Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA

Respondents

6 COEHD faculty responded to the survey.

Appointment

Respondents are evenly split between tenure-track and fixed-term-track appointments.

• 50% (3 respondents): Tenure-Track.
• 50% (3 respondents): Fixed-Term-Track.

Fixed Term Track

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

All tenure-track respondents hold the rank of Assistant Professor; none are full Professors.

• 100% (2 respondents): Assistant Professor.
• 0%: Professor.

Teaching

Most respondents teach graduate-level (Master’s) and upper-division undergraduate courses, with fewer teaching core curriculum or doctoral courses.

• 38% (5 responses): Master’s level courses.
• 31% (4 responses): Upper Division (Non-core) courses.
• 15% (2 responses): UTSA Core Curriculum courses.
• 8% (1 response): Lower Division (Non-core) courses.
• 8% (1 response): Doctoral courses..

Textbook Decisions

Textbook decisions vary by course level: graduate courses (Master’s, Doctoral) are largely instructor-driven, while undergraduate courses involve more coordination at the course level.

• UTSA Core Curriculum: Mixed—individual instructors (1) and course coordinators (2)  share responsibility; one respondent indicated “not in my department” and another respondent responded "do not know."
• Lower Division (Non-core): Primarily course coordinators (2) and individual instructors (2) with  one each responding “not in my department” or do not know.
• Upper Division (Non-core): Mostly individual instructors followed by course coordinators.
• Master’s: Dominated by individual instructors (majority).
• Doctoral: Split between individual instructors and “do not know,” with some course coordinator involvement.

OER: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption and Adoption Type 

Familiarity with the term "OER" or "Open Educational Resources"

All respondents already understood what OER means before the survey, indicating strong baseline awareness.

• 100% (6 respondents): Were familiar with the definition of Open Educational Resources (OER) prior to today.
• 0%: Not familiar.

Awareness and Use

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.

OER Adoption

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.

OER Depth of Integration

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.

OER Adoption Type

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.

Course Marking Awareness and Use

Legislation

None of the respondents knew about the Texas law supporting OER tracking and disclosure, indicating a major gap in policy awareness.

• 100% (4 respondents): Were not aware of SB 810 legislation requiring Texas institutions to track OER courses.
• 0%: Were aware of the legislation.

UTSA Filters

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.

UTSA Reporting

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.

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Most respondents describe departmental attitudes toward OER as neutral, with no strong positive or negative views expressed.

• 75% (3 respondents): Neutral toward OER.
• 25% (1 respondent): Don’t know.
• 0%: Unfavorable or favorable perceptions.

Quality Perceptions

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.

Desired Attributes

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).

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

Support from UTSA leadership is considered moderately important—most respondents place it in the middle range of priorities rather than as a top or lowest priority.

• 50% (2 respondents): Ranked as 3rd priority.
• 25% (1 respondent): Ranked as 2nd priority.
• 25% (1 respondent): Ranked as 5th priority.
• 0%: Ranked as 1st, 4th, or 6th priority.

Recognition

• 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)

Improve Support

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.

Other Ideas

• 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.

Respondents

1 Data Science faculty member responded to the survey.

Appointment 

All respondents are Tenure-Track faculty; none are Fixed-Term-Track.

• 100% of respondents (1 person) selected Tenure-Track (represented by purple).
• 0% selected Fixed-Term-Track (represented by red, but not visible since there were no responses).

Tenure Track 

One respondent holds the rank of Professor; none are Assistant Professors.

• 100% of respondents (1 person) selected Professor (shown in blue).
• 0% selected Assistant Professor (represented by red, but not visible since there were no responses).

Teaching

The respondent teaches a mix of Master’s, Upper Division non-core, and Core Curriculum courses, with no involvement in Doctoral or Lower Division courses.

• 33% (1 response) for Master’s courses (green).
• 33% (1 response) for Upper Division (Non-core) courses (blue).
• 33% (1 response) for UTSA Core Curriculum courses (red).

Textbook Decisions

• For most courses (Upper Division, Master’s, Doctoral), the Individual Instructor decides on textbooks.
• For UTSA Core Curriculum, the Course Coordinator decides.
• For Lower Division Non-Core Curriculum, the respondent selected Do not know.

OER: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption, and Adoption Type

Familiarity

The respondent was not familiar with the definition of OER prior to the survey.

• 100% (1 response) answered No (represented by the red section).
• 0% answered Yes (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

Awareness and Use

The respondent is aware of OER and some of their use cases. 

• 100% (1 response) selected “I am aware of OER and some of their use cases” (represented by the purple section).

Adoption

The respondent has used OER in their courses.

• 100% (1 response) answered Yes (represented by the red section).
• 0% answered No (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

Depth of Integration

The respondent uses OER in one course only.

• 100% (1 response) answered “1 of my courses” (represented by the red section).
• 0% answered “2 of my courses” (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

Adoption Type

The respondent uses OER as both required and supplemental material in their course.

• 100% (1 response) selected “OER as required & supplemental material” (represented by the purple section).
• No responses for:
  • “OER only supplemental” (blue)
  • “OER as required material” (red)

Course Markings Awareness and Use 

Legislation

The respondent was not aware of Texas SB 810 legislation regarding OER prior to taking the survey. 

• 100% (1 response) answered No (represented by the red section).
• 0% answered Yes (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

UTSA Filters

The respondent was not aware of UTSA’s Free Textbook and Low-Cost Textbook filters prior to taking the survey.

• 100% (1 response) answered No (represented by the red section).
• 0% answered Yes (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

UTSA Reporting

The respondent was not aware of UTSA’s reporting process for free and low-cost textbooks prior to the survey.

• 100% (1 response) answered No (represented by the red section).
• 0% answered Yes (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental 

The respondent is unsure about faculty perceptions of OER in their department.

• 100% (1 response) selected “Don’t know” (represented by the orange section).
• No responses for:
  • Unfavorable (green)
  • Neutral (blue)
  • Favorable (purple)

Quality Perceptions

The respondent perceives the quality of OER in their area as acceptable.

• 100% (1 response) selected “Acceptable Quality” (represented by the blue section).
• No responses for:
  • Don’t know (orange)
  • Very Poor Quality (yellow)
  • Poor Quality (green)
  • Good Quality (purple)

Desired Attributes

Respondents

6 HCAP faculty responded to the survey.

Appointment

Faculty respondents are evenly split between tenure-track and fixed-term appointments.

Responses:

• Tenure-Track: 50% (3 respondents)
• Fixed-Term Track: 50% (3 respondents)

Fixed Term Track

There were 3 total responses, and each role received exactly one response, indicating no dominant appointment type among respondents.

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

Tenure Track

All tenure-track respondents hold the rank of Professor; none are Assistant Professors.

Responses:

• Professor: 100% (2 respondents)
• Assistant Professor: 0%

Teaching 

Most courses taught are Upper Division (Non-core), followed by Lower Division and Core Curriculum. Few teach Master’s-level courses, and none teach Doctoral-level courses.

Responses:

• Upper Division (Non-core): 43% (6 selections)
• Lower Division (Non-core): 21% (3 selections)
• UTSA Core Curriculum: 21% (3 selections)
• Master’s: 14% (2 selections)
• Doctoral: 0%

Textbook Decisions

Across all course types, Individual Instructor is the dominant decision-maker for textbooks, with minimal involvement from course coordinators and occasional uncertainty at the doctoral level.

Responses:

• UTSA Core Curriculum: Mostly Individual Instructor (4), some Course Coordinator (2)
• Lower Division Non-Core: All Individual Instructor (6)
• Upper Division Non-Core: All Individual Instructor (6)
• Master’s: Mostly Individual Instructor (5), some Course Coordinator (1)
• Doctoral: Mostly Individual Instructor (4), some Do not know (2)

OER: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption and Adoption Type 

Familiarity

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

Responses:

• Yes: 100% (5 respondents)
• No: 0%

Awareness and Use

All respondents have at least some awareness of OER, with most being either very aware or aware of use cases. None reported being completely unaware.

