Oral Language Development for ELL Students in TESOL
This paper examines the factors that influence English Language Learners' (ELL) oral language performance in the classroom, focusing on language form, communicative function, and social context. Drawing on Peregoy and Boyle's (2013) framework, it compares two key language functions—informal talk and explaining—highlighting the distinct demands each places on ELL students. The paper also considers how classroom pressures such as peer norms and formal register requirements affect student participation. It concludes by proposing instructional strategies, including games and songs, and assessment tools such as SOLOM, checklists, and anecdotal observations to monitor and support ELL oral language development.
- Introduction: Factors Shaping ELL Oral Language Performance: Language form, function, and context pressure ELL students
- The Role of Social Context in Oral Communication: Social setting shapes how ELLs communicate orally
- Comparing Informal Talk and Explaining as Language Functions: Contrasting demands of informal and explanatory speech
- Instructional Strategies: Games and Songs: Games and songs reinforce oral language in classrooms
- Assessment Approaches for Oral Language Development: SOLOM, checklists, and observations track ELL progress
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly connects three interacting pressures—language form, communicative function, and social context—to real classroom dynamics for ELL students.
- Uses a concrete comparison between "informal talk" and "explaining" to illustrate different cognitive and communicative demands on learners.
- Grounds instructional and assessment recommendations in cited scholarly sources (Peregoy & Boyle, 2013; Gottlieb, 2006), demonstrating evidence-based practice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively applies a compare-and-contrast structure to analyze two distinct oral language functions, showing how their differing demands require different student competencies. This technique allows the writer to move from theoretical framing to practical classroom application in a logical, organized sequence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying three factors that affect ELL oral performance, then dedicates a section to social context before comparing two language functions in depth. It closes with short but focused sections on classroom strategies (games and songs) and assessment tools (SOLOM, checklists, anecdotal records). The progression moves naturally from theory to practice, ending with actionable teaching recommendations.
Introduction: Factors Shaping ELL Oral Language Performance
Language form, communicative function, and social context all combine to affect students' oral language performance in the classroom, as each plays a part in applying a certain pressure on the student. For example, in the classroom, a student will naturally want to use the correct language form, as it is a formal setting. At the same time, the conscientious student may also be aware that formal language is not typically used by peers, so there may be a reluctance to demonstrate a use of language that is not common among classmates — especially if an English Language Learner (ELL) is struggling to fit in.
Communicative function is also a factor in students' classroom performance, as it relates to the concept of conveying meaning in whatever way possible. Just as a child will seek to get what it wants through oral commands that are not necessarily grammatically or socially acceptable, an ELL student may similarly seek an alternative or easier path toward a communicative goal — one that is not necessarily in conformity with the course most beneficial to the student's long-term language development.
The Role of Social Context in Oral Communication
Social context plays an especially important role in the communication of oral language, as the way in which one speaks is greatly defined by the setting in which one finds oneself — whether among professionals, peers, children, or adults. Everyone has a language of their own, and that language is expected to be reflected in one's conversation so as to avoid upsetting the social balance. An ELL student will likely be conscious of these various factors, or at least they will operate in the student's subconscious, which may be reflected in how the student participates in the classroom. Understanding language socialization helps explain why even proficient ELL students may hesitate to speak in certain social situations.
Comparing Informal Talk and Explaining as Language Functions
Two language functions that can be meaningfully compared are "informal talk" and "explaining," as each is used for different purposes (Peregoy & Boyle, 2013, p. 136). The needs of students regarding these two component functions differ considerably. With informal talk, the student needs to be able to both listen and convey meaning using words that are not academic but that are popular among peers. This type of speech can often be demonstrated through phrases and single words of affirmation. Concepts discussed are free-ranging, and there is no need to hedge or qualify.
With explaining, however, there is a greater need to control the flow of ideas in a logical manner so that the explanation is clear and concise. The student must carefully choose the right word and use it appropriately and contextually. Explaining reflects a command of thought processes in the language, while informal talk reflects a comfort level with colloquial speech among peers — a skill that can be just as daunting as formal communication for ELL students in TESOL contexts.
References
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (2013). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for teaching K-12 English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.