Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA

Presents UTSA student and faculty feedback collected through the DOERS Student Success Through OER Rubric Grant: Fall 2024-Spring 2025

COLFA Summary

Respondents

18 COLFA participated in the survey.

Appointment

The majority of respondents (about three-quarters) hold fixed-term-track positions, while a smaller portion (just over one-quarter) are tenure-track faculty.

  • Fixed-Term-Track: 72% (13 respondents)
  • Tenure-Track: 28% (5 respondents)
  •  

Fixed Term Track

The responses are fairly balanced, with Lecturer, Assistant Professor of Practice, and Professor of Practice being the most common roles (each at 23%). Professor of Instruction and Senior Lecturer are slightly less common (15% each).

  • Lecturer: 23% (3 respondents)
  • Assistant Professor of Practice: 23% (3 respondents)
  • Professor of Practice: 23% (3 respondents)
  • Professor of Instruction: 15% (2 respondents)
  • Senior Lecturer: 15% (2 respondents)

Tenure Track

The majority of respondents are evenly split between Professor and Associate Professor roles, while a smaller portion are Assistant Professors.

  • Professor: 40% (2 respondents)
  • Associate Professor: 40% (2 respondents)
  • Assistant Professor: 20% (1 respondent)

Teaching

Faculty primarily teach Core Curriculum and Upper Division courses, followed by Lower Division. Graduate-level (Master’s and Doctoral) and “Other” courses are less common.

  • UTSA Core Curriculum: 31% (11 responses) – most common
  • Upper Division (Non-core): 29% (10 responses)
  • Lower Division (Non-core): 23% (8 responses)
  • Master’s: 11% (4 responses)
  • Doctoral: 3% (1 response)
  • Other: 3% (1 response)

Textbook Decisions

Textbook decisions are overwhelmingly made by individual instructors for most course types, with minimal involvement from committees or coordinators. Doctoral courses often fall outside respondents’ departments.

  • Individual Instructor is the dominant decision-maker across all categories:
    • UTSA Core Curriculum: 12 responses
    • Lower Division Non-Core: 14 responses
    • Upper Division Non-Core: 15 responses
    • Master’s: 13 responses
    • Doctoral: 5 responses
  • Other roles:
    • Textbook Committee: 3 responses (Core Curriculum)
    • Course Coordinator: 1 response (Lower Division Non-Core)
    • Department Chair: 2 responses (Master’s)
    • “Do not know”: 2 responses in each category except Doctoral (where it’s 2)
  • Not in my department: 10 responses for Doctoral courses.

OER Awareness and Use 

Awareness

The vast majority of respondents were already familiar with the concept of OER, while a small minority were not.

  • Yes: 82% (14 respondents)
  • No: 18% (3 respondents)

Use Overall

Most respondents (70%) have moderate to strong awareness of OER, with a significant portion (29%) being very knowledgeable. Only a small minority (12%) have little or no awareness.

  • I am aware of OER and some of their use cases: 41% (7 respondents) – the largest group
  • I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses: 29% (5 respondents)
  • I am somewhat aware of OER, but I am not sure how they can be used: 18% (3 respondents)
  • I am not aware of OER: 6% (1 respondent)
  • I have heard of OER but don’t know much about them: 6% (1 respondent)

OER Adoption

The majority of respondents have not used OER in their courses, while only a small portion have incorporated them.

  • No: 82% (14 respondents)
  • Yes: 18% (3 respondents)

OER Use Courses

Among respondents who use OER, usage is split evenly between one course and three or more courses, indicating varied levels of integration.

  • 3 or more of my courses: 50% (1 respondent)
  • 1 of my courses: 50% (1 respondent)
  • No responses for “2 of my courses.”

OER as Required and Supplemental

The single respondent who uses OER does so as required course material, not as supplemental or mixed use.

  • OER as required: 100% (1 respondent)
  • OER as supplemental: 0%
  • OER as required & supplemental: 0%

Course Markings Awareness and Use

Legislation

Most respondents were not aware of the Texas OER legislation, while about one-third were familiar with it.

  • No: 69% (11 respondents)
  • Yes: 31% (5 respondents)

UTSA Filters

Most respondents were not aware of UTSA’s textbook cost filters, though over one-third were familiar with them.

  • No: 63% (10 respondents)
  • Yes: 38% (6 respondents)

UTSA Reporting

Three-quarters of respondents were not aware of the reporting process for free or low-cost textbooks, while only one-quarter were familiar with it.

  • No: 75% (12 respondents)
  • Yes: 25% (4 respondents)

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Perceptions lean mostly favorable, but there is a significant share of uncertainty (27%) and some neutrality. A small portion (13%) view OER unfavorably, while very favorable responses are rare.

  • Favorable: 33% (5 responses) – the largest group
  • Don't know: 27% (4 responses)
  • Neutral: 20% (3 responses)
  • Unfavorable: 13% (2 responses)
  • Very favorable: 7% (1 response)
  • No responses for Very Unfavorable

Quality Perceptions

Most respondents (40%) perceive OER as good quality, but a significant portion (33%) are unsure about the quality. Very few rated it as poor or very poor, and only one person rated it as high quality.

