Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

During childhood, teachers’ perception of students’ behavioral and academic performance, as well as storytelling and verbal fluency are of special relevance for reaching cognitive developmental milestones. However, little is still known about the interplay between these factors for students’ success. This investigation aimed at exploring narrative skills, verbal fluency, and teachers’ perception of behavioral and academic performance in sixty-one students aged between 6 and 12 years old from a Spanish primary school. The NEPSY-II verbal fluency test and the Bears Family Projective test were administered to students and an ad-hoc questionnaire about pupils’ socioemotional and academic progress in the classroom was completed by their teachers. Students’ stories were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using the Bears Family Integrated System. The results demonstrated that these teachers perceived girls with more typical behavior than boys in class. In general, students’ narrative skills were globally related to their academic and behavioral performance as perceived by their teachers. Students that used in storytelling the family as a unit were perceived by their teachers as happier. However, wider verbal fluency in students was unrelated to cohesion and structure in the stories, and only significantly related to more episodes and characters. Finally, students perceived by their teachers with lower academic performance and less typical behavior told more unbalanced stories with more characters’ maladaptive behaviors. In conclusion, these results highlight the importance of measuring verbal fluency and storytelling skills by teachers in primary education as potential risk/protective markers for emotional and behavioral self-dysregulation in class.

Keywords

verbal fluency narrative competence storytelling teacher perception academic performance primary school

Introduction

In primary education, reading, comprehension, linguistic, socioemotional, and narrative skills, among others, are relevant to students’ academic performance (Botting, 2002; Fisher et al., 2011; Glaubman et al., 2001; Pesco & Gagné, 2017). Of special consideration, teachers’ feedback and perception of students’ heavily impacts students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and academic performance (Adler, 1975; Ausubel, 2012; Ferla et al., 2009; Natale et al., 2009; Wormington et al., 2012).

For example, teachers’ feedback and perception of students favorably impacts students’ motivation by setting concrete, achievable, and short-term goals, as well as promoting positive emotions (Ausubel, 2012; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Reeve, 2010). Positive emotions can be induced and maintained by increasing the interest in the task, activating students’ intrinsic motivation, and facilitating interest in the content (Ainley et al., 2005). In addition, multiple studies have linked teachers’ support of students, high self-efficacy, and good academic performance in the school context (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011; Diseth et al., 2012; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman et al., 1992).

Moreover, students who perceive greater autonomy and teacher support have a lower dropout rate (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011; Assor et al., 2005; Bieg et al., 2011). In turn, teachers with higher intrinsic motivation and interpersonal skills for teaching perceive more typical behavioral qualities in their students, who in turn may respond more favorably to these expectations (R. Mäkinen & Kinnunen, 1986; M. Poulou, 2007; van Uden et al., 2013). Finally, the quality of the student-teacher relationship and the pupils’ capacities, including narrative competence, also influence the teacher’s perception of the student, feeding greater student expectations in the teacher (Dowd, 2018; M. S. Poulou, 2017; S.Yoon, 2002).

Multiple studies have indicated that student’s academic performance, sociocognitive competencies, and the teachers’ perception of their students’ work (Fiorentino & Howe, 2004; Gil Flores, 2011; Jones et al., 2018) are positively tied to the ability to tell stories (also known as narrative competence or storytelling). Narrative competence (or storytelling) can be formally defined as the entire set of skills involved in the ability to identify, listen to, tell, understand, be touched by, and act on the stories that one is exposed to, sharing representations, memories, and experiences with a conversational partner (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Berman, 1995; Curenton & Lucas, 2007; L. Mäkinen et al., 2014; Ziegler et al., 2005).

In typically developing children, storytelling is initially embedded in symbolic play (Bretherton, 2014; K. E. Nelson, 1989; K. E. Nelson et al., 2001;), shared proto-conversations and activities with caregivers (Bowlby, 1969; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Hipolito-Delgado et al., 2011; Longobardi et al., 2018). Around 2 and 3 years old, the child starts proto-narrations through self-directed and others-directed dialogs with toys and people (K. E. Nelson, 1989; K. E. Nelson et al., 2001; Pinto et al., 2018). Around 4 and 5 years old, children display more recognizable stories with a conversational partner, describing episodes, sequences, and character reactions (Pinto et al., 2019; Stadler & Ward, 2006; Stein & Glenn, 1979). This stage of storytelling co-occurs with sociocognitive development (Zanchi et al., 2020) involving semantic memory (K. Nelson & Fivush, 2004; Roebers, 2022; Sipe & Pathman, 2021; Tulving, 2002), emotional recognition (Beck et al., 2012), and a theory of mind (K. E. Nelson, 1989; Tarchi et al., 2019). Around 7 and 8 years old, children can merge their stories around an argument, problems, and solutions (Botvin & Sutton-Smith, 1977; Esposito et al., 2020; Iandolo et al., 2013; Piaget, 1955) with more complex forms, coherence, and cohesion (Esposito et al., 2020; Isbell et al., 2004). In general, when a child is asked to create a story, conventional schemes, imagination, and fantasy are activated in the structuring of the story (Botvin & Sutton-Smith, 1977; Pinto et al., 2018; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Trionfi & Reese, 2009; Zanchi et al., 2020), reflecting personal experiences and creativity (Bruner, 1991; Glaubman et al., 2001; van Bysterveldt et al., 2012).

Furthermore, storytelling in childhood can be encouraged through different methodologies: asking for a story from images (Berman & Slobin, 1994), using story stems (Merritt & Liles, 1987), playsets (Benson, 1993; Bornstein et al., 1997; Eckler & Weininger, 1989; Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021; Ilgaz & Aksu-Koç, 2005; Pellegrini, 1988; Pellegrini & Galda, 1982), dramatization (Nicolopoulou et al., 2015; Paley, 1981; Pellegrini & Galda, 1982; Williamson & Silvern, 1991), recordings (Küntay & Ervin-Tripp, 1997) or a direct verbal request for a story (Leondar, 1977). Among these strategies to encourage a child’s storytelling is the Bears Family Projective, a constructive-thematic projective test that stimulates and assesses child storytelling between the years three and eleven (Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1995; Iandolo et al., 2012; Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021; Venuti & Iandolo, 2003).

Previous research with the Bears Family Projective test showed that the ability to create a story in Italian and Spanish children exhibits a progressive formal evolution between 3 and 11 years old (Esposito et al., 2020; Iandolo et al., 2012, 2020). However, the narrative contents of the Bears Family story do not seem to follow incremental logic (Iandolo, 2011; Iandolo et al., 2013, 2020). Importantly, typical children show a content balance tendency between positive and negative solutions and the behaviors of characters and their relationships (Iandolo, 2011; Iandolo et al., 2012, 2020). On the other hand, children with emotional or behavioral difficulties show a tendency to create Bears Family stories with less content balance, both in favor of a positive or negative bias (Adkins & Gavins, 2012; Colozzo et al., 2011; Gremillion & Martel, 2014; Iandolo et al., 2012, 2020; Joel et al., 2006).

Another key neurocognitive competence associated with language, lexicon access, retrieval, and vocabulary and that evolves with age, reaching maturity around adolescence in typical development, is verbal fluency (Gonzalez et al., 2021; Henry et al., 2015; Hurks et al., 2010; Kavé, 2006; Kave et al., 2008; Kavé & Knafo-Noam, 2015; Korkman et al., 2014; Sauzéon et al., 2004). Verbal fluency tasks examine the spontaneous production of words with restricted search conditions in a limited time according to simple rules that use meaning or semantic categories or target sounds (Henry et al., 2015; Kavé et al., 2013; Troyer, 2000; Troyer et al., 1997). These tasks require access to language functions such as lexical knowledge and literacy (Gonzalez et al., 2021; Nation & Snowling, 2004; Shao et al., 2014) and other functions such as executive functioning, cognitive flexibility, strategic search processes, attention, working memory, and task monitoring (Aita et al., 2019; Amunts et al., 2020; Bolla et al., 1990; Diamond, 2013; Gonzalez et al., 2021; Henry et al., 2015; Hurks et al., 2010; Koren et al., 2005; Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996; Prigatano et al., 2008; Ruff et al., 1997; Sauzéon et al., 2004; Stolwyk et al., 2015; Troyer et al., 1997; Unsworth et al., 2011; Whiteside et al., 2016).

