The following study analyses the way literary competence is developed in the Primary Education stage in schools in both the Basque Country and Navarre (Spain). In addition, the differences between centres are analysed according to the type of school, territory and education cycle. Finally, it identifies the extent to which certain personal aspects of teachers influence their teaching practice. 553 teachers from 55 schools participated in the study. From this quantitative and descriptive analysis, the general conclusion is that most schools do not follow the educational criteria and didactic proposals defined by scientific literature, as well as that there are no significant differences between territories or between the different educational centres according to their type. On the other hand, as the stage progresses, it is confirmed that literary education is losing its place in teaching practice, with worrying results in the third cycle. It also confirms the positive correlation between the dimensions of the literary competence analysed, contributing to the possibility of guiding processes.
Article Details
How to Cite
Permach-Martin, N., Alvarez-Uria, A., & Etxaniz, X. (2024). Didactics of literary competence in Primary Education of the Basque and Navarrese Communities. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2024.23.1.434
Permach-Martín, Álvarez-Uria, and Etxaniz: Didactics of literary competence in Primary Education of the Basque and Navarrese
Communities
Introduction
Literary competence is acquired by having direct contact with literary works, enjoying
them, acquiring the ability to relate to them and evaluating them. In other words,
literary competence will include students learning to read, enjoying books and, finally,
being able to evaluate themselves (). Its acquisition is also affected by a series of factors (linguistic, psychological,
social, historical and cultural). Their combination will allow for the personal growth
of the competent literary reader.
The attitude of the teacher, the purpose of the reading, the time devoted to it, the
activities proposed, the preparation of the space or the corpus chosen are aspects
that determine the process (; ; ).
It is also important to know the reader’s emotional attitude, interest and motivation,
as well as to propose different types of reading. Understanding students as active
agents in the construction of the meaning of concepts and stakeholders of their own
educational process, textual practice becomes the articulator of teaching and learning
().
In this context, it is essential to work with different texts in the classroom and
to promote intertextuality, as it will help students to speed up their cognitive process.
Hence the need for an appropriate and varied corpus to guarantee the necessary materials
and resources for their education.
recommends four aspects for the selection of readings: literary quality, educational
values, students’ opinions and tastes, and their literary learning path. These criteria
will determine the selection of works for the didactic proposals in the educational
centres.
In this sense, libraries play a key role in the development of reading habits (). Teachers have three types of libraries: classroom libraries, school libraries and
public libraries. It would thus be interesting for teachers to make guided visits
to public libraries, as it would offer the possibility of opening to a greater diversity
in terms of the selection of readings for students (). Libraries are also very flexible when it comes to activity planning.
It is also important to plan reading sessions, as there is a risk of substituting
reading for other curricular content. In this sense, we can state that there is nothing
more effective for planning the development of literary competence than reading plans.
They offer guidance to the teacher insofar as they determine the reading plan, the
contents to be taught, the ways of developing the teaching activity and the objectives
to be achieved (). The systematisation of activities will qualitatively improve reading, the teaching-learning
process and literary education.
For their part, teachers, as mediators, are a key figure in the process of acquiring
literary competence; in addition to fostering an enriching encounter between students
and literature, they are responsible for generating learning situations that promote
the understanding and interpretation of literary text. Reading is a process full of
emotions and excitement, so adults must intervene with care and courage ().
However, in order to fulfil what is expected of teachers, it is essential to be a
good reader and to have the ability to share and transmit a taste for reading (; ). Teachers’ attitudes and reading habits condition the process, so it is necessary
to delve into this aspect. In fact, it is the literary training of the teacher that
will largely determine the outcome.
The didactics of literary reading requires the mastery of directed strategies; teaching
strategies that favour the progress of reading competence and mediation work, as well
as strategies aimed at the development of reading practices ().
But on more than one occasion, teachers have acknowledged that they lack sufficient
training to detect students’ difficulties in the process of learning to read (). Identifying the academic training received on the development of students’ literary
competence is valuable, because it would be difficult to study in any other way the
way in which they have constructed or nurtured their tastes.
This work, which follows and completes previous works (; ; ; ; ), has as its main objective to carry out a diagnosis of the development of literary
competence in primary schools. To this end, it analyses the way in which the competence
is worked on in schools in the Basque Country and Navarre where Basque is the vehicular
language.