  • Top response: Good Quality — 40% (6 respondents)
  • Second most common: Don’t know — 33% (5 respondents)
  • Other responses:
    • High Quality — 7% (1 respondent)
    • Acceptable Quality — 7% (1 respondent)
    • Poor Quality — 7% (1 respondent)
    • Very Poor Quality — 7% (1 respondent)

Desired Attributes

 Faculty place the greatest importance on course appropriateness, clarity, and accuracy, while supplementary resources are considered least critical. Accessibility and adaptability are mid-level priorities.

  • Top priorities (1st & 2nd):

    • Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability and Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy also rank strongly in 1st and 2nd positions (5–6 votes each).
    • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy ranks highest as 1st priority (6 votes).
  • Middle priorities (3rd & 4th):

    • Adaptability & Modularity and Accessibility (ADA Compliance) appear more often in 3rd and 4th positions (4–5 votes each).
  • Lowest priorities (5th & 6th):

    • Accessibility dominates the 5th priority with 8 votes. 
    • Availability of Supplementary Resources dominates the 6th priority (12 votes), indicating it is least important overall.

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

Support from UTSA leadership is considered highly important by many respondents, with over half ranking it as 1st or 2nd priority. A smaller group places it at the lowest priority (6th).

  • 1st Priority: 27% (4 respondents)
  • 2nd Priority: 27% (4 respondents)
  • 3rd Priority: 7% (1 respondent)
  • 4th Priority: 13% (2 respondents)
  • 5th Priority: 7% (1 respondent)
  • 6th Priority: 20% (3 respondents)

Recognition

  • T
  • Top recognition preferences: Performance Evaluation (1st priority) and UTSA Leadership (2nd priority).
  • Mid-level preferences: Department Chair and UTSA Newsletters.
  • Lower preferences: UT System recognition ranks lower overall.
  • 1st Priority:

    • Performance Evaluation: 7 votes
    • UT System: 5 votes
    • Department Chair: 3 votes
    • UTSA Leadership: 0 votes
    • UTSA Newsletters: 1 vote
  • 2nd Priority:

    • UTSA Leadership: 8 votes (highest overall for 2nd priority)
    • Department Chair: 5 votes
    • UT System: 1 vote
    • UTSA Newsletters: 0 votes
    • Performance Evaluation: 1 vote
  • 3rd Priority:

    • Department Chair: 4 votes
    • UTSA Leadership, UTSA Newsletters, Performance Evaluation: 3 votes each
    • UT System: 2 votes
  • 4th Priority:

    • UTSA Newsletters: 7 votes (dominant for 4th priority)
    • UT System, UTSA Leadership: 3 votes each
    • Department Chair: 2 votes
    • Performance Evaluation: 0 votes
  • 5th Priority:

    • UTSA Newsletters & Performance Evaluation: 5 and 4 votes respectively
    • UT System: 4 votes
    • UTSA Leadership & Department Chair: 1 vote each

Improve Support

Faculty want finding support and help adapting/tailoring OER as the most critical needs, followed by technical integration and copyright assistance. Tutorials and departmental visits are considered least important.

Top Priorities

  • Generous Funding: Dominates 1st priority (9 votes)
  • Finding Support: Dominates 2nd priority (8 votes).
  • Support Adapting/Tailoring: Dominates 3rd priority (7 votes).
  • Webinars: Dominates 4th priority (6 votes).

Mid-Level Priorities

  • Integrating into LMS and Webinars: Spread across middle ranks (4th–6th priorities).
  • Copyright Support: Peaks at 5th priority (7 votes)
  • Integrating into LMS: Peaks at 6th priority (7 votes).

Lowest Priorities

  • Tutorials: Dominates 9th priority (9 votes), indicating least importance.
  • Visits to my department and Involving Students: Mostly in lower ranks.

Other Ideas

  • Integration & Technical Support

    • Need more guidance on integrating OER content into Canvas.
    • Desire for an easy-to-use, UTSA-specific OER repository.
  • Discovery & Quality Assurance

    • Guidance in finding OER and reviews by colleagues.
    • Accessibility must be prioritized.
    • Some respondents perceive OER as poor quality or do not plan to use it.
  • Professional Development & Incentives

    • Offer discipline-specific OER workshops.
    • Create a dedicated OER support team.
    • Provide stipends or course release incentives.
    • Build faculty peer networks for OER sharing.
  • Awareness & Recognition

    • Increase educator awareness of OER resources.
    • Recognize faculty who create OER materials, not just those who adopt them.
  • Content Needs

    • More courses and materials in specific areas (e.g., European history).
  • General Sentiment

    • Some faculty are unfamiliar with OER but see outlined initiatives as a good starting point.
    • Emphasis on continuing to offer a mix of options.