Typology and Characteristics of Motivational Styles of Students Taking Librarian Courses in Japan

1 Introduction

In Japan, reforming the curriculum for library and information science (LIS) and librarian (Shisho) education is essential to meet the demands of rapidly evolving information environments. Various initiatives have been and are being undertaken to reform the curriculum for LIS and librarian education. For instance, the Japan Society of Library and Information Science, which is one of the largest academic societies of LIS in Japan, conducted the Library and Information Professions and Education Renewal project to assess and reform the Japanese LIS education system (Ueda et al. 2005). Additionally, the curriculum reform for librarian courses has been a topic of discussion in the Education Division of the Japanese Library Association (Ishii 2023) and among other researchers (Murakami and Kita 2023). These efforts emphasize the need to review course content, degree programs, and related areas. However, one of the important fundamental points before examining the contents of courses is to understand the current situation of students, particularly their motivations for taking these courses.

In the field of education and learning, motivation plays a critical role. Many researchers have reported various motivation types, such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Ryan and Deci 2000), and their relationship with learning outcomes, such as achievements (Hayenga and Corpus 2010) and career choices (Blustein 1988). Thus, understanding how to effectively motivate students is just as critical for curriculum development as reviewing course content.

In Japan, while the librarian courses are designed to train librarians for public libraries, the number of full-time library positions is significantly lower than the number of qualified students each year (Okada 2020), which means that qualified students cannot necessarily find full-time positions in libraries. Consequently, the motivations of students taking librarian courses are highly diverse. Many students are driven by factors other than “I want to work in a library” or “I want to become a librarian.” If the curriculum focuses solely on preparing students for library work, then it may be challenging for them to maintain their motivation for learning. Hence, understanding the diverse motivations of students is crucial for developing curricula that effectively support and maintain their engagement.

To address this need, Asaishi et al. (2024) developed a reliable and valid psychological tool, the Motivation Scale for taking Librarian Courses (MSLC). The MSLC comprises 24 subscales that measure six factors of students’ motivations for taking librarian courses (Table 1): Desire to Work in a Library; Qualification-Oriented Mindset; Admiration for a Librarian Acquaintance; Attachment to Books and Reading; Expectations for Librarian Certification; and Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry. While the MSLC has been established, the strongest motivational factor among Japanese students remains unclear.

The same can be pointed out regarding motivational styles. Although there has been considerable research on the motivations for taking librarian or LIS courses worldwide (Matsumoto 2012; Sibiya and Shongwe 2021), the current research does not focus on motivational styles. Motivational styles refer to the unique combinations of motivational factors an individual possesses. This is based on a person-centered approach to identifying motivational profiles, which describe the patterns of motivational factors that actual individuals have from a profile perspective and discuss the characteristics of each pattern (Kera et al 2016). By examining motivational styles, we can identify more realistic motivations for taking librarian courses, such as having multiple motivational factors for taking courses rather than a single motivational factor. This approach offers valuable insights for designing LIS curricula that address the diverse motivations of students.

Building on the above, this research identifies the strongest motivational factors and motivational styles of students taking librarian courses in Japan. It also provides insights that contribute to the development and management of LIS curricula. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews previous studies on student motivations, especially focusing on LIS education; Section 3 describes the study’s subjects and methods; Section 4 presents the results of our data analysis; Section 5 discusses the implications for understanding the diverse motivations of students; and Section 6 summarizes the results and discussions, offers recommendations for LIS education practices in Japan, and suggests directions for future studies.

2 Research Review

Research on learning motivation has been conducted all over the world, and it has clarified many findings, such as the significance of intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000) and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997) to effectively obtain learning outcomes. Recently, understanding not only individual motivations but also their combinations – referred to as motivational styles – has gained importance in the study of learning motivation (Okada and Nakaya 2006; Kera et al 2016). This perspective is derived from the person-centered approach (Hayenga and Corpus 2010; Braten and Olaussen 2005), which is an alternative to the variable-centered approach that has been commonly adopted in previous studies and combines arbitrarily certain factors to examine their relevance. The motivational style and person-centered approach provide a more realistic and holistic framework for understanding motivation compared with analyzing individual factors in isolation.

