The Decision-Making Process and the Construction of Online Sociality through the Digital Storytelling Methodology

Abstract

Digital storytelling (DST) is a teaching methodology (and tool) that is very widespread in different types of training: formal and informal, professional, and for adults. Presently, education is evolving and moving towards digital storytelling, starting from the models of Lambert and Olher. Today, although DST is usually used in the training that students receive for narrative learning, experimentation on the psychological and social consequences of this online teaching practice is still scarce. The literature acknowledges the widespread use of DST online, from psychology to communication and from marketing to training, providing Lambert’s and Olher’s models as references. Thus, the purpose of experimentation in this subject has been to try to mix these two models by selecting the phases of the model that focus most on creativity and narrative writing. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the experimentation conducted in the initial training of teachers to monitor the processes of negotiating content, making decisions and building a group atmosphere through the use of a narrative technique in an educational context. The sample was offered comprehension activities on narrative categories, creativity and autobiographical writing. The process in the group choice phase (negotiation) of the story was monitored through a questionnaire that includes three scales (the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire, Organisational Attitude, and Negotiations Self-Assessment Inventory). The study concluded that the standardised planning of activities that, to a greater degree of depth, promote participation and emotional involvement allows the creation of strong group thinking and affects the decision-making and negotiation processes of the activities being carried out by the participants.

1. Introduction

Digital storytelling (DST) consists of digital narratives; therefore, it refers to short stories of a personal or academic nature. Digital storytellers transform narrations into videos lasting a few minutes, but there is no standard duration. Over time, in reality, the duration is increasingly compressed. The first cases of digital storytelling, created by Dana Winslow Atchley [1], were real theatrical performances in the 1970s. This format was then gradually modified and condensed, and what emerged was a more contemporary organisation that crystallised, starting from the 1990s, into videos of about two–three minutes long. Today, the duration of these narrations has been reduced further to a maximum of two minutes [2]. These videos include moving images, photographs, titles and effects such as transitions, often accompanied by the author’s narrative voice or a background soundtrack [3]. These narratives are not implied to be works of art; in the sense of sophisticated technology, they are not glossy and commercial products but are somewhat distorted and imperfect from a formal and language point of view [4]. These are authentic, personal stories, which depict the true characteristic of DST. Therefore, rather than being fabricated, these stories tell our tales [5].

Digital narratives can potentially merge two apparently different worlds: first, the oral story of the powerful human tool of speech and, second, the orality characterised by new media. The autobiographical narration of these digital narratives blends with innovative and digital tools, such as latest-generation cameras and mobile phones [6]. This amalgamation gives life to another medium, as it is the content that transforms the instrument. Consequently, a device emerges, which is the media that has its own autonomy and specific quality. The structure is a necessary condition to free the creative intentionality and the poetic dimension contained within this narrative [7]. All of this can be transferred to an educational context because when DSTs are effectively applied in schools, we realise that children, who are apparently unmotivated or even marginalised by the formal context of education, become reanimated with these devices. They speak and find the space to express their voice with the tools that are closest to them, such as those of digital media.

The tools available today, namely weblogs, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc. allow users to share personal stories and interpretations of reality, comment on stories and expand their social networks. They have the commercial mainstream tools used by the younger generation [8,9]. Students already use these devices, which means that they do not consider engaging in this practice as difficult or didactic. They themselves learnt the elements and media tools that can be reconstructed and reconceptualised critically at school, making them put their creative skills into play on a path that is already programmed [10].

The narrative serves not only to communicate with others or convey emotions but, above all, to understand and interpret the world. This implies that the structure of the narrative is a useful tool in psychological terms to make sense of the complexity of the world [11]. It is a very beautiful and effective formulation in a context in which we are over-exposed to all forms of media stories and are urged to compulsively consume and produce fragments of narration on social networks. Thinking about using these tools in a didactic context is a great challenge that relies on the foreknowledge that students have. The work lies precisely in the fact that teachers have the ability to mediate content and training goals on other dimensions that are merely technical ones of well-made photography. The Center DST in Berkeley has a slogan, which implies that each of us has a story to tell, and technologies enhance the meaning of the story and amplify the narrator’s voice [12]. Hence, two main models of digital storytelling emerge. First, the classical model refers to the tradition of digital narratives that provide for the narration of autobiographical stories in digital formats through first-person audio narrations and presents a narrative structure similar to traditional models. On the other hand, the model of digital narratives 2.0 features greater interactivity, as these narratives offer possibilities for modifying the story and co-constructing it [13].

