Paying lip-service to speaking and listening skills: Oral storytelling, arts-

based education and the hegemony of literacy practices in primary school

Rebecca Hibbin

October, 2013
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Educational Research,

Lancaster University, UK
 DECLARATION

This thesis results entirely from my own work and has not been offered

previously for any other degree or diploma

Signature -
Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the teachers, storytellers and facilitators of creative collaborations in

school whose perceptions of oral storytelling and creative education enabled me to

produce this research. Many thanks also to the school that generously hosted me,

enabling me to observe oral storytelling practice in the classroom. In addition, I would

like to thank Jo Warin, my supervisor, who has guided me through the academic

waters with skill and equanimity. Thanks also to my family who have supported me in

numerous ways throughout: to Solomon who was the inspiration for this work, to Ella

who will undoubtedly hear lots of oral stories, to Dave who has never failed to believe

in me and who’s love, care and humour has kept me going, to Leah who is creative

and generous in good measure, to Sarah who has journeyed beside me and kept me

sane, to my mum without whom I would never have gone back to education, and to

my dad who endlessly expresses his pride and love. Thanks also to Melanie whose

help and friendship I have always been able to rely upon.

1
Contents

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................
1
Contents ..........................................................................................................................
2
List of
Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................
9
List of Figures and
Tables ..............................................................................................................................
11
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................
12
1 Introduction and
Background .....................................................................................................................
14
1.1 Ways with words, texts and creativity in the primary
classroom ............................................................................................................
14
1.2 Hard wired for
story.....................................................................................................................
16
1.2.1 Language and literacy as multidimensional
artefacts 19
1.2.2 Literacy acquisition as contested ideological
ground 22
1.2.3 The politics of reading and
writing 24
1.2.4 The revaluation and devaluation of speaking and
listening in
school 28
1.2.5 Hegemony, cultural capital and subject status: What
happens to knowledge in
school? 30
1.2.6 Creative Partnerships in the primary
classroom 33

2
 1.2.7 A rationale for the examination of oral storytelling as
an arts-based
initiative 36
1.3 From looking out to turning
in .........................................................................................................................
37
1.3.1 Oral storytelling: Towards a working
definition 38
1.3.2 ‘Non-Instrumental’ speaking and
listening 42
1.3.3 Oral storytelling at Hollytree
School 44
1.3.4 Envisioning alternatives: Personal revelation as
reflexivity ........................................................................................
48
1.4 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
50
2 A review of the
literature ..........................................................................................................................
51
2.1 Theoretical
Perspective ..........................................................................................................
52
2.1.1 Social
Constructivism 52
2.1.2 Critical Theory: Literacy as
hegemony 55
2.2 Oral storytelling as sociocultural
learning ...............................................................................................................
57
2.2.1 Social and emotional effects of oral
storytelling 59
2.2.2 Language based effects of oral
storytelling 64
2.2.3 Cognitive effects of oral
storytelling 68

3
 2.3 Literacy acquisition in primary
education .............................................................................................................
71
2.3.1 Research into literacy acquisition: Too much, too
young? ........................................................................................
72

2.3.2 The Early Years Foundation Stage: Preparation for .............

school ........................................................................................
76
2.3.3 The National Curriculum: Key Stages 1 &
2 80
2.3.4 Assessment for
accountability 79
2.4 Oral storytelling as a spoken word art-
form .....................................................................................................................
86
2.4.1 A brief history of the arts in
education 86
2.4.2 The value of arts-based
education 92
2.5 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
94
3. Meta-theoretical
Considerations.................................................................................................................
96
3.1 Study
design ..................................................................................................................
97
3.2 Locating and refining the research
focus ....................................................................................................................
99
3.2.1 Sampling procedures and the selection of
participants 101
3.2.2 Participants at a
glance 104

4
 3.2.3 Participants as
people 106
3.3 Research
tools .....................................................................................................................
109
3.3.1
Interview 111
3.3.2 Interview
schedule 114
3.3.3
Observation 115
3.4 Analytic
approach ..............................................................................................................
117
3.4.1 Coding
procedures 119
3.4.2
Frequency 124
3.5 Research
rigor .....................................................................................................................
126
3.5.1 Triangulation and the audit
trail 127
3.5.2 Disconfirming evidence and thick
description 128
3.5.3 Researcher
reflexivity 130
3.6 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
132
4. Effects and Benefits of Oral
Storytelling ......................................................................................................................
134
4.1 Socio-emotional effects and
benefits ................................................................................................................
134
4.1.1 Self-confidence through oral
storytelling 134

5
 4.1.2 Self-expression, emotional literacy and identity: How
children understand and represent
themselves 140
4.1.3 Emotional literacy through intra-psychological
processes: How children come to understand
others 144
4.1.4 The listener, the audience and the group: Emotional
literacy through inter-psychological
processes 149
4.1.5 Teamwork and emotional
literacy 155
4.2 Effects upon communicative competence and
vocabulary ...........................................................................................................
157
4.2.1 Fluency and the scaffolding of spoken
language 157
4.2.2 Problems of oral
communication 165
4.3 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
171
5. Speaking and Listening in the National
Curriculum ......................................................................................................................
173
5.1 The devaluation of speaking and listening in the
curriculum ...........................................................................................................
173
5.2 The devaluation of speaking and listening through Initial Teacher
Training ...............................................................................................................
183
5.3 A lack of storytelling process in the
curriculum ...........................................................................................................
188
5.4 The drive for written
outcomes .............................................................................................................
192

6
 5.5 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
208
6. CP and Artists in
School .............................................................................................................................
210
6.1 Co-delivery and creative teaching as disciplined
improvisation ......................................................................................................
210
6.2 Perceptual shifts afforded through the
arts .......................................................................................................................
220
6.3 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
233
7. The Hegemony of
Literacy ...........................................................................................................................
235
7.1 The giving of greater
value ....................................................................................................................
235
7.2 The consequences of the prioritization of
literacy.................................................................................................................
248
7.3 The co-existence of speaking and
writing .................................................................................................................
261
7.4 The primacy of
orality ..................................................................................................................
272
7.5 Summing
up.........................................................................................................................
282
8.
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................
285

7
 8.1 Contribution to
knowledge ...........................................................................................................
283
8.2 Revisiting the research questions: summarising participant
perceptions ..........................................................................................................
288
8.3 Combining participant perspectives with research-based
evidence ..............................................................................................................
290
8.4 Concluding comments and
recommendations ................................................................................................
307
References .......................................................................................................................
314

8
List of Abbreviations

CA Creative Agent

CCC Crick Crack Crib

CP Creative Partnerships

CT Class Teacher

DCMS Department for Culture, Media & Sport

DCSF Department of Children Schools and Families

DES Department for Education and Skills

DfE Department for Education

EYFS Early Years Foundation Stage

HT Head Teacher

INSET In Service Educational Training

IRA International Reading Association

IRE Initiation, Response, Evaluation

ITT Initial Teacher Training

NACCCE National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education

NAEYC National Association for the Education of the Young Child

NATE National Association of the Teachers of English

NC National Curriculum

NCC National Curriculum Council

NLS National Literacy Strategy

NLS New Literacy Studies

NOP National Oracy Project

PoS Programme of Study

S&L Speaking and Listening

9
SEAL Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning

QTS Qualified Teacher Status

10
List of Figures and Tables

Table 3.1 Participants contributing to the inquiry

Figure 3.1 Example of open coding

Figure 3.2 Example of coding manual

Figure 3.3 Example of a later stage of open coding

Figure 3.4 Example of axial coding

Figure 3.5 Example of selective coding

Figure 3.6 Example of the use of frequency

11
Abstract

The oral re-telling of traditional tales, modelled by a storyteller and taught to children

in school, can be understood as ‘non-instrumental’ practice in speaking and listening

that emphasises oral language skills over the reading and writing of stories. It can also

be viewed as arts-based education that subverts hegemonic literacy-based practice in

school. While oral storytelling has significant benefits to children’s education and

development, it is under-utilized within Primary Education in the UK, despite the

overt value given to speaking and listening skills in curriculum materials.

This library and interview-based study explores participant perceptions of the benefits

of oral storytelling and the barriers to the utilization of such non-instrumental and

creative practice in school. The theoretical framework combines Socio-Cultural

Theories of Learning with a critical standpoint in relation to literacy, orality and the

arts. The interpretive methodology is informed by Constructivist Grounded Theory

with semi-structured interviews with storytellers, teachers and creative agents

connected to the Creative Partnerships organisation being undertaken. In addition,

observation of an oral storytelling initiative in school provides a research context

through which participant perceptions are negotiated and understood.

The findings suggest that speaking and listening skills are implicitly devalued as a

result of the elevation of literacy-based practice and instrumentality that is connected

to assessment procedures and the standards agenda. Children with poor oral language

skills are disadvantaged in school as a result. In addition, the emphasis upon literacy

in school results in a narrowing of the curriculum that similarly devalues creative

forms of teaching and learning that are available through the arts. Oral storytelling as

subversive, non-instrumental and collaborative arts-based education has multifarious

12
benefits for all children, most saliently “intrinsic benefits” that enhance children’s

“capacity to perceive, feel and interpret the world” (McCarthy, 2001; xvi). In

addition, its participatory nature through classroom practice that combines the skills

of artists and teachers has important implications for the development of pedagogy.

However, teachers need to experience oral storytelling to use it effectively as a

pedagogic tool and there is a lack of training for teachers and support within the

curriculum for such creative, collaborative and dialogic teaching methods.

13
1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Ways with words, texts and creativity in the primary classroom

This thesis examines the pedagogic use of oral storytelling, its effects and benefits, its

defining features, and its process and structure. Informing this examination are the

perceptions of storytellers, teachers, and facilitators of collaborative creative

initiatives such as oral storytelling in school. Of equal importance to participant

perceptions is an elucidation of the published literature in relation to oral storytelling

as a Social-Constructivist opportunity for learning, of literacy as hegemonic practice

in school, and of creative collaboration between artists and teachers in the classroom.

Therefore, this thesis can be understood as a library-based examination of the

literature in relation to oral storytelling, literacy, speaking and listening, and arts-

based practice in school as much as it is an empirical study of participant perceptions

in relation all of these elements.

Storytelling as a speaking and listening (S&L) activity is part of the wider literacy

agenda. As such it is almost impossible to think about oral storytelling without taking

into consideration the literacy curriculum within which S&L resides. Therefore there

is also an explicit focus upon the balance of reading, writing, and S&L in school. The

idea that children’s attitudes towards reading and writing both inside and outside

school are strongly influenced by the qualitative nature of early teaching and learning

in literacy is a salient and recurring theme.

Of equal importance to the inquiry are considerations in relation to arts-based

education that result from the nature of oral storytelling as a spoken word art-form.

The empirical hub of the research centres upon a creative collaboration facilitated by

14
Creative Partnerships (CP), an organisation that delivers arts education in school.

Therefore, the study can be best understood as an examination of the “causes,

contexts, contingencies, consequences, co-variances, and conditions’’ (Glaser, 1978;

p.74) that frame the discussion on the status of S&L in the curriculum, in relation to

literacy, and through the lens of oral storytelling as an arts-based educational

initiative. As a result of this variegated focus, the study moves through an inductive

process from an examination of the specificities of oral storytelling in the classroom,

to make more general claims about literacy, S&L, and the arts in education. The aims

of the study therefore, are to uncover the ways in which practice in S&L through oral

storytelling is perceived by storytellers, teachers and creative agents in relation to the

literacy curriculum, and what collaborative arts-based practice can offer to our

understanding of the purpose of primary education more generally.

The original contribution to knowledge that this thesis makes is an exposition of the

balance of S&L and literacy-based practice in primary education through the lens of a

CP oral storytelling intervention. It has uncovered a theoretical gap in the literature

that is suggestive of the idea that perspectives addressing the status of talk in school

tend to focus on the devaluation of oral language rather than the way that orality is

frequently linked to written aims and outcomes. I suggest that there is no research that

specifically and explicitly addresses the effects of literacy-based instrumentality in

relation to spoken language.

This introductory chapter consists of 12 main sections. The first eight sections provide

a context to the inquiry of oral storytelling in school, examining the multi-

dimensionality of language, ideological debates surrounding literacy acquisition, the

15
historical trajectory of research-based educational policy and practice, the status of

spoken language in school since the inception of the National Curriculum (NC),

critical approaches to schooling in relation to power, cultural domination and subject

status, the ethos, structure and modus operandi of CP, an analysis of CP in relation to

the New Labour’s rhetoric of creativity, and a rationale for research into oral

storytelling.

The final four sections detail the premise behind this thesis and its research area,

offering a definition of oral-storytelling as it is being used in the study, a definition of

‘non-instrumental’ S&L as it is being used in the study, how oral storytelling was

practiced in the participating school, and a reflexive analysis of my academic interest

in oral storytelling.

1.2 Hard wired for story

Oral storytelling is unequivocally the oldest form of education used from time

immemorial and from culture to culture as “a way of passing down…beliefs,

traditions, and history to future generations” (Hamilton & Weiss, 1990; p.1). This was

the way cultural transmission took place before the advent of literacy allowed

knowledge to be recorded in more permanent form. To these ends oral storytelling is

connected to modes of understanding that have been recognized by theorists to be

intrinsic to the way we think – we are literally hard wired for story. Bruner (1990) has

stressed narrative as the ‘organising principle’ of our experience, understanding and

exchanges within the social world. He suggests that there is an innate human

‘readiness’ to organise experience into narrative form, and that:

16
 “….our capacity to render experience in narrative is… an instrument for

making meaning that dominates much of life in culture… Our sense of the normative

is nourished in narrative, but so is our sense of breach and of exception.”

(Bruner, 1990; p.97)

Bruner (1990) also suggests that children think in stories, and that they “produce and

comprehend stories …long before they are capable of handling the most fundamental

Piagetian logical propositions that can be put into linguistic form” (p.80). In addition

Egan (1988, 1990, 1991, 1992), one of the most ardent and consistent supporters of

storytelling in the classroom, contends that the imagination and emotion inherent in

story are necessary and neglected components of rational, cognitive activity. He

asserts that “the tool we have for dealing with knowledge and emotions together is the

story” (Egan, 1992; p.70). In Egan’s view cognitive activity in the absence of

imagination and affect is desiccated and inadequate, and that the power of storytelling

resides in the idea that children are more readily stimulated by content that engages

their emotions than content that does not:

“So the affective connection is also the story connection. Whenever our

emotions are involved, so too is a narrative, a story or story fragment, that sets the

context and the meaning. The role of the story is fundamental to our sense-making,

and in education where sense-making is of primary concern, it is still largely

neglected.”

(Egan, 1992; p.70)

17
This coupling of cognition with emotional development is what positions oral

storytelling as spoken language practice that creates a bridge between emotional,

cognitive and language-based educational concerns. As suggested by Bruner (1962) in

the introduction to Vygotsky’s Thought and Language:

“…it is the internalization of overt action that makes thought, and

particularly the internalization of external dialogue that brings the powerful tool of

language to bear on the stream of thought. Man if you will, is shaped by the tools and

instruments that he comes to use, and neither the mind nor the hand alone can amount

to much…the tools and aids that do are the developing streams of internalized

language and conceptual thought that sometimes run parallel and sometime merge,

each affecting the other.”

(Bruner in Vygotsky, 1962:vii)

Vygotsky (1978) argued that learning precedes development, suggesting that

“learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally

organized, specifically human psychological function” (p. 90). Through the use of

primarily spoken language as an intermediary tool that enables us to navigate our

external and internal landscapes, Vygotskian notions of psycho-social development

become central, where language-based interactions and dialogue with others in our

social worlds become internalized to constitute ‘verbal thought’ and “the social

structure of personality” (In Valsiner, 1987; p.67). Oral storytelling naturally resides

within this cognitive, socio-emotional and language-based nexus and therefore

represents spoken language practice that explicitly underpins and reinforces Socio-

Cultural Theories of Learning (Vygotsky, 1978). A number of interconnected aspects

18
provide the psycho-social and cultural milieu whereby the inter-psychological

becomes internalized to constitute the intra-psychological. These include the

inherently social nature of oral storytelling that demands a listening audience to fulfil

its definitional requirements as well as the modelling of oral stories by a more skilful

teller. In addition the collaborative nature of oral storytelling is highlighted by the

pedagogical techniques that are used to scaffold children’s learning in their Zone of

Proximal Development as they learn to tell oral stories. The clearly language–based

nature of oral storytelling bolsters spoken language and ‘verbal thought’ while

minimising attempts to engage with written forms of narrative. Finally, the myths,

legends and stories that children go on to tell are in and of themselves cultural

artefacts. If, as suggested by Vygotsky, the higher mental functions are contingent

upon interaction with others and engagement with the unique tools of a given culture,

oral storytelling as an inherently social and culturally relevant form of language

learning has much to offer Vygotskian approaches to education.

1.2.1 Language and literacy as multidimensional artefacts

The artificial divides that are created between different aspects of language for

purposes of functionality in the classroom can have lasting impacts upon the way

reading, writing, and S&L are experienced by learners. Pedagogic choices can result

in the separation of language according to its associated sensory systems, so that

reading and writing occur together as visual representations of language and S&L

naturally coalesce on the aural plane. Certainly this is the way language skills have

traditionally been grouped within the classroom, with literacy-based skills relating

specifically to reading and writing, while S&L are thought of as language-based

abilities that are separate to literacy.

19
Alternatively, language divisions can be created that accord with the level of

creativity that inheres within each manifestation. In this conception speaking and

writing naturally fall together as productive forms of language, and reading and

listening as forms that are more receptive in nature. As suggested by the National

Association of Teachers of English (NATE) it may be more constructive to consider

such formulations when grouping language skills if only to enable us to think about

language in new, different and less dogmatic ways:

“Why do we divide English into reading and writing, and almost as an

afterthought speaking and listening? Would it not make more sense to think in terms

of reading and listening and writing and speaking?”

(NATE; In Alexander, 2010; p.219)

The artificiality of such divides results in pedagogic practice that frequently does not

resonate with learners’ experiences of language and literacy outside the classroom. In

the lived world language use involves a complex interplay of written, spoken, read,

and heard presentations that make any attempt at division appear arbitrary. However,

the presence of complex and interdependent ‘literacy events’ (Street, 1988) that

incorporate all forms of language are significantly less ubiquitous in the instructional

environment of the primary classroom than they are in everyday life. Generally it is

“an autonomous model of literacy that underpins the construction of school curricula,

and pervades teachers’ instructional and assessment practices” (Larson, 2006; p.320).

Such narrowly defined conceptions of literacy in the classroom can be “closely

aligned with a deficit model…[that results] in curricular and academic disadvantage”

20
(Larson, 2006; p.320) due to its emphasis upon decontextualized drill and practice in

alphabetic decoding skills and standardized assessment procedures.

This autonomous model contrasts with conceptions of language and literacy as multi-

dimensional artefacts incorporating social, cultural, and integrated aspects that

cumulatively create an “expansion of the boundaries of what counts as literacy and

literate competency” (Cervetti et al., 2006; p.379). This transformation of legitimate

knowledge within school allows bridges between the environments of home, school

and community to be created through engagement with each learner’s unique

experience and the ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al., 1992) they bring to the

classroom. Research has demonstrated that literacy acquisition is strongly dependent

upon participation in authentic learning experiences within each child’s community

(Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988). Similarly, processes of identity formation – both in terms

of a developing sense of self and socialization into school-based discourses – are

strongly tied up with the ‘vernacular languages’ (Gee, 2004) and abilities that children

bring from home.

In addition to this expansion of literacy’s boundaries, when a multi-dimensional

perspective is taken in relation to language and literacy, “what counts as assessment

changes” (Larson, 2006; p.324), and the use of standardized measures of competency

becomes inadequate in ascertaining what learners understand. When literacy is

defined as “multiple and complex practices in use” (Gatto, 2001; Vasquez, 2004; In

Larson, 2006; p.323) assessment becomes a formative tool rather than a summative

judgement. As a result, a repertoire of techniques that are contextualized,

individualized and adaptive (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002) become the stock and

21
trade of ‘testing’. Formative assessment of this kind is strongly linked to

constructivist conceptions of learning (Shepard, 2000) that builds on the knowledge,

experiences and interests of the learner and involves students through the use of self-

assessment and feedback. This multifarious view of assessment moves testing away

from reductionist notions of ability and focuses instead on an “authentic, practice-

oriented understanding of what children do with literacy” (Larson, 2006; p.324).

Cumulatively, language and literacy as multi-dimensional artefacts emphasises

perspectives that align with the stance of the New Literacies Studies (NLS). Within

this thesis oral storytelling is positioned as a S&L activity that promotes the tenets of

a curriculum based upon multiple conceptions of language and literacy. Importantly it

is also positioned as a ‘non-instrumental’ S&L activity that actively avoids literacy-

based aims and outcomes. This kind of non-instrumental language practice can be

understood as providing an important alternative to the literacy-based discourses that

frequently predominate in the primary classroom.

1.2.2 Literacy acquisition as contested ideological ground

The current educational climate in relation to school-based literacy has its origins in

the highly contested and ideological nature of the process of learning to read and

write. For decades debates have raged about the ‘best’ way to teach the skills of

literacy, with systematic and formulaic practice in alphabetic decoding being backed

by proponents of phonics-based methods, and a more holistic, culturally diverse and

relational position being taken by the advocates of a whole language approach. While

there are a considerable number of robust research studies demonstrating that

measurable gains in reading ability can be made using a phonics-based approach (Ehri

22
et al., 2001) studies have also observed that such gains often do not last, and can

come at the expense of comprehension and reading for meaning (Chall, 1976; Elley,

1992; Suggate, 2009; Suggate et al., 2012). In addition, the benefits of approaches

that emphasise decoding are undermined by studies that have found letter-sound

patterns being learned “better by children in whole language classroom than children

in intensive phonics classrooms” (Strauss and Altweger, 2007; p.299)

Theorists and practitioners have observed that “children’s learning, and in particular

learning about reading, is unsystematic and complex” (Lambirth, 2011; p.4). As a

result, the dichotomy that splits research, policy and practice into phonics versus

whole language approaches has been criticised in recent years as being unhelpful by

those who emphasise such complexity. Learning to read requires knowledge of the

alphabetic principle as an essential component, but it also requires all the elements of

a whole language approach. Generally the consensus within the research literature

tends to lean towards the idea that “there can be no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach”

(Lambirth, 2011; p.2) to the teaching of reading. This is most obviously because of

the irregularity of the English language that defies systematic attempts at teaching,

unless reduced to “a highly simplified version of phonics, a gross caricature of the

actual system” (Strauss & Altwerger, 2007; p.300). Despite the utility of a pragmatic

stance, debates ranging from “how much of children’s time should be spent on

phonics activities, what kind of phonics approach should be used – synthetic or

analytic – and whether phonics instruction should be provided to young children at

all” (Goouch, 2010; p.80), still occupy a significant proportion of the theoretical

debate about literacy acquisition. Ultimately the contested nature of pedagogic

approaches to literacy is perplexing when a significant proportion of the research

23
suggests that more balanced approaches are pivotal to children’s current and future

engagement with literacy and school (Goodman, 1986; Purcell-Gates & Dahl, 1991;

Morrow et al., 2011). It has been suggested that the popularity of approaches to the

teaching of reading that favour the systematic instruction of decoding skills may be

due to the fact that “insecure or inexperienced teachers find it one they can both

understand and administer” (Meek, 1982; p.74). However, the attractiveness of

phonics to new teachers only partially explains its pervasiveness in recent

formulations of the NC (DfE, 2013). The implication therefore presents itself that the

contested ideological ground of literacy acquisition may be more a function of, and a

response to, politically oriented agendas and educational policy than it is a ‘debate’

within the research in any real sense of the word.

1.2.3 The politics of reading and writing

Concerns about the de-contextualisation of literacy were articulated by the Bullock

Report (1975) that was commissioned by the Labour Government at that time to

consider all aspects of teaching English including reading, writing and speech. The

Report emphasised the importance of learning to read in context “in the daily

experiences of the classroom and the home” (p.520). In addition it strongly denounced

polarised arguments about the ‘best’ way to learn the skills of literacy:

“….there is no one method, medium, approach, device, or philosophy that

holds the key to the process of learning to read…Simple endorsements of one or

another nostrum are no service to the teaching of reading.”

(Bullock, 1975; p.77)

24
The report came at a time of intense debate about the excesses of creativity in primary

education that were to a large degree the result of the child-centred recommendations

of the Plowden Report (1967). Such recommendations included more holistic

approaches to reading, writing, and S&L that would come to resonate with the whole

language movement of the 80’s, as well as later conceptions of literacy as social

practice (Street, 1995). The two reports made similar recommendations in relation to

the need for situated forms of literacy practice designed “to fit the age, interest and

ability of individual pupils” so that teachers could “try all the methods available to

them and not to depend on only one” (Plowden, 1967; p.212). A significant difference

between them was that the Bullock Report placed additional emphasis upon the role

of research advocating the need for a strong and informed relationship between

empirical studies on teaching and learning, and the implementation of policy and

associated practice.

In terms of practice the mixture of analytic and synthetic phonics that was taught prior

to the publication of the two reports was abandoned in some state primary schools in

the 70’s, to be replaced by whole word recognition methods. However, the average

reading age of children fell during this time. This was most likely a result of an

unbalanced tendency within more radical formulations of the whole language

approach to avoid any kind of skill instruction in literacy at all (Pearson, 2000). As a

result of increasing politicization of research into reading and the policy agenda, as

well as increasing pressure in relation to standards, accountability and the desire for

measurable results, a return to a variety of phonics methods combined with a whole

language approach became the predominant method of literacy instruction up until the

early years of the NC.

25
It was during the Labour Government’s time in office (1997-2012) that systematic

phonics instruction as a primary method of teaching literacy to all groups of children,

including the most disadvantaged, started to receive serious consideration. A systematic

review into the research literature on the use of phonics in teaching reading and spelling

was commissioned by the Labour Government during this time. While the review did

find that systematic phonics instruction had a “statistically significant positive effect on

reading accuracy” (Torgerson et al., 2006; p.8) it was unable to identify a significant

difference between synthetic and analytic versions. At around the same time Sir Jim

Rose was asked by the Secretary of State to conduct an independent review into the

teaching of early reading. Unlike the previous review of phonics research, the Rose

Report (2006) strongly advocated the use of a synthetic version of phonics as the “prime

approach in learning to decode…and encode…print” (Rose, 2006; p.70). Criticism of

this “wholesale imposition on teachers of a narrow and reductionist approach to

reading” and “for reasons that are unclear” (Hynd, 2007; p.267) have been squarely

levelled at the Rose Review since its inception. In particular, the impartial nature of the

review and its attempts to align itself with “consensus derived from research” (Wray,

2006; p.127) has been seriously questioned:

“What has actually happened is that pressure groups with axes to grind (and,

usually, teaching programmes to sell) have caught the ear of politicians and the Rose

Review was never going to be a balanced interpretation of the evidence.”

(Wray, 2006; p.267)

While the Rose Report has been described as an “accomplished piece of spin doctoring”

(Hynd, 2007; p.268) by its critics, its influence on the curriculum has been profound,

26
with a ‘phonics first and fast’ approach being firmly adopted within the National

Literacy Strategy (NLS) as a direct result of the report’s recommendations. In more

recent manoeuvrings, since the Conservative-Liberal Coalition took control of the

political helm in 2010, changes to the NC for English have taken the teaching of

synthetic phonics instruction even further. The language of the NC is replete with

references to the need for a “rigorous and systematic phonics programme” for “pupils

whose decoding skills are poor” (DfE, 2014; pp.16-40) right up to the upper years of

Key Stage (KS) 2. It would seem that the ‘phonics first, fast and only’ mantra of New

Labour that has itself been subject to significant criticism (Wyse & Styles, 2007; Wyse

& Goswami, 2008) has reached a dogmatic level of prescription within the course of

Conservative-Liberal Democrat educational policy.

Since the adoption of the Rose Report (2006) within educational policy, the child-

centred recommendations from both Plowden (1967) and Bullock (1975) appear to have

been forgotten in the most recent formulations of the NC for English. In addition

research findings suggesting that one-size-fits-all phonics-based approaches are not

sufficient for children learning to read do not seem to have informed policy. Therefore

it is suggested that a balanced approach to literacy has been eschewed in favour of

reading schemes that are easily measurable and implementable within the instructional

environment of the primary classroom.

27
1.2.4 The revaluation and devaluation of speaking and listening in school

Arguably, S&L practice has become increasingly aligned with the holistic

perspectives emphasised by Plowden (1967) and Bullock (1975). In this sense the

false dichotomy between phonics and whole language approaches has implicated S&L

within the debate. As noted by Johnson (1995), during the mid-1980’s “the place of

spoken English in the curriculum was fairly clear...it was not often prominent in

English departments’ priorities for development, and it featured in very few GCE O-

level syllabuses” (p.17). However, this situation was to change as a direct result of Sir

Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Education, who was committed to

improving the position of spoken language in the curriculum so that “the use of oral

work…might be encouraged in the teaching of all subjects” (Sir Keith Joseph, 1984:

letter to Professor Roger Blin-Stoyle, the Chairman of the School Curriculum

Development Committee). This commitment was to result in the statutory inclusion of

S&L within the curriculum as an Attainment Target which was defined in two

Statutory Orders (DES, 1989 and 1990). The Cox Report (1989) that laid down the

fundamentals of the NC and outlined the various Attainment Targets heavily endorsed

Sir Keith Joseph’s views recommending that S&L should occupy one third of the

English Curriculum:

“Our inclusion of speaking and listening as a separate profile component in

our recommendations is a reflection of our conviction that they are of central

importance to children's development… In addition to its function as a crucial

teaching and learning method, talk is also now widely recognised as promoting and

embodying a range of skills and competence - both transactional and social - that are

28
central to children's overall language development.”

(Cox, 1989; p.9)

The National Oracy Project (NOP) was a direct result of the increased emphasis upon

S&L in school at this time, and as noted by Johnson (1995), while there were

difficulties in implementing the Statutory Orders due to the lack of clear and explicit

curricular instruction, “many teachers were sufficiently encouraged to face up to the

challenge” (p.19). Johnson (1995) goes on to suggest that as a result, standards in

S&L were high, and children:

“...contributed willingly, in well-structured Standard English, and were able

to question, listen and explain...It was also more apparent that pupils of modest

attainment were pushed to their personal limits in such oral work.”

(DES, 1992: In Johnson, 1995; p.19)

However, the high status afforded to S&L in the curriculum was not destined to last.

The call for more ‘standard’ forms of English started to be made by quasi-educational

agencies aligned with Conservative ideology such as the Centre for Policy Studies

(Johnson, 1995). Such views made their way into the National Curriculum Council

(NCC) which in 1992 published advice to the Secretary of State officially calling for a

revision of the Statutory Orders in relation to S&L. It was suggested by the NCC that

there was not enough emphasis upon Standard English or attentive listening, and

correspondingly an excessive emphasis upon children’s spoken language in class. The

advice was accepted and S&L was toppled from its short-lived position of parity with

literacy in the curriculum. In its place conceptions of spoken language emphasising

29
‘standard’ grammatical forms more usually associated with written English became

predominant with a corresponding devaluation of non-instrumental and meaning-

centred practice in spoken language (Johnson, 1995). It is suggested that this

devaluation has remained in place to the present day, and that the elevation of S&L

that was most notably characterised by the prominence of the NOP from 1987-1993

was a regrettably exceptional development in the trajectory of language practice in the

curriculum.

1.2.5 Hegemony, cultural capital and subject status: What happens to knowledge in

school?

The overall effect of this devaluation of S&L is one where literacy and its acquisition

becomes one of the central purposes, if not the central purpose, of schooling at the

primary level of education. This form of dominance on the subject level has been

aligned with cultural forms of hegemony by theoretical positions that take post-

structural approaches to literacy as their starting point. As pointed out by Apple

(2004), educational institutions position the habitus of dominant groups in society as

educated discourse that all children have access to. However, in reality, and much like

the Matthew Effects (Stanovich, 1986) that have been observed in successful early

readers, when it comes to cultural capital “those who already possess it go on to

inherit more” (Lambirth, 2006; p.66). Clearly, children from more privileged

backgrounds with access to educated discourses, cultural capital and varied forms of

literacy practice will fare better in relation to literacy acquisition and school than

children whose backgrounds preclude such experiences.

30
Hegemony in relation to subject status can be understood through the idea that “what

is selected to be taught in the Curriculum….is simply one selection of knowledge

among many” (Lambirth, 2006; p.65). The arbitrary selection of certain forms of

knowledge over others in society is reinforced by the idea that such selections are

frequently legacies of the historical conditions that gave rise to their inclusion as high

status forms. As noted by Monaghan & Saul (1987), the continued priority given to

reading over writing in early childhood education in the US, was originally a result of

the needs of the early settlers and the view that learning to read the Bible was

considered essential. While this may no longer be the case the imbalance between

reading and writing within the US curriculum remains to this day.

The idea that literacy should be privileged over other forms of language learning has

been emphasised by Young (1971) who suggests that “literacy, or an emphasis on

written as opposed to oral presentation” and “the extent to which [academic curricula]

are ‘at odds’ with daily life and common experience” (p.38), are key features of high

status knowledge. Young (1971) positions such features as “the organizing principles

underlying academic curricula” that are irreducible and resistant to change. However,

Paechter (1998) emphasises that “this has not always been the case” pointing to the

“burgeoning in the United Kingdom of legitimated knowledges that took other forms”

(p.164) during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. In particular she cites the increased

emphasis that was put onto oral language through the work of the NOP. Paechter

(1998) goes on to unravel the complexities that frame the differences between high

status, non-vocational and ‘uncommonsense’ forms of knowledge, and those that are

non-school or ‘owned’. Paechter (1998) positions owned knowledge as forms of

learning that enable students to access the power that is contained within them, and as

31
knowledge that allows for “effective individual and group action” (p.174) and the

dynamic use of learning. In addition, Paechter (1998) suggests that owned or non-

school knowledge should not be thought of simply as the inverse of school

knowledge, but rather two extreme ends of a continuum. She goes on to ask:

“…how can we bring about a situation in which owned knowledge is given

sufficient legitimacy in the schooling system for ownership to continue within the

classroom? How can we cross the barrier between owned and school knowledge?”

(Paechter, 1998; p.174)

Paechter (1998) suggests that it is children’s failure to grasp that “school knowledge

is different from home knowledge” that is “likely to lead to failure in school” (p.168).

High status knowledge is therefore only half the story and it is what happens to

knowledge once it has been subsumed into, sanctioned and legitimized by school that

is of issue. Clearly, what was positioned as the owned knowledge of yesterday often

becomes the school knowledge of tomorrow, and vice versa. Analysis of this

“virtuous circularity…of the school/owned continuum” (Paechter, 1998; p.171)

suggests that issues of power, intrinsic purpose and the ability of learners to have

control over their own learning are central to conceptions of both school and non-

school knowledge that is ‘owned’:

“It seems likely that central to ownership of knowledge is having the power

contained within that which one knows…a simple inclusion of real-world aspects into

school life is insufficient; it remains possible for the school to take over such

knowledge, rendering it powerless and no longer owned, stripping it, in the process,

32
of its connection with its original context, so that ‘in school, nothing is “for real”, not

even in the workshops’ (Young, 1971, p. 40).” (Paechter, 1998; p.173)

Therefore, issues of cultural domination, social disadvantage and exclusion from

educated discourse, the arbitrary nature of subject status, and the disconnection

between non-school, owned and school knowledge are central to conceptions of

literacy as a hegemonic force in both school and society.

So far a consideration of literacy in relation to policy and practice, contested ideas

about literacy acquisition, the balance of S&L in the curriculum and the cultural

capital that literacy can be seen to represent, has been the primary focus. Next I shall

introduce Creative Partnerships (CP) and arts-based education as a tandem focus,

alongside literacy-based considerations of oral storytelling in school.

1.2.6 Creative Partnerships in the primary classroom

CP is a nationally operative arts-based organisation that was launched by New Labour

in an effort to improve outcomes and access to the arts for primary and secondary

pupils living in areas of social and cultural deprivation. CP was developed and

managed by the Arts Council England and sponsored by the Department for Culture,

Media & Sport (DCMS) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The

ethos of the organisation centres upon conceptions of creativity and participation in

the arts that utilise an emancipatory discourse, with Tony Blair proclaiming that “the

arts and creativity will set us free” (Blair in DCMS, 2001; p.3). While no longer

operative in its original capacity since it lost all of its funding in the coalition austerity

measures, CP still functions but only on a commercial basis.

33
The modus operandi of CP at the time of the study (undertaken in the final year that

funding for CP projects was still available) involved strategic collaboration between

artists working in the community and schools to provide individualised arts-based

practice to meet the specific needs of each school. In order to secure funding for CP

projects schools had to submit bids, and funds were allocated “according to…the

extent to which the school’s ideas were aligned with their own vision of what Creative

Partnerships was trying to achieve” (NFER, Sharp et al., 2006; p.36). CP projects

offer three levels of creative collaboration, with: Enquiry School programmes that

work with schools over a period of a year “to explore how creative teaching and

learning can enhance their practice”; Change School programmes that work with

schools on a longer term basis to “bring about sustainable change in approaches to

teaching and learning”; and Schools of Creativity that “are at the cutting edge of

creative learning, engaging in an intensive, long-term programme” (Curious

Minds/CP, 2012; online).

The basis for CP was the publication of the National Advisory Committee on Creative

and Cultural Education’s (NACCCE) review of the NC in relation to the status of the

arts in education. The report that came out of the review, All Our Futures: Creativity,

Culture and Education (1999), made recommendations to promote and develop the

“partnerships between schools and outside agencies which are now essential to

provide the kinds of creative and cultural education that young people need and

deserve” (NACCCE, 1999; p.199). The rationale behind All Our Futures was very

much, as the title suggests, a future directed one, appealing to the idea that in order to

compete economically and to promote social cohesion and equity in the 21st century a

34
dramatic re-organization of the education system was required. The report argued that

“a national strategy for creative and cultural education” (NACCCE, 1999; p.5)

involving a strong emphasis on the promotion of “creativity, adaptability and better

powers of communication” (NACCCE, 1999; p.9) was central to this process of

educational re-organisation.

All Our Futures adopted a multifaceted and democratic approach to creativity linking

it with both cultural and economic considerations as well as diverse accounts of the

creative process (Ward, 2010). This resulted in “significant shifts away from a view

of creativity as only attainable by the gifted, and toward a view of learning as

empowerment in and beyond the classroom” (Craft, 2008; p.2). This has arguably

been translated into the classroom by CP through the focus on student participation in

the classroom. The philosophical basis of CP involves young people being seen as the

co-constructors or ‘co-producers’ of their own learning (Bragg et al., 2009). This

entails creative practitioners and teachers working together to challenge and transform

existing classroom learning and teaching (Jones & Thomson, 2008). Bragg et al.

(2009) suggest that the notion of students as co-producers of their own learning may

be translated into practice in a variety of ways which go on to induce variable levels

of impact. However, Bragg et al., (2009) go on to state that it is the promotion of

greater levels of partnership and dialogue between adults and students, and also

amongst students, which is likely to have the most fundamental and transformative

effect upon teaching and learning in school and “provide profound learning

experiences for students and staff” (Bragg et al., 2009; p.50).

35
1.2.7 A rationale for the examination of oral storytelling as an arts-based initiative

Despite admonitions against research that avoids findings that are outcome oriented,

Ward (2010) goes on to suggest that there is practical value to be found in CP

initiatives that seek to “support the skills that underpin academic achievement” and

“cancel out the harmful effects of deprivation” (p.100). In a study examining a CP

intervention in a primary school serving an economically disadvantaged community

Wolf (2008) describes how the creative collaboration expanded the speaking and

writing abilities of children who were “not raised in the swirl of language that

characterizes many mainstream families” (p.101). The benefit of CP initiatives that

focus on the practical value of the arts in education provides a rationale for the use of

oral storytelling in the classroom. Educational research that highlights such value for

children whose “poor mastery of language… may impact negatively on [their]

academic attainment” (Wolf, 2008; p.100) therefore provides a rationale for the

examination of oral storytelling as an arts-based initiative.

In addition, oral storytelling as a non-instrumental spoken word art-form elevates

S&L to levels within the classroom that are ordinarily denied it as a result of the

narrow constraints of the NC and the standards agenda. As observed by Harrett (2003)

when education centres upon measurable outcomes for purposes of accountability and

comparison, “storytelling seems to be almost a subversive act” (p.11). This is due to

the fact that the benefits of something like oral storytelling are difficult to quantify,

and its value in terms of the effects upon literacy are not instantly visible. Storytelling

offers children a rich and intrinsically motivating experience of language that is

collaborative in nature and at opposite ends of the continuum to business as usual at

school. Targets and testing do not figure in children’s oral storytelling, and if testing

36
does take place it is formative and enables children to learn and improve on their oral

language skills in a supportive manner. Therefore as a point of resistance to post-88

peformativity (Ward, 2010), oral storytelling offers a strong basis from which to

challenge the hegemonic instrumentality of literacy and the standards agenda in

school.

The rationale for the study is therefore twofold. Firstly, an examination of oral

storytelling is fruitful because of the practical value to learning that it offers by

strengthening skills that underpin academic ability in multiple areas of learning

through the mastery of oral language. Secondly, oral storytelling as a subversive

pedagogic act challenges the hegemonic discourses that constrain teaching and

learning in school.

1.3 From looking out to turning in

Taking an outward looking stance is essential when trying to understand the “causes,

contexts, contingencies, consequences, covariances, and conditions’’ (Glaser, 1978;

p.74) that frame socio-cultural phenomena as they are played out in educational

theory, policy and practice. However, at some point in conducting research it is

necessary to take a reflexive position to define concepts and position the researcher in

relation to that which is researched. The next three sections take such an inward

looking stance to examine the specificities of oral storytelling as a ‘non-instrumental’

spoken word art-form more closely so as to secure a working definition of the kind of

practice that is of particular interest to the study. In addition I shall reflect upon how

and why oral storytelling presented itself to me as a useful line of inquiry to position

myself in relation to the object of study.

37
1.3.1 Oral storytelling: Towards a working definition

Oral storytelling has been defined by the National Council of Teachers of English

(NCTE) as “relating a tale to one or more listeners through voice and gesture” (1992;

online). This apparently simple definition takes into account the inherently social

nature of storytelling that requires a listening audience to fulfil its definitional

requirements. It also tacitly invokes the oral nature of storytelling whereby the tale is

‘related’ and not ‘read’, and the emphasis upon ‘voice and gesture’ implicitly denies

the use of a script.

Such a simple definition belies the complexity of oral storytelling, and certainly to get

a grasp on the type of oral storytelling that was employed in the course of the study a

considerably fuller definition is required. Unfortunately, there are no ready definitions

to hand, in the scholarly literature or otherwise. The reason for this deficit is

somewhat unclear although it may be because oral storytelling is perceived as

something that is self-evident and obvious, and as such definitions appear

dispensable. However, as a spoken word narrative form that is uncommonly

experienced in a contemporary pedagogic context oral storytelling requires

considerably more defining than story reading. In comparison, story reading presents

itself un-problematically to our literate sensibilities: certainly, the NCTE provides no

position statement or definition for story reading in the way that it does for oral

storytelling. Therefore it becomes important to attempt a definition that captures the

complexity of oral storytelling as a spoken word narrative form.

In order to attain a definition I shall examine extracts from the Crick Crack Club

(CCC, 2012), a London-based performance oral storytelling promoter. The varied

38
activities of the club include programming public performances of storytelling in

theatres and art centres nationally, touring artists and their work, providing training

and direction, mentoring and supporting new artists, and undertaking research and

advising on the use of storytelling in museums and educational settings. The CCC

therefore represents a wealth of experience and research-based information on the

defining features, process and structure of oral storytelling. In addition the CCC

provided a springboard for the ideas that went into shaping this thesis due to the fact

that it was one of the sources of information that I came across early in the research

process, and because its perspective on oral processes resonated with my own.

So far the NCTE (1992) definition states that oral storytelling involves “relating a tale

to one or more listeners through voice and gesture”. In order to build on this skeletal

definition it is necessary to ask if the story is related in more diverse ways than

through just voice and gesture. The CCC (2012) suggests that once the storyteller has

“grasped the basic line of the story, they are free to retell it in their own words and

own way” drawing “directly on their pre-existing oral culture such as their knowledge

of jokes, riddles, rap, playground games, their ability to chatter and gossip” (online).

This clearly encompasses the ownership, individuality and non-instrumentality that is

inherent to the oral retelling of stories. In addition “each telling is a fresh

improvisation, demanding an immediate summoning and ordering of language”

(CCC, 2012), and this feature singles out oral storytelling as being improvised, in the

moment, and dynamic in nature.

The next feature of oral storytelling in relation to the NCTE definition concerns the

“one or more listeners” (NCTE, 1992) to whom the tale is being related. Here it is

39
necessary to consider what type of listening is taking place. Once again the CCC

(2012) provides a clear conceptual path in the assertion that oral storytelling requires:

“…attentive and sustained listening skills. The listener is invited to complete

entire worlds from the suggestion of words and gesture; events need to be followed

sequentially; the interactions of characters must be correctly assessed and

interpreted; effects must be linked to causes.”

(CCC, 2012)

As noted by the CCC (2012) the “spellbound” state of attentive listening that “very

young pupils and teenagers can be held in” for a surprisingly long time is related to

the imaginative capacities that are stimulated through the process of storytelling:

“Stories generate and inspire strong imaginative responses in the listener. The

language of the story and its delivery, stimulates [sic] a series of vivid images on the

cinema screen of the mind's eye.”

(CCC, 2012)

In addition, there is a reflexive character to the storytelling exchange in terms of the

positioning of the storyteller in relation to their audience. As observed by the CCC

(2012) “in the moment of retelling, they are selecting the language they use according

to the requirements of the story itself and according to the needs of the audience they

are telling it to”. Accordingly, it is this inter-relational character of storytelling that

requires the storyteller to be responsive to any number of visual, non-visual or verbal

40
cues that may be picked up from the audience according to how well the story is being

received and understood.

The final element of the NCTE definition involves the use of “voice and gesture”

(NCTE, 1992), and here it is important to consider how these aspects are used. Once

more, the CCC (2012) provides clarity, suggesting that “good storytelling will display

the physical qualities of the spoken word rhythm, rhyme and repetition, accent, pitch,

inflection, tempo, etc... will model the vocabulary, syntax and grammar of speech at

sentence and word level” and “the non-verbal, corporeal speech of glance, gesture,

pause and physical expression”.

Combining this multiplicity of defining features produces a tentative working

definition that captures the complexity of oral storytelling in relation to its social,

qualitative and stylistic characteristics. It is from this working definition of oral

storytelling that the study proceeds:

Oral storytelling involves relating a non-scripted story using the resources of the

imagination:

 To an audience of one or more attentive listeners over a sustained period of

time, to whom the storyteller is mutually attentive and responsive in terms of

their understanding of, and their reception to, the narrative;

41
  In a manner that is individual and owned in terms of the idiosyncratic stylistic

choices of the storyteller; and that is improvised, dynamic and in the moment

in terms of the mode of production of the story;

 Through the physical qualities of the spoken word (rhythm, rhyme and

repetition, accent, pitch, inflection, tempo), using the vocabulary, syntax and

grammar of speech, and also the non-verbal language of the body (glance,

gesture, pause and physical expression).

Therefore, the type of oral storytelling utilised in this study involved the use of pre-

existing traditional stories that were modelled by a more competent adult and retold

by children using the working definition of oral storytelling outlined above.

1.3.2 ‘Non-Instrumental’ speaking and listening

“…we do not…speak in the same kind of sentences that we write, nor do we

usually write down and pre-learn what we are going to say before we say it. If we are

to teach children how to communicate through speech, then we have to value and

celebrate the spoken word (narration, rhetoric and oration) as a creation, in the same

way that we value a piece of written literature.”

(Crick Crack Club, 2012).

Further clarification is important in considering what is meant by ‘non-instrumental’

practice in S&L. This is a concept that is central to the theoretical and philosophical

basis of the inquiry, and it is a key term that permeates the study. In order to best

42
understand what I mean by ‘non-instrumentality’ in relation to S&L it is useful to

consult a dictionary definition of what the word’s root antonym, ‘instrumental’ in

English usage actually means. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online) has this to

say about the adjective:

a : serving as a crucial means, agent, or tool

b: very important in helping or causing something to happen or be done

Within the pedagogic context it is the frequent and unproblematic linking of spoken

language to writing in process or outcome that is central. In many cases such linkage

is a desired outcome of spoken language practice in school so that S&L can be

understood as a tool that is used to get children writing: S&L is used in an

instrumental way as a crucial means by which more important targets in reading and

writing can be met. So, for example, when children are asked to write a story that they

are then asked to retell, this cannot be understood in terms of non-instrumental

practice in S&L. Contrastingly, the oral retelling of pre-existing stories, first modelled

by a more competent adult before being retold by children, can be understood as non-

instrumental practice in S&L. Here, the importance of minimising attempts to

reproduce narrative in writing when learning the story is key. Instead, pedagogic

devices that are embedded in similarly oral practice are essential for children to

scaffold their learning in a manner that bolsters the oral process.

The distinction that I have made between non-instrumental and instrumental practice

in S&L is not intended to ascribe superiority to one form over another. Memorization

of a script or recitation of a poem can be understood as spoken word forms anchored

43
to literacy that have value in their own right. Rather the aim of making such

distinctions is to provide a language with which I can talk in more precise terms about

different levels of engagement with orality in school.

1.3.3 Oral storytelling at Hollytree School

The kinds of oral storytelling and literacy practices that are of interest to this study

were implemented in Hollytree School (fictional name) as a small part of a larger CP

Change School Project. Oral storytelling was chosen by Hollytree in an explicit

attempt to improve speaking and listening skills in line with the recommendations of

the school’s last Ofsted inspection. I will discuss the school, the participants and the

Change School Project in closer detail in the Methodology chapter of this thesis.

However at this stage it is important to provide a brief overview of the kinds of

practices I was concerned with in order to equip the reader with a clearer picture of

oral storytelling as it is conceptualised within this study. This overview is based on

the observations I carried out and which are further explained in the empirical section

of this thesis.

David Keele was the storyteller who was brought in to work with the children on oral

storytelling in a bid to improve their spoken language ability. A typical session would

start with David telling the children a number of oral stories, jokes and riddles which

the children very much enjoyed. They sat round on the floor at his feet and alternated

between listening in rapt silence, participating in the story at relevant opportunities

and also asking questions to clarify meanings. David handled this heckling with the

equanimity and style of both a seasoned storyteller and a disciplined teacher. Once

David had finished telling his stories he would invite the children to tell him a story of

44
their own, giving them some kind of a prompt such as asking them to tell a story from

their holidays, or asking them to choose an object in the room and to make up a story

about how that object saved their life. One or two or the more confident children

would offer to tell a story, but there was no pressure to do so, and certainly there was

only time to hear a couple of stories from the whole class. The point of this exercise

was more about getting the children thinking about storytelling and about how it

could be done in a non-threatening manner, to provide them with an opportunity to

tell a story of their own in front of a group, and to provide some models of oral

storytelling for them to learn from.

After around forty minutes of this kind of ‘warming up’, David would round the

children up to start them working on the story they had chosen as a group in the first

session, again a story that he had first modelled. Importantly, the whole class would

work on the same story in pre-determined groups to enable levels of support and

learning that would be unavailable if children had chosen different stories to tell. The

rest of the session would be taken up with various small group exercises designed to

get the children familiar with the structure of their chosen story. This was a typical

session that followed essentially the same structural format on each occasion that I

visited the school to observe David teach oral storytelling to the two Year 4 classes,

varying only in terms of the pedagogical methods that the children and David chose to

work on. David’s pedagogical techniques included:

 Beanbag telling: a small group of children pass a beanbag between them and

the child holding the beanbag has to carry on the story from where the last

45
 child had left off. This exercise enables children to practice the story from

different and randomised points in the narrative.

 Zipping in and out of character: David would choose a character from the

story and the children pretend to unzip a zipper running down that characters

back, step into it and then pretend to be that character whilst walking round

the room. This exercise, as well as being a lot of fun, encourages

experimentation with characterisation.

 Alphabet telling: either as a simple pitch-based exercise where children

change the pitch of their voices whilst reciting the alphabet or by adding

emotional content to recite the alphabet in a happy/sad/angry/excited voice.

The idea behind this is to help children to add colour and vibrancy to their

storytelling through experimenting with vocal expression.

 Story skeletons: the children draw an outline of a skeleton in a small group

and then put the ‘meat on the bones of the story’ using pictures and writing

down parts of the narrative from the start (top of the skeleton’s head) to the

end (bottom of the skeletons feet) of the story. This was the most obviously

literacy-based exercise, but because children were only writing parts of the

story, out of sequence, in a collaborative exercise, it was more aligned with

getting them to understand structural aspects of narrative in a non-linear

manner. Also, it was a very artistically creative exercise aimed at engaging the

children in a way that writing down a story in a linear fashion would be more

likely to preclude.

 Telling behind a screen: the children tell their story behind a screen to get the

children to understand the importance of eye contact and inter-relational

46
 aspects. In addition, for some of the less confident children this may have

provided a less threatening context in which to tell their story to an audience.

 Emotion graphs: drawing a graph that visually depicts the quality and quantity

of the emotions throughout the story e.g. excitement, fear, happiness, sadness

etc. that are experienced by different characters at different points in the

narrative.

 Story boards: drawing pictures of the story in a linear fashion that storyboards

the most important parts. This method allows the children to become familiar

with the structure of the story without actually writing the narrative down as a

literacy-based exercise.

 Jam loading: the children have to pair off and practice telling the story to each

other in a limited amount of time. Because it is a timed activity there is an

element of competition that the children enjoy, and because they are working

in pairs it is a supportive and non-threatening context where they help each

other to remember the story.

Over the seven weeks that the storytelling initiative took place, the final goal

was a videoed performance at the end of term where the children would tell

the story they had worked on in their groups in front of an audience

comprising of teachers, teaching assistants, Year 6 children who were

videoing the performances, and David and I. Some groups were quite large

with four or five children working together, others were comparatively small

with only two or three children, and each child told different parts of the story

within their group. Some children who were confident with storytelling told

larger portions of the story while other less confident children had

47
 comparatively smaller parts. Importantly though, everyone participated and no

children were unable to stand up and tell their part of the story – it was a

successful initiative that all the children seemed to enjoy.

1.3.4 Envisioning alternatives: Personal revelation as reflexivity

This thesis attempts to identify possible solutions to what is perceived as the implicit

subordination of S&L skills in school that is a direct consequence of a hegemonic

overemphasis on literacy within primary school. It is further suggested that a

consideration of alternative educational philosophies and methods such as the

pedagogic use of oral storytelling in mainstream primary classrooms would improve

educational outcomes.

My first experience of the use of storytelling in school was during my undergraduate

dissertation examining socio-emotional development and understanding in a Steiner

School. It was whilst observing a typical Steiner maths lesson where the teacher was

using a story format about rabbits collecting carrots to teach the concept of multiples

that the power and utility of stories as a pedagogic strategy first presented itself to me

as a potent educational strategy. The use of narrative in such an inter-disciplinary

manner to embed abstract content in a story format so as to make it meaningful,

accessible and perhaps most importantly, enjoyable to young children, seemed to me

both an ingenious and yet obvious way to engage young minds. The question that

insistently presented itself to my developing understanding of education was: why

aren’t such methods used in every classroom? As I progressed through the study it

became increasingly clear to me that the use of story and oral methods generally, were

fundamental to the Steiner philosophy. Indeed, the formal teaching of literacy does

48
not even start in Steiner School until the age of seven after children have experienced

a solid grounding in a mental diet of stories, poems, recitations, songs and rhymes.