Significant research has also been conducted on the motivations for taking LIS courses. Moniarou-Papaconstantinou et al (2015) conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the motivations that determine the choice of LIS, identifying three main themes: the choice of LIS; the choice of LIS specialty; and career changes to LIS. The choice of LIS mainly focuses on three subthemes: students’ perceptions; perceptions of information professionals; and high school students’ perspectives on choosing LIS as a profession. Across all these groups, a common motivation was a love of books and reading. Moniarou-Papaconstantinou et al. (2010) also examined the sociocultural factors influencing students’ choice of LIS as a field of study in Greece. They identified three distinctive groups: (1) individuals from lower sociocultural backgrounds with limited educational experiences, primarily motivated by extrinsic factors; (2) those from middle-level parental education, driven by intrinsic motivations; and (3) those with extensive educational experiences and supportive environments, benefiting from cultural capital, motivated by various intrinsic reasons. Additionally, Lo et al. (2015) explored social, cultural, economic, and educational factors, as well as personal and professional reasons that motivate graduate students from four different countries in choosing LIS professions. They also highlighted factors influencing students across all countries, such as the desire to help library users and the appeal of job security. They also revealed differences in the extent to which the factors have influence. For instance, students from some countries were driven by the desire to maximize the benefits of a career change or advancement, while students from other countries did not have a job or much work experience and decided to study LIS because of their interest in the field.

In Japan, numerous studies have examined the motivations for taking librarian courses within the Japanese context. These studies range from large-scale research across multiple universities and colleges (Ueda et al. 2005) to more focused studies on individual institutions (Ishikawa et al 2012; Matsumoto 2012). Nevertheless, their methods of motivation measurement are not based on a valid and reliable scale. Thus, Asaishi et al. (2024) developed motivational scales based on the Japanese context. However, student motivation has not yet been measured using their scale.

Furthermore, while research on motivational styles using valid scales, such as those conducted in educational psychology, is crucial for shaping LIS course curricula, as it reflects actual student motivation, such studies have not been conducted in the context of Japanese LIS courses nor in the study of LIS curricula worldwide.

Therefore, the present work seeks to clarify the following two questions to enhance the curriculum of the LIS program in the aspects of motivation:

1. What factors of motivation for taking librarian courses are strong in students taking librarian courses in Japan?

2. What types of motivational styles do students taking librarian courses in Japan possess?

3 Research Methods

The survey on students’ motivation for taking librarian courses was conducted by asking faculty members to have their students participate. The survey included the MSLC, which comprises 24 subscales measuring six factors of student motivation. The respondents were asked to answer on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree.” Furthermore, the respondents were asked about their attributes, such as their time in university, university, gender, and the number of librarian courses they had already completed.

We clarified the motivational styles of students and, to ensure the reliability of the classification, compared the learning outcomes between current students with each motivational style and compared the motivational styles of current students with those of alumni. For learning outcomes, we focused on the amount of specialized vocabulary understood as an approximation of the amount of knowledge acquired in librarian courses. The procedure involved asking the respondents to rate their word familiarity, which is an indicator of the degree to which a term is perceived as familiar, with approximately 150 headwords extracted from the Dictionary of Library and Information Science (Japan Society of Library and Information Science Dictionary Editorial Board 2020), a specialized dictionary for LIS in Japan. The respondents used a three-point Likert scale to assess their knowledge of each term: 1 = “I do not know the term at all”; 2 = “I have seen or heard the term”; and 3 = “I can explain the term briefly.” The number of words that can be explained briefly was employed to estimate the amount of vocabulary understood by the respondents, with the maximum estimated value being 249 words. In the following, it will be mentioned as the estimated comprehension vocabulary. We used TermMator, a specialized vocabulary estimation test application, to obtain answers and estimate the amount of vocabulary understood by the respondents. The estimate of the amount of vocabulary using this application has been proven to be highly reliable in previous studies (Zhu et al 2023).

Regarding the alumni survey, we mainly requested librarians and individuals employed in related industries, such as bookstores and public servants, using opportunity sampling. They were asked to respond to the same questions as current students via a web-based survey, reflecting on their experiences during their librarian courses. The alumni survey also included questions about what contents of the librarian courses have helped them in their current jobs, but this will not be discussed in this article. Furthermore, only those now working as librarians were included in the present research, as not the only but the primary goal of librarian courses in Japan is to prepare students for careers as librarians.

This research procedure was approved in advance by the Research Ethics Committee of Nanzan University (approval number: 23–060) for the survey of current students and the Research Ethics Review of Bunkyo University (approval number: 2024-2) for the survey of alumni.

