Page 42 - EW November 2025.pdf Final

ANNIVERSARY ESSAY

Developing conversational

English fluency

SHEILA BAUER RAY RAVAGLIA

T IS A PROBLEM ONE OFTEN ENCOUNTERS ON US The gap between formal knowledge
college campuses. A promising international student
arrives on campus equipped to read dense textbooks and everyday communication is wide.
Iand write decent essays, but unable to interact with fel- As students progress, classroom
low students. When a classmate asks, “What did you think
of the lab?” they struggle to reply. learning increasingly depends on
This gap between formal knowledge and everyday com- spoken English
munication is wide. As students progress, classroom learn-
ing increasingly depends on spoken language, as indicated
by the growing importance of Socratic seminars, group structured talk, vocabulary, and listening tasks) reliably
projects, science discussions, and ultimately, admission improves academic outcomes. The Education Endowment
and internship interviews. Therefore, it is vital for students Foundation’s evidence base indicates that on average oral
to start intentionally developing conversational English in language interventions yield about six months of additional
middle school. progress per year resulting in high test scores and better
Conversational fluency is not the same as reading academic results.
and writing. Decades of work in language education has The labour market requires it. Employers consistently
highlighted the difference between everyday conversational rank communication as an important hiring criterion. In
skills and academic language found in textbooks and es- the National Association of Colleges and Employers’ Job
says. This is often described as the difference between basic Outlook 2025, more than two-thirds of recruiters said they
interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive look for verbal communication skills in new graduates,
academic language proficiency (CALP). Think of it as the alongside problem-solving and teamwork. Classroom talk
difference between hallway talk and textbook talk. These is not just ‘soft’; it is crucial for opportunity.
What conversational English courses should in-
are distinct skills that must be developed through targeted
practice. It’s quite common to find students excelling in one clude. When the goal is to develop interpersonal com-
area while lagging in the other. munication skills rather than cognitive academic language
Admission and employment interviews make proficiency, the ideal course should not be a dry, formal
speaking visible — and consequential. During the experience, but a dynamic one that engages with popular
admissions process, universities frequently require non-na- media and other non-academic sources. Such a course
tive English speakers to demonstrate conversational fluen- should include the following elements:
cy. For example, Georgia Tech explicitly invites unscripted • Clear, everyday outcomes. Focus on real oral commu-
interviews so applicants can “demonstrate English language nications: greetings, small talk, asking follow-ups, clarifying
ability and communication skills.” Software platforms like (“Do you mean…?”), paraphrasing (“So you’re saying…”),
InitialView and Vericant make it easy for universities to agreeing/disagreeing politely, and closing conversations.
record authentic conversations rather than collect polished • High-interest input. Short clips from movies, YouTube,
essays. If students cannot navigate informal conversations, sports highlights, ads, podcasts, songs — paired with quick
admissions officers, visa officials, and recruitment manag- “listen-respond” prompts. Keep it light, fast, and current.
ers will be skeptical about their capabilities no matter how • Daily speaking routines (8-10 min). Two-turn talks,
well their formal transcripts are written. 60-second retells, mini debates, and ‘explain it to a friend’
Starting in middle school is essential. A classic lon- science chats. Students should speak every day. Results
gitudinal analysis of students in California conducted by should be recorded and available for analysis and longitu-
Stanford University’s Prof. Kenji Hakuta found attaining dinal comparison.
oral proficiency often requires three-five years, with four- • Listening + turn-taking skills. Teach discourse mark-
seven years for academic English. If students wait until ers (“right,” “anyway,” “that said”), repair strategies (“Sorry
classes X or XI to practice conversational skills, they com- — could you repeat that?”), and how to hold the floor with-
press an inherently long process into too little time. Waiting out monologuing.
also disadvantages students because as they reach the end • Cultural pragmatics. Openers/closers, hedging, soften-
of high school, capability to become truly fluent diminishes. ing disagreement, idioms, humour. Make space for “what
Only if students begin intensive practice by class VII-VIII would a native speaker say here?”
will they be ready for high-stakes interviews, capstone pre- Conducted efficiently, such courses are more akin to fit-
sentations, and university applications. ness programs rather than traditional academic courses. It
Speaking practice boosts overall academic attain- is not something that one completes and sets aside, but a
ment. Intensive practice is not just about accent neu- capability to be built year after year.
tralisation. Rather, oral language work (dialogic teaching, (Raymond Ravaglia and Sheila K. Bauer are co-founders of AccessUSA)

42 EDUCATIONWORLD NOVEMBER 2025