Rethinking literacy in Spanish primary education from mixed methods approach: Through lens of pupils, families and teachers

1 FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS DE LA EDUCACIÓN Programa de Doctorado en Educación Departamento de Métodos de Investigación y Diagnóstico en Educación (MIDE) Línea de investigación: Diseño, Desarrollo y Evaluación Curricular en Contextos Educativos Rethinking literacy in Spanish primary education from mixed methods approach: Through lens of pupils, families and teachers Repensando la alfabetización en la Educación Primaria española desde el enfoque de los métodos mixtos: A través de las lentes del alumnado, las familias y el profesorado Tesis Doctoral realizada por: Celia Moreno-Morilla Dirección: Dr. D. Eduardo García-Jiménez. Universidad de Sevilla. Dr. D. Fernando Guzmán-Simón. Universidad de Sevilla. Tutor académico: Dr. D. Eduardo García-Jiménez. Universidad de Sevilla. Tutores de la mención internacional: Dra. Kate Pahl. University of Sheffield. Dra. Julia Gillen. Lancaster University. Sevilla, Julio 2019 Al alumnado, las familias y el profesorado que han participado en esta investigación. Este trabajo de tesis doctoral os pertenece. 5 Agradecimientos Agradezco a la vida el lugar donde me situó y las personas que puso en mi camino. Agradezco a mi familia y a mis profesores la vocación que me transmitieron hacia la educación y el deseo por aprender algo nuevo cada día. Gracias también a las adversidades que me han ayudado a ser más fuerte y a superarme día tras día. Eternas gracias a mi familia. A mis padres, por el apoyo incondicional que siempre me han mostrado. Gracias por enseñarme a valorar las pequeñas cosas de la vida, y a considerar el trabajo como el instrumento más valioso para el éxito; a mi hermana, por confiar en la vida, por hacerme ver que una mejor oportunidad siempre está por llegar. Por ser luz en momentos de oscuridad, por ser locura en momentos de calma. Por ser y estar siempre a mi lado; a mi compañero de viaje, por hacer de mis sueños los suyos propios, por entender tantos noes y síes con condiciones. Gracias por tus abrazos infinitos en épocas de agobio, gracias por tu apoyo incondicional; y a mis amigas Adriana y Rocío, por estar siempre presentes en mis momentos de ausencia, por recordarme cada día que los sueños están para cumplirlos. Gracias a todas las personas que han hecho de este camino un recorrido más fácil. A todos y cada uno de los componentes de mi grupo de investigación (EVALfor SEJ-509) y del proyecto APErtURA (EDU2017-83967-P) por darme la oportunidad de aprender con vosotros y hacerme sentir una más desde el inicio; al departamento MIDE de la Universidad de Sevilla, especialmente a Javier Gil, Juan Jesús Torres, Javier Rodríguez y Beatriz García con quienes tuve el placer de compartir y disfrutar el proyecto COMPLICE; a Andrés Valverde por situarme cerca de sus guías académicos (Eduardo García y Soledad Romero) y por impulsar en mí las ganas de hacer investigación; a mi compañera Ana Mirmán, por los momentos compartidos, por tu energía y actitud positiva; a mis compañeras de doctorado, Alba, Carmen, Manon, María, Mercedes, Nieves, y a mi compañero Pablo, con vuestra compañía el camino ha sido más llevadero; a mis compañeros de estancia, Alba Práxedes y Denis Bachynskyy, por hacer de Sheffield una ciudad inolvidable; gracias a Paqui Corpas, mi compañera de estancia en Lancaster, por mostrarme que las adversidades que la vida pone en nuestro camino están para superarlas (sabía que lo lograrías); y gracias también a Alicia Campos, por acompañarme en estas últimas semanas y por poner forma y color a nuestras palabras, gracias por tu gran labor de ilustración en este trabajo. 6 En particular, gracias a Soledad Romero y Virginia Guichot por ser guías, compañeras y amigas. Gracias por vuestros eternos consejos, gracias por compartir conmigo vuestra pasión por la docencia universitaria, la intervención y la investigación educativa. Gracias por abrirme vuestros brazos en cada uno de los momentos vividos durante esta travesía, gracias por ese cariño tan especial que me regaláis cada día. Siempre permanecerán las ganas compartidas de seguir trabajando juntas. Gracias a todos los miembros del Center for the Study of Literacies y el Lancaster Literacy Research Centre, y en especial a Julia Davies, Kate Pahl y Julia Gillen. Gracias por acogerme en vuestras universidades y por compartir conmigo vuestra preciada forma de entender la alfabetización. Gracias por enseñarme tanto en un tiempo tan breve, y por la disponibilidad mostrada a todos los miembros del equipo APErtUra en estos últimos años. Especialmente gracias a mis directores de tesis, Eduardo García y Fernando Guzmán. Gracias por vuestra autenticidad, por ser guías inmejorables, por estar SIEMPRE. Gracias por ofrecerme la oportunidad de formar parte de este proyecto, gracias por confiar en mí esta temática de tesis. Eduardo, gracias por ser tan bondadoso con nosotros, por tu humildad y tu perseverancia ante los retos que la investigación nos ha ido planteando. Gracias por enseñarnos a entender la investigación como una filosofía de vida. Fernando, gracias por la intensidad y la pasión que has transmitido a nuestra investigación. Gracias por ser el origen de este estudio y darnos la oportunidad de compartirlo contigo. Gracias a todos los que estáis delante de este trabajo porque sin vosotros no tendría sentido. Gracias, y mil veces gracias a todos. 7 Financiación Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (Actual Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades) La presente tesis doctoral ha sido desarrollada en el marco de las Ayudas para la Formación de Profesorado Universitario (FPU), aceptando las condiciones señalas en la Convocatoria publicada por Resolución del 26 de diciembre de 2014 (BOE 27 de diciembre). La beneficiaria hace constar que su trabajo de investigación se ha realizado en régimen de contrato predoctoral (FPU14-05336) en el Departamento de Métodos de Investigación y Diagnóstico en Educación de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Sevilla. Este trabajo de investigación surge como continuación del proyecto “Mejora de la Competencia en Comunicación Lingüística del Alumnado de Educación Infantil y Educación Primaria” (EDU2013-44176-P) financiado por el Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Todas las producciones científicas derivadas de esta tesis doctoral han sido referenciadas con su correspondiente identificación (FPU14-05336). El periodo de contrato predoctoral ha permitido a la beneficiaria su participación en 6 proyectos financiados (3 proyectos de investigación, 2 proyectos de cooperación al desarrollo y un proyecto Erasmus+), 37 aportaciones a congresos nacionales e internacionales, la realización de 34 cursos de formación, 3 estancias internacionales de investigación (University of Sheffield, Lancaster University y Universidad de Algarve) y la producción de 10 artículos científicos (publicados o enviados a revistas de impacto). Por último, se informa que el desarrollo de esta tesis doctoral ha completado la totalidad del periodo concedido para su formación predoctoral, iniciándose el 19-10-15 y finalizando el 18-10-19, y se ha acogido a la modalidad de tesis por compendio de publicaciones. 8 Normativa reguladora: Tesis por compendio de publicaciones El formato de esta tesis por compendio de publicaciones se ajusta a lo establecido en el Artículo 9 de la normativa reguladora del régimen de Tesis Doctoral de la Universidad de Sevilla (Acuerdo 9.1/CG 19-4-12). La presente tesis doctoral está compuesta por dos artículos publicados en revistas de impacto, un artículo aceptado, y otros dos artículos en proceso de revisión. Todos los trabajos incorporados están relacionados con el proyecto de tesis doctoral regulado por el RD 1393/2007 y con el plan de investigación que consta en el documento de actividades de la doctoranda Celia Moreno Morilla, regulado por el RD 99/2011. La estructura de la presente tesis doctoral atiende a los criterios establecidos por la Universidad de Sevilla para la presentación de tesis por compendio de publicaciones (https://bit.ly/30mdSrT). Estas indicaciones determinan el Índice del presente trabajo de investigación, y recoge los siguientes apartados: (1) Tesis doctoral (compendio de publicaciones): Introducción, objetivos, resumen global de los resultados, discusión y conclusiones (a modo adicional se incluyen tres apartados: limitaciones, agenda futura de investigación, y referencias bibliográficas); (2) T03B - Anexo 3B. Presentación de tesis doctoral por compendio de publicaciones; (3) Copia completa de las publicaciones; (4) Informe del director de tesis con la aprobación del órgano responsable sobre la idoneidad de esta modalidad; (5) Informe de la relevancia científica de las publicaciones; (6) Aceptación por escrito de los coautores de la presentación de los trabajos como tesis; (7) Renuncia de las personas que compartan autoría que no sean doctores a presentarlos como parte de otra tesis. 9 Resumen Esta tesis doctoral parte de un modelo socio-discursivo de alfabetización, en el que las prácticas alfabetizadoras poseen un carácter sociocultural y situado que toma como referencia el enfoque teórico de los Nuevos Estudios de Literacidad (NEL). Este enfoque plantea que el alumnado, las familias y el profesorado desarrollan sus prácticas lectoras y escritoras en distintos dominios y situaciones de la vida cotidiana, dando lugar a prácticas formales (institucionales) e informales (vernáculas). En conformidad con dicho enfoque, nuestra investigación se centra en describir y comprender los eventos y prácticas de alfabetización de los niños de 8-12 años. Para atender a dicha finalidad, se ha utilizado una metodología de investigación apoyada en el uso de métodos mixtos. En concreto, se ha desarrollado un diseño exploratorio secuencial (QUANTqual) que ha conjugado dos fases interactivas. La primera fase comenzó con la recogida y análisis de datos cuantitativos (QUANT Component) y tuvo su continuidad en una segunda fase de recogida y análisis de datos cualitativos (qual Component). La recogida de información en el QUANT Component se ha basado en el método encuesta. La muestra en esta primera fase ha contado con la participación de 20 centros de Educación Infantil y Primaria de la provincia de Sevilla. En esta fase de la investigación participaron 1.540 estudiantes (8-12 años), 1.438 familias y 74 maestros. Para la recogida de información se utilizó un autoinforme sobre las prácticas y eventos de alfabetización con tres versiones diferentes (uno para cada colectivo participante). Los datos fueron analizados mediante análisis descriptivos (estadísticos univariantes), análisis de la varianza (ANOVA), análisis de clúster bietápico, análisis de componentes principales para variables categóricas (CAPTCA), y análisis de regresión. El qual Component se ha concretado mediante la realización de un diseño de casos múltiples embebidos. Esta segunda fase ha contado con la participación de tres de los centros participantes en el QUANT Component, un total de 6 niños, sus familias y maestros. La recogida de información se orientó hacia la elaboración de entrevistas, grupos de discusión y construcción de mapping con los participantes. La información derivada del qual Component fue analizada mediante un análisis cualitativo comparativo (CQA, por sus siglas en inglés). Los resultados de la investigación evidencian la compleja relación existente entre las prácticas alfabetizadoras desarrolladas por los estudiantes en el dominio hogar y en el dominio escuela, y el escaso desarrollo de un “tercer espacio” alfabetizador. La creación de este tercer espacio sería recomendable para la creación de puentes entre el hogar y la escuela, y para favorecer una relación dialéctica entre el curriculum escolar y la cultura popular. Palabras clave: modelo ideológico, métodos mixtos, Educación Primaria, estatus socioeconómico, eventos de alfabetización, espacio. 16 Contents 17 Table of contents Section 1. Doctoral Thesis (by Publication) 21 1.1. Introduction 22 1.1.1. The concept of literacy from the perspective of the NEL 26 1.1.2. Models of literacy: autonomous and ideological 29 1.1.3. Literacy events and practices 35 1.1.4. Dominant and vernacular practices 37 1.1.5. Literacy space and domain 41 1.1.6. The third literacy space 43 1.2. Objectives 47 1.3. Overall summary of the results 50 1.3.1. Results obtained in the QUANT Component 53 1.3.2. Results obtained in the qual Component 59 1.3.3. Diffraction of the results in the QUANTqual sequence 60 1.3.4. Summary of the main research findings 62 1.4. Discussion 68 1.5. Limitations 72 1.6. Conclusions 73 1.7. Future research agenda 77 1.8. References 79 Section 2. T03B – Appendix 3B. Submission of doctoral 104 thesis by publication 2.1. Appendix 3B completed 105 Section 3. Full copy of the publications 106 3.1. Name and affiliation of authors and co-authors 107 3.2. Full reference of the journal or publisher 109 3.2.1. Article 1 109 3.2.2. Article 2 109 3.2.3. Article 3 109 3.2.4. Article 4 110 3.2.5. Article 5 110 3.3. In the case of not being published yet, proof of acceptance will 111 be requested to the chief editor of the journal or publisher 18 Section 4. Report by the doctoral thesis supervisor, with 112 approval from the responsible body, on the suitability of this modality Section 5. Report on the scientific relevance of the publications 115 Section 6. Written consent by the co-authors about the submission 119 of the publications in the form of a thesis Section 7. Renunciation by the other co-authors who do not 122 hold a PhD to submit the publications as part of another thesis 19 List of tables Section 1. Doctoral Thesis (by Publication) 21 Table 1. Objectives of this doctoral thesis and their relationship 49 with the collection of articles Section 5. Report on the scientific relevance of the publications 115 Table 1. Impact factor of the journals 117 20 List of figures Section 1. Doctoral Thesis (by Publication) 21 Figure 1. A sociocultural perspective on literacy 28 Figure 2. Autonomous model of literacy 31 Figure 3. Ideological model of literacy 33 Figure 4. Dimensions of literacy from an ideological model 34 Figure 5. Literacy events and practices 37 Figure 6. Dominant literacy practices 38 Figure 7. Vernacular literacy practices 40 Figure 8. Literacy spaces and domains 43 Figure 9. The third literacy space 46 21 Section 1 Doctoral Thesis (by Publication) Section 1 presents a summary of the research undertaken in this doctoral thesis. This section is made up of eight sub-sections. Sub-section 1.1 addresses the justification for the research, as well as some of the key research concepts (i.e. conceptualisation of literacy from the approach of the New Literacy Studies, autonomous and ideological model, literacy practices and events, dominant and vernacular practices, domain and space and third literacy space). Sub-section 1.2 presents the aims that have