The case for treating oracy as a foundational skill in education is undeniable, particularly in the case of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a wealth of research in the area of language and communication, although there are still gaps in our understanding of how to apply this in education practice and the best ways to empower education practitioners to embed communication into
their setting’s policy and practice. 

While most education practitioners intuitively recognise the value and importance of universal language support, barriers persist, inhibiting a consistent and systematic approach to providing high-quality oracy education for all. This means universal language support is varied and young children and their families continue to have unequal access
to high-quality language learning opportunities. 

In the second article in this series, we summarise the results of a research project carried out at the University of Bristol, aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of the Supporting Spoken Language in the Classroom (SSLiC) Programme. The SSLiC Programme seeks to achieve this aim by bringing together research and practitioner expertise to develop a systematic whole-setting approach to language awareness and support; conduct a self-assessment audit of whole-setting practices in relation to supporting language; equip practitioners with the skills to identify language-learning needs through the use of evidence-based tools; and, finally, to implement creative ideas to sustain and support whole-setting change.

Research aims

The SSLiC Programme was implemented in eight nurseries and 12 primary schools across two local authorities in the academic year 2022-2023. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSLiC Programme on education practitioners’ knowledge and confidence to support children’s language-learning needs, the language-learning classroom environment and children’s learning engagement. We then aimed to gain rich fine-grained insights into the factors that support the implementation of universal language interventions in education settings, and investigate what factors influence the continued implementation of these interventions in such settings. Importantly, we hoped to inform local and national decision making about how education settings can provide effective universal language provision and support for all the children they cater for.

The project achieved these aims through focused knowledge exchange and dissemination activities to: 

• Influence the policy-response to the development of spoken language as a foundational skill in education. 
• Create a long-term impact for education practitioners.
• Disseminate good practice around universal language support.

How is the project exploring this topic?

To achieve these aims, we collected data before and after the settings implemented the SSLiC Programme, through observing pupils, classroom observations, staff questionnaires and in-depth interviews with staff at the end of the programme. We monitored nursery, Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 classrooms, and used two measures. The first was the Communication Supporting Classrooms Observation Tool (CSCOT; Dockrell et al., 2012) that assesses the language learning CSCOT comprises three dimensions: Language Learning Environment (LLE); Language Learning Opportunities (LLO) and Language Learning Interactions (LLI). The other tool we used was the Pupil Engagement Measure, a tool developed by Speech and Language UK. We investigated the differences observed in classroom environments and pupil engagement before and after the SSLiC Programme.

At the end of the programme, we also sent participating settings brief online surveys asking staff involved with the implementation of the SSLiC Programme for their views on the programme, its overall structure and materials and the support offered as part of the programme. We also asked one practitioner from each setting to take part in an in-depth interview so we couldfind out their views on what factors affect oracy education.

What have we found out?

The results from setting observations showed that in terms of classroom environments, there was an increase in scores in all three dimensions of the CSCOT observed across all four year groups following the implementation of the SSLiC Programme. The most significant differences were observed in nursery, but not in any other year group. There was also a significant difference for the dimension of the LLE in nursery and in Reception year groups, but not in Year 1 or Year 2 year groups. For LLO, there was no significant difference across any of the year groups. For the LLI dimension, there was a significant difference in nursery, but not for any other year group.

We then explored differences in Pupil Engagement scores across the four year groups before and after the implementation of the SSLiC Programme, and found that there was an overall increase in scores (particularly for nursery), butno significant differences were observed in any year group.

In responses to the end-of-programme survey, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the SSLiC Programme’s structure and materials, and strongly agreed that the SSLiC Audit allowed them to appraise the level of provision in their setting and identify areas for improvement. 

We also asked practitioners to rate any changes in their knowledge and practice as a result of taking part in the SSLiC Programme. Here again, practitioners agreed that taking part in the SSLiC Programme had given them a better understanding of facilitators and barriers to implementing changes in their setting’s language provision. They also strongly agreed that taking part in the SSLiC Programme had increased their knowledge and understanding of how to improve the language provision in their setting. Although the aim of the SSLiC Programme was to develop education practice, a great number of our participants told us that taking part in the programme facilitated improvements in direct pupil outcomes. 

Finally, the interviews provided us with very useful information. The practitioners we worked with discussed their desire to improve the setting’s universal language provision and provide high-quality teaching for all pupils. One practitioner commented that ‘unless the universal language provision is right, doing more targeted or specialist work is much harder’. 

Practitioners also talked about the fact that participation in the SSLiC Programme often aligned to the high priority which the setting placed on improving children’s oracy. Many practitioners identified factors including the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the need to support pupils with English as an additional language and children entering settings with very low levels of language as influencing the development work they engaged in. 

Practitioners also felt the SSLiC Programme enabled them to build on the existing practice in their settings, thereby keeping the momentum going. What they enjoyed the most about the programme was its tailored approach to the professional development needed in their setting. Staff told us how much they appreciated the SSLiC Facilitator support in the creation, implementation and monitoring of their setting’s Action Plan, and how they valued the Facilitator’s ability to translate complex research literature into accessible and relevant materials. 

Early in the programme, each setting formed a Communication Team which included key members of staff. Its role was to champion the importance of communication and prioritise actions relating to improving communication outcomes for children. Our participants emphasised the benefits of having such a team – these included the involvement of SLT and enabling collaborative work across different systems or phases in the setting. For example, one practitioner noted how collaborative working had provided them with a greater understanding of issues relating to transition
from nursery to school. 

Primarily, all practitioners emphasised how participating in the project enabled them to access good-quality professional development directly linked to their role in the setting. They hugely appreciated the use of a robust and repeatable observation tool (CSCOT) and the opportunities for creating setting-specific resources. Our practitioners reported that they found the SSLiC Review Day to be particularly beneficial in terms of learning about other settings’ projects, taking ideas and sharing resources with other settings.

When we asked practitioners about factors which could influence future investment in the project, they discussed the perceived positive impact of the SSLiC Programme, including embedding it in everyday teaching practice, and improving staff’s skills to support spoken language among their cohorts. Our practitioners also noted how implementing the programme had led to a consistency of approach. 

A second factor was the use of research evidence, and how much more confident practitioners felt in understanding and using research in their everyday teaching practice.

What does this mean for education practice and policy?

First, the results of our study have shown that, overall, after implementing the SSLiC Programme, children’s learning engagement increased over time in participating settings, as did the quality of the classroom language learning environments. 

However, the results also highlighted the tension that appears in practice between practitioners supporting children’s language learning needs and meeting the rest of the demands of the English classroom curriculum. As such, a major implication from our study is the need to raise the profile of the importance of spoken language in education by putting oracy on an equal footing with literacy and numeracy, and recognising its importance beyond the early years. 

The practitioners who took part in our project reported that engaging with a structured universal programme such as SSLiC facilitated improvements in direct pupil outcomes. This indicates an urgent need to equip education professionals and settings to provide sustained and comprehensive high-quality language teaching for all children. 

This can be achieved by developing oracy leaders in education settings to enable a learning culture and the conditions for oracy to thrive.

Our study results also indicate demand for evidence-based professional development, built on tailored, sustained support
with ‘expert mentors’. There is also a critical need for effective evidence-based tools and resources that can support and empower practitioners to strengthen their oracy provision. What was clear from our study is that, if we wish to establish a more evidence-informed practice in education settings, professional development activities need to focus on enabling teacher capacity to engage in, and with, research. 

We are currently in the second year of implementing the SSLiC Programme in a number of settings that took part in the first year of the project. This will give us a chance to explore issues relating to the implementation of universal language interventions in a more longitudinal way.