Responses:

• I am aware of OER and some of their use cases: 40% (2 respondents)
• I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses: 40% (2 respondents)
• I am somewhat aware of OER, but I am not sure how they can be used: 20% (1 respondent)
• I am not aware of OER: 0%

Adoption

A majority of respondents (60%) have used OER in their courses, while 40% have not, indicating moderate adoption within this group.

Responses:

• Yes: 60% (3 respondents)
• No: 40% (2 respondents)

Depth of Integration

Most respondents integrate OER into multiple courses, with two-thirds using it in two courses and one-third in three or more courses.

• 2 of my courses: 67% (2 respondents) – the majority use OER in two courses.
• 3 or more of my courses: 33% (1 respondent).
• No responses for “1 of my courses.”

Adoption Type

Most faculty who use OER incorporate it as both required and supplemental material, while a smaller portion uses it only as required material. None use OER solely as supplemental.

Responses:

• OER as required and supplemental material: 67% (2 respondents)
• OER as required material only: 33% (1 respondent)
• OER only as supplemental material: 0%

Course Markings Awareness and Use 

Legislation

A majority (60%) of respondents were already aware of Texas legislation SB 810 requiring institutions to track courses using Open Educational Resources (OER), while 40% were not.

This suggests that awareness is relatively high but not universal—there’s still a significant portion (nearly half) who are unaware, indicating a need for continued outreach and education about this law.

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

UTSA Filters

Awareness of UTSA’s “Free Textbook” and “Low-Cost Textbook” filters is very high—80% of respondents knew about them, while only 20% did not.

This indicates that communication about these filters has been largely effective, but there is still a small gap that could be addressed to ensure full awareness among all stakeholders.

• 80% (4 respondents) answered Yes, they were aware of these filters.
• 20% (1 respondent) answered No, they were not aware.

UTSA Reporting

Awareness of UTSA’s reporting process for faculty using free or low-cost textbooks is moderate—60% of respondents knew about it, while 40% did not. This suggests that while a majority are informed, a significant portion remains unaware, indicating an opportunity for improved communication and training around this compliance process.

Summary of the data:

• 60% (3 respondents) answered Yes, they were aware of this reporting process.
• 40% (2 respondents) answered No, they were not aware.

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Most respondents perceive faculty attitudes toward OER as neutral, with a small portion indicating very favorable perceptions or uncertainty. There are no negative perceptions reported.

• Neutral: 60% (3 responses) – the majority view is neutral.
• Don't know: 20% (1 response)
• Very favorable: 20% (1 response)
• No responses for Favorable, Unfavorable, or Very Unfavorable.

Quality Perceptions

Perceptions of OER quality are positive—60% of respondents rated the OER they’ve seen as “Good Quality,” and 40% rated it as “Acceptable Quality.” No one reported poor quality or uncertainty.

This indicates that while there’s room for improvement, overall confidence in OER quality is strong, which can support broader adoption efforts.

Summary of the data:

• 60% (3 respondents) rated OER as Good Quality.
• 40% (2 respondents) rated OER as Acceptable Quality.
• No respondents selected Poor Quality, Very Poor Quality, or Don’t know.

Desired Attributes

• Highest priorities center on accuracy and clarity, while supplementary resources and adaptability tend to rank lower.
• Accessibility and appropriateness appear in the mid-range priorities.

Summary of the rankings:

• 1st Priority: Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (3 votes) was most often ranked first, followed by Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability (1 vote) and Accessibility (ADA Compliance) (1 vote).
• 2nd Priority: Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability dominated (3 votes), with Appropriate for Course Level/Content (2 votes).
• 3rd Priority: Mixed responses—Content Accuracy and Technical Accuracy (2 votes), Appropriate for Level of Course/Student (1 vote), Accessibility (1 vote), and Adaptability and Modularity (1 vote).
• 4th Priority: Adaptability & Modularity (2 votes) and single votes for Clarity, Appropriate Level, and Accessibility.
• 5th Priority: Availability of Supplementary Resources (3 votes) was most common.
• 6th Priority: Availability of Supplementary Resources (2 votes) and Adaptability & Modularity (2 votes) were lowest priorities.