In comparing the curricula, we can see that both prioritise the development of students’
communicative skills and that to some extent the development of literary competence
is articulated in this sense. Nevertheless, it could be said that this communicative
approach, prioritising functional texts and where the discursive genre predominates,
places specific activities for literary education on a secondary level to the extent
that they are not explicitly included in the programmes. Consequently, the study of
the literary text is understood as a resource or support for linguistic activity,
without contemplating specific learning to acquire literary competence.
In both cases, the development of literary competence is included together with the
development of Basque and Spanish, the two vehicular languages, and in both areas
4 hours per week are proposed for the first five years and 3.5 for the sixth year
as a reference.
We can thus speak of curricula that do not specify much about how to work on the competence
at primary level. However, it could be said that literary education is no longer understood
as a teacher-guided process, i.e., aimed at developing the interpretative competence
that will enable students to read increasingly more elaborate and difficult literary
works, but will be limited to a corpus of simple texts that only seek pleasure in
reading or language work.
This study is based on the premise of the need for a diagnosis as a starting point
for the design, implementation, and evaluation of possible instructional and didactic
changes in the curricula. To that end, the following research questions are determined,
which in turn become the focus of the research:
To what extent are the criteria set by experts considered when working on literary
competence at school?
Are there differences in the way literary competence is worked on in the classroom
depending on the type of school according to its type, education cycle or the territory
where the school is located?
To what extent do the different personal aspects of teachers influence the development
of students’ literary competence?
Method
Study design
This falls within the quantitative-interpretative paradigm. It is quantitative, due
to the way in which the variables are analysed; it is predictive because of the type
of question, and it is not experimental because no active manipulation of the variables
is carried out at any time, since the variables are observed in their natural state,
without interfering in their development.
Likewise, due to the characteristics of the sample and the research problem, it is
an interpretative, descriptive and correlational research. Due to the opportunity
provided by the descriptions, analyses and interpretations of the data obtained, we
can say that the research seeks to guide processes since, on the basis of the data
analysed and the interpretations made, it draws general conclusions or constructs
principles.
Initially, means have been calculated for each variable and dimension. In order to
analyse possible differences, comparisons were made between the overall means of the
dimensions by crossing the free variables. Finally, to guide processes, correlations
have been made between the four dimensions and different personal aspects of the teachers.
Participants
The sample is made up of a total of 553 teachers; 75.6% female, 23.1% male and 1.3%
identify as non-binary gender. The sample was drawn from 55 schools, which were chosen
randomly, but following certain criteria:
a) Primary Education Centres.
b) Linguistic model D (with Basque as the vehicular language and an extract that includes
practically all students in the public sector).
c) Type of school (public schools and schools subsidised by the autonomous community,
differentiating between the two main networks: ikastolas
and religious centres).
d) Territory in which they are located (Navarre, Gipuzkoa, Bizkaia, Araba).
Approximately in both autonomies communities, the education system is made up of 50%
public schools and 50% schools subsidised by the autonomous community. Therefore,
to adjust to reality and guarantee a valid diagnosis, 53.2% of the data collected
came from public schools, 31.10% from religious centres and 16.64% from ikastolas.
Instrument
An ad hoc questionnaire was created for data collection. The questionnaire is divided into
5 blocks with a total of 56 items. The first two blocks collect general data on both
the centre and the participant, and the following four blocks correspond to the four
dimensions that measure teaching practice with a total of 35 items in which the unit
is constant, with the same associative value and a 5-point interval (five-level Likert
scale): 1: never; 2: occasionally; 3: sometimes; 4: often; 5: always): Psycho-pedagogical
elements, reading selection, types of reading and assessment.
To verify the validity of the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s alpha statistical test
was applied, and a value of =.801 as a whole. Given that Barrios and Cosculluela (2013) place the appropriate
reliability of an instrument between the values =.70 and .95, the value achieved shows the high reliability and validity in the measurement
of the dimensions created to measure the way of working with literary competence in
the schools analysed.
Procedure
To prepare the questionnaire, a thorough literature review was conducted, as well
as contributions from different works by experts in the field of didactics of literature
(; ; ; ; ; ).
Once the questionnaire was prepared, the centres were selected and their addresses
were contacted. The research was presented in the cloisters to ensure participation.
It is therefore worth noting that the questionnaire was not only completed by teachers
interested in the subject, but by all teachers in the participating schools. Once
the data had been collected, the necessary statistical tests were carried out to obtain
the results and draw conclusions.
