Advertisement

Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 91–109 | Cite as

Is two better than one? Comparing children’s narrative competence in an individual versus joint storytelling task

  • Giuliana Pinto
  • Christian Tarchi
  • Lucia Bigozzi
Article

Abstract

This research looks at the potential of peer interaction practices in improving narrative competence by analyzing the efficacy of peer learning on children’s oral narrative productions. Gains on a macro-level (structure and coherence of the narrative) and a micro-level (cohesion of the narrative) were analyzed. Fifty-six primary school children participated in this study. Each child told a narrative either individually (individual condition) or while interacting with a peer (joint condition). We explored whether children produced longer, more structured, coherent and cohesive narratives in a joint condition rather than individually, and in which condition the joint task was more beneficial for children’s narrative competence in terms of narrative scores in the individual condition, discrepancy between the members of the same pair, and quality of the interaction. The advantage of peer learning does not derive from the direct comparison of the individual versus the joint condition but depends on specific conditions: the joint condition was beneficial for individuals with lower individual competence and for pairs with a high discrepancy between individual scores. Children’s quality of interaction did not seem to influence the efficacy of peer learning on their narrative competence.

Keywords

Narrative competence Peer learning Preschoolers Story-telling 

References

  1. Allen, M. S., Kertoy, M. K., Sherblom, J. C., & Pettit, J. M. (1994). Children’s narrative productions: A comparison of personal event and fictional stories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 149. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400005300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashwin, P. (2003). Peer support: Relations between the context, process and outcomes for the students who are supported. Instructional Science, 31, 159–173. doi: 10.1023/A:1023227532029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumer, S., Ferholt, B., & Lecusay, R. (2005). Promoting narrative competence through adult-child joint pretense: Lessons from the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld. Cognitive Development, 20, 576–590. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, R. A. (1988). On the ability to relate events in narrative. Discourse Processes, 11, 469–497. doi: 10.1080/01638538809544714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18, 1–21. doi: 10.1191/0265659002ct224oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2001). Complementarity of information and quality of relationship in cooperative learning. Social Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1023/A:1011392906032.Google Scholar
  8. Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351. doi: 10.1348/026151003322277739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron, C. A., & Hutchison, J. (2009). Telephone-mediated communication effects on young children’s oral and written narratives. First Language, 29, 347–371. doi: 10.1177/0142723709105313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional Science, 29, 443–479. doi: 10.1023/A:1012099909179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coelho, C. A. (2002). Story narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain-injured adults. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 45, 1232–1248. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/099).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Backer, L., van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559–588. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9190-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Socially shared metacognitive regulation during reciprocal peer tutoring: identifying its relationship with students’ content processing and transactive discussions. Instructional Science, 43, 323–344. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devescovi, A., & Baumgartner, E. (1993). Joint-reading a picture book: Verbal interaction and narrative skills. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 121–151. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duran, D., & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 15, 179–199. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eaton, J. H., Collis, G. M., & Vicky, L. A. (1999). Evaluative explanations in children’s narratives of a video sequence without dialogue. Journal of Child Language, 26, 699–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 2–18. doi: 10.1037/a0024338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gazella, J., & Stockman, I. J. (2003). Children’ s story retelling under different modality and task conditions: Implications for standardizing language sampling procedures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 577–600. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9129-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Genereux, R., & McKeough, A. (2007). Developing narrative interpretation: structural and content analyses. The British journal of educational psychology, 77(Pt 4), 849–872. doi: 10.1348/000709907X179272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Utley, C. A., Gavin, K. M., & Terry, B. J. (2001). ClassWide peer tutoring learning management system: Applications with elementary-level English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 34–47. doi: 10.1177/074193250102200105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 169–184. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, D. S., & Casey, D. M. (2002). Dyadic versus individual storytelling by preschool children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(4), 445–458. doi: 10.1080/00221320209598695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayward, D., & Schneider, P. (2000). Effectiveness of teaching story grammar knowledge to pre-school children with language impairment. An exploratory study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 16, 255–284. doi: 10.1191/026565900680410215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hickmann, M., & Hendricks, H. (1999). Cohesion and anaphora in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 26, 419–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hudson, J. A., & Shapiro, L. R. (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hughes, C. (1997). “Pretend you didn’t know”: Preschoolers’ talk about mental states in pretend play. Cognitive Development, 12, 477–499. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(97)90019-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33, 213–250. doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-2810-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lever, R., & Sénéchal, M. (2011). Discussing stories: On how a dialogic reading intervention improves kindergartners’ oral narrative construction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 1–24. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyle, S. (2000). Narrative understanding: Developing a theoretical context for understanding how children make meaning in classroom settings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCabe, A., Bliss, L., Barra, G., & Bennett, M. (2008). Comparison of personal versus fictional narratives of children with language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 194–206. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). Developing narrative structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. McKeough, A., Davis, L., Forgeron, N., Marini, A., & Fung, T. (2005). Improving story complexity and cohesion: A developmental approach to teaching story composition. Narrative Inquiry, 15, 241–266. doi: 10.1075/ni.15.2.04mck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merritt, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1989). Narrative analysis: clinical applications of story generation and story retelling. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(3), 438–447. doi: 10.1044/jshd.5403.438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Neill, D. K., Pearce, M. J., & Pick, J. L. (2004). Preschool children’s narratives and performance on the peabody individualized achievement test—revised: Evidence of a relation between early narrative and later mathematical ability. First Language, 24, 149–183. doi: 10.1177/0142723704043529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petersen, D. B. (2011). A systematic review of narrative-based language intervention with children who have language impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32, 207–220. doi: 10.1177/1525740109353937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pinto, G., Tarchi, C., Accorti Gamannossi, B., & Bigozzi, L. (2016a). Mental state talk in children’s face-to-face and telephone narratives. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinto, G., Tarchi, C., & Bigozzi, L. (2015). The relationship between oral and written narratives: A three-year longitudinal study of narrative cohesion, coherence, and structure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 551–569. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinto, G., Tarchi, C., & Bigozzi, L. (2016b). Development in narrative competences from oral to written stories in five- to seven-year-old children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prangsma, M. E., Van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Developing a “big picture”: Effects of collaborative construction of multimodal representations in history. Instructional Science, 36(2), 117–136. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9026-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roch, M., Florit, E., & Levorato, C. (2016). Narrative competence of Italian–English bilingual children between 5 and 7 years. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 49–67.  http://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000417.
  47. Shapiro, L. R., & Hudson, J. A. (1991). Tell me a make-believe story: Coherence and cohesion in young children’s picture-elicited narratives. Developmental Psychology, 27, 960–974. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.6.960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silva, M., Strasser, K., & Cain, K. (2014). Early narrative skills in Chilean preschool: Questions scaffold the production of coherent narratives. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 205–213. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spinillo, A. G., & Pinto, G. (1994). Children’s narratives under different conditions: A comparative study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 177–193. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1994.tb00627.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1982). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In W. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 255–282). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  51. Struthers, L., Lapadat, J. C., & MacMillan, P. D. (2013). Assessing cohesion in children’s writing: Development of a checklist. Assessing Writing, 18, 187–201. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tarchi, C., & Pinto, G. (2015). Educational practices and peer-assisted learning: analyzing students’ interactive dynamics in a joint drawing task. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 393–409. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9269-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tarchi, C., & Pinto, G. (2016). Reciprocal teaching: Analysing interactive dynamics in the co-construction of a text’s meaning. Journal of Educational Research, 109, 518–530. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.992583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645. doi: 10.1080/01443410500345172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vygotskij, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Fortaleza. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and PsychologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations