Building a Successful Reading Culture through the School Library: A Case Study of a Singapore Secondary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research has documented the strong correlation between independent reading and academic achievement, and the school library can serve a crucial role in encouraging reading. Drawing from one case study out of a larger dataset of six schools, this paper details how one school transformed its school library and made it a central place for reading within the school. Data collected provided evidence of the kinds of strategies, programmes and design that works to encourage reading. Schoolwide reading surveys, interviews with principals, teachers and Library coordinators at each school and interviews with students gave an understanding of the culture of reading and library use within the school. Qualitative library observations, timed counts, narratives and time-lapse photographs of library space contribute to our understanding of how particular spaces within the library was used for reading or not. Factors for building a reading culture include: (1) Designing conducive spaces for reading, (2) Curating the selection for readers, (3) Creating programmes to excite readers, (4) Designing spaces for reading, and (5) Building an ecology for reading.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".