Disciplinary Literacy and Oral Language: The Power of Classroom Discussion

As states continue to adopt standards that emphasize disciplinary literacy, teachers are expected to help students learn and retain the specialized vocabulary and complex texts that are found in subject areas, such as science, social studies, and math.

This type of learning requires students to simultaneously build content knowledge and the capacity to think and reason like experts within a discipline, which can be a challenge for some students to access right away.

So, to make disciplinary learning more accessible, teachers need to provide scaffolds, and oral language — sometimes called purposeful discussion or structured talk — is an important one.

In fact, research has shown that purposeful opportunities for speaking and listening through oral language scaffolds strengthen comprehension, vocabulary, and conceptual understanding for all learners, including multilingual students. These scaffolds can help students process new ideas, connect them to prior knowledge, and practice using academic language in meaningful contexts.

In this blog, we will explore what current research reveals about oral language as a scaffold for disciplinary literacy and share practical ways teachers can integrate purposeful discussion and “talk moves” into classroom instruction.

What Are Oral Language Scaffolds?

Oral language scaffolds are the intentional supports teachers use to help students engage in disciplinary thinking with increasing independence.

They provide structured ways for students to hear and practice the language of learning: first through teacher modeling and guided discussion, then through collaborative talk, and finally in written expression.

These scaffolds include strategies such as revoicing, sentence frames, rehearsal for writing, synthesis, and targeted language supports that help students bridge from spoken to written language as they work with disciplinary texts and content.

When used consistently, oral language scaffolds create classrooms where all students can engage in disciplinary conversations, build vocabulary, and strengthen the language skills that support reading and writing across content areas.

The Research Behind Oral Language Scaffolds and Disciplinary Literacy

Through research, we’ve learned that oral language is more than a communication skill; it can be central to how students build understanding and make sense of complex ideas. And when oral language is intentionally embedded in instruction, it can help students internalize disciplinary ways of thinking and communicating.

For example, Ford and Forman (2006) found that disciplinary learning occurs when students engage in conversations that mirror how knowledge is created within a field of discipline. They note that discussion focused on questioning and explanation leads to a stronger understanding than simple recall.

Grifenhagen, Carrier, Scharen, and Fiocca (2021) discovered that when science lessons combined hands-on exploration with structured discussion, students made stronger links between experience and comprehension. And Wright and Gotwals (2017) observed that encouraging young learners to “talk like scientists” helped them describe patterns and use evidence to engage with scientific texts.

In mathematics, Rawding and Wills (2012) observed that modeling and guiding discussion helped students clarify ideas and use precise academic language while solving problems. Walter (2018) adds that moving from brief talk routines to sustained discussion helps learners explain and defend reasoning, which supports disciplinary thinking.

Across these studies, the conclusion is clear: purposeful discussion helps students process information, apply disciplinary thinking, and build the disciplinary language needed for deeper understanding.

Additional recent research extends this evidence by highlighting the importance of teacher modeling and deliberate scaffolding of academic language. Studies in secondary settings (Gritter, 2013; Townsend et al., 2014; Whitehead, 2014; Spires, Kerkhoff, & Graham, 2016) show that modeling disciplinary discourse, using sentence frames, and guiding structured talk help students express reasoning and synthesize ideas. In history, teacher modeling of sourcing and argumentation allows students to express claims with accuracy and clarity. In science and mathematics, structured talk routines help students describe observations and justify conclusions.

Similarly, Nystrand, Gamoran, and Carbonaro (1998) found that authentic classroom dialogue, where teachers build on student ideas through uptake and connect discussion to subsequent writing tasks, leads to higher-quality written reasoning and deeper conceptual understanding.

The evidence is clear that the benefits of oral language scaffolds for disciplinary literacy are far-reaching and can have a long-lasting positive impact on learning.

Putting Research into Practice: Using Oral Language Scaffolds for Disciplinary Literacy

When oral language is deliberately used in classrooms, it can be a scaffold through which students grapple with complex disciplinary ideas and texts.

These scaffolds provide students with opportunities to practice the reasoning and vocabulary that experts use within a field. Through teacher modeling, sentence frames, and structured language supports, students learn to make sense of challenging texts and translate that understanding into writing.

Here are some strategies you can use in the classroom right away.

Modeling Oral Language for Comprehension

Teacher modeling sets the foundation for effectively incorporating oral language as an instructional support. When teachers make their thinking audible, they show how experts reason and how disciplinary language functions in context.

For example, a science teacher might say, In this study, I noticed that the data increase over time, which suggests a relationship between temperature and reaction rate. This kind of talk shows students how to use disciplinary language to describe evidence and reasoning.

In social studies, a teacher might introduce a text by saying, Historians often ask whose perspective is represented in a document, so let’s read with that question in mind. These explicit oral think-alouds help students understand how experts frame inquiry and analysis of disciplinary texts.

Equally important is how teachers facilitate student talk through modeling open-ended questioning. Prompts such as What evidence supports your idea? or How might someone else interpret this information? invite students to extend their thinking and use precise language to justify reasoning. This type of questioning keeps the discussion authentic while encouraging students to apply disciplinary vocabulary in context.

