sustainability

Article
Schools That ‘Open Doors’ to Prevent Child Abuse
in Confinement by COVID-19
Esther Roca 1, * , Patricia Melgar 2 , Regina Gairal-Casadó 3
and Miguel A. Pulido-Rodríguez 4
1 Department of Comparative Education and Education History, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez 30,
46010 València, Spain
2 Department of Pedagogy, University of Girona, Pl. Sant Domènec, 9, 17004 Girona, Spain;
patricia.melgar@udg.edu
3 Department of Pedagogy, Rovira i Virgili University, Ctra. de Valls, s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Spain;
regina.gairal@urv.cat
4 School of Social Education and Social Work Pere Tarres, Ramon Llull University, Carrer Santaló, 37,
08021 Barcelona, Spain; mapulido@peretarres.url.edu
* Correspondence: esther.roca@uv.es




Received: 30 April 2020; Accepted: 5 June 2020; Published: 8 June 2020


Abstract: Background: Due to the expected increase in child abuse during the period of COVID-19
confinement, it is essential that social researchers and other professionals work together very
quickly to provide alternatives that protect children. To respond to this extremely urgent demand,
evidence-based actions are presented that are being carried out in nine schools in the autonomous
communities of Valencia and Murcia, Spain, during the confinement with the goal of “opening
doors” to foster supportive relationships and a safe environment to prevent child abuse. Methods:
The research was conducted through the inclusion of teachers who are implementing these actions
in dialogue with the researchers to define the study design, analysis, and discussion of the results.
Results: Knowledge regarding six evidence-based actions is provided: (1) dialogic workspaces,
(2) dialogic gatherings, (3) class assemblies, (4) dialogic pedagogical gatherings with teachers,
(5) mixed committees, and (6) dynamisation of social networks with preventive messages and the
creation of a sense of community, which are being implemented virtually.

Keywords: child abuse; COVID-19; prevention

1. Introduction
According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, more than 188 countries closed their educational
centres at all levels during the COVID-19 pandemic as one of the measures to stop the spread of the
virus. More than 1,500,000,000 learners were affected, which is more than 90% of all enrolled learners,
and were confined in their homes [1]. In Spain, all educational centres from early childhood education
to universities were closed on Thursday 13 March 2020. The next day, a state of alarm was decreed in
the country. Citizens were asked to remain confined to their homes.
Faced with this global situation, on 20 March 2020, the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard
University highlighted the imperative need to reconcile two of the most relevant science-based messages
for overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, prolonged social distance and supportive relationships,
to strengthen resilience in the face of adversity. The Center noted that responding from science to two
apparently contradictory challenges requires rigorous scientific thinking, on-the-ground expertise and
the lived experiences of a wide range of people and communities. Obviously, the impact of confinement
conditions will not have the same short- and long-term effects on all people [2]. It is a priority for

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685; doi:10.3390/su12114685 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 2 of 17

social and educational research to contribute to the challenge of reducing the potential threats and
consequences that the physical isolation of confinement can produce for those who are especially
vulnerable, such as children at risk of abuse in their homes. This article provides knowledge to help
minimise the negative consequences of confinement for all children, especially for those potentially at
risk of abuse (physical, sexual, and emotional) at home.
In response to this challenge, this research provides knowledge from six evidence-based actions
that are being carried out in nine schools (pre-primary, primary, middle, high, and special education)
in the autonomous communities of Valencia and Murcia, Spain, during the period of COVID-19
confinement with the goal of “opening doors” to foster supportive relationships and a safe environment
to prevent child abuse. The research was conducted with the inclusion of teachers who are implementing
these actions in dialogue with the researchers to define the study design, analysis, and discussion of
the results.

1.1. Increased Domestic Violence and Child Abuse during Confinement

On March 24th, Marceline Naudi, a representative of the Group of Experts on Action against
Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), the organisation within the Council of
Europe responsible for the supervision of the Istanbul Convention [3], made a call to create alternatives
for women and their children who suffer domestic violence in the face of the COVID-19 crisis and the
preventive measures of confinement. Due to the expected increase in domestic violence, it is essential
for researchers and other professionals to work together and share actions to protect not only women
but also their children [4].
Research estimates that 275 million children worldwide are exposed to domestic violence, including
physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, which may also involve neglect or deprivation [5]. UNICEF
cautions that this is a conservative estimate based on the limitations of available data. In fact, millions
more children may be affected by domestic violence. Violence at home is not limited by geography,
ethnicity or status; it is a global phenomenon. Confinement due to the pandemic forces these children
to live with their abusers all the time. Child abuse is one of the main causes of emotional, behavioural
and health problems throughout life [6].
According to the Ministry of Equality of the Spanish Government, during the first fortnight of
April, there was an exponential increase of 48% of phone calls to the 016 telephone number addressed
to assist victims of violence against women and their children, as well as an increase of 650% in
online consultations with the different existing services [7]. In Spain, non-governmental organizations
have warned that many children and adolescents are suffering from increasing violence and lack
of protection during confinement. The only available data are from the ANAR Foundation (Help
Children and Adolescents at Risk, in its Spanish acronym). This foundation has chosen to replace
its usual telephone assistance service by a chat due to the possible difficult circumstances of calling
in which boys and girls who need help can find themselves. The data collected from the chat show
an increase of 300% for queries at this time. During confinement, it has received an average of 38
daily consultations [8], while during 2019 the daily average was 9 consultations [9]. In only one week
(23–30 March), the professional team of this organisation answered 270 requests for assistance that were
received by chat and e-mail. Among these, 173 serious cases were detected. Two out of every five cases
addressed were due to violence. Physical violence within the family constituted the highest percentage
at 12.7% of cases, followed by psychological abuse (6.9%). Noteworthy for their seriousness were cases
of sexual abuse (3.5%), in which the minors could not escape from their aggressors. A total of 2.9%
were minors who were in a state of abandonment or neglect during this period. Requests for help were
made by children who had access and skills to use electronic devices through the Internet. ANAR
warns that these data are only a small part of what is truly happening. Younger children are even
more unprotected if neighbours, friends, and family do not identify and report situations that may be
occurring [10]. Research indicates that “closed doors”, hiding, non-identification, and non-reporting
are the main barriers to overcoming child abuse [11].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 3 of 17

1.2. Keeping Supportive Relationships Alive through Schools during Confinement

Other evidence-based messages from the scientific community in education are that teachers
should continue to maintain positive and stable relationships with their students and actively promote
ways to create a sense of community during the period of confinement [12]. Expanding a school’s
capacity for support and ensuring that each student is known to at least one adult could help to
identify students who may be at risk during times of increased isolation [13] and can also have
enormous benefits, including less bullying, lower dropout rates, and improved social and emotional
capacities [14].

