Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Social Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Italy the middle-high class includes families with the following characteristics: the referent holds at least a high school diploma; the family includes on average 2–7 members; the parent’s occupations are either office workers or freelancers; in most cases, they own the house they live in (Source: 2017 Annual Report by ISTAT, National Institute of Statistics).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R. A. (1988). On the ability to relate events in narrative. Discourse Processes, 11, 469–497. doi:10.1080/01638538809544714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devescovi, A., & Baumgartner, E. (1993). Joint-reading a picture book: Verbal interaction and narrative skills. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). Developing narrative structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotskij, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, via San Salvi, 12, 50125, Florence, Italy

    Giuliana Pinto, Christian Tarchi & Lucia Bigozzi

Authors
  1. Giuliana Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Tarchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucia Bigozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Tarchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pinto, G., Tarchi, C. & Bigozzi, L. Is two better than one? Comparing children’s narrative competence in an individual versus joint storytelling task. Soc Psychol Educ 21, 91–109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9411-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9411-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation