The confinement resulting from the COVID-19 health crisis limited opportunities for social interaction and access to formal schooling, particularly affecting children of low socioeconomic status. In this context, the family was the only agent of socialisation and direct interaction with written culture. Because of its importance in literacy development, this study aimed to identify profiles of the literacy home environment. In addition, the relationship between these profiles and the family's socioeconomic level was assessed. The home literacy environment (HLE) questionnaire was administered to 326 families of kindergarten students in urban and rural schools of high, medium, and low socioeconomic levels. Based on a cluster analysis, the results show the existence of two groups of families, characterised by a high and a low level of literacy practices, beliefs about literacy, and the value of reading, respectively. Contrary to expectations, the reading profiles at this stage of development do not show any association with the socioeconomic level of the families. Finally, the implications of these findings for educational interventions in the post-pandemic period are discussed.
Article Details
How to Cite
Muñoz, C., Frez-Aróstica, N., Valenzuela, J., & Centeno, A. (2025). Home literacy environment. Profile analysis by socio-economic status. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2025.24.1.475
Muñoz, Frez-Aróstica, Valenzuela, and Centeno: Home literacy environment. Profile analysis by socio-economic status
Introduction
There is ample evidence of the impact of early interactions on child development in
its different dimensions (). However, important disparities are observed in children's development, even before
they enter school, due to differences in family environments (; ) and socioeconomic status (; ; ).
The home literacy environment (HLE) has been recognised as an important predictor
of children's early literacy and language development (; ; ). Various research has shown that a home promoting literacy experiences provides
significant benefits for literacy development long before school entry (; ).
Despite the substantial benefits that HLE could have on child development, socioeconomic
status can affect its impact. For example, families with lower incomes or with low
or incomplete educational levels tend to have less access to books and educational
materials (), lower frequency of literacy experiences (), and less-favourable beliefs about their children's literacy ().
Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic had great repercussions on different dimensions of
family life and child development, another variable that may have conditioned the
effects of HLE on children's development. In this context, it was observed that children
from the most vulnerable socioeconomic sectors were the most affected in their learning
during this period (; ; ).
With this in mind, the objective of this study was to characterise the types of literacy
environments of Chilean families with preschool children in a post-pandemic context.
In addition, it was proposed to test the hypothesis that these groups would be directly
related to the SES to which they belong.
Analysing these inequalities is relevant and appropriate because it allows us to advance
theoretical knowledge -fundamentally developed in Anglo-Saxon contexts- and contributes
to designing strategies that promote more enriched literacy environments in contexts
of greater vulnerability.
Home literacy environment
The home literacy environment (hereafter HLE) is the environment provided by the family
in which early literacy activities, experiences, and attitudes are developed that
enable children to enhance the development of the precursors of reading, writing,
and language (; ; ; ). At the same time, this environment involves a variety of material and personal
resources, as well as the provision and opportunities provided by families to their
children around literacy (; ).
Home literacy environment variables
The HLE has been the subject of study due to its impact on “emergent literacy” skills
(; ; ; ; ). However, its conceptualization and measurement are still debated, given its “multidimensional
nature” (; ).
Similarly, one of the most studied variables in the HLE has been literacy experiences
at home; however, researchers still differ in the nomination of these. Sénéchal et
al. (1998) distinguish between “formal and informal literacy experiences”. The former
are characterised by their focus on explicitly teaching the written code, as occurs
when teaching letters. At the same time, informal experiences are related to meaning,
as occurs when discussing the moral of a story. Informal literacy activities have
been shown to relate to oral language skills, such as vocabulary development (Sénéchal,
, ), while formal ones would be linked to early literacy skills, such as letter knowledge
(; ).
On the other hand, develop the distinction between “active processes and passive processes”. Active
processes involve direct parental participation in literacy activities, such as shared
reading, and are related to early language development. In contrast, passive processes
refer to situations where children observe their parents using print in functional
contexts, such as reading for information.
Although these distinctions have been understood as equivalent in the literature,
in line with the sociocultural approach to “emergent literacy” (; ), it seems necessary to establish nuances to consider both processes. In this sense,
code- and culture-oriented practices are proposed as complementary concepts.
