Academic orality, a fundamental axis in the training of educators
Ángel Miguel Cárdenas Silva1
Edinson Albeiro Malte Muepaz2
José Edmundo Calvache López3
To reference this article / Cómo citar este artículo / Para citar este artigo: Cárdenas-Silva, Á. M., Malte-Muepaz, E. A., & Calvache-López, J. E. (2025). Academic orality, a fundamental axis in the training of educators. Revista Criterios, 32(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.31948/rc.v32i1.4307
Reception date: August 1, 2024
Review date: September 25, 2024
Approval date: November 13, 2024
Abstract
Teaching, which is fundamentally a dialogical act, requires high-quality oral skills and discursive structures that allow for the integral development of the student’s education and thus achieve meaningful and relevant learning about their social environment. To this end, research was conducted to characterize the academic orality demonstrated among teachers and students of the Visual Arts and Spanish Language and Literature degrees at the Universidad de Nariño, corresponding to 2022. First, we identified conceptions of orality. Second, we described teaching strategies. Third, we presented study expectations to propose a didactic mediation orientation that promotes academic orality. The research was of a phenomenological and descriptive nature; it was carried out mainly within the framework of the qualitative paradigm and the hermeneutic approach, complemented by the quantitative paradigm and the empirical-analytical approach. Data were collected through documentary review and semi-structured interviews, applied to both teachers and students. The analysis and interpretation of the information revealed various shortcomings concerning the importance placed on academic orality and the strategies that enhance its strengthening classroom. In conclusion, teachers must recognize the importance of orality in the active and meaningful learning of students. Additionally, they should employ various teaching methods and engage in dialogue to ask questions that align with students’ educational expectations.
Keywords: academic orality; discourse; oral expression; pragmatics; active learning
La oralidad académica, un eje fundamental en la formación de educadores
Resumen
La docencia, al ser un acto fundamentalmente dialógico, requiere de habilidades orales y estructuras discursivas de alta calidad, que permitan el desarrollo integral en la formación del estudiante y así lograr aprendizajes significativos y pertinentes frente a su entorno social. Por consiguiente, se llevó a cabo una investigación cuyo objetivo principal fue caracterizar la oralidad académica evidenciada entre docentes y estudiantes de las licenciaturas en Artes Visuales y Lengua Castellana y Literatura de la Universidad de Nariño, correspondiente al año 2022. Con ese propósito, en primer lugar, se identificaron las concepciones sobre la oralidad; en segundo lugar, se describieron las estrategias de enseñanza y, en tercer lugar, se develaron las expectativas de estudio. Lo anterior con el fin de proponer una orientación de mediación didáctica que incentive la potenciación de la oralidad académica. La investigación fue de tipo fenomenológico y descriptivo; se realizó fundamentalmente en el marco del paradigma cualitativo y el enfoque hermenéutico, complementándose con el paradigma cuantitativo y el enfoque empírico-analítico. Los datos se recopilaron a través de la revisión documental y la entrevista semiestructurada aplicada a docentes y estudiantes. Los resultados del análisis e interpretación de la información señalaron diferentes falencias con respecto a la importancia dada a la oralidad académica y a las estrategias que promueven el fortalecimiento de la oralidad en el aula. En conclusión, es necesario que los profesores reconozcan la importancia de la oralidad en el aprendizaje activo y significativo del estudiante; además, deben utilizar diferentes medios didácticos y procurar, a través del diálogo, plantear interrogantes a los estudiantes para responder a sus expectativas de formación.
Palabras clave: oralidad académica; discurso; expresión oral; pragmática; aprendizaje activo.
