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

Appointment

The majority of respondents (4 out of 5) are on fixed-term appointments, while only one respondent is tenure-track.

  • Fixed-Term Track: 80% (4 respondents)
  • Tenure-Track: 20% (1 respondent)

There were 4 total responses, and each role received exactly one response, indicating no single role dominates among respondents.

  • Professor of Instruction: 25% (1 respondent)
  • Senior Lecturer: 25% (1 respondent)
  • Associate Professor of Instruction: 25% (1 respondent)
  • Associate Professor of Practice: 25% (1 respondent)

The only tenure-track respondent holds the rank of Professor; there were no Assistant Professors among respondents.

  • Professor: 100% (1 respondent)
  • Assistant Professor: 0%

Teaching

Most respondents teach Upper Division (Non-core) courses, while Master's and Lower Division courses are also common. Core Curriculum and “Other” courses are less frequent.

  • Upper Division (Non-core): 33% (3 responses) – the most common course type taught
  • Master’s: 22% (2 responses)
  • Lower Division (Non-core): 22% (2 responses)
  • UTSA Core Curriculum: 11% (1 response)
  • Other (Please describe): 11% (1 response)

Textbook Decisions

Across all course types, the dominant response was “Not in my department”, indicating limited involvement or awareness of textbook decision-making. Secondary responses include “Do not know” and “Individual Instructor”, with minimal mentions of Course Coordinator or Textbook Committee.

  • Responses by Course Type:
    • UTSA Core Curriculum: Mostly “Not in my department” (5), with some “Do not know” (2) and “Individual Instructor” (1).
    • Lower Division Non-Core: Mostly “Individual Instructor" (2), Plus “Do not know” (1), “Not in my Department" (1), and "Course Coordinator" (1).
    • Upper Division Non-Core: Mostly “Individual Instructor” (3), plus “Do not know” (1) and “Not in my Department" (1).
    • Master’s: Mostly “Not in my department” (2) and Individual Instructor (2) with "Textbook Committee" (1). 
    • Doctoral: Mostly “Not in my department” (2) and “Do not know” (2) plus “Individual Instructor” (1).

OER Awareness and Use

A majority of respondents (60%) were not familiar with the definition of OER before the survey, indicating a need for increased awareness and education.

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

Most respondents (40%) are not aware of OER, while the remaining respondents are split evenly among varying levels of awareness, with only one person being very aware.

  • I am not aware of OER: 40% (2 respondents) – the largest group
  • I have heard of OER but don’t know much about them: 20% (1 respondent)
  • I am somewhat aware of OER, but I am not sure how they can be used: 20% (1 respondent)
  • I am very aware of OER and how they can be used in my courses: 20% (1 respondent)
  • I am aware of OER and some of their use cases: 0% (no responses)

None of the respondents have used OER in their courses, highlighting a significant gap between awareness and actual adoption.

Responses:

  • No: 100% (5 respondents)
  • Yes: 0%

Course Markings Awareness and Use

None of the respondents were aware of the Texas OER legislation before the survey, indicating a major gap in legislative awareness among faculty.

Responses:

  • No: 100% (5 respondents)
  • Yes: 0%

Most respondents (80%) were unaware of UTSA’s textbook cost filters, suggesting a need for better communication about these resources.

Responses:

  • No: 80% (4 respondents)
  • Yes: 20% (1 respondent)

None of the respondents were aware of UTSA’s reporting process for free and low-cost textbooks, indicating a complete lack of awareness about this compliance requirement.

Responses:

  • No: 100% (5 respondents)
  • Yes: 0%

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Most respondents (over half) are uncertain about faculty perceptions of OER, while the remaining responses indicate positive perceptions (favorable or very favorable). There are no negative or neutral responses.

  • Don’t know: 60% (3 responses) – the majority of respondents are unsure about faculty perceptions.
  • Favorable: 20% (1 response)
  • Very favorable: 20% (1 response)
  • No responses for Neutral, Unfavorable, or Very Unfavorable.