1.3. School-Based Programs to Prevent Child Abuse

In the last three decades, evidence has been collected on school-based abuse prevention
programmes from early childhood, elementary and high schools; these programmes have been
found to be effective in increasing children’s knowledge of child abuse concepts and self-protection
skills [6,15,16]. Schools are ideal settings for promoting child abuse prevention, providing knowledge
and skills for children to recognise abuse and to reduce risk, creating a trusted environment in
which children can disclose if they are being abused, and creating a safe context involving the entire
community [6,15,17–20]. The main messages in programmes that have proven to be effective are to
tell a trusted adult, that it is never too late to tell, that the abuse is never their fault, and that the
perpetrator is always responsible. Examples are provided to further define these concepts so that
children understand what is meant by “trusted adult” and “unsafe or confusing touch” [17], permission
to say no to authority figures, understanding that trusted adults can act abusively, and rules about
breaking promises and keeping secrets [20]. The purpose of these programmes is to transfer the
knowledge and skills learned by children or adolescents in classroom settings to real-life situations [21].
Other programmes focused on promoting healthy relationships and preventing domestic abuse
emphasise friendships and peer relationships to discuss abuse in intimate relationships, how to build
positive relationships, how children and youth can develop relationships free of fear and abuse,
conflict resolution skills, and underlying attitudes that lead to abusive tendencies [22]. In the same
vein, evidence-based interventions following a preventive socialisation of violence approach have
been conducted. Research on risk factors related to gender violence conducted from a preventive
socialisation approach has identified the existence of a coercive dominant discourse in which people
with violent attitudes and behaviours are socially portrayed as attractive and exciting, while people
and relationships with nonviolent attitudes and behaviours are portrayed as less exciting [23,24].
Some of the messages from this approach are directed towards the promotion of zero violence from
early childhood education, such as “a friend is the one who treats you well” and “someone who is
an upstander in favour of the victim, acts without violence, and reports aggression is not a snitch,
he/she is brave”. These messages aim to ensure that there is no justification for violence from an
early age and to promote the socialisation based on the desire of nonviolent people who have the best
values [25]. In this approach, the actions addressed towards the preventive socialisation of violence are
not separated from instrumental learning sessions (mathematics, language, science, etc.) or from the
different spaces of the school (class, gym, lunchroom, etc.) Instead, they are promoted in each of the
interactions that occur in all of these spaces [26,27].
These interventions work by implementing effective pedagogical principles used by teachers and
programme facilitators in the classroom, especially those based on sociocultural theories of learning
such as Vygotsky’s theory [21]. From this perspective, evidence has shown that the most effective
programmes are those that provide opportunities for active participation, including role-playing, video
modelling, and discussion [6]. Along these lines and from the perspective of the preventive socialisation
of violence, schools are developing dialogic gatherings with boys and girls to promote egalitarian
dialogues focused on the transformation of the language of desire to create possibilities for those who
wish to question desires imposed by patriarchal societies and orient these desires towards nonviolent
relationships [28]. Many of these interventions are designed to engage children in interactive activities
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 4 of 17

in which they exchange viewpoints on these issues [29,30]. For example, in interventions focusing on
the prevention of sexual abuse, they discuss situations in which an adult’s touches or kisses feel like a
boundary violation and how to deal with such situations [31]. Interventions aimed at adolescents also
encourage interaction among themselves and participation, largely by using real-life stories to engage
students in discussion, identify with the different actors in a story, share their opinions, and listen to
the opinions of others [22].
Research has also been conducted on how these effective school-based programmes to prevent
child abuse train teachers [32,33]. Training that targets teachers aims to raise awareness of their
potential to be agents of social change to promote detection, disclosure, and intervention in their
daily work at school [34,35]. In these trainings, teachers are warned of the risk children face when
they disclose abuse and are not believed or are blamed, which can have devastating and long-lasting
psychological, physical, relational, educational, and social effects. Therefore, teachers are encouraged
to be agents of change who contribute to the creation of a safe environment to optimise the likelihood
that children feel safe in disclosing child abuse, and that when children do disclose, they are believed
and supported in the process [17]. Another effective action in teacher training are dialogic pedagogical
gatherings [36]. In these gatherings, scientific articles and books with the main social, educational and
psychological contributions related to child abuse and violence prevention are read and discussed by
teachers [26].
Other research has highlighted as a success factor the inclusion of local elements that promote
community involvement in designing and developing child abuse prevention programmes [19].
Research on child abuse prevention is clear that equipping children with greater protective skills
and knowledge does not replace the responsibility of society to ensure the safety of children [15].
For this reason, some of these child abuse prevention trainings also target all school staff, families,
and community members [6], enabling them to identify inappropriate situations and react appropriately
by responding quickly and effectively to disclosures to protect children from new abuse, thus creating
a safe context to prevent child abuse [31]. In this regard, some interventions have been aimed at
promoting upstanding behaviour involving children, families, teachers, and other school staff by
being an upstander who, directly or indirectly, “says no” to violence, thus overcoming the role of
the passive bystander who, knowingly or not, colludes with and supports abusive behaviour [37–39].
Other interventions that involve the community start from a dialogic model of conflict prevention and
resolution in which students, teachers, and families are involved in the decision making of norms for
the promotion of a safe environment that is free of violence [27].
Transferring these evidence-based messages into actions that can be promoted by schools in
times of confinement could be essential to reduce the risk of child abuse. This study does not aim to
identify children at risk of abuse. Since child abuse has been considered a kind of aggression that
takes place “behind closed doors” [11], the systematization of ODA offers knowledge to replicate
them. The dissemination of ODA could contribute to “open doors” in other confined homes, creating
spaces for supportive interactions as a preventive factor of child abuse and for good social, emotional,
and physical development [40]. For the abovementioned references, the aim of this work is to provide
knowledge on evidence-based actions to “open doors” to foster supportive relationships and a safe
environment to prevent child abuse during the period of COVID-19 confinement outside of schools.
In a co-creation process between teacher leaders and researchers, what has been called the Open
Doors Actions (ODA) emerge, based on scientific evidence with social impact for the creation of
relationships that support children in times of physical distancing [41]. These actions are based on the
transfer of Successful Educational Actions [42] to virtual school-home spaces. The article presents a
systematization of these actions through a first analysis after six weeks of implementation. In this sense,
the article does not show results resulting from the implementation of said actions. The impact of these
actions is the subject of further studies and articles that are currently in progress. Therefore, it is a
priority for the actions that are presented here—such as the dialogic workspaces, the dialogic gatherings,
the class assemblies, the dialogic pedagogical gatherings with teachers, the mixed committees and the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 5 of 17