Five analyses were performed on the data obtained from the above procedures. First, we analyzed the strength of each of the six factors comprising MSLC. We also examined their relationship with the attributes of the respondents. Second, we conducted a cluster analysis on the factor scores of the six factors to clarify and classify the motivational styles of the students. To determine whether the above clusters classified by the clustering analysis were robust, we conducted the remaining two analyses. Third, we calculated and investigated the estimated comprehension vocabulary of each group based on the motivational styles that the cluster analysis clarified. Considering that a normal distribution could not always be assumed for the distribution of scores, the Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized to determine whether there were differences in the six factors and the factor scores among the groups classified by the clustering analysis. If significant differences were found, then multiple comparisons by the Steele-Dwass test were conducted to determine where the differences were. If the highly motivated group had a large vocabulary and the low motivated group had a small vocabulary, it suggested that the classification was robust, because motivation and learning outcome are proportional in general. The significance level for statistical testing was set at 0.05, and p-values were indicated when significant. Fourth, we compared the motivational styles of current students and alumni working as librarians. The comparison procedure encompassed two approaches. First, we compared the clusters classified by the above clustering analysis with the clusters identified by the clustering analysis of the current students and alumni results together. If two clusters exhibited similar trends, then it suggested that the classification was robust. Second, we used the result of the scores of the six factors comprising MSLC and the groups classified by the clustering analysis of the current students as the training data and made the classification model which is based on this by using the Support Vector Machine (SVM). Subsequently, by using the model, we classified the data of the alumni. Considering that alumni are generally presumed to have been highly motivated, a robust classification would likely assign many of them to the high motivation groups.

The survey of current students was conducted in the classes of thirteen universities and colleges in November 2023, and 370 valid responses were obtained. The alumni survey was conducted in May 2024, resulting in forty-three valid responses. Of these, we targeted twenty-five responses that were from those currently working as librarians.

4 Results

4.1 Comparison Between the Factor Scores of the Motivations for Taking Librarian Courses

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of each factor score of the MSLC. For assessing whether the data is normally distributed, we conducted the Shapiro-Wilk test for each factor of the MSLC and demonstrated that no factor scores are normally distributed (p < 0.01). Table 2 exhibits the mean and SD of each factor score of the MSLC. It indicates that the score for Attachment to Books and Reading is the highest, followed by Qualification-Oriented Mindset and Desire to Work in a Library. Expectations for Librarian Certification and Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry rank next, while Admiration for a Librarian Acquaintance scores the lowest among all factors. Comparing each factor score using the Kruskal-Wallis test displayed significant differences (p < 0.01). Therefore, we performed multiple comparisons by employing the Steele-Dwass test, and significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between most factors, except for Expectations for Librarian Certification and Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry.

Figure 1:

Distribution of each MSLC factor score.

Table 2:

Scores of factors that constitute the MSLC.

Factors of MSLC	Average	SD
Desire to work in a library	14.75	3.93
Qualification-oriented mindset	15.50	4.00
Admiration for a librarian acquaintance	9.02	3.53
Attachment to books and reading	17.46	3.27
Expectations for librarian certification	12.48	3.74
Desire to work in the publishing industry	12.48	4.24

The distribution of respondent attributes is as follows: by gender, thirty-five (9.46 %) are male, 319 (86.22 %) are female, and sixteen (4.32 %) identify as other. Table 3 shows the cross-tabulation of MSLC factor scores by gender, showing minimal differences in mean factor scores across genders. Regarding grade levels, thirty-three (8.92 %) respondents are freshmen, 161 (43.51 %) are sophomores, 131 (35.41 %) are juniors, thirty-five (9.46 %) are seniors, eight (2.16 %) are graduate students, and two (0.54 %) fall into other categories. Table 4 exhibits the cross-tabulation of MSLC factor scores by grade level, revealing that freshmen tend to score highest overall, whereas seniors score the lowest. The mean number of courses taken is 9.71 (standard deviation: 3.64), the maximum is eighteen, and the minimum is one. We determined the Kendall rank correlation coefficient between them, but no significant correlations were found.

Table 3:

Cross tabulation between the average of MSLC factor scores and gender.