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

While most respondents consider leadership support highly important (1st or 2nd priority), there is some variation, with one respondent ranking it lowest.

Summary of the data:

• 40% (2 respondents) ranked it as 1st Priority.
• 20% (1 respondent) ranked it as 2nd Priority.
• 20% (1 respondent) ranked it as 4th Priority.
• 20% (1 respondent) ranked it as 6th Priority.
• No votes for 3rd or 5th Priority.

Recognition

• Recognition tied to formal performance evaluation is the strongest motivator.
• Department Chair acknowledgment is next most valued, followed by UTSA leadership recognition.
• Broader visibility (newsletters, UT System) ranks lowest.

Summary of the data:

• 1st Priority: Performance Evaluation was overwhelmingly top choice (5 votes).
• 2nd Priority: Department Chair ranked highest (4 votes), followed by UTSA Leadership (1 vote).
• 3rd Priority: UTSA Leadership (3 votes) was most common, with single votes for UT System and UTSA Newsletters.
• 4th Priority: UT System and UTSA Newsletters tied (2 votes each).
• 5th Priority: UT System and UTSA Newsletters again tied (2 votes each) with one vote for Department Chair.

Improve Support

• Faculty prioritize funding and technical/pedagogical support (adapting/tailoring, finding help) over training or student involvement.
• Activities like tutorials and student involvement are considered least critical.

Summary of the rankings:

• 1st Priority: Generous Funding was the top choice (3 votes), followed by Finding Support (2 votes).
• 2nd Priority: Support Adapting/Tailoring (2 votes) and Finding Support (2 votes) were most common.
• 3rd Priority: Support Adapting/Tailoring dominated (2 votes).
• 4th Priority: Webinars (3 votes) ranked highest.
• 5th Priority: Copyright Support (3 votes) was most common.
• 6th Priority: Copyright support (2 votes).
• 7th Priority: Visits to my department (3 votes).
• 8th Priority: Involving Students (3 votes).
• 9th Priority: Tutorials (4 votes) ranked lowest overall.

Other Ideas

• Many faculty are unaware of OER, and having supplemental materials would make adoption easier.
• One respondent has used OER for two years but notes a major drawback: difficulty downloading supplemental materials into Canvas.
• This challenge discourages faculty, as publisher platforms (e.g., McGraw Hill Connect, Pearson) offer seamless LMS integration, making them more convenient.
• One respondent noted that accessing grant funds under the library OER grants is a cumbersome process.

Respondents

18 COLFA participated in the survey.

Appointment

The majority of respondents (about three-quarters) hold fixed-term-track positions, while a smaller portion (just over one-quarter) are tenure-track faculty.

• Fixed-Term-Track: 72% (13 respondents)
• Tenure-Track: 28% (5 respondents)

Fixed Term Track

The responses are fairly balanced, with Lecturer, Assistant Professor of Practice, and Professor of Practice being the most common roles (each at 23%). Professor of Instruction and Senior Lecturer are slightly less common (15% each).

• Lecturer: 23% (3 respondents)
• Assistant Professor of Practice: 23% (3 respondents)
• Professor of Practice: 23% (3 respondents)
• Professor of Instruction: 15% (2 respondents)
• Senior Lecturer: 15% (2 respondents)

Tenure Track

The majority of respondents are evenly split between Professor and Associate Professor roles, while a smaller portion are Assistant Professors.

• Professor: 40% (2 respondents)
• Associate Professor: 40% (2 respondents)
• Assistant Professor: 20% (1 respondent)

Teaching

Faculty primarily teach Core Curriculum and Upper Division courses, followed by Lower Division. Graduate-level (Master’s and Doctoral) and “Other” courses are less common.

• UTSA Core Curriculum: 31% (11 responses) – most common
• Upper Division (Non-core): 29% (10 responses)
• Lower Division (Non-core): 23% (8 responses)
• Master’s: 11% (4 responses)
• Doctoral: 3% (1 response)
• Other: 3% (1 response)

Textbook Decisions

Textbook decisions are overwhelmingly made by individual instructors for most course types, with minimal involvement from committees or coordinators. Doctoral courses often fall outside respondents’ departments.

