Motives that Drive Students to Use the School Library in Taipei Municipal Mingchuan Elementary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past twenty years, most studies of elementary school libraries were about how the library was used. However, little research regarding why students would like to visit the library and what are their favourites in the library has been carried out. The purpose of this study is thus to understand the motives and impact factors of graders library use at school library. This study adopted the qualitative research in a semi-structured in-depth interview and a participant observation research. The interviewed objects are sixteen 3~6 graders who borrowed books or media frequently from the school library. The studies showed being curious, feeling bored, desiring to be recognized, seeking topics of their own interests, getting respect, finding fulfilment, enjoying leisure-time, getting better scores, getting virtual rewards, pleasing parents, and peer competition are eleven main motives that drive students to use the school library. There are some impact factors can affect the library use including library factor and non-library factors such as: the abundance and attractiveness of collections; the independence and distance of premises, the comforts of interior space; the equipments including network, light, air-conditioner, and audio-video facilities; the competence and friendly support of the librarian, the reading activities, and longer opening hour. Moreover, the schoolwork, the significant others, spiritual space, etc. are also important.The analyses found that the function of the school library lies not only on reading, circulating and searching, but also being a place for leisure and social activities. That is a successful school library is not only a library, but also a living room at home. Ideally, the school should enhance the positive linkage between the students and the library as well as the librarian should be a facilitator to connect them. On the other hand, the librarian should encourage students read enthusiastically by making library as a warm, convenient, and comfortable environment. As a result, the student would like to be a long-term patron of the 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".