Factors of the MSLC	Men	Female	Other	No answer
Desire to work in a library	13.97	14.92	9.67	13.85
Qualification-oriented mindset	15.26	15.55	12.67	15.69
Admiration for a librarian acquaintance	8.49	9.08	7.33	9.31
Attachment to books and reading	16.46	17.60	18.67	16.38
Expectations for librarian certification	13.89	13.38	11.00	13.00
Desire to work in the publishing industry	12.37	12.50	11.33	12.38

Table 4:

Cross tabulation between the average of factor scores of MSLC and grade.

Factors of the MSLC	1	2	3	4	Graduate students	Others
Desire to work in a library	14.76	15.12	14.52	13.80	14.50	18.50
Qualification-oriented mindset	16.03	15.48	15.78	14.54	14.12	12.50
Admiration for a librarian acquaintance	9.39	8.86	9.05	9.60	7.38	10.00
Attachment to books and reading	18.03	17.44	17.21	17.80	17.25	20.00
Expectations for librarian certification	13.55	13.93	13.06	11.74	14.12	16.00
Desire to work in the publishing industry	13.48	12.70	12.24	11.63	11.50	12.00

4.2 Typology of the Motivational Styles of Taking Librarian Courses

4.2.1 Clustering Analysis

We conducted a clustering analysis on the MSLC factor scores using Manhattan distance and Ward’s method. Based on the dendrogram, it was determined that classifying the data into four groups was appropriate. Table 5 displays the statistics of each group. To better understand the motivational characteristics of each group, we compared the factor scores across groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test, which revealed significant differences (p < 0.01). Consequently, we performed multiple comparisons using the Steele-Dwass test. Almost all factor scores of Group 1 were significantly lower than those of the other groups, except for the Qualification-Oriented Mindset. Group 2 had high factor scores for the Qualification-Oriented Mindset and Expectations for Librarian Certification but relatively low scores for all other factors. Group 3, in contrast to Group 1, had relatively high factor scores. Group 4 had significantly lower factor scores for Qualification-Oriented Mindset and significantly higher scores for Desire to Work in a Library than the other groups.

Table 5:

Statistics of factor scores of MSLC in each group and results of multiple comparisons.

		1. Low motivation (n = 93)	2. Qualification request (n = 64)	3. High motivation (n = 151)	4. Librarian job applicant (n = 62)	Multiple comparisons
Desire to work in a library	Average	10.90	13.83	16.06	18.31	4 > 3>2 > 1
	SD	3.71	3.24	2.70	1.84
Qualification-oriented mindset	Average	15.57	17.39	16.58	10.82	2 > 1 1, 2, 3 > 4
	SD	3.65	2.75	3.19	3.88
Admiration for a librarian acquaintance	Average	6.54	10.08	9.30	10.95	4 > 2 2, 3, 4 > 1
	SD	2.88	3.00	3.40	3.29
Attachment to books and reading	Average	14.09	17.30	18.95	19.03	3, 4 > 2>1
	SD	3.76	2.56	1.73	1.98
Expectations for librarian certification	Average	10.77	15.19	13.72	14.71	2, 3, 4 > 1
	SD	3.19	2.03	4.13	2.64
Desire to work in the publishing industry	Average	8.59	9.98	15.44	13.66	3, 4 > 1, 2
	SD	2.95	2.71	2.37	4.66

Group 1 with overall low factor scores was named the Low Motivation Group; Group 2 with particularly high scores for Qualification-Oriented Mindset and Expectations for Librarian Certification and with a high emphasis on certification was named the Qualification Request Group; Group 3 with overall high factor scores was named the High Motivation Group; and Group 4 with particularly high factor scores for Desire to Work in a Library was named the Librarian Job Applicant Group.

Looking at the distribution of years in university across the groups (Figure 2), first-year students had a slightly higher rate in the High Motivation Group, second-year students had a slightly higher rate in the Librarian Job Applicant Group, third-year students had a slightly higher rate in the Low Motivation Group, and fourth-year students had a slightly higher rate in the Qualification Request Group. There was minimal difference in the gender distribution across the groups (Figure 3). The distribution of the number of classes taken also showed little variation among the groups (Figure 4).

Figure 2:

Distribution of grades among the groups.

Figure 3:

Distribution of gender among the groups.

Figure 4:

Distribution of the number of courses taken among the groups.

4.2.2 Relationship Between Motivational Styles and Learning Outcomes

The mean estimated comprehension vocabulary was 110.60, with a standard deviation of 63.07. The maximum was 248, and the minimum was one. Given that the theoretical maximum is 249, this indicates that, on average, the respondents could briefly explain 44.42 % of the terms.

