ABSTRACT
There is more to explore in order to understand the nature of storying in play and that is the essence of the engagement itself, the type of talk and in particular, the status that it is afforded in contemporary schooling. This review of the landscape of research literature began by looking at a particular aspect of institutional engagement – storying – attempts to understand the people who design and value such episodes – intuitive and playful practitioners – and ends by reviewing research into talk itself and the nature of, and elements contained within, dialogic exchange. The notion that talk is ‘a good thing’ is slippery and needs to be decon-
structed and properly understood. From nurseries to training institutions, talk as a tool for learning is discussed and celebrated. However, there is a continuum of practice ranging from very structured questions and answers, through Mercer’s rule-governed talk (2000) towards the idea that teachers should engage in a pedagogy of listening (Rinaldi 2005) and where child-led conversations are fore-grounded and given status. Talk is celebrated today as being fundamental to the way that children think and learn. Babies and children realise early on that what they say, that is the noises they make as well as what they do, can change the behaviour of others and affect the context and the environment in which they live (Woodhead et al. 1998; Gopnik et al. 1999). Children’s early language and literacy learning are bound by the models and practices they encounter, enabling them to construct meaning from experience, make inferences and shape their intentions (Rogoff 1990; Cole 1998). Even very young children have already learned to navigate their way through multiple social worlds (Dunn 1998). Indeed, ‘as far as the brain is concerned, stimulation is provided by conversations, experiences and encounters’ (Greenfield 2000: 63). Yet there is more to understand about the connection between talk and learning. Both Piaget’s (1959) and Vygotsky’s (1986) work on thought and language are helpful here. Piaget constructed eight ‘fundamental categories of speech’ in his seminal
work on children’s language and thought and he divided these into two categories ‘egocentric speech’ and ‘socialised speech’ (1959: 9-11). It is particularly important to understand Piaget’s research as it has often been
misrepresented and the term ‘egocentricism’ needs to be rather more carefully considered than is often the case in contemporary reviews. Piaget’s claim was that children moved from an egocentric speech to socialised speech, which he believed was of a higher order. Both of these, however – that is, egocentric speech and socialised speech – are merely headlines and there are sub-divisions and subtleties contained within each category. Piaget explained them in these ways as follows.