Data analysis
The analysis of the data obtained was conducted using SPSS software version 26. Descriptive
statistics (mean and standard deviation) and analytical statistics (hypothesis testing)
were applied. In other words, the verification of hypotheses and definitions was sought
through statistical sampling and univariate and bivariate analyses. Since the sample
did not show a normal distribution (Kolmogorov Smirnov normality test, p < .05), the
non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine the existence of significant
differences. Finally, Spearman’s correlation was applied to determine the level of
interrelation between the grouped variables. In all cases mentioned, the level of
statistical significance used was .05.
Results
In the light of the data analysis, several results emerge. Firstly, the total results
for each dimension are detailed, regardless of the type of school or territory where
they are located; secondly, the significant differences according to territory, education
cycle, size and type of school; finally, the positive and significant correlations
between the grouped variables and the free variables.
Total results for the four dimensions
a) Psycho-pedagogical elements
We are talking about components (space, time, environment, motivation, etc.) that
foster the communicative interaction that takes place between teaching staff and students
and facilitates the learning process.
78% of the participants affirmed that their school has a reading plan and at least
79.39% that reading sessions are integrated into the annual programme. In terms of
time spent reading, 13.74% spent half an hour a week reading, 40.14% spent one hour
a week, 21.16% spent one and a half hours, 13.38% spent about two hours a week, and
11.57% spent more than two hours a week.
In addition, 88.25% say that they have a classroom library and 77.76% say that they
have a library in the school. However, as for the use of the library for reading sessions,
it is of concern that most of the data is accumulated in the lowest options, as 27.67%
never use the classroom library for reading sessions, 21.16% sometimes do so, and
38.7% sometimes do so, amounting to 87.53% of the data. Similarly, 60.23% never use
this library for reading sessions, and 15.55% do so on occasion, again with the majority
of responses in the lower options.
Figure 1 shows the total results of the rest of the variables that make up the dimension related
to the space, environment or specific strategies used to work on the competence. In
this case, it is of concern that 20% of teachers never take these elements into account
and only 13% always do so. It is the option which sometimes accumulates the highest
amount of data (27%), although only slightly more than the next option (often 23%).
Figure 1.Psycho-pedagogical elements
Therefore, considering the dispersion of the data and their percentages, we can state
that schools do not have common criteria regarding the psycho-pedagogical elements
that experts define and propose to consider when working on literary competence at
school.
b) Criteria for the selection of readings
This dimension measures variables such as how many texts, who chooses them or what
criteria are used to select the texts to be read in the classroom. As for the number
of books students should read per year, the majority (66.11%) suggest reading between
0-6 books per year, while 0.56% read between 0-3 books and 32.55% read between 4-6
books.
Figure 2 shows the results for the remaining variables. Again, with 35% of responses, sometimes
is the option with the highest number of data, followed by 29% who do it frequently.
Figure 2.Selecting the readings
Nevertheless, despite the better results in this dimension, it cannot be said that
the criteria proposed by the experts are used across the board.
c) Types of reading
Figure 3 shows the total results for this dimension. We note that 42% of teachers sometimes
suggest the types of reading recommended by experts, although 34% do so frequently.
Figure 3.Types of reading
Although at first glance the results of the graph could be interpreted as not too
worrying, it should be taken into account that, if we add up the data obtained in
the first three options, these being the ones that give the dimension the lowest score,
they form a majority, precisely 57% of the data. So, once again, it is difficult to
assess this result positively.
d) Evaluation
The last dimension measures how teachers assess the development of literary competence,
i.e., the development of competent readers, which, as Colomer (; ) and point out, is the basic aim of literary education.
Therefore, in figure 4 we see again that the largest amount of data is again clustered in the sometimes
option. 39% of teachers sometimes assess students according to the criteria proposed
by the experts, followed by 34% who do so frequently.
Figure 4.Evaluation
Once again, it can thus be concluded that teachers do not widely assess literary competence
as recommended in the scientific literature.
Differences between types of school, location and education cycle.
a) Differences between types of schools
The Kruskal-Wallis test is used to assess possible differences. The test results reveal
no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of the psycho-pedagogical
elements, reading selection and type of reading, as the p-values obtained are above
the established significance level (p < 0.05). However, when analysing the variable evaluation in the three groups public
schools, religious schools and ikastolas, the test results indicate statistically significant differences (M(SD)16.34 (3.21)
vs. 17.15 (3.24) vs. 15.75 (3.28); H(x2)= 11.65; p = .003).
In order to evaluate the differences, the Mann-Whitney U-test is performed, and the
results reveal statistically significant differences between the three types of centres
(p < 0.05). Specifically, significant differences are found when comparing religious
schools with public schools (U = 14222.5, p = .044), religious schools with ikastolas (U = 5950, p = .001), as well as when comparing public schools with religious schools (U = 22015.50, p = .039).
Religious schools show higher performance in four of the six subscales compared to
ikastolas and in two of them compared to public schools. As far as the assessment of machine
reading is concerned, 40% of religious schools do it often, compared to 45% of ikastolas or 40% of public schools which do it sometimes. In relation to text analysis, 45%
of religious schools do it often, in contrast to 44% of public schools and 41% of
ikastolas, who do it sometimes. Similarly, religious schools often (37%) evaluate whether students
distinguish the main ideas, compared to 41% of ikastolas who do so sometimes. Finally, in the identification of the author’s message, the
religious centres evaluate it often (46%) compared with 38% of the ikastolas who do so sometimes.
b) Differences between territories
In the analysis by territory, in three of the four dimensions, namely, reading selection,
type of reading, and evaluation, no significant differences are found. Only in the
dimension of psycho-pedagogical elements a p-value of less than 0.05 is found (H(x²)
= 15.28, p = .002). Specifically, significant differences are found between Gipuzkoa
and Bizkaia (M (SD) 28.56 (3.40) vs. 27.43 (3.42); U = 13217.5, p = .001), as well
as between Gipuzkoa and Navarre (M (SD) 27.30 (3.4); U = 9424, p = .002).
In Bizkaia, 38.7% often read at the study table, while in Gipuzkoa, 42% sometimes
do so in the classroom library. In Bizkaia and Navarre, 49.5% and 47% respectively
never go to public libraries, while in Gipuzkoa 43% do so some of the time. Finally,
it is worth highlighting the difference in the time devoted to reading, with 58.7%
in Gipuzkoa devoting between an hour and an hour and a half to it, while in Navarre
and Bizkaia 70.8% and 62% respectively devote between half an hour and an hour to
it.
c) Differences between the education cycles of the primary education stage
In terms of the three cycles that make up Primary Education (1st, 2nd and 3rd) consecutively), significant differences are observed in three dimensions, as p-values
below the established significance level are obtained (p < .001):
- psycho-pedagogical elements (M(SD) 27.96(3.46); (H(x²)=18.35, p = .000);
- reading selection (M(SD) 42.03 (4.75); H(x²)=33.21, p = .000);
- type of reading (M(SD) 33.71 (3.63); H(x²)=18.42, p = .000).
As for the psycho-pedagogical elements, it is between the first and the third cycle
(U = 14222.5, p = .000), as well as between the second and the third cycle (U = 11615, p = .001), where we find the differences, with no significant difference between the
first and the second cycle.
One of the most significant results is that in the first cycle, 58.9% spend between
one and a half and more than two hours a week on literary reading, while in the third
cycle, 69.4% spend between half an hour and one hour a week.
Moreover, in the lower cycles, they use the classroom library more frequently for
their reading sessions (35% do so sometimes), while in the third cycle 42% never do
so.
Nevertheless, in none of the cases can it be said that they regularly go to public
libraries, but it is worth noting that, while 41% and 52% of the first and third cycle
never go to public libraries, 40.1% of the second cycle do so on occasion.
In terms of the selection of readings, there are differences between the three cycles.
Specifically between the first and second cycle (U = 14059, p = .000), between the first and third cycle (U = 12350, p = .000), as well as between the second and third cycle (U = 12500, p = .001).
In the majority of cases and in all three cycles, it is the students themselves, without
teacher supervision, who choose the texts to be worked on in the classroom: 62% in
the first cycle, 64% in the second cycle and 54% in the third cycle. These high figures
are worrying because we are talking about teaching practices in the classroom and
not about free reading as an extracurricular activity.
Nevertheless, on the few occasions when it is the teacher who chooses the text, 31%
in the first cycle always consider the difficulty of the text, and 50% in the second
cycle and 46% in the third cycle do so frequently.
