EFL Pronunciation Instruction in Spanish Primary Schools: From Prescribed Curriculum to Classroom Practice

Abstract

This article reports on the first qualitative phase of an exploratory sequential mixed method (ESMM) research design focusing on EFL pronunciation instruction in Spanish primary schools. Firstly, it presents an analysis of the National Curriculum in light of recent policy changes and adaptations across seventeen Autonomous Communities (AACC) to assess coherence and the scaffolding of contents. Secondly, based on results from Focus Groups with eight instructors from five different schools and two different AACC, teachers’ perceptions on EFL pronunciation teaching in the current curriculum change are examined according to two main strands, i.e., Curriculum Design and Development and Teacher Professional Development. The results reveal asymmetries in Curriculum Contents regarding specificity and teaching methodologies, as well as some conceptual inconsistencies and dispositions that seem to be leading to overregulation, particularly in relation to increased measures of public accountability. These appear to be heightening tensions that are causing a mismatch between the intended Curriculum and the instructor-experienced curriculum. Another key observation is that, in this scenario, the positive beliefs and attitudes of primary school teachers towards EFL pronunciation are insufficient for optimal teaching. Intervention measures and innovations are suggested to improve the situation, which may be extrapolated to other similar EFL contexts.

1. Introduction

Pronunciation1 plays a pivotal role in the acquisition of EFL competence, both for the development of language skills and for successful communication building social or work relations (Saito, 2021; Lee et al., 2015; Walker, 2014). Furthermore, according to error gravity studies, pronunciation is not only a key aspect of spoken intelligibility (i.e., the literal understandability of an utterance), nativelikeness (i.e., how closely a speaker’s pronunciation resembles that of a native speaker), comprehensibility (i.e., the effort required for understanding speech), and interpretability (i.e., the full, nuanced, contextual understanding of a speech act) (Derwing & Munro, 2009; Jenkins, 2000; Munro & Derwing, 1995; Levis, 2018; Saito, 2021). Phonetic errors and mispronunciations may also affect the learners’ self-esteem (Underhill, 2010), they may trigger judgmental attitudes among listeners (e.g., boredom, tiredness, irritation, annoyance, or anxiety) (Anderson-Hsieh et al., 1992; Bent & Bradlow, 2003) and negative stereotypes about disfluent speakers (Seidlhofer, 2001), or may even result in withdrawal from interaction on the part of some speakers (Singleton, 1995), probably due to a breakdown in fluent communication or the extra effort needed to repair phonological distortions (Fernández González, 1988).

Nevertheless, pronunciation has often been overshadowed in EFL classes by other aspects of language teaching (Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2016; Kelly, 1969; Marks & Łeba, 2011; Sweeting, 2015). In Isaacs’ (2018, p. 273) words, L2/EFL pronunciation practices have been affected by “the whims of the time and the fashions of the day” (Celce-Murcia, 2010; Demir & Kartal, 2022; Jordan et al., 2008; Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019; Setter, 2018). Grammar and reading-based methodologies prioritized other dimensions of EFL learning, usually based on the appreciation that acquiring a native speaker-like pronunciation is an unrealistic goal that can never be attained. A paradigm shift occurred with the implementation of audio-lingual and oral methods in viewing pronunciation as an essential aspect of L2/EFL teaching. Similarly, the rise in communicative language teaching combined with the establishment of multilingual/bilingual programs such as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) within international frameworks like the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) also enhanced speaking and communicative competence, even though fluency and intelligibility were prioritized over phonetic accuracy (A. Baker & Burri, 2016; Foote et al., 2016; Levis, 2018). It has not been until recently that CEFR has explicitly acknowledged the importance of phonological awareness, referred to as phonological control (Council of Europe, 2020, pp. 133–136), which is scaffolded over six levels, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2—displayed in Appendix A—involving clarity and precision in sound articulation, as well as control of prosodic features (stress, intonation and/or rhythm), to appropriately and effectively convey one’s particular message and finer shades of meaning.

The question then arises as to whether the dimensions involved in phonological control as described by CEFR or in any equivalent manner2 have been systematically integrated into EFL curriculum design, curriculum development, and (lesson) planning within the framework of the educational policies applicable in each country, and if they have, whether such contents are developed progressively and gradually throughout the different educational levels, including teacher training programs. This area has been underexplored, and as a result, research appears to be largely misaligned with teaching practice and the instructional materials used to teach EFL pronunciation, with only intermittent applications of its results to classroom pedagogy (Low, 2021; Müller, 2013; Murphy, 2011).

Focusing on Spain, a number of reports (PISA, ESLC, PIRLS, EPI) and empirical studies (Alonso, 2014; Cuddy, 2018; Martínez-Flor et al., 2006; Bartolí Rigol, 2005; Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2015) have found that the phonological competence of Spanish-speaking learners of English lags behind other skills, albeit the importance conferred on pronunciation by both instructors and learners (Castillo Rodríguez et al., 2023; Díaz Lage et al., 2023; Bartolí Rigol, 2005; Calvo Benzies, 2016; Cenoz & García-Lecumberri, 1999; Gómez-Lacabex & Gallardo del Puerto, 2020; Martínez Adrián & Gallardo, 2011; Santos Díaz et al., 2024). In addition to L1 negative interference, given the differences existing between English and Spanish in terms of sound inventories, prosody and orthography (Gómez González & Sánchez Roura, 2016; Gómez González et al., 2021), as well as acculturation variables (i.e., degree of social/psychological interaction with the target group) (Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2009), inadequate methodologies and educational systems seem to lie at the heart of the problem.