It was in my MA dissertation on the use of role-play in primary school as a balanced

form of literacy that I took the storytelling theme further through an examination of

Vivian Paley’s Storytelling Curriculum. I came to realise the extent to which literacy

instruction in school was rooted in the ‘back to basics’ concept of getting children to

read and write as early as possible, principally through phonics instruction with

considerably less emphasis upon more balanced approaches to literacy acquisition. It

was here that the subordination of S&L in the primary classroom presented itself to

me in empirical terms. In addition, I came to understand more fully the frustration that

of many a primary school teacher in relation to prescribed policy within the literacy

curriculum: “If they can speak it, they can write it” was a mantra I became familiar

with during this time. This phrase resonated strongly with all of the teachers that I

interviewed in the course of my MA dissertation study, and yet this was not the

approach they were able to take due to the constraints of the NC and its associated

standards agenda.

This tied in with my personal experience of my own child’s struggle to engage within

school. His disaffection from reading and writing specifically, and school more

generally, resulted from what I came to perceive as too early and too hard a push for

literacy acquisition. His lack of interest in literacy was further reinforced by the

difficulties he experienced with decoding and a pedagogic approach that was

primarily grounded in synthetic phonics. This was despite his very high level of

verbal ability, and also in spite of the fact that he loved being read stories and looking

49
at books - he just didn’t feel the need to learn how to read himself at the age of five.

In particular, and what pushed me in the direction of oral storytelling, my son loved

stories that had been made-up. This was something that his Aunt, who is a very

proficient storyteller, would frequently indulge him in. My interest in oral storytelling

was thus ignited and I began to research it in relation to literacy acquisition,

communicative competence, and developmentally appropriate education, which

represent the driving conceptual categories behind this thesis.

1.4 Summing up

This chapter has attempted to provide a basis, a rationale and something of a narrative

that positions oral storytelling in relation to its objects of inquiry. Through an

examination of the context behind the privileging of literacy in school, and hegemonic

discourses that contribute to imbalances within school curricula, oral storytelling is

positioned as a counterbalance to the hegemony of literacy within education. In

addition, conceptions of creativity in both the CP organisation as well as Neo Liberal

discourses that rationalise governmental policy in relation to the arts in education

have been uncovered. The next chapter will explore some of the research into oral

storytelling, literacy in the curriculum and the arts in education more closely, as well

as positioning the inquiry in relation to its theoretical orientation.

50
2 A review of the literature

This introductory chapter consists of 11 main sections, examining the overarching

theoretical framework that combines Socio-Cultural Theories of Learning and Critical

Theory; the research on oral storytelling in terms of its socio-emotional, language-

based and cognitive effects; the research on developmental arguments on literacy

acquisition; the EYFS and NLS in relation to the relative weighting of literacy and

S&L in the curriculum; the use of assessment for accountability; and the history and

value of the arts in education, with an additional emphasis upon UK arts initiatives

through CP.

The literature search was carried out prior to data collection as part of the process of

familiarising myself with oral storytelling, as well as concurrently with the fieldwork

element of the study and data analysis, to follow the developing theoretical

perspective that was being shaped by participant responses.

The focus of both the literature review and the study as a whole is upon English forms

of oral storytelling rather than more international, multi-cultural traditions where oral

storytelling can be understood as sharing strong links and pedagogical use. In

addition, it is school-based rather than home-schooled practices, and verbal rather

than multi-modal forms of communication that are of particular interest. While there

is a rich literature in relation to digital forms of storytelling, it is the traditional form

of oral storytelling encompassing salient interpersonal aspects and verbal forms of

communication that are the primary relevance to the study.

51
2.1 Theoretical Perspective

This thesis takes a multi-dimensional position examining the status and value of S&L

and the arts in education in relation to literacy, as well as seeking to better understand

pedagogic collaboration between teachers and creative practitioners in school in

relation to oral storytelling as a pedagogically subversive language art-form.

Consequently, a similarly broad-based approach has been required from the

theoretical orientation of the inquiry with Social Constructivism as it has been

influenced through Vygotsky’s work, and Critical Theory in relation to Gramscian

notions of Hegemony, both providing the primary theoretical backdrop to the study.

2.1.1 Social Constructivism

This thesis relies on the concept of speech as “the tool of tools” (Luria, cited in Cole,

1996; p.108) for learning and development. The overarching theoretical perspective of

the study is therefore rooted in the socio-cultural theory of learning that is commonly

known as Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Vygotsky saw learning as

an inherently social and collaborative process with language as the “primary medium

for learning, meaning construction, and cultural transmission and transformation”

(Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000; p.2). Oral storytelling as a language art utilizes some of

the key tenets of constructivist thought, including: collaborative forms of learning; the

social construction of meaning; and the use and cultural transmission of language-

based ‘artifacts’, i.e. the stories, myths and legends that the oral storyteller retells.

The first salient theme within Social Constructivism relates to Vygotsky’s well known

‘genetic law of development’ that emphasizes the primacy of social interaction with

peers and more knowledgeable others to both the individual and cultural development

52
of the child. Such interactions then become internalized to “constitute the social

structure of personality” (In Valsiner, 1987; p.67). Thus the interpsychological

becomes the intrapsychological, and over time and through processes of ‘guided

participation’ (Rogoff, 1990) “children become skilled practitioners in the specific

cognitive activities in their communities” (Rogoff, 1991; p.351). Related to this is the

concept of collaborative learning where the utility of peers, teachers or more

knowledgeable others generally in extending children’s ability to move through their

‘zones of proximal development’ and extend their thinking, is emphasised.

The second theme, the concept of semiotic mediation, is central to the co-construction

of knowledge and the socio-cultural development of the individual. Through the use

of semiotic mechanisms, of which language through the internalization of dialogue

was viewed by Vygotsky as being the most critical, we navigate our internal and

external landscapes. Through the appropriation of culturally mediated psychological

tools such as language children become enculturated into systems of meaning and the

practices through and by which their communities operate.

In addition, Vygotsky stressed the individuality of every learner within different

learning contexts, and the variability of educational goals from individual to

individual. Vygotsky emphasised that “to force everybody into the same mould

represents the greatest of all the delusions of pedagogics” (Vygotsky, 1926; Chapter

17) suggesting that a fundamental imperative of educational methodology is to apply

“conscious and rigorous determination of the individualized goals of education for

each particular student” (Vygotsky, 1926; Chapter 17). Here the importance of non-

53
instrumental learning underscores this plurality of individual and developmental

particularities, with children’s learning being guided rather than imposed:

“Complete freedom for the child’s creativity, the renunciation of all effort to

place it on a par with adult consciousness, the recognition of its originality and of its

distinctive features, constitute a fundamental requirement of psychology.”

(Vygotsky, 1926; Chapter 13)

In addition, Vygotskian thought is central to notions of social learning in

Communities of Practice where contextual and collaborative representations of

learning are the focus of Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this

study Communities of Practice are positioned as arts-based practitioners coming into

school, as well as school-based teachers and learners who accommodate creative

practitioners within their classrooms. Different ‘modes of belonging’ (Wenger, 1998),

levels of participation, and processes of identity formation define the inherently

social, dynamic, and interdependent nature of learning from and with others. It is

suggested that artists working in school through CP initiatives such as oral storytelling

transpose arts-based expertise into the educational milieu of the classroom. In doing

so, artists attempt to introduce transformative and often subversive discourses of

teaching and learning into the educational context encouraging teachers to adopt new

pedagogic identities through participation in the artistic ways of knowing and doing in

school.

The genetic law of development and semiotic mediation are central to understanding

oral storytelling in terms of its socially situated nature and the way that the semiotic

54
tool of language is used to impart cultural artifacts based in story and myth. In

addition, oral storytelling as an arts intervention delivered through the CP

organization can be understood in relation to Situated Learning Theory where

communities merge and they are bound together over time through the common goal

of learning how to orally tell a story. Socio-cultural Theories of Learning therefore

provide the overarching theoretical perspective for the study in terms of the

elucidation of the nature of learning and development, and the way oral storytelling in

the classroom and participatory arts-based practice through CP in school fits into such

a philosophical position in terms of its collaborative and language-based nature.

2.1.2 Critical Theory: Literacy as hegemony

Another important theoretical strand relates to the hegemonic practices that artists

generally, and oral storytelling specifically, attempt to subvert. Critical Theory is

useful in elucidating the social function of dominant discourses in society, which are

conceptualized within this study as the hegemony of literacy (Chege, 2009).

Subversive discourses of learning align with philosophical positions that emphasise

Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 1970) through engagement with practice that challenges

traditional methods of classroom instruction and subject selection.

Literacy as a high status subject has historically occupied a large amount of space

within the primary curriculum along with other similarly high status subjects such as

mathematics. It is suggested that S&L as ‘non-core’ aspects of language learning are

tacitly subordinated to ‘core’ aspects of literacy, specifically practice in reading and

writing. This subordination results in a schism of status within the curriculum for

English that is both difficult to reconcile and difficult to recognize as the perpetuation

55
of consented hegemonic ideals. Such difficulties are all the more salient when S&L is

explicitly positioned as being of ‘value’ within the curriculum. Additionally, the

relatively low position of the arts in comparison to more highly valued academic

subjects (Paechter, 2000, 2003) reflects the type of knowledge that is ‘desirable’

within school and wider society more generally. It is useful to invoke Gramsican

notions of Hegemony (1971, 1988) in elucidating how power relations within the

curriculum eclipse other aspects of learning and constitute “the hegemonic nature of

literacy” (Chege, 2009; p.228). This results in “an emphasis on written as opposed to

oral presentation” (Young, 1971; p.38) and a corresponding devaluation of S&L

skills.

As pointed out by Crotty (2003), “applying Freire’s approach… requires that we first

identify the forms – often very subtle forms – that oppression takes in a society like

ours” (p.156). Within this study the subtle form of oppression is conceptualized as the

hegemony of literacy. The impact of this prioritization of literacy is particularly

salient for children from backgrounds of disadvantage who frequently and observably

struggle with literacy learning, often as a direct consequence of spoken language

deficits (Tunmer et al, 2006; Snow & Powell, 2008). Ultimately such concerns are

connected to even wider arguments about social justice, equality and the democratic

nature of schooling (Fielding, 2007), which cumulatively constitute the philosophical

backdrop to the study. Such critical approaches to education are connected to Social

Constructivism through the idea that this privileging of literacy undermines the

semiotic tools of speech and languages that Vygotsky (1962, 1978) views as central to

learning and development. Similarly, hegemonic literacy-based practice that forces

56
each learner into the same literacy-shaped mould undermines Vygotsky’s (1926)

conception of individualized education that guides, rather than dictates, learning.

2.2 Oral storytelling as sociocultural learning

Oral storytelling in the classroom is closely aligned with pedagogic methods that

uphold sociocultural theories of learning and development. On a fundamental level

the storytelling process allows children to learn a variety of concepts and skills and

“provides a meaningful purpose for oral expression” (Peck, 1989; p.140), and this

connects to the authentic learning opportunities that the Vygotskian school of thought

propounds.

The literature base on oral storytelling is by no means vast. Indeed, Collins (1999) has

described the research examining “the contribution of hearing and retelling traditional

tales to children's learning in general” as “almost non-existent” (p.82). There is

considerably more literature that is theoretical or anecdotal in nature or of the type

that offers practical guidance to teachers on the use of storytelling in the classroom

(Gallets, 2005). When rigorous research does appear it is under-utilized within the

wider educational research literature, and such studies are therefore difficult to source.

As noted by Gallets (2005):

“It is interesting that many of the benefits ascribed to storytelling are as

difficult to document as they are important to children’s development….Those who

value educational research are doubtful of storytelling because its effects have not

been rigorously documented.”

(p.15-16).

57
Despite this dearth of information the research base that does exist is varied and

complex, focusing at different points on the social, cultural, cognitive and language-

based effects of oral storytelling as a pedagogic tool. Frequently these effects are

mixed up within the literature in a manner that makes it difficult to ascertain the

specific ways in which oral storytelling produces such effects. Multifarious claims

made in the name of oral storytelling results in it being particularly difficult to

separate out and explain exactly how it operates in individual domains. This induces

the perception that it is an effective pedagogic tool but for reasons that are less than

easy to articulate.

Additionally, oral storytelling effects are not always separated from story reading

effects. Differences between the two forms are frequently not made explicit within the

literature, confusing the situation with regard to oral storytelling even further. That

said, much of the research focusing on story reading can equally be applied to oral

storytelling as fundamentally both formats harness narrative and story structure

though employing different modes of production. A comprehensive review by Haven

(2007) on multiple aspects of story, incorporating written, read and oral forms of

narrative, found positive effects in relation to eight themes, namely: “comprehension;

logical thinking and general (cross-curriculum) learning; creating meaning from

narrative; motivation to learn (and pay attention); building a sense of community and

involvement; literacy and language mastery; writing; and memory” (p. 89-90). This

broad-spectrum academic benefit has been similarly documented by Coles (1989),

who compiled eighteen years of data on the effects of teaching through literature,

finding that “stories enhanced and accelerated virtually every measurable aspect of

learning.” (cited in Haven, 2007; p.99).

58
Clearly stories whether told, read or written can have profound and beneficial effects

upon learning, but it is important to differentiate between these effects. The next

section will focus upon the existing research into oral storytelling, and the broad

domains within which it can be seen to have beneficial impacts upon learning.

2.2.1 Social and emotional effects of oral storytelling

Vygotsky considered the social sphere as both the place where, and the means by

which, learning occurs on the most fundamental of levels. Oral storytelling by its very

nature is social, and on a purely practical level it requires an audience to enable a co-

construction of meaning between teller and told. Whilst this may seem an obvious

point, it can be easily overlooked when attempting to qualify effects and benefits.

Connected to the social sphere are the emotional responses of individuals that arise

primarily in response to and in association with others in our immediate social milieu.

The social world and the emotional development of children are profoundly

interdependent, and therefore the social and emotional effects of oral storytelling will

be considered together.

An important part of the way that oral storytelling produces its effects is connected to

the inherently inter-relational character of oral storytelling. In this conceptualization

the audience listening to an orally told story can be understood as the second half of

an equation in which the “interaction between teller and listener is immediate,

personal, active and direct” (Alex, 1988; p.1). In direct contrast to story reading it has

been suggested that this personal quality is a result of the increased use of eye contact

and a de-focus on story book illustrations, making the whole experience more

59
interactive and personal (Malo & Bullard, 2000). Studies have demonstrated that in

story reading participation generally involves discussion of the book’s illustrations

(Ellis, 1997; Aina, 1999) while in story-telling there is a greater use of audience

participation with children being “encouraged to join in repetitive phrases…or suggest

variations in certain free-story elements” (Isbell et al, 2004; p.158). Such story-telling

practice has been described by Roney (1996) as a co-creative, bi-directional form of

communication.

An increase in participation can be related to engagement, and it has been observed

that both children and storyteller interact and enjoy the experience more during oral

storytelling than when reading stories from a book. In a study that directly compares

the effects of story reading and storytelling, Myers (1990) found that the children

showed a preference for orally told stories over stories read out loud and attended

more to storytelling over story reading. Myers (1990) used four different stories over

a period of four weeks that were either read or told to two groups of children in an

alternating pattern so that each group heard the stories both read and told at different

points. The storytelling/reading sessions were videotaped so that both verbal and non-

verbal behaviours – “facial expressions, body movements, comments and questions”

(Myers, 1990; p.826) could be analysed. Myers (1990) found that the children

attended to the stories that were told significantly more as evidenced by a lack of un-

concentrated non-verbal behaviours including fidgeting, yawning, sighing, looking

away, looking at a magazine, and scooting around on the floor. In contrast, children

were observed to exhibit such un-concentrated behaviours significantly more during

story reading sessions. When children did make non-verbal responses in the

storytelling condition, they tended to be directly related to the narrative, with children

60
“imitating the storyteller’s gestures and acting out parts of the story” (p.829). In

addition, Myers (1990) reported that “the data suggested a collaboration between

storyteller and listener that didn’t manifest itself as readily between story reader and

listener” (Myers, 1990; p.828). Children responded significantly more – asking

questions, making comments etc. - in storytelling sessions than story reading sessions.

In addition, the storyteller was able to ask considerably more questions to the children

(on average 30 questions during a told story and 2 per story read) in order to clarify

meanings. This was particularly in relation to the younger children who showed “by

the expression on their faces, and a ‘kind of leaning back’ movement in their bodies”

(Myers, 1990; p.826) that they were not quite understanding the gist of a story.

The social aspects of oral storytelling are further highlighted by Palmer et al (2000)

who suggest that “ordinary events can become special and exciting through the

creative use of language” (p.99). This links into issues of intrinsic motivation whereby

the stories and social narratives that we tell and are drawn to on a daily basis are

appropriated into new and exciting forms. In this way oral storytelling provides a

conceptual and physical space where telling stories becomes performative and

creative, making “the act of telling stories more meaningful and exciting by providing

an audience” (Palmer et al., 2001; p.99).

In two studies examining the impact of oral storytelling on students self-concept

Mello (2001a, 2001b) found that storytelling exposed children to “long-standing

archetypal models” (Mello, 2001b) that engaged the imagination, stimulated

sympathetic responses, and helped children to process their social experiences at

school. Mello (2001a, 2001b) proposes that “taken as a whole, these studies suggest

61
that the activity of storytelling has an impact on participant’s interpersonal

relationships, empathy, and sense of ‘connectedness’ in the classroom” (2001b; p.1).

This corresponds with research by Fox (1989) that focuses less on collaborative

aspects of oral storytelling, and more on intra-psychological processes (Vygotsky,

1978), connecting oral storytelling to opportunities for detached reflection and

identification with character and content that “push[es] children towards new

relationships and decentred viewpoints” (Fox, 1989; p.33). Fox (1989) suggests that

storytelling promotes engagement with emotional themes that relate to fundamental

aspects of understanding and socio-emotional development:

“In their storytelling the children's most complex utterances arise from an

affective base; the themes of their stories are powerful ones — fear and ambition, love

and hate, birth and death.”

(p.32)

Another study examining intra- and inter-psychological factors in relation to oral

storytelling and socio-dramatic play was conducted by Nicolopoulou et al (2009).

Focusing on a storytelling/story acting classroom intervention originally developed by

Vivian Paley (1990) children dictated and then acted out their original stories with

other children in their class. The results of the study highlighted the transformative

power of play in the storytelling context, with noticeably difficult children who

“manifested emotional or behavioural issues” showing “an especially intense and

persistent interest” (Nicolopoulou et al, 2009; p.49). Such children were seen to

derive notable benefits from the intervention including markedly less anxiety and

unhappiness, and an increased capacity for self-regulation and pro-social behaviours.

62
The authors conclude that such effects result from the requirement for children to

develop various forms of socio-emotional competence in order to participate in the

storytelling/story acting activity.

Research that has examined the effects of oral storytelling on children’s self-

confidence and self-esteem is notoriously difficult to source due to difficulties in

measuring such subjective outcomes. However, numerous anecdotal references in the

literature suggest that oral storytelling may impact upon children’s self-esteem and

perceived confidence levels. In a study examining storytelling as a constructivist

model for developing language and literacy Palmer et al (2001) “observed a diverse

population of children working with a local professional storyteller during

summertime programs at two different community parks” (p.202). Some of the

general effects that the authors reported were apparent increases in self-esteem that

were perceived to result from processes of social engagement and performance,

although as already suggested the degree to which self-esteem and self-confidence are

directly observable is questionable:

“The children seemed to benefit greatly from the peer process; specifically, we

observed elevated self-esteem as many of these youngsters performed successfully for

the first time before their peers. Concomitantly, these students continued to exhibit

self-confidence and personal motivation throughout the remainder of the program.”

(Palmer et al., 2001; p.210)

Other social effects of oral storytelling relate to more culturally defined aspects of

learning. Within the research literature oral storytelling has been identified as

63
enabling the development of cultural literacy by introducing students to “the

traditions, beliefs and history of folktales" (Palmer, Hafner & Sharp, 1994; p.56); as

encouraging “respect for cultural and linguistic differences” (Palmer et al., 2000;

p.101); and building a bridge between community and school through teaching

children the ways in which language is used within the family and the wider

community (Bloome et al., 2000). Such effects have been illustrated in a project by

Madros (2010) designed to promote the instructional use of indigenous Athabaskan

oral stories in small schools in Alaska. Traditional stories were told by community

Elders, and then transposed by the children into transitional readers for younger

children. Madros (2010) noted that some of the major effects of the project were

related to the culturally responsive instruction that enabled students to “identify

cultural norms and standards and…explore their own lives through the lens of these

stories” (p.57). Madros (2010) reported that the intervention helped the students to

“increase their knowledge of themselves and others”, develop “special relationships”

with the Athabaskan Elders, and become “more eager to learn their own language,

and participate in their own cultural songs and dances” (p.57). Such cultural

engagement has been noted to have positive effects upon children’s self-esteem, with

Haberman and Post (1998) suggesting that “a high level of self-esteem derived from

knowing one’s roots” (p. 98) is an important aspect of cultural self-knowledge and

self-acceptance.

2.2.2 Language based effects of oral storytelling

The bulk of the research on storytelling originates from the domain of language and

literacy, and the effects that oral storytelling has on children’s ability and desire to

engage with spoken and written language forms. Again, Vygotskian thought

64
underpins this domain with the semiotic tools of speech and language being the

vehicles by which oral storytelling operates. In the research literature oral storytelling

has been observed to have positive effects on all forms of language development.

However, it has been argued by Brigman et al., (1999) that “the competencies that

contribute to communicative competence such as being able to listen, attend and

follow directions…along with crucial social skills…are essential for school success”

(Wilde & Sage, 2007; pp.679-680). The research literature has identified vocabulary

acquisition and language complexity as an area in which oral storytelling has a

positive impact upon communicative competence (Morrow, 1985b; Trostle & Hicks,

1998). As observed by Terry & Fisher (1990), oral storytelling “is one of the few

kinds of talk in the classroom that offers rich, complex, vivid language, which

develops students’ language in complexity and in vocabulary" (p. 264).

Research that straddles spoken language and more literacy-based effects in relation to

storytelling includes studies that explicitly examine the effect of storytelling and story

reading on comprehension and narrative understanding. Isbell et al., (2004) examined

the differential impact of story delivery upon the language development and

comprehension of children from the ages of three to five. Within the study the same

stories were heard by all children, the only difference being whether they were read or

told. After the children had heard each story they were asked to retell it. Both

treatments showed positive benefits with the story reading group demonstrating

greater language complexity, and the storytelling group demonstrating better

comprehension of the story. A similar study conducted by Morrow (1985b) examined

the effects of retelling more closely. Children were read a story and then had to either

retell it, or draw an illustrative picture before being asked structural and inferential

65
questions. Morrow (1985b) found that retelling enhanced comprehension during the

first round of the study. In a further treatment involving extended practice and

guidance in story retelling there was a significantly larger effect. Similar results have

been found by Trostle and Hicks (1998), and cumulatively such findings demonstrate

that oral storytelling has positive effects upon the comprehension of stories and the

perception of story structure. Such effects impact upon literacy-based practice,

including reading for meaning:

“The folktales which storytellers traditionally use embody the elements of

story structure that listeners rely upon for understanding and meaning. Stories that

are good telling stories offer the framework shown to be a significant factor in

reading comprehension.”

(Peck, 1989; p.140)

Pappas & Pettigrew (1991) undertook research into the benefits of oral storytelling in

relation to the development of communicative competence and early literacy

development. They describe “ways in which oral retellings, as oral compositions, can

serve as holistic literacy experiences for young children in the transition from oracy to

literacy” and that children “employ various wordings in story retellings” (Pappas &

Pettigrew, 1991; p.419). Such linguistic choices “provide a means to understand and

assess their developing communicative competence” (p.419). Pappas & Pettigrew

(1991) observed children retelling a story to ‘naïve listeners’ (i.e. teachers and

children who didn’t already know the story) in what they describe as “an authentic

communicative event” (p.431). They suggest that oral stories told in this manner

represent “the production of an oral monologue” (Pappas & Pettigrew, 1991; p.422).

66
Unlike conversation that is jointly constructed by participants monologues require the

speaker to achieve two principle aims: firstly they must sustain a continuous utterance

without external help from the listener; and secondly the child “must be considerate of

his/her listener in the same way the writer must be considerate of unknown, non-

present readers…[providing] enough information to enable the listener to understand”

(Pappas & Pettigrew, 1991; p.422). They therefore suggest that such practice serves

as “early literacy opportunities for young children to construct texts like writers”

(pp.419-420). This is due to the idea that oral storytelling, unlike dialogue, represents

a form of dis-embedded language whereby the speaker must convey meaning as

unambiguously as possible. In this way storytelling can be conceptualised as a

language event that mimics writing whereby the author “must make information

available in the linguistic content or message itself” (p.420), rather than relying on the

situated cues of spoken dialogue.

The research examining the utility of oral storytelling in relation to literacy, and

factors that support literacy acquisition, has generally found strong links between

orally telling stories and learning to read and write (Morrow, 1985a/1985b; Strickland

& Morrow, 1989; Pappas & Pettigrew, 1991; Trostle & Hicks, 1998; Palmer et al,

2000; Isbell et al, 2004). Indeed, one study examining a sample of effective family

literacy programs across the United States, found that “the most successful programs

included storytelling as a vital component” (Palmer et al, 2000; p.93). In addition, the

NCTE (1992) has suggested that oral storytelling can act as a classroom playing-field

leveller due to the observation that children “who do not feel as competent as their

peers in reading or writing are often masterful at storytelling” (online).

67
A study investigating the impact of oral storytelling on the literacy abilities of

reluctant writers over a two month period found that such students could be ‘nudged’

into “producing fully-fledged stories” (Campbell & Hlusek, 2009; p.3). The authors

found that modelling storytelling, and then retelling, redrafting and discussing their

stories to enable the students to benefit from feedback had “a huge impact not only on

engaging reluctant writers but also on motivating fluent writers to continue to improve

their writing skills” (Campbell & Hlusek, 2009; p.1). They describe how for certain

children the challenge is “the actual physical act of writing” (p.3) experienced as both

boring and difficult. Additional findings indicated that oral storytelling gave the

children ideas about stories to then tell and write themselves, as well as being an

intrinsically motivating way in which to get children to engage with literacy.

Campbell and Hlusek (2009) conceptualise oral storytelling as “a bridge to story

writing” (p.3) that similarly extends to children’s desire to read. As noted by Peck

(1989):

“Many tellers attest that young children will often ask to read a particular

book after hearing it told; the storytelling has extended an invitation to read.”

(p.139)

2.2.3 Cognitive effects of oral storytelling

While cognitive effects of oral storytelling are perhaps less immediately obvious than

the social and language-based effects they are no less beneficial to children’s learning

and development, with effects upon memory, attention and imagination being

important elements of children’s success in school. Echoing research by Myers (1990)

and Isbell (2004), Gallets (2005) compared storytelling and story reading and found

68
that the children in the storytelling group tended to recall significantly more of what

they heard. Gallets (2005) suggests that the reason for this might reflect that the

imaginative capacity to mentally create images of the story, which is a greater

requirement in oral storytelling than in story reading where children are able to refer

to the story book illustrations that are so prevalent in children’s literature.

Another aspect of cognitive ability that is connected to memory and recall is the

impact of oral storytelling upon the attention levels of children. While this is a

behavioural aspect that to a large extent relates to issues of participation and

engagement it also hinges upon the cognitive ability to listen and attend over a period

of time. As reported by Kuyvenhoven (2007) in her ethnographic examination of

children’s experiences listening to orally told stories, the children “insisted that

listening to a story was a different way of listening and they felt different during a

storytelling” (p.111). This qualitative difference has been reported by Gallets’s (2005)

examination of storytelling and story reading where he suggests that the improved

recall in the storytelling group could have been due to the students being “more

attentive to the stories they heard than the students in the reading group” (p.33). Such

empirical evidence is reinforced by Myers (1990), discussed above, whose study

observed considerably fewer un-concentrated non-verbal behaviours in children who

listened to stories that were told as compared to children who heard stories read from

a book.

An interesting study by O’Neill et al. (2004) examined connections between

children’s narrative ability, and their performance on other measures of educational

achievement. The authors attempted to ascertain whether “children’s self-generated

69
picture-book narratives and their performance on a general measure of language

development” (O’Neill et al., 2004; p.149) was predictive of future academic

achievement in areas of general knowledge, reading recognition and comprehension,

maths and spelling. They found that there existed:

“…a relation between early preschool narrative abilities – in particular…the

ability to relate the main events of the story through use of conjunctions, to convey the

main events of the story, to shift between the actions and perspectives of characters,

and to talk about the mental states of characters in the story – and later mathematical

achievement”

(O’Neill et al., 2004: p.177)

Comprehensive findings from decades of research into memory, “from Bartlett in the

1930’s, to the structuralists and cognitive psychologists of the 1960’s, 1970’s and

1980’s”, has demonstrated that “memory reorders our experience as stories” (Fox,

2003; p.189). Anecdotally, and in a manner that appeals to a common sense

understanding of the way human memory works, it can be argued that the most

memorable occasions are those that invoke, and are associated with the strongest

emotions. This claim has been reinforced by Duncan & Barrett (2007) who position

affect as a form of cognition, suggesting that “affect appears to be necessary for

normal conscious experience, language fluency, and memory” (p.1184) In addition,

research by Liwag & Stein (1995) into children’s memory of emotional events has

found that emotional cues “generated the most detailed, goal-directed, and causally

structured accounts, and also [children] recalled more additional experiences

associated with each emotion episode” (p.2).

70
In addition to the association between emotion and recall, researchers have connected

the imaginative formation of mental images to the development of empathy.

Degenhardt and McKay (1988) suggest that the imagination involves a rational

process that can be “as informed as any other” (p.242) due to the fact that mental

images can be changed in ways that simple perceptions cannot. In this way

Degenhardt & Mckay (1988) suggest that the imagination can serve as an empathic

tool that passes “beyond the observable evidence for people's thoughts to get at the

thoughts themselves…” (p.244). This interplay between socio-emotional processes

and cognition arcs back to the theoretical basis of the study, with Vygotskian

conceptions of the higher mental functions on the intra-psychological plane including

attention, memory and the formation of concepts originating as “actual relationships

between people” (Vygotsky, 1978; p.57).

2.3 Literacy acquisition in primary education

The focus of this section of the literature review is on the current educational climate

in relation to literacy acquisition and primary education with an additional focus on

the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) as governmental policy that formalizes

learning goals within the early years setting. Debates about the early starting age to

formal education, and best practice in relation to developmentally appropriate

education, are considered as a foreground to literacy, S&L skills and oral storytelling

that cumulatively represent the principle foci of this thesis. There is an emphasis

within this section on the recent Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010) as it is

considered that it represents the most comprehensive compilation of evidence on the

pedagogic context within primary education since the Plowden Report of 1967. The

71
rest of the section will focus on the NLS in Key Stages 1&2, in particular how the

NLS is structured in relation to literacy and S&L objectives, the relative weighting of

each, the role of assessment, and the extent to which S&L skills in general have a

platform, robust or otherwise, within the Primary Framework of the NC.

My rationale for looking at the EYFS is that I am interested in the beginnings of

literacy acquisition, as I see this as being the foundation from which future

engagement with reading, writing, and S&L specifically, and learning within school

more generally, is either fostered or disaffected within children. There is the potential

for children’s trajectory within and beyond school to be set at this most formative of

stages, and therefore it is important to examine the context within which literacy

acquisition is experienced by young learners.

2.3.1 Research into literacy acquisition: Too much, too young?

It seems that literacy has become the gold standard to be achieved at all costs, as early

as possible, to give our children the best start in education and life. Within the UK

school entry age is defined as the year in which the child turns five, and formal

subject-based learning commences almost immediately upon entry into reception.

This means that for some children formal teaching in literacy often begins as early as

four years of age. Criticism of this explicit and early focus on literacy comes from a

number of different quarters including the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander,

2010) which suggests that within the English education system the relatively high

attainment in pupils’ reading comes at “the expense of their enjoyment” (p.170). This

claim is reinforced by 2001 PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study)

survey data that has found that England had the highest proportion of children

72
expressing “clearly negative views about reading” (Alexander, 2010; p.170). This

suggests that the formal start to schooling and the early introduction to literacy “may

be dangerously counter-productive” (Alexander, 2010; p.172).

Early years and primary education in the UK used to be recognized and admired

throughout the world as a result of its emphasis on experience and play (Kelly, 1994).

However, since the introduction of a highly prescriptive NC (1988) and NLS (1998)

the UK education system has come to be regarded as a somewhat regimented,

formalized and developmentally inappropriate system of primary education (Fisher,

2000). This is particularly the case when considering more educationally progressive

countries such as Denmark and Finland where formal literacy instruction does not

even begin until children have reached 7 years of age.

The debate surrounding the best age at which children should start to be taught the

skills of reading and writing is an emotionally charged and contentious one. Some are

of the view that many children flourish and thrive with early exposure to the alphabet,

and others decry the negative impact that too early a start can have on some children’s

ability and motivation in picking up the tools of literacy. The debate is strongly tied to

beliefs about how children learn, and while research in this area serves to illuminate

our understanding of the complexities of learning it by no means settles any disputes:

research that has revealed emerging literacy skills in very young children (Strickland

and Morrow, 1989; Cunningham & Carroll, 2011) challenges the views of those who

consider that young children are not sufficiently mature to learn the complexities of

reading and writing (Fisher, 2000; McInnes, 2002; Alexander, 2010).

73
A diverse range of detrimental effects in relation to early formal instruction has been

observed in both the USA and UK including alienation, disaffection and burn-out

(Barrett, 1989; David et al., 1992); poor results from children who start formal

education close to their fourth birthday as compared to children of the same age who

have been at school for less time (Sharp, 1995); and very large achievement gaps

between boys and girls in countries where children begin formal instruction at the age

of five (Purves and Elley, 1994). In relation to literacy more specifically, it has been

argued by Juel et al. (2003) that young children do not have sufficiently well-

developed vocabularies to justify an explicit focus upon phonics-based literacy

instruction without equal attention being given to comprehension and word meanings.

Many schools tend to focus upon decoding skills when teaching children to read as a

result of educational research that “has found that these skills have powerful

instructional effects on developing word recognition skills” (Juel et al., 2003; p.14).

While the ability to decode is an important skill for reading success it is not sufficient

for children to be able to read for meaning: there is little point in being able to spell a

word if a child has no idea what it may mean.

Research that directly contradicts this has been conducted by Cunningham & Carroll

(2011) who compared the early literacy development of Steiner and mainstream

educated children over the first two years of formal reading instruction. Importantly,

due to the later starting age at Steiner school the Steiner educated children were a full

2 years older that the mainstream educated children. The study hypothesised that the

Steiner children would make better reading progress, however, the findings did not

support this. Instead “the younger children showed similar, and in some cases, better

progress in literacy than the older children” leading the authors to conclude that

74
“concerns that four and five year olds are ‘too young’ to begin formal reading

instruction may be unfounded” (Cunningham & Carroll, 2011; p.475).

More recent longitudinal research by Suggate et al. (2013) examined the differential

reading achievement of children learning to read earlier or later. Suggate et al. (2013)

found that children who had commenced literacy instruction at the age of seven

caught up to children who had started learning to read at age five by the time they had

reached ten years of age. In addition, they found that later starters had no long-term

disadvantages in decoding and reading fluency and “generally greater reading

comprehension” (Suggate et al., 2013; p.1) than children commencing literacy

acquisition earlier. In support of these results two international studies on the long-

term effects of differences in reading instruction age have found that children learning

to read earlier and later achieve similarly over the long-term (Elley, 1992; Suggate,

2009). Such research recognises that while preschool and kindergarten children are

not too young to learn to read it asks the alternative question of whether there is a

long-term advantage in learning to read earlier. They conclude that there isn’t,

invoking the concept of ‘equifinality’ (Gottleib, 2003) that suggests that there are

often many different developmental pathways to the same outcome. The persistent

finding that earlier advantages in reading do not seem to hold up (Chall, 1976)

supports hypotheses that assert that phonemic awareness can be acquired implicitly

through engagement with language more generally (Walley et al., 2003).

Research has also suggested that there are behavioural consequences for children who

repeatedly experience difficulties in learning to read. Such children can come to feel

incompetent and this may result in externalizing behavior (Bandura, 1999).

75
Longitudinal research by Miles & Stipek (2006) examining literacy achievement and

the development of aggressive behaviours in low-income school children found that

“poor literacy achievement in the first grade” predicted “the subsequent development

of aggressive behaviour” (Miles & Stipek, 2006; p.115). In support of this a previous

study by Adams et al. (1999) found that behavioural problems in children were more

strongly associated with reading achievement than other subject areas including

mathematics. Miles & Stipek (2006) suggest that such findings may be strongly

related to wholesale expectations in relation to academic achievement and “public

pressure to perform” (p.115). This is particularly in relation to literacy to which is

attached a large degree of stigma if children observably struggle to read and write.

The authors go on to emphasise the interdependence between social and academic

domains, and the importance of developmentally appropriate education and learning

that attends to the whole child rather than focusing exclusively on discrete skills.

2.3.2 The Early Years Foundation Stage: Preparation for school

The trend towards early formal instruction within school has its roots in even earlier

practice within the nursery with children as young as 3 years of age being routinely

exposed to the alphabet. This tendency has been formalized in recent years by

governmental legislation (Section 39; Childcare Act, 2006) that outlines the EYFS

(DCSF, 2008) as a set of welfare, learning and development requirements which must

be followed by all providers of care with the aim of raising quality of early years

provision across all settings.

The revised EYFS (DfE, 2012d) that has been implemented by the latest

Conservative-Liberal Coalition takes forward the previous Labour Government’s

76
Statutory Framework (2008), building on its strengths and “retaining what works”

(Tickell, 2011; p.9) as recommended by the Tickell Review (2011) that informed its

revision. The learning goals of the EYFS are intended to cumulatively “summarise the

knowledge, skills and understanding that all young children should have gained by the

end of the Reception year” (DfE, 2012d; p.4). Contained within the early learning

goals are 7 interconnected domains of learning that the statutory guidance insists

“must shape educational programmes in early year’s settings” (DfE, 2012d; p.4):

three ‘prime’ areas and four ‘specific’ areas, which are designed to build on the prime

areas of learning.

The revised EYFS (DfE, 2012d) has seemingly retained some of the key strengths of

the original EYFS (DCSF, 2008), that highlighted the importance of play-based

learning and “the concept of the unique child” (p.9). However, within the most recent

reworking of the Statutory Framework much of the language upholds an explicit focus

upon teaching and learning that is designed to “ensure children’s ‘school readiness’”

(DfE, 2012d; p.2). This focus has the potential to undermine the principles of

developmentally appropriate practice that the EYFS (DfE, 2012d) claims to propound.

In addition to this explicit focus, more implicit elements have the potential to result in

less time and attention being spent upon more developmentally suitable activities in

the early years than may be desirable. A closer examination of the three prime areas

and the four specific areas of learning is necessary to elucidate these inferred aspects

of the EYFS (DfE, 2012d).

The three prime areas of learning include communication and language; physical

development; and personal, social and emotional development. The four specific areas

77
“through which the three prime areas are strengthened and applied” (DfE, 2012d; p.5)

are: literacy; mathematics; understanding the world; and expressive arts and design.

The EYFS presents communication and language as a prime area of learning that

gives “children opportunities to experience a rich language environment; to develop

their confidence and skills in expressing themselves; and to speak and listen in a range

of situations” (p.6). Within this prime area, three core skills are positioned as being of

central importance: listening and attention; understanding; and speaking. Clearly, the

revised framework has seemingly put speaking, listening and comprehension at the

fulcrum of early years teaching and learning.

However, this focus on oral language is implicitly undermined by the subsequent

focus on literacy as a specific area of learning. This is reinforced by the pedagogic

approach of the EYFS that has an explicit emphasis upon phonics-based decoding

skills that appears almost immediately in both the reading and writing portions of the

statutory guidance on literacy. The specific areas are positioned as building upon the

prime areas of learning. However, it makes little sense to prescribe skills-based

phonics instruction as part of the specific area of literacy as a way to ‘strengthen and

apply’ more holistically oriented S&L skills within the larger prime area of language

and communication. An explicit focus on learning decoding skills cannot be

accurately described as a “rich language environment” that develops children’s

“confidence and skills in expressing themselves” in “a range of situations” (DfE,

2012d; p.6). Such descriptors resonate with a whole language approach that highlights

the need for interdependent and plural literacy practices. The expectation that children

obtain a degree of mastery in phonics within the EYFS is clearly antithetical to such

rhetoric.

78
The specific expectations of the EYFS are that children should be able to read, write

and understand simple sentences by the end of the reception year, and their decoding

abilities should extend beyond simple CVC words encompassing both the reading and

writing of “some common irregular words” (p.8). The EYFS insists that each area of

learning “must be implemented through planned, purposeful play and through a mix

of adult-led and child-initiated activity” (p.7). However, the framework also suggests

that this balance is at the discretion of practitioners in relation to on-going judgements

about “each child’s emerging needs” (p.7). Despite this emphasis upon child-centred

and play-based learning a more realistic synopsis envisions large amounts of adult-led

activity focusing on phonics work in a whole class teaching environment as the most

likely outcome of a Statutory Framework that puts a premium on phonics knowledge

and early literacy skills. It is likely that early childcare providers will find it

increasingly difficult to implement such contradictory aims, and may experience a

significant amount of pressure in attempting to combine developmentally-appropriate

practice that recognizes the overarching EYFS principle that “children develop and

learn in different ways and at different rates” (DfE, 2012d; p.3) with the literacy-

based element of the early learning goals.

It is clear that the Tickell Review (2011) that informed and shaped the EYFS (DfE,

2012d), received “strong feedback that the underlying philosophy, and many of the

key elements of the EYFS, should be retained” (p.9), most prominently play-based

and child-centred learning. However, it would seem that within the structure of the

EYFS, developmentally appropriate practice in relation to literacy instruction has

been eschewed in favour of phonics-based learning that produces quick results. This

is reinforced by the worrying observation that much of the language within the

79
original EYFS framework (DCSF, 2008) underscoring the importance of

developmentally appropriate practice has been dropped from the most recent version

of the Statutory Framework. Warnings that practitioners “must be sensitive to the

individual development of each child, to ensure that the activities they undertake are

suitable for the stage that they have reached” and that “children need to be stretched,

but not pushed beyond their capabilities” (DCSF, 2008; p.9), do not appear in any

form in the revised version of the EYFS.

2.3.3 The National Curriculum: Key Stages 1 & 2

The tendency within the EYFS (DfE, 2012d) to emphasise literacy instruction and

phonics-based decoding skills over engagement with language that is more holistic in

nature is no less evident in the NC’s Key Stages (DfE, 2012a/b) that follow on from

it. This is in spite of recommendations made by the expert panel commissioned to

review the draft proposals of the NC as they took shape. In their summary of the

importance of oral language, the panel state that “there is a compelling body of

evidence that highlights a connection between oral development, cognitive

development and educational attainment”, and as a result they “are strongly of the

view that the development of oral language should be a strong feature of any new

National Curriculum” (James, Oates, Pollard & Wiliam, 2011; p.52). The expert panel

go on to suggest a number of possible ways of making such provision including the

retention of discrete S&L strands within literacy-based modules, and also the use of

overarching curriculum statements about the importance of oral language. Most

radically the panel suggests that oral language provision could be strengthened within

the curriculum “by identifying communication and language as a new subject within

the Basic Curriculum” (p.53). However, instead of aligning the curriculum in English

80
with these recommendations, S&L is undermined and devalued implicitly through the

overly heavy emphasis that is given to literacy instruction and explicitly through the

complete lack of an individual Programme of Study (PoS) for oral language skills.

While the recommendation to retain discrete S&L strands within literacy has been

adhered to, this is arguably the softest option. In addition, there is increased potential

for S&L strands to get lost within the statutory requirements and general ‘noise’ of the

individual PoS.

Contrastingly, within the online guidance S&L skills are presented as a whole area of

teaching and learning. As a result the overall picture with regards to the emphasis that

is accorded to oral skills is somewhat confused. The critical difference lies in the very

closely prescribed nature of the NC that provides finely detailed year-on-year PoS’s in

reading, writing, comprehension, composition, spelling and grammar. In contrast, the

online guidance serves to give teachers a web-based resource that helps to guide their

teaching within the major Key Stages more generally. It is this discrepancy that

silently speaks volumes about the policy-based agenda in relation to the balance of

S&L in the NC. Oral language is described in the NC in terms of its importance “in

pupils’ development – linguistic, cognitive and social – across the whole curriculum”

(DfE, 2012a; p.3). However, this would seem to be more an exercise in political ‘lip

service’ to the expert panel’s recommendations than any real conviction about the

value of S&L as a subject area in its own right. To these ends it is salient that the

rhetoric that is used to describe S&L within the online guidance gives prominence to

the integration of oral language within literacy instruction:

81
 “Teaching should ensure that work in 'speaking and listening', 'reading' and

'writing' is integrated In English, during Key Stage 1 pupils learn to speak confidently

and listen to what others have to say. They begin to read and write independently and

with enthusiasm …”

(DfE, 2012b; online)

This call for integration would seem to represent the recommendation made by the

expert panel for the inclusion of overarching statements about the importance of S&L

in the curriculum. However, it can also be understood as an explicit linking of spoken

language to literacy-based outcomes. Within the NC this kind of linking of oral

language to literacy can be observed in such statements as:

“…the quality and variety of language that pupils hear and speak are key

factors in developing their vocabulary, grammar and understanding for reading and

writing.”

(DfE, 2012a; p.3: my emphasis)

This linking of S&L to literacy-based outcomes is more than just the integration of

oral and print-based forms of language. Rather it is the privileging of one form over

another, and represents the devaluation of S&L skills to a level where they become a

mere vehicle for literacy acquisition.

In an online opinion piece written after his withdrawal from the expert panel, Pollard

states that the NC is “fatally flawed without parallel consideration of the needs of

learners”. In addition, Pollard suggests that the overly prescriptive nature of the

82
specifications will have “constraining effects on the primary curriculum as a

whole…and the preservation of breadth, balance and quality of experience…”

(Pollard, 2012; online). S&L skills that are mainly referred to very generally as

‘overarching statements’, or inserted into the curriculum as discrete strands within the

literacy-focused PoS’s, are more likely to become side-lined. In addition learner needs

will have to fall into line with the instruction of discrete skills in decoding, grammar

and written composition, risking disaffection and feelings of incompetence in children

who struggle with learning to read and write.

2.3.4 Assessment for accountability

The role of assessment in producing a curriculum that is skewed towards an emphasis

on reading and writing over spoken language is key to understanding how and why

literacy becomes privileged in school. As noted by Alexander (2010) “primary pupils

are tested more frequently and at an earlier age than in most other countries” (p.497).

Conservative-Liberal Coalition education policy has strengthened this trend. The

current primary NC maintains the sampling heavy methods that have held sway over

the Primary Framework since the inception of the NC (1988). As observed by Andrew

Pollard, the detailed year-on-year specifications of the draft proposals in reading,

writing, composition, spelling and grammar, outlining the technical knowledge each

child is expected to know, are to be “complemented by punitive inspection

arrangements and tough new tests at 11” (Pollard, 2012; online). In addition, the

Conservative-Liberal Coalition has gone significantly further by introducing a new

phonics screening test to be administered to all “children in Year 1 and children in

Year 2 if they did not meet the required standard in Year 1” (DfE, 2012c; p.5). This

83
test has already been criticized for being an overly prescriptive one-size-fits-all

approach. As noted by children’s author Micheal Rosen (2012; online):

“Any anxiety around the complex matter of learning to read will be counter-

productive for many children….when in reality it should be a matter of fun and

pleasure derived from discovery and the meaning of the texts… Ancedotal evidence is

emerging telling us that children who are already reading books are being 'sent back'

to do phonics because it's being deemed that they have to 'catch up' on decoding.”

Various negative effects of high-stakes testing have been cited in the research

literature including the demoralisation of teachers, resistance to assessment

procedures, decreasing autonomy and a distortion of classroom activities (Pollard et

al., 1994; Osborn et al., 2000); a correlation between low self-esteem and low

achievement (Harlen and Deakin Crick, 2002); negative effects on pupils’ identities

and self-definitions as learners (Reay and Wiliams, 1999); and the exclusionary

impact of “assessment narrowed to testing” in the lives of Year 6 children that

“defines…what counts as ability” and “pushes towards a particular type of learning at

the expense of other types” (Hall et al., 2004; p.801). In addition, it has been noted

that the effects of the SAT’s at the end of KS2 tend to impact upon teaching and

learning in the lower years as early years practitioners and primary teachers feel

pressurised to prepare children for tests in later years. It has been suggested by the

Early Years Curriculum Group that “this country has made successive errors in its

education policy by designing a curriculum and assessments for older children which

then press, top-down, upon the experiences of the youngest children” (Alexander,

84
2010; p.163). Such criticisms are directly connected to literacy-based practice that has

a disproportionate amount of testing in primary education.

The effects of ‘SATurated pupildom’ (Hall et al., 2004) in the lives of Year 6 children

has influenced calls from a number of quarters to abandon high-stakes testing in

primary education altogether (Alexander, 2010), or at the very least thoroughly

reform the assessment system that holds sway over the NC in England. Whilst the

Cambridge Primary Review acknowledges the need for summative assessment in

literacy “at the point where pupils move from primary to secondary education”

(Alexander, 2010; p.498), it also emphasises that such assessment needs to be

“administered unobtrusively and with minimum disruption” (p.498). In addition, the

Review suggests that children’s achievements across the whole curriculum need to be

more fully recognised and as such “a broader, more innovative approach to

summative assessment is needed” (p.498). In relation to this Wyse and Torrance

(2009) in their synthesis of research examining the effects of NC assessment since

1988 found that:

“…the current intense focus on testing and test results in the core subjects…is

narrowing the curriculum and driving teaching in exactly the opposite direction to

that which other research indicates will improve teaching, learning and attainment.”

(p.224)

Their recommendations, in line with the Cambridge Primary Review, emphasise the

importance of formative assessment as a beneficial pedagogic and diagnostic tool to

children’s learning. In contrast, it is suggested that summative assessment and testing

85
for selection has a strong tendency to “distort teaching and the curriculum”

(Alexander, 2010; p.497).

2.4 Oral storytelling as a spoken word art-form

Because oral storytelling can be understood as a spoken word art-form, and also

because the CP organization that delivers arts-based education in school is the focus

of this study, a consideration of the arts within education is a necessary addition to the

literature review. Such a consideration requires an examination of the history of the

arts in education to understand the how the arts have been positioned within

educational discourses and represented within the curriculum in recent years as well

as the value of the arts to the education and learning of children.

2.4.1 A brief history of the arts in education

The arts in education have experienced a chequered history that has limited their full

integration into the curriculum since 1870 when education first became a public

entitlement for all children between the ages of 5 and 13. To a large extent the arts

were not even a consideration of education at that time since the focus was on the

basics of reading, writing and arithmetic in response to the perceived need for a semi-

skilled workforce.

The arts struggled to gain a foothold within education well into the first quarter of the

20th century when the first Hadow Report (1923) stressed the “desirability of

developing the aesthetic side of secondary education” (Board of Education, 1923;

p.60). The Hadow Report (1931) on primary education put great emphasis on active

learning, the broadening of interests, and the ‘cooperative experiment’ (Board of

86
Education, 1931; p.xv) over compulsory instruction and rote learning. The principles

of child development from developmental psychology were becoming increasingly

influential, and this had a progressive effect upon the position of the arts in education

which started to be discussed in terms of their history and relative neglect within

education:

“They have not received the attention in schools which is due to them. They

were received as late-comers; when they were taught, they occupied a place outside

the regular curriculum and were taught as 'extras' or spare-time activities.”

(Secondary School Examination Council, 1943; p.122)

However, in practice the practicalities of teaching to the test to get children through

scholarship examinations won out over broader ideas about the purpose of education.

As a result, the implementation of both developmentally oriented practice and arts

education was slow and patchy. Instead, the “basic class teaching approach, with an

emphasis on literacy and numeracy, continued in the new junior schools after the

Second World War” (Galton et al., 1980; p.36).

Aesthetic education during the 50’s saw the discovery of self-expression as a

paradigm that derived from child centered approaches and Rousseauian ideas about

the importance of experience, feeling, engagement, creativity and genuine ownership

within education. However, the self-expression movement was subject to considerable

criticism on the grounds of it “abdicating the role of the teacher, abandoning standards

87
by valuing absolutely anything in the name of creativity and rejecting the importance

of form and technique” (Fleming, 2008; p.24), when taken to extremes.

The 60’s saw the next landmark in the educational landscape in terms of both arts-

based and child-centered education: the Plowden Report (1967) on primary education.

This pivotal report aimed to “build on and strengthen children's intrinsic interest in

learning and lead them to learn for themselves” (Plowden, 1967; p.532), putting the

child “at the heart of the educational process” (p.9) and warning teachers against

assuming “that only what is measurable is valuable” (p.551). However, it received

criticism from certain quarters for the excesses in child-centered progressivism that it

was seen to promote (Peters, 1969). It came at a time of rapid, all-embracing change

within education in the UK, and it has been suggested that some of the educational

problems of later decades had “their roots in this period and the apparent subsequent

reaction from ideas and practices then regarded as positive” (Galton et al, 1980; p.39).

This move towards more informal, child-centered education was facilitated by the

abolition of the 11 plus examination and the introduction of comprehensive secondary

education, which freed primary schools from the constraints of teaching to the test.

Simultaneously, a decrease in the inspectorial capacity of HMI and LEA inspectors,

and the encouragement of innovation in schools at this time allowed for arts education

to have an increased profile in school generally.

The ‘Great Debate’ in education that was launched by James Callaghan’s Ruskin

speech in 1976 paved the way to increased scrutiny of the arts in education as a result

of increasing public interest in, and concerns about, the effectiveness of educational

88
provision generally. In response to “complaints from industry that new recruits from

schools sometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job that is required”

(Callaghan, 1976), a polarization between the fostering of creativity and neglect of the

basics was implicitly set up within the framework of the debate. The Ruskin speech

was instrumental in setting the tone of official writing on education in the period

leading up to the introduction of a centralized NC at the end of the 80’s, and while the

arts were “never directly criticized nor neglected in theory…their significance was

downgraded” (Fleming, 2008; p.27).

The general election of 1979 saw the Conservatives take power with Margaret

Thatcher at the helm, steering her neo-liberal agenda of privatisation, cost reduction

and de-regulation coupled with the formation of new forms of public management.

The result was “a form of governance in which market principles were advanced at

the same time as central authority was strengthened” (Jones 2003; p.107). Powers

were taken away from teachers and LEA’s saw their influence being increasingly

reduced, resulting in teachers and schools being demoted from curriculum innovators

to mere curriculum deliverers (Gillard, 2007). The effect of this political and

ideological activity on the arts in education was profound, and there was a feeling at

this time that the arts were being marginalized within the curriculum. This was

principally a result of the central aim of standardizing content and ensuring that all

children were equipped with essential skills in core subjects, most notably literacy and

mathematics. Pre-war arguments about utilitarian versus more liberal forms of

education were resurfacing, and The Great Debate that Callaghan had started in ‘76

was becoming increasingly reduced to criticism of the liberal and progressive ideals

89
through which arts education had previously found some degree of purchase on the

educational agenda.

