Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 1
Enhancing Pronunciation, Fluency, and Vocabulary Through
Targeted Instructional Grouping in Latin American EFL
Contexts
Mejoramiento de la pronunciación, fluidez y vocabulario mediante
agrupamiento instruccional focalizado en contextos latinoamericanos de
enseñanza del inglés
Johnny Campoverde López*
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0108-4755
johnny.campoverdel@ug.edu.ec
Universidad de Guayaquil
Ecuador – Guayaquil
Jacqueline López López
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1765-8103
Jacqueline.lopezl@ug.edu.ec
Universidad de Guayaquil
Ecuador - Guayaquil
Diana Egas Herrera
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2878-0689
dcegash@ube.edu.ec
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Ecuador - Durán
Artículo recibido: (la fecha la coloca el Equipo editorial) - Aceptado para publicación:
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
Campoverde López, J., López López, J., & Egas Herrera, D. (2025). Enhancing pronunciation,
fluency, and vocabulary through targeted instructional grouping in Latin American EFL
contexts. Linguatech, Volume 1, pages.
RESUMEN
El agrupamiento instruccional focalizado ha surgido como una estrategia pedagógica
prometedora para mejorar habilidades específicas de comunicación oral en estudiantes de inglés
como lengua extranjera (EFL). Este estudio explora los efectos del agrupamiento por niveles en
tres componentes esenciales de la competencia oral —la pronunciación, la fluidez y el
vocabulario— en aprendientes de nivel A1 dentro de un contexto latinoamericano. A partir de
una intervención estructurada de ocho semanas, y fundamentado en investigaciones previas
sobre instrucción diferenciada, agrupamiento por habilidades y desarrollo oral alineado al
MCER, el estudio evalúa cómo la organización de estudiantes según niveles similares favorece
avances lingüísticos medibles. Se empleó un diseño de métodos mixtos que incluyó prepruebas
y pospruebas diagnósticas, observaciones de clase y encuestas estudiantiles. Los resultados
evidenciaron mejoras significativas en la pronunciación y la fluidez, así como progresos
moderados pero consistentes en el uso del vocabulario. Los estudiantes reportaron mayor
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 2
confianza, reducción de ansiedad y más oportunidades de interacción oral. Por su parte, los
docentes destacaron una mejor gestión del aula y una entrega instruccional más eficiente. Los
hallazgos sugieren que el agrupamiento instruccional focalizado puede proporcionar un entorno
significativo y de apoyo para el desarrollo de habilidades orales en contextos latinoamericanos
de enseñanza del inglés, especialmente cuando se combina con metodologías comunicativas y
basadas en tareas.
Palabras clave: instrucción focalizada, agrupamiento instruccional, fluidez, pronunciación,
desarrollo de vocabulario, aprendientes A1.
ABSTRACT
Targeted instructional grouping has emerged as a promising pedagogical strategy for improving
specific oral communication skills among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. This
study explores the effects of level-based instructional grouping on three essential components of
oral proficiency—pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary—among A1-level learners in a Latin
American context. Drawing on eight weeks of structured intervention and informed by previous
research on differentiated instruction, ability grouping, and CEFR-aligned speaking
development, the study evaluates how grouping students by similar proficiency levels fosters
measurable linguistic gains. A mixed-methods design was implemented, including diagnostic
pre-tests and post-tests, classroom observations, and student surveys. Results revealed
significant improvement in pronunciation and fluency, with moderate but consistent progress in
vocabulary. Students reported increased confidence, reduced anxiety, and greater opportunities
for oral interaction. Teachers acknowledged improved classroom management and more
efficient instructional delivery. The findings suggest that targeted instructional grouping can
provide a meaningful and supportive environment for oral-skill development in Latin American
EFL settings, particularly when combined with communicative and task-based methodologies.
