Issuu

Studium Journal of Teaching and Learning

The power of talk

Harkness discussions | Live modelling Talking Roles and Oracy aims | Structured discussion

Issue 1 / Lent 2026

Welcome

Mr James Barker | Head Master, Warwick School

Education should inspire and nurture young people to thrive and have a positive impact on the world, both now and in the future. At Warwick School we are proud of our long history and traditions, yet we are equally conscious that our pupils inhabit a world shaped by rapid, unpredictable change. In this landscape, the traditional model of education, centred solely on knowledge and fixed skills, is no longer sufficient to prepare pupils to live happy, fulfilled adult lives. To prepare young people to flourish in this environment schools must continue to innovate, and that innovation must be informed by rigorous, reflective research. This, first edition of Studium, Warwick Schools’s own journal of teaching and learning is the embodiment of our shared vision for education, The Warwick Way, an education committed to character, belonging, well-being and intellectual curiosity. Providing positive role models is one of the most powerful things we do as teachers, and modelling what it means to be life-long learners sends an important message to our pupils: that we are learning alongside them, questioning, refining and improving our practice with the same intellectual humility we strive to cultivate in them. It is fitting that that this inaugural issue focuses on oracy. Throughout the projects runs a common thread: that discussion, when taught with intention, becomes a tool for thinking, a scaffold for writing and a catalyst for character development. These inquiries show that evidence-informed practice is not an abstract ideal, but a lived reality at Warwick School. Our teachers are embracing the challenge of change, adapting their pedagogy, and pursuing questions that matter, not just to them but to the students they teach. As we launch Studium, I invite every colleague to join this collective endeavour. Let us continue to question, explore and innovate: to share our findings generously; and to model the spirit of curiosity, humility and courage we seek to instil in our pupils. In so doing, we fulfil our vision: to inspire and nurture every pupil to thrive, now and in the future. The Warwick Way.

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Introduction

“When the research speaks, teachers and leaders should listen.”

Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

Welcome to our first edition of Studium, our Teaching and Learning Journal at Warwick School. I am excited to introduce, and have had the pleasure of developing, a new place for us to share and celebrate just some of the meaningful work that has taken place over the academic year. We teach in times of change and uncertainty. Not only for our students but for us as a profession. Societal changes pave the way for different generations of learners that have defining qualities. Presently, we teach a generation who have likely been immersed in digital technology from birth. Their increasing reliance on AI is causing a change to their ‘wiring’; their attention spans are shortening and there is a need for instant feedback and multitasking. This change is causing our profession to adapt as we respond to this ever-changing digital age. Even our learners are ‘at odds’ with the introduction of AI, which has almost instantaneous become a new ‘normal’ way of working. A report on the use of AI in UK schools, commissioned by Oxford University Press (OUP), found that just 2% of students aged between 13 and 18 said they did not use AI for their schoolwork,

Evidence-informed paractice

Best available evidence from research

Context - system, setting, group, individual Evidenceinformed practice

Teacher experience, expertise and professional judgement

04 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

while 80% said they regularly used it. But interestingly, despite AI’s popularity, 62% of the students said it has had a negative impact on their skills and development at school. Alex Quinn writes of the power of Oracy in the digital age which perfectly sets the tone for the theme of our first edition, an increasingly crucial skill for our learners today. Kim Wyatt’s enthusiasm for a Harkness discussion, discussed in her article, inspired our department to use one to consolidate our reading week last year. An activity which exemplifies the opportunity for live speech, language and communication. When surveyed, the vast majority of our L6 psychologists reported this activity as one the most interesting activities of the year. We know that our fundamental role as teachers is to adapt to the learners in front of us, we must be creative and refine our skills. Taking control of our professional development enables us to investigate the most impactful way we can become adaptive. It encourages us to be as fluid as the changing landscape our learners live in. Interestingly, Alex Town’s research project discusses how direct instruction supports confident learners, but the guided discussion and dialogic teaching can help to ‘scaffold weaker students in evaluating ideas in language study independently’. His project shows how our teaching decisions impact leaners differently, within the same classroom and content. With our learners needs ever-changing, we must see our teaching and learning approaches just as changeable. Bianca Francis’ article found that live modelling was more effective for developing essay-writing skills than a writing framework across her cohort, but the impact on SEND students’ needs further investigation to increase the impact for them. An investigation I know she is already looking into to make further changes to improve the experience for all students. Evidence-informed approach A key aspect of research in education is how well it can be applied to our setting. There are societal changes and phenomenon that affect us all, Post pandemic learning gaps, the impact of smartphones and social media, the introduction of AI. But there are elements uniquely relevant to our learners here, at Warwick School, that make us experts in the process. An evidence-informed approach requires us to use the information gained from our setting

and learners in conjunction with research we deem appropriate and effective. But importantly, we must combine this with our own professional judgement and experience and of those around us. There is a wealth of enthusiasm and passion that exists here. You only need to grab a pastry and a chat at our Teaching and Learning Committee to attest to that. When the research, experience and context come together, we develop impactful strategies, investigating anything from character to achievement (and the impact they have on each other). We are operating within a paradigm shift. There is a growing emphasis on research in our schools, this shift towards a research rich culture has been driven by a recognition of the potential benefits to not only learners but ourselves as a profession (EEF, 2024). Taking an evidence-informed approach may be rooted in the desire for increased attainment for all learners, but the opportunities are multifaceted. We can take control of our own professional development by engaging in research that motivates us as individuals and uses our expert judgement and knowledge of our learners and setting. It is empowering and enhances our wellbeing. It has the power to increase confidence and metacognition. It can reduce workload and increase job satisfaction (Greany & Brown, 2020). Evidence-informed discourse enables us to strive for high impactlow effort strategies which can improve our wellbeing as well as our learners’ experience. We can reflect on our strategies, assess the impact and effort and ask ourselves how we can get the balance right. Part of my project included a simple ‘oracy based aim’ tagged onto an existing activity, to investigate a ‘quick win’ strategy. This has improved extended writing outcomes, and metacognition when writing. I am seeing improvement as they move through Upper Sixth that reaches beyond the impact measured at the point of submission of my research. We do not need to conduct big research projects to be evidence informed. There are many ways to be evidence informed. Including metacognition strategies, discussing research articles, action research cycles and project work. It is a culture shift which is tailored to you and your learners, our setting and in your subject. To demonstrate how we can use metacognition, think about a lesson you have coming up, or one you taught recently and ask yourself the questions. • If you would like a challenge and you want to develop deeper professional inquiry • How might structural or contextual factors (curriculum, culture, equity, time) shape my teaching decisions?

Before the lesson What do I want my students to understand, not just do, by the end of this lesson? (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016 – focus on surface, deep, and transfer learning) During the lesson What evidence am I seeing right now that learning is (or isn’t) happening? (Black & Wiliam, 1998 – formative assessment) After the lesson What aspects of the activity most effectively supported learning — and how do I know? (Brookfield, 1995 – critical reflection on assumptions)

To conclude Although we teach in times of change and uncertainty. We can take control over our development and wellbeing. We have the capacity to investigate new possibilities and ask ourselves questions. We can make adaptations to enable our learners to achieve their potential. This issue of Studium showcases just some of the work our teachers undertake every day at school. In this changing world, our work matters more than ever. We owe it, not only to our learners, but ourselves to embrace that.

References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.* https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Education Endowment Foundation. (2024). Engaging with evidence: A survey of teachers and school leaders. https:// educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/moreresources-and-support/using-research-evidence/engaging-withevidence Greany, T., & Brown, C. (2020). The evidence-informed school system in England: Where should school leaders be focusing their efforts? Educational Research, 62(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881 .2020.1738618 Hattie, J., & Donoghue, G. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 16013. https://doi. org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13 Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451 Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Oxford University Press. (2025). Teaching the AI-Native Generation: Insights into AI use by students aged 13-18 in the UK.

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

The Power of Oracy in a Digital Age Alex Quinn | Assistant Head Teaching and Learning | English Teacher

I believe that it is no mere coincidence that our Teacher Researchers all, independently, decided on investigating the impact of an oracy driven approach to improve written outcomes. Had they created an echo chamber in their discussion meetings? I suspect the answer is less ominous and more a testament to both their willingness to keep up to date with educational research and their adaptability in a changing educational landscape. Technological advances will certainly change education but, as we all know, significant change in education is incredibly slow. How different is a classroom in 2025 to one in 1995 or even 1885? The tools have changed but the fundamentals remain the same: An older more educated person imparts their knowledge and wisdom to young minds. The young minds absorb some of it, depending on their attitude and the level of charisma and patience of the educator. We therefore face a dilemma as teachers. Systems change slowly but the world our young people inhabit is changing faster than ever before. And we, as teachers, might also find it challenging to embrace change.

been in a situation where a particularly articulate person seems to assert their viewpoint more effectively, regardless of the veracity of their claims. It is a pupil’s ability to evaluate and discuss material, ask challenging questions and demonstrate a willingness to change his mind that will enable him to thrive in the digital world.

Our Teacher Researchers instinctively know that, in a world where we are increasingly dependent on technology; victims of algorithms and both users and guinea pigs of generative AI, the one thing our pupils must retain is their ability to think critically and independently. They must evaluate the credibility of the information in front of them. They need to be able to think for themselves. Through discussion and challenge and questioning, they will grapple with complex concepts and clarify their own beliefs and views. With language comes power. We have all

A focus on developing oracy is crucial to developing our young people, ensuring they have the skills to thrive and also to experience the sheer joy of academic discussion and debate. Happily, it also appears to be an effective means of improving written outcomes too!

Jobs that will survive developments in AI are those requiring the skills that make us human. The ability to empathise; to persuade and to listen has never been more important. I believe that our Teacher Researchers have all chosen to develop the oracy skills of the pupils because they know that is the greatest skill they can develop in young people. Of course, oracy for learning means far more than just talking. It is talking but it means being equipped with the vocabulary and confidence around language to articulate concepts clearly and precisely. It is having the confidence to ask questions and to assert an opinion. It means referencing research and studies to support ideas and, perhaps most crucially of all, being willing and able to listen.

"In a world where we are increasingly dependent on technology; victims of algorithms and both users and guinea pigs of generative AI, the one thing our pupils must retain is their ability to think critically and independently.

06 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Harkness: Is it just a round table? Kim Wyatt | Senior Deputy Head | English Teacher

I remember reading about ‘The Harkness’ method in ‘The Times’ during the Anthony Seldon days at Wellington and dismissed it as a publicity stunt. From what I could tell, it was just sitting around a round table and having a discussion which didn’t feel that dissimilar to how I ran my L6th lessons anyway. I couldn’t believe that this was being touted as something ‘new’ that Wellington were trying. However, after a chat with Mr O’Brien at T and L committee, I realised that there was more to it. Although the table is important and the ‘chatting’ is important and, indeed, it isn’t new but was developed in the 1930s in America at the Phillips Exeter Academy with money from the philanthropist Edward Harkness: it is a way of giving feedback to pupils on how they communicate. What’s good about it? Well for one thing there are rules that you have to give to the student in advance. My favourite one is in bold below: Harkness “Rules” • Listen actively i.e. no slouching, avoid fidgeting, be open • Speak professionally; disagree professionally • Don’t talk over someone • You must give everyone the chance to speak • Only speak when you have read the text and done the prep • Avoid off task conversations • Don’t make anyone feel left out • Mistakes are ok. Take risks. Be respectful. A big issue with my subject is how boys like to speak even when they’ve barely skimmed the text, let alone read the whole novel. I really like the way that they have to agree to respect the process by doing the work. Why is the round table needed? I love that sketch by Armstrong and Miller about ‘The Legend of King Arthur’. King Arthur declares that the new round table idea will encourage equality and respect. No longer will there be a hierarchy. In the sketch everyone nods approvingly and then it shows them sitting down on tiny chairs whilst King Arthur sits on a throne.

