Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi Review Article Youth’s literary socialisation practices online: A systematic review of research Luz Santa María a, b, *, Cristina Aliagas a, Kris Rutten b a Autonomous University of Barcelona, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain b Ghent University, Department of Educational Sciences, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: This systematic research review arises from the need to conceptualise youth’s literary social­ Youth isation practices in the current digital landscape to advance knowledge in literary education. The Digital broad uses of socialisation in this research area prompted us to define this concept carefully to Literary socialisation situate our research questions. Through a seven-step methodological approach that included Transmedia practices database search and grounded theory thematic analysis, we asked the research available in Web Literary education Geographies of youth of Science and Scopus databases: What are the literary socialisation practices in which adoles­ cents engage online as studied by research? The analysis of thirty publications led to elaborating three themes to explain youth’s literary socialisation practices online, namely, travelling prac­ tices, fluid identities and roles, and collaborative transmedia literacies. These findings are further discussed in the final section to propose that the digital is an enabling environment for youngsters to build meanings and feelings on the literature they read and write, through performing varied identities and roles, engaging in connected learning, and recognising affect as a valid form of experiencing fiction. We finalise with implications for literary education and the theoretical contributions of the geographies of youth for future research in this field. 1. Introduction Research suggests that young people’s frequency of engagement in reading for pleasure steadily decreases as they move through the schooling years (McKenna, Conradi, Lawrence, Jang, & Meyer, 2012; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2011) and that almost half of 15- year-olds only read if they have to (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel­ opment (OECD), 2021). However, there is contrasting evidence that adolescents read books for pleasure frequently (Merga, 2013, 2014, 2015) and socialise about their readings on the internet in various ways (Kucirkova & Cremin, 2020; Manresa, 2018; Manresa & Margallo, 2016; McKenna et al., 2012; Thomas, 2007), such as through blogging and discussing on online forums. Moreover, several recent studies have focused on the impact of digital media on social reading and literary culture through specific social media platforms (Vlieghe, Muls, & Rutten, 2016; Cordón-García, Alonso-Arévalo, Gómez-Díaz, & Linder, 2013; Nakamura, 2013; Pinder, 2012; Thelwall, 2019). As we tackle the problem of youngsters’ reading engagement, we are interested in adolescent readers and their relationship with digital media, whose affordances are, among others, to connect with global audiences in a participatory culture (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006). Understandably this dynamic relationship has enormous implications for literary education in * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: luz.santamaria@ugent.be (L. Santa María), cristina.aliagas@uab.cat (C. Aliagas), kris.rutten@ugent.be (K. Rutten). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100628 Received 2 September 2021; Received in revised form 11 April 2022; Accepted 16 April 2022 Available online 25 April 2022 2210-6561/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 its endeavour to connect formal learning to vernacular practices. Studies have suggested that the digital world is playing a key role in how adolescents’ literary practices are transforming nowadays (Aliagas, 2015b; Lluch, 2010). Hence, this review of research wants to bring together the extensive and topical body of scholarly work on adolescents’ online practices inspired by the fiction they read and the fictional worlds with which they interact in digital spaces. By examining research that analyses these practices, we seek to un­ derstand young readers’ behaviours more profoundly in the digital context and the resulting learning processes. By this approach we hope to contribute to the relevant existent discussion on reading engagement. Identifying and conceptualising these practices invite us to reflect on the concept of literary socialisation and what this process entails to young readers. Following Van Lierop-Debrauwer (1990), for whom socialisation is a learning and motivation process in social interaction and grounded in social needs, youth’s digital practices around reading and writing fiction result in ways of learning, interpreting and creating literary texts. This review aims to clear up the research landscape of youth’s literary socialisation, shining light on what we know up to date and what still needs further investigation. The research originates from diverse fields of study, i.e., literary education, literacy, media and communication, cultural studies, library, and information sciences, and furthermore argues for the relevance of understanding this phenomenon and reflecting on tools for interdisciplinary research. Therefore, we are rethinking educational lines of inquiry by putting different fields in dialogue. Media studies and cultural studies contribute with rich and topical theoretical frameworks. At the same time, literature and literacy shed light on study objects and subjects that interact, creating innovative social texts. First, we briefly introduce key concepts and perspectives that lead us to set out a review of this kind. Secondly, we present the research questions that guided the selection and analysis of the research. The third and fourth sections follow with the analysis findings and discussion. 1.1. Understanding literary socialisation The concept of literary socialisation is most probably borrowed from developmental theories. Developmental psychology has an established tradition of socialisation theories. It has been traditionally understood as the process by which elders assist younger in­ dividuals in acquiring skills, values, behaviours, and motives necessary to function as members of their social groups (Jensen Arnett, 2015). This definition refers to a one-sided process where youth is a passive receptor in a community based on predetermined rules and relationships. Hurrelmann (1989) pleads for a dynamic perspective moving beyond deterministic approaches. In his perspective, adolescents are subjects who productively process and manage their reality, showcasing a model of a “dialectic relationship between the subject and socially experienced reality” (p. 108). Similarly, Corsaro (2005) coined the term interpretive reproduction to talk about young children’s agency in peer cultures. He argued that children are “creatively appropriating information from the adult world to address their own peer concerns [and] actively contributing to cultural production and change” (Corsaro, 2005, p. 18–19). Following this line of inquiry, Van Lierop-Debrauwer (1990), introducing her research on literary socialisation in the family context, defines socialisation as a “learning and motivation process that takes place in social interaction and is grounded in social needs” (p. 10). The inclusion of motivation and interaction in this definition proves helpful for this research. Poveda (2003), active in the fields of linguistics and literacy, made two relevant distinctions about literature socialisation. By socialisation through literature, we must understand the process by “which narrative fiction is used as an instrument to transmit the moral and social values of a community” (p. 236), such as gender roles and social obligations and rights. In socialisation to literature, “the focus is on the acquisition of certain interpretive and discursive conventions associated with children’s literature, and literature more broadly, as one of the available genres in the community” (p. 236). As Poveda (2003) suggested, while it is possible to disentangle these two aspects methodologically, they are intertwined. Van Peer’s (1991) study aimed at understanding the role of families in the early socialisation of children with books and reading. Based on the civilisation theory, Van Peer (1991) argued that educated families were more successful in transmitting the skills of self-restraint and self-control required for creating a literary climate at home. Although one could question these conclusions for privileging the serious and solitary reader topos (Long, 1992), Van Peer’s (1991) study is an example of research that blends socialisation through and to literature. Kraaykamp’s (2003) definition echoes the behavioural and material entanglements of literature socialisation, where “both cognitive and motivational resources are strengthened by concrete activities or circumstances in social interaction, which foster children’s cultural development” (p. 235). Poveda’s (2003) model illustrates how the canonical goals surrounding literary socialisation mingle and nurture each other in a uni-directional process: the adult has the leading role in the child’s learning process. Although we could argue, along with Hurrelmann (1989) and Corsaro (2005), that children and adolescents are not passive recipients in that relationship but active producers of their reality, nonetheless the power relationship remains the same: youngsters’ agency is limited. Tackling agency and drawing on new materialist approaches, scholars in education and children’s literature argued against the developmental, dichotomic and hierarchical stances of socialisation theory. Instead, they called to “re-orientate our research away from naturalised social hierarchies towards jointly agentic and ever-transformative encounters with texts” (García-González & Deszcz- Tryhubczak, 2020, p. 50) and shift toward a post-age paradigm in education (Haynes & Murris, 2017). In this line, Lammers, Curwood, and Magnifico (2012) consider that making sense of cross-generational participation is key to understanding the phenomenon devoid of age categories. The internet has a relevant role in this discussion, for it has faded the historical status of literary and reading institutions. Arguing for the collective nature of reading, Long (1992) located the socialisation process as a foundational social infrastructure of reading because it must be taught within specific social contexts and relationships. Long (1992) identified the family, the school and society as three institutions for reading socialisation; thus, reading is socially framed through collective and institutional processes that “shape 2 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 reading practices by authoritatively defining what is worth reading and how to read it” (p. 110). The result is a body of legitimate books circulating within social institutions and associated with specific literacy values and modes of reading. However, Long’s (1992) social reading infrastructure dwindles in the digitalised current landscape, where the internet facilitates a more democratic and transversal socialisation network. Recognising the social infrastructure of reading allows understanding groups of readers as cultural audiences, historically and in the present, and their modes of textual appropriation (Long, 1992). Internet is ingrained in our lives. It gives adolescents boundless opportunities to find peer readers and writers who share their preferences and practices, devoid of institutional mediators exercising cultural authority (Lang, 2012; Lluch, 2010). Following Radway’s (2012) reflections on girl zinesters -magazine readers and writers-, this open access to sociability and literature online has communicative, aesthetic, and educational implications. Young people are drawn into a conversation about books and reading and into the venture of creating an aesthetic object collaboratively. By resisting the analogue role of consumers only, they call attention to themselves as producers of their ideas, becoming “vernacular intellectuals” (Radway, 2012, p. 41) of their everyday lives. Building on Barad’s (2007) agentic realism, Haynes and Murris (2017) invite us to imagine education devoid from age constricting norms and privileging the intra-action: “things ‘are’ because they are in relation to and influencing each other” (p. 974). This idea is relevant when approaching a topic like ours: the Internet and youngsters relate and influence each other mutually. Adolescents modulate and appropriate the digital environment for their own needs, resulting in a set of practices. At the same time, digital media produce young readers and writers through the affordances that allow practising literature online. Therefore, we could attribute agency to the digital environment and the youth. Through this lens, the Internet is not only a medium for young readers to interact with others but an ecology of users and resources that functions and adapts organically. Within this ever-transforming ecology, youngsters also adapt. In this context, we research how literary socialisation occurs when looking at youth interacting with and in the digital landscape. 