Classroom Voices is a series of guest posts providing a platform for teachers to share their ideas. All posts including all images are shared without comment or edits. To contribute, use this link:

Guest Author: Grace Barron

Grace is a Regional Programme Manager at Voice 21, working closely with teachers across a range of settings to develop high-quality oracy education. http://www.linkedin.com/in/grace-barron1991

I’ve noticed that when I walk into a classroom, the same thing often happens. A quick glance, a split-second pause. And then: “Turn to your partner!” – an instinct I see again and again across schools. I understand why. When implementing something like oracy, it’s tempting to reach for what’s visible; something that shows talk is happening, that signals engagement, and says: we’re doing oracy.

If “turn to your partner” is the visible marker of oracy, it can also become a proxy for it – a way of signalling that talk is happening, without always interrogating what that talk is doing.

Voice 21’s Oracy Benchmarks (2019) give us a shared language for what a high-quality oracy education looks like. But like all strong principles, they’re open to interpretation. So, how do we know what to look for, or how to plan it?

One Benchmark is particularly important here: Teacher Benchmark 4 – harness oracy to elevate learning.

This is where everything comes together, or risks becoming performative. The other Benchmarks matter – the culture ensures all students can contribute, the explicit teaching of talk gives students the tools to participate, and high expectations establish talk as a valued part of classroom practice. These conditions make high-quality oracy possible.

But Benchmark 4 asks the hardest question: is this talk actually changing what students know, understand, or can do? This changes what we look for in lessons, and what we think about when planning – from ‘are they talking?’, to ‘are they thinking?’. In practice, this is the Benchmark that is hardest to see, and easiest to assume. But, it is the difference between visibility and impact.

In focusing on this Benchmark, I’ve noticed a few things that seem to make a difference. Not as a checklist, or as what good oracy always looks like, but as patterns, and conditions that allow talk to elevate learning.

To explore this more closely, I have drawn on the idea of using vignettes from the work of Rupert Knight (2025). In his article, Oracy for civic voice: Deconstructing practice through classroom vignettes, he uses short accounts of classroom practice to make sense of what oracy looks like in action. Rather than trying to define it in the abstract, these vignettes sit side by side, allowing patterns to emerge through comparison. What is helpful about this approach is that it resists the idea that there is one correct way, and instead helps us notice what is actually happening in the talk. In a similar way, the following examples are not intended as models to replicate, but as moments to look at closely.

Year 6: Reconsidering significance

Students are sat in groups of 4-6, engaged in a Harkness discussion on the question: What was the most significant event in the Second World War? Prior to this, students had read information, analysed sources and watched videos on the topic. Students show evidence of meeting the Discussion Guidelines displayed around the room. They’re listening carefully, respecting one another’s ideas and making an effort to involve everyone:

“I think D-Day changed everything”

“I think the Battle of Britain was most significant because it stopped us being invaded”

“Yeah, I agree, the Battle of Britain was most significant because of what you said”

The teacher is not involved in the talk, but is paying close attention to it. Partway through, they pause the discussion and bring the class together to reflect on something heard from one of the groups. They ask “What is happening in our talk right now?”

One student has noticed that, although lots of ideas are being shared, most contributions are building on each other. There is little probing or challenge. 

And so, the focus shifts to the quality of the discussion itself. The teacher models what it might sound like to probe an idea, or to offer a respectful challenge. Then the discussion resumes. Students begin to question each other more directly and ideas are tested, not just added to.

“Is winning the same thing as significance though?”

“Or is it about how many people it affected?”

“Because rationing didn’t win battles, but it changed everyone’s life.”

One student returns to his earlier suggestion and says: “I’ve changed my mind…” He explains that while he initially thought the invasion of Poland was most significant, he now believes rationing had greater impact, drawing on scale, duration and impact on daily life. 

As a class, the teacher asks for a show of hands: who has changed their mind, and who has kept or strengthened their original view? As the class feeds back where their discussions got to, the teacher starts to link ideas, probe and clarify; 

“Oh, so you thought similarly to this group then…” 

“Changed in what sense?”

“So are you saying it was significant because…?”.

Nursery: Building the foundations of talk

Eight children sit in a circle with their teacher, exploring the idea of change and growth through food. This sits within a topic on how things grow and change in the natural world and in themselves. 

Before the discussion begins, the teacher draws attention to how they will talk together. Children recall expectations: good listening, good looking, taking turns. These are then checked and reinforced with a visual reminder of their class ‘rules for talk’ poster.

The question they are going to answer is a simple and familiar one. Which supermarket do you go to, and what do you buy?