Nevertheless, the link between EFL pronunciation pedagogies in Spanish primary schools and educational regulations has been underinvestigated, despite its critical importance for secondary and tertiary-level programs since any language-related outcomes will depend on the model of the education curriculum and setting realistic objectives will support any early start benefits (Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2005). This target population has been underrepresented in Henderson et al.’s (2012, 2015) English Pronunciation Teaching in Europe Survey (EPTiES) (5%). Furthermore, except for some panoramic accounts (García Mayo, 2017), most prior studies have focused on other issues such as (1) the acquisition of EFL sounds (García Lecumberri & Gallardo del Puerto, 2003), (2) the relevance of the intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programs (Azpilicueta-Martínez & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2023; Pérez Cañado, 2018), (3) foreign language awareness (Gómez-Lacabex & Gallardo del Puerto, 2014, 2020; Muñoz, 2013), or (4) the effectiveness of specific approaches like communicative or audio–lingual methods (Nivela Herrero, 2014), explicit perception and production training programs (Carlet & Cebrian, 2019; Gómez-Lacabex et al., 2022), explicit spelling instruction (Pérez Cañado, 2003), or the Jolly Phonics (JP) method (Fonseca-Mora & Fernández-Corbacho, 2017; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2007, 2010; Martínez, 2011; Redón Romero et al., 2021). Some previous investigations have also examined the implementation of (compliance with) legislation on primary school (L2) teaching in Spain such as Barbero (2012), Bolívar (2008, 2010, 2019), Palacios-Hidalgo et al. (2022) or Trillo Alonso and Fraga Varela (2023). However, such prior work is not specifically focused on EFL pronunciation and neither does it consider the dimensions presented here in the same degree of granularity.

This study seeks to advance research on EFL pronunciation teaching in Spanish primary schools, a target population and research area that remains significantly underrepresented despite the foundational role of primary education in shaping later EFL learning outcomes. Following an outline of the research questions and methodology (Section 2), the study pursues two main objectives:

(1)

To evaluate the coherence of EFL pronunciation content within the newly established curriculum at both national and regional levels, recognizing that setting realistic and coherent objectives is essential for maximizing early language learning benefits (García Mayo, 2017) (Section 3.1).

(2)

To investigate primary school teachers’ perceptions of pronunciation instruction amidst ongoing curriculum reforms, given the critical influence of teacher attitudes on EFL research, pedagogical practices, and professional development (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Kang, 2015; Lintunen & Mäkilähde, 2018; Van Ha & Murray, 2021) (Section 3.2).

This article concludes with an analysis of emerging trends and challenges (Section 4) and a final discussion presenting key conclusions and directions for future research (Section 5).

2. Materials and Methods

This study presents the findings from the first qualitative phase of an exploratory sequential mixed-methods (ESMM) design (Creswell & Plano, 2018). ESMM is characterized by two sequential phases: the initial qualitative phase followed by a quantitative phase. The purpose of the design is to explore a research problem about which little is known, hence the term exploratory. Specifically, two primary research questions were addressed:

RQ1: To what extent are the Spanish National Curriculum Guidelines for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) pronunciation instruction at the primary school level adequately scaffolded and coherent across the Autonomous Communities (AACC)?

RQ2: What are teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding EFL pronunciation instruction in the context of the New Curriculum, and are there differences between public and private schools, as well as across various AACC?

To address RQ1, an ad hoc documentary analysis was conducted on 18 key documents (approximately 500 pages each), which addressed EFL phonetic knowledge, objectives, competencies, and assessment criteria. These included the recently reformed Spanish National Curriculum for Primary Education under the LOMLOE (Organic Law 3/2020, 20 December 2020), as well as the 17 adaptations implemented by each AACC in accordance with the Minimum Education Decree (BOE, 2022a, 2022b).

RQ2, on the other hand, required the collection of qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with primary school teachers. The aim of this phase was to gain insights into and explore their experiences with the newly established National Curriculum and its adaptations across different AACC, considering that teaching is a regulated profession in Spain. Accordingly, semi-structured interviews following a standardized script (Appendix C) were conducted across three Focus Groups (FGs) with eight primary school teachers. Drawing on foundational references in qualitative research (Charmaz, 2006; Krueger & Casey, 2015; Morgan, 1997; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), the script incorporated open-ended questions designed to stimulate discussion and align with the study’s objectives. This approach facilitated the refinement of questions based on emerging themes, ensuring a focused exploration of teacher practices and challenges. Additionally, previous research on EFL pronunciation teaching already described informed questions about the specific pronunciation difficulties faced by Spanish-speaking learners, how these challenges are addressed in the classroom, the alignment between prescribed curricula and classroom practices, and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward pronunciation, as well as their perceived resource and training needs. As will become apparent, the responses provided valuable insights into the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical application in EFL pronunciation instruction within Spanish primary schools.

The FG teachers were selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible participants had at least three years of teaching experience, were actively employed as primary school teachers, and could fluently communicate in English. Participation was voluntary, requiring informed consent and availability for semi-structured interviews. Teachers with less than three years of experience, individuals facing language barriers, those unable to commit time to this survey, or those with a conflict of interest were excluded. FG01 involved two teachers from two different public schools in Galicia, while FG02 consisted of four instructors from two distinct private schools within the same Autonomous Community (AC), with two teachers from each school. FG03 included two teachers from a public school in Asturias, a neighboring AC. Public primary schools were prioritized due to the greater presence and impact of the public network. Additionally, the sample included more schools from Galicia, owing to logistical, budgetary, and methodological constraints. The selection of schools was based on proximity, as well as their status as reference centers for public or private education within their respective AACC.

