Literacy practices of primary education children in Andalusia (Spain): a family-based perspective

Literacy practices of primary education children in Andalusia (Spain): A family-based perspective Celia Moreno-Morilla a, * , Fernando Guzm an-Sim on b and Eduardo Garc ıa-Jim enez a a Department of Research and Diagnosis Methods in Education, University of Seville, Spain; b Department of Language and Literature Teaching, University of Seville, Spain Primary school children develop literacy practices in various domains and situations in everyday life. This study focused on the analysis of literacy practices of children aged 8–12 years from the perspective of their families. 1,843 families participated in the non-experimental explanatory study. The children in these families speak Spanish as a first language and are schooled in this language. The instrument used was a self-report questionnaire about children’s home-literacy practices. The data obtained were analysed using categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results show the complex relationship between literacy practices developed by children in the domains of home and school and the limited development of a literacy-promoting ‘third space’. In conclusion, the families in our study had limited awareness of their role as literacypromoting agents and thought of literacy learning as restricted to formal or academic spaces. Keywords: primary education; socio-economic level; digital literacies; family literacy Introduction The study of literacy practices and the environments in which they are developed is vital to an understanding of how primary education children learn to read and write. The complex development of reading and writing in twenty-first-century society presents multiple types of literacy learning in different environments, both within and outside of school (Barton, 2001). The social value of reading and writing (Street, 1994) is broadly developed not only in the school domain, but also in other domains such as the home (Neuman & Celano, 2001). Consequently, children’s various practices (institutional and vernacular practices) interact with each other through the spaces in which literacy is developed (e.g. homework or writing text messages on a mobile phone) (Barton & Lee, 2012). An international comparative study, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), led by the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement, compares the reading scores of children during their fourth year of school. The PIRLS reports produced in 2006, 2011 and 2016 (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012; Mullis, Martin, Foy, *Corresponding author. Facultad de Ciencias de la Educaci on, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ Pirotecnia, s/n 41013 Sevilla, Spain. Email: [email protected]. ©2018 British Educational Research Association British Educational Research Journal Vol. , No. , 2018, pp. – DOI: 10.1002/berj.3487 & Hooper, 2017) have shown Spain to have one of the lowest average scores in Europe. In fact, PIRLS 2016 showed that Spain is only ahead of Belgium and France among European countries. When data are compared with other European countries in international assessments, gaps in the field of literacy, in general, and reading comprehension, in particular, have been identified. Similarly, the results obtained in PIRLS 2016 with an enlarged sample in different regions of Spain showed differences between these regions. The region of Andalusia (south of Spain) obtained worse results in 2016 than the regions of Madrid, Asturias, La Rioja and Castilla y Le on. The differences observed can be related to the socioeconomic status (SES) of the families in these regions of Spain. The data provided by the INE (Spanish National Institute for Statistics) show that the majority of the Spanish population at risk of poverty is concentrated in the south of the country. Nine out of the 10 municipalities of more than 50,000 inhabitants with the highest rate of population at risk of poverty are located in Andalusia (Llano Ortiz, 2016; Mill an, 2016). Theoretical framework Literacy and the role of the family The effect of school performance in relation to family and contextual factors has been the subject of numerous studies. Coddington et al. (2014) studied the extent to which family characteristics and parental educational level predicted school outcomes, and more recent research, such as that by de Zeeuw et al. (2015), Van Bergen et al. (2016) and Alston-Abel and Berninger (2017), has highlighted the relationship between the literacy activities developed in the home and the literacy learning of children in primary education. In particular, the relationship between the family environment and the development of reading has been studied from numerous perspectives. S en echal (2014) presents a review of the development of literacy in the ‘children’s home’ space, and Martini and S en echal (2012) show how literacy learning promotes sources in the home and the attitudes of parents towards literacy. Subsequently, Anderson et al. (2017) and Saracho (2017) confirm the effects of a family literacy programme, highlighting the role of reading and writing activities in family literacy. These studies have compared the role of families in literacy to schools’ literacy-pro- moting role, the diversity of literacy-promoting activities performed in the home domain (Dunsmore & Fisher, 2010) and the beneficial effect of reading experiences shared within the family (S en echal & Lefevre, 2014). Nevertheless, the majority of these studies have not investigated the heterogeneity of ‘invisible’ or vernacular literacy-promoting practices in the home in a differentiated manner (Pahl & Allan, 2011), nor have they examined the social value (situated and everyday) that these practices acquire in the home environment. Camitta (1993) and Barton and Hamilton (1998) define vernacular practices as new forms of external literacy promotion that are different from the objectives of children’s school practices and that have low social recognition. In contrast, dominant or institutional practices are described as those that are created and distributed by an institution such as a school and that have high social recognition. 