Bibliotherapy Intervention for Combating Aliteracy in High Schools: School Libraries to the Rescue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aliteracy, the lack of interest in reading by capable readers had been observed to be prevalent among high school students and this has been a source of concern for education stakeholders. This study examined the remedial influence of bibliotherapy in reducing aliteracy among high school students in Ilesa, southwest Nigeria. The objectives of the study were to discuss the prevalence of aliteracy and examine the importance of reading among the high school students as well as describe the remedial impact of bibliotherapy in combating aliteracy among the high school students. All the 18 participants who identified as aliterates were exposed to Focus Group Discussion (FGD) which involved bibliotherapy. Content analysis was employed to analyse the responses of the participants to self-designed questions after the bibliotherapy sessions. The participants affirmed that exposure to bibliotherapy sessions helped in reducing aliteracy irrespective of their gender and that they needed the support of their parents to sustain an appropriate attitude to reading. Therefore, school librarians with the knowledge of bibliotherapy could be of help in reducing aliteracy among the high school students.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, 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".