Relationship between literacy events and low socio-economic status in primary education: analysis of different views of Spanish-speaking pupils, families, and teachers

RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 149 DOI: 10.32076/RA10210 ISSN: 2036-5330 Celia Moreno-Morilla, Eduardo Garcia-Jimenez [pp. 149-169] & Fernando Guzman-Simon Universidad de Sevilla Relationship between literacy events and low socio-economic status in primary education: analysis of different views of Spanish-speaking pupils, families, and teachers To obtain information or share views on this article, please contact the first author at the following address: Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Sevilla. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This paper proposes a new line of research on reading and writing habits based on differences between vernacular and institutional practices and their relationship with the Socio-Economic Status (SES) of families. This research work is focused on the description of literacy practices and events of pupils, families, and teachers. It also identifies the real differences among the opinions of the participating groups and the influence of the Socio-Economic Status (SES) on their literacy preferences. For this purpose, a descriptive analysis (univariate statistical analysis) and a variance analysis were carried out. The sample consisted of 3,052 participants (1,540 pupils, 1,438 families, and 74 teachers) and data were collected through a self-report questionnaire in three different versions, one for each participating group, regarding literacy events. Results confirm that literacy is mainly developed at home or at school, and not in other discourse communities. Participants defined a traditional concept of literacy restricted to the models spread by educational institutions. This literacy concept does not include the use of ICT and/or any practices performed beyond school domains. Furthermore, this study shows that the SES variable adjusts pupils’ literacy events, as well as their families and teachers’. In conclusion, our research describes the need to address the literacy issue in the low SES population from an eminently social perspective. This would entail tackling learning problems related to the ideological conflict caused by the primary education curriculum, which is based on the institutional culture. Keywords: Primary Education, Socio-Economic Status, Comparative analysis, Literacy events. | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica150 Estratto L’articolo stimola una nuova linea di ricerca sulle abitudini di lettura e di scrittura, in relazione alle differenze tra le pratiche vernacolari e istituzionali e al loro legame con lo status socio-economico (SES) delle famiglie. La ricerca si è concentrata sulla descrizione di prassi ed eventi di literacy da parte di studenti, delle loro famiglie e degli insegnanti, individuando anche le reali differenze di opinione tra i gruppi partecipanti e l’influenza dello status socio-economico (SES) sulle loro preferenze in relazione ai processi di alfabetizzazione. A tale scopo sono state condotte un’analisi statistica di tipo descrittivo e un’analisi della varianza. Il campione comprendeva 3.052 partecipanti (1.540 alunni, 1.438 genitori e 74 docenti) e i dati sono stati raccolti con un questionario autocompilato sugli eventi di literacy, in tre diverse versioni, una per ciascun gruppo di partecipanti. I risultati confermano lo sviluppo della literacy prevalentemente in famiglia o a scuola rispetto ad altre comunità di discorso. I partecipanti hanno definito un concetto di literacy di tipo tradizionale, ristretto ai modelli diffusi dalle istituzioni scolastiche. Questo concetto di literacy non include l’uso delle TIC e/o di pratiche svolte al di fuori dell’ambito scolastico. Lo studio dimostra inoltre che la variabile SES contribuisce nel regolare gli eventi di literacy sia dei ragazzi, sia dei loro genitori e insegnanti. In conclusione, la ricerca descrive la necessità di affrontare l’alfabetizzazione della popolazione con uno status socio-economico basso da una prospettiva prevalentemente sociale, che consenta di gestire le problematiche relative ai processi di apprendimento legate al conflitto ideologico causato dal curriculum dell’istruzione primaria, che si basa su una cultura di tipo istituzionale. Parole chiave: Istruzione primaria, Status socio-economico, Analisi comparativa, Eventi di literacy. RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 151 1. Introduction There is currently an increasing social concern regarding the way by which children learn how to read and write (Burnett & Merchant, 2015; Hall, Cremin, Comber, & Moll, 2013; Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2017; Pahl & Rowsell, 2012). Several Spanish reports highlighted a scarce improvement in reading comprehension among primary education pupils (PIRLS, 2006; 2011; 2016). Similarly, recent studies have addressed the reading and writing habits of nine-to-twelve- year-old children (MEC, 2015; Millán, 2017; CIS, February and September 2016). Nevertheless, in this age group, data collected from these studies usually relate reading and writing skills to school learning contexts. In such a way, the other reading and writing activities carried out outside school are left behind (Formby, 2014). These studies did not show the diversity and complexity of literacy among primary education pupils. Notably, a number of Spanish research studies focused on reading and writing habits in relation to literacy which is developed in the family environment or in other affinity groups (Duursma, Meijer & De Bot, 2017; Hull & Shultz, 2002). Nowadays, social consideration related to reading and writing habits plays a fundamental role in society, and its study requires a change of perspective regarding the concept of literacy (Heath, 1983). The approach to literacy as a social activity in daily contexts also needs to distinguish between the concepts of domain and space (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012). The space described by Gee (2004) is the physical place where literacy events are observed. The recurrence in the relationship between different social spaces and specific literacy events forms the domain, where practices acquire certain social values (Barton, 1991). Several research studies carried out by Barton (1994) and Barton & Hamilton (1998) promoted a study perspective based on the social values of reading and writing habits according to the space where they are developed (Gee, 2004). Pupils, families and teachers’ opinions differ on how digital and writing literacies are combined in different spaces of their daily life (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000). The different literacy events (Hamilton, 2010) observed in these spaces assume practice as a social value (Street, 2000). These literacy events are related to a domain where the highest social value (Scribner & Cole, 1981) is given to an affinity group (Gee, 2015). Such an approach related to pupils’ reading and writing habits is described as a social ecosystem by Martos García (2010). These habits are divided into four dimensions developed in different domains (Table 1). Dimensions Description Domains Personal Literacy Literacy events developed in different spaces and acquired as non-formal and informal learning. Affinity groups in the neighborhood, in families, on Instagram, etc. Cultural Consumption Literacy events developed in different spaces and related to the purchase and sale of literacy products. Affinity groups in the neighborhood, in families, on Instagram, etc. Library Culture Literacy events developed in different spaces and related to the use of public and private libraries. Affinity groups in families and at school, etc. Culture of Instruction Literacy events developed in different spaces and acquired as formal learning in an educational institution. Affinity groups at school. Tab. 1 - Dimensions of literacy events and domains in Primary Education. Source: Adapted from Guzmán-Simón, Moreno-Morilla, & García-Jiménez (2018) and Moreno-Morilla, Guzmán-Simón, & García-Jiménez (2017). | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica152 The ecological perspective of our research allows us to point out the complexity found in the reading and writing practices of primary education pupils, given that different perspectives (children, families and teachers) are introduced in the reading and writing habits developed inside and outside school (Neuman & Celano, 2001). These habits are also carried out both in physical (school, home, neighborhood, etc.) and virtual (Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, Web pages, etc.) spaces (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012). It is also important to mention that children include very diverse literacy events into their daily life, both through writing (books, posters, etc.) and ICT (mobile phones, computers, videogames, etc.) events (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000). Such heterogeneity implies that reading and writing is a complex issue, subject to a great diversity of elements, which interact in a multimodal reading and writing process (Bezemer & Kress, 2016). Nevertheless, this diversity of daily literacy events contrasts with those developed at school, i.e. the so-called institutional practices. On the other hand, what is developed outside school belongs to the personal area of pupils. These personal practices of reading and writing are considered vernacular practices (Pahl & Allan, 2011) that develop outside school or other institutions. Vernacular practices are generated by children in their environment and have a different purpose than the dominant or institutional practices mentioned before. Barton and Lee (2012) emphasized the need to revise the notion of vernacular practices since ICT has changed several behaviors of children. The universal presence of literacy in children’s social contexts and the heterogeneity of its different forms (Barton & Papen, 2010) do not carry the same social values. Perspectives on these values differ when children, families and teachers’ opinions are compared and contrasted. Furthermore, the social consideration that literacy presents outside school and the way by which popular culture and ICT influence school literacy are still unknown (Gregory & Williams, 2000). To conclude, information obtained from reading and writing habits analyzed in the different research studies stimulates a new line of research regarding differences between vernacular and institutional literacies and their relationship with the Socio-Economic Status (SES) of families (Compton-Lilly, 2009). Previous research studies presented in this literature review did not allow us to delve deeper into this particular issue, except for the relationship between SES and school performance (Caro, McDonald & Willms, 2009; Desert, Preaux & Jund, 2009). To sum up, vernacular literacies and their relationship with families’ SES had been excluded from previous literacy studies (Van Steensel, 2006). In approaching this research focused on reading and writing events from a new perspective, the following objectives were specified: 1. To describe literacy events of primary education pupils, their families, and teachers through self-reports. 