Table 6 illustrates the basic statistics of the estimated comprehension vocabulary of each group. It is clarified that the mean of the estimated comprehension vocabulary is highest in the Librarian Job Applicant Group (128.34), followed by the High Motivation Group (111.31) and the Qualification Request Group (108.45). The Low Motivation Group had the lowest mean (99.10). We compared the estimated comprehension vocabulary across the groups by the Kruskal-Wallis test, and significant differences were found (p < 0.05). Therefore, we performed multiple comparisons using the Steele-Dwass test, and a significant difference was found between the Low Motivation Group and the Librarian Job Applicant Group (p < 0.05).

Table 6:

Estimated understanding vocabulary of each group.

Group name	Average	SD
1. Low Motivation Group	99.10	62.82
2. Qualification Request Group	108.45	69.61
3. High Motivation Group	111.31	60.89
4. Librarian Job Applicant Group	128.34	58.87

Moreover, we examined the relationship between the factor scores of the six MSLC factors and the estimated comprehension vocabulary by calculating the Kendall rank correlation coefficient. A very weak positive correlation was found between Desire to Work in a Library and the estimated comprehension vocabulary (τ = 0.13, p < 0.01) and between Attachment to Books and Reading and the estimated comprehension vocabulary (τ = 0.15, p < 0.01).

As it was expected that respondents with a higher number of classes taken have a higher estimated comprehension vocabulary, we calculated the Kendall rank correlation coefficient between these two variables. Nonetheless, only a weak positive correlation (τ = 0.22, p < 0.01) was found. There was almost no difference in the average number of classes taken across the groups, with scores ranging from 9.38 to 10.19.

4.2.3 Comparison of the Motivational Styles Between Current Students and Alumni

Figure 5 depicts the distribution of each MSLC factor score for the alumni. For assessing whether the data was normally distributed, we conducted the Shapiro-Wilk test for each MSLC factor and demonstrated that Desire to Work in a Library, Qualification-Oriented Mindset, Attachment to Books and Reading, and Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry are not normally distributed (p < 0.05). Table 7 presents the mean and SD of the alumni’s MSLC factor scores. It indicates that the score for Attachment to Books and Reading was the highest, followed by Desire to Work in a Library and Expectations for Librarian Certification. Qualification-Oriented Mindset and Admiration for a Librarian Acquaintance ranked next. Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry was the lowest among all factors. Comparing the factor scores using the Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences (p < 0.01). Therefore, we performed multiple comparisons using the Steele-Dwass test, and significant differences (p < 0.05) were found, except between Attachment to Books and Reading and Desire to Work in a Library, Expectations for Librarian Certification and Qualification-Oriented Mindset, as well as among Qualification-Oriented Mindset, Admiration for a Librarian Acquaintance, and Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry.

Figure 5:

Distribution of alumni’s MSLC factor score.

Table 7:

Statistics of alumni’s MSLC factor scores.

MSLC factors	Average	SD
Desire to work in a library	16.84	4.59
Qualification-oriented mindset	10.68	5.27
Attachment to books and reading	9.12	4.23
Admiration for a librarian acquaintance	17.88	3.00
Expectations for librarian certification	13.20	4.58
Desire to work in the publishing industry	8.96	4.78

The attributes of the respondents are shown below. Regarding gender, six (24 %) are male, eighteen (72 %) are female, and one (4 %) chose not to answer. In terms of library type where respondents work, ten (40 %) work at public libraries, twelve (48 %) work at academic libraries, two (8 %) work at school libraries, and one (4 %) works at another type of library. Concerning age, nine (36 %) are in their twenties, nine (3 %) are in their thirties, six (24 %) are in their forties, one (4 %) is over sixty. By year of librarian certification, five (20 %) were certified in the 2020s, thirteen (52 %) in the 2010s, four (16 %) in the 2000s, and three (12 %) before 1999.

To compare the factor scores between the current students and alumni, we conducted the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Consequently, significant differences were found in Desire to Work in a Library, Qualification-Oriented Mindset, and Desire to Work in the Publishing Industry (p < 0.01).