There came a period after the introduction of the NC in 1988 when arts educators

increasingly resorted to advocacy to counter the adverse political pressure that the arts

were then experiencing. Debates surfaced about how the arts should be conceived and

delivered within school, which resulted in the NACCCE being commissioned to

undertake a review of the NC as a whole and the status of the arts within it. The report

that came out of the review, All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education

(1999), suggested a number of tensions that were a result of educational provision at

that time, specifically concerns: about the place and status of the arts within

education; that pressures and priorities within the curriculum were inhibiting

creativity; about the training of new teachers; and the need for partnerships and

outreach programmes between outside cultural organizations and schools. In contrast

to previous conceptions of the arts that saw aesthetic education as a counterbalance to

the overarching emphasis on more academic disciplines within the curriculum, the

intention of the NACCCE report (1999) was to “advance the significance of creativity

throughout the whole curriculum, not just in the arts”(Fleming, 2008; p.30):

“There has been a tendency for the national debate on education to be

expressed as a series of exclusive alternatives…as a choice between the arts or the

sciences; the core curriculum or the broad curriculum; between academic standards

or creativity; freedom or authority in teaching methods. We argue that these

dichotomies are unhelpful….and raising standards of achievement and motivation

includes all of these elements.” (NACCCE, 1999; p.9)

90
The detailed recommendations of the All Our Futures (1999) report were made to the

new Labour Government that had swept to power in the 1997 general elections. While

in many ways Tony Blair’s manifesto on education would prove indistinguishable to

the previous Conservative Government’s there was a sense in which the arts gained a

very real purchase within education. This was reinforced by the creation of the

governments’ flagship initiative CP. Established in 2002 as a direct result of the All

Our Futures recommendations, and funded by the Arts Council, CP was designed to

develop children’s creativity and imagination across the curriculum through the

facilitation of long term links between schools and creative professionals from diverse

creative fields.

Whilst as an initiative CP was warmly received in schools, and its benefits acclaimed

within educational research (Sharp et al., 2006; Kendall et al., 2008a/b), its impact

was not destined to last beyond the next election. As part of the much maligned

austerity measures the Conservative-Liberal Coalition axed the Arts Council’s

funding by 30% and all financial support was withdrawn in its entirety from the CP

initiative. The economic and social impact of such severe cuts to spending on the arts

and creativity in education is symptomatic of a longer lived tendency for the arts to be

viewed as superfluous and unnecessary, particularly during times of economic

austerity:

“…it is disappointing that a programme which is expected to generate nearly

£4 billion net positive benefit for the UK economy …is bearing the brunt of the cuts in

funding. What is of greater concern however is the impact that this approach will

have on young people growing up in this country today…As a result a whole

91
generation of young people will grow up without having had access to the arts and

this is not something that can be fixed once public finances are restored.”

(Collard, 2010; Creativity, Culture and Education news release)

2.4.2 The value of arts-based education

The educational research examining the value of arts-based education is “a relatively

new but rapidly growing body of literature” (BERA, 2012; online), that is

considerably diverse in focus and range. A number of different impact assessments

into the arts in education have been conducted since the 1980’s when the “arts and

cultural activity became an increasing feature of urban regeneration programmes in

Britain” (Reeves, 2002; p.7). Many of these were concerned with the economic value

of the arts in relation to individual and community development, finding important

benefits in relation to the arts as a driver of economic prosperity. However, of greater

pertinence to this thesis is research that examines the impact upon academic

attainment that arts-based education and more specifically creative collaborations in

school, have upon the learning of children.

A broad-based report that offers a synthesis of research examining the impact of the

arts upon the learning, attainment and social development of children and young

people has been conducted by Fiske (1999). Presenting the results from seven

research studies undertaken by a number of esteemed American educational

researchers, including James Catterall and Shirley Brice-Heath, the report provides

compelling evidence on the wide ranging benefits of arts education. Cumulatively the

authors observe that the arts can benefit learning through: the promotion of inclusivity

for students who have become disaffected from the learning experience; the provision

92
of novel and diverse learning opportunities; socio-emotional benefits in relation to

self and others; playing-field levelling effects by offering new challenges to students

who are already successful and opportunities for less successful students to excel; and

transferable forms of learning in terms of “the ability to generate ideas, to bring ideas

to life and to communicate them” (Fiske, 1999; p.x), as important skills to the world

of work as well as in life more generally.

UK-based research examining educational initiatives involving the CP organisation

have been conducted in recent years to assess the effects of CP on the learning and

development of children and young people in school. Two reports by the National

Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) examining the impact of CP (Kendall et

al., 2008a/b), have found significant differences in the attainment and behaviour of

children who participated in arts-based educational initiatives involving CP. Whilst

there was no statistically significant difference in progress at Key Stage 2, there were

significant differences in attainment between pupils who had attended CP initiatives,

and children who had not in the same school, as well as non-CP attending young

people Nationally at Key Stages 3 & 4 (Kendall et al., 2008a). These gains applied to

English and Science whilst mathematics showed less of an impact upon attainment.

The NFER report concluded that:

“While effect sizes are small, the results of this study suggest that Creative

Partnerships is contributing to improved levels of attainment. For example, young

people who have attended Creative Partnerships activities made, on average, the

equivalent of 2.5 grades better progress in GCSE than similar young people in other

schools.” (Kendall et al., 2008a; p.iii)

93
The second NFER report (Kendall et al., 2008b) found a statistically significant

reduction in absence rates in primary schools that had participated in CP initiatives

with this reduction increasing “over a period of years as CP became more established

in these schools” (Kendall et al., 2008b; p.5). The report concluded that this

difference was “sufficiently large to be considered ‘educationally significant’ after

three years” (p.5) and amounted to a “relative reduction of about a fifth in absence

rates within CP schools over a period of four years” (p.5). Cumulatively, the evidence

from both NFER reports (Kendall et al., 2008a/b) points to the effects of CP

initiatives over time. Whilst the effects of such initiatives on attainment and behaviour

may not be immediate, they are clearly significant in the long-term.

Thomson, Jones & Hall (2009) suggest that national research that examines the

impact of CP upon schools, teaching and learning should continue. In particular they

suggest that research addressing “the pedagogies of close encounters with different

kinds of artists and creative practitioners” (p.87) will be an important addition to this

effort. In line with the authors’ recommendations it is hoped that this thesis will

provide an opportunity for an examination of one such creative close encounter with

oral storytelling in school.

2.5 Summing up

The literature on oral storytelling and the arts in education points to the value of

spoken word arts-forms specifically and creative forms of education more generally

for children’s learning and development. Certainly, trying to source research which

points to the negative impact of the arts upon learning is something of a challenge. In

contrast, through an examination of the research into literacy there are questions

94
concerning literacy’s powerful influence upon the educational experiences of

children. Documents that prescribe the literacy curriculum for all children in early

years and primary education point to a curriculum that is strongly skewed towards

literacy and that marginalises S&L in school. This marginalisation can be understood

as encompassing arts education as well as spoken language practice.

The research questions that form the basis of this inquiry are accordingly aimed at

trying to uncover how individuals working with creative practice through CP in

school understand oral storytelling in relation to this variegated focus:

How is storytelling configured and perceived by storytellers, educators and creative

agents in relation to the balance of literacy instruction and engagement with speaking

and listening activities within primary education?

Sub-questions:

What are the potential effects and benefits of storytelling?

How is storytelling best utilized within the classroom?

What are the barriers associated with the utilization of storytelling within the

classroom?

What can the specific focus on storytelling tell us about broader issues in relation to

creative practice and the arts in education?

The next section focuses upon more practical aspects of the inquiry in relation to

study design and methodology.

95
3. Meta-theoretical Considerations

This research is built on a series of qualitative interviews and also an extensive

library-based examination of the research literature in relation to oral storytelling and

arts education. In the course of the inquiry a relativist position that assumes multiple

individual realities influenced by contextual factors has been taken (Guba & Lincoln,

1994). These ontological assumptions ultimately lead to the central assertion that

“reality is socially constructed” (Mertens, 2005; p.12). This research is therefore

organized around “a transactional and subjectivist” epistemology (Lincoln & Guba,

1994; p.111) with an associated co-construction of meaning between participants and

researcher. The methodological rationale for the research is grounded generally within

the constructivist paradigm (Hayes & Oppenheim, 1997; Pidgeon & Henwood, 1997),

and more specifically it adheres to Constructivist Grounded Theory as articulated by

Charmaz (1994; 1995a/b; 2000; 2006). A data-driven perspective that relies upon

qualitative methods of data collection is taken within the course of the research. The

analysis aims to engage with the “participants' views of the situation being studied”

(Creswell, 2003; p.8), whilst recognising the role of researcher within the research

process. Implicit within this is the view that all inquiry comes laden with associated

values (Mertens, 2003) which is an important aspect of both the constructivist

paradigm and qualitative inquiry more generally:

“….research is co-constituted, a joint product of the participants, researcher

and their relationship. We understand that meanings are negotiated within particular

social contexts so that another researcher will unfold a different story.”

(Finlay, 2002; p.212)

96
Researcher reflexivity of this kind transforms subjectivity “from a problem to an

opportunity” by using “reflecting, intuiting and thinking as primary evidence” and

through the use of personal revelation “as a springboard for interpretations and more

general insight” (Finlay, 2002; pp.212-215). Ultimately the constructivist orientation

to the study is aimed at the “understanding and reconstruction” [of participants’

perceptions of oral storytelling in school] “aiming toward consensus but still open to

new interpretations” (Lincoln & Guba, 1994; p.113).

This chapter fully describes how this research was undertaken, through a process of

locating and refining the research focus of ‘non-instrumental’ oral storytelling in

school, selecting participants through purposeful sampling methods, interviewing

participants as the primary research method and observing oral storytelling in school

as a contextualising method, conducting an analysis with coding procedures informed

by Constructivist Grounded Theory, and demonstrating research rigour through a

complex of both inbuilt and post-hoc procedures.

3.1 Study design

The research design upon which this work is based can be understood in terms of an

interactive model of qualitative research (Maxwell, 1998) where “…different parts of

a design form an integrated and interacting whole, with each component closely tied

to several others, rather than being linked in a linear or cyclic sequence” (p.216).

Maxwell (1998) goes on to identify five essential components to this model, namely:

the goals of the research; the conceptual framework that informs the research; the

research questions that direct the inquiry; the methods utilized to collect and analyse

data; and the ‘truthfulness’ of the findings. As a part of the interacting and

overlapping process of conducting qualitative research is an inherent reflexivity that

97
requires the researcher to question his/her role, motives, research decisions and

conclusions at every stage of the inquiry (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995).

The research presented here does not have an explicit design that can be described in

simple terms. However, it does adhere to more implicit and less restrictive notions of

qualitative research with intellectual goals (Maxwell, 1998) aimed at understanding

meaning for participants in relation to oral storytelling, literacy, S&L and

collaborative arts education alongside an extensive analysis of the research literature

that exists in relation to these broad themes of study. As already suggested it is this

latter focus that positions this thesis as a library-based research study as much as it is

an empirical observation of participants’ views of oral storytelling and collaborative

arts education in school. In addition, understanding the context of schooling and

literacy as a backdrop to arts-based education, and developing causal explanations for

the effects upon teaching and learning of practice that is predominantly literacy-based

in nature are secondary goals of the research.

It is hoped that this research has a coherent design that clearly presents: personal,

practical and intellectual research goals that clarify why oral storytelling as an under-

utilised language art is a worthwhile object of inquiry; a broad-based conceptual

framework incorporating socio-cultural and collaborative approaches to learning,

plural notions of literacy and a critical perspective of dominant discourses in school;

research questions aimed at understanding how key participants perceive oral

storytelling in relation to the balance of literacy instruction, S&L and arts education

within primary education; research methods that incorporate purposive sampling,

semi-structured interviews with key participants, and observation as a contextualising

98
research tool; an analysis that employs systematic Grounded Theory coding

procedures; and validity procedures that aim to provide thick description,

triangulation through ‘quasi-statistics’ (Becker, 1970) and ‘quantitzation’ (Tashakkori

& Teddlie, 1998), disconfirming evidence, an audit trail, and researcher reflexivity

throughout.

3.2 Locating and refining the research focus

One of my first personal encounters with oral storytelling was in Edinburgh at the

International Storytelling Festival, which takes place every year in October. Before

my trip to Scotland I had a theoretical understanding of the qualitative differences

between a story that is told and a story that is read, but no first-hand experience that

enabled me to fully understand the qualities that separated storytelling from other

forms of narrative production. Attending the festival enabled me to experience a range

of orally told stories in a place where oral storytelling is very much valued, both in

school and society more widely, as part of the Scottish oral tradition. In addition, I

was able to interview a number of different storytellers, some professional, some

working in schools, some working with young children, and one who used to be a

head teacher. I was able to follow this latter storyteller into school to observe her

work with Year 6 children who were involved in a project creating their own modern-

day myths based around the style of traditional oral stories. Crucially, these children

were experiencing the storyteller’s work as a taster of orally told stories rather than

being exposed to her storytelling process on a more extended pedagogic basis. It is

worth noting that at this point in my study the kind of collaboration between artists

and teachers that was to become a central theme was not a part of my developing

theoretical focus. The project they were embarking upon involved them first writing

their stories before going on to orally tell them under the supervision of their Class

99
Teacher (CT). Therefore, there was an explicit emphasis upon literacy in both process

and outcome, and S&L was not being emphasised in a manner that would have

foregrounded oral forms. It was this kind of storytelling that seemed to be most

strongly aligned with traditional classroom practice, and as such the experience served

as clarification for the kind of storytelling practice that I was trying to find an

alternative to in the course of my study.

One of the biggest challenges faced in the research process has been locating the type

of storytelling in school that is of primary interest, i.e. storytelling that is embedded in

oral practice and that eschews engagement with literacy as a major part of the

storytelling process. This situation is most noticeable when taking into consideration

the day-to-day activity of the classroom where writing and the written word occupies

a central position. As exemplified by the example above, while storytelling is used on

a number of different levels in schools, particularly in relation to story-reading, it is

rare to find long term-projects that utilise the pedagogic and collaborative methods

that are the focus of this study. Indeed, many of the teachers who were interviewed as

part of the study expressed the opinion that oral storytelling generally was not

something that was used extensively in school. More specifically the type of

storytelling that was to become the focus of the study with its strong emphasis on oral

methods in both process and outcome was a particularly uncommon format that none

of them had come across before. Therefore, the kind of oral storytelling practice that

is of interest to the inquiry can be considered an outlier in terms of typical practice in

school. As articulated by Stake (2005), it is frequently the atypical case that provides

greatest opportunity to learn. This is the rationale for examining practice that may be

vulnerable to criticism in terms of the worth of investigating a phenomenon that has

100
limited application in school. As a result of the scarcity of practice in oral storytelling

it was necessary to use purposeful sampling (Stake, 1995) and in particular

opportunity sampling (Patton, 1990) as the primary methods of locating the type of

practice that was of particular interest to the inquiry. This was because it was

necessary to follow the lead of the oral storyteller who was the key informant to the

kind of oral storytelling in school that was to become the focus of the study.

Overall therefore, the goals of the research can be understood as: locating oral

storytelling practice in school that utilises orality in process and outcome; and seeking

the perspectives of key participants who had experience of this particular form of oral

storytelling, as well as arts-based education more generally, in relation to the balance

of S&L and literacy in school.

3.2.1 Sampling procedures and the selection of participants

Theoretical sampling can be defined as the selection of “incidents, slices of life, time

periods or people, on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of

important theoretical constructs” (Patton, 2002; p.238). It was upon this premise that

participants were identified and then selected to be part of the study. Initially

storytellers were identified on a national basis as individuals who were most closely

aligned with the area of interest to the research, specifically, oral storytelling that had

an emphasis upon pedagogic processes grounded in oral forms. Exploratory

interviews then took place, some by phone, most in person, in various places around

the UK in order to conduct in-depth interviews on a one-to-one basis.

101
After this, came a process of selection whereby the most valuable participants were

selected as core participants for the study. One storyteller in particular, David Keele,

became a gatekeeper to further research in a school in the North West of England. It

was this opening that became the foundation for the inquiry by providing an

opportunity to observe his work in school as part of a CP Change School Project. In

addition, David Keele shared strong links with an internationally renowned

professional storyteller, Blaine Hogarth, who was the first formally interviewed

participant at the very beginning of the sampling phase. Co-incidentally, or perhaps as

a part of the process of seeking out similar storytelling practice, David Keele had

attended storytelling master-classes conducted by Blaine Hogarth on a number of

different occasions. Therefore Blaine and David shared very similar understandings of

oral storytelling in terms of its defining features, the process of storytelling, and the

structure of oral stories. Their views were similar to my own in terms of the idea that

S&L is undervalued and under-utilised in relation to both pedagogy and policy. In

addition, they provided the inspiration to seek out similar storytelling practice in

school that explicitly avoided literacy in process and outcome. They were therefore

selected as the main authorities on the type of storytelling that was of particular

interest to the study. One problematic aspect of the selection of these participants that

presented itself throughout the course of the research was the allure of their practice

as oral storytellers unduly influencing the inquiry. I tried to remain mindful of this

aspect and employed closely detailed descriptions of the specificities of oral

storytelling as ‘non-instrumental’ S&L in order to avoid generalised and unfounded

claims.

102
The opportunity was taken to observe David Keele while he worked with two Year 4

classes over a period of one half-term (approximately 7 weeks) teaching them to

orally tell a story. The tales that David taught were traditional tales (Meg Shelton and

The Leaves That Hung But Never Grew) that were first modelled by the storyteller,

and then rehearsed and retold by the children. In addition, the perceptions of the two

Year 4 CT’s, as well as the Head Teacher (HT) of the school, were important

additions to the research, and interviews were conducted with all of these participants

over the course of the observation period. This sampling procedure can be understood

as opportunistic sampling (Patton, 1990) where participants are purposefully selected

according to the research opportunities that present themselves and the aims and focus

of the study.

The oral storytelling intervention was in conjunction with a CP Change School project

that extended over a three year period involving collaboration with external artists

who would come into school to share their creative expertise with both pupils and

teachers. Therefore, the storytelling intervention was a small part of a much larger

initiative that was designed to embed creative practice into the curriculum and the

culture of the school more widely. Due to the presence of CP it was felt that an

important addition to the study would include the perceptions of the Creative Agent

(CA) who facilitated both the storytelling initiative, and the wider Change School

project in the intervention school. This expanded into a broader consideration of CP

and the arts in education, and it was decided that interviews with other CA’s, both in

terms of their perceptions of oral storytelling as a pedagogic tool, and the value of the

arts in education more generally, would be sought to further strengthen the inquiry.

This represents a more theory-driven approach to sampling that was put to use as

103
themes emerged from the data, and the need arose for more specific information from

key informants with expertise and experience in particular areas.

In addition, David Keele provided opportunities to access new participants, in

different locations, that he had worked with in a similar capacity. This strategy in

relation to the recruitment of participants can be understood as snowball sampling

where subjects are nominated by the key informant (Patton, 1990). In addition to

participants being selected as a result of the opportunities that presented themselves,

having specific experience of the type of oral storytelling that was central to the study

they also represented critical cases (Bradley, 1992). As such the sampling procedure

also contains elements of theoretical sampling where “the analyst jointly collects,

codes, and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find

them, in order to develop theory as it emerges” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; p.45).

Overall therefore, purposeful sampling procedures were utilised where “the researcher

selects a participant according to the needs of the study” (Morse, 1991; p. 129). A

complex, overlapping and continually evolving mix of theoretical sampling,

opportunity sampling, snowball sampling and critical case sampling characterised

these procedures. This strategy was necessary in order to locate and maximise the

opportunities that were available in relation to the practice of oral storytelling in

school.

3.2.2 Participants at a glance

Table 3.1. outlines the participants contributing to the inquiry, with pseudonyms being

given to each participant and school to achieve anonymity . This is in line with

104
research ethics proposed by BERA (2011) where the “confidential and anonymous

treatment of participants’ data is considered the norm for the conduct of research”

(p.7). The research context refers to each individual’s orientation in relation to the

research i.e. whether they formed a part of the CP storytelling intervention school or

the wider inquiry into oral storytelling that emerged as a result of purposeful sampling

procedures.

Name Profession Research Context

Sandra Head Teacher Holly Tree School: Intervention school
Hollingsworth Opportunity sampling
Roland Morris Year4 Class Teacher Holly Tree School: Intervention school
Opportunity sampling
Sarah White Year 4 Class Teacher Holly Tree School: Intervention school
Opportunity sampling
Jane Smith Literacy Co-ordinator Lakeside School: Wider inquiry
Snowball/Critical case sampling
Kate Leech Reception Teacher Lakeside School: Wider inquiry
Snowball/Critical case sampling
Sam Rush Creative Agent Creative Partnerships/NorthWest of England/
Holly Tree School: Intervention school
Opportunity sampling
Julia Barden Creative Agent/CP Programme Creative Partnerships/ NorthWest of England:
Director Wider inquiry
Theoretical sampling
Patrick Mean Creative Agent Creative Partnerships/NorthWest of England:
Wider inquiry
Snowball sampling
Jean Heath Creative Agent Creative Partnerships/ NorthWest of England:
Wider inquiry
Snowball sampling/Theoretical sampling
David Keele Professional Storyteller/Creative Storytelling Nationally/Holly Tree School:
Practitioner (Storytelling) Intervention school
Theoretical sampling
Blaine Hogarth Professional Storyteller Storytelling Nationally and Internationally: Wider
inquiry
Theoretical sampling

Table 3.1 Participants contributing to the inquiry.

105
3.2.3 Participants as people

The participants that were selected to form the basis of the study consisted of 11

individuals: one HT, four CT’s, two Storytellers, and four CA’s working within CP

facilitating arts-based initiatives in school. Only a certain number of participants were

connected to the intervention school, specifically Sandra Hollingsworth, Sarah White,

Roland Morris, David Keele and Sam Rush. The other three CA’s, two CT’s and one

Storyteller were identified as being useful respondents despite having no connection

to the intervention school. Therefore they represent the wider research context that

was needed to more fully inform the inquiry into oral storytelling in school. In

addition, Jane Smith and Kate Leech, the CT’s at Lakeside - the school that was part

of the wider inquiry - were chosen on the basis of their association to David Keele.

Due to the fact that David had worked in their school teaching storytelling they were

familiar with his particular style of storytelling practice with its focus on oral

methods. As such they were viewed as an important addition to the study to

strengthen the voices of teaching professionals in relation to the use of oral

storytelling in school and to balance the overall configuration of participants.

Hollytree, the school where the oral storytelling CP intervention took place, was

located in a town in the North West of England that had above average levels of

unemployment, and also above average levels of young people leaving the school

system without academic qualifications. The socioeconomic context for the study was

therefore one of relative disadvantage. The school demographic itself was identified

by the school’s last Ofsted report as being composed of a higher than the national

average proportion of pupils from a minority ethnic background, as was the

proportion of pupils whose additional language was English. In addition, the

106
proportion of pupils as identified by Ofsted who were eligible for free school meals

was much higher than the national average. Finally, while the percentage of pupils

with special educational needs was broadly similar to the national average, Ofsted

reported that the number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs

and/or a disability was much higher.

As already stated, each participant received pseudonyms in the course of writing up

the research, in line with BERA (2011) recommendations in relation to anonymity.

The participants that formed the intervention school element of the inquiry (Hollytree

School) were: Sandra Hollingsworth the HT, and Roland Morris and Sarah White the

Year 4 CT’s who hosted the storytelling intervention in their classes; David Keele, the

intervention Storyteller who taught oral storytelling to the two Year 4 classes; and

Sam Rush, the CA who facilitated the CP Change School project at Hollytree.

Additionally, Roland Morris also took the role of the CP Change School project

coordinator, and it was his initiative that helped to direct how the project unfolded

over the three years that it was running.

David Keele was found through an online search of storytellers working in schools in

the Northwest of England. He proved to be a key informant who enabled the research

in Hollytree School that formed the basis of the inquiry to be undertaken. This

opportunity enabled the CT’s, the HT, and the CA for the intervention school CP

project to be interviewed over the course of one half-term while the observation took

place. In addition, the INSET (In Service Educational Training) day that wrapped up

the Change School project at the end of term provided additional opportunities to talk

both informally and formally with participants.

107
The rest of the participants within the study were identified separately to the

intervention school, and as such they represent the wider inquiry into oral storytelling

in school. The first participant to be sourced was Blaine Hogarth who was a

professional oral storyteller with an international reputation who, whilst no longer

working within education, had broad experience of teaching storytelling in a number

of schools in the 70’s and 80’s, particularly in relation to multi-cultural education. In

addition, and as a small part of his considerably varied biography, he had worked as a

consultant for the NOP from 1987 until its end in 1992 as well as being the British

Council Literature Department’s specialist advisor on Storytelling.

Other participants who were part of the wider inquiry into storytelling in school were

composed of CA’s working within the CP organisation. The first participant of this

group was Patrick Mean, a CA working within the North West of England facilitating

creative projects in school, mostly in relation to music which was his area of

expertise. The next participant was Jean Heath who was also a CA working in the

North West of England with CP. Jean had considerable experience of oral storytelling

as she had been an oral storyteller before she became a CA. In addition she was an

author, and she also worked in schools as a creative practitioner using her skills with

creative writing. In this respect Jean had multiple levels of expertise both facilitating

creative practice in schools as well as delivering it. The last participant within this

group was Julia Barden who had worked as a CA facilitating various collaborations in

schools in the North West of England, and her current position was Programme

Director within an arm of the CP organization.

108
The final participants who were part of the wider inquiry were two CT’s, Jane Smith

and Kate Leech, who worked in Lakeside school in the North West of England. As

already described, this school was located through David Keele who had taught oral

storytelling there over a number of years. Thus they were very familiar with David’s

methods, which is why they were identified as being a useful addition to the research.

This school had similar demographics to the intervention school in relation to indices

of social disadvantage such as the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals

which according to the last school Ofsted report was “well above average”. In

addition Ofsted identified the percentage of pupils with learning difficulties and/or

disabilities as also being well above average, as was the proportion of pupils who had

a statement of special educational need. However, the ethnic makeup was dissimilar

to the intervention school with most pupils coming from white British backgrounds,

and very few pupils having English as an additional language.

3.3 Research tools

The principal research method was the use of semi-structured interviews with a range

of individuals with direct experience of oral storytelling in school. These participants

included Blaine Hogarth who was instrumental in bringing oral storytelling into

schools in West London in the early 80’s in relation to multi-cultural education;

David Keele who had considerable experience delivering oral storytelling

interventions through CP in schools all over the North West; the CT’s at both

Hollytree and Lakeside schools (Roland Morris, Sarah White, Sandra Hollingsworth,

Jane Smith and Kate Leech) who had all experienced David Keele’s style of oral

storytelling in school at different points; and the CA’s – Jean Heath who had

experience telling stories orally herself as well as facilitating oral storytelling projects

through CP; Sam Rush who was the CA for Hollytree School’s CP project that

109
incorporated oral storytelling; and Julia Barden who had previous experience being a

CA for CP projects involving oral storytelling. Out of all the participants, Patrick

Mean was the only one who did not have any understanding or experience facilitating

oral storytelling projects in school. However, his more general knowledge in relation

to arts education and CP was considered a valuable addition to the inquiry and a

source of contextualising information.

In addition, while Sam Rush had a developed understanding of oral storytelling, to a

large extent the opportunity for data collection with this participant was constrained

by the fact that the interview took place during the INSET day focusing on the

outcome of the CP Change School project that she had co-ordinated. Therefore, she

was able to offer only a limited amount of time, and also due to the background

influence of the day the interview schedule tended to focus upon more general aspects

of creativity in school in relation to CP rather than oral storytelling more explicitly.

Therefore Sam Rush’s impact upon the inquiry is somewhat limited and similar to

Patrick Mean is valuable in terms of contextualising information in relation to arts

education and CP on a more general basis. The interview with Sandra Hollingsworth

suffers from similar constraints due to the fact that as the HT of a busy school she was

only able to give a short interview during the INSET day. However, despite the

limited impact of these participants in data terms, their views and input was still of

considerable benefit to the overall texture and depth of the inquiry.

Overall therefore, eight core participants – Blaine Hogarth, David Keele, Roland

Morris, Sarah White, Jane Smith, Kate Leech, Jean Heath and Julia Barden – can be

understood as constituting the fulcrum of the inquiry. The remaining three participants

110
– Sandra Hollingsworth, Sam Rush and Patrick Mean – can be understood as

providing contextualising information that reinforces the perspectives of the core

group of participants. In addition, contextualising information and direct experience

of oral storytelling in school was attained through observation of David Keele

teaching two Year 4 classes to orally tell stories. This observation took place over a

total of 6 separate visits to the school where he worked with one class for a full

morning, and another for a full afternoon, until the end of the oral storytelling

intervention. On the final visit the children performed their stories.

3.3.1 Interview

Semi-structured interviews were the chosen method for eliciting data from

respondents. Ethical considerations in line with BERA (2011) allowed interviewees

the right to withdraw from the research at any point during the interview process.

Semi-structured interviews were deemed to be more flexible than the structured

interview or survey, and while a standardised interview schedule with set questions

for all respondents was used, the interview style was open-ended and conversational

with scope for the exploration of emergent themes and ideas and the initiation of

topics by respondents.

Much of the methodological prescription in relation to interview protocol stresses the

facilitative and neutral stance that should be adopted by the interviewer. However, the

nature of the research topic necessitated questions about the effects and benefits of

oral storytelling and the balance of literacy instruction in school, and such questions

precluded any attempt at complete neutrality. Clearly, the mere act of asking a

question about the effects and benefits of oral storytelling signals to the interviewee

111
that the interviewer thinks there may be some. Furthermore, the roles of the

participants as teachers, storytellers and creative agents meant that discussing

educational aspects of interventions such as oral storytelling was to a large extent part

and parcel of their professional identities. As such, asking specific questions about

educational and pedagogic practice in relation to storytelling was deemed to be

respectful of their wealth of experience as professionals working within the field of

education. Finally, a fairly explicit interview schedule was necessary due to the fact

that the study required a considerable amount of detailed information to be obtained

from eight core and three non-core participants.

The stance that was adopted throughout the research then was one of value in relation

to engagement with S&L practice in school. Whilst adopting such a stance was

considered important to the integrity of the research it was also recognised that

ultimately it is the interview process that shapes the course and direction of the

interview. Therefore the conception of the interviewer as neutral tool was rejected

while accepting that the way in which questions are posed “are central to producing

interviewee’s talk, the categories they invoke and the identities they speak from”

(Rapley, 2001; p.309). In this respect the negotiated meanings and the co-construction

of knowledge that are representative of a constructivist approach to research was

balanced with an interview style that tried to remain objective with regards to key

aspects of the inquiry. Whilst personal and academic belief combined to view

hegemonic literacy practice as a key driver within education, this theoretical

orientation was kept out of the formulation of the interview schedule as much as

possible so as to minimise interviewer bias. Ultimately the research adopted a position

where the outcome of the interview was seen not as a reflection of reality as perceived

112
by the respondent (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995), but rather the “product of a specific

interaction” (Rapley, 2001; p.308) between interviewer and interviewee.

While the interview schedule was an important aspect of the data collection process

and was largely adhered to, the style of each interview was more conversational than

it was structured and inquisitorial. In addition, much room was given for maneuverer

to allow alternative discursive trajectories, many of which were initiated by

respondents. Therefore, a stance of negotiation and co-construction between

interviewer and interviewee (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995) was taken within the course

of the research. As noted by Fontana & Frey (2005) it is “the active nature of this

process that leads to a contextually bound and mutually created story” (p.696). The

context-bound nature of the qualitative interview derives from both the here-and-now

interactional event in which the interview takes place (Suchman and Jordan, 1990), as

well as the fact that the interviewer is a person with subjective experiences, motives,

biases and desires. As noted by Frey & Fontana (2005):

“If we proceed from the belief that neutrality is not possible (even assuming it

would be desirable), then taking a stance becomes unavoidable. An increasing

number of social scientists have realised that they need to interact as persons with the

interviewee and acknowledge that they are doing so.”

(p. 696)

113
3.3.2 Interview schedule

1. Have you got a working definition of oral storytelling?

2. Do you think that oral storytelling enriches children’s learning in ways that are

different and distinct from other S&L activities such as role-play, and other

arts-based forms of education such as drama?

3. What are the effects and benefits of using storytelling in education?

 Which of these effects do you feel are most pronounced/important

 Are there certain children that benefit more or less from storytelling,

for example, are there differences in relation to gender, age, ability?

4. Do you think that storytelling is more suited to certain curriculum areas?

5. How much time and weight has been given to storytelling within the S&L

curriculum?

6. How much time and weight is given to S&L skills as compared to literacy in

the NLS?

7. How is storytelling perceived as a pedagogical tool by educators within

education more generally?

 Is there an understanding of the potential and purpose of storytelling as

a pedagogical tool by practitioners and policy makers?

 If there is resistance to the use of storytelling as a pedagogical tool,

why is this?

8. To what extent do you see oral storytelling as being distinct from story

reading?

 Do you think separation is fully recognised in the curriculum guidance

within school?

114
  When this separation is not made explicit to children do you think it

affects their storytelling abilities?

9. To what extent do you feel that S&L skills in the curriculum are linked to the

acquisition of literacy?

 Do you feel that it would be helpful to uncouple S&L skills from the

literacy agenda?

10. To what extent do you feel that teacher views and beliefs converge or diverge

with prescribed policy and practice of the NLS in relation to S&L skills in the

curriculum?

11. To what extent and in which ways do you feel that artists working in schools

impact upon the educational practice of teachers and vice versa?

12. How important do you feel that the arts in education generally and artists in

schools specifically are to academic attainment and cultural practice within the

classroom?

 How do you feel the withdrawal of funding from CP will affect the arts

in education?

3.3.3 Observation

Unstructured observation was undertaken to observe storytelling practice in the

intervention school on six separate occasions over a period of approximately 7 weeks.

The intervention school was chosen due to the fact that David Keele had been brought

in to deliver an oral storytelling intervention as part of a longer-term CP Change

School project. The aim of the intervention was to increase proficiency in S&L in two

Year 4 classes due to the fact that Hollytree School served an area of considerable

115
ethnic diversity with a higher than average number of EAL learners. As articulated by

Sondra Hollingsworth, the HT of Hollytree School:

“Speaking and listening skills is such a massive part of why our children don’t

achieve brilliantly – they don’t come into school fluent in English, so it’s got to be at

the heart of everything we do. It’s recognizing that that’s the need of our community,

so our curriculum has to meet that – that guides everything else.”

On these occasions David Keele was observed teaching storytelling to two separate

classes, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and in total 30 hours of

storytelling practice was observed. This included the final session that involved the

children telling their stories to an audience as a finished product.

In addition, the INSET day for the intervention school’s teaching staff focusing on

embedding creative change into the curriculum, was attended and audio recorded. It

was felt that observation of the INSET day was useful to see how the storytelling

intervention was framed to the rest of the school by the teachers who had experienced

it within their classes.

Unstructured observation is based in the constructivist paradigm that posits contextual

elements and the co-construction of knowledge between researcher and participants as

important aspects of the research process. To these ends, the research field was

entered with no predetermined ideas about which aspects to attend most closely to or

what the role of the researcher within the observation itself was to be. While a number

of preconceptions influenced the selection of people and research context prior to the

116
data collection process, once the research field was entered an open-minded and

impartial position was taken as much as possible. Ultimately a role of observer as

participant (Gold, 1958), with intermittent observation and occasional participation as

the research field and participants became more familiar, was adopted within the

course of the research.

The purpose of the observation was less to gain data for the study than to obtain

contextual information, as it was expected that the primary goal of the research, i.e.

the perceptions of teachers, storytellers and creative agents, was to be secured through

the qualitative research interview. Instead it was hoped that observation would

provide a holistic understanding of storytelling in education that captured the

pedagogic process, gave a sense of how it was received by the children and also its

effects over time. As suggested by Mulhall (2003), observation allows more extant

and interpersonal aspects of the research context to be understood and experienced by

the researcher, in a manner that other methods of inquiry disallow:

“Observation also captures the whole social setting in which people function,

by recording the context in which they work…Observation is…an ongoing dynamic

activity that is more likely than interviews to provide evidence for process –

something that is continually moving and evolving.”

(p.308)

3.4 Analytic approach

A qualitative approach using methodology informed from Constructivist Grounded

Theory (Charmaz, 1994; 1995a/b; 2000; 2006) that “assumes the relativism of

multiple social realities, recognises the mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer

117
and the viewed, and aims toward interpretive understandings of subjects’ meanings”

(Charmaz, 2000; p.510), has been adopted in the course of the research. The data

analysis has involved a lengthy process of transcription of 11 separate interviews with

key participants and 15 hours and twenty three minutes of audio that was recorded

during the course of the research. This enabled a significant amount of familiarity

with the data to be achieved during the course of listening to and transcribing

participant responses. For all interviews ethical considerations in relation to the

confidential and anonymous treatment of participants’ data in relation to storage and

use (BERA, 2011) were respected. Participants were ensured that all recorded

interviews would be kept securely and deleted upon completion of the project. Coding

of participant responses using procedures associated with Grounded Theory and the

constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was undertaken,

in a manner that involved:

“…taking comparisons from data and reaching up to construct abstractions

and then down to tie these abstractions to data. It means learning about the specific

and the general – and seeing what is new in them – then exploring their links to

larger issues or creating larger unrecognized issues in entirety”

(Charmaz, 2006; p.181)

The rationale in choosing a constructivist orientation to Grounded Theory is to enable a

reflexive position to be taken within the research context, to gain an experience of oral

storytelling that enabled myself as a researcher to “enter the phenomenon, gain multiple

views of it, and locate it in its web of connections and constraints” (Charmaz, 2006; p.187).

This is important to the research due to the fact that oral storytelling is something that I

myself am new to, as well as there being valid criticisms in relation to the status of objectivity

118
in Grounded Theory. Due to the organic character of my research in terms of locating

disparate strands of storytelling practice within the milieu of primary arts and language

education, the need for subjectivity in terms of gaining a developed understanding of oral

storytelling as a spoken word art-from and a pedagogical tool, was a salient aspect of the

methodological approach. In contrast to more traditional forms of Grounded Theory that

assert that social phenomena should be approached with as few pre-conceptions as possible

(Glaser, 1992), Constructivist Grounded Theory stresses the utility of engaging proactively

with the literature from the beginning of the research process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) whilst

practicing theoretical sensitivity (Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003). This ties in with the library-

based nature of the study where empirical observations and data gathering has been equally

balanced with a research process where the emphasis has been upon deep engagement with

the literature on oral storytelling, S&L and literacy practices in school, and collaborative arts

education. As a result the idea of researcher neutrality is rejected and a position that

emphasises the co-construction of meaning between researcher and research context is

emphasised.

3.4.1 Coding procedures

For my own data the methodological procedure has involved an initial analytical

phase of open coding whereby salient parts of each transcription are separated out and

loosely defined in relation to the research questions, so that a series of concept-

indicators (Glaser, 1978) are produced from the text. For example, Figure 3.1.shows

an example of an open code that was applied to David Keele’s interview transcription

in the early stages of coding:

“It has clear impacts on children’s self- esteem, there’s a clear freeing up for

them in terms of self-expression through language and creativity and combining work

on language with narrative ability, mastery of narrative with at the same time, using

119
their body and telling physically, and so on… you can see there are real impacts in

terms of children’s confidence, their self-esteem, their abilities to relate to each other.

I mean so much of it is about that relationship, both at the point that they’re telling

the story, and during the kind of working up of the story when most of the work is

interactive anyway.”

Open code = Effects of storytelling – self-esteem, self-expression, inter-relational

aspects, language and narrative ability, creativity, physicality.

Figure 3.1 Example of open coding.

A further refinement of these open codes was then pursued through a process of

colour-coding sections of text and allocating them to major conceptual categories.

Finally descriptive labels were applied to each colour-coded data set with an

additional attachment of abbreviated semantic coding. This allowed the data to be

more explicitly and meaningfully related to other parts of the data within and between

categories. This stage in the coding is demonstrated in Figure 3.2 that provides a small

selection of codes extracted from my coding manual and the major conceptual

category ‘Effects & Benefits of Oral storytelling’:

Pink Highlight = inter-relational – inter.rel

Green = empowerment/self-confidence/identity/self-expression – soc.emo

Olive = kinesthetic – kines

Lilac = narrative ability/understanding - narr

Turquoise = creativity/creative thinking & learning – crtv

Pink = productive language - vocab – prod.lang.voc

Figure 3.2 Example of coding manual

120
In this way a categorical framework was created through the gradual “process of

breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data”

(Strauss & Corbin 1990; p.61) that the open coding phase represents.

I considered the open coding phase to be complete when each interview had been

coded in this manner, and to a large extent the process overlapped with subsequent

phases of coding as categories and sub-categories developed and new data was added

to the corpus of previously analysed text. Figure 3.3 provides an example of the way

the semantic and colour coding was applied to David Keele’s interview during the

later stages of open coding:

It [oral storytelling] has clear impacts on children’s self-esteem, there’s a clear

freeing-up for them in terms of self-expression through language and creativity and

combining work on language with narrative ability, mastery of narrative…using their

body and telling physically, and so on… you can see there are real impacts in terms of

children’s confidence, their self-esteem, their abilities to relate to each other, I mean

so much of it is about that relationship, both at the point that they’re telling the story,

and during the kind of working up of the story when most of the work is interactive

anyway = p.21- soc.emo/prod.lang.vocab/crtv/narr/kines/inter.rel

Figure 3.3 Example of a later stage of open coding

The second phase of coding took place later on in the analytic process after the oral

storytelling intervention had ended but before all of the data from the wider inquiry

had been investigated and analyzed. Axial coding (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987) was

undertaken in order to engage with each category that had ‘emerged’ from the open

coding phase on a deeper level in terms of what Glaser (1978) termed the Six C’s:

121
“the Causes, Contexts, Contingencies, Consequences, Covariances, and Conditions”

(p. 74). Defined by Strauss and Corbin (1990) as a set of procedures whereby data is

“put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between

categories" (p.96), theoretical coding of this kind is designed to tap into aspects of

process that inhere within the research context. The form that this procedure took

within my study involved a descriptive analysis of each participant’s unique set of

concept-indicators within each conceptual category, which were the result of the open

coding phase. This was undertaken to get a holistic understanding of which aspects of

oral storytelling, S&L and arts education were most salient to each participant. For

my analysis, axial coding proved to be a complex process of comparing everything

that each participant had said in relation to a concept and conceptual category. In

addition, things that were not said or implied and direct contradictions to previous

concept-indicators were viewed as being equally important to get a sense of each

participant’s ‘story’ in relation to the objects of inquiry. Figure 3.4 provides an extract

of the axial coding procedure that was undertaken in relation to David Keele’s focus

upon the inter-relational nature of oral storytelling, with his other most salient

concept-indicators within the major conceptual category of Effects & Benefits of Oral

Storytelling also being provided:

Most salient concept-indicators: soc.emo /inter.rel /own.auth.dem.lang /spce.time

/intr.motiv /play.field.levl.efct/narr /strytell.benf.disad.lss.abl

Inter-relational nature of oral storytelling:

‘David Keele puts significant credence onto the importance of inter-relational aspects

of oral storytelling, in a number of different ways, specifically, the way that a ‘shared

122
temporary community’ is produced when listening to a storytelling performance;

pedagogic aspects of working on storytelling in the classroom which by its nature is

very interactive making significant use of constructivist educational techniques such

as group work and peer learning; and also the dynamic interaction that occurs

between the storyteller and his/her audience as an integral part of the storytelling

process…’

Figure 3.4 Example of axial coding

This element of the aesthetic continued throughout the selective coding phase that can

be defined as “the explication of the ‘storyline’” (LaRossa, 2005; p.851). Selecting

one concept or category is of prime importance within Grounded Theory, as outlined

by LaRossa (2005):

“There is value in choosing one variable from among the many variables that

a grounded theoretical analysis may generate and making that variable central when

engaged in theoretical writing. It will serve as the backbone of a researcher’s ‘story’”

(p.838)

Selective coding can therefore be understood as a procedure that furnishes the data

with an element of coherence. For my analysis selective coding has involved a

process of recombining the data in new ways (e.g. mind mapping and the distillation

of findings) that allowed the links between categories and sub-categories to become

more transparent and explicit. This enabled the variables that had the most numerous

‘causes’, ‘consequences’, and ‘co-variences’ to come to the fore. Figure 3.5 provides

123
an example of the way findings were distilled to explicate the storyline and the

development of formal theory:

Aspects Related to Socio-Emotional Factors:

One of the ‘intrinsic benefits’ (McCarthy; 2004) of oral storytelling relates to the

strong effects it has upon socio-emotional aspects such as self-confidence,

empowerment, identity, self-expression, emotional literacy and inter-relational

ability. This is particularly the case for children who display socio-emotional deficits

due to impoverished language skills, and this is connected to the robust link between

linguistic interaction and social development from infancy.

Figure 3.5 Example of selective coding

3.4.2 Frequency

In addition the use of frequency was a consistent methodological procedure

throughout all stages of data analysis and coding. The use of ‘quantitization’

(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) is a useful tool that is under-utilised in qualitative

research. As suggested by Maxwell (1998), “any claim that a particular phenomenon

is typical, rare, or prevalent in the setting or population studied is an inherently

quantitative claim and requires some quantitative support” (p.245). Proceeding from

this assertion, the frequency of categories and their associated sub-categories within

the text was taken as a measure of salience in relation to participant perceptions.

While no explicit statistical analysis was undertaken, or even envisaged at any point,

the salience of concepts within the data was considered an important aspect of the

analysis. Categories and sub-categories were therefore quantified and ranked

according to their frequency to give an overarching view of which concepts came up

124
most within participant responses, as shown in Figure 3.6, which provides an extract

from David Keele’s most salient Effects & Benefits of Oral Storytelling:

• soc.emo 18
• inter.rel 8
• own.auth.dem.lang 7
• spce.time 6
• play.field.levl.efct 5
• intr.motiv 5
• narr 5
• strytell.benf.disad.lss.abl 5
• prod.lang.vocab 4
• img 4
• comm.comp 4

• kines 4

Figure 3.6 Example of the use of frequency

Whilst an over-reliance on frequency outcomes to the exclusion of other forms of

analysis is considered ‘trite’ (Sliverman, 1993) when handling qualitative data, I was

mindful from the outset that the use of summative methods needed to occupy a

comparatively superficial level of analysis that was secondary to the thematic

elements of Grounded Theory. As articulated by Joffe & Yardley (2004):

“Thematic analysis… is able to offer the systematic element characteristic of

content analysis, but also permits the researcher to combine analysis of the frequency

of codes with analysis of their meaning in context, thus adding the advantages of the

subtlety and complexity of a truly qualitative analysis.”

(p.57)

125
3.5 Research rigor

Qualitative research is an inherently interpretive methodology. As such it does not

lend itself to the checks and balances of the positivist paradigm that are aimed at

ensuring overall quality upon completion of the project. As a result, a confusing array

of terms intended to substitute the positivist concepts of reliability and validity for

ones that are more fitting within the qualitative paradigm have become increasingly

common. As noted by Creswell & Miller (2000):

“Writing about validity in qualitative inquiry is challenging on many levels.

Multiple perspectives about it flood the pages of books…In these texts, readers are

treated to a confusing array of terms for validity, including authenticity, goodness,

verisimilitude, adequacy, trustworthiness, plausibility, validity, validation, and

credibility.”

(p.124)

The need for qualitative research to demonstrate ‘trustworthiness’ (Guba, 1981), has

resulted in this plethora of alternative formulations that have greatly expanded our

understanding and description of rigor within the qualitative paradigm. However, they

have also somewhat confused the situation and made it difficult to assess

methodological quality in qualitative research. Clearly the central concern is that

“qualitative inquirers need to demonstrate that their studies are credible” (Creswell &

Miller, 2000; p.124). To these ends, the procedures that I employ to demonstrate

validity are:

•Triangulation and an audit trail within the Post-positivist paradigm

126
•Disconfirming evidence and thick description within the Constructivist paradigm

•Research reflexivity within the Critical paradigm

In addition, and in line with suggestions that qualitative research should also attend to

rigor “throughout the research process” rather than “relegating rigor to one section of

a post-hoc reflection on the finished work” (Morse et al., 2008; p.19), inbuilt and

‘self-correcting’ mechanisms to ensure the quality of the study have also been

employed. Attention to ‘constructive verification’ (Morse et al., 2008) within my own

study has involved: methodological coherence through purposive sampling beyond

the initial intervention school and revision of research questions throughout;

appropriate sampling procedures through the selection of participants who had very

specific experience of oral storytelling and an orally grounded approach to working

pedagogically with stories in school; and collecting and analysing data concurrently,

thinking theoretically, and theory development through the inherently rigorous

methods associated with Grounded Theory. In these ways “strategies to ensure rigor

inherent in the research process itself” (Morse et al., 2008; p.14) were a significant

aspect of my methodology.

3.5.1 Triangulation and the audit trail

Triangulation is defined by Creswell & Miller (2000) as a validity procedure that

involves a “search for convergence among multiple and different sources of

information to form themes or categories in a study” (p.126). As noted by Falk &

Guenther (2007) triangulation can be achieved through the use of “multiple data

analytic techniques used to align interpretations and test for consistency and

categories across the data sets” (p.6). In my own study this has involved the use of

127
mixed methods during the process of analysis where ‘quantitization’ (Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 1998) of the data involving “collating and counting recurrent themes” (Falk

& Guenther, 2007; p.4) is used as a primary means of adding ‘legitimacy’ to my own

conclusions (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). The use of such ‘quasi-statistics’

(Becker, 1970) has been proposed by Maxwell (1998) as a validity measure that

allows the researcher to “test and support claims that are inherently quantitative” and

also “to assess the amount of evidence…that bears on a particular conclusion” (p.245)

The audit trail is a validity procedure designed to provide the reader with “clear

documentation of all research decisions and activities” so as to “examine both the

process and product of the inquiry, and determine the trustworthiness of the findings”

(Creswell & Miller, 2000; p.128). The audit trail that I have chosen to employ takes

the form of evidence of the data analysis process, specifically: an extract from my

coding manual; two examples of the way open codes were applied to participant

responses taken from the interview data in both early and late stages of open coding;

an example of the more intuitive axial coding procedure that was applied to each

participant’s most salient concept-indicators to elucidate the Six C’s within each

conceptual category (Glaser, 1978); an example of the distillation of ideas that

resulted from the selective coding phase; and an example of the way codes were

ultimately ranked to give an overview of which themes and sub-categories within the

data were most salient within participant responses.

3.5.2 Disconfirming evidence and thick description

The use of dis-confirming evidence within the data involves the search for “evidence

that is inconsistent with or disconfirms” (Creswell & Miller, 2000; p.127) categories

128
or themes that have been established during the course of the research. As such it

represents an approach that values a full consideration of the multiplicity of

perspectives that can inhere within social phenomena. Within the Constructivist

paradigm where pluralistic, interpretive, open-ended and contextualized perspectives

are emphasised, disconfirming evidence is seen as providing support for an account’s

credibility. In my own study this particular validity procedure is most clearly

represented by the interdependence of literacy and orality as a major disconfirming

case that forms a large part of the discussion in relation to the hegemony of literacy as

a conceptual theme. More specifically, the Lakeside School teachers afforded a large

degree of value to the Talk to Write storytelling method that is based in practice more

strongly associated with literacy than orality. This represents a major disconfirming

case that highlights the complexity of the inquiry into oral storytelling and the

importance of non-instrumental forms of S&L in school.

Thick description is a validity procedure that provides “deep, dense, detailed

accounts” in contrast to ‘thin descriptions’ that “lack detail, and simply report facts”

(Denzin, 1989; p.830). The purpose of such thick descriptions is to create

‘verisimilitude’ that produces the feeling within reader that they “have experienced, or

could experience, the events being described in a study” (Creswell & Miller, 2000;

p.129). Such an approach enables the reader to assess the credibility of the account as

well as the “applicability of the findings to other settings or similar contexts”

(Creswell & Miller, 2000; p.129). In my own study thick description has been

employed in relation to the methodological procedures of sampling, coding and data

analysis, as well as through a detailed elucidation of oral storytelling as a non-

instrumental spoken word art-form. In this latter case, I have tried to define what I

129
mean by oral storytelling and also ‘non-instrumental’ practice in S&L, as fully as

possible to ensure that the reader has a detailed understanding of both aspects of the

inquiry.

In addition, thick description has been achieved through the provision of rich data-sets

from intensive interviews with participants, which resulted from long-term

involvement in the research field. As observed by Maxwell (1998) thick description

of this nature requires “verbatim transcripts of the interviews” (p.244) rather than just

researcher notes on significant aspects. In the course of data analysis a significant

amount of weight was given to transcribing each participant interview in full and

analysing all significant themes that came out of the data. This approach has provided

as full and detailed account of oral storytelling in relation to the balance of literacy,

S&L and arts education in school as possible.

3.5.3 Researcher reflexivity

The validity procedure of researcher reflexivity that is clearly positioned within the

Critical paradigm acknowledges the importance of researchers describing “their

entering beliefs and biases early in the research process to allow readers to understand

their positions” (Creswell & Miller, 2000; p.127). This approach emphasises the

importance of the social, cultural and historical forces that shape the interpretation of

complex ideas and experiences (Creswell & Miller, 2000), as well as recognising the

dynamic interplay between researcher and what is researched. I have attempted to

position myself within this tradition by stating what brought me to oral storytelling as

a research topic, within the introduction of the thesis. In addition, I have employed

130
reflexivity in the course of explicating the sampling procedures used during the

lengthy process of participant selection.

3.5.5 Generalising from qualitative research

The context-specific nature of qualitative research in the social world has resulted in it

being suggested that conventional measures of transferability from one situation to

another should not, and do not, apply to qualitative research findings (Cronbach,

1975; Denzin, 1983; Hammersley, 1990). However, Falk & Guenther (2007) have

noted that “people do generalise from qualitative research” and they go on to suggest

that they “may well have good reason to be able to do so” (p.1). Similarly, Patton

(2002) uses the term ‘extrapolation’ to describe the way that “modest speculations on

the likely applicability of findings to other situations” (p. 584) can be taken from

qualitative research findings, and Creswell (2005) emphasises “stating the larger

meaning of the findings” (p.48) during the process of interpretation. To these ends I

suggest that the Research Questions that form the base from which the inquiry

proceeds invite generalisation in relation to broader questions concerning the purpose

of primary education and the place and status of S&L and creative forms of teaching

and learning in school.

Falk & Guenther (2007) further suggest that the ability to make generalisations from a

qualitative research report is a function of its methodological rigor and whether it is

“sufficiently detailed for the reader to be able to judge whether or not the findings

apply in similar settings” (p.4). In terms of my own study I propose that the

specificities of oral storytelling have been described in sufficient detail in relation to

the balance of literacy and S&L in school for the reader to be able to judge whether

131
the findings apply within different contexts. Falk & Guenther (2007) suggest that

generalisation is:

“…possible on the basis of theory building…as patterns of behaviour are

observed across multiple and potentially contrasting research objects, conclusions

may be drawn about factors that contribute to those patterns—that is, how and why

the behaviour occurs.” (p.8)

The patterns of behaviour that constitute engagement with literacy, S&L and arts-

based education, are positioned as hegemonic conceptions of literacy in school and

wider society more generally. It is therefore suggested that this is the basis from

which any claim to generalisation may stem. However, as suggested by Hamberg et

al. (1994), in qualitative research the focus is on discovery rather than generalisation

and it is in this spirit of discovery that my own research is embedded.