08 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

I often think teaching is like this. We claim that we want them to speak freely, challenge your ideas and be independent and yet we set up the classrooms so that they are all facing us while we declaim our thoughts. Of course, there is a place for this, but it’s lovely that we now have two dedicated spaces at the school where the pupils can go and where it feels more democratic! So what does the teacher do? The teacher sets up the reading material or challenge and perhaps writes on the board three key areas that you want them to discuss. Then crucially the teacher sits away from the table to ensure that they are talking and listening to each other. I have a particularly chatty Sixth form group who have chosen themselves to throw a ball around, which works like the conch in ‘Lord of the Flies’. I’ve not needed this with other groups but they find it works for them. So do you just sit there? No. You have an important task to record the interactions between them. I choose two things I want to check that they are doing- for example, using quotations from the text and referencing critics and I give myself a code (it could be a Q and a C). I then draw a diagram of the table with their names around it and I draw a line to indicate they have spoken and then I write a Q and a C next to their names the number of times that they show these skills. I don’t then interfere in the discussion other than if they say something wrong and no one picks up on it OR if I think they have digressed too much and then I might pipe up with: ‘let’s move to point 2 now”. What feedback do they get and how? At the end of the session, I show them the diagram and it gives a pretty quick indication as to who isn’t speaking or who is speaking without succeeding in achieving the target focus of the session. I try and have an individual word with those students and ask them to improve next time.

Are the students we teach here too nice? When I think about why this is so important, I think back to my previous school. I worked at an independent school in London where the boys were really ‘sparky’. When I moved from London, one of the first things I noticed was that the boys here didn’t seem to disagree with me or challenge me in the same way. I tried devoting significant chunks of whole lessons where I said things that were wrong and they just let me do it. I do think the boys here are generally more humble and polite which is a fantastic quality, but it can prevent them from being intellectually challenging. I really feel Harkness encourages them to do this.

How does this fit with the school’s strategy? The Harkness rooms are designed to encourage this style of teaching, along with all the things we do like the AIP programme, the Encounters programme and the Mulleys. As much of this is Sixth Form focused, we’ve added Harkness sessions for KS4 as a lunchtime activity and we hope that this, and the new Global Perspectives course, will provide lots of opportunities for all boys to engage in this style of debate. It is harder to do Harkness in big groups at KS3 but the Critical Thinking and Design Thinking courses are also designed to encourage the sort of creative and critical thinking that will help them in the older year groups and beyond.

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Teacher-led modelling vs. structured frameworks:

Effects on KS5 Sociology students’ analytical thinking and essay performance over a 4-week process. Bianca Francis | Head of Sociology and PSHEE

My pedagogical approach to teaching has been plagued by the persistent question of ‘does this work’? for my students. I have taught Sociology essay writing for many years and still I do not feel as though I have ‘arrived’ at the answer. There has been significant research into classroom practices and student learning over the last few decades which has consistently challenged the way I teach essay writing skills. Considering that each cohort comes with their own set of challenges, approach to learning and ways of thinking, it is no surprise that we have been seasoned reflective practitioners. A central challenge to a KS5 essay-based subject is how I can provide effective, temporary support that fits the needs of the individuals in my classroom. Which approach to the essay planning process will not only effectively scaffold support, but also empower my students for future independence in their analytical thinking? Therefore, I will be reviewing two approaches, live modelling and writing frameworks, to gain a better understanding of each and how this produce not only better outcomes, but also other transferable skills (such as self-regulation) The historical progression of scaffolding in the classroom Lev Vygotsky’s concept of ‘Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)’ has remained influential in educational research and theory, and therefore is an appropriate starting point. The

“Scaffolding allows learners to reach places they would otherwise not be able to reach.” (Holton & Clarke, 2006, p. 129).

10 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

concept of ZPD challenged previous notions of learning being a highly individualistic task, to one that is rather rooted in a social construction of knowledge. ZPD is defined as a student’s ability to complete a task or achieve desirable outcomes with the support of the more knowledgeable adult (Vygotsky, 1978). In the education sector, we are more commonly familiar with the terminology ‘scaffolding’, although derived from Vygotsky’s ZPD, it was originally coined by Wood et al., (1976). Scaffolding has been widely used in classrooms to develop students in their essay-writing skills by adding different levels of support with the objective for students to eventually achieve complete independence. Similarly, Janet Emig’s seminal work, The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders (1971) shifted the focus from what students produce to how they produce their writings. This shift resulted in the ‘Process Writing Approach’ which was underpinned by Emig’s (1971) argument that writing is, in itself, a form of active thinking where the uncovering of these cognitive processes can lead to deeper thinking. Sweller’s (1988) Cognitive Load Theory continues to impact the classroom as educators have been employing various strategies to minimises the cognitive load for students. This shift in thinking led to the development of various classroom practices, including writing frames and sentence starters (more recently in the form of PEEs, PEELs, PEALs and PETALs). By providing students with this explicit modelling or scaffolded writing frames, it allows students to engage with subject specific content, minimising the splitattention effect (Chandler and Sweller, 1992). This in turn supports students in managing the intrinsic load (Shibi & West, 2018). This is especially important for students with processing needs as the lack of support could lead to task abandonment (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008).Moreover, we have seen a further shift towards

developing classroom talk as a tool for learning (Alexander, 2008). Alexander’s (2008) concept of dialogic teaching emphasises the social co-construction of meaning between student and teacher. This is meaningful when we consider an alternative scaffolding approach, live modelling, of the essay writing process which invites students into our thinking during the planning stages, thereby making the learning process more interactive and instantly responsive. We have seen a sustained interest in the principles of CLT and how this applies to the classroom. For example, EEF’s guidance on ‘Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools’ (2021) emphasises the need to break down writing into manageable steps in order to lighten the load on the working memory. The guidance advises the use of planning tools (such as writing frames), but then also the importance of explicitly modelling the planning process:

“It is helpful if first the teacher models how the strategy should be used, for example, by speaking aloud to explain what she is doing and why…” (EEF, 2021, p. 20)

However, the balance of reducing cognitive load can be tricky for educators. How much support should be provided? What should this support look like for my individual students? When should the support be faded? What type of scaffolding is helping, and which are harming? Furthermore, the CLT has been criticised for shifting pedagogy away from child-led discovery to and overemphasis on teacher-led instructions (Huntington Research School, 2019). Myhill and Watson (2014) also challenged scaffolding in how it might potentially stifle students from formulating more able and creative responses. Considering that composing an analytical and evaluative essay requires creative thinking, could scaffolding hinder student from achieving higher band answers in essay-based subjects? Furthermore, research suggests it can hinder a student’s ability to develop independent problem-solving and own metacognitive awareness (Myhill and Watson, 2014). Overwhelmingly evidence and guidance suggest that instructional scaffolding can effectively support students with the writing process (EEF, 2021; Vygotsky, 1978); however as educators, we have to strike a balance between providing cognitive challenge alongside the necessary support (Hammond and Gibbons, 2005). Therefore, with the limited time we possess as educators, it is useful to develop a clear understanding of which type of scaffolding would

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Teacher-led modelling vs. structured frameworks be the most effective when teaching an essay-based subject. This review will specifically look at two scaffolding approaches: structured writing frames (e.g. PEEL) vs live modelling of the planning process from a theoretical and empirical view. Scaffolding approach 1: Writing frames for essay-based subjects Why they work Liandrieu et al. (2023) conducted a Cluster Randomised Control Trial of 400 Year 11-12 students (aged 16-17) in Belgium to test the effects of explicit writing instructions alongside collaborative and individual writing activities. The objectives of the trial were to test the significance these inputs may have on students’ ability to construct an argumentative essay as well as their self-efficacy for writing. Students were explicitly taught both how to compose and how to structure an argumentative essay. This recent research provides us with convincing empirical support on the value of explicit instructions within subjects in a similar setting. Their findings were clear: explicit instruction significantly positive impacts students’ writing performance (effect sizes = 0.88) and self-efficacy (effect sizes = 1.356). However, it is worth noting that it is unclear as to how exactly collaborative planning impacted their performance. Dialogical talk or modelling, and the quality thereof, was not directly measured, which could account for the positive impact on performance more so than the explicit instructions from the teacher. Why they might not work Ivanič’s (2004) comprehensive meta-analysis on academic writing challenged the overuse of writing frameworks in the classroom and suggested that instead of supporting, they often narrow students’ own views and supresses their ability to make their own evaluative contributions. Therefore, although the use of this type of scaffolding can be supportive (Rosenshine 2012, EEF 2021), it is worth noting that it can stifle the opportunity for students to develop their own critical thinking, which is especially useful when a piece of writing requires a student to demonstrate analytical and evaluative skills. However, it is important to note that Ivanič’s( 2004) meta-analysis was simply theoretical, and not empirical (she did not conduct original educational setting research). McKnight (2020) supports Ivanič’s (2004) research and suggests that scaffolded writing strategies, such as PEELs, can reduce challenge by acting as a crutch and hinder an opportunity for students to create complex, argumentative essays. Her research although small in sample (five teachers, diverse school settings in Australia), is relevant to our context as they use the same formulaic approach (although referred to as TEEL instead of PEEL). McKnight’s (2020) findings provide us with rich, qualitative data and valuable insight into the modern lived experiences of classroom practitioners and how restrictive these writing frames can be for students. Furthermore, some research suggests that writing frameworks can be counterproductive as the students ‘miss out on development of their point because they are concerned with completing the next instruction on the frame’ (Daniels 2019). Scaffolding the planning process can provide the much-needed