Keywords: targeted instruction, instructional grouping, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary
development, A1 learners
INTRODUCTION
The development of oral communication skills is a fundamental objective in English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) instruction, particularly within Latin American contexts where learners
have limited opportunities to engage with English outside the classroom. In public educational
systems across the region, students commonly encounter structural and sociocultural barriers—
such as reduced exposure to authentic input, overcrowded classrooms, and teacher-centered
instructional practices—that hinder the acquisition of pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 3
(British Council, 2013; Harmer, 2001). As a result, beginner-level learners frequently struggle to
produce even basic spoken language, often demonstrating hesitation, anxiety, and limited
expressive ability during communicative tasks (Nunan, 1991).
Classroom methodology plays a crucial role in shaping these outcomes. Traditional practices in
many Latin American settings have historically prioritized grammatical accuracy and written
activities, frequently at the expense of meaningful oral production (Burgin, 2017). While
grammar-focused instruction may contribute to structural knowledge, it does not sufficiently
promote spontaneous language use, iterative speaking practice, or the development of prosodic
and phonological competence (Li, 2019). Consequently, learners at the A1 level often lack
familiarity with English phonology, display narrow vocabulary ranges, and struggle to maintain
even short stretches of connected speech—skills that are foundational for communicative
growth (Nation, 2001).
Given these persistent challenges, targeted instructional grouping has emerged as a promising
strategy to support oral-skill development among beginner learners. Instructional grouping
involves organizing students into smaller units based on shared proficiency or linguistic
characteristics. This approach allows teachers to tailor instruction to varying readiness levels,
adapt the difficulty of tasks, and provide differentiated feedback that addresses learners’ specific
strengths and weaknesses (Tomlinson, 2001). Empirical research suggests that grouping
students by proficiency improves participation, increases opportunities for oral practice, and
reduces performance gaps in classrooms with high heterogeneity (Bissell, 2023; Wu, Tsai, &
Chiu, 2018).
The theoretical foundations of instructional grouping align closely with socio-constructivist and
differentiated instruction frameworks. Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development emphasizes that learning is optimized when instruction is calibrated to the
learner’s developmental readiness. Differentiated instruction similarly posits that pedagogical
content and processes must adapt to student variability in skills, interests, and learning profiles
(Tomlinson, 2014). Targeted grouping operationalizes these principles by enabling more precise
scaffolding, greater opportunities for peer interaction, and immediate teacher feedback—all of
which contribute to oral-skill development.
In the domain of pronunciation, instructional grouping enables focused articulatory practice and
teacher modeling of segmental and suprasegmental features, practices shown to improve
learners’ phonological control (Piccardo, 2016). Fluency also benefits from small-group
environments, which provide more frequent speaking turns, reduce communicative anxiety, and
encourage sustained production in low-pressure settings (Graham & Santos, 2015). Vocabulary
development, while influenced by broader input exposure, improves when learners interact with
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 4
lexical items in meaningful tasks calibrated to their proficiency level, facilitating retrieval and
retention (Alqahtani, 2015).
Despite increasing recognition of the advantages of grouping strategies, research examining
their combined impact on pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary among A1 learners in Latin
American contexts remains limited. Much existing literature focuses on one skill at a time or
embeds grouping strategies within broader curricular reforms (Cha, 2011; Al-Issa, 2019). As a
result, there is a need for studies that analyze how targeted instructional grouping affects
multiple oral-skill domains simultaneously and how learners perceive these interventions within
the realities of public-school EFL programs.
This study addresses this gap by implementing an eight-week instructional grouping
intervention specifically designed to enhance pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary in
beginner-level learners. The intervention integrates communicative, task-based, and
phonological-awareness activities adapted to learners’ assessed proficiency levels. By
examining both linguistic outcomes and learner perceptions, the study aims to provide a holistic
understanding of how targeted instructional grouping can strengthen oral communication skills
in Latin American EFL contexts.