Previous research indicated a positive correlation between verbal fluency and emotional competencies (Beck et al., 2012), educational level (da Silva et al., 2004; Hurks et al., 2010; Kempler et al., 1998; Riva et al., 2000; Sincoff & Sternberg, 1988), academic performance (Aksamovic et al., 2019), narrative and grammatical skills (Kusumawardani & Mardiyani, 2018), social success, and extraversion (Ilmarinen et al., 2015). Moreover, the detection of low verbal fluency skills has been related to diverse neurodevelopment and executive functions difficulties (Barkley & Murphy, 2006; Sandler et al., 1993; Takács et al., 2014; Vaucheret Paz et al., 2017), language disorders (Weckerly et al., 2001), reading disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Barkley & Murphy, 2006; Takács et al., 2014), and other behavioral disorders (Amador-Zavala, 2014).

The current study aimed to investigate the verbal fluency and storytelling abilities of sixty-one Spanish primary school students, as well as their teachers’ perception of their behavioral and academic performance in class. In this regard, three hypotheses were tested.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Students’ verbal fluency and narrative competence will be positively correlated.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Students perceived by their teacher with higher academic performance and more typical behavior will tell stories with more sophisticated form and balanced content.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Students perceived by their teachers with lower academic performance and less typical behavior will tell stories with less sophisticated form and unbalanced content.

Method

Study Design

The study adopted a mixed and cross-sectional design to explore verbal fluency and storytelling skills in Spanish children, using psychometric instruments with children and questionnaires to their teachers about students’ behavioral and academic performance in class.

Participants

Sixty-one Spanish children (33 girls, 54%; 28 boys, 46%), aged between 6.7 and 11.9 years old (Months, M = 108.21; SD = 20.62) participated in this study. With their parental consent, primary school students were selected following a multistage cluster random sampling from a classroom in each grade, first to sixth grade (n = 10–11 students per grade), from a primary school in Madrid (Spain). This school met the requirements in the INCLUDED Project (includedeurope.eu), an Erasmus + research-action program (2019–2022) on narrative competence, collaboration, and inclusion in Spain.

Their six teachers (n = 1 per grade) completed an ad-hoc questionnaire about each student’s behavioral and academic performance. They knew the students well (Months known, M = 16.25; SD = 11.11) and interacted frequently with them in class (hours/week, M = 3.33; SD = 1.03). According to teachers’ responses, forty-six participants (75%) did not present difficulties, while fifteen students (15%) manifested some difficulty (Table 1).

Table 1.

Participants (N = 61).

Grade	Age (months)		Gender		Presence of some difficulty				Total
Grade	Min (Max)	Mean (SD)	Female	Male	Without difficulty	With difficulty	Neurod.	Func.	Total
First grade	73 (83)	78.3(3.9)	7 (11%)	3 (5%)	6 (10%)	4 (7%)	1 (2%)	3 (5%)	10
Second grade	85 (94)	91.4 (2.8)	5 (8%)	5 (8%)	7 (11%)	3 (5%)	2 (3%)	1 (2%)	10
Third grade	97 (108)	101.8 (4.1)	6 (10%)	5 (8%)	10 (16%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	1 (2%)	11
Fourth grade	110 (121)	114.5 (4.8)	5 (8%)	5 (8%)	8 (13%)	2 (3%)	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	10
Fifth grade	121 (132)	126 (4.4)	6 (10%)	4 (7%)	8 (13%)	2 (3%)	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	10
Sixth grade	133 (143)	137.9 (4.2)	4 (7%)	6 (10%)	7 (11%)	3 (2%)	3 (2%)	0 (0%)	10
Total	73 (143)	108.2 (20.6)	33 (54%)	28 (46%)	46 (75%)	15 (25%)	8 (13%)	7 (11%)	61

Neurod: Neurodevelopmental disorder, including ADHD, communication disorders, or specific learning disorders.

Func: Functional difficulties, including emotional and behavioral difficulties.

Instruments

Three instruments were used: (1) the Spanish version of the NEPSY-II Verbal Fluency test (Korkman et al., 2014); (2) the Spanish version of the Bears Family Projective test (Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1995; Iandolo, 2011; Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021; Venuti & Iandolo, 2003); and (3) an ad-hoc teacher’s questionnaire about student’s behavioral and academic performance.

The NEPSY-II Verbal Fluency test (Korkman et al., 2014) is a standardized task for children and adolescents between 3 and 16 years old. It assesses semantic and phonological fluency, allowing the detection of possible expressive difficulties. For the semantic task, the test administrator asked the child to list as many animals and food/drinks as possible for 1 min for each concept. For the phonological task, the administrator asked the child to list as many words as possible that begin with “P” and “M” for 1 min for each initial letter. Regarding test reliability, test-retest reliability indexes are 0.64 for the semantic fluency task and 0.79 for the phonological fluency task (Korkman et al., 2014).

The Bear Family Projective Test is a narrative production test for children from 3 to 11 years old (Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1995; Iandolo, 2011; Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021; Venuti & Iandolo, 2003). Test administration is standardized, strictly following the guidelines described in the test manual (Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021). The administrator introduced the Bears Family playset to the child, consisting of a family of anthropomorphic bears, a doctor, and a policeman, in three scenarios (kitchen, living room, and park) and asked the child to play with the playset for 10 min (Figure 1). After this phase, the test administrator asked the child to tell a story about the Bears Family for 5 min.

Figure 1.

The Bears family playset.

The final story was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to the Bears Family Analysis Integrated System. The Bears Family Integrated System uses three macro dimensions for the formal story analysis (A. Microstructure; B. Narrative Structure Index; C. Narrative Cohesion index) and four balances indexes for the content analysis (Balance 1. Positive and negative solutions; Balance 2. Solved and unsolved problems; Balance 3. Positive and negative relationships; Balance 4. Adaptive and maladaptive behaviors). The content analysis requires measuring the frequency of problematic events, the use of characters and scenarios, positive and negative relationships between characters, and characters’ behaviors to compute the four content balance indexes (Table 2). The formal microstructural dimension shows a reliability index of Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.52, while content balance indexes show reliability a Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.70 (Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021).

Table 2.

Integrated System of the Bears Family Projective (Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021; pp. 51–65).

Area	Variable	Description
Story form	Number of words	[A. Microstructure]. Total number of words that make up the story.
	Number of prepositions	[A. Microstructure]. Basic units that express an action of the story (e.g., Subject + verb + object).
	Number of episodes	[A. Microstructure]. Story events constituted by one or more propositions connected to each other through subordination or specification and divided by coordination.
	Structure index	[B. Narrative Structure]. Typical elements that revolve around a story, such as the opening sentence, the protagonist, the temporal and spatial setting, the conclusion, and the long-term conclusion. The index varies between 0 and 6, attributing one point for the existence of each of these elements.
	Cohesion index	[C. Narrative Cohesion]. The Narrative Cohesion Index measures how the story is characterized by a point of view and is developed around a theme, a plot, a plot, or one or more problematic events with a solution. The index varies between 0 and 11, according to the classification: 0. No story; 1. Play material description; 2. Arbitrary actions; 3. Random episodes; 4. Interconnected episodes; 5. Thematic sequences; 6. Problematic reaction; 7. Problem solution dyad; 8. Problem solution dyad with one event mediation; 9. Dyadic chains; 10. Problem solution dyad with secondary elements; 11. Dyadic cycles with secondary elements.
Story content	Problematic events	A difficulty or a danger for one or more characters in the story that follows or does not follow a solution.
	Use of characters and scenarios	The character who stars in each episode of the story and the place of the event are classified.
	Positive/Negative relationships between characters	Positive: interaction or joint action of characters to transfer positive emotions, friendship, joy, affection, collaboration, care. Negative: rigidity, aggression, fear, separation, tension, anger, malice, neglect.
	Characters’ behaviors	Aggressive behaviors, rejection of rules, sense of guilt, and adaptive are classified.
Story content balance	Balance 1. Number of problems solved positively minus Problems solved negatively
	Balance 2. Number of solved problems minus Number of unsolved problems
	Balance 3. Number of positive relationships minus Number of negative relationships
	Balance 4. Number of adaptive behaviors minus Number of Maladaptive behaviors (Aggressive + Guilty + Rule rejection)