guided the research. Sub-section 1.3 provides a summary of the overall results that have been found in the doctoral thesis. Sub-section 1.4 provides a discussion of the findings of this project. Subsection 1.5 points out the limitations that have been found in the study. Subsection 1.6 summarises the conclusions of this research. Sub-section 1.7 proposes the ways in which this research can be taken further. Finally, sub-section 1.8 lists the bibliographical references that have been used in developing Section 1 as well as in the collection of articles (section 3). SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 22 1. Doctoral thesis (by publication) 1.1. Introduction This research results from the need to find an alternative and more satisfactory answer than the one offered by studies on the reading and writing processes in primary education. The international tests that have been conducted since the beginning of the twenty-first century (i.e. PISA, PIRLS, TIMMS), as well as the investigations that have focused on reading and writing from cognitive and sociocognitive approaches, are based on an autonomous model of literacy. This model focuses on measuring the development of reading and writing skills, and considers that the learning of reading and writing is a process that develops irrespective of the changes undergone in society (Barton, 2007; Street, 1984). The international tests and investigations that are based on this perspective emphasise the adequacy of individual responses that subjects offer to strictly school practices. In their case, the sociocultural variables that are taken into consideration are limited to trying to explain the observed variability in students’ responses to the reading and writing demands that are posed in the school. For example, sociocultural variables would help determine the degree of development of children’s reading comprehension in terms of the social and cultural status of their families. The investigations undertaken according to the principles of the autonomous model do not question either the dominant character of the school curriculum over other types of literacy of a more personal nature. The ideological model that characterises the New Literacy Studies (hereafter NEL) has inspired the theoretical and methodological approach used in this research. The thesis advocated in this work considers that a deep SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 23 understanding of the literacy processes that are currently taking place requires an approach that is able to establish a dialectic debate between the school curriculum and popular culture. The approach taken in this thesis is situated within an ideological model of literacy, which is based on a culturally-sensitive view of children’s practices, thus moving away from a strictly cognitive or psychological paradigm (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012; Street 1984). The ideological model conceives of literacy as a social practice that varies according to the cultural context and the spaces where literacy practices develop (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). The starting hypothesis of this research is based on the idea held by the ideological model that literacy processes have a complex and multifaceted sociocultural nature. The ideological model, based on the principles of social equity and justice, proves useful to address the study of literacy in diverse social and cultural contexts such as those that define the participating sample in the research on which this doctoral thesis is based. This aspect is especially relevant in contexts such as Andalusia, with complex literacy realities, where great economic and social inequalities between the different segments of the population come together and where the educational offerings provided by state and private schools are clearly different in their results. In this sense, the data from the National Institute of Statistics (2018) show how Andalusia brings together the highest rates of population at risk of poverty (Córdoba [37.2%], Almería [36.7%], Huelva [35.8%], Málaga [32.9%] y Sevilla [32.2%]). The publication of the report The State of Poverty, carried out by the Fundación AROPE (Llano, 2016), has also highlighted that 43.2% of the Andalusian population is at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the year 2015. These data pose the need that any approach to students’ literacy processes should be undertaken from a SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 24 perspective that is different from the usual one as represented by the autonomous model of literacy. An indication of the great social and educational differences that exist in the literacy domain in Andalusia is reflected in the results from the last PIRLS report (2016). The data from this report point out how this region presents a very wide range (211 points) between the students with the highest and the lowest performance in reading comprehension. In the same way, the difference between percentile 95 and the mean is of 116 points; and between this and percentile 5, of 95 points. The relevance of the theoretical approach that underpins this doctoral thesis lies in its sociocultural and situated nature, which entails an interpretation of literacy events and practices as integrated in a particular social and cultural context (Barton, 2007; Barton & Hamilton, 2012; Gee, 1996; Heath, 1983; Papen, 2007; Street, 1984). The ideological model has made it possible to analyse in this study the relationship that exists between informal and nonformal literacies (developed outside the school) and formal literacy (developed in the school). To date, research into the study of non-formal and informal literacies with primary education students has been scarce in Spain. In the same way, these studies have not addressed either the need to look for spaces that allow dialogue between the forms of school discourse and other forms of social communication (Hull & Schultz, 2002; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). The review of the state of the art regarding the NEL, undertaken in this doctoral thesis, reveals a scarcity of research work undertaken in the Spanish context. The application of this approach is limited to the works by Aliagas, SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 25 Cassany and Castellà (2008), Aliagas and Margallo (2015, 2017), Cassany (2006), Poveda (2002, 2012), Poveda, Cano and Palomares-Valera (2005), Poveda, Palomares-Valera and Cano (2006) and Martos (2010). In the case of Andalusia, no study has been found that analyses the literacy events and practices of primary education students. This was another reason that motivated the interest to analyse literacy among children aged 8-12 years in Andalusia, from a different approach from the one focused on studying their reading comprehension levels. This doctoral thesis has aimed to undertake an extensive and intensive research into the literacy events and practices of primary education children, inside and outside the school. The research undertaken aims to understand the complex literacy process that surrounds the life of these children in socioculturally diverse contexts (Ivanič, 1998; Maybin, 2006). Another contribution of this work lies in the research methodology used. This doctoral thesis is the first investigation that connects the NEL approach with a mixed methodology. The review of the literature helped identify preferably ethnographic studies, as shown by the review works by Campbell, Pahl, Pente and Rasool (2018), Pahl and Rowsell (2012), Rowsell and Pahl (2015), and only one quantitative study undertaken by Poveda and Sánchez (2010). The works undertaken in the research group and that have served as precursor to this doctoral thesis showed the weaknesses that result from using exclusively quantitative methods in the study of literacy from the perspective of the NEL. The results obtained revealed that in order to establish plausible explanations, in the form of causal inferences, it was necessary to use a mixed methodology based on integration (McKim, 2017) and diffraction (Uprichard & Dawney, 2019) techniques. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 32 As alternative to the autonomous model, Street (1984) suggested the development of an ideological model of literacy. This perspective presents a sociocultural view of people’s literacy, thus moving away from a cognitive paradigm (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012; Street, 1997) (see Figure 3). The ideological model conceives of literacy as a social and situated practice that varies according to the context. Therefore, there is not a single way to define literacy, or “adequate” or “inadequate” literacy practices in a community. The ideological model maintains that: Literacy not only varies with social context and with cultural norms and discourses regarding, for instance, identity, gender and belief, but that its uses and meanings are always embedded in relations of power. It is in this sense that literacy is always ideological (Street, 1997, p. 5). The application of this model has been recurrent in the last few decades, especially noteworthy being the works of Barton (2007), Barton and Hamilton (1998), Bloome, Castanheira, Leung and Rowsell (2018), Campbell et al. (2018), Gregory and Williams (2000), Martin-Jones and Jones (2000), Pahl and Rowsell (2006, 2012), Rowsell and Pahl (2015) and Street (1984), among others. These works analyse the literacy practices that people develop in everyday contexts, as well as the social value that these practices have in their lives. The use of an ideological approach to literacy involves the recognition of people’s individual, social and cultural identities through their literacy practices (Campbell, Pahl, Pente, & Rasool, 2018; Duckworth & Tett, 2019). In this sense, the ideological model takes an approach to literacy that focuses on the individual and that responds to the new forms of reading and writing that emerge in society (Neuman & Celano, 2011). The ideological model assumes that literacy, as social and situated practice, takes place in very diverse SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 33 spaces. This perspective contributes to eliminating the concept of “illiteracy” typical of the autonomous model. As Street (2005) points out, “people who may be labelled illiterate with the autonomous model of literacy may, from a culturally sensitive viewpoint, be seen as making significant use of literacy practices for specific purposes and in specific contexts” (p. 14). The ideological model has become a tool for thinking and a way to recognise the literacy practices developed in different communities (Grenfell & Pahl, 2019). Figure 3. Ideological model of literacy. The complexity of present-day literacy requires an interpretation that is based on an ideological model. The literacy practices that children develop in their daily life are diverse and changeable (Burnett, 2016; Escott & Pahl, 2017). The ideological model makes it possible to recognise the diversity of the practices undertaken by students inside and outside the school. In our research, the application of the ideological model is materialised in the study in four dimensions: Personal literacy, Cultural production and consumption, Library culture and Culture of instruction (see Figure 4). These dimensions reflect two fundamental SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 34 aspects of our research: the concern to analyse literacy from the plurality of spaces where it is developed, on the one hand, and the importance of formal as well as informal and non-formal learnings, on the other; both aspects make it possible to identify also different literacy profiles. In this sense, the Personal literacy dimension has enabled us to get closer to the literacy events developed by children in different spaces (e.g. the home, the school, the neighbourhood, etc.), which are acquired as non-formal or informal learnings. The analysis of the Cultural production and consumption dimension has generated information about the literacy events developed in bookshops, shopping centres, etc., which are related to the buying and selling of cultural products. The Library culture dimension has focused on analysing the literacy events developed in public and school libraries. Finally, the Culture of instruction dimension has guided the study of the literacy events developed in the school that are acquired as formal learnings. Figure 4. Dimensions of literacy from an ideological model. Source: Adapted from Guzmán-Simón, Moreno-Morilla & García-Jiménez (2018). SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 35 1.1.3. Literacy events and practices The NEL define literacy as “a social activity and can best be described in terms of people’s literacy practices which they draw upon in literacy events” (Barton, 2007, p. 35). This definition reflects the existence of subtle differences between “literacy events” and “literacy practices”. From the beginning of the NEL the literature has tried to clarify the differences that exist between both concepts. The constant evolution and reconceptualisation of these concepts has generated subtle differences in the way they are approached and understood (Mills & Comber, 2015) (see Figure 5). Nevertheless, in general terms literacy events have been defined as activities in which literacy acquires a collective and social role. In general terms, there is a written text, or texts, at the centre of the activity, and there can be some dialogue around the text (Barton, 2007). In this way, events are observable episodes that emerge from the practices and are shaped by them (Barton & Hamilton, 2000). Literacy events describe the uses that people make of literacy in their day to day life (e.g. the mother who reads a story to her children before bedtime). In this sense, events tend to get repeated with certain regularity and have interaction patterns that are defined and established among the participants. Events help us understand the way in which children and adults interact around literacy (Barton, 2007). The concept of literacy practices was introduced in 1981 by Scribner and Cole, who defined it as a “set of socially organized practices” (p. 236). For his part, Street made it clear that “practices are not observable units of behaviour since they also involve values, attitudes, feelings and social relationships” (1993, p. 12). A few years later, Barton and Hamilton (1998) added that practices are “the link between the activities of reading and writing and the social structure in which they are embedded and which they help shape” (p. 6). Literacy SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 36 practices make it possible to look into the meaning that literacy has for people in its everyday use, and they constitute an abstract construction that connects the social and the particular nature of literacy. These constructions include common patterns in the use of reading and writing (Barton, 2007). Practices also include people’s cultural values, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and social relationships (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Purcell-Gates, Jacobson, & Degener, 2004). Literacy practices are complex phenomena that are closely related to the context and that reflect the characteristics of popular culture (Reder & Davila, 2005). In this sense, “because literacy practices are situated in social relations, which are patterned by social institutions and power relations, some literacies are more dominant, visible, and influential than others” (Barton, 2007, p. 52). In short, literacy events and practices are regarded as the two basic units of analysis in the study of literacy from a social and situated perspective as proposed by the NEL. In our study, literacy events have been collected through self-report questionnaires that have helped to identify the uses that the children, their families and teachers make of literacy in their everyday life. In contrast, the identification of literacy practices has required qualitative methods (e.g. interviews, discussion groups and mapping), which has made it possible to approach the social value that participants give to literacy. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 37 Figure 5. Literacy events and practices. The ideological model of literacy recognises every single practice (school or personal) that children develop every day when they read or write. This model provides a framework that facilitates the understanding of the events and practices developed by students in their everyday life (Gee, 1999). In this sense, the ideological model integrates both the discourses constructed by students inside the school (dominant practices) as well as the discourses produced outside the school (vernacular practices). 1.1.4. Dominant and vernacular practices Dominant practices refer to the literacy that is socially recognised and that has established frameworks (e.g. school, professional, etc.) depending on the type of formal institution where it develops. These literacy practices are mediated by artefacts that have a recognised social prestige (e.g. textbook, reading book, encyclopaedias, etc.) and exclusively include forms of reading and writing SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 38 which are endorsed by school institutions (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Martos, 2010). Dominant practices share times (rhythms), transcend cultures, generate dependence relationships between students and teachers, and determine patterns of behaviour among them (see Figure 6). Moreover, this type of practices forges performance routines in the students which seek the progressive development of reading and writing skills in the classroom. In this sense, dominant practices do not usually include elements related to creativity in text composition or the relevance of its meaning (Street, 2006). The most common dominant practices tend to be based on the reading of text-based realities or talk around text (Barton, 2007), and respond to academic requirements which are resolved in the school space through the interaction of the student with the teacher. Dominant practices can be regarded as a realisation of the school curriculum. Figure 6. Dominant literacy practices. Vernacular practices were described by Camitta (1993) as those new forms of literacy that are unrelated to school purposes “that comprise conventionalized SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 39 written expressive behaviours that are formulated within the adolescent community, and which are employed for cultural-specific purposes” (p. 229). Along these lines, Barton and Hamilton (1998) point out that “vernacular literacy practices are essentially ones which are not regulated by the formal rules and procedures of dominant social institutions and which have their origins in everyday life” (p. 247). These kinds of practices are an indication of how literacy attends to the cultural and social specifications of a community. Vernacular practices are self-generated and are carried out through voluntary decision-making by the subject; do not follow standardised rules and are embedded in the personal literacy of children, the sense of usefulness and creativity taking precedence over rationality (Barton, 2007) (see Figure 7). Furthermore, these practices are mediated by artefacts which tell stories about children’s cultural and social identities and their life circumstances (Pahl & Rowsell, 2010). The same vernacular practice can have different meanings depending on the social value given to it by readers-writers, and it can be continuously reconstructed (Zavala, 2002). Vernacular literacy is learned informally through the various experiences of daily life. These literacy practices make it possible to give voice to a greater diversity of social classes, thus highlighting the significance of the personal component of literacy (Rowsell & Pahl, 2015). Vernacular practices were classified by Barton and Hamilton (1998) into six dimensions: organising life (e.g. diaries, telephone numbers, etc.), personal communication (cards, letters, etc.), private leisure (e.g. reading books, magazines, etc.), documenting life (e.g. school reports, photo albums, etc.), sense making (e.g. reading religious texts, instruction leaflets, etc.) and social participation (e.g. collaborating in meetings, social actions, etc.). In this sense, vernacular SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 40 practices refer to self-generated, asystematic, non-formal or informal learnings (Mocker & Spear, 1982). These practices are fundamentally based on multimodal and hybrid discourses (Lancaster, 2003; Pahl, 2007), whose flexibility allows for the creation of new discourses born out of the interaction with other domains (Moje et al, 2004; Pahl & Kelly, 2005) and related to online communication (Barton & Lee, 2012; Kress, 2010). Figure 7. Vernacular literacy practices. Children nowadays display a large gap between the dominant literacy practices proposed in the school and the vernacular and hybrid practices developed in the home, the neighbourhood or the Internet (Barton & Lee, 2012; Lancaster, 2003; Pahl, 2007). One of the aspects that motivates the distancing generated between the two kinds of practices is related to the degree of incorporation of the Information and Communications Technologies (hereafter ICT) in the development of said practice. Digital technology is present in most of the literacy practices that take place outside the school and are related to the SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 41 personal domain. Thus, the literacy practices developed in communities unrelated to the school community give literacy a potentially multimodal, participative and social character, thus generating a higher motivation among students (Compton-Lilly & Green, 2011; Marsh, 2005; Marsh & Thompson, 2001). 1.1.5. Literacy space and domain Understanding the meaning of literacy from a complex, social and situated perspective requires the analysis of literacy events through space and time (Dyson, 2003). Literacy events are always located in a specific time and space. The theoretical foundations of the NEL relate the idea of space (Gee, 2004), domain (Scribner & Cole, 1981) and ecological approach (Barton, 2007) in the study of literacy events. The study of spaces and domains makes it possible to describe which role literacy practices play, on the one hand, and the conceptions of literacy that the different groups have, on the other (Guzmán- Simón, Moreno-Morilla & García-Jiménez, 2018). The concept of space refers to the physical location (school, neighbourhood, etc.) or virtual location (cyberspace) where children interact. Thus, space can be defined as the site where a literacy event is developed. Literacy events are not always developed in the domain where they have initially arisen, but in other spaces (sites). A clear example is that of homework. This event belongs to the school domain but it is developed in a different site: the home space (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012). Both spaces have different content (what the space is about) and promote interaction to different extents, thus transforming said contents and becoming generators of other new ones (Gee, 2004). Spaces are product and process of the social relationships dynamics which are produced SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 48 Objective 3 (OB3). Identifying the frequent reading and writing profiles of primary education students. Objective 4 (OB4). Determining the existence of causal relations between the literacy practices of students, their families and teachers. Table 1 shows the relationship between the objectives of the doctoral thesis and the research aims and questions addressed in the collection of articles that comprise it. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 49 Table 1 Objectives of this doctoral thesis and their relationship with the collection of articles Objectives of the doctoral thesis Objectives/research questions addressed in the collection of published articles OB1. Describing the literacy events and practices of students from the viewpoint of students, their families and teachers. ART.1 Describing the literacy practices and events of primary education students. ART.2 What are the literacy practices of primary education children in the domains of school and home according to their families? ART.3 To describe literacy events of primary education pupils, their families and teachers through self-reports. ART.4 In what spaces do primary education pupils develop their digital and information literacy? ART.2 What are the characteristics of institutional and vernacular literacy practices among primary education children according to their families? OB2. Determining the existence of differences in the literacy events and practices of students according to the perspective of their families and teachers. ART.3 To determine the existence of different opinions among pupils, families and teachers with regard to literacy events. ART.3 To determine differences between literacy events in terms of SES values. ART.4 Do digital and information literacy explain individual and contextual differences? ART.2 Do the institutional and vernacular literacy practices of primary education children differ based on the SES of schools? OB3. Identifying the frequent reading and writing profiles of primary education students. ART.1 Identifying the reading and writing profiles of primary education students. ART.4 What events inside and outside school are related to digital and information literacy? OB4. Determining the existence of causal relations between the literacy practices of students, their families and teachers. ART.5 What is the added value of the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches in the understanding of literacy as a social practice of children, families and teachers? ART.5 What type of causal inferences are constructed between literacy as a social practice and the different interaction spaces? SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 50 1.3. Overall summary of the results The objectives of this research have been fulfilled through the use of a mixed methodology. Specifically, a type of mixed research method has been used that is called sequential exploratory design (QUANTqual) (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The research has been carried out in two interactive stages. The first stage started with the collection and analysis of quantitative data (QUANT Component) and continued into the second stage of collection and analysis of qualitative data (qual Component). This second stage of the research started from the results obtained in the first stage. The results obtained in the qual Component helped to explain the results initially obtained in the QUANT Component. This combination of methods has aimed to strengthen the internal validity of our study and to minimise the weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative methods when considered separately. The goal of this combination of methods has not been the convergence of results, but the deepening in the study of the literacy practices and events of primary education students inside and outside the school, from a progressive approach (QUANTqual) that has made it possible to go from a quantitative methodology to a qualitative one. All the participating students have been underage, and so their parents or legal guardians were informed about the nature of the study and the conditions for the participation of their children, as well as their own. The teachers were also informed about the characteristics and aims of the study. The three groups (students, families and teachers) signed an informed consent agreement that was a compulsory requirement for the participation in the research. The participation of students, families and teachers was voluntary and followed the rules of informed consent, which restricts the use of the information to research purposes only and ensures the anonymity of participants (use of pseudonyms, blurring of images, etc.) and confidentiality. This work has followed the internal SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 51 regulations in the Social Sciences by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Seville. The QUANT Component has relied on the use of the survey method. The participating simple has been comprised of 20 Early Childhood and primary education schools from the province of Seville. The schools represent the whole spectrum of socioeconomic and cultural levels (high, medium-high, medium-low and low), according to the classification by the Junta de Andalucía (i.e. the Andalusian regional government). In this stage 1,540 students (8-12 years old), 1,438 families and 74 teachers participated. Data was collected through a selfreport questionnaire regarding literacy events and practices which was elaborated by Guzmán-Simón, Moreno-Morilla and García-Jiménez (2018). The designed self-report questionnaire relies on Douglas’ (1970) ecological approach to literacy and takes as reference the framework of the NEL (Barton, 2007; Barton & Hamilton; 1998; Baynham, 1995; Maybin, 1994; Street, 1984). On the basis of this theoretical construct, three versions of the original self-report questionnaire were created, one for each of the participating groups, and were administered in print format (students [http://bit.ly/2Z1yQ35], families [http://bit.ly/2NeJ5tJ] and teachers [http://bit.ly/31RKT03]. The dimensions under consideration in the three versions of the self-report addressed Personal literacy, Cultural production and consumption, Library culture and Culture of instruction. The QUANT Component has made it possible to describe the literacy events and practices of students from the