Researchers agree about the importance of social and group work skills as a necessary foundation for effective group learning. In fact, the attitudes and behaviours required in small group work are very different from what is usually required of students in
conventional teacher-directed whole-class activities or in individual work and just
'aggregating' children by giving them a collective goal will not necessarily transform them into a cohesive and functional group. For this reason, developers of cooperative learning models suggest using team-building and skill-building activities in order to raise students' awareness of the mechanisms implied in group dynamics and to practice the necessary interpersonal and collaborative skills in coping with the challenges of group work
(Johnson and Johnson, 1987). These include: actively listening to each other, taking turns, acknowledging the other person's perspective, stating ideas freely and clearly, clarifying differences of opinion, providing constructive feedback, resolving problems or conflicts amicably and democratically, accepting responsibility for one's own behaviours, sharing tasks and resources equitably among group members, encouraging everyone to contribute to the group effort, promoting each other's learning, giving help to and seeking help from other group members, and monitoring and evaluating the group's progress (Gillies, 2003; Gillies & Ashman, 1998).
A relevant strand of research that points to the importance of developing group working skills is the SPRinG project (Social Pedagogic Research into Groupwork), aimed at improving the effectiveness of pupil groups in classrooms (Blatchford, Galton, Kutnick, & Baines, 2005, 2008). This ambitious, longitudinal project involved a wide number of classes in the UK from Key Stage 1 to 3 and was based on a 'relational approach'
intended to develop in children the set of social, emotional, and cognitive abilities that are foundational to engaging in collaborative interactions. As Blatchford, Baines, Rubie- Davies, Bassett, & Chowne (2006) claim, this approach effectively promoted more active, sustained involvement in group activities, more connectedness within the group, and more higher-order inferential forms of reasoning. Such relational activities proved helpful in enhancing the effectiveness of group work also with 5-7-year-old children, in terms of increased attainment in literacy and mathematics, motivation to work in groups, and quality of peer interactions (Kutnick, Ota, & Berdondini, 2008).
Another body of research which is relevant to the theme of preparing children to group work is the use of Exploratory Talk and the training of primary school pupil's joint critical reasoning skills through the Thinking Together approach (Dawes, Mercer, & Wegerif, 2004; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). Based on observational research in primary schools, Mercer (1996) distinguished three types of talk, disputational talk, characterised by an individualistic, competitive attitude resulting in unsupported assertions or counter-assertions; cumulative talk, characterised by a
complaisant attitude towards the group, resulting in positive, though uncritical
confirmations of what others have said; and exploratory talk, in which a critical attitude allows children to challenge each other's suggestions by providing reasons and
justifications. 'Ground rules' for Exploratory talk can be established through discussion in the group, such as: all relevant knowledge is shared; each group member is encouraged to actively take part in the group's discussion; constructive challenges and alternative ideas are accepted, but must be supported by reasons; an agreement is sought; and the
group as such is responsible for the decisions taken. Numerous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of this approach in helping children collaborate on problem-solving tasks (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003), improve their individual reasoning skills (Wegerif et al., 1999), and develop a more cooperative and inclusive attitude towards disadvantaged categories of pupils (Wegerif, Littleton, Dawes, Mercer, & Rowe, 2004). Further characterisations of productive talk have later on been put forward, for example 'co-constructive talk' (Rojas-Drummond, Mazón, Fernández, & Wegerif, 2006) which denotes the more inclusive style of group verbal coordination necessary to tackle open- ended and creative tasks. Indeed, in the more recent developments of this line of research, Wegerif (2011) critically acknowledges the necessity to understand thinking and talk not only in terms of explicit reasoning and argumentation in the context of convergent tasks, but also as the identification with dialogue itself, i.e. the fact that the learner is able to adopt the perspective of another in a dialogue. Thus, a wider 'dialogical model of reason' appears to be crucial to fostering productive interactions. "[I]n essence a dialogic approach to teaching for thinking and creativity is summed up by encouraging children to be open and to ask questions" (Wegerif, 2010, p.12). Dialogue is here not just a means, but an end in itself. Such an approach values Playful talk – i.e. imaginatively and playfully producing ideas in the exchange with a partner, and mutually triggering each other's thoughts – as the necessary foundation stage for deeper reflection and creative thinking.
A definition of 'productive talk', i.e. verbal exchange that is conducive to goal
achievement, is inevitably task dependent, as different kinds of talk serve different goals. Vass (2007; Vass et al., 2008), for example, has highlighted the role of emotion-based interactions in children's collaboration on creative writing. Baker-Sennett, J., Matusov, E. & Rogoff, B. (1992) investigated the interaction processes of creative planning by a group of six 7-9-year-old girls who developed a play almost independently of adult direction. They employed different strategies for planning in advance and planning during action, coordinating their efforts, jointly taking decisions, overcoming moments of confusion or misunderstanding, anchoring the process by devising a written plan, and managing both social relationships (including conflicts) and the cognitive challenges implied by the task. This study is particularly significant for the present one in that it represents an
outstanding (and exceptionally mature) model of children's creative collaboration and at the same time it provides a clear example of applied sociocultural methodology.
With regard to the present study – in which talk plays a secondary role as an aid to but not as the essence of musical interactions – the notion of 'dialogue' appears to be the
central contribution of the body research on Exploratory talk: musical interactions as a dialogue, music teaching and learning as a dialogue among children, teachers, and musical ideas and tools, and creative music making in group as a form of multi-modal dialogue. The issue of 'talk', at any rate, concerns important parts of the music classroom activity (see also Glover & Young, 1999, and Young & Glover, 1998, about how language can be used in the musical context as a tool for understanding): how verbal information is handed over and understood, how a vocabulary of labels and concepts connected to experiences emerge over time, how ideas are proposed and negotiated during group work, how children's comments and overall thinking are elicited, and especially in what ways verbal communication is interwoven with nonverbal and musical communication.