Beyond assessing linguistic outcomes, this study considers the affective and motivational
impacts of grouping strategies. Small-group instruction has been associated with increased
learner confidence, greater willingness to participate, and improved attitudes toward speaking in
a foreign language (Mazenod, 2019). These variables are critical in early stages of language
learning, when anxiety and fear of making mistakes can significantly hinder participation.
Instructional grouping has the potential not only to improve oral skills but also to transform
classroom dynamics—encouraging collaborative learning, increasing student engagement, and
fostering environments where learners feel supported in taking communicative risks.
Ultimately, the findings of this study have practical implications for teachers, school
administrators, and curriculum designers seeking to improve oral-skill outcomes in EFL
programs across the region. By demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted instructional
grouping, the study contributes to ongoing efforts to modernize EFL pedagogy and to equip
learners with communicative competences essential for academic progression, workplace
access, and participation in globalized environments.
METHODS
Research Design
This study employed a mixed-methods design that integrated quantitative and qualitative
approaches to examine the effects of targeted instructional grouping on beginner EFL learners’
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 5
pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary. Mixed-methods research is particularly suited for
language-learning contexts because it captures both measurable performance changes and the
lived experiences of learners and teachers (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative data provided evidence
of linguistic gains, while qualitative insights contextualized how grouping dynamics influenced
learners’ engagement, affective responses, and participation patterns.
This design aligns with contemporary recommendations in applied linguistics that emphasize
triangulation of data sources to better understand complex phenomena such as oral-skill
development (Nunan, 1991; Harmer, 2001). By combining structured oral assessments with
observational and perceptual measures, the study aimed to produce a comprehensive analysis of
the pedagogical impact of grouping strategies.
Participants
The study involved 20 A1-level EFL learners aged 11 to 13 enrolled in a Latin American public
school. Participants demonstrated heterogeneous oral-skill profiles, a common characteristic of
beginner groups in the region due to varied prior exposure to English and differences in
foundational literacy development (British Council, 2013). All participants completed a CEFR-
aligned diagnostic test assessing pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary.
Following diagnostic results, students were assigned to three instructional groups:
• High A1 – learners showing clearer segmental control and broader vocabulary
• Mid A1 – learners with moderate fluency and limited lexical resources
• Emerging A1 – learners requiring substantial phonological and lexical support
Grouping decisions were informed by differentiated instruction principles, which emphasize
tailoring instructional input to learner readiness and linguistic needs (Tomlinson, 2014). Parental
consent and institutional authorization were obtained prior to data collection.
Instructional Intervention
The intervention spanned eight weeks, with two 45-minute sessions per week. Instruction was
structured according to three oral-skill domains—pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary—and
adapted to each group’s proficiency level.
Pronunciation Component
The pronunciation component included minimal-pair discrimination tasks, controlled readings,
phoneme identification activities, and guided practice of segmental (individual sounds) and
suprasegmental features (stress, rhythm, intonation). Pronunciation instruction in small groups
allows for more immediate feedback and individualized correction—factors shown to
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 6
significantly enhance learners’ phonological accuracy (Piccardo, 2016; Derwing & Munro,
2015).
Fluency Component
To develop fluency, learners engaged in timed speaking tasks, repeated storytelling, picture-
based descriptions, and guided dialogues. Fluency improves when learners have multiple
opportunities to produce extended speech under reduced anxiety conditions (Graham & Santos,
2015). Small-group formats enhanced turn-taking opportunities and minimized performance
pressure, supporting learners’ oral automaticity and confidence.
Vocabulary Component
Vocabulary instruction involved thematic word sets, semantic mapping, collocation practice,
and controlled communicative tasks requiring active lexical retrieval. Research shows that
vocabulary acquisition is strengthened when learners encounter and use words through
meaningful interaction, especially when the difficulty level is aligned with their proficiency
(Nation, 2001; Alqahtani, 2015).
Across all components, teachers integrated communicative activities, task-based learning
principles, and scaffolded support appropriate to each group, ensuring that tasks were both
challenging and achievable.