Finally, as for the type of reading proposed in the classroom, statistically significant
differences were found between the first cycle and the third cycle (U = 13801, p = .000), as well as between the second and third cycle (U = 12770, p = .03). However, no significant difference is observed between the first and second
cycle.
In the case of the variable prior knowledge of students’ reading level, the results
show that in the first cycle, 37% of teachers often have prior knowledge of it, although
35% always know it. In the second cycle 34% also know about it frequently, but 27%
of them know about it only sometimes. In the third cycle, 32% know about it frequently
and 28% only know about it sometimes.
In terms of individual reading, there are differences between the first and second
cycle, with most data in both cases accumulating in the sometimes option (51%; 52%).
However, in the third cycle, the majority do so in the option frequently (47%).
It is in shared reading that the greatest differences appear, since in the first and
second cycle (85%; 79%) they propose to do shared reading sometimes, and in the third
cycle 76% only do it sometimes.
Finally, it is worth noting the data for recreational reading, since the percentages
obtain significantly lower values as the cycles progress. Thus, in the first cycle,
60% of teachers frequently propose playful reading in the classroom, 52% do so in
the second cycle and 44% do so in the third cycle. The same applies to reading aloud
by teachers. While 61% of teachers in the first cycle and 47% in the second cycle
do it frequently, 53% of teachers in the third cycle do it sometimes.
Results of the correlational analysis between the variables
Correlation analysis has made it possible to quantify the intensity of the relationships
between the variables grouped into dimensions that make up literary competence and
to define patterns of similar behaviour among the participants in order to contribute
to the possibility of orienting processes.
Table 1 shows the Spearman correlations between the grouped variables and as can be seen,
all variables correlate positively.
In order to identify and infer to what extent and in what way personal aspects affect
teaching practice, firstly, the importance that teachers attach to working on literary
competence in Primary Education is analysed. It can be seen that most of the participants
rate it positively, with 46.86% of the teachers giving it a score of 4 out of 5, followed
by 30% who opt for the maximum score. When correlational tests are conducted between
these results and the variables, as shown in table 2, they lose significance in practically all cases except in one case, when the scores
are lower (1 and 2). And even in the case of the lowest score they cease to correlate,
which means that, on the one hand, those who do not attach greater importance to it
do not work in the same way.
Table 2.Correlations between the lowest scores and dimensions
These results are in addition to those of other studies () that show different conceptions and perspectives of action on literary reading according
to reading habits and beliefs, confirming that both have an impact on teaching practice.
As far as teachers’ literary reading habits are concerned, 39.24% of teachers say
they read sometimes, 38.88% frequently and 13.10% always do so. When crossing this
variable, as in the previous case, the results show that some dimensions cease to
correlate and even lose significance, as can be seen in table 3. These results in turn coincide with recent studies () and affirm that the number of books read as a sample of teachers’ reading habits
influences didactic strategies, so that a good literary reader facilitates the teaching
and learning process of students.
Table 3.Correlations between the lowest reading habits and dimensions
In terms of teacher training, 60.58% said that they had not received any extra training,
compared to 39.42% who had. Table 4 shows that, in this case, although the variables continue to correlate with each
other, all of them decrease in intensity, which confirms that teachers lack sufficient
training to work on reading () and that this has a negative impact on the teaching and learning process.
Table 4.Correlations between extra training and the dimensions
Finally, we analyse whether the school has a reading plan, and to what extent this
helps teaching practice, as pointed out in a series of studies (). Although correlations are maintained in both cases, they decrease in intensity
in the case of schools without a reading plan, and the correlation between psycho-pedagogical
elements and assessment loses significance, as can be seen in table 5.
Table 5.Correlations between the reading plan and the dimensions
In response to the first research question, the results show that schools with language
model D in both the Basque Country and Navarre do not follow the criteria or apply
in a generalised way the teaching proposals defined by the experts for the development
and acquisition of literary competence. This would be a possible sign of the gap between
theorisation and application in this field.
In all dimensions, the option with the highest number of responses is “sometimes”,
which allows us to conclude that literary competence is not worked on in a systematic
or planned way at Primary School level. This study adds to that of , conducted in Secondary Education, which reflects a worrying picture for the whole
of compulsory education. Furthermore, it should be noted that not enough time is devoted
to literary education, despite the fact that literature is not an easy object to learn,
as it has to be lived, since literature is perceived and assimilated () and this requires time and dedication.
