Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA

There were three total FTT responses, and each category received exactly one response, resulting in an equal split across these three roles.

• Professor of Instruction: 33% (1 respondent)
• Assistant Professor of Instruction: 33% (1 respondent)
• Lecturer: 33% (1 respondent)

Tenure-track respondents hold the ranks of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. 

• 67%  (2 respondents): Assistant Professor.
• 33% (1 respondent): Associate Professor

Most respondents have moderate awareness of OER, but none report being highly confident in using them in course.

• 60% (3 respondents): Aware of OER and some of their use cases.
• 40% (2 respondents): Somewhat aware of OER but unsure how they can be used.
• 0%: Not aware of OER or very aware and actively using them.

Most respondents have not adopted OER in their teaching, indicating a significant gap between awareness and actual use.

• 67% (4 respondents): Have not used OER in their courses.
• 33% (2 respondents): Have used OER in their courses.

Among those who use OER, the single respondent applies it in two courses, suggesting limited but multi-course adoption.

• 100% (1 respondent): Uses OER in two courses.
• 0%: Uses OER in only one course.

The single respondent who uses OER integrates it deeply into courses, making it both required and supplemental.

• 100% (1 respondent): Uses OER as both required and supplemental material.
• 0%: Uses OER only as supplemental or only as required material.

None of the respondents knew about UTSA’s textbook cost filters, highlighting a major communication gap regarding affordability initiatives.

• 100% (4 respondents): Were not aware of UTSA’s “Free Textbook” and “Low-Cost Textbook” registration filters.
• 0%: Were aware of these filters.

Most respondents lack awareness of UTSA’s reporting process for affordable learning materials, indicating a need for better communication and training.

• 75% (3 respondents): Were not aware of the reporting process for free and low-cost textbooks.
• 25% (1 respondent): Were aware of the process.

Half of respondents are unsure about OER quality in their field, while opinions among the rest are split between acceptable and very poor—indicating uncertainty and mixed perceptions.

• 50% (2 respondents): Don’t know.
• 25% (1 respondent): Very poor quality.
• 25% (1 respondent): Acceptable quality.
• 0%: Poor or good quality.

Faculty value course-level appropriateness and accessibility most, while supplementary resources are considered least important.

1. Appropriate for Level of Course/Student and Accessibility– Tie for 1st priority.
2. Adaptability & Modularity – Ranked high in 5th priority with 1 response for 2nd priority..
3. Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy – Strong presence in 3rd priority.

Other Observations:

• Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability is spread across mid-to-lower priorities (2nd, 4th, 5th).
• Availability of Supplementary Resources consistently ranked lowest (6th priority by all respondents).

• Top recognition preferences: Performance Evaluation (1st), Department Chair (2nd), UTSA Newsletters (3rd).
• Least preferred: UT System recognition tends to rank lower (mostly 4th or 5th).

• 1st Priority:

  • Most preferred: Performance Evaluation (2 votes)
  • Others: UTSA Leadership and UTSA Newsletters (1 vote each)

• 2nd Priority:

  • Strong preference for Department Chair (3 votes)
  • Others: UTSA Leadership (1 vote)

• 3rd Priority:

  • Most preferred: UTSA Newsletters (2 votes)
  • Others: UTSA Leadership, Performance Evaluation (1 vote each)

• 4th Priority:

  • Strong preference for UT System (3 votes)
  • Others: UTSA Leadership (1 vote)

• 5th Priority:

  • Even distribution: UT System, Department Chair, UTSA Newsletters, Performance Evaluation (1 vote each)

Faculty want the most help with funding and finding OER, while technical and outreach activities rank lower.

Top Priorities:

• Funding Support – Most frequently ranked as 1st priority (2 respondents).
• Support finding OER - Most frequently ranked as 2nd priority (3 respondents).
• Support finding OER, Funding Support, Copyright Support, and Integrating into LMS tie with 1 response each for 3rd priority.
• Support for Adapting/Tailoring OER – Ranked 4th priority (2 respondents) followed by Webinars and Tutorials with 1 response each..
• Integrating into LMS dominates in 5th priority with 3 responses followed by Support Adapting/Tailoring (2 responses).

Other Observations:

• Copyright Support and Integrating into LMS appear in mid-range priorities (5th–6th).
• Tutorials and Visits to Department are generally ranked lower (7th–9th).
• Involving Students appears sporadically across mid-to-lower priorities.

• Resource Quality & Discovery Challenges

  • Faculty often find OER titles appealing, but the actual content lacks depth or relevance.
  • There’s a need for better guidance; librarians’ knowledge of available OER could be stronger.
  • As a result, faculty frequently resort to finding their own materials.

• Need for Clarity and Understanding

  • There’s confusion around what OER truly is, how it can be used effectively, and examples of successful implementation.

• Support & Coaching

  • Faculty want personalized support aligned with their teaching goals to help them adopt and integrate OER.

• Disciplinary Gaps

  • In some fields, especially specialized ones, faculty report that suitable OER materials simply don’t exist.