1.2. Approaches to literacy in the digital landscape The New Literacy Studies (Gee, 1991; Street, 1995) and the Pedagogy of Multiliteracies (The New London Group, 1996) resulted from a collective work of scholars who contested by the end of the XX century the traditional approaches to literacy. They advocated for an approach that would focus not only on the acquisition of skills but rather on recognising literacy as a social practice, “prob­ lematising what counts as literacy at any time and place” and asking, “whose literacies” are dominant and whose are marginalised or resistant” (Street, 2003, p. 77). Anchored in this line of inquiry, youth literacy researchers stress that with the gradual embedding of the internet in people’s everyday lives, we face new reading and writing practices. As the nature of these practices is social, they shape new and fluid literacy and literary identities and roles (Alvermann & Hinchman, 2012; Williams, 2009). For instance, the Internet has set off the emergence of prosumers, who, besides reading and interacting with texts, can generate and share media content of different types and levels of complexity (Scolari, 2008), which forces scholars to confront the historical research divide between the consumption of texts and textual production (Lang, 2012). This knowledge has shifted toward transmedia literacies (Scolari, Masanet, Guerrero-Pico, & Establés, 2018) and ecologies (Black, Alexander, & Korobkova, 2017). Jenkins (2007) indicated that in contemporary contexts, the word “transmediation” captures a process by which critical elements of fiction are distributed across multiple media platforms and discursive genres. Rather than being complete, these narratives invite consumers to be active participants in the story world. Participatory culture (Jenkins et al., 2006) is one in which there is strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations with others and where members feel some degree of social connection with one another. Similarly, in affinity spaces (Gee, 2005), people relate to each other in common interests, endeavours, goals, or practices. Newbies, masters, and everyone else share a space where they can get different things out of it based on their choice, identity, and purpose. Whether physical or virtual, they are all sites where people come together for a joint venture. The social literacy approach (Street, 1995, 2003) is relevant for understanding the interplay between the digital and young readers’ engagement because it deals with the participants’ position in social power relations, e.g., in education, how teachers and students interact affects the nature of literacy. Similarly, youth’s digital interactions create literacies that are never neutral and hold power relations. This paper aims to identify adolescents’ social learning processes with literature online. We acknowledge that the Internet provides multiple entry opportunities, affinity spaces, available roles, and a participatory culture where learning is permanently in the making. 1.3. Why study youth’s cultural practices around fiction? Learning more about adolescents’ literary practices would increase our understanding of youngsters’ aesthetic repertoires and experiences, directly impacting literary education. Drawing on Davey (1993), Lang (2012) suggested that texts mediate between individuals and the social world, thus “constructing the semiotic landscape that individuals inhabit” (p. 8). Consequently, this study attempts to bring literary education closer to adolescents’ social text. Situated in the field of book history, Radway (2012) advised complicating pre-made notions of book, text, author, and reader “by reimagining them as the contingent effects of particular social relations and social activity” (p. 29). People do more with books than reading them; thus, the practices emerging from the material encounter between text and reader are complex and unlimited. The notion of hybrid practices (Lang, 2012) proves itself useful in contemporary and digital transformations to reading, which are never entirely new but a mesh of old and new technologies and modes of interaction (Lang, 2012, p. 4). Studying literary practices is answering how, where, and to meet what needs and derive what pleasures do we use fiction in everyday life (Eriksson Barajas, 2015), and how these practices act reciprocally upon those who engage with them exerting their multiple effects (Radway, 2012). Attending 3 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 to these inquiries, we situate our research within the scope of adolescents. It is worth defining the concept of adolescence used in this study. Taking a distance from fixed age categories and considering adolescents, youth, young people, and teenagers as synonyms due to cultural overlaps (Evans, 2008), we fall back on Alvermann’s (2009) socio-cultural construction of adolescence: Conceiving of young people not as lacking in adult knowledge and experience, but rather as knowing things that have relevance for them and their particular situations argues for exploring how all of us, adults and youth alike, act provisionally at times given particular circumstances and within particular discourses (Morgan, 1997). It also argues for viewing adolescents as having at least some degree of agency within a larger collective of social practices (Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Marsh & Stolle, 2006) (Alvermann, 2009, p. 100). Following suggestions from geographies of youth within cultural studies, we should go a step forward by promoting teenagers’ self- definitions in research, thus challenging negative stereotypes and power relations within research (Weller, 2006, as in Evans, 2008). Cultural geography highlights the importance of spatiality in young people’s experiences of youth transitions across multiple social and cultural contexts (Evans, 2008). Accordingly, we consider this a relevant theoretical approach for this study, which seeks to understand the implications of adolescents’ reading practices when traversing literary digital spatiality. This investigation has much to contribute to the (literary) geographies of youth’s critique, which focuses on interdependence and “the ways that young people’s lives are connected and bound to others across a range of scales” (Evans, 2008, p. 1675–1676). One way of showcasing the contribution is by putting dualities in conflict, such as private and public space, in- and out-of-school, digital and face-to-face encounters, local and global relationships. As it has been exposed, the current review builds on socio-cultural theories of knowledge, where concepts such as youth, practices, literacy, and socialisation find a ground. This means that concepts are not taken for granted but instead constructed within partici­ pants’ contexts, e.g., time, space, social relationships, and cultural values. The fact that all reviewed research focuses on digital literary practices in everyday life is relevant thanks to the digital’s particularly dynamic and adaptive nature as a learning ecology. After this thorough concept definition, we will explain the methodological steps followed for this research review. 2. Study questions and methods With the conceptual lenses described, this article systematically reviews the empirical research on youngsters’ online literary socialisation practices published in peer-reviewed journals from 2012 to February 2021. Since it informs primary data, empirical research allows us to dive into the phenomenon, and the key concepts researchers have used for interpretation from their diverse study disciplines. The following research questions have guided the systematic review: RQ1. What are the literary socialisation practices in which adolescents engage online as studied by research? RQ2. What are the gaps that this body of research leaves for further investigation in literary education? RQ3. What theoretical contributions can be made for new research on adolescents’ literary socialisation practices online? Accordingly, we describe the methodological aspects of this review in detail, such as the selection criteria and analysis. We continue by sharing the research findings. After a brief overview of the research, we develop three themes that allow us to conceptualise ad­ olescents’ literary socialisation practices in the digital environment. We follow with a discussion of the findings to elaborate on im­ plications for literary education. We will also identify gaps in research for further investigations and present the contributions that geographies of youth (Bauer, 2015; Evans, 2008) can offer the field. Fig. 1. Seven-step methodology for systematic research review adapted from Fleischer (2012). 4 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 Table 1 Overview of research reviewed. Author Year Digital medium Theoretical Methodology Participant Age Gender Publication framework location/ group language language Eleá 2012 Fanfiction site New literacy Ethnographic study Brazil 12–20 Female English Webnovelas studies Burke 2013 Forums Multiliteracies Case study Canada 13 Female English Male Curwood, Magnifico 2013 Fanfiction sites New literacy Ethnographic case United States 16–23 Female English & Lammers studies study Canada Lluch 2013 Forums Blogs Interactive Qualitative content Spanish speaking 13–29 Female Spanish Twitter audiences analysis Male Facebook Author 2 2015b Facebook Semiotics of Ethnographic case Spain 13 Female English identity study Author 2 2015a Facebook Blogs Third space Ethnographic case Spain 15–18 Male English theory study Haynes-Moore 2015 Role-play Figured worlds Ethnographic study English speaking 13–17 Female English Wargo 2015 Snapchat Elastic literacies Post-qualitative case United States 17 Male English study García-Roca 2016 Forum Participatory Qualitative study Spanish speaking N/S N/S Spanish culture Lammers 2016 Fanfiction site Designs of Ethnographic case United States 15 Female English meaning study Padgett & Curwood 2016 Figment New literacy Case study United States 14–17 Female English studies Male Black, Alexander& 2017 Virtual games Transmedia Qualitative study English speaking N/S N/S English Korobkova ecology Li & Wu 2017 WeChat Social reading Mixed methods China 12–18 Female English Male Colwell, Woodward& 2018 Digital book New literacy Qualitative study United States 13–17 Female English Hutchison club studies Male Ehret, Boegel & 2018 Booktube Affect theory Postqualitative English speaking 20–25 Female English Manuel-Nekouei study Gutiérrez-Martín & 2018 Twitter Virtual Qualitative content Spanish speaking N/S N/S English Torrego- concourse analysis González Korobkova & Collins 2018 Wattpad New media Instrumental case International 15 av. Female English Figment ecologies study scope Male Torrego-González& 2018 Twitter Transmedia Computer-mediated Spain N/S N/S Spanish Gutiérrez-Martín literacy communication García-Roca & De- 2019 Wattpad Vernacular Non-experimental Spain 9–33 Female Spanish Amo literacy descriptive research Latinamerica Male Kovalik & Curwood 2019 Instagram Transliteracies Multiple case study International 13–25 Female English theory scope Male Tomasena 2019 Booktube Cultural field Digital ethnography Spain N/S N/S English theory Latinamerica Vizcaíno-Verdú, 2019 Booktube Transmedia Mixed methods Spain N/S Female Spanish Contreras-Pulido literacy Male & Guzmán- Franco Martins 2020 Fanfiction site Multiliteracies Ethnographic case Brazil 16–18 Female English Wattpad study Male Paladines-Paredes & 2020 Booktube Community of Documental analysis Spain 16–23 Female Spanish Margallo practice Latinamerica Male Pianzola, Rebora & 2020 Wattpad Reader response Mixed methods International N/S N/S English Lauer scope Vazquez-Calvo, 2020 Fanfiction site New literacy Ethnographic case Spain 25 Female Spanish García-Roca & studies study López Báez Ramada-Prieto 2021 Digital fiction Reader response