Given the wide dispersion in the responses, it can be concluded that not only are
the recommendations of the experts not generally considered, but that there are no
common criteria for working on literary competence, which could be interpreted as
meaning that each teacher understands the development and way of working on literary
competence in a different way. As a result, we are faced with teaching practices that
are differentiated and far removed from theory. Therefore, we conclude that, although
there is a large scientific literature on how to develop literary competence in the
school environment, it seems that this knowledge does not reach the classroom or is
not given enough importance to work on it explicitly.
It is the psycho-pedagogical dimension that shows the greatest dispersion of responses.
In fact, we are referring to elements and strategies that help to motivate students,
such as working on previous experiences, going to libraries, using them for reading
activities and proposals, or creating an environment conducive to reading. These are
all elements that different studies (; ; ) show to be necessary in the school context..
In response to the second research question, regarding the type of school, we can
confirm that there are hardly any differences between the types of schools when it
comes to working on literary competence. It is only in evaluation that religious schools
partially perform better, although only in some sub-variables.
As far as differences between territories are concerned, it is only in the case of
psycho-pedagogical elements that we find some differences, although not between all
the territories; specifically, between Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia, and between Gipuzkoa
and Navarre. The differentiation of Gipuzkoa from the surrounding provinces could
be related to a greater knowledge and use of Basque, the vehicular language in the
linguistic model studied (model D). Thus, despite the fact that we are talking about
two different Autonomous Communities and two different curricula, no differences can
be observed in three of the four dimensions and in general terms it can be concluded
that in both Communities the competence is worked on in a similar way.
On the other hand, at the stage in which our research is located, there is a great
difference between the reading level of students, given that this is the stage where
they learn to read. The analyses carried out confirm that there are differences in
the development of literary competence between the three educational cycles that make
up Primary Education. Thus, in the first and second cycle, work is similar and it
is in the third cycle where the most significant differences appear, specifically
in three of the four dimensions: “psychopedagogical elements”, “reading selection”
and “type of reading”. Based on the data obtained, we can confirm that as the cycles
progress, the scores in the three dimensions decrease, which allows us to conclude
that as the stage progresses, i.e., once they have acquired mechanical reading and
the main elements for decoding, the development of literary competence becomes less
important, which ratifies the results of other studies that speak of the instrumental
use of literary reading ().s
In response to the third question, the analyses carried out demonstrate the need to
work on the four dimensions of literary competence defined in this study as a whole,
and how personal aspects such as perceptions, beliefs or reading habits have a clear
impact on practice.
Similarly, from the field of literary education, more and more voices are pointing
to the need to pay greater attention to literary teacher training, and the results
of this work confirm this, despite the fact that, today, teacher training in general
is still one of the main challenges of education ().
Finally, and as a general conclusion, this study shows empirically that the teaching
of literature is not coordinated, and that teaching practice is not planned, which
leads us to think that working on literary competence is not among the priorities
of the teaching staff, but, in turn, not at the curricular level either.
Therefore, we are faced with challenges such as taking steps towards the systematisation
of literary reading in the school context, promoting the creation of reading plans
and intensifying the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies that help to improve
the teaching of literature in the primary stage, which leads us to review the curricula
of Language and Literature and the training of teachers.
Together with this, it is worth highlighting the deficit detected in the third cycle
and emphasising the need to reinforce it, since, despite the worrying results for
the stage as a whole, it is in this last cycle where it is clearly identified that
literary reading in the classroom is practically anecdotal. We could speak of a parenthesis
in the literary education of pupils which clearly has consequences such as those reflected
in the evaluations of the education systems themselves, as well as in international
ones () with conclusions that warn that reading comprehension is insufficient in a significant
part of the pupils enrolled in model D (School Council of the Basque Country, 2022).
References
1
Aguiar e Silva, V. M. (1980). Teoría de la literatura. Gredos.
2
Alonso, I. (2008). Euskal literatur sistema eta literaturaren didaktika aztergai. Labayru ikastegia.
3
Alonso, I. (2010). Erdigune literarioak irakaskuntzan. UPV/EHU.
4
Álvarez, C., & Pascual, J. (2019). Estrategias didácticas en torno a la lectura empleadas
en la formación inicial del profesorado en España. Ocnos, 18(3), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2019.18.3.2108
5
Arellano-Yaguas, V., López-Pérez, M., & Sbriziolo, C. (2022). Colaboración biblioteca-escuela:
Un estudio de caso de intereses docentes en solicitudes de préstamo. Ocnos, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2022.21.2.2956
6
Azpeitia, A., Alonso, I., & Garro, E. (2013). Profesionalizazio bidea eraikitzen.