• Individual Instructor is the dominant decision-maker across all categories:
  • UTSA Core Curriculum: 12 responses
  • Lower Division Non-Core: 14 responses
  • Upper Division Non-Core: 15 responses
  • Master’s: 13 responses
  • Doctoral: 5 responses
• Other roles:
  • Textbook Committee: 3 responses (Core Curriculum)
  • Course Coordinator: 1 response (Lower Division Non-Core)
  • Department Chair: 2 responses (Master’s)
  • “Do not know”: 2 responses in each category except Doctoral (where it’s 2)
• Not in my department: 10 responses for Doctoral courses.

OER: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption and Adoption Type 

Familiarity

The vast majority of respondents were already familiar with the concept of OER, while a small minority were not.

• Yes: 82% (14 respondents)
• No: 18% (3 respondents)

Awareness and Use

Most respondents (70%) have moderate to strong awareness of OER, with a significant portion (29%) being very knowledgeable. Only a small minority (12%) have little or no awareness.

• I am aware of OER and some of their use cases: 41% (7 respondents) – the largest group
• I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses: 29% (5 respondents)
• I am somewhat aware of OER, but I am not sure how they can be used: 18% (3 respondents)
• I am not aware of OER: 6% (1 respondent)
• I have heard of OER but don’t know much about them: 6% (1 respondent)

Adoption

The majority of respondents have not used OER in their courses, while only a small portion have incorporated them.

• No: 82% (14 respondents)
• Yes: 18% (3 respondents)

Depth of Integration

Among respondents who use OER, usage is split evenly between one course and three or more courses, indicating varied levels of integration.

• 3 or more of my courses: 50% (1 respondent)
• 1 of my courses: 50% (1 respondent)
• No responses for “2 of my courses.”

Adoption Type

The single respondent who uses OER does so as required course material, not as supplemental or mixed use.

• OER as required: 100% (1 respondent)
• OER as supplemental: 0%
• OER as required & supplemental: 0%

Course Markings Awareness and Use

Legislation

Most respondents were not aware of the Texas OER legislation, while about one-third were familiar with it.

• No: 69% (11 respondents)
• Yes: 31% (5 respondents)

UTSA Filters

Most respondents were not aware of UTSA’s textbook cost filters, though over one-third were familiar with them.

• No: 63% (10 respondents)
• Yes: 38% (6 respondents)

UTSA Reporting

Three-quarters of respondents were not aware of the reporting process for free or low-cost textbooks, while only one-quarter were familiar with it.

• No: 75% (12 respondents)
• Yes: 25% (4 respondents)

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Perceptions lean mostly favorable, but there is a significant share of uncertainty (27%) and some neutrality. A small portion (13%) view OER unfavorably, while very favorable responses are rare.

• Favorable: 33% (5 responses) – the largest group
• Don't know: 27% (4 responses)
• Neutral: 20% (3 responses)
• Unfavorable: 13% (2 responses)
• Very favorable: 7% (1 response)
• No responses for Very Unfavorable

Quality Perceptions

Most respondents (40%) perceive OER as good quality, but a significant portion (33%) are unsure about the quality. Very few rated it as poor or very poor, and only one person rated it as high quality.

• Top response: Good Quality — 40% (6 respondents)
• Second most common: Don’t know — 33% (5 respondents)
• Other responses:
  • High Quality — 7% (1 respondent)
  • Acceptable Quality — 7% (1 respondent)
  • Poor Quality — 7% (1 respondent)
  • Very Poor Quality — 7% (1 respondent)

Desired Attributes

 Faculty place the greatest importance on course appropriateness, clarity, and accuracy, while supplementary resources are considered least critical. Accessibility and adaptability are mid-level priorities.

• Top priorities (1st & 2nd):

  • Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability and Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy also rank strongly in 1st and 2nd positions (5–6 votes each).
  • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy ranks highest as 1st priority (6 votes).

