MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541826064 · doi:10.18438/b8d027

School Librarires: Are they Places to Learn or Places to Socialize?

2007· article· en· W1541826064 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julie Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchool libraryNorwegianPsychologyReading (process)Medical educationMathematics educationPedagogyLibrary scienceMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives – To explore how students use the school library in their daily activities, who visits the school library, what activities occur during these visits, and how students value the school library. Design – Comparative, multi-case study. Setting – Two Norwegian senior high schools in two different counties. Subjects – Students in year one, two, and three at two high schools; and teachers, principals, and school librarians at each of the two schools. Methods – Data was collected from interviews, observations, documents, and questionnaires during the first five months of 1998. Most data was gathered from 25 observations in the school library (each observation was 3-4 hours in length). Observations were made in three specific areas of each library: work tables, the computer site, and a reading hall quiet area. In addition, seventeen 45-minute observations were made in various classrooms. To gain student perspectives and to learn how and why students valued the school library, in-depth interviews were conducted with 28 students, consisting of 2 boys and 2 girls from each of years 1, 2, and 3 at each school, plus 2 boys and 2 girls from the International Baccalaureate classes at one school. Four teachers from each school, the school librarians, and the principals from each school were also interviewed to explore attitudes about the school library, how they valued it and what instructional role they believed the library played in students’ daily lives. Sixty students completed questionnaires that asked when and for what reason students used the library, what locations in the library they used, and what the library meant to them in both their schoolwork and free time. Documents such as class schedules and curricula, and school policies and rules were also considered. Main Results – Data analysis indicated students had a lot of appreciation for the school library, but mainly for its role as a “social meeting place,” rather than as resource center for information. Students were aware of the function, purpose, and importance of the school library, but rarely used it for projects or research. The library was most appreciated for the fact that users went there to meet friends and talk. One observed group did not borrow books or bring work to do, clearly demonstrating that their purpose in the library was strictly social. There were students who used the library for research and information retrieval, but these students were the minority. Most of the students who did instruction-related activities in the library did homework from textbooks they brought to the library. There was no indication that teachers or the school librarians made any efforts to alter the attitudes of students or their use of the library as a social club. Based on observations, the researcher offered several possible reasons for her findings: weak rules and few sanctions, invisibility of the school librarians, failure of teachers to use the library or make assignments that required information seeking, and lack of a cafeteria in School A (which may have also contributed to the value of the library as a “meeting place”). Leisure-related activities in the quiet reading hall were highest among the girls, and highest among the boys at the work tables and computer sites. Daily users (occupants) of the library at School A were second and third year boys and girls. Only boys from first, second and third year vocational classes were “occupants” at School B. The occupants at both schools influenced the activities of new users. Conclusion – The findings of this study reveal a “gap between the rhetoric on instruction and school library use and actual practice” (pg.12). Students were rarely given assignments that required use of the library and there was no collaboration between the classroom teachers and the school librarian. The library was not perceived as a resource center and was not viewed as an integral part of daily instruction. Weak rules, few sanctions, misperceptions, and inadequate instructional leadership by the school librarian appeared to contribute to the observed behaviors related to library use in the two schools. The author suggests the need for organization, leadership, and the proper training of students on the use of the library. She mentions the need for principals, teachers, librarians, students, and teacher preparatory colleges to work hand-in-hand to bring about a change of attitude about – and usage of – the school library.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207