Oracy - haven’t we always done this?

Lucy Powell’s recent announcement on oracy in England has generated a lot of reaction on social media, largely positive, as far as I can tell. In general terms, the idea is that speaking (and listening)) should be given greater prominence across the curriculum, alongside reading and writing. Pupils should learn not just to express themselves clearly, but to listen attentively, respond thoughtfully, explain ideas and participate effectively in discussions. 

For modern language teachers, the initial reaction might understandably be: Haven’t we always done this?After all, speaking has been central to language teaching for decades. Think of all those question-and-answer exchanges, spoken drills, presentations, dialogues, role plays, information-gap tasks, surveys, interviews and discussions. Language teachers have a long tradition of modelling spoken language, providing scaffolding, encouraging hesitant pupils and gradually developing fluency through practice. 

But we ought to make a distinction between speaking and oracy. Speaking is just about producing spoken language, whereas oracy refers to the broader set of skills, knowledge and understanding needed to communicate effectively through speaking and listening. It includes the ability to explain ideas, listen attentively, respond appropriately, ask questions, negotiate meaning and adapt language to different audiences and purposes. Speaking is therefore an essential component of oracy, but the two are not synonymous.

That said, we certainly have something to contribute to the wider discussion about oracy, but it would be too complacent to assume that, because we do plenty of speaking, we necessarily develop all the skills associated with effective spoken communication.

Consider a familiar classroom exchange. You ask a pupil what they did last weekend. The pupil responds with a perfectly acceptable sentence in French and you may follow up with another question. You praise the answer and move on to another pupil. Or you get pairs to ask each other the same question and insist that answers contain at least four sentences. All this is useful language practice, involving comprehension, retrieval and production. But this does not really develop the pupil’s ability to engage in conversation.

In contrast, following the Task-Based or Communicative approach, imagine two pupils planning a weekend in Paris. They’re given different preferences and a limited budget. They must suggest activities, explain their choices, agree and disagree, ask questions and eventually reach a decision. Here, through the information gap principle, speaking serves a more genuine communicative purpose. Pupils have to listen carefully and respond to what their partner actually says.

So the distinction here is between producing spoken language and using language to interact meaningfully. Both have a place in a well-planned curriculum, although some might argue all speaking should have that genuinely meaningful purpose. (I wouldn’t go that far myself.)

The emphasis on oracy might, therefore, encourage us to pay more attention to what is sometimes called interactional competence. Do we explicitly teach pupils how to initiate conversations, show interest, ask follow-up questions, seek clarification, repair misunderstandings and keep an exchange going? Do we give them sufficient opportunities to practise these skills, rather than simply answer questions or deliver rehearsed statements?

Let’s not forget the crucial role of listening in oracy. We sometimes judge the success of a speaking activity mainly by what pupils manage to say. Yet effective conversation depends just as much on understanding and responding to others. Tasks which require pupils to summarise a partner’s views, react to unexpected answers or reach a shared decision can bring listening and speaking together more effectively. The term interpersonal listening is sometimes used to describe this two-way communication.

Of course, we need to be a bit careful here. Beginners cannot engage in sophisticated discussion simply because we ask them to. They need vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation skills and plenty of supported practice. Repetition, modelling, sentence-level work and rehearsed exchanges remain essential. 

There’s also something distinctive about learning to communicate in another language. Pupils become more consciously aware of how conversations work, how meaning is negotiated and how conventions vary between languages and cultures. This is potentially a valuable contribution to their wider education.

Nor should we assume that oracy is only about conversation. Presentations, storytelling, explanations and expressing opinions can all contribute to its development, provided we pay attention to the communicative skills involved. Equally, an interactive task does not automatically develop oracy simply because pupils are talking to each other. Some info gap tasks are so tightly structured that they barely meet the criteria for real communication - think of Battleships or classroom surveys.

So perhaps the new emphasis on oracy offers MFL departments both an opportunity and a challenge. We can share our considerable expertise in developing spoken language, while reflecting on whether our own classroom practice always gives enough attention to effective communication.

A department discussion?

I can imagine a whole-school discussion on oracy taking place, with each department invited to contribute their ideas. Rather than saying “We do oracy already”, below are some discussion points you might consider.

Five questions for departmental discussion

1. What is the difference between speaking and oracy in the languages classroom?

Are we simply teaching pupils to produce accurate sentences, or are we also developing their ability to listen actively, respond appropriately, explain ideas, negotiate meaning and sustain conversations? How well do our current activities address these wider skills?

2. How much genuine interaction takes place in our lessons?

To what extent do pupils engage in meaningful exchanges rather than rehearsed dialogues, question-answer routines or tightly controlled speaking exercises? Could we create more opportunities for information gaps, decision-making, problem-solving and spontaneous interaction?

3. How can we scaffold oracy for learners with limited linguistic resources?

Particularly at KS3, how can we balance the need for repetition, modelling and structured practice with opportunities for authentic communication? How can we gradually move pupils from supported exchanges towards greater independence? Or should we accept that novices will only have a diet of tightly controlled language and tasks?

4. How explicitly do we teach conversational skills?

Do we teach pupils how to ask follow-up questions, seek clarification, show interest, take turns, agree and disagree, and repair misunderstandings? Could we establish a progression in these skills from Year 7 to Year 11, supported by useful conversational language?

5. How can we recognise and assess progress in oracy without creating excessive workload?

What would successful oracy look and sound like at different stages? Should we look beyond grammatical accuracy, pronunciation and fluency to include responsiveness, active listening, interaction and the ability to develop ideas? How might we use formative assessment and feedback to encourage these qualities?

Possible concluding task: Ask each teacher to identify one existing speaking activity that could be adapted to develop oracy more deliberately. Share the adaptations at the next meeting, along with observations about pupil participation and the quality of interaction.

The central question for the department might be: Are we teaching pupils merely to say things in another language, or helping them learn to communicate with other people through that language?