12 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

support in reducing the cognitive load for students who find extended writing challenging. Sherrington (2015) similarly argues that students can use writing frames very effectively and thereby produce a well-structured essay; however, without these scaffolds (which are not available in the final exams) students are often unable to independently construct sophisticated, analytical essays. Scaffold approach 2: Live modelling for essay-based subjects Why they work Enser (2024) anecdotally suggested in a recent TES blog that live modelling essay writing ‘revolutionised’ her students’ writing and bridge the gap between knowing and showing. She highlights here that the key difference between using writing frameworks and live modelling is in how it makes the metacognitive processes involved in constructing ideas, visible. Thinking aloud shows students how you are using critical thinking to make decisions along the way. This is especially relevant for KS5 essay-based subjects where analytical thinking, a skill that can be a challenge to teach, is best developed by making visible the thought processes. The thinking aloud approach in turn could support the development of the students’ own internal, creative dialogue (Alexander, 2008). Although this research is not based on empirical evidence, and rather grounded in reflective teacher practice; it does align with the Rosenhine’s (2012) extensive empirical research of observations and cognitive science. More specifically, principle 4 (providing models) and principle 8 (providing scaffolds) on the importance of metacognitive modelling in fostering deeper cognitive engagement with a topic. Rosenshine (2012) reinforces the importance of explicit and structured modelling so that students not only learn what they need to do (which is the limitation of PEEL writing frameworks), but more importantly, how they can do it. However, it is worth noting that a potential limitation to principle 8 (providing scaffolds by thinking aloud and showing ‘expert thinking’) is that its effectiveness is based on the teacher’s ability to anticipate possible errors in thinking and working (Rosenshine, 2012). This limits the suitability of using this approach for novice teachers who might lack the knowledge and expertise to anticipate such errors. Lowbridge-Ellis (2018) advocates for live modelling and metacognitive instructions and suggests a solution to this potential obstacle – create scripts. He questions if technology (such as the use of PowerPoint) has removed the opportunity for teachers to speak their thoughts aloud, as now the answer is ready and displayed on the board. PowerPoint as a tool in itself can act as a useful scaffolding tool to support students understanding of complex information with the help of visual aids (Stewart, 2008). However, the impact thereof means there is now very little opportunity for the teacher to demonstrate those metacognitive skills of figuring out the answer along the way; a skill which we expect students to be able to eventually demonstrate. Therefore Lowbridge-Ellis (2018) suggests that we need to invite these opportunities back into the lesson in an

Bianca Francis | Head of Sociology and PSHEE

authentic way which can be approached with the use of scripts. Although this article is not a peer-reviewed or research-based report, it very much aligns with Rosenshine (2012) and the EEF’s (2021) principles of the importance of using metacognition in the essay planning and witing process. Why they might not work The potential reasons why live modelling might not work include: teachers have become technology dependent, lack confidence for live modelling and fear of making mistakes. However, the latter is actually quite essential as it makes visible the process of making and correcting mistakes (Lowbridge-Ellis, 2018). Furthermore, the EEF guidance report ‘Metacognition and self-regulated learning’ (2018) highlights that teacher modelling is only effective if students already have access to the relevant knowledge and if pupils can engage with the task instantly post-modelling. Time constraints on lessons might not always make this possible. They note that a common educational misconception is that metacognitive strategies need to be prioritised over subject knowledge, which is ineffective in essay-based subjects. Students might comprehend the skills of how to structure a sociological essay, but without the sociological knowledge (theorists, key concepts), the essay will not be successful. Another limitation noted by the research, (EEF, 2018) is that experienced teachers eventually take for granted these implicit processes that come ‘naturally’ to them and may forget to make their thinking explicit, a phenomenon referred to as ‘expert blind spot’ (Nathan and Petrosino, 2003). What works best for students with SEND profiles Students with SEND profiles can experience extended writing tasks quite demanding, especially if they face challenges of working memory, slower processing speed and language organisation (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008). There is strong pedagogical justification for the use of scaffolding tools with SEND learners as research shows it helps reduce the extraneous cognitive load of writing-based tasks (Sweller, 1998). Santangelo & Olinghouse’s (2009) research paper, “Effective Writing Instruction for Students Who Have Writing Difficulties”, is applicable for the context of this research as they explored the importance of using the ‘right’ approaches for students who find essay writing a challenging task. In their research, they compared the Process Writing Approach to Cognitive Strategy Approaches and suggests that the latter is a far more powerful and effective tool for struggling students. Similarly, Clarke’s (2013) research on ‘The Effects of Explicit Writing Instructions’ involved 8 students with SEND profiles and indicated that explicit instructions, such as live modelling, significantly not only improved the writing skills of these students, but also their attitudes towards writing. In the process of conducting the literature review, it became apparent that there seems to be a lack of clarity on how the combination of scaffolding tools (such writing frames, live modelling or peer-collaboration) could be best used not as alternatives, but rather in combination. Further research would

be required to evaluate the effectiveness of using these different tools in different parts of the planning and writing process. Although there is a growing body of research that suggests the gradual fading of these scaffolding tools (EEF, 2021), there is no single ‘fixed’ point that can be used as a signpost for when these should be faded. It is therefore reliant on the teacher’s proficient understanding of the writing process as well as the individual needs of each student. Overwhelmingly, the research suggests that live modelling metacognitive processes are significantly more effective as a scaffolding tool than using writing frameworks. Ivanič’s (2004) meta-analysis provides a consistent message, supported by an abundance of research, that a purely formulaic approach (such as writing frameworks) does not authentically support the development of students’ own analytical thinking. Therefore, for my inquiry project, this paper that challenged me to review my methods of teaching essay writing within KS5 Sociology; a subject where they are required to develop analytical and evaluative skills. I suspected that although the current scaffolds of providing writing frameworks produced ‘technically complete answers’ (Ivanič, 2004, p. 231), students were struggling to access top band marks due to the lack of metacognitive approaches (live modelling) which would help foster higher-order cognitive skills (such as analysis and evaluation). Methodology My research focused one Y12 Sociology class (n = 14) and used a within-subject repeated measure design. This meant that I could explore the effectiveness of the two scaffolding approaches (live modelling and writing frameworks) with the same group on two separate occasions. All participants will be exposed to both instructional strategies which will allow me to make a direct comparison of a) outcomes (overall grade score) and b) skills (AO3 – evaluation and analysis). This method will also allow me to check individual differences, SEND and EAL participants. The inquiry question is focused on extended writing in Sociology and therefore, the intervention will be implemented after students are secure in their knowledge of the topic. The participants would have had two weeks’ worth of lesson on this topic followed be a review of the content. This will be tested with informal ‘check for understanding’ activities in the preceding lessons. The first intervention will be live modelling of the essay planning process for the topic ‘The Role of Education’. The session will include a scripted think-aloud protocol where I will make my thinking visible by verbalising evaluative decision-making. I will model my decision making by being explicit in terms of the assessment objectives being covered with each decision. Whilst I am modelling the thinking process, students will actively listen and make notes. Thereafter, the students will have an opportunity to complete the planning process for the remainder

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Teacher-led modelling vs. structured frameworks paragraphs. Students will be encouraged to share ideas and I will support individual pupils by asking them to verbalise their decision making. Students will then complete the 30-marker essay question in the following lesson.

Bianca Francis | Head of Sociology and PSHEE

simply due to their individual preference, familiarity (students have used writing frames more frequently) or topic difficulty. Each intervention will focus on different topics and therefore it is worth considering the possibility of these cofounding variables.

Table 1: Overall performance of participants with each intervention

Student In the second intervention, students will be given a structured writing framework with scaffolded prompts and sentence starters on a new topic ‘Gender differences in Educational Achievement’. This will be the traditional PEEEL structure which provides a visual representation of how students can meet the assessment objectives. Thereafter, students will complete the 30-mark essay question in the following lesson. The rational for the chosen interventions and research design is that it closely aligns with Both approaches are what teachers already do habitually and a common practice in essay-based subjects, thereby increasing the ecological validity. The data will be primary and quantitative in nature and will allow for direct comparisons of student outcomes (final grade) and skills (AO3 – analysis and evaluation). Value-added data (compared to target grades) will be used to measure the impact of each intervention with overall valueadded being analysed. I will use non-probability convenience sampling for my research as this is an established Y12 Sociology class who I teach as the main classroom teacher. The absence of a baseline assessment will be mitigated by using students’ target grades (based on prior attainment data such as GSCE grades and ALIS) as a benchmark. However, in the future, I would use baseline assessments to strengthen the validity of the interventions. Additionally, although the research on live modelling suggest it is a better support for metacognitive development, its success will largely depend on the expertise of the teacher (Rosenshine, 2012). Therefore, a possible limitation could be the level of expert knowledge of the topic on ‘The Role of Education’. Another possible limitation is that students might perform better in one of the interventions

Ethical implications: The design (repeated measures) of the research means there is no control group who would miss out on potentially beneficial support and progress. Overall, there are minimal ethical risks as both interventions align with normal classroom practice. Furthermore, all students will be involved with both interventions and therefore, no students are left at a disadvantage. The data will be presented in an anonymised way which will protect student data. The data collection process also posed minimal ethical concerns as this is a habitual practice for Sociology (regular assessments are completed throughout the year) and does not contribute to their final A-level grade for the subject. Lastly, there was no need to obtain consent in completing this inquiry as it fell within the normal professional working of a classroom and school; however, approval was sought for the method of the research with SLT. An additional avenue of inquiry that could possibly follow from these interventions would be introducing collaborative peer planning as a third approach, as the dialogical talk in- itself can considered scaffolded support for students. Finally, next time I would design a mixed methods approach by including student observation and survey to gain a better understanding of their attitude and confidence with each intervention. This qualitative data could provide an in-depth understanding of why an intervention may have worked. Key findings It is important to note the small sample size (13 participants). Although provided some insight into the impact of these two scaffolding approaches, it is limited in its generalisability and external validity. The question we as practitioners aim to answer is

Schedule: Activity:

Timeline:

Teach topic: The Role of Education

Week 1-2

First intervention: Live modelling

Week 2

Complete essay question in lesson: The Role of Education

Week 2

Teach topic: Gender differences in attainment

Week 3-4

Second intervention: Writing frameworks

Week 4

Complete essay question in lesson: The Role of Education

Week 4

14 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

Any adjustments needed:

One student was absent for the assessment so will not be included in final data review and key findings

SEND

Grade: Live Modelling)

Target Garde

Grade (Framework)

Writing Framework - TG

Live modelling - TG

Yes

-1

-2

-1

-3

Yes

-1

Yes

-2

-4

Table 2: Student outcomes under each intervention compared to their target grades. Category Intervention:

Met or exceeded Target Grade

1 Gade below Target Grade

2+ grades below Target Grade

i) Live Modelling

ii) Writing Frameworks

‘what works?’ and therefore, this might be an approach that works for some subjects and some year groups; however it merely provides insight into why one approach might be more suited for essay-based subjects. However, there is stronger internal validity due to the repeated measures design where participants acted as their own control group. We should also consider the maturation effect where students naturally progress over time due to increased knowledge gained or familiarity with routines that cannot be attributed to the impact of an intervention. This inquiry project aimed to evaluate the relative impact of two types scaffolds that can be used in the classroom to develop essay writing skills: i) live modelling and ii) writing frameworks. The inquiry focused specially on A-level Sociology students (Lower Sixth) and their ability to produce an analytically, extended response (30-marker essay question). The overall data (Table 1) indicates that students may have found live modelling more effective as a scaffold to support the development of their essay writing skills. A comparison of the final grades compared to their target grades as the baseline (Table 2) suggests that students

were more likely to improve on their target grades or meet their target grades under the first intervention of live modelling. Seven out of thirteen students met or exceeded their target grade under the first intervention (live modelling) compared to four out of thirteen for the second intervention (writing frameworks). There is also a suggestion that fewer students significantly underperformed (2+ grades) under live modelling compared to writing frameworks. I conducted a comparative analysis of their Assessment Objective 3 (evaluation and analysis) mark which indicated that students generally performed better under the live modelling intervention (Table 2). The essay questions were comparable in difficulty with learning equally spaced in the schemes of work and therefore providing me with greater validity of the data. The average AO3 score under live modelling was 5.85 compared to 4.77 under the writing framework intervention. Although this is on average only 1 mark, it is worth noting that 10/13 students saw a decline in their AO3 mark under the writing framework intervention. Notable example are Pupil 3,8 and 12 who all overall indicated a

