Oral language interventions are about making the most of spoken language and verbal interaction for learning.
‘Oral language’ refers to speaking and listening. ‘Intervention’ means doing something new or making a change or refinement to usual practice. Oral language interventions can therefore include approaches that emphasise speaking and/or listening in a whole class setting. They can also include targeted and small-group approaches.
Oral language approaches might include:
- targeted reading aloud and book discussion with young children;
- explicitly extending pupils’ spoken vocabulary;
- the use of structured questioning to develop reading comprehension; and
- the use of purposeful, curriculum-focused, dialogue and interaction.
What ties the studies in this strand together is the teaching approach, rather than the aim of the intervention. Even though all these interventions make use of oral language, they do not necessarily target pupils’ oral language skills as their primary outcome.
In oral language interventions, the adult might be:
- scaffolding pupils’ speaking and listening;
- modelling high-quality speaking and listening;
- modelling metacognitive strategies for reading comprehension;
- using dialogic approachesUsing talk as a tool to develop pupils' understanding, thinking and metacognition (i.e. pupils’ own understanding of their learning process). This may include questioning and thinking aloud to model strategies, along with structuring different types of classroom talk to maximise learning.;
- providing feedback; and
- teaching pupils how to use an oral language strategy for learning.
The pupils might be using oral language with the purpose of:
- learning reading or writing skills;
- developing their vocabulary;
- developing their ideas;
- making connections with prior knowledge;
- developing their conversation skills, or other speaking and listening skills; and
- developing their metacognitive awareness.
Other approaches in this Toolkit also involve oral language, such as self-regulationHow children monitor their emotions and thoughts, and adapt their behaviour in different circumstances.?x‑craft-preview=ce7f256a31b6a691f2379043cf6209e19bfd559f4a263b5e818aa351273238aenqyublohea”>Metacognition (which makes talk about learning explicit in classrooms), Collaborative learning approaches (which promote pupils’ interaction in groups), and Feedback (when delivered verbally).
1. On average, oral language approaches have a high impact on pupil outcomes (+6 months’ additional progress).
2. Interaction for learning is a key aspect of these interventions. Approaches often involve spoken interaction between the practitioner and pupils and between peers.
3. The evidence is strongest on interventions that are integrated with the existing curriculum. It is important to consider how any changes or refinements to practice are integrated with the curriculum.
4. Oral language interventions can be an effective approach for disadvantaged pupils. In the research evidence, the higher the proportion of disadvantaged pupils taking part, the more effective the intervention seemed to be.
The average impact of +6 months’ progress is based mainly on pupils’ scores in tests of reading comprehensionThis is the outcome that the Toolkit uses to assess impact when it is available because it tends to be reliable..
This approach can have a positive impact on oral language outcomes too, such as a pupil’s ability to retell a story or understand spoken vocabulary. The evidence looks promising, but measuring oral language ability reliably can be difficult. It has different dimensions, including both speaking and listening.
Literacy is important across the curriculum, and oral language approaches can support literacy. A small number of studies test whether oral language interventions improve science and maths outcomes. The impact on achievement in these subject-specific tests is not clear.
There may be wider benefits to oral language approaches outside of educational attainment. For example, some studies report improved pupil attitudes, attention, self-regulationHow children monitor their emotions and thoughts, and adapt their behaviour in different circumstances. or confidence.
Studies that focus on speaking, listening, or a combination of the two, all show positive impacts on attainment. The majority of studies focus on both together. Studies that focus on listening alone may be particularly effective, but this evidence base is smaller. Wider evidence suggests that some pupils may struggle specifically with spoken language. Schools should consider how they will identify pupils that need additional support around oral language and articulation. It may be helpful to focus on speaking and listening activities separately where needed to meet particular needs.
We found more studies testing interventions in early years and primary school settings than secondary schools. These approaches seem to be similarly effective across the age groups.
Almost all interventions use oral language with the purpose of supporting pupils’ literacy.
The majority of studies explore impact on reading. Where studies have measured oral language outcomes, the impact also tends to be positive. However, we are less confident in this finding.
Oral language interventions can be effective when delivered by teachers, teaching assistants, or others. Professional development is likely to be important for anyone delivering a new approach.
The majority of the studies took place in the USA. The impact estimate is similar for USA studies and studies from other countries.
There is evidence to suggest that pupils from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be behind their more advantaged counterparts in developing early language and speech skills, which may affect their school experience and learning later in their school lives.
Oral language interventions can be an effective approach for disadvantaged pupils. In the research evidence, the higher the proportion of disadvantaged pupils taking part, the more effective the intervention seemed to be.
These approaches can be delivered to all pupils, or they can be targeted. Targeted and supplementary interventions can be effective and so could be used to support any disadvantaged pupils who have fallen behind. However, it is important to consider any potential negative impact of delivering teaching outside the classroom, such as missing out on other lessons.
Oral language interventions are implemented in different ways throughout the research evidence. It seems that different approaches can be effective.
Integration with curriculum: Most interventions in this evidence base were integrated within the usual curriculum. When integrated, this was almost always in literacy teaching, and very often in the context of story reading (especially with younger children). There were some examples of interventions embedded in other subjects, including science. Some interventions were delivered outside of the usual classroom setting, in or out of school hours.
It is important to ensure that oral language activities are linked to the wider curriculum. For interventions that target vocabulary, this works best when they are related to content currently being studied in school and involve active and meaningful use of any new vocabulary.
Interactions: Interventions often involve spoken interaction between the practitioner and pupils or pupils and their peers. In group or paired work, pupils sometimes share their thought processes, develop ideas, or consolidate vocabulary. The practitioner has a key role in setting up productive peer discussions. In some interventions, oral language was used by a pupil independently, for example to support metacognition.
Groupings: Lots of the studies test oral language interventions with large groups (more than six pupils, up to a whole class). Some studies take a targeted approach, delivering an intervention to a particular pupil group based on need, for example low-attaining or disadvantaged pupils.
There are EEF resources that schools might find useful in supporting effective oral language practice and building strong readers.
Whilst this strand includes evidence from children in the Early Years, additional EEF resources offer further support for that age group:
- Early Years Evidence Store: Communication and language approaches
- Early Years Teaching Toolkit
- Guidance on high-quality interactions in the Early Years
When introducing new approaches, schools should consider implementation. For more information see A School’s Guide to Implementation.
Overall, the median costs of implementing oral language interventions are estimated as very low. The costs associated with oral language interventions largely arise from books, resources, and training, the majority of which are start-up costs.
Whilst the median cost estimate for oral language interventions is very low, the option to provide training for staff means that costs can range from very low to moderate.
The security of the evidence around oral language interventions is rated as high. 188 studies were identified. Overall, the topic lost one padlock because a large percentage of the studies were not independently evaluated. Evaluations conducted by organisations connected with the approach – for example, commercial providers, typically have larger impacts, which may influence the overall impact of the strand.
As with any evidence review, the Toolkit summarises the average impact of approaches when researched in academic studies. It is important to consider your context and apply your professional judgement when implementing an approach in your setting.
Have any questions?
The Teaching and Learning Toolkit is a living resource that is updated as new evidence is published. As we continue to update the Toolkit we are interested in your questions about this topic area for future content.
The evidence synthesis team will review submitted questions and, where possible, provide answers in future updates.
Guidance Reports
Preparing for Literacy
Guidance Reports
Improving Literacy in Key Stage 1
Guidance Reports
Improving Literacy in Key Stage 2
Guidance Reports