We compared the motivational styles between the current students and alumni in two ways. First, we conducted a clustering analysis of the MSLC factor scores of the current students and alumni (Manhattan distance and Ward’s method). Based on the dendrogram, it was also determined that the data could reasonably be classified as four groups, which we named A1, A2, A3, and A4. Table 8 presents the basic statistics of the factor scores of each group. This indicates that A1 is like the Low Motivation Group because all factor scores, except Qualification-Oriented Mindset, are low. A2 is like the Qualification Request Group because A2 places a high emphasis on certification. A3 is like the High Motivation Group because the overall factor scores are high. A4 is like the Librarian Job Applicant Group because the factor scores for Desire to Work in a Library are particularly high and those for Qualification-Oriented Mindset are particularly low. Table 9 presents the cross-tabulation of the groups classified by the two cluster analyses. This indicates that most respondents classified as A1 (93.55 %) belong to the Low Motivation Group, most respondents classified as the Qualification Request Group (75.00 %) belong to A2, most respondents classified as A3 (65.64 %) belong to the High Motivation Group, and many respondents classified as A4 (55.66 %) belong to the Librarian Job Applicant Group.

Table 8:

Statistics of MSLC factor scores in each group classified by the clustering analysis of current students and alumni.

		A1 (n = 135)	A2 (n = 34)	A3 (n = 195)	A4 (n = 31)
Desire to work in a library	Average	7.42	12.88	16.90	18.12
	SD	2.64	3.33	2.30	2.25
Qualification-oriented mindset	Average	16.58	16.53	15.63	6.18
	SD	3.02	3.32	3.33	1.83
Admiration for a librarian acquaintance	Average	4.94	8.10	10.39	8.62
	SD	3.02	3.32	3.33	1.83
Attachment to books and reading	Average	10.77	16.44	19.05	18.76
	SD	3.55	2.79	1.77	1.35
Expectations for librarian certification	Average	11.03	12.13	14.65	13.29
	SD	3.74	3.72	3.36	3.92
Desire to work in the publishing industry	Average	6.87	10.12	15.15	9.00
	SD	2.57	3.21	3.17	3.65

Table 9:

Cross tabulation of groups classified by two cluster analyses.

	A1	A2	A3	A4
1. Low Motivation Group	29	63	0	1
2. Qualification Request Group	0	48	16	0
3. High Motivation Group	0	20	128	3
4. Librarian Job Applicant Group	0	0	43	19
Alumni	2	4	8	11
Sum	31	135	195	34

Subsequently, we constructed an SVM classification model by employing the current students’ factor scores from MSLC as the training data. The model achieved accuracy for the training data at 94.86 %. We then used the model to predict the group classifications for the alumni’s data. Thirteen (52 %) were classified as the Librarian Job Applicant Group, seven (2 %) were classified as the Low Motivation Group, four (1 %) were classified as the High Motivation Group, and one (4 %) was classified as the Qualification Request Group. More than half of the alumni were classified as the Librarian Job Applicant Group, which agrees with the assumption that alumni who work in libraries have been highly motivated.

5 Discussion

The result that Attachment to Books and Reading and Qualification-Oriented Mindset were the strongest among the six factors of the motivations for taking courses at the MSLC is consistent with that of a previous study (Takeuchi et al. 2005). Nonetheless, the fact that Desire to Work in a Library, which was the highest factor in the previous study, is the third highest factor suggests the possibility that students are more aware of the difficulty of finding a job as full-time librarians now than when the previous study was conducted.

The clustering analysis revealed four types of motivational styles, each representing different combinations for motivational factors for taking courses. The Low Motivation Group exhibited low motivation across most factors, suggesting that they were taking the librarian courses primarily for the passive goal of obtaining certification. The Qualification Request Group had a similar tendency to the Low Motivation Group, but Qualification-Oriented Mindset and Expectations for Librarian Certification were particularly strong. These characteristics of the motivation of this group may also be reflected in the fact that their motivation for taking the course related to Desire to Work in a Library was significantly higher than that of the Low Motivation Group.

Students classified in the High Motivation Group, which has relatively strong course motivation in all factors, were the most numerous (40.81 %) among the respondents in this survey. This suggests that students must have multiple motivations for taking the librarianship course and continuing to take it even if they find that acquiring a full-time job in a library is difficult and that librarian certification is not so useful for job hunting. The Librarian Job Applicant Group, which is particularly interested in finding a job in a library, has relatively strong motivations for other factors and is like the High Motivation Group, but their Qualification-Oriented Mindset is extremely weak. It can be inferred that students in this group are most eager to gain knowledge about libraries and related topics such as books, reading, and the publishing industry.