• Middle priorities (3rd & 4th):

  • Adaptability & Modularity and Accessibility (ADA Compliance) appear more often in 3rd and 4th positions (4–5 votes each).

• Lowest priorities (5th & 6th):

  • Accessibility dominates the 5th priority with 8 votes. 
  • Availability of Supplementary Resources dominates the 6th priority (12 votes), indicating it is least important overall.

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

Support from UTSA leadership is considered highly important by many respondents, with over half ranking it as 1st or 2nd priority. A smaller group places it at the lowest priority (6th).

• 1st Priority: 27% (4 respondents)
• 2nd Priority: 27% (4 respondents)
• 3rd Priority: 7% (1 respondent)
• 4th Priority: 13% (2 respondents)
• 5th Priority: 7% (1 respondent)
• 6th Priority: 20% (3 respondents)

Recognition

• Top recognition preferences: Performance Evaluation (1st priority) and UTSA Leadership (2nd priority).
• Mid-level preferences: Department Chair and UTSA Newsletters.
• Lower preferences: UT System recognition ranks lower overall.

• 1st Priority:

  • Performance Evaluation: 7 votes
  • UT System: 5 votes
  • Department Chair: 3 votes
  • UTSA Leadership: 0 votes
  • UTSA Newsletters: 1 vote

• 2nd Priority:

  • UTSA Leadership: 8 votes (highest overall for 2nd priority)
  • Department Chair: 5 votes
  • UT System: 1 vote
  • UTSA Newsletters: 0 votes
  • Performance Evaluation: 1 vote

• 3rd Priority:

  • Department Chair: 4 votes
  • UTSA Leadership, UTSA Newsletters, Performance Evaluation: 3 votes each
  • UT System: 2 votes

• 4th Priority:

  • UTSA Newsletters: 7 votes (dominant for 4th priority)
  • UT System, UTSA Leadership: 3 votes each
  • Department Chair: 2 votes
  • Performance Evaluation: 0 votes

• 5th Priority:

  • UTSA Newsletters & Performance Evaluation: 5 and 4 votes respectively
  • UT System: 4 votes
  • UTSA Leadership & Department Chair: 1 vote each

Improve Support

Faculty want finding support and help adapting/tailoring OER as the most critical needs, followed by technical integration and copyright assistance. Tutorials and departmental visits are considered least important.

Top Priorities

• Generous Funding: Dominates 1st priority (9 votes)
• Finding Support: Dominates 2nd priority (8 votes).
• Support Adapting/Tailoring: Dominates 3rd priority (7 votes).
• Webinars: Dominates 4th priority (6 votes).

Mid-Level Priorities

• Integrating into LMS and Webinars: Spread across middle ranks (4th–6th priorities).
• Copyright Support: Peaks at 5th priority (7 votes)
• Integrating into LMS: Peaks at 6th priority (7 votes).

Lowest Priorities

• Tutorials: Dominates 9th priority (9 votes), indicating least importance.
• Visits to my department and Involving Students: Mostly in lower ranks.

Other Ideas

• Integration & Technical Support

  • Need more guidance on integrating OER content into Canvas.
  • Desire for an easy-to-use, UTSA-specific OER repository.

• Discovery & Quality Assurance

  • Guidance in finding OER and reviews by colleagues.
  • Accessibility must be prioritized.
  • Some respondents perceive OER as poor quality or do not plan to use it.

• Professional Development & Incentives

  • Offer discipline-specific OER workshops.
  • Create a dedicated OER support team.
  • Provide stipends or course release incentives.
  • Build faculty peer networks for OER sharing.

• Awareness & Recognition

  • Increase educator awareness of OER resources.
  • Recognize faculty who create OER materials, not just those who adopt them.

• Content Needs

  • More courses and materials in specific areas (e.g., European history).

• General Sentiment

  • Some faculty are unfamiliar with OER but see outlined initiatives as a good starting point.
  • Emphasis on continuing to offer a mix of options.

