Literacy events are developed by children in and out of school. The places where these literacy events take place determine their characteristics and purposes (Barton, 1994; Neuman & Celano, 2001). These spaces are not isolated, but the literacy events have a co-dependency relationship with each other (Barton & Hamilton, 1998). Information about literacy inside and outside the school demonstrates how the literacy sources of a community of practice interact among its members in different contexts (Maybin, 1994).

The opinions provided by children, their families and teachers in our research present a first approach to the construction of children's literacy practices in different spaces (Pahl & Rowsell, 2012). Literacy events incorporate local and global literacy practices. These events can take place in physical places (at school or in a bookstore) and virtual places (Instagram or WhatsApp) (Davies & Marchant, 2009). According to Brandt and Clinton (2002), the literacy events are "localizing moves" and "globalizing connects". This leads us to reflect on the complexity and diversity of the multimodal discourses that make up the community of hybrid practices with which children interact (Flewitt, 2006, Jewitt, 2008; Kress, 2003; 2010; Walsh, 2010).

ICT has changed the way local interactions develop (Lillis, 2013) and, especially, in schools and children (Maybin, 2006). Literacy developed in school (formal literacy) currently competes with informal literacies (acquired by oneself) and non-formal ones (acquired in a non-academic environment and with the help of another person) (Folkestad, 2006). Understanding the interactions that exist between the different literacy events and the spaces in which they develop in a specific population would help to improve the planning of different literacy projects. These events (situated and social activities) interact with several literacy practices and the environment according to the following classification:

1. Personal literacy: individual activities that involve reading and / or writing in different places and domains of non-formal and informal learning (e.g. individual literacy events or groups outside the scope of school).
2. Culture of instruction: social activities in which reading and / or writing are present in different places and domains of formal learning (e.g. reading and writing tasks and activities required at school).
3. Library culture: activities in which reading and / or writing are present in different locations, such as the use of public or private libraries.
4. Cultural consumption: Activities in which reading and / or writing are present in different places and domains related to the purchase / sale of literate products (e.g. literacy events related to the publishing market).

In order to investigate the literacy events of primary pupils, we have focused on the following objectives:

1. Describe the literacy events and practices of pupils in Spain primary education using the different dimensions (personal literacy, culture of instruction, library culture and cultural consumption).
2. Identify differences in young learners' literacy practices from the perspectives of family members, teachers, and the pupils themselves.
3. Compare the literacy events of pupils in different spaces of Spain with the data provided by young learners, families and teachers.

This research aims at analysing the literacy practices of Primary Education students, their families and teachers. The choice of schools and subjects for our study’s sample was made based on the schools’ acceptance of the research requirements: the written consent of the families, the range of the ISE Indices and the fact that participating students must be enrolled in public and private schools, that students must be between 8-13 years old, and that a self-report must be completed by the parents. Twenty Sevillian schools were finally selected after applying the aforementioned criteria. Initially 1540 students, 1438 families, and 74 teachers accepted participating in the research. In order to match each student with their corresponding family and teacher, the final sample comprised 791 students, families and teachers. Those students whose families did not provide the self-report were not included in the sample. In this research, three self-reports were used, one for each participating group (students, families and teachers). They were designed following the theoretical constructs present in the NEL (Barton, 1994, Barton & Hamilton, 1998, Baynham, 1995, Gee, 1990, Maybin, 1994, Street, 1995). Self-reports were validated with Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (PROXSCAL). The values that measure the mismatch of the stress data or statistics collect scores close to zero and the adjustment measures approximate the unit (Dispersion counted for D.A.F and the Coefficient of congruence of Tucker or CCT). Reliability analysis led to the following scores of Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.95 for the total of the student items, 0.80 for students and 0.90 for teachers. A correlational analysis was carried out to establish possible relationships between the literacy practices of these students, their families and teachers. This analysis considered the contextual variables (Ownership and ISE) and students’ academic performance (results were obtained from the General Diagnostic Test) using the Pearson correlation coefficient (Rxy). Finally, a regression analysis was made through a Structural Equation Model for Multiple-Group estimated using the Likelihood method.

Literacy practices of Primary Education students can be explained by their families and teachers’ habits and routines, with limitations imposed by the estimation of total error. "Personal Literacy" is the component that best characterizes literacy practices of both families and teachers. As a result, the literacy practices that students perform can be predicted based on their families’ and teachers’ personal literacy practices. Families’ literacy practices can explain their cultural production and consumption. However, this is not the case with teachers and students´ literacy practices since they do not allow us to predict their cultural production and consumption Students' literacy practices can explain their personal literacy practices and, to a lesser extent, their use of public or school libraries. The capacity of the student literacy practices (SLP) is poor to predict the “Culture of instruction” as the Standardise Regression Weigh (SRW) is only 0.178. Likewise, the correlation between Culture of Instruction and Personal Literacy is statistically significant but low (rXY = 0.079). It is close to zero in the General Diagnostic Test (GDT). The students' literacy practices, considered as a factor that includes both the practices performed inside and outside the school, are not a good predictor of their instructional practices or their academic performance (GDT). A possible explanation could be that both types of literacy (personal and instructional) may counteract their effects. In this sense, a student who shows high scores in the items of the Personal Literacy can show high or low scores in the items that describe their Instructional Culture. Differences in families’, teachers’ and students’ literacy practices, especially those related to their Production and cultural consumption, are scarcely explained by the ISE.

Barton, D. (1994). Literacy. An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. 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. Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0 for Schools. Learning and social participation. New York: Peter Lang. Flewitt, R. (2006). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5(1), 25-51. Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135-145. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241-267. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. Lillis, T. (2013). The sociolinguistics of writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Maybin, J. (Ed.) (1994). Language and Literacy in Social Practice: A Reader. Clevedon: The Open University. Maybin, J. (2006). Children’s voices. Talk, knowledge and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Neuman, S.B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: an ecological Study of four neighbourhoods. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1), 8-26. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Literacy and Education. Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. London: Sage. Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239.