dynamisation of social networks with preventive messages and the creation of a sense of community—to
be available to the worldwide educational community.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was developed following a communicative methodology [43–45]. In the framework of
this communicative approach, Dialogic Recreation of Knowledge (DRK) [25] has been implemented.
The main characteristic of DRK is the equal basis on which the dialogue between researchers and
participants takes place. This process is conducted on the basis of the validity of the arguments
in contrast with the scientific evidence. Principals and teachers from participating schools and
researchers establish a dialogue and jointly analyse the actions that can enable the challenge of “open
doors” to promote supportive relationships and safe environments for child abuse prevention during
COVID-19 confinement.
Due to the situation of confinement, fieldwork was developed in an online form between
18 March and 10 April 2020. Three sessions of a communicative focus group (CFG) were conducted
in addition to five interviews with principals, teachers, and a school counsellor from nine different
schools (pre-primary and primary, secondary and special education). The creation of a WhatsApp
group with the members of the CFG and a collaborative Excel sheet shared through Drive was also
started with a register of the actions that the teachers entered. Table 1 shows this information (CFG,
WhatsApp group -WP-, Interview -Int-). To assure anonymity, each participant and school was
assigned a code. For participants, the first letter corresponds to their educational profile, T (Teacher),
P (Principal), H (Head teacher), or C (school Counsellor), and the second letter corresponds to
P (Primary), S (Secondary), or E (Special Education). Finally, a correlative number is indicated.
For schools, the codification is similar: PS (Primary School), SS (Secondary School), and ES (Special
Education School), adding a correlative number for the schools with the same profile.

Table 1. Participants’ profiles in each data collection technique.

Years
Profile Gender Age School Public/Private CFG1 CFG2 CFG3 WP Int
in School
PP1 Female 41–50 10 PS1 Public X X X X X
TP1 Male 41–50 5 PS2 Public X X X X
PP2 Female 51–60 16 PS3 Public X X X X
TP2 Female 41–50 3 PS4 Public X X X X
TP3 Male 31–40 2 PS5 Public X X X X
HP1 Female 31–40 13 PS6 Public X X X X
TP4 Female 31–40 2 PS2 Public X X
TS1 Female 41–50 20 SS1 Private X X X X
CS1 Female 41–50 13 SS2 Public X X X X
PE1 Female 41–50 20 ES3 Public X X X X X

Prior to data collection, the participants were informed about the aim of the study, that their
participation was anonymous and voluntary, and that the data would be treated confidentially and
would only be used for research purposes. All participants agreed to provide researchers with relevant
data for the purpose of the study. Then they all signed an informed consent. The study respects
the ethical guidelines of the European Commission (Ethics Review of the European Commission.
FP7, 2013) and was approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers in Excellence for
All (CREA) The Ethics Board was composed by: Dr. Marta Soler (President), who has expertise in
the evaluation of projects from the European Framework Programme of Research of the European
Union, and of European projects in the area of ethics; Dr. Teresa Sordé, with expertise in the evaluation
of projects from the European Framework Programme of Research and research in the area of Roma
studies; Dr. Patricia Melgar, founding member of the Catalan Platform Against Gender Violence,
and researcher in the area of gender-based violence; Dr. Sandra Racionero, former secretary and
member of the Ethics Board at Loyola University Andalusia (2016–2018), and review panel member for
COST action proposals in the area of health; Dr. Cristina Pulido, expert in data protection policies
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 6 of 17

and child protection in research and communication; Dr. Oriol Rios, founding member of the “Men
in Dialogue” association, researcher in the area of masculinities, as well as editor of Masculinities and
Social Change, an indexed journal in WoS and Scopus; and Dr. Esther Oliver, who has expertise in the
evaluation of projects from the European Framework Programme of Research and is a researcher in the
area of gender-based violence.

2.1. School Selection Criteria

The selected schools are part of a network of schools in Europe and Latin America that implement
educational actions with a social impact for the prevention of violence. The schools that participated in
the study are also part of a subnetwork in the neighbouring territories of the regions of Valencia and
Murcia, Spain. Given the urgency of producing the research results so that they would be available for
use by other schools worldwide during the confinement period, the schools were selected through
convenience sampling [46]. Schools were selected that were more easily accessible due to a close
relationship with the researchers through training processes for the prevention of child abuse and
violence. Among the nine selected schools, seven are pre-schools and primary schools. The other
two are secondary and higher education schools. Eight of the schools are public and only one is a
private school. There is a great diversity among the communities. Taking the socio-economic situation
of the families as a reference, in three of the schools, more than 30% are at risk of social exclusion.
In one of the schools, 100% of the students have special educational needs. In total, 2648 students have
participated in ODA. All the teachers selected for the study are those who have led the implementation
of ODA in their schools since the beginning of the confinement.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

2.2.1. Communicative Focus Groups (CFGs)

Three sessions were conducted with the same communicative focus group (CFG). Ten members of
the school staff from participating schools took part. Notes were taken in written form during the first
and second sessions of the CFG, and the third session was recorded and transcribed.
The goal of the CFG is to develop a dialogue and shared analysis of the situation after the closing
of the schools as well as the possibility of implementing action to promote supportive relationships
and safe environments to prevent child abuse.
On the 18th of March, the first CFG session was conducted. Participants first discussed the
challenges and difficulties of reorganising distance learning, as well as making sure that all families
have access to essential resources, making sure not to increase inequalities due to the confinement.
Afterwards, dialogue was introduced about the evidence-based messages that oriented actions for
the prevention of child abuse from the school and the community, such as (1) not hiding existing
violence and increasing children’s access to trust relationships that break the isolation; (2) promoting
friendships and healthy relationships that protect children from toxic relationships; (3) ensuring
supportive relationships to strengthen resilience in situations of adversity; (4) not revictimising children
exposed to violence; (5) opening up spaces of dialogue to address issues about child abuse and violence
prevention in the community; (6) including the voices of the children in the processes of conflict
prevention and resolution; and (7) promoting upstander communities with an active stance against
violence [6,15,17,22,24,25,27,28,31,39,47,48].
The second CFG session was conducted on 20 March. The discussion continued about ways to
make the scientific criteria effective through actions. Some actions that were already being implemented
during the confinement were exchanged, and new ones were defined. The third CFG session on
30 March assessed the first week of the implementation of actions and reflected on how to continue
working with the schools to maintain the criteria in the actions that were developed online during the
confinement period. Another topic that emerged in the focus groups was ways in which the COVID-19
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 7 of 17

infodemic should be addressed by the schools [49,50]. The actions that are being developed in these
schools on this specific topic are the subject of other studies and articles in progress.

2.2.2. Interviews with a Communicative Approach

Five interviews were conducted (1 principal and 2 teachers of pre-primary and primary schools,
1 counsellor of a secondary school and 1 principal of a special education school). The goal of the
interviews was to analyse how some of the actions that were introduced in their schools were being
organised. One of the main topics discussed in the interviews was the implementation of the online
dialogic literary gatherings and how they helped teachers create supportive relationships with students.
The interviews were used to obtain detailed information on how to recreate ODAs in non-classroom
educational contexts. In the case of CS1, the interview was conducted because he could not be present
for the entire duration of the second CFG. In the case of PP1, TP2, TP4, and PE1, the interviews were
carried out on one of the ODAs in particular to elaborate on more details on the implementation of the
action, which had not emerged in the dialogue of the CFGs.