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)

OER: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption and Adoption Type 

Familiarity

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)

Awareness and Use 

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)

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)

Depth of Integration

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)

Adoption Type

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.

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: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption and Adoption Type 

Familiarity

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

• Yes: 100% (2 respondents)
• No: 0%

Awareness and Use 

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

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.

Respondents

6 faculty from University College responded to the survey.

Appointment

All respondents in this group are Fixed-Term-Track faculty; none are Tenure-Track.

• 100% (6 respondents) selected Fixed-Term-Track (represented by the red section).
• 0% selected Tenure-Track (purple is not visible because there were no responses).

Fixed Term Track

Most respondents (half) are Assistant Professors of Instruction, while the remaining are evenly split among Assistant Professor of Practice, Professor of Practice, and Associate Professor of Instruction.

• Assistant Professor of Instruction: 50% (3 respondents) – largest group (red section)
• Assistant Professor of Practice: 17% (1 respondent) (blue section)
• Professor of Practice: 17% (1 respondent) (purple section)
• Associate Professor of Instruction: 17% (1 respondent) (green section)

Teaching

All respondents teach UTSA Core Curriculum courses exclusively; none teach graduate or non-core courses.

• 100% (6 respondents) selected UTSA Core Curriculum (represented by the red section).
• No responses for other options:
  • Doctoral (yellow)
  • Master’s (green)
  • Upper Division Non-core (blue)
  • Lower Division Non-core (purple)
  • Other (orange)

Textbook Decisions

• For non-core, master’s, and doctoral courses, the Individual Instructor is the primary decision-maker.
• For UTSA Core Curriculum, decisions are mostly made by a Textbook Committee, though some respondents are unsure.
• Across all categories, a notable portion of respondents selected Do not know, indicating uncertainty about textbook decision processes.

• UTSA Core Curriculum:

  • 3 respondents indicated Textbook Committee (blue)
  • 2 respondents selected Do not know (yellow)
  • 1 respondent selected Individual Instructor (red)

• Lower Division Non-Core Curriculum:

  • 4 respondents selected Individual Instructor (red)
  • 2 respondents selected Do not know (yellow)

• Upper Division Non-Core Curriculum:

  • 4 respondents selected Individual Instructor (red)
  • 2 respondents selected Do not know (yellow)

• Master’s:

  • 4 respondents selected Individual Instructor (red)
  • 2 respondents selected Do not know (yellow)

• Doctoral:

  • 4 respondents selected Individual Instructor (red)
  • 2 respondents selected Do not know (yellow)

OER: Familiarity, Awareness, Use, Adoption and Adoption Type 

Familiarity

Most respondents (two-thirds) were already familiar with the definition of OER, while one-third were not.

• 67% (4 respondents) answered Yes (purple section).
• 33% (2 respondents) answered No (red section).

Awareness and Use 

All respondents indicated high awareness and understanding of how OER can be used in their courses.

• 100% (4 respondents) selected “I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses” (represented by the red section).
• No responses for:
  • “I am not aware of OER” (yellow)
  • “I am somewhat aware of OER, but I am not sure how they can be used” (blue)
  • “I am aware of OER and some of their use cases” (purple)

Adoption

Most respondents (two-thirds) have used OER in their courses, while one-third have not.

• 67% (4 respondents) answered Yes (represented by the red section).
• 33% (2 respondents) answered No (represented by the purple section).

Depth of Integration

All respondents who use OER incorporate them in three or more courses, indicating a high level of adoption among these faculty members.

• 100% (4 respondents) selected “3 or more of my courses” (represented by the blue section).
• No responses for:
  • “2 of my courses” (purple)
  • “1 of my courses” (red)

Adoption Type

Respondents are evenly split: half use OER only as required material, and half use OER as both required and supplemental material.

• 50% (2 respondents) selected “OER as required” (red section).
• 50% (2 respondents) selected “OER as required & supplemental” (purple section).
• No responses for “OER only supplemental” (blue).

Course Markings Awareness and Use

Legislation

Most respondents (two-thirds) were not aware of SB 810 legislation, while one-third had prior awareness.

