Key points:
A shadow teacher follows Ezekiel, an intermediate multilingual learner, through his school day.
In science, the lesson is structured around talk. Ezekiel discusses ideas with a partner, uses key vocabulary and sentence stems provided by the teacher to explain his thinking, and builds on what others say. When he shares with the class, his sentences are not perfect, but his thinking is clear, and it grows stronger as he speaks.
Later, in history, the pattern shifts. The teacher explains, questions, and evaluates. Ezekiel listens carefully, but speaks only once, offering a short response. His understanding remains largely unspoken.
By the end of the day, one thing is clear: Ezekiel’s ability to learn did not change. The opportunities he was given to use language did.
From practice to theory: The oracy framework
This contrast is not incidental; it is a vivid illustration of the dialogic gap. For multilingual learners, language is not just a subject to be learned–it is the very medium through which they access the curriculum. When we look at the work of researchers like Robin Alexander and Neil Mercer, we see that Ezekiel’s science experience was not simply a “good lesson,” it was an example of high-leverage oracy in action.
Alexander’s framework for dialogic teaching suggests that classroom talk must be:
- Collective: Teachers and students address learning tasks together
- Reciprocal: Participants listen to each other and share ideas
- Cumulative: Participants build on their own and each other’s contributions
In the science classroom, Ezekiel was part of a cumulative exchange, one in which ideas were developed through interaction. Mercer describes this process as interthinking: the use of talk to think together, where understanding is constructed socially rather than individually.
In history, by contrast, Ezekiel was positioned primarily as a recipient of information. For a student still mastering English, the difference between these two environments is not simply participation–it is the difference between having access to thinking, or being excluded from it.
This perspective is not theoretical alone; it is already reflected in the frameworks that guide classroom practice. This aligns closely with major US frameworks such as the WIDA Standards Framework and the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS), both of which emphasize interaction, meaning-making, and academic language use. Yet in practice, these frameworks are often implemented with a stronger focus on reading and writing than on sustained classroom talk.
The issue is not that oracy is absent from policy. It is that it is not consistently enacted in practice.
In many schools, speaking is assessed through tools such as the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs and other oral proficiency measures. But assessment alone does not develop language. Assessment provides a snapshot. Oracy provides growth.
When talk is limited to occasional responses or isolated testing moments, students have few opportunities to develop fluency, refine ideas, or engage in meaningful interaction. When it is embedded daily, language development becomes continuous, visible, and cumulative.
The implications extend far beyond school. In professional life, success depends not only on what individuals know, but on how effectively they can communicate it. The National Association of Colleges and Employers identifies oral communication as a key competency for collaboration, problem-solving, and leadership. Across fields–from science to engineering to public life–those who can articulate ideas clearly are better positioned to influence outcomes.
For multilingual learners, this is ultimately an issue of equity. If students are not given structured opportunities to speak, they may develop understanding without the ability to express it. Their ideas remain unheard, and their potential may not fully translate into real-world contexts.
Embedding oracy changes the dynamic.
It enables learners not only to acquire knowledge, but to express, defend, and shape that knowledge through language. It transforms classrooms from places where students respond into places where they think out loud, build ideas collaboratively, and participate fully.
Oracy is not an optional add-on. It is the mechanism through which language and learning develops.
If multilingual learners are not speaking, they are not fully learning.
3 ways to increase student talk tomorrow
- Use “Defend the Answer”
After any response, require students to justify their thinking:
“Why does that work?” “What evidence supports your idea?”
This shifts talk from answer-giving to reasoning. - Build structured academic dialogue
Teach students how to respond to each other, not just the teacher:
“I agree with ___ because…”
“I’d like to challenge that idea…”
Talk becomes cumulative, not isolated. - Make thinking visible through talk rehearsal
Before writing, require students to verbally explain their ideas to a peer using key vocabulary.
This strengthens language, clarifies thinking, and improves written outcomes.
The challenge for schools is not whether to include oracy, but whether to prioritise it.
The frameworks are already in place. The research is clear. The need–particularly for multilingual learners–is undeniable. What remains is the shift from recognizing the importance of talk to designing for it, every day, in every classroom.
When oracy is embedded, classrooms change. Students move from answering to reasoning, from participation to contribution, and from silence to voice.
Because education is not only about what students know, but whether they can use that knowledge, communicate it, and act on it in the world. Oracy is what makes that possible.