2.2.3. CFG WhatsApp Group

A WhatsApp group was created to integrate the participants in the research. On the one hand, this
group has an organising function for the exchange and collection of information. On the other hand,
it promotes daily discussion about the implementation and introduction of the actions in the different
schools. The research team shared evidence-based information that facilitated the implementation
of the actions and the resolution of doubts. With the permission of the participants in the group,
the communications were collected and used to complement the data of the study. An average of 33.5
interactions per day occurred during the period of development of the fieldwork.

2.2.4. Table of Collaborative Register

An Excel spreadsheet was shared in Drive with all the members of the CFG. The goal was for
the members to provide information on each of the actions that they implemented or planned to
implement in the short term in their schools. In particular, information was collected about the name
of the action, its main objective, participants, frequency, timing, and some impacts detected in this first
phase of implementation.

3. Results
The actions that schools implemented to promote supportive relationships and safe environments
to prevent child abuse during the COVID-19 confinement were dialogic workspaces (DW) with students,
teachers and volunteers, dialogic gatherings (DG) with students, class assemblies and mentoring (CA),
dialogic pedagogical gatherings (DPG) with teachers and the community, mixed committees (MC)
with teachers’ families and other community members, and dynamisation of social networks with
preventive messages and the creation of a sense of community (SN). In Table 2, the actions that were
implemented in each school are presented. Each of the actions will be explained.

Table 2. Actions implemented by schools.

DW DG CA DPG MC SN
PS1 X X X X X X
PS2 X X X X
PS3 X X
PS4 X
PS5 X X
PS6 X X X X X
SS1 X X X
SS2 X X X X X
ES1 X X X X
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 8 of 17

3.1. Dialogic Workspaces with Students, Teachers and Volunteers

Online DW are small groups of students connected through video conferences to work at home
together with an adult, a teacher or a volunteer. In these schools, volunteers are included in the
learning spaces [30]. The adult plays a fundamental role. On the one hand, the adults facilitate the
interactions among students to encourage them to solve tasks together. On the other hand, they ensure
that the interactions are respectful and of quality. The DW “open doors” turns what would normally
be a private space where each child does homework individually at home into an open space with
classmates and an adult person of reference who helps the group work together in an environment of
support and trust. The principal of one of the pre-primary and primary schools explains it this way:

“The online dialogic workspaces are a moment of connection between classmates in which
other people participate, the teacher maintains quality interactions that allow them to
continue learning together with their friends, having a dialogic space that gives purpose,
motivates and cheers them up. It allows us to open up a public space in the homes”. (PP1)

Online DW goes beyond enabling all children to successfully complete their homework. These
workspaces also become a dialogic space where children can share their concerns and daily experiences.
In the PS1 school, they start with a brief assembly about how the children are feeling at home so that
they can express their concerns. If one of the children does not connect, the teacher calls the family to
identify whether there is any problem that has prevented the connection. The director of the school
explains how, despite the physical distance, the feeling is transferred to each family and each child that
they are not alone and that teachers are concerned about the children’s learning progress as well as
their mood:

“It is made clear to families and children that we do not put children aside. In this way, we can
also see them and notice how they are doing, their mood, their expression. We continue
fostering the learning process together with emotional support”. (PP1)

In these spaces of joint work, some of the work that schools do involves positioning as an upstander
against abusive behaviour. In one of the group sessions in that same school, one of the girls who had
previously intimidated the same classmate had an attitude of rejection towards him, eliminating him
from the online meeting. The rest of the classmates immediately acted as upstanders who did not
allow that behaviour and informed the teacher about it. The principal, who also participated in online
DW, highlights the importance of socialising in this joint position in the face of a violent attitude and
how this can enable the children to transfer this to other spaces of their lives:

“Something happened to us today in 4th of primary. A girl that usually annoys another [boy]
in the class eliminated him from the videoconference. The rest reported it immediately, and I
was able to intervene. We recalled the principles that guide our relationships, we remembered
that we will not allow anyone to ill-treat anybody else. It is very important because it might
be that in other spaces where they connect, without us there, they reproduce the rejection in
these behaviours”. (PP1)

3.2. Dialogic Gatherings

In dialogic gatherings (DGs), a collective construction of meaning and knowledge through the
dialogue of the students is based on the best creations of humanity in different domains, such as
literature, science, music, and other arts [29]. DGs were already implemented in participating schools
before confinement, and now they are being developed online through a platform for video conferences,
as are the DW.
The DG sessions are normally one hour a week. In each session, all students present their
interpretation of what is being worked on in DG (a literary work, a piece of art, a musical composition,
a painting, etc.). In the interventions, they relate what the work has stirred up in them in relation to the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 9 of 17

issues of their concern. After each intervention, the teacher moderates an open debate, ensuring the
equal participation of everyone. The principles of egalitarian dialogue and solidarity that ground the
DG are aimed at ensuring that all interventions are respectful. The goal is to create a trust environment
in which the children feel that they can share their experiences and reflections, as well as their feelings
and emotions, and receive support from the interventions of their classmates. The teacher of the PS5
school explains this as follows:
“We talk about very important issues that the children are concerned with now during
confinement and what is going on in an egalitarian environment of absolute respect so that
they feel free to tell how they feel. The rest of the people usually offer advice and assistance
as it is a space in which we promote solidarity”. (TP3)
The principal of the PS3 school highlights that the principles on which DG are based allow us to
recover the feeling of a group despite confinement and physical isolation (PP2).
Among the DGs, we find dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs) where the best literary works created
by humanity are discussed. These are the groups on which the CFG participants offered the most
reflections. The principal of the PS1 school, who is also the moderator of the DLG in Grade 2, explains
that they are reading an adapted version for children of The Odyssey by Homer. She states that the
interventions that the children make regarding this work are usually related to violence and gender
violence; in dialogic literary gatherings, it is common for discussions about violence and gender
violence to emerge (PP1). She also explains that, starting with the interventions of the children, debates
emerge about the importance of friendship and of contacting friends, especially at times such as the
confinement they are currently experiencing.
The school counsellor from the SS2 secondary school explained that at the “1st of Bachillerato”
(the equivalent of Grade 11 in the US and Year 11 in the UK), they had a DLG on 1984 by George
Orwell. In the discussion of the text, students constantly connected ideas in the text to the confinement
situation and promoting the importance of supportive relationships to better handle the situation. She
said that the DLG has revealed the positive aspects that this situation can teach and offer about the
need for relationships and solidarity among people (CS1). The DLG opened doors in the homes of the
students during confinement days. The teacher of the SS1 secondary school explains that it has had
a positive impact on all students, but particularly on students who do not have other spaces where
they can share their feelings about the situation in which they are living: they need a space to share
experiences with the rest of the students that especially favours the most vulnerable who, on many
occasions, do not have other spaces to share (TS1). The principal from the ES3 special education school
argues that the DLG that they have conducted in their school has enabled it to be a space of interaction
and learning (PE1), which is necessary for all children, but especially for the most vulnerable ones.