Oralidade acadêmica, um eixo fundamental na formação de educadores
Resumo
O ensino, que é fundamentalmente um ato dialógico, requer habilidades orais de alta qualidade e estruturas discursivas que permitam o desenvolvimento integral da educação do aluno e, assim, a obtenção de um aprendizado significativo e relevante em relação ao seu ambiente social. Para isso, foi realizada uma pesquisa com o objetivo principal de caracterizar a oralidade acadêmica evidenciada entre professores e alunos dos cursos de Artes Visuais e Língua e Literatura Espanhola da Universidad de Nariño, correspondente ao ano de 2022. Para isso, em primeiro lugar, identificamos as concepções de oralidade; em segundo lugar, descrevemos as estratégias de ensino e, em terceiro lugar, apresentamos as expectativas do estudo a fim de propor uma orientação de mediação didática que favoreça a promoção da oralidade acadêmica. A pesquisa foi de natureza fenomenológica e descritiva, realizada principalmente dentro da estrutura do paradigma qualitativo e da abordagem hermenêutica, complementada pelo paradigma quantitativo e pela abordagem empírico-analítica. Os dados foram coletados por meio de análise documental e entrevista semiestruturada, aplicada a professores e alunos. Os resultados da análise e interpretação das informações revelaram várias deficiências em relação à importância dada à oralidade acadêmica e às estratégias que promovem o fortalecimento da oralidade na sala de aula. Concluindo, é necessário que os professores reconheçam a relevância da oralidade na aprendizagem ativa e significativa dos alunos; além disso, eles devem usar diferentes meios didáticos e tentar, por meio do diálogo, fazer perguntas aos alunos para que respondam às suas expectativas educacionais.
Palavras-chave: oralidade acadêmica; discurso; expressão oral; pragmática; aprendizado ativo
Introduction
Oral and written communication skills are essential for good academic performance and professional success in any field of study. These skills enable individuals to think critically, creatively, and consciously about the power of communication to transform reality. The importance of communicative competence in university education is undeniable. According to Peña (2008), it manifests in three main functions: the communicative function, which serves as an instrument for teaching, evaluating, and disseminating knowledge; the social function, which facilitates interpersonal and social relations; and the epistemic function, which is essential for learning and intellectual development.
Modern philosophy perceives human beings as social subjects who communicate through language, a structured system of signs. From this viewpoint, individuals need to cultivate the skills required to understand the messages they emit and receive in context. In other words, they must be able to encode and decode the discourses that surround them. Thus, developing discursive competence is essential.
This article emphasizes the academic orality evident among Visual Arts and Spanish Language and Literature majors at the Universidad de Nariño in Colombia. The study was carried out based on the experience of teaching in the field of orality, knowledge of the characteristics of students who access these programs, and reflection on the strengths and opportunities observed between teachers and students. The goal was to remedy weaknesses and prevent threats as much as possible. Thus, the guiding question was how to strengthen academic orality in the Visual Arts and Spanish Language and Literature programs at the Universidad de Nariño. To answer this question, we examined the theoretical and practical aspects of classroom and extracurricular dynamics.
After analyzing these programs, it was observed that several students had low reading rates, lacked motivation, and often seemed insecure when expressing their ideas orally. Additionally, the curricular strategies of the programs were characterized by a traditional approach and a lack of emphasis on developing oral expression skills. This could be attributed to both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, such as low motivation, ineffective teaching strategies, inadequate practice scenarios, and a limited understanding of teaching and learning this competence. This understanding focuses solely on meeting summative evaluations instead of promoting a comprehensive formative process.
For these reasons, after characterizing the process, the objective of this research was to propose didactic guidelines that strengthen orality through the use of theatricality , considering that theater is presented as a valuable tool that fosters the development of verbal and non-verbal language in its different dimensions: kinesics, proxemics, iconic, signs, graphic languages, and music. Additionally, it promotes paraverbal language by highlighting aspects such as volume, rhythm, tone of voice, repetition, and sounds and silences (Espíndola & Morales, n.d.).
Currently, oral expression skills are regarded as essential for professional development; therefore, it is necessary to implement various didactic-pedagogical strategies that enhance oral discourse (academic orality). In this context, higher education is tasked with training professionals who possess strong communication skills aligned with contemporary social dynamics. This training should include activities focused on communication and the presentation of information. Additionally, academic environments should be created that reinforce communication skills (Casanova & Roldán, 2016).
Understanding the importance of orality in human communication is also important for recognizing its role in the educational process, especially in educator training. Consequently, teaching requires professionals with strong discursive skills because education is a purely dialogical act. In this sense, the graduate student must identify elements in his curriculum that allow him to strengthen his discursive competence through cognitive, reading, and ludic stimuli. Likewise, he must have scenarios for discursive and dialogic practice in teaching and learning processes.
