Public Library Play-based Early Literacy Programs: What is the Parental Experience?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many public libraries offer early literacy storytime programs to child patrons and their parents. Based on current research and best-practice periodicals, more children’s librarians are incorporating and modeling play-based activities in their storytime programs at the public library to emphasize the importance of parent-child interaction in guiding early literacy learning. Play as a method of learning is often underutilized and misunderstood by parents. This literature review aims to investigate the role of public libraries (and librarians) in informal early literacy education, the shift towards play-based practices in early literacy programs at the public library, the importance and significance of quality parent-child interaction in early literacy experiences, and the documentation of the experiences and perceptions of parents attending early literacy programs at the public library with their children. As previous studies correlate the benefits of parent-child interaction in play-based activities with early literacy learning, it is evident that further qualitative research into the actual experiences of parents attending play-based early literacy public library programs is needed in order to identify moreareas for improvement of public library services and storytime programs for child patrons and their parents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".