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

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, 2012; 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), comprehensibility (i.e. the effort required for understanding an utterance) and interpretability (i.e. the full, nuanced, contextual understanding of a speech act) (Derwing & Munro, 2009; Jenkins, 2000; 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 & Koehler, 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, 2011; Sweeting, 2015). In Isaacs’ (2018: 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 of 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 (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: 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).

Focusing on Spain, a number of reports (PISA, ESLC, PIRLS, EPI) and empirical studies (Alonso, 2014; Cuddy, 2018; Martínez-Flor et al., 2006; Bartoli Rigol, 2005; Szprya, 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 et al., 2023; Díaz Lage et al., 2023; Bartolí Rigol, 2005; Calvo Benzies, 2016; Cenoz & García-Lecumberri 1999; Gómez González & Lago Ferreiro, 2024; Gómez Lacabex & Gallardo del Puerto, 2021; 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, 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. 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 (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 (Domínguez Baguer, 2014; Nivela Herrero, 2014), explicit perception and production training programs (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, 2009, 2019), Palacios et al. (2022) or Trillo Alonso & 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.

2. Materials and Methods

This study examines the implementation of EFL pronunciation instruction in Spanish primary schools in a context of Curriculum change, as well as primary school teachers’ beliefs and practices on the matter by comparing testimonies of instructors from public and public institutions from different autonomous communities (AACC). The research questions are the following:

RQ1.

Are the Spanish National Curriculum Guidelines for EFL pronunciation instruction at primary school level adequately scaffolded and coherent across AACC?

RQ2.

What are teachers’ beliefs and practices towards EFL pronunciation instruction in the New Curriculum, and are there differences between public and private schools and/or between AACC?

The study reports on the first qualitative phase of an exploratory sequential mixed method (ESMM) (Creswell & Plano, 2018) design. ESMM is characterized by two sequential phases, the first qualitative and the second quantitative, aimed at exploring a research problem about which little is known, hence the term exploratory. Accordingly, the first phase involved the collection of qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with primary school instructors to gain insights and explore their experiences with the recently established intervention, that is, the National Curriculum and its adaptations across different AACC, which hence had also to be examined as teaching is a regulated profession.

First, an ad hoc documentary analysis of 18 documents (circa 500 pages each) was conducted concerning EFL phonetic knowledge, objectives, competencies and assessment criteria: the Spanish national curriculum at the Primary Education stage that has been recently reformed in the LOMLOE (Organic Law 3/2020 of 20 December 2020), as well as of each one of the 17 adaptations implemented by each of the Autonomous Communities (AACC) in compliance with the Minimum Education Decree (BOE 2022 a, b).

Semi-structured interviews following a common script (Appendix C) were then conducted in three Focus Groups (FG) with eight primary school teachers. FG01 gathered two teachers from two different public schools in Galicia, whereas FG02 assembled four instructors from two different private schools from the same AC (two from each school), and FG03 took place with two teachers from another public school in Asturias, a nearby AC. Public primary schools were prioritized because the public network has the greatest presence and impact. Likewise, the sample includes more Galician schools due to logistical, budgetary, and methodological constraints. The schools were selected on the basis of proximity, but also on their consideration as reference centers for public or private education in their respective AACC. Authorizations to conduct the FG had to be obtained from each of the sampled schools, AACC, and interviewees. Funds also had to be devoted to cover both travel expenses and participation payments to the surveyed teachers, which meant that the sample needed to be kept to an economically sustainable size. Additionally, after conducting FG01, it was decided to extend the sample to FG02 and FG03 to see if this would improve our understanding of what we were finding in the FG analysis. Once it was established that a theoretical saturation point (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) had been reached, at which the experiences offered by participants did not reveal substantial new topics, it was concluded that there was no need to expand the FG sample further.

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

The qualitative data extracted from the documentary analysis and from the interviews were analyzed, and the two main themes corresponding to the two research questions are reported in this section.

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 hours per year in the 1st and 2nd Primary cycles, and at 125 hours in the 3rd cycle. 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. 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.