From this perspective, orality is essential to the professional training process, as it improves communication between students and teachers. According to Álvarez and Parra (2015), oral expression can be both spontaneous and the result of rigorous preparation. For this reason, the university must motivate and train its teachers in the different spaces and disciplines of professional training to promote active techniques and dynamics that strengthen interaction between students, between students and teachers, and between students, teachers, and knowledge. This interaction strengthens the development of linguistic communicative competencies in their different dimensions. In this regard, Jiménez (2011) proposes the following dimensions: oral comprehension, written comprehension, oral expression, written expression, and oral interaction.
In training and reinforcement, orality responds to three dimensions. First is the semantic dimension, which is understood as the richness of human vocabulary. This dimension provides a sufficient basis of meaning for discursive construction and responds to the following needs: persuasion, conviction, and manipulation (Ramírez, 2016). The second, the pragmatic dimension, studies the use of words in context; in other words, it enables people to choose the type of expression they will use based on the context and to persuade their audience. The third dimension is the oral argumentative dimension, where argumentative development is made visible through communicative competence. Through the didactic practice of oral communication, individuals develop the necessary skills to deliver convincing messages in spaces designed to strengthen their communication skills. These spaces include narrating, presenting, explaining, describing, and debating, among others. Thus, oral argumentative competence provides individuals with the tools to support their ideas (León, 2017).
Methodology
The research was fundamentally framed within the qualitative paradigm (Hernández et al., 2014; Creswell, 1994) and utilized an interpretive hermeneutic approach to understand the act of teaching and learning to comprehend others. This involves delving into others’ perspectives to grasp their meanings and construct shared representations (Hernández, 2023). In contrast, this study employed a quantitative paradigm along with an empirical-analytical approach, utilizing a structured survey for data collection. The research method was both phenomenological and descriptive.
For the Bachelor’s degree in Visual Arts, the population included 12 and 10 full-time professors, respectively. Of the thirteen full-time professors for the Bachelor’s Degree in Spanish Language and Literature, six were employed (47%). Of the fifteen full-time professors for the Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts, six were employed (40%).
Regarding the student population, 60 students from the Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts program and 60 students from the Bachelor’s Degree in Spanish Language and Literature program were considered. Thirty students (50%) from each program were selected.
The inclusion criteria considered voluntariness and a representative sample of six and five full-time teachers, respectively.
Depending on the specific objective, its categories, subcategories, and sources, information was gathered through surveys, documentary analysis, and interviews. The results were analyzed and interpreted by entering the data into matrices, which revealed key categories. Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to examine the data. A comprehensive understanding of the findings was achieved by considering the theories proposed by various authors, along with insights derived from experience in the study context.
Results
Using the data collection instruments, we explored the concept of academic orality. First, we selected fifteen participants per degree. For students in the Bachelor’s Degree program in Spanish Language and Literature, academic orality is defined as «the discursive capacity with which a subject communicates in an academic context, either to teach or to learn. It refers to the discursive tools students and teachers use to communicate in an academic context».
For Bachelor’s Degree students in Visual Arts, orality is «a fundamental tool for transmitting knowledge, interpreting the arts, and generating knowledge in educational environments and contexts».
These answers align with Saussure’s (1945/2020) proposal that orality stems from the evolutionary development of language. This involves the articulation of sounds into lexical manifestations that transform into discourse. In other words, the mastery of language and the concepts that individuals accumulate throughout their lives enable them to structure oral expressions, accounting for the evolution and mastery of language. Ramírez (2016), for his part, states that, due to the repetition of sounds in context, language in human beings implies an understanding of orality as a basic form of communication.
The above aligns with how the teachers of the two bachelor’s degrees define academic orality: «It is a skill acquired and perfected throughout a university education since students are expected to develop greater communicative competence for professional performance and active societal participation».
Then, according to the general definition of teachers, orality is understood as a skill that develops as the subject matures cognitively through exposure to stimuli such as reading and constant interaction with ideas to acquire or generate knowledge.
From an academic perspective, orality stems from rhetoric, which is defined as a form of communication that uses the human ability to persuade listeners. Consequently, rhetoric and orality are closely related, as the rhetorical subject is an exceptional speaker (Albaladejo, 1999).