The teacher’s questionnaire was an ad-hoc questionnaire designed for this investigation, which asked teachers to answer five questions about each pupil on a seven-point Likert scale (1-low; 7-high). The questions explored the teacher’s perception of student’s on (1) academic performance (how is the student academic performance including his/her grades?); (2) competencies (how is the student work in the classroom?); (3) behavior (how is the student behavior in the classroom?); (4) learning competence (how is the student learning competence?); (5) emotional well-being (how happy is the student in the classroom?); and (6) presence/absence of difficulties in the student (have you observed any difficulty in the student?). Teachers also needed to specify the kind of difficulties indicated by a psycho-pedagogical guidance team or a neuropsychiatric service (e.g., behavioral difficulty, language difficulty, learning difficulty, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, other difficulties). These difficulties were grouped into two categories: (1) Neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD, communication disorders, or specific learning disorders; and (2) functional difficulties, including emotional and behavioral difficulties (Table 1).

Procedure

For this study, we requested the participation of students from a primary school in Madrid (Spain). Parental informed consent was requested and obtained for all participants. The activity was voluntary and free, guaranteeing the European (GDPR UE 2016/67) and Spanish (Law 3/2018, of December 5) privacy standards, approved by the Ethics Committee.

First, we asked teachers to complete a questionnaire about students’ behavioral and academic performance. A researcher trained each teacher about the terms and questions in the questionnaire. Teachers were asked to answer questions about their perception of the students’ academic performance (including their grades) and behavior for the last 4 months, as well as the presence/absence of a child’s difficulty or clinical disorder indicated by the public psycho-pedagogical guidance team or the neuropsychiatric service.

A researcher, trained to administer psychometric tests, assessed each student through the Spanish versions of the NEPSY-II verbal fluency test (Korkman et al., 2014) and the Bears Family Projective Test (Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021). The researcher interviewed each student individually, in a 30-min session, during school hours, in a quiet school room reserved for the activity. The students’ Bears Family stories were audio-recorded and transcribed for coding.

Standard instructions were followed for administering and scoring the NEPSY-II verbal fluency test (Korkman et al., 2014) and the Bears Family Projective (Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021). For the story analysis, two judges blinded to the research hypotheses analyzed the stories according to the Bears Family Integrated System (Iandolo & Alonso-Campuzano, 2021). The coding order was counterbalanced between judges. Reliability was evaluated randomly in 35% of the sample using Cohen’s kappa index (κ). This index of agreement between judges was high (Microstructure: κ= 0.95; Structure: κ = 0.93; Cohesion: κ = 0.93; Balance 1: κ= 0.92; Balance 2: κ = 0.92; Balance 3: κ = 0.91; Balance 4: κ = 0.91; Global Balance: κ = 0.92). Discrepancies between judges were resolved by recoding the story and averaging the scores if the scoring difference were higher than 20%.

Data Analysis

The data analysis plans provide descriptive statistics for the study variables, accompanied by the outcomes of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test. Subsequently, we delve into the study variables, examining age and gender influence using Spearman, Pearson’s r, and one-factor ANOVA tests. Lastly, we present the results of the three study hypotheses via Spearman, Pearson’s r, one-factor ANOVA, Mann-Whitney test, and stepwise regression models.

Results

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test indicated a normal distribution for most variables in the teacher’s questionnaire, verbal fluency, and the formal aspects of the Bears Family story (Table 3). However, some content variables in the Bears Family story showed a non-normal distribution (Table 4). For this reason, data analysis was conducted by applying both parametric and nonparametric statistics as corresponded. Descriptive statistics of these variables are presented below (Table 3).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics (N = 61).

Area	Variable	Min; Max	M (SD)	Kolmogorov Smirnov
Teacher’s questionnaire	Student’s work in comparison with classmates ^①	1; 7	4.9 (1.4)	0.06*
	Student’s behavior in comparison with classmates ^①	2; 7	5 (1.4)	0.20*
	Student’s learning in comparison with classmates? ^①	1; 7	4.9 (1.4)	0.15*
	Student’s happiness in comparison with classmates? ^①	3; 7	5.1 (1.1)	0.16*
	Student’s performance in comparison with classmates? ^①	1; 7	5 (1.4)	0.20*
Verbal fluency (NEPSY-II)	Semantic Fluency ^②	1; 16	9.5 (4.4)	0.20*
Verbal fluency (NEPSY-II)	Phonological Fluency ^②	3; 17	9.2 (3.6)	0.20*
Story form (Bears family)	Number of words	0; 1,043	202 (192)	0.10*
	Number of prepositions	0; 168	31.8 (30.7)	0,20*
	Number of episodes	0; 60	12.8 (9.8)	0.13*
	Narrative Structure^③	0; 6	2.4 (1.2)	0.20*
	Story Cohesion^④	0; 11	7.2 (2.1)	0.20*
Story content (Bears family)	Number problematic events with solution	0; 5	1.3 (0.96)	0.15*
	Use of Bears Family inner house environment	0; 93	13.2 (15.2)	0.20*
	Use of Bears Family outside the house environment	0; 33	9.5 (6.9)	0.03
	Use fantasy locations	0; 46	1.3 (6.1)	0.01
	Use of unclear places	0; 54	8 (11.8)	0.01
	Use of the mom	0; 29	4.9 (5.6)	0.01
	Use of the dad	0; 28	4.7 (5.26)	0.03
	Use of unclear characters	0; 4	0.2 (0.67)	0.01
	Use of the family	0; 10	1.63 (2.46)	0.03
	Use of the little he-bear	0; 20	6.8 (4.8)	0.20*
	Use of the little she-bear	0; 31	6.9 (5.7)	0.20*
	Use of doctor	0; 15	2.4 (3)	0.06*
	Use of policeman	0; 9	1.6 (2)	0.20*
	Positive relationships between characters	0; 6	2.1 (1.4)	0.20*
	Unsolved problems	0; 3	0.1 (0.4)	<0.01
	Negative relationships between character	0; 8	0.7 (1.5)	0.20*
	Adaptive behaviors of the characters	0; 4	1.3 (0.9)	0.20*
	Aggressive behaviors of the characters	0; 7	0.4 (1.2)	0.01
	Rejection of rules of the characters	0; 1	0.1 (0.3)	0.01
	Feelings of guilty of the characters	0; 2	0.1 (0.3)	0.01
	Balance 1. Number of problems solved positively minus Problems solved negatively.	−3; 4	1.1 (1)	0.03
	Balance 2. Number of solved problems minus Number of unsolved problems.	-1; 4	1.2 (0.9)	0.15*
	Balance 3. Number of positive relationships minus Number of negative relationships.	−7; 4	1.4 (1.6)	0.15*
	Balance 4. Number of adaptive behaviors minus Number of Maladaptive behaviors (Aggressive + Guilty + Rule rejection).	−7; 3	0.8 (1.5)	0.11*

① Score 1–7 (1 = much less than others; 2 = somewhat less than others; 3 = slightly less than others; 4 = about average; 5 = slightly more than others; 6 = much more than others ② Standard Scores, Mean 10, Standard Dev 3. ③ Score 0–6 ④ Score 0–11 (0 = Stay silent, speech sounds only; 1 = Description of game material. 2 = Arbitrary actions; 3 = Episodes arbitrary; 4 = Interconnected episodes; 5 = Thematic sequences; 6 = Problem situation or reaction; 7 = Dyadic structure story structure; 8 = Dyad structure with mediating events; 9 = Dyadic chain; 10 = Dyad with secondary intermediate elements; 11 = Dyadic cycles with secondary middle features *Statistical significance (p < .05). Variables with a normal distribution.