2C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association The study of literacy in a local context exemplifies the literacy-promoting practices with which children interact in various domains, such as the home, school or peer communities (Pahl, 2002; Marsh, 2003). The family home, when viewed as a space rather than as a domain, as explained in the next section, becomes a meeting place where both academic and family literacy-promoting practices interact (Neuman & Celano, 2001). Vernacular and institutional literacy-promoting practices Children’s literacy-promoting practices develop in the home and at school in relation to both domain and space. On the one hand, a domain can be defined as the place where one literacy-promoting practice was created and is used in a recurring manner (Barton & Hamilton, 1998); on the other hand, the location or place where the literacy-promoting practice has been performed is called a space. In this case, Pahl and Rowsell (2012) note that homework performed by primary pupils belongs to the school domain, despite being performed in the home space. In relation to the different domains and discourses developed by children, it is important to differentiate between those that originate from an educational institution or the school domain (dominant practices) and those that originate from the home domain (vernacular practices). This differentiation has led to the classification of literacy-promoting practices into models, represented in Figure 1. This figure, taken from Pahl and Rowsell (2012), combines the domains of literacy practices with the sites in which they occur. It represents the following four models of literacy: school literacy performed at school (reading and writing at school in pursuit of academic success); school literacy performed at home (reading and writing in the home in pursuit of academic success); literacy exclusive to the home (reading and writing in popular culture, computer games or text messages, etc.); and literacy that mixes models two and three (reading and writing at home, such as text messages or computer games, that are incorporated into the school domain and school literacy practices that are incorporated into other domains). The use of information and communications technology (ICT) as a social practice has changed the access to and type of literacy, particularly in everyday vernacular discourses. Interaction with video games, the internet and mobile phones has Figure 1. Literacy models in the family home and at school Literacy Practices in Primary Education Children 3 ©2018 British Educational Research Association transformed the relationship between school literacy and complex literacy (Compton-Lilly & Green, 2011) in the home domain (Marsh, 2005). These vernacular literacy practices are self-generated, asystematic and involve non-formal or informal learning. They are fundamentally based on multimodal and hybrid discourses (Pahl, 2007), whose flexibility permits the creation of new discourses born from the interaction with other domains (Moje et al., 2004; Pahl & Kelly, 2005) and related to online communication (Barton & Lee, 2012). However, the use of ICT by children presents numerous inequalities and risks, as illustrated in reports by Marsh et al. (2005) and Wartella et al. (2014). Thus, reading and writing via ITC in the home domain differ not only based on sociocultural and educational levels, age, sex and race, but also on the type of technology used, the availability of parents and the amount of time spent using ICT (Connell et al., 2015). The nature of vernacular practices and their dynamism to create new discursive genres (Barton & Lee, 2013) has changed schools’ control over literacy (Davies & Merchant, 2009). New generations show evidence of a clear distancing between the traditional and dominant literacy practices of their parents and the vernacular and hybrid practices developed in peer communities or in the home (Barton & Lee, 2012). An analysis of literacy that considers the different domains demands that the study of learning to read and write be approached from a complex perspective of the social and situated nature of written communication. Literacy domains: Between home and school During the first few primary school years, the home domain plays a more relevant role than the school domain because the process of promoting a child’s literacy is developed more in the family environment owing to the diversity of cultural sources with which a child interacts (e.g. television, computer games, popular music) (Gregory & Williams, 2000). Family literacy practices refer to oral and written discourses that occur in the home domain (Wasik & Van Horn, 2012). These discourses influence literacy learning among primary education pupils and explain some differences in their reading and writing practices outside of school (Compton-Lilly, 2003; Rogers, 2007). The research by James (2008) shows how the digital divide becomes evident in the family context. This digital divide differentiates the literacy practices in the home. Marsh et al. (2017) have shown how literacy in the family context assumes a role of non-formal learning of children, especially in relation to digital literacy and in the construction and interpretation of multimodal discourses. This means that there are homes which have incorporated reading and writing 2.0 for socialising, collaborating and interacting with other subjects (Wohlwend, 2010), while other homes lack these practices (Redecker et al., 2009; Garc ıa-Mart ın & Garc ıa-S anchez, 2013). This latter situation does not always provide children with new literacy knowledge and abilities related to reading and writing in the virtual world (Wartella et al., 2014). The diversity of cultural sources in the home permits a greater influence from popular culture and informal learning in the development of children’s literacy-promot- ing identity (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007), long before starting school and independent of the cultural level of the family context (Wells, 1986). Figure 1 represents the four 4 C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association models of literacy promotion for children in primary education to approach literacy learning. The strong existing interaction between the school and home domains and the importance of literacy-promoting practices that this interaction generates have made some researchers conceive of the creation of a ‘third space’ for literacy promotion. This space develops in a place that is separate from the children’s school, where scholarly practices in the family space interact with personal/family practices of literacy promotion (Moje et al., 2004). The theory of the ‘third space’ proposed by Bhabha (1994), Soja (1996) and Guti errez et al. (1999) presents a hypothesis concerning the creation of a new literacy space between the home and school domains. In this space, primary education children incorporate their experiences with popular culture, television and digital media, such as computers and tablets, into their literacypromoting school experiences (Levy, 2008). The concept of a third space, as described by Soja (1996), has both a physical and a social dimension. In our study, this third space is composed of the intersection of school (first space) and home (second space), where each domain develops literacy promotion and, as a result, differentiated discourses (Gee, 2008). The ‘third space’ allows the primary education student to interact with different discursive communities and thus to generate new discourses and understandings. This converts the configuration of the ‘third space’ into the catalyst of a profound epistemological and social change in literacy promotion, to the extent that it facilitates children’s access to academic and everyday knowledge and discourses (Moje et al., 2004). Therefore, ‘third space’ theory makes use of the literacy-promoting knowledge and experiences obtained by children outside of the school domain and combines them with the school’s reading and writing strategies, with the aim of constructing a hybrid discourse (Cook, 2005). This hybrid discourse, which relates academic literacy to vernacular literacy, is characterised by interdiscursivity and the order of discourse (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007). Our study describes primary education pupils’ literacy-promoting practices from the perspective of families, using the home space as the focus of the analysis. The practices developed in the home are part of the third space of literacy, in which digital and print elements are included and multimodal discourse occurs (Moje et al., 2004; Hill, 2010). The literacy experience of the young reader is complex in this third space, given the variety of texts and codes that he or she must interpret as part of a multimodal discourse, with written text (printed or digital) sharing prominence with visual text and audio text (Bearne, 2005). The development of this third space for literacy and the hybrid nature of the discourses developed within it play an important role as ‘mediated context and tools for the future social and cognitive development’ of children (Guti errez et al., 1999, p. 92). The perspective of the third space that we adopt in this study follows the research of Bhabha (1994) and Soja (1996), in which the third space is considered to be a bridge between the two domains (communities and discourses) of home and school (Moje et al., 2004). In addition, we consider the third space to be a social space, where different discourses and understandings that come from the school and home domains interact and transform. The third space becomes an area of understanding that allows both dialogue between the school curriculum and the knowledge that Literacy Practices in Primary Education Children 5 ©2018 British Educational Research Association children acquire in their everyday lives and children’s access to the school’s most complex literacy-promoting practices (Moje et al., 2004). Literacy-promoting practices and the socio-economic status of schools A large number of researchers have revealed the direct relationship between SES and its