2. To determine the existence of different pupils, families and teachers’ opinions concerning literacy events. 3. To determine differences between literacy events in terms of SES values. 2. Research method This study was built upon a survey method based on self-report questionnaires describing the literacy events of primary education pupils, their families, and teachers. This research relies on a non-experimental explanatory design, through which differences regarding pupils, families and teachers’ opinions on literacy practices and events are determined according to their SES. RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 153 2.1. Sample This research counted on the participation of 20 primary education schools, located in Seville (Andalusia, Spain) and on the cooperation of the families and teachers of the pupils enrolled in these schools. The sample consisted of 3,052 participants, which represented the opinions of the already mentioned groups (pupils, families, and teachers). A total of 1,834 primary school pupils (8-12-year- old children) were invited to participate. This group represented 2.10% of the total population, with a sampling error of 2.24%. In the end, 1,624 pupils filled out the self-report questionnaire (88.55%), of which 1,540 could be used, and the remaining 4.58% was identified as missing values by the system (84 cases). The 1,843 families (all parents) of the participating pupils were also invited to take part in the research. In this case, 1,438 families completed the corresponding self-report questionnaire (78.15%). We need to clarify that the participating families presented different Socio-Economic Statuses. A progressive relationship was observed between the Socio-Economic Status (SES) and the education level of these families, i.e. high or medium-high SES were identified with families with higher education levels. On the other hand, families with elementary education levels were frequently found in schools where people presented a low SES. This was also confirmed by the resources found in their homes (number of computers, books, televisions, etc.). Finally, 80 form tutors of the schools were also invited and 74 participated in the end. All of them where primary school teachers at the participating schools. So, there was direct contact between them and the group of the pupils previously surveyed. In this way, each pupil’s response was analyzed together with the answers of their families and form tutors. Participation in the study was voluntary and based on the informed-con- sent rules, which restrict the use of the information only to research purposes and assures both anonymity and confidentiality. This paper followed the internal regulation in Social Sciences by the Ethical Committee of Experimentation of the University of Seville. 2.2. Data collection This research work used three sources of information: pupils, families, and teachers. The data collection procedure consisted in three self-report questionnaires, one for each of the aforementioned participating groups. The three instruments followed the same logical design and shared the same theoretical construct, based on the different ecosystems proposed in the above literature review. Each of the items was assessed by using a Likert scale from 0 (Never) to 5 (Always). The self-report questionnaires were empirically validated by using the Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (PROXSCAL) following Biencin- to, Carpintero & Garcia-Garcia (2013) (Table 2). The four values that measure imbalance in the data or stress statistics present scores close to zero and the adjustment measurements are close to one, which confirms the adaptation of the dimensions chosen. The total reliability of the self-report questionnaires is statistically guaranteed with αT = 0.78 in each case. | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica154 Dimensions Cronbach’s Alpha Multiple Stress Measurements S F T Ngs Stress I Stress II S-Stress D.A.F C.C.T Personal Literacy (PL) 0.84 0.70 0.79 S 0.002 0.147 0.320 0.031 0.978 0.989 F 0.018 0.134 0.283 0.193 0.982 0.991 T 0.049 0.221 0.520 0.084 0.951 0.975 Cultural Consumption (CC) 0.76 0.60 0.71 S 0.038 0.196 0.354 0.029 0.961 0.980 F 0.004 0.066 0.132 0.005 0.996 0.998 T 0.047 0.217 0.573 0.096 0.953 0.973 Library Culture (LC) 0.83 0.60 ---1 S 0.045 0.212 0.386 0.063 0.954 0.977 F 0.001 0.024 0.063 0.002 0.999 0.999 Culture of Instruction (CI) 0.91 ---10.86 S 0.056 0.237 0.319 0.220 0.943 0.971 T 0.078 0.279 0.383 0.146 0.992 0.960 Total 0.95 0.79 0.90 S 0.050 0.224 0.514 0.072 0.949 0.974 F 0.018 0.135 0.283 0.019 0.982 0.990 T 0.057 0.240 0.543 0.088 0.942 0.971 1 The self-report questionnaire does not include this dimension. Tab. 2 - Psychometric indicators (reliability and validity) of self-report questionnaires. 