Explicit mentions of EFL pronunciation contents are summarized in Table 1. 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, rhythm is introduced alongside the gradual acquisition of both the so-called phonetic code and subsequently the written code (BOE 2022b: 113). The former 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 (1^st cycle), next the oral, written and monomodal mastery of such sounds (2^nd cycle), and finally the oral, written and multimodal mastery of such sounds (3^rdcycle), 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 et al., 2024).

3.2. Beliefs About EFL Pronunciation Instruction in the New Curriculum

The most relevant findings emerging from the FG pivoted on two central topics:

• Curriculum Design and Development (CDD) (278 quotations), referring to the structure or organization of the curriculum, as well as to the planning, implementation and evaluation processes of the curriculum (Mohanasundaram, 2018), and covering the following (sub)codes and corresponding topics (in decreasing frequency):
  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. Timing
        1.6.3. Teaching Load
  1.5.5. Ratio of students
• Teacher Professional Development (TPD) (100 quotations), referring 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), which registered the following most relevant (sub)codes and topics:
  2.1.11. Teacher Autonomy
  2.1.9. Teacher Unrest
  2.3.2. Control
  2.3.3. Bureaucracy

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.

Moving on to the differences across FG, the first involves Timing. In the two public schools from the two AACC (FG01 and FG03), EFL instruction is given 3 hours a week in compliance with state regulations, whereas in the private schools, this type of instruction is offered for 8 hours a week, during which time different types of activities such as projects and interdisciplinary workshops are held, while EFL oral skills are assessed three times a year (initial, mid-term and final term) under a general rubric (measuring fluency, pronunciation, and vocabulary). However, while FG03 teachers also claimed to assess students’ communicative competence through listening, speaking, and writing, FG01 instructors complained bitterly about having classes with too many students and about not having enough time to work on and assess the competencies associated with EFL pronunciation specifically and individually.

The last discrepancy relates to the methodology used to teach EFL pronunciation. Although all the teachers concurred in confirming the effectiveness of an English-Spanish contrastive approach for teaching English pronunciation and spelling, there were some differences. FG03 pointed out that, although pronunciation contents are only marginally primary school objectives and therefore are not salient targets in textbooks, teachers deal with them intuitively as they are not aware of any specific methods for teaching EFL pronunciation to children. In contrast, the teachers of FG01 and FG02 mentioned the effectiveness of the communicative approach and game-based learning, including synthetic phonic methods such as JP, which they find especially useful. Additionally, the instructors in FG02 resorted to the explanation of pronunciation errors as an eye-opener for pupils, while those from FG01 explained that they gradually introduced the IPA alphabet in the third cycle to illustrate the correspondences or lack of them that may exist between the phonetic and the writing codes. Furthermore, both FG01 and FG02 placed special emphasis on scaffolding explicit EFL pronunciation learning, whereas FG03 underscored the strengths of pairing movie-watching in English with Spanish subtitles as immersion activities

Turning to TPD, the three FG agreed 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. Besides, 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 agree 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.

4. Discussion

4.1. EFL Pronunciation Curriculum

The overarching conclusion that can be drawn after examining the scaffolding of EFL pronunciation contents in the recently established Primary School Curriculum at national and regional levels in Spain is that there is a lack of specificity regarding the EFL pronunciation objectives, contents and teaching methodologies to be acquired and implemented throughout the three cycles of primary education. Neither the CEFR idea of phonological control with the six associated descriptor scales, nor any other similar or equivalent notions are incorporated into the LOMLOE in order to modulate the specific level of phonological control to be acquired in each of the primary education cycles.