association with the literacy practices of children which develop in the home domain. Marcella et al. (2014) found that low income predicts certain family literacy practices, such as the reading of books, games with magnetic letters and narrating stories of daily life which involve parents and their children interacting with literacy. In addition, Coddington et al. (2014) have related children’s literacy development to parents’ level of study, and Puglisi et al. (2017) linked literacy to maternal linguistic skills. Both elements, the SES and educational level of parents, have been excellent predictors of childhood literacy (Grieshaber et al., 2011). SES measures both the educational and the occupational level of parents and the number of books and resources in the home, including adequate working space, a computer and internet connection, and support materials (Gil Flores, 2013). Regarding SES and children’s literacy, Andalusia represents an area of low SES and poor literacy (Instituto Nacional de Evaluaci on Educativa, 2013). When we analysed the relationships between SES (divided into quartiles) and average scores in reading comprehension, we found that the Andalusian education system does not promote equity (that is to say, schools do not reduce children’s socio-economic differences). The average score in reading comprehension of the children in the first quartile of SES (the most disadvantaged children) is the lowest in Spain, and below the average of the European Union and the OECD. All these elements highlight the need to better understand the various literacy practices in which pupils engage and the domains in which they take place. The role of families in school performance, in general, and in literacy, in particular, has been broadly demonstrated in studies published since the 1970s (Bernstein, 1975; Bloom, 1978; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Davies et al., 2016; Alston-Abel & Berninger, 2017; Marsh et al., 2017; Saracho, 2017). This article reports on literacy practices in primary education from the perspective of families, both in the school domain and in the domains of home, peer community and other discursive communities. Our study analyses the relationship in Andalusian families between the different types of literacy-promoting practices and SES, with the aim of determining what capacity they have to predict hybrid literacy practices and the development of the third space. Hybrid literacy practices refer to the interdiscursivity between reading and writing and media and digital literacy in the construction of literacy in children (Gregory & Williams, 2000; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007; Kalman, 2008). The research questions in our study were as follows: 1. What are the literacy practices of primary education children in the domains of school and home according to their families? 2. What are the characteristics of institutional and vernacular literacy practices among primary education children according to their families? 3. Do the institutional and vernacular literacy practices of primary education children differ based on the SES of schools? 6 C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association Methodology This research employed a survey method that used a self-report questionnaire to capture the literacy practices of children from the perspective of a broad sample of families. An explanatory or ex post facto, non-experimental design was used to determine the differences existing in the literacy practices of children based on the SES of their families. This type of design attempts to establish differences in one variable (literacy practices) without altering the conditions observed in the other (SES). The literacy practices variable was measured after identifying these practices’ components using a categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA). The SES variable was measured using an index obtained after gathering SES information about the families. This research has followed the protocols of the ethical committee for research in social sciences of the University of Seville and families gave their informed consent to participate. Sample The sample comprised 1,438 families (parents or legal guardians), who represented 78% of the total families of the children in the second and third cycle of primary education (8–12 years of age) enrolled in 20 schools in Andalusia. Schools have different socio-economic characteristics and educational resources. The sample incorporates both public and private schools. Given the low number of non-Spanish residents in Andalusia (5%), the families were almost all native Spanish speakers. To ensure the diversity of the sample and avoid bias, these schools were chosen using a quota sampling technique with the following criteria: (a) Proportional representation of levels of families’ SES (high, middle-high, middle, middle-low, low) (see Table 1). (b) Proportional representation of schools (public and fee-paying private). (c) Proportionality of boys and girls at each school (50% each). (d) Proportional representation of different ages (8–12 years). (e) Proportionality of the number of children in each educational level (8–12 years). The SES was obtained from the Andalusian administration and was based on indicators that consider information regarding parents’ level of education, parents’ Table 1. Distribution of families as a function of SES Explanatory segments of the values of SES High (>0.36) Mid-high (0.07/ 0.36) Medium (0.32/ 0.07) Mid-low (0.62/0.32) Low (<0.62) S1 0.60 S3 0.14 S6 0.12 S9 0.47 S12 0.70 S16 0.91 S2 0.40 S4 0.02 S7 0.26 S10 0.59 S13 0.66 S17 0.72 S5 0.01 S8 0.10 S11 0.60 S14 1.30 S18 0.82 S15 0.90 S19 1.02 S20 0.73 Source: Reports of General Diagnostic Tests 2011 (Autonomous Community of Andalusia, Ministry of Education). Literacy Practices in Primary Education Children 7 ©2018 British Educational Research Association occupation, number of books and number of computers and tablets in the home. Based on these indicators, the schools in our sample with a high SES correspond to a greater percentage of families with higher education (36%), more than 60 books in their homes (52%) and a mean of two or three computers at home. Conversely, the schools with a low SES reflect the opposite values (48% have only primary education, 31% have fewer than 20 books in the home and 47% only have one computer) (Table 2). Information collection procedure The information collection procedure was based on the use of a self-report questionnaire called Literacy practices of primary education pupils from the perspective of their families (https://goo.gl/CiSyd5). The self-report questionnaire is organised in three dimensions that explore the literacy practices of children. The first dimension is based on the concept of space and shows the literacy events developed by children in digital and print media. The second dimension brings together the literacy events developed in public and school libraries. The third dimension asks about literacy events related to the production and cultural consumption of literacy by children in the family environment (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012). The version of the self-report questionnaire for the families was subject to a validation process using multi-dimensional scaling (PROXSCAL) (Biencinto et al., 2013). To that end, we created a proximity matrix such that the transformed proximities would maintain the same order as the originals. The four values that measure imbalance in the data or stress statistics received scores close to zero, and the adjustment measurements approached one (Dispersion Accounted For (DAF) and Tucker’s Congruence Coefficient (TCC), are shown in Table 3). The reliability, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, of the total items is 0.89 and generates values above 0.70 in each of the two dimensions or components of the self-report. Values above 0.70 are considered acceptable and confirm the internal consistency of our self-report questionnaire (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011; Serbetar & Sedlar, 2016). Table 2. Description of the sample as a function of the contextual variables (in percentages) Socio-economic status (%) High Mid-high Medium Mid-low Low Educational level No education —— — —— Primary education 17.00 31.90 28.70 38.60 48.50 Secondary education 46.70 39.60 45.90 43.10 40.00 University studies 36.30 28.50 25.40 18.30 11.40 Books in the home None 0.50 ———1.30 From 0 to 20 10.80 12.50 17.50 22.70 31.10 From 21 to 40 20.40 18.30 19.70 23.70 27.20 From 41 to 60 16.70 15.20 19.10 14.00 13.90 More than 60 51.60 54.00 43.70 39.60 26.50 Computers in the home None 3.20 8.00 7.10 15.90 18.00 1 38.20 34.70 39.90 42.50 47.20 2 34.40 39.30 33.30 30.00 23.90 3 24.20 17.90 19.70 11.60 10.90 More than 3 —— — —— 8 C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association Data analysis The analysis of the responses was based on univariate statistics in order to describe the literacy practices of primary education children (Figures 2 and 3). We also carried out a CATPCA, which permitted a grouping of the items following a statistical logic that considers the correlation between the component and the item (Table 4). This kind of analysis allowed us to identify which practices (institutional or vernacular) best represented each component or profile. Finally, based on the factorial scores obtained in the CATPCA, an ANOVA was conducted to determine the existence of differences between the components as a function of the SES variable (Tables 5 and 6). Results and discussion Description of family practices in personal literacy promotion Families’ personal literacy-promotion practices are developed in a situated context (home domain) and with a communicative purpose. This perspective allows the identification of two levels that are associated with the development of different vernacular and institutional practices. On the first level, reading habits developed on a mobile phone predominate. Thus, the highest mean corresponds to families’ reading WhatsApp ( x=3.87), which, with an intermediate variation (CV of 43%), shows a high degree of agreement among the families. Among the texts that the families read, narrative texts stand out ( x=2.74; CV =69%), as do emails to a lesser extent ( x=2.49; CV =85%). On the second level, institutional practices are developed as a result of academic demand. The families confirmed the habit of acquiring books from book stores ( x=3.92; CV =39%) and shopping centres ( x=2.12; CV =86%), whereas purchasing books online was less prevalent ( x=0.36; CV =291.70%). The purchase of books in book stores and commercial centres was considered to be the most accessible cultural product ( x=2.69; CV =47%), more than other cultural goods such as video games, tickets to football matches and tickets to concerts ( x=4.44, 4.24 and 4.05, respectively). These data allow an inference