It’s high time we talk about oracy

When the Curriculum and assessment review (CAR) in England placed oracy at the heart of its vision, it felt less like a bold new direction and more like a long-delayed admission of something educators have known for generations.

Professor of education, Andrew Wilkinson named the concept oracy in 1965, arguing that spoken language deserved equal footing with literacy and numeracy. He was right at the time, and he was hardly breaking new ground. Socrates built an entire educational philosophy on dialogue.

Since then, generations of thinkers have recognised that learning happens through talk: through questioning, probing, arguing, refining and rethinking aloud. The idea that learning happens through talk is not radical. It is ancient. Yet somehow, it has taken until 2025 for England’s national policy to catch up.

Science teachers have never needed convincing. Every explanation, prediction, justification and evaluation we ask of students is, at its core, an oracy task. Talk is how learners test ideas, surface misconceptions and build conceptual coherence. And yet spoken language has been squeezed out of classrooms by assessment pressures and a narrow view of what counts as rigorous. The CAR’s decision to foreground oracy is welcome, but belated. It finally aligns national expectations with what research, practice and basic educational logic have been telling us for decades.

Oracy prepares young people for a world shaped by AI, misinformation and rapid technological change

My own work has shown this repeatedly. Studies such as What are they talking about? (2023) and A holistic framework for developing purposeful practical work (2022) demonstrate that structured talk deepens understanding, strengthens conceptual grasp and supports learners who are otherwise marginalised by text-heavy approaches in science learning.

But this is not a solitary argument. Chemistry education research has been moving steadily toward dialogue-rich teaching. The 2024 paper, Incorporating dialogue in laboratory teaching makes the case for dialogue as central to laboratory learning, showing that talk is essential for sense-making in practical work. The field is converging on the same conclusion: dialogue is not an add-on. It is the mechanism through which scientific thinking develops.

Science teachers know the power of oracy

Classroom practice tells the same story. Teachers across the Education in Chemistry  community have been demonstrating the power of talk for years. Help learners master organic mechanisms using talk shows how verbal reasoning assists students as they navigate complex reaction pathways. Ideas to inspire confident contributions to group talk offers practical strategies for building inclusive discussion routines. Debate in the chemistry classroom illustrates how structured argumentation strengthens students’ grasp of evidence, uncertainty and scientific judgement. These pieces, alongside structured talk resources and countless classroom examples, show that teachers already understand the value of oracy and have simply been waiting for the system to catch up.

More importantly, the CAR frames oracy as a matter of equity. Spoken language is one of the strongest predictors of academic success. Students who lack access to the language of schooling are systematically disadvantaged. In chemistry, where conceptual understanding depends on precise vocabulary, causal reasoning and the ability to articulate relationships between ideas, that gap widens quickly. Oracy helps to close it. It gives every student access to the cognitive work of science, not just those already fluent in academic talk.

Why oracy matters in a changing world

The CAR also recognises that oracy prepares young people for a world shaped by AI, misinformation and rapid technological change. Scientific literacy is not the ability to recall facts. It is the ability to explain, question, critique and communicate. Without oracy, students may know science but be unable to use it.

So yes, the CAR’s inclusion of oracy is overdue, but it is also energising and validates what teachers and researchers have been building for years. It positions talk where it belongs – at the centre of scientific learning – and challenges chemistry departments to make dialogue a routine part of lessons, practical work and assessment.

Science has always advanced through dialogue: between ideas, evidence and explanation, and people. Our classrooms should do the same.