The first model is static and designed for substantially pre-Facebook–era technology. The rationale for this was to produce narratives for distribution through tapes in local communities and project them gradually in churches, parks and schools. Today, however, the workshops, which are carried out on DST, exploit the potential of open narratives, in the sense that collective and collaborative writing methods can be activated. Therefore, stories can incessantly continue to rise on the web with the interaction of other subjects [14]. They are stories that allow the narrative fabric to expand and the grafting of others’ perspectives. This is innovation as in the classic narrative by Jason Olher and Joe Lambert; the perspective of the narrator is unique, and then, there are all the dynamics of commenting that take place on Facebook, for example, which characterise the usual practices. There is a continuous inversion and fluidity of roles, as we are authors, producers and actors of narratives, but simultaneously, we are users, commentators, judges and then again producers when our own judgement becomes the object of someone’s evaluation [15]. Digital narratives 2.0 are stories in clear discontinuity with the classic model, which may not foresee the author's narration, as the voice of the writer might not be heard. Storytelling mixed with digital tools, such as video resources support teachers in service to teach natural science and technology in a way that is interactive [16].

According to the classical models of motivation, there are at least three conditions that must be respected to generate a truly motivating environment, namely, that students perceive autonomy in the task, they authentically perceive responsibility in realising what they are doing, and this allows them to field relationships between the subjects [17]. In this case, all three dimensions are fulfilled, as they choose the story, are responsible for the result and are the experts in this form of technology. The mechanisms of one’s community, groups and relationships facilitate the process as the motivating elements.

This study involves the construction of an online DST laboratory for the construction of individual stories which, through a process of group negotiation and decision-making, become collective history [18]. Negotiation processes are intrinsically linked to one’s choice; therefore, sharing the motivation for success with a group and guiding the group’s decision-making process makes it possible to achieve a goal through group action [19]. The need to work on digital content rather than tangible content has the advantage of distracting the subject from the judgement mechanism that the activity and the relationship produce, which allows for the group to share a common trajectory in the creation of an intangible product. The construction of an intangible participation relationship (without the participants having ever seen and known each other before sharing the work) in this case, is linked to an intangible cultural product [20]. Not all group decisions and negotiation agreements are the right solutions; to make the right decision, the group must first define the right problem and restructure the problem as the group negotiates points of view and chooses a shared strategy [21,22].

Specifically, DST is used as a tool to build an online collaborative climate and participation in the group through the sharing of stories and the negotiation for the story that will be the final work of the group. The decision-making process, which follows a strong emotional experience that has been seen by the teachers individually and collectively involved in the group activity, will also be monitored. This study aims to add value to the themes already developed, as it builds on the 2.0 evolution of DST and experiments with this practice within the online teaching field and in the initial training of teachers [23]. The examination of DST, which was launched in recent years, can be enriched through the inclusion of cognitive and social psychology components linked to participation and the construction of learning communities.

The innovation of this study lies in examining an innovative teaching methodology in the online context as a tool for building social participation and improving the community climate [24].

This study proposes an innovative intervention that describes and supports the psychological mechanisms of building online participation and online communities and explores the primary effects related to DST and its influence on learning processes that have been investigated in previous studies [25].

The research question focuses on the need to find a DST tool for social participation in online communities (and for building the spirit of belonging).

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Lambert and Olher Model

Joe Lambert, in his book Digital Storytelling Cookbook, which is a recipe book on storytelling, theorises seven fundamental steps for storytelling [26]. He found an effective format, which allowed him to obtain the target results. For the DST laboratory and the online experimentation, points 1–3 of the Lambert model and phases 1–2 of the Olher model [27] will be used. In the proposed framework, only points 1–3 of the Lambert model and phases 1–2 of the Olher model were selected because in the writing phase of the storytelling, emotional involvement in the story and the decision-making over the group’s goal take place (

Table 1. Seven-point Lambert model.

Points to Be Developed for DST Description	Description
Point of view Point I	Personal and authentic stories without filter; it is necessary to find narrative nodes that are proper to the author. Centrality of those who tell each part, intentions and opinions must be expressed.
Dramatic questions Point II	Narrative question or narrative instance; it is a question of exposing something that is worth telling. The question must be asked: Is it really relevant to me? The narrative instance is the question that must be answered during the two minutes, and the answer must emerge by the end of the story.
Emotional content Point III	A story must have emotional and engaging content, e.g., going to the bar for a coffee in itself is not particularly engaging unless at the bar you met the person you love and that a love story was born from that coffee.
Narrating voice Point IV	The emotional contents are linked to the choice of telling the story with your own perspective and commenting on the salient moments of the narration yourself with your voice, which makes the story authentic.
Soundtrack Point V	The soundtrack resonates on another level than the images and words, and this synaesthesia exercise must be done using soundtracks that are appropriate and consistent with the work.
Economy of the selection Point VI	Elegance, cleanliness and simplicity of the elements that are used; the use of the overabundance of images, words and sounds is typical of neophytes. The effort in DST is to get to the emotional knot and everything else distracts, weakens and annoys because it shifts the register.
Rhythm of the narrative Point VII	For a comic passage, as well as a dramatic passage told without the rhythm, i.e., pauses, acceleration and syncope, the story fails. It is difficult to put into practice as there is no rhythm education. We learn this outside of school and informal contexts. Editing is, therefore, very important, as hooking the music, the timing and the right words are fundamental.

and

Table 2. Olher’s DST model.

