Three Arguments for a Profession-specific Oracy Approach in Teacher Education: What Determines How Teachers Support Oracy?

Students need a well-developed professional language to be able to participate in professional conversations in school and outside school. Oracy is a key term that can describe these competencies. It refers to “the development of young people's skills in using their first language, or the official/educational language of their country, to communicate across a range of social settings” (Mercer, Warwick & Ahmed, 2016). Hence, oracy might be described as being parallel to literacy. However, oracy, in contrast to literacy, is not necessarily a strong focus in teacher education. Therefore, this study investigates the status of oracy in three Danish grade 6 classrooms, the expectations of future Danish science teachers, and the framework that determines Danish classroom activities and teacher education activities. The study aims to contribute to future teacher education and suggest contents for a course on profession-specific oracy approaches.
The study is a qualitative mixed-methods one, containing a case study in three classrooms led by experienced science teachers, an online interview with pre-service science teachers, and an analysis of policy documents such as curricula and frameworks that determine teaching in integrated lower and secondary school and teacher education. The ways in which teacher education prepares and supports teachers to act professionally for an oracy-oriented classroom is of special interest to the study . All three sub-studies are seen through the lens of spatial theory, acknowledging the importance of viewing and reviewing classroom-settings as special settings that influence teachers’ and students’ actions.
The language of science, and how teachers can support it, is widely documented in classroom studies (Lemke, 1990, Kress et al, 2001/2014, Mitchell, 2010, Scott, 1998). However, oracy, and how to support it, is important to all school subjects (Aksnes, 2016).

References
Aksnes, L.M. (2016). Om muntlighet som fagfelt. I Kverndokken, K. (red.). 101 måter å fremme muntlige ferdigheter på – om muntlig kompetanse og muntlighetsdidaktikk.
BEK nr 1217 af 19/08/2020 (2020). Bekendtgørelse om formål, kompetencemål, færdigheds- og vidensområder og opmærksomhedspunkter for folkeskolens fag og emner (Fælles Mål).
BEK nr 1068 af 08/09/2015 (2015). https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/ft/200514L00552 Revisited, 2021/01/28
Kessl, F. (2016). Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung zu Raum und Räumlichkeit, Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, p. 5-19, 62. Jahrgang 2016 – Heft 1
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001/2014). Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London, UK
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Low, M. (2016). The Sociology of Space: Materiality, Social Structures, and Action. Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-69568-3