The Commons: Tools for Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric

Reviewed by Ian Springer-Woods, Professor, Tidewater Community College on 5/3/24

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

While the direct references to the University of Kentucky are not helpful, I do like that the text spends a moment to explain copyright and Creative Commons licenses.

I love the section on multiple intelligences! Just having that section here is an improvement over other texts.
Many OER texts do not include example texts due to licensing, but this text does.
There is a lot of useful information in the "Metacognitive Activities" table.
The note-taking section includes a lot of useful information and many options for ways to organize notes.
The "What is Rhetoric?" section includes a lot of useful information such as ethos/pathos/logos, types of reasoning, etc.
The audience section has useful information, but is too short and not complete enough.
Students would be well-served by having a comprehensive grammar handbook handy in addition to this text.

Note that there is no section that focuses on methods of conducting research, and no section that mentions or explains primary vs. secondary sources.

I like the diversity of topics in the Common Texts section.
It is good that the MLA section starts with a basic list of formatting. This could use a screen shot example, however.
I do not like that the phrasing on page 60 seems to encourage students to use other resources instead of (rather than in conjunction with) this text for MLA. The MLA section is not thorough enough on its own. I would not recommend it for first-term freshman college students. This text might work for students in a Composition II course if they have attempted to use MLA in Composition I.
Students need far more guidance in what makes a proper paraphrase than "in your own words."

Content Accuracy rating: 4

As a positive, there are many hyperlinks to DOI academic journal articles.

Despite the fact that this was published in 2022, the text contains example articles that use old MLA (MLA7) and whole-work titles are not italicized as they should be. All examples in a text that use MLA need to use the most updated MLA (currently MLA9) or students will be confused.

Page 60 - the Works Cited and a bibliography are not the same thing.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

Starts with an entire section that is specific to Eastern Kentucky University. To use this outside of the university, one of the first things an instructor would need to do is cut this section out or adjust it for their own university/college. This means it doesn't fit outside of that university as-is.
The text even includes reference to assignments and technology that are specific to EKU, likely at a specific time period.
The introductory text treats the students as if having a digital textbook is something new. It is not. Most students will be familiar with digital texts by the time they read this.
The Learning Outcomes section, while containing a lot of important information, likely includes design and phrasing that is specific to EKU, and would either need to be cut or need to be adjusted to fit other colleges.
The entire assignments and assessment rubric is specifically for one college during one time period.

Despite the fact that this book was completed in 2022, like most textbooks, it does not include the major adjustments faculty have have had to make to adjust for the open existence of A.I./Large Language Model writing.

It is good that, while some of the sample texts could end up a little dated, many of them are from knowingly targeted towards particular historic time periods or address issues that will stay relevant over time.

Clarity rating: 4

Headers for a section used terms like "Metacognitive Critical Reading" which might be confusing to some first-year students.
Some terminology in other parts of the text, like "modality" might have to be explained to students.

Consistency rating: 4

Some sections have explanations after the section titles to preface what comes after. However, not all do.
Some parts of the text, like the section on previewing reading assignments and using reading strategies, appear to be for first-term college students. Other sections, however, like the MLA section, do not include enough information and, therefore, rely on some pre-existing amount of knowledge about the topic from the student. The text seems uneven as to whether it is meant for a class like Comp I, or more something that would fit Comp II.

Modularity rating: 3

Sections can be copy-paste lifted with the CC attribution for use in other texts. However, they are not blocked out on separate pages in a way that would further ease of visuals and use.
Sometimes mentions of assignments or methodologies that are specific to this one university are ingrained in the text, requiring instructors to rephrase the text itself before re-using it in other situations.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Sections are named, but not numbered. The PDF does not use page numbers to indicate locations, either, so students will have to use functions like "Find" to type in section titles and navigate to particular sections.

It is good that the text lists program goals and learning outcomes.

Why does the "Common Texts" section not have any sort of a short lead-in or explanation text on page 72? It's just a blank page with two words.

In the MLA section, the example tables need a preface introducing the examples.

Interface rating: 4

This text is not designed for aesthetics or neat page breaks. The lack of formatting beyond section title size and consistent margins gives it the feel of an endless text scroll that might be intimidating to some students.
On page 105 of the PDF there are pictures with text that is too small to read. In PDF form there is no way to pop out the visual.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

On the top of page 11 of the PDF there is a sentence that just stops, with no completion of the thought or ending punctuation.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The example readings include multiple cultures. Sometimes the text uses pronouns like "she" rather than neutral pronouns, though there does not appear to be a preface or explanation for these decisions.

Comments

There are many useful attributes here, but instructors would need to work to pull those parts out and use them in their own courses outside of Eastern Kentucky University. This is not a text that one can take as-is outside of that context.