Authorizations to conduct the focus groups (FGs) were obtained from each sampled school, the relevant AACC, and the participating teachers. Financial resources were allocated to cover both travel expenses and participation fees for the teachers surveyed. Furthermore, after completing FG01, the decision was made to expand the sample to include FG02 and FG03 in order to enhance the depth of analysis. Once it became apparent that theoretical saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) had been reached, meaning that no significant new topics emerged from the participants’ experiences, it was concluded that further expansion of the FG sample was unnecessary.

ATLAS.ti software (version 23) was employed to analyze the FG data and retrieve the code networks generated from verbatim transcripts, illustrated in Figure 1, as well as the resulting list of codes and subcodes with their corresponding number of quotations (Appendix D).3 FG responses were refined through thematic analysis as it offers a theoretically flexible approach to this kind of qualitative approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Accordingly, the FG data were explored using a deductive mapping strategy, involving several phases of interrogating, defining, and redefining, until the most prominent themes and answers were identified (Appendix E).

3. Results

This section presents the results derived from the qualitative data obtained through the documentary analysis and FG interviews in order to discuss the two research questions posed in the study.

3.1. The LOMLOE and Its Regional Adaptations

The LOMLOE reinstates a 3-cycle Primary program, i.e., 1st cycle (1st and 2nd year, ages 6 to 8), 2nd cycle (3rd and 4th year, ages 8 to 10) and 3rd cycle (5th and 6th year, ages 10 to 12), setting the number of teaching hours for Foreign Language teaching at 120 h per year in the 1st and 2nd Primary cycles, and at 125 h in the 3rd cycle (Valle, 2022). Focusing on the specific curriculum for foreign languages, LOMLOE establishes a link between Essential knowledge and the acquisition and development of Key competences ascribed to three main blocks: (1) Communication or Competence in linguistic communication (CLC), the ability to carry out communicative activities, such as comprehension, production, interaction and searching for information; (2) Plurilingualism or Multilingual competence (MC), a learner’s awareness of their specific linguistic repertoire and its relevance to understanding and producing a foreign language; and (3) Interculturality or Competence in cultural awareness and expression (CCAE), suggesting that students should not only be aware of the workings of a foreign language, but also demonstrate curiosity about the social and cultural milieu that foreign language exists in, which offers an opportunity for personal enrichment. The goal is to enable learners to construct and communicate knowledge proficiently through the planning and production of simple oral and multimodal texts, accompanied in the case of oral production by postural attitudes to function in an increasingly multilingual and multicultural society, thereby emphasizing the relevance of Communication, Multilingualism and Interculturality, as also recommended in ELP (see Note 2). Each of these Key competences is linked to corresponding Core skills cross-cutting the student’s Exit Profile, the relevant Objectives and Contents, as well as the subject areas covered by the Assessment criteria totaling 43 items (Fraga-Varela et al., 2024; Moya, 2022).

Explicit mentions of EFL pronunciation contents are summarized in

Table 1. Spanish primary education National Curriculum regarding EFL pronunciation contents.

General provisions	- Sections in the basic knowledge: Communication, Multilingualism and Interculturalism, supported by digital competence with corresponding descriptors based on the language activities and competencies established by the Council of Europe in the CEFR. - Digital tools reinforce the learning, teaching and assessment of foreign languages and cultures. - Action-oriented methodological approach. - Learning through oral and written language use - Learning situations involving production and interaction; emphasis on communicative language activities and language proficiency (oral and written): comprehension, production, interaction, mediation, using personal linguistic repertoires across languages, and appreciating and respecting linguistic and cultural diversity. - Guidelines for the practice of evaluation, both of the learning process and of the teaching process
Cycles	- Pronunciation in the Communication block and CLC competencies
1st	- Introduction to elementary sound and accent patterns.
2nd	- Basic sound, accentual and intonation patterns in common use, and general communicative functions associated with these patterns.
3rd	- Basic sound, accentual, rhythmic and intonation patterns, and general communicative functions associated with these patterns. - The learning of the foreign language encompasses the acquisition of both the phonetic code and the graphic code of that language. In the first years of this stage, priority will be given to orality while gradually incorporating the written code that allows the comprehensive reading of words and expressions. The acquisition of this code will facilitate the subsequent recognition of written forms and their progressive analysis. - The learning of the written code must be done through the reading and production of texts in real or simulated communicative contexts of personal, family and social life, and related to the needs and interests of the students. This learning will include aspects related to the composition and organization of the different textual manifestations and their use, as well as the different supports and channels that can be used both to access texts and to create them. - Oral production: pronunciation and intonation. Postural attitude. Construction and communication of knowledge through the planning and production of simple oral and multimodal texts.

. It can be observed that contents of core pronunciation knowledge are ascribed to the Communication block and associated with CLC competencies that are scaffolded across the three cycles involving both the segmental and suprasegmental dimensions and targeting intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability.

While the 1st cycle pursues an initiation to English sounds and accent patterns, the 2nd and 3rd cycles incorporate sound and intonation patterns in common use in association with their communicative functions that should be presented in learning situations that recreate real or simulated communicative contexts. In the 3rd cycle, on the other hand, rhythm is introduced alongside the gradual acquisition of both the so-called phonetic code and subsequently the written code (BOE, 2022a, p. 113). “Phonetic code” seems to refer to orality, in the sense of teaching–learning sounds and suprasegmental features, before confronting children with orthographic issues and the complications of writing. The approach, the leveling and the definition of the different elements of the curriculum are said to be based on the language activities and competencies established by the Council of Europe in the CEFR to ensure lifelong learning, in keeping with the Sustainable Development Goals and the challenges of the 21st century.

