Children’s Online Collaborative Storytelling during 2020 COVID-19 Home Confinement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedure
- Presentation: the facilitator introduces himself/herself to the class in the main room of the platform and invites each participant to greet each other.
- Explanation of the session’s topic: the facilitator explains the activity and presents the session topic through a situational image on the topic using the screen-sharing function, saying: “It is time to tell a story. Think about how you can create a story about the shared image on the screen. In this image, we can see …” (the facilitator describes the image in detail). There is a different topic for each session. The facilitator also reminds participants of the essential parts of a story (beginning, middle, and end).
- Group formation: the facilitator forms small groups randomly and refers the students to the different video-conference rooms marked with a number on the platform (Figure 1). Sharing their screen, the facilitator explains where they should go and that, once they finish their story, they should return to the main room. In each video-conference room, groups met with a facilitator who supports them during the task and who begins the activity with the following words: “Now you can talk with your group-mates and think about how you could tell a story. In the end, I will also ask you to choose a representative of the group to tell the story to the other groups.”
- Group discussion: each group has 15 min to discuss the topic and create the story; when they have agreed, they should return to the main room, where they meet with the rest of the groups.
- Storytelling for the class: after each group returns to the main video-conference room, the facilitator that awaits them says, “Well, it is time to tell your stories. Has each group chosen its representative? If you have not done so, do it now to hear each group’s story.” All group representatives explain the story to the class in a maximum time of 5 min.
- Designation of prosocial behavior-related scores: the last 10 min of the session are dedicated to a debriefing phase and to reward students through a digital-token economy system (https://classdojo.com (accessed on 20 November 2021)). We considered only positive social behaviors.
2.2. Instruments
- Number of words: number of the story words.
- Propositions: number of basic units that declare a story’s action.
- Episodes: number of events made up of propositions connected through subordination or specification or divided by coordination.
- Narrative Structure: the narrative structure index refers to the typical elements that revolve around a story and shape it: 1. introductory phrase; 2. protagonist; 3. temporal setting; 4. environment setting; 5. conclusion; 6. long-term conclusion. In the integrated system, a point is assigned for each typical story element, allowing a variation of the index between zero and six.
- Narrative Cohesion: the story develops around a point of view, a theme, interconnected episodes, a plot, and one or more problematic events with a solution. The index can vary between zero and eleven.
- Problems with a solution: story episodes that contain a difficulty or danger for one or more characters, followed by a solution.
- Problems without a solution: story episodes that contain a difficulty or danger for one or more characters, without any solution.
- Positive relationships: story episodes with positive relationships between characters.
- Negative relationships: story episodes with negative relationships between characters.
- Characters’ behavior: story episodes with adaptive, aggressive, rule-rejecting, and guilt-ridden behaviors performed by the characters.
- Balance 1: number of positively vs negatively solved problems.
- Balance 2: number of solved vs not-solved problems.
- Balance 3: number of positive vs. negative relationships between characters.
- Balance 4: number of adaptive vs. non-adaptive behaviors of the characters (aggressive + rule-rejecting + guilt-ridden behaviors).
- Direct reference to COVID-19/pandemic: presence/absence of the words COVID-19, virus, or pandemic in the story.
- Indirect reference to COVID-19/pandemic (catastrophe): presence/absence of contents related to any kind of catastrophe in the story (e.g., the end of the world, a tsunami, a war, etc.).
- Indirect reference to COVID-19/pandemic (illness): presence/absence of contents related to any kind of illness in the story.
- Mute a partner: one or more participants turn off a partner’s microphone during the session.
- Interruptions: one or more participants do not respect conversation turn-taking and overlap in the conversation.
- Off-topic chat use: one or more participants use the chat on a different topic than the narrative activity.
- Group self-regulation: one or more members of the group call their classmates to order and concentrate on the task.
- Positive comments: one or more group members express positive comments about the contribution of partners.
- Focus on the task: the group works on the same assigned task. Both the topic(s) dealt with during the collaborative process and the form and content of the group’s result are taken into consideration.
- Social awareness: awareness of emotions and feelings of partners in the interpersonal relationship.
- Social cognition: ability to understand social cues and reciprocal relational behaviors (facial expressions, gestures, and actions).
- Social communication: ability to communicate ideas and feelings to others, following conversation’s rhythm and turn-taking.
- Social motivation: initiative and social exploration, start of social interactions, conversation, or reciprocal response-encouraging discourse.
- Space for everyone: the group makes space for all its members to expose their opinion, make contributions, ask questions, and comment on solutions.
- Inclusion: the group tries to adapt and commit to relational exchanges according to all its members’ needs.
