View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Exploratory Study about Patterns of Parental Home Literacy Activities during the COVID-19 Confinement among Spanish Families

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Exploratory Study about Patterns of Parental Home Literacy Activities during the COVID-19 Confinement among Spanish Families
Language: English
Authors: López-Escribano, Carmen (ORCID 0000-0003-4863-1250), Escudero, Ana (ORCID 0000-0002-0243-4190), Pérez-López, Raquel (ORCID 0000-0002-6019-5984)
Source: Early Education and Development. 2021 32(6):812-829.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, COVID-19, Pandemics, School Closing, Parent Role, Literacy Education, Parent Child Relationship, Interaction, Reading, Writing (Composition), Technological Literacy, Creativity, Educational Technology, Individual Characteristics, Learning Activities, Technology Uses in Education, Family Structure, Age Differences
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1916184
ISSN: 1040-9289
Abstract: Research Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic is leading to an unprecedented crisis worldwide. With schools closed, the frequency with which Spanish parents engage in home literacy activities with their children between the ages of 2 and 8 and the sociodemographic variables that influence this collaboration are unknown. The present research aimed to understand interactions among parents and children in the context of literacy activities at home. A total of 337 Spanish parents completed the Home Literacy Activities Questionnaire (HLAQ). Results from the reliability test showed a good adequacy and consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.85), and a factorial analysis indicated all items could be grouped into four factors: reading activities, writing activities, digital literacy activities, and dialogic-creative literacy activities. A latent class cluster analysis, based on parents' factorial scores in the HLAQ and their sociodemographic data, suggested four discrete parental clusters: parents prioritizing writing activities, interested in practicing all type of literacy activities, willing to do digital activities, or ready to practice dialogic-creative literacy activities. All indicators and sociodemographic characteristics -- the children's age, the number of children in the family, and the parents' educational level -- were significant and discriminated among the parental clusters. The activities carried out with least frequency were dialogic-creative literacy activities and digital literacy activities. Practice or Policy: Schools, as well as researchers, must be intentional about engaging families who may not be aware of certain activities to support their young children's literacy skills, in times of crisis, for all children and families, for specific groups of families and children, and at varying grade levels.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1305435
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEItvDf0NOSEL6XsJURftyrAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDF0cviLWYPuvvwAwiwIBEICBmq2NTOAeBaCMelGI_HXaDJdj8rT9eRZZ7h5s12rnTffJ_qwkywHjknntJildFoHs97wt1ikaIfI2nhlYSVwB0XExt6jVhSHiUKmmb4vzPvQaBCqmLOD7lrwwhz30RbCrUa9CC99HzRespFgpM-h05Ih0ODpyOkvXuK6w6TQxrEIzJ_s41zwxMmd9XYfJhvZGGtJvBKBMvJ8jkPI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0151486772;h4j01aug.21;2021Jul22.01:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0151486772-1">An Exploratory Study about Patterns of Parental Home Literacy Activities during the COVID-19 Confinement among Spanish Families </title> <sbt id="AN0151486772-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Research Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic is leading to an unprecedented crisis worldwide. With schools closed, the frequency with which Spanish parents engage in home literacy activities with their children between the ages of 2 and 8 and the sociodemographic variables that influence this collaboration are unknown. The present research aimed to understand interactions among parents and children in the context of literacy activities at home. A total of 337 Spanish parents completed the Home Literacy Activities Questionnaire (HLAQ). Results from the reliability test showed a good adequacy and consistency (Cronbach's alpha.85), and a factorial analysis indicated all items could be grouped into four factors: reading activities, writing activities, digital literacy activities, and dialogic-creative literacy activities. A latent class cluster analysis, based on parents' factorial scores in the HLAQ and their sociodemographic data, suggested four discrete parental clusters: parents prioritizing writing activities, interested in practicing all type of literacy activities, willing to do digital activities, or ready to practice dialogic-creative literacy activities. All indicators and sociodemographic characteristics – the children's age, the number of children in the family, and the parents' educational level – were significant and discriminated among the parental clusters. The activities carried out with least frequency were dialogic-creative literacy activities and digital literacy activities. Practice or Policy: Schools, as well as researchers, must be intentional about engaging families who may not be aware of certain activities to support their young children's literacy skills, in times of crisis, for all children and families, for specific groups of families and children, and at varying grade levels.</p> <p>Spanish children under the age of 14 suffered the strictest confinement measures of the European Union during the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 14, 2020 a national <emph>state of alarm</emph> was decreed (Royal Decree, 463/[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>] of March 14) that remained in force until June 21 (Ministerial Order SND/535/[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>] of June 17). Between March 14 and April 27, when the government began a gradual de-escalation, children and adolescents under the age of 14 had to stay at home, the majority without even going out on the street at all. As of April 27, children younger than 14 were allowed to leave their houses between 12pm and 7pm. They were only allowed to take a one-hour walk, less than a kilometer away from their home, once a day, and accompanied by a parent or caregiver. From May 28, the time slots were made more flexible; however, the amount of time they could stay outside remained set at one hour. It was not until June 21, with the end of the <emph>state of alarm</emph>, that total freedom of movement was recovered.</p> <p>Children's outdoor recreational spaces and sports facilities remained closed from March 14 to June 21. In summary, Spanish children were confined to their homes for more than three months: the first six weeks without going outside at all and the remaining seven weeks leaving the house for a mere one hour a day.</p> <p>Under these circumstances, educational activity in schools was paralyzed and parents found themselves having to assume the role of teachers. With children at home all day, families had to combine household tasks with their work and taking care of children.</p> <p>During the confinement (also known as "lockdown"; the terms are used interchangeably within this paper), remote media have played a role in helping families to support children's development. School teachers were the most important resource available to help parents; a large number continued teaching remotely through educational platforms, especially from first grade on. On some occasions, parents would receive lesson plans via WhatsApp, Telegram, or e-mail. However, children at preschool level – aged 0–6 years – received less time and fewer resources dedicated to their education during the COVID-19 crisis (Vicente-Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref3">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>National and international institutions responsible for children's services and education launched online platforms to support families during the confinement. For instance, the Spanish Ministry of Education created the online platform #AprendoEnCasa [#Learningathome] providing general recommendations and resources for teachers, families, and students while schools were closed. One literacy activity particularly recommended on this platform was shared reading (Ministry of Education and Professional Training, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]), and another online platform created by the Pan American Health Organization & World Health Organization ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]) recommended the same activity. Yet another platform promoted 21 creative (and educational) activity ideas for parents to do with children at home, among which shared reading and creative writing were particularly recommended (Gassó Pérez-Portabella, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]). However, while these educational platforms mentioned appropriate literacy activities for children, they did not explain how to carry them out, nor did they provide information to families on how to use technology to improve literacy, or which interactive digital books might be suitable to use at home with children.</p> <p>This period of confinement represents a unique opportunity to study the family context and how children spent their time at home. However, what children and their parents were able or unable to do during the confinement is, if anything, ambiguous. What happened at home during this period? What kind of home literacy activities did parents engage in with their little ones? Did sociodemographic variables influence the type and the frequency of home literacy activities done at home? To date, there is no study that has examined these issues in the Spanish context.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-3">Parental Engagement in Childhood Education</hd> <p>It is well established that parents are vital to their children's development and success both in and out school. Children will benefit when parenting is characterized by commitment, responsibility, and emotional nurturing (Bornstein, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]). This conclusion is supported by decades of research showing that parental engagement is positively linked to children's performance in preschool, kindergarten, and elementary grades (Van Voorgis et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref8">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Martín et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]), 79% of Spanish families believe that they engage with their children's homework during the first school years. It is typically mothers who help their children the most in the initial stages of school (Fernández-Freire et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]; Van Voorgis et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref11">72</reflink>]). The central idea of parental involvement in their child's home learning is sustained by models of <emph>motivational development</emph>. Parental engagement increases levels of achievement in school, as it provides children with a wide variety of motivational resources, which, in turn, encourage children to get involved in schoolwork (Pomerantz et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref12">47</reflink>]). Reports on the benefits to children's motivation and achievement have been so consistently positive that home literacy activities have been called an "essential aspect of responsible parenting" (McBride-Chang, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref13">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a confinement situation, parental engagement is all the more important, as children's only means of continuing to learn to read and write lie within the family home. The role of teaching rests with parents. Children should continue to read and write as frequently as possible to advance their literacy during a confinement scenario, given that all future learning will be based upon the acquisition of solid reading skills. As Yeung and Savage ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref14">76</reflink>]) state, daily systematic teaching of grapheme-phoneme correspondences during shared reading of words in authentic texts promotes reading development. Previous studies have shown that the home literacy environment has a significant