Table 4.

Verbal Fluency Scores (N = 61).

Grade	Participants	Semantic verbal fluency(Scalar Scores, Mean 10, SD 3)			Phonological verbal fluency(Scalar Scores, Mean 10, SD 3)
Grade	N	Min (Max)	Mean (SD)	Students with scores below the mean (-1SD)	Min (Max)	Mean (SD)	Number of students with scores below the mean (-1SD)
First grade	10	1 (16)	6.2 (5.4)	5	-	-	-
Second grade	10	1 (12)	8 (3.9)	3	5 (14)	9.1 (3.1)	3
Third grade	11	4 (16)	10 (3.8)	2	4 (16)	9.4 (3.6)	3
Fourth grade	10	1 (16)	9.8 (3.8)	1	3 (17)	9.1 (4.0)	2
Fifth grade	10	5 (16)	12.7 (3.8)	1	4 (16)	11.1 (3.5)	1
Sixth grade	10	4 (16)	10.2 (3.7)	2	3 (14)	7.7 (3.1)	4
Total	61	5 (16)	9.5 (4.1)	14 (23%)	3 (17)	9.3 (3.5)	13 (21%)

According to the verbal fluency measures, fourteen students (23%) achieved standard scores below their normative age in the semantic fluency task. In the phonological fluency task, thirteen children (21%) scored below their normative age (Table 4).

Ninety-eight percent of the students (60 children) told a story about the Bears Family in the time available for storytelling. A boy in the first year of primary school with behavioral difficulties refused to complete the test.

The influence of age and gender was explored through inferential statistics with one-factor ANOVA, Pearson’s r, and Spearman’s r. Concerning gender, no significant differences were found for story verbal fluency and story variables. The only significant difference was related to the teacher’s perception of students’ behavior, with higher scores in girls (M = 5.43, SD = 1.23) compared to boys (boys M = 4.44, SD = 1.42) [F(1, 62) = 7.01, p < .01]. As expected for age, the results indicated a significant positive correlation between student’s age and semantic fluency (NEPSY-II semantic fluency, Pearson’s r = .35; p < .01), the number of story episodes (Bears Family - episodes, Pearson’s r = .34; p < .01), cohesion index (Bears Family - cohesion, Pearson’s r = .26; p < .05) and characters’ use (Bears Family - father, Spearman’s r = .28; p < .05; doctor, Pearson’s r = .43; p < .01; policeman, Pearson’s r = .38; p < .01).

Hypothesis 1. Students’ verbal fluency and narrative competence will be positively correlated.

Regarding the first hypothesis, correlation analyses partially confirmed it (Figure 2, only significant correlations are displayed). The results showed that students with higher scores in semantic fluency created stories with more episodes (Pearson’s r = .27; p < .05), more set-in fantasy scenarios (Spearman’s r = .34; p < .01), and greater use of male characters (Bears Family - Spearman’s r = .32; p < .05; son - Pearson’s r = .28; p < .05; doctor - Pearson’s r = .39; p < .01; policeman - Pearson’s r = .36; p < .01). Semantic fluency did not show a correlation with students’ story cohesion and structure.

Figure 2.

Correlations between verbal fluency and the Bears Family story.

Phonological fluency positively correlated with the story’s number of words (Pearson’s r = .29; p < .05) and episodes (Pearson’s r = .32; p = .05). Regarding playset use, phonological fluency positive correlated with higher use of the set outside the house (Spearman’s r = .34; p < .01), higher frequency of use of the doctor’s (Pearson’s r = .35; p < .01) and the son’s characters (Pearson’s r = .29; p < .05). As for story content, phonological fluency positively correlated with a better balance index between solved and unsolved problems in the story (Balance 1, problems solved vs. not solved, Pearson’s r = .28; p < .03). As for semantic verbal fluency, phonological was not related to story cohesion and structure.

Stepwise linear regression models were used to explore which story variables best predicted children’s verbal fluency. Regarding the relationship between story variables and semantic fluency, stepwise linear regression model indicates the doctor character introduction as a predictor of the student’s phonological fluency [R² = 0.12, F(1,56) = 7.69, p = .01] and semantic fluency [R ² = 0.14, F(1,56) = 9.18, p = .01]

Hypothesis 2. Students perceived by their teacher with higher academic performance and more typical behavior will tell stories with more sophisticated form and balanced content.

Regarding the second hypothesis, results confirmed that students with higher academic performance and more typical behavior in class demonstrated higher narrative skills and content balance in the Bears Family story (Figure 3). Data analysis indicated a positive correlation between teacher’s perceptions of academic performance and the level of motivation (Pearson’s r = .80; p < .01).

Figure 3.

Correlations between teacher’s questionnaire and the Bears Family story.

Children perceived by the teacher as students with better academic performance and higher level of motivation scored higher in story structure (Pearson’s r = .35; p < .01), showed more adaptive behaviors in characters (Pearson’s r = .26; p < .05), and used more the mother and father characters, as well as the bear family, as a unit in the story (Mother, Spearman’s r = .28; p < .05; Father, Spearman’s r = .33; p < .05; family as a unit, Spearman’s r = .36; p < .01).

In exploring the story variables that best predicted the teacher’s perception of students, a significant stepwise linear regression model indicated that the story’s narrative structure was the most significant predictor of the teacher’s perception of how the student’s academic performance [R² = 0.12, F(1,55) = 7.72, p = .01].

The students perceived by the teacher with more typical behavior in class told stories more set inside the Bears’ family house (Pearson’s r = .26; p < .05) and demonstrated a higher balance between adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in the characters (Balance 4, adaptive behaviors minus maladaptive behaviors, Pearson’s r = .30; p = .05). The stepwise linear regression model indicated that setting the story in the Bears’ family house [R² = 0.11, F(1,55) = 6.50, p = .01] and introducing solutions to story problems were the best predictors of the teacher’s perception of the student’s behavior [R² = 0.21, F(2,54) = 7.39, p = .01].

Finally, the students perceived by the teacher as happier tended to tell stories using the Bears family as a unit character (Spearman’s r = .26; p < .05) and set it in the Bears’ family house (Pearson’s r = .26, p < .05). The successive stepwise linear regression model showed that setting the story in the Bears’ family house was a significant predictor of the teacher’s perception of how happy the student was in class [R ² = 0.09, F(1,55) = 5.43, p = .03].

Hypothesis 3. Students perceived by their teachers with lower academic performance and less typical behavior will tell stories with less sophisticated form and unbalanced content.

Regarding the third hypothesis, one-factor ANOVA analyses and Mann-Whitney tests showed a statistically significant difference in the contents of the stories created by students with and without difficulties, as rated by the teachers in the questionnaire. Children rated by the teacher as students with difficulty introduced more frequently positive [Difficulty, M = 2.86, SD = 1.70; No difficulty, M = 1.83, SD = 1.20; F(1,11) = 6.47, p < .01] and negative relationships [Difficulty M = 1.36, SD = 1.78; No difficulty, M = 0.49, SD = 1.38; F(1.58) =3.85, p < .05] between characters in their stories in comparison to students with no difficulty. Also, for the stories created by students with difficulty, results showed more aggressive behaviors in characters (Difficulty M = 0.71, SD = 1.38; No difficulty, M = 0.27, SD = 1.1; U = 401,500, p < .05). No significant differences were found between story contents and type of difficulty (Neurodevelopmental vs. functional).

Discussion

These results underline an intimate relationship between primary school students’ narrative competence, verbal fluency, and teachers’ perception of pupils’ behavioral and academic performance.

