Laura Burnett - The Impact of Oracy on Writing

The teaching of English covers a plethora of topics and skills that are inextricably linked to communication. Whether students are tasked with writing an analytical paragraph on the presence of deceit in Macbeth, a persuasive letter on an inspirational figure or a short story, students ultimately need to be able to coherently deliver quite complex ideas in writing and communicate these with confidence. A retrospective glance at the purpose and aims of English from the national curriculum, reaffirms the importance of communication in the subject:

‘we must teach pupils to speak and write fluently so that they can communicate their ideas and emotions to others, and through and their reading and listening, others can communicate with them.’ (DfE, 2014)

So often in my teaching practice, I see that pupils’ ability to ‘communicate’ with others is somewhat hindered and restricted by confidence. A student feels they know what to say, but cannot say it for fear of being incorrect or because they simply lack the vocabulary to express themselves. As discussed in Dialogic Teaching (Alexander, 2008) exercises for talk form an essential part of ‘empowering students for lifelong learning and democratic engagement’- a process by which confidence is grown in a ‘collaborative and supportive’ way. Over the course of this year, I have positioned oracy and purposeful talk in the classroom at the forefront of my practice in a bid to help students avoid becoming ‘disenfranchised’ (DfE, 2014) by an inability to speak and write ‘fluently and confidently.’ Opening up the classroom as a ‘safe space’ with myself as an ‘orchestrator’ of discussion (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.76). As research and findings from School 21 has shown, schools which place oracy at the ‘heart of its provision’ find that pupils ‘reach standards in the top of all schools nationally, at primary and secondary’ with particular benefits for those from ‘disadvantaged backgrounds.’ (Myatt, 2020, p.147). The benefits of planned and strategic discussion for analytical reading and writing have been clear, but this is something I often neglect when it comes to preparing students for creative writing tasks. To what extent can verbal discussion and communication develop students’ confidence in approaching imaginative writing? Underpinned by the research and resources from School 21, I will explore this idea and refer largely to Back on Track, Fewer things, greater depth and The Reader in the Writer (aimed largely at key stage 2 learners, but with some highly transferable findings for the secondary environment) to consider the purpose of ‘high quality talk’ (Myatt, 2020, p.147) in the imaginative process. Mary Myatt’s Back on Track takes a post-pandemic look at the education sector, posing the idea of doing fewer things really well. Myatt refers to oracy and the importance of stories and story-telling throughout the text, asserting that ‘high quality talk, and its twin, listening, underpins reading and writing’ (Myatt, 2020, p.147). In approaching more creative tasks, I often notice that students, across year groups, approach imaginative writing with an immense amount of enthusiasm. It is hard to quantify exactly why this is the case. Perhaps students enjoy the flexibility the process of creative writing provides and the chance to exude a sense of their own personality in their work. As Myatt suggests, perhaps because it is ‘enjoyable […] it doesn’t feel like work’ (Myatt, 2020, p.64). It is always exciting to see students relishing the creative process and I frequently encourage pupils to bring their own personal experiences and worlds to their writing, whether it may be gaming, a hobby or a personal story of their own. As Myatt suggests, ‘we need to be fed. We cannot create something out of nothing. We need stimuli. We need ideas…the idea that everything needs to spring from inside us, without food or nourishment, does not hold true.’ (Myatt, 2020, p.61). As with analytical writing, I often provide students with loose writing frames and vocabulary mats containing keywords to help students write with ambitious vocabulary and develop their use of semantic fields. However, this can be a prescriptive approach and isolates students from their own individual imaginations – limiting ‘children’s confidence in taking control of the writing’ (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.76). Students, particularly in key stage 3, often say ‘can I change this so that...? Is it okay if I write it like this…? Do I have to use these words in my writing…?’ Students want to write, but wish to use their imaginations and inspirations to guide them. This is their response and I realise that I do not often gives students enough time to discuss their imaginative ideas with the ‘nourishment’ they need. Myatt proposes that ‘it is through talk that our ideas become concrete’ (Myatt, 2020, p.147) and that by allowing students the chance to communicate their ideas, they will