Stages of Construction of the DST	Description
Story planning Phase I	Plan the story correctly. Have the structure in mind: beginning, body and end as happens in the themes. To learn how to write effectively, it is better for the organisation to be written so as not to risk going off track and losing one’s bearings.
Pre-production Phase II	List of media and media materials; retrieval of the media are required to be put into the storyboard, such as videos, soundtracks and photographs. All these raw materials are then put into production, equalised and assembled.
Production Phase III	Closing of the editing work of the various media, followed by the voice, video and messages. Assembly of the product, and analytical and creative revision of the final product.
Post-production Phase IV	Combination and addition of translations and transitions, i.e., fade out fade in, cross fade and all the techniques that allow you to move from one scene to another. Composition with the opening credits, credits and credits effects. Thanks, final review, click and export the file.
Performance Phase V	Presenting oneself in front of an audience; presenting the product, then distributing and sharing. For example, the product is placed on a site.

). In the subsequent phases, skills of an instrumental nature will be developed that will strengthen the process, which is already underway and was built in the previous phases. In fact, as can be seen in Table 1 and Table 2, after the writing of the story, the subsequent phases concern the search for the images, the choice of the soundtrack, the editing, etc.

Lambert’s point of view on the organisation of the stories is technical but from a perspective of narrative construction [28]. Jason Olher [29] is profoundly technical from the production point of view of multimedia language, as he argues that to build a narrative you must guard five phases that are always valid. In our research project and for our purposes, we will develop only the first two phases (Table 2).

In the educational field, these phases can be explored, and it is useful to dwell on the sharing of personal stories on the internet, privacy, digital identity, personal branding, risks and network opportunities [30,31]. These five sequences are practicable almost always, as even the elderly in nursing homes or primary school children have been able to put them into practice. Often, students are better than teachers in the use of technology. On the other hand, it is difficult to find honesty and authenticity for creating a personal story, as there is resistance from the subject.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

For this course, only the classical model will be used, as it is more consistent with the training purposes. Stories, which can be told according to this model, should refer to important people in one’s life, regarding people who have significant relevance, and authentic stories that tell life events with an anecdotal, but not necessarily dramatic, colouring [32]. A non-formal and lighter register can be used, as there may be several stories that make one laugh. They may not be comic stories; however, they can narrate happy events. The central point is sharing authentic emotions that the author has experienced and that they want to put into play with other subjects [33]. Stories can also relay what people are doing right now, but it must not be news from other social media posts. It must be something that is being experienced and relevant from the point of view of emotional resonance [34].

The model designed includes eight steps regarding which the subjects will complete activities for enhancing their knowledge of the narrative structure of DST, the creative formulation of the narrative idea and their ability to negotiate personal ideas up to the stage of choosing one or more ideas. A collective story can embody the final work of the group in the laboratory. According to what is reported in

Table 3. Evolution from Lambert and Olher’s model to the eight-step UNIFG Model.

Lambert Model	Olher Model	Unifg Model
I. Point view II. Dramatic questions III. Emotional content	I. Story planning	I. Free individual writing II. Exercise I: Writing on incipit III. Group reading IV. Exercise II: Writing on incipit V. Exercise III: Writing on imposed object VI. Exercise IV: Writing on an inherited object VII. Exercise V: Writing the places of memories
	II. Pre-production	VIII. Individual story selection and group story negotiation

, which is that the purpose of the workshop is to concentrate on the narratological aspects rather than the technical realisation or acquisition of skills, the first three points of Lambert clearly show the desire to focus on the emotional and narrative dimensions of the story and the pre-production and writing of the story presented in Olher's model. These elements in this model have been expanded into eight activities of five exercises and three reflexive activities.

It begins from a dense idea, which expands and maps the story. The maps can be different from each other. A typical example is the Visual Portrait of a Story [35], which is a visual representation of a story. It is a model that can be depicted by a little man that functions as the story: each part of the body represents a part of the story, for instance, the feet are the conclusions. The goal of the model (

Table 4. Eight-step UNIFG Model.

Step	Activity Description
(1) Free individual writing	Write an autobiographical narrative idea in five lines in ten minutes (time management).
(2) Exercise I: Writing on incipit	E.g., who taught you to ride a bicycle? Random reading of three shared stories
(3) Group reading	Sharing of all the stories produced (in the virtual classrooms dedicated to group work a tutor will observe the dynamics of sharing).
(4) Exercise II: Writing on incipit	As in step 2, writing on incipit. E.g., who taught me to disobey? Five lines in ten minutes. Random sharing.
(5) Exercise III: Writing on imposed object	As in step 2, write on an object caught by the group leader who will identify the theme of the working groups five lines in ten minutes. Random sharing.
(6) Exercise IV: Writing on an inherited object	As in step 2, write an individual story on an inherited object five lines in ten minutes. Random sharing.
(7) Exercise V: writing the places of memories	As in step 2, write an individual story about a place chosen from the memories of the various seasons of life (childhood, youth, today, tomorrow) five lines in ten minutes. Sharing on forums.
(8) Individual story selection and group story negotiation	Each trainee has five personal stories available and must choose the one they consider best in group sharing. In a group, the individual stories will be read, and a group story will be chosen which will be used for the storytelling useful for the completion of the workshop course.