3.6 Summing up

My methodology has taken an interpretive stance that emphasises the co-construction

of meaning between researcher and study participants. I have used purposeful

sampling and the semi-structured qualitative research interview as the principle

methods of data collection, and the analysis is based upon iterative coding procedures

taken from Constructivist Grounded Theory as well as an extensive review of the

literature on oral storytelling, S&L and literacy practices in school and collaborative

arts-based education. Research rigour has been addressed through inbuilt methods

including purposeful sampling and concurrent data collection and analysis. Post-hoc

reliability and validity procedures have also been addressed through triangulation of

132
data through mixed analytical methods and an audit trail; disconfirming evidence and

thick description; and research reflexivity. It is hoped that generalising from this

research will be possible in relation to the broader purpose of primary education and

the status of the arts and S&L within it.

The next chapter will present and discuss the findings in relation to the Effects and

Benefits of Oral Storytelling in school.

133
4. Effects and Benefits of Oral Storytelling

This chapter addresses the first sub-question of the research, examining the effects

and benefits associated with the pedagogic use of oral storytelling in school. In line

with the primary Research Question, participant responses indicate that the most

salient effects and benefits of oral storytelling relate to socio-emotional aspects, and

also to communicative competence and vocabulary. The first section of this chapter

examines socio-emotional effects and benefits, before going on to examine

communicative competence and vocabulary-based effects.

4.1 Socio-emotional effects and benefits

Socio-emotional effects and benefits came out of participant responses as by far the

most salient conceptual category. The following sections examine the ways that oral

storytelling can enable children to: become more self-confident; represent and

understand themselves; understand others through intra-psychological processes;

understand others through inter-psychological processes; and work collaboratively

with others. Cumulatively these effects can be understood in relation to the theoretical

foundation of the study that emphasises the “social structure of personality”

(Vygotsky: In Valsiner, 1987; p.67) and the centrality of social interaction to learning

and development.

4.1.1 Self-confidence through oral storytelling

Increased self-confidence is arrived at through a complex of processes that centre

around the distinctive educational experience that oral storytelling can offer children.

The challenge of public speaking allows children to undertake the potentially difficult

task of standing up in front of a group and speaking to an audience, but in a manner

134
that has greater potential for enjoyment due to its narrative quality. In addition, it is a

scaffolded activity due to the fact that the structure of narrative affords children a

framework and a support upon which to base their speaking. Secondly, being the

centre of attention during oral storytelling allows children to be listened to from the

beginning to the end of a story due to pre-determined rules that dictate that they can

speak without fear of interruption. The implications for feelings of control and

empowerment here are clear. Finally, oral storytelling fosters children’s ability to

think things through in the moment as a result of the ad lib quality of production that

requires children to mould the story as they tell it. This results in increased levels of

confidence through children’s understanding that they are better able to think and

speak creatively in the moment.

The socio-emotional effects and benefits of oral storytelling proved to be the most

consistently articulated aspect within participant responses. In particular, all

participants have examples of children’s self-confidence to tell stories orally and also

their self-esteem on a more general basis being enhanced as a result of oral

storytelling. Sarah White (CT: Lakeside School) describes how oral storytelling

benefitted one particular girl in her class who was “painfully shy at everything” and

had low self-esteem due to the difficulties she experienced with literacy:

“But today she was smiling, she got in, she told the story, she was working in

a group – she just doesn’t do that normally, she will sit there and let everything go on

around her….But it brings her out, definitely.”

135
Similarly, David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) describes a

situation with a girl who exhibited profound socio-emotional problems and “wasn’t

available for anything interactive - friendship, academic work, she just wasn’t there”.

Having ‘given up’ trying to teach this girl storytelling, David describes how she

unexpectedly and independently chose to tell the story that the class had been working

on:

“...and it was absolutely extraordinary actually, and I didn’t think any of it

had touched her at all. And then we sat down and I said ‘let’s just watch each other’s

stories – who wants to go first?’, and she put her hand up – the teacher was

totally….and she struggled more in front of the whole class, but she did it.”

Being listened to by an appreciative audience is identified as another way that oral

storytelling can provide opportunities for increases in self-confidence. Blaine Hogarth

(Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) focuses upon this aspect suggesting that the “power to tell

you the story – I know the story and you don’t, and you’re listening”, is a large part of

the way that oral storytelling works in terms of increasing self-esteem:

“To be the center of attention is the biggest power that storytelling offers, it

really is empowering when you have your peers, or even older people or younger

people listening to you…just to feel you’ve been heard is an amazing thing. To feel

that you’ve made people laugh or moved them is an even greater thing, that ‘I did

something and I’ve changed their emotional state’…”

136
Self-esteem and self-confidence are ubiquitous and problematic concepts that have

come to be almost universally accepted as important due to the perceived link

between low self-esteem, individual problems and wider societal dysfuction

(Baumesiter et al., 2003). Self-esteem and self-confidence are terms that tend to

appear together and are used interchangeably in participant responses. For example

David Keele suggests that “there are real impacts in terms of children’s confidence,

their self-esteem” as a result of the pedagogic use of oral storytelling. However, it is

difficult to ascertain the extent to which self-esteem and self-confidence are inter-

related and how important they are to children’s learning and more general

development both within and outside school.

The multi-faceted nature of self-concept is a confounding problem when attempting to

clarify the conceptual landscape, and how such constructs as self-confidence can be

clearly distinguished from self-esteem presents definitional challenges. Rosenberg et

al. (1995) offer a useful way forward contrasting global self-esteem with specific self-

esteem, with the former relating to affective aspects of psychological well-being, and

the latter referring to the evaluative component of self-concept in relation to

performance and ability. They go on to suggest that specific forms of self-esteem tend

to impact upon global self-esteem more than feelings of global self-esteem impact

upon perceptions of ability in specific domains. This is most likely connected to the

idea that while specific self-esteem is concerned with competence, “the central feature

of global self-esteem appears to be self-acceptance or self-respect” (Rosenberg et al.,

1995; p.144). Akin to the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982), the confidence to

attain specified performance levels is central to such abilities as persistence over time

and other positive outcomes.

137
In contrast, Baumeister et al. (2003) have questioned the degree to which self-esteem,

specific or global, can be linked to behavioural outcomes as suggested by Rosenberg

(1995). Through a thorough review of the literature Baumeister et al. (2003) suggest

that with the exception of the strong link to happiness and resilience there is very little

to link self-esteem to any behavioural outcomes whatsoever. Baumeister et al. (2003)

go on to suggest that the indiscriminate praise that typifies many of the programmes

forwarded by the self-esteem movement of last few decades is more likely to

contribute to “inflated self-esteem than to the kind of self-esteem that will be best for

the individual and for society” (Baumeister et al, 2003; p.39):

“Praising all the children just for being themselves, in contrast, simply

devalues praise and confuses the young people as to what the legitimate standards

are.”

(Baumeister et al, 2003; p.39)

In view of this high heterogeneity of self-esteem, Baumeister et al. (2003) emphasise

the importance of seeking “the right usage of self-esteem” in linking it “to learning

and improvement…in recognition of good performance” (p.39). Jean Heath (CA: CP)

reinforces this perspective by suggesting that children can “have solid self-esteem, not

based on somebody else telling them that they’re good, but just because they know

themselves that they can handle things”. This aspect of creative thinking is related to

Jean’s perception that there is no right or wrong way to tell a story and that retelling

alternative story versions promotes children’s “ability to think things through” for

themselves. Oral storytelling can therefore be understood as learning that allows

children to increase their specific self-esteem in the domain of spoken language

138
through the performance of oral stories, with a focus upon improvement that may

have lasting impacts upon children’s global sense of well-being.

Participants align themselves with this conception of oral storytelling increasing

children’s self-esteem through learning and improvement, through the challenge of

public speaking, being the centre of attention and learning to thinking creatively in the

moment. This perspective is captured within the presentation made by Roland Morris

(CT: Hollytree School) during the INSET day on embedding creativity in the

curriculum:

“Right at the very beginning of the storytelling, our children were very

reluctant to tell their story in front of an audience, but over the course of the activities

that we did with David to learn their story, they really gained that confidence to stand

in front of each other, and confidently speak out their story, tell it and get it out and

all that. Just to add, some of the things that surprised me, that was one of them.”

The socio-emotional effects and benefits of oral storytelling therefore, can be

understood in relation to increases in self-confidence which in turn affects academic

and social self-concept, and may ultimately impact upon global self-esteem in positive

ways. From the observation of a number of children who noticeably increased in

confidence telling stories throughout the course of the intervention I suggest that such

claims have purchase in relation to oral storytelling as a pedagogic tool.

139
4.1.2 Self-expression, emotional literacy and identity: How children understand and

represent themselves

The perspectives forwarded by participants in relation to oral storytelling affecting

self-expression, emotional literacy and identity are closely aligned to the school of

thought that proposes narrative play therapy as a therapeutic tool. Self-expression is

fostered by oral storytelling through the responsibility that is inherent in the shaping

of stories that are re-told so that children are free to re-tell a story using different

verbal language, body language, expression and even to change the narrative so that

the story unfolds in a slightly different way. David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree &

Lakeside Schools) describes the “exposing” nature of oral storytelling that involves

“identifying parts of the characters with parts of yourself” in a manner that he

describes as “the opposite to escape”. David’s perceptions here seem to center on the

idea that oral storytelling challenges children on a socio-emotional level:

“…it’s quite a personal journey…there’s often times when I tell a story and I

don’t feel that comfortable, there’s times when you feel quite uncomfortable

inside….you know, you’re coming to some quite core difficulties for yourself in

different ways.”

Similarly, Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) describes the metaphorical

nature of oral stories and their impact upon understanding of self:

“I think this thing about emotional literacy is huge, in terms of the wonder

tales - the fairy tales, the once upon a time stories - they’re all about emotional

literacy, they’re metaphorical. All the characters in them – the kings, the queens, the

140
princesses, the helpers, the beggars, the monsters, the giants, the giants wives – all of

those people, I tend to go along with the Jungian approach that they all represent

aspects of our inner family, they’re all aspects of self.”

As noted by Alexander et al. (2001) in their study on emergent literacy and socio-

emotional learning through dialogic reading, mothers report that their children are

“drawn to stories that display parallels with their own experience” (p.387). Such

parallels “provide a basis upon which the child can personalize the story, identify with

the characters and use the story to help manage emotional concerns” (Alexander, et

al., 2001; p.387). This exploration of identity through the mapping of personal

experiences of self onto those of the story characters is evident within Jane Smith’s

(CT: Lakeside School) responses. Jane suggests that oral storytelling allows children

to utilise an averted gaze to address emotional issues “because it’s not them

talking…they’re the tiger or the child or the angry Arthur or whoever they are” but at

the same time “it’s their voice about how they’re feeling”. This averted gaze enables

children to give voice to their emotions whilst taking on the persona of a story

character allowing children to explore their emotional landscape in a manner that is

indirect and therefore potentially less threatening. Alexander et al. (2001) suggest that

such an approach enables children to overcome emotional dissonance in their lives to

and make “emotional sense of themselves and others” (p.376):

“As noted by Engel (1995)…when children retell stories again and again, they

gain both mastery of the original experience and of the telling itself.”

(Alexander et al., 2001; p.376)

141
In addition to confronting the ‘core difficulties’ emphasised by David Keele, oral

storytelling provides children with opportunities to change the narratives that they tell

about themselves. David goes on to describe the way that oral storytelling provides

children with important opportunities for self-expression:

“….the fact that when they’re doing oral storytelling, that there is no right

way, there’s just your way of telling the story, can be a real liberation for them….it’s

a really powerful experience for them, and they do definitely carry a greater sense of

their entitlement to express themselves…which is a little bit less tied to expressing

themselves in the way that adults are happy to hear.”

Similarly, Jean Heath (CA: CP) describes the way that teaching children to tell stories

orally can be understood as giving children the tools they need to “re-narrativise”

their lives:

“…So I think that if you have that sort of background, and you have the

storytelling, then you are in a position to then re-narrativise your life, because you

can take an active part in it.”

The construction of identity throughout childhood has been emphasised by Warin

(2010), who examines the nature and purpose of identity focusing upon the socially

situated nature of the self (Mead, 1934; Vygotsky, 1981). Within the participant

responses of my own study on oral storytelling Jean Heath’s emphasis upon children’s

ability to “re-narrativise” their lives gains a foothold in Warin’s (2010) treatment of

the self. Warin (2010) suggests that “it is the capacity for self-narration” (p.178) that

142
is advantageous, and that such a capacity bestows upon the individual “a kind of

‘identity capital’” (p.178) from which they can draw at times of vulnerability. As

noted by Warin (2010) a value for self-awareness and the need for “a ‘strong sense of

self’” as “the basis for mental health and psychological wellbeing” (p.33) has become

firmly established within socio-emotional elements of UK educational policy in recent

years. Most notably the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL)

programme established under the Labour government, and the Birth to Three Matters

Framework (Sure Start, 2005), on which the current Personal, Social, Health and

Economic Education element of the NC is based. Such interventions are invariably

based upon unchanging entity conceptions of self (Dweck, 2000). In contrast, Warin

(2010) stresses temporal aspects suggesting that “it is important to look at how self-

construction occurs over time as this concerns a person’s capacity to change, to learn

or fail to learn, to be open or resistant to new influences” (p.37). To these ends, Warin

(2010) invokes the image of the storyteller as a means by which individuals construct

and tell changing stories of self over time:

“It is necessary to find a way of representing the self that shows it is flexible

that it can be made and re-made, but that it has continuity over time. The metaphor of

‘story’ provides a way of resolving these theoretical tensions…The construction of

self can be viewed as the creation of narrative, a sense-making device, that provides

the appearance of a pattern through repetition of characteristics over time.’

(p.37)

Warin (2010) goes on to suggest that this conception of identity construction as the

creation of ‘stories of self’ has important implications for policy and practice in

143
relation to identity and self-awareness. Sharing similarities with Baumeister’s (2003)

recommendation for strengthening self-esteem through learning and improvement,

Warin (2010) suggests that:

“Interventions in identity construction should not be aimed at strengthening

the self. They should be aimed instead at strengthening a person’s capacity to create

self, their capacity to expand and differentiate identity into a sophisticated, nuanced

story….”

(p.178)

Such an approach has been adopted by Woolf (2012) who suggests that the five

strands of the SEAL programme, self-awareness, empathy, motivation, managing

feelings and social skills, are better achieved through engagement with opportunities

for non-directive play and social interaction than through being directly taught or

‘strengthened’. Participants cumulatively suggest that the effects and benefits of oral

storytelling include the provision of important opportunities for self-expression, self-

reflection and identification as an implicit part of the storytelling process. It seems

likely that such opportunities ultimately impact upon process of identity construction

by allowing children to make emotional sense of themselves (Alexander et al., 2001),

as well as by strengthening the capacity for self-narration (Warin, 2010).

4.1.3 Emotional literacy through intra-psychological processes: How children come to

understand others

Processes of identity formation and understanding of self are closely tied to the effects

of oral storytelling on emotional literacy and children’s ‘double minded’ (Baron-

144
Cohen, 2011) understanding of self and others. The observation that psychotic

individuals can display a cognitive ability to take the perspective of others without

actually empathizing with them reinforces the idea that “empathy includes an

emotional experiential component that is not a part of perspective taking” (Russ &

Niec, 2011; p.28). This notion of double-mindedness has recently been strengthened

by neuro-imaging studies that have found two separate brain areas for emotional

empathy and cognitive empathy (Shamay-Tsoory et al, 2009).

The simultaneous awareness of self and others to which the concept of ‘double-

mindedness’ refers, is reflected in participant responses in relation to the effect of oral

storytelling upon emotional literacy and empathy. Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider

Inquiry) suggests that emotional literacy is fostered by oral storytelling through

“empathy with the characters, identification” and having “to perceive the story

through the eyes of all the various different protagonists”. Similarly, Roland Morris

(CT: Hollytree School) describes the way that oral storytelling involves children

retelling stories in a way that gets “inside the character and how the character feels”

as well as “understanding… the reasons for their actions”. These perspectives are

reinforced by Jane Smith (CT: Lakeside School) who suggests that oral storytelling

enables children to explore emotions and “talk about the good and the bad of those

people” within the story.

Clearly, the rich story narratives and the variety of story characters that are available

during oral storytelling, provide children with intrinsically engaging opportunities to

look beyond themselves so that they can explore and develop their comprehension of

different personality types, emotions, and behaviors. As previously suggested, the

145
psychological affordances of narrative have been noted by Alexander et al (2001),

who note that:

“…it is often the aesthetic properties of the story - the oral and visual

rhythmic patterns, the characters who invite identification and empathy - that inspires

[the child’s] emotional attachment to the story.”

(p.377)

Different story interpretations during oral story re-telling, offer children the

opportunity to experience the same story told by different people in different ways.

The idea that there is “no right or wrong way to tell a story” is central to David

Keele’s (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) pedagogic approach. Tolerance

and acceptance of difference is identified in participant responses as an important

socio-emotional effect of oral storytelling. Through enabling children to “relate to the

world and acknowledge that it’s different” Jean Heath (CA: CP) links tolerance to

creative thinking and the individualized nature of oral storytelling. She suggests that

the tolerance for alternative responses that is fostered through an emphasis upon

different versions of a story that is re-told, is more likely to be lacking when children

have been educated with strong delimitations about the way things should be done:

“…but if you’ve been brought up to believe there’s a right and wrong to

everything, and a tick or a cross to everything, you’re not going to have that

tolerance…”

146
This acceptance of difference has important implications for children’s theory of mind

(Premack & Woodruff, 1978), which involves children developing a cognitive

understanding that other people have separate minds, thoughts and ideas. Relatedly,

Jane Smith describes the way that due to the cycles of deprivation that result in poor

parenting skills, many of the children at Lakeside School are “not looked at, a lot of

them don’t speak, they don’t contextualise that ‘my mums smiling at me, she must be

happy’”. She goes on to describe the way that oral storytelling can benefit such

children:

“…our children don’t have a lot of emotion, so by storytelling we can take

that out of the story and give them the emotions that perhaps they haven’t felt before –

they’re quite young, you know you can do it at quite a young age, and our children

will talk in that character, not necessarily for themselves, but when they’re that

character or when they’re in that storytelling world, they can feel and think about

things that perhaps they’re shut down to in their lives.”

Jane Smith’s suggestion that the children at Lakeside “don’t have a lot of emotion” is

clearly a problematic statement that is not possible to uphold. However, the sentiment

behind her assertion is compelling and requires consideration of what may lie behind

it. It appears that it is the qualitative nature of children’s emotional experiences rather

than a lack of emotions that is the real issue here, with social factors and constraints

resulting in core difficulties that impact upon children’s ability to understand and

positively express their emotional lives. This perspective is reinforced by research

that has demonstrated that the quality of emotional talk between caregivers and young

147
children is strongly linked to emotional literacy, understanding of self and social

cognition and competence (Asher, 1983; Denham, 1992; Benner et al., 2002).

The process of retelling a story from the perspective of different protagonists involves

an element of role-play that enables children to experience emotional content

themselves, and as Jane Smith suggests “give[s] them the emotions that perhaps they

haven’t felt before”. Experience of emotions that may be unfamiliar to children is

crucial if they are to achieve emotional literacy and gain a sense of empathy. As

emphasised by Szalavitz & Perry (2010):

“The essence of empathy is to stand in another’s shoes, to feel what it is like to

be there and to care about making it better if it hurts.”

(p.12)

A direct link between role-playing and empathy has been demonstrated by Staub

(1971) who observed pro-social empathic behaviour that persisted over time in

children who enacted a situation where another child needed help. In contrast children

who inductively had the positive consequences of helping and sharing pointed out to

them did not exhibit the same pro-social behaviour. As noted by Szalavitz & Perry

(2010) while the application of theory of mind known as ‘perspective taking’ is a pre-

requisite for empathic ability, empathy includes an emotional, experiential component

that is not a part of perspective taking. This observation reinforces the idea that pro-

social skills are ‘caught not taught’ (Woolf, 2012) and the importance of experiential

learning to the development of emotional literacy and empathy.

148
Overall participants align themselves with the idea that through processes of

identification, perspective-taking and experiential learning oral storytelling fosters

emotional literacy, tolerance and empathy in children. I suggest that the mechanisms

by which such pro-social effects may be achieved is through the double-minded

understanding of self and others (Baron-Cohen, 2011), and the perspective-taking and

experiential learning that enables children to turn their more abstract theory of mind

into felt empathic understanding. Oral storytelling can therefore be understood as

spoken language practice that fosters emotional literacy and empathic ability through

the intra-psychological process of identification, which provides children with

important opportunities to understand both themselves and others.

4.1.4 The listener, the audience and the group: Emotional literacy through inter-

psychological processes

Processes of identity construction are couched in a dual awareness of self and other,

where the “capacity to tell a story of self is derived from social relationships, whilst

also facilitating the formation and progression of social relationships” (Warin, 2011;

p.48). Theories of identity tend to either foreground the changeability of self in

relation to the dynamic and infinitely complex flux of different social contexts, or the

continuity of self as a construct that enables individuals to take control, manage

experiences and maintain a coherent sense of self and psychological well-being. A

more helpful distinction suggests that we need to think in less absolute terms and

develop more nuanced understandings of “individual and group” as “the two

permanent poles of all social processes” (Asch, 1952; p.285).

149
Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) suggests that the collectivism of oral

storytelling with its “’crick crack’, this sort of call and response…and a lot of

interrogative ‘what do you think happened?’ kind of stuff”, is what ‘reaffirms

participation’ and sets oral storytelling apart from other performing arts. Blaine

emphasizes that with oral storytelling there is “a dialogue possible all the time” and

that “kids feel they can question and interrogate the story”. He goes on to elucidate

how this might work in practice, emphasizing the expertise of the storyteller in

enabling this type of oral storytelling exchange:

“…if it’s a good storyteller, the kid can ask a question, and the storyteller if

they’re in control of what they’re doing can stop the story exactly, digress and deal

with the question, and maybe even tell another story in response, and then come back

to the original story.”

This quality of call and response has been addressed in Myers’s (1990) study of the

effects of oral storytelling as compared to story reading. Myers (1990) found more

collaborative behaviour between storyteller and listener, such as questions and

comments to clarify meanings, during oral storytelling than during story reading. At

the heart of dialogic teaching methods (Alexander, 2001, 2008a, 2008b) is a

commitment to interactions that encourage students to question teaching material, and

teachers to ask questions that are not wholly based around simple recall. The Bristol

study of language development that followed a sample of 32 children from home to

their first school (Wells, 1986) found that “not only did children almost cease to ask

‘real’ questions at school but teachers also rarely invited them to express and explain

their beliefs and opinions – at least with respect to the official curriculum” (Davies &

150
Sinclair, 2012; p.5). The increased questioning and dialogic interactions observed by

Myers (1990) can therefore be taken as an indication that oral storytelling is aligned

with social constructivist perspectives of learning, as well as the concept of dialogic

teaching. Such perspectives emphasise the inherently social character of learning

along with the key principles of collectivity, reciprocity, cumulation, support and

purposefulness (Alexander, 2008) of classroom talk.

Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP) contrasts oral storytelling and story

reading emphasizing the physical differences between them, describing the former as

“direct”, and the latter as “static”, as well as invoking images of the book as a barrier

between teller and listener:

“…if somebody is reading often their head is in a book and then they’re

showing the book, whereas if they’re telling the story they’re there, they’re constantly

engaging – that face to face dynamic relationship, so physically I think it’s a different

experience…”

This perspective is aligned with the immediate, personal, active and direct qualities of

oral storytelling that have been demonstrated by research. Studies already presented in

the literature review in relation to the evidence on oral storytelling’s effects

cumulatively reinforce the idea that the ‘crick-crack’ of oral storytelling functions as a

co-creative and bi-directional form of communication (Roney, 1996). For example,

the observation that there is increased use of eye contact and a de-focus on story book

illustrations during oral storytelling (Malo & Bullard, 2000); that participation during

story reading generally involves discussion of book illustrations (Ellis, 1997; Aina,

151
1998); and that oral storytelling invites significantly more audience participation

(Isbell, 2004). Such research serves to set oral storytelling apart from story reading as

an activity that has specific socio-emotional effects that hinge upon its inter-relational

quality and the fact that it is freed from the constraints of text-based reproduction.

Inter-psychological processes during oral storytelling can therefore be understood as

the way that children are able to enhance their understanding of self and others

through watching and listening to others tell stories. Oral stories tend to involve a

large amount of body language and gesture due to the need to fill the performance

space and also to convey the story to a listening audience. In addition, and as a result

of the direct ‘face-to-face’ connection with the audience, facial expression becomes a

noticeably central part of a storytelling performance. Children can therefore gain an

understanding of the link between internal emotional state and external markers of

non-verbal communication through watching others tell stories orally.

The role of mirror neurones in empathic responses has been established by Gallese

(2001) who describes the ‘shared manifold of inter-subjectivity’ whereby

understanding and representation of others is made possible through the ‘matching’ of

observed and executed actions, emotions and sensations onto the same neural

substrate. Gallese (2001) goes on to emphasise that in terms of theory of mind, “much

of what we ascribe to the mind of others when witnessing their actions depends on the

‘resonance mechanisms’ that their actions trigger in us” (p.47). The embodied quality

of neural resonance mechanisms becomes clear when we find ourselves

unintentionally replicating a facial expression or striking a similar pose to the person

we are talking to. In addition, the observation and execution of actions, emotions and

152
sensations has been found to stimulate the self-same regions in the brain (Gallese,

2001). The experiential and embodied character of empathy suggests that oral

storytelling enables children to observe others tell stories with emotional themes and

then replicate those themes themselves, and that this will impact upon children’s

shared manifold of inter-subjectivity in ways that have implications for the

development of empathy. As noted by Davis (1990):

“When empathy occurs, we find ourselves experiencing it, rather than directly

causing it to happen. This is the characteristic that makes the act of empathy

unteachable.”

(p.707)

The interaction that takes place between the storyteller and his/her audience as a

heterogeneous group is another plane upon which inter-psychological processes

operate. An aspect of oral storytelling that all of the participants with direct

experience of it are clear about is the extent to which the storyteller reads the audience

that they are storytelling to. David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools)

emphasises this aspect in his description of inter-relational aspects of oral storytelling

where the storyteller is “responding to how the audience is”. David goes on to

contrast oral storytelling and reading aloud in terms of how the storyteller can tailor

an orally told story to suit the audience, as it is being told:

“…whatever it is you do it’s in direct relation to the audience, how the

audience seem to be, and the energy in the room, and the looks on people’s faces and

the rest of it. So you are directly relating through the story with the audience, in a

153
way that with a book you’re just not…so if you can feel that your audience is

absolutely in the story then you can afford to relax more and you can slow the story

down, you can tell more, you can put more detail into the story.”

The fact that oral stories can be altered and changed to suit the unique composition of

an audience and how the story is being received along with the requirement to pick up

on non-verbal cues from the audience as an implicit part of this process, has important

implications for emotional literacy. As presented in the literature review of this thesis,

Myers (1990) describes the way that younger children listening to an orally told story

showed “by the expression on their faces and a ‘kind of leaning back’ movement in

their bodies” (p.826) that they were not quite understanding the gist of a story. Such

‘mind-reading’ ability is clearly not telepathy but rather “observation of certain

components within the complex of others’ behaviour patterns together with their

environmental context” due to the fact that “that’s all we can see” (Whiten, 1996;

p.277). Whiten (1996) goes on to suggest that this makes a simple contrast between

mind-reading and behaviour-reading difficult. Once again a helpful way forward is

proposed by Gallese’s (2001) work on mirror neurones as the basis of empathic

ability, whereby the shared manifold of actions, emotions and sensations that allows

us to “recognise other human beings as similar to us” (p.44-45) also allows the

storyteller to read his/her audience during oral storytelling:

“It is just because of this shared manifold that inter-subjective communication

and mind-reading become possible.”

(Gallese, 2001; p.45)

154
Cumulatively, participants suggest that oral storytelling is a direct form of

communication that ‘reaffirms participation’, encourages the development of

behaviour reading ability, and invites a dialogue to take place between storyteller and

listening audience in a manner that story reading precludes. I suggest that it is the

experiential and inherently social quality of oral storytelling that produces these

effects, with empathic ability being strongly influenced by the action of neural

mechanisms that match emotions and observed and executed actions onto neural

regions of the brain (Gallese, 2001). In this way oral storytelling can be understood as

spoken language practice that is inherently participatory, providing opportunities for

the development of emotional literacy and social competence through its operation on

the inter-psychological plane.

4.1.5 Teamwork and emotional literacy

The collaboration that is required to get children oral storytelling can be a challenge to

both children and teachers, and is closely associated with the difficulties that teachers

frequently find in using oral storytelling as a pedagogic tool. By its very nature oral

storytelling requires reciprocity in its production – for a story to be told it needs to be

received by a listening audience. In addition, oral storytelling requires practice to

enable children to become familiar with the structure and what David Keele

(Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) describes as “the world of the story”.

Therefore children learn to collaborate through the mutually reinforcing process of

telling and listening to each other’s stories as they take turns as teller and audience.

The ability of oral storytelling to enhance teamwork skills is emphasised by Sarah

White (CT: Hollytree School) who asserts that she would like to do more oral

155
storytelling due to the fact that the children “work so much better together as a class

doing this than they do on anything else”. Similarly, David Keele (Storyteller:

Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) asserts that children’s ability to relate to others is

enhanced by the collaborative process of working together within a classroom

producing an oral story, as well as through the process of standing up in front of

people and learning to read an audience:

“…their abilities to relate to each other, I mean so much of it is about that

relationship, both at the point that they’re telling the story, and during the kind of

working up of the story when most of the work is interactive anyway.”

Collaborative learning involves an element of risk due to its emphasis upon human

interaction which is rarely straightforward at the best of times. Children need to

experience the potential for conflict that inheres within any social interaction in order

to learn and develop important social skills that can’t be taught. During the

storytelling intervention, group-telling scenarios involved each child taking turns

telling the story as a different character, or choosing a different section of the story to

tell. It was during such group-work that a significant amount of negotiation was

observed to take place. As described by Sarah White:

“…because they’re rubbish at managing themselves…I mean, you saw with

the girls today -conflict resolution is not their strong point! We’re doing so much

PHSE and things on…we’re doing families and conflict resolution because that’s our

big issues in this class…but I think this does, this helps because it’s somewhere they

can put it into practice – all the stuff they’ve being trying to do like compromise.

156
Whether it works or not is another matter, but… because we’re working in a group,

and not everyone can be the farmer’s son, and you know, is there a way round it, is

someone going to have to say ‘okay, this time you can do what you want to do’…”

Oral storytelling can therefore be conceptualised as a powerful way to incorporate

collaborative and co-operative forms of learning into the classroom. This effect

reinforces the concepts already discussed of experiential learning and the idea that

“social skills are not taught, but rather absorbed” and “learned through relationship”

(Woolf, 2012; p.37). Participants aligned themselves with this notion of experiential

and collaborative learning that enabled children to work together towards the end goal

of producing an oral story. The group-work that was observed during the course of the

intervention involved a significant amount of negotiation and compromise. It is

therefore suggested that opportunities for learning the social skills that underpin

collaboration and teamwork during oral storytelling are significant.

4.2 Effects upon communicative competence and vocabulary

This section examines the effects and benefits of oral storytelling upon

communicative competence and vocabulary, specifically, the ways that oral

storytelling increases fluency and scaffolds language and affects children with

problems of oral communication.

4.2.1 Fluency and the scaffolding of spoken language

Communicative competence is a highly subjective notion, and conceptions of what

speaking well and being comprehended well actually entail, and how such abilities

can be instilled in speakers is far from clear. Participant perspectives focus upon oral

157
storytelling as an effective way to improve and showcase communicative competence.

Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) emphasises the importance of confidence

and fluency regardless of vernacular features, so that “somebody with strong dialect

and confidence that is making him or herself understood” can be perceived as

“speaking well” and being “comprehended well”. However, as noted by Guillot

(1999) “fluency is an elusive notion [and] the assumptions which underpin classroom

approaches to fluency have remained mostly uninspected” (p.vii)

The concept of fluency has been aligned with rapidity, smoothness and confidence,

and also “the ability to retrieve units of speech…quickly and automatically”

(McCarthy, 2009; p.13). Similarly, dictionary definitions that refer to “‘smoothness

and connectedness’, ‘ease of flow’, ‘readiness of utterance’, ‘facility’, ‘absence of

pause’…” (Guillot,1999; p.14) do not capture the “fragmented and discontinuous”

(Goldman-Eisler, 1968; p.31) quality of spontaneous speech that does not conform to

idealistic notions of language. As noted by Guillot (1999):

“If the pauses, hesitations, inaccuracies of all kinds, the vagueness and

changes of mind which intersperse speech, pass undetected in a perceptual

appreciation of fluency, they must be part of fluency.”

(p.15)

This conception therefore sees fluency as “the features which give speech the qualities

of being natural and normal, including native-like use of pausing, rhythm, intonation,

stress, rate of speaking, and use of interjections and interruptions” (Longman

Dictionary, 1985; p.108). Here the inclusion of “interjections and interruptions”

158
appeals to dialogic formulations of spoken language where the participatory nature of

speech is emphasised. Alternatively, fluency can be understood as a rhetorical notion

where the monologic is privileged “at the expense of the dialogic/interactional”

(1999; p.14). In this conception the focus is upon the finesse of individual production

rather than communicative reciprocity. However, McCarthy (2004) suggests that

evidence for fluency in spoken language is best found and assessed in dyadic and

multi-party talk rather than in monologic contexts. In this respect McCarthy (2004)

forwards the notion of fluency as a process of negotiation between speaker and

listener (Guillot, 1999) that is “more adequately captured by the metaphor of

confluence” (McCarthy, 2004; p.23).

How this all relates to oral storytelling hinges upon the complexity of oral storytelling

as a spoken word art-from. Clearly there is a degree of monologic production

involved in orally telling a story (cf. Pappas & Pettigrew, 1991). However, as already

explored in connection with inter-relational aspects there are also significant levels of

interactivity in terms of reading the audience that the story is being pitched to for

levels of understanding and reception (Myers, 1990). In addition, there is a need for

the oral storyteller to be able to work with the interjections and interruptions that

hallmark the interlocutionary and participatory nature of oral storytelling, which do

not characterise other monologic forms such as poetry or story reading (Myers, 1990).

All notions of fluency are intrinsically impressionistic, plural and open to the

variability of subjective interpretation (Guillot, 1999). From this perspective it is the

perception of fluency and what is entailed in speaking well and being comprehended

well that becomes the focus. Much of the pedagogic work that surrounds the teaching

159
and learning of oral storytelling in the classroom hinges upon a ‘confluence’

(McCarthy, 2004) of perceptions about what it means to tell a story well. During the

course of the intervention children were encouraged to reflect on their favourite

aspects of different re-tellings, and invariably different children had different

perceptions about which parts of a re-telling worked best. Echoing the Longman

Dictionary definition of fluency, a focus upon pause, rhythm, intonation, stress and

rate of speaking during oral storytelling strongly characterised the quality of

instruction during the intervention at Hollytree School. In addition, volume, pitch,

accent, characterisation and the non-verbal use of body language were also important

aspects of David Keele’s approach, with children being encouraged to focus upon

these qualities of speech and delivery through various exercises. For example, during

“Alphabet Telling” children were asked to change tone and intonation while reciting

the alphabet, as a simple pitch-based exercise or one where emotional content was

added by reciting the alphabet in a scared voice, a happy voice or an angry voice.

In addition, the end goal of oral storytelling is not accuracy but rather automatic and

dynamic language use (Hammerly, 1991; McCarthy, 2009). Indeed rote learning is

actively discouraged and children are encouraged to change and develop the narrative

so that the story becomes their own. The pedagogic techniques that David Keele used

to enable children to become familiar with the “world of the story” are targeted

towards remembering the structure of the story narrative rather than the kind of word-

for-word memorization that characterizes literacy-based processes. Therefore, the oral

storytelling process can be understood as one that employs ad libitum principles of

dramatization where the focus is upon accelerating language use in the moment of

speech. Both storytellers emphasise that oral storytelling enhances what David Keele

160
(Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) describes as children’s “ability to use and

weave language in the moment”. Blaine Hogarth similarly describes the “rapid run to

lexicon” that oral storytelling requires, and how this works to enhance children’s

communicative competence:

“…it is creating this thing which I believe is right at the heart of speaking,

which is this rapid access to the vocabulary, this rapid editing of information, this

rapid shaping, this rapid construction which we have, which we do when we speak

our language – it’s all in there, and you can see the story, and you just tell what’s

happening. But it’s really working on accelerating that.”

Such conceptions of fluency relate to the observation by Julia Barden

(CA/Programme Director: CP) that “for everybody…it offers this extending of their

vocabulary” as well as inviting “kids to be articulate, to really engage with the spoken

word”. Julia suggests that the process by which oral storytelling achieves this is by

giving children “a structure upon which to base their speaking” so that “they

understand vocabulary because it’s used in a specific context”. The contextualized

pedagogic techniques that David Keele used to enable children to become familiar

with the “world of the story” are targeted towards remembering the structure of the

story narrative:

“…the thing is that what happens when you’re working with oral stories is - it

doesn’t happen when children are working usually with writing stories – is that you

spend so much time exploring the world of the story beforehand, so you know the

characters, you know what they look like, who they are, you draw story maps, and

161
story boards, and emotion graphs and you visualize the places and you can hear the

sounds and smell the smells, and when you have that level of understanding and

knowledge of a story, and that level of confidence in your knowledge, actually it

releases vocabulary.”

As noted by Burns, Griffin & Snow (1999), “vocabulary, language skills, and

knowledge about the world are acquired during interesting conversations with

responsive adults” (p.19). The modelling of language through oral storytelling,

particularly when stories are first told by a capable and responsive adult, has the

additional benefit of being contextualized within a story narrative. As noted by

Cortazzi & Jin (2007) “delaying speaking and learning initially through listening

comprehension” (p.647) is an important part of the metacognitive process that

scaffolds children’s learning. This process of demonstration followed by imitation –

modelling – is commonly used in the classroom to help learners navigate their way

through the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978; cf. Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), enabling learners to

reach their goals through decreasing levels of instructional support (Wood et al.,

1976). Oral storytelling scaffolds children’s learning, first through the modelling of an

orally told story, and then through pedagogic techniques that enable children to

become familiar with the narrative.

Cortazzi & Jin (2007) present the concept of ‘narrative learning’, which they define as

“learning to tell stories and learning from, about and through narrative” (p.645), as an

advantageous way for pupils to support their language development. Through the

telling and retelling of stories and the application of pedagogic techniques such as

“Story Maps”, learners are provided with “layered opportunities for developing the

162
metacognitive features of planning, remembering, understanding and reflecting on

storytelling” (Cortazzi & Jin, 2007; p.645). Story Maps were just one of the

pedagogic techniques that David Keele was observed to use during the oral

storytelling intervention, with “Story Skeletons”, “Emotion Graphs” and “Story

Boards” being just a few of the others that were also used over the course of the seven

weeks. Cortazzi & Jin (2007) describe the metacognitive advantages of a narrative

approach suggesting that it captures children’s imaginations, and helps them to

“develop syntactic structures, to understand and express narrative sequencing, story

character description and, significantly, to express the evaluative element in

narratives” (p.657). This aspect is emphasised by Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree

School) who describes the meta-cognitive effects of the pedagogic methods used to

teach oral storytelling:

“And the methods they’ve used to help them remember the stories have been

really good as well, and they’re sticking in their minds, and now they’re putting it into

sequence well because they keep starting at different points and carrying on and

picking up from there, because that’s what children can have a problem with when

they’ve read a story – the sequence of events and the order that it goes in, drawing

out the most important points.”

In addition, learning is scaffolded on simple account of the fact that the narrative is

already provided, as suggested by Blaine Hogarth in relation to the assessment of oral

language ability:

163
 “If you want to assess pupils ability to use language… why don’t you do what

we do which is retell an existing story, that’s the oral tradition, a story is passed on,

the story can be changed…they use their own language to retell it, but the effort of

having to make up a story is out of it.”

This aspect is reinforced by research that has examined the scaffolding of children’s

oral storytelling abilities, finding that children “were often hesitant” and “tense and

uncertain” (Turner, 1999; p.106) in sessions where they were asked to retell their

favourite story (i.e. the onus was upon them). In contrast, sessions that used

storytelling computer software designed to provide a narrative structure, resulted in

“significantly different responses” (Turner, 1999; p.107):

“The average length increased greatly, while the structure of the stories told

also improved over the sessions with the pupils developing the ability to tell stories

which had a definite sequence, with its own logic. They were clearly motivated by the

materials…During the sessions themselves, the number of pupil-led interactions

increased significantly.”

(Turner, 1999; p.107)

Cumulatively participants suggest that oral storytelling enables children to develop

the confidence to communicate effectively, to speak well and to be comprehended

well in the ad libitum moment of speech. In addition, through the provision of

supportive metacognitive strategies children extend their communicative skills

through the process of learning how to orally reproduce a narrative. I suggest that

communicative competence is achieved through the reflective and subjective

164
opportunities to assess fluency that are utilised as an inherent part of the oral

storytelling process. Furthermore, the monologic quality of an orally told story is

buttressed by the interactive and participatory nature of oral storytelling (Myers,

1990), and this further enhances fluency through processes of interlocutory

negotiation between speaker and listener (Guillot, 1999). In addition, metacognitive

structure is provided through scaffolded and layered opportunities for learning,

including the modelling of language, the narrative context of stories, and also the

many pedagogic techniques employed during the course of teaching oral storytelling

to children. Oral storytelling can therefore be understood as an effective way of

enhancing communicative competence through improvisational spoken language

practice that is reflective, monologic, participatory and scaffolded.

4.2.2 Problems of oral communication

It is not known whether Specific Language Impairment or socio-emotional

behavioural disorders were present in the children that were exposed to the

storytelling intervention at Hollytree School. However, it is considered useful to

examine problems of language and socio-emotional behaviour in relation to oral

storytelling as an oral language intervention. As suggested by Sandra Hollingsworth

(HT: Hollytree School) “speaking and listening skills are such a massive part of why

our children don’t achieve”. Sandra goes on to suggest that this is largely due to issues

of ethnic diversity and the fact that children “don’t come into school fluent in

English”. There is an explicit focus within Kate Leech’s (CT: Lakeside School)

responses upon this aspect, and she contrasts children from “middle class areas [who]

have 10,000 words going into reception” with children from Lakeside School who she

suggests are “more coming in at ESL level” with some children even struggling to say

165
their own name. Kate goes on to describe the kind of daily interactions she has with

children in her class by way of example:

“…they’ll come in with their jumper and they’ll just hold it up at you – you

know they want you to put their jumper on, but that’s what they do at home, and the

amount of times I have to say ‘use your words’ – in the day I have to use that phrase

so often.”

David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) focuses upon “children’s

ability to express themselves orally” and “whether they can articulate what they want,

how they feel”, suggesting that a number of the social difficulties that children

experience in school hinge upon “problems of oral communication”:

“I was working in this class the other day – year 4 – and they have such

problems, and it’s all about oral communication, all problems of oral communication

between members of the class, and they can’t solve problems and talk to each other

without calling each other names after 5 minutes – much less than that actually!”

Similarly, Sarah White (CT: Hollytree School) describes the problems she has faced

in relation to the effects upon her whole class of externalizing behaviour exhibited by

a handful of boys:

“…they’re quite a traumatized class. Up until last year they had four

extremely disruptive boys, three of whom were excluded permanently…So I’ve ended

166
up with a lot of – especially the girls who are shy, introvert, because they’ve never

been able to have any attention because it’s always been on these four.”

The relationship between language and socio-emotional difficulties in school aged

children is far from straightforward with studies finding that while some socio-

emotional behavioural disorders are related to Specific Language Impairment, others

are not (Clark et al., 2000, 2002). On the whole however, there is strong support in

the literature for the co-occurrence of behavioural, social and emotional difficulties

and also psychiatric problems, with language difficulties (Gualtieri et al., 1983;

Beitchman et al, 1989; Cohen et al., 1993, 1998; Lindsay et al, 2007), with research

estimating a 50-70% co-morbidity rate between the two disorder categories (Hummel

& Prizant, 1993; Benner, 2002).

A study by Ripley and Yuill (2005) has examined the expressive and receptive

language problems of boys excluded from primary and secondary schools in relation

to age and different aspects of behaviour. The study found that language abilities were

significantly impaired in excluded boys while non-verbal abilities were not

significantly different from controls suggesting that in the excluded boys general low

ability was not a contributory factor. An unexpected finding of the study was the

relation between expressive language and emotional symptoms, with a sub-group of

excluded boys with above average expressive language ability showing no indication

of emotional symptoms. In contrast, excluded boys with poor expressive ability were

‘markedly high’ on this behavioural measure (Ripley & Yuill, 2005). Early language

competence and the quality of emotional talk between caregivers and very young

children is strongly linked to emotional literacy and understanding of self and others

167
that is in turn associated with social cognition and competence (Asher, 1983;

Denham, 1992; Benner et al., 2002). However, the findings reported by Ripley &

Yuill (2005) suggest an alternative path whereby “the development of expressive

language may help children in regulating their own emotions, while other [receptive]

aspects of language may play more of a role in encounters with others” (p.48). This

hypothesis has support from research that has found that 6-10-year-old’s ability to

regulate negative emotions was partially predicted by their expressive language, but

not by their receptive language level (Strauss, 2001).

The self-regulatory effect of language upon behaviour is fundamental to Vygotskian

notions of learning and development. Through the impulse control that develops with

emerging language during the preschool years (Kopp, 1982), and then through later

self-talk that enables young children to understand situations and effectively problem

solve (Harris, 1990), by the age of 6 or 7 children’s private speech becomes

internalized as conscious self-regulatory thought (Vygotsky, 1962). When children

have difficulties with thinking things through, and with the receptive and expressive

language that affects their ability to understand and respond in an appropriate manner,

they are put under considerable pressure to conform to the ability levels of their peers.

It is this pressure that frequently results in the non-compliance – through avoidance or

externalizing behaviour - that gets interpreted simply as bad behaviour rather than an

underlying Specific Language Impairment (Baker & Cantwell, 1987).

The importance of oral language to enable children to express themselves on a socio-

emotional level has been explored by Warin (2010) who suggests that the ability to

tell stories of self in the service of identity construction, “emphasises its language

168
demands” and “suggests the need for children to develop an emotional vocabulary”

(p.38):

“Exposure to and practice in the use of emotional vocabulary seems an

essential requirement in advocating the value of stories of self. Emotional literacy

could also encompass the narrative skills of weaving together the different threads of

a story of self, what Giddens terms ‘capacity to keep a particular narrative going.’”

(Warin, 2010; p.38)

Cumulatively, such perspectives provide support for the mediational role of language

practice in the classroom. Immersion in language rich learning opportunities that

provide strong emotional content can give children the experience they need to

develop the expressive language skills and the emotional vocabulary that are essential

for self-regulation and social competence in and beyond school. Inherent to oral

storytelling is the strong emotional content and themes, and the expressive language

practice that is essential to children’s psychosocial development. Kate Leech

emphasises this latter aspect highlighting oral storytelling’s ability to enable children

to “become enriched in their language” so that “they develop the ability to talk while

they’re in nursery”. Similarly, Sandra Hollingsworth suggests that since more creative

pedagogic techniques based in spoken language had been brought into Hollytree

School through CP, behaviour had improved:

“…lessons are very rarely disrupted by poor behaviour, whereas 18 months

ago most afternoons were disrupted by poor behaviour, because the topics were

taught using quite traditional – teachers started the afternoon by talking at the

169
children for half an hour, they listened and went away to their tables to fill in a work

sheet and write something down about what the teacher had told them – the old style

teaching. It’s just not right for these children…”

Problems of oral communication that are exhibited by certain children can have a

Pygmalion Effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) that results in such children

experiencing further disadvantage in school. This outcome has been noted by

Redmond & Rice (1998) who propose a Social Adaptation Model that views the

behavioural differences between children with language difficulties and their

normally developing peers as “the result of an interaction between the children’s

primary language limitations, social context, and the biases people associate with

limited verbal proficiency” (p.689). Redmond & Rice (1998) go on to assert that

treatment for children experiencing language difficulties “should be organized around

remediation of their primary language skills as a first priority, with improvement of

socio-emotional competence as secondary” (p.697). In addition, they advocate

changing “peer and teacher attitudes and their stereotypes about the underlying nature

of a child’s limited verbal proficiency” (Redmond & Rice, 1998; p.698). In the

responses of Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree School) there is an acknowledgement of

this tendency to stereotype children with low ability, as well as the potential of oral

storytelling to shift perceptions in relation to children’s oral language and their

abilities in school more generally:

“…it’s brought children on that I never thought would be able to do

something like that, so….maybe I’ve had low expectations of them, but seeing what

170
they’ve done in this, it just goes to show that if they can do that with the storytelling,

then they can do that elsewhere as well.”

Overall, participants’ responses focus upon the link between low language ability and

behaviour, and also the tendency for the expectations of teachers and peers to consign

children to disadvantageous learner identities. Many of the perceptions forwarded by

participants have centred upon a description of individual learning contexts in relation

to language ability and behaviour. As such, much of the discussion of problems of

oral communication has been an extrapolation of these views and therefore represents

inferred aspects of the inquiry rather than participant perceptions per se. From these

inferences I suggest that oral storytelling provides children with opportunities to

develop their expressive language and an emotional vocabulary that enhances self-

regulation and the capacity to ‘tell stories of self’ (Warin, 2010). Oral storytelling can

therefore be understood as spoken language practice that has the ability to remediate

problems of oral communication in certain children, and may also affect associated

forms of externalising behaviour in beneficial ways.

4.3 Summing up

In sum, oral storytelling can be understood as providing children with important

opportunities to develop socio-emotional abilities and communicative competence

and vocabulary. Self-confidence, understanding of self and others, social cooperation

and inter-relational ability, fluency through the scaffolding of language and

remediation for problems of oral communication, appear to be some of the most

salient effects and benefits that can be attributed to oral storytelling. In addition, and

perhaps most importantly of all, oral storytelling provides scope for changing

171
delimiting perceptions of poor communicators that may be held by teachers and more

verbally competent peers.

The next chapter shall examine the balance of S&L in the curriculum more closely to

get a sense of the extent to which oral storytelling specifically and non-instrumental

practice in spoken language more generally, is given a platform within school and the

NC.

172
5. Speaking and Listening in the National Curriculum

The focus of this chapter is the balance of S&L in relation to engagement with

literacy-based instruction in school, to elucidate the second and third sub-questions of

the research that focus on the best ways to utilize oral storytelling in school, as well as

the barriers associated with its practice. In line with the primary Research Question,

participant responses indicate that there is a devaluation of S&L in school that results

from the way curriculum and teacher training is organized. In particular, a lack of

storytelling process and the linking of spoken language to written aims and outcomes

in the curriculum come across as ways that this devaluation can be most clearly

perceived. Cumulatively, this chapter invokes the theoretical basis of the study

whereby the semiotic mechanism of speech as the “tool of tools” (Luria, cited in Cole,

1996; p.108) is viewed as being of central importance to conceptual thought and

social development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1981). This chapter first examines the

devaluation of S&L in the curriculum and ITT more generally, before going on to

examine the lack of storytelling process and the linking of S&L to writing in the

curriculum more closely.

5.1 The devaluation of speaking and listening in the curriculum

The call for a greater emphasis upon spoken language and more dialogic modes of

teaching and learning in school has been gaining support over the last decade since

Robin Alexander (2001, 2004, 2008) first drew attention to the pedagogic importance

of spoken language that is:

“…rigorously planned and implemented; that engages and sustains children’s

attention to the task in hand; that challenges and stretches their thinking; that probes

173
their understanding and misunderstanding, building on the one and rectifying the

other; that demands as much of the teacher’s expertise as it does of the child’s

developing linguistic skills.”

(Alexander, 2012a; p.5)

However, the degree to which spoken language practice that is ‘rigorously planned

and implemented’ has been utilised in school in recent years is questionable. Rather,

there is a much stronger indication that spoken language is marginalised as a direct

result of curriculum constraints and the prioritisation of literacy-based skills in school.

David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) was a primary teacher

before he trained as a professional storyteller, and this background ideally places him

to comment on the degree to which oral storytelling and S&L more generally are a

focus of the primary curriculum. David asserts that during his time teaching his

experience was “that the foci and the specifics of the S&L curriculum were attended

to less probably than any other area”. Similarly, Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree

School) asserts that within the three schools he had worked in “not a great deal” of

time and weight was given over to S&L. Roland goes on to suggest that S&L should

be “given more potence perhaps than it is” within the National Strategies, with more

time being spent on S&L and activities such as oral storytelling in the early years, to

achieve a better balance between literacy and orality in school:

“…if a lot more time was given earlier on in Foundation Stage and Key Stage

1 – most definitely in Key Stage 1 – to speaking and listening, and to activities like

telling stories or verbally saying what you’ve done…you know, have a balance.”

174
Jane Smith (CT: Lakeside School) reflects upon the situation at Lakeside School

where S&L is a significant focus of the way the school tries to achieve its aims and

targets, but she goes on to suggest that this may not reflect the situation in schools

more generally:

“Here, it’s one of our biggest isn’t it? But Nationally I don’t really know, I

would have thought not.”

Kate Leech (CT: Lakeside School) focuses upon the idea that “speaking and listening

was seen as more important than it is now” (p.22) when the renewed Primary

Framework first came out in 2006:

K: …so going back 6/7 years, when the National Primary Framework came out – it

came out about 7 seven years ago…

I: So when it first came out speaking and listening was more…

K: Was more highly valued than it is now…

Cumulatively these responses in relation to spoken language practice in school reflect

a serious devaluation of S&L in the curriculum. This devaluation has recently been

addressed by Robin Alexander (2012a, 2012b), a key proponent of dialogic forms of

education, and also the Director of the Cambridge Review. As such, Alexander is

strategically placed to disseminate findings from the Review (Alexander, 2010) and

also engage with policy makers in relation to these findings (Alexander, 2012a,

2012b). It is perhaps no surprise then that his forthright opinions have reached a

vociferous level of dissent in relation to the latest version of the NC recently

175
implemented by the Conservative-Liberal Coalition, which has effectively

downgraded the profile of spoken language in the curriculum:

“The Secretary of State, and the draft programmes of study, announce that

‘the importance of spoken language should be a priority throughout the new national

curriculum’. What is actually proposed in the draft programmes of study contradicts

this. Indeed, there is deep concern in many quarters about what is seen as a severe

weakening of the profile of spoken language in the draft programmes of study, and

this despite the considerable array of evidence with which ministers and DfE have

been presented.”

(Alexander, 2012a; p.4)

Alexander (2012a) points to a number of key concerns in relation to the way that

spoken language has been positioned in the NC. Firstly, he asserts that the

overarching statements emphasising the importance of spoken language that head

each of the three core PoS’s (English, Mathematics and Science) are “so brief and

bland as to be pointless” (Alexander, 2012a; p.5); secondly he emphasises the lack of

follow -through of these statements within each PoS, so that rhetoric describing the

“importance of spoken language in pupils’ development across the whole curriculum

– cognitively, socially and linguistically” (DfE, 2013a; p.13) can be understood as just

that – rhetoric; and finally and the most troubling of all Alexander (2012a) strongly

condemns “the removal of spoken language as a distinctive strand within the English

PoS” (p.5):

176
 “Far from prioritising talk as claimed in the Secretary of State’s letter of 11

June, the decision to remove it as a distinct strand of the English PoS represents a

backward step - one, indeed, which may well frustrate two of the government’s key

intentions: to raise educational standards and to close the gap between

disadvantaged children and the rest…”

(Alexander, 2012a; p.5)

While S&L has been reinstated as a PoS after widespread criticism at its removal

from the initial draft of the new English curriculum, it is slimmed down and unlike the

reading and writing elements of the revised curriculum it is not age differentiated and

a single brief PoS covers the whole of the primary age range (DfE, 2013). Therefore

the devaluation of S&L that Alexander (2012a) heavily criticises stands despite

attempts by the government to silence critics and redress the heavy imbalance

between S&L and literacy in prescribed practice.