Irakasle hasiberri baten autokonfrontazio-elkarrizketaren azterketa. Ikastaria, 19, 171-196.
7
Barrios, M., & Cosculluela, A. (2013). Fiabilidad. En J. Meneses (coord.), Psicometría (75-140). UOC.
8
Bofarull, M. T. (2001). Comprensión lectora: el uso de la lengua como procedimiento. Graó.
9
Caride, J. A., Caballo, M. B., & Gradaille, R. (2018). Leer en tiempos de ocio: los
estudiantes, futuros profesionales de la educación, como sujetos lectores. Ocnos, 17(3) 7-18. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2018.17.3.1707
10
Cerrillo, P. C. (2007). Literatura Infantil y Juvenil y educación literaria: Hacia una nueva enseñanza de
la literatura. Octaedro.
Colomer, T. (1996). La evolución de la enseñanza literaria. Aspectos didácticos de lengua y literatura, 8, 127-171.
13
Colomer, T. (2009). Planificar la lectura en la escuela. In Formar Leitores para Ler o Mundo. Congresso Internacional de Promoção da Leitura. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
14
Colomer, T. (2002). El papel de la mediación en la formación de lectores. In T. Colomer,
E. Ferreiro, & F. Garrido, (eds.). Lecturas sobre lecturas (9-29). Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Conaculta.
Consejo Escolar de Euskadi (2022). El sistema educativo vasco 2017-2018/2018-2019. Gobierno Vasco.
17
Correa, M., Orozco, B., & Conde, E. (2001). La anticipación de la estructura narrativa: una estrategia para la enseñanza de la
lectura y la escritura. Guía conceptual para el estudio del video. Universidad del Valle.
18
Díaz-Díaz, M., Echegoyen, Y., & Martín-Ezpeleta, A. (2022). Del lector ideal al mediador
competente: Metacognición y hábitos lectores en la formación de docentes. Ocnos, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2022.21.2.2967
19
Egaña, J. L. (2010). Nola biltzen, ebaluatzen eta aukeratzen dute informazioa unibertsitateko ikasleek. Mondragon Unibertsitatea.
20
Lluch, G., & Sánchez-García, S. (2017). La promoción de la lectura: un análisis crítico
de los artículos de investigación. Revista española de documentación científica, 40(4), 92-192. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2017.4.1450
21
Mata, J. (2008). Leer como enseñar qué. (Los formadores en lectura). En J. A. Millán
(ed.), La lectura en España. Informe 2008 (209-224). Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez: Federación de Gremios de Editores de
España.
22
Mendoza, A. (2004). La educación literaria: Bases para la formación de la competencia lectoliteraria. Aljibe.
23
Mendoza, A. (2010). Función de la literatura infantil y juvenil en la competencia literaria. Universitat de Barcelona.
24
Munita, F. (2013). Creencias y saberes de futuros maestros (lectores y no lectores)
en torno a la educación literaria. Ocnos, 9, 69-88. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2013.09.04
25
Naeghel, J. (2013). Students´autonomous reading motivation: A study into its correlates and promotion
strategies in late elementary classrooms. Ghent University.
26
PISA (2018). Resultados de lectura en España. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional.
27
Prado, J. (2004). Didáctica de la lengua y la literatura para educar en siglo XXI. La muralla.
28
Ripoll, J. C. (2007). Mejora de la comprensión lectora mediante el entrenamiento en la construcción de inferencias. Universidad de Navarra.
29
Romero, J. F., & Lavigne, R. (2005). Dificultades en el aprendizaje: unificación de criterios diagnósticos. Consejería de Educación Junta de Andalucía.
30
Sánchez, U., Martín, N., & Servén, C. (2018). Complementos para la formación de la lengua y la literatura. Síntesis.
Serna, M. (2015). Bizkaiko Lehen Hezkuntzako ikasleen irakurtzeko ohiturak eta irakurtzearen balioa:
eskola-liburutegiaren eraginari buruzko azterketa. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
33
Serna, M., Rodríguez, A., & Etxaniz, X. (2017). Biblioteca escolar y hábitos lectores
en los escolares de Educación Primaria. Ocnos, 16(1), 18-49. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2017.16.1.1205.