Additionally, Piaget (n.d.) believes that cognitive development is stimulated by processes such as assimilation and accommodation. Through these processes, humans adapt to and integrate the information they receive into their daily lives. Thus, the stimuli provided by the context enable them to expand their vocabulary and achieve social integration in the short term. This allows them to reconsider the signs of the context and respond to emerging questions.
Therefore, academic orality is defined as the connection between a stimulus and a response, as human beings associate social discourse with their knowledge, generating verbal expressions that reflect their thoughts (Vargas & Vásquez, 2021).
Conversely, since acquiring a mother tongue is mainly an oral process, it can be said that orality is a tool present in a person’s daily life. Thus, mastery of language is achieved through its various stages of acquisition and is strengthened over time. In this sense, it is assumed that by the university stage, a person already possesses sufficient tools to express themselves eloquently.
According to the study, this statement does not reflect reality. The graduate student shows weaknesses in speech development caused by a lack of opportunities to practice oral communication outside of evaluative settings. In other words, spaces in which the subject is trained orally and not evaluated . This variable is added to the latent situation of the underdeveloped reading habits of undergraduate students, who point out that they only read the assigned class texts, which integrate their training but do not allow them to broaden their knowledge and vocabulary.
Secondly, within the same category, students and teachers were surveyed regarding the significance of training in academic orality. Specifically, students were asked about the question: «As a future teacher, do you think it is important to be trained in academic orality? » After conducting a qualitative analysis response by response, it was determined that students in the Bachelor’s Degree program in Spanish Language and Literature consider the following: «Training in academic orality is fundamental for teachers, as an assertive relationship with their students depends on it for the construction and circulation of knowledge».
On the other hand, the Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts group considers: «Training in academic orality is important for the teaching profession because knowledge is constructed and transmitted through it from teacher to student».
As evidenced by the conclusions drawn from each student group, academic orality is fundamental to teacher training since it provides teachers with the necessary tools for their work. This is due to the dialogic nature of the educational process, in which knowledge circulates through words.
In this regard, Tijeras and Monsalve (2018) view orality as an essential component of communicative competence and a tool for solving dialectical issues in the classroom. In other words, it is a fundamental skill in graduate training. However, this faculty is not inherent to teaching practice. In other words, while it is not reasonable to assume that graduates possess significant discursive ability, it is essential to academic training and practice. Therefore, a teacher’s success depends on how he or she communicates with students and creates situations that facilitate learning through oral communication.
Teachers were asked: As an undergraduate teacher, do you consider it essential to train teachers with optimal competencies in academic orality? In the cross-referencing exercise, teachers generally considered that: «Graduate trainees must focus on aspects related to academic orality. This allows them to communicate knowledge and key concepts related to their discipline, contributing to student training and ensuring educational quality».
After analyzing the responses of the teachers from the two-degree programs and considering the definition of academic orality, it can be concluded that orality is a skill that should be developed in teacher training. Furthermore, assuming that teachers are skilled orators simply because they are teachers is far from the truth. Oratory is a formative construct acquired through constant practice.
Considering the perspective of undergraduate teachers, Rodriguez (2015) conveys Fabio Jurado Valencia’s (interviewee) view that orality is underestimated despite being considered a fundamental teaching tool. Previously, reading and writing were considered essential aspects of discursive development, leaving aside orality, considering it as a process immersed in the formative axes. Similarly, speaking was considered an act related to reading and writing processes, rather than a disciplinary axis that enables suitable academic training. Currently, didactic innovation allows us to understand orality beyond the evaluative act and the assumption of acquisition among teachers. Therefore, academic orality must be considered a fundamental aspect of educator training.
Finally, to gain a better understanding of the concept of academic orality, students from the two-degree programs were asked the following question: «Has your academic training been relevant to your training in orality? » In this regard, students in the Bachelor of Visual Arts program consider: «Training in orality is minimal and only part of the pedagogy and didactic training processes, neglecting the degree’s fundamental disciplinary axis».
For their part, the students of the Bachelor’s Degree in Spanish Language and Literature maintain that: «Training in academic orality is fundamental to teaching performance, as knowledge is constructed through discourse. The teacher’s discourse is a key tool for students to acquire knowledge».