This devaluation of spoken language is reflected in participant responses that

emphasise the lack of time that is given to S&L in the curriculum as a direct result of

curriculum constraints. Roland Morris’s view that S&L should be “given more

potence perhaps than it is” indicates that oral work is not developed in the curriculum

in a manner that impacts upon children’s learning in any significant way. If this is the

case for spoken language then it is applies to oral storytelling to an even greater

degree, and participant responses certainly seem to reflect this situation. Roland goes

on to suggest that in schools more generally his feeling was that oral storytelling is

not something that tends to be practiced:

177
 “But I think the storytelling as we’ve done it, I don’t think that’s done.”

David Keele suggests that the degree to which schools engage with oral storytelling is

self-directed and contingent upon constraints and teaching priorities within the

curriculum:

“I mean it’s in there, but I don’t think it’s given a lot. I think that there’s the

scope….I think that the National Literacy Strategy gives teachers and schools the

license to bring it in if they have the motivation and knowledge to do so…. So if they

want to go in to all those kinds of stories from an oral point of view then they can and

actually there’s nothing to stop them to some extent, except that of course that they’ve

got to cover all these genres of writing and so on.”

Similarly, Jane Smith suggests that “not enough” time is given over to S&L activities

like oral storytelling, and in her view “less and less” (p.11) in more recent years. Kate

Leech goes on to reflect that while oral storytelling is a valued as an activity at

Lakeside School, she feels that this is not the case in schools on a more general basis:

“I think a lot of teachers see it as a waste of time, in my experience…. Not

here, not here, but in other places more generally…”

One key aspect of this devaluation relates to the assessment agenda that has an

explicit focus upon reading and writing. Jane Smith explicitly links the reduced

emphasis upon S&L in school to the focus on literacy assessment and the fact that

teachers are “never asked to assess them on speaking and listening”. Jane goes on to

178
suggest that teacher assessment of S&L would not be difficult to achieve, but that the

lack of focus within the Primary Framework on oral language means that it does not

mobilise prioritisation by teachers:

“I think it would be easy, because if you look at the Foundation Stage profile,

it is in there – how our children talk, it is a strand in its own right, but after that it’s

lost. You know, we pay lip-service to it and we put it into our planning as something

we do, but we’re never asked about it – thankfully!”

Reasons for this lack of assessment in S&L are perhaps related to the difficulty that is

involved in assessing it. While Jane Smith asserts that assessment in spoken language

“would be easy”, this is not the way that assessment in spoken language is generally

perceived. Certainly, Jane’s later assertion that teachers “pay lip-service to speaking

and listening” but they are “never asked about it – thankfully!” could be interpreted as

an underlying acknowledgement of the fact that the assessment of S&L is less

straightforward than standard pen and paper tests. An alternative interpretation of

Jane’s thankfulness could similarly result from a relief that S&L as an area of learning

manages to avoid the relentless and constraining effect of the wider assessment

agenda. Regardless of which interpretation one chooses to adopt, the fact that the lack

of statutory assessment in S&L results in less engagement with spoken language in

the classroom is an undeniable reality that is supported by Roland Morris’s assertion

that “the government don’t look at [speaking and listening], so you can push that to

the side.”

179
The complexity and difficulty involved in assessing spoken language is exemplified

in the following extract taken from an exchange between the teachers at Lakeside

School:

K: But I don’t know how you would go about assessing it.

J: It would have to be very broken down wouldn’t it?

K: Yeah, because even a vocabulary check isn’t really a speaking and listening check,

so I don’t know how you’d go about it.

J: Well I look at my class and I know the ones in my class that can talk imaginatively

or can just talk – can retell a story, tell me what they did at the weekend, to recount,

can use words in the right context – I could do that, some that can’t say ‘under’ ‘over’

– they get all that confused….

I: There are so many aspects to speaking well….

J: Yeah, and listening well.

Such observations are reiterated by Johnson (1995) in his examination of the standard

of S&L in schools shortly after the introduction of the NC. At this time S&L had been

given a raised (but short-lived) profile as a result of its inclusion within the NC as an

Attainment Target. In addition, the work of the NOP at that time provided schools

with ground-breaking resources and methods aimed at supporting the S&L component

of the NC. Johnson (1995) describes the way that many teachers were unaccustomed

to planning for S&L and “were uncertain of the extent or the quality of children’s

talk” (p.19):

180
 “…talk is simply an unfamiliar medium for teachers to use in assessment. The

methods which they have used to conduct written assessment…are often wholly

inappropriate for oral assessment. And there are additional problems in observing

talk – where teachers often experience initial uncertainty about what exactly they are

looking at – and in capturing talk so that it can be considered in any objective terms.”

(Johnson, 1995; p.25-26)

In addition Johnson (1995) describes problematic aspects of assessing talk that

revolve around the idea that issues of task misunderstanding, performance on the day

and confidence in speaking in front of an audience can impact upon the degree to

which speakers display their full oral ability at any one moment in time. As a result,

oral work is not always able to produce valid evidence of competence. Therefore it

becomes important for teachers to employ what Johnson (1995) describes as

“catching them peaking” i.e. the inclusion of assessment information that concentrates

on children’s “best, most interesting and most noteworthy oral work” (p.26). As

suggested by Morreale et al. (2011):

“The determination of competence in communication will be affected by

numerous factors impinging on any interaction at any given time. Determining

whether a student has achieved a given level of maintainable competence requires

observation of the student’s performance in a multitude of diverse situations.’

(p.260)

Despite the difficulties involved in assessing S&L, this does not mean that it should

be cast aside as a focus of assessment although this is not the view of some of the

181
participants. The close attention to the assessment of literacy-based skills in primary

education is often viewed as a baleful over-emphasis resulting from the pernicious

influence of the standards agenda. David Keele in particular is of the opinion that the

testing of oral storytelling ability specifically and S&L skills more generally, is best

left unaligned with this agenda. Instead, David’s perspective centres upon the idea

that “if you could get rid of league tables, the landscape would just change, because at

the end of the day there is this pressure – particularly coming up to Year 6 – they’ve

got to be able to get the stuff down on paper”. David goes on to suggest that:

“…in the end it’s all about writing so this is still kind of subservient to the end

goal of them getting it down, and if you get rid of SAT’s I have a feeling that some of

that could go, because at the end of the day, that’s what they’re going to get assessed

on. No one’s ever going to sit down, and thank god really, no-one’s ever going to sit

down and give them a test on their oral storytelling skills, or their oracy skills.”

Yet it is clear that the standards agenda is unlikely to be reconceptualised at any point

in the near, middle or perhaps even long-term future. Logically then, there is a strong

argument for the inclusion of spoken language within this assessment agenda so that

its profile in school can at least be given a chance at parity in a curriculum that is

heavily skewed towards attainment in literacy. As noted by Johnson (1995) when

S&L skills are given their own assessment focus that is separate from literacy-based

considerations pupils are “better enabled to show what they know, understand and can

do” (p.26), and process-based learning rooted in constructivist principles are better

able to flourish in the context of classroom talk:

182
 “Through observing and listening to pupils at work, teachers got much fuller

access to the processes of learning, not just the final outcomes. And assessment could

be genuinely formative if teachers could observe the first stages of a piece of work to

check that the pupils both understood the task and had the required knowledge.”

(Johnson, 1995; p.26)

Overall, participants indicated that oral storytelling specifically and S&L more

generally, are both devalued within the curriculum that lacks an explicit focus upon

spoken language within the NLS. The complete lack of mandatory assessment in S&L

in the latest version of the National Curriculum for English (DfE, 2013) strongly

reinforces this devaluation and results in teachers pushing S&L to one side. It is

suggested that this devaluation is a result of governmental policy that privileges

literacy over S&L. This situation is unacceptable and as Alexander (2012a) argues it

is essential to reinstate S&L “as an explicit strand of the English programme of study”

(p.5) to prevent it incurring further devaluation in school.

5.2 The devaluation of speaking and listening through Initial Teacher Training

Alexander (2012a) has recently suggested that “raising the profile of spoken English

in the curriculum needs to be accompanied by action in initial teacher training” (p.6).

However, participant responses would seem to indicate that this is not generally the

case. As David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) asserts, S&L was

not a strong focus when he was training to become a teacher, and oral storytelling did

not appear at all during his time as a trainee:

183
D: My experience in teacher training was that it [speaking and listening] wasn’t

addressed, I don’t remember it being addressed…

I: So that’s speaking and listening skills generally, or storytelling more specifically?

D: Oh, certainly not storytelling! I don’t remember that…

Similarly, when asked whether S&L activities such as oral storytelling came into his

Initial Teacher Training (ITT) twelve years earlier, Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree

School) asserted that they did not:

“No, nothing, nothing at all like that. I think teacher training’s quite poor

really, when I did it…I don’t feel that it prepared me for teaching in a classroom, and

certainly we didn’t look at anything like storytelling and things like that…”

It is almost impossible to get a sense of the degree to which S&L is embedded within

ITT curricula, largely due to the diversity of routes into ITT that currently exist,

which results in significant diversity of practice. Potential trainees can choose from

vocational and in-house school-based training schemes, undergraduate and

postgraduate training courses, and also online distance learning courses. As pointed

out by Furlong (2006), this diversity is a function of the history of governmental

policy in relation to ITT, suggesting that “the state has taken a much more assertive

role in defining what to teach as well as how to teach it” while concomitantly

downgrading “the significance of teacher education as a key site for policy

intervention” (p.123).This ‘re-professionalisation’ of teachers (McCulloch, 2001;

Furlong, 2006) that was initiated after Callaghan’s Great Debate in 1976, was

continued under New Labour. Teacher identities became increasingly managed and

184
externally dictated with little recourse to different forms of professional knowledge.

This lack of trust in educators along with the marketization of education, has resulted

in teacher training becoming an increasingly “’technical rationalist’ enterprise”

(Furlong, 2006; p.127):

“… it is important to recognise that the twin strategies of defining ‘standards’

and the insistence on a range of different ‘providers’ has done more than maintain a

market; together, they have also ensured that teacher education has now become

narrowly functional….”

(Furlong, 2006; pp.127-128)

As pointed out by Furlong (2006) “in terms of governance, the instincts of the

Conservative and Labour governments have been identical” (p.126). This has been

borne out by current Conservative-Liberal education policy, where the market-based

character of ITT remains and competition between Universities and Institutions of

Higher Education is actively encouraged.

The ‘technical rationalist’ enterprise of ITT can be identified by examining the latest

set of standards for trainees to attain Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). These standards

are outlined in the governmental document Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2012e). In

relation to subject and curriculum knowledge, trainees are expected to “have a secure

knowledge of the relevant subject(s) and curriculum areas, foster and maintain pupils’

interest in the subject, and address misunderstandings” (p.7). Such generalities

permeate the document and there are no specifications in relation to literacy and S&L

beyond the superficial recommendation to “demonstrate an understanding of and take

185
responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use

of Standard English...” (p.7). Importantly, while literacy is acknowledged here, S&L

is implicitly downgraded to the unfamiliar, opaque and one-sided notion of

‘articulacy’.

The familiar usage of ‘speaking and listening’ has historically appeared in curriculum

documents since it became a statutorily defined Attainment Target as a result of the

Cox Report (1989) and the legislation of the Education Reform Act (1988). The Cox

Report (1989) laid down the fundamentals of the NC, stating that S&L as Attainment

Target 1 should involve “…the development of pupils’ understanding of the spoken

word and the capacity to express themselves effectively in a variety of speaking and

listening activities, matching style and response to audience and purpose” (DES,

1989; p.5). As speaking and listening is an Attainment Target in its own right, no

mention of it in the QTS standards as an area of teaching and learning is therefore

perplexing. In addition, the next QTS standard that appears in the short section on

what trainees are expected to know in relation to subject and curriculum knowledge is

the need for teachers to “demonstrate a clear understanding of systematic synthetic

phonics” (p.7) when teaching early reading. Overall therefore, the explicit references

to literacy and synthetic phonics combined with the relegation of the more familiar

usage of S&L skills to a downgraded and one-sided notion of articulate speech would

seem to indicate that a focus on developing oral language ability has little purchase in

the QTS standards that inform ITT.

The standards outlined in the QTS document do not represent a fully prescribed

curriculum and are more a general list of standards. However, such details are

186
irrelevant in light of the fact that the Teaching Agency ensures the withdrawal of

accreditation from providers who are “non-compliant with one or more of the

specified ITT criteria” (DfE, 2012d). Clearly, there is limited room for creative

manoeuvre in the QTS standards, and provision is therefore more likely to include

what is explicit in the documentation (i.e. literacy and synthetic phonics) over what is

alluded to through such hazy notions as ‘articulacy’ (i.e. speaking and listening).

However, participant responses also indicate that ITT can, and does provide less

narrowly functional training for new teachers. Sarah White (CT: Hollytree School),

who was a probationary teacher at the time of the study, describes the emphasis in her

recent ITT as being “on speaking and listening and a more holistic primary thing”.

However, she goes on to describe the way that the ‘amazing ideas’ that she came

across during her training were drowned out by “practicalities of doing your 1st year

of teaching”:

“…it’s very difficult to implement it if it’s not a whole school policy, as a new

teacher I would not come in here and say “right, scrap that. We’re going to do this”,

because I can’t, I can’t…the emphasis in my training was on making it a more

rounded approach, but that has yet to come down into schools. So at the moment, no I

don’t do as much as I’d like.”

Clearly, there is little point in training new teachers to make better use of spoken

language in the classroom if there are limited opportunities to engage in orality within

the curriculum.

187
Participant responses therefore indicate that the devaluation of S&L in school can be

understood as operating on at least two fronts that are dependent upon each other: the

formulation of curriculum materials in school, and teaching standards in ITT, for new

teachers following the curriculum and using their training in the classroom. In line

with Alexander (2012a) it is suggested that “raising the profile of spoken English in

the curriculum needs to be accompanied by action in initial teacher training” (p.6).

However, there is little point in training teachers to value S&L if there are limited

opportunities for them to engage with spoken language in the curriculum. Therefore

the revaluation of S&L in school requires action on multiple fronts, in curriculum

documents and ITT, if any kind of meaningful change in the way spoken language is

utilised in school is to take place.

5.3 A lack of storytelling process in the curriculum

Intrinsically connected to the assessment of spoken language skills is the idea that oral

storytelling highlights the process of telling a story orally over more content-based

approaches to narrative. As noted by Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) in

his recollection of conversations with the architects of the NOP at its inception, oral

storytelling is an efficacious way to assess S&L skills:

“…this must have been about 87… I said to them, ‘basically you want to be

able to assess children’s speaking skills’ – (and right at the beginning I said this, but

it didn’t really go in) - ‘If you want to assess people’s ability, pupils ability to use

language, it’s not the same as asking them to make up a story, why don’t you do what

we do which is retell an existing story, that’s the oral tradition, a story is passed on,

the story can be changed, they take complete ownership of it, they use their own

188
language to retell it, but the effort of having to make up a story is out of it, and the

story will work.”

The key here is that retelling an existing story where “the effort of having to make up

a story is out of it”, involves processes of language mastery over the creation of

imaginative content. Research examining the effects of storytelling upon such aspects

as concept of narrative structure and language complexity has found that retelling

stories offers an effective way of improving oral language (Morrow, 1985b; Trostle &

Hicks, 1998). Arguably, the reasons for this are related to the inherent focus upon

process in story retelling where the natural point of convergence is how the story is to

be told rather than what the story is about. Indeed, the key aim of the pedagogic

methods that David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) used to teach

storytelling revolve around pupils getting to know the structure of the story so that

they can concentrate on delivery and use of language rather than wasting cognitive

energy upon simple recall.

In contrast, engagement with storytelling in the curriculum tends to focus upon

content over more process-based considerations. This is reflected in David Keele’s

suggestion that while storytelling may be within the curriculum in terms of content so

that “traditional stories come into it…and myths and legends and so on”, it is not

given as much emphasis in terms of process. Similarly, Julia Barden (CA/Programme

Director: CP) describes the way schools “tend to be quite compartmentalised about

where they see storytelling fitting in”, equating oral storytelling with traditional tales:

189
 “What they tend to do from my experience is when it comes to things like

traditional tales, they tend to look at storytelling, and that’s where I’ve pushed

schools to go beyond that and go beyond storytelling, beyond just traditional

tales…and I think a lot of it is about story reading…”

Jean Heath (CA: CP) echoes this perspective, emphasising that while storytelling may

appear in the form of “folk tales and so on, that doesn’t mean they are told orally”.

Jean goes on to qualify that while narrative and stories more generally are key aspects

of children’s learning in school, “teachers don’t have the skills to deliver them in this

particular way”. There is little discussion of this perspective in the literature, and

certainly no empirical research that focuses explicitly upon this dimension. However

it is a noteworthy aspect of the lowered status of S&L in the curriculum that

engagement with storytelling in terms of the process of telling a story orally is an

educational activity that is a rare occurrence. Instead children are much more likely to

be exposed to content-based narrative experiences, whether in relation to the study of

traditional tales in the curriculum or through imaginatively creating a story

themselves. While such approaches have their merits, their prevalence in the

curriculum represents an over-emphasis on content over more process-based

concerns.

One potential criticism of the oral storytelling initiative at Hollytree School is the fact

that traditional tales were also a central part of the pedagogic approach utilised by

David Keele. To what extent such stories reflect children’s broader cultural lives

outside school is worthy of consideration. However, this was not a salient aspect of

the inquiry that instead focused upon the process of orally telling stories for which

190
traditional tales provided a useful model rather than the content of the stories and

relevance to children’s contemporary lives per se.

Kate Leech’s (CT: Lakeside School) complaints about the ambiguity of the language

used in the Primary Framework to talk about storytelling highlights the need for more

explicit guidance that is process-based in its requirements. Kate suggests that none of

the guidance directly relates to oral storytelling processes in any kind of explicit way:

“So if you look at speech in a different context the only thing is to ‘speak

confidently and creatively for different purposes’… and that’s all they say on

that…there’s nothing explicitly about storytelling apart from ‘tell stories

effectively’…”

As Kate points out, being asked to ‘speak confidently and creatively for different

purposes’ is an ambiguous spoken language aim, and as such serves as an echo of

Alexander’s (2012a) previous criticisms of curriculum guidance that is so “bland as to

be pointless” (p.5). However, this is the kind of language that permeates curriculum

documents in relation to S&L. This point is similarly highlighted by Blaine Hogarth

in his consideration of the assessment of S&L in the curriculum:

“And then, this vagueness…and I’ve asked and asked and asked, ‘what are the

criteria for assessing it?’, and it’s all terribly subjective. How do you tell – I can tell

because I’ve listened to thousands of storytellers – how somebody’s getting on, how in

control of it they are, but to a teacher who hasn’t got that experience, how do you

know?”

191
Overall participants agree that there is very little, if any, explicit and process-based

guidance about the teaching and learning of oral storytelling in the curriculum. I

suggest that this lack of guidance in relation to oral storytelling extends to S&L more

generally. If the processes of oral language and what makes good S&L are not made

explicit to teachers they have no means of knowing what ‘speaking confidently and

creatively for different purposes’ actually entails. More usefully, teachers need

pedagogic strategies that showcase and promote engagement with the spoken word. I

propose that oral story re-telling as an intrinsically process-based educational activity

is one way that the S&L in school can achieve greater parity with literacy and potency

in the curriculum.

5.4 The drive for written outcomes

The linking of spoken language to written outcomes in school is a given – schools are

in the business of teaching children to pick up the tools of literacy and as a result oral

work becomes recruited into the enterprise of learning to read and write. There is

wide acceptance by educators, and also by researchers in the fields of literacy (Heath,

1983; Street, 1985; Gee, 1988; Collins & Blot, 2003), that oral and written forms

interrelate and spoken language provides children with the building blocks they

require to master reading and writing. In the daily life of the classroom oral and

written forms merge with little thought about the implications for children’s learning

and language development.

This perspective is echoed in participant responses with David Keele (Storyteller:

Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) emphasising that the attachment of both S&L and oral

192
storytelling to written aims is dependent upon the culture and the orientation towards

literacy of individual schools:

“…it depends a lot on school culture as well… schools have… space for

interpretation of the curriculum and some schools are very fixated on writing, and so

speaking and listening work and oral storytelling work is seen very much as a

precursor to getting it down on paper, and in other schools, they’re more open to

seeing the potential of it in terms of children’s ability to express themselves orally.”

David goes on to suggest that S&L skills are “much more linked to writing now than

they were” when he was teaching. Similarly, Jean Heath (CA: CP) asserts that most

storytelling and S&L projects “want to lead to writing” and such projects will be

chosen specifically as a way into literacy-based goals:

“…schools specifically want drama storytelling…they’re looking outside the

visual arts just because it’s the most obvious way for them into writing and literacy.”

Curriculum materials that explicitly link talk to writing pepper the official guidance

that informs teaching practice, and engagement with spoken language is more often

than not simply a precursor to written outcomes. This is reinforced by the fact that the

linking of oral language to literacy is largely not explored or problematized in the

literature. Much of the research in the field of S&L is geared towards the idea that

there is disproportionate emphasis upon reading and writing in school, and

correspondingly not enough engagement with spoken language in genuine and

meaningful contexts (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993; Haworth, 2001; Carter, 2002;

193
Alexander 2008b, 2012a, 2012b). Similarly, there is general consensus that traditional

teaching methods that emphasise patterns of Initiation, Response and Evaluation

(IRE) with a tendency towards closed questioning, has the effect of relegating pupils’

S&L skills to “limited and passive purposes” (Westgate & Hughes, 1997; p.125):

“The contribution of their talk, in all its potential diversity, is being

prescriptively over-simplified, as well as caught up in misplaced anxieties about

Standard English.”

(Westgate & Hughes, 1997; p.126)

Such perspectives centre upon the idea that traditional forms of teaching stifle more

exploratory and dialogic types of talk that extend children’s thinking, affecting

learning and development in deleterious ways (Mercer, 1995; Wegerif & Mercer,

1997; Mercer et al, 1999; Alexander 2001, 2008b).The legitimate nature of such

concerns is clear, but at the same time they solely focus on the differential status of

spoken language in school. In contrast, there are few studies that explicitly examine

the interrelationships between spoken and written language on a functional basis:

enquiry into the specific effects of engaging with orality as a precursor to literacy

development is lacking. This creates a situation whereby the linking of oral language

to literacy-based outcomes is overlooked and therefore accepted as being natural and

largely unproblematic. Following on from this line of thought is the logical

supposition that as long as orality is of equal status to literacy in the curriculum it

matters not whether educational activity in S&L has a written outcome attached to it

or not. But is there not the possibility that attaching literacy-based outcomes to oral

work in school alters the very nature and the qualitative experience of the oral event?

194
The subtlety of this differentiation is worth restating for clarity: while the subordinate

status of orality in school is widely accepted and criticized in the literature, there is no

research that specifically addresses the effects of literacy-based instrumentality in

relation to spoken language. Instead, research has tended to focus upon qualitative

differences between oral and written forms, for example research that has examined

differential effects of oral story retelling as compared to story-reading (Myers, 1990;

Ellis, 1997; Aina, 1999; Malo & Bullard, 2000; Isbell et al., 2004; Gallets, 2005). The

impact of literacy-based instrumentality upon pupils’ learning and development, upon

teachers’ pedagogic understanding and orientation, and upon the quality of spoken

language practice has, however, not been explored in any kind of systematic fashion.

It is pertinent to suggest that that there may be subtle but observable effects when

practice in S&L takes the form of educational activity geared towards oral outcomes

as an end point as opposed to being largely a vehicle for the acquisition and

enhancement of literacy.

There is a degree of tentative, if mostly implicit support for this perspective. It has

been suggested by Hewitt & Inghilleri (1993) that “it is primarily the instrumental

role of talk that has been treated as important while little emphasis has been placed on

talking skills as in themselves deserving attention”(p.308). Such instrumentality is in

evidence when oral work is entered into as, in David Keele’s words, “a precursor to

getting it down on paper”. Such pedagogic goals are representative of instrumental

educational activity that, importantly, positions S&L as a means to the end of writing.

In their observational study of orality in the classroom, Hewitt & Inghilleri (1993)

describe the way that instrumental practice in S&L resulted in oral events that were

195
bland with “little personal investment in the topic” (p.312). In addition, the authors

found that there was a consensus amongst pupils that within the context of such

artificial oral events “talk was bracketed off from normal intercourse and treated as

wholly artificial, with the clear corollary that the identities of the students in

interaction and any closeness was not at stake in these performances” (Hewitt &

Inghilleri, 1993; p.313). Hewitt & Inghilleri (1993) suggest that such “transactional

talk” can be defined as “spoken language where it is predominantly the content that

matters; it is information-related or transactional in its functions and characteristically

has a definable purpose” (Department of Education and Science 1989; In Hewlitt &

Inghilleri, 1993; p.311). The authors suggest that since the 1970’s, S&L practice

emphasising transactional talk has increasingly gained a purchase in the curriculum as

more conservative, functional and pragmatic approaches to education and learning

have become the norm. In concluding their study the Hewitt & Inhilleri (1993)

suggest that such instrumentality may “rob the oral work of substantial intellectual

benefits” (p.316) and that as a result the quality and purpose of S&L in school needs

to be given considerably more attention. As suggested by Barnes (1988):

“Spoken language should be developed in a context of living issues, of critical

enquiry into how the world is, not of neutralised pseudo-topics invented solely to give

a semblance of content to talk for talk’s sake.”

(Barnes, 1988; p.52)

Oral storytelling can be understood as providing learners with such non-instrumental

and contextualized opportunities for spoken language. During oral storytelling the aim

is reflected in the “living issue” (Barnes, 1988) of learning how to tell a story rather

196
than utilising a “neutralised pseudo-topic” (Barnes, 1988) that has merely been

invented to provide children with something, anything, to talk about. In addition,

pupils are personally invested (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993) in the project of retelling a

story in their own words, from their own perspective, and with the individuality of

their own personal style. Indeed this agenda of ownership was central to the

pedagogic approach taken by David Keele where multiple and dialogic perspectives

of language came together in a complex interplay of identity and oral reproduction. In

this way “the barrier between owned and school knowledge” (Paechter, 1998; p.174)

is effectively crossed through the oral stories that children reproduce in unique and

idiosyncratic ways. Most importantly, oral storytelling provides an opportunity for

non-instrumental spoken language practice due to its explicit detachment to written

outcomes, and as will be examined below, this distinction is of critical importance to

the status of storytelling as an orally embedded process.

The idea that there are conflicting models of orality that are embedded in educational

programmes and informed by official rhetoric has been taken up by Haworth (2001)

in her examination of significant curricula developments in relation to orality over the

past decade such as the NOP, the NC for English, and the NLS. Through textual

analysis of the NLS, Haworth (2001) suggests that there is cause for concern

regarding “the status of talk as a dimension of literacy” (p.13):

“Whilst oracy is firmly established as a partner in the business of literacy, the

slippery syntax casts it as something of a sleeping partner. The Introduction defines

literacy in close relationship to oracy, yet the conjunctions suggest concession, if not

quite subordination.” (Haworth, 2001; p.13)

197
Haworth goes on to suggest that the NC has “been both friend and foe to oracy”

(p.14), with the Attainment Targets for English that were set out in the first

enunciation of the NC initially securing equal status for S&L. However, subsequent

political and ideological battles resulted in successive revisions that “led to a more

cautious, homogenised language curriculum” (Haworth, 2001; p.14) with an emphasis

upon Standard English and ‘correct’ usage. As a result there has been a “gradual

erosion of the cross-curricular function of oracy in favour of a centralised oracy,

controlled by the teacher and related, in complex but subordinate ways, to literacy”

(Haworth, 2001; p.13). The erosion of S&L across the curriculum is observable in

Roland Morris’s (CT: Hollytree School) assertion that S&L is “strongly linked to

literacy”, a state of affairs that he questions due to his belief that “there are so many

other opportunities” for S&L within different subject areas. He goes on to connect

this erosion with the location of S&L in the curriculum, and suggests that there may

be associated implications in relation to teaching practice:

“…where you’ll find it is in the literacy strategy. So maybe people think I only

need to do that when I’m doing literacy.”

In terms of children’s learning, Haworth (2001) goes on to demonstrate how this

erosion plays out in the classroom talk of pupils’, where learners’ accounts of

schooling and the activities of reading and writing are “characterised by rules” and

“regulated duties” (p.18):

“It was as if the talk curriculum, which had been given status in their

classroom for a year, had been silenced by more authoritative discourses. Certainly,

198
the children were themselves pushing talk to the margins, as if in deference to the

more senior partnership of reading and writing.”

(Haworth, 2001; p.18)

This description reinforces Hewitt & Inghilleri’s (1993) conception of learners’ ability

to easily recognise examples of transactional and instrumental classroom talk. When

reading and writing are seen by pupils as ‘the more senior partnership’ (Haworth,

2001) in relation to orality, the degree to which pupils are likely to engage with oral

work on a serious and sustained basis becomes questionable. They are considerably

more likely to view oral work as a means to the more serious business of literacy and

merely go through the motions of engaging in classroom talk that is required by the

rules and regulated duties of schooling. Here it would seem that the “abiding

significance of ideas about, institutions of, and practices involving literacy in modern

Western societies” (Collins and Blot, 2003; p.5) that the revisionist perspective of

NLS has been unable to account for, comes into play:

“…adherents of the autonomous model of literacy have made arguments about

the difference and superiority of Western culture and intellect vis-`a-vis non-literate

or differently literate societies. These claims are untenable and have been

systematically criticized; nonetheless, echoes of these claims continue to inform

policy and scholarship about literacy.”

(Collins & Blot, 2003; p.5)

While “the grander claims” about the superiority of literacy over non-literacy have

been “deflated and undermined” (Collins & Blot, 2003; p.5), the abiding significance

199
of reading and writing as “the more senior partnership” (Haworth, 2001; p.18) over

spoken language, reinforces the idea that at least within an educational context, the

autonomous model is alive and kicking. Haworth (2001) goes on to conclude that

orality needs to be reinstated and repositioned in school as “more than a subset of

communication skills exercised by the resourceful teacher” (p.22). Drawing on a

Bakhtinian commentary on dialogical talk that privileges multiple perspectives in

contrast to monologic talk that seeks to “reduce every difference to a single ‘true’

perspective” (Wegerif, 2005; p.223), Haworth (2001) outlines how this reinstatement

may begin to proceed:

“By way of elaboration on the theme of monologic/dialogic talk, Bakhtin

suggests a comparison with two basic pedagogic modes, aligning monologic talk with

‘reciting by heart’ and dialogic talk with the process of ‘retelling in one’s own words’

(Holquist, 1981, p.341). Whilst both have a place in any classroom, it seems clear

that the second agenda needs to be urgently rearticulated if we are to avoid carrying

a reductionist model of oracy into the next millennium.” (Haworth, 2001; p.22)

The allusion to literacy here is pertinent and illustrative of my argument. Recitation is

strongly associated with the written word and memorization of a script – often

someone else’s. Retelling in one’s own words, however, is strongly linked to the oral

tradition and the conception of oral storytelling employed in this thesis. It includes

fundamental elements of ownership and non-instrumentality based in oral production

that is fluid, spontaneous and ephemerally unattached to a written script. It relies

heavily on memory and the structure of narrative over prompt, verbatim reproduction

and crucially, literacy knowledge and skill. As already suggested, it is this aspect that

200
provides children who struggle with literacy important opportunities to develop the

spoken language upon which literacy is based, and the narrative ability upon which

social identity is dependent (Warin, 2010). Importantly, the process of retelling in

one’s own words upon which oral storytelling relies is the end-point of oral

storytelling – there is no drive to then write the story down for later reproduction.

Instead the story is committed to memory to be retold in perhaps a slightly different

style, tone or format on another occasion for a different audience. Therefore the

argument being forwarded by Haworth (2001) when viewed in the light of oral

storytelling is that practice in oral language that is allowed to remain unattached to

literacy, both in terms of process and outcome, would be a valuable addition to the

reinstatement of orality in school and across the curriculum. For it would seem that

frequently it is when literacy enters the equation that problems can begin to arise for

spoken language: the temptation to refer to a story that has been written down as part

of a literacy-based outcome is large, both to avoid ‘getting it wrong’ and to minimise

the cognitive work that unprompted recall demands. In addition, pupils’ tendency to

‘push talk to the margins’ (Haworth, 2001) as a result of their tacit understanding of

the senior status of reading and writing in school, invites the suggestion that if literacy

was more frequently removed from the equation, such perceptions may stand half a

chance of being reoriented.

The attachment of oral storytelling to written outcomes is an aspect of the devaluation

of orality that comes across particularly strongly in the perspectives of both David

Keele and Jean Heath. To a large extent this attachment is particularly visible in oral

storytelling because narratives lend themselves so readily to being written down, as

well as the fact that the writing of stories is a commonplace activity in the primary

201
classroom: the time honoured practice of children making up their own stories is

generally tied to literacy-based outcomes. However, as already suggested, while the

textual reproduction of an orally told story may seem to represent a benign and useful

opportunity for practicing writing skills to a teacher, to an oral storyteller as a

performer who is external to the mandated pedagogic constraints of curriculum and

school, it is a counterproductive activity that gets in the way of the cognitive

assimilation of structural aspects of narrative. To these ends, David Keele describes

the situation in schools that explicitly try to link his style of orally based storytelling

to the Talk for Writing (TfW: DCSF, 2009) approach that formed a part of the NLS

under Labour educational policy:

“Sometimes the frustrating thing about projects is that occasionally you go

into a school and the reason they want storytelling is for this ‘talk to write’ agenda,

where in the end it’s all about writing so this is still kind of subservient to the end

goal of them getting it down.”

This agenda has been noted in the literature by Fisher (2010) who asserts that the TfW

initiative was “not on talk as a learning process per se but as a means of improving

written outcomes” (p.36). Such narrow instrumentality is reinforced by Jean Heath’s

perception of the initiative that in her view detracted from the intrinsic value of S&L

in school. Invoking a Bakhtinian conception of monologic forms of talk aligned with

recitation, she describes the way she saw TfW promoting instrumental oral practice

linked to literacy in process and outcome during one school INSET:

202
 “…it’s like all the Pie Corbett stuff, you sort of go (groans) – desperate! One

of the projects I was on for one of our INSET days, we had someone coming in to do

all that sort of stuff… horrendous, let’s get all the children just chanting by rote, and

then writing a few words that they’ve learnt and it’s like ‘haven’t we done well?’ –

yeah you’ve ticked a few boxes, that’s it.”

In direct contrast to this perspective is the positive assessment of the TfW materials

that was forwarded by the CTs at Lakeside School. Both teachers expressed how

helpful they found the storytelling framework in supporting children’s oral language,

as it employed a range of different actions to go along with the words of the story that

children learnt, to scaffold their re-telling as a kind of mnemonic device. As described

by Jane Smith (CT: Lakeside School):

“...so some of them will just do the actions for a bit, and then they’ll get the

words that go with the actions – it’s like learning a song. Like how children learn

songs and they can do their times tables can’t they because they sing them, it’s like

that. It’s another way into it. But he said they should learn 12 a year so by the time

they leave – they should know 72 stories that they have developed and enhanced and

put in their own storytelling.”

While this kind of practice may have value in its own right, it is clearly more aligned

with monologic forms of talk that emphasise recitation and rote learning than it is

with the kind of dialogical and non-instrumental oral language that is valued by

Haworth (2001). As such it provides evidence for the prevalence of practices in

school that are more connected to writing and the memorization of a script. Therefore,

203
the perspectives of the Lakeside School teachers in relation to the TfW materials

represents a ‘disconfirming case’ that “provides further support of the account’s

credibility because reality…is multiple and complex” (Creswell & Miller, 2000;

p.127).

Finally, Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP) makes the observation that oral

language skills in school are frequently connected to a desire to get children to

‘present’ in a polished way rather than engaging with oral language in an age

appropriate manner:

“…because a lot of the focus I think is getting kids to write… they do want

kids to speak and often to present, but I often think they want to do it as little adults

rather than as kids, so I think that there is a waiting on the written word because of

this desire to get kids to write.”

This is a pertinent observation of the way spoken language is positioned in school,

particularly in light of the latest revisions to the NC. An essential difference between

oral and written forms can be understood in terms of the crafting that frequently goes

into a piece of writing in contrast to spoken language that can be conceptualised as

being spontaneous and ephemeral. This essential difference is encapsulated by Blaine

Hogarth in relation to oral storytelling:

“And the whole joy of the written word – of course, I’m totally literate and

admiring of literacy, but it’s just different – you can craft your language and you’ve

put all that time into the crafting of the thing you’re going to recite, or learn, and

204
repeat. Storytelling is immediate and it’s a huge condensation of time and speed, so

for me storytelling is about massive speed, thinking on your feet, being there, it’s

about improvisation.”

The issue at stake here is more considered and retrospective forms of literacy-based

creativity over more immediate and playful forms of orally-based creativity. The

conception of playfulness in relation to spoken language has been examined by

Wegerif (2005) who forwards the idea that “there are educationally valuable ways of

talking together that are characterised more by verbal creativity than by explicit

reasoning” (p.223). He goes on to describe the notion of “playful talk”, a fourth type

of talk identified by Mercer (1995) that was neglected due to its off-task quality.

Wegerif (2005) suggests that playful kinds of talk “may well be central to improving

the quality of thinking and learning in classrooms” (p.227) as well as forging shared

understanding between learners. Wegerif (2005) goes onto describe children’s on and

off-task word play that starts with almost random rhyming and “poetic resonance

between words” (p.234) as well as images and metaphors, before progressing onto

something more educationally substantial that involves the generation of “new links

and potential ideas” (p.230).

While relating more to the development of reasoning in inter-subjective contexts there

are parallels here with the verbal word-play that is encouraged during oral

storytelling. As noted by Wegerif (2005) “It is actually very hard to get children to

perform any kind of task at school without their being creative with language”

(p.228). However, during oral storytelling this kind of creative behaviour is actively

encouraged rather than being viewed as a distraction to the task in hand. In the

205
process of working up a story that involves practising telling stories to each other in

small groups, inter-subjective opportunities for playing around with language abound.

In addition, the creative use of language that sets one storytelling performance apart

from another is contingent upon this kind of playfulness that allows children to take

ownership of a story retelling in distinctive and individualized ways. Wegerif (2005)

states that that there is a “need to expand our understanding of dialogical reasoning to

incorporate creativity and to develop dialogical models to support the stimulation and

channelling of creativity in educational contexts” (p.223).

This conception of the relation between playful spoken language and dialogical

reasoning fits the pedagogic use of oral storytelling well. However, it provides a bad

fit with the most recent propositions for spoken language in the NC where the

emphasis is squarely upon ‘polished’ and considerably less playful engagement with

S&L. Here, Julia Barden’s concern about children being asked to ‘present as little

adults’ is realised, with the NC clearly promoting a conception of orality that is

aligned with the 19th and early 20th Century tradition that emphasises “the aesthetics

of oral performance” through “the recitation and the performance of dramatic or

poetic texts”, as well as “the discursive tradition…emphasizing logic of argument and

clarity of expression” (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993; p.319). The proclivity towards this

orientation within official documentation is evident in the introduction to the NC in

relation to the role of spoken language:

“Pupils should develop a capacity to explain their understanding of books and

other reading, and to prepare their ideas before they write. They must be assisted in

making their thinking clear to themselves as well as to others and teachers should

206
ensure that pupils build secure foundations by using discussion to probe and remedy

their misconceptions. Pupils should also be taught to understand and use the

conventions for discussion and debate.”

(DfE, 2013; p.14)

Here, the linking of oral language to literacy with the standards enhancing drive for

written outcomes, and an emphasis upon polished and discursive engagement with

spoken language, comes across particularly strongly: instrumentality abounds. In

contrast, the type of “expressive orality” (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993; p.311) that is

embodied in non-instrumental and contextualized initiatives such as oral storytelling

is silenced. Participants support this assessment in their responses that focus upon the

linking of oral aims to written outcomes such as those evident in the TfW program

within the NLS. Whilst a number of participants were explicitly critical of this

initiative, most notably the CAs and Storytellers, some of the teachers expressed

enthusiasm for this linking of writing to classroom talk. The suggestion here was that

the scaffolding of children’s talk through the memorisation of actions that “are used to

make the tales, especially the key connectives, memorable” (Corbett, 2008; p.1), is a

useful technique for children who struggle with their spoken and written language. In

addition, participants expressed the idea that the desire for polished oral forms in

school is connected to this drive for written outcomes.

I suggest that the linking of spoken language to written aims and outcomes negatively

affects both the process of oral storytelling as well as the quality of S&L practice

more generally. In addition, both the rote learning involved in the TfW initiative, and

the desire for children to present ‘as little adults’ in school, are indicative of a more

207
pervasive devaluation of spoken language that results from the linking of spoken to

written forms. As noted by Hewitt & Inghilleri (1993), expressive forms of orality

that focus “less on the high culture existing outside of the individual student and far

more on the ‘voice of the child’ in a social context” (p.310), have increasingly taken a

backseat in education in recent decades. It is likely that the most recent

conceptualisation of the NC with its highly instrumental and narrow agenda in spoken

language will strongly reinforce this situation, constraining opportunities for spoken

language that are playful and in which learners are personally invested. A rebalancing

of the books is required, and a central element of any agenda that desires to reposition

oracy in the curriculum needs to also establish the importance of a drive for oral

outcomes as an end-point.

5.5 Summing up

Participant responses indicate a strong valuing of orality in school by CT’s,

Storytellers and CA’s alike. However, they also observed that within school S&L

suffers devaluation in relation to literacy as a result of: a lack of focus in the

curriculum, in the assessment agenda, and ITT; a lack of process-based guidance in

curriculum documents; and a strong tendency towards literacy-based aims and

outcomes that constrain and funnel opportunities for spoken language.

The next chapter examines CP and Artists in School in relation to oral storytelling and

arts education more generally.

208
209
6. CP and Artists in School

This chapter examines collaborative engagement between artists and teachers in the

classroom to elucidate the final sub-question of the research that asks what the

specific focus on oral storytelling can tell us about creative practice and arts-based

education more generally. In line with the primary Research Question, participant

responses indicate that teachers and creative practitioners bring different but

complementary skills to the pedagogic context, which dove-tail and build upon each

other in successful creative projects. However, they also suggest that artists have an

improvisational style that provides a model to teaching practice in promoting flexible

and dialogic forms of learning. In addition, participants stress the shift in perception

in both teachers and learners that arts education can foster. The first section examines

the concept of co-delivery between artists and teachers, before considering the

improvisational approaches to learning that artists bring to the classroom. The final

section discusses the many and varied perceptual shifts that are afforded through the

arts.

6.1 Co-delivery and creative teaching as disciplined improvisation

One of the main aims of CP is to get teachers and creative practitioners working

together delivering creative practice in the classroom. However, this does not

necessarily entail a desire for teachers to change their personas to fit in with more

artistic sensibilities. This is a perspective that is emphasised by Jean Heath (CA: CP)

who stresses the importance of combining skills and the role of dialogue in learning

from each other so that teachers and practitioners can complement each other’s

practice. She seems to be speaking less from a position of skill transfer than she is

from a perspective of skills dovetailing in the classroom:

210
 “…we need a dialogue about …what we have to offer, and what might happen

if we play ball and put all that stuff together and throw our skills into the pot with

your skills, because practitioners aren’t teachers, so it’s not the case that you’re

going to become like practitioners and we want you to, it’s more these people have

got skills and they do other things.”

In contrast, Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP) focuses on the idea of

exchange that should occur from the very beginning of a project, emphasising

practitioners and teachers “learning each other’s language”. The emphasis here is

therefore less upon complementary skill sets, and more upon teachers and

practitioners affecting each other’s practice so that in Julia’s words “both are

chemically influenced and changed by the process”.

Such perspectives have been noted in the literature by Galton (2008) who questions

whether teachers adopting more creative teaching styles is something that may be

desirable, and responds with the suggestion that “at one level the answer…must be in

the affirmative” (p.63). However, Galton (2008) goes on to note that in suggesting

teachers adopt more creative pedagogic personas there is potential for the creation of

an ‘us and them’ situation that can further be positioned as a “deficit view of

teachers” whereby they are “seen in need of remedial creativity assistance” (Thomson

et al., 2009a; p.69). In addition, there are large contextual differences influencing the

kinds of practice that artists and creative practitioners are able to deliver, with the

latter being significantly more at liberty to adopt creative and experimental

pedagogies due to the fact that they are not ultimately responsible for learning

outcomes or beholden to curriculum targets. Here the differential forms of knowledge,

211
norms and values that characterise teaching as a Community of Practice (Lave &

Wenger, 1991) clash with a more creative Community of Practice, where the

internalization, replication and reproduction of less outcome oriented pedagogical

approaches that place a premium on process is emphasised.

The differences between teachers and creative practitioners that exist in terms of

context and practice produce a mutually defining cycle that strongly characterises the

type of pedagogies that children end up experiencing in school. For example, Roland

Morris (CT: Hollytree School) suggests that CP enables practitioners “that have skills

that I just don’t have” to come into school and share their knowledge, skills and

methods with teachers. He goes on to stress the importance of this for diversity of

practice within education:

“…none of us are master of all trades….getting people in is very important.

There are a lot of people who aren’t in teaching who’ve got skills out there that they

could share with teachers who could then develop it with our children.”

Well-established notions of competence and performance (Bernstein, 1996) have been

translated to the CP context (Hall et al., 2007) to show how creative practitioners tend

to utilise competence pedagogies that are active, co-creative, formative, dialogic,

learner-centred and self-regulating. In contrast, teachers tend to favour performance

pedagogies that place “the emphasis upon a specific output of the acquirer [learner],

upon a particular text the acquirer is expected to construct and upon the specialised

skills necessary to the production of this specific output, text or product” (Bernstein,

1996; p.44; In Hall et al., 2007; p.607). In competence pedagogies control is

212
‘invisible’, that is, learners have more control over what they learn and how, and the

emphasis is upon “personalised forms of communication and an assumption of self-

regulation” (Hall et al, 2007; p.609). In contrast, in performance pedagogies control is

‘visible’ whereby “the hierarchical relations between teacher and pupils, the rules of

the organisation (sequence, pace) and the criteria” (Bernstein, 1996; p.109-110) are

explicit and therefore known to the pupil – the teacher is the author and authority.

Hall et al. (2007) suggest that if creative practitioners working in schools are

“committed to competence pedagogies with ‘invisible’ practices…they need the

support of teachers who know the children and have a sustained relationship with

them” (p.617). This perspective is highlighted by Jean Heath who suggests that

teachers offer a supportive role in the classroom, insight into the children, and

expertise in teaching, a combination of which is essential for successful creative

collaborations:

“…they bring their skills obviously hugely, and they know the kids really well,

so if you can really grab their best teaching skills and your new skills, give them a

chance to try something new, but at the same time they’re giving you the chance to

flourish in that environment, and you can only do that if they play their part.”

This is clearly a conception of teachers as experts in their own right and a view of co-

delivery as the complementary practice that is emphasised by Jean Heath, rather than

the exchange of skills described by Julia Barden. The former view is shared by

Thomson et al. (2009a) who query “the limits and advisability of the exchange of

skills and knowledge between teachers and creative practitioners” (p.69), as well as

emphasising the expert practice of teaching professionals:

213
 “The headteacher at Rowan Nursery and Infants, one of the two case study

schools which have now included creative practitioners as permanent staff members,

argues that she cannot possibly learn what the dancer on her staff has taken twenty

years to master. Neither can he learn what she knows after over thirty years of

professional practice.”

(Thomson et al., 2009a; p.69)

The kinds of skills characteristic of creative practitioners that are most strongly

emphasised by participants relate to improvisational ways of working that enable

practitioners to respond to the demands of the classroom in more flexible and learner-

centred ways. In terms of specific creative skills, Julia Barden (CA/Programme

Director: CP) suggests that creative practitioners provide teachers with experience of

more improvisational ways of working in school, and insight into dialogic and

constructivist teaching methods that encourage pupil voice:

“…a lot of the work that teachers do is massively planned… Artists and

practitioners will do a level of planning, however they tend to be…much more in the

moment and confident to improvise, to go in with a plan and chuck it out the

window…because pupil voice and learner lead has been really important in the

programme, and I think artists and practitioners are fantastic at that...”

Sandra Hollingworth (HT: Hollytree School) suggests that creative practitioners give

teachers the support to attempt more challenging creative projects that they ordinarily

would not have “the confidence to even contemplate”. Sandra goes on to suggest that

214
“teachers are very good at being creative on paper”. The implication here is that it is

practical creative skills they can be lacking.

The idea that creative practitioners employ a teaching style that in Patrick Mean’s

(CA: CP) words, enables them to “critically move into the risk area of not planning”

and entails them “following the kids…their energy and ideas”, has been noted by

Maddock et al. (2007) who suggest that artists “prioritise the challenge of the

unknown” and “the unpredictability of learning” (p.51). In contrast, echoing the

differential values of Bernstein’s (1996) pedagogies of competence and performance,

Maddock et al. (2007) go on to observe that “teachers are constrained to orient

themselves towards the predictable, the familiar, normative standards and public

accountability” (p.51). Such differences in perspective are “initially challenging”

(Maddock et al, 2007; p.54) for teachers and also practitioners who are trying to

forward alternative pedagogies in constraining educational contexts. However,

through extended exposure to such practice, Maddock et al. (2007) suggest that

teachers are able to “unlearn some of their tried and tested teacherly ways and means,

and think more adventurously about their role in building a culture of creativity”

(Maddock et al, 2007; p.56).

The metaphor of teaching as improvisational performance has been explored by

Sawyer (2004), who suggests that the methods associated with improvisational drama

where themes and trajectories are collaborative, emergent and unpredictable, have

much to offer the pedagogic process. Teachers have historically been encouraged to

use scripted word-for-word instruction in the classroom in an effort to ‘teacher-proof’

curricula, particularly in low performing schools. Sawyer (2004) suggests that such

215
methods emphasize “low order skills that are particularly easy to measure with

standardized tests” (p.12). In contrast, teaching as improvisational performance is

aligned with constructivist, dialogic, inquiry-based and collaborative pedagogic

methods that encourage deeper learning that is less readily quantifiable (Wells &

Chang-Wells, 1992; Palincsar, 1998; Rogoff, 1998). Classroom discourse that is

characterised by the emergence of unpredictable and collaborative discussion that is

extended rather than constrained or funnelled towards predetermined responses, has

been referred to by Sawyer (2004) as ‘collaborative emergence’. Eschewing

traditional IRE sequences that are frequently the ‘default’ pattern of classroom talk

(Cazden, 2001), such discourse is “open ended, is not structured in advance, and is an

interaction among peers where any participant can contribute equally to the flow of

the interaction” (Sawyer, 2004; p.14), enabling learners to access the co-construction

of knowledge (Forman & Cazden, 1985; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992; Palincsar,

1998; Rogoff, 1998).

While improvisational methods imply an unstructured format, a complete lack of

structure is unlikely to be helpful to teachers when faced with the reality of the

classroom. Disciplined improvisation (Sawyer, 2004) that “acknowledges the need for

curriculum” (p.15) while providing pedagogic flexibility, is a useful way of thinking

about creative approaches to teaching. Even within the most creative and flexible

lessons there is a need for broad-based goals and a degree of structure, and

correspondingly the most heavily scripted teaching routines will always require the

teacher to respond in an improvisational manner to unpredictable student

contributions. The storytelling methods that David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree &

Lakeside School) employed as a part the Change School project at Hollytree School

216
can be understood in relation to the concept of disciplined improvisation. Roland

Morris (CT: Hollytree School) puts particular emphasis upon these methods, such as

“doing a story round…or telling from different characters points of view”:

“So I’m planning on using it – not just the storytelling, but all the things that

David’s done like his emotion graphs, and the story map and where you draw out the

scene where the story takes place…so it fits in well with what they’ve been doing as

well…so I can take it and use it and adapt it for writing as well as storytelling.”

Clearly such creative scripts provide a degree of structure within which more

improvisational teaching trajectories can take place. In addition, the use of

improvisational teaching methods links in with issues of curriculum integration, as

exemplified by Jean Heath’s (CA: CP) description of creative teaching that

incorporates “drama structures and stories into different areas of the curriculum as a

way of teaching it”. This aspect has been noted by Maddock et al. (2007) who make

an explicit connection between the orientation of creative practitioners, creative styles

of teaching, and curriculum integration:

“…it seems as if there is little time or space in the busy school day for what

the artists see as a necessity, not a luxury: the need for slow thinking, and yet slower

re-thinking, as gradually, bit by bit, new connections are made between curriculum

areas normally neatly slotted into their proper spaces on the timetable…”

(p.51)

217
In addition, it has been noted by Galton (2008) that few formal opportunities exist

within the structure of CP for teachers and creative practitioners to discursively

explore how learning and competence is best developed. The constraining effect of

time that results from the pressures of a tightly regulated curriculum limits discursive

opportunities for pedagogic reflection. Compounding these effects is the fact that

practitioners can reinforce normative relations through their political adeptness at

“working around the schools visible pedagogy” (Galton, 2008; p.71) as well as their

reluctance to ‘work impositionally’ that is in turn strongly sanctioned by CP’s

commitment to school ownership and steer (Thomson et al., 2009b). In addition, if

creative practitioners perceive the curriculum as constraining, restrictive and at odds

with creativity, they are likely to avoid pedagogic conversations highlighting such

constraints, which could result in defensiveness from teachers. While the subversion

of mainstream pedagogic ideology where ideas and methods brought in through the

backdoor may be a necessary component of working in and with schools, it does little

to alter practice on the ground floor if the perspectives that necessitate such tactics

remain implicit, particularly if expert creative practitioners struggle to put into words

the rationale for their practice, and have a tendency to “see most of their work as

‘intuitive’” (Galton, 2008; p.73). However, for creative practice to be sustained and

imitated in school, a deeper “understanding of the underlying principles governing the

creative practice” (Galton, 2008; p.73) needs to be fostered to avoid superficial and

short-term take up. Clearly the creation of discursive opportunities between creative

practitioners and teachers is an important step towards moving performance

pedagogies closer to the competence-based skill set held by creative practitioners.

218
Ultimately, artists in school hold different perspectives and utilise different pedagogic

methods to teachers who occupy the physical and conceptual space of the classroom

on a more permanent basis. However, this is not to say that it is not possible for

teachers to learn to view teaching from perspectives less constrained by the

curriculum, standards and accountability. This is not to forward a deficit view of

teachers, but rather is an indictment of an educational system that lacks faith in the

ability of teachers to maintain standards, and as a result constrains their creativity and

autonomy in the classroom. As noted by Sawyer (2004):

“The recurring tension between scripted teaching and creative teaching is a

manifestation of deeper, competing conceptions of teaching: Is it a profession,

deserving of autonomy and respect like other professions such as law or medicine?

Or, is it a technical, clerical task, more like data entry?” (p.18)

The lack of improvisational styles of teaching and their associated pedagogies of

competence in school today can therefore be understood as a sign of the times rather

than an inherent quality of teachers as a composite group. However, as suggested by

Jean Heath there may be some tendency for teaching to attract less creative ‘types’

than it perhaps used to:

“…generally teachers that go into teaching now… are a different kind of

person than used to go in 25 years ago…you used to get a lot of quite subversive

people, different people, creative and alternative people that went into teaching

because they wanted to effect kids and they wanted to subvert things on the ground

level, but they wouldn’t touch teaching with a barge pole now.”