Appendix B extracts the dispositions that explicitly refer to pronunciation-related contents across AACC adaptations of the LOMLOE. There exist convergences but also significant discrepancies concerning the terminological and procedural treatment of Essential Knowledge and its systematization in cycles or years, as well as in the organization of Key competences and Core skills. Except for Andalusia, which explicitly alludes to pronunciation contents only in the first year, all the other AACC adhere to the general distribution of EFL pronunciation knowledge into cycles (or years) by repeating, in many cases almost verbatim, the same general headings as those of the LOMLOE but presenting them as learning outcomes. Yet there is no systematic elicitation across AACC as to which pronunciation contents and skills should be targeted in each cycle. Furthermore, while the Curricula of the other AACC are cycle-based, Andalusia, Galicia, and Castile-Leon present contents both for cycles and years. Another inconsistency refers to the fact that, while five AACC (Andalusia, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Galicia, and Navarre) simply associate pronunciation contents with Core skills in the Communication block using National Curriculum headings, the remaining twelve AACC do introduce varying degrees of additional differentiating elements to enhance intelligibility, comprehensibility and interpretability. One case in point is the curriculum of La Rioja. It is the only one that suggests a learning pathway with specific contents across the cycles, involving first initiation to recognition of English sounds (1st cycle), next the oral, written and monomodal mastery of such sounds (2nd cycle), and finally the oral, written and multimodal mastery of such sounds (3rd cycle), stressing the importance of prosody (stress, rhythm, and intonation) for intelligibility.

Nevertheless, with the exception of Andalusia, Extremadura, Basque Country, and Galicia, all the other AACC follow the trend detected in the National Curriculum of not addressing EFL pronunciation issues beyond the Communication block. A final inconsistency refers to the treatment of the evaluation criteria. Most AACC propose evaluation criteria in terms of specific competencies in the spirit of the LOMLOE, while Andalusia, Aragon, and Galicia treat them differently, in direct relation to the content block of the Foreign Language area. This practice implies greater specificity but is not based on learning standards or evaluation situations as demanded in the LOMLOE. Likewise, the Curricula of Castile-Leon, Galicia, and Catalonia, which are divided into both cycles and courses, provide a higher number of evaluation criteria than in the LOMLOE (50 vs. 43) (Fraga-Varela et al., 2024).

3.2. Beliefs About EFL Pronunciation Instruction in the New Curriculum

Atlas.ti enabled the identification and hierarchical organization of the most prevalent topics emerging from our FG discussions, which centered around two main issues: Curriculum Design and Development (CDD) (278 quotations), and Teacher Professional Development (TPD) (100 quotations). These topics are discussed in the following sections.

3.2.1. Curriculum Design and Development (CDD)

CDD refers to the structure or organization of the curriculum, as well as to the planning, implementation and evaluation processes of the curriculum (Mohanasundaram, 2018). In our FGs, the most relevant topics related to CDD were the following ones with their corresponding (sub)codes (in decreasing frequency) (Appendix D):

1.1. Contents of the English Curriculum

1.1.1. Pronunciation

1.1.2. Phonetics

1.2. Methodological principles

1.7. Resources and Didactic Materials

1.7.9. Publishing houses

1.7.1. Textbooks

1.7.29. Constraints

1.9. Technology and digitalization

1.6.3. Teaching Load

1.5.5. Ratio of students

The first significant CDD-related finding is the importance attached by EFL primary school teachers to including solid instruction in EFL pronunciation in the EFL curriculum. No differences are observed in this regard across the AACC and public–private education divides. FG01 coincided in that pronunciation instruction should start as soon as possible and that it should be taught in a playful way, while FG02 and FG03 highlighted the challenges of this endeavor, because of the disparities between L1 and L2, especially in the case of vowels. There are other strong agreements across the three FG. All the primary school teachers take British English as the accent of reference, arguing that it is the pronunciation model that is mainly featured in the materials they use. These are mostly EFL textbooks (teacher’s and student’s) by two publishing houses, Oxford University Press and Macmillan, throughout the three cycles of primary education, although portfolios that follow private schools’ own methodologies were also mentioned in FG02. Instructors justify the choice of these two publishing houses as being consistent with the textbooks adopted in most public schools, and because they are produced in the UK. Regarding additional support materials and activities, the teachers from the three FG noted the benefits of video/multimedia-based, song-based, and game-based learning, as well as various ICT-supported innovations (e.g., digital whiteboard, virtual notebook) in the case of FG02.

Regarding the differences across FGs, the most notable variation concerns the methodology used to teach EFL pronunciation. While all teachers agreed on the effectiveness of an English-Spanish contrastive approach for teaching English pronunciation and spelling, several distinctions emerged. FG03 noted that, although pronunciation content is only marginally addressed in primary school objectives and is not prominently featured in textbooks, teachers approach it intuitively, as they are not familiar with specific methods for teaching EFL pronunciation to children. In contrast, teachers in FG01 and FG02 highlighted the effectiveness of the communicative approach and game-based learning, including synthetic phonics methods such as JP, which they found particularly beneficial. Additionally, FG02 teachers emphasized explaining pronunciation errors to students as a means of raising awareness, while FG01 teachers reported gradually introducing the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) in the third cycle to illustrate the correspondences or discrepancies between phonetic and written codes. Furthermore, both FG01 and FG02 focused on scaffolding explicit EFL pronunciation instruction, while FG03 emphasized the value of pairing English-language movie-watching with Spanish subtitles as an immersion activity.