2.3. Participants
2.4. Data Analysis Plan
3. Results
3.1. Hypothesis 1: Collaboration in Online Group Storytelling
3.2. Hypothesis 2: Formal Complexity of Stories across Grades
3.3. Hypothesis 3: Balance of Positive and Negative Contents
3.4. Hypothesis 4: COVID-19-Related References in Stories
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Iandolo, G.; López-Florit, L.; Venuti, P.; Neoh, M.J.; Bornstein, M.H.; Esposito, G. Story contents and intensity of the anxious symptomatology in children and adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 2020, 25, 725–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iandolo, G.; Esposito, G.; Venuti, P. The bears family projective test: Evaluating stories of children with emotional difficulties. Percept. Mot. Skills 2012, 114, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slobin, D.I. The development from child speaker to native speaker. In Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; pp. 233–256. [Google Scholar]
- Smorti, A. Il Pensiero Narrativo: Costruzione di Storie e Sviluppo Della Conoscenza Sociale; Giunti: Firenze, Italy, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Bruner, J. The narrative construction of reality. Crit. Inq. 1991, 18, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botvin, G.J.; Sutton-Smith, B. The development of structural complexity in children’s fantasy narratives. Dev. Psychol. 1977, 13, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esposito, G.; Venuti, P.; Iandolo, G.; De Falco, S.; Gabrieli, G.; Wei, C.; Bornstein, M.H. Microgenesis of typical storytelling. Early Child Dev. Care 2018, 190, 1991–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bysterveldt, A.K.; Westerveld, M.F.; Gillon, G.; Foster-Cohen, S. Personal narrative skills of school-aged children with Down syndrome. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2012, 47, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glaubman, R.; Kashi, G.; Koresh, R. Facilitating the narrative quality of sociodramatic play. In Children in Play, Story, and School; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 132–157. [Google Scholar]
- Pinto, G.; Tarchi, C.; Accorti Gamannossi, B. Kindergarteners’ Narrative Competence Across Tasks and Time. J. Genet. Psychol. 2018, 179, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, M.; Georgakopoulou, A. Small Stories as a New Perspective in Narrative and identity Analysis. Text Talk 2008, 28, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bretherton, I. Symbolic Play: The Development of Social Understanding; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Longobardi, E.; Spataro, P.; Pizzicannella, E. Handwriting, spelling, and narrative competence in the fictional stories of Italian primary-school children. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2018, 33, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hipolito-Delgado, C.P.; Cook, J.M.; Avrus, E.M.; Bonham, E.J. Developing counseling students’ multicultural competence through the multicultural action project. Couns. Educ. Superv. 2011, 50, 402–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, P.J.; Sperry, L.L. Early talk about the past: The origins of conversational stories of personal experience. J. Child Lang. 1988, 15, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, P.J.; Moore, B.B. Narrative conjunctions of caregiver and child: A comparative perspective on socialization through stories. Ethos 1989, 17, 428–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stadler, M.A.; Ward, G.C. Supporting the narrative development of young children. Early Child. Educ. J. 2005, 33, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrow, L.M. Effects of structural guidance in story retelling on children’s dictation of original stories. J. Read. Behav. 1986, 18, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nelson, K. Narratives from the Crib; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Spinillo, A.G.; Pinto, G. Children’s narratives under different conditions: A comparative study. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 1994, 12, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasupathi, M.; Hoyt, T. The development of narrative identity in late adolescence and emergent adulthood: The continued importance of listeners. Dev. Psychol. 2009, 45, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McLean, K.C.; Pratt, M.W. Life’s little (and big) lessons: Identity statuses and meaning-making in the turning point narratives of emerging adults. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bird, A.; Reese, E. Emotional reminiscing and the development of an autobiographical self. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Joel, T.; Hinshaw, P.; Huang-Pollok, C. Disorders of attention and impulse regulation. In Developmental Psychopatology, 2nd ed.; Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 3, pp. 358–403. [Google Scholar]
- Kintsch, W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychol. Rev. 1988, 95, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norman, D.A.; Shallice, T. Attention to action. In Consciousness and Self-Regulation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Bertolini, C. Theory and practice of digital storytelling in preschool. Form@ Re-Open J. Form. Rete 2017, 17, 144–157. [Google Scholar]
- Nicolopoulou, A.; Cortina, K.S.; Ilgaz, H.; Cates, C.B.; de Sá, A.B. Using a narrative-and play-based activity to promote low-income preschoolers’ oral language, emergent literacy, and social competence. Early Child. Res. Q. 2015, 31, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Blas, N.; Paolini, P.; Torrebruno, A. Innovative technologies and education. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Valencia, Spain, 7–10 April 2010; pp. 341–348. [Google Scholar]