) is to tell a personal story and then share an autobiographical personal anecdotal story with the audience.

The effects will presumably be to share this joy with someone and then share the emotions that feed this story. The classical structure begins with the opening, then a problem that can be expressed by our dramatic question, which coincides with the narrative question, and followed by the solution and the end. After having measured themselves in writing five stories, in each working group made up of ten teachers, each teacher will present a chosen story. Among the 10, they will choose the one on which the group will work for the realisation of the multimedia product and the achievement of the training path will be negotiated. The narration, therefore, becomes the pretext for the construction of a group climate in a digital context through emotional tuning. The aim of this study was to monitor the negotiation and decision process in a collaborative learning context.

3. Methodology and Tools

The goal of this research work is to analyse the process of building a group atmosphere (digital learning promotes more significant interaction, collaborative learning, and social relations between students) among the teachers who attended the initial training course for special needs [36,37].

3.1. Measures

The research hypothesis concerns the relationship and mutual influence between three variables, namely, emotional participation, negotiation and the choice of a collective story that will represent the work of the whole group for the general evaluation of the laboratory, particularly with respect to the impact on the professional vision and professionalism of teachers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a profound change in the professional ways of teachers, training paths have been rethought through online teaching. In this context, the University of Foggia has experimented with a working model that facilitates first-person experimentation (by teachers) on innovative teaching methodologies related to media education, gamification and the transfer of knowledge in the field of their daily professional practice [38]. The monitoring of these three dimensions represents a fundamental step for the future of online and hybrid teaching in schools, and the subsequent experimentation will concern the use of this model, both in collaborative teaching in the classroom (differentiated by age groups) and for inclusive teaching, oriented to specific learning needs.

3.2. Participants and Procedure

The research is developed in the Italian context, where the specialisation course of teachers is online and groups teachers on a national scale; therefore, students belong to all areas of Italy (63% from southern Italy; n = 813).

In fact, the teachers interviewed received a follow-up to all eight steps of the Foggia model, passing an exercise phase in which they worked individually to a collective phase where they worked in groups. Before the collective phase, the communication and knowledge possibilities between the subjects were very limited. The interviewees were an adult population, belonging to different areas of Italy, who had undergone an extensive training course.

The final version of the questionnaire, in addition to demographic questions on gender, age and grade of school, also presented 74 Likert-type questions relating to the previous three scales with which the user could express various levels of agreement or disagreement.

3.3. Socio-Demographic Characteristics

The data were classified as demographic profile, response processing and education level (childhood, primary school, lower secondary school or upper secondary school). They were provided through Google forms in August 2021. Using the online form made it possible to receive results in real time and to view a summary quickly. The course for preservice teachers at the University of Foggia in July–August 2021 was attended by 813 teachers in four groups per school, and in each grade, the students were divided into work groups of a maximum of ten people. After an introduction on communicative literacy and structure identification, in which the basic elements of communication were addressed, i.e., sender, recipient, objective and message (story), the eight-step guided path for choosing the collective story was described. The maximum age of the respondents was 60 years and the minimum age was 22 years, out of all the respondents, 124 (15.27%) were males and 688 (84.73%) were females.

3.4. Tools

Participants were given a self-report survey, including a socio-demographic scale and the following questionnaires:

I. The Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire consisted of 31 items divided into six scales. Vigilance has six items. Each of the six vigilance items relates to a step into sound decision making, such as defining goals, collecting information, considering alternatives, and checking alternatives. Hyper-vigilance consists of five items. Defensive avoidance consists of five items. The remaining three scales, each comprising of five items, measure different aspects of defensive avoidance (i.e., rationalisation, buck-passing, and procrastination.) Mann et al. [39] reported reliability estimates divided into the following scales: Vigilance alpha 0.80, Buck-passing 0.87, Procrastination 0.81 and Hypervigilance 0.74. The scale was validated on a sample of 2051 university students, comprising of samples from Australia (n = 262), New Zealand (n = 260), the USA (n = 475), Japan (n = 359), Hong Kong (n = 281) and Taiwan (n = 414).