Regarding teacher’s perception of students, results align with previous studies, for example, indicating a more satisfactory perception of girls’ typical behavior (Etxebarria et al., 2003). Moreover, previous studies point out to the effect of the positive perception by the teacher on promoting school performance (Downey & Vogt Yuan, 2005), self-concept, and motivation (Ferla et al., 2009; Wormington et al., 2012).

Our results also showed an effect of age on semantic fluency, narrative cohesion, the number of story episodes, and use of story’s secondary characters. Previous research in narrative competence development in primary school students have encountered this age-progression in narrative competence in typically developing children during late childhood (Esposito et al., 2020; Iandolo et al., 2013; Piolino et al., 2007; Stenning & Michell, 1985).

The incremental exposition of students to literacy skills and story models during primary education may impact language and storytelling competence development (Isbell et al., 2004; Pinto et al., 2019; Zanchi et al., 2020). In this line, our results suggest a relationship between verbal fluency and some form and content variables in the stories, but not with story structure and cohesion. Children with higher semantic verbal fluency created longer stories and use more characters and settings. The higher semantic verbal fluency may reflect a more prominent capacity to access vast and various verbal content based on all the characters in the playset. Consequently, it may increase story micro-linguistic complexity related to a student’s broader repertory of linguistic skills (Hickmann, 1995; Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; Kintsch, 1988; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Children with better verbal skills have more resources to balance the problems in the story as well as to manage the story’s narrative complexity, with overlapping problems and solutions during the story (Fitzgerald & Teasley, 1986; Marshall & Long, 2010; McCabe et al., 1991). On the other hand, phonological fluency, as a more advanced competence than semantics, may reflect a relationship between story linguistic microstructure components and the child’s metacognitive skills (Kintsch, 1988; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Sternberg et al., 2008).

Furthermore, students with higher academic performance and more typical behavior demonstrated higher narrative skills and more balanced content in adaptive and maladaptive characters’ behaviors. In addition, the more motivated students told more structured stories with more adaptive behaviors. Narrative skills may boost self-expression and metacognition and so impact on the student’s academic performance and behavioral self-regulation (Fiorentino & Howe, 2004; Gil Flores, 2011; Jones et al., 2018). All these competencies are modulated by the type of relationship between students and teachers in the school context (Hipolito-Delgado et al., 2011; Tamés, 1990).

The more frequent use of the Bears Family as a unit in the students perceived as happier by teachers and with more typical behavior in class can be related to students’ mental representations and narratives in terms of shared balanced contents. Balanced stories reflect an adjusted representation of experiences and a balanced view of oneself and others, contributing to emotion and behavior regulation (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Bretherton, 2000; Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Chris Fraley, 2002; Joel et al., 2006). In line with this, positive familiar representation, family harmony, parental care, and emotional well-being of children and adults can foster more balanced and resilient mental representations and narratives (Borowsky et al., 2001; Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 2014; Main et al., 2005; Robin, 2008; Santander R et al., 2008; Stearns, 2019). On the contrary, children experiencing stressful events in the family context can introduce unbalanced representations with high anxiety, stress, or sadness, perhaps projecting their personal experiences in their narrative contents (Sutton & Keogh, 2001). For example, a higher frequency of maladaptive characters’ behaviors in the stories was found in the students with difficulties, who also introduced more relationships between characters in their stories.

A positive and negative representational bias in children and adolescents is consistent with previous research on children with neurodevelopmental (Iandolo et al., 2020) and emotional and behavioral difficulties (Colozzo et al., 2011; Ferreira et al., 2005; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Iandolo et al., 2012; Nilsen & Graham, 2009). Unbalanced stories toward more positive or negative representations reflect a storyteller’s positive or negative bias, giving rise to stories in which certain content is overrepresented or undervalued. A bias favoring a more positive or negative representation does not allow one to have a broad view of conflicts and situations, which reflects a potential risk for emotional and behavioral self-dysregulation in a complex social context like the teacher-pupil relationship in the classroom (Booth & Winzar, 1993; Joel et al., 2006; Mathews & Bradley, 1983; Wahler, 2012).

Limitations

The limitations of the present study lie in its correlational nature, potential biases in teacher perception, the influence of the educational context, and other factors that restrict result generalization. Unconsidered factors could have influenced the relationships between storytelling competence, verbal fluency skills, and teachers’ perception of primary school students. Subjective factors or implicit educator prejudices may have biased teachers’ perceptions of student classroom behavior. Given that the study focuses on Spanish students, linguistic and cultural differences could have influenced the results, affecting the interpretation of results in different educational contexts. While some variables, such as students’ age, were considered, factors such as family environment or instructional quality must have also influenced students’ narrative skills and academic performance. The conclusions may not have applied generally to students of other ages or cultural contexts.

Practical Implications

Understanding the interplay between narrative competence, academic performance, teacher perception, and emotional well-being can inform educational practices aimed at promoting holistic development among primary school students.

Teachers’ perceptions of students, particularly regarding gender differences and behavioral patterns, can significantly influence academic performance. Positive perceptions by teachers have been shown to promote better school performance, self-concept, and motivation among students.

Regarding narrative competence, students’ age significantly influences its development among primary school students, and there is a notable improvement in narrative skills as students progress through primary education. This improvement can be attributed to cognitive development, personal experience, increased exposure to literacy skills, and story models. Concerning story formal features, higher verbal fluency scores are associated with longer stories that use more characters and settings. It suggests that enhancing verbal skills can lead to more complex storytelling abilities, improving linguistic proficiency and narrative complexity. Regarding story contents, the frequency of certain elements, can reflect students’ mental representations and emotional well-being. Balanced stories, depicting harmonious family relationships, can be an indicator of emotion regulation and resilience, whereas unbalanced stories may indicate underlying stress or emotional difficulties.

Narrative competence can contribute to self-expression, metacognition, and behavioral self-regulation, ultimately impacting academic performance positively.

Conclusions

This study investigated the relationship between verbal fluency, narrative competence, and teacher’s perception of students’ academic and behavioral performance. The results demonstrated that these teachers perceived girls with more typical behavior than boys in class. Students’ narrative skills were globally related to their academic and behavioral performance as perceived by their teachers. Interestingly, students who used the family as a unit in storytelling were perceived by their teachers as happier. However, wider verbal fluency in students was unrelated to cohesion and structure in the stories, and only significantly related to more episodes and characters, which are indexes of a broader linguistic repertory that can imply overlapping problems that emerge and are solved during the story. Finally, students perceived by their teachers to have lower academic performance and less typical behavior told stories with more deviant characters’ behaviors, maybe reflecting a bias in favor of negative representations of conflicts and situations and higher risk for emotional and behavioral self-dysregulation in class.

In conclusion, these results highlight the importance of measuring and promoting verbal fluency and storytelling skills by teachers in primary education with the final aim of boosting the co-construction of significant knowledge and psychological well-being in childhood (Bruner & Feldman, 1999; Norrick, 2000). Therefore, educational interventions may aim to support storytelling, verbal fluency, sharing, and mentalization of students’ representations, and to foster social inclusion and self-regulation. For example, the co-construction of cooperative stories in class may help balance biased representations and peers’ contributions, learning to regulate elements previously introduced by a groupmate with the teacher’s support and guidance.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.S., A.E., C.A.C., and G.I.; formal analysis, M.A.S. A.E., C.A.C., and G.I.; investigation, M.A.S., and G.I.; resources, G.I.; data curation, M.A.S., A.E., and G.I.; writing-original draft preparation, M.A.S., A.E., C.A.C, and G.I.; writing-review and editing, M.A.S., A.E., C.A.C., G.G.C. and G.I.; supervision, G.I.; project administration, G.I.; funding acquisition, G.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Erasmus+ includedeurope.eu project (G.I.) .