3.2.2. Teacher Professional Development (TPD)

TPD, on the other hand, refers to the attitudes, commitments and actions involved in the teaching career in which professionals go through different stages, both autonomously or self-directed and collectively with the supports of others since teaching is a collaborative profession (Van Ha & Murray, 2021). In our FGs, TPD registered the following most relevant topics and corresponding (sub)codes (in decreasing frequency) (Appendix D):

2.1.11. Teacher Autonomy

2.1.9. Teachers’ frustration

2.3.2. Control

2.3.3. Bureaucracy

2.6. Timing

The first relevant finding concerning TPD is the unanimous agreement across the three FG on the need for specialized training in EFL pronunciation. All three groups had a very negative perception of the primary school teacher training programs offered in their centers and in Spain in this area. Curiously, while FG02 instructors from the private schools were uncritical in these matters, FG01 and FG03 teachers showed their dissatisfaction with the difficulty of carrying out programming tasks, even though these are rarely required by the administration, and with the pressure of deadlines that negatively impact on the teaching process. They explained that learning outcomes must be achievable, measurable and assessed according to the agenda, despite the lack of resources or the excessive number of students, which, in their view, contradicts the spirit of the educational reform.

In addition, both groups emphasized the complications involved in adequately interpreting the text of the new curriculum, which, instead of helping, was experienced as an added difficulty on the grounds of its convoluted and technical expression. As in the previous question, FG03 instructors were perhaps the most skeptical ones. They addressed all the impediments that hinder educational innovation in Spain (i.e., tight schedules, excessive bureaucratization, high ratio of students to teachers or the lack of adequate means and materials). In contrast, the FG01 teachers, possibly the most proactive ones, although they broadly agreed with their colleagues in FG03, also suggested actions for improvement, such as adapting the curriculum to make EFL (pronunciation) contents more explicit and better scaffolded, or adopting innovation measures aimed at the professional development and continuous training in updated and groupwork-based teaching methods supported by technologies (ICT) that should be made available to them in the educational centers.

Timing emerges as another notable discrepancy. In the two public schools from the two AACC (FG01 and FG03), EFL instruction is provided for 3 h a week in accordance with state regulations. In contrast, the sampled private schools offer 8 h of EFL instruction per week, during which various activities, such as projects and interdisciplinary workshops, are conducted. Additionally, EFL oral skills are assessed three times a year (initial, mid-term, and final) using a general rubric that evaluates fluency, pronunciation, and vocabulary. While FG03 teachers also reported assessing students’ communicative competence in listening, speaking, and writing, FG01 instructors expressed frustration over large class sizes and insufficient time to address and assess the specific competencies related to EFL pronunciation on an individual basis.

4. Discussion

Building on the results presented in Section 3, Section 4.1 addresses RQ1 by evaluating whether the Spanish National Curriculum Guidelines for EFL pronunciation instruction at the primary school level are adequately scaffolded and coherent across the AACC. The subsequent two sections explain the implications of the two major issues debated in our FGs in response to RQ2, which examined primary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding EFL pronunciation instruction within the context of the New Curriculum in Spain. Accordingly, Section 4.2 discusses the implications for Curriculum Development and Design (CDD), while Section 4.3 considers the repercussions on Teacher Professional Development (TPD).

4.1. EFL Pronunciation Curriculum in Spanish Primary Schools

A key conclusion drawn from the analysis of EFL pronunciation scaffolding in the recently established Primary School Curriculum at both national and regional levels in Spain is the lack of specificity regarding pronunciation objectives, content, and teaching methodologies across the three cycles of primary education. The curriculum does not incorporate the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) concept of phonological control, including its six associated descriptor scales, nor does it provide an equivalent framework to define the expected level of phonological competence at each stage of primary education within the LOMLOE.

A positive interpretation of this lack of specificity is that it grants teachers greater flexibility to design syllabi tailored to the individual needs of students in each AC. However, from a more critical perspective, one could argue that EFL pronunciation holds a peripheral role in the Spanish primary school curriculum. Compared to other linguistic competencies, pronunciation-related subject areas, objectives, and evaluation criteria receive only marginal curricular emphasis at the national level—possibly with the exception of La Rioja—whereas other dimensions are more clearly defined and carry greater curricular weight.

Although all three FGs agreed on the importance of introducing EFL pronunciation instruction as early as possible to enhance children’s oral skills—a belief also shared by primary school teachers in other countries (Sifakis & Sougari, 2005)—public school instructors, in particular, expressed concerns about the cognitive and time demands involved in developing teaching programs aligned with curricular requirements. This aligns with findings from previous studies on EFL instruction (Castillo Rodríguez et al., 2023; Couper, 2017; Díaz Lage et al., 2023; Henderson et al., 2012; Santos Díaz et al., 2024). Assessing spoken production and evaluating pronunciation accuracy often require a level of time and expertise that teachers may not always possess. Such gaps—including inadequate corrective feedback, limited explicit phonetic instruction, and insufficient exposure to naturalistic L2 pronunciation models—frequently contribute to persistent mispronunciations and reinforce negative beliefs about pronunciation (Bliss et al., 2018; Engwall & Bälter, 2007).

Additionally, the responses provided by private school instructors, while seemingly positive, should be interpreted with caution. Given the high student-to-teacher ratios observed in the surveyed private schools and the complexity of teaching pronunciation—acknowledged by all three FGs as a challenge influenced by multiple factors, including individual learner differences—these responses may have been shaped by social desirability bias. In other words, to uphold their professional image and justify the tuition fees paid by parents, some teachers may have provided responses that presented themselves and their schools in a more favorable light.

Similarly, the complexity of the reformed curriculum, with its diverse and sometimes inconsistent terminology, has led to significant discrepancies, making it difficult for teachers to position themselves within a unified framework and reconcile the various available guidelines. This lack of coherence threatens to undermine the curriculum’s potential impact. As suggested by our informants, it may be beneficial to simplify the dense regulatory language to enhance accessibility and practical implementation. Integrating recommendations from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP) into the curriculum—both at the national and regional levels—could help make EFL pronunciation content more explicit and systematically scaffolded. This would also allow for the design of individualized learning pathways that accommodate learners’ needs and individual differences (e.g., biological constraints, attitude, aptitude, personality, motivation, age, identity), recognizing the inherently individualized nature of L2/EFL pronunciation acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005; Müller, 2013).