Code-oriented practices focus on directly teaching letters/numbers or their writing,
aligning with the formal experiences or active processes discussed above. In contrast,
culture-oriented practices emphasise the child's relationship with writing in interactions
mediated by his or her environment (family and/or caregivers). In this context, the
notion of "culture" is a relative concept that allows us to understand practices in
the context of a given social group. The practices performed make sense within these
communities and are valued by their members (). These would be equivalent to the informal practices or active processes mentioned
previously (; ) but highlight the different opportunities that writing offers the individual to
connect with his or her cultural environment and explore the world.
This proposal is consistent with and makes explicit the framework of emergent literacy,
where the child's development is conceived not only from an individual and passive
point of view but as an interaction between the child and the environment in which
he/she develops (). It also highlights the cultural nature of the process of literacy development,
as it requires mediating agents (e.g., parents and reading teachers) to guide and
stimulate this process (; ). In short, this nomination allows us to broaden the vision of the experiences or
activities within the family beyond their formal or informal nature, in addition to
situating them as cultural mediators that transcend the concrete nature of the acquisition
of the code from a formal point of view.
Likewise, it has been observed that the availability of literacy activities, experiences,
and resources in the home is influenced by “parental beliefs” (). These resources impact the precursors to reading and children's language skills
(). observed that families with greater positive beliefs about reading and greater initiative
to encourage active participation of their children in literacy activities would create
an atmosphere of interest in literacy and learning. Thus, the home literacy environment
considers parental beliefs about literacy and their value on literacy practices.
Effect of family on emergent literacy stage
Although not all studies have found the same pattern of significant relationships,
most indicate that family literacy environment is related to children's later reading
achievement. According to the meta-analysis by , HLE is positively correlated with reading comprehension, with a moderate effect
size (z= .32). Likewise, parents' years of schooling, parents' beliefs about literacy,
and parental involvement in children's literacy activities showed similar effect sizes
on children's reading comprehension (zschooling = .27; zbeliefs = .32; zparticipation = .30); although resources present in the home had a small effect (z = .21).
For their part, found that the more access families have to literacy resources, the better their
children perform in emergent literacy skills (e.g., vocabulary, phonological awareness,
and letter knowledge). In turn, shared story reading has been recognised as one of
the literacy experiences with the highest correlation with reading and writing development
(; ), even up to third grade (). Finally, observed that families with greater positive beliefs about reading and greater initiative
to encourage their children's active participation in literacy activities would create
an atmosphere of interest in literacy and learning.
Determinants of family impact on emergent literacy stage
Despite the accumulated evidence on the relationship between the home literacy environment
and the development of children's emergent literacy and language, assessing the effect
of the family on children's literacy in the stage immediately prior to formal reading
instruction is complex, especially because of the difficulty of isolating the effect
of formal preschool experiences and the influence of the families' socioeconomic status.
Socioeconomic status has been extensively studied for its influence on different dimensions
of HLE. In this regard, it has been observed that only 45.7% of mothers without post-secondary
education read to their children at least once a week, which is lower than the rates
observed in families with higher educational levels (). These results coincide with who found that families with less access to books and a low frequency of reading
and writing practices at home were composed of mothers with a low probability of higher
education and a very high probability of having incomplete primary education.
Parental beliefs and value of reading may also be influenced by socioeconomic status.
For example, parents with less schooling start reading stories later than parents
with more schooling (; ). In addition, lower SES families consider learning to read moderately tricky or
very difficult (). They would also place a lower value on reading, as there is less awareness of the
importance of reading practice for children's development ().
For its part, the Covid-19 pandemic challenged all educational systems worldwide.
This event limited opportunities for formal access to reading learning, especially
for low SES children (). In Chile, schools were closed 147 and 112 days during 2020-2021, respectively,
placing it as the nation that experienced the most school closure days among OECD
countries (). In this context, the family constituted the only agent of socialisation and direct
interaction with written culture.