Qualitative study Spain 11–12 N/S English Fittipaldi & Manresa Author 2 2021 Booktube Discoursive Discourse analysis Spain N/S N/S Spanish genres Latinamerica Sánchez-García, 2021 Goodreads Social reading Mixed methods Spain N/S N/S Spanish Hernández- Ortega & Rovira- Collado Torrego-González, 2021 Fan affinity New literacy Ethnographic case Spain N/S N/S Spanish Vazquez-Calvo & spaces studies study García-Marín 5 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 N/S: not specified. This systematic review involved seven methodological steps, which we adapted from the four-step approach informed by Fleischer (2012). Accordingly, as shown in Fig. 1, the course of action included a database search, title screening, duplicates clearing, abstract screening, full-text mapping, further inclusion, and final thematic analysis. We followed a grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Wolfswinkel, Furtmueller, & Wilderom, 2013). The first step was to search for peer-reviewed publications that informed empirical research on adolescents’ literary online socialisation practices. Therefore, we looked for research based on observed and measured phenomena involving youth participants rather than theory. Searches were done in two different databases: the first one through the Web of Science, and the second one through SCOPUS, as of 19 April 2021. We selected these two databases because of their strict journal indexing criteria and their generalised academic recognition in most social sciences/humanities fields. For each search, we used a combination of the exact keywords: [digital OR online], [adolescents OR youth OR teenagers], [reading OR literary reading OR literature OR writing OR lit­ eracy] and [social OR socialisation OR socialisation]. Another search in both databases included [affinity spaces]. We used English keywords only as articles written in other languages always include English metadata. A total of 2042 documents were found in the first instance. After limiting the search to Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities subjects and excluding all research published before 2010, we found 1016 documents. The second step was to filter the initial search through title screening. A total of 144 publications were selected in this stage; the selection was saved using the tools provided by each database. The third step required clearing duplicates that may have arisen from the different searches and databases. This process was done manually through title highlighting on printed sheets. The total of titles after duplicates clearing was 105. An abstract screening followed, which we describe as step four. To this end, we returned to our saved lists on each database. By screening the abstracts, we could exclude non-empirical research papers and publications that exceeded the aim of our review. A total of 38 publications were selected at this stage. The fifth step was a full-text mapping, in which 16 articles were discarded either because they deviated from the researched topic or did not provide an answer to our research question. At the end of this process, our selection consisted of 21 articles and one book chapter. A sixth step involved the inclusion of 8 additional articles and book chapters that we considered relevant for our review, found in previous non-systematic searches and on our selected titles’ reference lists. Thus, the final selection consisted of 30 publications in English and Spanish. We did not find research communicated in other languages than these two. As this paper’s authors are competent in Spanish, it was possible to examine them for this review. The final step consisted of a thematic inductive analysis based on grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Hence, the research selected was regarded as data (Fleischer, 2012). This process entailed the coding of the phenomena relevant to the aim of the study that appeared in the texts, which were then assembled into categories with similar content (Wolfswinkel et al., 2013). As suggested by Wolfswinkel et al. (2013), firstly, we read through the publications and highlighted all relevant ideas for our research question. The highlighted text was considered an ‘excerpt’. Secondly, we began the open coding process by re-reading the excerpts and simplifying the data by inserting concept tags or comments/insights. We kept paper memos to discuss concepts and group them into initial categories during the open coding process, e.g., flows of literacy across affinity spaces or anonymity for free speech. We continued the analysis by refining our categories and concepts in excel sheets. At this stage, some codes or concepts were discarded because they did not relate to other concepts nor provide answers to our questions. This step could also be identified as axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Consequently, we could re-conceptualise the data by ordering it based on the new categories that arose in the previous step, e.g., collaboration, transmedia, and identity. By further integrating and reflecting on the phenomenon, we could mingle concepts, re- arrange them, and create new higher-order categories. As a result, we propose three final themes to answer the research question we focus on herein: What are the literary socialisation practices in which adolescents engage online as studied by research? These themes are travelling practices, fluid identities and roles, and collaborative transmedia literacies. This process corresponded to se­ lective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). 3. Findings 3.1. A brief overview of the research reviewed As previously stated, 30 research articles and book chapters were analysed thematically for the review. Table 1 shows the variety of these publications’ scope in terms of the digital medium, theoretical framework, and methodology. Published between 2012 and 2021, in English and Spanish, the selected research studies social practices related to reading and writing in digital mediums such as fan­ fiction sites (30%), Booktubers (16,6%) on YouTube, Wattpad (13,3%), Facebook (6,6%), Instagram (3,3%), and digital fiction (3,3%), among others. Regarding theoretical frameworks, 70% of the publications in this corpus have a literacy lens and study fictional readings or writing, either as a source for a particular fandom, as a shared affinity or as a desired profession. Literacy papers that studied reading and writing skills but were not related to youth’s fictional or literary experiences were discarded from the review selection. All publications study literary socialisation practices in online affinity spaces or other platforms that, although not considered 6 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 affinity spaces by the researchers, are used by adolescents to experience digital fiction (50%) or socialise around fiction (50%). These socially situated practices are shaped by the site’s affordances and the audience with whom adolescents share their reading experience. This empirical research follows qualitative (86,6%) –including research defined as post-qualitative- or mixed (13,3%) methods of inquiry. Within qualitative studies, ethnographic case study methods are more recurrent (40%), evidencing the need to study digital practices as ingrained in youth’s everyday lives. Although anchored to varied theoretical approaches, overall, the New Literacy Studies framework is the most frequent among scholars (30%) compared to transliteracies theory and reader response, to name a few others. The diversity of theoretical perspectives complicates the discussion and identifies gaps for relevant future research. Where specified, the studies’ participants reside in different geographical locations. The participants’ languages represented –as a first and second language- are Spanish (53,3%), English (40%), Portuguese (6,6%), and Chinese (3,3%). When specified, youth is considered broadly within the age range from 9 to 33 years old, but the average comes down to teenagers (13–19). Regarding par­ ticipants’ gender, both female and male adolescents are studied, but publications reporting on female participants are overall more frequent (60%). 3.2. Mapping youth’s literary socialisation practices in the digital media ecology The listed reviewed research allowed us to answer our first research question: what are the literary socialisation practices in which adolescents engage online? Three underpinning themes organise the findings: travelling practices, fluid identities and roles, and collaborative transmedia literacies. They touch on key issues that enable a characterisation of adolescents’ literary socialisation practices, involving aspects such as space, identity and participation. 3.2.1. Travelling practices Research shows that youth’s online literary practices are always in motion and at the intersection of two or more spaces. As they travel through and across sites, the spaces they inhabit virtually and physically overlap. These moving practices facilitate reaching a wider motivated audience to participate in socialisation processes around reading and writing. Therefore, the research included in this theme will help us showcase those movements and spatial intersections. Digital practices are essentially intermedial. Texts, genres, and applications become related through hyperlinks (Bruhn Jensen, 2016), creating a hypertextuality that we can surf in all possible directions. Through countless interfaces and windows of digital spaces, hyperlinks weave texts leading users to stopovers in a travel flow, shaping hybrid literary and literacy practices in the transmedia ecology. However, research indicates that young users engage in these flows collectively within a digital community of readers and learners. Burke (2013) identified how two adolescents sought online communities to share and discuss their interests in more depth than they could afford at school. Lluch (2014) characterised youth community affiliation as voluntary, temporal and tactic, and based on collaboration and competition. Paladines-Paredes and Aliagas (2021) proposed that Booktuber practices are community- driven through discursive rules, hence placing participation and content contribution at the centre. Affinity space (Gee, 2005) is a concept that research builds on when describing youth’s literary practices, although defined as something different from a community. Colwell, Woodward, and Hutchison (2018) explored adolescents’ participation in a digital book club, neither of whom were participants of literary affinity spaces nor out-of-school literary activities. Curwood, Magnifico, and Lammers (2013), Lammers (2016), and Martins (2020) drew on online affinity spaces to understand the writing practices of ado­ lescents on fanfiction sites, such as The Hunger Games, Neopets, The Sims, and Conquistando o Uchiha. Torrego-González, Vazquez-Calvo, and García-Marín (2021) studied the online affinity spaces that the Spanish writer Blue Jeans uses to engage and communicate with his fans. García-Roca (2016) analysed the forum Los siete reinos, where Spanish-speaking fans of A Song of Ice and Fire join to discuss the series as an example of an online literary affinity space. Padgett and Curwood (2016) discussed with Gee’s lens the affordances of the social networking site Figment for adolescents’ poetry writing. Vizcaíno-Verdú, Contreras-Pulido, and Guzmán-Franco (2019) described the practice of booktubers on the YouTube affinity space through two case studies. Gutiérrez-Martín and Torrego-González (2018) coined ‘virtual concourse’ as an alternative category to analyse Twitter, an app where Gee’s features for affinity space would not be applicable. Gee’s (2005) idea of portals, which give people access to affinity spaces, is highlighted by Padgett and Curwood (2016), putting social media tools and fandom sites as examples. The fact that multiple entry and exit points are linked to affinity spaces brings us to Black et al.’s (2017) work on flows of literacy and transmedia ecologies. They focused on how participants traverse multiple sites as they participate in story worlds through modes and mediums, a new type of literate engagement afforded by complex transmedia ecologies. The authors, who studied the transmedia ecologies surrounding The Hunger Games, drew on Cooper’s (1986) definition of flow “in which a person is continually engaged with a variety of socially constituted systems” (Black et al., 2017, p. 6). Haynes-Moore (2015) framed her research on THG digital role-play through figured worlds (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 2003), in