ultimately write with fuller and more developed ideas. I have seen the benefits of this practice already in my teaching. In preparing year 11 students for a creation of a pre-planned story for their Language Paper 1 response, I reminded students of the process of speaking and listening before dividing students into small groups to discuss potential narrative ideas. I gave students a discussion frame and a planning sheet on which to ‘jot’ down ideas. This is a beneficial process as students ‘often need to rehearse thoughts out loud before committing them to paper’ (Myatt, 2020, P.51). It was fascinating to watch students engage in this process; I realised that not only do students have a wealth of material to gather inspiration from in their ‘life worlds’ (Husserl, 1936) but also that their sense of imagination is palpable. Myatt goes on to express that ‘it is through talk that we can tell whether [our ideas] make sense or not, and we can refine them in the light of others’ responses’ (Myatt, 2020, p.147). Reflecting on Myatt’s comments in tandem with my work with other year groups, it is interesting how often I confer with colleagues on my own planning for lessons and resources, yet I rarely give students such substantial time to discuss ideas with their peers before an imaginative writing task – particularly in key stage 3. When I engage students in a ‘talk for writing’ activity, it is often only for 5 minutes or less. As Earnshaw asserts, ‘classroom talk’ should be an ‘integral part of teaching and learning’ rather than an ‘unstructured break in a lesson’ (Earnshaw, 2016). The creative or artistic process is so often a collaborative experience, fuelled by inspiration and feedback from other sources. So why not give all students this opportunity for a more holistic insight into the creative process?

To help students avoid producing ‘impoverished’ written work (Myatt, 2020, p.51), Barrs and Cork suggest that an ‘in depth discussion’ of a class model, followed by substantial time in which paired discussion for writing can occur, seems to be of huge benefit (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.77). In their important study into childrens’ literacy at key stage 2, Barrs and Cork explore the indissoluble connection between communication, reading and writing. A number of teachers were interviewed and observed on their literacy approaches, of which oracy was a fundamental component. In the study, some teachers ‘emphasised planning and talking before writing, and re-drafting and publishing of final drafts. In these classrooms, children generally began writing on their own and then worked with a partner or the teacher to edit their work when it was finished.’ (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.79). From initial experience I have had in my own teaching, allowing students time to have exploratory talk amongst themselves, ‘giving space’ to communicate about their ideas (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.78) without my overt presence, can be beneficial. In the study, some of the most successful writing in the project came about after a particularly involving discussion when children had generated plenty of initial ideas for writing. Once the students had the confidence in their opinions to write, they wrote ‘readily’ and their ‘first drafts showed how absorbed they had been in the fictional world’ (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.78). This supports Myatt’s idea that the ‘building blocks’ of discussion lead to ‘high-quality writing over time’ (Myatt, 2020, p.147).

Interesting, teacher intervention does not seem to occur until the end of the process. I immediately consider the impact of this on the work produced – are the story ideas developed? Does the student follow any particular structure? What about spelling, punctuation and grammar? Later, the study finds that ‘teacher intervention between children’s drafts’ appeared to be most effective encouraging them to develop their texts. It seemed to ‘provide children with an audience and the kind of immediate feedback which encouraged them to take their ideas further’ (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.79). This appears to show, therefore, the importance of thorough discussion at the beginning of the imaginative process – the teacher orchestrates a ‘general discussion about the text’ to help children understand the content’ to subsequently help them make ‘connections with their own worlds and experiences’ (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.72) and write with ‘more understanding and knowledge, from inside the story world’ (Barrs and Cork, 2002, p.73). This seems to place students more holistically as writers, gathering inspiration and using this to write before the editing process begins. As the teacher provides feedback between drafts, students are able to harness their own sense of creativity with confidence before constructive ‘notes’ from the teacher. Looking forward to the next academic year, I intend to utilise oracy strategies more frequently as the benefits stretch far beyond enabling students to produce an interesting and compelling piece of imaginative writing. Talk is an ‘entitlement for every pupil’ and ‘having one’s voice heard is at the root of confidence’ (Myatt, 233

2020, p. 148). This confidence and knowledge that their ‘ideas matter’ (Myatt, 2020, p.148) is a fundamental element of success in the classroom and I hope to encourage students to see imaginative responses not merely as lesson or exam tasks, but as creative ventures where they can express their voices, with confidence.

Bi b l i o g r a p h y

Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk Cambridge: Dialogos

Barrs, M., V, Cork. (2002). The Reader in the Writer London: Centre for Language in Primary Education

Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England: Key Stages 3 and 4 framework document. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-englandsecondary-curriculum

Earnshaw, B. (2016). English-Speaking Union and Voice 21. Speaking Frankly: the case for oracy in the curriculum English-Speaking Union, https://tinyurl.com/y4bqj596

Myatt, M. (2020). Back on Track: Fewer things, greater depth Woodbridge: John Catt Educational Ltd