Scholars such as Lara and Lara (2009), Levis (2016), and Bakla and Demirezen (2018) argue that teaching practices and regulations have remained largely unchanged, with L2 pronunciation still not being systematically taught and assessed until late in the language learning process. This delayed approach not only jeopardizes the pronunciation competence of young Spanish learners of English (YSLE) but also compromises the validity principle in early EFL assessment, which asserts that if teachers assess a skill, they must ensure that learners have been adequately taught that skill (Hogan, 2007). Given that standardized, high-stakes language proficiency tests (e.g., TOEFL, Cambridge Proficiency, First Certificate, IELTS) explicitly include pronunciation in their assessment rubrics and rating scales, pronunciation instruction should be progressively incorporated at different proficiency levels to uphold assessment validity.

To conclude this section, in the absence of comprehensive meta-analyses that examine this issue in greater depth and on a global scale, our findings suggest that, despite the formal provisions outlined in regulations, the effective implementation, scaffolding, and assessment of EFL pronunciation content remain unresolved challenges in the Spanish primary school curriculum. Similar conclusions have been drawn in other studies, which indicate that EFL pronunciation instruction requires substantial revision across Europe, where the CEFR remains an underutilized resource (Henderson et al., 2012, 2015), as well as in other educational contexts such as Cyprus (Georgiou, 2018), Pakistan (Rahman & Chowdhury, 2018), Vietnam (Hiep, 2001), China (Pan, 2015), or Japan (Ismail et al., 2020; Uchida & Sugimoto, 2016), to mention but a few.

4.2. Implications for EFL Pronunciation Curriculum Development and Design

Our findings highlight a disparity in EFL pronunciation methodologies, which appear to be based more on intuitive teaching practices than on specialized didactic techniques acquired through pre-service or in-service training. This outcome is not unexpected, given that the primary school curricula in the two AACC under examination, Galicia and Asturias, have been reported to provide insufficient specification regarding EFL pronunciation goals and methodologies compared to other AACC.

The effectiveness of the explicit phonetic training methodologies mentioned in the FGs has been well-documented in previous research. Drilling and repetition tasks have been shown to be essential due to the psychomotor demands of pronunciation, which often require significant repetition for students to internalize correct articulation patterns (Flege & Bohn, 2021). In this regard, technology-assisted tools can play a crucial role in providing flexible learning environments—whether public or private, formal or informal—thus reinforcing pronunciation practice, particularly given the limited instructional time allocated to L2/EFL in the curriculum (Bueno-Alastuey & Gómez-Lacabex, 2022; Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008; Gómez González & Lago Ferreiro, 2024a, 2024b; Gómez González, 2024; Mompean & Fouz-González, 2016).

Furthermore, prior studies have supported the benefits of various pedagogical approaches for pronunciation instruction, including Communicative Language Teaching (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996), the Jolly Phonics (JP) method (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2007, 2010; Martínez, 2011; Redón Romero et al., 2021), the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) method (Fouz-González & Mompean, 2021; Meldrum, 2004; Mompean & Fouz-Gonzalez, 2021; Mompean & Lintunen, 2015; Lintunen, 2004; Stanton, 2002; Underhill, 2010), as well as song-based (Good et al., 2015) and game-based learning approaches (Gómez González et al., 2023; Ludke et al., 2014; Matera, 2015).

In contrast, other techniques have come in for some criticism. While reading aloud has been criticized for using controlled and slightly unnatural texts (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996), it has also been argued that learning pronunciation through teacher imitation is a very old-fashioned method dating from the 1940s and 1960s (Morley, 1991) and that the use of language labs fails to implement appropriate activities, fostering confusion among teachers about its role in language classrooms (Navas-Brenes, 2006). Additionally, it has been noted that, although phonetic drills are well suited for teaching or practicing segmental features (Demirezen, 2008; Hişmanoğlu, 2007), the same may not apply to the teaching of suprasegmentals such as intonation, which are said to be better taught in context and discourse (Brazil et al., 1980; Topal, 2018). Accordingly, contextualized pronunciation teaching is recommended (Celce-Murcia, 2010), which is in line with the spirit of the regulations already described.

The demand for comprehensive EFL phonetic instruction is steadily increasing (Pennington, 2021). Given the highly individualized nature of L2/EFL pronunciation acquisition—where learners differ in biological constraints, attitude, aptitude, personality, motivation, age, and identity (Dörnyei, 2005; Müller, 2013)—current pedagogical trends advocate for personalized, student-tailored materials rather than generic courseware. These materials integrate phonetic instruction into the oral communication curriculum at various proficiency levels, extending beyond traditional listen-and-repeat drills to include both segmental and suprasegmental features (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Reed & Michaud, 2011). Increasingly, globalized activities are being called for to enhance learners’ international intelligibility and interactional competence, recognizing that English pronunciation serves a crucial communicative role in today’s multilingual, multicultural world (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Pennington, 2021; Rajadurai, 2007; Müller, 2013).

A holistic approach to classroom instruction is therefore necessary—one that fosters cognitive, linguistic, emotional, and socio-cultural development. This approach should integrate both implicit and explicit methodologies and ensure that empirical and theoretical EFL/ESL research findings inform pedagogical practice (Celce-Murcia, 2010; Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Gómez González, 2024; Gómez González & Lago Ferreiro, 2024a, 2024b; Hall, 2018; House et al., 2011).