A positive interpretation of this could be that it gives teachers more freedom to create specific syllabi adapted to the individual needs of the students of each AC. However, from a more critical perspective, one could conclude that EFL pronunciation plays an ancillary role in the Spanish primary school curriculum. EFL pronunciation-related subject areas, objectives, and evaluation criteria have only marginal curricular weight in the prescribed national curriculum, possibly with the exception of La Rioja, compared to other dimensions, which are better defined and do have more curricular weight. While the three FG agreed on the importance of teaching EFL pronunciation to children as soon as possible to enhance their oral skills, a belief shared by primary school teachers in other countries (Sifakis & Sougari, 2005), particularly public instructors also complained of the cognitive and time costs involved in the development of teaching programs adapted to the prescribed curricular requirements, which concurs with the opinions of other EFL teachers in previous investigations (Castillo et al., 2023; Couper, 2017; Díaz Lage et al., 2023, 2024b; Henderson et al., 2012; Santos Díaz et al., 2024). The assessment of spoken production activities and the evaluation of the accuracy of pronunciation skills usually require an investment of time and expertise that instructors do not always have. Educational gaps such as these, including failure to provide adequate (corrective) feedback and explanations, as well as insufficient exposure to naturalistic L2 pronunciation models are frequently the reasons behind many mispronunciations and negative beliefs and perceptions about pronunciation and phonetic matters (Bliss et al., 2018; Engwall, 2007). The answers provided in this regard by private school instructors, positive as it may sound, should be approached with some caution. Considering the high number of students per classroom, these teachers’ responses might have been affected by a wish to save face. In other words, to be perceived as competent professionals and to justify the parents’ payment of tuition fees, the respondents might have opted for answers that put them and their school in a better light.

Likewise, the complexity of the reformed curriculum with its diversity of terminology opens up a panorama of significant discrepancies, which makes it difficult for teachers to situate themselves in a common framework and reach a consensus among all the guidelines available, thereby threatening to undermine its potential impact. It may therefore be advisable to reduce some of the dense formulation of the regulatory arrangements, as suggested by our informants. The CEFR and ELP recommendation could be accommodated into the Curriculum both at national and AACC levels to make EFL (pronunciation) contents more explicit and better scaffolded designing individualized learning pathways to cater for learners’ needs and individual differences (ID) (e.g. biological constraints, attitude, aptitude, personality, motivation, age, identity), given the highly individualized nature of L2/EFL pronunciation acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005; Müller, 2013). Authors like Lara & Lara (2009), Levis (2016) or Bakla & Demirezen (2018) appear to be right when suggesting that teaching practices and regulations remain largely unchanged as L2 pronunciation is not systematically taught and assessed until late in the language learning process. This practice seriously compromises not only the pronunciation competence of young Spanish learners of English (YSLE), but also the test validity principle in early EFL learning, which suggests that if teachers test something, they must teach it to their learners or test takers (Hogan, 2007). Since language proficiency is measured by using standardized high-stake tests (e.g. TOEFL, Proficiency, First Certificate, IELTS, among others) that clearly include pronunciation in their rubrics and rating scales, it should be gradually taught at different proficiency levels to abide by the principle of validity.

In the absence of meta-analyses that explore this issue more thoroughly and globally, our findings indicate that, although on paper the regulations may say otherwise, the adequate implementation, scaffolding and assessment of EFL pronunciation contents is still a pending issue in the Spanish primary school Curriculum. A similar conclusion was reached in other investigations suggesting that the curriculum and teaching practices regarding EFL pronunciation needs to be thoroughly revised in Europe, where CEFR remains an underused tool (Henderson et al. 2012, 2015), as well as in other countries like 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. Methodologies

