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

COS Summary

Respondents

15 COS faculty responded to the survey.

Appointment

Nearly all respondents hold fixed-term-track appointments, with only one respondent on a tenure track.

  • Fixed-Term-Track: 93% (14 respondents)
  • Tenure-Track: 7% (1 respondent)

Fixed Term Track

Most respondents hold the title of Lecturer, followed by Assistant Professor of Instruction. Other roles are represented by only one or two respondents each.

  • Lecturer: 43% (6 respondents) – the largest group
  • Assistant Professor of Instruction: 21% (3 respondents)
  • Senior Lecturer: 14% (2 respondents)
  • Professor of Instruction: 7% (1 respondent)
  • Assistant Professor of Practice: 7% (1 respondent)
  • Associate Professor of Instruction: 7% (1 respondent)

Tenure Track

The single tenure-track respondent holds the rank of Assistant Professor.

  • Assistant Professor: 100% (1 respondent)
  • Professor: 0%

Teaching

Most respondents teach lower and upper division non-core courses, followed by core curriculum courses. Graduate-level teaching (Master’s and Doctoral) is less common.

  • Lower Division (Non-core): 29% (11 responses)
  • Upper Division (Non-core): 26% (10 responses)
  • UTSA Core Curriculum: 21% (8 responses)
  • Master’s: 16% (6 responses)
  • Doctoral: 8% (3 responses)

Textbook Decisions

Textbook decisions are overwhelmingly made by individual instructors, with limited involvement from coordinators or committees. Uncertainty is higher for graduate-level courses.

Course Coordinators are the primary decision-makers for UTSA Core Curriculum courses. (6 responses)

  • Individual Instructor is the main decision-maker across the following categories 

    • Lower Division Non-Core: 6 responses
    • Upper Division Non-Core: 10 responses
    • Master’s: 8 responses

For doctoral courses, "Do Not Know" dominates. (7 votes)

  • Doctoral: 6 responses
  • Other roles:

    • Course Coordinator: 3 responses (Lower Division)
    • Textbook Committee: 2 responses (Core Curriculum)

Awareness

Almost all respondents were already familiar with the definition of OER, with only one person indicating they were not.

  • Yes: 92% (12 respondents)
  • No: 8% (1 respondent)

Use Overall

Most respondents have moderate to strong awareness of OER, with over half familiar with use cases and a smaller group very confident. Only one respondent has minimal awareness, and none are completely unaware.

  • I am aware of OER and some of their use cases: 54% (7 respondents) – the majority
  • I am somewhat aware of OER, but I am not sure how they can be used: 23% (3 respondents)
  • I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses: 15% (2 respondents)
  • I have heard of OER but don’t know much about them: 8% (1 respondent)
  • I am not aware of OER: 0% (no responses)

OER Adoption

A majority of respondents have used OER in their courses, while about one-third have not.

  • Yes: 69% (9 respondents)
  • No: 31% (4 respondents)

OER Use Courses

OER use is fairly balanced among respondents: most either use OER in one course or in three or more courses, while a smaller group uses it in two courses.

  • 3 or more of my courses: 38% (3 respondents)
  • 1 of my courses: 38% (3 respondents)
  • 2 of my courses: 25% (2 respondents)

OER as Required and Supplemental

Most respondents who use OER apply them as required materials, either exclusively or combined with supplemental use. A smaller group uses OER only as supplemental resources.

  • OER as required: 38% (3 respondents)
  • OER as required & supplemental: 38% (3 respondents)
  • OER as supplemental: 25% (2 respondents)

Course Markings Awareness and Use 

Legislation

Almost all respondents were unaware of the Texas OER legislation, with only one person indicating prior knowledge.

  • No: 92% (11 respondents)
  • Yes: 8% (1 respondent)

UTSA Filters

The vast majority of respondents (92%) were unaware of these textbook filters prior to today, indicating a significant gap in awareness among students.

  • Total respondents: 12
  • Yes (aware): 1 respondent (8%)
  • No (not aware): 11 respondents (92%)

UTSA Reporting 

Almost all respondents (92%) were unaware of this reporting process, indicating a major communication gap among faculty regarding compliance and reporting requirements.

  • Total respondents: 12
  • Yes (aware): 1 respondent (8%)
  • No (not aware): 11 respondents (92%)

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Half of the respondents view OER favorably, while 30% are neutral. Only a small portion (10%) have an unfavorable perception, and another 10% are unsure. Overall, attitudes toward OER are predominantly positive.

  • Favorable: 5 respondents (50%)
  • Neutral: 3 respondents (30%)
  • Unfavorable: 1 respondent (10%)
  • Don’t know: 1 respondent (10%)

Quality Perceptions

Nearly half of respondents rate OER as good quality, while a smaller portion sees them as poor or acceptable. A significant share (18%) is unsure, and only a few rate OER as high quality.