219
While this is a worrying statement, it does not mean that there is little hope for

creativity in school in an increasingly regulated curriculum bound by standards and

accountability. As noted by Sawyer (2004), professional development programs in

improvisational training have promoted significant differences in the practice of

teachers, helping them to shift to a “student-centred facilitative style” with both

teachers and students asking “more higher order questions” (p.18). Participant

perspectives suggest that there is a strong need for more improvisational styles in

school, and that creative practitioners represent a model of more creative and open-

ended approaches to teaching. I propose that the ethos of CP and such creative

initiatives as oral storytelling in school that is based on the requirement of co-delivery

between artists and educators and improvisational teaching styles has strong potential

to spread the skills associated with creativity and creative forms of practice on a wider

educational basis.

6.2 Perceptual shifts afforded through the arts

Shifting pupil and teacher perceptions of what constitutes learning in school is related

to issues of intrinsic motivation, and engagement with artistic forms of education, as

compared to more traditionally didactic methods that stress the transmission of

content in less imaginative formats. This aspect comes across strongly in participant

responses, with David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) describing

the way that teachers are frequently “a bit astonished” that children “would sit and

listen to stories for an hour”:

“…I think that teachers are often surprised, about the extent to which children

are so ready and wanting to just sit and listen to stories, in this age where they’re so

220
bombarded by media and games and video…in which case leads to shorter and

shorter attention spans.”

Similarly, Jean Heath (CA: CP) goes on to describe the way that educational drama or

oral storytelling can “transmit concepts” that children may not ordinarily be interested

in, thereby shifting pupil perception of what constitutes learning:

“It’s like writing letters to a real MP, yes you can do that, but writing letters

to an MP as part of a drama you’ve created is just as relevant. And the kids come to

me…and they’re not thinking ‘oh, I’ve got to write a letter as part of a lesson’ - the

writing’s intrinsic…”

As noted by Catterall (2002) in an overview of 62 research papers on multi-arts

programs in the US (In Deasy, 2002), “children are more engaged when involved in

artistic activities in school, than when involved in other curricular activities” (p.155).

In addition, Catterall (2002) makes the observation that “children in schools with high

levels of arts experiences are generally more engaged and motivated in school”

(Deasy, 2002; p.155). This propensity to engage more deeply with learning as well as

the educational context is positioned by Catterall (2002) as a consequence of the

positive effect of the arts on attitudes and behaviours more generally:

“This can be seen as the transfer of attitudes or orientations about school

from learning in and with the arts to learning situations more generally. Perhaps

children who find parts of their school day satisfying and fun through the arts become

221
more sanguine about the whole school experience.” (Catterall, 2002; In Deasy, 2002;

p.155)

The transfer of learning from one context to another has been difficult to prove, with

research failing “to corroborate transfer far more often than it has managed to support

its existence” (Catterall, 2002; In Deasy, 2002; p.151). However, within the

compendium of 62 studies, approximately 65 core relationships between the arts and a

variety of social and academic outcomes can be identified (Deasy, 2002). Clearly

there is some support for the transfer of learning through the arts. The combination of

intrinsic motivation and the transfer of learning has been noted by Howard Gardner

(1999) who suggests that “…the compelling reasons for arts education…are the

likelihood that skill and craft gained in the arts help students to understand that they

can improve in other consequential activities…” (Harvard Education Letter: online).

This links into increases in academic and/or social self-concept, and certainly a

number of the Compendium Studies have found strong links between self-concept and

“successful artistic accomplishments and experiences” (Catterall, 2002; In Deasy,

2002; p.155). For children who have deficits in self-concept due to processes of

alienation and disaffection within the educational context, ways to improve self-

concept are key. Caterall (2002) goes on to suggest that a reason that certain art-forms

have an association with increases in self-concept could be because as performing arts

they include “demonstrating skills for audiences” as “an integral component” (In

Deasy, 2002; p.155). The performativity of academia with its tests and targets does

not sit well with students who adopt performance avoidance goals. However, within

the context of artistic performance, pupils who experience disaffection in school are

222
presented with an alternative route into their learning and non-standard opportunities

to excel. As noted by Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP):

“…what has happened is where schools have historically been focused on

academic attainment, people are very, very quickly branded as able or less able, and

what learning through a different vehicle has often offered is that the non-usual

suspects often shine.”

There are clear dangers to students being ‘branded as able or less able’ rather than

viewed as adopting differential approaches to achievement (Dweck & Elliot, 1983;

Ames, 1992). The most adaptive reactions to schooling are characterised by mastery-

approach goals where students “want to learn, master and truly understand the task at

hand” (Meece et al, 2006; p.490-491). In contrast performance-avoidance sees

students seeking to avoid unfavourable and ego damaging judgements in relation to

their ability. As noted by Solomon & Rogers (2001):

“…performance-avoidance goals are particularly likely to be associated with

a range of strategies in the classroom that will have the effect of lowering attainment

levels and increasing disaffection.”

(p.337)

The importance of offering pupils opportunities to shift their perceptions about their

learning identities in school is essential for both their own self-concept, as well as the

labels that others apply to them within the educational context. The classic Pygmalion

in the Classroom study conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) offers a seminal

223
example of the way that teacher perceptions and expectations can either relegate

students to behaviour that mirrors performance-avoidance, or alternatively foster

learning-approach orientations. Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree School) alludes to this

very effect within his responses in describing the way that the oral storytelling

intervention shifted his perceptions about certain students in his class:

“…since I’ve done the storytelling personally, it’s definitely opened my eyes

to the extent that storytelling can help build confidence in children, and see how the

lower able can perform against the higher able – they come on a par, which is really

powerful…”

Similarly, the testimonies of Sarah White and Roland Morris during the Hollytree

School INSET day, in relation to the way that two particular children excelled at oral

storytelling, attest to the way that both learner identities and teacher perceptions about

pupil ability can be shifted through the use of oral storytelling:

“…he had a very short concentration span…his writing is poor, and he really

struggles with literacy, but as you will see from the clip here, he was absolutely

brilliant at storytelling, and it completely shocked me that he was capable of this, I

mean, when he was telling the story, his language was so much different from

speaking in the classroom everything ‘yeah like, you know, like, the thing is, like’

whereas with storytelling he’s a completely different character...He’s actually written

a really fantastic fantasy story as well from that – really, really good.”

(Sarah White)

224
 “Just before I show the clip, this is the quietest child in the school… and this

for her is really a break through, she hardly speaks to me at all, or anybody…”

(Roland Morris)

Similar shifts of perception are evident in other participant responses with David

Keele suggesting that the positive impact of oral storytelling is related to the way that

it “seems to open teachers’ eyes to this whole other area - children can express

themselves”. Similarly, Jean Heath describes the way that in her own work teachers

invariably see the value of her creative practice, despite initial surprise at the novelty

of her methods:

“…they always see the benefit in the stuff I’ve done – I mean I had one where

I was doing lots of drama, lots of storytelling in my own way, with them going ‘oh, I

didn’t realise you could do that!’ ‘oh, that was different’, and then it was like ‘they

did really well in that test, and we think it’s down to you.’”

Shifts in teacher perceptions of the way children can ‘express themselves’, ‘come on

par’, and achieve in tests as a result of creative learning experiences is a function of

the mechanisms through which creative forms of education operate. The layering of

curriculum content through arts education is a perspective that is forwarded by Julia

Barden who aligns oral storytelling and creative education with “learning through a

different vehicle”. Julia emphasises the effectiveness of multi-modal forms of creative

education, particularly for pupils that struggle “with a certain delivery”. Patrick Mean

(CA: CP) echoes this perspective by emphasising that CP enables children to find

“other access points into their learning”. Julia goes on to describe the way that arts-

225
based education can enable such children increased access to their own learning as a

result of it providing multiple opportunities to understand and experience different

themes:

“…so in the case of a special school that I worked in, [learning through a

different vehicle] was absolutely vital because those kids got to observe something

with the naked eye, then they got to film it so they got to observe it again, then they

got to play it back, so they were layering, layering, layering.”

However, it has been noted that there is a lack of strong empirical research available

to support the infusion of the arts across the curriculum (Russell and Zembylas,

2007). Evaluations into the educational impact of the arts have found no statistically

significant difference in pupil attainment with arts-integrated approaches as compared

to traditional teaching methods (Hetland & Winner, 2000). It has been suggested that

such findings are connected to the fact that learning in an arts integrated environment

is “inherently complex and multi-dimensional” and therefore does not readily lend

itself to “experimental designs and purely outcome-based evaluations” (Horowitz,

2004; p.7). As a result, Russell & Zembylas (2007) suggest that “any evaluation of

arts-integrated programs will be misguided if it is primarily focused on measuring

success in terms of improvement on high-stakes tests” (p.195). Clearly there is a

pressing need to find better outcome measures that take into account a much wider

range of factors. Mansilla (2005) has argued for an alternative conception in which

cognitive advancement is the intended outcome of subject integration. Proposing a

‘performance view of understanding’, Mansilla (2005) suggests that it is the capacity

to use knowledge accurately and flexibly in new situations rather than simply

226
accumulating facts and subject knowledge that needs to be used as evidence of

learning. Such flexibility has been observed by Demoss (2005) who found effects

upon students’ written analytic interpretations as well as increased evidence of

affective connections in their writing resulting from arts integrated curricula. The

creation of such novel and complex mental models is the hallmark of abductive

thinking (Berghoff, 2005), and it depends upon “a variety of rich experiences” such as

“when students engage with arts-infused curriculum” (Russell and Zembylas, 2007;

p.195). The creation of flexible forms of thinking through engagement with oral

storytelling is something that is strongly emphasised by Jean Heath:

“But actually, if you want people who can think, then you need storytelling,

and you need people to actually engage in stories that are remote from them that they

can then rework in their own way. Basically, you need to create an active

imagination. I think all children have imaginations, but what they actually then do

with it, and what you can enable them to do with it. In terms of having something to

say, and wanting to say it – it’s those two things really…It’s only when you can talk

about yourself that you can see what’s happening and you can take a proactive part

in it…”

A somewhat different trajectory can be understood as perceptual shifts that are

engendered by more intrinsic aspects of the arts. Intrinsic effects contrast with the

instrumental effects upon cognition and attitude so far discussed in relation to changes

in learner perceptions. Intrinsic benefits of the arts can be conceptualised along a

continuum from private effects of pleasure and captivation; to more public effects of

an extended capacity for empathy and the cognitive growth of the individual; to the

227
most public dimension represented by the creation of social bonds and the expression

of public meanings (McCarthy et al., 2001). It has been suggested by McCarthy et al.

(2001) that intrinsic benefits are ‘the missing link’ in terms of our understanding of

the arts and their benefits, and that “many of them can lead to the development of

individual capacities and community cohesiveness that are of benefit to the public

sphere” (p.xv).

Exposure to novel cultural experiences and perspectives gives people “new references

that can make them more receptive to unfamiliar people, attitudes and cultures”

(McCarthy, 2001; p.xvi). Similarly, the cognitive growth that is fostered when

individuals are invited to makes sense of novel works of art where meaning is

“embedded rather than explicitly stated”, encourages the individual to “gain an

entirely new perspective on the world and how he or she perceives it.” (McCarthy et

al, 2001: xvi). Within participant responses Julia Barden emphasises the shifts that

can occur in children’s cultural awareness through creative practice. In particular she

describes the rural roots of oral storytelling in terms of some of the traditional tales

that are frequently based around countryside themes and locales, and the way they can

offer children from more urban environments insight into cultures that are new and

different to their own:

“What’s interesting, I think is it’s something that has largely grown out of

rural stuff, a lot of the storytellers live in rural areas and a lot of the festivals are all

in rural areas, so it’s really interesting when that comes into more urban areas, and

there is a kind of interesting dynamic when something that is rooted in a kind of

county-side experience, coming into a town thing.”

228
The promotion of cultural difference through the arts and oral storytelling more

specifically, is echoed by Blaine Hogarth’s (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) suggestion

that the “ancillary folk law that surrounds storytelling…can be really good for cultural

exchange”:

“There’s a whole sort of – things like lullaby’s, and sayings, good luck, bad

luck all these little superstitions, clapping games and all that….”

The final perceptual shift that is afforded through the arts and more specifically

through schemes like CP that bring artists into schools and in touch with children is

related to the way that creative practitioners can represent a valuable alternative to the

CT. This perspective is highlighted by Sarah White (CT: Hollytree School) who

focuses on the idea that creative practitioners represent a valuable alternative to

children’s usual CT:

“…and this helps so much in seeing someone who is really enthusiastic about

it, and who isn’t…I think quite often they see, as a teacher – ‘you can do this

yourself” – but they don’t always take on board…they think ‘oh well, we have to do it

for school work and they’ll make us write something down’, whereas actually they’re

getting the skills to write amazing stories, but doing it in a completely different way.”

Sarah places emphasis upon the idea that children do not always trust teacher motives,

suggesting that they see the role of the CT as being primarily geared towards the

attainment of academic goals such as literacy. Sarah therefore implies that children

tend to interpret praise and encouragement or curriculum content that is not overtly

229
oriented towards academic goals as a way of getting them to comply with an agenda

that is ultimately (if implicitly) geared towards academic attainment. In contrast,

Sarah’s perception of an artist coming into school who “is really enthusiastic about it,

and who isn’t…” speaks volumes about the way she feels creative practitioners

impact upon children’s learning in the classroom. It would be accurate enough to

finish off Sarah’s sentence with the words ‘a teacher’, as this is the core quality to her

differentiation. Because artistic individuals working in school have abilities and

personas that are qualitatively different to those of the CT, they are inherently able to

offer children novel perspectives as well as being able to forge different relationships

with children that can benefit their learning and development.

This perspective has been noted by Burnard & Swann (2010) in their examination of

pupil perceptions of learning with artists and the emotional dimension of learning.

Burnard & Swann (2010) assert that artists form qualitatively different relationships

with students, and engender a pedagogic experience that is similarly qualitatively

“different from the experience of being taught” (p.79). Jean Heath highlights this

perspective in her suggestion that “just by definition of what they do” creative

practitioners are able to “find totally different ways” of using oral storytelling and

creative practice more generally “that teachers won’t have thought of”. Jean therefore

emphasises that shifts in perception about the potential for creativity in the classroom

are invaluable for teaching practice:

“I know a couple of practitioners who are incredibly creative and the way

their brains work is so far removed from how most class rooms work, but it is so

valuable for them, that to make that leap, for teachers to go ‘I get it’.”

230
The enthusiasm of the creative practitioners that is highlighted by Sarah White relates

to what Burnard & Swann (2010) identify as the way that artists are able to draw

children “into an emotional engagement with their learning” (p.79). Through

connecting pupils “to their feelings and senses” (p.79), Burnard & Swann (2010)

describe the multifarious and sometimes intangible ways that “emotion was used as a

means of inhabiting opportunities for learning” (p.79). This was both in terms of less

complex pleasant emotions that engender success and achievement as well as more

challenging ones that are representative of risk and failure. Bernard & Swann (2010)

conclude that “learning is likely to be deeper and longer lasting as a result of

emotional engagement” (p.79).

While Bernard & Swann’s (2010) research may be suggestive that such relationships

and dimensions of learning are characteristic of the style and persona of the creative

personality, it may be more accurate to suggest that to an even greater extent they are

characteristic of ‘passion driven learning’. This is an aspect that Blaine Hogarth

focuses upon in his responses, and he describes an intervention introduced by a Head

Teacher in a school in the U.S. where Thursday afternoons were devoted to such

passion driven learning:

“…everybody, from the cleaners, the maintenance bloke, the cooks, the

members of staff, the P.E staff would go into classes – people who are not teachers –

and just talk about the thing that they were passionate about…and it would inspire the

kids by demonstrating that a human being can be passionate about something. And in

terms of emotional intelligence, or emotional literacy, the thing that drives most

231
learning is emotional interest – I’m getting juice out of this, joyful juice out of

studying this subject…”

The crux here is emotional interest and the importance of enabling children to make

the connection that legitimate forms of learning are not wholly represented by a

target-driven curriculum. Such “real world learning” (Burnard & Swann, 2010; p.80)

needs to find a much greater purchase in the educational context of the classroom.

Burnard & Swann (2010) assert that teachers “can, and do, provide the trusting,

collaborative, facilitative relationships that pupils found with the artists” and they

“can plan for the emotional dimension of learning” (p.80). However, the authors also

acknowledge the constraining effects of curriculum, performativity and accountability

that result in “pedagogies of transmission” that “prevent teachers from bringing

themselves into the learning” (Burnard & Swann, 2010; p.80). This aspect is

emphasised by Jean Heath who suggests that the lack of pedagogic engagement with

creative practice in school is a symptom of teachers never having “had a chance to sit

back and consider some of those things, simply because you don’t have the time.”

Clearly, teachers end up being pulled in conflicting directions, where their feelings of

being “overwhelmed and constrained by the pace of curriculum coverage” (Burnard

& Swann, 2010; p.80) is further increased by their professional desire to engage with

more creative forms of education:

“Herein lies the paradox for teachers who describe a tension between their

desire to enact values, develop relationships with their students, and enhance

creativity on the one hand, while trying to raise standards and increase accountability

in accordance with government established benchmarks, on the other.”

232
 (Burnard & Swann, 2010; p.80)

Burnard & Swann (2010) conclude by suggesting that research needs to focus upon

practical ways of bridging this gap, and combining more imaginative ways of

teaching and learning with an agenda that is strongly oriented towards the raising of

standards. Certainly participants stress the ability of oral storytelling and the arts to

shift pupil and teacher perceptions in the classroom on a number of different levels,

most notably in terms of: what counts as the products and process of learning; how

learner identities can be changed; the way understanding of difference can be

fostered; and the way teacher-pupil relationships can be changed and negotiated. I

suggest that creative collaboration on a sustained basis between teachers, creative

practitioners and pupils encourages shifts of perspective to take place, so that new

understandings of teaching and learning can be reached. How such learning is to be

measured is a matter of complexity and it is important that any attempts at assessment

adopt more nuanced tools than are traditionally applied to didactic forms of education.

In addition, it is important that arts education is separated from instrumental aims to

promote a value of art for art’s sake. It is only when the intrinsic benefits of the arts

are foregrounded and means-end rationality (whether in relation to literacy or

employability) is minimised, that the transformative potential of the arts in education

becomes available to all.

6.3 Summing up

Participant responses indicate that both artists and teachers are experts in their own

right and the emphasis within the creative/educational CoP’s is on co-delivery.

However, they also stress that artists generally possess different teaching identities

233
that are improvisational in orientation, and as such they offer teachers a pedagogic

model from which they can strongly benefit. The shifts in perception in both teachers

and learners that exposure to arts-based practice can promote appear in participant

responses as an important and transformative effect of creative teaching and learning.

I suggest that sustained collaboration and co-delivery is key to changing approaches

to teaching and fostering more improvisational styles in the classroom. Relatedly

discursive opportunities need to be created between teachers and artists to uncover the

invisible practices of competence that creative practitioners tend to adopt. It is the

changes in thinking from output oriented performance pedagogies to more flexible

and abductive ways of teaching and learning that the CoP of the creative and

collaborative classroom promotes. The assessment of such learning needs to be

similarly flexible and arts education needs to be valued in and of itself, for the

transformative potential of the arts in school to be fully realised.

The next chapter shall examine this devaluation and its effects more closely in

relation to the central theme of literacy as hegemony, upon which the varied sub-

themes and arguments converge.

234
7. The Hegemony of Literacy

This chapter focuses upon literacy as a hegemonic force that affects the balance of

literacy, S&L and arts education in school, as well as the way that oral storytelling is

understood and practiced, to elucidate the second and third sub-questions of the

research that focus upon the best ways to utilize oral storytelling in school, as well as

the barriers associated with its practice. In line with the primary Research Question,

participant responses indicate that there are a number of negative consequences to the

prioritization of literacy in school including deleterious effects to the oral storytelling

process, S&L more generally and the quality of children’s writing; a narrowing of the

curriculum and pedagogic practice; and an undermining of children’s confidence in

their abilities in school. However they also indicate that despite the primacy of orality,

spoken and written forms are heavily interdependent, and this complicates attempts at

separation. The section first examines the prioritization of literacy in school and its

consequences, before going on to examine the interdependence of literacy and orality

in relation to debates concerning NLS and the potential for specific cognitive effects

of literacy upon spoken language. In addition the primacy of spoken language in

relation to socio-cultural factors such as SES, social disadvantage and language

development is discussed.

7.1 The giving of greater value

Literacy is important, it pervades our lives from a very young age and as we get older

it impacts upon our daily activities to such an extent that it is difficult to imagine how

someone without any literacy at all could cope in a world that is literally saturated in

text. Therefore, enabling children to become familiar and adept in the skills that are

required to become fully literate is an understandable preoccupation of educational

235
policy and practice. However, along with the strong emphasis that is placed upon

literacy and its acquisition, there is a corresponding lack of emphasis upon S&L

within the curriculum. In addition, the linking of oral language to written outcomes

would seem to indicate that there is a thinly veiled subtext beneath the overarching

statements of the NC in relation to the importance of spoken language: ability in

reading and writing is more important to children’s education than ability in oral

communication.

This perspective comes across strongly in the responses of the oral storytellers. Blaine

Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) asserts that in terms of literacy and orality the

problem is one of “prioritization, the giving of greater value”, comparing his

treatment as a storyteller to that of authors:

B: I go into schools, very often – “oh we’ve got an author here” - and giving the

author cups of tea, and the storyteller here – you can go and speak to the kids down

there ….

I: So it’s kind of a second class activity…

B: Oh, it’s absolutely second class.

Blaine goes on to emphasise the historical primacy of oral language, suggesting that

despite the many mediums through which a story can be told and the fact that “the

written word is just one of them”, literacy takes precedence in people’s minds:

236
 “…humanity has only been writing for 5000 years or so…but it’s got this

huge, huge authority - literally author and authority - stamped all over it. It’s a

mindset.”

Similarly, David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) suggests that in

school and society more widely “there is just too much focus on reading and writing”.

He goes on to observe that “the external forces acting on the school means that

writing still has the ascendency”. By way of example, he recalls a conversation about

some of the writing targets within the NLS:

“I was talking to this advisor a while ago, he told me ‘not everything’s so bad

with the NLS, by the age of 10 they’re familiar with all these different genres of

writing’…oh well that’s great isn’t it, you know, by the age of 10 they’ve analysed

writing to death, they can identify all these genres – I wonder how many of them they

enjoy?”

Jean Heath (CA: CP) similarly suggests that the over-emphasis in school on literacy is

such that it becomes “all about the reading and writing”. Jean goes on to describe how

oral storytelling is naturally associated with and understood in relation to writing and

books:

“…it’s like when people come to photograph you to put you in the paper

because you’re a storyteller in school and they try and give you a book to hold,

because they need a visual, and it’s like ‘no’! That’s not the point!”

237
Roland Morris’s (CT: Hollytree School) use of the word ‘obviously’ in his description

of the priority that is given to literacy in school highlights that this priority is a given

and something that is to be expected in school:

R: Um, I’d say speaking and listening was obviously done, but obviously not as much

as the actual reading and writing of literacy…

I: It gets priority?

R: Yeah.

Similarly, Kate Leech (CT: Lakeside School) states that school dictates that “you’ve

got to do a piece of writing every day to develop the writing”. She goes on to assert

that this is “something that doesn’t sit comfortably” with her due to her belief that

“until they’ve had the S&L and storytelling” they haven’t got “the experiences, the

vocabulary about it, to be able to do it properly”.

The differential level of status that is conferred to literacy has been noted by Bryant

(2009) who describes “the elevated importance of reading and writing in schools”

(p.151). Bryant (2009) goes on to suggest that the “language of speaking has merely

been an assumed aspect of literacy that, in the wake of educational theory, has

remained stagnant in terms of research and classroom practice” (p.151). Similarly,

Biber (1988) in his analysis of the linguistic differences between speech and writing

observes that “the historical view that written, literary language is true language

continues as the dominant lay perception” and that this results in the view that

“children need to study English at school, which includes written composition and the

prescriptive rules of writing, not speech” (p.6). Even when talk does occur in the

238
classroom, the kinds of talk that arise are frequently more closely aligned with

literacy-based practice. For example, the conception of procedural display (Bloome et

al., 1989) describes classroom talk that centres upon the dissemination of information

contained in texts that students are expected to read, memorize, and then feedback to

the teacher by giving correct factual answers. In addition, the classic pedagogic IRE

sequence with its inauthentic ‘known-answer question’ (Searle, 1969) is similarly

geared towards monologic and text-based forms of discourse. Such classroom talk is

best conceptualized as literacy-based discourse and its predominance in school

reinforces the hegemony of literacy: even when talk is put to use in the classroom it is

frequently in service of a text-based agenda.

This giving of greater value has its roots in the autonomous or ‘Great Divide’ model,

which sees literacy as a decontextualized technology that confers unique capabilities

such as logical and analytical thinking upon those who take up the tools of reading

and writing (Goody & Watt, 1963). The autonomous model is responsible for casting

literacy as a predominantly cognitive process, and in doing so it ‘individualizes’

literacy (Chege, 2009) which results in students’ poor literacy skills being attributed

to their “faulty minds” (Daniell, 1999; p.396). This in turn positions literacy as a skill

that takes work and effort for students to be able to master. Therefore we have a

binary effect where literacy is seen as being both a more important outcome of

education and learning as well as being more difficult for children to acquire. This

situation is reinforced by the fact that certain people do not ever learn to pick up the

tools of literacy, as noted by Biber (1988):

239
 “All children learn to speak (barring physical disabilities); many children do

not learn to read or write. All culture makes use of spoken communication; many

languages do not have a written form.”

(p.8)

This differential uptake of literacy within and across populations, results in it

appearing as something that requires legislation to ensure accountability and

governmental policies that are targeted towards remediation and the maintenance of

standards. The focus on literacy assessment at primary school level is considerable,

and it is currently one of the two areas of learning (the other area being numeracy)

that is subject to mandatory assessment in both Key Stages. In addition, the testing

regime is skewed towards literacy, with a newly introduced phonics screening check

being administered at the end of KS 1, as well as SAT tests in reading comprehension,

spelling, punctuation and grammar being mandatorily administered at levels 3-5.

Literacy is clearly a significant focus of the assessment regime accounting for more

than half of the assessment time in school at a conservative estimate. Indeed it has

been described by Hall et al. (2004) as “SATurated pupildom” where “assessment,

narrowed to testing, defines the school day, the curriculum, the teacher’s

responsibilities, the pupil’s worth, the ideal parent, and what counts as ability; it

pushes towards a particular type of learning at the expense of other types” (p.801).

This perspective is clearly evident in participant responses in relation to the effects of

assessment on spoken language and engagement with oral storytelling specifically, as

well as upon learning more generally. All participants held strong convictions in

relation to this aspect, as evident from the selection of responses below:

240
 “And it’s awful really, that that’s the assessment focus - if they can’t pick up a

piece of paper and see their mastery of story…then it doesn’t count, well they don’t

even know it’s there.”

(David Keele)

“I think that a confident teacher can work it away from its level of

prescriptiveness and rather than be kind of high-jacked by it…literally see it as a

container and find ways of interpreting it and making it dynamic and vibrant. I think

that people who aren’t confident - outcomes have a place along the way of process,

but if they’re very worried about that in any kind of tense way, they will be more

constrained by what they offer.”

(Jean Heath)

“But within school it’s a narrow focus of what you’re judged on – the first

thing that OFSTED look at is your standards, and if it’s not good enough, then we’re

coming in to see why not. It’s the sword you live and die by…and having been a year

6 teacher, that’s why you’re always ‘we need to go, we need to go, we need to move’,

so giving time to storytelling – if I was in Year 6 I’d be thinking ‘hang on a minute,

they’ve got to be able to write the thing.’”

(Roland Morris)

“…when it’s always results driven it’s a kind of a means whereby, rather than

valued for what it is itself.”

(Julia Barden)

241
 “…they might have a really well-rounded education and they’re smart and

bright and able to think for themselves and be independent learners, but if they can’t

tell you what the main features of the opening paragraph of a newspaper is, you’ve

technically failed...”

(Sarah White)

“But with the phonics, you know if one child in your class doesn’t achieve that

level, then you keep the whole class back, that’s the rule now.…there’s some children

who won’t reach that level if they’re doing it til they’re 16/17. But it’s just how it is.”

(Kate Leech)

This selection of participant responses manages to capture some of the consequences

of the heavy focus upon literacy assessment in school. Such perspectives serve as a

reminder of the potential for skewed practices in assessment to produce effects of

marginalization, impoverished pedagogic practice and pressurized and inefficacious

teaching that limits children’s learning. These effects are explored in more detail in

the next section. As noted by Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP), the

potential of a results-driven agenda to skew the purpose and intrinsic value of

education is significant. When there is a concomitant tendency to privilege one type

of learning over another, effects are compounded. This would appear to be the

situation in which we find ourselves with regards to reading and writing and S&L.

But how did we get here? There is a clear assertion within participant responses that

immersion in spoken language practice such as oral storytelling is beneficial to

children’s learning. Similarly, David Keele professes his love of reading and writing

242
and his tendency towards being “a complete bookworm”, whilst acknowledging that

“there’s really too much of it” in school. However, David is a storyteller and he

understands the oral process and the tendency of schools to link storytelling to written

outcomes to fulfil curriculum targets and conform to the standards agenda. While

teachers may similarly understand the benefit of spoken language and engagement

with learning activities such as oral storytelling, they have little power to implement

such an aim unless, as pointed out by Jean Heath, they have the confidence to wrest it

away “from its level of prescriptiveness” and trust that targets in literacy can be met

through an alternative agenda that is rich in spoken language. This perspective is

succinctly captured by Roland Morris:

“So it’s quite a challenge, and I think sometimes that speaking and listening

might get squeezed out because you’re thinking ‘I’ve got to get them to write this’, but

if you actually stopped and thought about it and gave the time to speaking and

listening, it would help them and the writing might be a better quality when they came

to actually write. So I guess it’s about taking risks as well, with your time, and

trusting that it’s going to work – ‘I’m going to give this block of time during this unit

of work to speaking and listening activities to help develop the writing’…”

However, there is also something implicit at work within such hegemonic conceptions

of literacy as noted by Kate Leech who emphasises the way that storytelling is

naturally seen as being linked to literacy in people’s minds. This is a situation with

which all the storytellers were ruefully familiar. It follows from this that within an

educational setting there is a strong likelihood of teachers viewing oral storytelling as

reading a story from a book, unless there is an explicit focus upon oral processes

243
within its presentation, or they have directly experienced oral storytelling themselves

within or beyond the classroom. Given the novelty of the oral storytelling intervention

as expressed by the teachers at both Hollytree and Lakeside Schools, the latter

situation is comparatively unlikely. As for the former, the distinct lack of process-

based aspects within curriculum materials has already been discussed in the preceding

section on Speaking and Listening in the NC. In addition, Sarah White (CT: Hollytree

School) was the only teacher to have experienced oral storytelling outside the

classroom through members of her family who had embraced the oral tradition when

she was a child.

The unfamiliarity of oral storytelling within an educational context is strongly

captured by the following exchange between the teachers at Lakeside School:

K: No, I don’t think there’s anything about storytelling in the National

Curriculum…there is storytelling but I think a lot of people see that as read a book…

J: Yeah, I don’t think they see it as storytelling. And I don’t think I would have done if

I hadn’t seen David working – I don’t think I would have known.

Jane Smith’s (CT: Lakeside School) admission that she would have been unlikely to

view oral storytelling as anything other than reading from a book without

experiencing it directly, resonates with the legitimizing norms and publically

sanctioned ‘common sense’ of hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). The fact that oral

storytelling is frequently, naturally and automatically taken to be what is in reality

story reading, is a straightforward example of how hegemonic ideas and institutions

become dominant and unquestioned in people’s minds so that they almost cease to be

244
visible as sources of hegemonic relevance. In this way, the prevailing cultural norm of

literacy is perceived as a natural and inevitable state of affairs where (generally)

imaginative children’s stories come from books and they are read, and are (generally)

not told orally straight out of people’s heads.

Indeed, telling a story orally in front of an audience and without the aid of a book can

represent a de-stabilizing experience that many teachers would prefer to avoid. As

noted by Jean Heath, it is the “improvisational quality” of oral storytelling which

“some teachers find…very, very difficult”. Jean goes on to suggest that “reading and

writing can be much more mechanical”, and this perspective is exemplified by Jane

Smith who asserts that compared to telling a story orally “reading a book is really

easy”. This can represent a real stumbling block for oral storytelling as pedagogic

practice due to the various constraints that teachers who are pressed for time and

curriculum space have to operate under. As suggested by Jane Smith:

“I think that’s why it’s so hard storytelling…you’ve got to know your story...I

know if I’m in the middle of a story and something’ll happen and I’ll be ‘I don’t know

where I’m up to’ – I’ve completely lost the thread!...and once I have that interruption

I find it very hard to come back to the story.”

Such practical factors as the ease of reading over engagement with oral storytelling

specifically, and S&L more generally, reinforce the predominance of literacy in

school: it is simply easier to use literacy than it is to engage with S&L that as Jean

Heath observes “implies in itself that you’ve got to take risks and you’ve got to

engage and you’ve got to be part of the process”.

245
Ultimately, hegemony through prevailing cultural norms involves practical factors

such as those described above in relation to the ease with which literacy is translated

into the educational context, and also political factors that are more strongly related to

traditional aspects of hegemony, power and authority in society. The political

dimension in relation to literacy is most clearly articulated by Blaine Hogarth in

describing his experiences with the NOP, the demise of which he attributes to the

metaphorical and literal silencing of creative and dialogical forms of learning that was

the outcome of the NLS:

“…and ultimately, we all knew that the unspoken thing was that success

would be measured when there was a kid who would stand up and argue with a

teacher and hold his ground, but confidently, and fluently, and well – that was what

we were aiming at and that was not at all what the Tories wanted… But anyway, it

sort of died and got lost, and then the literacy strategy came in and there we are –

writing, it’s easy, you know, shut them all up, sit and write quietly, and it’s the exact

antithesis of what we wanted – we wanted hub-bub and we got silence.”

Such subversive and political agendas in relation to literacy practice in school are the

focus of post-structural and critical approaches to literacy, which have been adopted

by theorists who seek to emphasise literacy’s potential to marginalize, silence and

subordinate. As noted by Chege (2009) “literacy is and always will be a politically

contested terrain” (p.236), and the insistence upon a ‘first, fast and only’ approach to

the teaching of synthetic phonics in the most recent conceptualisation of the NC (DfE,

2013) can be seen as educational policy that directly subordinates and silences more

orally grounded forms of language practice in school. Similarly, the drive for written

246
outcomes in relation to S&L practice that has been discussed in the previous chapter

similarly perpetuates the hegemonic educational values of those in power who dictate

policy and practice. The approach to synthetic phonics that is currently being

advocated by the government has been recently described by Michael Rosen (2012) in

his online blog as “a mess” that is:

“…causing real distress to some children and some parents and some

teachers. The cause is obvious: a one-size-fits-all to children with very different

experiences of texts and very different personal and social outlooks and behaviour. It

is a totally unsatisfactory way of proceeding.”

Cumulatively participant responses indicate that literacy is given considerably more

time, weight and value in school as a direct result of educational policy and the

standards agenda. In addition, without explicit guidance or previous experience, oral

storytelling is frequently taken for and treated as, story reading. Such legitimizing

norms are connected to the ease with which literacy is translated into the pedagogic

context in comparison to such non-instrumental S&L practice as oral storytelling. It is

suggested that more critical approaches to pedagogy and education (Freire, 1972a,

1972b) are needed if literacy is to be divorced from its negative hegemonic effects. In

this respect the “paradox of literacy” in that “as much as literacy is an apparatus of

oppression, it is a tool for liberation” (Chege, 2009; p.232), is a central aspect of

critical approaches to education that have a discourse of emancipation at their core.

Oral storytelling can be understood as such an approach, by elevating S&L,

challenging dominant pedagogic methods and educational ideologies, and by

providing opportunities for, in Julia Barden’s words, the “non-usual suspects to

247
shine”. This egalitarian agenda provides “praxis grounded on empowerment of

educators and students to challenge inequalities in education and social injustices in

society in general” (Chege, 2009; p.232).

7.2 The consequences of the prioritization of literacy

The prioritization of literacy skills in school can be seen to result in a number of

effects that impact upon children’s learning, development and education in diverse

ways. Participant responses focus upon deleterious effects to the oral storytelling

process, S&L more generally and also the quality of children’s writing; a narrowing

of the curriculum and pedagogic practice; and an undermining of children’s

confidence in their abilities in school as being specific consequences of this

prioritization. David Keele (Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) emphasises

the way that the prioritization of literacy in school results in difficulties in terms of

getting teachers to understand the process of oral storytelling, thereby limiting the

degree to which they engage with storytelling practice that is non-instrumental in

orientation:

“…left to themselves teachers are so profoundly influenced by a literate

model that even when they think they’re operating from a storytelling point of view,

often they are not…”

The effect of the drive for written outcomes upon the oral storytelling process

specifically and spoken language more generally has been explored in the previous

section on S&L in the NC. However, the negative impact of literacy upon literacy is

an effect that requires further consideration. Whilst such a suggestion may be at first

248
counter-intuitive, there is a certain logic to Kate Leech’s (CT: Lakeside School) idea

that the unspoken requirement to produce a piece of writing every-day negatively

affects the quality of children’s writing:

“I think that’s a National thing that it’s to increase writing stamina, I don’t

think it’s ever been said that Nationally you have to do a piece of writing every day,

but I know a lot of schools do, and I think that’s at detriment to the storytelling and

speaking and listening…and the quality of writing.”

Arguably, when such narrowly instrumental and laborious approaches are adopted in

relation to writing it is creativity and enjoyment that is at stake. In order to examine

this dimension it would be necessary to directly compare the effects of writing

instruction with the effects of spoken language practice, upon subsequent writing

quality. Unfortunately however, there is no empirical research that has explicitly

examined these differential effects, as noted by Shanahan (2006):

“It is impossible to answer questions about whether programs in oral

language improvement would have an impact on writing achievement…There simply

has been too limited an amount of research into the connections of writing and oral

language, with little attention devoted to instructional questions.”

(p.174)

Shanahan (2006), observing that research that has been conducted on atypical learners

with language deficiencies, suggests that “oral language and writing are closely

connected in a general way - with children who have well-developed oral language

doing better with writing” (p.173). More specifically Shanahan (2006) observes that

249
writing appears “to draw on oral language, such as in the development of cohesion”

(p.173). In addition, research tends to focus almost exclusively on de-contextualized

literacy abilities that are required to decode and construct texts, rather than the overall

quality of children’s writing. This aspect has been picked up by Cassell (2004) in her

description of the differential contributions of ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’ literacy

skills (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998) to writing. Cassell (2004) notes that while de-

contextualised literacy knowledge may be essential for writing success, it is not

sufficient:

“The actual act of writing is based on ‘inside–out literacy skills’ such as

phonological awareness, knowledge of how to form letters, and the kinds of

punctuation involved in writing. ‘Outside–in skills’ relate to the function and features

of writing in the world...Children’s readiness for the outside–in aspects of writing

literacy begins in play and storytelling activities that do not explicitly involve the

decoding or creation of text…[the] ability to deal with decontextualized language [is]

one of the most important outside-in writing literacy skills.”

(Cassell, 2004; p.77)

Such aspects as the maintenance of cohesion and reference (Gee, 1985; Michaels,

1986; Peterson et al., 1999) through the manipulation of linguistic devices including

tense, temporal adverbs, connectives and referring expressions (Cassell, 2004), are the

kinds of markers that teachers look for in students writing. Within oral storytelling

there are abundant opportunities for the use of these linguistic devices that are also

central to the maintenance of cohesion and reference in written narratives. The

research undertaken by Cassell (2004) examined the use of various Story Listening

250
Systems (digital technologies that utilise children’s innate propensity to tell stories) to

support children’s emergent literacy and subsequent writing skills. Cassell (2004)

found that oral storytelling through Story Listening Systems evoked “playful language

use” (p.102) that resulted in the bootstrapping of literacy. Such findings echo

Mercer’s (1995) conception of the fourth kind of ‘playful talk’ which Wegerif (2005)

suggests “may well be central to improving the quality of thinking and learning in

classrooms” (p.227). In addition, the use of such digital forms of storytelling may well

reinforce the kind of cultural capital that children in society today increasingly

possess. The use of multi-modal forms of learning in the classroom has been

positioned as underutilized in school and may well offer children the kinds of access

points into education that more traditional forms of teaching and learning preclude

(Marsh, 2004).

Reinforcing Cassell’s (2004) findings are observations made by teacher-researcher

Rooks (1998), whose pedagogic use of oral storytelling has led her to assert that there

is “a clear link between oral storytelling and story writing” (p.27). In addition, Rooks

(1998) found that oral retelling was “particularly beneficial for the children who find

writing laborious and therefore find it difficult to complete a story in a given time”

(p.25):

“As one boy told me in an interview “Once you've told your story...once

you're absolutely sure ‘cos you've told it before, you'll know what you're writing

down’. Here oral storytelling may be used as a tool for children who are not short of

ideas but find writing difficult and who may never realise their full potential in story

writing.” (Rooks, 1998; p.25)

251
Participant responses also emphasise effects related to a narrowing of the curriculum

and pedagogic practice resulting from the prioritization of literacy in school. Jean

Heath (CA: CP) suggests that a lack of awareness about oral storytelling means that

teachers “often feel that if they’re reading stories to the kids, then in a sense they’re

meeting their story criteria”. This relates to the hegemony of ideas and institutions

that has already been discussed in relation to literacy: because oral storytelling is

frequently confused with story reading, and also because story reading is so much

more common, familiar and easy for teachers to work with, the result is a narrowing

of the curriculum and pedagogy in a manner that tends to preclude telling stories

orally. Similarly, Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree School) emphasises the way the overt

focus on literacy in school downgrades the importance of other abilities in different

areas of learning:

“…it’s like they’re the only skills that are important, which I don’t believe in

at all, and even if you’re not very good at writing it down, you might be a brilliant

storyteller, you just can’t get it down on paper.”

Roland’s assertion that it’s like reading and writing are “the only skills that are

important”, is more strongly related to the kind of curriculum narrowing and

pedagogic practice that is connected to externally mandated and imposed agendas of

accountability. Kate Leech’s description of the way that the focus on writing in school

constrains teaching practice, exemplifies the way creative forms of teaching are

limited by the need for accountability at the level of the school:

252
 “And then obviously you have to hand in your plans and so if you’re doing

that you can’t just write in your plans ‘we’re going to talk about this story’ or ‘we’re

going to do drama about this story’ because they’ll be like ‘where’s your writing?’

It’s that all the time.”

Research by Crocco & Costigan (2007) on the ‘narrowing of the curriculum’ and

pedagogic practice in the wake of impositions resulting from the No Child Left

Behind Act (2001) in the United States, mirrors the situation in UK schools as a result

of the most recent conceptualization of the NC. The prioritization of literacy in the

NC represents a schism of status between such core and non-core subjects as literacy

and S&L respectively (Paechter, 2000, 2003). In addition, Crocco & Costigan (2007)

suggest that narrowing in the US context has resulted in subjects such as science and

social studies losing time in the curriculum. Similar effects are observable in the UK

since the Conservative-Liberal Coalition axed the funding for the CP initiative as a

part of austerity measures. Both the arts and oral storytelling suffer from

marginalization within education and are therefore subject to the curricula and

pedagogic narrowing that results from the standards agenda and the prioritization of

literacy as a core subject in the curriculum (Paechter, 2000, 2003). While Crocco &

Costigan (2007) acknowledge that “a balance must be struck between autonomy and

accountability”, they conclude that overall “the balance seems to have tipped too far

in the direction of accountability” (p.514). The overt focus upon the assessment of

literacy in the UK is not an unfamiliar complaint as already described in relation to

participant responses and also the literature on assessment and accountability. As

noted by Hall et al (2004):

253
 “…the pedagogy more indirectly prescribed by the emphasis on summative

assessment outcomes serves to render invisible the diversity of pupils’ home and

community lives. The equity and social justice agenda is clearly subjugated to the

imperative of league tables documenting ‘high standards’ in narrow curriculum

areas… the effect of SATs would appear to impoverish pedagogic practices and,

particularly, to hinder inclusionary practices.”

(p.814)

The inclusionary issues of equity and social justice bring us to the effects of the

prioritization of literacy on pupils in terms of their identities as learners and their

perceptions of their abilities in school. This aspect is captured in Sarah White’s (CT:

Hollytree School) description of a pupil who whilst having a good command of oral

language, struggled with writing. Sarah goes on to describe the way that such children

are frequently aware of what counts in school, and their inability to conform to this

agenda means that it is difficult to fill them with confidence about their academic

worth:

“The stuff that she writes - she’s perfectly eloquent, perfectly coherent in what

she says and she’s got some brilliant ideas - but she can’t put them down on paper,

which in this sort of culture means that she’s failing. She’s not, she just can’t do one

part of it - but it’s very difficult to tell her that in a way that she understands. You try

as much as you can, you know, ‘that’s brilliant, love it!’ praise her all the time, but I

think that in her heart of hearts she knows the culture of school, she’s not stupid.”

254
Sarah’s assessment that “in this sort of culture [that] means that she’s failing”

contrasts with the fact that such school failure is often in spite of pupils’ ability in

other areas and that they ‘just can’t do one part’ of what is required in school. Clearly

the pivotal problem is that the part they cannot do is the part that is most valued,

prioritized and pushed in school. This aspect has been noted by Knobel (2001) who

undertook a case study of one child, Jacques, who failed to achieve in literacy in

school whilst demonstrating competency in reading and writing in various areas of

life outside school. Such a disconnect between home and school life in relation to

literacy has important implications for what counts as literacy learning and

educational failure according to the tests and benchmarks of the standards agenda.

Knobel (2001) suggests that:

“Educators need to reflect critically on what learning and expertise is

overlooked when pencil-and-paper tests are used to assess a student's ‘learning’, in

order to be sure that they are not playing into the hands of injustice.”

(p.409)

Knobel (2001) goes on to emphasise the importance of detaching literacy from

school-based purposes and practices by making it “culturally and socio-critically

meaningful to students” and by “embracing models of literacy teaching that are not

limited to code-breaking or operational literacy practices” (p.411).

A more nuanced examination of patterns of success and disaffection has been

undertaken by Purcell-Gates & Dahl (1991) in their study of the different ways that

children from urban backgrounds characterised by low-SES interpret traditional

255
skills-based literacy instruction in early years education. They identified four

approaches to literacy learning in children: the Independent Explorers; the Passive

Non-weavers; the Deferring Learners; and the Curriculum Dependent learners. The

former three types of learners were characterised by, to greater and lesser degrees, an

understanding of the ‘big picture’ of literacy i.e. that print was meaningful and

functional and served a linguistic communicative purpose. However, while the

Independent Explorers took an “active and self-initiating” (Purcell-Gates, 1991; p.16)

stance towards the process of literacy learning, the passive non-weavers exhibited a

disinterested “’it's meaningless work and I'll just get it done as such’ approach to the

literacy curriculum” (Purcell-Gates, 1991; p.22). This passivity resulted in reliance on

others and a general failure to make sense of literacy in an independent capacity. The

Deferring Learners were characterised by increasing anxiety and decreasing

confidence in personal literacy knowledge and ability that was in spite of the fact that

they tended to have strong literacy knowledge and active and self-initiating

approaches to learning upon school entrance.

In direct contrast to these approaches were the Curriculum Dependent learners who

did not have a big picture of literacy as a functional and meaningful system. Such

learners were characterised by bewilderment, confusion, misinterpretation and

“dysfunctional strategies for coping with instruction” (p.19) that gave way to

frustration and externalizing behaviour that resulted in non-participation in learning

and school. Overall, such research is indicative of the multifarious ways in which

learners can be affected and respond to traditional skills-based instruction, ranging

from competence and confidence to uncertainty, confusion and disaffection. It is

difficult to predict with certainty which approach any one child will take, and while it

256
is clear that larger amounts of literacy knowledge upon entrance to school will be

more likely to produce learners with an Independent Explorer approach to literacy, as

in the case of the Deferring Learners such an outcome is not a certainty. Purcell-Gates

& Dahl (1991) conclude by asserting that there is a “need for policy makers,

curriculum developers, textbook developers, and teachers to change their view of

what constitutes beginning reading and writing” (p.30):

“Learning to read and write does not begin with learning letter names,

sounds, and so forth, and children have difficulty learning these pieces without a

larger picture of the entire system. If children have not had the opportunity to explore

the whole of written language in meaningful, functional literacy events, then

instruction must provide this opportunity. Otherwise, we are asking these children,

from a phenomenological perspective, to learn the fine points of a process of which

they have little or no understanding.”

(p.30)

This call for literacy learning that “begins through many experiences with written

language in the context of meaningful, functional literacy events” (Purcell-Gates,

1991; p.30) is a very different approach to that which is proposed by the push for

synthetic phonics in the latest conceptualisation of the NC. In addition, it is likely that

the new phonics test for all six-year-olds, designed to assess children’s ability to

decode words and non-words, will induce even stronger feelings of confusion, anxiety

and passive disaffection in certain children.

257
This situation is strongly reinforced by Goodman (1986) whose nativist view of

language stems from the field of psycholinguistics and Chomsky’s view that humans

are hard-wired to acquire language. Goodman (1986) describes the way that literacy

instruction has tended to have presented reading and writing as if they are unnatural

language forms that require systematic and abstract instruction in de-contextualised

literacy skills:

“…many of the problems in literacy instruction in the world today are

misunderstood because learning to read has been treated as a matter of acquiring a

series of skills…we’ve built a technology of instruction in literate societies, we’ve

created pathologies of failure which are independent of the need for language, the

nature of language or natural language learning..”

(p.368)

From this perspective exposure to written language, the functional nature of literacy

and the natural motivation to communicate is more important to literacy learning and

instruction than the difficulty with which writing as an abstract form is associated. In

this respect Goodman (1986) suggests that we do our children a disservice by

assuming that those of them that do not master the skills of reading and writing as

quickly and effectively as others are best served by more intensive de-contextualised

literacy instruction:

“We made literacy something separate and apart from language and its use.

We made it a set of abstract skills to be mastered sequentially as a prerequisite to use.

258
We skilled and over-skilled readers and then sought to help those who couldn’t find

their way to meaning with a dose of remedial skill instruction.”

(p.370)

The tendency within the latest conceptualisation of the NC to give struggling readers

‘a dose of remedial skill instruction’ (Goodman, 1986), is particularly apparent. At all

levels of primary schooling there is explicit instruction within curriculum

documentation at each of the Key Stages for struggling readers to be taught literacy in

a manner that emphasises the skills of decoding. Even in years 5&6 when reading

failure would perhaps be suggestive of the idea that previous phonics-based efforts

had not worked, the policy on literacy instruction asserts that:

“It is essential that pupils whose decoding skills are poor are taught through a

rigorous and systematic phonics programme so that they catch up rapidly with their

peers in terms of their decoding and spelling.”

(DfE, 2013; p.40)

In contrast, the whole language school of thought that is upheld by advocates of a

nativist approach to literacy such as Goodman (1986) is generally associated with a

complete disassociation of skills-based phonics instruction. However, as pointed out

by Pearson (2000) “many young readers do not ‘catch’ the alphabetic principle by

sheer immersion in print or by listening to others read aloud” (p.25). Pearson (2000)

goes on to suggest that for certain children there is a requirement for “careful planning

and hard work by dedicated teachers who are willing to balance systematic skills

instruction with authentic texts and activities” (p.25). I propose that it is such a

259
balanced approach to literacy learning that is currently missing in educational policy

and prescribed practice.

Participant perceptions of the consequences of the prioritization of literacy therefore

revolve around: a narrowing of the curriculum and pedagogic practice; effects upon

children’s engagement with spoken language that subsequently impacts upon the

quality of their writing; and the impact upon children’s confidence in their abilities

and their identities as learners. This final point is undoubtedly connected to children’s

enjoyment of and future engagement with literacy beyond school:

“…many of them will have lost all confidence in their own ability to get sense

from print. They will be the victims of over-skill…Even if they should later overcome

the fragmentation, they will have been so phonicated, so syllabified, so verbalized that

they will always regard reading as dull, tedious and onerous. They will read only

what they must and never of their own choice for pleasure or relaxation.”

(Goodman, 1986; p.371)

I propose that this is the ultimate outcome of an explicit over-emphasis upon de-

contextualised instruction in literacy that is the result of a more general tendency to

prioritize and privilege literacy in school. Approaches to literacy acquisition that

balance skills-based instruction with socio-culturally meaningful and individualised

forms of whole language learning, are required if literacy is to be divorced from its

negative hegemonic effects.

260
7.3 The co-existence of speaking and writing

The interdependence of oral and written language is a perspective that comes across

particularly strongly in participant responses. Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider

Inquiry) emphasises orality’s “paradoxical relationship…with the pen and the written

word”, suggesting that over the course of the “five or possibly six thousand years”

since writing was first invented there has been “this co-existence between the two,

sometimes a happy co-existence, sometimes a tension”. Similarly, David Keele

(Storyteller: Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) emphasizes the interdependence of oral

and written language, as well as the inevitability of literacy within modern western

society:

“No matter how vital and powerful for children working with oral storytelling

might be, the fact is that we are living in this highly literate society, and the two do

merge together don’t they?”

This is a line of thinking that reflects ideological conceptions of literacy held by

theorists whose arguments cumulatively represent the NLS (Heath, 1983; Street,

1985; Gee, 1988; Barton & Hamilton, 1998). As suggested by Heath (1983) in her

seminal study of Trackton, Roadville and Maintown, the complexities of language use

cannot be easily confined to one domain or another:

“…the patterns of interaction between oral and written uses of language are

varied and complex, and the traditional oral-literate dichotomy does not capture the

way other cultural patterns in each community affect the uses of oral and written

language.” (Heath, 1983; p.344)

261
Heath (1982) therefore asserts that “strict dichotomization between oral and literate

traditions is a construct of researchers, not an accurate portrayal of reality across

cultures” (p.73). This argument has been echoed by Barton & Hamilton (1998) in

their study of vernacular literacies in a working class community. As a result of such

findings, the NLS perspective is strongly supportive of the idea that claims upheld by

the autonomous model (Goody & Watt, 1963; Ong, 1982; Olson, 1986) emphasising

cognitive consequences to literacy acquisition and sharp distinctions between written

and oral language have been overstated (Street, 1995). In the place of the autonomous

‘literacy thesis’, plural and socially situated notions of what constitutes literacy are

now predominant: as noted by Brandt & Clinton (2002) “calling literacy a situated

social practice has become something of an orthodoxy in literacy research today”

(p.337). However, as pointed out by Collins & Blot (2003):

“…although revisionist historical research has deflated and undermined the

grander claims about the ‘consequences of literacy’, it still has to account for the

abiding significance of ideas about, institutions of, and practices involving literacy in

modern Western societies.”

(p.5)

Research that has directly examined some of the assumptions of NLS has been

undertaken by Stephens (2000), who suggests that the NLS argument that literacy

does not bestow any specific cognitive effects upon its users may in fact have its own

limitations. Through a “re-examination of aspects of the literacy-orality divide, and a

re-framing of parts of the ‘autonomy’ thesis” (Stephens, 2000; p.10), Stephens (2000)

provides evidence of the ways in which the cognitive consequences argument of the

autonomous model may have some leverage. More specifically, Stephens (2000)

262
deconstructs the empirical work of Scribner & Cole (1981) whose study of the varied

literacy practices of the Vai people of Liberia has been widely used in support of the

NLS approach. Stephens (2000) goes on to position Schriber & Cole’s (1981) findings

as only partially supportive of a rejection of the Great Divide model:

“Instead of generalised changes in cognitive ability, we found localised

changes in cognitive skills…Instead of qualitative changes in a person’s orientation

to language, we found differences in selected features of speech and communication.”

