Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA

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)

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

Responses:

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

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%

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)

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.”

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%

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.