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

Honors College Summary

Respondents

Two faculty responded to the survey from the Honors College.

Appointment

All respondents hold fixed-term-track appointments, with no tenure-track faculty represented in this sample.

  • Fixed-Term-Track: 100% (2 respondents)
  • Tenure-Track: 0%

Fixed Term Track

Both respondents who indicated they are on a fixed-term track hold the title of Senior Lecturer, with no representation from other appointment types.

  • Senior Lecturer: 100% (2 respondents)
  • All other categories (Professor of Instruction, Clinical Instructor, Lecturer, Adjunct, etc.): 0%

Teaching

Most respondents teach upper-division non-core courses, while a smaller portion teaches lower-division non-core courses. There is no representation for graduate-level or core curriculum courses.

  • Upper Division (Non-core): 2 respondents (67%)
  • Lower Division (Non-core): 1 respondent (33%)
  • Doctoral, Master’s, UTSA Core Curriculum: 0 respondents

Textbook Decisions

For undergraduate courses (both core and non-core), textbook decisions are made by individual instructors with occasional involvement from a course coordinator for lower-division courses. Graduate-level courses (Master’s and Doctoral) are not applicable to these respondents.

  • UTSA Core Curriculum: Individual Instructor (1 response), Not in my Department (1 response)
  • Lower Division Non-Core Curriculum: Individual Instructor (1 response), Course Coordinator (1 response)
  • Upper Division Non-Core Curriculum: Individual Instructor (2 responses)
  • Master’s: Not in my department (1 response), Do Not Know (1 response
  • Doctoral: Not in my department (1 response), Do Not Know (1 response)

OER Awareness and Use

Awareness

All respondents were already familiar with the definition of OER, indicating strong baseline awareness among this group.

  • Yes: 100% (2 respondents)
  • No: 0%

Use Overall

Both respondents are knowledgeable about OER, with one having general awareness and the other having deep understanding of how to integrate OER into courses. This indicates a strong familiarity and readiness for OER adoption among this group.

  • I am aware of OER and some of their use cases: 50% (1 respondent)
  • I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses: 50% (1 respondent)
  • Not aware / Somewhat aware: 0 respondents

OER Adoption

Although respondents are familiar with OER (as seen in previous questions), none have actually implemented OER in their courses yet. This suggests a gap between awareness and adoption.

  • No: 100% (2 respondents)
  • Yes: 0%

Course Markings Awareness and Use 

Legislation

Awareness is evenly split—half of respondents knew about the legislation, while the other half did not. This suggests a need for better communication about state OER requirements.

  • Yes (aware): 1 respondent (50%)
  • No (not aware): 1 respondent (50%)
  • 60% (3 respondents) answered Yes, they were aware of this legislation.
  • 40% (2 respondents) answered No, they were not aware.

UTSA Filters

Awareness is evenly split—half of the respondents knew about the filters, and half did not. This suggests a small sample size and indicates the need for broader communication to ensure consistent awareness.

  • Total respondents: 2
  • Yes (aware): 1 respondent (50%)
  • No (not aware): 1 respondent (50%)

UTSA Reporting

None of the respondents were aware of the reporting process, indicating a complete lack of awareness among this group and a strong need for communication and outreach.

  • Total respondents: 2
  • Yes (aware): 0 respondents (0%)
  • No (not aware): 2 respondents (100%)

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental 

The single respondent indicated they do not know how faculty in their department perceive OER, suggesting either limited discussion or lack of awareness about OER perceptions within the department.

  • Total respondents: 1
  • Don’t know: 100% (1 respondent)
  • Favorable, Neutral, Unfavorable: 0%

Quality Perceptions

The respondent is unsure about the quality of OER for their area, indicating either limited exposure to OER or lack of evaluation experience.

  • Total respondents: 1
  • Don’t know: 100% (1 respondent)
  • Very Poor, Poor, Acceptable, Good Quality: 0%

Desired Attributes

  • The highest priority is clarity and readability, followed by appropriateness for course level and content accuracy.
  • Accessibility and supplementary resources are considered lower priorities.

Rankings by Priority

  • 1st Priority:
    • Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability (2 votes)
  • 2nd Priority:
    • Adaptability & Modularity (1 vote)
    • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (1 vote)
  • 3rd Priority:
    • Accessibility (ADA Compliance) (1 vote)
    • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (1 vote)
  • 4th Priority:
    • Appropriate for Level of Course/Student (2 votes)
  • 5th Priority:
    • Accessibility (ADA Compliance) (1 vote)
    • Adaptability and Modularity (1 vote)
  • 6th Priority:
    • Availability of Supplementary Resources (2 votes)

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

For this group, leadership support is considered moderately important, but not a top or bottom priority—it consistently falls in the middle (3rd priority).

  • 100% of respondents (2 people) ranked it as 3rd Priority.
  • No respondents ranked it as 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 6th priority.

Recognition

Responses are evenly distributed, with each recognition method receiving only one vote across different priorities. There is no clear dominant preference, suggesting that recognition strategies should be varied and inclusive.

  • 1st Priority: UTSA Leadership and Department Chair (1 vote each)
  • 2nd Priority: UTSA Newsletters and Performance Evaluation (1 vote each)
  • 3rd Priority: UT System and Department Chair (1 vote each)
  • 4th Priority: UTSA Leadership and Performance Evaluation (1 vote each)
  • 5th Priority: UTSA Newsletters (1 vote) and UT System (1 vote).

Improve Support

The respondent’s top support need is finding support, followed by LMS Integration, funding, and support adapting/tailoring with department visits ranked lowest.

  • 1st Priority: Finding Support (dark purple)
  • 2nd Priority: LMS Integration (orange)
  • 3rd Priority: Generous Funding (purple)
  • 4th Priority: Support adapting/tailoring (blue)
  • 5th Priority: Tutorials (red)
  • 6th Priority: Webinars (green)
  • 7th Priority: Involving Students (pink)
  • 8th Priority: Copyright Support (yellow)
  • 9th Priority: Visits to my department (dark blue)

Other Ideas 

One respondent is familiar with the topic and finds it impressive but struggles to apply the knowledge. After completing an Adobe Express mini course with a small incentive, they felt more equipped and informed. They suggest offering similar hands-on, cohort-based learning opportunities so faculty can not only receive information but also learn, apply, and connect.