that purchasing does not depend on the families’ SES but rather on the supposed social value of literacy-promoting Table 3. Psychometric indicators (reliability and validity) referring to the family self-report Dimension(s) of the self-administered questionnaire Cronbach’s alpha Imbalance measurements Adjustment measurements Ngs Stress I Stress II S-stress DAF CCT Vernacular literacy practices 0.764 0.072 0.268 0.689 0.163 0.928 0.963 Institutional literacy practices 0.735 0.065 0.254 0.651 0.143 0.935 0.967 Total 0.890 Ngs, normalized gross stress; DAF, dispersion accounted for; TCC, Tucker’s congruence coefficient. Literacy Practices in Primary Education Children 9 ©2018 British Educational Research Association on the skills developed by children in formal school learning. This research has highlighted the relevance of families’ perspectives on literacy and has raised new research challenges from a broader and more heterogeneous perspective of children’s literacy in the Spanish educational context. Limitations Our research has a number of limitations, including the research method applied. One limitation of our research is the use of a self-report questionnaire for the survey. Although the survey allowed us to collect data from a large sample, the use of regression analysis to explore the data cannot establish cause and effect. Another limitation relates to the idea of a third space. Although we propose that the creation of a third space would be beneficial to primary education children, we cannot be certain what form it would take or its effect. Therefore, qualitative research (following the New Literacy Studies approach), or the use of experimental designs, could help us to explore the possibilities that arise from the creation of a third space and the modification of the school curriculum to incorporate literacy elements of the home domain. The results obtained in this investigation have raised new questions about how different discursive communities in which primary education children participate interact. Therefore, in a second study phase, it would be necessary to deepen the investigation into hybrid literacy practices using a qualitative methodology. This extension of the research should look into the construction of the identity and social values of literacy in Spanish children according to their different families’ SES. Acknowledgements This research has been funded by Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport from Spain (FPU-14/05336) and Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness related to the project “IMProvement of LiteracieS in infant and primary Education (COMPLICE, EDU2013-44176-P)”. Also we would like to thank Centre for the Study of Literacies (University of Sheffield) for his helpful support and advice. References Alston-Abel, N. L. & Berninger, V. W. (2017) Relationships between home literacy practices and school achievement: Implications for consultation and home–school collaboration, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 28, 164–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412. 2017.1323222 Anderson, J., Anderson, A. & Sadiq, A. (2017) Family literacy programmes and young children’s language and literacy development: Paying attention to families’ home language, Early Child Development and Care, 187(3&4), 644–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1211119 Arthur, L. (2005) Popular culture: Views of parents and educators, in: J. Marsh (Ed.) Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood (London, RoutledgeFalmer), 165–182. Auerbach, E. R. (1989) Toward a social–contextual approach to family literacy, Harvard Educational Review, 59(2), 165–181. Barton, D. (2001) Directions for literacy research: Analysing language and social practices in a textually mediated world, Language and Education, 15(2&3), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500780108666803 16 C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams009 Barton, D. & Lee, C. (2013) Language online. Investigating digital texts and practices (London, Routledge). Bearne, E. (2005) Multimodal texts: What they are and how children use them, in: J. Evans (Ed.) Literacy moves on: Using popular culture, new technologies and critical literacy in the primary classroom (London, David Fulton), 13–29. Bernstein, B. (1975) Class, codes and control (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul). Bhabha, H. K. (1994) The location of culture (New York, Routledge). Biencinto, Ch., Carpintero, E. & Garc ıa-Garc ıa, M. (2013) Propiedades psicom etricas del cuestionario ActEval sobre la actividad evaluadora del profesorado universitario, RELIEVE, 19(1), art. 2. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.19.1.2611. Bloom, B. J. (1978) All our children learning (New York, McGraw Hill). Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. C. (1990) Reproduction in education, society and culture (London, Sage). Camitta, M. (1993) Vernacular writing: Varieties of literacy among Philadelphia high school students, in: B. Street (Ed.) Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 228–246. Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (2007) Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). Coddington, C. H., Mistry, R. S. & Bailey, A. L. (2014) Socioeconomic status and receptive vocabulary development: Replication of the parental investment model with Chilean pre-schoolers and their families, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 538–549. Compton-Lilly, C. (2003) Reading families: The literate lives of urban children (New York, Teachers College Press). Compton-Lilly, C. & Green, S. (Eds) (2011) Bedtime stories and book reports: Connecting parent involvement and family literacy (New York, Teachers College Press). Connell, S., Lauricella, A. R. & Wartella, E. (2015) Parental co-use of media technology with their young children in the USA, Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17482798.2015.997440 Cook, M. (2005) ‘A place of their own’: Creating a classroom ‘third space’ to support a continuum of text construction between home and school, Literacy, 39(2), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-4350.2005.00405.x Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (2009) Web 2.0 for schools. Learning and social participation (New York, Peter Lang). Davies, H. S., Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L. M., Soares, D. A., Resendez, N. et al. (2016) Home literacy beliefs and practices among low-income Latino families, Early Child Development and Care, 186(7), 1152–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015. 1081184 Dunsmore, K. & Fisher, D. (Eds) (2010) Bringing literacy home (Newark, DE, International Reading Association). Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). ‘Literacies’ programs: Debate and demands in cultural context, Prospect: Australian Journal of Teaching/Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 5(3), 7–16. Garc ıa-Mart ın, J. & Garc ıa-S anchez, J.-N. (2013) Patterns of web 2.0 tool use among young Spanish people, Computers & Education, 67, 105–120. Gee, J. P. (2008) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd edn) (London, Routledge). Gil Flores, J. (2013) Medici on del nivel socioecon omico familiar en el alumnado de Educaci on Primaria, Revista de Educaci on, 362, 298–322. 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 (Amsterdam, John Benjamins), 37–54. Literacy Practices in Primary Education Children 17 ©2018 British Educational Research Association Grieshaber, S., Shield, P., Luke, A. & Macdonald, S. (2011) Family literacy practices and home literacy resources: An Australian pilot study, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12(2), 113– 1138. Guti errez, K. D., Baquedano-L opez, P.,  Alvarez, H. & Chiu, M. M. (1999) Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices, Theory into Practice, 38, 87–93. Hill, S. (2010) The millennium generation: Teacher-researchers exploring new forms of literacy, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,10(3),314–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798410372820 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 (New York, Teachers College Press/Columbia University), 32–57. James, J. (2008). The digital divide across all citizens of the world: a new concept. Social Indicators Research, 89(2), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9156-9. Kalman, J. (2008) Beyond definition: Central concepts for understanding literacy, International Review of Education, 54, 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-008-9104-1 Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (1997) Different worlds? Technology-mediated class-room learning and students’ social practices with new technologies in home and community settings, in: C. Lankshear (Ed.) Changing literacies (Buckingham, Open University Press), 164–187. 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. Llano Ortiz, J. C. (2016) El estado de la pobreza. Seguimiento del indicador de riesgo de pobreza y exclusi on social en Espa~ na 2009-2015 (Madrid, European Anti-Poverty Network - Espa~ na). Marcella, J., Howes, C. & Fuligni, A. S. (2014) Exploring cumulative risk and family literacy practices in low-income Latino families, Early Education & Development, 25(1), 36–55. Marsh, J. (2003) One-way traffic? Connections between literacy practices at home and in the nursery, British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 369–382. Marsh, J. (2005) Children of the digital age, in: J. Marsh (Ed.) Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood (Abingdon, RoutledgeFalmer), 1–10. (accessed 15 January 2018). Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S. & Wright, K. (2005) Digital beginning: Young children’s use of popular culture, media and new technologies (Literacy Research Centre, University of Sheffield). Available online at: http://www.digitalbeginnings.shef.ac.uk/ (accessed 15 January 2018). Marsh, J., Hannon, P., Lewis, M. & Ritchie, L. (2017) Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(1), 47–60. https://doi. org/10.1177/1476718x15582095 Martini, F. & S en echal, M. (2012) Learning literacy skills at home: Parent teaching, expectations, and child interest, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 44(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026758 Mill an, J. A. (Cood.) (2016) La lectura en Espa~ na. Informe 2017 (Madrid, Federaci on de Gremios de Editores de Espa~ na). 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. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.39.1.4 Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M. & Foy, P. (2007) PIRLS 2006. International Report. IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 40 Countries (Chestnut Hill, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College). Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012) PIRLS 2011. International Results in Reading (Chestnut Hill, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College). Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017) PIRLS 2013. International Results in Reading (Chestnut Hill, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College). 18 C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association Neuman, D. B. & Celano, D. (2001) Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighbourhoods, Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.36.1.1 Pahl, K. (2002) Ephemera, mess and miscellaneous piles: Texts and practices in families, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984020022002 Pahl, K. (2007) Creativity in events and practices: A lens for understanding children’s multimodal texts, Literacy, 41(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00462.x Pahl, K. & Allan, C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798411401864 Pahl, K. & Kelly, S. (2005) Family literacy as a third space between home and school: Some case studies of practice, Literacy, 39(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4350.2005.00406.x Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (2012) Literacy and education. Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom (London, Sage). Pahl, K., Rasool, Z., Pente, E. & Elizabeth Campbell, (2018). Re-imagining contested communities: connecting rotherham through research (Brighton, UK, Policy Press). Puglisi, M. L., Hulme, C., Hamilton, L. G. & Snowling, M. J. (2017) The home literacy environment is a correlate, but perhaps not a cause, of variations in children’s language and literacy development, Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(6), 498–514. Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A. & Punie, Y. (2009) Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. Final report (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Available online at: http://ipts. jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2899 (accessed 15 April 2017). Rogers, R. (2007) A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices. Power in and out of print (London, Erlbaum). Rowsell, J. & Pahl, K. (2007) Sedimented identities in texts: Instances of practice, Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.42.3.3 Saracho, O. N. (2017) Literacy in the twenty-first century: Children, families and policy, Early Child Development and Care, 187(3&4), 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016. 1261513 S en echal, M. (2014) Child language and literacy development at home, in: B. H. Wasik (Ed.) Handbook of family literacy (London, Routledge), 38–50. S en echal, M. & Lefevre, J. (2014) Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading, Child Development, 85(4), 1552–1568. https://doi. org/10.1111/cdev.12222 Serbetar, I. & Sedlar, I. (2016) Assessing reliability of a multi-dimensional scale by coefficient alpha, Revija za Elementarno Izobrazevanje, 9(1/2), 189. Soja, E. W. (1996) Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places (Malden, MA, Blackwell). Street, B. V. (1994) The new literacy studies: Implications for education and pedagogy, Changing English, 1(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684940010109 Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha, International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53. Van Bergen, E., van Zuijen, T. L., Bishop, D. V. M. & De Jong, P. F. (2016) Why are home-literacy environment and children’s reading skills associated? What parental skills reveal, Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.160 Walsh, M. (2017) Multiliteracies, multimodality, new literacies and...what do these mean for literacy education?, in: M. Milton (Ed.) International perspectives on inclusive education (Bradford, Emerald Group Publishing), 19–33. Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. & Connell, S. (2014) Revised parenting in the age of digital technology: A national survey. Report of the Center on Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University. Available online at: http://cmhd.northweste rn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ParentingAgeDigitalTechnology.REVISED.FINAL_ 2014.pdf (accessed 17 January 2018). Literacy Practices in Primary Education Children 19 ©2018 British Educational Research Association Wasik, B. H. & Van Horn, B. (2012) The role of family literacy in society, in: B. H. Wasik (Ed.) Handbook of family literacy (New York, Routledge), 3–18. Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: children learning language and using language to learn (Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann). Williams, B. T. (2009) Shimmering literacies. Popular culture & reading & writing online (New York, Peter Lang). Wohlwend, K. E. (2010) A is for avatar: Young children in literacy 2.0 worlds and literacy 1.0 schools, Language Arts, 88(2), 144–152. Yamada-Rice, D. (2010) Beyond words: An enquiry into children’s home visual communication practices, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 341–363. de Zeeuw, E. L., de Geus, E. J. C. & Boomsma, D. I. (2015) Meta-analysis of twin studies highlights the importance of genetic variation in primary school educational achievement, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4(3), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2015.06.001 20 C. Moreno-Morilla et al. ©2018 British Educational Research Association View publication statsView publication stats