Session Information
31 SES 09 B, Investigating Literacy Education in Europe: Multiple contexts, multiple methods
Paper Session
Contribution
The heterogeneous nature of current communication has transformed the way in which children develop different forms of literacy inside and outside school (Duursma, Meijer & De Bot, 2017). The transformation of social communication has modified both literacy practices inside and outside the school and forms of learning (Bigum, 2003). Literacy understood as a social practice is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that takes place in material and immaterial literacy spaces. Children, families and teachers are the agents that develop literacy practices that interact with each other in the different areas of personal literacy, cultural consumption, library and school (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007; Guzmán-Simón, Moreno-Morilla & García -Jiménez, 2018). The different literacy practices are related to local and virtual spaces and acquire a social value in their use.
One way to address the complexity of literacy is to establish causal inferences that explain the relationships between literacy spaces from the lenses of students, their teachers and families. Randomly selected samples from well-defined populations support causal inferences in quantitative approaches, instruments that validly and reliably measure operationally defined causes and effects, and robust statistics. Experimental designs, Bayesian methods and structural equation models (SEM) are the most used quantitative methods (Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017). The causal analysis in qualitative approaches relies on cross-case analysis and within-case analysis (Howe, 2012).
The mixed methods of research represent an alternative to the traditional ways used to relate the causes that explain the practices that take place in different literacy spaces. Mixed methods facilitate the integration of qualitative and quantitative data, and go beyond the mere use of both approaches and affect the process, content and contexts in which the research is conducted (Clark & Ivankova, 2018). In this type of methods, "the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry" (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007, p.4).
Several studies have addressed the analysis of literacy using mixed methods of research (Flecha, 2014, Sorde Marti & Mertens, 2014). The use of mixed methods in literacy research is based on the added value of integrating the perspectives of students, teachers and families, given that "integration gives readers more confidence in the results and the conclusions they draw from the study "(McKim, 2017, p.203). Furthermore, in research on literacy as a social practice, mixed methods offer the possibility of making inferences and, insofar as data allow, causal inferences (Harding and Seefeldt, 2013).
The objectives of this research were as follows:
- Integrate the literacy perspectives that students, families and teachers have of a mixed method.
- Establish causal inferences between literacy as a social practice of children and the family and school context.
Method
This study has been developed following a sequential method mixed design (QUAN-->qual). This quantitatively driven, sequential mixed method design examines the opinions of students, their families and their teachers about students' reading and writing practices. The data for QUANT Component of our design were 20 schools in the province of Seville (Andalusia). They involved 791 students, their families and teachers. The data for which Component was collected in 3 schools of different levels of ESCS. In each of these schools, two students were chosen, through an extreme case method (Flick, 2009). Each of these 6 cases is represented by the student, his family, his teacher and his group of friends. Self-report questionnaires used in the QUANT Component have 29 items common to the three versions (students, families and teachers) measuring the literacy practices developed in the space of personal literacy, cultural consumption, library and school (Guzmán-Simón, Moreno- Morilla & García-Jiménez, 2018). In the qual Component, students were interviewed (n=6) about their daily reading and writing practices (Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). The families (n=6) were interviewed about the reading and writing practices developed at home by each member of the family nucleus. The teachers (n = 3) provided information in the interviews about the school practices that take place in the school. The interview period lasted two school years (18 months) and was combined with a systematic observation process. Three visits were made in the home of each of the families, two in the school, and visits were made to other relevant spaces (library, associations, churches, etc.), for each case. In addition, 6 discussion groups were held in which 7-8 classmates of the students participated. In the QUANT Component, the Structural Equation Model (SEM) for Multiple-Group was estimated using the Likelihood method. In the qual Component, we carry out a Comparative Qualitative Analysis (CQA) of the practices of the six students based on observations, interviews, discussion groups and mapping. This analysis was made from the framework of social semiotics (van Leeuwen, 2005), which addresses the understanding of multimodal communication from the perspective of qualitative research. The establishment of causal relationships took as a starting point the results obtained from the critical analysis of Fairclough's speech (2003) and multimodal discourse analysis (Bezemer & Kress, 2016; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2008).
Expected Outcomes
The integration of the quantitative and qualitative results obtained from the structural equations model (SEM) and the qualitative analysis (CQA) shows that it is possible to explain the literacy practices of students from the practices of their teachers and families. First, the teachers' personal literacy practices (Rts=0.507) explain the type of instructional practices that students receive in the classroom. The qualitative and quantitative data show the influence of this eminently printed literacy on the students within the school. Secondly, the families' personal literacy practices predict to some extent the practices developed by the students according to the SEM (Rfs=0.312) and, to a greater degree, according to the CQA. Personal literacy practices of students, especially those related to digital literacy, show a clear relationship of dependence with the practices developed in the home. The analysed cases corroborate the qualitative data, reinforcing the role of families as predictors of children's social and cultural practices. Finally, the analysed data corroborate a limited influence of the library in the literacy practices of the students. The qualitative data endorse the structural equations model constructed in which library variable is the least significant in the prediction. In contrast, the CQA explains in a more evident way the effect of family literacy practices on those of students than the SEM. The practices developed by students can be explained based on the social values that families give to literacy practices. The influence of socioeconomic and cultural status in the literacy practices that students develop is lower than what would be expected according to international assessments (PIRLS, PISA).
References
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. A social semiotic frame. London and New York: 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. Clark, V. L. P., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks, California. 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. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Flecha, R. (2014). Using Mixed Methods From a Communicative Orientation: Researching With Grassroots Roma. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(3), 245–254. Guzmán-Simón, F., Moreno-Morilla, C., & García-Jiménez, E. (2018). Analysis of different views and conceptualizations of the literacy practices of students, families and teachers in Costa Rican primary education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(3). 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. Howe, K. R. (2012). Mixed Methods, Triangulation, and Causal Explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 89–96. 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. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. London and New York: Routledge McKim, C. A. (2017). The Value of Mixed Methods Research: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. Rowsell, J. & Pahl, K. (2007). Sedimented identities in texts: Instances of practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388-404. 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. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The New Era of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. Van Leewen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London and New York: Routledge. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.