Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate reading motivation in students from grades one to four. Five Manitoba schools participated in this study. The Motivation to Read Profile (MRP) reading survey (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996) was administered to 225 students. The survey scores provided information about gender and grade level when considering student motivation to read. The study further explored what two highly motivated grade four boys and two highly motivated grade four girls (as identified by the MRP survey) had to say about reading and their personal reading experiences as each of the four students participated in a semi-structured interview with the researcher. The study also identified factors that appeared to influence the students’ reading motivation. The survey results collected from the 225 elementary school students indicated that grade one students valued the task of reading less than students in grade two. The survey results also revealed that boys valued the task of reading less than girls. When students responded to questions in regards to their personal self-concepts as readers, no clear pattern emerged between grades or for gender. Following the completion of the four semi-structured interviews, the ideas the students shared were categorized. 16 categories were identified. Study of the students’ comments revealed that many different factors appeared to have contributed to the students’ high levels of reading motivation. These factors included family members acting as reading role models and a wide variety of reading options. Particular weight was given to the role that peers and friends played in the students’ personal reading choice. Students also indicated that it is important for teachers to expose students to a number of different literacy experiences, and it is equally important to avoid spending excessive amounts of time with a single text. In light of these findings, the author provides suggestions for ways that teachers might restructure current classroom practise to increase the levels of student motivation to read.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".