Previous studies (Takeuchi et al. 2005; Matsumoto 2012) examined each motivational factor individually. However, we clarified the relationship among factors, such as the relationship between Qualification-Oriented Mindset and other factors. We found some students who have high motivation have low scores in Qualification-Oriented Mindset. As Okada and Nakaya (2006) indicated, it suggests that motivational factors must be researched not individually but in combination.

When examining the reliability of this classification of the motivational style from learning outcomes, although there is no simple linear correlation between individual motivational factors of the MSLC and the estimated comprehension vocabulary of LIS, differences in the estimated comprehension vocabulary were observed among some groups with different motivational styles. The Librarian Job Applicant Group had a significantly larger vocabulary than the Low Motivation Group. This may reflect differences in the motivation to actively acquire knowledge through librarian courses, providing some evidence of the validity of this classification.

By comparing the motivational styles of the current students with those of alumni, the clusters of motivational styles classified by the two clustering analyses are alike. By the SVM classification model, the motivations of many alumni are like those of the Librarian Job Applicant Group. This also indicates a certain validity of this classification. It is also clear that those with a Desire to Work in a Library and those who did not have a Qualification-Oriented Mindset tended to be able to find a full-time job in libraries. Nonetheless, many of the alumni surveyed in the present study were those who were as dedicated to their work as they had a connection with university faculties who majored in LIS. It is possible that their motivation to become librarians was particularly higher than that of other librarians. Hence, their aspiration of employment only in libraries might also be particularly high. To verify the result, a longitudinal study, such as one examining changes in current student motivations, is necessary.

6 Conclusion and Suggestions

In this work we clarified two exploratory questions: (1) What factors of MSLC are strong in students taking librarian courses in Japan?; and (2) What types of motivational styles do students taking librarian courses in Japan possess?

We surveyed 370 students across 13 universities and colleges in Japan. The results revealed that the strongest factor of MSLC was Attachment to Books and Reading, followed by Qualification-Oriented Mindset and Desire to Work in a Library. Differences in motivation were observed by gender and grade level. By conducting a clustering analysis, we also demonstrated four groups of motivational styles, encompassing the Low Motivation Group, the Qualification Request Group, the High Motivation Group, and the Librarian Job Applicant Group. There was a significant difference in the estimated understanding of specialized vocabulary between the Low Motivation Group and the Librarian Job Applicant Group, and many of the motivational styles of alumni who became librarians were like those of the Librarian Job Applicant Group. This suggests that our classification comprising four motivational styles by conducting the clustering analysis has validity.

Based on the above results, we offer some suggestions for the practice of LIS education in Japan. Firstly, it is necessary to develop a curriculum not only by considering course motivations individually but also by considering their combination, i.e., motivational styles. For instance, if a curriculum is developed to enable numerous students to obtain qualifications with minimum effort following Qualification-Oriented Mindset, which is the second strongest motivation for taking courses, this will not be sufficient for students who are highly motivated to take courses, have high learning outcomes, and who wish to work in libraries, and may inversely lower their motivation for taking courses. Even just getting jobs as full-time librarians is difficult in Japan, and this would also make it more difficult to obtain them. Therefore, it is possible to select curricula according to students’ motivational styles. For instance, it may be desirable for the Librarian Job Applicant Group to be offered elective courses directly related to the library field, such as training on the actual work done in the library and library onsite training. For the Qualification Request Group, it may be desirable to be offered courses related to other qualifications. Another possibility is to develop a curriculum that changes the motivational styles of students. For instance, to change students’ motivation, which is classified as the Low Motivation Group, courses could be designed to highlight the usefulness of qualifications for work and life in general.

One limitation of the current study is that we did not adequately examine the causal relationship between motivational styles, learning outcomes, and job placement because the analysis was conducted at a single point in time. Therefore, future studies should include an analysis of the causal relationship with learning outcomes based on longitudinal data from the same students and an analysis of the relationship between motivational styles and job placement for alumni of librarian programs, including those who have not become librarians. Additionally, because we focused on the analysis of only the motivations of current students, we were not able to fully clarify the relationship between these and other groups, such as alumni who work as librarians, and other attributes, such as grades outside the librarian courses. As a future task, a survey of them could be considered. For instance, a survey of the characteristics of the Low Motivation Group, to which not only current students but also a certain number of alumni who work as librarians apply in the SVM classification model, should be conducted through quantitative methods such as interviews with them by focusing not only the grades of librarian courses but also the grades in other courses.