Nevertheless, the effective implementation of holistic and comprehensive EFL pronunciation instruction necessitates access to appropriate resources and didactic materials. According to our informants, it is textbooks that serve as the foundational structure for organizing essential knowledge, typically structured into units or lessons. Furthermore, the interviewed instructors also highlighted significant challenges related to material development, collaboration with colleagues, and balancing linguistic and content-focused instruction with time constraints. As a result, teachers primarily rely on the controlled techniques embedded in EFL textbooks published by British publishing houses, which are designed for a broad global audience of EFL learners (C. Baker, 2014). Consequently, the more complex aspects of English pronunciation for young Spanish learners (YSLE) are either insufficiently taught or entirely overlooked in favor of other language skills (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Bai & Yuan, 2019).

The widespread reliance on such textbooks is surprising given their decreasing emphasis on pronunciation-related content, a concern explicitly raised by FG01 instructors. This trend has also been documented in previous research on EFL textbooks used in primary and secondary education (Gallardo del Puerto, 2005; Lindade Rodrigues, 2022). In addition to an overreliance on listen-and-repeat drills, these materials fail to incorporate explicit English-Spanish contrastive pronunciation instruction, which our informants deemed highly effective. This perspective aligns with well-established theoretical frameworks, including the Speech Learning Model (Flege & Bohn, 2021), Native Language Magnet Theory (Kuhl, 1999), Contrastive Analysis (Gao, 2005), and the Theory of Language Transfer (Gass & Selinker, 1972), among others.

A plausible explanation for the dominance of certain publishers in EFL instruction in Spanish primary schools may be found in the widespread adherence—among instructors, students, and educational programs—to the concept of nativelikeness (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009) or native-speakerism. This ideology promotes the native speaker’s presumed language competence, learning styles, communication patterns, conversational norms, cultural beliefs, and even accent as the standard to be learned and taught (Kumaravadivelu, 2016). The preference for either Standard British English (Received Pronunciation, RP) or General American English (GA) often depends on geographical influence, prestige, and their perceived intelligibility in international communication (Carrie, 2016; Li, 2009; Mompean, 2004).

The debate between intelligibility and the pursuit of native-like pronunciation, as well as the assessment of foreign accents, remains an open question in the field (Best & Tyler, 2007; Fernández González, 1988; Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2015; Mitterer et al., 2020). However, recent research suggests that achieving nativelikeness is no longer the primary goal in EFL instruction, particularly in international communicative contexts. Since English is spoken and taught by more non-native than native speakers worldwide (Dewey & Patsko, 2018; Medgyes, 2017), and functions as both an International Language (Low, 2021) and a Lingua Franca (ELF)—or even a Multilingua Franca when mixed with elements from speakers’ native languages (Jenkins, 2012, 2015)—the concept of comfortable intelligibility has gained traction. Defined as “being understood by a listener at a given time in a given situation” (Kenworthy, 1987, p. 3), this approach seeks to prevent the self-marginalization of non-native speakers. Pursuing native-like pronunciation can be discouraging for EFL learners and teachers alike, while also reinforcing the hegemonic status of Inner Circle English-speaking countries (Kumaravadivelu, 2016).

This perspective aligns with the views expressed by FG01 and FG02 informants, who emphasized the importance of exposing YSLE to a variety of English accents—both native and non-native—within real-world communicative contexts. Likewise, all three FGs agreed that their primary goal is to ensure that children can communicate effectively in English, regardless of their accent, and be understood by others.

In light of this evolving perspective, it may be necessary to move beyond the nativelikeness versus non-nativelikeness dichotomy in key areas such as EFL curriculum development, teacher training programs, and broader language policy discussions, as these are the spaces where teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical orientations are shaped (Borg, 2011; Woods, 2003). While some scholars continue to assign motivational, aspirational, or personal value to native-like pronunciation—particularly in specific learning contexts such as university settings or advanced courses—others advocate for a more pragmatic approach. Instead of promoting the imitation of specific accents or the commercialized concept of accent reduction that pervades EFL textbooks, a more realistic objective in certain teaching–learning contexts (e.g., primary schools, beginner courses, and international settings) may be to prioritize key pronunciation features that enhance intelligibility.

The Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000) has been proposed as a framework for identifying pronunciation features that are most critical for communication, thereby supporting learners’ intelligibility while also embracing accent variation and translanguaging practices. Exposing students to a range of authentic pronunciation models—both native and non-native—could provide a more inclusive and realistic approach to EFL pronunciation instruction (Gómez González & Sánchez Roura, 2016; Gómez González et al., 2021; Fouz-González & Mompean, 2021; Rallo Fabra & Juan-Garau, 2011).

4.3. Repercussions on Teacher Professional Development and EFL Pronunciation Teaching

Teachers are not just recipients of knowledge; they are also researchers of their own practice and active contributors to pedagogical development. This distinction is particularly relevant in the field of second- or foreign-language teaching (SFLT), which involves pronunciation learning and practice, and the training and education of language teachers (TELT), which focuses on pronunciation teaching methodologies in pre-service courses (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Burgess & Spencer, 2000). From a CEFR-aligned perspective, both language learners and teachers have corresponding responsibilities in pronunciation instruction. While learners are expected to develop competence in pronunciation, teachers serve as role models and must possess not only linguistic proficiency but also expertise in phonetics and phonology pedagogy.

Despite this, our research suggests a critical gap in TELT programs specializing in EFL pronunciation in Spanish primary schools. This deficiency, also reported in previous studies (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; State et al., 2011), implies that many EFL instructors are largely self-taught in pronunciation instruction. Given the well-documented need for updated teaching methodologies (Handelsman et al., 2004; Hermans et al., 2017), addressing this shortfall should be a priority. Studies highlight that limited training in phonetic pedagogy (Darcy et al., 2012; Derwing, 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2005) restricts teachers’ ability to maximize the potential of instructional resources, including digital tools that are specially devised for EFL pronunciation training in the fields of TELL (Technology Enhanced Language Learning) or CAPT (Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training) (Cantarutti, 2015; Gómez González, 2024; MacDonald, 2002; Mompean & Fouz-González, 2016).