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Teacher-led modelling vs. structured frameworks regression in their overall grade (B to C grade) as well as in their AO3 scores (7/6/7 to 5/5/5). This suggests that although structured planning approaches could offer support in the planning process (lighter cognitive load), they don’t necessarily facilitate deeper analytical thinking or writing. Five pupils in the cohort have SEND profiles and I wanted to understand the impact these interventions had on them specifically. Table 5 indicates their overall performance. Their results indicated a less consistent pattern. Three of the five students declined under the second intervention (writing frameworks) in their AO3 marks. However, table 6 suggests no real significant difference in AO3 development between the interventions. Therefore, writing frameworks can support SEND students by reducing the cognitive load (Sweller, 1988), they may not sufficiently promote higher order thinking (analysis). Although only one SEND student indicated an improvement in their AO3 mark, this could signify the potential of live modelling as a scaffolding approach in the classroom. Conclusion and recommendations This inquiry project proved useful as a practitioner who teaches an essay-based subject and supported my understanding of ‘what works’ for my subject and my cohort of students. Overall, the data suggest that live modelling was more effective as an intervention for developing essay-writing skills compared to writing framework, particularly in fostering greater analytical and evaluative thinking skills. Students with SEND profiles showed no significant difference between the two interventions suggesting that the nature of these scaffolds needs to be further investigated. It is important to mention, however, that these findings merely mark the beginning of a deeper inquiry into live modelling as a habitual approach to scaffolding in the classroom. The next steps for the inquiry would be focusing refining this approach to ensure the way it is conducted proves most effective. For example, Sherrington (2020) suggests how live modelling is conducted in the classroom will determine it’s effectiveness. He notes the second step of the ‘handover’ is crucial and should have elements of live modelling smaller chunks, allow time for students to process the teacher’s thinking and then have an opportunity to immediately put it into practice. The latter should be based on the ‘we do’ approach where the teacher still has plenty of input, ensuring students are secure before expecting independence. My live modelling intervention did not consider the ‘handover step’ (Sherrington, 2020) which is possibly the reason why the SEND students made less progress on the live modelling intervention that the rest of the cohort. Therefore, the how can be refined where I don’t jump from live modelling) critical thinking (‘I do’ to students working independently by implementing the skills modelled (‘you do’). Further recommendations I would like to propose include: • Embed live modelling habitually into classroom practice during

16 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

the planning stages of essay-based tasks; however, provide written frameworks for SEND pupils (personalised approach). • Develop student-led collaborative talk during the essay planning process, but consider careful grouping. • Get students to reflect after their planning process – why did/ didn’t it work for them? • Schools to provide CPD for staff who are not as confident in developing meaningful scripts and steps for live modelling practice. • Carefully consider and plan the ‘handover’ step (see image 1 below) • Normalise the messy drafting process and consciously encourage students to revise and reshape as their thinking develops.

Bianca Francis | Head of Sociology and PSHEE

Tabel 3: Overall performance in Assessment Objective 3 under both interventions Pupil

SEND

Target Grade

AO3 (Live Modelling)

AO3 (Writing Framework)

AO3 (Framework - Modelling)

-1

Yes

-1

-2

-3

Yes

-1

Yes

-2

-3

Table 4: Mean score for Assessment Objective 3 (Analysis and Evaluation) under each intervention. Intervention:

Mean AO3 score:

i) Live Modelling

5.85

ii) Writing Frameworks

4.77

Table 5: Students with SEND profiles: overall performance under each intervention Student

SEND

Target Garde

Grade: Live Modelling)

Grade (Framework)

Live modelling - TG

Writing Framework - TG

Yes

Table 6: Students with SEND profiles: AO3 performance under each intervention Pupil

SEND

Target Grade

AO3 (Live Modelling)

AO3 (Writing Framework)

AO3 (Framework - Modelling)

Yes

-1

Yes

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Teacher-led modelling vs. structured frameworks References Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching : Rethinking Classroom Talk. 4th ed. Osgoodby: Dialogos. Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, [online] 8(4), pp.293–332. doi:https://doi. org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.

Nathan, M.J. and Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert Blind Spot Among Preservice Teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), pp.905–928. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004905. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), pp.12–19.

Daniels, A. (2019). In the classroom: Getting scaffolding right - SecEd. [online] SecEd. Available at: https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/content/best-practice/in-theclassroom-getting-scaffolding-right [Accessed 4 Jun. 2025].

Santangelo, T. and Olinghouse, N.G. (2009). Effective Writing Instruction for Students Who Have Writing Difficulties. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v42i4.6903.

Education Endowment Foundation (2018). Metacognition and Self-regulated Learning. [online] EEF. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org. uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/metacognition.

Sherrington, T. (2015). Beyond Dependency Learning: scaffolding, crutches and stabilisers. [online] teacherhead. Available at: https://teacherhead. com/2015/02/07/beyond-dependency-learning-scaffolding-crutches-andstabilisers/.

Education Endowment Foundation (2021). Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools. [online] EEF. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org. uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/literacy-ks3-ks4. Emig, J.A. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. National Council of Teachers of English (Ncte). Enser, Z. (2024). 3 ways live modelling revolutionised my students’ writing. TES. Available at: https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/secondary/ Three-ways-live-modelling-revolutionised-my-students-writing [Accessed 3 Jun. 2025]. Gathercole, S.E. and Packiam Alloway, T. (2008). Working memory and learning : a practical guide for teachers. Los Angeles: Sage. Hammons, J. and Gibbons, P. (2015). Putting scaffolding to work : the contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), pp.6–30. Holton, D. and Clarke, D., 2006. Scaffolding and metacognition. International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 37(2), pp.127-143. Huntington Research School (2019). Cognitive load theory - why is everyone talking about it? [online] Huntington Research School. Available at: https:// researchschool.org.uk/huntington/news/cognitive-load-theory-was-it-really-alla-myth. Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education, [online] 18(3), pp.220–245. doi:https://doi. org/10.1080/09500780408666877. Landrieu, Yana., De Smedt, Fien., Van Keer, Hilde and De Wever, Bram (2023). Argumentation in collaboration: the impact of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on secondary school students’ argumentative writing. Reading and Writing, 37(8). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10439-x. Lowbridge-Ellis, D. (2018). How Can You Confidently Implement Live Modelling In Your Classroom? via @TeacherToolkit. [online] TeacherToolkit. Available at: https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/2018/11/20/live-modelling/. McKnight, L. (2020). Since Feeling Is First: The Art of Teaching to Write Paragraphs. English in Education, 55(1), pp.1–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0425 0494.2020.1768069. McLeod, S. (2024). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/383563118_Vygotsky [Accessed 2 Jun. 2025]. Myhill, D. and Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), pp.41–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013514070.

18 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

Sherrington, T. (2020). The art of modelling… it’s all in the handover. [online] teacherhead. Available at: https://teacherhead.com/2020/11/28/the-art-ofmodelling-its-all-in-the-handover/. Shibli, D. and West, R. (2018). Cognitive Load Theory and Its Application in the Classroom. [online] Impact. Available at: https://my.chartered.college/impact_ article/cognitive-load-theory-and-its-application-in-the-classroom/. Stewart, D.P. (2008). Technology as a Management Tool in the Community College Classroom: Challenges and Benefits. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4). Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, [online] 12(2), pp.257–285. Available at: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/228039919_The_Role_of_Tutoring_in_Problem_Solving.

How does structured oracy influence Year 12 English Language students’ ability to organise and apply linguistic concepts in evaluative writing? Alex Town | Assistant Head of English

As a teacher of English Language A-Level, communication is at the heart of the course of study. How we communicate with both written and spoken language is of great interest to me, especially in the pitfalls that students experience in translating their thoughts and the course content into the written word. The main objective of this inquiry is to explore the relationship between structured discussion and achievement in the AO2 assessment objective as part of the AQA English Language A-Level course. This assessment objective tests the skill of both theoretical knowledge, but also the evaluation of case studies and theories of language. It is an assessment objective that students starting the A-Level course can struggle with, as it requires processing and criticism of academic sources and studies. I would like to discover if there is a link between the pedagogical approach to the preparation of essays that require AO2 content and the marks that could be awarded to that specific assessment objective. My main hypothesis is that there will be a benefit to a use of structured oracy in preparing students for evaluative essay writing. Literature Review Talk is an invaluable tool in the development of both skills and knowledge in the classroom. All (if not then most) classrooms use talk as a form of pedagogy, meaning that the skill of talk is essential to success. This skill came to be known in educational dialogue as oracy. Wilkinson proposed a definition of oracy as: ‘the ability to use the oral skills of speaking and listening’ (Wilkinson 1965). This was to elevate the status of speaking skills as education as more focus was being applied to literacy and numeracy as essential skills. The application of these skills is essential to the development of effective learning practices in education. Teachers in the classroom have a vested interest in engaging students, and their metacognitive functions, with the ability to interrogate, discuss and develop their learning through oracy. This allows students to deepen and develop their own

interconnected literacies to further their progress as a learner. This definition focusses us on the skills element of oracy practices in the classroom, suggesting that it is something that students can develop, practice and refine as they learn. If we can more effectively embed oracy based practices into the routines of classroom teachers, then students will be better prepared to use these skills as they progress through their educational careers. Neil Mercer’s work around the concept of “exploratory talk” focuses on the efficacy of student talk and its impact on learning. Mercer introduces the concept of “exploratory talk,” where students engage in reasoned discussions, challenge each other’s ideas, and collaboratively construct knowledge (Mercer, 2000). To be effective Mercer also challenged the ideas of talk being too filled with disagreement or a lack of critical thought, suggesting that the environment and frameworks within which talk happens are essential to developmental progress in both cognition and Oracy. Mercer’s research demonstrates that exploratory talk enhances students’ problem-solving abilities and understanding of complex concepts. He suggests that teachers “should strive for a balance between authoritative presentation and genuine dialogue” (Mercer, 2000). By fostering an environment where students feel comfortable expressing and examining ideas, teachers can facilitate deeper learning. In creating the rules for such an environment, Mercer suggests the importance of establishing ground rules for talk to ensure productive discussions. These rules include listening attentively, sharing relevant information, and considering alternative viewpoints (Mercer & Hodgkinson, 2008) giving student clear guidelines supports the production of meaningful dialogue. It seems that making dialogue meaningful and supported is a key element of progressing from talk to oracy. Mercer’s work was developed collaboratively with Howe et al (2019) and showed that practical oracy skills, including structured discussions, elaboration and other perspectives, were a key part of improving outcomes for

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Structured oracy students in primary education. Mercer also began to explore the potentials for exploratory talk early secondary education pedagogy. He, and his colleagues, note that children at the early stages of secondary education may have developed casual speech “but not have developed the ability to speak confidently to a public audience or engage in a reasoned debate” (Mercer et al 2018). This reinforces the necessity for structured approaches for both adaptive teaching and oracy in the secondary classroom. This, alongside Mercer et al’s toolkit for assessing oracy in the classroom show a necessity for students and teachers to engage with structured assessment and evaluation of oracy skills. This focus on practical strategies and embedding of oracy in the curriculum is a key theme of research and pedagogical development for teaching staff. The concept of dialogic teaching, as introduced by Robin Alexander, discusses the role of classroom talk in developing cognition. He defines dialogic teaching as “collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and purposeful” (Alexander, 2017) suggesting that simple discussion is not enough to constitute cognitively developmental oracy. Alexander raises these 5 elements suggesting that that, rather like written literacy, talk needs structure in order to be effective. To enable students to engage with these dialogic elements of teaching we need to first train their Oracy practice skills. There seems to be a distinction between the concept of purely using talk in the classroom and how far that develops into oracy as a skill and learning practice. As Alexander writes in a TES article “Dialogic teaching aims to make children think for themselves, not merely repeat the thinking of others.”, so it seems that there is even more development of this theme of the necessity of structured oracy in education. In practice this was tested by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF 2017) as a method of improving outcomes for disadvantaged students. Their research showed that students made an additional two months of progress in subjects as a result of the implementation of a more dialogic teaching style in the classroom. This study was conducted in a KS2 setting, but their findings suggest that students at all levels benefit from a classroom rich in talk and oracy skills. Notably, this study focused on not only the oracy of the students, but also on the pedagogical strategies of the teachers. This reinforces the ‘collective’ element of dialogic teaching that Alexander explores, showing the importance of a culture of oracy in the classroom. In a report titled “We Need to Talk”, Voice 21 and Impetus advocate for the necessary inclusion of oracy as the “4th R” and suggest that work still needs to be done to embed oracy into the secondary school curriculum. Much of the research into the application of oracy is applied to a primary school context, with fewer secondary teachers showing confidence in delivering oracy based teaching in their context (Voice21 2024). This shows a real need for the adaption of oracy based practices in KS3, 4 and 5. Oracy skills are key not only to the delivery of the curriculum but also play a key role in engagement and attitudes to learning

20 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

Alex Town | Assistant Head of English

(Hawksworth 2023). Hawksworth found in her research that “student confidence levels can be improved through oracy interventions, highlighting the social benefits of teaching oracy”. In a secondary context, this element of engagement is almost equally as important to pedagogical outcomes, as when students are more engaged in the curriculum, they are more likely to access it at a higher and more consistent level. Teacher and speaker Alex Quigley proposes a link between the role of language and oracy: he links the idea of vocabulary to the essential process of accessing the curriculum. In his “Closing the Vocabulary Gap,” Quigley suggests that oral language development is necessary to develop robust vocabulary skills. The very skills that make learning more successful (Quigley, 2018). Quigley discusses structure in his book and highlights the process by which students experiment with the vocabulary of the curriculum. This process of structure is where “students need to say the words, write the words, and read the words” to internalise them effectively (Quigley, 2018). This integration of oracy can enhance students understanding of, and engagement with, the curriculum. This structure is taken a step further in Quigley’s discussion of teacher modelling in oracy development. Precise language, open questions, active listening and constructive feedback (Quigley, 2018) are all key markers of teacher behaviours that assist students in understanding the expectations of academic talk. Quigly’s ideas suggest that the environment in which these oracy and vocabulary skills are practiced makes an impact on them as effective pedagogy. Once these ideas have been embedded, students can use them to aid not only their discussion of the content of the curriculum, but also their engagement with other effective learning practices, like metacognition: oracy enables them to “actively engage in and monitor their own learning” (Gaunt & Stott 2018). This suggests that oracy is not simply a skill of speaking but has a vital place in the development of students as learners. Far beyond the confines of the classroom, oracy has many wide reaching social functions too. According to work by the English Speaking Union, John Doherty discusses debate and oracy skills as “a tool for thinking both individually and with others.” (Doherty 2023) and discussed the impacts that a lack of oracy skills has on both learning, but also on workplace opportunities in the future. This modern ‘soft skill’ is one that is essential for success in the workplace. This need from various leaders in education and industry “compose a unified plea for communication skills” (Doherty 2023) and show a real need for students to develop these skills alongside their academic qualifications. This is reflected in many lists of skills sought by employers featuring communication as a highly (or even the highest!) ranked qualities of future employees (Knight 2020). Making oracy and discussion skills essential in and beyond the classroom. There is extensive research into the efficacy of talk in the classroom as a key skill. One of the main themes being that oracy

is distinct from classroom talk: that for the skill of speaking to have a significant impact on both the learning and the learner, it must have a clear structure and intention. This gives another key theme of the literature, that oracy is a skill and that it needs to be developed alongside other skills such as reading and writing. Thirdly, the idea of using oracy not simply as a cognitive strategy for teaching content and curriculum: but to use oracy as a tool of engagement and metacognition. A tool that requires skill to use, which is a desirable one to develop as students enter more advanced levels of schooling and the wider world. These themes highlight the real need for teachers to apply and consider oracy based approaches in their teaching.

This method reduces the risk of bias that might happen if groups were formed at random, since existing attainment levels are a key variable in determining how effective the teaching strategies will be at improving evaluative writing. My lower sixth class (of 12 students) will be divided into two groups of six students each. Each student’s prior attainment in AO2 tasks, as evidenced by recent assessed essays, will be used to allocate them to matched pairs. One student from each pair will be assigned to the structured discussion group, and the other to the teacher led group. This ensures that each group is balanced in terms students’ prior attainment, ensuring the validity and comparability of the data.

Methodology In developing the methodology for this inquiry, it was important to consider how to explore the benefits of a structured approach and to ensure that all students could be given the opportunity to succeed in their application of AO2. A matched groups method would give all students a chance to benefit from oracy based discussion skills as compared to a teacher led style of preparation. This method of data collection allows for a comparison of methods and accounts for prior attainment and experience that students have in writing evaluatively.

Structured Discussion Group (SD): Students in this group will take part in a structured discussion activity, for which they each must prepare a focus. These foci will be studies, concepts and issues in the field of study and will challenge students to bring knowledge to the discussion. The teacher will act as a facilitator in these discussions, guiding the students and ensuring equal participation and the focus for each student will be different requiring them to evaluate differing perspectives.

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Structured oracy

Alex Town | Assistant Head of English

Student Scores by Teaching Method Across Two Essays Structured Discussion (SD) Teacher-Led (TL) 11

20.0

11 11 12

17.5

Scores

12 12

15.0 12.5

11 11

12 12 12

12 11

11 12

10.0

11 12

7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 A

Teacher Led Group (TL): Students in this group will be taught the same AO2 content through traditional direct instruction. This preparation activity will involve teacher talk and student led note taking. Students will also be asked to revise and prepare for their written task. At the end of both activities, students will be given the same materials to prepare for the written assessment, this ensures that any difficulties in attainment are from the method of instruction rather than access to materials. Students in both groups will then complete a timed evaluation task, writing an essay in response to a key statement about that area of language study. The question will follow the same structure used in examinations ie. “Evaluate the view that…” and students must use their knowledge of theories and issues to formulate an opinion. The essays will then be marked by the AQA criteria for AO2, and marking will be conducted blind. This blind marking will ensure that the marker does not know which group the student prepared for the essay in and so minimises bias. The data from all students will then be analysed to compare the efficacy of both preparation methods. This analysis will only

22 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

F G Students

feature the specific mark for AO2 (awarded out of 20) to focus on a specific skill development in this small scale inquiry. Ethical Considerations Ethically there are a few considerations: firstly, this activity will be based on content already studied by the class earlier in the academic year. This ensures that students will not be disadvantaged by their participation in the study. Both groups will revise the same material, and the skill of evaluation will be the focus for both groups. The teacher will also act as a facilitator in the structured discussion group, ensuring that all students participate regardless of levels of confidence in content or discussion. Additionally, the process will then be repeated by reversing the groups teaching and revision methods using a different question, this allows all students to benefit from both types of revision strategy. Students will be informed of their participation in the study and will have access to their own results and feedback, as per normal practice. Anonymity will be preserved in all data collection and in this inquiry; students’ names will not appear in any written material. Adaptations

The original plan had a simple pre- and post-assessment design, comparing class performance before and after the use of oracy strategies. However, I adapted this to use matched groups for greater accuracy. The change was made after reflection on how prior attainment could confound results; by explicitly matching students on AO2 performance, the study gains a stronger basis for comparison. Also, I added the second essay and preparation to give all students the chance to benefit from both types of preparation. The essays produced by the students provided a clear dataset for analysing the impact of structured discussion (SD) compared with teacher led (TL) preparation. The SD group (students A–F) were awarded scores ranging from 12 to 17, with a mean score of 15. By contrast, the TL group (students G–L) achieved a wider range of results, from 8 to 17, with a lower mean of 12.7. The higher average in the SD group suggests a positive overall effect of structured discussion on students’ ability to be evaluative in their essay writing. Interestingly the SD group also showed greater consistency. All students achieved above 12, and the majority got 14 or higher, indicating a development in their AO2 skills. The TL group included two high-attaining students who matched the strongest SD performances (16 and 17), but several students were below 12, with one as low as 8. This data implies that while direct instruction can support confident learners, it may not sufficiently scaffold weaker students in evaluating ideas in language study independently. This first set of data shows that there is evidence that students in the SD group were able to deepen their understanding and evaluative writing skills through talk. The small data set suggests that there is some benefit to students, especially those who normally attain lower scores, in having structured discussions before essay writing. This broadly agrees with perspectives on dialogic pedagogy and support the benefits of oracy contained in existing research. The second essay, which was marked using the same AO2 mark scheme, allowed for the analysis of students’ evaluative writing after the teaching methods were switched. Students originally taught through structured discussion (A–F) were now taught through teacher led instruction, while those originally in the teacher led group (G–L) received structured discussion. The new TL group achieved scores ranging from 11 to 18, with a mean of 14.3. These results showed a small decrease compared with the average score for their first essay 15. Attainment was more varied than in the first task, with two students scoring at the lower end (11 and 12) and the highest at 18. This suggests that while teacher led instruction supported some high performers (especially student E!), others did not sustain the evaluative tone of their essay from the first task. On the other hand, the new SD group achieved scores ranging

from 9 to 20, with a mean of 15.2. This marks a substantial improvement compared with their first essay (mean 12.7). Notably, three students (J, K, L) achieved very high outcomes (17, 19, 20), and even those at the lower end demonstrated improvement relative to their initial scores. The improvement suggests that structured discussion benefited not only weaker students but also motivated the highest attainers to extend their evaluative skills further. The second essay’s results suggest the same ideas as the first: structured oracy seems to have a positive impact on AO2 results, particularly for students who initially underperformed with teacher led instruction. Comparing Results from Both Essays It is interesting to analyse both sets of results together to give stronger evidence for the impact of structured discussion. In the first essay, the structured discussion group did better than the teacher led group, with a higher mean mark and less variation. After the methods were switched, the pattern repeated: the group receiving structured discussion again produced the higher mean (15.2 vs 14.3) and stronger individual marks. The improvement of individual students between essays shows key ideas about the potentials of oracy based teaching. Students who scored less well initially under teacher led instruction, for example student J who moved from 11 to 17, improved substantially when they revised using structured discussion. Although this may have been a result of a poor initial mark. Also, some students who did well under structured discussion, such as student B who went down by 2 marks, did not maintain progress under teacher led revision. While certain individuals including E and K achieved highly under either method, there is a small pattern that indicates that structured discussion can be more effective for students with a range of initial abilities. As one group of data, this suggests that structured oracy supports some students in evaluative writing development. It has the potential to raise the lower end of attainment but also enables some students to extend their evaluative writing further. Teacher led instruction remains beneficial for some individuals but appears less reliable in securing progress for all learners. These findings strengthen the argument that structured discussion is a valuable pedagogical tool for assisting with A-Level English Language preparation. If these conclusions are to be confirmed, a wider cohort of students would need to be studied. Conclusion and Recommendations This very small scale inquiry set out to investigate the question: How does structured oracy influence Year 12 English Language students’ ability to organise and apply linguistic concepts in evaluative writing? The data collected suggests that structured oracy has some impact on AO2 attainment. In both essays, students who prepared through structured discussion were not