- Stock, O.; Zancanaro, M. PEACH-Intelligent Interfaces for Museum Visits; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Neale, H.; Nichols, S. Theme-based content analysis: A flexible method for virtual environment evaluation. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2001, 55, 167–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratitsis, T.; Ziannas, P. From early childhood to special education: Interactive digital storytelling as a coaching approach for fostering social empathy. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 67, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faver, C.A.; Alanis, E. Fostering empathy through stories: A pilot program for special needs adoptive families. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2012, 34, 660–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unnsteinsdóttir, K. The influence of sandplay and imaginative storytelling on children’s learning and emotional-behavioral development in an Icelandic primary school. Arts Psychother. 2012, 39, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.R. Transportation into a story increases empathy, prosocial behavior, and perceptual bias toward fearful expressions. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012, 52, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banks, J. Storytelling to access social context and advance health equity research. Prev. Med. 2012, 55, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryokai, K.; Vaucelle, C.; Cassell, J. Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2003, 19, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wood, D.; O’Malley, C. Collaborative learning between peers: An overview. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 1996, 11, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barron, B. When smart groups fail. J. Learn. Sci. 2003, 12, 307–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roschelle, J.; Teasley, S.D. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995; pp. 69–97. [Google Scholar]
- Webb, N. Collaborative Group versus Individual Assessment in Mathematics: Group Processes and Outcomes. Review of Group Assessment Issues. Project 2.3: Enhancing the Utility of Performance Assessments: Domain-Independent R&D. Educ. Assess. 2003, 1, 131–152. [Google Scholar]
- Webb, N.M. Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 1995, 17, 239–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Fuccio, R.; Mastroberti, S. Tangible user interfaces for multisensory storytelling at school: A study of acceptability. Qwerty-Open Interdiscip. J. Technol. Cult. Educ. 2018, 13, 62–78. [Google Scholar]
- Baumer, S.; Ferholt, B.; Lecusay, R. Promoting narrative competence through adult–child joint pretense: Lessons from the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld. Cogn. Dev. 2005, 20, 576–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Normann, A. Digital Storytelling in Second Language Learning. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lowenthal, P.R.; Dunlap, J.C. From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. Internet High. Educ. 2010, 13, 70–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heo, M. Digital storytelling: An empirical study of the impact of digital storytelling on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and dispositions towards educational technology. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 2009, 18, 405–428. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, E.; Park, H.; Jang, J. Development of a class model for improving creative collaboration based on the online learning system (Moodle) in Korea. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rifkin, J. The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Weigel, V.B. Deep Learning for a Digital Age: Technology’s Untapped Potential to Enrich Higher Education.; ERIC: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Evensen, D.H.; Hmelo, C.E.; Hmelo-Silver, C.E. Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Muilenburg, L.Y.; Berge, Z.L. Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Educ. 2005, 26, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, S. As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chron. High. Educ. 2000, 46, A39–A41. [Google Scholar]
- Brennan, K.; Resnick, M. Imagining, creating, playing, sharing, reflecting: How online community supports young people as designers of interactive media. In Emerging Technologies for the Classroom; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 253–268. [Google Scholar]
- Settles, B.; Dow, S. Let’s get together: The formation and success of online creative collaborations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; pp. 2009–2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Rey, R.; Garrido-Hernansaiz, H.; Collado, S. Psychological impact and associated factors during the initial stage of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic among the general population in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales-Vives, F.; Dueñas, J.M.; Vigil-Colet, A.; Camarero-Figuerola, M. Psychological variables related to adaptation to the COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Sanguino, C.; Ausín, B.; Castellanos, M.Á.; Saiz, J.; López-Gómez, A.; Ugidos, C.; Muñoz, M. Mental health consequences during the initial stage of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sandín, B.; Valiente, R.M.; García-Escalera, J.; Chorot, P. Impacto psicológico de la pandemia de COVID-19: Efectos negativos y positivos en población española asociados al periodo de confinamiento nacional. Rev. Psicopatol. Psicol. Clin. 2020, 25, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. El impacto psicológico de la cuarentena y cómo reducirla: Revisión rápida de las pruebas. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiao, W.Y.; Wang, L.N.; Liu, J.; Fang, S.F.; Jiao, F.Y.; Pettoello-Mantovani, M.; Somekh, E. Behavioral and emotional disorders in children during the COVID-19 epidemic. J. Pediatr. 2020, 221, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisano, G.P.; Sadun, R.; Zanini, M. Lessons from Italy’s Response to Coronavirus. 2020. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/03/lessons-from-italys-response-to-coronavirus (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Xiang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Kuwahara, K. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents’ lifestyle behavior larger than expected. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2020, 63, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giménez-Dasí, M.; Quintanilla, L.; Lucas-Molina, B.; Sarmento-Henrique, R. Six weeks of confinement: Psychological effects on a sample of children in early childhood and primary education. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, G.; El-Azar, D. 3 Ways Coronavirus Pandemic Could Reshape Education. 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/3-ways-coronavirus-is-reshaping-education-andwhat-changes-might-be-here-to-stay (accessed on 30 October 2021).