Thus, this context of a generalised lack of formal school education provides an opportunity
to evaluate the net contribution of the HLE during the period of emergent literacy,
since these are schoolchildren who only enter preschool education after the end of
their confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, at the beginning of the Chilean school
year. The above is relevant since the literature reports that the most socioeconomically
vulnerable children were the most affected in their learning during the pandemic ; ; ).
The present study
Based on the background presented, our study aims to characterise the types of profiles
that are possible to identify from variables that have been of interest to assess
the influence of HLE (namely, code-oriented and cultural practices, parental beliefs
about literacy, and value of reading). In addition, considering that SES may impact
the conformation of these profiles, we intend to evaluate whether SES explains in
identified HLE profiles.
Method
Participants
The study participants were 326 families with children enrolled in Pre-Kindergarten
(PK) during 2022 who had no previous preschool experience due to COVID-19 confinement.
Of these families, 59% had daughters (n=135) and 59% had sons (n=194). The average
age of the children at the time of the study was 4.69 years (range 3-5 years). The
children attended different types of educational establishments in the Maule Region
(VII region, Chile). The sample was composed of families of students from low (n=104,
31.9%), middle (n=107, 32.8%) and high (n=118, 36.2%) socioeconomic status, determined
according to the administrative dependence of the educational establishments, an indicator
widely used in Chile for being a good proxy of SES (González, 2017). Most families
were of Chilean origin (89.7%), while 11.1% came from other countries. The average
years of education of the mothers was 14.35 (SD=3.98), while that of the fathers was
11.43 years (SD=3.37). In addition, 93.9% of the participants reported speaking only
Spanish at home, while 5.8% reported speaking two or more languages at home, the main
one being Spanish.
Instruments
The home literacy environment (HLE) was assessed from a self-report questionnaire
intended for parents and/or caregivers, developed by this research team, considering
its multidimensionality and from the review of measures with better fit reported in
previous studies (cf. ; ). In Spanish-speaking countries, although we found at least one inventory on factors
associated to HLE (cf. "Dominios de Alfabetización Emergente" en ), this instrument does not consider dimensions such as beliefs or value of reading,
aspects that previous research has highlighted as fundamental when characterising
HLE (; ; ).
The questionnaire is structured in five sections. A first section of sociodemographic
characterisation of the family and four Likert-type subscales ranging from 1 to 6
that evaluate 1) family practices oriented to the code, 2) family practices oriented
to the cultural experience of writing, 3) parental beliefs about literacy and 4) the
value assigned to reading (see Appendix).
Code-oriented practices were assessed using six Likert-type items organised into a
single factor. The confirmatory factor analysis shows adequate fit indices: x2(9)=11.27, p=.258; CFI=.992; TLI= .987; SRMR=.007; RMSEA=.028 [.00, .07]. The reliability shows
acceptable ranges (Cronbach's α .80 and McDonald's ω of .80). An example of an item
for this scale is: “I teach letters to my child”.
Culture-oriented practices were assessed using five Likert-type items organised into
a single factor x2(5)=2.47, p=.78; CFI=1; TLI= 1.01; SRMR=.030; RMSEA=. 00 [.00, .05]. The results show Cronbach's
α reliability = .76 and McDonald's ω = .78. An example of an item for this scale is:
“I worry about correcting him/her when he/she says a word wrong”.
Parental beliefs around literacy were assessed from eight items. Confirmatory factor
analysis shows adequate fit x2(20) = 11.2, p=.94; CFI=1, TLI= 1.04, SRMR=0.9, RMSEA=.00[.00, .11] and high reliability de Cronbach
= .88 y de McDonald = .84. and high-reliability Cronbach's α = .88 and McDonald's
ω = .84. An example item for this scale is: “How important is it for your child to
see you read?”.
The value of reading was evaluated through a unidimensional scale of six items. The
construct validity evidences a fit between the model and the data x2(9)=3.44, p=.944; CFI=.1; TLI= 1.092; SRMR=.08; RMSEA= .00 [.00, .01]. The level of reliability
is adequate (Cronbach's α= .85; McDonald's ω= .83). An example of an item for this
scale is: “For me, reading is time well spent”.