Notes
[1] Primary and secondary schools in the Basque Country, Navarre and the French Basque
Country where pupils are taught either entirely or predominantly in Basque.
Appendix
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
BLOCK 1. General information
School data
1. School’s name
2. Territory
Álava
Gipuzkoa
Bizkaia
Navarre
3. School type
public
ikastola
religious
4. School’s size
small (single line)
medium (2 or 3 lines)
large (4 or more)
5. Education cycle
first cycle
second cycle
third cycle
Personal data
6. Gender
female
male
non-binary
7. Age
23-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61 and more
8. Please evaluate from one to five the training in the teaching of literature received
at university.
1
2
3
4
5
9. Have you received additional training to work on literary competence with students
after graduation?
Yes
No
10. Please rate from one to five the importance you give to the teaching of literature
at primary school level.
1
2
3
4
5
11. Do you read literature?
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
12. How many books do you read per year?
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13 ≥
BLOCK 2. Psycho-pedagogical elements
13. Do you have a reading plan at school?
Yes
No
14. Are the reading sessions integrated into the annual programme?
Yes
No
15. How many hours a week do you spend reading?
Half an hour
One hour
One and a half hours
Two hours
More than two hours
16. Do you have a classroom library or reading corner?
Yes
No
17. Reading sessions take place in the classroom library or in the reading corner.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
18. Reading sessions take place at the usual study tables.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
19. Reading sessions are held in the school library.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
20. How many times a month do you go to the school library?
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
21. Do you go to public libraries?
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
22. In the reading sessions, efforts are made to create a pleasant atmosphere (ensuring
silence, considering the lighting so that the students feel comfortable...)
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
23. In order to motivate, you ask students about their reading tastes.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
24. You use strategies to encourage reading (comment on your positive experiences,
bring news or events to the classroom, ask if they liked what they have read...)
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
25. Rate from one to five the effort your school makes to promote literary reading.
1
2
3
4
5
BLOCK 3. Guidelines and criteria for reading selection
26. How many books should students read during the school year?
0-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13 or more
27. The students choose the readings.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
28. The teacher chooses the readings to be done in the classroom.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
29. The proposed readings are usually related to the subject being worked on at the
time, i.e., they play a didactic role.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
30. At school we have a reading list and we select from it.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
31. The reading proposal comes from different projects (author’s visit to the classroom,
collaboration with an association of Children’s and Young Adult Literature...)
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
32. A particular reading is chosen because the subject matter is interesting, i.e.,
for its pedagogical function.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
33. Children’s and Young Adult Literature prevails in the selection.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
34. They are chosen based on literary genre.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
35. They are chosen according to the tastes of the students.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
36. They are chosen for the illustrations they contain.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
37. The selection considers the age for which they are recommended.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
38. They are selected according to their degree of difficulty (linguistic, literary
richness, etc.)
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
39. Any other criteria? (optional)
BLOCK 4: Purpose and type of proposed reading
40. Do you know the reading level that students achieved in previous years in order
to build on it?
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
41. The purpose of the reading is established and communicated to the students in
advance, telling them what, how and for what purpose they are going to read.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
42. In the reading sessions, do students read what the chose for themselves?
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
43. In the reading sessions, students read individually and in silence.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
44. It is read in pairs or in groups (shared reading).
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
45. Selective reading (to look for specific information) is proposed.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
46. A comprehensive reading is proposed (the aim is to work on reading comprehension,
so explanations are given about literary figures, language, etc.).
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
47. Critical reading is proposed. A discussion takes place at the end of the reading.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
48. We propose a playful reading (the aim is to have fun, to feel pleasure in reading).
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
49. Do you usually read aloud to students?
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
50. Any other reading proposal? (optional)
BLOCK 5. Evaluation
51. Machine reading is an asset.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
52. The students’ ability to differentiate the theme, the structure, the characters,
etc. is assessed...
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
53. Students are assessed on whether they are able to distinguish main ideas from
secondary ideas in the text.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
54. Students are assessed on whether they identify the author’s message.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
55. Students are assessed on whether they are able to critically evaluate the reading
or whether they are able to relate it to reality.
never
on occasion
sometimes
frequently
always
56. It assesses whether students are able to identify the symbolic world proposed
by Children’s and Young Adult Literature.