3.3. Class Assembly or Mentoring

Some of these schools organise weekly class assemblies or mentoring. Some maintained these
assemblies online during the period of confinement in which we have developed the fieldwork. Some
schools call these assemblies and others call them mentoring, but the aim is the same. These spaces are
usually led by the teacher who is responsible for a particular class group to work with the students on
topics related to social cohesion, the prevention of abuse and violence, and promoting dialogue among
the students. Some teachers noted the importance of maintaining the online assemblies in the situation
of confinement as another space to “open doors” and a way for the students to share how they are
living their relationships these days. The principal of PS3 school states,
“It is important that the assemblies go on in order to report violence, to allow them to express
how they are living these days, about the relations of friendship and maybe to have a space
to report violence”. (PP2)
The principal of PS1 considers the assemblies a space that contributes to creating a safe environment
because the students recall the evidence-based messages that they have worked on for the promotion
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 10 of 17

of zero violence in their relations. She perceives the assembly as a protective environment, preventive,
which keeps alive the international orientations to prevent and stop violence (PP1).
The teacher of SS1 explains that in her school, they were decided to continuing with the assemblies
during the confinement period because the students spent more time connected to social networks
and were more exposed to different types of abuse. She explains that teachers and students have
observed an increase in offensive messages online (TS1), and they have been able to talk about this in
the assemblies.

3.4. Dialogic Pedagogical Gatherings with Teachers and Community

All the teachers who participated in the study participated in dialogic pedagogical gatherings
(DPGs) before confinement.
In DPGs, teachers jointly read relevant books about theories about learning from authors such
as Vygotsky, Freire, and Bruner, as well as articles published in scientific impact journals with a
great variety of topics related to education [36]. Among the topics are papers about school-based
programmes to prevent child abuse and violence. Participants discuss these texts in connection with
their daily educational practices. This is a very enriching activity that allows teachers to reflect upon the
purpose of their practice and gives them skills to act in the classroom according to the best educational
theories and the most recent scientific contributions. The principal of the ES3 special education school
expresses the importance of keeping this space for training during confinement to be able to give better
answers to the complex situations of their students:

“It is an action that helps us learn and transform our educational practice. It is a very important
moment because we share learning, we meet and we reflect upon how to improve our actions in
these moments. We have now read the chapters about the prevention of violence and friendship
of one of the guides from the Child Study Center of Yale University. We have been able to think
about the importance of doing [these actions] very well if situations of violence arise among our
students in their families during confinement. We have also talked about the importance of
maintaining relationships of friendship between children because this is a constraint in their
lives, how to keep promoting healthy relationships, helping them to choose their friends well,
continuing to accompany them in these moments”. (PE1)

The PS1 school has continued to conduct a DGP only with teachers and has created another
one that is open to families and the community. This second DPG is specific to articles on violence
prevention and child abuse. From this school, contacts have been established with the Equality
Committee of the City Council so that this online DPG can be open for participation by all the schools
in the city. The director of PS1 explains how this gathering helps teachers, families and other members
of the community identify the elements in their daily interactions that can prevent violence and abuse,
thereby contributing to creating a safe environment for children.

3.5. Mixed Committees and Community Networks

In some of the participating schools, the families and the community directly collaborate with the
teachers in the organisation of the school through mixed committees. Some of these mixed committees,
which are specifically in charge of promoting actions for the prevention of violence and different types
of child abuse, already existed before confinement.
There were four main strategies developed by the mixed committees. First, making sure that
contact was established with all school families and all students through telephone calls, Telegram
groups, and peer-to-peer communication. Second, exchanging information on economic aid and food
scholarships. Third, making available particular resources from the school to the families, such as
the distribution of electronic devices and the lending of school supplies to the families most in need,
through a contractual agreement with them. Lastly, ensuring that children have access to supportive
relationships in safe contexts free of violence.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 11 of 17

In particular, PS1 has created a network of solidarity that includes the families and the community.
A group of approximately 13 people from different families are helping to contact families that may
have problems with their children and to connect them to the different activities of the school. In this
group, families and teachers are looking for solutions for each of the families that have difficulties
connecting. To provide solutions, this group is in contact with other institutions of the community,
such as the Department of Education and the Department of Equality of the City Council.
In PS2, a group of families, teachers, lunch monitors and volunteers are in charge of promoting a
sense of community to manage isolation. They do so through the dynamisation of social networks
with positive messages of solidarity, and organising online activities such as debates and film clubs
(where films are discussed). The teacher in this school explains that through this group they want to
promote supportive relationships and friendship: “the creation of this solidarity group has the aim of
weaving a type of solidarity from which a friendship stems” (TP1).

3.6. Dynamisation of Social Networks with Preventive Messages and the Creation of a Sense of Community
All the schools that participated in the study know very well that communication through social
networks contributes to “open doors” and promotes a sense of community despite confinement. Therefore,
all these schools actively communicate through social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp,
and Telegram. In these communications, messages promote supportive relationships and a sense of
community; for example, “We are connected! If you need anything, we can help you!”; “Are you
overwhelmed by the situation? Do you need us to help you out? What is worrying you? We are
hereŒ”; “Friendships are our lighthouse in this journey”; #Wearenotalone; #ConnectedFromHome;
“Friendships are similar to the stars, they shine brighter in the dark”; “Love is strong and brave”;
#ConfinementWithLove”; and “Can we help one person every day with a sign of love? Are you in?”
In addition, they are disseminating messages through social networks for the prevention of child abuse
and violence, such as, “In confinement 0 violence; we are upstanders!” and “We act and we take a stand”.
These messages on social networks are one more action that contributes to creating a climate
where positioning against violence and abuse is still present during confinement. Standing up in this
way is what is known as “bystander intervention” which has been successful in reducing violence and
abuse in the various social and educational settings in which it has been implemented [37]. The fact
that these schools show in their social networks that every person in the educational community is an
active bystander who can stop or report a situation of abuse is fundamental to creating a protective
and trusting climate, both for children who may suffer abuse and for those who report it.