2.3. Data analysis The analysis of all data collected with the self-report questionnaires completed by participating pupils, families, and teachers took into account all the different literacy dimensions (Personal Literacy, Cultural Consumption, Library Culture and Culture of Instruction). In order to meet this first objective of the study, a descriptive analysis was used, based on the calculation of arithmetic means and standard deviations of the responses given to each of the three self-report questionnaires. Regarding the second objective, comparisons were carried out in order to determine the real differences between pupils, families and teachers’ responses. For this purpose, variance analysis was also used. Finally, for our third objective variance analysis was also carried out by using the SES variable as a common factor, which allowed us to determine the possible existing differences in the literacy events of pupils, families, and teachers based on their Socio-Eco- nomic Status. 3. Results Results show statistically significant differences in all dimensions related to literacy. The scores given by pupils show the complexity of the literacy process during primary education. On the other hand, families’ per- RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 155 ceptions restrict the literacy process to the school field, although they highlighted that they usually attend a Book Fair (a cultural event where children and their families can buy books and participate in leisure activities related to reading). This view contrasts with the perceptions of teachers, who considered home as a crucial domain in the development of pupils´ reading habits. 3.1. The influence of SES on Personal Literacy events of pupils, families, and teachers Pupils, families, and teachers corroborated that reading events are mainly developed at home and school. The standard deviation values in both items confirm a high degree of agreement in the answers given. All pairwise comparisons present statistically significant differences, except for the student-family comparison (SI-FJ), related to reading at home or in the library (Table 3). Events related to writing on paper play a hegemonic role among participants. However, the dispersion of their responses increases when literacy events are related to the use of digital media (computers, tablets or mobile phones) and the creation of written texts in virtual spaces (Social Networks or blogs). Pairwise comparisons related to writing demonstrate statistically significant differences in all cases, except for the combination “SI-FJ writing on paper”, and the teacher-student combination “TI-SJ writing in blogs”. In this case, the variability of the responses exceeds the mean value which indicates a high degree of heterogeneity among pupils, families and teachers’ opinions. The high variability scores for items related to writing in digital media could be explained by the traditional view of literacy held by participants. Pupils, families, and teachers expressed a concept of literacy close to the school’s idea. This could be interpreted in terms of their not being aware of the fact that vernacular practices are part of the literacy process. | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica156 Items M SD Mean Difference (I-J) Sig.bη2 Where do you typically read? At home 3.82S1.359 SI-FJ0.109 0.296 0.0783.72F1.462 FI-TJ-0.672* 0.001 4.39T0.988 TI-SJ0.563* 0.001 At school 3.92S1.441 SI-FJ-0.192* 0.010 0.0914.11F1.334 FI-TJ0.670* 0.001 3.44T1.737 TI-SJ-0.478 0.001 In the library 1.42S1.733 SI-FJ0.292 1.000 0.0701.13F1.518 FI-TJ0.278* 0.001 0.85T1.132 TI-SJ-0.570* 0.001 In what format or media do you typically write? On paper 4.70S0.875 SI-FJ0.010 1.000 0.2084.69F0.870 FI-TJ0.659* 0.001 4.03T1.168 TI-SJ-0.669 0.001 On a computer 2.65S1.739 SI-FJ0.966* 0.001 0.3141.69F1.628 FI-TJ-2.014* 0.001 3.70T1.295 TI-SJ1.048* 0.001 On a mobile phone 2.94S1.938 SI-FJ0.981* 0.001 0.1361.96F1.819 FI-TJ-0.674* 0.001 2.63T1.687 TI-SJ-0.307* 0.001 On a tablet 2.59S2.034 SI-FJ1.081* 0.001 0.2241.51F1.685 FI-TJ0.320* 0.001 1.19T2.006 TI-SJ-1.402* 0.001 When you write in a digital media, where do you tend to do so? In social networks 1.52S1.997 SI-FJ1.128* 0.001 0.5070.40F1.103 FI-TJ-2.147* 0.001 2.54T1.912 TI-SJ1.019* 0.001 In blogs 1.14S1.742 SI-FJ0.766* 0.001 0.1750.37F1.051 FI-TJ-0.723* 0.001 1.10T1.725 TI-SJ-0.043 1.000 * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. - b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni Tab. 3 - Means, standard deviations and pairwise comparisons related to Personal literacy. RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 157 Regarding personal literacy, Fig. 1 shows a similar profile between pupils, families, and teachers. Home and school are noticed to be the main literacy domains. Public or school libraries do not represent a relevant part of literacy processes. Pupils said to use digital media daily, such as mobile phones and tablets, but without attaching a social value to this type of writing. Finally, teachers highlighted the use of computers as a useful resource for their administrative-profession- al tasks but with no particular relevance for their teaching methodologies. Fig. 1 - Pupils, families and teachers’ literacy events. Pupils who identified themselves with a high SES placed greater value on the item “I read at school”, which means that reading events performed in this domain present a higher social value (Table 4). However, pupils belonging