(Scribner and Cole, 1981; p.234)

Stephens (2000) suggests that the clearly superior metalinguistic awareness of the Vai

literates “over their non-literate counterparts” (Stephens, 2000; p.14) in Scribner &

Cole’s study is indicative of the fact that literacy has specific cognitive effects that

“can impact upon the use of spoken language” (Stephens, 2000; p.18). Indeed,

functional neuroimaging data has provided evidence that “learning an alphabetic

written language modulates the auditory-verbal language system in a non-trivial way”

and that such evidence provides “support for the hypothesis that the functional

architecture of the brain is modulated by literacy” (Petersson et al, 2001; p.251). In

the light of such evidence it seems spurious to suggest that literacy does not affect

cognition, although it is important to note that such studies are frequently confounded

by the inability to disentangle and distinguish between the effects of alphabetic

literacy from those of formal schooling. However, there do seem to be some specific

effects of literacy upon cognition, and whilst such effects may not necessarily confer

an advantage or claims to superior cognitive ability as is implied by the autonomous

model, they do exist. As noted by Stephens (2000):

263
 “…literacy confers a potential which, although it may not be empirically

realised, is most certainly absent if the relevant skills are never acquired. To note that

literacy does not inevitably lead to cognitive development does not undermine the

argument that some kinds of cognitive development are impossible without it.”

(p.17)

Indeed, the potential of literacy may carry with it concomitant limitations in terms of

other skills and abilities that are lost or degraded once the architecture of our brain has

been modulated by literacy’s effects. This is an aspect that, as far as I can tell, has not

been considered in the literature in relation to the consequences of literacy. Whilst

NLS has, quite rightly, been at pains to emphasise that literates are not cognitively

superior to individuals who are illiterate or differently literate, it has failed to turn the

situation on its head and ask whether literates are less capable than non-literates in

certain respects. A purely speculative suggestion is that that the strong emphasis upon

literacy in school, (in particular de-contextualized forms of literacy instruction), and

the concomitant impoverishment of S&L, may have resulted in the loss or at least the

degradation of certain abilities in the area of spoken language. Certainly there was a

sense within the oral storytelling intervention that those children who were more

capable with literacy were less capable with the oral retelling of stories, and

conversely it was the ‘non-usual suspects’ who shone. As recalled by Roland Morris

(CT: Hollytree School):

“…one boy who is probably one of the strongest writers in the class – apart

from his punctuation! He didn’t do as well as children like Micheal who are

264
academically a lot weaker than he is, and they did better than him in my opinion…and

they’ve travelled further than him as well from where they started at...”

In response to the suggestion that there may have been a certain ‘attachment to text’

with the children who were strong readers and writers so that there was a stronger

desire for them to be word-perfect, Roland reflects upon the improvisational nature of

oral storytelling and the way that ability in literacy could potentially hinder the

spontaneity of oral storytelling:

“Yeah, it may be that they were….because there was a lot of ‘and er, and er’

from, you know, the lad that didn’t do so well – maybe he was trying to think of the

exact words that he wanted to explain what he was doing, while the others just let

whatever came to them flow out, which may not have been the best vocabulary but, to

be a good storyteller, you can’t be going ‘and er, and er’. So yeah, perhaps the

structures they’re used to using doesn’t help them so well when it comes to

storytelling, you know, they’re reliant on it rather than just making bits up as it comes

to you, and having the main parts of the story in your head and just going with it.”

Anecdotal evidence of this kind suggests that extremes of ability in one area of

learning may conceivably result in deficiencies in others. As already suggested,

attempts to outline the cognitive effects of literacy are frequently confounded by the

more general effects of schooling (Cole, 1990). In their influential study of the Vai,

Scribner & Cole (1981) concluded that while schooling uses the “distinctive

mediational means [of] written symbol systems…writing is a necessary, but not

sufficient, explanation of schooling’s effects, be they context-specific or general”

265
(Cole, 1990; p.104). However, in a discussion of the evidence from cross-cultural

research, Cole (1990) goes on to suggest that it is the nature and quality of the specific

type of classroom discourse that that accounts for such cognitive effects:

“Overwhelmingly, not just in the Arab world but in American classroom as

well, a single teacher organizes recitations for large numbers of students. The

material to be learned is broken down into units with a particular sequence, and the

students must master lower-level steps to achieve higher-order ones.”

(pp.104-105)

Here the emphasis upon recitation is salient, invoking a Bakhtinian conception of

monologic classroom talk that has been discussed in the previous section, which

privileges ‘reciting by heart’ over ‘re-telling in one’s own words’ (Haworth, 2001).

Cole (1990) goes on to emphasise the classic pedagogic IRE sequence with its

inauthentic ‘known-answer question’ (Searle, 1969) as being central to the kind of

knowledge that children need to master in order to succeed in school. This kind of

procedural display (Bloome et al., 1989), as already suggested, is heavily influenced

by a text-based agenda, and again it becomes difficult to disentangle the effects of

literacy from those of formal schooling. Cole (1990) suggests that it is the forced

emphasis that teachers place on linguistic form often at the expense of accuracy of

content that separates school-based language from more natural language forms. Such

forced emphasis can appear “rather strange” (Cole, 1990; p.105) to young children,

and it is learners’ ability to master such abstract instructional discourse that results in

the cognitive effects of schooling:

266
 “This set of practices, I believe (along with Rogoff, 1981, and Scribner, 1977)

helps to account for the fact that only a very few years of schooling are sufficient to

bring about a marked change in response to verbal logical problems. Such verbal

logical problems map neatly onto the discourse of school with its motivated exclusion

of everyday experience and its formal mode.”

(Cole, 1990; p.105)

Again we find references to verbal responses being modulated by formal schooling

that is in turn heavily influenced by text-based discourse. If there is a cognitive effect

that can be conceptualised as an attachment to text that can hinder engagement with

unscripted forms of spoken language, it becomes important to consider what kinds of

learning are sacrificed in the promotion of the text-mediated instruction that

predominates in school. Ultimately, more research in this area is required to uncover

the finer points of the complex relationship that exists between oral and written forms.

The evidence presented by Scribner & Cole (1981) reporting “differences in selected

features of speech and communication” (p. 234) between literates and non-literates is

suggestive of distinct and specific effects of literacy upon spoken language. Such

effects have not been taken up or explored within the literature, indeed they have been

treated as trivial by linguists in the field of written and spoken language modes:

“Scribner and Cole found that there are specific intellectual abilities which

are enhanced by each type of literacy, depending on the particular functions

served…Consequences of this type are minor and quite specific to different types of

literacy; Scribner and Cole found no global intellectual consequences of literacy

apart from the influence of formal schooling.” (Biber, 1988; p.4)

267
And yet NLS has tended to use such perspectives in support of the position that there

is a general lack of evidence that is suggestive of specific differences and effects in

relation to spoken and written language modes. As asserted by Collins and Blot

(2003), debates about the nature of literacy and differences and similarities between

written and spoken language “have largely been inconclusive” (p.9):

“Where there have been substantive advances, such advances have depended

upon reformulating the terms of the debate – as in Biber’s (1988) demonstration that

the formal linguistic differences attributed to spoken versus written language modes

are either non-existent or due to genre rather than mode.”

(pp. 9-10)

And yet there are differences. Taken with neuro-imaging data that reports that literacy

“modulates the auditory-verbal language system in a non-trivial way” (Petersson et

al., 2001; p.251), there is some support for the idea that literacy has direct effects

upon spoken language. It is here that the plea from participants for more balanced

forms of literacy instruction, with an equal emphasis upon spoken language, finds its

natural home. How such a balance is to be achieved on a functional level in the

classroom and the curriculum is however, another source of contention and

complexity. In response to NATE’s idea of separating receptive and productive

language skills, so that speaking is conceptually grouped with writing, and reading

with listening, David Keele asserts that he “can’t imagine that being a very helpful

split”. In support of this assertion he goes on to describe the way that the

interdependence between literacy and orality works in relation to one of the pedagogic

techniques that he uses to teach children oral storytelling in the classroom:

268
 “…you’re going through this pretty seamless process, cycle really, from

hearing story through to working on them yourself, stripping them down to their

skeleton, putting your own flesh on the bones, and then bringing them to life, so the

idea of chopping that in two somewhere, it just doesn’t make any sense.”

The use of ‘Story Skeletons’ involved pupils working in groups choosing different

parts of the oral story to write a synopsis, on a full-sized cut out skeleton that they

then went on to decorate with pictures. While this is one of the few approaches that

David used during the intervention that involved an element of literacy, the example

serves to highlight the way that spoken and written forms interweave in the

classroom. In addition, due to the very interdependence that renders S&L subservient

to literacy as the more obvious focus of pedagogic action, spoken language could

potentially incur a more explicit downgrading in status if separated from literacy

within the curriculum. This perspective is noted by Julia Barden (CA/Programme

Director: CP):

“…so separation…hmmmm, I think I’m going to do a reality check on that

one because within literacy it has a level of status, I think that if you take it out, it may

take that level of status away.”

On the other hand, David Keele acknowledges that when orality and literacy “are all

merged together…there is always the danger of the one disappearing under the other

somewhat” so that “the idea of [orality] being given its own space” he can “imagine

helping”. The ease with which S&L can ‘disappear’ beneath more hegemonic literacy

269
practice suggests that careful attention needs to be given to the place and position of

S&L in the curriculum. This is not as simple as it may seem: as noted by Jean Heath

(CA: CP), orality and literacy “shouldn’t be separated out, because that’s unnatural”.

Jean goes on to describe the “links and cross over points” between “speaking and

listening, into reading and writing, and then reflecting it back into speaking and

listening”. Jean further suggests that it is this interdependence that enables teachers to

deliver literate and oral forms together whilst giving each language mode its own

recognition:

“…there’s all sorts of pathways in and out and through. So it should still be

seen as integral…and the teacher should be able to separate them out and put them

back together again. So yes, but they should be given equal importance.”

Similarly, Jean emphasises the similarities between speech and writing in terms of

punctuation, suggesting that children can be helped to understand the abstract

character of the marks and signs that are used to partition sentences and clarify

meaning, when the relationship between speech and writing is made explicit:

“Sometimes I will do that sort of work with kids in punctuation – that

punctuation isn’t a paper exercise actually, it’s all about recreating on paper what

you already do and if you look at it that way round you can start to get them to see

when it happens in oral speech, and then transfer it.”

Echoing this perspective, Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree School) suggests that the

pedagogic techniques that David Keele uses to help children “get to know the story so

270
well” so they “can tell it…without looking at a piece of paper”, share similarities with

elements of creative writing:

“…understanding all those processes that build up to [storytelling]…they’re

the same as some of those you use for writing.”

Clearly evident in participant responses is the view that spoken and written forms of

language naturally belong together as two sides of the same communicative coin. As

noted by Goodman (1986), it is when we turn literacy into something that is “separate

and apart from language and its use” (p.370) that problems arise. Similarly, spoken

and written language should, and do, ‘happily co-exist’ in the day-to-day of the

classroom. However, this is not to say that opportunities for spoken language, for the

sake of spoken language, should not be created and pursued. Children need exposure

to spoken language that is meaningful and diverse as much as they need exposure to

literacy-based practice that shares those self-same qualities. I suggest that there may

be distinct effects of literacy acquisition and instruction upon spoken language.

Whether such effects have a significant bearing on children’s education, learning and

development, remains to be examined. Either way it seems important to acknowledge

the potential of literacy to produce at least some specific cognitive effects, so that we

don’t fall into the ideological trap of thinking that there are no cognitive consequences

to literacy at all. It may be that children’s learning and development is being skewed

in disadvantageous ways if their language education has an excessive focus on

literacy over non-instrumental opportunities for spoken language as engendered by

such initiatives as oral storytelling.

271
7.4 The primacy of orality

The primary status of speech is a central and differentiating characteristic to the

linguistic study of spoken and written language. Speech has primacy on numerous

levels, as noted by Biber (1988):

“Culturally, humans spoke long before they wrote, and individually, children

learn to speak before they learn to read or write. All children learn to speak (barring

physical disabilities); many children do not learn to read or write. All culture makes

use of spoken communication; many languages do not have a written form. From a

historical and developmental perspective, speech is clearly primary.”

(p.8)

This perspective is echoed in participant responses, with Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller:

Wider Inquiry) asserting that “in order to write a language you have to be able to

speak a language”. Jean Heath (CA: CP) echoes this assertion, suggesting that “you

listen, you talk, you write – it’s in that order, you can’t change that”:

“…you can’t have reading and writing without speaking and listening – that

would be my take on it...you can have speaking and listening without reading and

writing, but you can’t have reading and writing without speaking and listening

preceding it.”

However, Biber (1988) suggests that on an academic basis “the bias that speech is

primary over writing…has not been widely accepted outside of linguistics” (Biber,

1988; p.6). Instead, the dominant lay view that informs educational policy and

272
practice is that “literary language is true language” (p.6). In addition to the socio-

cultural and developmental facets of speech, cognitive aspects of speech are also

pertinent to its primacy. Blaine Hogarth suggests that in the same way that orality pre-

dates literacy on a historical basis, so it does in terms of its production:

“…when you’re writing, you’re speaking in your mind before you write it

down, so it will inevitably….if you can command your spoken language then of course

you can write.”

While this statement may represent something of a truism, it serves to remind us that

children require spoken language to be able to later express themselves through

literacy. As previously discussed in relation to the role of speech, narrative and

‘outside-in’ literacy skills (Cassell, 2004), oral language is seen as foundational to

early ability in reading and writing:

“…linguistic skills that are acquired by young children, and used in oral

language, [are] necessary before the mechanics of writing can come into play.”

(Cassell, 2004; p.80)

This perspective is foregrounded by Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP) who

positions orality as a foundational ability to literacy. Julia emphasizes the counter-

productive tendency for schools to introduce literacy at an early age when children’s

oral language skills are not well established. She goes on to suggest that the reason “a

lot of schools are having a struggle teaching literacy” is because “they’re trying to do

stuff far too soon before those building blocks are there for the children”.

273
Developmental arguments in relation to literacy practice in school are frequently

aligned with the concept of ‘reading readiness’ that is grounded in maturationist

arguments informed by developmental psychology. This perspective suggests that

specific capacities must be in place before children can begin reading instruction,

including spoken language development. The reading readiness perspective that was

predominant within education up until the 1980’s has in more recent years come

under fire from psycholinguistic perspectives that see reading as a constructive

process. The concept of emergent literacy with its belief that there is no ‘pre-reading

period’ has emerged as a result:

“All readers, at all stages, [are] meaning makers, even those who can only

scribble a message or ‘pretend’ read.”

(Pearson, 2000; p.24)

The foundational skills of emergent literacy can be divided into two domains of oral

and code-related language skills (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998; Storch & Whitehurst,

2002). While both sets of skills are essential for reading success, there is frequently a

strong tendency to stress the importance of the latter code-related skills in emergent

literacy over the less direct effects of spoken language:

“When children are learning to read, language is not as strong a direct

predictor of beginning reading as are code skills. Moreover, language is far more

difficult to improve than are code-related skills. However, these two findings must not

be interpreted as meaning that language is less important than code skills.”

(Dickinson et al., 2010; p.306)

274
In a discussion of the NLS in relation to developmentally appropriate practice, Fisher

(2000) reinforces this perspective by suggesting that the “recognition of emergent

literacy has resulted in some cases in inappropriate teaching practices more suited to

older children” (p.60). Fisher (2000) goes on to strongly advocate “developmentally

appropriate practice for children in the early years of schooling” (p.60). She further

suggests that the lack of such practice in schools that has been as a direct result of the

NLS “is inappropriate and may be counter-productive to the long term goals of high

literacy standards” (Fisher, 2000; p.58). The International Reading Association (IRA)

and the National Association for the Education of the Young Child (NAEYC) in the

USA promote a conception of literacy that is strongly tied to the principles of

emergent literacy, whilst also advocating developmentally appropriate practices that:

“…teach children a great deal about writing and reading but often in ways

that do not look much like traditional elementary school instruction. Capitalising on

the active and social nature of children’s learning, early instruction must provide rich

demonstrations, interactions, and models of literacy in the course of activities that

make sense to young children… In classrooms built around a wide variety of print

activities, and in talking, reading, writing, playing, and listening to one another,

children will want to read and write and feel capable they can do so.”

(IRA/NAEYC, 1998; p. 204)

It is noteworthy that the developmentally appropriate activities within the above

description are bounded at both ends by talking and listening: whether consciously or

unconsciously, the IRA and the NAEYC have highlighted the centrality of spoken

language to developmentally appropriate literacy practice. Clearly, such conceptions

275
do not preclude the idea that children develop literate behaviours from infancy, rather

it positions those literate behaviours within a social constructivist frame (Vygotsky,

1962, 1978) whereby spoken language is a primary form of meaning making, and a

precursor to more formal modes of written communication. The key, as pointed out

by the IRA/NAEYC is that such practice needs to make human sense to young

children.

Research into literacy and oral language has recently been conducted by Fricke et al.

(2012) who have demonstrated that the skills underpinning reading comprehension

are supported by oral language. In their study, children experiencing language

difficulties were given a 30 week spoken language intervention that aimed to improve

their vocabulary, develop narrative ability and active listening skills and build

confidence in independent speaking. Fricke et al. (2012) found that “clear

improvements were observed on measures of phonological awareness” and

“importantly, improvements in oral language skills generalized to a standardized

measure of reading comprehension at maintenance test” (p.280). Results such as

these, as well as findings on the bootstrapping of emergent literacy skills through oral

storytelling (Cassell, 2004), indicate that the foundational nature of oral language to

later literacy ability needs to be given considerably more credence in educational

policy and practice than is currently the case. As suggested by Dickinson et al.

(2010):

“How do we ensure that teachers and policy makers recognize the full weight

of oral language development as they prepare children for success in reading? The

solution is to explicitly recognize that oral language and background knowledge

276
should be viewed as Tier 1 skills that must not be neglected if we want to build strong

readers.”

(p.308)

In addition, and in a manner that compounds the effects of developmentally

inappropriate practice in relation to literacy and orality in school, Julia Barden reflects

upon her experience of children from disadvantaged backgrounds who struggle with

literacy. Julia suggests that such children frequently struggle because they do not have

a strong basis in oral language, asserting that “if that base line isn’t there, there’s

nowhere to go”:

“In the schools that I’ve worked with, they’ve often been schools in low socio-

economic areas, and often the kids are struggling, because often within the home

structure what I’ve found out is they’re seldom told stories and they’re not read to. So

they come to school, and it seems to me that a lot of the literacy experience literally

falls through them because they don’t have any platform on which to base speaking

and listening.”

The difficulties that children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds experience in

relation to literacy in school, is a topic that has captured a significant amount of

attention in the literature on literacy. Research has demonstrated that the achievement

gap between children from low-SES backgrounds and their more advantaged peers is

apparent upon entry to nursery, and persists through school (Denton & West, 2002;

Lee & Burkam, 2002; Chatterji, 2006; Duncan et al., 2007). Overall there is a

consistent tendency for children from low-SES backgrounds to “perform at a level

277
well below their more-advantaged peers with regard to literacy achievement” (Cabell

et al., 2012; p.608). One aspect that seems to be central to the difficulties that children

from disadvantaged backgrounds experience in both literacy and achievement more

generally is related to the development of decontextualized language.

De-contextualised language can be defined as language that is specific, grammatically

complex and monologic (Dexter et al., 1998) using past and future tense to talk about

people, places or objects that are absent from the immediate context. In contrast,

contextualised language refers to a more conversational style that involves the here

and the now, as well as talk about people and objects that are part of a speakers

immediate environment (Curenton et al., 2008). Oral language ability can therefore be

understood as lying on a continuum with the shared understandings of contextualised

language at one end, and more abstract and descriptive talk that is de-contextualised at

the other (Dickinson & Snow, 1987).

The variable of de-contextualised language has been examined by Heath (1983) in

relation to SES, in her seminal study of subordinated populations in the South-Eastern

United States. Heath (1983) demonstrated how children from Trackton lacked the de-

contextualised language and the “expected ‘natural’ skills of taking meaning from

books” (p.72), which was most highly valued and utilised by both school and the

middle classes:

“Trackton children seem to have skipped learning to label, list features, and

give what-explanations.”

(Heath, 1983; p.73)

278
As a direct result of a dearth of bedtime stories or indeed “few occasions for reading

to or with children specifically” (Heath, 1983; p.71), children from Trackton did not

pick up the experience with de-contextualised language that would have provided a

foundation for their literacy learning and access to academic discourse. Similar

findings have been reported by Snow (1983) who has found that the “distinctive ways

in which middle-class families prepare pre-schoolers to understand and produce

decontextualized language” (p.165) are supportive of the acquisition of the kinds of

language that also facilitates early literacy development.

Since Heath’s seminal study, research has demonstrated that it is only de-

contextualised language that lays the foundation for literacy ability and school

achievement (Norris & Bruning, 1988; Dickinson & Tabors, 1991; Snow, 1991;

Davidson & Snow, 1995; Reese, 1995), due to its promotion of higher order thinking

and the demands upon the imagination and memory that abstract, descriptive and

grammatically complex talk entails (Cochran-Smith, 1985; Sigel et al., 1993). In their

analysis of de-contextualised talk across story contexts, Cruenton et al. (2008)

observed mothers engaging in three different types of narrativisation with their pre-

school children: oral storytelling, story reading and emergent story reading. The last

story context (emergent story reading) involved children pretending to read a story

from a book that had been previously read to them. Creunton et al. (2008) found that

the mothers “used more decontextualized language during the oral storytelling

interaction versus the other interactions, but children used more during the emergent

reading interaction” (p.161). In contrast, in the story reading context:

279
 “…mothers and children were more like partners in that they were not

different from each other in terms of literate language or type of talk. This type of

interaction fell in the middle in that mothers were not exposing children to the same

level of language sophistication as they were in the oral story, and children were not

able to boost their oral language skills by “pretending” to read.”

(Cruenton et al, 2008; p.181)

Curenton et al. (2008) go on to suggest that “shared reading interactions that are

devoid of decontextualized talk might not result in children who are strong readers”

(p.181). Clearly, de-contextualised talk would seem to have important implications

for both SES and literacy achievement. However, as Heath (1983) reminds us it is

problematic to generalise about such socio-cultural labels as SES and the

communities to which they are frequently applied:

“A unilinear model of development in the acquisition of language structures

and uses cannot adequately account for culturally diverse ways of acquiring

knowledge or developing cognitive styles.”

(Heath, 1983; p.73)

In Heath’s (1983) own study, the children from Trackton “already used narrative

skills highly rewarded in the upper primary grades” (p.72) due to the oral culture that

surrounded their community. However, they lacked the more factual and explanatory

forms of de-contextualisation that was second nature to the mainstream children.

Certainly within my own study narrative skills were not as well-developed in the

children I observed as they may have been in the children in Heath’s (1983) Trackton

280
community. Indeed the teachers at Lakeside School reported a more general language

deficiency, with Kate Leech (CT: Lakeside School) describing the way that some of

the children “come in and you ask them their name and you go ‘what?’– they just

can’t say it.” Jane Smith (CT: Lakeside School) suggests that the basis of this

language deficiency originates with her assertion they are “not spoken to” or

interacted with at home:

“This room here, the children’s centre uses it don’t they? And they do messy

play and things like that, and if you come, it’s quite interesting to come and watch

them isn’t it? All the parents sit along here and the children play, they don’t interact

with them, they come to talk to one another. And they might even have a young one in

a pram, a baby, and they’ll have it facing away from them, so they can watch the

children, there’s no interaction at all...”

Sarah White (CT: Hollytree School) has a similar perspective on her pupils’ lack of

understanding and knowledge about the world originating with a deficit of talk in the

home:

“…even though David probably doesn’t realize it – it’s actually enriching

their life experience because they don’t know these kinds of things – they don’t know

what a jackal looks like, they’ve never, you know, they haven’t understood about a

vicar marrying a person….those little things that you take for granted…They’ve got

no concept, nobody talks to them at home.”

281
Overall participants emphasised the primacy of orality as a language form in terms of

development, cognition and production. They all seemed to feel that the ability to read

and write had its roots in foundational spoken language ability, and that the stability

of this foundation is dependent upon a variety of influences that children are exposed

to at home and school. I suggest that oral storytelling as a language form that is rich in

de-contextualised language would help children who have less well-developed spoken

language skills, including children from backgrounds of disadvantage such as those

characterised by low SES. The importance of understanding the individual needs of

each community in relation to language and literacy is paramount. However, as Heath

(1983) suggests within the highly de-contextualised environment of school it is likely

that mainstream children would “benefit from early exposure to [Tracktons] creative,

highly analogical styles of telling stories and giving explanations” as much as children

who have strong narrative abilities would benefit from being given an opportunity to

excel in school. Similarly, children who possess neither mainstream ways of taking

and making meaning, or the kind of narrative ability that typified Heath’s (1983)

Trackton community, would also benefit from oral storytelling in significant ways,

simply because it gives them scaffolded opportunities to engage with language. In this

respect, oral storytelling is best conceptualised as non-instrumental and foundational

spoken language practice that is valuable for all children, and not just for those with

the impoverished language abilities that can result from such disadvantageous factors

as SES.

7.5 Summing up

Participant responses indicate that literacy enjoys hegemonic status in school that is

directly attributable to educational policy and the standards agenda. In addition

282
legitimizing norms result in important misperceptions about the oral process as well

as a tendency to favour the ease with which literacy-based practices are translated into

educational contexts. The consequences of such prioritization include deleterious

effects to the oral storytelling process, S&L more generally and the quality of

children’s writing; a narrowing of the curriculum and pedagogic practice; and an

undermining of children’s confidence in their abilities in school. However,

participants also emphasise the interdependence of spoken and written forms whilst

concomitantly acknowledging the primacy of spoken language in terms of

development and cognition.

The next section concludes this thesis and offers some policy and practice-based

recommendations in relation to literacy, S&L and arts-based education.

283
284
8. Conclusion

This thesis has embraced a complex and multidimensional line of argumentation that

has taken as its primary touchstones Social Constructivist conceptions of learning and

development that emphasise both social and language-based processes (Vygotsky,

1962, 1978, 1981); and hegemonic conceptions of literacy in relation to S&L and

collaborative arts-based education in school (Gramsci, 1971). This dual focus has

been achieved by viewing these themes through the lens of oral storytelling, which

can be understood as a spoken-word art-form that implicates both arts-based and

literacy-based spoken language practice within its inherent formulation.

Oral storytelling is clearly valued by the participants that have contributed to this

thesis. In addition, as a researcher I was impressed by the way the children seemed to

enjoy the intervention as well as the positive terms the teachers used when talking

about the of impact of oral storytelling upon the children’s learning. One caveat that is

important to consider therefore, is the degree to which participants might have been

viewing oral storytelling in somewhat romantic and idealised terms. Certainly, as an

educational researcher I was not immune to the colourful character of oral

storytelling’s use as a pedagogic tool or the persuasive language of the Storytellers.

Similarly, there is the possibility that the effects and benefits of oral storytelling may

be just as attributable to high-quality teaching. However, children were observed to

demonstrably enjoy the storytelling intervention, and certain children who were

characterised by less than successful learner identities made significant progress in

both spoken and written outcomes. This latter effect can be seen from the testimonies

of Sarah White (CT: Hollytree School) and Roland Morris (CT: Hollytree School)

during the Hollytree School INSET day, in relation to the way that two particular

285
children excelled at oral storytelling. Sarah White states that she was “completely

shocked” that one particular child would be “capable” of oral storytelling and she

goes on to describe the way that storytelling allowed this child to be “a completely

different character”, thereby alluding to shifts in both learner identity and teacher

perceptions of ability. Similarly, Roland Morris describes “the quietest child in the

school” for whom oral storytelling was “a break-through” due to the fact that “she

hardly speaks to me at all, or anybody” during her more typical interactions in school.

Clearly, oral storytelling provided this child with an opportunity to change the way

she engaged with spoken language, and allowed others to witness this change,

providing a perceptual change that could serve as a springboard from which future

engagement with learning and the socio-cultural environment of school could stem.

Regardless of whether such gains are due to oral storytelling specifically or good

teaching more generally, there is considerable worth in elucidating the specificities of

such high-quality teaching. This is particularly the case in relation to S&L which, as

already demonstrated, receives little attention or explication in curriculum documents

and ITT. Ultimately, further investigation into the use of oral storytelling as a

pedagogic tool is necessary to uncover whether such non-instrumental practice in

S&L has specific and individual effects over and above those of high-quality

teaching.

The degree to which generalisations can be made from this research, particularly now

that CP has lost its state funding and is a much reduced presence within education, is

another issue that requires consideration. It can be argued that there is a degree of

redundancy associated with research that examines initiatives that are no longer

286
operational. However, it can be equally argued that generalisations can be made in

relation to: the literacy curriculum that retains S&L as a PoS, albeit as a diluted

presence; the formulation of the curriculum more generally in which arts education

plays a part; and pedagogic considerations that provide the springboard from which

both language-based and arts-based curricula are operationalized. As suggested by

Creswell (2005), generalising from qualitative research emphasises “stating the larger

meaning of the findings” (p.48). I suggest therefore that this research is generalizable

in terms of questions about the broader purpose of primary education; the formulation

of the primary curriculum in relation to literacy, S&L and the arts; and the qualitative

nature of high-quality teaching that is creative, flexible and dialogic.

As an ‘objective’ researcher, and also as a more subjective mother of a child adversely

affected by a ‘phonics first and fast’ approach, the prioritisation of literacy in school is

something that I entered into this project hoping to better understand. It is up to the

reader of this thesis to decide to what extent this work can be viewed as merely a biased

opinion or an accurate reflection of the current educational climate. The landscape in

relation to language learning, practice and policy is both complex and contested, but

the findings of this work reinforce the idea of the hegemony of literacy practices in

school, and the lip-service that is paid to speaking and listening skills in the curriculum

documents that inform best practice.

8.1 Contribution to knowledge

The contribution to knowledge that this thesis makes is threefold. Firstly, I suggest that

there is an implicit devaluation of S&L in school through curriculum documents that

prioritise and position literacy as being central to children’s learning in school. This

287
devaluation reveals itself through the tendency to engage with instrumental forms of

language learning over practice in S&L that is non-instrumental in process, aims and

outcome. Secondly, the devaluation of S&L in school can be similarly understood as

applying to creative, exploratory and dialogic forms of education. Therefore

engagement with both non-instrumental S&L and arts-based education that is embodied

by such initiatives as oral storytelling has the power to counter hegemonic conceptions

of learning that foreground literacy, and change perceptions of teaching and learning

through collaborative pedagogical engagement. Thirdly, this research uncovers a

theoretical gap in the literature that relates to the possibility that literacy acquisition

may have the unintended specific cognitive effect of hindering engagement with

unscripted forms of spoken language in certain learners. More research is needed to

shed light upon whether the quality of spoken language is deleteriously affected by

literacy-based instrumentality. At the very least it seems important to consider what

kinds of learning are sacrificed in the promotion of the text-mediated instructional

discourses that predominate in school.

8.2 Revisiting the research questions: summarising participant perceptions

To return to the research questions that have driven this inquiry, it is clear that in

answer to the primary question oral storytelling is configured and perceived in

diverse, complex and sometimes contradictory ways by oral storytellers, educators

and creative agents in relation to the balance of literacy and S&L within primary

education. While literacy is understood as being important and co-existing with

spoken language, it is also viewed as a constraining influence in school that skews the

curriculum, devalues S&L, and marginalises learners who struggle to read and write.

288
The first sub-question that asks about the effects and benefits of oral storytelling

reveals that such effects are similarly diverse and a full consideration of them all is

beyond the scope of this thesis. The impact of oral storytelling upon intrinsic

motivation, ownership, cognition, narrative ability, sustained listening, multiple

intelligence and behaviour, to name just some of the effects and benefits that emerged

from participant responses, have remained largely unexplored within this inquiry.

However, participants strongly voiced the benefits of oral storytelling to children’s

socio-emotional learning and also to their language development, with a number of

inter-dependent effects between the two conceptual categories coming to the fore,

particularly in relation to problems of spoken language.

The second sub-question that asks about the best ways to utilize oral storytelling

reveals that participants saw this aspect as being comparatively straightforward,

involving engagement with spoken language practice that is non-instrumental and oral

in process and outcome, as well as a revaluation of S&L in the curriculum more

generally.

However in answer to the third sub-question that asked what barriers exist to oral

storytelling and creative and dialogic forms of education more generally, participants

suggested that there are a number of significant stumbling blocks to the integration of

non-instrumental spoken language practice in school. Participants identified these

barriers as: the prioritization of literacy in school; hegemonic effects that result in oral

storytelling been taken for, and treated as, story reading; a lack of guidance and focus

in the curriculum in relation to non-instrumental practice in S&L; a lack of time in the

curriculum due to teaching constraints associated with the standards agenda; the

289
difficulty that teachers have oral storytelling themselves; and a lack of ITT in relation

to oral storytelling and S&L more generally. These barriers are representative of

hegemonic structures that exist in school and society, and they are embedded within

ways of thinking about education that can disadvantage certain learners as well as

privileging literate forms over oral ones.

Finally, in answer to the fourth sub-question of what the focus upon oral storytelling

can tell us about broader issues in relation to creative practice and the arts in

education, it is clear that the delivery of creative practice by educators and artists, and

the value of creative forms of education to teaching and learning in school are central

to both the observed oral storytelling initiative and participatory forms of creative

teaching as engendered by CP more generally. The promotion of co-delivery and

improvisational teaching styles in the classroom have emerged as two important ways

that participatory arts education can benefit the educational context and ameliorate

hegemonic educational effects in relation to literacy and S&L practices and creative

forms of education in school. Through equally valuing teacher and creative

practitioner skills and moving teaching practice towards more competence-based

pedagogical styles, arts-based educational initiatives such as oral storytelling have the

ability to shift perceptions about teaching and learning in significant ways.

8.3 Combining participant perspectives with research-based evidence

The benefits of oral storytelling to children’s socio-emotional development are

considerable and arrived at through a complex of processes. Oral storytelling can be

understood as providing important opportunities for the development of narrative

ability and an emotional vocabulary that is necessary for telling ‘stories of self’

290
(Warin, 2010). As suggested by Blaine Hogarth (Storyteller: Wider Inquiry) the

empowerment to be gained through opportunities for self-expression is a compelling

feature of oral storytelling:

“…just to feel you’ve been heard is an amazing thing. To feel that you’ve

made people laugh or moved them is an even greater thing, that ‘I did something and

I’ve changed their emotional state’, so that empowers kids.”

In addition, oral narratives provide children with increased scope for understanding of

self through identification with, and understanding of, story characters (Alexander et

al., 2001). Closely tied to such effects are the intra-psychological processes that

define children’s ‘double minded’ (Baron-Cohen, 2011) and empathic understanding

of self and others, again through identification with and understanding of story

characters. Further socio-emotional effects including acceptance of difference and

tolerance of alternative ideas and responses are arrived at through exposure to

idiosyncratic story retellings and this has important implications for children’s ‘theory

of mind’ (Premack & Woodruff, 1978). Moreover, children enhance their

understanding of self and others through watching and listening to others storytell,

allowing emotional themes to be observed, understood and replicated in ways that

have positive effects upon the development of empathy (Gallese, 2001). Such socio-

emotional effects are complex and inter-related and can be summed up by Blaine

Hogarth’s assertion that the benefits of oral storytelling to children’s emotional

literacy are “huge”, and the metaphorical nature of storytelling where “all the

characters…represent aspect of our inner family, they’re all aspects of self” is a useful

way to think about how oral storytelling may operate on the socio-emotional plane.

291
Relatedly, the bi-directional communication (Roney, 1991) and behaviour-reading

(Whiten, 1996) that takes place between storyteller and listening audience that is less

evident during story-reading (Malo &Bullard, 2000; Ellis, 1997; Aina, 1998; Isbell,

2004) ensures that the inherently social and dialogic character of oral storytelling is

foregrounded. This participatory character was observable during oral storytelling

sessions at Hollytree School, reinforcing Myers (1990) suggestion that there is more

collaborative behaviour between storyteller and listener during oral storytelling than

during story reading. Children were able to interject with questions about elements of

a story they didn’t understand (e.g. one child asked what a ‘bridle’ was) and similarly

David Keele (Storyteller, Hollytree & Lakeside Schools) was able to assess

understanding throughout each story (e.g. he asked the children if they knew what a

‘blacksmith’ was).

Other socio-emotional effects that are related to more collaborative aspects of Social

Constructivism are arrived at through the small-group work that takes places during

the pedagogic process of learning to tell an oral story, to enable children to get to

know, in David Keele’s words, ‘the world of the story’. This provides children with

opportunities to practice, negotiate and work together in a mutually supportive and

dialogic manner, an aspect that was observed by myself as a participant observer in

the course of the inquiry, as well as being explicit within participant responses –

almost all the work that children undertook during the observation element of the

study involved them working in small groups. As suggested by David Keele, the

collaborative nature of oral storytelling noticeably impacted upon children’s

“…abilities to relate to each other…both at the point that they’re telling the story, and

292
during the kind of working up of the story when most of the work is interactive

anyway.”

In terms of socio-emotional effects related to self-confidence and self-esteem in

children, oral storytelling can be understood as an educational experience that is based

in learning, improvement and the recognition of good performance (Burmeister et al.,

2003). There is evidence that such educational experiences may affect children’s

academic and social self-concept, and any resulting increases in specific self-esteem

may impact upon global self-esteem in positive ways (Rosenberg et al., 1995). This

perspective is echoed by Jean Heath (CA: CP) who suggests that oral storytelling

enables children to “have solid self-esteem, not based on somebody else telling them

that they’re good, but just because they know themselves that they can handle things”.

Cumulatively the results of this inquiry suggest that oral storytelling may be

beneficial to multiple aspects of children’s socio-emotional development and their

understanding of self and others. It is the experiential quality of oral storytelling that

allows children to experience emotional content themselves rather than being

explicitly taught the skills of emotional literacy through such programmes as SEAL.

This position is at the heart of perspectives that emphasise that pro-social skills are

‘caught not taught’ (Woolf, 2012).

Related to the notions of learning and improvement, the benefits of oral storytelling to

children’s communicative competence are considerable with fluency and automatic

language use (Guillot, 1999; McCarthy, 2009) being scaffolded through the structure

of narrative and pedagogic techniques that support meta-cognition (Cortazzi & Jin,

293
2007). As suggested by Julia Barden (CA/Programme Director: CP), oral storytelling

offers children “this extending of their vocabulary…it invites kids to be articulate, to

really engage with the spoken word…it gives them a structure upon which to base

their speaking”. Similarly, Blaine Hogarth describes oral storytelling “creating this

thing which I believe is right at the heart of speaking, this rapid access to the

vocabulary, this rapid editing of information, this rapid shaping, this rapid

construction”. Linking the two major effects and benefits categories within this

thesis, is the observation that children who experience problems with expressive

language frequently exhibit socio-emotional difficulties (Gualtieri et al., 1983;

Beitchman et al, 1989; Cohen et al., 1993, 1998; Lindsay et al, 2007). Oral

storytelling can offer a way to develop an emotional vocabulary (Warin, 2010) and

the expressive language skills that are essential for self-regulation and social

competence. The emotional content, the narrative structure of oral stories, and the

meta-cognitive strategies used to teach oral storytelling, may benefit children with

language problems and associated behavioural difficulties in significant ways.

Related to academic effects of S&L more generally, research suggests that focusing

on oral language in school is a beneficial approach to the development of writing and

children’s understanding of the specific, grammatically complex, and monologic de-

contextualised language that underpins literacy ability and school achievement

(Cassell, 2004; Shanahan, 2006). In addition, research has characterised oral

storytelling more specifically as a medium that is rich in de-contextualised language

and that is therefore supportive of the literacy skills that are essential for school

success (Reese, 1995; Curenton et al., 2008). Clearly there is support within this study

and also the wider literature, for the ability of oral storytelling and spoken language

294
practice more generally to: enhance socio-emotional ability and emotional literacy; to

improve communicative competence and help children with problems of oral

language and associated behavioural difficulties; and to support later literacy ability

through the development of foundational oral ability.

However, oral storytelling as it has appeared in this study is under-utilised in school,

particularly outside of creative initiatives implemented by such organisations as CP.

This is particularly the case now that austerity measures have resulted in CP being no

longer operational in the capacity that it enjoyed at the time of this study. In addition,

S&L skills more generally have been severely devalued in the draft version of the

curriculum through the removal of S&L as a PoS (Alexander, 2012a) and only

marginally and superficially revalued in the revised version (DfE, 2013) that is

operational in schools today after serious public criticism of the initial removal.

Participants suggested that overall “not a great deal” (Roland Morris) of time and

weight is given over to S&L and that before the Primary Framework first came out in

2006, S&L was positioned as being “more important than it is now” (Kate Leech,

CT: Lakeside School). This situation is strongly linked to constraints in relation to the

teaching and assessment of literacy in relation to spoken language in the curriculum:

as suggested by Roland Morris the explicit focus upon literacy targets in school

means that “the government don’t look at [speaking and listening], so you can push

that to the side”. Reasons for this lack of assessment in S&L are potentially related to

the difficulty that is involved in assessing it. As suggested by Blaine Hogarth,

teachers struggle to know what exactly good S&L practice entails:

295
“And then, this vagueness…and I’ve asked and asked and asked, ‘what are the

criteria for assessing it?’, and it’s all terribly subjective. How do you tell – I can tell

because I’ve listened to thousands of storytellers – how somebody’s getting on, how in

control of it they are, but to a teacher who hasn’t got that experience, how do you

know?”

In addition, for students such issues as task misunderstanding, performance on the day

and confidence in speaking in front of an audience can impact upon the degree to

which speakers display their full oral ability at any one moment in time: oral work is

not always able to produce valid evidence of competence (Johnson, 1995).

Compounding the devaluation of S&L in the curriculum and the difficulty that

teachers have in teaching and assessing it is the lack of training at the level of ITT: as

suggested by David Keele, during his teacher training speaking and listening simply

“wasn’t addressed”. There is a strong tendency for QTS curriculum documents (DfE,

2012e) to emphasise the status of phonics teaching in training materials whilst

implicitly downgrading the teaching of S&L to a one sided notion of ‘articulacy’.

Such an approach emphasises the ‘technical rationalist’ enterprise (Furlong, 2006)

that teaching has become in recent years in response to the centralisation of education

in a free market economy. Within this context, risk-free and easily implementable

teaching methods that foreground literacy are the stock and trade of teaching with

more creative, dialogic and exploratory pedagogies that include an element of risk

being forced to take a back seat. Ultimately, both the revaluation of S&L in school

and of teaching as a profession requires action on multiple fronts, in curriculum

296
documents and ITT, if any kind of meaningful change in the way spoken language is

utilised in school is to take place.

When storytelling is engaged with in school, it tends to appear in content-based ways

where concerns about narrative take precedence over the process of orally telling a

story: as suggested by Jean Heath (CA: CP), while storytelling may appear in the

form of “folk tales and so on, that doesn’t mean they are told orally”. In the same way

that strategies for the assessment of spoken language in the classroom are needed, so

too is guidance on the process-based requirements of oral storytelling. There are no

links in the wider literature to reinforce this perspective. However, participants

(specifically those with an extensive knowledge and understanding of oral

storytelling) were of the opinion that the oral re-telling of an existing story where “the

effort of having to make up a story is out of it” (Blaine Hogarth) is one effective

method of both assessing and structuring pupils’ spoken language that emphasises

process-based concerns.

While the attachment of written aims to S&L and oral storytelling practice is

dependent upon the culture and the orientation towards literacy of individual schools,

it is the drive for written outcomes that tend to shape the way both oral storytelling

and S&L more generally are practiced in school. Participants emphasised this aspect,

suggesting that S&L skills are “much more linked to writing now than they were”

(David Keele) and that most storytelling and S&L projects “want to lead to writing”

(Jean Heath, CA: CP). This perspective is reinforced in the literature in relation to the

instrumental role of transactional talk in the classroom where S&L that emphasises

content and information over the process of spoken language practice results in bland

297
oral events with “little personal investment in the topic” (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993;

p.312) and an associated loss of opportunities for learning and intellectual

development (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993). This position is echoed in the literature

where concern is voiced for the status of talk as a dimension of literacy in the NLS

when reading and writing is seen by pupils as ‘the more senior partnership’ in relation

to orality (Haworth, 2001), and curriculum materials explicitly link talk to writing

(Fisher, 2010).

In contrast, oral storytelling can be understood as playful spoken language practice

that is educationally and cognitively valuable (Wegerif, 2005), that relies on memory

and the structure of narrative over prompt, verbatim reproduction and literacy

knowledge and skill. Importantly, the process of retelling in one’s own words upon

which oral storytelling relies is the end-point of oral storytelling – there is no drive to

then write down the story for later reproduction. Instead the story is committed to

memory to be retold in perhaps a slightly different style, tone or format on another

occasion for a different audience. It is here that oral storytelling’s emphasis upon

retelling in one’s own words finds theoretical support through Haworth’s (2001)

Bakhtinian commentary on dialogical talk that privileges multiple perspectives. The

idea that the idiosyncratic retelling of oral stories using oral processes can represent

such dialogical talk over the more literacy-linked and reductionist monologic talk that

tends to predominate in contemporary classrooms, is a compelling one. As suggested

by Haworth (2001):

298
 “Whilst both [monologic and dialogic talk] have a place in any classroom, it

seems clear that the second agenda needs to be urgently rearticulated if we are to

avoid carrying a reductionist model of oracy into the next millennium.” (p.22)

In the most recent version of the NC the linking of oral language to literacy with an

emphasis upon polished and discursive engagement with spoken language comes

across particularly strongly: instrumentality and the reductionist model of oracy

abounds. In contrast, the type of “expressive orality” (Hewitt & Inghilleri, 1993;

p.311) that is embodied in non-instrumental and contextualized initiatives such as oral

storytelling is silenced. Compounding this situation is the fact that the linking of oral

language to literacy is largely not explored or problematized in the literature: there is

scant research that explicitly examines the interrelationships between spoken and

written language on a functional basis. While the subordinate status of orality in

school is widely accepted and criticized, there is no research that specifically

addresses the effects of literacy-based instrumentality in relation to spoken language.

Research examining to what extent the quality of spoken language is adversely

affected by writing in working up to a spoken event is required if we are to fully

understand the effects of literacy-based instrumentality upon spoken language.

It is this drive for written outcomes that is the most significant way that the

devaluation of S&L in the curriculum can be understood, and it is positioned as the

hegemony of literacy within this thesis. Hegemonic conceptions of literacy in school

and society are viewed as the principal barrier to oral storytelling and engagement

with non-instrumental and creative spoken language practice in school. Such

conceptions include the tendency for teachers to be profoundly influenced by the

299
literate model and this can result in important misunderstandings in relation to the oral

process. Such misunderstandings involve literacy exerting its effect upon ‘common

sense’ (Gramsci, 1971) notions of storytelling, where oral storytelling is not

differentiated from story-reading, and stories are primarily understood as coming

from books. As suggested by the teachers at Lakeside School:

K: No, I don’t think there’s anything about storytelling in the National

Curriculum…there is storytelling but I think a lot of people see that as read a book…

J: Yeah, I don’t think they see it as storytelling. And I don’t think I would have done if

I hadn’t seen David working – I don’t think I would have known.

In addition the improvisational quality of oral storytelling that many people find

difficult in comparison to the more easily implemented activity of story-reading

contributes to the hegemony of literate forms in school. Here, the technical rationalist

enterprise (Furlong, 2006) that teaching has become in recent decades is once again

invoked: while reading a book is easy, oral storytelling requires teachers “to take

risks…to engage…to be part of the process” (Jean Heath).

Hegemonic conceptions of literacy can also be seen in traditional classroom practices

in relation to spoken language that privilege text-based discourses of procedural

display (Bloome et al, 1989) that focus on the dissemination of information, IRE

sequences and inauthentic questions (Searle, 1969), over more dialogic and non-

instrumental engagement with spoken language. Similarly, polished forms of

‘standard’ English that are more aligned with scripted, text-based oral performance,

have been emphasised in the latest version of the NC. In addition, a ‘first, fast and

300
only’ approach to the teaching of phonics has increasingly been taken in relation in

recent years. The giving of greater value to literacy over spoken language in school is

evidenced in mandatory assessment practices that are heavily skewed towards the

acquisition of literacy in both Key Stages that “pushes towards a particular type of

learning at the expense of other types” (Hall et al., 2004; p.801). The over-emphasis

upon literacy-based assessment in prescribed educational policy results in a narrowing

of the curriculum and associated pedagogic practice (Crocco & Costigan, 2007).

Developmental considerations are also illustrative of the way that the hegemony of

literacy practices exert their effects in relation to spoken language. The primacy of

orality as foundational to future engagement with language and literacy is a

perspective that participants shared, both in developmental terms as well as in relation

to children coming into school with reduced proficiency in spoken language as a

result of social disadvantage. Whilst it is important to recognise that children develop

literate behaviours from infancy (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998; Pearson, 2000) it is

suggested that “the recognition of emergent literacy has resulted in some cases of

inappropriate teaching practices more suited to older children” (Fisher, 2000; p.60).

Such practice may not be supportive of high literacy standards over the long-term. In

addition, children from backgrounds characterised by lower or qualitatively different

levels of oral language from those of the mainstream are generally disadvantaged in

school and less able to use and understand the de-contextualised language that

characterises school-based discourse (Heath, 1983).

The consequences of this prioritization of literacy in school are evident in participant

responses that focus upon the negative impact of instrumental and laborious

301
approaches to increasing writing stamina upon the quality of children’s writing. In

addition the prioritisation of phonics in the latest conceptualisation of the NC

represents literacy instruction that positions reading and writing as unnatural language

that requires systematic instruction in de-contextualised literacy skills (Goodman,

1986). This is an approach that simultaneously targets and disadvantages struggling

readers: while such approaches are disadvantageous to the learning and development

of all children, learners from marginalised groups in society are particularly

disadvantaged by an explicit focus on skills and performance over holistic

engagement with language (Heath, 1983; Snow, 1983). The marginalization of

certain learners in school creates a situation whereby children’s confidence in their

abilities and identities as learners are undermined, with school failure in literacy often

being in spite of pupils’ ability in other areas. As illustrated by Sarah White in relation

to one particular child in her class “she’s perfectly eloquent, perfectly coherent in

what she says…and she’s got some brilliant ideas - but she can’t put them down on

paper, which in this sort of culture means that she’s failing”.

The explication of the (im)balance between literacy and S&L in school is complicated

by the major disconfirming case of the interdependence of speaking and writing that

emerged from participant responses. Here, spoken and written forms are seen to

naturally, but also problematically, interrelate in the classroom. However, whilst

adding to the complexity of the inquiry, this perspective ultimately provides support

for the hegemonic status of literacy in school. This is due to the idea that despite the

inherent interdependence of literacy and orality, potential negative effects of literacy

upon orality are downgraded and unexplored, and positive effects of orality upon

literacy remain pedagogically under-utilised. The interdependence of speaking and

302
writing has been strongly and convincingly upheld by NLS (Heath, 1983; Street, 1985;

Gee, 1988; Barton & Hamilton, 1998). However, the status of literacy in the

curriculum and the drive for written outcomes from S&L practice reinforces the idea

that despite their strong refutation of the literacy thesis (Goody & Watt, 1963; Ong,

1982; Olson, 1986), NLS theorists have been unable to account for the “abiding

significance of ideas about, institutions of, and practices involving literacy in modern

Western societies” (Collins and Blot, 2003; p.5). I suggest that autonomous claims

arguing for the cognitive consequences of literacy (Goody & Watt, 1963; Ong, 1982;

Olson, 1986) may have some purchase in relation to specific cognitive effects of

literacy upon spoken language. Evidence from neuro-imaging may uphold this

position (Petersson et al., 2001) as well as review of some of the findings of Scribner

& Cole (1981) that have contributed to the NLS position (Stephens, 2000). However,

it is acknowledged that separation of such effects from the more general effect of

schooling is difficult (Cole, 1990). A purely speculative suggestion is that the strong

emphasis upon literacy in school, (in particular de-contextualized forms of literacy

instruction), and the corresponding impoverishment of S&L, may have resulted in the

loss or at least the degradation of certain abilities in the area of spoken language. This

possibility gains a degree of tentative support from Roland Morris when he reflects

upon the storytelling ability of one highly literate child in his class in comparison to

others who were less able in reading and writing:

“…because there was a lot of ‘and er, and er’ from, you know, the lad that

didn’t do so well – maybe he was trying to think of the exact words that he wanted to

explain what he was doing, while the others just let whatever came to them flow out

…perhaps the structures they’re used to using doesn’t help them so well when it

303
comes to storytelling, you know, they’re reliant on it rather than just making bits up

as it comes to you, and having the main parts of the story in your head and just going

with it.”

Another way that the hegemony of literacy practices exert their affects is through the

associated devaluation of arts-based education that is creative, exploratory and

dialogic, in favour of teaching and learning that prioritises the acquisition of literacy.

Shifts in perspective in relation to pedagogy and learning brought about through oral

storytelling were strongly reflected in participant perceptions. Participants reported

that oral storytelling seemed to “open teachers’ eyes to this whole other area -

children can express themselves” (David Keele); allowed children “to find other

access points into their learning” (Patrick Mean); and enabled “the non-usual

suspects to shine” (Julia Barden). As suggested by Roland Morris:

“…it’s brought children on that I never thought would be able to do something like

that, so….maybe I’ve had low expectations of them, but seeing what they’ve done in

this, it just goes to show that if they can do that with the storytelling, then they can do

that elsewhere as well.”

Such shifts brought about through deep engagement with creativity are only possible

over time, through co-delivery and the creation of discursive opportunities between

artists and educators. The notions of co-delivery and the role of dialogue in learning

off each other take a central position within participant responses and this is reflected

in the philosophical basis of CP that emphasises both dialogue and participatory forms

of learning. As suggested by Jean Heath in relation to the differential roles of teachers

304
and creative practitioners through participatory initiatives such as CP:

“…we need a dialogue about what you think education is, what you think

creative learning is, what it’s got to offer, what we have to offer, and what might

happen if we play ball and put all that stuff together and throw our skills into the pot

with your skills…”

In addition, giving children the opportunity to be ‘co-producers’ of their own learning

is an important way that CP achieves its aim of transforming teaching and learning in

school (Bragg et al., 2009). At Hollytree School the children were co-producers at

every stage of the project from the initial choice they made as to which oral story they

wanted to learn to tell, the choices they were given in relation to which pedagogical

methods they wanted to use during each session, and also the collaborative choices

they made as they negotiated roles within their groups and supported each other’s

learning. Such transformation is best achieved through dialogue and partnership

between teachers and students, and also students themselves, using improvisational

forms of teaching and learning that do not constrain classroom dialogue towards

predetermined responses (Sawyer, 2004). The oral storytelling initiative at Hollytree

School was observed to engender this kind of transformational educational experience

where children were enabled to be co-producers of their own learning using dialogue,

collaboration and a strong element of improvisation during the teaching and learning

of oral stories. Educational experiences of this kind are aligned with constructivist,

dialogic, inquiry-based and collaborative pedagogic methods that encourage deeper

learning that is less readily quantifiable enabling learners to access the co-

construction of knowledge (Forman & Cazden, 1985; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992;

305
Palincsar, 1998; Rogoff, 1998). Oral storytelling can be understood as creative

teaching and learning that utilises both disciplined improvisation and collaborative

emergence (Sawyer, 2004), thereby underpinning CP’s philosophical stance towards

constructivist and dialogic forms of teaching and learning. In addition, children are

enabled to produce their own versions of stories that they work on with peers and

more capable storytelling adults in a collaborative classroom, using dialogue as a

central feature of their creative work. It is these features that uniquely position oral

storytelling as collaborative arts-based practice that upholds Socio-Cultural Theories

of Learning as a central and defining feature (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978, 1981).

