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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written, coherent, and engaging paper. The sections are thoughtfully structured, the content is clearly articulated, and the arguments progress logically. To further strengthen the argument, I suggest the following improvements:

1. Consider introducing the distinction between intelligibility and nativelikeness earlier in the paper, as it is a recurring theme and also plays a key role in the conclusion.
2. There is limited discussion on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for respondent selection. Additionally, the sample size (8 teachers across 17 communities) is quite small, which may impact the study's relevance within Spain. While you justify this choice as an 'economically sustainable size,' it may still affect the study's relevance and scalability.
3. Moreover, consider addressing the sample bias, since the findings may not be generalizable beyond the specific group of 8 teachers. Teachers and students from other linguistic backgrounds, educational systems, or levels of familiarity with EFL may have different experiences and responses. How might these findings affect teachers and students from other cultural backgrounds? Exploring this could enhance the study's applicability across different cultural contexts.
4. You mention that the current trend advocates for personalized, student-tailored materials (p.8). However, how can a teacher realistically achieve this with limited resources and classes of 30 students?
5. Your conjecture regarding teachers from private schools feels somewhat speculative. You conclude that they aim to 'save face,' but on what basis? Could there be other factors at play, such as differences in available resources? Clarifying your reasoning would help the reader understand how you arrived at this conclusion.
6. The section 'Professional Practice' feels somewhat unrelated to the main topic. It shifts the reader's focus away from the main idea and dilutes the overall argument. Consider either omitting it or significantly condensing it to maintain clarity and coherence.
7. Many sentences are quite long and complex, often containing multiple acronyms and extensive data, which makes them difficult to follow. Consider breaking them into shorter, clearer statements to enhance readability and comprehension. Additionally, be mindful of mechanical errors such as double spaces, which may affect overall presentation.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for her/his comments on the structure, content and style in which the article is written.

Comment 1: [Consider introducing the distinction between intelligibility and nativelikeness earlier in the paper, as it is a recurring theme and also plays a key role in the conclusion.]

Reply 1: [Agreed. Reference is made to the distinction between intelligibility and nativelikeness in the Introduction.]

Comment 2: [There is limited discussion on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for respondent selection. Additionally, the sample size (8 teachers across 17 communities) is quite small, which may impact the study's relevance within Spain. While you justify this choice as an 'economically sustainable size,' it may still affect the study's relevance and scalability.]

Reply 2: [A paragraph has been incorporated on the inclusion/exclusion criteria for respondent selection. However, the selection of 8 teachers is not exclusively based on economic reasons, but most importantly it responds to methodological motivations. As indicated in the abstract, in addition to the methodological section, 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. Therefore, the aim of this first qualitative phase was to find out, through semi-structured interviews, primary school teachers' opinions about teaching English pronunciation in primary schools until the saturation point was reached, in order to construct questionnaires as closely as possible to the teaching experiences revealed, which will be tested in a second quantitative phase, with a larger and statistically significant sample, in the 17 Autonomous Communities under scrutinty. The scalability of this exploratory study is not limited by this methodology; on the contrary, it is reinforced by it as its conclusions are evidence-based and ready to be tested quantitatively in the second phase of this ESMM research design. This is already explained in the “Conclusions” section of the article: “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.”]

Comment 3: [Moreover, consider addressing the sample bias, since the findings may not be generalizable beyond the specific group of 8 teachers. Teachers and students from other linguistic backgrounds, educational systems, or levels of familiarity with EFL may have different experiences and responses. How might these findings affect teachers and students from other cultural backgrounds? Exploring this could enhance the study's applicability across different cultural contexts.]

Reply 3[As already mentioned, the purpose of this article is to report on the first qualitative phase of an exploratory sequential mixed method (ESMM) research design, given that the object of study and observed population have been underexplored thereby constituting a research gap. Extending the sample to other cultures would require a different study. However, the discussion of results already relates our findings to those of other previous investigations with other target populations related to EFL pronunciation.]

Comment 4: [You mention that the current trend advocates for personalized, student-tailored materials (p.8). However, how can a teacher realistically achieve this with limited resources and classes of 30 students?]

Reply 4: [This is one of the key questions posed by this research. The conclusions point to answers, which we could summarize as more teachers qualified in the object of study with knowledge of new CAPT (Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training) technologies.]