effect on children's literacy development across a variety of languages and cultural contexts (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]; Niklas & Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]; Silinskas, Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref17">63</reflink>]; Silinskas, Torppa et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref18">64</reflink>]; Zuilkowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref19">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educational materials for the acquisition of literacy have traditionally been printed. Nowadays, digital literacy activities (e.g., playing games, e-book reading, and writing with tablets and other devices) are very present in the lives of children who are increasingly familiar with technology at an earlier age (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]; Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref21">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-4">Traditional Literacy Activities at Home</hd> <p>From an early age, children become aware that print is meaningful and useful in everyday interactions, through sharing books with parents, their own exploration of writing, and constant exposure to texts and slogans on the street, advertising, and packaging. These attitudes and beliefs are an important foundation for children's eventual acquisition of conventional reading and writing skills (Van Kleeck & Schuele, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref22">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>To date, most studies on the home literacy environment have been guided by the <emph>home literacy model</emph> (Sénéchal & LeFevre, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref23">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref24">58</reflink>]). According to this model, parent-child interactions during home-literacy activities are organized into two categories. The first, <emph>meaning-related literacy activities</emph>, also called <emph>informal</emph>, refers to meaning and interaction. The meaning carried by print is the main focus of these activities, such as parents sharing book reading with their children. The second category is <emph>code-related literacy activities</emph>, also known as <emph>formal</emph>, and refers to the direct teaching of written code through activities around reading and spelling. These activities, although termed "formal," do not have to be structured; they can be made into games. In order to strengthen specific reading readiness skills, during the initial literacy developmental stage (from the early literacy competencies of children in kindergarten to the more advanced competencies of children in Grade 3), both code-related (formal activities) and meaning-related skills (informal activities) should be promoted at home (see Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]; Sénéchal & Young, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref26">60</reflink>]; Van Steensel et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref27">71</reflink>]; Van Voorgis et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref28">72</reflink>]). Formal and informal activities at home might occur simultaneously, but it has been shown that they are carried out relatively independently.</p> <p>Mol et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref29">37</reflink>]) found that literacy practices that actively involve children, such as dialogic book reading (an adult reading a book using systematic dialogic strategies such as asking questions to engage children in the story) are effective at improving expressive and receptive vocabulary compared to shared reading (an adult reading a book without much interaction). Their study indicates that dialogic reading techniques may be particularly effective with 2- and 3-year-olds compared to older 4- to 5-year-olds (Mol et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, any method of reading stories, although beneficial for promoting vocabulary and other language-related skills, is not enough to develop specific reading skills, such as knowledge of the alphabet or decoding (Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref31">57</reflink>]). Levy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]) found that practices that actively involve children, such as the child reading to the parents, more consistently predict the development of literacy skills compared to when children are restricted to passive listening.</p> <p>The development of emergent literacy skills is influenced both by the quantity of activities carried out and by the quality of those activities, in particular how the interaction between parents and children is developed and promoted (Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref34">65</reflink>]). Code-related activities are usually assessed in terms of how frequently parents are teaching particular letters/words, while meaning-related activities are usually assessed by the frequency and variety of shared book reading sessions and access to literacy resources (Sénéchal, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref35">56</reflink>]; Sénéchal & Lefevre, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref36">58</reflink>]). There is no doubt that the frequency of reading activities that parents dedicate their time to will have an impact on the child's literacy development (Hood et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>]; Jung, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]; Silinskas, Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref39">63</reflink>]; Silinskas, Torppa et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]). In conclusion, not all literacy experiences at home affect children's development in the same way; the frequency of parental involvement, the age of the child, and the type of activity might make a big difference (Silinskas, Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref41">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-5">Digital Literacy Activities at Home</hd> <p>Technology has made significant changes to literacy as apps, digital books, and videogames rapidly provide access to digital content on electronic devices, often handheld and mobile, such as smartphones and tablets (Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]). Digital technologies affect methods of reading and writing and encompass concepts such as "multimodal" and "multiliteracy." Multimodal refers to text that incorporates a wide range of modes: visual, aural, embodied, and spatial aspects of interaction and environments (Hoel & Tønnessen, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]; Jewitt, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]). Multiliteracy theory suggests that there is a plurality of literacies; that different technological applications and platforms require different constellations of literacy skills (Cope & Kalantzis, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref45">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Currently, children across all levels of society are using digital technologies and mobile media on a daily basis (American Academy of Pediatrics, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]; Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref48">51</reflink>]). However, research on the educational value of digital literacy for children is still in its early stages. As Bus et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]) point out, we are only beginning to understand what this digital shift means for young children's literacy development. In addition, research that provides information about the role of the family in supporting young children's encounters with technology at home is limited (Plowman et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]). Nevertheless, a growing body of research suggests that young children are using digital devices in their home literacy environment (Dore et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref51">9</reflink>]; Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref53">30</reflink>]; Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref56">51</reflink>]; Stephen et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref57">66</reflink>]). Below we briefly summarize key findings related to the home digital literacy environment, recognizing that these represent but a portion of the rapidly growing knowledge base in this area.</p> <p>One of the key findings in the three reports by Rideout ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref58">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref59">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref60">51</reflink>]) was that despite the emergence of digital devices, electronic reading has not become popular among children of age 8 and under. Children are more likely to have used a smartphone or tablet to watch videos, play games, and use apps than to have read books on them. Electronic reading occurs much less frequently than print reading. On average, children spent 3 to 5 minutes a day with electronic books, compared to 29 minutes a day reading in print. In addition, Strauss and Ganea ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref61">67</reflink>]) found that parents of young children hold a preference for print books over digital books, and report more frequent usage of print than electronic books.</p> <p>A study by Dore et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]) found that e-books with audio narration allow children to comprehend content, indicating that using e-books independently may be a valuable practice for children while parents are otherwise busy. However, results also showed that children recall the most information about the e-book after reading with a parent. Many studies conclude that learning improves when the e-book is shared with an adult (Miller & Warschauer, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]; Neumann & Neumann, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>]; Reich et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref65">48</reflink>]; Salmon, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref66">54</reflink>]); however, Zipke's ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref67">78</reflink>]) study is an exception: the author reported that the preschoolers' word recognition and story comprehension scores were higher in the independent condition than in the guided one.</p> <p>In line with the growing body of literature on the impact of digital devices on early reading, Reich et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]) reported that well-designed digital books are as effective as printed books in improving reading acquisition results. Along these same lines, studies have shown that digital books support the development of children's vocabulary (Ihmeideh, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref69">19</reflink>]; Klop et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]; Whalon et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref71">75</reflink>]); spelling development (Zipke, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref72">78</reflink>]); and reading comprehension (Dore et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]; Korat et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref74">25</reflink>]). It should be noted that all of these studies have been carried out by researchers or teachers in the school context, only Dore et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>]) study was performed at home.</p> <p>Elimelech and Aram ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>]) demonstrate the effectiveness of a computerized game adapted to the orthography for promoting children's understanding of the writing system without adult assistance. However, a study by Arndt ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>]) found that a conclusion for or against the use of digital media for learning to write cannot be drawn, because of the lack of direct comparisons of early writing with and without digital media learning.