Procedures
The study was conducted following an ethical protocol approved by the Ethics Committee
of the sponsoring institution (Act nº40/2022). The families were contacted through
their children's schools. Once authorised by the schools, the project and conditions
of participation were socialised in the context of parents' meetings. The families'
participation was voluntary and ratified by signing an informed consent form, which
explicitly stated that all responses would be strictly confidential, and their use
would be exclusively for academic purposes.
The questionnaire was printed and sent to the homes of the participating families,
accompanied by a brief instruction on its purpose. The response rate was 99%, with
mothers completing the vast majority of the surveys (86.3%), followed by fathers (12.2%),
grandparents, or other responsible adults (1.4%). Since three participating families
consisted of twin siblings, this analysis did not consider duplicate family questionnaires.
Data Analysis
The instrument's psychometric characteristics were evaluated with a confirmatory factor
analysis, using Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) as the estimator. DWLS is more robust for multifactor tests, even in the presence
of data that do not meet the assumptions of multivariate normality, as occurred in
this case. Likewise, reliability analyses were performed for both Cronbach's α and
McDonald's w.
Then, a K-Mean cluster analysis () was used to identify HLE profiles. Finally, the Chi-square test was used to assess
the association between SES and HLE profiles (x2). Data was analysed using Jamovi () and Jasp () software.
Results
Descriptive results
The first finding is the similar behaviour of the variables across socioeconomic status
and the high mean and median scores. The above is consistent with the high rates of
negative asymmetry observed in all variables, but especially in the questions related
to beliefs about literacy and the value assigned to reading (see table 1) and, in particular, of middle SES families.
However, in all cases, a significant difference is observed concerning the upper value
of the scale (p< .001), and there is no evidence of a ceiling effect in any of them.
Table 1Descriptive data by variable and socioeconomic status
Psychometric characteristics of the Home Literacy Environment Inventory (HLE)
Based on the data obtained and after confirming that each scale has a unidimensional
factorial structure, the structural model was tested, and the four central variables
of the study were constituted as dimensions of the HLE. The four-factor scale shows
evidence of validity that allows us to assume HLE as a latent construct of these four
dimensions: x2(269)=99.70, p=1; CFI=1; TLI= 1.07; SRMR=.067; RMSEA=. 00 [.00, .01].
Figure 1Home literacy environment: factor model.
Note: Cod= Code-oriented practices; Cul= Culture-oriented practices; PB= Parental beliefs
about literacy; VoR= Value of reading.
The above, added to the validity and reliability evaluated for each of the subscales,
allows us to speak with the property of an HLE questionnaire and consider its sub-dimensions
as valid and reliable variables.
Table 2Descriptive and correlations of study variables
Following the initial premise that HLE profiles could be associated with SES, a cluster
analysis was conducted using the K-means method and the standardised scores of the four HLE subscales. An initial three-cluster
solution was initially evaluated. However, this solution was discarded, as one of
the profiles only included a single subject.
Therefore, we proceeded with an analysis using a two-cluster solution. This solution
coincides with the suggestion of the optimal number of clusters calculated through
Davies-Bouldin (.90), finding significant differences in all variables p < .001 (see figure 2).
Figure 2Optimal number of clusters
The first cluster (n= 101), which we can call the “discreet profile”, shows low scores
on all dimensions of the HLE: code-oriented practices, culture-oriented practices,
parental beliefs about literacy, and value of reading. On the contrary, the second
profile, which we call “enriched” (n=225), corresponds to its opposite and shows high
scores on all the variables.
Table 3Centroids of the clusters (in standard deviations)
Clúster
n
Code-oriented practices
Culture-oriented practices
Literacy-oriented parental beliefs
Value of reading
1
Enriched
225
0.444
0.522
0.357
0.323
2
Discreet
101
-0.989
-1.162
-0.796
-0.720
The families we have identified within the “enriched environment” group demonstrate,
on average, a high coherence between practices, beliefs, and appreciation of reading.