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The current study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines, following the European privacy standards (European General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR UE 2016/67) and the Spanish privacy standards (Ley 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre), approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital Universitario de Getafe (protocol code CEIm A12/20), and date of approval: November 19, 2020.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

ORCID iDs

Giuseppe Iandolo

Miguel Aroca-Salom

Cristina Alonso-Campuzano

Data Availability Statement

The dataset is released under the Creative Common 4.0 (CC-BY) License at

References

Adkins

M. H.

Gavins

M. V.

(2012). Self-regulated strategy development and generalization instruction: Effects on story writing and personal narratives among students with severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 20(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.724625

Adler

(1975). Determinants of causal attributions for academic performance. New York University.

Ainley

Corrigan

Richardson

(2005). Students, tasks and emotions: Identifying the contribution of emotions to students reading of popular culture and popular science texts. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.011

Aita

S. L.

Beach

J. D.

Taylor

S. E.

Borgogna

N. C.

Harrell

M. N.

Hill

B. D.

(2019). Executive, language, or both? An examination of the construct validity of verbal fluency measures. Applied Neuropsychology. Adult, 26(5), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1439830

Aksamovic

Djordjevic

Malec

Memisevic

(2019). Relationship between the verbal fluency and academic achievement in second and third grade students: The effects of gender and parents’ educational level. Acta Neuropsychologica, 17(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.38003/sv.70.1.17

Alivernini

Lucidi

(2011). Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, academic achievement, and intention to drop out of high school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Education and Research, 104(4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003728062

Amador-Zavala

L. O.

(2014). Gaudibility and emotional verbal fluency in adolescents with and without conduct disorder [Gaudibilidad y fluidez verbal emocional en adolescentes con y sin trastorno de conducta]. Master’s dissertation in Psychology. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, México. http://bibliotecavirtual.dgb.umich.mx:8083/xmlui/handle/DGB_UMICH/3596

Amunts

Camilleri

J. A.

Eickhoff

S. B.

Heim

Weis

(2020). Executive functions predict verbal fluency scores in healthy participants. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 11141–11211. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65525-9

Assor

Kaplan

Kanat-Maymon

Roth

(2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008

10.

Ausubel

D. P.

(2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Springer Science & Business Media.

11.

Bamberg

Georgakopoulou

(2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk, 28(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2008.018

12.

Barkley

R. A.

Murphy

K. R.

(2006). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A clinical workbook. Guilford Press.

13.

Bartholomew

Horowitz

L. M.

(1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

14.

Beck

Kumschick

I. R.

Eid

Klann-Delius

(2012). Relationship between language competence and emotional competence in middle childhood. Emotion, 12(3), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026320

15.

Benson

M. S.

(1993). The structure of four- and five-year-olds’ narratives in pretend play and storytelling. First Language, 13(38), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379301303803

16.

Berman

R. A.

(1995). Narrative competence and storytelling performance: how children tell stories in different contexts. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5(4), 285–313. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.5.4.01nar

17.

Berman

R. A.

Slobin

D. I.

(1994). Relating events in narrative: The cross-linguistic study of narrative structure. Lowrence Erlbaum Associates.

18.

Bieg

Backes

Mittag

(2011). The role of intrinsic motivation for teaching, teachers’ care and autonomy support in students’ self-determined motivation. Journal for educational research online, 3, 122–140. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4685

19.

Bolla

K. I.

Lindgren

K. N.

Bonaccorsy

Bleecker

M. L.

(1990). Predictors of verbal fluency (FAS) in the healthy elderly. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199009)46:5<<623::aid-jclp2270460513>3.0.co;2-c

20.

Booth

Winzar

(1993). Personality biases of accounting students: Some implications for learning style preferences. Accounting and Finance, 33(2), 109–120.

21.

Bornstein

M. H.

Maurice Haynes

Legler

J. M.

O’Reilly

A. W.

Painter

K. M.

(1997). Symbolic play in childhood: Interpersonal and environmental context and stability. Infant Behavior and Development, 20(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0163-6383(97)90022-9

22.

Bornstein

M. H.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(1995). The Bears family: Cognitive coding handbook [Unpublished Manual]. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Child and Family Research Unit.

23.

Borowsky

I. W.

Ireland

Resnick

M. D.

(2001). Adolescent suicide attempts: Risks and protectors. Pediatrics, 107(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.3.485

24.

Botting

(2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659002ct224oa

25.

Botvin

G. J.

Sutton-Smith

(1977). The development of structural complexity in children’s fantasy narratives. Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.13.4.377

26.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss. Basic Books.

27.

Bretherton

(2000). Emotional availability: An attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 2(2), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730050085581

28.

Bretherton

(2014). Symbolic play: The development of social understanding. Academic Press.

29.

Bretherton

Munholland

K. A.

(1999). Internal working models in attachment relations: A construct revisited. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). Guilford.

30.

Bretherton

Munholland

K. A.

(2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In Cassidy

Shaver

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102–127). The Guilford Press.

31.

Bruner

(1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/448619

32.

Bruner

Feldman

C. F.

(1999). Group narrative as a cultural context of autobiography. Cambridge University Press.

33.

Chris Fraley

. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0602_03

34.

Colozzo

Gillam

R. B.

Wood

Schnell

R. D.

Johnston

J. R.

(2011). Content and form in the narratives of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 54(6), 1609–1627. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0247)

35.

Csikszentmihalyi

Rathunde

(2014). Adolescent happiness and family interaction. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (ed.), Applications of flow in human development and education. Springer.

36.

Curenton

S. M.

Lucas

T. D.

(2007). Assessing young children’s oral narrative skills. Assessment in emergent literacy (pp. 377–432). Plural Publishing Inc.

37.

da Silva

C. G.

Petersson

K. M.

Faísca

Ingvar

Reis

. (2004). The effects of literacy and education on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of semantic verbal fluency. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.26.2.266.2808

38.

Diamond

(2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

39.

Diseth

Å.

Danielsen

A. G.

Samdal

. (2012). A path analysis of basic need support, self-efficacy, achievement goals, life satisfaction and academic achievement level among secondary school students. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.657159

40.

Dowd

N. E.

(2018). School, cognitive bias, and stereotypes. In N.E. Dowd (ed.), Reimagining equality. A New Deal for Children of Color (pp. 19–27). New York University Press.

41.

Downey

D. B.

Vogt Yuan

A. S.

(2005). Sex differences in school performance during high school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations. Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00014.x

42.

Eckler

J. A.

Weininger

(1989). Structural parallels between pretend play and narratives. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.25.5.736

43.

Esposito

Venuti

Iandolo

de Falco

Gabrieli

Wei

Bornstein

M. H.

(2020). Microgenesis of typical storytelling. Early Child Development and Care, 190(12), 1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1554653

44.

Etxebarria

Apodaca

Eceiza

Fuentes

M. J.

Ortiz

Y. M.

(2003). Gender differences in emotions and social behavior at school age. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 26(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037003321827759

45.

Ferla

Valcke

Cai

(2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept: Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.004

46.

Ferreira

V. S.

Slevc

L. R.

Rogers

E. S.

(2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002

47.

Fiorentino

Howe

(2004). Language competence, narrative ability, and school readiness in low-income preschool children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Revue Canadienne des Sciences Du Comportement, 36(4), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087237

48.

Fisher

Hirsh-Pasek

Golinkoff

R. M.

Singer

D. G.

Berk

(2011). Playing around in school: Implications for learning and educational policy. In Pellegrini

A. D.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the development of play (pp. 341–360). Oxford University Press.

49.

Fitzgerald

Teasley

A. B.

(1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children’s writing. Journal of Education & Psychology, 78(6), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.78.6.424

50.

Gil Flores

. (2011). Reading Habits and Basic Competencies in Compulsory Secondary Education Students. [Hábitos lectores y competencias básicas en el alumnado de educación secundaria obligatoria]. Educación XX1, 14(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.14.1.274

51.

Glaubman

Kashi

Koresh

(2001). Facilitating the narrative quality of sociodramatic play. In Göncü

Klein

(Eds.), Children in play, story and school (pp. 132–160). Guilford Press.

52.

Gonzalez

M. R.

Baaré

W. F. C.

Hagler

D. J.

Jr. Archibald

Vestergaard

Madsen

K. S.

(2021). Brain structure associations with phonemic and semantic fluency in typically-developing children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 50, 100982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100982

53.