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Structured oracy only awarded higher mean marks but also demonstrated more consistent outcomes than those who prepared through teacherled instruction. When the teaching methods were changed, some evidence for the same conclusion arose: the group receiving structured oracy marginally did better. This suggests that there is some benefit for a wide range of students in using structured discussion and oracy skills to benefit their writing. At the same time, while teacher-led instruction gave a small number of high results, it did not consistently support lower or middle attainers in this context. The use of structured oracy appeared to raise the performance of weaker students while also offering opportunities for higher achievers to develop their evaluation in essay writing. Despite the small sample size of the inquiry, the evidence indicates that structured discussion offers a more inclusive approach, benefiting a wider range of learners. This may also be attributed to the novelty of the discussion approach in a system which normally uses teacher led instruction. The project does have some significant limitations. The sample size was small, and the study was conducted within a single Year 12 class. This removes any firm conclusions from of the findings but does suggest the potential in future research. Moreover, the inquiry relied purely on quantitative attainment data; while the essays provided reliable measures of AO2 in writing, without collecting qualitative data, the study could not fully explore and consider students’ perspectives on their learning or provide a wider evidence base for any conclusions (or suggestions for further study). Using surveys, interviews, or classroom observations would have given more meaningful insights into how students felt about the study. The time limitations of A-Level teaching did have an impact here.

24 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

Despite these problems, the findings carry important implications for teaching practice and further study. Firstly, they show the value of embedding structured discussion in lessons as a strategy for both adaptive teaching and progress. In future, I intend to integrate more guided discussion and dialogic questioning into my teaching of evaluative skills as part of the English Language course. Secondly, I recognise that teacher led instruction still holds value for many students and is a time effective way of revising key content. As with so many approaches in education: a blended approach, which combines direct explanation with structured oracy activities would offer the best approach to revising and preparing for AO2 assessments. Finally, this inquiry has reinforced the importance of a variety of approaches to preparations for exams and I hope will provide a basis for future discussions into the embedding of oracy practices into the school curriculum.

References Knight, M. (2020) ‘The Communication Skills Employers Value’. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 2020, Vol. 83(4) pp. 363–364.

Alexander, R. (2006). The People’s Voice. Tes Magazine. Alexander, R. (2017). Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. Routledge. Cambridge University Press (2018) The Development of Oracy Skills in Schoolaged Learners. Cambridge: CUP. Doherty, J. (2023) Why Oracy Matters. Evidence base for positioning oracy at the heart of the school curriculum. ESU. Education Endowment Foundation. (2017). Dialogic Teaching – Trial. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/ projects/dialogic-teaching(EEF)

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge. Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes. SAGE Publications. Mercer, N, Warwick, P, Ahmed,A. (2017) An oracy assessment toolkit: Linking research and development in the assessment of students’ spoken language skills at age 11-12. Learning and Instruction: Volume 48, Pages 51-60, Quigley, A. (2018). Closing the Vocabulary Gap. Routledge.

Gaunt, A & Stott, A (2018). Transforming teaching and learning through talk: The Oracy Imperative. Voice 21 Retrieved from https://voice21.org/exclusive-extracttransforming-teaching-and-learning-through-talk/ Hawksworth, S., 2023. An exploration of the impact of oracy intervention on the quality of Key Stage Four students’ classroom talk and students’ confidence levels when talking in the classroom (diss, University of Oxford).

Voice 21 and Impetus: (2024) Commission on the Future of Oracy Education in England ‘We need to talk’. London. Retrieved from: https:// oracyeducationcommission.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/We-need-totalk-2024.pdf Wilkinson, A. (1965). The concept of Oracy. Educational Review, 17:4, 11-15.

Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher– student dialogue during classroom teaching: A systematic review. Learning and Instruction, 63, 101-122.

Student (Group)

Mark in Essay 1

Student (Group)

Mark in Essay 2

A (SD)

A (TL)

B (SD)

B (TL)

C (SD)

C (TL)

D (SD)

D (TL)

E (SD)

E (TL)

F (SD)

F (TL)

G (TL)

G (SD)

H (TL)

H (SD)

I (TL)

I (SD)

J (TL)

J (SD)

K (TL)

K (SD)

L (TL)

L (SD)

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

From quick wins to lasting impact

Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

From quick wins to lasting impact:

Using oracy-based activities to improve attainment in A Level Psychology Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

This study aims to investigate the impact of implementing oracy-based strategies with a Psychology L6 A-Level cohort. Using quantitative and qualitative data, it seeks to measure the difference in summative attainment with and without the oracy-based strategies and to add qualitative data through analysis of student work. The project aims to measure whether this builds confidence and develops understanding, as the two are inextricably linked. Oracy is increasingly recognised as a vital 21st-century skill, with potential benefits beyond academic attainment, including character development and social capital (Hill, 2021). This dual potential underpins the rationale for the project. The study also seeks to support teachers in adopting oracy by trialling both a low preparation “quick win” strategy and a more embedded, long-term approach. These trials will inform recommendations aimed at enhancing department-wide practice and creating a sustainable culture of high-quality classroom dialogue. Literature Review “The things we say and how we say them can inform, influence, inspire and motivate others and express our empathy, understanding and creativity. It is our ability to communicate that enables us to build positive relationships, collaborate for common purpose, deliberate and share our ideas as citizens.” Beccy Earnshaw, Director, Voice 21 & Peter Hyman, Executive Headteacher, School 21, in Will Millard and Loic Menzies ‘The State of Speaking in Our Schools’ Theoretical foundation of Oracy The term “oracy” was coined by Wilkinson (1965) to distinguish the skills of speaking and listening from reading and writing (literacy). Oracy skills play a significant role in thinking (Mah

26 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

2016). These are crucial skills, and, unlike conversation, need to be explicitly taught and fostered through interaction with others in an educational context (Mercer & Dawes 2014). Proficiency in and an awareness of the power of appropriate language represent cultural capital, and it has been argued that oracy skills are part of this cultural capital, as they provide access to the cultures and practices of the workplace (Doherty et al. 2011). Vygotsky (1978; 1987; 2012) posited that social interaction is vital for thinking and reasoning, mediating mental processes via cultural tools developed through interpersonal communication (Kozulin et al, 2003). Although, Vygotsky has been criticised for a lack of empirical support, recent developments have been illuminating its understanding of cognitive development (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Sociocultural theory forms a foundation for comprehending how language interaction in educational settings facilitates cognitive growth (Wilcox & Tsapali, 2023), educators must, therefore, thoughtfully integrate social interactions into oracy practices to move away from a superficial discourse (Alexander, 2020). Dialogic Pedagogy and Cognitive Development An important facet of oracy within education is dialogic pedagogy, where students are trained to enable pupils to reason, discuss, argue and explain, rather than merely respond (EEF, 2017). Research suggests that dialogic pedagogy should be collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and purposeful (Philipson, 2020), where students experience learning to talk and talking to learn. Teachers can, therefore, curate learning episodes to focus on, not only, speech structures but provide opportunity for students to build knowledge and understanding through educational dialogue. Interestingly, Howe and

Abedin’s (2013) review highlight a gap in the literature, that much of the research into dialogic teaching practices focus on organisational elements of introducing dialogue into the classroom and not the benefits that particular strategies have on learners (Wilcox and Tsapali, 2023). This suggests that there is a need to investigate the impact of specific oracy strategies. Research suggests that the use of a reward system was also found to improve metacognitive awareness, listening comprehension, learning motivation and cognitive growth (Wilcox & Tsapali, 2023), suggesting that effective oracy activities could include an element of reward to improve effectiveness. Oracy as a process vs. product An important conceptual distinction within oracy pedagogy is between oracy as process and oracy as product (Doherty et al., 2011). Oracy as process positions spoken language as a tool to support learning—students engage in discussion, debate, or collaborative problem-solving without explicit instruction in how to speak effectively. In this model, oracy remains part of the ‘hidden curriculum,’ with its development assumed rather than taught. By contrast, oracy as product involves the intentional teaching and assessment of spoken skills. Here, students are explicitly taught how to speak for different purposes and audiences, with a clear recognition of what constitutes effective spoken communication. This distinction is crucial in evaluating oracy’s impact on attainment. While oracy as process may support cognitive development through collaborative reasoning (Mercer & Dawes, 2014), it risks leaving behind students who lack prior confidence or exposure to academic discourse—often those from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Doherty et al., 2011; Voice 21, 2022). Oracy as product, when embedded thoughtfully, allows teachers to scaffold the development of spoken language much like written literacy, making the subject specific language transparent. However, a purely ‘product’ approach risks becoming performative if not underpinned by authentic classroom talk (Alexander, 2020). Effective oracy pedagogy likely lies in combination of both: valuing talk both as a medium for learning and as a learnable skill in its own right. Scaffolds and Structure to Support Oracy In the context of A Level Psychology, this means not only creating space for dialogic reasoning but also teaching students how to use discipline-specific language to structure their arguments, articulate their thinking, and create a line of argument through response. Research suggests that implementing ‘Talk rules’ can create a structured and effective classroom culture to help children

participate confidently in educational discussions, the research is conflicted here however, as Barak and Lefstein (2022) suggest that children resist rules for talk and engage in ‘messier yet authentically dialogic’ discussions, whereas more current research suggests that the rules support ‘structured yet authentically dialogic’ discussions. Although, this may not apply to A Level study where the high stakes summative assessment lends itself well to a comprehensive understanding of the structure and need to respond. Sentence stems are tools to support students in developing Oracy skills and students report feeling more confident and engaged when they had ideas using sentence stems. This promotes higher order thinking and listening skills in students, increasing participation in student-to-students and wholeclass discussions (Wilcox and Tsapali, 2023), however, it is important to note that this research focused on the impact of strategies with children of low socioeconomic status, limiting the generalisability. Fisher and Frey (2016) suggest that non-verbal skills that take place with an oracy based activity, have a social purpose which enhances the learning experience of conceptual knowledge development and relations with others, this is especially apparent for learners where English is not their first language, a type of learner who must be considered with the setting in which this research project is taking place. Talking Roles Voice 21 has developed a structured framework known as Talking Roles, designed to support purposeful and balanced group discussion. These roles—Instigator, Builder, Challenger, Clarifier, Prober, and Summariser—help students take on specific responsibilities in talk, encouraging active engagement and deep thinking. For example, an Instigator might begin a conversation with, “To start us off, I think…,” while a Challenger could offer a respectful counterpoint by saying, “I see your point, but what about…?” These roles provide sentence stems and prompts that scaffold students’ contributions, supporting the development of academic language, reasoning, and respectful dialogue. The use of Talking Roles ensures that discussions are not dominated by a few voices and promotes equitable participation. Moreover, this structure helps students internalise metacognitive strategies, enhancing their ability to explain, justify, and reflect on their thinking—skills particularly valuable in subjects like A Level Psychology, where evaluative reasoning is critical. When used consistently, Talking Roles can foster a more dialogic classroom culture and contribute to both cognitive and interpersonal development. The blended approach: Quick wins vs. embedded strategies An oracy strategy that simply encourages students to articulate their thinking more clearly can be a powerful and accessible entry point into oracy pedagogy. Encouraging students to

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

From quick wins to lasting impact

Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

confidence in learners. AQA A-Level Psychology – 16-Mark Extended writing Marks

Description of AO1 (Knowledge & Understanding)

Description of AO3 (Evaluation & Issues/ Discussion)

13–16

• Accurate, thorough, well-organised knowledge. • Clear and detailed explanation of key concepts/theories/studies relevant to the question. • Shows breadth and depth.