- Spiteri, M.; Rundgren, S.N.C. Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 25, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jonassen, D.H.; Rohrer-Murphy, L. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 1999, 47, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sylva, K. School influences on children’s development. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1994, 35, 135–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corsaro, W.A. Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1992, 55, 160–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papert, S.; Harel, I. Situating constructionism. Constructionism 1991, 36, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Vygotsky, L.S. Socio-cultural theory. Mind Soc. 1978, 6, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
- Iandolo, G.; Alonso-Campuzano, C. El Test Proyectivo de la Familia de los Osos. Evaluación de competencias narrativas y de representación entre los 3 y los 11 años. In Manual con del Sistema Integrado y Análisis del Juego; Psise: Servicio de Psicología: Madrid, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Guitert, M.; Giménez, F. Trabajo cooperativo en entornos virtuales de aprendizaje. Aprender Virtualidad 2000, 10, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
- Di Blas, N.; Paolini, P. Multi-User Virtual Environments Fostering Collaboration in Formal Education. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 7, 54–69. [Google Scholar]
- Di Blas, N.; Boretti, B. Interactive storytelling in pre-school: A case-study. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Como, Italy, 3–5 June 2009; pp. 44–51. [Google Scholar]
- Ohler, J. The semantic web in education. EDUCAUSE Q. 2008, 31, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
- O’Malley, C. Designing computer systems to support peer learning. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 1992, 7, 339–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baars, B.J. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
Grade | Age in Months | Gender | Students | Difficulty Type | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range | Mean (SD) | Female | Male | No Diff. | With Diff. | Neurodev. | Funct. | ||
1st | 76–85 | 80 (3) | 14 (12.00%) | 13 (11.20%) | 26 (22.40%) | 1 (0.80%) | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.80%) | 27 (23.20%) |
2nd | 88–99 | 93 (3) | 23 (19.80%) | 16 (13.80%) | 36 (31.00%) | 3 (2.60%) | 1 (0.80%) | 2 (1.70%) | 39 (33.60%) |
3rd | 101–111 | 106 (2) | 8 (6.90%) | 4 (3.40%) | 11 (9.40%) | 1 (0.80%) | 1 (0.80%) | 0 (0.00%) | 12 (10.30%) |
4th | 115–124 | 119 (3) | 3 (2.60%) | 4 (3.40%) | 4 (3.40%) | 3 (2.60%) | 2 (1.70%) | 1 (0.80%) | 7 (6.00%) |
5th | 125–135 | 129 (3) | 15 (12.90%) | 16 (13.80%) | 29 (25.00%) | 2 (1.70%) | 1 (0.80%) | 1 (0.80%) | 31 (26.70%) |
Total | 76–135 | 103 (19) | 63 (54.30%) | 53 (45.70%) | 106 (91.40%) | 10 (8.60%) | 5 (4.30%) | 5 (4.30%) | 116 (100.00%) |
Grade | Number of Group Members | Number of Group/Stories | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 15 | 20 | ||
1st | 1 | - | - | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 12 |
2nd | - | - | - | 1 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | - | 20 |
3rd | - | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 6 |
4th | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | 14 |
5th | - | 2 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | - | - | 29 |
Total | 2 | 8 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 16 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 81 |
Kruskal–Wallis | df | Asymp. Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|
Mute a partner | 9.33 | 4 | p = 0.053 |
Interrupt | 21.76 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Off topic chat use | 10.15 | 4 | p = 0.05 |
Group self-regulation | 13.87 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Positive comments | 15.50 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Task-focused group | 13.68 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Social conscience | 35.72 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Social cognition | 32.62 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Social communication | 22.33 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Social motivation | 19.27 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Space for everyone | 27.61 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
Inclusion | 26.70 | 4 | p < 0.01 |