Indeed, they are families that demonstrate favourable beliefs about early literacy
activities, such as storytelling and storytelling conversations (which we have identified
as cultural practices). These families also exhibit a high frequency and valuing of
code-oriented practices, such as explicitly teaching letters or teaching letter and/or
word tracing. In contrast, family environments identified as “discreet” show an inverse
profile. These are environments where parents have a relatively low reading valuation
and whose practices are consistent with this valuation and beliefs.
Figure 3Clustered variable means and case clustering
Home literacy environment and socio-economic status
A third analysis aimed to verify whether any relationship between HLE and SES exists.
The results show no association between a type of HLE profile and belonging to a given
SES x2 (2)=638, p=.727. Thus, it can be observed that the participation of families with discreet or
enriched HLE profiles is distributed proportionally the size of each SES subgroup.
Therefore, there is no evidence that any of the SES has an overrepresentation of any
HLE profile (see table 4).
Table 4HLE profile and their relationship with socioeconomic status
Clúster / NSE
Low
Medium
High
Total
Profile “Enriched”
Observed
72a
71a
82a
225
Expected
71.8
73.8
79.4
225
% of row
32%
31.6%
36.4%
100.0%
Profile “Discreet”
Observed
32a
36a
33a
101
Expected
32.2
33.2
35.6
101
% of row
31.7%
35.6%
32.7%
100.0%
Note: Each subscript letter denotes a subset of dependency categories whose column proportions
do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.
It was also found that none of the individual variables of the HLE showed significant
differences by SES (p> .727).
Discussion
This study aimed to identify and characterise the literacy environments of Chilean
families with preschool children in a post-pandemic context. It was also proposed
to test the hypothesis that these groups would be directly related to the SES to which
they belong.
The cluster analysis allowed us to identify two well-defined groups that show variations
in the different dimensions of HLE, distinguishing between an "enriched environment"
and a "discreet environment," which did not show differences by SES. The above contradicts
previous findings that confirm differences in HLE, favouring high SES families. One
explanation for this absence of differences is related to the conditions experienced
by families during pandemic confinement.
Indeed, several studies report that the tasks of parenting and teaching their children
increased parents' stress and anxiety levels as a product of confinement. For example,
the study by shows that parental stress was negatively associated with parental involvement in
literacy at home but not with involvement in mathematics at home. We could think that
in our sample families where both parents worked outside the home before the pandemic,
the fact of having to reconcile the same time and space for the workload and parenting
tasks could generate dynamics that would explain this absence of differences between
the two groups; a different situation from those families (usually lower income),
where the mother remains the central caregiver figure in the home.
In this regard, let us recall that the children in this study were infants who were
confined at the age of approximately two years, with no formal education until the
reopening of the schools, that is, by the time they were approximately four years
old. Thus, we can infer that the child's interactions with their family were the only
formal means of socialisation and initiation into written culture. In this sense,
) warns about the impact of confinement in the educational environment, observing
a decrease in the social interaction of children during the closure of educational
establishments, as well as a 31% decrease in reading ability.
For this reason, one of the strengths of this study is the development of a valid
and reliable measure in Spanish to assess HLE. The instrument, easy to apply and low
cost, presents a factorial structure with good adjustment indexes, in line with authors
who propose the multidimensionality of HLE, as occurs when including parents' practices,
beliefs, and evaluations of literacy within this construct (; ). This would allow for eliminating a limitation linked to the wide variety of indicators
that had not been consistent in measuring HLE over time ().
Considering the above, we can say that the HLE questionnaire is an instrument for
identifying these four dimensions as predictors or covariates within the process of
acquiring and developing literacy skills.
Likewise, this study constitutes a contribution by reporting a refined measure of
the input that families are making to children's development of emergent literacy
skills. This allows us to have a more objective view on the valuation of certain practices
and the relative use of these practices by families.
This study has limitations. Although a ceiling effect was not observed in the measures,
given that this is a self-report instrument, it is possible that some degree of social
desirability could have influenced the families' responses (). However, some safeguards, such as the individual application in their homes (interview
type), could minimise the bias.
Regarding SES, it is important to remember that educational dependency was used as
a proxy. Including direct measures such as mothers' educational level and family income
could construct a more comprehensive index of SES, following what has been proposed
in other studies (;; ).