which “people develop, perform, and continuously realign identities in an improvised response to others and in response to the social re­ lationships of the figured world” (Haynes-Moore, 2015, p. 36), triggered by tensions of our histories and cultural storylines. Although she used this theory to understand the identity-making process of role-playing youth, we could argue that through flow, adolescents negotiate with others through and across figured worlds in the transmedia ecology. Lluch (2014) added that users could adapt and mingle the communicative specificity of each platform to their own needs and tastes through these flows. There is prevalence among the reviewed research to study youth’s practices in the wild, using an affinity space as a unit of analysis (Eleá, 2012; García-Roca, 2016; Kovalik & Curwood, 2019; Lluch, 2014; Padgett & Curwood, 2016; Torrego-González et al., 2021; Vázquez-Calvo, García-Roca, & López-Báez, 2020). As out-of-school practices, they exceed the reach of formal education, offering unmediated, vernacular, and rich literacy ecologies. Moreover, they describe socially situated practices produced by unique and 7 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 contingent conditions; hence, they must be studied separately from school-produced practices to offer topical teaching implications. Nevertheless, a portion of the publications (Aliagas, 2015a; Lammers, 2016; Wargo, 2015) argued against a dichotomic paradigm and suggested blurring the in/out-of-school, online/offline, and vernacular/dominant divide when studying literacy and literary practices of adolescents. To make sense of practices, identity and learning, they imply that we would need to consider the participant as a unit of analysis to inquire how she or he traverses the digital settings, negotiates knowledge and identity, and reads, creates, or shares, among other practices. Drawing on the third space theory on sociocultural pedagogy (Moje et al., 2004; Gutiérrez, 2008), Aliagas (2015a) posed that “students’ vernacular literacies in online sites are naturally interpenetrated by dominant literacies and ‘prestigious’ ways of reading and writing” (p. 129). This process of infiltration is endorsed by García-Roca (2016), Haynes-Moore (2015), Lluch (2014) and Martins (2020), who all identified a strict use of standard English, Spanish and Portuguese in the literary forums, role-playing, and fanfiction sites studied. In these cases, correct spelling is one of the primary norms set up by moderators and compliantly followed by participants. Also, Colwell et al. (2018) informed that the participants in the digital book club used highly formal and academic English in their interactions, even though nobody asked them to write that way. In the same line, Martins (2020) and Padgett and Curwood (2016) pinpointed the value attributed by young people to canonical genres and authors in the affinity spaces studied. Arguing that technology is a tool and a lens to study people’s everyday lives, Wargo (2015) advocated that “feeling the liminalities” (p. 48) between bifurcations such as real/virtual, past/present is necessary and exemplifies this affective process through the case study of Ben’s composing in Snapchat. In the same line, Lammers (2016) described how her case participant, Angela, brings “available designs” from classrooms, online spaces, video games and other aspects of her life into her fanfiction writing practice. Regarding where to place technology in young people’s lives, we highlight the notion that online technologies extend and enrich rather than replace offline relationships and the self (Aliagas, 2015a; Wargo, 2015). Burke’s (2013) study shows an illustrative example where both case participants, adolescent English language learners in Canada, perform contrasting literate identities online and offline, which resemble at the same time differences in their home and school identities. More than highlighting a spatial dichotomy, this research portrays the digital affordances to negotiate roles and enact desired identities. The digital serves here as a liminal place to practice a skill and behaviours associated with English language acquisition. As found in the research, inhabiting a digital space is a way of exercising and building identity by belonging to a group with similar reading and writing affinities. Belonging motivates the travelling of digital practices, which grant a socialisation process. 3.2.2. Fluid identities and roles Youth’s online literary practices show different levels of engagement in participation. Depending on what they want to achieve, participants take up different identities and roles available digitally. Adolescents’ literary activity in the digital space varies in intensity and leads to diverse experiences, depending on how they want to engage and get involved. As we will see, higher levels of engagement and participation are related to more robust socialisation processes. Gee (2005) explains this affinity space feature in the following way: The whole continua of people from new to experienced, from unskilled to highly skilled, from minorly interested to addicted, and everything in-between, is accommodated in the same space. They can each get different things out of the space – based on their own choices, purposes and identities – and still mingle with others as they wish, learning from them when and where they choose (Gee, 2005, p. 225). First, we could find out what are the motivating factors for engagement. Lammers (2016) described how her case participant Angela values the tension and seriousness of The Sims Hangout because she learns from it through improving her composing. Other adolescents value sharing their creations in a friendly space without getting aggressive (Kovalik & Curwood, 2019). Anonymity plays a role in this involvement. When they do not show their authentic selves and instead use an avatar, they feel freer to show their work publicly and receive feedback. Burke’s (2013) research illustrated that anonymity for both her case studies helped to mitigate their language skills limitations and sense of otherness, offering at the same time a secure space for sharing their thoughts and being whomever they wanted to be. Eleá’s (2012) study on Brazilian webnovelas also revealed the importance of anonymity for young adolescents, mainly because of the erotic content of the stories they wrote. Participants in this study manifested that some of the reasons for using fake profiles were to avoid being detected by their parents and the need to feel freer to express their sexual fantasies. Kovalik and Curwood (2019) brought about the digital’s affordance of offering being private in public. One of the Instapoet’s par­ ticipants mentioned that having an anonymous public account helped her overcome her shyness and that finding a supportive community empowered her self-disclosure as a poet. In contrast, her close network of friends and family did not know who she was or what she thought. Youth’s possibility of being private in public is a safety net for exercising fluid identities. Aliagas (2015a) associated her case participant Lucía’s usage of Facebook with portraying herself as a reader to the social changes she goes through. When she was 14 years old, her Facebook friendships increased from family members to schoolmates and peers. Coincidently, the way she portrayed her reader identity changed. Her image of a traditional reader switched to a reader/fan, given that her references on Facebook expanded to more socially agreeable ones, such as films, music bands and football. Kovalik and Curwood (2019) pose that “Instapoetry’s aesthetic and community empower young people to consider their emotions and identities and reclaim power after mental health battles” (p. 190). They also pinpoint that engaging in open discussions about mental health is a marker of the experiments with self-making occurring across socio-cultural spaces. These authors consider that the Instapoetry community can engage young poets in identity- building processes where writing is an act of resistance –what they resist to is not developed, however. Padgett and Curwood (2016), who also studied online poetry composing, remind us that the development of digital identities does not automatically 8 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 translate into increased literacy skills. Instead, it reveals the engagement with learning communities. Also, they highlighted that when disclosing as poets, adolescents draw on the mentorship of their poetry role models, such as Poe and Dickinson, and the digital community: “Kilia reflected on how she grew very much as a poet through Figment” (p. 402). Different is what Pianzola, Rebora, and Lauer (2020) found in their Wattpad study. They remarked that adolescents who publish on this story-sharing app aspire to become famous authors, but their role models do not come from the literary tradition. Instead, popular music influences them, especially K- Pop. This point is interesting if we see it framing youth’s expectations for becoming famous/popular writers. Let us discuss youth’s negotiation of roles as explained by research. Adolescents can be apprentices, masters, mediators, or moderators of fictional knowledge among peers. Colwell et al.’s (2018) study participants self-adopted multiple discussion techniques to allow meaningful transactions with the text. In contrast with traditional face-to-face settings, the asynchronous and online features of the club facilitated students to promote their interests in the platform, which were primarily personal connections to the text and with one another. Korobkova and Collins (2018) posed that participants draw on available literate roles in an environment to stake out stances that could be categorised as genres of participation. Specifically, they identified that younger adolescents (11–15- year-olds) were more likely to use story-sharing apps with an eye toward sociality. In contrast, older adolescents (15–25- year-olds) emphasised pursuits, such as polishing and publishing their manuscripts and artwork. Consequently, Wattpad and Figment were described as “rich literacy infrastructures for different types of adolescent users as they chose stances vis-à-vis the platforms” (p. 396). From their study on Wattpad, García-Roca and De-Amo (2019) concluded that members of this community play different roles in textual reception and creation, processes in which, besides readers and writers, we can find mediators, commenters, followers, disseminators, among others. Authors show diverse ways in which youngsters demonstrate their expertise to their audience. Aliagas (2015a) pinpointed how Facebook gave her case study Lucía the opportunity to position herself as a well-informed reader and fan of the Harry Potter saga and her favourite band, One Direction. For example, by quoting Rowling’s characters and giving the latest information about the band’s affairs. Vázquez-Calvo et al. (2020) reported on Cristy’s case, a famous fanfiction writer within the Spanish-speaking community. In her biographical note, she shows proudly the awards she has won, such as best erotic fanfiction, and positions herself as an expert writer who is grateful to her readers. Pianzola et al. (2020) remarked on the identity performative act of Wattpad readers, who, through comments on the margins, say whether they are rereaders or first-time readers of the text, creating a sort of value hierarchy for the comments. Paladines-Paredes and Margallo (2020) and Ehret, Boegel, and Manuel-Nekouei (2018) identified the importance of book col­ lections within the Booktube culture. The visual aspect of this practice enhances the backgrounds, which are, by definition populated by colourful bookshelves that allow booktubers to present themselves as outstandingly avid readers. “A lot of people feel like you can’t be successful on Booktube unless you have, like, this immense collection of books” (Ehret et al., 2018, p. 156), leading to book consumerism among this audience. Paladines-Paredes and Aliagas (2021) considered booktubers reading mediators that, due to their expertise and number of likes, are encouraged by their audience to recommend books, and they do this through diverse discursive practices. Tomasena (2019) added that booktubers’ mediation is vital for the literary field, as they have become new agents connecting readers, distributors, publishers, and authors. By performing this role, booktubers gain considerable human, social and symbolic capital, putting them in a privileged position in the field. However, publications also report