The conclusions drawn from the students’ responses to the two bachelor’s degree programs suggest that training in orality is essential for future teachers, as it promotes quality learning processes.
In this sense, Uribe-Hincapié et al. (2019)argue that humans acquire spoken language by listening. Thus, orality-based human development represents a cultural function and is the basis of social interaction. However, orality is not only considered a tool for social interaction; it is also viewed as an academic perspective on the world. For Ong (1982/2016), orality constitutes the beginning of learning through dialogue because, in unison with writing, it allows the expression of ideas and feelings. It should be noted that orality can function as a means of communication without writing. However, writing depends on orality to be understood. Without an act of reading, writing does not allow for the transmission of messages. Therefore, orality is the basis of communication because it involves the decoding and encoding of the linguistic code. This is why it is important in teacher training.
Through the question: «In what sense is academic orality a fundamental tool for forming competent educators? », the teachers of bachelor’s degree programs consider:
Training in orality is essential to teaching practice. It is based on the principle that learning is a dialogical process in which orality enables the understanding and appropriation of relevant content for curriculum development at any educational level. Therefore, it is necessary to train teachers as speakers, as this strengthens the educational nature of classroom discourse.
The teaching manifestations mentioned in the previous paragraph highlight orality as a crucial factor in the teaching-learning processes, viewing the educational process as a dialogic act in which the teacher-student relationship is effectively developed through verbal communication encounters.
According to Uribe-Hincapié et al. (2019), teaching is responsible for developing oral discursive practices as transformative acts that encourage critical thinking regarding politics, aesthetics, economics, and other aspects. In other words, orality in education should promote emancipation through thought and cognitive stimulation.
Consequently, orality is essential in current teacher training, especially since individuals have the power to shape societal discourse at every level and moment. The internet provides spaces where they can confront concepts and knowledge to develop the considerations necessary to solve their discursive problems. In other words, the technological boom enables students to read constantly and expand their vocabulary. However, not all content is conducive to linguistic cognitive stimulation, so current readings do not necessarily develop discourse.
Regarding the same question, the students of the Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts consider:
From an evaluative perspective, academic orality is incorporated into the curriculum. However, no component directly demonstrates this learning because it is purely evaluative and not promoted in a formative manner. This raises the risk of developing a fear of public speaking.
For the Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts, the graphic resource was not necessary to clarify the students’ answers since only one tendency was marked: the evaluative aspect. However, some spaces are mentioned, such as theater workshops, performances , and teaching practice. In these spaces, evaluation through oral presentations highlights the evaluative tendency but not the formative one.
From an appellative standpoint and the perspective of the students, the results reveal that bachelor’s degree programs differ in their perception of formative spaces. The Bachelor’s Degree in Spanish Language and Literature includes direct components in which students are immersed in training in academic orality. In the Bachelor of Fine Arts program, this aspect is only considered an evaluative tool, and aspects such as the fear of public speaking are seen as relevant impediments to the development of academic oral skills.
Although there is a formative discrepancy in the students’ vision, spaces such as professional practice are considered areas that favor the development of orality. Nevertheless, this curricular component, which consists of purely expository interactions between teachers-in-training and students, suggests that formative success is not possible without previous preparation and strengthening of orality.
In the words of Hernández (2022):
The importance of orality stems from recognizing the human condition and its close relationship with attitudes, actions, and nuances of expression that demonstrate connections to appropriation and culture. From an appropriation standpoint, orality is understood as the forms and resources through which the individual, in an active manner and close connection with others, internalizes the knowledge and ideals of their society and achieves self-development. (p. 255)
Hernández’s (2022) quote allows us to understand that the appropriation of knowledge in the academy, as an active community, depends directly on the generation of spaces in which knowledge circulates and adapts to the needs of the teacher in training and the community in which he or she is developing his or her teaching practice. In other words, when students have the proper tools for developing oral skills, they will demonstrate these skills in their speech. These skills depend on the teacher’s ability to model effective communication. This means that when teachers have strong communication skills, their students will also develop these skills.
This perception also transcends into university life. If the teacher-in-training does not observe the necessary oral skills in their professors or in relevant training environments, they will not develop the competence in academic orality required for teaching.
The second specific objective had two subcategories of analysis aimed at understanding the presence of orality in curricula from the perspectives of students and faculty, as discussed throughout this analysis.
The research instrument began with the following question: What didactic strategy was used in your teacher training to strengthen academic orality? The responses from students in the Bachelor’s Degree program in Spanish Language and Literature were summarized as follows:
Most agree that the most common strategies are lectures and debates to evaluate curricular content. Based on student responses, the prevalent teaching strategy for arts graduates is evaluative, involving oral presentations in class, forums, and professional practice spaces .
Regarding the same question, the responses of the Bachelor of Visual Arts students allowed us to conclude: «The prevailing didactic strategy in the training of art graduates is evaluative, involving oral presentations in classes, forums, and professional practice spaces».
From the students’ perspective, it is pertinent to quote Carrillo and Nevado (2017):
An increasing number of social factors invite us to rethink the role of education in developing critical and argumentative competencies in individuals who are constantly exposed to an abundance of information. These individuals not only seek to establish themselves as active members of society, but also to position themselves in academic and professional fields. […] “We are in language”, meaning thought can only be structured from words or their manifestations. Every time we express a viewpoint on a subject, we are creating a discourse and arguing. (p. 20)
In the context of a university education, the goal is to teach students how to develop scientific arguments based on the logical analysis of the discourse they encounter during their studies that addresses their professional, social, and aesthetic needs.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the didactic strategies used in the studied university context strengthen learning orality, meaning the graduates are well-trained. However, the students’ perception of the resources found in the previous category reflects a purely evaluative position.
Discussion
The perception of academic orality among students and teachers of the respective degrees under study relates to Mostacero’s (2004) argument that orality is a complex semiotic activity and discursive production requiring neurolinguistic cognitive activity due to the subject’s ability to construct meaning. Therefore, undergraduate students need to develop processes that allow them to strengthen their persuasive capacity.
Therefore, in light of the results, undergraduate students must develop discursive skills that demonstrate their ability to argue, as a result of the appropriation of knowledge, enhancing their formation as dialogic subjects.
Similarly, for Ramírez (2016), orality is an act that enables persuasion, conviction, and manipulation on a specific topic. Subjects demonstrate academic oral competence based on their experience, as this faculty emerges from the need to argue.
According to Vich and Zavala (2004), orality is an act of participatory social interaction in which oral discourse acquires meaning. Therefore, teachers, given their constant academic and scientific activity, develop and exercise their discursive abilities. In this context, although they have the academic skills necessary for their work, university instructors find that their students are unmotivated to deepen their understanding learning. Consequently, they resort to alternative evaluation activities, such as discursive exercises. Unfortunately, students do not take advantage of these opportunities, instead delivering mechanical speeches, which demotivates some and others.
According to the population under study, academic orality is an invaluable resource that enables teacher trainees to perform adequately in their teaching practice. Students perceive academic orality as a fundamental resource, though they lack motivation to develop it due to a perceived lack of opportunities to practice oral skills.
On the contrary, the faculty, with evident discursive capacity, considers oral training indispensable. However, students do not attend the spaces provided by the university for this type of learning, which reduces their capacity to strengthen academic orality. Teachers believe that students lack self-teaching skills, causing them to follow only what teachers provide in the classroom. Consequently, the autonomous training component is not developed adequately, as few students investigate and delve into the topics of each bachelor’s degree program curriculum.
In this regard, Carrillo and Nevado (2017) argue that social factors reshape the role of education in the development of critical argumentative skills. Teachers are considered active subjects in society because they are in direct contact with information. Thus, the development of academic orality allows them to position themselves in the work environment thanks to the new demands on orality and communication. Additionally, teacher trainees must be aware that structured thinking is evident in language. Therefore, they require an argumentative discourse that allows them to recognize their specific knowledge.
Similarly, Vásquez (2011) argues that didactic oral processes must transcend the boundaries of oral and informal practices . In other words, they must move away from the evaluative perception inherent to communicative processes. It is also necessary to consider strategies that link dialogue and argument; that is, to avoid speaking mechanically. Finally, it is important to promote argumentation exercises based on previous knowledge and appropriation of knowledge.