The study reveals a disparity of methodologies that are based on intuitions about teaching practice, rather than on specialized didactic techniques acquired during pre-service or in-service training. This is only to be expected, since the primary school Curricula from the two AACC under inspection, Galicia and Asturias, have been reported to underspecify EFL pronunciation goals and methodologies, as compared to other AACC. The effectiveness of the range of methodologies for explicit phonetic training mentioned in the FG has already been attested in prior work. Drilling and Repetition tasks have proved necessary, given the psychomotor demands of pronunciation that usually require a great deal of repetition on the part of students (Flege & Bohne, 2021), a process in which technology assisted tools may play a key role in providing flexible (private or public, formal or informal) learning environments and reinforcement, considering the scarcity of teaching hours devoted to L2/EFL in the curriculum (Bueno-Alastuey & Gómez-Lacabex, 2022; Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008; Gómez González & Lago Ferreiro, 2024; Mompean & Fouz-González, 2021). Likewise, other investigations have supported the advantages of Communicative Language Teaching (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996), the JP method (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2007, 2010; Martínez, 2011; Rendón-Romero et al., 2021), the IPA method (Fouz-González & Mompeán, 2021; Meldrum, 2004; Mompean & Lintunen, 2015; Lintunen, 2004; Stanton, 2002; Underhill, 2010), as well as song-based (Good et al., 2015) and game-based learning (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, Coulthard, & Johns, 1980; Topal 2017). Accordingly, contextualized pronunciation teaching is recommended (Celce-Murcia, 2010), which is in line with the spirit of the regulations already described.

Generally, comprehensive EFL phonetic instruction is increasingly demanded (Pennington, 2021). Based on the idea that learners may vary in their individual differences and needs (e.g. biological constraints, attitude, aptitude, personality, motivation, age, or identity), given the highly individualized nature of L2/EFL pronunciation acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005; Müller, 2013), the current trend is to advocate personalized student-tailored materials, rather than generic-user courseware, which integrate phonetic instruction into the oral communication curriculum at different levels of proficiency, practicing both segmentals and suprasegmentals beyond listen-and-repeat drills (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Reed & Michaud, 2011). More global activities are called for that build learners’ international intelligibility and interactional competence outside the classroom as both speakers and listeners live in a multilingual–multicultural world where English pronunciation plays a constructive and supportive role (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Pennington, 2021; Rajadurai, 2007; Müller, 2013). A holistic approach to classroom practice is therefore necessary so that children can develop cognitively, linguistically, emotionally and socio-culturally, using a combination of implicit and explicit methodologies and bringing the results of empirical and theoretical EFL/ESL research into classroom pedagogy (e.g. Celce-Murcia, 2010; Gómez Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Gómez González et. al. 2024; Gómez González & Lago Ferreiro, 2024; Hall, 2018; House et al., 2011).

4.3. Resources and Didactic Materials

According to our informants, it is their textbooks that give structure to the mobilization of basic knowledge, in the form of units or lessons that sometimes seem impossible to cover during the school year. They identify substantial hurdles in terms of materials creation, increased collaboration with colleagues, and striking the right balance between language and content. As a result, our interviewees claim to end up mainly using the controlled techniques (Baker, 2014) included in the reference EFL textbooks edited by British publishing houses and targeting global EFL learners, so that presumably the more challenging aspects for YSLE are not taught effectively or not addressed at all in favor of other skills (Celce Murcia et al., 2010; Bai & Yuan, 2019).

The massive adoption of such textbooks is somewhat surprising considering the decreasing number of pronunciation-related contents they include, as FG01 instructors explicitly mentioned, a tendency that is also attested in prior work inspecting primary and secondary education EFL textbooks (Gallardo del Puerto, 2005; Lindade Rodrigues, 2022). In addition to involving mostly listen-and-repeat drills, these materials fail to implement explicit English-Spanish contrastive pronunciation instruction, a very effective approach according to the sampled teachers and reference frameworks like Speech Learning Model (Flege, 1995), Native Language Magnet (Kuhl, 1999), Contrastive Analysis (Gao, 2005) or the Theory of Language Transfer (Gass & Selinker, 1972), among others. It can therefore be concluded that the primary school course books used in Spain, which supposedly should support teachers’ choices of appropriate actions for EFL pronunciation learning, turn out to rely on an insufficient number of pronunciation-learning activities, as well as on pronunciation teaching aids that are not specifically tailored to satisfying the needs of YSLE.