• Effective, coherent evaluation with clear, reasoned arguments. • Well-developed discussion using evidence and research support. • Clear focus on the demands of the question. • Balanced, logical conclusions.

9–12

• Generally accurate and mostly detailed knowledge. • Some minor omissions but overall strong description of relevant concepts/studies.

• Reasonable evaluation and discussion with some development. • Some appropriate evidence used. • Arguments mostly logical but may lack depth or balance.

5–8

• Some knowledge but limited detail. • May include inaccuracies or partially relevant material. • Lacks depth or breadth.

• Limited evaluation; may be simplistic or brief. • Some attempt to use evidence but underdeveloped. • Arguments may be unclear or poorly linked.

1–4

• Very limited or confused knowledge. • May include significant inaccuracies or irrelevant content.

• Very little or no evaluation. • May be descriptive rather than evaluative. • Lacks structure and clear argument.

• No relevant content.

• No relevant evaluation.

Level

This is an example of the levelled response marking from AQA Psychology for a standard 16-mark essay (the highest levelled response).

express ideas in full sentences, rephrase key concepts, or justify their reasoning aloud requires minimal lesson restructuring but has clear cognitive benefits. Mercer and Dawes (2014) highlight that even short verbal tasks support students in organising their thoughts and engaging in deeper processing. In subjects like A Level Psychology, where abstract reasoning and evaluation are central, these strategies can help students develop fluency in academic language. For teachers, particularly in time-pressured and content-heavy subjects like A Level Psychology, practical and accessible strategies are essential for trialling new pedagogical approaches. This is where “quick wins”, defined as lowpreparation, high-impact oracy activities, are particularly valuable. Examples include using sentence stems to scaffold responses, short peer-discussion routines like “think-pairshare,” or simple questioning frameworks. These strategies allow teachers to see immediate benefits in student participation, clarity of thought, and classroom dialogue (Cordingley et al., 2015). The value of quick wins lies not only in their simplicity, but

28 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

in the positive reinforcement they offer. When teachers observe immediate improvements in student engagement or expression, they are more likely to continue exploring and embedding oracy practices. This sense of success can build teacher confidence, promote reflection, and generate momentum for deeper pedagogical change (EEF, 2017). However, the limitations of quick wins must be acknowledged. Without broader curricular integration, their impact can be short-lived or inconsistent. A more embedded approach ensures oracy is systematically developed over time, through explicitly taught speaking skills, dialogic structures such as ‘talking roles’ (Voice 21, 2022), and alignment with subjectspecific goals like evaluating evidence or articulating abstract psychological theories. While this approach requires more planning, training, and consistency, it supports sustained cognitive and linguistic development (Alexander, 2020). Crucially, these approaches should not be seen as oppositional. A blended model could be adopted, where quick wins serve as the foundation, while long-term oracy integration provides the depth needed to enhance both attainment and

The research aims As a result of the research, this project aims to investigate two strategies. Trial 1: Quick win – Use of an explicit ‘low effort’ Oracy aim - ‘To consider whether elements of your language could be refined or elevated to achieve a more sophisticated tone’ Trial 2: Embedded approach - Use of talking roles to improve quality of evaluative paragraphs Methodology Background Participants were all male L6 students who were halfway through the first year of their two-year AQA A Level Psychology course. They had completed three units’ worth of content. AO3 had been taught using PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) with structured scaffolds, the support of which fades over time, a consistent approach in the department, across their two teachers. They were given the freedom to discuss when completing PEELs but this was not structured or formalised. The cohort is made up of two classes and contains boys with different starting points and subject choices, the Minimum Expected Grade (MEG) profile of the class is made up of A*-C, with the modal grade at A/B. There are three boys who have English as an Additional Language and there are three boys with access arrangements, two of which require 25% extra time and one with rest breaks. Extended writing skills are crucial for success in the final A Level exams, they are marked out of 16 and responses are allocated a ‘level’ from 0-4, students are expected to complete up to four essays per A Level paper (three papers in total). TRIAL 1 – ‘QUICK WIN’ - USE OF AN EXPLICIT ‘ORACY FOCUSED’ AIM Research Design All students sat a timed essay as a baseline assessment after being taught with the consistent department approach before the project began, to use as a control. They all sat another timed essay, with the same format after the use of the oracy aim. It is a repeated measures design, so all students are being compared with themselves. This decision was made to reduce the impact of participant variables on the data to increase the internal validity, such as SEND, of which there are three students with access arrangements. Also, to account for starting points and A Level choices. They could not sit the same timed essay assessment as this would have caused order effects to confound the results, the practice effect would mean that they may improve because they had completed the same test on the same content before and not because of the intervention. With a small cohort of 25 students, a repeated

measures design increases the amount of data to reduce the impact of any anomalous results. Controls When teaching the content to be assessed, the description and application were taught in line with the rest of the course, to minimise the impact of the change in teaching strategies on their understanding of evaluation (AO3). They were taught in their usual seating plan, classroom, timetabled lesson and with their regular teacher. All students sat a timed essay without the oracy aim to act as a control for comparison. During the experimental condition, all students were given the PEEL scaffolds that they have experienced throughout the course. Experimental condition After teaching the description of the theory and before starting the AO3 section, all students were asked to do the following when and after completing their evaluative PEEL paragraphs: “To consider whether elements of your language could be refined or elevated to achieve a more sophisticated tone” It was made clear to them that this aim is a model of itself, i.e. an elevated way of saying ‘make your writing sound better’. To achieve this, students were told that they needed to talk to each other and discuss ways in which they can achieve that aim as a group while completing their work. The teacher circulated to ensure that they were verbalising themselves, discussing options as a group. As this additional aim increases cognitive load, students were given time after they had completed their PEELs to discuss and improve their language retrospectively. Students were told that the most academic language would result in a ‘commendation’, our school reward system. Findings – Qualitative analysis There were three scaffolded PEELs provided (as the standard way of working). Below is an example of one student’s work in the control and experimental condition, with the scaffolded frame before it was completed. The control PEEL. This is an example of one student’s PEEL on the interactionist approach as a control before the experimental condition began (but within the same two week period to minimise order effects). The language is muddled in places, e.g. there are two instances of ‘therefore’ indicating two links within the same

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

From quick wins to lasting impact

Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

A bar chart to show total raw marks before and after use of Oracy aim

A bar chart to show students marks increasing, staying the same, or decreasing after the use of the Oracy aim

Control PEEL – Most effective in combination with drugs P

March et al (2007) compared the effects of CBT with anti-depressant drugs and a combination of the two in 327 adolescents with a main diagnosis of depression. After 36 weeks 81% of the CBT alone group had improved, whereas this increased to 86% when combined with antidepressant drugs.

This suggests depression is also due to Biological factors, specifically the fact it is associated with low levels of serotonin (can be successfully treated using SSRIs which increases serotonin levels). Therefore, the cognitive approach only considers the role of nurture (e.g. Activating event), while the biological approach focuses on the role of nature in treating depression.

2 0

9 Control

Experimental

paragraph resulting in a lack of coherence. It is not entirely clear that the student knows what an interactionist approach is, even if they do. This would be marked at ‘level 3’ (level 4 being the highest). There are several words used that are not typical of the current written work produced by this cohort, including ‘nurtural processes’, ‘constructed’, ‘conjuration’ and ‘ergo’ improving the coherence. It demonstrates a top ‘level 4’ band understanding of the interactionist approach. The experimental aim PEEL has overcome this issue faced in the control PEEL. It appears that this student did know what interactionism means (this was not taught again) but was able to articulate it more clearly which would improve the outcomes for the essay. This student did improve from level 3 to level 4 (top band).

Same

Down

A bar chart to show the change in level allocated to responses after the use of the Oracy aim 12 10 L

Findings - Quantitative impact To assess the impact of the intervention, the assessment data was compared to their timed essay data from a previous assessment, the content of which was delivered by the same teacher. The assessment is out of 16. The data suggests that the intervention improved the cohort average marks by nearly one mark. The majority of students improved their raw mark after the use of the Oracy aim. Most students remained within the same level or improved. Suggesting that the use of an Oracy aim does impact on the raw mark and most students gained more marks after the use

30 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

Therefore the cognitive approach to treating depression is limited, and a more interactionist approach should be considered.

6 4 2

A weakness of the behavioural approach to explaining phobias is that it only considers the role of nurture and ignores the role of nature .

E Seligman (1970) argued that humans are genetically programmed to rapidly learn an association between potentially life-threatening stimuli and fear. These stimuli are referred to as ancient fears – things that would have been dangerous in our evolutionary past (such as snakes, heights, strangers) are adaptive for us to avoid. Avoiding them increases our chances of survival. E This is important to consider because this denotes that phobias may be a result of years of evolutionary development. Instead of phobias being developed solely due to nurtural purposes, these phobias may be constructed through the genetic predisposition to survive. L Therefore, the behavioural explanation may be too simplistic as it fails to address how genetics may play a factor in the conjuration of phobias. Ergo, to combat this a more interactionist approach should be implemented instead.

0 Improved

Same

Dropped

of the Oracy aim. Reliability of the quality of these PEELs were checked with another psychology teacher in the department, who agreed that this second PEEL was ‘top band’.

A weakness of using the cognitive approach to treat depression is the fact it does not consider biological factors causing depression, therefore ignoring the relative contribution of nature.

Experimental Aim PEEL – Nature vs. nurture – are phobias evolutionary rather than learned?

Discussion The Oracy aim did improve participation and there were instances of deeper learning taking place, as shown by the improvements in the data for some students. It has the ability to improve confidence in writing/speaking academically. However, the variability in data suggests that we should consider the level of student participation and the potential that social loafing took place. The possibility of cognitive overload or distraction and the difficulty in accounting for starting points of verbal ability.

A bar chart to show the average level awarded with and without talking roles

A bar chart to show the average mark in the uit assessed later in the course (summer exam)

3.5

3 20

2.5 2

1.5

1 14

0.5

0 Control

Conclusion and Recommendations A low-effort yet high-impact approach is where teachers are encouraged to embed simple, explicit oracy-focused aims within A Level extended writing tasks, such as, “Consider whether elements of your language could be refined or elevated to achieve a more sophisticated tone.” This encourages metacognitive reflection and helps students

Experimental

better express their understanding. This approach requires minimal additional planning and class time but can significantly enhance students’ ability to articulate complex ideas, often resulting in improved attainment. Encouraging students to verbalise their thinking and engage in discussion before

Control

Experimental

or during writing is a key evidence-informed element that supports this strategy’s effectiveness. Evidence suggests that this quick win strategy improves teacher perception of oracy tasks as impactful and could lead to enhanced participation in a more embedded approach.

