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

Volviendo a pensar la alfabetización a través de los métodos mixtos: un estudio desde la mirada de los alumnos, las familias y el profesorado en la Educación Primaria en España


Resumen


Los métodos mixtos presentan una alternativa sobre la investigación de la alfabetización como un fenómeno complejo. Este artículo analiza la integración de enfoques cuantitativos y cualitativos para hacer inferencias causales entre la alfabetización como práctica social y los diferentes espacios de interacción. Este estudio se realizó siguiendo un diseño secuencial de métodos mixtos. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 1.540 niños, 1.438 familias y 74 maestros. El proceso de recogida de información combinó cuestionarios y procedimientos etnográficos. Los datos se analizaron mediante la realización de análisis correlacionales, modelo de ecuaciones estructurales para grupos múltiples y análisis cualitativos comparativos. La integración aplicada en este estudio permitió identificar e interpretar las inferencias causales que existen entre las prácticas de alfabetización de estudiantes, familias y docentes que tienen lugar dentro y fuera de la escuela. Este estudio destaca la necesidad de considerar en profundidad los procesos de integración y difracción de datos cuantitativos y cualitativos en la investigación sobre alfabetización.


Palabras clave


Métodos mixtos: Educación Primaria; Estatus socioeconómico; Prácticas de alfabetización; Espacio

Texto completo:

PDF (English) PDF

Referencias


  • 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. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47(2), 284-295. 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.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.

https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/scopus_170  https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/esci_225