Assessing the OER & Textbook Experience at UTSA

The second part of this survey is how students get their textbook information for their courses and what is the number that would be considered low cost for textbooks. At UTSA, there are several different avenues a student can take to finding textbook information which includes looking at a course syllabus, finding the information in the class schedule, or what is listed on the campus bookstore website. Understanding where students find this information was a necessity so that the team can meet them where they are. 

UTSA has defined Low Cost courses as $40 or below for all course resources. This number was provided by the Student Government Association. However, that number is several years old and may not be completely reflective of the current student body. The price range for Low Cost Textbooks was added so that the team could see what students have in mind as the cost of textbooks has been a concern for a number of students in the past. 

Total Responses

10 ACOB faculty responded to the survey.

Appointment

Among faculty respondents from the College of Business, the majority hold fixed-term positions rather than tenure-track roles.

• 80% (8 respondents) reported being on Fixed-Term-Track appointments.
• 20% (2 respondents) reported being on Tenure-Track appointments.

Fixed Term Track

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)

Tenure Track

Among tenure-track faculty who responded to the survey:

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

Teaching

ACOB survey respondents reported teaching across multiple course levels:

• UTSA Core Curriculum: 33% (7 respondents)
• Master’s level courses: 29% (6 respondents)
• Upper Division (Non-core): 24% (5 respondents)
• Doctoral courses: 10% (2 respondents)
• Lower Division (Non-core): 5% (1 respondent)

Textbook Decisions

ACOB faculty respondents indicated who primarily decides on textbooks for different course types:

• UTSA Core Curriculum: Decisions are split among Course Coordinators (4) and Individual Instructors (2)  with some uncertainty (Do not know: 1).
• Lower Division Non-Core: Mostly Course Coordinators (5), with Individual Instructor (1) and some uncertainty (Do not know: 1).
• Upper Division Non-Core: Mixed responses – Individual Instructors (2), Course Coordinators (2), Textbook Committee (1), and Do not know (4).
• Master’s: Primarily Individual Instructors (6), with Do not know (2) and Course Coordinator (1).
• Doctoral: Mostly Do not know (6), with Individual Instructors (2) and Course Coordinator (1).

Key Insight:

• For Master’s courses, individual instructors are the main decision-makers.
• For Lower Division Non-Core, course coordinators dominate.
• For Doctoral courses, there is significant uncertainty about who makes textbook decisions.

OER Awareness and Use

OER Awareness

When asked if they were familiar with the definition of Open Educational Resources (OER) prior to the survey:

• 88% (7 respondents) answered Yes.
• 13% (1 respondent) answered No.

Key Insight:
The vast majority of respondents were already familiar with OER, indicating strong awareness among faculty in the College of Business.

OER Use Overall

When asked if they have used Open Educational Resources (OER) in their courses:

• 50% (4 respondents) answered Yes.
• 50% (4 respondents) answered No.

Key Insight:
Faculty respondents are evenly split on OER usage, indicating that while awareness is high (from the previous chart), actual adoption is moderate.

OER Adoption

• Among those who use OER, 75% (3 respondents) reported using OER in one course.
• 25% (1 respondent) reported using OER in two courses.

Insight: While awareness is strong, actual usage is limited to one or two courses for respondents.

OER Adoption Type

• 🟦 50% (2 respondents) use OER only as supplementary material.

• 🔴 25% (1 respondent) use OER as required material.

• 🟣 25% (1 respondent) use OER both as required and supplementary material.

📊 Key takeaway: Half of the respondents incorporate OER in a supporting role, while the other half use it more integrally—either as required content or in combination. This suggests a growing but varied adoption of OER in course design.

Course Marking Awareness and Use

Legislation

Most respondents (63%) were not aware of SB 810, while 38% were aware. This suggests limited prior knowledge of the legislation among the surveyed group.

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

UTSA Filters

Most respondents (63%) were not aware of SB 810, while 38% were aware. This suggests limited prior knowledge of the legislation among the surveyed group.

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

UTSA Reporting

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)

OER Perceptions and Priorities

Departmental

Half of respondents perceive faculty attitudes toward OER as neutral, while a quarter view them as unfavorable. Only a small portion (13%) see attitudes as favorable, and another 13% are unsure. This suggests overall ambivalence with some resistance and limited positive perception.

• Neutral: 50% (4 respondents) – largest group
• Unfavorable: 25% (2 respondents)
• Favorable: 13% (1 respondent)
• Don’t know: 13% (1 respondent

Quality Perceptions

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)

Desired Attributes

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) and Appropriate for Level (2 votes) were common.
• 3rd Priority:
  • Mixed distribution, but Clarity still appears (3 votes).
• 4th Priority:
  • Appropriate for Level (3 votes) and Accessibility (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.

Support and Recognition

UTSA Leadership

Opinions on leadership support are split: 38% rank it as their top priority, while another 38% place it near the bottom (5th priority). A smaller share (13% each) rank it as 4th or 6th priority. This suggests mixed views on the importance of leadership support for OER initiatives.

• 1st Priority: 38% (3 respondents) – highest importance
• 5th Priority: 38% (3 respondents) – equally common as top priority
• 4th Priority: 13% (1 respondent)
• 6th Priority: 13% (1 respondent)

Recognition

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

Improve Support

• Most important: Financial support and help finding resources.
• Moderately important: Adapting OER, departmental visits, LMS integration.
• Least important: Copyright support, tutorials, and student involvement.

• Top Priority (1st)
  • Generous Funding dominates (4 votes), making it the most critical support need.
  • Minor mentions: Finding Support (1), Support Adapting/Tailoring (1), Webinars (1), Integrating into LMS (1).

• 2nd Priority:

  • Finding Support (3 votes) and Generous Funding (1) are most common.
  • Other options have minimal representation.

• Mid-range Priorities (3rd–6th):

  • Support Adapting/Tailoring and Visits to Department appear frequently in 4th and 5th priorities.
  • Webinars and Integrating into LMS gain traction around 5th and 6th priorities.

• Lowest Priorities (7th–9th):

  • Copyright Support and Tutorials dominate the bottom ranks (7th–9th), suggesting these are least critical.
  • Involving Students also appears in later priorities.

Other Ideas

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.