perspective of students, their families and teachers. This description was undertaken through a descriptive analysis based on univariate statistics (Objective 1). Subsequently, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was developed to identify the existing differences among the three groups in terms of their literacy events and practices (Objective 2). Students’ reading and writing profiles were also studied through a two-stage cluster analysis and a principal SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 52 component analysis (hereafter CAPTCA). These analyses took into account personal (age and sex) and contextual variables (school, school year and SES) (Objective 3). Finally the QUANT Component has helped to determine the existence of causal relations between the literacy practices of students, their families and teachers, and has attended also to different individual and contextual variables. In the latter case, the analyses undertaken were a correlational analysis and a structural equation analysis (Objective 4). The qual Component has been realised through the design of multiple embedded cases, where inferences and interpretations have been designed from the case studies (Yin, 2009). This part of the research has had the participation of three of the participating schools in the QUANT Component. School 1 (High Socieconomic Status, hereafter SES) was represented by the participation of Martina (12 years old) and Cloe (11 years old); School 2 (Medium SES), by Roberto and Amaya; and School 3 (Low SES), by Damián and Hiba. The families and teachers of these children also participated actively during the development of this stage of the research; in fact, weekly visits were made in the homes as well as in the different schools involved. The data collection was oriented towards conducting interviews on the reading and writing practices that students carry out in their everyday life (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). This information was completed by conducting discussion groups and the construction of mappings (Clark & Moss, 2011; García-Jiménez, Guzmán-Simón & Moreno- Morilla, 2018). The collected information was analysed through the social semiotics framework (van Leeuwen, 2005) and a Comparative Qualitative Analysis (CQA) was applied (Objective 4). The sequential model (QUANTqual) that was used has been completed through the integration and diffraction of the results obtained in the QUANT Component and in the qual Component. The integration strategy has made it SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 53 possible to address the description and explanation of the literacy process by considering those literacy elements that are shared between the participants. In the same way, the diffraction strategy has facilitated the identification of those other elements where the literacy process presents differentiating characteristics according to participants. 1.3.1. Results obtained in the QUANT Component Description of literacy events and practices The results from the QUANT Component show how the children’s literacy events and practices are preferably located in the school and home domains ( =3.89; =3.80, respectively). Students report that their reading practices are related to the acquisition of new knowledge in the school ( =4.12). Their writing practices are developed through print documents and manuscripts ( =4.72) and, like their reading practices, these also serve school purposes ( =4.29). On the contrary, the development of digital literacy practices is mainly limited to writing on WhatsApp ( =3.45) in the home domain. Students’ cultural production and consumption practices also attend especially to school requirements. In this sense, the students indicate that they buy their school materials in bookshops ( =3.93) to meet the demands of their education ( =3.57). This ‘school’ consumption is done to the detriment of other cultural consumptions that are related to their personal literacy. The students confirm the extended use of the textbook in the school ( =4.05), as well as the low use of the Internet ( =1.94). The value that teachers give to the textbook determines to a great extent the kind of literacy practices that take place in the school domain. In this sense, the children report a high predominance of individual tasks such as summarising ( =3.53) or questions about what they have read ( =3.93). The main purpose SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 54 of the tasks proposed in the classroom is searching for information ( =3.53) or revising their writing ( =3.72). In this way, the students describe the school domain as a space where the print format and the production of manuscript texts dominate, and where the use of the ICT is scarce (see article 1). The views of the families and the teachers confirm in our study some of the opinions expressed by the students, and they show discrepancy regarding other opinions. On the one hand, they recognise the school ( Families=4.11; Teachers=3.44) and the home ( F=3.72; T=4.39) as the domains where students develop the greatest part of their reading practices. However, the families give an even higher value to the school than the teachers themselves. The opinions of students, families and teachers differ mainly with regards to the development of digital practices. The families indicate that their children make sparse use of digital media (e.g. computer, tablet or mobile phone), writing on Social Media (F=0.40) or blog ( F=0.37). In contrast, the teachers show an opinion that is more similar to that of the students. The teachers highlight the development of literacy practices through the computer ( T=3.70) and the mobile phone (T=2.63), as well as the development of writing practices on Social Media (T=2.54) (see article 3). Differences found among the different perspectives The study of the responses of students, families and teachers shows the existence of statistically significant differences with regard to Personal literacy practices, Cultural production and consumption, Library culture and Culture of instruction. These differences are statistically significant in most of the comparisons undertaken. Firstly, the Personal literacy dimension presents differences in favour of the students in relation to the incorporation of digital SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 55 media (e.g. mobile phone or tablet) in their literacy practices. Secondly, the teachers situate children’s Cultural production and consumption practices especially in the bookshops, whereas the responses of the families show significant differences in favour of these in relation to online shopping. The teachers also indicate that the students attend storytelling sessions and writing workshops more frequently than the families do. Thirdly, the scores of the students and the families show differences in relation to Library culture. The students describe more diverse uses of the libraries than the families do. The data reflect statistical differences in favour of the students in relation to the use of the library as reading room, place to do group work, loan service and access to the Internet. Finally, the results have also shown differences in the way that the students and the teachers conceive of the Culture of instruction. The analysis of the responses shows differences in favour of the teachers in most of the comparisons undertaken. The differences that have been found can be placed on two levels; on the one hand, the variety of teaching materials used in the classroom; on the other, the dynamism of the proposed activities. The students point out a more reduced and limited development of the culture of instruction than the one described by the teachers (see article 3). Our results also show how the frequency of one type of literacy practice and its associated value vary depending on the socioeconomic and cultural status of the families. Thus, the results show significant differences in favour of the children of high socioeconomic status in relation to the development of reading practices in the school, online consumption, attendance to the Book Fair, and use of reading books. In contrast, the children who are closer to contexts in which the families have a low socioeconomic status especially encourage the development of personal practices developed through their mobile phone (e.g. they write on Social Media or in a blog). These children attend more frequently writing SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 56 workshops and public and school libraries. Socioeconomic status also determines differences in the development of school literacy. The schools where families have lower socioeconomic status encourage the use of textbooks, and schools with high status especially highlight the use of reading books, the development of digital practices being limited in both types of school (see article 3). Reading and writing profiles among primary education students The differences found in the literacy events and practices can be explained from the existence of various profiles among primary education students in relation to the previously mentioned dimensions of Personal literacy, Cultural production and consumption, Library culture and Culture of instruction. Firstly, the results of the two-stage cluster analysis show how children’s literacy practices group together depending on their age, school year and school (socioeconomic and cultural status). The children aged 8 or 9 years who attend school in statesubsidised or private schools show the most heterogeneous literacy profile. In contrast, the children aged between 10 and 13 years who attend state schools tend to show a higher preference for digital practices. Secondly, the results found highlight that the students aged 8 years who attend schools of a high or medium socioeconomic status promote the consumption of cultural products (mainly books) with an academic and personal purpose. In contrast, another profile of students who attend low socioeconomic status schools limits the consumption to school requirements. Thirdly, the literacy practices developed in the library has not made it possible to establish clear profiles, although the students who attend state schools of a low socioeconomic status tend to make greater use of this domain to do group work, request book loans or as Internet access room. Finally, the results have not made it possible either to identify clear profiles regarding children’s school literacy in relation to the socioeconomic and cultural SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 57 status of their families. These data reveal that literacy practices are similar in primary education schools regardless of their socioeconomic status (see article 1). The data have shown how the spaces determine the kind of literacy events and practices that students develop. The constructs “outside school” and “inside school”, obtained from the CAPTCA analysis, have made it possible to reduce and organise the information on said events and practices in the two main components. On the one hand, the “outside the school” component brings together the items with higher factorial weights in relation to digital reading and writing, online shopping, the use of the Internet, etc. On the other hand, the “inside school” component better explains those items that show students’ preferences toward the reading of print materials and handwritten writing. The constructs “inside school” and “outside school” have made it possible to explain the variability observed in the self-report questionnaire responses associated with some contextual variables, such as the SES of the students and the ownership of the schools where they study. These constructs have also made it possible to explain the differences found among students in relation to their curriculum preferences. The students whose preferences are closer to the subjects of Spanish Language and Literature, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Foreign Language give higher scores to the items that make up the “inside school” component. In contrast, students’ preference for the subject of Physical Education is explained from both axes (“inside school” and “outside school”). Finally, it can be seen that the construct “inside school” better explains the variations related to sex. In this sense, the observed tendency shows that girls have a greater affinity for the development of school literacy practices. In contrast, the component “outside the school” especially shows the variations SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 64  The need to encourage the school-family relationship. The creation of a third literacy space would help situate, contextualise and incorporate the active participation of the families in the literacy process of their children;  The participation of the families in the school must be understood as a mutually beneficial relationship (two-way exchange). Personal and school literacy must be integrated through this relationship. Article 3: Relationship between literacy events and low socio-economic status in primary education: analysis of different views of Spanish-speaking pupils, families, and teachers. What is known about the topic:  The relationship that exists between children’s level of literacy development and the socioeconomic status of the families;  The low performance of Spanish children in the PIRLS tests and the little improvement of these results over time;  The usefulness of the ecological perspective on the analysis of literacy in low-income contexts; Contribution of this article:  A description of the literacy events developed by primary education children on the basis of their opinions and those of their families and teachers;  An analysis of the differences that exist between the opinions of students, those of their families and those of their teachers in relation to the SES variable;  The verification that reading and writing nowadays take on a fundamental role in society and contribute to face everyday-life issues; SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 65  The validity of the sociocultural perspective to address literacy research in all its complexity; Implications of this article for practice:  The multiplicity of the literacy of children, their family and teachers and its relationship with the SES highlight the need to address the study of said literacy through a sociocultural approach;  The improvement of literacy through the involvement of the families in the school and the implementation of family literacy plans;  The school has to accept the vernacular practices developed by children within the home;  School literacy has to incorporate the development of the ICT in the classroom with the aim to implement the development of the 2.0 web;  The creation of a third literacy space that connects the home domain with the school domain. The incorporation of everyday literacy practices requires the participation of the