Before inviting responses, the teacher models thinking time. Then she offers her own example: “I shop at Tesco, and I buy apples because I like them, and they are healthy.”

A discussion follows with an object that moves between children to signify whose turn it is to speak. 

“I go Aldi.”

“I buy crisps.”

“I get carrots because they’re healthy.”

As the discussion continues, the teacher begins to draw connections between contributions, linking them back to the idea of growth.

“You both picked something healthy there. I wonder why?”

“Because it helps you grow.”
“My mum says it’s good for you.”

A student adds:

“I don’t like apples.”

The teacher notices this difference and asks “You don’t like apples?”

“No, I like bananas.”

The teacher builds on this rather than closing it down. “So we have different choices. Some of us like apples, some of us like bananas. How might they help our bodies grow?”

“They make you strong.”
“They help you get bigger.”

There is now a sense that students are not only sharing what they buy, but beginning to link ideas together, notice similarities and differences, and connect their choices to the wider concept of growth. The Social and Emotional strand of the Oracy Framework is visible as students begin to take turns, respond to others, and notice connections across contributions. Talk is no longer isolated turns, but beginning to feel shared.

When everyone’s contributed, the teacher marks how well they met one of their ‘talk rules’ during the discussion. “I noticed all of you using really good looking when others were speaking.” The teacher then asks if any of the students noticed anything that the group had done well. 

Students reflect, with some support, and identify that everyone spoke, and they all listened carefully. 

Year 8 Science: Structured paired talk

Students are seated in pairs, considering the question: Why do some objects float while others sink? The lesson aim is visible on the board: I can explain how the density of an object determines whether it floats or sinks. They have trays of objects and a bowl of water, and students are testing objects and describing what they see.

The metal bolt sinks immediately. The wooden block floats. The plastic cap sits partly submerged. Some items sink slowly.

The teacher sets up the next task by asking students to think on their own “What do you think determines whether something floats or sinks?” There is a short pause as some students look back at their notes, some glance at the objects on their tables. 

After about 30 seconds, the teacher continues.

“Partner A will start. I’d like you to give reasons for your idea. You might want to use ‘on the one hand… on the other hand’… and ask questions to explore different hypotheses”

Students turn to each other. Partner A in the pair closest to me starts:

“I think it’s about its weight, because heavy things sink…but on the other hand, the wood was quite big and still floated.”

Partner B listens, then responds.

“Maybe then it’s about size, not weight, because bigger things float more…on the other hand, the big metal one still sank, so maybe it’s not just size.”

Students are not just stating a view, but holding two ideas at once. The teacher circulates, listening in, occasionally prompting: “Can you make that second reason clearer?”,  “Are those two ideas agreeing or contradicting each other?”

When the teacher brings the class back together, they ask Partner B to feedback what their partner said. Students begin to report back each other’s ideas, and some summarise the conversation they had as a pair.

“It’s more than one thing,” a student offers. The teacher captures this on the board, keeping the language used.

The teacher then shows two key words: mass and volume. Students are familiar with these words, and so, after checking their understanding, they have another paired discussion, answering the same question as before, but using these scientific terms, referring to the Linguistic Strand of the Oracy Framework to support them to ‘speak like scientists’.

Across these examples, the classrooms look very different.

Different group sizes, phases, subjects. In Year 8, talk is used early on to surface and test initial ideas. In Year 6, it sits towards the end of a topic, enabling students to revisit and refine their thinking. In Nursery, it is part of building the foundations of how to talk, think and learn together.

However, there are some important commonalities.

In each case, there is something worth talking about. The talk is anchored in a question, problem or idea that requires students to think, not just respond. It is not talk for its own sake, or to rehearse an answer for the teacher. It is talk that asks something of them.

There is also structure. Whether it’s a Harkness discussion, a talking object, or a carefully designed paired task, the talk is designed in a way that enables all students to take part.

The role of the teacher is particularly important. In all three examples, the teacher is not just facilitating talk, but shaping it. Not taking over, but not stepping back completely either. Over time, some of this shaping begins to transfer to students themselves. They start to question, build, challenge, and in some cases change their minds.

Finally, students are supported to talk about talk. They reflect on how discussion is going, notice when ideas are challenged or connected, and begin to adjust how they contribute. The Oracy Framework, although not always explicitly referenced, is key to understanding what successful talk might sound like in different contexts and for different purposes.

So the question is not whether talk is happening, it is what the talk is for.

When oracy is working well, you can hear it – not just in the number of voices in the room, but in the way ideas are being developed, challenged, and changed. That is something you cannot always see at a glance, but it is something you can listen for.