the negative aspects of mastering a practice. Eleá’s (2012) research of webnovelas illustrated that as writers become popular within a community, they start competing, leading to arrogant comments and the end of friendships. Participants in this research informed how popularity shifted the nature of comments from constructive feedback to a list of hashtags and trending topics, hurting the community’s amenity. Lluch (2014) also identified competition among youth in the forums studied. However, through competition, adolescents could position themselves in public and protect their capital because, although youth engage in collaborative processes online, individuality and personal projects are dominant. This conclusion is not unusual if we agree that users of affinity spaces, story-sharing apps or reading platforms utilise them “with an eye to their own needs, purposes, and literacy demands” (Korobkova & Collins, 2018, p. 388). Torrego-González et al. (2021) studied how famous authors, such as Blue Jeans, use social media to encourage literary socialisation practices among readers. They described the different uses of each platform by Blue Jeans: Facebook for announcements and news, Twitter, and Instagram to interact with fans, TikTok to show a more natural and comic angle of being a writer, and YouTube for book trailers and longer videos. Blue Jeans is conscious of the power of social media, and he considers that being digitally active and media savvy is part of the writer’s profession, especially in times of confinement. The conclusions of this case study are interesting as they reveal that there are spaces better fitted for literary socialisation, such as Twitter and forums, where more specialised content is shared. Moreover, horizontal interaction among readers and writers would encourage socio-cultural learning emanating from the community. García-Roca (2016) informed how the author of A Song of Ice and Fire shares unpublished chapters with the forum community to keep members active and engaged. Members then establish and negotiate a system of rules to aid the shared interpretation process. Here, the figure of the moderator is critical to ensure that narrative role-play sticks to the rules agreed by the community. Moderators generally win this privilege due to their expertise and commitment (Lluch, 2014). Haynes-Moore’s (2015) observation of digital role-play also portrayed moderators as gatekeepers for game development. They use appropriate standard language and ensure that the gamers’ wishes would come true, such as who should die each week until finally, the most liked characters win. The consequences of this mechanism for identity building were enormous: “Like a chess match, I reconfigured Neadle in ways to improve his chance of role-play survival” (p. 39). The everyday activities and happenings shaped the figured worlds where identities had to fit, which is not far from the participants’ real lives. The variety of roles adolescents play in the digital landscape is relevant because of Curwood et al.’s (2013) finding: as they gain social and cultural capital within the affinity space, they often take on more participatory roles within and across portals. Moreover, 9 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 this would foster the development of core literacy practices. However, the course of action of these contingent roles depends on whether platforms are sponsor or user developed. Black et al. (2017) explained that there are multiple entry points to transmedia ecologies, and the nature of these portals shape young people’s literate participation. On the one hand, governments or corporations that seek to create consumers for their products often sponsor platforms, e.g., publishing industry; on the other, users develop portals to pursue their interests and needs. These authors compare sponsored and user-developed ecologies with drillable and spreadable media (Jenkins, Ford & Green, 2013), respectively, proposing that when fans “spread” the reach of a narrative beyond the official storyworld, and use said narrative for their own purposes, they go beyond mere functional and performative uses of literacy and instead begin using literacy “to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society” (Unesco, 2004, as in Black et al., 2017, p. 16). Tomasena (2019), Martins (2020), Sánchez-García, Hernández-Ortega, and Rovira-Collado (2021) and Ehret et al. (2018) warned against the risks of co-option, copyright violations and data appropriation of corporations managing the sites where adolescents engage in their literary practices, such as Wattpad and YouTube. Paladines-Paredes and Aliagas (2021) described the strategic rela­ tionship between booktubers and publishing houses: with a book review, the publisher scores on reaching its desired audience while booktubers win status within the network for their connection with a publishing house and receive books as a reward for the trans­ action. Tomasena (2019) dug more profound into this relationship, evidencing the power imbalances against young booktubers, who find their literary autonomy compromised in their practice. Furthermore, as this collaboration is generally unpaid, debates over digital labour, content creators’ precariousness, and exploitation arise. This would be where the problem of co-option of audience creativity lies. Research has shown that participation is grounded in needs, purposes, and literacy demands (Korobkova & Collins, 2018, p. 388) and creates a virtuous circle where participation leads to more participation. As Curwood et al. (2013) have indicated, youth gain social and cultural capital through participating in an affinity space, which leads them to take on more participatory roles within and across portals. Although increased participation does not imply skills acquisition, it does promote engaging in learning communities (Padgett & Curwood, 2016). Hence, a higher engagement in digital participation would promote socialisation processes around reading and writing, especially when engaging in user-developed platforms (Black et al., 2017). 3.2.3. Collaborative transmedia literacies Research concurs with the idea that one of youth’s digital literary practices’ most exciting and motivating features is the interaction with an authentic audience, allowing engaging in practices that result in self and peer-directed learning. This conclusion relates to the idea that youth attribute value to the interests and knowledge of others and that quality is judged by groups rather than appointed experts (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007). Moreover, research informs diverse transmedia practices when youngsters engage with texts in collaboration with an authentic audience in the digital environment. Collaboration can be intentional or a random and fragmentary interaction that, as a result, leads to a collaborative thought or production. These practices involve meaning making, adapting, remaking, applying, expanding, creating, translating to life, thinking intertextually, intervening in a story, and commoning and varying. Transmedia engagement is attained through reading, writing, playing, designing book covers, reviewing, commenting, giving feedback, and recommending. In this section, we will not describe these practices extensively; instead, focus on how the digital en­ hances collaborative practices and experiences with fiction. Eleá’s (2012) study participant’s statement brings forth youth’s attribution of value to the knowledge and interests of an authentic peer audience: “My teacher just teaches Portuguese rules, and asks for some compositions, just some, the classes, yes they’re inter­ esting, but I don’t feel motivated, what motivates me is having a lot of people who like what I write, this is my greatest inspiration” (Eleá, 2012, p. 84). Research suggests that some digital platforms have better affordances to enhance interaction. Sánchez-García et al. (2021) analysed youth’s books reviews from the Goodreads site, concluding that this is an effective unidirectional recommendation medium, where little interaction takes place. Gutiérrez-Martín and Torrego-González (2018) considered Twitter a ‘virtual concourse’. Although ad­ olescents interact to some degree in this space, their participation does not lead to building community ties, engaging in relationships based on affinity, or developing ideas. However, because youngsters used it while watching The Hunger Games televised film, Twitter led to a monologic transmedia production of meaning by the participating audience. The authors considered the participants’ com­ ments on the film shallow and a missed opportunity to tackle controversial aspects of the THG story world, such as violence, gender, social inequality, or race (see also Haynes-Moore, 2015). Conversely, posts focused mainly on the love story and characters’ bodies. Similar conclusions arose Torrego-González and Gutiérrez-Martín’s (2018) research article about youth’s use of Twitter while watching a televised film based on a Blue Jeans’ novel. Here, users did not interact with each other, and their messages drew on their affective experience toward the film or the book. In this case, the authors considered youth’s Twitter transmedia production playful. It recreates and extends a reading experience, concurring in time and space through a synchronised activity on television and Twitter. Torrego-González et al.’s (2021) analysis of Blue Jeans’ fan affinity spaces also concluded that user messages emphasise affective reactions toward the author’s work instead of focusing on textual or literary aspects (see also Lluch, 2014). Curwood et al. (2013) explained how Cassie, a case participant who found a space to grow her affinity for The Hunger Games in the fandom, sought intertextual connections in social media. “Twitter gives me the chance to connect with people in the fandom that I may not have interacted with otherwise, and it begins a lot of interesting debates and conversations with fans” (p. 681). Interestingly, they suggest Twitter is a space that allows expanding a network and engaging in travelling practices across portals. This point was also endorsed by Vázquez-Calvo et al. (2020), who added that fanfiction production across channels transforms the unitary text into a multimodal one. In their Wattpad study, Pianzola et al. (2020) found that teen fiction could prompt intense social interactions through the clustering 10 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 of users, while classic texts were not. Serialised publishing also enhanced the interaction of users, evidenced by the commenting activity of readers on their margins, who influence the argument and character development (García-Roca & De-Amo, 2019). Pianzola et al. (2020) also identified peer learning and collective intelligence in Wattpad social interactions, as attested by the reciprocal help that users offer each other in explaining paragraphs that were not understood. Colwell et al. (2018) identified the same peer support when observing the participants’ interactions in the digital book club. For example, when they sought common background knowledge to clarify and further their questioning to engage in a conversation. Moreover, through threaded interaction elicited by responses to questions, participants could discuss emotional and personal connections with books. Paladines-Paredes and Aliagas (2021) discursive analysis of Booktube’s book reviews evidenced that these videos are structured around describing the characters, the argument, the reading rhythm, the author’s style and the main topics found. However, there is hardly a critical assessment of the text. Due to the structurally social dimension of booktubers’ video reviews, this tool’s potential is to engage and motivate the audience by considering followers’ suggestions in the videos and referring directly to them. Paladines-Paredes and Margallo (2020) concluded that booktubers’ socialisation practices could be summarised through personalisation, interaction, and knowledge. Hence, young audiences follow a booktuber for their specific preferences, collections, or opinions (see also Vizcaíno-Verdú et al., 2019). However, because of the permanent interaction allowed by the social functions of the media, participants quickly grow into a community of readers, creators and reviewers that share their specific knowledge horizontally. In Gee’s (2005) terms, the knowledge shared across Booktube culture makes its distribution and dispersion possible in a more extensive network of people who can then try to articulate their tacit knowledge