TPD is further shaped by the evolving demands of the curriculum, particularly in response to inclusive education policies and the growing integration of digital tools in schools (EURYDICE, 2021; Tiana Ferrer, 2013). In our study, public school teachers report a significant gap between the curriculum’s prescribed goals and the practical realities they face in the classroom. Bureaucratization, the imposition of control and assessment criteria, and the erosion of teachers’ autonomy stand out as key factors contributing to this disconnect and fueling teachers’ frustration. These systemic issues create challenges that hinder teachers’ professional growth and their ability to implement effective pedagogical strategies in the classroom.

With the rise in external evaluations and accountability measures, institutional educational platforms (e.g., EDIXGAL, PROENS) have gained prominence as tools for standardizing and regulating teaching practices (Pallarès et al., 2019). These platforms are in theory designed to ensure consistency and quality in education, aligning with broader accountability frameworks (Martín-Alonso et al., 2021). However, while they aim to support structured pedagogical approaches, the interviewed teachers perceive them as contributing to excessive bureaucratic oversight. In their view, the rapid increase in evaluation criteria—especially in regions such as Galicia, Castile-Leon, and Catalonia—has added layers of administrative responsibility that often detract from instructional time and professional growth opportunities.

According to public school teachers, the growing focus on standardized evaluation criteria and the strict deadlines associated with institutional platforms create an unsustainable workload. This over-regulation affects key aspects of teaching, including lesson planning, material development, and curriculum implementation, while also limiting opportunities for professional development (Barroso, 2006). Teachers argue that these platforms prioritize outcome measurement over meaningful pedagogical support, reinforcing external control mechanisms that constrain their autonomy—an observation echoed by scholars such as Parcerisa and Falabella (2017), Ball (2005), and Trillo Alonso and Fraga Varela (2023).

In light of these findings, the post-reform landscape appears to have diminished teachers’ autonomy, as heightened curricular demands and bureaucratic structures have reshaped their professional roles, as argued in such studies as Bolívar (2008) or Fullan and Quinn (2015). Furthermore, some experts like Barroso (2006), Rodríguez-Martínez (2014) and Martín-Alonso et al. (2021) warn that an overly regulatory approach to curriculum design not only places undue stress on educators but also undermines their capacity for continuous professional learning and innovation. Similar conclusions appear to be drawn by Bolívar (2010), Ball (2003, 2012) or Trillo Alonso and Fraga Varela (2023), who suggest that teachers now operate within a paradoxical system: while post-bureaucratic regulatory models claim to support professional development, they ultimately reinforce a culture of performativity, shifting the focus from pedagogical competence to performance metrics (Coll & Martín, 2022).

In sum, in order to enhance TPD in EFL pronunciation instruction, there is a need for more specialized TELT programs, greater institutional support, and a shift away from rigid bureaucratic constraints. Ensuring that teachers have access to high-quality training and the freedom to apply research-based methodologies is essential to fostering an educational environment where both students and educators can thrive.

5. Conclusions

This study has revealed some keys to understanding the apparent mismatch that exists between the prescribed reformed Curriculum and classroom practice concerning EFL pronunciation in Spanish primary schools, which may extrapolate to similar EFL contexts. Broadly, our results have shown that, in this scenario, the positive beliefs and attitudes of primary school teachers towards EFL pronunciation are insufficient for proper implementation of pronunciation teaching. Alongside asymmetries in Curriculum Contents across AACC in terms of specificity and teaching methodologies, the results reveal some conceptual inconsistencies as well as dispositions that seem to be leading to over-regulation, particularly in relation to increased measures of public accountability, thereby apparently heightening tensions on the two parameters inspected in this investigation related to curriculum design and development, as well as to teacher professional development.

Several intervention measures and innovations have been suggested to improve the situation, for instance, by promoting an epistemic break that observes both native-likeness and comfortable intelligibility depending on settings and goals, which should lead to a deep revision of EFL teaching materials and methodologies. Another major evidence-based intervention involves the mobilization of professional, pedagogical, and bureaucratic-administrative work to promote educational reforms explained in user-friendly texts that abide by internationally comparable standards and are accompanied by funds to enable optimal implementation. Additionally, the intervention would require investments by the educational authorities to transfer EFL research-validated pronunciation tools and methodologies to primary school teachers and students, as well as to offer teacher training programs aimed at building trainee and in-service teachers’ confidence in EFL pronunciation teaching, among other actions.

Finally, several limitations of this exploratory study should be acknowledged. Firstly, concerns may arise regarding the responses of the teachers, particularly those in private schools, as they may have been influenced by a desire to present themselves favorably. Additionally, the study only addressed the most frequently mentioned issues, which may not fully represent the breadth of perspectives. Future research should seek to expand the range of topics explored and incorporate quantitative data through FG-informed online questionnaires. This will allow for a comparison of the views presented here with those of primary school teachers across a broader set of AACC, as well as across different countries, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

In conclusion, future studies should focus on the intersection between Curriculum Design and Development (CDD) and Teacher Professional Development (TPD) in the context of EFL pronunciation instruction, ensuring that both teachers’ and students’ perspectives are considered. Given the limited attention this area has received in the literature, it is essential to investigate how curriculum reforms impact both teachers’ professional growth and students’ learning outcomes in relation to pronunciation teaching. Research should also explore effective models of TPD and CDD that align with evolving curricular demands and address the unique needs of primary education teachers and students. This approach will help inform policy, improve instructional practices, and enhance the teaching of pronunciation in schools, paving the way for secondary and tertiary education.