Gremillion

M. L.

Martel

M. M.

(2014). Merely misunderstood? Receptive, expressive, and pragmatic language in young children with disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(5), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.822306

54.

Henry

L. A.

Messer

D. J.

Nash

(2015). Executive functioning and verbal fluency in children with language difficulties. Learning and Instruction, 39, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.06.001

55.

Hickmann

(1995). Discourse organization and the development of reference to person, space and time. In Fletcher

MacWhinney

(Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 194–218). Basil Blackwell.

56.

Hipolito-Delgado

C. P.

Cook

J. M.

Avrus

E. M.

Bonham

E. J.

(2011). Developing counseling students’ multicultural competence through the multicultural action project. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50(6), 402–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2011.tb01924.x

57.

Horton

W. S.

Keysar

(1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1

58.

Hudson

J. A.

Shapiro

L. R.

(1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In McCabe

Peterson

(Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89–136). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

59.

Hurks

P. P.

Schrans

Meijs

Wassenberg

Feron

F. J.

Jolles

(2010). Developmental changes in semantic verbal fluency: Analyses of word productivity as a function of time, clustering, and switching. Child Neuropsychology, 16(4), 366–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297041003671184

60.

Iandolo

(2011). The development of narrative competence: form, cohesion and balance of content using the Bears Family Projective Test [El desarrollo de las competencias narrativas, forma, cohesión y equilibrio de contenido a través del Test Proyectivo de la Familia de los Osos]. Doctoral dissertation in deevelopmental Psychology. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain). http://ow.ly/pldc50EdsYt

61.

Iandolo

Alonso-Campuzano

(2021). The Bears Family Projective Test. Evaluation of narrative competence and representation between 3 and 11 years old. Manual with the story integrated system and play analysis [El Test Proyectivo de la Familia de los Osos. Evaluación de competencias narrativas y de representación entre los 3 y los 11 años. Manual con del Sistema Integrado y Análisis del Juego]. Unpublished manual. Psise: Servicio de Psicología, Madrid, España. http://ow.ly/2WvF50AdbXE

62.

Iandolo

Esposito

Venuti

(2012). The Bears family projective test: Evaluating stories of children with emotional difficulties. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114(3), 883–902. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.09.15.21.PMS.114.3.883-902

63.

Iandolo

Esposito

Venuti

(2013). Cohesion, Micro-organization, Narrative Structure, and Verbal Competencies from Ages Three to Eleven: The Formal Development of Narrative [Cohesión, micro-organización, estructura narrativa y competencias verbales entre tres y once años: El desarrollo narrativo formal]. Estudios de Psicología, 34(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1174/021093913806751456

64.

Iandolo

López-Florit

Venuti

Neoh

M. J. Y.

Bornstein

M. H.

Esposito

(2020). Story contents and intensity of the anxious symptomatology in children and adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2020.1737156

65.

Ilgaz

Aksu-Koç

(2005). Episodic development in preschool children’s play-prompted and direct-elicited narratives. Cognitive Development, 20(4), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.08.004

66.

Ilmarinen

Vainikainen

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

(2015). Why are extraverts more popular? Oral fluency mediates the effect of extraversion on popularity in middle childhood. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1982

67.

Isbell

Sobol

Lindauer

Lowrance

(2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000048967.94189.a3

68.

Joel

Hinshaw

Huang-Pollok

(2006). Disorders of attention and impulse regulation. In Chicchetti

Cohen

(Eds.), Developmental psychopatology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 358–403). Wiley.

69.

Jones

B. K.

Destin

McAdams

D. P.

(2018). Telling better stories: Competence-building narrative themes increase adolescent persistence and academic achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.12.006

70.

Kavé

(2006). The development of naming and word fluency: Evidence from Hebrew-speaking children between ages 8 and 17. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(3), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2903_7

71.

Kave

Kigel

Kochva

(2008). Switching and clustering in verbal fluency tasks throughout childhood. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30(3), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390701416197

72.

Kavé

Knafo-Noam

(2015). Lifespan development of phonemic and semantic fluency: Universal increase, differential decrease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 37(7), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2015.1065958

73.

Kavé

Shalmon

Knafo

(2013). Environmental contributions to preschoolers’ semantic fluency. Developmental Science, 16(1), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12010

74.

Kempler

Teng

E. L.

Dick

Taussig

I. M.

Davis

D. S.

(1998). The effects of age, education, and ethnicity on verbal fluency. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4(6), 531–538. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617798466013

75.

Kintsch

(1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163

76.

Kintsch

van Dijk

T. A.

(1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.85.5.363

77.

Koren

Kofman

Berger

(2005). Analysis of word clustering in verbal fluency of school-aged children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(8), 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.06.012

78.

Korkman

Kirk

Kemp

(2014). Batería neuropsicológica infantil NEPSY-II. Pearson Clinical.

79.

Küntay

A. C.

Ervin-Tripp

S. M.

(1997). Narrative structure and conversational circumstances. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1-4), 113–120.

80.

Kusumawardani

S. A.

Mardiyani

(2018). The correlation between English grammar competence and speaking fluency. PROJECT, 1(6), 724. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i6.p724-733.

81.

Leondar

(1977). Hatching plots: Genesis of storymaking. In Perkins

Leondar

(Eds.), The arts in cognition (pp. 172–191). Johns Hopkins University Press.

82.

Longobardi

Spataro

Pizzicannella

(2018). Handwriting, spelling, and narrative competence in the fictional stories of Italian primary-school children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0328-y

83.

Main

Hesse

Kaplan

(2005). Predictability of attachment behavior and representational processes at 1, 6, and 19 years of age: The Berkeley longitudinal study. In Grossmann

K. E.

Grossmann

Waters

(Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 245–304). Guilford Publications.

84.

Mäkinen

Loukusa

Nieminen

Leinonen

Kunnari

(2014). The development of narrative productivity, syntactic complexity, referential cohesion and event content in four- to eight-year-old Finnish children. First Language, 34(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723713511000

85.

Mäkinen

Kinnunen

(1986). Teacher stress over a school year. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 30(2), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383860300201

86.

Marshall

Long

B. C.

(2010). Coping processes as revealed in the stories of mothers of children with autism. Qualitative Health Research, 20(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309348367

87.

Mathews

Bradley

(1983). Mood and the self-reference bias in recall. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21(3), 233–239.

88.

McCabe

Allyssa

Peterson

(1991). Developing narrative structure. Psychology Press.

89.

Merritt

D. D.

Liles

B. Z.

(1987). Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: Story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30(4), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3004.539

90.

Natale

Aunola

Nurmi

J. E.

(2009). Children’s school performance and their parents’ causal attributions to ability and effort: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.002

91.

Nation

Snowling

M. J.

(2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x

92.

Nelson

Fivush

(2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111(2), 486–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486

93.

Nelson

K. E.

(1989). Narratives from the crib. Harvard University Press.

94.

Nelson

K. E.

Aksu-Koç

Johnson

C. E.

(Eds.) (2001). Children’s language: developing narrative and discourse competence (Vol. 10). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

95.

Nicolopoulou

Cortina

K. S.

Ilgaz

Cates

C. B.

de Sá

A. B.

(2015). Using a narrative- and play-based activity to promote low-income preschoolers’ oral language, emergent literacy, and social competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.006

96.

Nilsen

E. S.

Graham

S. A.

(2009). The relations between children’s communicative perspective-taking and executive functioning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.07.002

97.

Norrick

N. R.

(2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. John Benjamins Publishing.

98.

Pajares

Schunk

(2001). The development of academic self-efficacy. Development of Achievement Motivation, 7(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6

99.

Paley

V. G.

(1981). Wally’s stories. Harvard University Press.

100.

Pellegrini

A. D.

(1988). Elementary-school children’s rough-and-tumble play and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 802–806. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.24.6.802

101.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Galda

(1982). The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the development of children’s story comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019003443

102.