II. Negotiations Self-Assessment Inventory [40] is a questionnaire of principled negotiation. The main variables of the questionnaire of principled negotiation were identified by applying a logical approach. The four dimensions (people, interests, options, and criteria) were obtained from the literature and an in-depth quantitative assessment. This questionnaire of principled negotiation can provide a practical guide for negotiators and researchers who wish to use a scientific measuring tool [41]. If the reliability coefficient is greater than 0.9, the reliability is excellent; if the reliability coefficient is between 0.8 and 0.9, the reliability is good; if the reliability coefficient is between 0.7 and 0.8, the reliability is acceptable; if the reliability coefficient is between 0.6 and 0.7, the reliability is questionable; if the reliability coefficient is between 0.5 and 0.6, the reliability is poor; if the reliability coefficient is below 0.5, it needs to be discarded [42]. The results are for the three scales on which the test is built: People (7 items) alpha 0.643, Interests (11 items) 0.851, Options (8 items) 0.790 and Criteria (6 items) 0.785.

III. The Test team [43] is a questionnaire consisting of 42 items and validated on a group of students trained in managerial action. The questionnaire can be divided into two parts, the first (the one used in this study) of 22 items referring to the level of work structuring (items 1–12), and from 13 and 22, it analyses the strictly relational plan. High scores in this first part (items 1–12) represent that planning, guiding and organising skills are developed, as well as controlling the work of others. High scores in the remaining items indicate attention to comfort and group members. The last 20 questions of the questionnaire (not included in this battery) concern two aspects of leadership: visibility and influence within the group.

In this study, the forward translation of all questionnaires, from English to Italian, was performed by a native English speaker. The existing discrepancies in Italian and in retro translations were then discussed with the authors until a consensus was reached.

3.5. Ethics

The study’s procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The survey was approved by the university ethics committee of the research group.

3.6. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis included descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), zero-order and partial correlations between the variables of interest for the total sample and correlations for each gender and age group. We used the statistical processing software SPSS.

4. Results

Based on the summary statistics, the maximum age of the respondents was 60 years and the minimum age was 22 years, with the average age being 39.72. The age difference between the youngest and the oldest individual is 38 years. There is a huge discrepancy in the ages of the individuals as shown by a standard deviation of 7.810. The pie chart of gender (Figure 1) shows that out of all the respondents, 124 (15.27%) were males and 688 (84.73%) were females.

In terms of gender, the sample consisted of men and women, and no other genders were considered for this study. Women constituted the largest portion of the respondents, as the mean is 1.85, which deflects towards the women’s code of 2.

Based on the ratings of the item of Teams 1 to Team 22 (

Table 5. Descriptive statistics.