</p> <p>Parents are concerned about digital media's perceived negative effects on children's health, general development, and outdoor play (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref78">30</reflink>]) and about the amount of violence, sexual content, and advertising that it may contain (Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref79">51</reflink>]). Nonetheless, it is widely held that children should learn to work with technology as early as possible, to provide young people with 21st-century knowledge. In this sense, parents also hold positive views toward technology use and are able to identify a range of benefits that their children have acquired (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]; Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref81">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-6">Impact of Demographic Characteristics on Home Activities</hd> <p>Demographic characteristics undoubtedly contribute to child development. Some of the aspects to consider are parental educational level, number of siblings, and the age of the children. For example, previous research shows that the educational attainment of the parents is related to reading acquisition predictors in their children (Leppänen et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref82">26</reflink>]; Silinskas et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref83">62</reflink>]; Torppa et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref84">69</reflink>]). More often than not, parents with a higher level of education will be more involved in teaching their children how to read (Schaub, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref85">55</reflink>]; Torppa et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref86">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>The effect of the number of siblings has also been studied and becomes evident when indicators of school and educational success are measured. For example, children with fewer siblings achieve better school results than those who come from families with a greater number of siblings (Iacovou, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref87">18</reflink>]; Keller et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref88">23</reflink>]; Park, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref89">44</reflink>]). Each additional sibling, according to the <emph>resource dilution model</emph> (Blake, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>]) means a reduction in each child's corresponding share of educational opportunities and parental care and teaching, which may impact their intellectual development.</p> <p>The age of the children and their reading level can be a determining factor in the type of activities that parents do with them at home. On one hand, the child's age determines the literacy activities they can do at home. Burns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref91">6</reflink>]) give the following guidelines according to the age of the child:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Birth to age 4: Extended vocabulary and language development. Speech discrimination. Letter and early word recognition. Literacy as source of enjoyment.</item> <p></p> <item> Age 4–8 years: Book and print awareness. Phonological awareness. Language comprehension and comprehension techniques. Letter decoding and word recognition. Spelling and writing.</item> </ulist> <p>On the other hand, the level of parental involvement in reading activities at home decreases with age. According to a study by Silinskas, Sénéchal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref92">63</reflink>]) mothers spend less time in shared reading activities with their children as they progress from preschool to second grade and can read independently. A similar conclusion was reached by Strauss and Ganea ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref93">67</reflink>]) related to digital literacy: parent-child interaction with digital books declines with the child's increasing age.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-7">The Present Study</hd> <p>This study focuses on the home literacy environment experienced by young children aged 2 to 8 years during the COVID-19 confinement in Spain. Literacy activities that can be carried out at home have been well documented in previous literature; however, little is known about the type and frequency of activities families carried out during the COVID-19 confinement. Understanding how families functioned during this time is necessary in order to design effective assistance strategies for future crisis situations. This study contributes to exploring parent-child interactions in the home context. Specifically, the aim of the current research was to investigate the type and frequency of home-based literacy activities that Spanish parents carried out with their young children during the lockdown, and to examine whether the influence of sociodemographic characteristics in the reported activities were in line with the previous reviewed research. The specific objectives pursued in this research were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To assess the psychometric properties of the Home Literacy Activities Questionnaire (HLAQ) to measure physical and literacy home activities for a Spanish sample.</item> <p></p> <item> To explore parental behavior patterns according to home literacy activities carried out by parents and sociodemographic characteristics.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0151486772-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151486772-9">Participants</hd> <p>The sample included 337 parents, 87.2% mothers and 12.5% fathers (see Table 1). The parent's average age was 39.06 years; the number of children in the family was between one and nine. Forty-four percent of the participants held a bachelor's degree. Half of the parents reported being religious (56.6%) and most of the families lived in an urban area (75.4%). Parents completed the questionnaire referring to one of their children, all of them aged from 24 to 107 months (Average age = 5.42 years; 49.9% girls, 50.1% boys).</p> <p>Table 1. Participants' sociodemographic variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Sociodemographic variables</td><td>N</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td /><td /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>21–30</td><td>12</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>31–40</td><td>191</td><td>57.0</td></tr><tr><td>41–50</td><td>129</td><td>38.5</td></tr><tr><td>51 or more</td><td>3</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mothers</td><td>294</td><td>87.2</td></tr><tr><td>Fathers</td><td>42</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>Educational level</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Primary Education</td><td>26</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>High School Diploma</td><td>55</td><td>16.4</td></tr><tr><td>Certificate</td><td>35</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>148</td><td>44.0</td></tr><tr><td>Master's degree</td><td>45</td><td>13.4</td></tr><tr><td>PhD.</td><td>27</td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Living area</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>254</td><td>75.4</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>83</td><td>24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Religious affiliation</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Secular</td><td>145</td><td>43.4</td></tr><tr><td>Religious (catholic)</td><td>189</td><td>56.6</td></tr><tr><td>Children's age</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2 years old</td><td>42</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>3 years old</td><td>44</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>4 years old</td><td>51</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td>5 years old</td><td>64</td><td>19.0</td></tr><tr><td>6 years old</td><td>50</td><td>14.8</td></tr><tr><td>7 years old</td><td>51</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td>8 years old</td><td>35</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><td>Children's gender</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Girls</td><td>168</td><td>49.9</td></tr><tr><td>Boys</td><td>169</td><td>50.1</td></tr><tr><td>Number of children in the family</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>108</td><td>32.0</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>187</td><td>55.5</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>31</td><td>9.2</td></tr><tr><td>4 and more</td><td>11</td><td>3.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Missing values are detected in age (2 cases), gender (1 case), and religious affiliation (3 cases).</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-10">Procedure</hd> <p>This study is embedded in a broader research project about parenting practices during the COVID-19 confinement. The data were collected virtually during the lockdown (April–May 2020), while there was no face-to-face schooling taking place.</p> <p>Participants completed an online survey. They were reached by e-mail or social networks, and school principals, counselors, and families helped to distribute the survey.</p> <p>Parents were informed about the research project, the time needed to complete all the required information, and data confidentiality. Afterward, participants responded to several sociodemographic questions regarding gender, age, educational level, living area, and religious affiliation, as well as other questions concerning their children, including the number of children in the family, and the gender and age of the target child. Once this section was completed, participants filled out the Home Literacy Activities Questionnaire (HLAQ). It took approximately 10 minutes to complete all the questions.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-11">Measures</hd> <p>The HLAQ used was a 23-item questionnaire adapted from Aram and Levin ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>]) and Meoded Karabanov and Aram ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref95">33</reflink>]). The original English questionnaire was adapted and translated to Spanish by the authors of this study. Disagreements about the translated items were reviewed and discussed until a consensus was reached. A back translation was conducted using DeepL Pro Translate. In addition, three Spanish-speaking mothers and three Spanish-speaking experts on early literacy confirmed that the questions were clear.</p> <p>The original questionnaire included 23 questions regarding the types of activities that parents do at home with their children. The majority of the items referred to literacy skills, however five of them related to other activities (e.g., exercising or baking), and these were omitted for this research. The remaining 18 items measured how frequently parents engaged with their children in several types of literacy activities, for instance, "listen to and watch electronic books," using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = "Never" to 5 = "Very frequently").</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-12">Data Analysis</hd> <p>In order to check whether or not the questionnaire was valid within a Spanish sample, we analyzed psychometric properties of the HLAQ. The reliability analysis was conducted along with factor analyses; all were run using SPSS v.25. To examine both the frequency of the learning experiences and the existence of different parental patterns, a latent class clusters analysis (LCCA) was conducted using Latent Gold® 5.1. The LCCA is a technique frequently used in different fields such as consumer sciences (García, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref96">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref97">14</reflink>]; Oppewal et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref98">42</reflink>]) and more recently educational sciences (e.g., Galvez-Nieto et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref99">12</reflink>]; Tang et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref100">68</reflink>]). Latent class analysis and latent profile analysis "are useful when you want to reduce a large number of continuous (LPA) or categorical (LCA) variables to a few subgroups" (Oberski, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref101">41</reflink>], p. 275). Therefore, given that the present research included different types of variables, a LCCA appeared to be an appropriate method. This analysis was based on parents' sociodemographic data (as covariates) and their factorial scores in the HLAQ (as indicator variables). By construction, the computed factorial scores by the regression method are standardized to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation to 1. Therefore, for the interpretation of these scores, it should be noted that 0 represents the average rating of the specific sample in each one of the dimensions identified by the factorial analysis. In this study, the average raw scores for the four factors fluctuated between 2.52 and 3.65 (out of 5).