families within the school. Article 4: Digital and information literacy inside and outside Spanish school in primary education. What is known about the topic:  Children develop digital and information literacy through collaboration strategies in the 2.0 web environment;  The development of digital and information literacy in a virtual environment creates a new space that is parallel to the physical and temporal context where school literacy develops in Spain;  The models of children’s informal and non-formal learnings have been developed in the field of the 2.0 web; SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 66 Contribution of this article:  A way to conceptualise digital and information competence in spaces inside and outside the school;  An explanatory framework about the relationships between children’s digital and information literacy, inside and outside the school, and their contextual (SES and type of school) and individual (sex, age and school interests) variables;  An evidence of the importance of making connections between the digital and information practices developed inside and outside the school; Implications of this article for practice:  The need to include new teaching approaches and methods in primary education that improve digital and information literacy through the implementation of the 2.0 web in the classrooms;  The school must incorporate the digital and information literacy practices developed by the students outside the school as part of their personal literacy;  A change in the literacy strategies used by the teachers is necessary to promote the collaborative construction of knowledge. Article 5: Rethinking literacy in Spanish primary education from a mixed methods approach: through the lens of pupils, families and teachers. What is known about the topic:  The analysis of literacy as social practice is especially related to the development of ethnographic studies, research based on mixed-methods being scarce; SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 67  Mixed methods facilitate the integration of quantitative and qualitative data that derive from information of a different nature and that are obtained from several sources;  The importance of families’ socioeconomic status and its implication in the development of school literacy in primary education;  Students’ literacy practices are linked to those of their families and teachers; Contribution of this article:  A perspective that incorporates the integration and diffraction of results obtained from qualitative and quantitative data;  An explanation about students’ literacy practices that is built on the literacy practices of their families and teachers;  A view of the literacy practices that develop inside and outside the school, on the basis of the social values given to said practices; Implications of this article for practice:  This work develops a double strategy of integration and diffraction that can facilitate the analysis of convergent and divergent data in the same sample;  The effect of the families’ socioeconomic status on the children’s literacy practices is relative. Children’s practices are modulated by the personal literacy practices of the families and the teachers;  The need to incorporate the personal practices of students, families and teachers in the school literacy process;  The assessment of literacy in primary education cannot be based on the use of standardised tests. This must be guided from the personal literacy of children and families, and this is the only way to promote a fair assessment. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 68 1.4. Discussion The results obtained in this doctoral thesis show the complexity of literacy in primary education and the multiplicity of the events and practices developed by children aged 8-12 years. The study of literacy through mixed methods has facilitated the understanding of said complexity and of the meaning of literacy in the everyday life of children (Fielding, 2012; Nastasi, Hitchcock, & Brown, 2010). On the one hand, the integration of the analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data has made it possible to identify the “unique” features that characterise the literacy process and its social value (Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017; McKim, 2017). On the other, the study of diffraction (Uprichard & Dawney, 2019) has been key to establish nuances and to modulate the causal inferences established by the SEM as well as to explain the relationships between the literacy practices of the students, their families and teachers. Literacy events and practices are developed in different domains and represent the variety of social values that reading and writing have in people’s everyday lives (Barton, 2007). These social values are related to the characteristics of the spaces or domains where literacy takes place (Neuman & Celano, 2001; Marsh, 2003). The results of our study match those found by Pahl and Allan (2012). Their work asserts that the school literacy developed inside the school is generally based on the use of print documents and manuscripts. In this sense, the school does not usually integrate the development of personal literacy practices (mainly digital ones) as part of children’s school literacy (Willians, 2000). Teachers and families give little social value to this kind of practices, thus generating conflicts in the construction of children’s literacy identities (Gee, 1990; Hull & Schultz, 2002; Knobel & Lankshear, 2007; Poveda et al., 2006; Rogers, 2003; Taylor, 1983). The literacy developed in the school does not always correspond to the one that takes place in the home (Purcell & Gate, SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 69 1996). Children’s school practices describe a school literacy that is foreign to the ICT (Lankshear & Knobel, 1997; Willians, 2009), and therefore to the practices developed in the home domain. School literacy does not address the new forms of communication that children need to learn (Del Campo-Ponz, Chisvert- Tarazona, & Palomares-Montero, 2019), based on interactivity and the construction of knowledge online (Davies & Merchant, 2009). The non-formal and informal learnings that take place outside the school guide the construction of multimodal texts through electronic media (e.g. mobile phone, tablet, computer, etc.). In contrast, the school favours especially the use of print documents (Buckingham, 2007), and does not incorporate the skills that students acquire through non-formal and informal learnings outside the school. Our research shows that the development of digital and information literacy is confined to domains other than the school domain (Ito et al., 2010). In this way, the school is not managing the potential that the incorporation of the ICT provides in children’s literacy process (Willians, 2009). The school has great difficulties to face the new forms of reading and writing in the classroom, and lacks the tools for its assessment (Stein, 2003). The assessment of reading and writing skills is undertaken in a standardised way and does not take into account students’ personal literacy outside the school (e.g. the skills developed on Social Media) (Bearne, 2005; Pahl, 2002). The perspective offered by multimodal teaching entails the incorporation of these new modes of communication, ways of teaching and assessing in the school (Burke & Hammett, 2009; Levy, 2008). The results of our research show the heterogeneity that exists among the literacy practices developed inside and outside the school. These results match those found within the framework of deep grammar of schooling (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), which suggests the existence of important misalignments between the practices produced in the school domain (informational) and the ones developed SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 70 in cyberspace (based on interaction). These misalignments are to a great extent produced by the methodologies used by primary education teachers (CELEX, 2013; Gee, 2015; Merchant, 2007). The use that teachers make of the ICT is very limited (European Commission, 2013). Teachers have training gaps and show little motivation to promote their students’ knowledge development through the ICT (CELEX, 2013; Gee, 2015). The lack of response from the school to new forms of reading and writing affects mainly the students of a low socioeconomic status. These children foster the development of informal and non-formal learnings through the ICT (Moje et al., 2004). Conditioned by their families’ personal practices, the children of low socioeconomic status primarily use Social Media that make up the 2.0 web (multidirectional and based on interactivity). In contrast, the children of medium and high socioeconomic status are placed closer to the model proposed by the 1.0 web (unidirectional and static content), the latter being the approach from which the incorporation of the ICT in the classroom is being addressed (Gee, 2015; Merchant, 2007). The existing dissociation between the practices developed inside and outside the school, the little incorporation of the ICT in primary education classrooms and the scarce permeability of the school to develop the 2.0 web suggests the need to create a third literacy space (Moje et al., 2004). The creation of this third space in the school would make it possible to connect children’s school and personal literacies with their community (Pahl & Kelly, 2005). The existing polarity between school literacy and the one developed in the home domain is increasing. The creation of the third space would facilitate the incorporation into the school of the new forms of reading and writing that characterise current society (Levy, 2008). This new space requires, firstly, that the school accepts and values the SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 71 literacies that are developed in the home (Cook, 2005) and, secondly, that the families become aware of their own literacy potential (Kim & Anderson, 2008). The creation of the third space is particularly effective in the schools where families have a low socioeconomic status (Moje et al., 2004). In this case, the schools are especially called upon to work together with the families and the communities, respectively (Bolívar, 2006). The materialisation of the third space in the school should attend to different levels (Pahl & Kelly, 2005). The micro level aims to make links with the literacy experiences that arise in children’s everyday life. Therefore, it is recommended to incorporate into the school objects and artefacts from the family environment that can situate children’s literacy. The meso level promotes the incorporation of the families into the school domain, thus valuing the personal practices developed by the families and placing value on their potentialities. Finally, the macro level aims to achieve a transfer of the learnings of students and families into the community. This entails that families and children share (e.g. in their neighbourhood, among their relatives, in civic centres, libraries, etc.) the learnings generated in the third space. Moreover, the macro level aims for families and associations to work in a targeted and coordinated way in favour of the community. In short, the third space arises due to the need to recognise the diversity of individual, social and cultural identities, and the interest to make links between the personal literacy of the families and the students with the school curriculum. The application of mixed methods to the study of literacy has made it possible to identify the uniqueness of literacy as well as the existing diversity of literacy events and practices. The sequential design used (QUANTqual) finds its justification in the need to undertake an extensive description of the literacy practices and events that define the everyday life of primary education children. This extensive study (QUANT Component) has allowed us to get to know the SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 72 use that students make of literacy, but not its social value. Therefore, the development of the qual Component becomes meaningful in this sequential model. The data derived from this stage help to know the social value and meaning that literacy practices have in children’s everyday lives. 1.5. Limitations The results from our research present some weaknesses that originate from the very complexity of the literacy process analysed from a sociocultural approach. This approach entails not only the analysis of the literacy events and practices undertaken by primary education children in their everyday life, but also of the interactions which arise in the process of construction of these events and practices. In this sense, one of the most relevant limitations in our study is to do with the QUANT Component; specifically, with the application of self-report questionnaires as procedure to collect information about literacy. The use of self-report questionnaires reduces to a large extent the richness of the opinions of the different actors involved in the literacy processes. These procedures do not make it possible to make links between each subject’s events and practices, on the basis of the artefacts and the context that mediate their literacy, and the opinions of that very same subject. Self-report questionnaires provide decontextualised data about the uses and spaces where literacy takes place. The qual Component also has a weakness to do with the number of participants and the selection process of participants. This second research stage has focused on the study of cases with profiles especially positioned toward a vernacular or a dominant development of literacy. In this way, it would be appropriate to investigate what happens with the profiles of students who combine both literacies or who do not have such a clear positioning toward one or the other SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 73 kind of literacy. To such end, it would be appropriate to expand the development of the qualitative study that is represented by the qual Component. 