A plausible explanation for the apparent monopoly of some publishers on EFL learning in Spanish primary schools may be derived from the adherence of most instructors, students and educational programs to the tendency described as nativelikeness (Abrahamson & Hyltenstam, 2009) or native-speakerism, which involves the promotion of “the native-speaker’s presumed language competence, learning styles, communication patterns, conversational maxims, cultural beliefs, and even accent as the norm to be learned and taught” (Kumaravadivelu, 2016: 8). Standard British (i.e., Received Pronunciation (RP)) or standard American English (GA) compete for prevalence depending on the influence of geographical proximity, due to their prestige and claimed intelligibility in international communication (Carrie, 2016; Li, 2009; Mompean, 2004).

The issues of intelligibility vs. the attainment of native pronunciation and the assessment of foreign accent constitutes an open debate (Best & Tyler, 2007; Fernández González, 1988; Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2015; Mitterer et al., 2020). Recently, the pursuit of nativelikeness seems not so much to be the goal in EFL, especially in international communicative contexts. Since English is spoken and taught by more non-native than native speakers (Dewey & Patsko, 2018; Medgyes, 2017) and has become an international language (Low, 2021), a Lingua Franca (ELF) or even a Multilingua Franca when ELF is mixed with words from the interlocutors’ own languages (Jenkins, 2012, 2015), so-called comfortable intelligibility, i.e. ‘‘being understood by a listener at a given time in a given situation” (Kenworthy 1987: 3), appears to be gaining ground. It has been claimed to be a means to avoid self-marginalization of non-native speakers, as seeking to become native-like could be very discouraging for EFL learners and teachers, as well as a strategy to diminish the hegemonic status of Inner Circle countries (Kumaravadivelu, 2016). This position seems to be shared by FG01 and FG02 informants, who point out the importance of introducing YSLE to all types of accents in English − whether native or non-native − in everyday situations, while the teachers from the three FG emphasize that their fundamental goal is to get children to speak in English − regardless of their accent − and to make themselves understood.

In line with this trend, it could be reasonable to achieve an epistemic break that transcends the nativelikeness-non-nativelikeness divide in such crucial sectors as EFL program administration and pre- and in-service teacher education programs where teachers’ beliefs are constructed (Borg, 2011; Woods, 2003). Scholars who give priority to the attainment of intelligibility as a fundamental teaching / learning goal, might still place some value (motivational, aspirational, self-fulfilling, personal, etc.) to varying extents, on the striving towards a native-like accent, particularly in certain teaching-learning contexts (university settings, advanced courses, etc.). Likewise, instead of mimicking certain accents or adhering to the commercially notorious accent reduction that pervades EFL textbooks, a more realistic goal, particularly in certain teaching-learning contexts (primary schools, basic level courses, international settings, etc.), may be to prioritize key pronunciation features in accordance with comfortable intelligibility or the Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000), which influence comprehension and may contribute to learners’ intelligibility, in addition to translanguaging and accent variation to expose learners to different natural pronunciation models (Gómez González & Sánchez Roura, 2016; Gómez González et al. 2021; Fouz-Gonzalez & Mompean, 2021; Rallo-Fabra & Juan-Gurau, 2011).

4.4. Professional Training

Teachers are researchers of their own practice, as well as producers and not mere recipients of knowledge. This difference lies at the heart of the distinction between SFLT (second- or foreign-language teaching) involving pronunciation learning and practice, and TELT (training and education of language teachers) referring to methodology in pronunciation teaching in pre-service courses (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Burgess & Spencer, 2000). From a CEFR-oriented perspective, both language learners and teachers have corresponding responsibilities regarding pronunciation. We have already examined the requirements of competent language learners. Teachers, on the other hand, as role models for their students, in addition to language proficiency and a good command of the skills and knowledge of EFL pronunciation, also need to learn the methodology and pedagogy of phonetics and phonology instruction.

Nevertheless, our survey suggests that updated TELT programs specialized on EFL pronunciation do not seem to exist in Spanish primary schools. The same deficiency is detected in other investigations (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; State et al., 2011), which means that many EFL instructors are self-taught regarding pronunciation. This is another weakness in educational systems that should be remedied, especially considering the need to update teaching methodologies underscored in previous investigations (Handelsman et al., 2004; Hermans et al., 2017) in order to counteract the lack of training in phonetic pedagogy (Darcy & Lidster, 2012; Derwing, 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2005) and to optimize the exploitation of materials and resources like language labs (MacDonald, 2002; Cantarutti, 2015).

