- Find Information
- Research Guides
- Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA
Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA
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.