Why Structured Literacy Begins with Language

A Revealing Pause: Expanding How We Think About Language

Several months ago, I met with a former colleague recently appointed as a campus principal and his literacy coach to discuss challenges related to literacy outcomes on their campus. Although my colleague was not new to campus administration, most of his experience had been in managerial roles that supported campus leadership rather than in roles directly connected to instructional practice. While the campus served a large population of English learners, the concern was not limited to students adding English to their language repertoire; difficulties reaching expected literacy levels were evident across the entire student population.

As our conversation continued, I asked how the elements of language were being taught and what role oracy played across grade levels and throughout the instructional day. Both my colleague and his literacy coach appeared momentarily uncertain, particularly as I used terms such as elements of language and oracy and discussed how the principles of Structured Literacy should drive instructional design. The pause was revealing. 

That exchange pointed to a broader reality: As the field continues to deepen its understanding of the science of reading, many systems have not yet created sufficient opportunities to examine language in an integrated way or to make explicit how Structured Literacy brings those relationships to life. Too often, the elements of language have been learned in isolation—phonology here, orthography there—without attention to how they are interconnected or to the critical role of pragmatics, realized through oracy, in learning. The principles of Structured Literacy provide a coherent framework for integrating these interrelated elements to support both oral and written language development.

Seeing Language as an Integrated System

As I reflected on that exchange, I realized that I, too, had once struggled to fully understand language in an integrated way—the importance of language development for all learners and the role of explicit instruction. In fact, it wasn’t until I began working with Dr. Louisa Moats that I came to understand the structure of language and how specialized knowledge of that structure can build on a student’s natural sense of wonder and curiosity about how language works. The more we understand language as an integrated system rather than a collection of isolated silos, the more clearly we can recognize—and celebrate—the language laboratory we all live in.

A laboratory is not a place of randomness. It is a space in which observation, experimentation, and discovery occur under carefully designed conditions. In the context of literacy, the language laboratory represents the environment in which language is explored, but it is Structured Literacy that provides the protocols.

Importantly, this kind of intentional design begins long before children encounter print. Even in infancy, caregivers shape the language laboratory through purposeful interaction—raising pitch, slowing speech, carefully enunciating, repeating words, and using exaggerated facial expressions and gestures. While humans are biologically prepared for language, these adaptations are not accidental; they create the conditions that make language accessible and learnable. Language may be biologically primed, but it is cultivated through intentional social interaction.

Oracy as the Bridge Between Early Language and Classroom Learning

Oracy extends this early language laboratory into the classroom. It invites students to engage in language, test ideas, negotiate meaning, and refine expression through interaction and should be sustained throughout the entire school experience.  Orthography, however, must be explicitly taught. Students do not intuit how sounds map to letters, how spelling represents meaning, or how patterns shift across words and contexts. These understandings are built through intentional, systematic instruction.

Seen this way, Structured Literacy does not compete with the language laboratory—it designs it. Explicit teaching of orthography, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse, and pragmatics supplies the structure that allows students to use language productively and precisely across oral and written contexts. Without that structure, exploration lacks direction; with it, discovery becomes durable learning.

From a linguistic perspective, language can be understood through two inseparable dimensions: form and function. These dimensions serve as an organizing lens for understanding literacy instruction.

Form refers to how language is structured: the sounds of speech, how those sounds are represented in print, how words are built, how sentences are formed, and how meaning is carried within and across words and sentences. In literacy instruction, this includes phonology, orthography, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

Function refers to how language is used—to communicate ideas, negotiate meaning, explain thinking, build relationships, and participate in social and academic contexts. Function is realized through oral and written discourse. Pragmatics is most visible through oracy: listening, speaking, and interacting with others.

These dimensions are not hierarchical or separate. Language forms exist to serve communicative functions, and language functions depend on stable forms to be understood. When either is taught in isolation, language learning becomes fragmented.

Structured Literacy—Organizing Language and Guiding How it is Taught

This distinction between form and function helps clarify what Structured Literacy is—and what it is not. The International Dyslexia Association’s Structured Literacy infographic provides a useful visual anchor for this work, particularly in how it distinguishes the content of instruction (the what) from the principles that guide it (the how).

Viewed through a linguistic lens, the what of Structured Literacy is grounded in language form. Explicit instruction in phonology, orthography, morphology, syntax, and semantics makes the structure of language visible and learnable. Structured Literacy organizes these elements coherently and systematically, ensuring students understand how spoken and written language are built and how meaning is encoded.

But language form alone is not sufficient. Language exists to be used.

This is where function comes into focus. Oracy—listening, speaking, interacting, and engaging in discourse—animates language by placing those forms in meaningful use. Through oral discourse, students explain ideas, negotiate meaning, adjust language for audience and purpose, and refine understanding in real time. Pragmatics and discourse provide the context in which language forms become functional tools for thinking and communication.

Seen this way, Structured Literacy and oracy are not separate initiatives or competing priorities. Structured Literacy organizes the form of language; oracy brings that form to life through function. Together, they ensure language instruction is both precise and purposeful—supporting students as they listen, speak, read, and write with clarity and confidence.

Designing Classrooms Where Language Lives and Breathes

We all live in a language laboratory—but it’s not a place of chance. It is intentionally designed. Structured Literacy gives us the structure language needs, and oracy keeps that learning alive and meaningful. When we honor both, we create classrooms where language isn’t just taught … it’s used, explored, and celebrated.

I’m excited to discuss Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) frameworks and oral language during the EDVIEW360 podcast here. I hope you’ll download the episode and let us know what you think!