modified version of the text (3 – 4 years).

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)?
   Yes, with modifications to address textual errors as noted above.
2. If yes, please briefly summarize the reasons for recommending this resource
   Cost.  As many engineering students require only a one-semester course in chemistry, this allows students to access an adequate (with modifications) textbook for free rather than purchasing another costly first-year textbook.
3. What gaps in content have you identified?
   End-of-chapter questions should be supplemented with more challenging questions to improve student problem-solving skills.  More questions relating to engineering topics would help students to relate to real-world application.Note for those looking to include some organic chemistry in their lecture content.  We had to rewrite much of the organic chemistry section to fit with our lectures.