to more deprived contexts, with low SES, were the ones who attached greater value to the “Library Culture” dimension, promoting the use of the library as a reading room. The variable “writing on paper” presents similar values at all SES levels, which indicates that handwriting at school plays a hegemonic role. Nevertheless, it can be appreciated that the use of mobile phones during the development of literacy practices is higher for pupils with a low SES. The same happens with writing in digital media (Social Networks and blogs). The ANOVA analysis corroborates a greater presence of digital media in the processes of personal reading and writing in the case of pupils belonging to deprived contexts (low SES). | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica164 Fig. 4 - Instructional events developed at school. The SES variable also allows identifying differences concerning the instructional practices developed at school. Low SES values present a profile in which the use of textbooks at school prevails, and the oral discourse gains greater relevance. On the other hand, high SES values emphasize a larger use of reading books. Items Participants In favor of high, medium-high, medium, medium-low and low SES S T What type of text is most often read at school? Textbooks 0.001 --- Differences in favor of the lowest SES values Journal articles 0.033 --- There are no differences in post-hoc test Reading books 0.005 --- Progressive differences in favor of the highest SES values Class notes 0.001 --- Progressive differences in favor of the lowest SES values Photocopies --- --- No significant differences How are recommended readings used in class? Through a debate 0.001 --- Differences in favor of the lowest SES values Through pupils’ reflections 0.001 --- Through reading analysis by teachers 0.001 --- After reading some notes, books, articles or other recommended texts, what activities are carried out? Summaries 0.002 --- Differences in favor of the lowest SES values Outlines or mind maps 0.015 --- There are no differences in post-hoc test Reflections 0.035 --- Tab. 10 - Analysis of the Culture of Instruction differences according to the SES. RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 165 4. Discussion and conclusions This paper presents an analysis of literacy practices and events which shows a clear differentiation in the cases studied, characterized by different SES levels. SES modulates pupils, families and teachers’ literacy events (Dunsmore & Fisher, 2010). What they read and write at school or outside school is related to the economic and social conditions in which they live. SES also appears to have some relationship with personal literacies, cultural consumption habits, the use of the libraries and the culture of instruction. The comparison between different literacy events in the same SES context shows a similar profile among pupils and families’ opinions. However, a number of differences can be highlighted relating to teachers’ opinions. Results demonstrate that in different SES contexts there is a relationship between literacy, SES and the way by which pupils internalize the social values present in reading and writing events. Pupils, families, and teachers show a traditional concept of literacy restricted to the models promoted by schools (Gee, 2015). This literacy concept does not include the use of ICT or any performed practices beyond school domains (Lankshear & Knobel, 1997; Williams, 2009). Teachers demonstrate the hegemonic value of reading and writing on paper, the consumption of resources that work for their professional development and the main progress of “handwriting” tasks in the classroom. Families, on their behalf, do not consider themselves as literacy agents, and therefore, they refer the literacy development exclusively to the school (Pahl & Allan, 2011). As a consequence, digital media and virtual spaces present a low social value in the literacy processes of primary education pupils. This mainly affects children belonging to families with a low SES, where ICT plays an essential role in literacy. The scarce introduction of ICT in school classrooms, as well as of practices that pupils develop on a daily basis, does not help reduce their failure rates or improve their lack of motivation. The personal events of low SES pupils, which take place in other domains outside school, are often far from their daily literacy events (Purcell-Gates, 1996). In this sense, our research highlights that the educational reinforcement measures which schools use as the only source seem not to be useful in the literacy process of low SES pupils. The causes of such failure could be found in the conflict that school literacy events create in contexts where the social value of writing and reading on paper is very low (Hull & Schultz, 2002; Knobel, 2007; Rogers, 2003; Poveda et al., 2006; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Taylor, 1983). Our research highlights the need to create a “bridge” which could connect pupils’ schools and homes, especially those with a low SES. This would mean that vernacular literacy practices which families and pupils develop daily should be included, along with activities carried out at school (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). Introducing literacy which is developed outside school into literacy developed at school would enhance the real social values of reading and