Kieran Egan's take is to teach according to elements from stories (mostly fairy tales), which means focus on an important topic, turn it into a binary issue, find what is most dramatic, present the contents that best articulates the problem, and resolve it. He juxtaposes his ideas to both Dewey and Piaget and shuns teaching simplified content.

However, I have some issues with his views. I think children will get a wrong impression on how the world works what taught in this way (it is not binary). Though it simplifies topics and perhaps engages pupils more, it gets into obvious issues. If you take good/bad or civilized/barbarism, what is good? What is civilized? Egan uses an example of the Vikings. Vikings were barbarians who eventually were converted into the Christian civilized world. This oversimplification is biased and a binary take will not present a good lesson.

I think what we can take from this is that children love to explore: to explore stories and to explore information to be turned into knowledge. We should not hold back in presenting them challenges and guide them on their journey. The goal for each lesson should be clear, the material engaging, and the ending fulfilling.

So, Egan's essay helped me a bit more to explore the structure of story as a mould for lessons, but Egan's take is somewhat problematic.

Soms draaft de auteur een beetje door (zegt hij zelf ook in zijn slotwoord), soms ook wat veel herhaling, maar... in de basis een boek vol goede ideeën.

I didn’t need any convincing that stories work well as educational tools. But this background in story form as a model for lesson planning and curriculum design offers some great new insights.
A little argumentative and polemic at times, Egan offers some great ideas for teachers and storytellers. Is there even a difference between them?