However, few opportunities exist within a heavily constrained curriculum for such a

discursive and participatory approach, as well as the fact that artists in schools

(through such schemes as CP) are reluctant to work in a manner that imposes their

practice upon others. In addition artists tend to have an intuitive approach to their

practice that is resistant to explication (Galton, 2008). However, such conversations

need to take place to enable teachers to re-orient their practice to more competence-

based pedagogies, to sustain creative practice in school, and to harness the

transformative potential of the arts (Hall & Thomson, 2007). The kind of joint

evaluative analysis of children’s work during sustained engagement between artists

and educators through such schemes as CP, is proposed by Hall et al. (2007) as a

point of resolution for pedagogic differences, and is one way that such co-delivery

could conceivably proceed. Through participatory and discursive exposition that

unpacks the underlying principles of creative practice (Galton, 2008), fundamental

change to educational Communities of Practice and modes of belonging (Lave &

Wenger, 1991) can take place.

306
An important element of the re-orientation of practice in school in relation to the arts,

includes a reconceptualization of how arts-integrated programs are evaluated due to

the inherently complex and multi-dimensional character of creative forms of learning

that do not lend themselves to purely outcome-based measures (Horowitz, 2004). A

‘performance view of understanding’ (Mansilla, 2005) that values the capacity for

abductive (Berghoff, 2005) and flexible forms of thinking over the accumulation of

facts, is therefore required.

8.4 Concluding comments and recommendations

The twofold and heavily interrelated contribution to knowledge that this thesis makes

centres around the idea that there is an overall devaluation of S&L and arts-based

learning through the hegemony of literacy practices in school and curriculum

documents. I am suggesting that it is a balanced view of literacy specifically, and

learning more generally, that is currently missing in educational policy and prescribed

practice. Cumulatively, the privileging of literacy and the devaluation of S&L and

arts-based teaching and learning in school can be understood as a corresponding

devaluation of Social Constructivist principles more generally. Vygotskian thought

represents a major theoretical perspective behind educational research that

recommends progressive forms of pedagogy. However, it is suggested that the

devaluation of the semiotic tool of spoken language represents a commitment to

educational principles through prescribed policy that completely eschews the very

basis of Social Constructivism. As a result, both the arts and oral storytelling suffer a

downgrading in status in relation to literacy as a core subject (Paechter, 2000, 2003),

and both are subject to the curricula and pedagogic narrowing which results from

307
externally mandated agendas of accountability linked to the prioritisation of literacy

(Crocco & Costigan, 2007). Overall it is children’s enjoyment of literacy, and their

future engagement with reading, writing and school that is at stake when narrow and

hegemonic approaches to literacy and schooling, are taken (Goodman, 1986).

It is suggested that children’s spoken language needs to be more strongly supported in

school to ensure that verbal proficiency is sufficiently developed, to provide a

foundation upon which literacy acquisition can be more firmly based. In addition

more critical approaches to pedagogy and education (Freire, 1972a, 1972b) that

employ forms of language learning that are socio-culturally meaningful to children’s

lives beyond school (Paechter, 1998; Street, 1995; Knobel, 2001) are required if

literacy is to be divorced from its negative hegemonic effects.

I propose that oral storytelling represents such an approach through its individualised

and non-instrumental character, and its elevation of S&L and arts-based education

that challenges dominant pedagogic methods and educational ideologies. Once again,

Social Constructivist thought comes to the fore with “conscious and rigorous

determination of the individualized goals of education for each particular student”

(Vygotsky, 1926; Chapter 17) representing a central goal of language learning that

tries to avoid forcing every learner into the same pedagogic mould.

Clearly, balanced engagement with language and literacy is required if children are

not to miss out on important opportunities for learning and development. However, in

view of the interdependence of spoken and written forms, this is itself a matter of

complexity. School practices therefore need to incorporate the ways of taking and

308
making meaning that characterise and support the learning of disadvantaged groups,

as well as exposing children from more mainstream backgrounds to a diversity of

language practice that is less explicitly focused upon literacy (Heath, 1983; Snow,

1983). Such an approach would represent a valuable addition to the reinstatement of

orality in school and across the curriculum (Haworth, 2001), and most notably to

promote a drive for oral outcomes as an endpoint.

While the measurement of spoken language ability is less straightforward than the

assessment of literacy, it is not impossible. This has already been demonstrated by the

work of the NOP between 1987-93, when teachers embraced the challenge of

assessment and standards in S&L briefly rose (Johnson, 1995). Explicit guidance is

needed if teachers are to feel confident in teaching, assessing and foregrounding S&L

in school. Such guidance is available through such initiatives as The Communication

Trust, a voluntary sector organisation that provides frameworks, targets and guidance

in the teaching of S&L in school. However, such guidance is by no means mandatory,

and this is ultimately what stymies the quality of spoken language practice in school.

I suggest that oral storytelling, spoken language practice specifically, and arts-based

educational initiatives more generally are best promoted and utilized in school

through approaches that:

 Include process-based guidance to make the specificities of oral storytelling,

and what makes good S&L, explicit to teachers. It is suggested that oral story

re-telling as an intrinsically process-based educational activity is one way of

engaging teachers and learners with such procedural concerns.

309
 Provide opportunities for spoken language development, for the sake of

spoken language, with oral outcomes as an end-point and an explicit

detachment from instrumental literacy-based aims and outcomes. In addition,

a focus upon assessment in spoken language is essential if a revaluation of

S&L across school and parity with hegemonic conceptions of literacy in the

curriculum is to be achieved.

 Position emergent literacy as Tier 1 skills (Dickinson et al., 2010) within a

constructivist framework, whereby spoken language is seen as a primary form

of meaning-making and a precursor to more formal modes of writing. Such an

approach highlights the foundational nature of oral language to later literacy

ability, and recognises the importance of providing opportunities for emergent

literacy practice that makes human sense to young children.

 Locate creativity within school structures and the curriculum, rather than in

external creative projects that come into school, to promote participatory

forms of creative engagement and the creation of discursive opportunities

between teachers and creative practitioners, such as the joint evaluation of

children’s work (Hall & Thomson, 2007; Hall et al., 2007). Such an approach

recognises the expertise of both educators and artists whilst acknowledging the

value of the improvisational and competence-based teaching styles that typify

the pedagogy of artists. Organisations such as CP that emphasise co-delivery

as a central aspect of their approach are viewed as being of significant value to

this model of creativity in school.

310
  Consider experiential forms of learning and the ‘intrinsic benefits’ of the arts

(McCarthy et al., 2001) to be vital components of education that enhance

children’s development on a socio-emotional level. Viewing creativity as

being of equal importance to an instrumental skills-based curriculum is key to

such an approach. As with spoken language, opportunities for art for art’s

sake need to be fostered and pursued, achievement across the whole

curriculum needs to be recognised (Alexander, 2010), and outcome measures

that value flexibility of thinking and take into account a much wider range of

factors than improvement in high-stakes tests need to be found.

In addition, there is a pressing need to reformulate our understanding of teaching as a

profession. The ‘technical rationalist’ enterprise (Furlong, 2006) that has increasing

come to characterise ITT and the profession of teaching itself, needs to be rebalanced

with a conception of teachers as experts in their own right (Sawyer, 2004). If teachers

are only entrusted to teach in a prescriptive way using a risk-free pedagogy that is

easily implementable, non-instrumental practice in S&L will never be given half a

chance in the classroom. In contrast, when teachers are entrusted with the pedagogical

process, more creative forms of education that challenge, stimulate and extend

children’s thinking are encouraged to come to the fore.

There is wide acceptance that traditional forms of teaching that emphasise didactic

methods and an emphasis upon performance over process, can severely stifle more

creative, exploratory and dialogic types of learning that extend children’s thinking

(Mercer, 1995; Wegerif & Mercer, 1997; Mercer et al, 1999; Alexander, 2001,

311
2008b). However such perspectives focus on parity rather than association, and

therefore the third contribution to knowledge that this thesis makes is suggestive of

there being no research that specifically and explicitly addresses the effects of

literacy-based instrumentality in relation to spoken language in terms of alteration of

the qualitative experience of the oral event. A further recommendation therefore, is

for research that specifically addresses this theoretical gap to uncover the ways in

which spoken language may be deleteriously affected by outcomes that are implicitly

or explicitly based in literacy. Research is needed to determine whether the quality of

spoken language is adversely affected by writing in working up to a spoken event. If

children are asked to write down their ideas down before speaking them, their focus

may well be upon memorization rather than spoken delivery. Alternatively, it is

important to understand whether the attachment of a written outcome affects the way

that spoken language practice is engaged with on a pedagogic basis. If a teacher

ultimately requires a piece of writing from a S&L activity, a considerably different

pedagogic process may unfold in contrast to a situation where the spoken event is the

end point. Research into such specificities is essential if we are to fully understand the

implications of literacy-based instrumentality upon the quality of children’s spoken

language.

I suggest that if there is a cognitive effect of literacy acquisition that has the potential

to hinder engagement with unscripted forms of spoken language, it becomes

important to consider what kinds of learning are sacrificed in the promotion of the

text-mediated instructional discourses that predominate in school. Arts-based

education through such initiatives as CP, that is collaborative and aligned with

transformative and learner-centred pedagogies, has the potential to shift perceptions

312
about what constitutes teaching and learning. The interface between education and

artists creates new Communities of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in which

dynamic and engaging forms of learning can take place. Engagement with non-

instrumental S&L and creative forms of education that are embodied by such

initiatives as oral storytelling, counter hegemonic conceptions of learning that

foreground literacy.

Ultimately, it is the broader purpose of education that is in question and whether an

acquiescent workforce is the desired outcome of education or learners who are

empowered, critical and motivated. As suggested by Blaine Hogarth:

“…we all knew that the unspoken thing was that success [of the NOP] would

be measured when there was a kid who would stand up and argue with a teacher and

hold his ground, but confidently, and fluently, and well – that was what we were

aiming at and that was not at all what the Tories wanted. But anyway, it sort of died

and got lost, and then the literacy strategy came in and there we are – writing, it’s

easy, you know, shut them all up, sit and write quietly, and it’s the exact antithesis of

what we wanted – we wanted hub-bub and we got silence.”

It is this metaphorical and literal silencing of creative and dialogical forms of learning

that can be understood as the ultimate outcome of literacy as hegemony. As long as

the NC continues to privilege literacy over orality and the arts, children from

disadvantaged backgrounds will continue to experience marginalisation, and all

learners will be subject to narrow and instrumental pedagogic approaches that teach

them what to think, and not how.

313
References

Adams, J. W., Snowling, M. J., Hennessy, S. M., & Kind, P. (1999). Problems of
behaviour, reading, and arithmetic: Assessments of Comorbidity using the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571 –
585.

Addison, N. and Burgess, L. (2006) London Cluster Research Report in Taylor, B.

(Ed.) Inspiring Learning in Galleries, London: Engage.

Aina, O. (1999). The Importance of Oral Storytelling in Literacy Development. Ohio

Reading Teacher, 33(1), 15–18.

Alex, N. K. (1988). The Effectiveness of Oral Storytelling. Accessed 20/10/2012:

http://thecharacternetwork.org/pdf/Storytelling_JimLord.pdf.

Alexander, K. J., Miller, P. J., & Hengst, J. A. (2001). Young Children’s Emotional
Attachments to Stories. Social Development, 10(3), 374-398.

Alexander, R.J. (2001) Culture and Pedagogy, Blackwell, especially chapters 15 and
16, pp. 391-528.

Alexander, R. (2008a). Culture, Dialogue and Learning: Notes on an Emerging

Pedagogy. Exploring talk in school, pp. 91-114.

Alexander, R.J. (2008b) Towards Dialogic Teaching: rethinking classroom talk (4th
edition), Dialogos

Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, Their World, Their Education: Final Report
and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. London: Routledge.

Alexander, R. (2012a, September). Neither National Nor a Curriculum? In FORUM

Symposium Journals, 54(3), 369-384

Alexander, R. (2012b). Improving Oracy and Classroom Talk in English Schools:

Achievements and challenges. In DfE Seminar on Oracy, the National Curriculum
and Educational Standards (Vol. 20).

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.

Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating Difference: Neo-liberalism, Neo-Conservatism and the

Politics of Educational Reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12-44.

Apple, M. W (2006) Producing Inequalities: Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism,

and the Politics of Educational Reform In: Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J.-
A. & Halsey, A.H. (eds.) Education, Globalization & Social Change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp. 468-489.

314
Arestis, P. & Sawyer, M. (2005) Neoliberalism and the Third Way In: Saad- Filho,
A., Johnston, D. (eds.) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. pp.
177-183.

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Clifis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1982). "The Self and Mechanisms of Agency." Pp. 3-39, Psychological
Perspectives on the Self, vol. 1, J. Suls (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Baker, L., & Cantwell, D. P. (1987). A Prospective Psychiatric Follow-Up of

Children with Speech/Language Disorders. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(4), 546-553

Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human

Cruelty. Penguin.

Barners (1988) The Politics of Oracy. In Oracy Matters: The Development of

Talking and Listening in Education. M. MacClure, T. Phillips and A. Wilkinson,
(Eds.) Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Barrett, G. (1989). Disaffection for School? The Early Years (London, Falmer Press).

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and Writing in One
Community. Routledge.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does High
Self–Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or
Healthier Lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44.

Becker, H. S. (1970). Sociology Work: Method and Substance. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books.

Beckett, D. and Hager, P. (2002) Life, Work and Learning: Practice in Postmodernity,
London: Routledge.

Beitchman, J. H., Hood, J., Rochon, J., & Peterson, M. (1989). Empirical
classification of speech/language impairment in children II. Behavioral
characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
28(1), 118-123.

Belfiore, E. (2012). “Defensive Instrumentality” and the Legacy of New Labour's

Cultural Policies. Cultural Trends, 21(2), 103-111.

Benner, G. J., Nelson, J. R., & Epstein, M. H. (2002). Language Skills of Children
with EBD A Literature Review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
10(1), 43-56.

315
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011) Ethical Guidelines for
Educational Research. Accessed 15/08/2013:
:http://www.bera.ac.uk/system/files/BERA%20Ethical%20Guidelines%202011.pdf

BERA (2012). Arts Based Educational Research. Accessed 17/10/2012:

http://www.bera.ac.uk/sigs/info/arts-based-educational-research.

Berghoff, B. (2005). Views of Learning Through the Arts in Elementary Classrooms.

Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montréal, Canada.

Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (New York, Rowman
and Littlefield).

Biber, D. (1991). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.

Bloome, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural Display and Classroom
Lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 265–291.

Bloome, D., & Enciso, P. (2006). Looking Out Across Columbus: What We Mean by
‘Multiple Literacies’. Theory into practice, 45(4), 296-303.

Bloome, D., Katz, L., Solsken, J., Willet, J., & Wilson-Keenan, J. (2000).
Interpellations of Family/Community and Classroom Literacy Practices. Journal of
Educational Research, 93(3), 155-163.

Board Of Education (1923). Differentiation of the Curriculum for Boys and Girls
Respectively in Secondary Schools. A Hadow Report. London: HMSO.

Board of Education (1931). The Primary School. A Hadow Report. London: HMSO.

Bradley C. (1992) Turning Anecdotes into Data—The Critical Incident Technique.

Family Practice; 9, 98-103.

Bragg, S, Manchester, H. and Faulkner, D. (2009). Youth Voice in the Work of

Creative Partnerships. Creativity, Culture and Education, London.

Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the Local: Expanding Perspectives on
Literacy as a Social Practice. Journal of literacy research, 34(3), 337-356.

Brigman, G. Lane, D. Switzer, D. (1999). Teaching Children School Success Skills.

The Journal of Educational Research. 92(6), 323-329.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryant, J. S. (2009). The Potential of Oral Literacy for Empowerment. Toward a

Literacy of Promise: Joining the African-American Struggle, 151-162.

316
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded Theory Research: Methods and
Practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded
theory (pp. 1-28) London: SAGE.

Burnard, P. & Swann, M. (2010). Pupil Perceptions of Learning with Artists: A new
Order of Experience? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(2), 70–82.

Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting Out Right: A Guide
to Promoting Children's Reading Success. National Academies Press.

Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A., & Konold, T. R. (2013). Emergent Literacy
Profiles Among prekindergarten children from low-SES backgrounds: Longitudinal
considerations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

CACE (Central Advisory Council for Education, England) (1967) Children and their
Primary Schools (the Plowden Report), London: HMSO.

Campbell, T., & Hlusek, M. (2009). Storytelling and Story Writing: Using a Different
Kind of Pencil. What Works? Research into Practice (Literacy and Numeracy
Secretariat). Accessed 08/08/2012:
http://199.71.28.69/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Storytelling.pdf

Carter, R. (2002) The Grammar of Talk: Spoken English, Grammar and the
Classroom QCA New Perspectives on Spoken English in the Classroom Conference
Papers, 27th June 2002, 6–13.

Cassell, J. (2004). Towards a Model of Technology and Literacy Development: Story

Listening Systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 75-105.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). The Language of Teaching and Learning. The language of

Teaching and Learning. Accessed 02/05/2013:
http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/library/cazden.pdf.

Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2006). Multiple Literacies, New Literacies,
and Teacher Education. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 378-386.

Charmaz, K. (1994). Discovering Chronic Illness: Using Grounded Theory. In B.

Glaser (Ed.), More Grounded Theory Methodology: A reader (pp. 65-93). Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Charmaz, K. (1995a). Between Positivism and Postmodernism: Implications for

methods. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 17, 43-72.

Charmaz, K. (1995b). Grounded Theory. In J. Smith, R. Harré,&L. Langenhove

(Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 27-65) London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In

Norman K Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research,
2nd edition (pp.509-535). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage

317
Charmaz, K.(2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage

Chatterji, M. (2006). Reading Achievement Gaps, Correlates, and Moderators of

Early Reading Achievement: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
(ECLS) kindergarten to first grade sample. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98,489–507.

Chege, M. (2009). Literacy and Hegemony: Critical Pedagogy Vis-a-vis Contending

Paradigms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
21(2), 228-238.

Childcare Act. (2006). Accessed 14/01/2012: online pdf

Clark, C., Prior, M., & Kinsella, G. J. (2000). Do Executive Function Deficits
Differentiate Between Adolescents with ADHD and Oppositional Defiant/Conduct
Disorder? A Neuropsychological Study Using the Six Elements Test and Hayling
Sentence Completion Test. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 28(5), 403-414.

Clark, C., Prior, M., & Kinsella, G. (2002). The Relationship Between Executive
Function Abilities, Adaptive Behaviour, and Academic Achievement in Children with
Externalising Behaviour Problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
43(6), 785-796.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1985). Looking Like Readers, Talking Like Readers. Theory Into
Practice, 24, 22–31.

Cohen, N. J., Davine, M., Horodezky, N., Lipsett, L., & Isaacson, L. (1993).
Unsuspected Language Impairment In Psychiatrically Disturbed Children:
Prevalence and Language and Behavioral Characteristics. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(3), 595-603.

Cohen, N. J., Menna, R., Vallance, D. D., Barwick, M. A., Im, N., & Horodezky, N.
B. (1998). Language, Social Cognitive Processing, and Behavioral Characteristics of
Psychiatrically Disturbed Children with Previously Identified and Unsuspected
Language Impairments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(6), 853-864.

Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive Development and Formal Schooling: The Evidence From
Cross-Cultural Research. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and
Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, 89-110.

Collins, F. (1999). The Use of Traditional Storytelling in Education to the Learning of

Literacy Skills. Early Child Development and Care, 152(1), 77-108.

Collins, J., & Blot, R.K. (2003). Literacy and Literacies: Texts, Power, and Identity.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

318
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (2007). Narrative Learning, EAL and Metacognitive
Development. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6-7), 645-660

Craft, A. (2008). Creativity in the School. Accessed 18/02/2011:

http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp
content/uploads/ch3_final_craft_creativityinschool_20081218.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.

Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Second Edition, Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.

Crick Crack Club. (2012). Speaking, Listening, Literacy and Storytelling: An

Overview. Accessed 03/11/2012:
http://www.crickcrackclub.com/MAIN/EDUCF.HTM

Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The Narrowing of Curriculum and

Pedagogy in the Age of Accountability Urban Educators Speak Out. Urban
Education, 42(6), 512-535.

Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology. American

Psychologist 30: 116-127.

Crotty, M. (2003). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in

the Research Process. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, A.J & Carroll, J.M. (2011). The Development of Early Literacy in
Steiner- and Standard-Educated Children. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 475–490.

Curenton, S. M., Craig, M. J., & Flanigan, N. (2008). Use of Decontextualized Talk
Across Story Contexts: How Oral Storytelling and Emergent Reading Can Scaffold
Children's Development. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 161-187.

Curious Minds, (2012). Accessed 28/03/2012:

http://www.curiousminds.org.uk/creativepartnerships/

Daniell, B. (1999). The Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture.

College, Composition and Communication, 50(3), 393-409.

David, T., Curtis, A. and Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1992). Effective Teaching in the Early
Years: Fostering Children's Learning in Nurseries and in Infant Classrooms (Stoke
on Trent, Trentham Books).

319
David, T., Goouch, K., Powell, S. & Abbott, L. (2003) Birth to Three Matters: A
Review of the Literature (DfES Research Report 444) (Nottingham, DfES).

David, T., Raban, B., Ure, C, Goouch, K., Jago, M., Barrire, I., Lambirth, A.(2000)
Making Sense of Early Literacy: a practitioner's perspective Stoke-on-Trent:
Trentham Books.

Davis, C. (1990). What is Empathy, and can Empathy be Taught? Physical Therapy,
70(11), 707–715.

Davies, M., & Sinclair, A. (2012). Socratic Questioning in the Paideia Method to
Encourage Dialogical Discussions. Research Papers in Education, (ahead-of-print),
1-24.

Deasy, R. J. (2002). Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and
Social Development. Arts Education Partnership, One Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite
700, Washington, DC 20001-1431. Accessed 23/11/2012: http://artsedge.kennedy-
center.org/champions/pdfs/ChampsReport.pdf

Degenhardt, M. and McKay, E. (1988). Imagination and Education for Intercultural

Understanding, in Egan, K.and Nadaner, D., (eds), Imagination and Education,
Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

DeMoss, K. (2005). How Arts Integration Supports Student Learning: Evidence from
Students in Chicagoŏs CAPE. Arts Learning and Research, 21(1), 91.

Denham, S. A. (1992). Baby Looks Very Sad: Implications of Conversations About

Feelings Between Mother and Preschooler. British Journal of Child Psychology, 10,
301–315.

Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s Reading and Mathematics Achievement in
Kindergarten and First Grade (NCES 2002-125). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Denzin, N. (1983). Interpretive Interactionism. Beyond Method: Strategies for Social

Research. Morgan, G., Ed., Sage, Beverley Hills: pp.129-146.

Denzin, N.K. (1989). Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2008). The Early Years
Foundation Stage. London: DCSF Publications.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2009). Using Talk for
Writing. Accessed 25/03/2013:
http://education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00755-2009POS-EN.pdf

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). (2001). Culture and Creativity:
The Next Ten Years. London. Accessed 13/12/2012:
http://www.tourisminsights.info/ONLINEPUB/DCMS/DCMS.htm

320
Department for Education (DfE). (2012a). Draft National Curriculum for English Key
Stages 1-2. Accessed 11/11/2012:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/d/draft%20national%20curriculum%20f
or%20english%20key%20stages%201%202.pdf

Department for Education (DfE).(2012b). Primary Curriculum Subjects: English Key

Stage 1. Accessed 11/11/2012:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary/b0019
8874/english/ks1

Department for Education (DfE).(2012c). Assessment and Reporting Arrangements:

Key Stage 1, Including the Phonics Screening Test. Accessed 20/11/2012:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/13711/1/assessment%20and%20reporting%20arrangements%20y
ear%201%20phonics%20screening%20check.pdf.

Department for Education (DfE). (2012d). Statutory Framework for the Early Years
Foundation Stage. Revised version. Accessed 08/12/2012:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/a0068102/early
-years-foundation-stage-eyfs

Department for Education (DfE). (2012e). Teachers’ Standards. Accessed

05/04/2013:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.g
ov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/teachers standards.pdf

Department for Education (DfE). (2013). National Curriculum in England: English

programmes of study - key stages 1 and 2
Accessed 06/04/2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-
curriculum-in-england-english-programmes-of-study

Department of Education and Science (DES), & Plowden, L. (1967). Children and
Their Primary Schools: Vol I: The Report: A Report of the Central Advisory Council
for Education. HM Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1975). A Language for Life (The
Bullock Report). London: HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1989).English for Ages 5 to 16 (The

Cox Report). London:HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1990).English in the National

Curriculum HMSO.

Dexter, E. R., LeVine, S. E., & Velasco, P. M. (1998). Maternal Schooling and
Health-Related Language and Literacy Skills in Rural Mexico. Comparative
education review, 42(2), 139-162.

Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking Out for
Language Why Language Is Central to Reading Development. Educational
Researcher, 39(4), 305-310.

321
Dickinson, D. K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships Among Prereading and
Oral Language Skills in Kindergartners From Two Social Classes. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 2(1), 1-25.

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (1991). Early Literacy: Linkages Between Home,
School and Literacy Achievement at Age Five. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 6, 30–46.

Duncan, S., & Barrett, L. F. (2007). Affect is a Form of Cognition: A Neurobiological

Analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1184-1211.

Duncan, G. J., Ludwig, J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2007). Reducing Poverty Through
Preschool Interventions. The Future of Children, 17, 143–160.

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and

Development. Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement Motivation. In E. M.

Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, Personality, and Social Development.
New York: Wiley.

Edelsky, C. (1996). With Literacy and Justice for aAl (2nd ed.). London: Taylor and
Francis.

Egan, K. (1988). Primary Understanding: Education in Early Childhood. New York:

Routledge.

Egan, K. (1989). Teaching as Story Telling: An Alternative Approach to Teaching and

Curriculum in the Elementary School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Egan, K. (1990). Romantic Understanding: The Development of Rationality and

Imagination, Ages 8-15. New York: Routledge.

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in Teaching and Learning Ages 8-15. London:

Routledge.

Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., Willows, D.M., (2001). Systematic Phonics
Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence From the National Reading
Panel's Meta-Analysis Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.

Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the World do Students Read? IEA Study of Reading
Literacy, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement,
The Hague, Netherlands.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to Motivation and

Achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.

Ellis, B. F. (1997). Why Tell Stories? Storytelling Magazine, 9, 21–23.

322
Falk, I., & Guenther, J. (2007). Generalising from Qualitative Research: Case Studies
from VET in Contexts, Evolution, Revolution or Status Quo. In The New Context for
VET, AVETRA 2007-10th Annual Conference.

Fielding, M. (2007) On the Necessity of Radical State Education: Democracy and the
Common School. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41 (4), 539-558.

Finlay, L. (2002) Negotiating the Swamp: The Opportunity and Challenge of

Reflexivity in Research Practice. Qualitative Research, 2, 209–230.

Fisher, A. T. (2010). Creating an Articulate Classroom: Examining Pre-Service

Teachers’ Experiences of Talk. Language and Education, 25(1), 33-47.

Fisher, R. (2000). Developmentally Appropriate Practice and a National Literacy

Strategy, British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 58-69.

Fisk, Edward, ed. (1999). Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning.
The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. Washington, DC.
Accessed 23/11/2012: http://artsedge.kennedy-
center.org/champions/pdfs/ChampsReport.pdf.

Fleming, M. (2008). Arts in Education and Creativity: A Review of the Literature.

London: Creative Partnerships. Accessed 02/12/2011:
http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/arts-in-education-and-
creativity-2nd-edition-91.pdf

Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2005). The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political
Involvement. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research 3rd ed., (pp. 695-728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forman, E. A. and Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian Perspectives in

Education: The Cognitive Value of Peer Interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture,
communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Fox, C. (1989) Children Thinking Through Story. English in Education 23 (2): 33-42.

Fox, C. (2003). Playing the Storyteller. Some Principals for Learning Literacy in the
Early Years of Schooling. I N. Hall, J. Larson & J. Marsh (Red.), Handbook of Early
Childhood Literacy (pp. 189-198). London: Sage.

Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, Herder & Herder.

Fricke, S., Bowyer‐Crane, C., Haley, A. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2012).
Efficacy of Language Intervention in the Early Years. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry.

Furlong, J. (2005). New Labour and Teacher Education: The End of an Era. Oxford
Review of Education, 31(1), 119-134.

323
Gallese, V. (2001). The Shared Manifold Hypothesis. From Mirror Neurons to
Empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5-7), 5-7.

Gallets, M. (2005). Storytelling and Story Reading: A Comparison of Effects on

Children's Memory and Story Comprehension. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Digital
Commons @ East Tennessee State University, Tennessee, USA. Accessed
09/09/2012:
http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/?utm_source=dc.etsu.edu%2Fetd%2F1023&utm_medium=PDF
&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages .

Galton, M. (2007) Learning and Teaching in the Primary School, London: Sage
Publications.

Galton, M. (2008). Creative Practitioners in Schools and Classrooms. Final report

of the Project: The pedagogy of Creative Practitioners in Schools: University of
Cambridge.

Galton, M., Simon, B., and Croll, P. (1980). Inside the Primary Classroom (The
ORACLE Report) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gardner, H. (1999). The Happy Meeting of Multiple Intelligences and the Arts,
Harvard Education Letter, Accessed 18/05/2013: http://hepg.org/hel/article/440.

Gatto, L. (2001). Success Guaranteed Literacy Programs: I Don’t Buy it! In J. Larson
(Ed.), Literacy as Snake Oil: Beyond the Quick Fix (pp. 71–88). New York: Lang.

Gee. (1991). Social Linguistics: Ideology in Discourses, Falmer Press: London.

Gee, J. P. (1985). Two Styles of Narrative Construction and their Linguistic and
Educational Implications. Journal of Education, 171(1), 97–115.

Gee, J. P. (1988). The Legacies of Literacy: From Plato to Freire through Harvey
Graff. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 195–212.

Gee. (1991). Social Linguistics: Ideology in Discourses, Falmer Press: London.

Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional

Schooling. New York: Palmgrave-McMillan.

Giebelhaus, C. R., & Bowman, C. L. (2002). Teaching Mentors: Is it Worth the

Effort? The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 246-254.

Gillard, D. (2011). Education in England: A Brief History. Accessed 08/10/2011:

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter08.html.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis.

Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

324
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: The
Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago:
Aldine.

Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces, 36(3),

217–223.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, Clauses, Sentences. Language and Speech, 15:

103-113.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). Acquiring Literacy is Natural: Who Skilled Cock Robin?.

Theory into Practice, 26(S1), 368-373.

Goody J. & I. Watt (1963). The Consequences of Literacy. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 5,
304-45.

Goouch, K. (2010). The Politics of Early Literacy. In Debates in English Teaching

Davison, J., Daly, C., & Moss, J. (Eds.). Routledge.

Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci,
New York, International Publishers.

Gray, C. (2008). Instrumental Policies: Causes, Consequences, Museums and

Galleries. Cultural Trends, 17(4), 209–222.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic

Inquiries, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-
117). Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guillot, M. N. (1999). Fluency and its Teaching (Vol. 11). Multilingual Matters
Limited.

Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for Multicultural Schools: The Power of
Selection. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 96-104.

Hall, K., Collins, J., Benjamin, S., Nind, M., & Sheehy, K. (2004). SATurated Models
of Pupildom: Assessment and Inclusion/Exclusion. British Educational Research
Journal, 30(6), 801-817.

Hall, C., & Thomson, P. (2007). Creative Partnerships? Cultural Policy and Inclusive
Arts Practice in One Primary School. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3),
315-329.

325
 Hall, C., Thomson, P., & Russell, L. (2007). Teaching Like an Artist: The
Pedagogic Identities and Practices of Artists in Schools. British journal of sociology
of education, 28(5), 605-619.

Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2002) A Systematic Review of the Impact of
Summative Assessment and Tests on Students’ Motivation for Learning. In:
Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Accessed 22/09/2012:
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=108

Hamilton, M., & Weiss, M. (1990). Children Tell Stories: A teaching guide. Katonah,
NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading Ethnographic Research, Longman, New York.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd

ed.).London: Routledge.

Hamberg, K., Johannson, E., Lindgrn, G. and Westman, G. (1994). Scientific Rigour
in Qualitative Research—Examples from a Study of Womens Health in Family
Practice. Family Practice 11(2): 176-181.

Harrett, J. (2003). Oral Storytelling in the primary School: A Practical Viewpoint,

Journal of the Cardiff School of Education, 2, 10-17.

Harris, K. R. (1990). Developing Self-Regulated Learners: The Role of Private

Speech and Self-instructions. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 35-49.

Haven, K. (2007). Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Haworth, A. (2001). The Re-positioning of Oracy: A Millennium Project? Cambridge

Journal of Education, 31(1), 11-23.

Hayes, R. & Oppenheim, R. (1997). Constructivism: Reality is What you Make it. In
T. Sexton&B. Griffin (Eds.), Constructivist Thinking in Counseling Practice,
Research and Training (pp. 19-41). New York: Teachers College Press.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Henwood, K.L. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2003). Grounded Theory in Psychological

Research. In P. Camic, L. Yardley and J.E. Rhodes (Eds.) Qualitative Research in
Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design. (pp. 131-155)
Washington DC: APA.

Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). The Arts in Education: Evaluating the Evidence for
a Causal Link. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 3–10.

326
Hewitt, R., & Inghilleri, M. (1993). Oracy in the Classroom: Policy, Pedagogy, and
Group Oral Work. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 308-308.

Holstein, J. A., and Gubrium J.F. (1995). The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Horowitz, R. (2004). Summary of Large-Scale Arts Partnership Evaluations.

Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

Hummel, L. J., & Prizant, B. M. (1993). A Socioemotional Perspective for

Understanding Social Difficulties of School-Age Children with Language Disorders.
Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 216–224.

Hynd, J. (2007). Putting a Spin on Reading: The Language of the Rose Review.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(3), 267-279.

Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The Effects of Storytelling
and Story Reading on the Oral Language Complexity and Story Comprehension of
Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 157-163.

James, M., T. Oates, A. Pollard, and D. Wiliam. (2011). The Framework for the
National Curriculum: A Report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum
Review. London: Department for Education.

Joffe H, & Yardley L. (2004) Content and Thematic Analysis. In: Marks D, Yardley
L, (Eds). Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology (pp.56–68). London,
UK: Sage.

Johnson, J. (1995). Can we Raise the Standard of Speaking and Listening? Peter
King, Robert Protherough (Eds.) The Challenge of English in the National
Curriculum (pp.17-29), Taylor & Francis.

Jones K (2003) Education in Britain: 1944 to the present. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jones, K. and Thomson, P. (2008) Policy Rhetoric and the Renovation of English
Schooling: The Case of Creative Partnerships, Journal of Education Policy, 23:6, 715
- 727

Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with Rosie: A
Cautionary Tale of Early Reading Instruction. Educational Leadership. 60(7), 12-18.

Kendall, L., Morrison, J., Yeshanew, T. and Sharp, C. (2008a). The Longer-term
Impact of Creative Partnerships on the Attainment of Young People: Results from
2005 and 2006. Accessed 19/03/2013:
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPY01/CPY01.pdf.

Kendall, L., Morrison, J., Sharp, C., & Yeshanew, T. (2008b). The Impact of Creative
Partnerships on Pupil Behaviour. Accessed 19/03/2013:
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPW01/CPW01.pdf.

327
Kim, J. (2002). Challenges to NLS: Response to “What’s ‘New’ in New Literacy
Studies.” Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 118–121.

Knobel, M. (2001). “I'm not a Pencil Man”: How one Student Challenges Our
Notions of Literacy ‘Failure’ in School. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
44(5), 404-414.

Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of Self-Regulation: A Developmental Perspective.

Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 199-214.

Kuyvenhoven, J. (2007) ‘What Happens Inside Your Head When You Are Listening
to a Story?’ Children Talk About Their Experience During a Storytelling. Storytelling
Self and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies 3(2) 95–114.

Lambirth, A. (2006). Challenging the Laws of Talk: Ground Rules, Social

Reproduction and the Curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 17(1), 59-71.

LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837–857.

Larson, J. (2006). Multiple Literacies, Curriculum, and Instruction in Early Childhood

and Elementary School. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 319-329.

Lave, J. (1991). Situating Learning in Communities of Practice. Perspectives on

Socially Shared Cognition, 2, 63-82.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.). (2000). Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy

Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge
University Press.

Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background
Differences in Achievement as Children Begin Kindergarten. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.

Lindsay, G., Dockrell, J. E., & Strand, S. (2007). Longitudinal Patterns of

Behaviour Problems in Children with Specific Speech and Language Difficulties:
Child and Contextual Factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4),
811-828.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Liwag, M.D., & Stein, N.L. (1995). Children’s Memory for Emotional Events: The
Importance of Emotion-Related Retrieval Cues. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 60, 2–31.

328
McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2001). Gifts of the
Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts. Rand Corporation.

McCarthy, M. (2009). Rethinking Spoken Fluency. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa

Aplicada, 9, 11-29.

McCulloch, G. (2001) The Reinvention of Teacher Professionalism, in: R. Phillips &

J. Furlong (Eds) Education Reform and the State: 25 Years of Politics, Policy and
Practice (London, Routledge).

Maddock, M., Drummond, M. J., Koralek, B., & Nathan, I. (2007). Doing School
Differently: Creative Practitioners at Work. Education, 35(1), 47-58.

Madros, J. A.. (2010). Traditional Oral Storytelling in the Classroom, Unpublished

Masters dissertation.

Malo, E., & Bullard, J. (2000). Storytelling and the emergent reader (Report No. CS
217 352). Auckland, New Zealand: The 18th International Reading Association World
Congress on Reading (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448464).

Mansilla, V. B. (2005). Assessing Student Work at Disciplinary Crossroads. Change,

37(1), 14–22.

Marsh, J. (Ed.). (2004). Popular Culture, New Media and Digital Literacy in Early
Childhood. Routledge.

Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a Qualitative Study. Handbook of Applied Social

Research Methods, 69-100.

McInnes, K. (2002). What are the Educational Experiences of 4-Year-Olds? A

Comparative Study of 4-Year-Olds in Nursery and Reception Settings. Early Years,
22, 119-127.

Mean, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom Goal

Structure, Student Motivation, and Academic Achievement. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57,
487-503.

Meek, M. (1982) Learning to Read. London: Bodley Head.

Mello, R. (2001a) ‘The Power of Storytelling: How Narrative Influences Children’s

Relationships in the Classroom’, International Journal of Education and the Arts,
2(1): 548–56.

Mello, R. (2001b). Building Bridges: How Storytelling Influences Teacher and

Student Relationships. In Proceedings, Storytelling in the Americas Conference. St.
Catherine, ON: Brooks University Press ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED457088).

329
Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers
and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s Talk and the Development
of Reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1).

Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus (2014). Accessed 21/4/2014

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed Methods and the Politics of Human Research: The
Transformative-Emancipatory Perspective. In A.Tashakkori & C.Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 135–164).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating

Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Michaels, S. (1986). Narrative Presentations: An Oral Preparation for literacy with

First Graders. In: J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The Social Construction of Literacy (pp.
94–116). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Miles, S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Associations

between Social Behavior and Literacy Achievement in a Sample of Low-Income
Elementary School Children. Child Development, 77(1), 103–117.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for
Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory
into practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Monaghan, E. J. & Saul, E. W. (1987) The Reader, the Scribe, the Thinker: A Critical
Look at the History of American Reading and Writing Instruction, in T. S. Popkewitz
(Ed.) The Formation of School Subjects. London: Falmer Press.

Morreale, S., Backlund, P., Hay, E., & Moore, M. (2011). Assessment of Oral
Communication: A Major Review of the Historical Development and Trends in the
Movement from 1975 to 2009. Communication Education, 60(2), 255-278.

Morrow, L.M. (1985a). Reading & Retelling Stories: Strategies for Emergent
Readers. The Reading Teacher, 38, 870-875.

Morrow, L. M. (1985b). Retelling Stories: A Strategy for Improving Children's

Comprehension, Concept of Story Structure and Oral Language Complexity.
Elementary School Journal, 85, 647-661.

Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L. B., & Duke, N. K. (Eds.). (2011). Best Practices in
Literacy Instruction. Guilford Press.

330
Morse J.M. (1991) Strategies for Sampling. In Qualitative Nursing Research: A
Contemporary Dialogue (Morse J.M. ed.), Sage, London, pp.126-145.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification
Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.

Mulhall A. (2003) In the Field: Notes on Observation in Qualitative Research.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3):306-13.

Myers, P. (1990) Stories from Print. Language Arts, 67, 824-831.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1992) A Position Statement from the

Committee on Storytelling: Accessed 10/07/2011:
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teachingstorytelling

National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999)

All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, London: DfEE.

Nicolopoulou, A, De Sa, A, Ilgaz, H. & Brockmeyer, C. (2010). Using the

Transformative Power of Play to Educate Hearts and Minds: From Vygotsky to
Vivian Paley and beyond. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 42-58.

Norris, J. A., & Bruning, R. H. (1988). Cohesion in the Narratives of Good and Poor
Readers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 416–424.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and

Language Socialization in a Samoan village (No. 6). Cambridge University Press.

Olson, D. (1986). The Cognitive Consequences of Literacy. Canadian Journal of

Psychology, 27, 109–121.

O’Neill, D.K., Pearce, M.J., & Pick, J.L. (2004). Preschool Children’s Narratives and
Performance on the Peabody Individualized Achievement Test – Revised: Evidence
of a Relation Between Early Narrative and Later Mathematical Ability. First
Language, 24, 149–183.

Ong, W. J. (2012). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Routledge.

Onwuegbuzie, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). A Framework for Analyzing Data in Mixed

Methods Research. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research.
Tashakkori A and Teddlie, C., Ed., Sage, Thousands Oaks.

Osborn, M., E. McNess, P. Broadfoot, A. Pollard, and P. Triggs. (2000). What

Teachers Do: Changing Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London:
Continuum.

Paechter, C. (1998) Schooling and the Ownership of Knowledge, Curriculum Studies,

6, 161-176.

331
Paechter, C. (2000). Changing School Subjects: Power, Gender and Curriculum.
Open University Press.

Paechter, C. (2003). Power/Knowledge, Gender and Curriculum change. Journal of

Educational Change, 4, 129–148.

Paley, V. G. (1990). The Boy who would be a Helicopter. Harvard University Press.

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning.

Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345-375.

Palmer, B.C., Hafner, M. L., and Sharp, M.F. (1994). Developing Cultural Literacy
Through the Writing Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Palmer, B.C., Harshbarger, S.J., & Koch, C.A. (2001). Storytelling as a Constructivist
Model for Developing Language and Literacy. Journal of Poetry Therapy, 14, 199–
212.

Palmer, B. C., Leiste, S. M., James, K.D., & Ellis, S.M. (2000). The Role of
Storytelling in Effective Family Literacy Programs. Reading Horizons, 41, 93-105.

Pappas, C., & Pettigrew, BS (1991). Learning to Tell: Aspects of Developing

Communicative Competence in Young Children’s Story Retelling. Curriculum
Inquiry, 21,419-434.

Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded Theory and Social Process: A New Direction for
Leadership Research. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85–106.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peck, J. (1989). Using Storytelling to Promote Language and Literacy Development.

The Reading Teacher, 43(2), 138–141.

Pearson, P. D. (1900). Reading in the Twentieth Century. CIERA, Mitchigan State

University, pp.1-44

Peters, R. (ed.) (1969). Perspectives on Plowden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Peterson, C., Jesso, B., & McCabe, A. (1999). Encouraging Narratives in

Preschoolers: An Intervention Study. Journal of Child Language, 26, 49–67

Petersson, K. M., Reis, A., & Ingvar, M. (2001). Cognitive Processing in Literate and
Illiterate Subjects: A Review of Some Recent Behavioral and Functional
Neuroimaging Data. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 251-267.

332
Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1997). Using Grounded Theory in Psychological
Research. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology (pp. 245-273).
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Pollard, A. (2012). Proposed Primary Curriculum: What about the Pupils? Accessed
07/11/2012: http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/proposed-primary-
curriculum-what-about-the-pupils/

Pollard, A., P. Broadfoot, P. Croll, M. Osborn, and D. Abbott. (1994). Changing

English Primary Schools? The impact of the Education Reform Act at Key Stage One.
London: Cassell.

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the Chimpanzee have a Theory of
Mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(04), 515-526.

Purcell-Gates, V., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Low-SES Children's Success and Failure at
Early Literacy Learning in Skills-Based Classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research,
23(1), 1-34.

Purves, A.C. and Elley, W.B. (1994). The Role of the Home and Student Differences
in Reading Performance. In W.B. Elley, The IEA Study of Reading Literacy:
Achievement and Instruction in Thirty Two School Systems (Oxford, Pergamon).

Rapley, T. J. (2001). The Art(fulness) of Open-Ended Interviewing: Some

Considerations on Analyzing Interviews. Qualitative Research, 1, 303-323.

Reder, S., & Davila, E. (2005). Context and Literacy Practices. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 25, 170–187.

Redmond, S. M., & Rice, M. L. (1998). The Socioemotional Behaviors of Children

with SLI: Social Adaptation or Social Deviance? Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 41(3), 688.

Reese, E. (1995). Predicting Children’s Literacy from Mother-Child Conversations.

Cognitive Development, 10, 381–405.

Reeves, M. (2002). Measuring the Economic and Social Impact of the Arts.
London: Arts Council of England. Accessed 15/07/2011:
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/340.pdf

Ripley, K., & Yuill, N. (2005). Patterns of Language Impairment and Behaviour in
Boys Excluded from School. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 37-
50.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1991). Guidance and Participation in Spatial Planning. In L. B. Resnick,

J. M. Levine, & S. B. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp.
349-364). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

333
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a Collaborative Process. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler,
&W. Damon (Eds.), Cognition, Perception, and Language: Vol. 2. Handbook of Child
Psychology (5th ed., pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.

Rooks, D. (1998). Can I Tell you my Story? How Storytelling Contributes to Pupils’
Achievements in Other Aspects of Speaking and Listening and to their Understanding
of how Language Works. Reading, 32(1), 24-28.

Roney, R. C. (1996). Storytelling in the Classroom: Some Theoretical Thoughts.

Storytelling World, 9, 7–9.

Rose, J. (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading. Nottingham:

DfES Publications.

Rosen, M. (2012). My Thoughts on the Year 1 Phonics Screening Test. Accessed

08/12/2012: http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/my-thoughts-on-year-1-
phonics-screening.html

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global Self-
Esteem and Specific Self-Esteem: Different Concepts, Different Outcomes. American
Sociological Review, 60, 141–156.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher

Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development, by Robert Rosenthal, Lenore
Jacobson. Rinehart and Winston.

Russ, S. & Niec, L. (2011) Play in Clinical Practice. Evidence-Based Approaches.

New York, The Guilford Press.

Russell, J., & Zembylas, M. (2007). Arts Integration in the Curriculum: A Review of
Research and Implications for Teaching and Learning. In International Handbook of
Research in Arts Education (pp. 287-312). Springer Netherlands.

Sage, R. (1986) A Question of Language Disorder. Sheffield, MRC Trent.

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined

Improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy (Vol. 198, No. 1).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Searle, John R. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Secondary School Examination Council (1943). The Norwood Report: Report of the
Committee of the Secondary School Examinations Council. London: HMSO.

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two Systems for
Empathy: A Double Dissociation between Emotional and Cognitive Empathy in

334
Inferior Frontal Gyrus Versus Ventromedial Prefrontal Lesions. Brain, 132(3), 617-
627.

Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among Oral Language, Reading, and Writing

Development. Handbook of Writing Research, 171-183.

Sharp, C. (1995). School Entry and the Impact of the Season of Birth on Attainment
(Slough, NFER).

Sharp, C., Pye, D., Blackmore, J., Brown, E., Eames, A., Easton, C. et al. (2006).
National Evaluation of Creative Partnerships. NFER. Accessed 18/10/2012:
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPS01/CPS01.pdf

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The Role of Classroom Assessment in Teaching and Learning.

Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE Technical Report # 517). University of
California, Los Angles, CA.

Sigel, I. E., Stinson, E. T., & Kim, M. (1993). Socialization of Cognition: The
Distancing Model. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in
Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments (pp. 211–224). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk,

Text and Interaction. London: Sage.

Solomon, Y., & Rogers, C. (2001). Motivational Patterns in Disaffected School

Students: Insights from Pupil Referral Unit Clients. British Educational Research
Journal, 27(3), 331-345.

Snow, C.E. (1983). Literacy and Language: Relationships during the Preschool Years.
Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), 165–189.

Snow, C. E. (1991). The Theoretical Basis for the Relationships between Language
and Literacy in Development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 5–10.

Snow, P.C., & Powell, M.B. (2008). Oral Language Competence, Social Skills and
High-Risk Boys: What are Juvenile Offenders Trying to Tell us? Children and
Society, 22, 16–28.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research: Perspective in Practice. London:
Sage.

Stake, R.E. (2005) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn., (pp. 443–466), Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA

Staub, E. (1971). The Use of Role Playing and Induction in Children’s Learning of
Helping and Sharing Behavior. Child Development, 805-816.

335
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of
Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,
21, 360-407.

Stephens, K. (2000). A Critical Discussion of the ‘New Literacy Studies’. British

Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 10-23.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social scientists. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, S. L., & Altwerger, B. (2007). The Logographic Nature of English

Alphabetics and the Fallacy of Direct Intensive Phonics Instruction. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 7(3), 299-319.

Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded

Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded

Theory Procedures and Techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Street, B. (1988). Literacy Practices and Literacy Myths. In R. Saljo (Ed.) The Written
Word: Studies in Literate Thought and Action, Springer-Verlag Press, 59-72.

Street, B. (1995). Social Literacies Longman: London.

Street, B. V. (2003). What’s New in New Literacy Studies? Current Issues in

Comparative Education, 5(2), 1-14.

Street, B. V. (2005). Recent Applications of New Literacy Studies in Educational

Contexts. In The Teaching of English, 39, 417-423.

Strickland, D. S., & Morrow, L. M. (1989). Emerging Readers and Writers/Oral

Language Development: Children as Storytellers. The Reading Teacher, 43(3), 260–
261.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral Language and Code-Related

Precursors to Reading: Evidence from a Longitudinal Structural Model.
Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934-947.

Suchman, L., and B. Jordan. 1990. Interactional Troubles in Face to Face Survey
Interviews (with Comments and Rejoinder. Journal of the American Statistical
Association 85 (March): pp.232–53.

Suggate, S.P. (2009). School Entry Age and Reading Achievement in the 2006
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), International Journal of
Educational Research, 48, pp. 151–161.

336
Suggate, S.P. (2010). Why “What” we Teach depends on “When”: Grade and
Reading Intervention Modality Moderate Effect Size. Developmental Psychology, 46,
1556–1579.

Suggate, S. P., Schaughency, E. A., & Reese, E. (2013). Children Learning to Read
Later Catch Up to Children Reading Earlier. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.
Szalavitz, M. & Perry, B. (2010) Born for Love (New York, Harper).

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative

and Quantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and
Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Thomson, P., Hall, C. & Russell, L. (2006) An Arts Project Failed, Censored or...? A
Critical Incident Approach to Artist-School Partnerships, Changing English. 13 (1),
29-44.

Thomson, P., Jones, K., Hall, C. (2009). Creative School Change Research Project:
Final Report. Keele/Nottingham Universities.

Thomson, P., McGregor, J., Sanders, E., & Alexiadou, N. (2009b). Changing
Schools: More than a Lick of Paint and a Well-Orchestrated Performance?
Improving Schools, 12(1), 43-57.

Tickell, Dame C. (2011b). The Early Years Foundation Stage (EFYS) Review. Report
on the Evidence. Accessed 03/12/2012:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tickell-review-reports

Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G. and Hall, J. (2006) A Systematic Review of the Research
Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling. London:
Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

Trostle, S., & Hicks, S. J. (1998). The Effects of Storytelling Versus Story Reading on
Comprehension and Vocabulary Knowledge of British Primary School Children.
Reading Improvement, 35(3), 127–136.

Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., & Prochnow, J. E. (2006). Literate Cultural Capital
at School Entry Predicts Later Reading Achievement: A Seven Year Longitudinal
Study. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 41, 183-204.

Turner, A. (1999). Scaffolding the Story‐telling Abilities of a Group of Pupils with

Learning Difficulties Using Computers: A Case Study. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 27(3), 105-109.

Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the Development of Children’s Action: A Cultural-

Historical Theory of Development. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Vasquez, V. (2004). Negotiating Critical Literacies with Young Children. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

337
Vygotsky, L.S. (1926). Educational Psychology; Introduced by V.V. Davydov: St
Lucie Press. Accessed 12/08/2011:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1926/educational-
psychology/index.htm

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions. In The Concept of

Activity in Soviet psychology, edited by J. V. Wertsch. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Ward, S. (2010). Understanding Creative Partnerships: An Examination of Policy

and Practice (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University, Faculty of Social Sciences
and Health, School of Education). Accessed 2/12/2012: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/525/.

Warin, J. (2010). Stories of Self: Tracking Children’s Identity and Wellbeing

through the School Years. Trentham Books.

Wegerif, R. (2005). Reason and Creativity in Classroom Dialogues. Language and

Education, 19(3), 223-237.

Wegerif, R. and Mercer, N. (1997) A Dialogical Framework for Researching Peer

Talk. In R. Wegerif and P. Scrimshaw (eds) Computers and Talk in the Primary
Classroom (pp. 49–65). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Wells, G. (1986). The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using
Language to Learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing Knowledge Together:

Classrooms as Centers of Inquiry and Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems. Los Altos: Morgan
Kaufmann.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,

London: Cambridge University Press.

Westgate, D., & Hughes, M. (1997). Identifying ‘Quality’ in Classroom Talk: An

Enduring Research Task. Language and education, 11(2), 125-139.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child Development and Emergent

Literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848-872.

Whiten, A. (1996). 17 When does Smart Behaviour-Reading Become Mind-

Reading? Theories of Theories of Mind, (pp. 277-292).Cambridge University Press.

338
Wilde M.E, & Sage S. (2007). Developing Communicative Competence and
Narrative Thinking of Four and Five Year Olds in Educational Settings. Early Child
Development and Care, 177(6/7), 679–693.

Wolf, S. A. (2008) The Mysteries of Creative Partnerships Journal of Teacher

Education. 59(1), 89-102.

Woolf, A. M. (2012). Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning: Teaching and

Learning or Playing and Becoming? Pastoral Care in Education, 31(1), 28-42.

Wray, D. (2006) ‘Poor Mr Rose!’, in M. Lewis and S. Ellis (Eds.) Phonics: Practice
Research and Policy, (pp. 113–28). London: Paul Chapman Publishing/UKLA.

Wyse, D., & Goswami, U. (2008). Synthetic Phonics and the Teaching of Reading.
British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 691-710.

Wyse, D., & Styles, M. (2007). Synthetic Phonics and the Teaching of Reading: The
Debate Surrounding England's ‘Rose Report’. Literacy, 41(1), 35-42.

Wyse, D., & Torrance, H. (2009). The Development and Consequences of National
Curriculum Assessment for Primary Education in England. Educational Research,
15(2), 213-228.

Young, M. F. D. (1971). An approach to the Study of Curricula as Socially Organised

Knowledge, in M. F. D. Young (Ed.) Knowledge and Control. West Drayton:
Macmillan.

339