Most respondents (80%) are unsure about OER quality in their area, while one respondent rated it as acceptable. No one reported poor or high-quality OER.

Responses:

  • Don’t know: 80% (4 respondents)
  • Acceptable Quality: 20% (1 respondent)
  • Poor, Very Poor, Good Quality: 0%

  • Content Accuracy is the most critical attribute, followed by Clarity.
  • ADA compliance and Adaptability/Modularity are considered least important overall.

Top Priorities (1st):

  • Content Accuracy & Technical Accuracy (4 votes)
  • Clarity, Comprehensibility & Readability (1 vote)

  • Other Priorities:

    • 2nd Priority: Clarity (2), Appropriate Level (2), Supplementary Resources (1)
    • 3rd Priority: Clarity (2), Content Accuracy and Technical Accuracy (1), Accessibility (1), and Supplementary Resources (1).
    • 4th Priority: Supplementary Resources (2), Adaptability (2), Appropriate Level (1)
    • 5th Priority: Appropriate Level (2), Adaptability (2), Supplementary Resources (1)
    • 6th Priority: Accessibility (4), Adaptability (1)

Support and Recognition

Most respondents (60%) ranked leadership support as a second priority, indicating it is important but not the top concern. A smaller group placed it as a mid-level or low priority.

Responses:

  • 2nd Priority: 60% (3 respondents)
  • 3rd Priority: 20% (1 respondent)
  • 6th Priority: 20% (1 respondent)
  • 1st, 4th, 5th Priority: 0%

  • Faculty most value recognition through Performance Evaluations and Department Chair acknowledgment.
  • UTSA Newsletters, Department Chair, and UT System are secondary preferences.
  • Recognition from UT System ranks lowest overall.

Top Preferences:

  • 1st Priority: Performance Evaluation (3 votes), Department Chair (2 votes)
  • 2nd Priority: UTSA Newsletters (3 votes), Department Chair (1 vote), UT System (1 vote)
  • 3rd Priority: All options received 1 vote each (UT System, UTSA Leadership, Department Chair, Newsletters, Performance Evaluation)
  • 4th Priority: UTSA Leadership (3 votes), others minimal
  • 5th Priority: UT System (2 votes), others minimal

Faculty most value funding, finding support, and help integrating OER into LMS as top priorities. Copyright support and tailoring/adapting resources are also important. Webinars and student involvement rank lowest.

Top Priorities:

  • 1st Priority: Finding Support (2 votes), Generous Funding (1 votes), Integrating into LMS (1 vote), and Tutorials (1 vote)
  • 2nd Priority: Finding Support (2 votes), Support Adapting/Tailoring (2 votes), and Tutorials (1 vote)
  • 3rd Priority: Support Adapting/Tailoring (2 votes) while Tutorials, Webinars, and Finding Support each received 1 vote. 
  • 4th Priority: Copyright Support (2 votes), Integrating into LMS (2 votes), and Support Adapting/Tailoring (1 vote) 
  • 5th Priority: Webinars (3 votes), Integrating into LMS (2 votes)
  • Lower priorities include Departmental Visits, Generous Funding, Tutorials, and Involving Students.

  • Create a Database of OER Mapped to UTSA Courses
    Faculty expressed interest in having a centralized resource that aligns available OER with specific UTSA courses to simplify adoption.

  • Offer Online Workshops to Raise Awareness
    Suggested hosting virtual sessions to educate faculty about OER benefits, availability, and implementation strategies.

  • Provide Support for Faculty Adoption
    Faculty indicated they would be more likely to adopt OER if they received support in terms of time allocation and knowledge/training.

  • Tailor OER Resources to Specialized Fields
    Some faculty, especially in niche disciplines like Architectural Design and History, are skeptical about the availability of suitable OER and recommend efforts to identify or develop resources for specialized subjects.

  • Ensure Survey Relevance for All Faculty
    Feedback noted that some survey questions were not applicable to faculty who have never used OER, suggesting future surveys be more inclusive of varying experience levels.