	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness		Kurtosis
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Age	39.7217	7.80963	−0.004	0.086	−0.544	0.171
Degree_of_school	2.8867	1.03310	−0.337	0.086	−1.178	0.171
TEAM1	1.9840	0.96345	0.994	0.086	0.769	0.171
TEAM2	2.5222	1.20960	0.547	0.086	−0.552	0.171
TEAM3	2.0517	1.05334	0.906	0.086	0.261	0.171
TEAM4	2.8559	1.21039	0.241	0.086	−0.847	0.171
TEAM5	2.6552	1.15155	0.366	0.086	−0.606	0.171
TEAM6	2.9224	1.29502	0.172	0.086	−1.064	0.171
TEAM7	2.1490	1.06796	0.784	0.086	0.013	0.171
TEAM8	1.8264	1.02888	1.408	0.086	1.583	0.171
TEAM9	2.8744	1.23511	0.197	0.086	−0.885	0.171
TEAM10	2.3411	1.23077	0.689	0.086	−0.454	0.171
TEAN11	2.3251	1.21040	0.674	0.086	−0.450	0.171
TEAM12	2.7796	1.18225	0.204	0.086	−0.790	0.171
TEAM13	2.0333	1.01293	0.990	0.086	0.610	0.171
TEAM14	1.5640	1.01023	2.091	0.086	3.803	0.171
TEAM15	1.4347	1.05434	2.555	0.086	5.352	0.171
TEAM16	1.5111	1.03746	2.318	0.086	4.581	0.171
TEAM17	1.4988	1.02316	2.389	0.086	4.982	0.171
TEAM18	1.7241	1.01542	1.685	0.086	2.553	0.171
TEAM19	1.4631	1.08225	2.453	0.086	4.817	0.171
TEAM20	1.9828	1.06378	1.076	0.086	0.613	0.171
TEAM21	1.8227	1.03124	1.422	0.086	1.601	0.171
TEAM22	1.5936	1.01158	2.011	0.086	3.568	0.171
melbour1	0.9901	0.57046	−0.001	0.086	0.084	0.171
melbour2	0.8300	0.76655	0.299	0.086	−1.245	0.171
melbour3	1.8695	0.36520	−2.787	0.086	7.419	0.171
melbour4	0.3845	0.59700	1.297	0.087	0.635	0.174
melbour5	0.4667	0.53727	0.515	0.086	−0.957	0.171
melbour6	0.5936	0.62410	0.557	0.086	−0.612	0.171
melbour7	1.6700	0.54800	−1.425	0.086	1.077	0.171
melbour8	0.2611	0.49242	1.693	0.086	1.997	0.171
melbour9	0.3830	0.55730	1.114	0.086	0.246	0.171
melbour10	0.5874	0.57570	0.354	0.086	−0.758	0.171
melbour11	1.8276	0.40930	−2.264	0.086	4.445	0.171
melbour12	0.6268	0.62019	0.458	0.086	−0.655	0.171
melbour13	0.6478	0.65437	0.514	0.086	−0.701	0.171
melbour14	1.8719	0.35927	−2.774	0.086	7.290	0.171
melbour15	0.3079	0.49539	1.225	0.086	0.354	0.171
melbour16	0.5948	0.74465	0.813	0.086	−0.755	0.171
melbour17	0.5456	0.67664	0.852	0.086	−0.450	0.171
melbour18	0.4200	0.57678	1.011	0.086	0.026	0.171
melbour19	1.9015	0.32206	−3.344	0.086	11.239	0.171
melbour20	0.2869	0.50171	1.489	0.086	1.264	0.171
melbour21	0.8153	0.64010	0.185	0.086	−0.643	0.171
melbour22	0.6453	0.58743	0.281	0.086	−0.683	0.171
melbour23	0.6798	0.68338	0.505	0.086	−0.804	0.171
melbour24	1.8805	0.34300	−2.800	0.086	7.308	0.171
melbour25	1.1773	0.63834	−0.173	0.086	−0.627	0.171
melbour26	0.3818	0.59140	1.290	0.086	0.634	0.171
melbour27	0.3695	0.56747	1.255	0.086	0.591	0.171
melbour28	0.7833	0.63581	0.219	0.086	0.646	0.171
melbour29	0.7451	0.70600	0.406	0.086	−0.942	0.171
melbour30	0.5283	0.57737	0.544	0.086	−0.665	0.171
melbour31	1.1133	0.65654	−0.122	0.086	−0.700	0.171
Negoz1	2.6170	1.13670	0.053	0.086	−0.288	0.171
Negoz2	3.2389	1.39386	−0.596	0.086	−0.586	0.171
Negoz3	2.8103	1.41543	−0.444	0.086	−0.652	0.171
Negoz4	3.8534	1.32395	−1.349	0.086	1.190	0.171
Negoz5	3.7796	1.18849	−1.176	0.086	1.154	0.171
Negoz6	2.4754	1.41356	−0.145	0.086	−0.837	0.171
Negoz7	1.2389	1.30807	0.980	0.086	0.244	0.171
Negoz8	1.1170	1.36356	1.084	0.086	0.208	0.171
Negoz9	0.9667	1.24848	1.298	0.086	0.985	0.171
Negoz10	2.1133	1.27364	−0.005	0.086	−0.630	0.171
Negoz11	3.3682	1.11314	−0.478	0.086	−0.176	0.171
Negoz12	3.8116	1.18985	−1.125	0.086	0.963	0.171
Negoz13	3.7081	1.13450	−0.888	0.086	0.577	0.171
Negoz14	3.3264	1.53565	−0.624	0.086	−0.720	0.171
Negoz15	0.6232	1.11745	1.951	0.086	3.254	0.171
Negoz16	1.5603	1.38694	0.500	0.086	−0.743	0.171
Negoz17	2.0998	1.38466	0.153	0.086	−0.852	0.171
Negoz18	2.9532	1.38702	−0.289	0.086	−0.761	0.171
Negoz19	2.7204	1.26878	−0.259	0.086	−0.482	0.171
Negoz20	3.2931	1.22864	−0.772	0.086	0.377	0.171
Negoz21	4.0517	0.99557	−1.314	0.086	2.135	0.171
Negoz22	1.6367	1.43749	0.504	0.086	−0.800	0.171
Negoz23	1.8596	1.26120	0.151	0.086	−0.698	0.171
Negoz24	0.9027	1.34050	1.557	0.086	1.576	0.171
Negoz25	2.7685	1.51461	−0.161	0.086	−0.987	0.171

), the maximum values and the minimum values for all the cases were 5 and 1, respectively, with a range of 4. Since the codes included 1 = always, 2 = frequently, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rarely, 5 = never, it is evident that Team 6 had the highest mean deflecting towards 2.92, implying that most of the respondents agreed that in group works they sometimes tell people what they expect from them. On the other hand, respondents always seem to respect the opinions and feelings of others, which was the case for Team 15 when they have to negotiate a decision.

The above descriptive statistics table shows the values of summary statistics which include mean, variance, standard deviation skewness, and kurtosis (Table 5).

