Technical Writing (Open Oregon)
OER Reviewed: Technical Writing (Open Oregon)
Reviewer: Michael Sjoerdsma, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University
Rating
Each criterion asks the reviewer to rate it on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very poor and 5 = excellent).
Note from reviewer:
For some context, I teach a writing intensive course, ENSC 105W: Process, Form, and Convention in Professional Genres, which is a mandatory course all students in the School of Engineering Science (ENSC) at SFU take during their first semester. The current textbook is Strategies for Engineering Communication (Stevenson and Whitmore, 2001). This textbook was written by two former faculty members, and, while good, is a bit out of date. ENSC 105W covers the following topics: rhetorical principles and strategies, netiquette and computer security, critical and creative thinking, referencing conventions, technical writing styles, research strategies, academic integrity, writing processes, form and format, punctuation, oral presentations, poster presentations, WHMIS certification, engineering conventions, resumes and cover letters, teamwork and professionalism, ENSC orientation, and study skills and time management.
Our program has mandatory co-op, and ENSC 105W incorporates an online module called Bridging Online, which is facilitated by our co-op coordinators. The course also has a module and lecture provided by SFU librarians, and the WHMIS component is offered through an online module administered by Health and Safety.
Comprehensiveness – Rating: 3
The OER covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary.
The OER covers many areas that I require in my course, such as audience (chapter 2), information literacy (chapter 4), citation and plagiarism (chapter 5), outlines (chapter 7), creating and integrating graphics (chapter 8), employment materials (chapter 12). The book also has chapters that would be useful in our capstone project course: proposals (chapter 3), progress reports (chapter 6), technical reports (chapter 10). The OER also contains chapters the would be useful in my course to further strengthen or add to the content I cover: ethics in technical writing (chapter 9), communicating across cultures (chapter 13), and thinking about writing (chapter 14).
Unfortunately, there are key topics that are not covered at all. The OER does not discuss the writing process. Although it does a good job discussing the importance of audience and purpose, it does not have a chapter (or section) dedicated to the entire process of writing that includes inventing, drafting, and revising/editing. While the OER has a chapter on outlines (chapter 7), there is no discussion of the potential steps needed to create an outline, such as brainstorming, free writing, and mind mapping. There is no content related to revising and editing, such as paragraph analysis and revising for stylistic issues (e.g., clarity, conciseness, connection).
The OER has no concluding chapter that draws key themes together and provides closure for the reader. The OER has a table of contents, but no index nor glossary.
Content Accuracy – Rating: 4.5
Content, including diagrams and other supplementary material, is accurate, error-free, and unbiased.
I have no concerns here. The written context is supported by figures where necessary. The document provides links to external material, which sometimes do not look like links. These links should be update/formatted to make it clear they are links. In Chapter 7, p. 77, there is a link to a video that requires Adobe Flash Player, which, as of December 2020, is no longer supported.
To be a bit picky, there’s reference in Chapter 9, Ethics n Technical Writing, about the Space Shuttle challenger case that is too simplistic.
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.
Many of the topics in technical writing have remained the same, such as the importance of audience and one’s purpose. The examples used in the book are up-to-date; for example, in the section about resumes, the book discusses that an objective section is no longer required. There are a few places where the book is dated in terms of examples. In Chapter 11 the book refers to blogs and eBay, which, although both still around, shows when the chapter was first written. However, I don’t think this is a big deal. OER references Sears on page 133.
It would be nice if the book incorporated engineering-specific examples. From my reading, the OER approaches technical writing from a business perspective. A course instructor will need to provide their own examples.
Updating the book should be straightforward. The content will change slowly, so the real opportunity for keeping the book relevant is updating the examples.
Clarity – Rating: 3.5
The OER is written in lucid, accessible prose, and provides adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used.
Overall, the language is appropriate for first-year students and the tone is professional without being too formal. However, the book is premised on the fact that readers have taken an academic writing course before. On page two, the authors state “You have probably taken at least one academic writing course before this one,…” Because of this fact, the authors will refer to some context presuming students have already seen the material. For example, the book refers to the imperative voice and active and passive voice, which I think would confuse my students. This assumption that the authors make may also explain the missing content I outlined before.
Another problem is that many of the chapters are clearly written with a specific institution in mind that is situated in the USA. In several places, the book refers to Central Oregon College (COOC) and alludes/references program specific requirements. These references could cause confusion to students, and the such references need to be generalized.
Consistency – Rating: 3
The OER is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.
Clearly, some chapters have different authors. There are stylistic differences in places, some of which are fine, but other places, the chapter are significantly different. Some sections/chapter rely on too much point form, such as Sec 1.3 and Chapter 6. Unlike other chapters, Chapters 11 and 12 incorporate exercises for the reader, with the former calling them “ACTIVITY” and the latter calling them “Try this”.
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.
One of my critiques of this OER was that it was not self-referential enough, which I suppose is the trade-off if one wants modularity. The OER only a few times referred to content in other places. If this OER were used, the modularity would be at the chapter level. I can’t imagine pulling out sections or sub-sections for students to read. The chapters are not that long.
Organization/Structure/Flow – Rating: 4
The topics in the OER are presented in a logical, clear fashion.
The organization of topics is fine. Individual instructors may want to assign chapters in a different order, and this speaks to the modularity of the textbook. The OER has many blank pages throughout, which typically occur at the beginning of chapters or after short sections. I’m not sure if this is a formatting error. Flow is lacking in the parts of the book that have too much point form. Chapter 11 has good content and provide some excellent figures; however, better context is needed for some of these figures. In several place the figure and figure caption are widowed/orphaned.
Interface – Rating: 4.5
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.
I noticed no major navigation problems. As I stated before, many of the links do not look like links, so these should be updated. As mentioned, some of the figures and figure captions have been separated; this usually occurs when the figure is large. The figure on page 63 is a bit fuzzy.
Grammatical/Spelling Errors – Rating: 4.5
The OER contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
I noticed a few small mistakes:
- 26 – refers to Ariel font, which should be Arial.
- 124 – small typo in first sentence
- 214 – missing space in the sentence at bottom of page: “…limited degree.But suppose…”
Overall, grammar is fine.
Diversity and Inclusion – Rating: 4.5
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.
The OER has a nice chapter on entitled Communicating Across Cultures, which proactively addresses EDI. The Netiquette section in chapter 1 also addresses some of these aspects. The one place for improvement would be to provide more diversity in the examples of writing samples. There is a lack of cultural diversity in the names.
Recommendation
- Do you recommend this resource for the specific course taught in the first-year engineering common curriculum (in place of a commercially available resource)?
There are some good chapters; a few that would be useful for the Technical Writing course for engineering. - If yes, please briefly summarize the reasons for recommending this resource
This OER has many good chapters, and I think many chapters could be used to supplement material in a course. I would suggest adopting the text if someone could go through and fix the issues addressed in this review. - What gaps in content have you identified?
This resource is lacking fundamental topics that I have mentioned earlier. The OER’s assumption of a previous writing course is probably the reason some topics are omitted. Many chapters of the book are specific to an institution and references program-specific requirements. Moreover, there is a lack of content that is engineering specific.If the OER were to add topics related to the writing process, add to the chapter on outlining to include brainstorming, and add a chapter about style this would make the book more appropriate. Material that is too specific to an institution can be generalized without too much work. As for the lack of engineering specific example, these, perhaps, could be provided by individual instructors.