Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA

Among ACOB faculty who indicated they hold a Fixed-Term-Track appointment, the distribution of roles is:

• Assistant Professor of Practice – 38% (3 respondents)
• Professor of Practice – 25% (2 respondents)
• Senior Lecturer – 13% (1 respondent)
• Postdoctoral Fellow – 13% (1 respondent)
• Associate Professor of Practice – 13% (1 respondent)

Among tenure-track faculty who responded to the survey:

• 50% (1 respondent) identified as Professor.
• 50% (1 respondent) identified as Assistant Professor.

Half of the respondents have limited understanding of OER usage, while only a quarter feel very confident. Awareness gaps remain significant.

• 50% (4 respondents): Somewhat aware of OER but unsure how they can be used.
• 25% (2 respondents): Very aware of OER and how they can be used in courses.
• 13% (1 respondent): Not aware of OER.
• 13% (1 respondent): Aware of OER and some of their use cases.

Faculty are evenly split on OER adoption—half have integrated OER into their teaching, while the other half have not.

• 50% (4 respondents): Have used OER in their courses.
• 50% (4 respondents): Have not used OER in their courses.

Among faculty who use OER, most limit adoption to a single course rather than multiple courses.

• 75% (3 respondents): Use OER in one course.
• 25% (1 respondent): Use OER in two courses.

Most faculty who use OER apply it as supplemental content rather than as required course material.

• 50% (2 respondents): Use OER only as supplemental material.
• 25% (1 respondent): Use OER as required material.
• 25% (1 respondent): Use OER as both required and supplemental material.

Most respondents (63%) were not aware of UTSA’s textbook filters, while 38% were aware. This indicates limited prior knowledge of these cost-saving options among the surveyed group.

• Yes: 38% (3 respondents)
• No: 63% (5 respondents)

The majority of respondents (75%) were unaware of UTSA’s reporting process for free and low-cost textbooks, while only 25% were aware. This indicates very limited prior knowledge among the surveyed group.

• Yes: 25% (2 respondents)
• No: 75% (6 respondents)

Most respondents (38%) are unsure about OER quality. Among those with an opinion, 25% rate it as acceptable, while the remaining responses are evenly split (13% each) between good, poor, and very poor quality. This suggests uncertainty and mixed perceptions of OER quality.

• Don’t know: 38% (3 respondents) – largest group
• Acceptable Quality: 25% (2 respondents)
• Good Quality: 13% (1 respondent)
• Poor Quality: 13% (1 respondent)
• Very Poor Quality: 13% (1 respondent)

Respondents prioritize clarity/readability and content accuracy as the most important attributes of educational resources. Adaptability and appropriateness for course level follow in mid-tier priorities, while accessibility and supplementary resources are generally ranked lower.

• 1st Priority:
  • Most frequently ranked: Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability (4 votes)
  • Followed by Adaptability & Modularity (2 votes)
• 2nd Priority:
  • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (3 votes), Appropriate for Level (2 votes), and Clarity, Comprehensibility and Readability (2 votes) were common.
• 3rd Priority:
  • Mixed distribution, but Clarity still appears (3 votes).
• 4th Priority:
  • Adaptability and Modularity (3 votes) and Appropriate for Level (2 votes) gain importance.
• 5th & 6th Priorities:
  • Accessibility and Supplementary Resources dominate lower priorities, suggesting they are considered less critical compared to clarity and accuracy.

Respondents strongly favor Performance Evaluation as the most important recognition method, followed by UTSA Leadership acknowledgment and Department Chair support. UTSA Newsletters are generally considered least important for recognition.

• 1st Priority:
  • Performance Evaluation is the top choice (5 votes), followed by Department Chair (2 votes), and UTSA Leadership (1 vote).
• 2nd Priority:
  • UT System leads (4 votes), with Department Chair (3 votes) next.
• 3rd Priority:
  • UTSA Leadership ranks high (4 votes), followed by Department Chair and UTSA Newsletters (2 votes each).
• 4th Priority:
  • Mixed distribution, but UT System (3 votes) and UTSA Leadership (2 votes) remain significant.
• 5th Priority:
  • UTSA Newsletters dominates (5 votes), suggesting newsletters are least preferred for primary recognition.

• Most important: financial support and help finding OER.
• Moderately important: Support Adapting OER, Webinars, and Copyright Support.
• Least important: Departmental Visits, Copyright support, tutorials, and student involvement.

• Top Priority (1st)
  • Generous Funding dominates (4 votes) and Finding Support (3 votes), dominate, making them the most critical support need.
  • Minor mention: Support Adapting/Tailoring (1).

• 2nd Priority:

  • Support Adapting/Tailoring (3 votes) and Finding Support (2) are most common.
  • Other options have minimal representation.

• Mid-range Priorities (3rd–6th):

  • Integrating into LMS, Generous Funding, Webinars, and Support Adapting/Tailoring appear frequently in 4th and 5th priorities.
  • Webinars, Support Adapting/Tailoring, Copyright Support, and Webinars gain traction around 5th and 6th priorities.

• Lowest Priorities (7th–9th):

  • Departmental Visits, Involving Students, and Tutorials dominate the bottom ranks (7th–9th), suggesting these are least critical.

Faculty need time, funding, awareness, and high-quality resources to adopt OER effectively. Institutional strategies like course releases, grants, better communication, and negotiation with publishers could significantly improve adoption.

• Time and Recognition Issues

  • Tenure-track faculty struggle because OER work is not highly recognized compared to top-tier publications.
  • Course releases or grants are suggested to give faculty time to create OER.

• Awareness and Access

  • Faculty want better ways to learn about available OER resources.
  • New faculty lack bandwidth and need clear options to explore OER.

• Quality and Relevance

  • OER often lacks robust supporting materials (e.g., homework systems).
  • Faculty teaching strategy and entrepreneurship need current cases to maintain legitimacy and avoid hindsight bias.

• Financial Support

  • Grants are essential for faculty willing to create OER.
  • Alternative cost-saving ideas include negotiating with publishers for lower textbook costs ($10–$15 per credit hour).

• Other Barriers

  • Difficulty finding OER that fits specific courses.
  • Concerns about open-source materials being behind in updates.