Likewise, a relevant projection would be the consideration of a mixed approach in
the study of the HLE, for example, through direct observation. Similarly, extending
the HLE by incorporating an open-ended question would allow for establishing the existence
of “vernacular practices” () within the family that are not being considered by the research.
The theoretical implications of this study are related to the evidence on the multidimensionality
of HLE since considering that HLE is composed of variables in addition to parental
practices, such as beliefs and value of reading, it is possible to identify risk profiles
for learning to read. The description provided by the profiles allows for making pedagogical
decisions based on the real needs of the children and the tools available in the immediate
environment that facilitate the learning of reading in the initial cycle.
Finally, the practical implications are related to the information provided by this
inventory concerning the AAH. This instrument could form part of the inputs that allow
for the early identification of profiles of families with “discreet environments.”
If educators use this resource, not only could they contribute to reducing the gaps
in reading development increased by the pandemic, but the role of the family as the
first educational agent in children’s lives would be highlighted.
Acknowledgments
We thank the participating families for their collaboration in the project.
FUNDING
National Agency for Research and Development (ANID-Chile) through the FONDECYT REGULAR
Project Nº 1220441 and the Millennium Nucleus for the Science of Learning (MiNSoL)
[NCS2022_26].
Author contributions
Carla Muñoz: Project management; Formal analysis; Conceptualisation; Data curation; Writing -
original draft; Writing - revision and editing; Research; Methodology; Resources;
Software; Supervision; Validation.
Nicole Frez-Aróstica: Formal analysis; Conceptualisation; Data curation; Writing - original draft; Writing
- revision and editing; Research; Methodology; Resources; Software; Validation.
Jorge Valenzuela: Formal analysis; Conceptualisation; Data curation; Writing - original draft; Writing
- revision and editing; Research; Methodology; Resources; Software; Validation; Visualisation.
Alex Centeno: Formal analysis; Writing - revision and editing; Methodology; Software; Visualisation.
References
1
Abufhele, A., & Bravo, D. (2021). Efectos de la pandemia en el aprendizaje de niños y niñas preescolares. Centro UC de Encuestas y Estudios Longitudinales. Pontificia Universidad Católica
de Chile. http://tiny.cc/khzpzz
2
Bao, X., Qu, H., Zhang, R., & Hogan, T. P. (2020). Modeling Reading Ability Gain in
Kindergarten Children during COVID-19 School Closures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176371
3
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. Routledge.
4
Bonal, X., & González, S. (2020). The impact of lockdown on the learning gap: family
and school divisions in times of crisis. International Review of Education, 66(5), 635-655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09860-z
5
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2007). The bioecological model of human development.
In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 793-827). Wiley & Sons.
6
Burgess, S. R., Hecht, S. A., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Relations of the home literacy
environment (HLE) to the development of reading-related abilities: A one-year longitudinal
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 408-426. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.4.4
7
Canfield, C. F., Miller, E. B., Shaw, D. S., Morris, P., Alonso, A., & Mendelsohn,
A. L. (2020). Beyond language: Impacts of shared reading on parenting stress and early
parent–child relational health. Developmental psychology, 56(7), 1305-1315. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000940
8
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2007). A Science-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy: Using Evidence to Improve Outcomes
in Learning, Behavior, and Health for Vulnerable Children. http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu
Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge University Press.
11
Dong, Y., Wu, S. X.-Y., Dong, W.-Y., & Tang, Y. (2020). The effects of Home Literacy
Environment on children's reading comprehension development: A meta-analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 63-82.