1.6. Conclusions The conclusions of this study are presented according to the objectives set out in the research. These conclusions show the general findings obtained in this doctoral thesis. Greater specificity can be found in the articles that make up the collection of published articles (see section 3). Objective 1 (OB1). Describing the literacy events and practices of students from the viewpoint of students, their families and teachers. Our study shows how literacy in primary education is the results of the interaction between literacy events and practices that arise in various domains and spaces (e.g. the school, the family, the neighbourhood or the community of friends). The practices developed in the school are characterised by a low incorporation of the ICT, given that the print format monopolises the school literacy process. The vernacular practices developed by the students in the home domain are heterogeneous and multimodal, and are primarily based on the use of digital technology. These practices reach a level of complexity is not represented by the development of school literacy. The implementation of the primary education curriculum in the schools simplifies the development of the digital and information component of literacy. Children, their families and teachers give little social value to vernacular practices. The teachers identify literacy only with the development of dominant practices that are mediated by print documents and manuscripts. Consequently, SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 80 Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(2), 165-181. doi:10.17763/haer.59.2.h23731364l283156 Banks, S., Hart, A., Pahl, K., & Ward, P. (2018). Co-producing research: A community development approach. Bristol: Connected-communities. Barringer, S.N., Eliason, S.R., & Leahey, E. (2013). A history of causal analysis in the Social Sciencies. In Morgan, S.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research (pp. 91-112). New York: Springer. 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. (2001). Directions for literacy research: Analysing language and social practices in a textually mediated world. Language and Education, 15(2&3), 92-104. doi:10.1080/09500780108666803 Barton, D. (2007). 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. doi:10.1093/applin/ams009 Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online. Investigating digital texts and practices. London: Routledge. Barton, D., & Papen, U. (Eds.). (2010). The Anthropology of Writing: Understanding textually mediated worlds. London, GB: Continuum. Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2012). Redefining Vernacular Literacies in the Age of Web 2.0. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 282-298. doi:10.1093/applin/ams009 Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007083 Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17-32). New York: Peter Lang. Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy Practices: investigating literacy in social contexts. 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 (pp. 13-29). London: David Fulton. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 81 Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Learning literacies for the digital age (LliDA project). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/llidareportjune2009 .pdf Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. A social semiotic frame. London: Routledge. Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge. Biencinto, C., Carpintero, E., & García-García, M. (2013). Propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario ActEval sobre la actividad evaluadora del profesorado universitario. RELIEVE, 19(1), 1-15. doi:10.7203/relieve.19.1.2611 Bigum, C. (2002). Design sensibilities, schools, and the new computing and communications technologies. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Silicon Literacies (pp. 130-140). London: Falmer-Routledge. Bigum, C. (2003). The knowledge producing school: moving away from the work of finding educational problems for which computers are solutions. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 15(2), 22-26. Retrieved from https://www.chrisbigum.com/downloads/nz.pdf Bloom, B. J. (1978). All our children learning. New York: McGraw Hill. Bloome, D. (2012). Classroom ethnography. In M. Grenfell, D. Bloome, C. Hardy, K. Pahl, J. Rowsell, & B. Street, Language, ethnography, and education. Bridging new literacy studies and Bourdieu (pp. 7-26). London: Routledge. Bloome, D., & Carter, S. P. (2001). Lists in reading education reform. Theory into Practice, 40(3), 150-157. Bloome, D., Castanheira, M., Leung, C., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2019). Re- Theorizing literacy practices. New York: Routledge. Bloome, D., & Green, J. (2015). The social and linguistic turns in studying language and literacy. In K. Pahl, & J. Rowsell (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Literacies Studies (pp. 19-34). London and New York: Routledge. Bolívar, A. (2006). Familia y escuela: dos mundos llamados a trabajar en común. Revista de Educación, 339, 119-146. Retrieved from http://ibdigital.uib.es/greenstone/collect/portal_social/index/assoc/ miso1089/4_002.dir/miso10894_002.pdf SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 82 Borrero, N., & Yeh, C. (2010). Ecological English language learning among ethnic minority youth. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 571-581. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10389810 Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage. Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the Local: Expanding Perspectives on Literacy as a Social Practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3403_4 Britsch, S. (2005). But what did they learn: clearing third spaces in virtual dialogues with children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(2), 99-130. doi: 10.1177/1468798405054581 Bryant, L. (2007). Emerging trends in social software for education. In AA. VV, Emerging technologies for learning (V2) (pp. 9-18). Coventry: Becta. Retrieved from www.mmiweb.org.uk/publications/ict/emerging_tech02.pdf Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Burke, A., & Hammett, R. F. (2009). Assessing new literacies: perspectives from the classroom. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Burnett, C. (2011). The (Im)materiality of educational space: interactions between material, connected and textual dimensions of networked technology use in schools. E-Learning and Digital media, 8(3), 214-227. doi: 10.2304/elea.2011.8.3.214 Burnett, C. (2014). Investigating pupils’ interactions around digital texts: a spatial perspective on the “classroom-ness” of digital literacy practices in schools. Educational Review, 66(2), 192-209. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.768959 Burnett, V. (2016). Being together in classrooms at the interface of the physical and virtual: implications for collaboration in on/off-screen sites. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(4), 566-589. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1050036 Burnett, C., Davies, J., Merchant, G., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2014). New literacies around the globe: policy and pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2015). The challenge of 21st-century literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(3), 271-274. doi:10.1002/jaal.482 SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 83 Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Literacy-as-event: accounting for relationality in literacy research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education (pre-print). doi:10.1080/01596306.2018.1460318 Burnett, C. Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). The (im)materiality of literacy: the significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 90-103. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2012.739469 Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications and programming (2ª. ed.). New York: Routledge. Camitta, M. (1993). Vernacular writing: Varieties of literacy among Philadelphia high school students. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 228-246. Cambridge, Cambridge: University Press. Campbell, E. (2018). Methodology: an introduction. In E. Campbell, K. Pahl, E. Pente, & Z. Rasool, Re-Imagining Contested Communities: Connecting Rotherham Through Research (pp. 87-90). Brighton, UK: Policy Press. Campbell, E., & Lassiter, L.E. (2014). Doing ethnography today: Theories, methods, exercises. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Campbell, E., Lassiter, L.E., & Pahl, K. (2018). Collaborative ethnography in context. In E. Campbell, K. Pahl, E. Pente, & Z. Rasool, Re-Imagining Contested Communities: Connecting Rotherham Through Research (pp. 91-106). Brighton, UK: Policy Press. 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. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ859263.pdf Cassany, D. (2006). Tras las líneas. Sobre la lectura contemporánea. [Under the lines. On contemporary reading]. Barcelona: Anagrama. CELEX (2013). Comunicado de la Comisión Europea al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones. Apertura de la educación: Docencia y aprendizaje innovadores para todos a través de nuevas tecnologías y recursos educativos abiertos. Brussels: Comisión Europea. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2KeujjL SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 84 Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P.D. (2006). Multiple literacies, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 378-386. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4504_12 Chaudron, S. (2015). Young children (0-8) and digital technology: a qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC93239 Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2007). Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. CILIP (2012). Information literacy skills. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2KgAZ0C CIS (2016). Barómetro de septiembre 2016. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Retrieved from http://www.cis.es Clark, P., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks, California. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children. The Mosaic Approach. Londres, Reino Unido: NCB. 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. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.06.004 Comber, B. (2013). Schools as meeting places: critical and inclusive literacies in changing local environments. Language Arts, 90(5), 361-371. doi:10.1080/1750848100 Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading families: The literate lives of urban children. New York: Teachers College Press. Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). Listening to families over time: Seven lessons learned about literacy in families. Language Arts, 86(6), 449-457. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2YychxR Compton-Lilly, C., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Bedtimes 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. doi:10.1080/17482798.2015.997440 SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 85 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. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4350.2005.00405.x Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (2006). The Social Construction of Literacy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies’: New literacies, new learning”, in Pedagogies. An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044 Corral Blanco, N., Zurbano Fernández, E., Blanco Fernández, A., García Honrado, I., & Ramos Guajardo, A.B. (2013). Estructura del entorno educativo familiar: su influencia sobre el rendimiento y el rendimiento diferencial. In PIRLS-TIMSS 2011, Estudio Internacional de progreso en la comprensión lectora, matemática y ciencias (pp.9-32). Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3ª. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3ª. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cristóbal Del Campo-Ponz, C., Chisvert-Tarazona, M.J, & Palomares-Montero, D. (2019). Percepción de una comunidad educativa sobre el desarrollo profesional docente en la educación 2.0. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 23(2), 421-439. doi:10.30827/profesorado.v23i2.9694 Dagenais, D., Toohey, K., Fox, A.B., & Singh, A. (2016). Multilingual and multimodal composition at school: ScribJab in Action. Language and Education, 31(3), 263-282. doi:10.1080/09500782.2016.1261893 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., Zhu, L., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2016). Home literacy beliefs and practices among low-income Latino families. Early Child Development and Care, 186(7), 1152-1172. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1081184 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. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2015.06.001 SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 86 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. doi:10.1007/BF03173012 Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 77-96. doi:10.1177/1468794106058876 Dighe, A., & Reddi, U.V. (2006). Women’s Literacy and Information and Communication Technologies: Lessons that Experience Has Taught Us. Retrieved from http://www.cemca.org/CEMCA_Womens_Literacy.pdf Ditrendia (2018). Informe mobile en España y en el mundo 2017. Retrieved from https://ditrendia.es/informe-mobile-espana-mundo-2017/ Dixon, L.Q., & Wu, S. (2014). Home language and literacy practices among immigrant second-language learners. Language Teaching, 47(4), 414-449. doi:10.1017/S0261444814000160 Douglas, M. (1970). Símbolos naturales: Exploraciones en cosmología. Madrid: Alianza. Duckworth, V., & Tett, L. (2019). Transformative and emancipatory literacy to empower. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 1-13. doi:10.1080/02601370.2019.1574923 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. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0584-5 Dunsmore, K., & Fisher, D. (Eds.). (2010). Bringing literacy home. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Dyson, A.H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York: Teachers College Press. Ehret, C., Hollett, T., & Jocius, R. (2016). The matter of new media making: an intra-action analysis of adolescents making a digital book trailer. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(3), 346-377. doi:10.1177/1086296X16665323 Escott, H., & Pahl, K. (2017). Learning from Ninjas: young people’s films as a lens for an expanded view of literacy and language. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1-13. doi:10.1080/01596306.2017.1405911 European Commission (2013). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-6- enhancing-digital-literacy-skills-and-inclusion SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 87 Facer, K., & Pahl, K. (2017). Valuing interdisciplinary collaborative research: Beyond impact. Bristol: Policy Press. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Fielding, N. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136. doi:10.1177/1558689812437101 Flecha, R. (2014). Using Mixed Methods From a Communicative Orientation: Researching With Grassroots Roma. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(3), 245-254. doi:10.1177/1558689814527945 Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research: Theory, method and applications. London: Sage. 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. 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. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/49099/1/DOC090312.pdf Fernández Enguita, M. (2018). Más escuela y menos aula. La innovación en la perspectiva de un cambio de época. Madrid: Morata. García-Martín, J., & García Sánchez, J.N. (2013). Patterns of web 2.0 tool use among young Spanish people. Computers and Education, 67, 105-120. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.03.003 Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (2ª. ed.). London. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J.P. (1999). Reading and the new literacy studies: Reframing the national academy of sciences report on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(3), 355-374. doi:10.1080/10862969909548052 Gee, J. P. (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context (pp. 180-196). London: Routledge. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and Learning. A critique of traditional schooling. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Gee, J.P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Routledge. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 88 Gee, J.P. (2013). The anti-education era: Creating smarter students through digital learning. New York: Palgreve/MacMillan. Gee, J.P. (2015). Literacy and Education. New York: Routledge. Gil Flores, J. (2009). Hábitos y actitudes de las familias hacia la lectura y competencias básicas del alumnado. Revista de Educación, 350, 301-322. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/706/70618224005.pdf Gil Flores, J. (2013). Medición del nivel socioeconómico familiar en el alumnado de Educación Primaria. Revista de Educación, 362, 298-322. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/312qAMI Gillen, J. (2014). Digital literacies. London: Routledge. Gillen, J., & Kucirkova, N. (2018). Percolating spaces: creative ways of using digital technologies to connect young children’s school and home lives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 834-846. doi:10.1111/bjet.12666 Gillen, J., & Merchant, G. (2013). From virtual histories to virtual literacies. In G. Merchant, J. Gillen, J. Marsch & J. Davies, Virtual literacies. Interactive spaces for children and Young people (pp. 9-26). New York: Routledge. Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., & Reese, L. (2005). Using mixed methods to explore Latino children's literacy development. In T. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children's development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 21-46). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. González, L. (2017). Hábitos lectores y políticas habituales de lectura. In J.A. Millán (Cood.), La lectura en España. Informe 2017 (pp. 81-91). Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. Gómez Soto, I. (1999). Mito y realidad de la lectura. Los hábitos lectores en la España actual. Madrid: Endymion. Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 131.144. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.544125 Goody, J. (1975). Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 89 Green, B., & Beavis, C. (2013). Literacy education in the age of new media. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L.C. Moll, International Handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture (pp. 42-53). London: Wiley- Blackwell. Green, B., & Bigum, C. (1993). Aliens in the classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 37(2), 119-141. doi:10.1177/000494419303700202 Grenfell, M., & Pahl, K. (2018). Bourdieu, Language-based Ethnographies and Reflexivity Putting Theory into Practice. New York: Routledge 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. doi:10.1177/1468798411416888 Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing sociocultural literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148-164. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2OxliYj Gutiérrez, K., & Larson, J. (2007). Discussing expanded spaces for learning. Language Arts, 85, 69-77. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2SWc4TT Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38, 87-93. doi:10.1080/00405849909543837 Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (2003). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6(4), 286-303. doi:10.1080/10749039909524733 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 Hackett, A. (2017). Parents as researchers: collaborative ethnography with parents. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 481-497. doi:10.1177/1468794116672913 Hackett, A., & Somerville, M. (2017). Posthuman literacies: young children moving in time, place and more-than-human worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 374-391. doi:10.1177/1468798417704031 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. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 96 Moll, L.C., Amanti, C. Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. Doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 Moreno, E. (2002). La familia como institución sociocultural: su papel en la adquisición de los hábitos lectores. Portularia. Revista de Trabajo Social, 2, 309-324. 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 (monográfico), 117-137. Moreno-Morilla, C., Guzmán-Simón, F., & García-Jiménez, E. (2019). Literacy practices of primary education children in Andalusia (Spain): A familybased perspective. British Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 117-136. Doi:10.1002/berj.3487 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). Nastasi, B., Hitchcock, J., & Brown, L. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies: Moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models. In A. Tashakkori y C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 305- 338). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Neuman, D.B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middleincome communities: An ecological study of four neighbourhoods. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 97 Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8-26. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2YDAF5c New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93. Doi: 10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Olson, D. (1994). The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47(3), 257-281. doi:10.17763/haer.47.3.8840364413869005 Pahl, K. (2002). Ephemera, mess and miscellaneous piles: Texts and practices in families. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), 145-165. doi:10.1177/14687984020022002 Pahl, K. (2007). Creativity in events and practices: a lens for understanding children’s multimodal texts. Literacy, 41(2), 86-92. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9345.2007.00462.x 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. doi:10.1177/1468798411401864 Pahl, K., & Burnett, C. (2013). Literacies in Homes and communities. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L.C. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning and culture (pp. 3-14). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4350.2005.00406.x Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom, London: Paul Chapman. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2006). Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Artifactual Literacies: Every Object Tells a Story. New York: Teachers College Press. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Literacy and Education. Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. London: Sage. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2012). Early childhood literacy. London: Sage. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 98 Papen, U. (2007). Literacy and globalization: reading and writing in times of social and cultural change. London: Routledge. Parody, M., Santos, J., Alcalá del Olmo, J., & Isequilla, E. (2019). El desafío educativo del siglo XXI: relevancia de la cooperación entre familia y escuela. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado. Revista Multidisciplinar de Educación, 12(24), 19-29. Retrieved from http://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/ESPIRAL/article/view/2284 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3ª. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Routledge, P. (1996). The Third Space as Critical Engagement. Antipode, 28(4), 399- 419. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1996.tb00533.x Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (2003). The Development of School-Based Literacy: A Social Ecological Perspective. London: Routledge. Pezoa, JP., Mendive, S., & Strasser, K. (2019). Reading interest and family literacy practices from prekindergarten to kindergarten: Contributions from a cross-lagged analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47(2), 284- 295. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.014 Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography. Principles and practice. London: Sage. Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks, California. Poveda, D. (2002). Quico’s story: An ethnopoetic analysis of a Gypsy boy’s narratives at school. Text, 22(2), 269-300. Doi: 10.1515/text.2002.010 Poveda, D. (2012). Literacy artifacts and the semiotic landscape of a Spanish secondary school. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 61-88. Doi: 10.1002/RRQ.010 Poveda, D., Cano, A., & Palomares-Valera, M. (2005). Religious genres, entextualization and literacy in Gitano children. Language in Society, 34(1), 87-115. Doi.10.1017/S0047404505050049 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. doi: 10.1080/17457820600715547 Poveda, D., & Sánchez Carrión, J.J. (2010). Las prácticas y estilos de literacidad de los adolescentes fuera de la escuela: una exploración cuantitativa de SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 99 las relaciones entre literacidad, escolarización y origen familiar. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(1), 85-114. doi:10.1558/sols.v4i1.85 Pourbaix, R. (2000). Emergent literacy practices in an electronic community. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated Literacies. Reading and Writing in Context (pp. 125-148). London and New York: Routledge. Prinsloo, M., & Breier, M. (Eds.). (1996). The Social Uses of Literacy: Theory and Practice in Contemporary. South Africa: John Benjamins. 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. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1346660 Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Literacy at the Harts’ and the Larsons’: Diversity among poor, innercity families. The Reading Teacher, 48(7), 572-578. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2GBXEDC 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. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.4.4 Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson, E., & Degener, S. (2004). In school and out: A sociocognitive lens on literacy development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 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. Reder, S., & Davila, E. (2005). Context and literacy practices. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 170-187. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000097 Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices. Power in and out of print. Mahwah, NJ-London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. United Kingdom: Equinox. Rowsell, J., Kress, G., Pahl, K., & Street B. (2013). The Social Practice of Multimodal Reading: A New Literacy Studies - Multimodal Perspective on reading. In Alvermann, D.E., Unrau, N.J., & Ruddell, R.B. (Eds.). (6ª. ed.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1182-1207). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 100 Rowsell, J., & Pahl, K. (2007). Sedimented identities in texts: Instances of practice, Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388-404. doi:10.1598/rrq.42.3.3. Rowsell, J., & Pahl, K. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies. London and New York: Routledge. S.A. (2013). Hábitos de Lectura y Compra de libros en España 2012. Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. Saint-Laurent, L., & Giasson, J. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program adapting parental interventions to first graders’ evolution of reading and writing abilities. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(3), 253-278. doi:10.1177/1468798405058688 Sáinz, M. (2013). El uso de las TIC en el ámbito educativo con perspectiva de género. Actitudes del profesorado y del alumnado. Telos: Cuadernos de comunicación e innovación, 95, 116-124. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2K9FBXC Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53-64. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2009.00341.x Saracho, O. N. (2017). Literacy in the twenty-first century: Children, families and policy. Early Child Development and Care, 187(3&4), 630-643. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1261513 Schamroth Abrams, S., & Merchant, G. (2013). The digital challenge. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L.C. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning and culture (pp. 319-332). Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.B.K. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sénéchal, M. (2014). Child language and literacy development at home. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 38-50). London, Routledge. Sénéchal, 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. doi:10.1111/cdev.12222 SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 101 Serbetar, I., & Sedlar, I. (2016). Assessing reliability of a multi-dimensional scale by coefficient alpha. Revija za Elementarno Izobrazevanje, 9(1/2), 189. Sheehy, M., & Leander, K.M. (2011). Introduction. In K.M. Leander, & M. Sheehy (Eds.), Spatializing literacy research and practice (pp. 1-13). New York: Peter Lang. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody. The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Book. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers and Education, 44(3), 343-355. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.003 Soja, E.W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Sorde Marti, T., & Mertens, D. M. (2014). Mixed Methods Research With Groups at Risk: New Developments and Key Debates. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(3), 207-211. doi:10.1177/1558689814527916 Steensel, R.V. (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(4), 367-382. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00301.x Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. (1993). Introduction. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. (1994). The New Literacy Studies: Implications for Education and Pedagogy. Changing English, 1(1), 113-126. doi:10.1080/1358684940010109 Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman. Street, B. (1997). The implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for Literacy Education. English in Education, 31(3), 45-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1754- 8845.1997.tb00133.x Street, B. (2005). ‘Understanding and defining literacy’. Background Paper Prepared for Education for All Global Marketing. Report 2006 Literacy for Life. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 1-24. SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 102 Strommen, L.T., & Mates, B.F. (2004). Learning to love reading: interviews with older children and teens. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(3), 188- 200. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.3.1 Taguchi, H.L. (2011). Investigating learning, participation and becoming in early childhood practices with a relational materialist approach. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(1), 36-50. doi:10.2304/gsch.2011.1.1.36 Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The New Era of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1177/2345678906293042 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future od mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed models design. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Method in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 671-702). London: Sage. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Method in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 1-41). London: Sage. Trujillo Sáez, F. (2017). El sistema educativo. In J.A. Millán (Cood.), La lectura en España. Informe 2017 (pp. 97-109). Madrid: Federación de Gremios de Editores de España. Tusting, K., & Barton, D. (2005). Community-based local literacies Research. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 243-263). New Jersey: Hampton Press. Uprichard, E., & Dawney, L. (2019). Data Diffraction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19-32. doi:10.1177/1558689816674650 van Leewen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London and New York: Routledge. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00301.x SECTION 1 Doctoral Thesis 103 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. doi: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 (pp. 19-33). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791 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. Wasik, B. H., & Van Horn, B. (2012). The role of family literacy in society. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 3-18). New York: Routledge. 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 and reading and 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. Retrieved from http://karenwohlwend.com/papers/2010avatar.pdf Woumans, E., Ameloot, S., Keuleers, E., & Van Assche, E. (2019). The relationship between second language acquisition and nonverbal cognitive abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(7), 1169- 1177. doi:10.1037/xge0000536 Yamada-Rice, D. (2010). Beyond words: An enquiry into children’s home visual communication practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 341- 363. doi:10.1177/1468798410373267 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and methods. London: SAGE. Zavala, V. (2002). Desencuentros con la escritura. Escuela y comunidad en los Andes peruanos. Lima: Red para el Desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en el Perú. 104 Apartado 2 T03B-Anexo 3B. Presentación de tesis doctoral por compendio de publicaciones El apartado dos incorpora el Anexo 3B cumplimentado y firmado por la Presidencia de la Comisión del Programa de Doctorado en Educación, la Dr. Cristina Mayor Ruiz. El documento adjunto cuenta con la aprobación de la Comisión de Doctorado y un informe motivado que permite la presentación de esta tesis doctoral en la modalidad de compendio de publicaciones. APARTADO 2 Anexo 3B 105 2. T03B-Anexo 3B. Presentación de tesis doctoral por compendio de publicaciones 2.1. Anexo 3B cumplimentado El documento adjunto muestra la solicitud realizada por Celia Moreno Morilla para la presentación de su tesis doctoral como tesis doctoral por compendio de publicaciones. 112 Apartado 4 Informe del director de tesis con la aprobación del órgano responsable sobre la idoneidad de esta modalidad El apartado cuatro incorpora el informe de aprobación de Eduardo García Jiménez y Fernando Guzmán Simón para la presentación de esta tesis doctoral como compendio de publicaciones. Este informe cuenta con la aprobación de la Sra. Presidenta de la Comisión de Académica del Programa de Doctorado en Educación, la Dr. Cristina Mayor Ruiz. APARTADO 4 Informe de los Directores de Tesis 113 4. Informe del director de tesis con la aprobación del órgano responsable sobre la idoneidad de esta modalidad La tesis doctoral elaborada por Celia Moreno Morilla con DNI 48992115-E realiza una aportación fundamental al ámbito de investigación educativa centrada en el estudio de los procesos de alfabetización en Educación Primaria. La tesis aborda dichos procesos desde una perspectiva innovadora en nuestro sistema universitario, conocida como Nuevos Estudios de Literacidad (NEL). Esta perspectiva considera la alfabetización como práctica social y se apoya en la utilización de métodos de investigación cualitativos. En el trabajo completado por la doctoranda, se ha realizado una recogida de información extensiva y apoyada en el uso de autoinformes y estadística multivariante, seguida del uso de diferentes métodos cualitativos de recogida intensiva de información (observación, entrevista, fotografías o vídeos) y de análisis de datos cualitativos. El empleo de un diseño mixto de investigación, de carácter secuencial, es seguramente uno de los aspectos más destacables de esta tesis doctoral. Los resultados obtenidos avalan la tesis de que los procesos de alfabetización están social y culturalmente situados, de modo que aquello que los niños y las niñas leen y escriben es parte de un proceso complejo y multifacético, y fruto del contexto en el que viven y de los intereses y actitudes de sus familias y profesores hacia la alfabetización. Una prueba de la valía de dichos resultados está en el hecho de que la tesis esté apoyada en un compendio de varias publicaciones realizadas en revistas situadas en los primeros cuartiles de indexación. El documento de la tesis, desde un punto de vista formal y estructural, también cumple con los requisitos exigidos a este tipo de trabajos. Todas las publicaciones han sido aceptadas con posterioridad a su primera matrícula de tutela académica. La doctoranda es la primera autora de todos los trabajos incorporados en esta Tesis Doctoral por compendio de publicaciones, y el número de autores corresponde con la doctoranda y sus dos directores en cada uno de los trabajos. Además, el trabajo responde a todos los requisitos establecidos por la Universidad de Sevilla para la presentación y defensa de tesis por compendio, y a los criterios específicos del Programa de Doctorado en Educación. APARTADO 4 Informe de los Directores de Tesis 114 Sevilla, 11 de Julio de 2019 El director (1) El director (2) Fdo. Eduardo García Jiménez Fdo. Fernando Guzmán-Simón La Presidenta de la Comisión Académica Fdo. Cristina Mayor Ruiz SR. PRESIDENTE DE LA COMISIÓN DE DOCTORADO 115 Apartado 5 Informe de la relevancia científica de las publicaciones El apartado cinco muestra los índices de impacto de las revistas en las que han sido publicados los dos artículos de investigación que posibilitan el formato de tesis por compendio de publicaciones (artículos 1 y 2). Este informe también recoge los índices de impacto de la revista en la que ha sido aceptado el artículo 3 y las revistas en las que están siendo revisados los artículos 4 y 5. APARTADO 5 Informe de Relevancia Científica 116 5. Informe de la relevancia científica de las publicaciones Los artículos incorporados en esta tesis doctoral cumplen los requisitos establecidos por la Universidad de Sevilla para la lectura de Tesis por compendio en general, y los del Programa de Doctorado en Educación, en particular. Además, este compendio de publicaciones también cumple con los criterios aprobados por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para el Subcampo 7.2 (Ciencias de la Educación). La resolución de 24 de noviembre de 2018 de la CNEAI, en su apartado 3º indica “los artículos publicados en revistas de reconocida valía, aceptándose como tales las incluidas en los listados por ámbitos científicos del «Journal Citation Reports (Social Sciences Edition)» y «Journal Citation Reports (Science Edition)» y (sin que necesariamente se valoren por igual), los artículos publicados en revistas situadas en posiciones relevantes (Q1 y Q2) de los listados de Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), y en «Arts & Humanities Citation Index» de la «Web of Science». En esta misma línea, la Resolución de 18 de noviembre de 2009, de la presidenta de la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora, por la que se establecen los criterios específicos en cada uno de los campos de evaluación establecen en el mismo campo que “podrán considerarse también los artículos publicados en revistas listadas en otras bases de datos nacionales e internacionales”. En respuesta a estos requisitos, se aporta el informe de relevancia científica de nuestras publicaciones. La Tabla 1 muestra como los artículos incorporados en este compendio de publicaciones cumple con la normativa específica de la actividad investigadora para el Subcampo 7.2, la normativa de la Universidad de Sevilla y los criterios específicos del programa de Doctorado en Educación. APARTADO 5 Informe de Relevancia Científica 117 Tabla 1 Índice de impacto de las revistas Artículos publicados JCR (FI-Q) SJR Indexación Pota Linguarum (artículo 1) 0.468-Q3 Q2 Base de datos Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, MLA - Modern Language Association Database, DIALNET. Sistemas de evaluación CARHUS Plus+ 2018, LATINDEX. Catálogo v1.0 (2002 - 2017), Sello de calidad FECYT. Métricas SJR. SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Scopus Journalmetrics. British Educational Research Journal (artículo 2) 1.364-Q2 Q1 Base de datos Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, Academic Search Premier, IBZ Online, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Periodicals Index Online, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, EBSCO Education Source, Educational research abstracts (ERA), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts, MLA - Modern Language Association Database, PAIS International, Psycinfo. Sistemas de evaluación CARHUS Plus+ 2018, ERIHPlus. Métricas SJR. SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Scopus Journalmetrics Artículos aceptados JCR (FI-Q) Otros Indexación RicercAzione (artículo 3) --- Journal of Class A --- APARTADO 5 Informe de Relevancia Científica 118 Artículos en proceso de revisión JCR (FI-Q) SJR Indexación British Journal of Educational Technology (artículo 4) 2.588-Q1 Q1 Base de datos Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, Academic Search Premier, Periodicals Index Online, Compendex, Education Abstracts, INSPEC, EBSCO Education Source, Educational research abstracts (ERA), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), MLA - Modern Language Association Database, Psycinfo, DIALNET. Sistemas de evaluación CARHUS Plus+ 2018, ERIHPlus. Métricas SJR. SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Scopus Journalmetrics Journal of Mixed Methods Research (artículo 5) 3.524-Q1 Q1 Base de datos Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Psycinfo, Sociological abstracts. Sistemas de evaluación CARHUS Plus+ 2018 Métricas SJR. SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Scopus Journalmetrics 119 Apartado 6 Aceptación por escrito de los coautores de la presentación de los trabajos como tesis El apartado seis incorpora un informe que detalla la contribución realizada por la doctoranda en la realización de los artículos que conforman el compendio de publicaciones, así como la aceptación de Eduardo García Jiménez y Fernando Guzmán Simón como coautores de dichos trabajos. Asimismo, los directores de esta tesis presentan su renuncia a presentar estos trabajos como parte de otra tesis doctoral en cualquier otra universidad. APARTADO 6 Aceptación de los Coautores 120 6. Aceptación por escrito de los coautores de la presentación de los trabajos como tesis CONTRIBUCIÓN DE LA DOCTORANDA Yo, Celia Moreno Morilla, con DNI 48992115-E, doctoranda del Programa de Doctorado en Educación de la Universidad de Sevilla (RD. 99/2011), número de expediente 0000011827. HAGO CONSTAR QUE: Los artículos publicados y/o en proceso de revisión que integran la tesis por compendio pertenecen en exclusividad a mi trabajo de tesis doctoral “Rethinking literacy in Spanish primary education from mixed methods approach: Through lens of pupils, families and Teachers”. Los artículos presentan mi rol como investigadora en términos de acceso al campo, indagación literaria en el contexto de la investigación, análisis de los datos, interpretación de los resultados, discusión y conclusiones. Mi persona es la autora principal de los artículos. Afirmo que he elaborado los artículos bajo la supervisión de los demás coautores, Dr. Eduardo García Jiménez y Dr. Fernando Guzmán Simón, directores de la presente tesis doctoral. Estos expertos han guiado el trabajo realizado en los artículos. Su feedback y orientaciones han permitido que estos adquieran la calidad necesaria para la publicación en revistas de impacto. Sevilla, 11 de Julio de 2019 Fdo. Celia Moreno Morilla APARTADO 6 Aceptación de los Coautores 121 ACEPTACIÓN DE LOS COAUTORES Yo, Dr. Eduardo García Jiménez, con DNI 29750678-V, catedrático de universidad del Departamento de Métodos de Investigación y Diagnóstico en Educación de la Universidad de Sevilla, director y tutor de la tesis “Rethinking literacy in Spanish primary education from mixed methods approach: Through lens of pupils, families and Teachers” de la doctoranda Celia Moreno Morilla, manifiesto conformidad en la presentación de los artículos que soy coautor como tesis por la doctoranda. A tales efectos, expreso formalmente mi renuncia a presentarlos como parte de otra tesis doctoral en cualquier otra universidad. Sevilla, 11 de julio de 2019 Fdo. Eduardo García Jiménez Yo, Dr. Fernando Guzmán Simón, con DNI 28925600-H, profesor contratado doctor del Departamento de Didáctica de la Lengua y de la Literatura y Filologías Integradas de la Universidad de Sevilla y codirector de la tesis “Rethinking literacy in Spanish primary education from mixed methods approach: Through lens of pupils, families and Teachers” de la doctoranda Celia Moreno Morilla, manifiesto conformidad en la presentación de los artículos que soy coautor como tesis por la doctoranda. A tales efectos, expreso formalmente mi renuncia a presentarlos como parte de otra tesis doctoral en cualquier otra universidad. Sevilla, 11 de julio de 2019 Fdo. Fernando Guzmán Simón