Oracy: Old but not forgotten

The modes of reading and viewing, speaking and listening and writing and representing outlined in the English-literacy curriculum all contribute to the teaching and learning of English in Australian schools. I have set up this blog in order to demonstrate the relationship between these three modes of communication. In this post I will analyse the importance of the three modes in the context of the work of various literacy theorists. In the posts that follow, I will look at the three modes within the Tasmanian English-literacy curriculum, and then introduce my own teaching strategy to provide context to the discussion. Here, though, I begin with a look at oracy and its place alongside reading and writing in English teaching.

In historical societies, information was created and communicated orally, and speaking, reading and writing were considered separate skills (Kral, 2009). As development occurred, narrative structure contributed to the way people expressed ideas in conversation and writing (Rogoff as cited in Kral, 2009). As a result, oral traditions have given way to written forms of communication, and there remains some conflict concerning the place of oracy in the contemporary literacy context.

There is little argument about the importance of reading and writing in the English literacy curriculum. According to McDougall (2004), the conventional modes of reading and writing take priority over other forms of communication for teachers of English. This is because it is generally accepted that ‘a fully literate person is one who can read and write; development of this form of literacy is viewed as one of the most significant goals of education’ (Kress & van Leeuwen, as cited in McDougall, 2004, p. 113). However, oracy, or speaking and listening, is equally as important as reading and writing. Speech is the first and most significant means of communication to develop in young children. In the classroom, learning is presented and interpreted through speaking and listening, and learners must use oracy to develop communication and thinking skills before they can be effective readers and writers (Campbell & King, 2006). In its Initial Advice Paper for the National English Curriculum, the National Curriculum Board (2008) stated that:

The subject of English has historically been largely about the reading and writing of printed texts. More recently there has been debate about the growing significance of… communication such as speaking and listening, combinations of visual information with language, and the new digital developments…Clearly these forms of communication are expanding in and out of formal education, and so they have an important place in a national English curriculum. (p. 8)

This statement coincides with a growing body of theory that supports the integration of multimodal communication in literacy teaching and learning (Healy, 2006; Huijser, 2006; Kalantzis & Cope, 2001; Matthewman, Blight, Davies & Cabot, 2003; McDougall, 2004). As such, literacy teachers should recognise the equal importance of all three modes of communication in the English curriculum. This is made difficult by the national assessment programs in literacy, which emphasises the importance of reading and writing at the expense of a holistic, multimodal pedagogy (Unsworth & Chan, 2009). Over the next few posts, I will be developing a learning strategy that illustrates the interconnectedness of reading and viewing, writing and representing and speaking and listening in the English curriculum.

References:

Campbell, R., & King, N. (2006). Oracy: The cornerstone of effective teaching and learning. In R. Campbell & D. Green (Eds.), Literacies and learners: Current perspectives (3^rd ed.) (pp. 84-100). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Healy, A. (2006). Multiliteracies: Teachers and students at work in new ways with literacy. In R. Campbell & D. Green (Eds.), Literacies and learners: Current perspectives (3^rd ed.) (pp. 191-207). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Huijser, H. (2006). Refocusing multiliteracies for the net generation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 2(1), 21-33.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2001). Introduction. In M. Kalantzis & B. Cope (Eds.), Transformations in language and learning: Perspectives on multiliteracies (pp. 9-18). Melbourne, Vic: Common Ground.

Kral, I. (2009). Oral to literate traditions: Emerging literacies in remote Aboriginal Australia. TESOL in Context, 19(2), 34-49.

Matthewman, S., Blight, A., Davies, C., & Cabot, J. (2003). What does multimodality mean for English? Creative tensions in teaching new texts and new literacies. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 11(1), 31-36.

McDougall, J. K. (2004). Changing mindsets: A study of Queensland primary teachers and the visual literacy initiative. North Rockhampton Qld: Central Queensland University.

National Curriculum Board (2008). National English Curriculum: Initial advice paper. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/engagement/past_papers.html.

Unsworth, L., & Chan, E. (2009). Bridging multimodal literacies and national assessment programs in literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(3), 245-257.