4.5. Professional Practice

Teaching practice and professional identity are affected by societal changes and challenges caused by Curriculum modifications including inclusive schooling and the escalation of digitalization (Tiana Ferrer, 2013), thereby detecting new teacher training needs (EURYDICE, 2021). The answers provided by public school respondents in this connection suggest the existence of a breach between the prescribed Curriculum and the reality of professional practice. Assessment criteria turned out to play a crucial role in this mismatch.

In the context of external evaluations and accountability, evaluation criteria and the use of institutional educational platforms (e.g., EDIXGAL, PROENS) acquire special importance. They are considered by administration and society in general to be key elements of the supervision of school activities and, as a result, have become a focus of interest (Pallarès et al., 2019). These standardized institutional platforms are intended to provide organizational guides that regulate, regularize, and homogenize educational processes in the spirit of the educational reform, following so-called generalized accountability (Martín Alonso & Blanco, 2021) in the direction of external agents (i.e. administrators, families, and the educational community), while simultaneously ranking the competitiveness of centers, students, and teaching staff based on external evaluations. Likewise, we have seen that the number of evaluation criteria has escalated markedly since the reform, especially in some AACC like Galicia, Castile-Leon, and Catalonia. This is in theory to guarantee a reliable assessment of the vast gamut of activities which are now developed in class and outside it.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of the public-school teachers interviewed, institutional platforms alongside the number and nature of assessment criteria (and the corresponding deadlines) entail excessive regulations and bureaucratization causing a work overload that is not only often detrimental to the attention given to students, the teaching-learning processes, the elaboration of classroom materials, and the development of the curriculum, but also compromises professional development (Barroso, 2006). Both evaluation criteria and institutional platforms are perceived to be more concerned with measuring learning outcomes than providing solutions for adequate teaching and training methods, showing a tendency towards over-regulation of professional practice on the part of evaluative administrations by reinforcing mechanisms of control and exerting pressure on teaching practice, which coincides with the reflections of many specialists in the field like Parcerisa and Falabella (2017), Ball (2003b) and Trillo Alonso & Fraga Varela (2023), among others.

To conclude, therefore, it seems that after the reform the autonomy of public schools and teachers is felt to be compromised due to the elevated levels of curricular demands (Bolívar, 2008; Fullan and Quinn, 2015) and because of the bureaucratic-administrative conception of some Curricula (Bolívar, 2019). In this connection, experts like Barroso (2006), Rodríguez-Martínez (2014) or Martín-Alonso et al (2021) explain that curricula that opt for the path of exerting an excessive regulatory role not only can place extraordinary stress on teachers’ work, but also may call into question the opportunity and guarantee of teachers’ professional development, or even may entail a loss of professional autonomy, all key aspects of quality teaching (European Commission, 2020b; EURYDICE, 2021). Furthermore, specialists like Bolívar (2010), Ball (2003a, 2012) and Trillo Alonso & Fraga Varela (2023), among others, argue that teachers have long been exposed to a contradictory logic in so-called post-bureaucratic modes of regulation characterized by excessive regulations, in which the action of educational centers is oriented towards accountability as a mode of bureaucratic organization, placing a focus on outcomes, performance and performativity, rather than on intended competence gains.

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, a few limitations of this exploratory investigation should be pointed out. There may be reservations about the opinions of the sampled teachers, particularly those working in private schools, as they may have provided answers that placed them in a favorable light as EFL instructors probably to justify the receipt of tuition fees. Another limitation involves the number of issues addressed as only the most frequently quoted were selected. Lastly, further research should be conducted to complete the second phase of the ESMM design with quantitative data. FG-informed online questionnaires will allow us to compare the views presented here with those of other primary school teachers from more AACC, giving further inspiration and a broader picture of the topic at issue. It is to be hoped, nonetheless, that teachers, researchers, and policy makers will all gain useful insights from this qualitative ESMM analysis.