Instruments
Three primary instruments were used to collect data:
1. Oral Proficiency Test
An analytic rubric assessed pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary on a scale from 1 to 5. The
rubric drew on CEFR descriptors for A1 learners and recommendations from applied linguistics
researchers regarding oral-skill evaluation (Luoma, 2004). Pre- and post-tests allowed
measurement of learning gains attributable to the intervention.
2. Classroom Observation Checklist
Structured observational protocols were used to document frequency of speaking opportunities,
learner engagement, peer interaction patterns, and teacher feedback types. Observation is a
validated tool in EFL research for identifying how instructional factors influence learner
behavior (Richards & Farrell, 2011).
3. Learner Perception Survey
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 7
A Likert-scale survey collected data on learner confidence, motivation, perceived improvement,
and comfort with speaking tasks. Affective variables such as anxiety and confidence are widely
recognized as influential in oral-skill development (Krashen, 1985; Horwitz, 2001).
Procedure
The study unfolded in five phases:
Phase 1: Diagnostic Assessment
Learners completed a CEFR-aligned oral test that evaluated their initial levels of pronunciation,
fluency, and vocabulary. Diagnostic testing is essential for accurate placement in differentiated
instructional settings (Tomlinson, 2014).
Phase 2: Group Formation
Students were placed in instructional groups based on diagnostic scores and teacher assessments
of their communicative behavior. Grouping aimed to balance homogeneity in proficiency with
manageable group sizes to optimize interaction and individualized support.
Phase 3: Intervention Delivery
For eight weeks, learners participated in small-group sessions that integrated communicative
activities, pronunciation practice, and vocabulary-building tasks. Teachers provided scaffolding,
corrective feedback, and modeling tailored to each group, adhering to principles of sociocultural
learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978).
Phase 4: Post-Assessment
A parallel version of the oral proficiency test was administered to measure linguistic gains.
Recordings were evaluated by two independent raters to enhance reliability.
Phase 5: Qualitative Data Collection
Observation notes and survey responses were analyzed to capture learner perceptions and
classroom dynamics. These data provided insights into how grouping influenced engagement,
confidence, and participation.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data from pre- and post-tests were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine
mean score improvements and percentage gains for each skill. The small sample size and
exploratory nature of the research made descriptive analyses more appropriate than inferential
tests (Dörnyei, 2007).
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 8
Qualitative data—including observation notes and survey comments—were coded thematically.
Themes were identified relating to learner engagement, confidence, participation patterns, and
classroom interaction. Qualitative coding followed an inductive approach commonly used in
applied linguistics to interpret classroom phenomena (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
RESULTS
The purpose of the results section is to present objective findings derived from the instructional
grouping intervention. The analysis integrates quantitative outcomes from pre- and post-test oral
proficiency assessments alongside qualitative data gathered through classroom observations and
learner perception surveys. The results address the three areas targeted in the intervention—
pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary—and explore differences across instructional groups
(High A1, Mid A1, Emerging A1).
The section is organized into three subsections: (1) overall quantitative performance, (2) group-
based performance patterns, and (3) qualitative findings related to learner engagement and
perceptions.
1. Overall Quantitative Performance
1.1 Improvement Across Skills
The descriptive statistics revealed notable gains across all three oral-skill components. Table 1
summarizes mean scores from pre- and post-tests.
Table 1. Pre-test and Post-test Mean Scores
SKILL
PRE-TEST MEAN
POST-TEST MEAN
IMPROVEMENT
PRONUNCIATION
1.8
3.1
+1.3
FLUENCY
1.4
2.8
+1.4
VOCABULARY
1.2
2.0
+0.8
Pronunciation exhibited substantial improvement (Δ = 1.3). Learners demonstrated clearer
articulation, fewer phonological substitutions, and greater control over basic stress patterns.
These improvements align with the structured practice incorporated in the intervention,
particularly minimal pairs, segmental drills, and guided repetition exercises.