The first column shows the name of the variable, while the second column shows the number of cases that included all the variables, and a total of 812 observations are included in each variable. The third and fourth columns show the minimum and maximum values for all variables, whereas the fifth column shows the mean values. The second column shows the variance, the third column shows the standard deviation for all variables and the values of skewness and finally, the last column shows the kurtosis values (Kurtosis represents the departure from the normal distribution of values in relation to the scale of values in the data). The most frequent age was 41, with the least frequent being 23 and 60. The scales vary from a minimum to a maximum value. For the TEAM test, the values are from 1 to 5; for the Melbourne test, from 0 to 1; for the negotiation test, from 0 to 5. Only 812 respondents addressed the Melbourne item no. 4. There were 788 respondents. The average of the answers (Column 1) represents the answer as if all the interviewees had positioned themselves on that value; the team scale is 2.5, while the average value (the central answer is in fact 3) for the Melbourne test is 1, and for the negotiation scale it is 3. Taking, for example, the values of the team scale, items 1, 8 and 14 to 22 are below that value. This means that for these items, the distribution ratings of the responses are positioned towards the lower values. The skewness level also measures the level of variation in responses; in the case of the TEAM test, it is low because they differ by 1 point.

Pearson correlations were calculated between the scores of the three scales for the total sample: the gender groups and the fourth-grade school groups. As for the total sample, the test results were significant (Figure 2). Correlation represents the degree of interdependence between two variables. This value varies between −1 and 1; if the value is between −1 and 0, the relationship is negative, i.e., a low evaluation on the first item corresponds to a low evaluation on the second item. The value tends to 1 when the correlation is positive. The table shows that the correlations are all significant for the items except 4 and 13; 6 and 19; 9 and 15; 9 and 16; and finally, 9 and 19.

Figure 2 shows significant correlations when the values exceed the 0.500 value and are found in items 10–22, relating to the second part of the questionnaire.

Based on the correlation table, the results show a positive linear relationship between the test team scores. Furthermore, there is a strong relationship between, “I am thoughtful and kind to everyone”, and “I treat everyone as equals”. On the other hand, there is a weak positive linear relationship between Team 15 and 9, i.e., “I assign specific tasks to each one”, and “I do what I can to help others”. On the basis of these results, the nova was calculated (

Table 6. Anova ^a.

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	28.237	22	1.283	1.209	0.231 b
	Residual	837.340	789	1.061
	Total	865.576	811

a. Dependent Variable: Grade of school; b. Predictors: (Constant), 22 I am an easily approachable and friendly person in the work team. *, 6 I tell people what I expect from them. *, 4 I organize my work by myself. *. 12 I ask that everyone follow standard rules and procedures. *, 2 I explain the role that everyone plays within the team. *, 1 I always find time to explain how a job needs to be done. *, 11 I plan the work I want done. *, 20 I inform in advance of a change and explain to everyone the impact it will have. *, 5 I inform people about how they are working. *, 7 I encourage the use of uniform procedures so that the whole group can follow them in detail. *, 8 I express clearly what I think. *. 13 I make working on homework enjoyable. *, 3 I make the rules and procedures clear so that everyone can follow them precisely. *, 9 I assign specific tasks to each one. *, 21 I take care of the well-being of the people in my group. *, 10 I make sure everyone understands their role within the team. *, 15 I respect the opinions and feelings of others. *, 18 I am attentive to details that can make being a team member more enjoyable. *, 19 I treat everyone as equals. *, 14 I do what I can to help others. * 16 I am thoughtful and kind to everyone. *, 17 I keep the friendly atmosphere in the team. *

). Items 1–22 were considered as predictors and school grade as a dependent variable. However, it was found that the degree factor was not statistically significant in any of those cases.

The Chi-square was also calculated, which produced significant results except for items 4 and 13; 6 and 19; 9 and 15; 9 and 16; 9 and 19. On the basis of this data, three hypotheses have been formulated.

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Grade of school is not dependent on the team statement (planning, guiding and organising skills are developed, as well as management of other participants).

Since the F-value is not significant at alpha = 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the school grade is not dependent on the team element of the work (planning, guiding, organising skills and controlling the work of others).

The model summary (Figure 3) shows that the regression is representative of only 3% of the data. The Durbin-Watson statistic is less than two, meaning that a weak correlation exists between the dependent and independent variables.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There is no strong relationship between Team 19 and Team 16.

Table 7. Contingency table for the most positively correlated variables.

		16 I Am Thoughtful and Kind to Everyone					Total
		Always	Frequently	Sometimes	Rarely	Never
19 I treat everyone as equals. *	Always	546	88	5	2	2	643
	Frequently	32	44	3	1	0	80
	Sometimes	5	5	9	0	1	20
	Rarely	2	2	5	7	4	20
	Never	2	0	1	12	34	49
Total		587	139	23	22	41	812

* Correlation is significant at the 00.05 level (2-tailed).

and

Table 8. Chi-square test for the most positively correlated variables.

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	946.321 a	16	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	488.963	16	0.000
Linear-by-Linear	561.731	1	0.000
Association
N of Valid Cases	812

a. 14 cells (56.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 54.

shows the Contingency table and Chi-square test for the most positive correlation between items 19 and 16. Since the Chi-square value is 946.321, which is significant at alpha = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a strong relationship between Team 19 and Team 16 (Figure 4).

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

There is no strong relationship between Team 9 and Team 15.

Table 9. Contingency table for the least positively correlated variables.