textually and visually. Nevertheless, Tomasena (2019) warned about the shift that Booktube culture is experimenting toward commercial interests instead of aesthetic, literary values due to the publishing industry’s influence. This would eventually mark a trend in the type of knowledge circulating in the practice. Hence, pure horizontal relationships do not exist on the net. Although there are increasing entry points for knowledge, situated hierarchies shall continuously operate in the digital media ecology. Ehret et al. (2018) proposed that booktubers’ practice is built on a process of commoning and variation. They described it as an affective force that “sustains desires for belonging in the BookTube community as a reader and video maker while also continuously individuating as a reader and video maker in and outside of BookTube” (p. 157). They added that the pressure to common and vary is necessary to become a full participant and keep the culture alive and evolving. Consequently, their inquiries call for a more critical pedagogy that pushes youth toward variation, rather than commoning: Could a pedagogy of design literacies overfocused on commoning, on fitting a predefined discursive mold, so to speak, motivate youths toward seeking more corporate sponsorship? Could a commoning design pedagogy open the door for more corporate co-opting of youth labor through the exploitation of participatory pressures? (Ehret et al., 2018, p. 160). Participants across the research studies highly value the feedback they receive from their peers on the work they share. Padgett and Curwood (2016) consider Figment’s community interaction as inherently reciprocal and collaborative, in which members, for example, trade reviews. In interviews, participants asserted that constructive feedback was a predominant feature of this affinity space, but the linguistic analysis suggested otherwise: 85% of feedback is affirmational, while only 3% is constructive. These figures mean that the feedback trend is to praise poetry rather than denigrate it or provide strategies for improvement. Also, feedback comments mainly belong to readers expressing their feelings about the texts consumed. Kovalik and Curwood’s (2019) research on Instapoets revealed that they rely primarily on private feedback from smaller groups communicating via direct message. One of the participants explained that when he is unsure about a poem, he asks his support group privately, and if they say it is not good, he does not post it. This example illustrates a collaborative composition process with individuals geographically dispersed via digital means. Participants also noted that with the widespread consumption of Instapoetry, a decrease in deep engagement of readers by offering commentary and critique came along, and instead, the tendency became to view and like. García-Roca and De-Amo (2019) pinpointed that feedback is also one of the motivations for Wattpad writers, who feel encouraged to align their texts to the readers’ wishes and opinions. In the same line, Vázquez-Calvo et al. (2020) emphasised the relevance of readers’ friendly and constructive feedback for fanfiction writers to configuring and polishing their stories. Similarly, Haynes-Moore (2015) highlighted the dynamism that feedback, through processes of revision and response, granted the story’s collaborative development in THG role-play. Hence, social collaboration, together with the storytelling techniques encouraged by moderators, such as imagery, characterisation, and dialogue, was integral to creating a text. Using The New London Group’s “Designs of Meaning” framework, Lammers (2016) explained how her case participant Angela, realised that the fanfic site where she used to write was a serious and committed community. Receiving critical feedback made her invest time and develop good plotlines for The Sims Writers’ Hangout. Writing for this exigent audience made her take writerly choices that resulted in an improved design: “Angela’s case sheds light on how a writer’s active participation in an online writing space can shape the Designing process, resulting in collaboratively constructed Redesigned products that are returned to the space to be shared” (p. 327). Kovalik and Curwood’s (2019) case study highlighted that poems posted on Instagram rely mainly on text, where video usage is minimal and audio non-existent. Also, participants value the ease provided by the app, where they can compose and publish naturally and spontaneously with their mobile phones, with no previous editing. Thus, relevance is given mainly to the act of sharing and being surrounded by rich texts from people with the same affinity, together with the opportunity to improve writing skills. When describing the types of transmedia produced by youngsters on The Hunger Games, Black et al. (2017) highlighted the rich process of video makers, who collapse their interests in the narrative and gaming into one another: “they see the original story, gaming platforms, and video production as components of a larger engagement with storyworld building that traverses multiple media and forms of narrative construction” (p. 12). These authors praised other forms of sophisticated literacy around THG, such as a parodic retelling in which the original story reflected critically high school as a place of social sorting. This literate exercise demonstrates how adolescents translate fictional texts to their lived experiences. Other forms of transmedia engagement include the melding of media genres and commu­ nicative modes, “or blurring the boundaries of the storyworld to make it more relevant to fans’ interests or daily lives” (p. 15). 11 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 García-Roca’s (2016) literary forum analysis showed the strong engagement youth experience with the texts through social, emotional, and intellectual involvement. They willfully role-play with the texts, getting affectively immersed in a learning experience. Ramada-Prieto, Fittipaldi and Manresa (2021) explored how adolescents interact and interpret The Empty Kingdom digital fiction, where reading and gaming are collapsed into one single practice. They found that participants have less trouble playing with the text than building meaning. Most participants knew how to play the game but did not demonstrate an interpretive stance toward this digital fiction. As the authors posed, interactivity helps to live virtually physically the loneliness and disorientation that the character ex­ periences through design, positioning, and game dynamism. Furthermore, feeling the materiality of digital fiction as a liminal medium –both a video game and a narrative text- would assist the readers/gamers to experience the fiction. Wargo’s (2015) Snapchat case study drew on affect theory to understand Ben’s practice, for whom Snapchat is a tool to “create an experience” by composing and supplanting pre-existing objects and histories into an unfolding narrative. His goal as a composer is to create ephemeral art. “Focusing on perspective, angle, approach, mode and dialogue, Ben uses the application not only to convey message and meaning to his Snapchat audience but to also navigate physical space and surrounding geographies” (p. 55). Called a narrative cartographer by the author, Ben’s case illustrates a composing practice where the most affective weight is on the navigation of spatial stories of the self. The research reviewed suggests that some platforms or affinity spaces are more capable of producing participant interaction. For Curwood et al. (2013), Twitter is a good entry point to expand a network. García-Roca and De-Amo (2019) and Pianzola et al. (2020) highlight Wattpad as an exceptionally interactive platform due to the comments on the margin. Booktube is an engaging space that can reach a broad audience but is more susceptible to corporate co-option (Ehret et al., 2018; Tomasena, 2019). Other affinity spaces, such as video games or literary forums, would promote experiencing transmedia practices by being affectively immersed. Interaction’s most valued form by participants is feedback and peer review of their creative work. 4. Discussion The findings shed light upon youth’s digital literary socialisation practices as informed by current research, which we have described from the angles of spatiality, identity, and participation. Orientated by RQ1, we learned that these online practices are part of a literacy flow travelling the digital spaces that adolescents inhabit in their everyday lives. Also, online interactions lead to so­ phisticated forms of collaboration around fiction that enhance literary and literacy experiences and exercise multiple identities and roles. We build on Van Lierop-Debrauwer’s (1990) definition of socialisation as a learning and motivation process in social interaction and is grounded in social needs. To this, we add that youth’s literary socialisation online is a process that: • Is always dynamic and involves that participants travel across sites and portals in a flow of practices. • Is available to all and directly proportional to the level of engagement of each one. • Is facilitated by interaction and collaboration with an authentic audience. • Produces learning with an adaptive nature due to a changing digital ecology. Drawing on Eriksson Barajas (2015), learning about youth’s literary practices allowed us to answer how, where, and why ado­ lescents use fiction in everyday life. However, we are also interested in discussing these practices’ effects on those who engage with them (Radway, 2012), or in other words, what the implications are for youth’s literary education. The amount of work published in this research area allows scholars to better understand adolescent readers’ relationship with digital media and stop seeing the internet as a challenge to youth’s literary culture. Inversely, we would like to discuss this relationship in terms of affordances: What makes the digital an enabling environment for youngsters to build meanings and feelings on the literature they read and write? To answer, we would like to draw attention to three aspects: the plasticity of the digital to exercise and perform varied identities and roles, the possibility of engaging in connected learning, and the recognition of emotion as a valid form of experiencing fiction. • Digital plasticity: Digital plasticity allows youth to be whomever they want. Research explains the variety of ways adolescents play with their identity when trying to find their place and voice in public. Anonymity and fake profiles help them feel freer when writing creatively and commenting on story worlds. Moreover, the availability of roles in the digital environment offers youth engaging with texts on multiple levels and relating with agents in the literary field and the knowledge surrounding them. By doing this, young people are invited to exercise ways to be in the world virtually and face-to-face, for their online portrayal is part of a process of giving and taking from other spatial contexts, such as home and school. Therefore, youth’s identity performance online is not separated, but is an extension of their everyday selves, contingent on their situation. From her study of youth’s use of MySpace, boyd (2008) concluded that within identity performance, “the process of learning to read social cues and react accordingly is core to being socialised into a society” (p. 129), and adds that the teenage years offer plenty of opportunities to develop these skills. Therefore, when writing their digital bodies into being (boyd, 2008), adolescents use the Internet’s virtuality to master a necessary skill. Furthermore, they negotiate with their offline selves by showing their most desirable characteristics online, as most virtual friends are also friends or acquaintances offline. Contrarily, when creating a fake profile, they want to mislead and complicate their audience, perhaps to gain control over who sees them and who does not. • Global and authentic audience for connected learning: Reaching a global audience allows youth to connect with people who love the same books and topics regardless of their geographical location, age, and kinship –or its lack. These contingent relationships set the ground for consumption and production processes in collaboration with others. Through these meaningful interactions, youth engage in connected learning; this is “learning that is socially connected, interest-driven, and oriented towards educational, 12 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 economic or political opportunity” (Ito et al., 2013, p. 4). The