Fluency showed the highest numerical gain (Δ = 1.4). Students increased their capacity to
maintain short stretches of continuous speech, reduced hesitation markers, and displayed more
consistent speech tempo. Timed and repeated speaking tasks likely contributed to these gains,
allowing learners to build automaticity through familiar communicative routines.
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 9
Vocabulary improved moderately (Δ = 0.8). Learners incorporated new lexical items more
frequently in post-test tasks, although their overall range remained limited. This pattern is
consistent with research suggesting that vocabulary growth at early proficiency levels tends to
develop gradually, particularly when exposure time is constrained.
Overall, the quantitative results confirm that the intervention had a positive impact on learners’
oral proficiency, with particularly strong effects in pronunciation and fluency.
2. Group-Based Performance Patterns
Given the differentiated structure of the intervention, an important focus of analysis concerns
how each instructional group progressed. Table 2 shows the percentage improvement by group.
Table 2. Percentage Improvement by Instructional Group
GROUP
PRONUNCIATION
FLUENCY
HIGH A1
48%
52%
MID A1
41%
47%
EMERGING A1
55%
60%
2.1 High A1 Group
Students in the High A1 group began with comparatively stronger control over phonology and
lexical access. Although their improvement was slightly lower in relative terms, their absolute
performance in the post-test was the highest among the three groups. This suggests that
instructional grouping helped consolidate and refine their oral-production abilities, especially in
fluency. These learners benefitted from tasks that promoted extended turns, descriptive language
practice, and guided dialogues that encouraged broader lexical usage.
2.2 Mid A1 Group
The Mid A1 learners demonstrated moderate improvement across all skills. This group showed
the greatest variation in individual performance, indicating that learners at this intermediate
beginner level respond differently depending on their prior exposure and learning habits.
Fluency showed the most consistent gains within the group, suggesting that they particularly
benefited from repeated speaking tasks and the supportive environment created by proficiency-
aligned grouping.
2.3 Emerging A1 Group
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 10
The Emerging A1 group exhibited the highest relative gains (pronunciation: 55%, fluency:
60%). Although their absolute scores remained lower than the other groups, the percentage
improvement indicates substantial growth. Learners in this group initially struggled with
segmental articulation, limited lexical access, and short utterance production. The supportive
structure of small-group work likely reduced anxiety and enabled more individualized feedback,
leading to significant progress. Their notable improvement in fluency is particularly meaningful
given their initial hesitancy and low confidence.
These patterns suggest that targeted instructional grouping is especially beneficial for lower-
proficiency learners, helping to reduce skill gaps and accelerate oral-skill development.
3. Detailed Skill-by-Skill Analysis
3.1 Pronunciation Performance
Analysis of pronunciation data showed improvements not only in segmental features but also in
basic suprasegmental control. Learners produced more accurate vowel and consonant sounds,
reduced common L1-transfer errors, and demonstrated clearer syllable stress. Observations
indicated that frequent corrective feedback and modeling contributed to this improvement.
Emerging A1 learners, in particular, gained confidence in producing sounds they initially
struggled with.
3.2 Fluency Performance
Fluency gains were evident in both rate and flow of speech. Students increased their mean
length of utterance, reduced fillers (e.g., “uh,” “eh”), and relied less on long pauses. Learners
used strategies such as circumlocution, repetition, and simple connectors to maintain discourse.
The repeated tasks appeared to create a procedural memory effect, making subsequent attempts
smoother and more natural.
3.3 Vocabulary Use
The vocabulary dimension showed modest but meaningful improvement. Learners incorporated
newly taught lexical sets, including thematic words, basic adjectives, and functional
expressions. Some students demonstrated improved ability to retrieve and apply words
spontaneously, though lexical diversity remained limited in lower-proficiency learners. Teacher
observations noted that while vocabulary growth was slower, learners were increasingly aware
of lexical gaps and attempted to repair communication breakdowns.