		TEAM 15					Total
		Always	Frequently	Sometimes	Rarely	Never
TEAM 9	Always	106	4	1	0	7	118
	Frequently	170	27	4	3	11	215
	Sometimes	180	27	12	5	13	237
	Rarely	108	12	0	10	5	135
	Never	90	4	1	3	9	107
Total		654	74	18	21	45	812

and

Table 10. Chi-square test for the least positively correlated variables.

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	46.587 a	16	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	48.781	16	0.000
Linear-by-Linear	1.992	1	0.000
Association
N of Valid Cases	812

^a 7 cells (28.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.37.

shows the Contingency table and Chi-square test for the least positive correlation between items 9 and 15. As the Chi-square value is 46.587, which is significant at alpha = 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no strong relationship between Team 9 and Team 15 (Figure 5).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The most frequent age was 41, with the least frequent being 23 and 60. Moreover, the most frequent gender was females, constituting 84.7% of the total respondents, while males constituted 15.3%. Based on the grade of school, 37.9% of the respondents were secondary school, second-degree holders, followed by primary at 28.6%, secondary at 23.1%, and kindergarten constituting 10.3%.

Based on the teams, Teams 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 have a high percentage of the respondents who “Frequently” agreed to the facts mentioned. Nevertheless, Team 9 and 12 had highest percentages of the respondents who “Sometimes” agreed to the facts. Lastly, a large number of teams responded as “Always”, namely Team 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

From an analysis of the correlational data, it is clear that significant results are less evident in the first part of the test items 1–9; the results are much more accentuated when the second part of the test items from 10–22 are considered, i.e., planning, guiding and organising skills are developed, but the management of other participants develops a lot during the creation and sharing phases of DST.

Furthermore, there is a strong relationship between “I am thoughtful and kind to everyone” and “I treat everyone as equals”. On the other hand, there is a weak relationship between Team 15 and 9, between “I assign specific tasks to each one” and “I do what I can to help others”. In general, the correlations between the three scales bring out high values on the three main elements: encouraging to follow the working procedures in detail and standardising. The focus is still on the division of roles and making the task pleasant. In the negotiation scale, a strong correlation emerged between items 4 and 5, and 7 and 8, which implies that there is a need to actively listen to one’s own opinions and of others, and the need to search for a compromising solution. In this scale, an unexpected result also emerged (items 7 and 8), i.e., a very strong spirit of competition in achieving the work objectives. The scores show the reports on negotiation are still strong in the comments on the works proposed by the individuals and the search for a common agreement in the event of disagreement (points 12 and 20) on the final work to be proposed. The Melbourne scale of decision-making offers weaker outcomes [38]; the most significant data are concerned with the clarification of the objectives before choosing (item 18), acceptance of the group decision (21, 27), pessimism about one’s personal decision and delegation of responsibility to the group (22, 26, 29). Furthermore, the relationship between the three scales is very strong to highlight that DST has a strong effect on the three constructs investigated.

The intervention, therefore, allows participation and involvement in group activities to emerge, and it is interesting that all the elements for the construction of a group spirit and mentality emerge in this training intervention, like common work objectives, division of the role and pleasure of the task [44,45]. External competition, internal conflict resolution, and finally, the group decision prevails as the final outcome of the triggered process. Creating teaching videos, which the students will produce, has a high educational potential and is a challenge that can motivate students. There is little evidence on the efficacy of the use of this method when applied to creating digital stories. Therefore, the aim of this study was to measure student satisfaction with the creation of audiovisual material through DST, measure its usefulness, and evaluate its impact on students’ motivation to study the subject. As a secondary objective, we set out to determine the influence of this learning experience on society's awareness of mental illness by measuring the size of its impact based on the number of views it received on social networking sites.

The goal of participation, group climate, and the resolution of internal conflicts for an external goal and competition was fully achieved in the treatment. Achieving the goal of delivering the task and passing the exam with excellent grades (100% of the test delivery with an average grade of 29.9 out of 30). The effects on group decision-making are still not very visible; it is probably necessary to prolong the activities involving the participants. Future research developments should include testing this treatment and monitoring the model in school and with adolescents [46,47].

The inclusive dimension is certainly another important facet of these tools, and the inclusive dimension can be assessed on at least two levels: the first is the plurality of languages, which, therefore, means cognitive styles and functional abilities of the subjects who can perform image research, such as photographs and oral narration. The other dimension is that of the group where the narratives can be produced by the individual or in small groups, where each member helps the other and amalgamate with the different skills and functional availability to produce a story that is rich and inclusive [48]. There are devices that allow people to work together on a project through a high level of motivation, and if the ingredients are well blended and the process goes well, you see that after some resistance or excessive enthusiasm, the group usually finds a deal [49,50]. A type of harmony is found among the participants and that experience of flow is generated, which is called Psychology of Learning [51]. When the intentions of the subjects are aligned on a task, it can be observed that the components, which manipulate, assemble and search for images move towards a single direction in a collaborative and harmonious way.