</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151486772-14">HLAQ's Psychometric Properties for a Spanish Sample</hd> <p>Spanish parents reported that the most and least frequent home literacy activities performed during the confinement were as follows: reading children's storybooks with the child and creating the alphabet from varied materials (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Factor loadings for each item of the home literacy activities questionnaire (HLAQ)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Items</td><td /><td /><td>Factor</td><td>Dimension</td></tr><tr><td>Mean*</td><td>SD</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Play games with the child where the child learns letters</td><td>3.91</td><td>1.00</td><td>.57</td><td>.03</td><td>.09</td><td>−.18</td><td>Reading activities</td></tr><tr><td>Read signs or labels</td><td>3.53</td><td>1.22</td><td>.55</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.34</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Read children's storybooks with the child</td><td>4.46</td><td>0.80</td><td>.52</td><td>.20</td><td>.07</td><td>.20</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Play sound games (like rhymes)</td><td>3.41</td><td>1.19</td><td>.37</td><td>.39</td><td>.06</td><td>−.04</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Read information books</td><td>3.48</td><td>1.11</td><td>.33</td><td>.23</td><td>.26</td><td>.09</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Read with the child taking turns</td><td>3.09</td><td>1.42</td><td>.26</td><td>.09</td><td>.14</td><td>−.21</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Plan and perform an imaginary play based on a book you read or movie you watched</td><td>2.75</td><td>1.31</td><td>−.11</td><td>.84</td><td>−.05</td><td>.03</td><td>Dialogic-creative literacy activities</td></tr><tr><td>Invent a story together and tell it by heart</td><td>2.57</td><td>1.28</td><td>.01</td><td>.65</td><td>.00</td><td>.00</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Create the alphabet from varied materials</td><td>1.99</td><td>1.17</td><td>.03</td><td>.57</td><td>.03</td><td>−.11</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Play with magnet letters</td><td>2.76</td><td>1.35</td><td>.16</td><td>.37</td><td>.07</td><td>−.04</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Listen and watch electronic books</td><td>2.29</td><td>1.23</td><td>−.15</td><td>.16</td><td>.75</td><td>.03</td><td>Digital literacy activities</td></tr><tr><td>Play digital games that involve reading</td><td>2.81</td><td>1.28</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.07</td><td>.57</td><td>−.33</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Listen to stories or songs on digital devices</td><td>3.47</td><td>1.16</td><td>.11</td><td>−.08</td><td>.48</td><td>.05</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Write WhatsApp messages to the family</td><td>3.18</td><td>1.44</td><td>.07</td><td>.03</td><td>.26</td><td>−.13</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Encourage the child to copy letters/words</td><td>3.80</td><td>1.20</td><td>.04</td><td>.10</td><td>.02</td><td>−.82</td><td>Writing activities</td></tr><tr><td>Work in reading and writing workbooks</td><td>3.61</td><td>1.34</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.03</td><td>.15</td><td>−.70</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Encourage the child to write his/her name and names of family members</td><td>3.83</td><td>1.21</td><td>.20</td><td>.13</td><td>−.07</td><td>−.66</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Write notes with the child</td><td>2.73</td><td>1.25</td><td>.20</td><td>.20</td><td>.07</td><td>−.24</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Extraction Method: unweighted least squares; Rotation method: Direct Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. Loadings larger than.26 are in bold. Factor I: Reading activities (Cronbach's alpha =.72); Factor II: Dialogic-creative activities (Cronbach's alpha =.71); Factor III: Digital activities (Cronbach's alpha =.62); Factor IV: Writing activities (Cronbach's alpha =.76)</item> <item>3 <emph>*</emph>Raw scores in a Likert scale from 1 to 5</item> </ulist> <p>The reliability analysis for the HLAQ showed good adequacy. Cronbach's alpha was.852, meaning that the scale had high consistency (Nunnally & Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref102">40</reflink>]) and was adequate to measure the engagement on literacy activities between parents and children at home.</p> <p>An unweighted least-squares factorial analysis with a direct oblimin rotation was completed, indicating that four factors explained a total of 54.55% of the variance. These four dimensions were extracted and the reliability analysis conducted for all of them. Cronbach's alpha scores ranged from.62 to.76, suggesting that the items could be grouped into four categories (see Table 2), with acceptable consistency.</p> <p>The first factor comprised <emph>reading activities</emph> such as reading signs and nonfiction books, and taking turns reading (see Table 2). The second factor consisted of <emph>dialogic-creative literacy activities</emph> involving activities such as, for instance, taking part in interactive dialogue about a text, and creating or playing using letters. The third factor was <emph>digital literacy activities</emph> involving listening to and watching electronic books, writing using digital devices, or playing digital games that involve reading. The last factor comprised <emph>writing activities</emph> related to encouraging the child to write his/her name or the names of family members, copying letters or words, or working with reading and writing workbooks.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-15">Parental Behavior Patterns When Performing Literacy Activities at Home</hd> <p>In order to understand whether there were different patterns of parental behavior, a LCCA was run based on parents' factorial scores in the HLAQ (as indicator variables) and their sociodemographic data (as covariates). There were six missing values in some of the covariates; therefore, these data were excluded from the analysis, resulting in a revised total sample of 331 parents. To select the appropriate number of clusters, Wedel and Kamakura ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref103">74</reflink>]) proposal was used – the best fitting model was determined by using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Taking this into account, a total of ten models were estimated, from one to ten clusters (see Table 3). Additionally, following García ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref104">14</reflink>]), each model was estimated 10 times with different random start values, and the superiority of the 4-cluster model was found to be consistent. The four-cluster model, with the lowest values on the BIC, was chosen.</p> <p>Table 3. Assessment of model fit</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Model</td><td>Log-likelihood (LL)</td><td>BIC (LL)</td><td>Classification Error</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1-Cluster</td><td>−1709.55</td><td>3465.52</td><td>.00</td></tr><tr><td>2-Cluster</td><td>−1551.76</td><td>3277.58</td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>3-Cluster</td><td>−1451.19</td><td>3204.09</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td>4-Cluster*</td><td>−1376.41</td><td>3182.18</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td>5-Cluster</td><td>−1340.68</td><td>3238.37</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>6-Cluster</td><td>−1306.18</td><td>3297.01</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>7-Cluster</td><td>−1263.64</td><td>3339.57</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>8-Cluster</td><td>−1228.84</td><td>3397.62</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td>9-Cluster</td><td>−1202.84</td><td>3473.27</td><td>.05</td></tr><tr><td>10-Cluster</td><td>−1194.03</td><td>3583.309</td><td>.07</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The four-cluster model was selected, and all the indicators and covariates were examined (Table 4). Based on the Wald statistic, all four indicators were significant (<emph>p</emph> <.05), meaning that these indicators discriminated between the clusters. Additionally, significant effects were found for four covariates: child's age, number of children in the family, parent's gender, and parental educational level, with a significant associated level lower than.05.</p> <p>Table 4. Indicators and covariates' significance for the 4-cluster model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Wald statistic</td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Indicator</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Reading activities</td><td>151.98</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Dialogic-creative literacy activities</td><td>130.54</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Digital literacy activities</td><td>50.87</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Writing activities</td><td>343.84</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Covariate</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Child's age</td><td>22.79</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Child's gender</td><td>4.99</td><td>.17</td></tr><tr><td>Number of children in the family</td><td>9.25</td><td>.026</td></tr><tr><td>Living area</td><td>3.05</td><td>.38</td></tr><tr><td>Religion</td><td>0.11</td><td>.99</td></tr><tr><td>Parent's gender</td><td>18.29</td><td>.006</td></tr><tr><td>Parent's age</td><td>0.91</td><td>.82</td></tr><tr><td>Parental education</td><td>147.42</td><td>.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To give meaning to the resulting profiles regarding home literacy activities, non-significant covariates have been omitted from this section. Additionally, given that most of the responders were mothers, the covariate <emph>parent's gender</emph> was removed as well. As shown in Table 5, there were four clusters, each named for the type of home literacy activities that parents reported performing with their children. It is important to note that the name of the cluster indicates the preferences of families <emph>relative to the other activities within that cluster</emph>, and is not indicative of families within that cluster performing a certain type of activity with a higher frequency overall (see Figure 1). For example, families in cluster 4 –<emph>Ready to practice dialogic-creative literacy activities</emph> showed a preference for dialogic-creative literacy activities compared to the other activities, but there were other two clusters that actually carried out a higher frequency of dialogic-creative literacy activities overall. Cluster 1 – <emph>Prioritizes writing activities</emph> held the largest number of parents (52.5% of the participants) in contrast to cluster 4 – <emph>Ready to practice dialogic-creative literacy activities</emph>, which held the smallest number (13.6% of the participants).</p> <p>Table 5. Four patterns of parental home literacy activities considering significant covariates</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Prioritizes writing activities</td><td>Interested in practicing all types of literacy activities</td><td>Willing to do digital activities</td><td>Ready to practice creative-dialogic activities</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Significant covariates (sociodemographic data)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Children's age (<italic>M</italic> in months)</td><td>67.96</td><td>68.51</td><td>79.87</td><td>34.88</td></tr><tr><td>24–40 months</td><td>11.1%</td><td>12.0%</td><td>3.2%</td><td>84.0%</td></tr><tr><td>41–59 months</td><td>22.6%</td><td>23.6%</td><td>11.7%</td><td>15.9%</td></tr><tr><td>60–71 months</td><td>22.6%</td><td>26.9%</td><td>13.7%</td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>72–87 months</td><td>25.2%</td><td>15.2%</td><td>31.3%</td><td>0.0%</td></tr><tr><td>88–107 months</td><td>18.5%</td><td>22.3%</td><td>40.2%</td><td>0.