12
Ergül, C., Sarica, A. D., Akoglu, G., & Karaman, G. (2017). The Home Literacy Environments
of Turkish kindergarteners: Does SES make a difference? International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10112a
13
Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Home environments and
young Latino children's school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 196-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.008
14
Georgiou, G. K., Inoue, T., & Parrila, R. (2021). Developmental Relations Between
Home Literacy Environment, Reading Interest, and Reading Skills: Evidence From a 3-Year
Longitudinal Study. Child development, 92(5), 2053-2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13589
15
González, R. (2017). Segregación educativa en el sistema chileno desde una perspectiva
comparada. In S. M. Monasterios, R. S. Santana, J. C. Peña, M. H. Guerrero, & C. Medel
(Eds.), El primer gran debate de la reforma educacional: Ley de Inclusión Escolar (pp. 48-91). Centro de Estudios MINEDUC. https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/handle/20.500.12365/441
16
Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Stanczak, A., Manstead, A., & Darnon, C. (2021). Why lockdown
and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social
class achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1273-1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7
17
Jaeger, E. L. (2017). Negotiating Complexity: A Bioecological Systems Perspective
on Literacy Development. Human Development, 59(4), 163-187. https://doi.org/10.1159/000448743
Lai, J., Ji, X. R., Joshi, R. M., & Zhao, J. (2022). Investigating parental beliefs
and Home Literacy Environment on chinese kindergarteners’ english literacy and language
skills. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01413-3
20
Lenhart, J., & Lingel, K. (2023). My child lags behind: Parents’ perceptions of children's
needs for language support, their home-literacy practices, and children's language
skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 64, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.02.008
21
Leseman, P. P. M., & De Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction,
cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 294-318. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.3
22
Manosalba-Torres, C., & Arancibia-Gutiérrez, B. (2022). Diseño y validación del Cuestionario
Socio-familiar de los Dominios de Alfabetización Emergentes en estudiantes de enseñanza
pre-escolar chilenos. Estudios sobre Educación, 42, 99-127. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.42.005
23
Marlow, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived
situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(2), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041627
24
Martini, F., & Sénéchal, M. (2012). Learning literacy skills at home: Parent teaching,
expectations, and child interest. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement,
44(3), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026758
25
Melhuish, E. (2010). Why children, parents and home learning are important. In Kathy
Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Pam Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, & B. Taggart (Eds.), Early Childhood Matters (pp. 60-85). Routledge.
26
Mendive, S., Aldoney, D., Mascareño, M., Pezoa, J., & Hoff, E. (2022). Home language
and literacy environments at the age of four: determinants and their relation to reading
comprehension up to age nine. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 45(2), 446-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2021.2015226
27
Mendive, S., Mascareño Lara, M., Aldoney, D., Pérez, J. C., & Pezoa, J. P. (2020).
Home Language and literacy environments and early literacy trajectories of low-socioeconomic
status chilean children. Child development, 91(6), 2042-2062. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13382
28
Ni, S., Lu, S., Lu, K., & Tan, H. (2021). The effects of parental involvement in parent–child
reading for migrant and urban families: A comparative mixed-methods study. Children and Youth Services Review, 123, 105941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.105941
29
Niklas, F., Cohrssen, C., & Tayler, C. (2016). Parents supporting learning: a non-intensive
intervention supporting literacy and numeracy in the home learning environment. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1155147
30
Niklas, F., Wirth, A., Guffler, S., Drescher, N., & Ehmig, S. C. (2020). The Home
Literacy Environment as a mediator between parental attitudes toward shared reading
and children's linguistic competencies. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1628-1628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01628
Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and children's reading performance: a
comparative study of 25 countries. Educational Research & Evaluation, 14(6), 489-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802576734
33
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford.
34
Schmitt, S. A., Simpson, A. M., & Friend, M. (2011). A longitudinal assessment of
the home literacy environment and early language. Infant and Child Development,20(6), 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.733
35
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
36
Sénéchal, M. (2017). Shared book reading: An informal literacy activity par excellence.
In N. Kucirkova, C. E. Snow, V. Grøver, & C. McBride (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Early Literacy Education: A Contemporary Guide
to Literacy Teaching and Interventions in a Global Context (pp. 273-283). Taylor & Francis.
37
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of
children’s reading skill: A five year longitudinal study. Child development, 13(2), 445-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417
38
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
39
Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J. A., Thomas, E., & Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects
of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 96-112. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.1.5
40
Sénéchal, M., Whissell, J., & Bildfell, A. (2017). Starting from home: Home literacy
practices that make a difference. In K. Cain, R. Parrila, & D. L. Compton (Eds.),
Theories of reading development (Vol. 15, pp. 383-407). John Benjamins.
Shaul, S., Orly, L., Dana, T.-C., Adi, B., & Shahar, D. (2024). The impact of school
closures during the COVID-19 pandemic on reading fluency among second grade students:
socioeconomic and gender perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(1289145). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1289145
43
Silinskas, G., Sénéchal, M., Torppa, M., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (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). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01508
44
Silinskas, G., Torppa, M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2019). 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
45
Strasser, K., & Lissi, M. R. (2009). Home and Instruction Effects on Emergent Literacy
in a Sample of Chilean Kindergarten Children. Scientific Studies of Reading,13(2), 175-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902769525
46
Suskind, D. L., Leffel, K. R., Graf, E., Hernandez, M. W., Gunderson, E. A., Sapolich,
S. G., Suskind, E., Leininger, L., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2016). A parent-directed
language intervention for children of low socioeconomic status: a randomized controlled
pilot study. J Child Lang, 43(2), 366-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000915000033
47
Susperreguy, M. I., Strasser, K., Lissi, M. R., & Mendive, S. (2007). Creencias y
prácticas de literacidad en familias chilenas con distintos niveles educativos. Revista latinoamericana de psicología, 39(2), 239-251. https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/rlp/v39n2/v39n2a03.pdf
48
The Jamovi Proyect. (2022). Jamovi. In (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. http://www.jamovi.org
49
Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy
environment to preschool‐aged children’s emerging literacy and language skills. Early Child Development and Care, 176(3-4), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430500063747
50
Zambrana, K. A., & Hart, K. C. (2022). Riesgo Y Resiliencia: Exploring the Role of
Parenting Stress and Self-efficacy on Young Latino Children’s Well-being and Home
Learning Experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Latinos and Education, 21(3), 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2051037
51
Zhang, S. Z., Inoue, T., Shu, H., & Georgiou, G. K. (2020). How does home literacy
environment influence reading comprehension in Chinese? Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal
study. Reading and Writing, 33(7), 1745-1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09991-2
Appendix
Home literacy environment (translated from the Spanish original)
Items included in the parental questionnaire*.
Please circle the number that best corresponds to your level of agreement with the
following statements:
1 = Not at all frequent ----------------------------------------- 6= Very frequent
Code-oriented practices
4.1 I teach my child letters (e.g., ‘this is P for Peter’).
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.2 I teach my child words when I read (e.g., ‘slide is when you go down the slide’).
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.3 When I read a story, I stop when my child does not understand a word and explain
it to him/her.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.4 When I read with my child, I point to the words in the story.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.5 I teach my child to trace letters and numbers.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.6 We play at writing letters or numbers.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Culture-oriented practices
4.7 I take care to correct my child when he/she says a word wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.8 I read with my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.9 I play pretending reading with my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.10 We talk about the story we are reading.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4.11 We play at saying tongue twisters or singing songs.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Parental beliefs about literacy
Please circle the number that best corresponds to your level of agreement with the
following statements:
1 = Not at all important ----------------------------------------- 6= Very important
I think it is important that:
5.1 My child sees me reading.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.2 I read to my child because it will help him/her to speak better.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.3 I read to my child because it is good for his/her school development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.4 My child knows letters (their names and sounds).
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.5 My child knows how to write his/her name.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.6 I talk or tell stories to my child for his/her reading development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.7 Sing songs to my child for reading development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5.8 Play games with my child for his/her reading development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Value for reading
Circle the number that best corresponds to your level according to the following statements
were
1 = Strongly Disagree ----- 6= Strongly Agree
In my opinion ...
6.1 For me, reading is time well spent.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.2 What I learn from reading is valuable to me and, therefore, to my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.3 Reading to my child is valuable for his/her development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.4 Giving children's books or texts to my child is valuable for his/her reading development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.5 Searching for information in books with my child is valuable for his/her reading
development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6.6 For me, reading to my child is time well spent.
1 2 3 4 5 6
*To request the full instrument, please write to the principal investigator of the
project (Carla Muñoz: cmunozv@ucm.cl).