4. Discussion
Six actions have been implemented with the goal of “opening doors” to foster supportive
relationships and a safe environment to prevent child abuse during COVID-19 confinement: dialogic
workspaces, dialogic gatherings with students, class assemblies or mentoring, dialogic pedagogical
gatherings with teachers and community, mixed committees and community networks, and social
network dynamisation with preventive messages and the creation of a sense of community.
These actions include elements identified by previous research on effective school-based
programmes to prevent child abuse and encourage the preventive socialisation of violence. In most of
the participating schools, specific actions are not implemented with the sole aim of increasing children’s
knowledge of child abuse concepts and self-protection skills, as in other programmes [6,15,16]; rather,
these schools promote a safe environment with regard to all interactions that involve teachers, students,
families, and other community members [26,28,48]. This approach was already being used by these
schools before confinement. After confinement began, they adapted these actions to the new situation.
In the online dialogic workspaces created in four of the participating schools, the aim was not
only to prevent students from being left behind in learning mathematics or language. Another key
objective of this action has been to “open doors” to break physical isolation by maintaining supportive
relationships [12]. Therefore, a space for work and dialogue has been created in the homes, where the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 12 of 17

children are connected to their peers and a trusted adult (teacher or volunteer). This is a space where
the children feel safe to share how they are experiencing confinement [6,17].
Creating trusted environments involves not only small online workspaces but also their extension
to the community by engaging families [18], fostering the responsibility of society to ensure the safety
of children [15]. Five of the schools have promoted solidarity networks through mixed committees
formed by teachers, families and other community members [19]. These committees look for solutions
in the community to ensure that all children can access resources to be able to connect. They also
attempt to ensure that at least one adult reference person, whether a teacher or a volunteer, contacts
families who may be having more difficulties. Teachers also make daily calls to students who may
be at risk of abuse or neglect [13], and they are in constant contact with other social and educational
services in the city.
The schools are very active on social networks, such as Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, which
contributes to a sense of community [33]. The principals or teachers are community managers. Social
networks strengthen the sense of community in the face of isolation with messages such as, “Are you
overwhelmed by the situation? Do you need help? What are you worried about? We are here”. They also
post messages that contribute to community involvement to build safe environments against child abuse
and violence, such as, “In confinement 0 Violence. We are upstanders! We act and we take a stand!”
Class assemblies are among the actions that many of these schools were taking prior to confinement.
Five of the schools have maintained these activities during confinement. The assembly is perhaps
most specifically where children’s knowledge and skills to prevent abuse and violence are directly
addressed [22–24]. At the same time, the assembly is another space for dialogue where students share
their daily experiences and concerns, which is one of the elements identified in research on effective
programmes to prevent child abuse [32]. The class assembly is one of the spaces where students recall
and reflect on the key messages of abuse and violence prevention from their own experiences, such as
the importance of being an upstander by taking a stand for the victim and stopping and reporting
abusive behaviour [37–39]. As some of the participating teachers have noted, the assembly is a space
for zero violence where they can report situations of abuse that they have witnessed or experienced in
their relationships between peers during confinement [27]. In this sense, although teachers cannot
control the contexts of the children participating virtually from home, what the evidence tells us is that
the more spaces for dialogue and positive relationships children have, the more opportunities exist to
prevent and overcome child abuse [10,11].
As indicated previously, prior to confinement, all the schools in the study applied the
evidence-based actions to prevent violence and abuse, from which the ODAs are recreated. Therefore,
all teachers had participated in dialogic teacher training processes [51] for at least two years and have
been trained in evidence-based actions for the prevention of violence.
The active involvement of students through interactive activities is another element identified in
effective school-based programmes to prevent abuse [6,22,28,31]. The dialogic gatherings are one of
the actions that these schools had already implemented and that some have maintained. Specifically,
dialogic literary gatherings are an action that was already being conducted in these schools, and seven
of them have continued to do so online during confinement. In the DLGs, through the reading and
joint discussion of the best literary creations of humanity, a type of dialogue is promoted among
the students that leads them to compare these works to their own experiences [52]. Research on
effective programmes to prevent child abuse highlights the use of stories in which students can identify
themselves, share their views, and listen to the opinions of others, thereby increasing their skills
in identifying possible real-life abuse situations [22]. Teachers explain how DLGs on The Odyssey
promote in-depth discussions about violence or friendship among primary school students. A high
school teacher explained how students who read and discussed the book 1984 by George Orwell
reflected on the need for supportive relationships to overcome difficult situations due to the pandemic
and confinement. A feeling of friendship is promoted in the DLGs, which is identified as one of the
protective factors against abuse [29].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 13 of 17

Research analysing teacher training in child abuse prevention programmes has highlighted the
effectiveness of programmes aimed at developing teachers’ potential as agents of social change in their
daily work at schools [34,35]. Dialogic pedagogical gatherings (DPGs) with teachers are one of the
actions that promote teachers as agents of social change for the prevention of child abuse [26]. Some
teachers from the participating schools engaged in these types of gatherings before confinement [36].
Two of the participating schools conducted online DPGs during lockdown. In these gatherings,
teachers, along with other community agents, read and discuss relevant books and articles based on
scientific evidence on violence and child abuse prevention, which helps them to be active agents in the
promotion of safe environments where children feel confident and believed when reporting situations
of abuse [17]. In these schools, they have also opened the DPGs to family and community participation.
They therefore continue to involve the whole community in the creation of safe environments for
children, which is also one of the elements identified in research on effective programmes to prevent
child abuse [6,31].
The present study was conducted through intense work by both the researchers and the teachers of
the schools involved, with the aim of making it available as soon as possible. In this way, evidence-based
actions to “open doors” can be offered and eventually be useful to school teams that would like
to promote supportive relationships and safe environments during confinement. Future research
directions could collect impact evidence from these actions, including the stories of the teachers,
families, and students involved.

5. Expected Impact of Open Doors Actions

The COVID-19 crisis has surprised us without an effective response to the increase in child
abuse [53]. This is a pending challenge for researchers, social activists, politicians and international
organizations in defense of the children. The knowledge generated about ODAs can be useful today
and for future crises, placing the school as an active agent in preventing child abuse. In this sense,
and even knowing the limitations of the present study due to it being in its initial stage, there are some
learnings that may already be useful for schools and public policies.
The main implication of ODAs is to transfer evidence-based interventions for violence and abuse
prevention to contexts of confinement. ODAs enable the creation of learning and coexistence contexts
between equals and other community agents based on good treatment. This prevents children from
experiencing an increase in violence in virtual communication and learning spaces. These actions
create, in those schools that apply them, an environment where the interactions valued are based
on values and feelings such as friendship, love, kindness, and solidarity. Through them, a sense of
community is created that is protective and preventive of child abuse, which enables more people to
reject violence and protect children [54] One of the limitations to take into account in the face of the
transfer of ODAs is technological availability and access to the Internet of the students.
The main implication of ODAs to public policies is providing evidence-based actions to improve
the effectiveness of the programmes in childcare in the days of COVID-19. ODAs enable the creation of
evidence-based school plans to contribute to child abuse prevention while promoting learning and a
sense of school community in periods of confinement. Preventing the negative impact on children
of confinement due to the COVID-19 crisis is not only the responsibility of families and schools but
also that of the governments [55]. International research suggests that child abuse prevention and
intervention programmes should be based on scientific evidence [56]. One of the limitations of this
study, on which work continues, is the incorporation of policymakers in the transfer of ODAs as a
public policy [57]. The transfer of ODAs to public policies would contribute to preparing the new
educational normality more in line with scientific and ethical criteria for children.