digital media ecology becomes a production-centred learning environment with a shared purpose and openly networked (Ito et al., 2013; Martin, 2019). Here, youth’s needs, interests, available modes and media, and inputs from the field’s agents, such as authors, the publishing industry or even other readers and fans, shape literary socialisation organically. With the possibility of engaging in friendly and collaborative relationships with these agents through social media and affinity spaces, adolescents’ empowerment increases, embarking in more serious –and sometimes even professional- ventures, such as writing, reviewing, or editing. • Affective reader response: The nature of interactions invites youth to embrace emotion when reading, writing, and playing with fictional worlds. Research explains that young readers’ comments on fictional texts demonstrate primarily an emotional response about the feelings triggered by the text or others’ comments on the text, how they identify themselves with the story world, and what resources the text offers to apply in their lives. Although some authors consider these responses as opaquing youth’s critical engagement with the fictional worlds, emotional involvement is the best sign that adolescents have significant reading experiences. For Gee (2021), humans learn through experience, and experience consist on the sensations that result when internal feelings, perceptions, and emotions are coupled with outer sensations from the world. Following Gee’s thesis, by having the possibility to engage with an audience and express their affective experiences with the books they read, adolescents would have meaningful reading and composing processes that lead them to learn. Affective engagement would also aid youth experiencing hybrid fictional genres such as digital fiction, which invite the readers or gamers to experience the character’s emotions in bodily fashions. Together with demonstrating the cross-generational nature of participation, the research reviewed invites us to reflect on essential issues for literary education. Firstly, the myriad of roles that youngsters encounter in their digital wanderings allows them to be pupils and educators simultaneously, fading, yet not entirely, the traditional and hierarchical order of formal education. If the possibility of trying out roles makes the digital a thriving learning ecology, formal and informal educational organisations need to consider the flexibilisation of roles more seriously to encourage affinity. For example, by enhancing and maintaining long-standing student-driven projects and platforms around books, video games, writing and composing, and fandoms. In line with the New Literacy Studies’ aim of tackling social injustice (Gee, 1991; Street, 1995), we believe that one of today’s formal education roles is to strengthen the youth’s agency to be better equipped to deal with power forces in the digital ecology. As suggested by Ehret et al. (2018), a pedagogy of variation could tackle the problem of digital corporate co-option and other collective pressures, channelling youth toward “productive individuation” (160). Secondly, as a traditional agent of literary socialisation, the school is invited to allow students to freely engage in their reading processes, based on affinity and the affective encounters with fiction. To have meaningful reading experiences, students need to feel what they read and enact it. In other words, make it their own. For Law (2009), learning is a continuous product of a translation process, which “means generating new ordering effects that are engaging and meaningful to the students” (Bauer, 2015, p. 623). Hence, the school must promote that students engage in translation practices with literature, inviting youth’s voices to the scene. Through affective and collaborative engagements with fiction, adolescents would embark on self-driven cultural and critical education at school. Building on RQ2 and RQ3, the research review has opened many paths to understanding youth’s literary socialisation practices in the digital media ecology. The extensive body of work that has studied the material affordances of specific affinity spaces and digital communities for youth to engage in literate practices with fictional worlds is relevant to our inquiry. Research case studies offer insightful discussions with an eye on the participants’ perspectives on their literary practices. In this line, we recognise a gap in research that evidences the transmedia flows of young people in and out of the digital media ecology, shedding light on the factors that motivate the travelling of literary practices. Building on the geographies of youth (Evans, 2008) and education (Bauer, 2015), we believe that educational research can enormously benefit by zooming in on individuals in relation to the digital and other materialities, especially when studying learning practices that occur across spaces, such as the real and the virtual, at home and school, individually and socially. By further enriching the field of literary education with studies on and with young people and their geographies, we head toward the literary geographies of youth. We expect this study area to bring to the surface the social-and-material enactments co- producing literary knowledge (Bauer, 2015) among young people in their vast and hybrid learning ecologies. Moreover, as we acknowledge the growing field of ‘digital studies’ (Rupert, Law, & Savage, 2013) and its ever-increasing scopes and methods, we endorse cultural geography theories to enrich literary education conceptually and methodologically. Like school, sports club, church or home, the digital world is an everyday geography for youth. Nevertheless, through practices, attitudes, and interactions, some live online a literary self that is far more complex than what school can grasp. Thus, we call for research that travels across geographies with youth searching for their social engagements with fiction. 5. Conclusion This systematic review’s findings evidence that research is actively exploring youth’s digital literary socialisation practices that lead to new learning methods of reading, writing, and experiencing fictional worlds. Within this learning ecology, technology is embodied in the everyday life of adolescents. Thus, dichotomic understandings, such as those that separate the virtual and the real, do not contribute to the discussion. Ways of reading and writing mutate and are permeated by other transmedia practices that locate youth further away from the topic of the solitary reader, traditionally endorsed by school. After analysing our data, we generated three themes that described youth’s online literary socialisation practices: travelling practices, fluid identities and roles and transmedia collaboration. This description has led to refining our understanding of youth’s literary socialisation online as a process that: is always dynamic and involves that participants travel across sites and portals in a flow of practices; is available to all and directly proportional 13 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 to the level of engagement of each one; is facilitated by interaction and collaboration with an authentic audience; and produces learning with an adaptive nature due to a changing digital ecology. Identifying practices allowed describing the digital world’s affordances for youth’s literary socialisation as fluid, global and af­ fective. Adolescents navigate the digital space adopting different roles and identities depending on their needs and interests. By doing so, they engage with a worldwide audience in transmedia production and consumption processes. The nature of this engagement is primarily affective, which offers learning opportunities to other socialisation agents, such as schools. Literary education can benefit significantly from fostering the relationship between young readers and the digital environment. We consider that further promoting youth’s agency at school and validating affective and material encounters with texts virtually and physically may narrow the gap between informal and formal learning spaces and possibly increase reading engagement. The structuring themes of spatiality, youth identity and collaboration prompted us to suggest studying the issue further, within the field of literary education, with the theoretical lens of geographies of youth. Funding This work was supported by the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) [grant number 72210170, 2020]. Declaration of competing interest None. Acknowledgements We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, and a special thank you to Eliane Van Alboom for her diligent proofreading of this paper. References Aliagas, C. (2015a). Schooled literacy in teenagers’ online writing. In S. Plane, C. Bazerman, F. Rondelli, C. Donahue, A. N. Applebee, C. Boré, & D. Russell (Eds.), International Exchanges on the Study of WritingResearch on writing: Multiple perspectives. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and CREM. Aliagas, C. (2015b). Students’ Facebook: The magnifying glass on the social construction of teenagers’ reading identity. In F. Sabaté (Ed.), Conditioned identities: Wished-for and unwished-for identities (pp. 357–384). Peter Lang. Alvermann, D. E. (2009). Reaching/teaching adolescents. Literacies with a history. In J. V. Hoffman, & Y. M. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times. An historical perspective on the future of reading research, public policy and classroom practices. New York: Routledge. Alvermann, D. E., & Hinchman, K. A. (2012). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives. In Bridging the Everyday/Academic Divide. New York: Routledge. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press. Bauer, I. (2015). Approaching geographies of education differANTly. Children’s Geographies, 13(5), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1044197 Black, R. W., Alexander, J., & Korobkova, K. A. (2017). Flows of literacy across corporate and user-produced virtual worlds. Teachers College Record, 119(12), 1–20. boyd, D. (2008). Why youth <3 social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learningYouth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bruhn Jensen, K. (2016). Intermediality. In K. Bruhn Jensen, R. T. Craig, J. D. Pooley, & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. Wiley Online. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect170. Burke, A. (2013). Creating identity: The online worlds of two English language learners. Language and Literacy, 15(3), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.20360/G2DS38 Colwell, J., Woodward, L., & Hutchison, A. (2018). Out-of-school reading and literature discussion: An exploration of adolescents’ participation in digital book clubs. Online Learning, 22(2), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1222 Cooper, M. (1986). The ecology of writing. College English, 48, 364–375. Cordón-García, J. A., Alonso-Arévalo, J., Gómez-Díaz, R., & Linder, D. (2013). Social reading. Platforms, applications, clouds and tags. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Curwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the wild. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/ JAAL.192 Davey, F. (1993). Post-national Arguments: The Politics of the Anglophone-Canadian Novel since 1967. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ehret, C., Boegel, J., & Manuel-Nekouei, R. (2018). The role of affect in adolescents’ online literacies: Participatory pressures in BookTube culture. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.881 Eleá, I. (2012). Fanfiction and webnovelas. The digital reading and writing of brazilian adolescent girls. In K. Ross (Ed.), The handbook of gender, sex, and media (1st ed., pp. 71–87). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118114254.ch5 Eriksson Barajas, K. (2015). Discursive reception studies: A path toward knowledge about fiction in everyday life. Journal of Literary Theory, 9(1), 4–24. https://doi. org/10.1515/jlt-2015-0002 Evans, B. (2008). Geographies of Youth/Young people. Geography. Compass, 2(5), 1659–1680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00147.x Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7, 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.004 García-González, M., & Deszcz-Tryhubczak, J. (2020). New materialist openings to Children’s literature studies. International Research in Children’s Literature, 13(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.3366/ircl.2020.0327 García-Roca, A. (2016). Prácticas lectoras en espacios de afinidad: Formas participativas en la cultura digital. Ocnos, 15(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_ 2016.15.1.979 García-Roca, A., & De-Amo, J. M. (2019). Jóvenes escritores en la red: Un estudio exploratorio sobre perfiles de wattpad. Ocnos, 18(3), 18–28. https://doi.org/ 10.18239/ocnos_2019.18.3.1968 Gee, J. P. (1991). Social linguistics: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton, & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012. Gee, J. P. (2021). Thoughts at the end of time on what is a human? [Keynote presentation]. Madrid, Spain: Congreso ISCAR Ibérico IV, Cultura Digital y Cambio Social, Universidad de Alcalá. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. 14 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 Gutiérrez-Martín, A., & Torrego-González, A. (2018). The twitter games: Media education, popular culture and multiscreen viewing in virtual concourses. Information, Communication & Society, 21(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1284881 Haynes, J., & Murris, K. (2017). Intra-generational education: Imagining a post-age pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(10), 971–983. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00131857.2016.1255171 Haynes-Moore, S. (2015). Trading spaces: An educator’s ethnographic exploration of adolescents’ digital role-play. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 11(1), 34–46. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2003). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hurrelmann, K. (1989). Adolescents as Productive Processors of Reality: Methodological Perspectives. In K. Hurrelmann, & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents. International perspectives (pp. 107–118). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Ito, M., et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Jenkins, H. (2007). Transmedia storytelling 101 [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Retrieved from. In MacArthur Foundation White Paper https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/jenkins_white_paper.pdf. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: NYU Press. Jensen Arnett, J. (2015). Socialization in emerging adulthood. From the family to the wider world, from socialization to self-socialization. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 85–108). The Guilford Press. Korobkova, K. A., & Collins, P. (2018). The variety of user experiences: Literacy roles and stances on story-sharing platforms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62 (4), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.909 Kovalik, K., & Curwood, J. S. (2019). #poetryisnotdead: Understanding instagram poetry within a transliteracies framework. Literacy, 53(4), 185–195. https://doi. org/10.1111/lit.12186 Kraaykamp, G. (2003). Literary socialization and reading preferences. Effects of parents, the library, and the school. Poetics, 31, 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0304-422X(03)00033-0 Kucirkova, N., & Cremin, T. (2020). Children reading for pleasure in the digital age. Mapping reader engagement. London: SAGE. Lammers, J. C. (2016). “The Hangout was serious business”: Leveraging participation in an online space to design Sims fanfiction. Retrieved from Research in the Teaching of English, 50(3), 309–332 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24889924. Lammers, J. C., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. M. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. Retrieved from: English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(2), 44–58 http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2012v11n2art3.pdf. Lang, A. (2012). Introduction: Transforming reading. In A. Lang (Ed.), From codex to hypertext. Reading at the turn of the twenty-first century (pp. 1–24). Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang. Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Social theory (pp. 141–158). London: Wiley-Blackwell. Lluch, G. (2010). Las nuevas lecturas deslocalizadas de la escuela. In G. Lluch (Ed.), Las lecturas de los jóvenes. Un nuevo lector Para un nuevo siglo (pp. 105–128). Barcelona: Editorial Anthropos. Lluch, G. (2014). Jóvenes y adolescentes hablan de lectura en la red. Retrieved from: Ocnos, 11, 7–20 http://www.revista.uclm.es/index.php/ocnos/article/view/ 441. Long, E. (1992). Textual interpretation as collective action. Retrieved from: Discourse, 14(3), 104–130 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41389235. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities, and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. Manresa, M. (2018). Adolescent reading habits: The effects of school activities on reading practices. In E. Arizpe, & G. C. Hodges (Eds.), Young People Reading. Empirical Research Across International Contexts (pp. 123–136). London: Routledge. Manresa, M., & Margallo, A. M. (2016). Prácticas de lectura en red: exploración de blogs literarios adolescentes. Retrieved from Catalejos. Revista sobre lectura, formación de lectores y literatura para niños, 2(3), 51–69 https://fh.mdp.edu.ar/revistas/index.php/catalejos/article/view/1985. Marsh, J. P, & Stolle, E. P (2006). Re/constructing identities: A tale of two adolescents. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (2nd ed., pp. 47–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Martin, C. (2019). Leveling up: Connecting to meaningful opportunities. In M. Ito, et al. (Eds.), Affinity online. How Connection and Shared Interest Fuel Learning (pp. 123–163). NY: New York University Press. Martins, P. (2020). Multiliteracies and language ideologies in contemporary fanfic literacy practices. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 59(1), 353–385. https://doi. org/10.1590/010318135943415912020 McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., & Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. Survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.021 Merga, M. K. (2013). Should silent reading feature in a secondary school English programme? West Australian students’ perspectives on silent reading. English in Education, 47(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12026 Merga, M. K. (2014). Peer group and friend influences on the social acceptability of adolescent book Reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.273 Merga, M. K. (2015). Are avid adolescent readers social networking about books? New Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13614541.2015.976073 Moje, E. B., et al. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy. An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. Morgan, W. (1997). Critical literacy in the classroom. London: Routledge. Nakamura, L. (2013). “Words with friends”: Socially networked reading on goodreads. PMLA, 128(1), 238–243. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). Pisa in focus (Vol. 8). Washington DC: OECD. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48624701.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en Padgett, E. R., & Curwood, J. S. (2016). A figment of their imagination. Adolescent poetic literacy in an online affinity space. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59 (4), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.453 Paladines-Paredes, L., & Aliagas, C. (2021). Videoreseñas de booktubers como espacios de mediación literaria. Ocnos, 20(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_ 2021.20.1.2489 Paladines-Paredes, L. V., & Margallo, A. M. (2020). Los canales booktuber como espacio de socialización de prácticas lectoras juveniles. Ocnos, 19(1), 55–67. https:// doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2020.19.1.1975 Pianzola, F., Rebora, S., & Lauer, G. (2020). Wattpad as a resource for literary studies. Quantitative and qualitative examples of the importance of digital social reading and readers’ comments in the margins. PLoS ONE, 15(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226708 Pinder, J. (2012). Online literary communities. A Case study of librarything. In A. Lang (Ed.), From codex to hypertext. Reading at the turn of the twenty-first century (pp. 68–87). Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Poveda, D. (2003). Literature socialization in a kindergarten classroom. Retrieved from: Journal of Folklore Research, 40(3), 233–272 https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3814910. Radway, J. (2012). Zines Then and Now: What are they? What do you do with them? How do they work? In A. Lang (Ed.), From codex to hypertext. Reading at the turn of the twenty-first century (pp. 27–47). Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Ramada-Prieto, L., Fittipaldi, M., & Manresa, M. (2021). Interpretar (a) la deriva: caracterización del lector empírico medio en The Empty Kingdom. Ocnos, 20(1), 96–107. 15 L. Santa María et al. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34 (2022) 100628 Rupert, E., Law, J., & Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 22–46. https://doi. org/10.1177/0263276413484941 Sánchez-García, P., Hernández-Ortega, J., & Rovira-Collado, J. (2021). Leyendo al lector social: evolución de la literatura infantil y juvenil española en goodreads. Ocnos, 20(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2021.20.1.2446 Scolari, C. (2008). Hipermediaciones: Elementos Para una teoría de la comunicación digital interactiva. Barcelona: Gedisa. Scolari, C. A., Masanet, M. J., Guerrero-Pico, M., & Establés, M. J. (2018). Transmedia literacy in the new media ecology: Teens’ transmedia skills and informal learning strategies. El profesional de la información, 27(4), 801–812. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.jul.09 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications Inc. Street, B. (1995). Social literacies. London: Longman. Street, B. (2003). Whats’s “new” in new literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. Thelwall, M. (2019). Reader and author gender and genre in goodreads. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(2), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0961000617709061 Thomas, A. (2007). Youth online: Identity and literacy in the digital age. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tomasena, J. M. (2019). Negotiating collaborations: BookTubers, The Publishing Industry, and YouTube’s Ecosystem. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–12. https://doi. org/10.1177/2056305119894004 Torrego-González, A., & Gutiérrez-Martín, A. (2018). El consumo literario como experiencia compartida en entornos transmedia. El caso de El club de los incomprendidos. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 9(2), 231–240. https://www.doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM2018.9.2.7. Torrego-González, A., Vazquez-Calvo, B., & García-Marín, D. (2021). El fandom de blue jeans: Lectura y socialización literaria en línea. Ocnos, 20(1), 65–81. https:// doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2021.20.1.2459 Van Lierop-Debrauwer, H. (1990). In Ik heb het wel in jóuw stem gehoord. Over de rol van het gezin in de literaire socialisatie van kinderen. Delft: Eburon. Van Peer, W. (1991). Literary socialization in the family: A state of the art. Poetics, 20, 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(91)90024-J Vázquez-Calvo, B., García-Roca, A., & López-Báez, C. (2020). Domesticar la ‘selva digital’: el fanfiction a examen a través de la mirada de una fanfictioner. Retrieved from EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 9(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v9i1.12239. Vizcaíno-Verdú, A., Contreras-Pulido, P., & Guzmán-Franco, M. D. (2019). Lectura y aprendizaje informal en YouTube: El booktuber. Comunicar, 59(XXVII), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.3916/C59-2019-09 Vlieghe, J., Muls, J., & Rutten, K. (2016). Everybody reads: Reader engagement with literature in social media environments. Poetics, 54, 25–37. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.poetic.2015.09.001 Wargo, J. M. (2015). Spatial stories with nomadic narrators: Affect, snapchat, and feeling embodiment in youth mobile composing. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 11(1), 47–64. Weller, S. (2006). Situating (young) teenagers in geographies of children and youth. Children’s Geographies, 4(1), 97–108. Williams, B. (2009). Shimmering literacies. Popular culture & reading & writing online. New York: Peter Lang. Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. 16