Ready to Do OpenCourseWare? A Comparative Study of Taiwan College Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to address the teaching readiness issues of OpenCourseWare (OCW). Specifically, the research goal was to examine Taiwanese college faculty members’ level of teaching readiness for OCW via a questionnaire named “Teaching Readiness Scale for OCW” (TRS-OCW). A total of 142 Taiwanese college faculty members both with and without OCW teaching experience participated in this study. The results showed that faculty members with OCW teaching experience had significantly higher readiness levels in the factors of perception of administrative support, personal characteristics, and OCW recognition when compared to faculty members without OCW teaching experience. Male faculty members with OCW teaching experience had higher readiness than female faculty members with OCW teaching experience in the OCW recognition factor. Moreover, the job position of OCW-experienced faculty did not make a difference in any readiness factor. Finally, perceived administrative support was the only significant predictor of the willingness of college faculty without OCW teaching experience to provide OCW in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".