6. Conclusions
The actions that are presented with the goal of “opening doors” to promote supportive relationships
and safe environments to prevent child abuse during confinement are only some of the many actions
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 14 of 17

that the educational community has implemented since the closing of the schools. This study is the
result of the inclusion of elements that research on child abuse and violence prevention has indicated
as effective, as well as dialogue and in-depth reflection with the teachers who are implementing them.
These are not the only actions that can be implemented by schools for the promotion of supportive
relationships and for the creation of safe contexts of interaction to “open doors” to physical isolation
in homes. However, these actions can be an example for those who want to boost evidence-based
actions with this aim. The real promotion of the sense of community, the creation of safe environments
where the entire community acts as upstanders, stopping violence and taking a stand for the victim,
the creation of spaces where quality learning occurs at the same time as dialogues that give meaning
to the topics that are the children’s concerns, creating an environment of confidence where they feel
heard and supported—all of these are fundamental elements to be considered. Many teachers, families,
and communities are agents of social change that create supportive relationships and safe environments
that protect childhood.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.R., P.M. and M.A.P.-R.; Funding acquisition, R.G.-C.; Investigation,
E.R., P.M. and M.A.P.-R.; Methodology, E.R., P.M. and M.A.P.-R.; Visualization, R.G.-C.; Writing—original
draft, E.R.; Writing—review & editing, R.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/
educationresponse (accessed on 11 April 2020).
2. Stress, Resilience, and the Role of Science: Responding to the Coronavirus Pandemic - Center on the
Developing Child at Harvard University. Available online: https://developingchild.harvard.edu/stress-
resilience-and-the-role-of-science-responding-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ (accessed on 4 April 2020).
3. Istanbul Convention. Council of Europe 12 April 2011. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/
istanbul-convention (accessed on 11 April 2020).
4. Council of Europe COVID-19 Confinement: For Many Women and Children, the Home Is Not a Safe
Place. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/genderequality/news/-/asset_publisher/97rn0OKB2ywb/
content/for-many-women-and-children-the-home-is-not-a-safe-place (accessed on 6 April 2020).
5. Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF):
New York, NY, USA, 2006.
6. Brassard, M.R.; Fiorvanti, C.M. School-Based Child Abuse Prevention Programs. Psychol. Sch. 2014, 52,
40–60. [CrossRef]
7. Ministerio de Igualdad. Las Llamadas al 016 Aumentan un 47.3% en la Primera Quincena
de Abril en Comparación con el Mismo Periodo de 2019. La Moncloa. 16 April 2020.
Available online: https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/serviciosdeprensa/notasprensa/igualdad/Paginas/2020/
160420-violenciagenero.aspx (accessed on 31 May 2020).
8. Fundación ANAR refuerza su Chat de Ayuda a Niños/as y Adolescentes Durante el Confinamiento y Alerta
de la Gravedad de los Casos Detectados—Fundación ANAR|Ayuda a Niños y Adolescentes en Riesgo.
Available online: https://www.anar.org/fundacion-anar-refuerza-chat-ayuda-ninos-adolescentes-durante-
confinamiento-y-alerta-de-la-gravedad-de-los-casos-detectados/ (accessed on 3 April 2020).
9. González Agudelo, G. Hogar, Dulce Hogar: ¿Dónde Está el 016 de los Niños en la Cuarentena? Nueva Tribuna.
23 April 2020. Available online: https://www.nuevatribuna.es/articulo/sociedad/cuarentena-covid19-maltrato-
ninos-proteccion-infancia-confinamiento/20200423152837173901.html (accessed on 31 May 2020).
10. Montserrat, C.; Casas, F. The Impact of Gender Violence on Victims’Children According to Stakeholders.
Multidiscip. J. Gend. Stud. 2019, 8, 1–25. [CrossRef]
11. Gracia, E.; López-Quílez, A.; Marco, M.; Lila, M. Neighborhood characteristics and violence behind closed
doors: The spatial overlap of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198684.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 15 of 17

12. Keeping Classroom Connections Alive. Available online: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/20/03/

keeping-classroom-connections-alive (accessed on 3 April 2020).
13. Expanding a School’s Capacity for Support. Available online: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/20/03/
expanding-school%E2%80%99s-capacity-support (accessed on 4 April 2020).
14. Making Caring Common Project. How to Guide to Relationship Mapping Strategy; Harvard Graduate School
of Education: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
15. Finkelhor, D.; O’Shea, T.M.; Washburn, L.K.; Nixon, P.A.; Goldstein, N.J. Prevention of Sexual Abuse Through
Educational Programs Directed Toward Children. Pediatrics 2007, 120, 640–645. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Holloway, J.L.; Pulido, M.L. Sexual Abuse Prevention Concept Knowledge: Low Income Children Are
Learning but Still Lagging. J. Child Sex. Abus. 2018, 27, 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Blakey, J.M.; Glaude, M.; Jennings, S.W. School and program related factors influencing disclosure
among children participating in a school-based childhood physical and sexual abuse prevention program.
Child Abus. Negl. 2019, 96, 104092. [CrossRef]
18. Rudolph, J.; Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J. Reviewing the Focus: A Summary and Critique of Child-Focused Sexual
Abuse Prevention. Trauma Violence Abus. 2016, 19, 543–554. [CrossRef]
19. Stanley, N.; Ellis, J.; Farrelly, N.; Hollinghurst, S.; Downe, S. Preventing domestic abuse for children and
young people: A review of school-based interventions. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2015, 59, 120–131. [CrossRef]
20. Tutty, L.M.; Aubry, D.; Velasquez, L. The “Who Do You Tell?” (TM) Child Sexual Abuse Education Program:
Eight Years of Monitoring. J. Child Sex. Abus. 2020, 29, 2–21. [CrossRef]
21. Walsh, K.; Zwi, K.; Woolfenden, S.; Shlonsky, A. School-Based Education Programs for the Prevention of
Child Sexual Abuse: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2018, 28,
33–55. [CrossRef]
22. Fox, C.L.; Corr, M.-L.; Gadd, D.; Sim, J. Evaluating the effectiveness of domestic abuse prevention education:
Are certain children more or less receptive to the messages conveyed? Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 2014, 21,
212–227. [CrossRef]
23. Rios, O.; Axt, J.C.P.; Sánchez, E.D.; Fernández, L.D.B. The Language of Ethics and Double Standards in the
Affective and Sexual Socialization of Youth. Communicative Acts in the Family Environment as Protective
or Risk Factors of Intimate Partner Violence. Front. Sociol. 2018, 3, 19. [CrossRef]
24. Mallart, L.P.; Gelsthorpe, L.; Soler-Gallart, M.; Flecha, R. Girls’ perceptions of boys with violent attitudes and
behaviours, and of sexual attraction. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 56. [CrossRef]
25. Oliver, E. Zero Violence Since Early Childhood. Qual. Inq. 2014, 20, 902–908. [CrossRef]
26. Rios, O.; Mallart, L.P.; Torné, P.S.; Simón, A.A. Promoting zero violence from early childhood: A case study
on the prevention of aggressive behavior in Cappont Nursery. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2019, 27, 157–169.
[CrossRef]
27. Villarejo-Carballido, B.; Pulido, C.M.; De Botton, L.; Serradell, O. Dialogic Model of Prevention and
Resolution of Conflicts: Evidence of the Success of Cyberbullying Prevention in a Primary School in
Catalonia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 918. [CrossRef]
28. Puigvert, L. Female University Students Respond to Gender Violence through Dialogic Feminist Gatherings.
Int. Multidiscip. J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 5, 183. [CrossRef]
29. Yeste, C.G.; Casadó, R.G.; Pascual, A.M.; Viñas, T.P. Dialogic literary gatherings and out-of-home child care:
Creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child Fam. Soc. Work. 2017, 23, 62–70. [CrossRef]
30. Villardón-Gallego, L.; García-Carrión, R.; Yáñez-Marquina, L.; Estevez, A. Impact of the Interactive Learning
Environments in Children’s Prosocial Behavior. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2138. [CrossRef]
31. Czerwinski, F.; Finne, E.; Alfes, J.; Kolip, P. Effectiveness of a school-based intervention to prevent child
sexual abuse—Evaluation of the German IGEL program. Child Abus. Negl. 2018, 86, 109–122. [CrossRef]
32. Allen, K.P.; Livingston, J.A.; Nickerson, A.B. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Education: A Qualitative Study
of Teachers’ Experiences Implementing the Second Step Child Protection Unit. Am. J. Sex. Educ. 2019, 1–28.
[CrossRef]
33. Goebbels, A.F.G.; Nicholson, J.; Walsh, K.; De Vries, H. Teachers’ reporting of suspected child abuse and
neglect: Behaviour and determinants. Health Educ. Res. 2007, 23, 941–951. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Tener, D.; Sigad, L. “I felt like I was thrown into a deep well”: Educators coping with child sexual abuse
disclosure. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 106, 104465. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 16 of 17

