½¿É«µ¼º½

The so-called ‘theory to practice gap’ is a concept that is frequently discussed in teacher education contexts across the world. How, particularly in higher education, can we avoid the potential pitfall of teaching theory to our student teachers as a separate body of knowledge, relying on the assumption that they will then be able to apply it easily in classrooms (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999)? Upon undertaking leadership of a master’s-level academic module on a Primary initial teacher education (ITE) course, I identified this as an immediate area to address, drawing on student teachers’ reflections on their engagement with pedagogies for talk during their school-based training.

As part of their module, student teachers were asked to research, implement and evaluate pedagogies for talk in their own practice. A key misconception was evident throughout a large proportion of the student teachers’ submissions: they were able to demonstrate a secure theoretical understanding of approaches to high-quality classroom talk but their portfolio element (a lesson plan and transcript) did not effectively evidence these approaches in action. This left me with the uneasy sense that children may be missing out on the well-established benefits that they receive from rich, authentic and purposeful conversations.

‘I was left with the uneasy sense that children may be missing out on the well-established benefits that they receive from rich, authentic and purposeful conversations.’

The urgent question that therefore emerged was: How can we support student teachers to take their understanding of high-quality classroom talk from conceptual to practical?

After some careful consideration and consultation with colleagues, I implemented the following changes:

• utilisation of a (mandatory in ITE in England) Intensive Training and Practice (ITaP) cycle to spend a week focusing solely on the complex intricacies of partner talk: introducing, discussing, observing and practising key knowledge points such as intentionally planning the questions asked, scaffolding how those questions were presented, monitoring the talk when it occurs, and providing specific and targeted feedback to responses;
• scaffolded close analysis of real examples of classroom talk using video and transcript resources, providing opportunities to engage deeply with what these pedagogies might actually look like in practice;
• guided group planning sessions, supporting students to include features such as pre-determined authentic questions, providing engaging stimuli to generate excitement to talk, and using prompts to encourage peer-to-peer dialogue across a range of subjects and contexts;
• widening the module reading to include recent and critical perspectives on talk/oracy (Cushing, 2024; Maine, 2025) to ensure that students had the opportunity to engage with approaches that may resonate more with their own diverse backgrounds and experiences;
• providing written resources for students to take to their school-based training to support the facilitation of opportunities for more extended dialogue (such as ), which could also be used for self-evaluation purposes;
• adapting the weekly guidance for their school-based training to include directives for focused conversations, observations and targets (in collaboration with their school-based mentors) that link to their university learning on pedagogies for talk.

These changes were implemented from February to May 2025, with a group of 80 student teachers each participating in around six taught sessions which specifically focused on high-quality talk, additional to the full ITaP week and their directed school placement activities. The early results of these new features look promising: student teachers have expressed greater confidence in developing the talk in their classrooms and their most recent assignment submissions largely include lesson transcripts where children are being encouraged to give longer responses to more authentic questions, to justify and explain, and to respond to what other children in their group are saying.

There is still work for us to do to ensure all student teachers are able to implement what they have learned effectively, particularly those placed in special schools where the children’s talk and/or communication can look very different, but the steps taken so far appear to have had a noticeable impact. Effective communication is a cornerstone of success in modern life, and our diverse society creates a context where teachers need to be highly skilled in adapting their pedagogy to support the communication skills of each child. Teacher educators therefore have a responsibility to continually audit their own practice and curriculum, looking for ways to clarify and explore with student teachers what research-based pedagogies actually look like in the classroom, both in regard to high-quality talk and other key areas of practice.

References

Cushing, I. (2024). Social in/justice and the deficit foundations of oracy. Oxford Review of Education, 51(3), 396–413.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

Maine, F. (2025). Building the foundations of dialogic pedagogy with five- and six-year-olds. Education Sciences, 15(2), 251. Ìý