  • Good Quality: 45% (5 responses) – the most common perception
  • Don't know: 18% (2 responses)
  • Poor Quality: 18% (2 responses)
  • Acceptable Quality: 9% (1 response)
  • High Quality: 9% (1 response)
  • No responses for Very Poor Quality

Desired Attributes

  • The most critical attributes are appropriateness for course level and content accuracy, followed by clarity/readability.
  • Accessibility and supplementary resources tend to rank lower, often as 5th or 6th priorities.
  • Top Priorities

  • 1st Priority:
    • Appropriate for Level of Course/Student (3 votes)
    • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (6 votes)
  • 2nd Priority:
    • Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability (6 votes)
    • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (3 votes)
  • Middle Priorities

  • 3rd Priority:
    • Appropriate for Level of Course/Student (6 votes)
    • Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability (3 votes)
  • 4th Priority:
    • Adaptability & Modularity (4 votes)
    • Accessibility (ADA Compliance) (4 votes)
  • Lower Priorities

  • 5th Priority:
    • Adaptability & Modularity (5 votes)
    • Availability of Supplementary Resources (test banks, quizzes, etc.) (3 votes)
  • 6th Priority:
    • Accessibility (ADA Compliance) (5 votes)
    • Availability of Supplementary Resources (5 votes)

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

Most respondents (36%) ranked leadership support as a 4th priority, followed by 27% ranking it 3rd priority. Very few consider it a top priority (only 9% ranked it 1st), suggesting leadership support is seen as moderately important compared to other factors.

  • 1st Priority: 1 respondent (9%)
  • 2nd Priority: 2 respondents (18%)
  • 3rd Priority: 3 respondents (27%)
  • 4th Priority: 4 respondents (36%)
  • 5th Priority: 0 respondent (0%)
  • 6th Priority: 1 respondent (9%)

Recognition

  • Performance Evaluation is overwhelmingly the top choice for recognition (1st priority).
  • UTSA Leadership and Department Chair are consistently valued for 2nd and 3rd priorities.
  • Broader recognition through UT System and UTSA Newsletters is considered less critical but still important at lower priority levels.
  • Top Priority (1st):

  • Performance Evaluation dominates with 9 votes, making it the most desired recognition method.
  • Minor preferences: UTSA Leadership (1), UTSA Newsletters (1), UT System (2).
  • 2nd Priority:

  • UTSA Leadership (5 votes) and Department Chair (4 votes) are the strongest preferences.
  • Others: UT System (1), UTSA Newsletters (1), Performance Evaluation (1).
  • 3rd Priority:

  • UTSA Leadership (5 votes) and Department Chair (4 votes) again lead.
  • Minimal votes for UT System (0), UTSA Newsletters (1), Performance Evaluation (1).
  • 4th Priority:

  • UT System and UTSA Newsletters tie with 4 votes each.
  • Department Chair (1), UTSA Leadership (1), Performance Evaluation (0).
  • 5th Priority:

  • UT System and UTSA Newsletters remain strong with 5 votes each.
  • Performance Evaluation (1), others (0).

Improve Support

The most important support faculty want is funding and help finding OER resources, followed by Tutorials, and Involving Students. 

Top Priorities

  • 1st Priority:
    • Finding Support (4 votes)
    • Generous Funding and Support Adapting/Tailoring (3 votes)
  • 2nd Priority:
    • Tutorials (4 votes)
    • Support Adapting/Tailoring (3 votes)

Middle Priorities

  • 3rd Priority:
    • Involving Students (4 votes)
    • Support Adapting/Tailoring, Integrating into LMS, and Webinars (2 votes each)
  • 4th Priority:
    • Generous Funding (3 votes)
    • Webinars (3 votes)

Lower Priorities

  • 5th–9th Priorities:
    • Copyright Support, Webinars, Tutorials, and Visits to Department, mostly appear in later rankings, indicating they are less critical compared to funding and technical support.

Other Ideas

  • Access & Resources: Faculty want more student-accessible resources, online tutorials, and up-to-date information.
  • OER Availability: There is a need for high-quality, specialized OER for upper-division courses; many note that good OER doesn’t exist for these classes.
  • Support & Incentives: Requests include financial support, course release time, and compensation for OER creation, as it is time-intensive.
  • Technical Infrastructure: Funding is needed for technical staff to maintain content delivery systems integrated with OER.
  • Professional Development: Faculty want structured opportunities (e.g., summer workshops, cohort-based learning) to learn, apply, and integrate OER.
  • Motivation: Some faculty stress that without incentives or pay, creating OER is not feasible despite interest.
  • Benefits: OER is seen as convenient and reduces financial burden for students.