writing events with which children start their literacy process. These values would be acquired at home and in other affinity groups, in which literacy is heterogeneous and multimodal, and in which digital media and popular culture are universally present. The creation of a “third space” could become the above mentioned “bridge” between different literacy domains (Levy, 2008; Moje et al., 2004). The development of a third space for the development of literacy (where schools, families, and communities cooperate) would favor the socio-economic development of areas which need a social transformation (Campbell, Pahl, Pente, & Rasool, 2018). This would mean that popular culture and vernacular practices, which | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica166 are developed at home, in the neighborhood or in other communities, are introduced in schools (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). Practices developed by families at home could be used inside the classroom in order to promote the creation of new values related to literacy in children’s daily contexts. The creation of this third space in primary schools would offer greater flexibility for the teaching curriculum, which would respond to the differences generated by SES in the literacy process developed in families and other discourse communities (Compton-Lilly, 2003; Marsh, 2003). In conclusion, our research highlights the need to address the issue of literacy of the low SES population from an eminently social perspective. This would entail tackling learning problems related to the ideological conflict caused by the primary education curriculum, which is based on the institutional culture (Gee, 1990). Education as a social transformation tool sets out a severe crisis of the current model of literacy in low SES communities. Its specificity, as our research underlines, requires a specific change towards the social environment of pupils and their families. This fact makes it clear that it is essential to have a profound reflection on the design of schools’ literacy programmes, in which teachers’ training and resources could be approached in a broader and more established perspective. Acknowledgments This research work was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (FPU-14/05336), by the Spanish State Research Agency, the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the framework of the I+D Project: Literacy as a social practice in pre-school and primary education (5-7 years old): Research and Intervention design on children at risk of social exclusion in urban contexts) (EDU2017-83967-P). We would also like to thank the Lancaster Literacy Research Centre (Lancaster University) for their helpful support and advice. RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 167 References Barton, D. (1991). The social nature of writing. In D. Barton & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Writing in the community (pp. 1-13). London: Sage. Barton, D. (1994). Literacy. An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Barton, D & Lee, C. (2012). Redefining Vernacular Literacies in the Age of Web 2.0. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 282-298. Barton, D. & Papen, U. (Eds.) (2010). The Anthropology of Writing: Understanding textually mediated worlds. London, GB: Continuum. Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. A social semiotic frame. London: Routledge. Biencinto, Ch., Carpintero, E. & García-García, M. (2013). Propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario ActEval sobre la actividad evaluadora del profesorado universitario. RELIEVE, 19 (1), art. 2. doi: 10.7203/relieve.19.1.2611. Burnett, C. & Merchant, G. (2015). The challenge of 21st-century literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 271-274. Campbell, E., Pahl, K., Pente, E., & Rasool, Z. (2018). Re-Imagining Contested Communities: Connecting Rotherham Through Research. Brighton, UK: Policy Press. Caro, D. H., McDonald, J. T., & Willms, J. D. (2009). Socio economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32 (3), 558-590. CIS (2016). Barómetro de febrero 2016. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Consultado en http://www.cis.es (Última consulta: 20/04/2017). CIS (2016). Barómetro de septiembre 2016. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Consultado en http://www.cis.es (Última consulta: 20/04/2017). Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading Families. The literate lives of urban children. New York and London: Teachers College Press-Columbia University. Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). Listening to families over time: Seven lessons learned about literacy in families. Language Arts, 86(6), 449-457. Desert, M., Preaux, M., & Jund, R. (2009). So young and already victims of stereotype threat: Socio-economic status and performance of 6 to 9 years old children on raven’s progressive matrices. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24 (2), 207-218. Dunsmore, K. & Fisher, D. (Eds.) (2010). Bringing literacy home. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Duursma, E., Meijer, A., & De Bot, K. (2017). The impact of home literacy and family factor son screen media use among Dutch preteens. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(2), 612-622. Formby, S. (2014). Children’s early literacy practices at home and in early years settings: Second annual survey of parents and practitioners. London: National Literacy Trust. Gee, J.P. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and Learning. A critique of traditional schooling. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Gee, J.P. (2015). Literacy and Education. New York: Routledge. | Prevenire il fallimento educativo e la dispersione scolastica168 Gregory, E. & Williams, A. (2000). Work or play? Unofficial literacies in the lives of two East London Communities. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different world (pp. 37-54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Guzmán-Simón, F., Moreno-Morilla, C., & García-Jiménez, E. (2018). Analysis of different views and conceptualizations of the literacy practices of pupils, families, and teachers in Costa Rican Primary Education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(3), 268-282, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2018.1464527 Hamilton, M. (2010). The social context of literacy. In N. Hughes & I. Schwab (Eds.), Teaching adult literacy: Principles and practice (pp. 7-28). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Mass: Cambridge University Press. Hull, G. & Schultz, K. (2002). Connecting schools with Out-of-School worlds. Insights from recent research on literacy in non-school settings. In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.), School’s Out! Bridging Out- of-School Literacies with Classroom Practice (pp. 32-57). New York and London: Teachers College. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (2007). PIRLS-TIMSS 2006. Estudio Internacional de progreso en comprensión lectora, matemáticas y ciencias. Vol. I y II. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (2013). PIRLS-TIMSS 2011. Estudio Internacional de progreso en comprensión lectora, matemáticas y ciencias. Vol. I y II. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (2017). PIRLS-TIMSS 2016. Estudio Internacional de progreso en comprensión lectora, matemáticas y ciencias. Vol. I y II. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2000). Changing the role of schools. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies. Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 116-144). London: Routledge. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (Eds.) (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang. Kumpulainen, K. & Gillen, J. (2017). Young children’s digital literacy practices in the home. A review of the literature. COST ACTION ISI1410 DigiLitEY. Retrieved from http://digilitey.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WG1LR-Updated-Nov-2017.pdf Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Levy, R. (2008). ‘Third spaces’ are interesting places: Applying ‘third space theory’ to nursery-aged children’s constructions of themselves as readers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1), 43-66. Marsh, J. (2003). One-Way Traffic? Connections between literacy practices at home and in the nursery. British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 369-382. Martos García, A.E. (2010). Las prácticas de lectura/escritura y los enfoques etnográfico y geográfico. Didáctica: Lengua y Literatura, 22, 199-229. MEC (2015). Encuesta de hábitos y prácticas culturales 2014-2015. Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica (Subdirección General de Estadística y Estudios). Millán, J.A. (Coor.) (2017). La lectura en España. Informe 2017. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70. RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 10, n. 2 - December 2018 | 169 Moreno-Morilla, C., Guzmán-Simón, F., & García-Jiménez, E. (2017). Los hábitos de lectura y escritura en los estudiantes de Educación Primaria: un análisis dentro y fuera de la escuela. Porta Linguarum, II, 117-137. Neuman, S.B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: an ecological Study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (1), 8-26. Pahl, K. & Allan, Ch. (2011). ‘I don’t know what literacy is’: Uncovering hidden literacies in a community library using ecological and participatory research methodologies with children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(2), 190-213. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Literacy and Education. Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. Los Ángeles/London: SAGE. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.) (2012). Early childhood literacy. London: Sage. Poveda, D. Palomares-Valera, M., & Cano, A. (2006). Literacy mediations and mediators in the escuela dominical of a Gitano evangelist church. Ethnography and Education, 1(2), 265-283. Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 406-428. Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices. Power in and out of print. Mahwah, NJ-London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rowsell, J. & Pahl, K. (2007). Sedimented identities in texts: Instances of practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388-404. Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Van Steensel, R. (2006). Relations between socio-cultural factors, the home literacy environment, and children’s literacy development in the first years of primary education. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 367-382. Williams, B.T. (2009). Shimmering literacies: Popular culture & reading & writing online. New York: Peter Lang.