Consequently, academic orality is a fundamental aspect of educator training, given the dialogical nature of the educational process in which teachers must possess oral communication skills to convey curricular content in an understandable way, always utilizing strategies such as persuasion and argumentation.
Conclusions
The results allow us to define academic orality as the efficient encoding and decoding of discourse. Therefore, it is important to promote training in academic orality, as it is a fundamental factor in teaching practice. In this sense, teacher trainees should engage in complementary processes that enhance their communicative competence in discourse.
It is important to note that students find academic resources for training in academic orality within the curricular component of their bachelor’s degree programs. However, they do not fully utilize these opportunities, which limits their training. Therefore, it is crucial to adopt a more dynamic didactic approach to these spaces; thus, a guide is proposed to help develop competence in academic orality.
Similarly, it is vital to encourage projects that motivate students to participate in academic events. These projects should integrate research to strengthen argumentation, promote coherent discourse, and encourage critical thinking based on sensory perception.
The research indicates that orality training must transcend daily dialogic intentions and achieve greater academic rigor to develop persuasion as a fundamental classroom resource and circulate knowledge.
Finally, teachers should encourage students to participate in scientific and academic events that showcase their knowledge. In other words, they should create opportunities beyond ordinary teaching practices so that students can engage in discourse that goes beyond mere exposition and develops scientific competence, which will enhance their performance in future work.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this article declare that they have no financial, personal, political, intellectual, racist, religious, or other conflicts of interest that could compromise the reliability of this publication.
Ethical Responsibilities
The research did not pose any risk to the participants. Ethical principles were observed in terms of its nature and purpose, including respect for autonomy and the privacy and confidentiality of data. The ethical considerations were reflected in the consent form signed by each participant and in the letter of acceptance issued by the educational institution subject to the study when the instruments were applied in its facilities. Likewise, the ethical research process was endorsed by the Master’s Degree in University Teaching at the Universidad de Nariño.
References
Albaladejo, T. (1999). Retórica y oralidad [Rhetoric and orality]. Oralia, 2, 7-25. https://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/ORALIA/article/view/8526
Álvarez, Y. F., & Parra, A. L. (2015). Fortalecimiento de la expresión oral en un contexto de interacción comunicativa [Strengthening of oral expression in a context of communicative interaction] [Tesis de maestría, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia]. Repositorio institucional UPTC. https://repositorio.uptc.edu.co/items/4f213cf0-16c7-49c3-8878-77d616187fd7
Carrillo, S., & Nevado, K. (2017). El debate académico como estrategia didáctica para la formación de competencias argumentativas y para la aproximación al diálogo científico [Academic debate as a didactic strategy for the formation of argumentative competences and for the approach to scientific dialogue]. Rastros Rostros, 19(34), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.16925/ra.v19i34.2145
Casanova, R., & Roldán, Y. (2016). Alcances sobre la didáctica de la expresión oral y escrita en el aula de enseñanza media [Reaches on the didactics of oral and written expression in the secondary school classroom]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 42(especial), 41-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000300005
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Diseño de investigación. Aproximaciones cualitativas y cuantitativas [Research design. Qualitative and quantitative approaches]. Sage.
Espíndola, C., & Morales, C. (n.d.). Lenguaje verbal, no verbal, paraverbal [Diapositiva] [Verbal, nonverbal, paraverbal language] [Slide]. North American College. https://acortar.link/CDKt5C
Hernández, E. A. (2023). Las implicaciones del enfoque hermenéutico interpretativo investigación educativa [The implications of the interpretive hermeneutic approach to educational research]. Ciencia Latina, 7(4), 10561-10576. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i4.8069
Hernández, M. (2022). De la oralidad a las nuevas oralidades. Un estado del arte [From orality to the new oralities. A state of the art]. Enunciación, 27(2), 249-264. https://doi.org/10.14483/22486798.19879
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación [Research Methodology] (6.th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Jiménez, C. C. (2011). El Marco Común de Referencia para las lenguas y la comprensión teórica del conocimiento del lenguaje: exploración de una normatividad flexible para emprender acciones educativas. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
León, A. C. (2017). La competencia argumentativa oral como proceso transversal en la escuela primaria [Oral argumentative competence as a transversal process in elementary school] [Tesis de pregrado, Universidad Nacional de Colombia]. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/handle/unal/59593/AndreaC.Le%C3%B3nPuentes.2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Mostacero, R. (2004). Oralidad, escritura y escrituralidad [Orality, writing and scripturality]. Sapiens. Revista Universitaria de Investigación, 5(1), 53-75.