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

From quick wins to lasting impact TRIAL 2 – ‘EMBEDDED APPROACH’ - USE OF TALKING ROLES TO DEVELOP EVALUATIVE SKILLS Research Design Independent measures were used, one class received the ‘talking roles’ experimental condition within one unit (AQA Attachment) and the other classes was used as a control with the consistent methods used in the course. This design was chosen to eliminate order effects, the practice effect whereby the students improve as they gain more experience in the course. There are issues with participant variables, however, as there are ranges of Minimum Expected Grades, SEND needs and combinations of A Level choices, as well as background differences, e.g. a parent who may work in the field Psychology.

Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

Findings The talking roles activity had no significant impact on the average level awarded when students were assessed on the content from that lesson.

Discussion Roles voice 21

Discussion roles help students to manage talk and encourage the development of certain speaking and listening skills.

The unit was later assessed in the summer exam, a summative assessment of the L6 year, and found that students who had the talking roles improved their average mark in that unit. Instigator

Prober

Challenger

Qualitatively, the lesson was interesting and most of the students looked like they enjoy the time to think and articulate without writing. The students working at an A*/A struggled to write less, the nature of an intense A Level programme may have exemplified this.

Starts the discussion or opens up a new topic for discussion Will say: I would like to start by saying … I think we should consider … We haven’t yet talked about … Let’s also think about …

Digs deeper into the argument, asks for evidence or justification of ideas Will say: What do you think would be the effect of …? Why do you think …? Can you provide an example to support what you are saying?

Gives reasons to disagree or presents an alternative argument Will say: I disagree with you because … You mentioned X but what about … To challenge you X, I think … I understand your point of view, but have you thought about …?

Controls The same teacher delivered the same AO1, AO2 and AO3 content to both classes in as similar way as possible. The experimental class was chosen using a coin flip to reduce researcher bias. One group did not get easier or more difficult content on which to complete the ‘Talking Roles’ activity, so that it is the activity and not the content that affects the outcomes, increasing internal validity. Both groups received the scaffolds typical of the rest of the course.

Ethical Considerations of both trials Trial 1 and 2- No consent was obtained prior to the study commencing, as it would be considered a normal event for a teacher to trial a new learning method. All data is confidential, and no student names can be traced to their data. The method provided no opportunity for harm to come to the students as the assessment was their normal way of working and not for the purposes of the research. The task itself did not cause any stress, if anything, the students enjoyed the challenge.

Clarifier

Summariser

Builder

Trial 1 - Students all experienced the experimental condition so there were no issues regarding unfair allocation of improved teaching conditions. Most students remained working at their current level and some improved. 5 boys did drop a level and have been targeted for support, this fluctuation is considered normal and in line with previous data points.

Identifies the main ideas from the discussion. This might be during the discussion, to help move the conversation forward, or at the end of the discussion. Will say: Overall, the main points were … The main ideas raised today were … Our discussion focused on … The three main things we talked about were …

Develops, adds to or runs with an idea Will say: I agree, and would like to add… Building on that idea, I think … Linking to what X said, I think..

Experimental Condition Students in the experimental group were presented with the talking roles activity, using the resource from Voice 21, and, alongside this, they were provided with the Psychology specific application. This was chosen as it is easy to understand, provides the structures for the sentence starters required with the aim of reducing cognitive load so that students can focus on the task.

Simplifies and makes things clearer by asking questions Will say: What do you mean when you say …? Can you explain a bit more about …? Does that mean …? Please can you clarify what you meant by …?

The talking roles were explained to the entire class before they were assigned their role to ensure that they all understood how they work as a group, support was given throughout the activity to further reduce cognitive load of the new activity. Students were given the controlled scaffolds on paper as a group – one PEEL per A4 page with the evidence. Each student was assigned a role at random and each table of four students worked together. The instigator was also the builder, and they were all encouraged to be clarifiers. Students were encouraged to write short notes, but articulating out loud was strongly encouraged and they were reminded of this. At the end of the 30-minute activity, they were given time to add to the PEEL boxes and clarify any ideas. The finished work was uploaded onto OneNote so that the group could access it.

32 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

Trial 2 – Independent measures was used, so one class did not receive the intervention that may have been beneficial, and the experimental group may have received intervention that may have hindered their learning. To reduce any ethical implications, all students received the same access to the top-level band information and all students were given access to top level resources post intervention and assessment. The initial lesson had no significant impact on the assessment results, there was some improvement in the summer exam, so more opportunity to use talking roles with both classes will be used in their U6 year. Discussion The talking roles activity did not improve the level of response in the short-term assessment but there was some evidence that it had impact over time. There was an issue of cognitive load in the lesson, as it is a new activity the students spent time finding out how to engage and succeed in their role. They were adept at ensuring others stayed in their role, which supported Oracy development as a process. Some of the students needed to be prompted to reduce social loafing and, with the

lack of written work required, there was variability in student participation. Although it is difficult to assess quality of verbal discussions, most students did discuss well during the lesson and developed their understanding of difficult concepts such as social sensitivity, real world application and how to articulate conflicting research. When these themes emerged again, the class were able to use the language and were praised for doing so, suggesting deeper learning and increased participation did occur with the talking roles. The random allocation of roles may have caused issues with engagement, an adaptive approach to role allocation may improve this. Conclusion and Recommendations The generalisability of the findings for both trials are limited as it is based on two classes of L6 students studying Psychology from one teacher in an independent all boys

school. There are very few behavioural issues and a high level of parental education levels as parental education is consistently associated with better early language/oracy outcomes in children (larger vocabulary, more advanced expressive language), (Schoon., I, et al, 2022). The aim and talking roles may have more impact on schools with lower parental education levels. The project was also relatively short in duration, the possibility that there was more impact to be found over time, or more time to embed the Talking Roles may have yielded different results. Also, the explicit oracy-based aim could be researched over time, as this had positive initial results, more research could look into how to maximise this and how much novelty played a role. It is recommended that teachers should prepare to embed this over time for it to have an impact. The use of the talking role language should be designed in conjunction with the requirements in their written

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

From quick wins to lasting impact work to become a feature of their analysis. This is to enable students to see value in the activity over time at A Level. It is recommended that this activity informs initial discussion with minimal note taking and then students are given time to write the AO3 out in full. This work could shape pedagogy in A Level Psychology as it informs how oracy-based activities could improve attainment over time and deeper understanding of difficult concepts.

Hayley Hemming | Head of Psychology | Research Lead

Future research should look at how integration of talking roles as part of all AO3 teaching could impact attainment. This ideally would take place over an entire A Level course to gather more data. It would investigate how writing and oracy can be effectively combined to enhance impact. Overall, oracybased activities can be used to improve attainment in A Level Psychology, further research is needed to measure the impact of an embedded oracy-based approach.

Action Research Projects – Oracy - 2025

Each year, teachers from across our school create and carry out interesting action research projects. Last year, oracy dominated our discussions and the research conducted offered insight into how meaningful talk can impact learning in a range of subjects A huge thank you and well done to the teachers for their thoughtful contributions. Their research exemplifies the evidence informed approach which defines our teaching and learning committee. Action Research projects conducted by the Teaching and Learning committee 2024-25 The effect of peer talking on the consolidation of foreign language vocabulary – Johnny Boyd – Latin

References Hill, B. (2021). It’s good to talk: Speaking up for oracy in the management classroom. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100462 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934) Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. MIT press. Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S. & Miller, S. M. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge University Press. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge. Phillipson, N. (2020). Teaching through and for Dialogue (Notes to accompany the one-day course). 21st Century Learners. Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge journal of education, 43(3), 325-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024 Conrad, S. J., Cassidy, C., & Mathis, C. (2015). Encouraging and supporting children’s voices. In Youth Quotas and other Efficient Forms of Youth Participation in Ageing Societies (pp. 109-124). Springer, Cham. Barak, M., & Lefstein, A. (2022). Above the law? The democratic implications of setting ground rules for dialogue. Language and Education, 36(3), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1981923 Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Setting clear learning purposes for ELLs. Educational Leadership, 73(5), 84. Accessed at https://knilt.arcc.albany.edu/images/a/a5/ Setting_Clear_Learning_Purposes_for_ELLs.pdf Willcox, K. S., & Tsapali, M. (2023). Improving Children’s Oracy Skills: A Qualitative Study Highlighting the Student’s Voice Towards Different Dialogic Teaching Strategies Used in The Classroom within One U.K. Primary School. Cambridge Educational Research e-Journal, 10, 159-176 Wilkinson, A 1965, ‘The concept of oracy’, Educational Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 11-15.

Developing Oracy through Taboo Starters - Marianne Browne - History in first year university assessment tasks’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 27-39.

Use of structured conversation to enhance understanding of key terms – Bianca Francis – Sociology

Mercer, N & Dawes, L 2014, ‘The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s’, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 430-445

Developing Oracy Skills with Talking Roles – Hayley Hemming – Psychology

Alexander, R. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge.

Enhancing Peer Feedback by Explaining Answers Out loud – Beth Holton – Mathematics

Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L., & Coe, R. (2015). Developing great teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust. Doherty, C., Angus, L., & Settele, G. (2011). Speaking of cultural capital: Reflexivity in the production of the classroom. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33(1), 5–20. Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (2017). Improving literacy in secondary schools. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk Hill, D. (2021). Oracy: The ability to speak well. Impact Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk and the development of dialogue by teachers and students. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 370–383). Routledge.

Unlocking Success through Oracy – Roxanne Irani – Biology Promoting Oracy for EaL Learners – Amanda Lee IELTS Community of Inquiry – DaN McKee – Theology and Philosophy Technology Term of the Week to enhance specialist language – Tom Middleton - Design Technology Increase knowledge of English vocabulary by making links between cognates – Rachel Morgan - Classics The use of Oracy dictation and ChatGPT for feedback and target setting – Art – Richard Parkinson Mini whiteboards and the use of the ABC questioning technique – Ian Willis – Physical Education

Voice 21. (2022). The oracy framework: Supporting and assessing students’ spoken communication. https://voice21.org Wilcox, G., & Tsapali, M. (2023). Oracy and its impact on thinking and learning: A review of contemporary evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 1–18. Voice 21. (2022). The oracy framework and oracy benchmarks: Supporting and assessing students’ spoken communication. https://voice21.org Schoon, I., et al. (2022) ‘Explaining gaps by parental education in children’s early language and social outcomes at age 3–4 years: evidence from harmonised data from three countries’, Current Psychology. Available at: SpringerLink (Accessed: 12 August 2025).

Mah, ASH 2016, ‘Oracy Is as Important as Literacy: Interview with Christine CM Goh’, RELC Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 399-404. Doherty, C, Kettle, M, May, L & Caukill, E 2011, ‘Talking the talk: Oracy demands

34 ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 – STUDIUM

ISSUE 1/LENT 2026 STUDIUM

Warwick School Myton Road Warwick CV34 6PP 01926 776400 WSS-admissions@warwickschools.co.uk warwickschool.org