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

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.2.16915

Keywords:

Mixed methods, primary education, socioeconomic status, literacy practices, space

Abstract

A mixed-methods approach represents an alternative that allows addressing a complex phenomenon such as literacy. This paper analyses the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches to make causal inferences between literacy as a social practice and the different interaction spaces. This study was conducted following a sequential mixed methods design. The sample comprised 1,540 children, 1,438 families, and 74 teachers. The data collection methods combined self-report questionnaires and ethnographic procedures. The data were analysed using Correlational Analysis, Structural Equation Model for Multiple-Group, and Comparative Qualitative Analysis. The integration applied in this study allowed us to identify and interpret the causal inferences that exist between the literacy practices of students, families, and teachers that take place within and outside the school. This study highlights the need to consider in depth the processes of integration and diffraction of quantitative and qualitative data in literacy research.

Author Biographies

Celia Moreno-Morilla, University of Huelva 

Celia Moreno-Morilla is an assistant professor in the Department of Pedagogy of the University of Huelva. Her career as a teacher and researcher is located in the Department of Research and Diagnostic Methods in Education at the University of Seville, where she completed her doctoral studies in 2019. Her interest in the study of literacy led her to internationally renowned centers, like the "Center for the Study of Literacy" or the "Lancaster Literacy Research Center". She is currently participating in the research project “Improvement of Multimodal Literacy in Children (3-8 Years): Development of an Integrative Model in Areas with Social Transformation Needs” (PID2019-104557GB-I00). This researcher is the author of several articles about literacy published in high-impact international journals.

Fernando Guzmán-Simón, University of Seville 

Fernando Guzmán-Simón is an associate professor in Spanish Language and Literature Teaching at the University of Seville (Spain). He has published several research articles on the assessment of academic writing in Spanish. At present, his research is framed in a broader research project about the development of Literacy in Early Childhood and Primary School. This project aims to describe the literacy event of students and their families, and how they create new spaces of social interaction. It seeks to identify and analyze the conflicts generated in the process of school literacy among the different communities and to elaborate an explanatory model of the low development of literacy in low-income families.

Eduardo García-Jiménez, University of Seville

Eduardo García Jiménez is full profesor in the Department of Research Methods at University of Seville. He is interested in reviewing new research approaches and techniques for collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, and incorporating them into the study of literacy, has participated in projects on the linguistic communication compentece from the New Literacy Studies perspective, and explored causal inferences in qualitative and quantitative research methods .

References

Barringer, S.N. Eliason, S.R., & Leahey, E. (2013). A history of causal analysis in the Social Sciencies (pp. 9-26). In Morgan, S.L. (Ed.) Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, pp.91-112. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_2

Barton, D. & Lee, C. (2013). Language online. Investigating digital texts and practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203552308

Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. A social semiotic frame. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687537

Bloome, D. (2012). Classroom ethnography. En 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). Routledge.

Borrero, N. & Yeh, C. (2010). Ecological English language learning among ethnic minority youth. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 571-581. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10389810

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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1050036

Burnett, C., Davies, J., Merchant, G., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.) (2014). New literacies around the globe: polcy and pedagogy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315867311

Burnett, C. & Merchant, G. (2018). Literacy-as-event: accounting for relationality in literacy research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education (pre-print). https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1460318

Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications and programming. 2nd edition. Routledge.

Clark, V. L. P., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks, California. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341

Compton-Lilly, C. & Green, S. (Eds.) (2011). Bedtimes stories and book reports: connecting parent involvement and family literacy. Teachers College Press.

Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0 for schools: Learning and social participation. Peter Lang.

Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058876

Duursma, E., Meijer, A., & De Bot, K. (2017). The impact of home literacy and family factors on screen media use among Dutch preteens. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(2), 612-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0584-5

Escott, H. & Pahl, K. (2019). 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, 40(6), 803-815. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1405911

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078

Fielding, N. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814527945

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research: Theory, method and applications. Sage.

Gee, J.P. (2015). Literacy and education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739571

Gil Flores, J. (2013). Measuring primary school children’s family socioeconomic status. Revista de Educación, 362, 298-322. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-362-162

Gillen, J. (2014). Digital literacies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813530

Gillen, J. & Cameron, C. (Eds.) (2010). International Perspectives on Early Childhood Research: A Day in the life. Palgrave Macmillan.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12666

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2018.1464527

Hackett, A. (2017). Parents as researchers: collaborative ethnography with parents. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116672913

Hackett, A. & Somerville, M. (2017). Poshuman literacies: young children moving in time, place and more-than-human worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417704031

Harding, D.J. and Seefeldt, K.S. (2013). Mixed methods and causal analysis. In Morgan, S.L. (Ed.) Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research (pp.91-112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_6

Hathcoat, J. D., & Meixner, C. (2017). Pragmatism, Factor Analysis, and the Conditional Incompatibility Thesis in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815622114

Heath, S.B. & Street, B.V. (2008). On ethnography. Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.