Ong, W. J. (2016). Oralidad y escritura: tecnologías de la palabra [Orality and writing: technologies of the Word] (A. Sckerp, Trad.; 2.nd ed.). Fondo de Cultura Económica. (Obra original publicada en 1982) [Original work published in 1982].
Peña, L. B. (2008). La competencia oral y escrita en la educación superior [Oral and written competence in higher education]. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/articles-189357_archivo_pdf_comunicacion.pdf
Piaget, J. (n.d.). Desarrollo cognitivo [Cognitive development]. https://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1H30ZJVMP-10MKYH2-QWH/Desarrollo%20Cognitivo.pdf
Ramírez, R. (2016). Competencia argumentativa oral: Casos en escuelas rurales [Oral argumentative competence: Cases in rural schools]. Editorial Universidad de Nariño.
Rodríguez, M. E. (2015). Conversando sobre Oralidad con Fabio Jurado Valencia [Entrevista] [Talking about Orality with Fabio Jurado Valencia [Interview] . Oralidad-es, 1(1), 87-93. https://revistaoralidad-es.com/index.php/ro-es/article/view/15/10
Saussure, F. (2020). Curso de lingüística general [General linguistics course] (A. Alonso, Trad.; 24.th ed.). Editorial Losada. (Obra original publicada en 1945) [Original work published in 1945].
Tijeras, A., & Monsalve, L. (2018). Desarrollo de la competencia comunicativa en la formación inicial del profesorado [Development of communicative competence in initial teacher education]. Atenas, 3(43), 89-102 .
Uribe-Hincapié, R. A., Montoya-Marín, J. E., & García-Castro, J. F. (2019). Oralidad: fundamento de la didáctica y la evaluación del lenguaje [Orality: foundation of language didactics and assessment]. Educación y Educadores, 22(3), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2019.22.3.7
Vargas, D. K., & Vásquez, V. (2021). Dimensiones del lenguaje oral en niños de cuatro años estudio realizado en una institución educativa inicial del distrito de Chiclayo, 2018 [Dimensions of oral language in four-year-old children study conducted in an initial educational institution in the district of Chiclayo, 2018] [Tesis de pregrado, Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo]. Repositorio Dspace. https://tesis.usat.edu.pe/xmlui/handle/20.500.12423/3435
Vásquez, F. (2011). La didáctica de la oralidad: experiencia, conocimiento y creatividad [The didactics of orality: experience, knowledge, and creativity]. Enunciación, 16 (1), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.14483/22486798.3595
Vich, V., & Zavala, V. (2004). Oralidad y poder. Herramientas metodológicas [Orality and power. Methodological tools]. Grupo Editorial Norma
Contribution
Ángel Miguel Cárdenas Silva: Consultation and drafting of the theoretical framework, introduction, and methodology.
Edinson Albeiro Malte Muepaz: Analysis and interpretation of results, writing the introduction, methods, discussion, and conclusions.
José Edmundo Calvache López: Advice on the development of the project and structuring of the final report and article.
All authors participated in preparing the manuscript and approved it.
1 Master’s student in Docencia Universitaria, Universidad de Nariño. Teacher at the Institución Educativa El Limonar, San Antonio de Pado, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia. E-mail: thumbsup.agencia@gmail.com
2 Master’s student in Docencia Universitaria, Universidad de Nariño. Teacher at Institución Educativa Indígena Agroambiental Mayker, Mayasquer, Cumbal, Nariño, Colombia. E-mail: edalmalte89@gmail.com
3 Doctor in Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia; master in Lingüística Aplicada, Universidad de la Sorbona (Paris). Professor, Universidad de Nariño; member of the research group ‘Pedagogía, Cuerpo y Sociedad’, Universidad CESMAG, Category A Minciencias. E-mail: ecalvache17@gmail.com