Comment 5: [Your conjecture regarding teachers from private schools feels somewhat speculative. You conclude that they aim to 'save face,' but on what basis? Could there be other factors at play, such as differences in available resources? Clarifying your reasoning would help the reader understand how you arrived at this conclusion.]

Reply 5: [Our findings with respect to private primary school teachers are based on the evidence that they did not express a single criticism or suggestion for improvement with respect to the system in place, which is striking since every system can be improved, especially considering that the classrooms in these private schools were the largest, and they themselves acknowledged that pronunciation class is complicated. However, we have qualified our observations in this respect.]

Comment 6: [The section 'Professional Practice' feels somewhat unrelated to the main topic. It shifts the reader's focus away from the main idea and dilutes the overall argument. Consider either omitting it or significantly condensing it to maintain clarity and coherence.]

Reply 6: [This section makes sense because it sheds light on how teachers experience their professional practice in the context of the new curriculum regulations (including the teaching of EFL pronunciation), which are also under scrutiny in this investigation. In fact, it is included in the study because it was one of the most frequently mentioned topics in the semi-structured interviews, as reflected in the number of mentions recorded by Atlas.ti. However, we have included a few lines to better explain its inclusion in the study.]

Comment 7: [Many sentences are quite long and complex, often containing multiple acronyms and extensive data, which makes them difficult to follow. Consider breaking them into shorter, clearer statements to enhance readability and comprehension. Additionally, be mindful of mechanical errors such as double spaces, which may affect overall presentation.]

Reply 7: [The text has been revised.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. It presents very interesting findings in an area that requires more attention for the benefit of teacher education. To my mind, there are some aspects to be improved, mainly in terms of organization and how information is presented.

• I would recommend explicitly mentioning the study’s purpose at the end of the introduction, after the review of recent work. This would give a compelling closure for the arguments and deficiencies in evidence presented above.
• In the description of the essential knowledge under 3.1, the category “(3) Interculturality or Competence in cultural awareness and expression (CCAE)” needs to be better explained, as it is not as clear as the preceding ones.
• In the methods section, I think it would be necessary to explain the questions asked in the focus group and how these questions were created. If these were a result of theoretical sampling, it would also be important to know more about the process.
• I would recommend a different organization in the results and discussion. The results present two central topics and several subtopics which are listed but then not explicitly elaborated neither in the results nor in the discussion. The discussion presents 4 topics, some of them subtopics in the results, but there is no mention of how these were selected. In order to make the rationale transparent, I would recommend explaining these decisions, or else matching the topics and subtopics with headings in the results and discussion.
• A final paragraph in the conclusions should delineate future avenues for research in this area. I think this is vital, considering the little attention that this area has received in the literature.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you for the interesting observations raised by this reviewer. All of them have been implemented.

Comment 1: [I would recommend explicitly mentioning the study’s purpose at the end of the introduction, after the review of recent work. This would give a compelling closure for the arguments and deficiencies in evidence presented above]

Reply 1: [Agreed. A new paragraph has been written in this regard.]

Comment 2: [In the description of the essential knowledge under 3.1, the category “(3) Interculturality or Competence in cultural awareness and expression (CCAE)” needs to be better explained, as it is not as clear as the preceding ones.]

Reply 2: [Agreed. A new paragraph has been written in this regard.]

Comment 3: [In the methods section, I think it would be necessary to explain the questions asked in the focus group and how these questions were created. If these were a result of theoretical sampling, it would also be important to know more about the process.]

Reply 3: [Agreed. Several paragraphs and references have been included to address this observation.]

Comment 4: [I would recommend a different organization in the results and discussion. The results present two central topics and several subtopics which are listed but then not explicitly elaborated neither in the results nor in the discussion. The discussion presents 4 topics, some of them subtopics in the results, but there is no mention of how these were selected. In order to make the rationale transparent, I would recommend explaining these decisions, or else matching the topics and subtopics with headings in the results and discussion.]

Reply 4: [Agreed. The headings and subheadings of Sections 3 and 4 have been restructured for internal coherence, and their content has been revised.]

Comment 5: [A final paragraph in the conclusions should delineate future avenues for research in this area. I think this is vital, considering the little attention that this area has received in the literature.]

Reply 5: [Agreed. The text of the conclusions section has been revised and a new paragraph has been included to implement this suggestion.]

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to examine the revised version of your manuscript. All my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction.

Best regards,