4. Qualitative Findings
4.1 Classroom Dynamics and Interaction
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 11
Observation notes revealed several behavioral patterns:
• Increased participation: Students spoke more frequently during small-group sessions
than in traditional whole-class activities.
• Reduced anxiety: Learners appeared more comfortable experimenting with
pronunciation and speaking spontaneously.
• Improved peer support: Students in each group collaborated to complete tasks, often
providing informal feedback.
• More equitable distribution of turns: Lower-proficiency learners had more
opportunities to speak compared to whole-class settings.
These patterns indicate that small-group instruction created a more inclusive learning
environment.
4.2 Learner Perceptions
Survey responses showed overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward the instructional grouping
intervention:
• 85% reported feeling more confident speaking English.
• 78% stated that pronunciation tasks helped them “speak more clearly.”
• 82% felt that small groups reduced the pressure of speaking in front of the whole class.
• 75% believed their vocabulary improved, even if modestly.
• 90% described the activities as “helpful” or “very helpful.”
Students also expressed appreciation for clearer teacher explanations, more individualized
attention, and increased opportunities to practice.
5. Summary of Key Findings
In sum, the instructional grouping intervention resulted in:
1. Significant gains in pronunciation and fluency, with moderate improvements in
vocabulary.
2. Greater relative gains for lower proficiency learners, suggesting a compensatory
effect.
3. Enhanced classroom participation and reduced learner anxiety, supported by
qualitative evidence.
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 12
4. Positive learner perceptions, indicating strong acceptability and motivational benefits.
These results collectively highlight the effectiveness of targeted instructional grouping as a
pedagogical strategy for early-stage EFL learners in Latin American contexts.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study demonstrate that targeted instructional grouping is an effective
pedagogical strategy for enhancing oral communication skills—pronunciation, fluency, and
vocabulary—among beginner EFL learners in Latin American contexts. The significant gains
observed in pronunciation and fluency align with previous research indicating that focused
instruction, when delivered in small, proficiency-aligned groups, increases opportunities for
individualized feedback and supports more accurate phonological production (Derwing &
Munro, 2015; Piccardo, 2016). The structured repetition, modeling, and corrective feedback
used throughout the intervention provided learners with the consistent exposure necessary to
develop articulatory control, echoing recommendations within pronunciation teaching literature.
Fluency improvements were also particularly notable. The learners’ increased ability to maintain
continuous speech, reduce hesitation, and employ simple discourse markers suggests that the
repeated speaking tasks and low-pressure environment fostered automaticity—a key component
of fluent oral production (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005). The supportive environment afforded
by small-group instruction likely reduced affective barriers such as anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation, which are known to inhibit fluency development in EFL contexts (Horwitz, 2001).
This is consistent with sociocultural theories emphasizing the importance of interaction and
scaffolding within learners’ Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978).
While vocabulary gains were comparatively modest, the steady improvement reflects the
incremental nature of lexical development at beginner levels. Research indicates that vocabulary
acquisition requires continued exposure, multiple encounters with lexical items, and meaningful
contextual use (Nation, 2001; Alqahtani, 2015). The tasks implemented in this study provided
structured opportunities for lexical practice, but vocabulary growth may benefit further from
extended reading, multimedia input, and increased task complexity—factors beyond the scope
of an eight-week intervention.
One of the most compelling outcomes of this study was the disproportionately high
improvement observed among Emerging A1 learners. This aligns with prior evidence suggesting
that lower-proficiency students benefit the most from differentiated instruction and targeted
scaffolding, as these approaches directly address gaps that traditional whole-class instruction
may overlook (Tomlinson, 2014; Bissell, 2023). The reduction of performance pressure and the
increased teacher attention available in smaller groups likely contributed to the strong gains
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 13
within this subgroup, supporting the position that instructional grouping can serve as an equity-
oriented strategy for reducing proficiency disparities in EFL classrooms.