Pennington

B. F.

Ozonoff

(1996). Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(1), 51–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01380.x

103.

Pesco

Gagné

(2017). Scaffolding narrative skills: A meta-analysis of instruction in early childhood settings. Early Education and Development, 28(7), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1060800

104.

Piaget

. (1955). The construction of reality in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

105.

Pinto

Tarchi

Accorti Gamannossi

(2018). Kindergarteners’ narrative competence across tasks and time. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 179(3), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1453775

106.

Pinto

Tarchi

Bigozzi

(2019). Promoting narrative competence in kindergarten: An intervention study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.09.003

107.

Pintrich

P. R.

de Groot

E. V.

(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Education & Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.33

108.

Piolino

Desgranges

Manning

North

Jokic

Eustache

(2007). Autobiographical memory: The sense of recollection and executive functions after severe traumatic brain injury. Cortex, 43(2), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70474-X

109.

Poulou

(2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’ perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066693

110.

Poulou

M. S.

(2017). Social and emotional learning and teacher–student relationships: Preschool teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0800-3

111.

Prigatano

G. P.

Gray

J. A.

Lomay

V. T.

(2008). Verbal (animal) fluency scores in age/grade appropriate minority children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14(1), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617708080089

112.

Reeve

(2010). How do I motivate others? The concept of motivating style. In Díaz

J.M.

Gámez

Marrero

León

Castillo

Urrutia

(Eds.) Motivación y emoción: investigaciones actuales. Servicio de Publicaciones (pp. 15–28). Universidad de la Laguna.

113.

Riva

Nichelli

Devoti

(2000). Developmental aspects of verbal fluency and confrontation naming in children. Brain and Language, 71(2), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2166

114.

Robin

B. R.

(2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916

115.

Roebers

C. M.

(2022). The development of semantic memory: The role of memory strategies and metacognition. In Courage

M. L.

Cowan

(Eds.), The development of memory in infancy and childhood (pp. 189–213). Psychology Press.

116.

Ruff

R. M.

Light

R. H.

Parker

S. B.

Levin

H. S.

(1997). The psychological construct of word fluency. Brain and Language, 57(3), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1755

117.

Sandler

A. D.

Hooper

S. R.

Watson

T. E.

Coleman

W. L.

Footo

Levine

M. D.

(1993). Talkative children: Verbal fluency as a marker for problematic peer relationships in clinic-referred children with attention deficits. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(3 Pt 1), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.76.3.943

118.

Santander R

Zubarew G

Santelices C

Argollo M

Cerda L

Bórquez P

. (2008). The Influence of Family as a Protective Factor Against Risk Behaviors in Chilean Schoolchildren [Influencia de la familia como factor protector de conductas de riesgo en escolares chilenos]. Revista médica de Chile, 136(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872008000300006

119.

Sauzéon

Lestage

Raboutet

N’Kaoua

Claverie

(2004). Verbal fluency output in children aged 7-16 as a function of the production criterion: Qualitative analysis of clustering, switching processes, and semantic network exploitation. Brain and Language, 89(1), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00367-5

120.

Shao

Janse

Visser

Meyer

A. S.

(2014). What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 772. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00772

121.

Sincoff

J. B.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1988). Development of verbal fluency abilities and strategies in elementary-school-age children. Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.24.5.646

122.

Sipe

S. J.

Pathman

(2021). Memory at play: Examining relations between episodic and semantic memory in a children’s museum. Child Development, 92(3), e270–e284. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13484

123.

Stadler

M. A.

Ward

G. C.

(2006). Supporting the narrative development of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0024-4

124.

Stearns

P. N.

(2019). Happy children: A modern emotional commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02025

125.

Stein

N. L.

Glenn

C. G.

(1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. New Directions in Discourse Processing, 2(1979), 53–120.

126.

Stenning

Michell

(1985). Learning how to tell a good story: The development of content and language in children’s telling of one tale. Discourse Processes, 8(3), 261–279.

127.

Sternberg

R. J.

Kaufman

J. C.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2008). Applied intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

128.

Stolwyk

Bannirchelvam

Kraan

Simpson

(2015). The cognitive abilities associated with verbal fluency task performance differ across fluency variants and age groups in healthy young and old adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 37(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.988125

129.

Sutton

Keogh

(2001). Components of Machiavellian beliefs in children: Relationships with personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00017-9

130.

S.Yoon

. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(5), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.5.485

131.

Takács

Á.

Kóbor

Tárnok

Csépe

. (2014). Verbal fluency in children with ADHD: Strategy using and temporal properties. Child Neuropsychology, 20(4), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.799645

132.

Tamés

R. L.

(1990) Introduction to children’s literature. In [Introducción a la literatura infantil] (Vol. 3). EDITUM, Universidad de Murcia.

133.

Tarchi

Bigozzi

Pinto

(2019). The influence of narrative competence on mental state talk in kindergarten and primary school children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12295

134.

Trionfi

Reese

(2009). A good story: Children with imaginary companions create richer narratives. Child Development, 80(4), 1301–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01333.x

135.

Troyer

A. K.

(2000). Normative data for clustering and switching on verbal fluency tasks. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(3), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1076/1380-3395(200006)22:3;1-V;FT370

136.

Troyer

A. K.

Moscovitch

Winocur

(1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11(1), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1037//0894-4105.11.1.138

137.

Tulving

(2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114

138.

Unsworth

Spillers

G. J.

Brewer

G. A.

(2011). Variation in verbal fluency: A latent variable analysis of clustering, switching, and overall performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.505292

139.

van Bysterveldt

A. K.

Westerveld

M. F.

Gillon

Foster-Cohen

. (2012). Personal narrative skills of school-aged children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00085.x

140.

van Uden

J. M.

Ritzen

Pieters

J. M

. (2013). I think I can engage my students. Teachers’ perceptions of student engagement and their beliefs about being a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.004

141.

Vaucheret Paz

Puga

García Básalo

M. J.

Pintos

Trossero

Richards

Ekonen

Corleto

Leist

Agosta

. (2017). Verbal fluency: a rapid neuropsychological test for the detection of cognitive disorders in pediatrics [Fluencia verbal: un test neuropsicológico breve para la detección de trastornos cognitivos en pediatría] Acta Neurológica Colombiana, 33(3), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.22379/24224022148

142.

Venuti

Iandolo

(2003). The Bears family projective method [Il metodo proiettivo dela familia degli Orsi]. Unpublished manual. ODFLab, University of Trento, Italy.

143.

Wahler

E. A.

(2012). Identifying and challenging social work students’ biases. Social Work Education, 31(8), 1058–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.616585

144.

Weckerly

Wulfeck

Reilly

(2001). Verbal fluency deficits in children with specific language impairment: Slow rapid naming or slow to name? Child Neuropsychology, 7(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.7.3.142.8741

145.

Whiteside

D. M.

Kealey

Semla

Luu

Rice

Basso

M. R.

Roper

(2016). Verbal fluency: Language or execive function measure? Applied Neuropsychology. Adult, 23(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2015.1004574

146.

Williamson

P. A.

Silvern

S. B.

(1991). Thematic-fantasy play and story comprehension. In Christie

J. F.

(Ed.), Play and early literacy development (pp. 69–90). State University of New York Press.

147.

Wormington

S. V.

Corpus

J. H.

Anderson

K. G.

(2012). A person-centered investigation of academic motivation and its correlates in high school. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.004

148.

Zanchi

Zampini

Fasolo

(2020). Oral narrative competence and literacy skills. Early Child Development and Care, 190(14), 2309–2320. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1572132

149.

Ziegler

Mitchell

Currie

(2005). How does narrative cue children’s perspective taking? Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.115

150.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Bandura

Martinez-Pons

(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283120290036631992.

Storytelling,Verbal Fluency,and Teacher’s Perception of Primary School Spanish Students

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Study Design

Participants

Instruments

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Practical Implications

Conclusions

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Informed Consent Statement

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References