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Number of children in the family (on average)</td><td>1.89</td><td>1.78</td><td>2.24</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td>Parental education Primary education</td><td>9.8%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>15.8%</td><td>0.0%</td></tr><tr><td>High school</td><td>17.5%</td><td>14.9%</td><td>20.7%</td><td>6.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Certificate</td><td>13.8%</td><td>7.3%</td><td>10.3%</td><td>2.9%</td></tr><tr><td>BA</td><td>39.3%</td><td>53.0%</td><td>36.3%</td><td>59.2%</td></tr><tr><td>MA</td><td>14.5%</td><td>12.2%</td><td>10.6%</td><td>15.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Ph.D.</td><td>5.1%</td><td>12.5%</td><td>6.4%</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster Size</td><td>52.5%</td><td>18.9%</td><td>15.1%</td><td>13.6%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Four patterns of parental home literacy activities considering all indicators (M scores)*</p> <p>Each cluster can be characterized as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Cluster 1 – <emph>Prioritizes writing activities</emph>: This group consisted of parents who reported doing activities related to writing more frequently than the other type of activities. Their ratings of their engagement in reading, digital, and dialogic- creative activities with their children were close to the average level of the current sample. The cluster comprised parents whose children were around 5.6 years old (see Table 5). They were two-children families; 39.3% of the parents held a bachelor's degree, 14.5% a master's degree, and 5.1% a doctoral degree.</item> <p></p> <item> Cluster 2 – <emph>Interested in practicing all type of literacy activities</emph>: This cluster comprised parents who presented the highest scores in all four indicators: reading, writing, digital, and dialogic-creative activities. They were more inclined to engage in any kind of literacy activities (see Table 5). Parents in this group had children around 5.8 years old. Generally, they were two-children families. A total 53.0% of parents held a bachelor's degree, 12.2% a master's degree, and 12.5% a doctoral degree.</item> <p></p> <item> Cluster 3 – <emph>Willing to do digital activities</emph>: In general, participants in this group reported carrying out all kinds of activities; however, their scores were lower than the sample's average (see Table 5). In spite of this, these parents could be distinguished by their willingness to perform digital activities with their children. The majority were two-children families, with the target child around 6.6 years old. Parents' educational level was distributed among all categories, with 36.3% holding a bachelor's degree, 10.6% a master's degree, and 6.4% a doctoral degree.</item> <p></p> <item> Cluster 4 – <emph>Ready to practice dialogic-creative activities</emph>: This cluster grouped parents who also scored below the average frequency level in reading, digital, and writing activities. Parents in this group were more likely to carry out dialogic-creative activities with their child. Mainly these were only-child families, with the child being around 3 years old. A total of 59.2% of parents in this cluster hold a bachelor's degree, 15.4% a master's degree, and 16.0% doctoral degree.</item> </ulist> <p>Several pairwise comparisons were done in order to identify whether there were any differences between the clusters in terms of the four indicators. The Wald test showed significant differences for the majority of the comparisons (see Table 6). As previously stated, parents who reported to be "Interested in practicing all kind of literacy activities" (cluster 2) scored significantly higher than the rest of participants in the four indicators.</p> <p>Table 6. Differences in indicators between clusters of parental home literacy activities</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Differences between clusters</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic>-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reading activities</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 2</td><td>87.53</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 3</td><td>83.49</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 4</td><td>5.11</td><td>1</td><td>.024</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 3</td><td>137.4</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 4</td><td>63.78</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 3 and 4</td><td>25.31</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Dialogic-creative literacy activities</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 2</td><td>9.06</td><td>1</td><td>.003</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 3</td><td>68.04</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 4</td><td>1.47</td><td>1</td><td>.23</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 3</td><td>52.27</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 4</td><td>3.67</td><td>1</td><td>.055</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 3 and 4</td><td>42.47</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Digital literacy activities</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 2</td><td>12.96</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 3</td><td>19.24</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 4</td><td>10.6</td><td>1</td><td>.001</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 3</td><td>38.44</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 4</td><td>28.02</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 3 and 4</td><td>0.36</td><td>1</td><td>.55</td></tr><tr><td>Writing activities</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 2</td><td>213.47</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 3</td><td>18.65</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 1 and 4</td><td>54.96</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 3</td><td>68.51</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2 and 4</td><td>106.55</td><td>1</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 3 and 4</td><td>7.74</td><td>1</td><td>.005</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Only three non-significant comparisons were found: between clusters 1 and 4 and clusters 2 and 4 in dialogic-creative literacy activities, and between clusters 3 and 4 regarding digital literacy activities. Regarding the first two differences, even though parents in cluster 4 reported being less frequently engaged in reading, writing, and digital literacy activities than parents in both the groups "Prioritizes writing activities" (cluster 1) and "Interested in practicing all types of activities" (cluster 2), it appeared that their involvement in dialogic-creative activities was similar to those shown by clusters 1 and 2, respectively. Considering the last difference, parents "Willing to do digital activities" (cluster 3) showed scores in digital literacy activities similar to those parents in cluster 4; however, parents in cluster 3 reported a significantly lower frequency of reading, writing, and dialogic-creative activities than the other groups.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-16">Discussion</hd> <p>The present research is an exploratory study investigating parents' involvement in different types of literacy activities at home with their children during the COVID-19 lockdown – a situation never experienced before. The first objective of this investigation was to examine the psychometrical properties of the questionnaire designed to collect information about the home literacy activities that parents carried out with their children. The results show that, for the Spanish sample, the HLAQ measures the main meaning-, code- (Sénéchal & LeFevre, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref105">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref106">58</reflink>]), and digital-related (Arndt, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref107">3</reflink>]; Dore et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref108">9</reflink>]) literacy activities appropriate to children between the ages of 2 and 8. Using this measure, we are able to identify that parents reported doing four well-defined types of activities: reading activities, writing activities, digital literacy activities, and dialogic-creative literacy activities.</p> <p>Additionally, the present research attempted to classify parents into specific clusters, depending on the home activities carried out with their 2- to 8-year-olds during confinement, along with their sociodemographic characteristics. All families reported being involved in some way in their child's home literacy activities during confinement. However, each parent's pattern is distinct. The LCCA results indicated that the parents' factorial scores in the HLAQ were significant and discriminated between the emergent four clusters. Additionally, significant effects were found for families' sociodemographic characteristics: child's age, number of children in the family, and parental educational level. As in previous studies (Fernández-Freire et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref109">11</reflink>]; Van Voorgis et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref110">72</reflink>]) a higher percentage of mothers (87.2%), as opposed to fathers, were engaged in literacy activities with their children.</p> <p>Cluster 1 (Prioritizes writing activities) is the largest group by far (52.5% of families), compared to 18.9% of families (cluster 2), 15.1% (cluster 3), and 13.6% (cluster 4). This group of parents carried out the four types of literacy activities identified from the factor analysis with an about average frequency in comparison with the other three clusters. They carried out significantly fewer literacy activities than cluster 2, and more overall literacy activities than the rest of the clusters except for dialogic-creative activities, where there was no significant difference from cluster 4. Families in cluster 1 gave preference to traditional literacy activities. They preferred to get involved in school-based reading tasks and showed less involvement in digital and dialogic-creative literacy activities relative to the other activity types.</p> <p>Cluster 2 (Interested in practicing all type of literacy activities) carried out the four types of literacy activities with a frequency well above average compared with the other three clusters, except for dialogic-creative activities, which were practiced with a similar frequency to cluster 4. This cluster contains the second most educated group of parents. Parents seemed to feel confident with all types of home-based literacy activities in comparison to the other groups, but they were less involved in digital and dialogic-creative activities relative to the other activity types.</p> <p>Cluster 3 (Willing to do digital activities) carried out significantly fewer literacy activities at home than the rest of the clusters, except for digital literacy activities, which showed no significant difference from cluster 4. Even digital literacy activities were carried out infrequently in this cluster – which has the highest percentage of the oldest children of the sample (71% children of aged 6–8 years). This can be compared to cluster 4, where these digital literacy activities were carried out with a similar frequency with children aged 2–4 years. Parents in cluster 3 tend to have more children and the lowest educational level. The activities most selected by this group are writing and digital literacy activities, which seem appropriate taking into account that the older (6–8 years old) children in this cluster might be more advanced in reading and writing.</p> <p>Finally, cluster 4 (Ready to practice dialogic-creative literacy activities) parents selected dialogic-creative for their children at a higher-than-average level, and practiced fewer of the other types of literacy activities. Digital and writing activities in particular were the least-practiced activities for this cluster. This cluster contains the highest percentage of parents with higher education, who are likely to know what type of literacy activities are or are not adequate for their children's age group (2–4 years).</p> <p>In the present study, parental education appears to be related to the frequency and adequacy of the literacy activities they choose for their children (i.e., clusters 2 and 4). As in previous research reports, parents with a higher level of education will be more involved in teaching their children how to read (Schaub, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref111">55</reflink>]; Torppa et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref112">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Parents in cluster 3, which had the highest number of children in the household, appear to be the least involved in activities at home with their children. This confirms the findings of Blake ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref113">4</reflink>]), that higher numbers of children in a family means a corresponding reduction in each child's share of parental care and time spent teaching. In terms of the children's age, parents in cluster 3 had the oldest children in the sample, and they were the least involved of all the clusters. This result is in line with previous research showing that the frequency of parental involvement in reading activities at home seems to decrease with the children's age (Silinskas et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref114">61</reflink>]; Silinskas, Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref115">63</reflink>]; Strauss & Ganea, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref116">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, parents in the present study selected literacy activities appropriate to their children development. Parents in clusters 1 and 2 chose school-related activities (reading and writing) that are adequate for children around 5- and 6-years old. Cluster 4 selected dialogic-creative literacy activities to provide their 2–4-year-olds with extended language and vocabulary skills, in keeping with the findings of Mol et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref117">37</reflink>]) that dialogic reading techniques may be particularly effective with this age group. In addition, cluster 4 selected dialogic-creative and manipulative activities to show letters that do not require fine motor abilities or specific knowledge about code, which is an age-appropriate code-related activity for this group. Likewise, cluster 3 parents carried out activities suitable for children over 6 years of age, particularly writing and digital activities. As shown in previous literature (Silinskas et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref118">61</reflink>]; Silinskas, Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref119">63</reflink>]; Strauss & Ganea, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref120">67</reflink>]), one of the reasons for the low levels of involvement of this group of parents could be that most children can read independently in Spanish by the end of Grade 1, and parents may believe that children no longer need parental support. However, as Burns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]) pointed out, 6–8-year old are still developing key literacy strategies: comprehension techniques, fluency, decoding, and spelling and writing. Therefore, it would still be beneficial for this older group of children to have parental involvement in literacy activities at home.</p> <p>The findings of the present study indicate that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>) a high percentage of families (71.4% – clusters 1 and 2) carried out traditional reading and writing literacy activities more often than dialogic-creative and digital literacy activities; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>) differences in the home context (sociodemographic characteristics) influenced the type and the frequency of literacy activities at home; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref124">3</reflink>) parents seemed to adapt the type of literacy activities to their children's age.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-17">Limitations and Directions for Future Studies</hd> <p>It should be noted that the COVID-19 crisis has been an extreme situation and the results should therefore be considered with caution. Before the confinement, working from home was not a usual practice in Spain, with parents generally commuting to work. This reduced the opportunities for parent-child interaction. There might be some differences in the frequency with which parents get involved in literacy activities at home before and after the crisis situation.</p> <p>Furthermore, taking into consideration that the present research is an exploratory study, results should be carefully interpreted due to the type and frequency of literacy activities carried out at home do not imply quality of parental involvement. Parents need to be guided not only on the frequency and content of literacy activities, but on optimal ways to carry them out.</p> <p>An additional limitation of this study is the lack of data on parent's job situation during the confinement (e.g., flexible smart-working vs working in fixed location and a fixed set of hours to be present) which might have impacted parental involvement in children's development of literacy skills. Further, due to the large age-range of the participating children (2 to 8 years), and research demonstrating that children's age is related to different type of literacy activities at home (Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref125">6</reflink>]; Silinskas, Sénéchal et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref126">63</reflink>]), we controlled children's age in the analyses. Nevertheless, future studies should deeply investigate the type and frequency of literacy activities carried out at home with children at different developmental stages. Additionally, it should be noted that each cluster was labeled subjectively in order to better interpret the data.</p> <p>The HLAQ was consistent in the Spanish sample and, therefore, it could be considered an adequate measure in future research that seeks to understand the home literacy activities that Spanish parents engage in with children aged 2–8 years. More research is needed to understand the four latent parental patterns, how they impact children's literacy development, and how they are related to parental behaviors.</p> <p>The results of the current study were based on children learning to read a transparent written language. As such, they could be generalizable to families in other countries with relatively similar language environments and cultures.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-18">Implications for Policy</hd> <p>The ongoing study of parenting and early literacy and digital activities at home during the COVID-19 crisis is critical for at least two reasons. First, the pandemic is not over yet, and we need more information related to how parents can be supported at home to develop children's emergent literacy skills during these times. Second, it is possible, and highly probable, that distance learning involving families assisting their children will play a key role in education in the future. Therefore, we need a better understanding of the home learning environment.</p> <p>The results of the present study suggest that more than half of parents may not be aware of specific activities that can support their young children's literacy skills. Two of the types of literacy activities identified from the factor analysis – digital and dialogic-creative literacy activities – were conducted less frequently during the lockdown.</p> <p>While progress has been made in understanding the traditional literacy activities that families carried out with their children at home, and parents are well aware of the ways in which print literacy might be supported at home (Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref127">6</reflink>]; Sénéchal & Young, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref128">60</reflink>]; Van Steensel et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref129">71</reflink>]; Van Voorgis et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref130">72</reflink>]), there is still a paucity of data and attention to young children's learning with digital devices in the home context (Plowman et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref131">46</reflink>]). Previous studies have indicated that children as well as parents might prefer interacting with print over electronic books (Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref132">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref133">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref134">51</reflink>]; Strauss & Ganea, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref135">67</reflink>]). This may be the case in this study as well.</p> <p>Despite this, previous research suggests that young children acquire a wide range of competencies when interacting with technology in the home, developed in ways that are not necessary the result of direct teaching (Plowman et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref136">45</reflink>]). A study by Zipke ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref137">78</reflink>]) reported that children feel pride at being allowed to operate the iPad independently and that carefully chosen apps presented on a tablet can offer a wonderfully independent learning experience for young children. Additionally, digital literacy activities could ameliorate the lack of adult support during print story reading (Zhou & Yadav, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref138">77</reflink>]) and give parents extra time in a context of distress such as the current crisis. The parental role may move away from direct support while using the materials to a more distal role, centering on selection and encouragement (Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref139">7</reflink>]). Additionally, the "app gap" has shrunk substantially and more children now have access to digital devices (Rideout, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref140">51</reflink>]) that could open opportunities for parents and children from different backgrounds and situations. More specifically, and perhaps most importantly, given the current online nature of learning under stay-at-home orders, digital tools can be an important means of supporting children's literacy development. Literacy activities should continue to be promoted at home and, particularly, families should be informed of digital literacy activities that can be done at home. This type of resource could be especially valuable for crisis situations such as the current pandemic, or, indeed, for other personal circumstances that a family may encounter. As technology becomes more ubiquitous, parents need to be guided not only on the frequency and content of the media their child uses, but also on how to introduce media at home in dedicated spaces and at set times, and how to initiate social and creative ways to use digital media – and all of this needs to take place without displacing their child's basic needs (American Academy of Pediatrics, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref141">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of the present study also suggest that parents may not necessarily know how to engage with their children in dialogic-creative literacy activities. Given this, a desired outcome of our findings is to encourage researchers and educators to give clear and easily accessible information to families about how interactive shared book reading at home benefits children's literacy development, and how to engage in dialogic and creative reading activities (Inoue et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref142">20</reflink>]; Mol et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref143">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current crisis situation, which is without precedent, teachers have made a great effort to reach children through various educational platforms; likewise, educational administrators have launched websites to help families with general information on interacting with their children at home. It is essential that these resources contain more detailed information on digital resources and shared book reading techniques, and are easy to access for parents. We must bear in mind, as the results of the present study show, that families differ by education, the context where they live, and other circumstances that vary from one family to another, and not all have the same ability to cope with the education of their children. Despite this, a meta-analysis by Van Voorgis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref144">72</reflink>]) indicates that parents from diverse backgrounds, when given direction, can become more engaged with their children – and that their children can increase their literacy skills, on average, to a greater degree than children whose parents are operating without support and direction.</p> <hd id="AN0151486772-19">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0151486772-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref46" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138 (5), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref94" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2014). Promoting early literacy: The differential effects of parent-child joint writing and joint storybook reading interventions. In R. Chen (Ed.), Psychology research progress. Cognitive development: Theories, stages and processes and challenges (pp. 189 – 212). Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref77" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arndt, P. A. (2016). Computer usage for learning how to read and write in primary school. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5 (3), 90 – 98. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.003">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.003</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref90" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children. Demography, 18 (4), 421 – 442. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060941</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bornstein, M. H. (2015). Children's parents. In M. H. Bornstein, T. Leventhal, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes (pp. 55 – 132). John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children's reading success. Specific recommendations from America's leading researchers on how to help children become successful readers. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref42" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bus, A. G., Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2020). Screens, apps, and digital books for young children: The promise of multimedia. AERA Open, 6 (1), 1 – 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420901494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref45" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref51" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dore, R. A., Hassinger-Das, B., Brezack, N., Valladares, T. L., Paller, A., Vu, L., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2018). The parent advantage in fostering children's e-book comprehension. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44 (3), 24 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elimelech, A., & Aram, D. (2019). Using a digital spelling game for promoting alphabetic knowledge of preschoolers: The contribution of auditory and visual supports. Reading Research Quaterly, 55 (2), 235 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.264</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernández-Freire, L., Rodríguez-Ruiz, B., & Martínez-González, R. A. (2019). Padres y madres ante las tareas escolares: La visión del profesorado [Parents and homework: The teachers' perspective]. Aula Abierta, 48 (1), 77 – 84. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.1.2019.77-84</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galvez-Nieto, J. L., García, J. A., Vera-Bachmann, D., Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Polanco, K. (2020). Análisis de clases latentes multinivel del clima escolar: Factores individuales, familiares y comunitarios [Multilevel latent class cluster analysis of school climate: Individual, familiy and comunity factors]. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 25 (2), 85 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2020.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, J. A. (2016). Market segmentation based on time use: An empirical analysis in the historic city of Toledo, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 19 (2), 155 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.842205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, J. A. (2017). Time use patterns of Spanish people at weekends: In search of what, who and when. Leisure Studies, 36 (6), 793 – 810. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2016.1252786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gassó Pérez-Portabella, N. (2020, March 16). 21 ideas creativas (y educativas) para hacer con los niños y niñas en casa [21 creative (and educational) ideas todo with children at home]. El Diario de la Educación. https://bit.ly/3ic9JzM</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoel, T., & Tønnessen, E. S. (2019). Organizing shared digital reading in groups: Optimizing the affordances of text and medium. AERA Open, 5 (4), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419883822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and children's literacy development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 252 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iacovou, M. (2008). Family size, birth order, and educational attainment. Marriage and Family Review, 42 (3), 35 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v42n03_03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ihmeideh, F. M. (2014). The effect of electronic books on enhancing emergent literacy skills of pre-school children. Computers and Education, 79 (10), 40 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inoue, T., Manolitis, G., De Jong, P. F., Landerl, K., Parrila, R., & Georgiou, G. (2020). Home literacy environment and early literacy development across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (1923), 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 250 – 266). SAGE Publising.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jung, E. (2016). The development of reading skills in kindergarten influence of parental beliefs about school readiness, family activities, and children's attitudes to school. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48 (1), 61 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0156-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, K., Troesch, L. M., & Grob, A. (2015). First-born siblings show better second language skills than later born siblings. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (705), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klop, D., Marais, L., Msindwana, A., & De Wet, F. (2018). Learning new words from an interactive electronic storybook intervention. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 65 (1), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v65i1.601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korat, O., Levin, I., Atishkin, S., & Turgeman, M. (2014). E-book as facilitator of vocabulary acquisition: Support of adults, dynamic dictionary and static dictionary. Reading and Writing, 27 (4), 613 – 629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9474-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leppänen, U., Niemi, P., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Development of reading skills among preschool and primary school pupils. Reading Research Quarterly, 39 (1), 72 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.39.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, B. A., Gong, Z., Hessels, S., Evans, M. A., & Jared, D. (2006). Understanding print: Early reading development and the contributions of home literacy experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93 (1), 63 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, C., Georgiou, G. K., & Manolitsis, G. (2018). Modeling the relationships of parents' expectations, family's SES, and home literacy environment with emergent literacy skills and word reading in Chinese. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 43 (2), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2 (1), 51 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X0421003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J. C., Lahmar, J., Scott, F., Davenport, A., Davis, S., French, K., Piras, M., Thornhill, S., Robinson, P., & Winter, P. (2015). Exploring play and creativity in pre-schoolers' use of apps: Final project report. Technology and play. University of Sheffield. <ulink href="http://www.techandplay.org/reports/TAP%5fFinal%5fReport.pdf">http://www.techandplay.org/reports/TAP%5fFinal%5fReport.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martín, E., Rodríguez, V., & Marchesi, A. (2005). La opinión de los profesores sobre la convivencia en los centros [Teachers opinions in cohabitation in schools]. Centro de innovación educativa (CIE-FUHEM) and Instituto de Evaluación y Asesoramiento (IDEA). https://bit.ly/2PqPrGv</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride-Chang, C. (2012). Shared-book reading: There is no downside for parents. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood education and development (pp. 52 – 58). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meoded Karabanov, G., & Aram, D. (2020, June). Literacy activities with preschool children in the digital home environment and children's early literacy [Paper presentation]. Society for Scientific Studies of Reading Annual Conference, Los Angeles, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, E. B., & Warschauer, M. (2014). Young children and e-reading: Research to date and questions for the future. Learning, Media and Technology, 39 (3), 283 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.867868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministerial Order SND/535/2020. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Gobierno de Esapaña. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://bit.ly/3fvj1Fr</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education and Professional Training. (2020). #Aprendoencasa [#Ilearnathome]. Author. https://aprendoencasa.educacion.es</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent-child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19 (1), 7 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701838603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2017). The use of touch-screen tablets at home and pre-school to foster emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17 (2), 203 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415619773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2013). Home literacy environment and the beginning of reading and spelling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 (1), 40 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. In Psychometric theory (3rd ed., pp. 248 – 292). McGraw-Hill, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oberski, D. (2016). Mixture models: Latent profile and latent class analysis. In J. Robertson & M. Kaptein (Eds.), Modern statistical methods for HCI (pp. 275 – 287). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oppewal, H., Paas, L. J., Crouch, G. I., & Huybers, T. (2010). Segmenting consumers based on how they spend a tax rebate: An analysis of the Australian stimulus payment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31 (4), 510 – 519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan American Health Organization & World Health Organization. (2020). Consejos para el público sobre la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19): Crianza saludable [Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: Advocacy]. Author. https://bit.ly/3kchx6x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, H. (2008). Public policy and the effect of sibship size on educational achievement: A comparative study of 20 countries. Social Science Research, 37 (3), 874 – 887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38 (3), 303 – 319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802287564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2012). Preschool children's learning with technology at home. Computers & Education, 59 (1), 30 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents' involvement in children's academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77 (3), 373 – 410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reich, S. M., Yau, J. C., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Tablet-based ebooks for young children: What does the research say? Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 37 (7), 585 – 591. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to Eight. Children's media use in Amarica 2013. Common Sense Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families' educational media use in America. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rideout, V. (2017). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, M. L. (2013). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83 (5), 1762 – 1774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01805.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royal Decree, 463/2020. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Gobierno de España. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://bit.ly/33AAidQ</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmon, L. G. (2014). Factors that affect emergent literacy development when engaging with electronic books. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42 (2), 85 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0589-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaub, M. (2015). Is there a home advantage in school readiness for young children? Trends in parent engagement in cognitive activities with young children, 1991–2001. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13 (1), 47 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X12468122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (1), 59 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., Whissell, J., & Bildfell, A. (2017). Starting from home: Home literacy practices that make a difference. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrilla (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 383 – 408). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.15.22sen</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & Lefevre, J. A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development, 85 (4), 1552 – 1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73 (2), 445 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children's acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 880 – 907. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silinskas, G., Lerkkanen, M. K., Tolvanen, A., Niemi, P., Poikkeus, A. M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2012). The frequency of parents' reading-related activities at home and children's reading skills during kindergarten and Grade 1. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33 (6), 302 – 310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silinskas, G., Parrila, R., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., Niemi, P., & Nurmi, J. E. (2010). Mothers' reading-related activities at home and learning to read during kindergarten. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25 (2), 243 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0014-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silinskas, G., Sénéchal, M., Torppa, M., & Lerkkanen, M. (2020). Home literacy activities and children ' s reading skills, independent reading, and interest in literacy activities from Kindergarten to Grade 2. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (1508), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silinskas, G., Torppa, M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2020). The home literacy model in a highly transparent orthography. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31 (1), 80 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1642213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sonnenschein, S., & Munsterman, K. (2002). The influence of home-based reading interactions on 5-year-olds' reading motivations and early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 (3), 318 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00167-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephen, C., Stevenson, O., & Adey, C. (2013). Young children engaging with technologies at home: The influence of family context. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 11 (2), 149 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X12466215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, G. A., & Ganea, P. A. (2017). A print book preference: Caregivers report higher child enjoyment and more adult-child interactions when reading print than electronic books. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 12 (2), 8 – 15. https//doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, J., Hallam, R. A., & Sawyer-Morris, G. (2020). Preschool parents' perceptions of early care and education arrangements: A latent profile analysis. Early Education and Development, 32 (1), 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1774280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torppa, M., Poikkeus, A. M., Laakso, M. L., Eklund, K., & Lyytinen, H. (2006). Predicting delayed letter knowledge development and its relation to grade 1 reading achievement among children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 42 (6), 1128 – 1142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Kleeck, A., & Schuele, M. (2010). Historical perspective on literacy in early childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19 (4), 341 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0038)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Steensel, R., Herppich, S., McElvany, N., & Kurvers, J. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs for children's literacy skills? A review of the meta-analytic evidence. Review of Educational Research, 81 (1), 69 – 96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310388819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Voorgis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. L. (2013). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8. A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and socio-emotional skills. MDRC. Building Knowledge to Improve Social Policy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vicente-Fernández, P., Vinader-Segura, R., & Puebla-Martínez, B. (2020). Padres ante el desafío educativo en situación de confinamiento comparativo entre Educación Infantil y Educación Primaria [Parents facing the educational challenge in a situation of confinement: A comparative analysis between preeschol education and primary education]. Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje, 13 (27), 56 – 67. https://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/view/2654</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Kluwer Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whalon, K., Hanline, M. F., & Davis, J. (2016). Parent implementation of RECALL: A systematic case study. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51 (2), 211 – 220. https://bit.ly/3kAfgSU</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeung, S. S., & Savage, R. (2020). Teaching grapheme–phoneme correspondences using a direct mapping approach for at-risk second language learners: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53 (2), 131 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419894563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, N., & Yadav, A. (2017). Effects of multimedia story reading and questioning on preschoolers' vocabulary learning, story comprehension and reading engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 (6), 1523 – 1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9533-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zipke, M. (2017). Preschoolers explore interactive storybook apps: The effect on word recognition and story comprehension. Education and Information Technologies, 22 (4), 1695 – 1712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9513-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuilkowski, S. S., McCoy, D. C., Jonason, C., & Dowd, A. J. (2019). Relationships among home literacy behaviors, materials, socioeconomic status, and early literacy outcomes across 14 Low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50 (4), 539 – 555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119837363</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Carmen López-Escribano; Ana Escudero and Raquel Pérez-López</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref142"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1305435
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Exploratory Study about Patterns of Parental Home Literacy Activities during the COVID-19 Confinement among Spanish Families
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22López-Escribano%2C+Carmen%22">López-Escribano, Carmen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4863-1250">0000-0003-4863-1250</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Escudero%2C+Ana%22">Escudero, Ana</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0243-4190">0000-0002-0243-4190</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pérez-López%2C+Raquel%22">Pérez-López, Raquel</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6019-5984">0000-0002-6019-5984</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Education+and+Development%22"><i>Early Education and Development</i></searchLink>. 2021 32(6):812-829.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Closing%22">School Closing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Role%22">Parent Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy+Education%22">Literacy Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading%22">Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Literacy%22">Technological Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Structure%22">Family Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1916184
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-9289
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic is leading to an unprecedented crisis worldwide. With schools closed, the frequency with which Spanish parents engage in home literacy activities with their children between the ages of 2 and 8 and the sociodemographic variables that influence this collaboration are unknown. The present research aimed to understand interactions among parents and children in the context of literacy activities at home. A total of 337 Spanish parents completed the Home Literacy Activities Questionnaire (HLAQ). Results from the reliability test showed a good adequacy and consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.85), and a factorial analysis indicated all items could be grouped into four factors: reading activities, writing activities, digital literacy activities, and dialogic-creative literacy activities. A latent class cluster analysis, based on parents' factorial scores in the HLAQ and their sociodemographic data, suggested four discrete parental clusters: parents prioritizing writing activities, interested in practicing all type of literacy activities, willing to do digital activities, or ready to practice dialogic-creative literacy activities. All indicators and sociodemographic characteristics -- the children's age, the number of children in the family, and the parents' educational level -- were significant and discriminated among the parental clusters. The activities carried out with least frequency were dialogic-creative literacy activities and digital literacy activities. Practice or Policy: Schools, as well as researchers, must be intentional about engaging families who may not be aware of certain activities to support their young children's literacy skills, in times of crisis, for all children and families, for specific groups of families and children, and at varying grade levels.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1305435
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1305435
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1916184
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 812
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Closing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technological Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Exploratory Study about Patterns of Parental Home Literacy Activities during the COVID-19 Confinement among Spanish Families
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: López-Escribano, Carmen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Escudero, Ana
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pérez-López, Raquel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-9289
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Education and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1