The qualitative findings further reinforce the pedagogical value of targeted grouping. Increased
learner confidence, a greater willingness to speak, and improved peer collaboration suggest that
the grouping strategy positively influenced the affective and social dimensions of language
learning. These findings echo the argument that psychological comfort and opportunities for
meaningful interaction are crucial components of oral-skill development (Graham & Santos,
2015). The positive student perceptions and teacher observations indicate that small-group
instruction not only improves linguistic performance but also transforms classroom dynamics in
ways that promote active engagement and personalized learning.
Taken together, the results provide strong evidence that targeted instructional grouping is a
viable and effective approach for fostering oral-skill development in beginner EFL learners. The
strategy aligns with established theoretical frameworks, supports learners’ linguistic and
affective growth, and responds to the pedagogical challenges commonly found in Latin
American public-school settings. Future studies may explore long-term effects, integration with
digital tools, and application across broader linguistic contexts.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study provide compelling evidence that targeted instructional grouping is an
effective pedagogical strategy for strengthening oral communication skills—pronunciation,
fluency, and vocabulary—among beginner EFL learners in Latin American classrooms. By
organizing students according to their specific proficiency needs, the intervention created
learning environments where instruction could be adapted with greater precision, allowing
learners to receive focused feedback, participate more actively, and engage in tasks aligned with
their linguistic readiness. The marked improvement observed in lower-proficiency learners
highlights the potential of grouping strategies to reduce disparities in oral performance, offering
a more equitable path toward communicative competence.
Beyond measurable performance gains, the intervention contributed meaningfully to the
affective and motivational dimensions of learning. Students reported increased confidence,
reduced anxiety, and greater willingness to participate—factors that are critical at early
proficiency levels, when emotional barriers often hinder oral-skill development. Teachers also
experienced benefits, noting improved classroom management and the ability to tailor
instruction more effectively. These insights suggest that instructional grouping not only
enhances linguistic outcomes but also transforms the classroom climate in ways that support
sustained engagement and long-term learning.
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 14
While vocabulary gains were more moderate, the overall progress indicates that grouping
strategies create a strong foundation upon which more complex activities and extended exposure
can be built. Future research may explore longer interventions, integration with technology, or
adaptation of grouping strategies to diverse age groups and proficiency levels. Overall, the
results position targeted instructional grouping as a practical, scalable, and pedagogically sound
approach for improving oral communication skills in EFL contexts across the Latin American
region.
REFERENCES
Al-Issa, A. (2019). World Englishes and English as a lingua franca in global contexts.
Routledge.
Alqahtani, M. (2015). The importance of vocabulary in language learning and how to be taught.
International Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(3), 21–34.
https://doi.org/10.20472/TE.2015.3.3.002
Bissell, L. (2023). Ability grouping and student motivation in elementary language classrooms.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 45–62.
British Council. (2013). The English effect: The impact of English, what it’s worth to the UK
and why it matters to the world. British Council.
Cha, Y. (2011). English education policy and its impact on ESL expansion in developing
countries. TESOL Review, 23(1), 55–72.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based
perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking fluency: A cognitive approach to L2 oral
production. ELT Journal, 59(4), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci098
Graham, S., & Santos, D. (2015). Strategies for developing speaking skills in the L2 classroom.
Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 26–44.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Longman.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 21, 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Vol. 1/ Núm. 1 2026 pág. 15
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Li, S. (2019). The impact of grammar-based approaches on oral fluency in EFL settings. Journal
of Second Language Teaching, 6(2), 18–29.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press.
Mazenod, A. (2019). The emotional and motivational impact of classroom grouping practices.
Educational Review, 71(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1429537
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Prentice Hall.
Piccardo, E. (2016). Plurilingualism and pronunciation in CEFR frameworks. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 54(2), 135–156.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for
language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners
(2nd ed.). ASCD.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wu, T., Tsai, M., & Chiu, W. (2018). Ability grouping as a mechanism for enhancing
communication in university English programs. Journal of Language Education and
Practice, 5(4), 27–39.