Revoicing also plays a powerful role in modeling. When a student says, The plant grew faster because of the sun, the teacher might restate, You’re saying the plant’s growth increased because light energy was absorbed during photosynthesis. This simple adjustment confirms the student’s idea while providing the disciplinary language. Over time, students begin to adopt these patterns independently, using precise phrasing in their own explanations.

Structuring Talk with Sentence Frames

Sentence frames guide students in applying academic language during discussion. They provide a starting point that helps all students to organize their ideas and meaningfully participate in classroom discussions. Teachers can introduce frames during modeling and keep them visible during reading, discussion, and writing. For example, here are some helpful discussion sentence frames that can be used in multiple disciplines:

• I notice that __________.
• The evidence shows __________.
• This suggests that __________.
• I think this connects to __________ because __________.
• In contrast to __________, __________.
• Taken together, these sources show __________.
• I agree with __________ because __________.
• Another way to think about this is __________.

In mathematics, a teacher might prompt, I arrived at this solution by… and encourage students to explain their reasoning aloud. In civics, a frame like, This policy demonstrates that… helps students discuss complex systems and make evidence-based claims. For multilingual learners, these supports make the language more accessible while maintaining the rigor of the activity.

Oral Language as a Scaffold for Writing

Classroom discussion prepares students for writing by allowing them to clarify ideas and practice using disciplinary language before putting those thoughts on paper. When teachers model how experts speak and explicitly connect that structure to writing, students gain the tools they need to compose explanations and arguments that mirror disciplinary reasoning.

For example, after a discussion, a teacher might pause and say, Notice how I used the phrase The data show that…during our conversation. Let’s look at how that sentence can begin a paragraph in our lab report. By modeling this transfer, teachers help students see that the talk moves they make while speaking, such as explaining cause and effect or citing evidence, are the same moves that strengthen writing.

Oral Language as a Scaffold for Synthesis

Structured discussion is one of the most effective ways to help students synthesize information before writing. Synthesis happens when students combine what they already know with what they have learned from texts or data to construct a new understanding of a concept. Talk gives students the space to make sense of how ideas connect across sources.

During discussion, teachers can model how to bring multiple perspectives together. In history, a teacher might ask, How does this author’s interpretation differ from the one we read yesterday, and what new understanding can we form by considering both? The teacher could then model a response aloud, for example: Yesterday’s author focused on the economic causes of the movement, but today’s text highlights the role of public opinion. When I put these ideas together, I see how economic pressures and public sentiment influenced the event in different ways.

This kind of modeling shows students how to integrate new information with what they already know to create a more complete picture. It also makes visible the kind of reasoning and phrasing students can use when synthesizing ideas across sources.

Oral Language as a Dual Scaffold for Multilingual Learners

Purposeful talk connects language and content learning, giving multilingual learners equitable access to disciplinary ideas and the language needed to express them. When teachers model real discussion while developing academic vocabulary and sentence fluency. These practices support planned opportunities for students to use language in ways that promote both understanding and expression.

Teachers can make these moments intentional by previewing key vocabulary, modeling how to use new words in complete sentences, and prompting students to restate or extend ideas using sentence frames.

Visuals and gestures can also make complex ideas clearer without reducing the challenge of the content. When teachers intentionally connect speaking, listening, reading, and writing, students begin to see how each mode supports the others. Through this integration of talk and content, students learn not only about a discipline but also how to speak and write using disciplinary language.

Making Thinking Audible

When oral language is integrated into disciplinary literacy, it can scaffold students’ abilities to interpret complex texts and construct meaning. Purposeful discussion helps them engage in the kinds of reasoning and explanation that define each field of study. For multilingual learners, these conversations support language growth while maintaining academic rigor. Through consistent practice, students learn to think, talk, and write with the precision and perspective of experts.

References

• Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001
• Grifenhagen, J. F., Carrier, S. J., Scharen, S., & Fiocca, L. (2021). Touch, talk, and text in the science classroom: Scaffolding language and literacy in science for young learners. The Elementary School Journal, 121(3), 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1086/713950
• Gritter, K. (2013). Teacher scaffolding of academic language in an Advanced Placement U.S. history class. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.168
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Carbonaro, W. (1998). Towards an ecology of learning: The case of classroom discourse and its effects on writing in high school English and social studies. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany, State University of New York.
• Rawding, M. R., & Wills, L. (2012). Discourse simple moves for effective mathematical talk. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(2), 78–84.
• Spires, H. A., Kerkhoff, S. N., & Graham, A. C. K. (2016). Disciplinary literacy and inquiry: Teaching for deeper content learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.586
• Townsend, D., Brock, C., & Morrison, D. (2014). Who’s using the language? Supporting middle school students with content-area vocabulary. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.316
• Walter, J. (2018). Beyond “turn and talk”: Productive classroom discussions in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 111(8), 640–647.
• Whitehead, D. (2014). Mind your language: Academic literacy in secondary schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.271
• Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting kindergartners’ science talk in the standards-based classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1086/690113
• Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting disciplinary talk in science classrooms. Science and Children, 54(8), 56–63.