35. Zeuthen, K.; Hagelskjær, M. Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse: Analysis and Discussion of the Field. J. Child
Sex. Abus. 2013, 22, 742–760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Rodriguez, J.A.; Condom-Bosch, J.L.; Ruiz, L.; Oliver, E. On the Shoulders of Giants: Benefits of Participating
in a Dialogic Professional Development Program for In-Service Teachers. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 5.
[CrossRef]
37. Twemlow, S.W.; Fonagy, P.; Sacco, F.C. The Role of the Bystander in the Social Architecture of Bullying and
Violence in Schools and Communities. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1036, 215–232. [CrossRef]
38. Thapa, A.; Cohen, J.; Guffey, S.; Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. A Review of School Climate Research. Rev. Educ. Res.
2013, 83, 357–385. [CrossRef]
39. Coker, A.L.; Bush, H.M.; Cook-Craig, P.G.; Degue, S.A.; Clear, E.R.; Brancato, C.J.; Fisher, B.S.;
Recktenwald, E.A. RCT Testing Bystander Effectiveness to Reduce Violence. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017,
52, 566–578. [CrossRef]
40. Shonkoff, J.P. Rethinking the Definition of Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Early Childhood
Development. Pediatrics 2017, 140, 20173136. [CrossRef]
41. Roca, Esther. Concept of Open Doors Actions (ODAs) in Open Doors Schools. This document is licensed
under a CreativeCommons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional License. 2020.
Available online: https://archive.org/details/open-doors (accessed on 29 April 2020).
42. Flecha, R. Successful Educational Actions for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe; Springer Science and
Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.
43. Flecha, R.; Soler, M. Turning difficulties into possibilities: Engaging Roma families and students in school
through dialogic learning. Camb. J. Educ. 2013, 43, 451–465. [CrossRef]
44. Redondo-Sama, G.; Díez-Palomar, J.; Campdepadrós, R.; Morlà-Folch, T. Communicative Methodology:
Contributions to Social Impact Assessment in Psychological Research. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 286. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
45. Aiello, E.; Amador-López, J.; Pascual, A.M.; Sordé, T. Grassroots Roma Women Organizing for Social Change:
A Study of the Impact of ‘Roma Women Student Gatherings’. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4054. [CrossRef]
46. Ramos, H.; Bryman, A.; Teevan, J.J. Social Research Methods; Canadian ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK, 2007; Volume 32, p. 129. [CrossRef]
47. Lansdown, G. Strengthening child agency to prevent and overcome maltreatment. Child Abus. Negl.
2020, 104398. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Serradell, O.; Ramis, M.; De Botton, L.; Solé, C. Spaces free of violence: The key role of Moroccan women in
conflict prevention in schools. A case study. J. Gend. Stud. 2019, 29, 161–173. [CrossRef]
49. Pulido, C.M.; Villarejo-Carballido, B.; Redondo-Sama, G.; Gómez, A. COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets
for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information. Int. Sociol. 2020, 0268580920914755.
[CrossRef]
50. Pulido, C.M.; Villarejo-Carballido, B.; Redondo-Sama, G.; Guo, M.; Ramis, M.; Flecha, R. False news around
COVID-19 circulated less on Sina Weibo than on Twitter. How to overcome false information? Int. Multidiscip.
J. Soc. Sci. 2020, 1–22. [CrossRef]
51. Garcia, R.F.; Campos, E.R.; De Aguileta, G.L. Scientific Evidence-Based Teacher Education and Social Impact.
In Encyclopedia of Teacher Education; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2019; pp. 1–6.
52. De Aguileta, G.L. Developing School-relevant Language and Literacy Skills through Dialogic Literary
Gatherings. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 8, 51–71. [CrossRef]
53. Wenham, C.; Smith, J.; Morgan, R.; Gender and COVID-19 Working Group. COVID-19: The gendered
impacts of the outbreak. Lancet 2020, 395, 846–848. [CrossRef]
54. Braveman, P.; Egerter, S.; Williams, D.R. The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annu. Rev.
Public Health 2011, 32, 381–398. [CrossRef]
55. Wang, G.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, F. Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during
the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet 2020, 395, 945–947. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4685 17 of 17

56. Turner, W.; Hester, M.; Broad, J.; Szilassy, E.; Feder, G.; Drinkwater, J.; Firth, A.; Stanley, N. Interventions to
Improve the Response of Professionals to Children Exposed to Domestic Violence and Abuse: A Systematic
Review. Child Abus. Rev. 2015, 26, 19–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Reale, E.; Avramov, D.; Canhial, K.; Donovan, C.; Flecha, R.; Holm, P.; Larkin, C.; Lepori, B.; Mosoni-Fried, J.;
Oliver, E.; et al. A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences
and humanities research. Res. Eval. 2017, 27, 298–308. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).