• 67% (4 respondents) answered No (represented by the red section).
• 33% (2 respondents) answered Yes (represented by the purple section).

UTSA Filters

Responses are evenly split between respondents who were aware and those who were not.

Results:

• Yes: 50% (3 respondents)
• No: 50% (3 respondents)

UTSA Reporting

Most respondents (over four-fifths) were unaware of the reporting process, indicating a need for increased communication and outreach to faculty.

Results:

• Yes: 17% (1 respondent)
• No: 83% (5 respondents)

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Perceptions are generally positive or unknown—no respondents reported unfavorable views. However, a significant portion (40%) is unsure, suggesting limited awareness or discussion about OER among faculty.

Results:

• Favorable: 40% (2 respondents)
• Neutral: 20% (1 respondent)
• Don’t know: 40% (2 respondents)
• Unfavorable: 0%

Quality Perceptions

Most respondents (two-thirds) consider the OER quality acceptable, while one-third are unsure. No one rated the quality as poor or very poor, suggesting overall positive or neutral perceptions.

Results:

• Acceptable Quality: 67% (4 respondents)
• Don’t know: 33% (2 respondents)
• Poor/Very Poor/Good Quality: 0%

Desired Attributes

Readability and clarity are considered the most critical attribute, while accessibility and supplementary resources are viewed as less essential compared to adaptability and accuracy.

• Top Priority (1st): Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability was ranked highest by most respondents (4 votes).
• Second Priority: Adaptability & Modularity and Appropriate for Level of Course/Student were common choices.
• Lower Priorities: Accessibility and Supplementary Resources tended to rank 5th or 6th.
• Content Accuracy appeared consistently in mid-level priorities (2nd–4th).

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

Most respondents consider leadership support moderately important, ranking it primarily as a 2nd or 3rd priority rather than a top priority.

Results:

• 3rd Priority: 50% (3 respondents)
• 2nd Priority: 33% (2 respondents)
• 5th Priority: 17% (1 respondent)
• No votes for 1st, 4th, or 6th Priority

Recognition

Respondents value recognition from higher-level leadership (UT System and UTSA Leadership) and department chairs more than newsletters or performance evaluations. Newsletters are least preferred.

• Top Priority (1st): UT System (3 votes) and UTSA Leadership (2 votes) are most preferred for primary recognition.
• Second Priority: Department Chair and Performance Evaluation both received 2 votes.
• Third Priority: Department Chair leads (3 votes), followed by UT System (2 votes) and Performance Evaluation (1 vote).
• Fourth Priority: UTSA Leadership dominates (3 votes).
• Fifth Priority: UTSA Newsletters overwhelmingly ranked last (5 votes).

Improve Support 

Faculty prioritize finding support and funding first, followed by help with adapting material and integrating into the LMS. Training-related options (webinars, tutorials) and student involvement are considered less critical.

• Top Priority (1st): Finding Support received the most votes (3), followed by Generous Funding (2).
• Second Priority: Support Adapting/Tailoring dominated (5 votes).
• Mid Priorities (3rd–5th): Integrating into LMS, funding, and copyright support appear frequently.
• Lower Priorities (6th–9th): Webinars, Copyright Support, and Involving Students are mostly ranked toward the bottom.

Other Ideas

Respondents value organized access to OER, training and communication, and quality assurance. However, there are concerns about mandatory adoption and textbook quality.

• Resource Access & Organization

  • Respondents want lists of OER resources tailored to their department.
  • Suggested repositories of OER materials that are sorted and tagged, enabling easy navigation and selection for courses.

• Training & Support

  • Interest in training videos, ideally available during summer.
  • Emphasis on good communication, clear expectations, and ongoing support for OER adoption.

• Quality & Maintenance

  • Concern about lack of structure for maintaining and improving OER texts; respondents see this as the next critical step for ensuring high-quality resources.

• Challenges & Dissatisfaction

  • One respondent expressed frustration with mandatory OER use, citing:
    • Preference for traditional textbooks with supplemental resources.
    • Current OER textbook described as patchwork and error-prone, with a slow correction process.