GM | SIL | INT | CUT | GSR | PC | TFG | SCS | SC | SCM | SM | SE | INC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Course Grade (CG) | −0.26 * | −0.14 | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.07 | 0.02 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.13 | −0.10 | 0.05 |
N. group members (GM) | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.13 | −0.11 | −0.12 | −0.16 | −0.12 | −0.04 | −0.18 | −0.15 | −0.20 | |
Silence (SIL) | 0.46 ** | 0.21 | 0.21 | −0.25 * | −0.54 ** | −0.30 * | −0.36 ** | −0.47 ** | −0.34 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.35 ** | ||
Interrupt (INT) | 0.34 ** | 0.04 | −0.35 ** | −0.57 ** | −0.59 ** | −0.48 ** | −0.57 ** | −0.29 * | −0.46 ** | −0.47 ** | |||
Chat use off topic (CUT) | −0.02 | −0.18 | −0.18 | −0.43 ** | −0.35 ** | −0.28 * | −0.25 * | −0.32 ** | −0.31 ** | ||||
Group self-regulation (GSR) | 0.27 * | −0.15 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |||||
Positive comments (PC) | 0.32 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.46 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.49 ** | 0.50 ** | ||||||
Task-focused group (TFG) | 0.53 ** | 0.42 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.46 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.51 ** | |||||||
Social conscience (SCS) | 0.81 ** | 0.74 ** | 0.59 ** | 0.63 ** | 0.53 ** | ||||||||
Social cognition (SC) | 0.70 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.52 ** | |||||||||
Social communication (SCM) | 0.62 ** | 0.67 ** | 0.62 ** | ||||||||||
Social motivation (SM) | 0.55 ** | 0.48 ** | |||||||||||
Space for everyone (SE) | 0.82 ** | ||||||||||||
Inclusion (INC) |
Min; Max | Mean (SD) | Skeweness | Kurtosis | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Balance 1 | −3.00; 6.00 | 1.32 (1.90) | −0.32 (0.27) | −0.06 (0.53) |
Balance 2 | −5.00; 6.00 | 1.89 (1.87) | −0.46 (0.27) | 1.82 (0.53) |
Balance 3 | −11.00; 8.00 | 0.73 (2.67) | −0.57 (0.27) | 4.06 (0.53) |
Balance 4 | −11.00; 4.00 | −0.59 (2.47) | −1.30 (0.27) | 3.07 (0.53) |
Grades (1st to 5th Grade) Kruskal–Wallis Test | Group Members Kruskal–Wallis Test | Methodologies (Story Chain vs. Small Group Story) Mann–Whitney Test | |
---|---|---|---|
Balance 1 | 6.39; df 4; p = 0.17 | 15.32; df 10; p = 0.12 | U = 836.50; p = 0.66 |
Balance 2 | 6.97; df 4; p = 0.14 | 11.77; df 10; p = 0.30 | U = 803.50; p = 0.91 |
Balance 3 | 9.41; df 4; p = 0.05 | 12.17; df 10; p = 0.27 | U = 821.50; p = 0.77 |
Balance 4 | 4.45; df 4; p = 0.35 | 16.06; df 10; p = 0.09 | U = 648.50; p = 0.16 |
Grade | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of stories | 12 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 29 | 81 |
Direct reference to COVID-19/Pandemic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 (6.17%) |
Indirect reference to COVID-19/pandemic—catastrophe | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 (3.70%) |
Indirect reference to COVID-19/pandemic—illness | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 (4.93%) |
Total references to COVID-19/pandemic | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 (14.81%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alonso-Campuzano, C.; Iandolo, G.; Mazzeo, M.C.; Sosa González, N.; Neoh, M.J.Y.; Carollo, A.; Gabrieli, G.; Esposito, G. Children’s Online Collaborative Storytelling during 2020 COVID-19 Home Confinement. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1619-1634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040115
Alonso-Campuzano C, Iandolo G, Mazzeo MC, Sosa González N, Neoh MJY, Carollo A, Gabrieli G, Esposito G. Children’s Online Collaborative Storytelling during 2020 COVID-19 Home Confinement. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2021; 11(4):1619-1634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040115
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlonso-Campuzano, Cristina, Giuseppe Iandolo, María Concetta Mazzeo, Noelia Sosa González, Michelle Jin Yee Neoh, Alessandro Carollo, Giulio Gabrieli, and Gianluca Esposito. 2021. "Children’s Online Collaborative Storytelling during 2020 COVID-19 Home Confinement" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11, no. 4: 1619-1634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040115
APA StyleAlonso-Campuzano, C., Iandolo, G., Mazzeo, M. C., Sosa González, N., Neoh, M. J. Y., Carollo, A., Gabrieli, G., & Esposito, G. (2021). Children’s Online Collaborative Storytelling during 2020 COVID-19 Home Confinement. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(4), 1619-1634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040115