Hemmings, A., Beckett, G., Kennerly, S., & Yap, T. (2013). Building a Community of Research Practice: Intragroup Team Social Dynamics in Interdisciplinary Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813478468

Hill, S. (2010). The millennium generation: Teacher-researchers exploring new forms of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 314-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798410372820

Howe, K. R. (2012). Mixed Methods, Triangulation, and Causal Explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437187

Hull, G. & Schultz, K. (2002). Connecting schools with Out-of-School worlds. Insights from recent research on literacy in non-school settings. In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.) School’s Out! Bridging Out-of-School Literacies with Classroom Practice (pp. 32-57). Teachers College Press.

Hvit, S. (2015). Literacy events in toddler groups: preschool educators’ talk about their work with literacy among toddlers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(3), 311-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798414526427

Ivankova, N. V., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Teaching mixed methods research: using a socio-ecological framework as a pedagogical approach for addressing the complexity of the field. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1427604

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034

LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2017). Sample design in PIRLS (2016). In M.O. Martin, I.V.S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds.) Method and procedures in PIRLS 2016 (pp. 3.1-3.34). Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts:  TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center.

Mackey, M. (2010). Reading from the feet up: the local work of literacy. Children’s Literature in Education, 41, 323-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10583-010-9114-z

McKim, C. A. (2017). The Value of Mixed Methods Research: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096

McTavish, M. (2014). ‘‘I’ll do it my own way!’’: A young child’s appropriation and recontextualization of school literacy practices in out-of-school spaces. Journal of Early Chidlhood Literacy, 14(3), 319-344.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468798413494919

Mahoney, J. (1999). Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macrocausal analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1154–1196. https://doi.org/10.1086/210139

Mahoney, J. (2000). Strategies of inference in small-N analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 387–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124100028004001

Mahoney, J., Goertz, G., & Ragin, C. C. (2013). Causal models and counterfactuals. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 75- 90). Springer.

Marsh, J. (2011). Young children’s literacy practices in a virtual world: establishing an online interaction order. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 101-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.2.1

Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative Paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

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., García-Jiménez, E., & Guzmán-Simón. E (2018). Relationship between literacy events and low socio-economic status in primary education: analysis of different views of Spanish-speaking pupils, families, and teachers. RICERCAZIONE, 10(2), 149-169. https://doi.org/10.32076/RA10210

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3487

Natasi, B., Hitchcock, J. y 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 & behavioral research (pp. 305-338). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n13

Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: an ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Querterly, 36(1), 8-26.

Pahl, K. & Allan, C. (2011). ‘I don’t know what literacy is’: Uncovering hidden literacies in a community library using ecological and participatory research methodologies with children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(2), 190-213. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1468798411401864

Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (2012). Literacy and Education. Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915237

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Pellegrini, A. & Galda, L. (2003). The Development of School-Based Literacy: A Social Ecological Perspective. Routledge.

Pezoa, JP., Mendive, S., & Strasser, K. (2019). Reading interest and family literacy practices from prekindergarten to kindergarten: Contributions from a cross-lagged analysis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08852006">Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47(2), 284-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.014

Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341

Poveda, D. & Sánchez Carrión, J.J. (2010). Las prácticas y estilos de literacidad de los adolescentes fuera de la escuela: una exploración cuantitativa de las relaciones entre literacidad, escolarización y origen familiar. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(1), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v4i1.85

Rowsell, J. & Pahl, K. (2007). Sedimented identities in texts: Instances of practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.3.3

Rowsell, J. & Pahl, K. (Eds.) (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717647

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814527916

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The New Era of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309913

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). Sage.

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 & Behavioral Research (pp. 1-41). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n1

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). Hampton Press.

Uprichard, E., & Dawney, L. (2019). Data Diffraction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674650

van Leewen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203647028

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000536

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Sage.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-08

Issue

Vol. 26 No. 2 (2020): MONOGRÁFICO. Edición científica: 25 años de Relieve

Section

Research Articles

License

The authors grant non-exclusive rights of exploitation of works published to RELIEVE and consent to be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Use 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0), which allows third parties to use the published material whenever the authorship of the work and the source of publication is mentioned, and it is used for non-commercial purposes. 

    The authors can reach other additional and independent contractual agreements, for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, by including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), as long as it is clearly stated that the Original source of publication is this magazine.  

    Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work after it has been published, through the internet (for example, in institutional archives online or on its website) which can generate interesting exchanges and increase work appointments. 

   The fact of sending your paper to RELIEVE implies that you accept these conditions.