https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
553
Artículo de revisión
Project-Based Learning with digital tools to improve speaking
skills among learners of english as a foreign language
Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos con herramientas digitales para mejorar las
habilidades de expresión oral en estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar*
Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo
Riobamba - Ecuador
adriana.flores@unach.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7752-2423
Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo
Riobamba - Ecuador
monicacadena@unach.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6048-3046
*Correspondencia:
adriana.flores@unach.edu.ec
Cómo citar este artículo:
Flores, A., & Cadena, A. (2026). Project-
Based Learning with digital tools to
improve speaking skills among learners of
english as a foreign language. Esprint
Investigación, 5(2), 553-568.
https://doi.org/10.61347/ei.v5i2.404
Recibido: 17 de septiembre de 2026
Aceptado: 20 de octubre de 2026
Publicado: 28 de octubre de 2026
Abstract: Developing English speaking skills requires strategies that promote practice
and communicative interaction. This study aimed to analyze the impact of project-based
learning supported by digital tools on the development of speaking skills among learners
of English as a foreign language. A quantitative, applied, and evaluative approach was
adopted, using a one-group pre-
experimental design with pretest and posttest
assessments. The sample analyzed comprised 20 B1-level students at NOVA English
Academy. The English for Change intervention consisted of six 90-minute sessions over
two weeks, aimed at collaboratively developing a video campaign. Speaking skills were
assessed using a six-dimensional rubric scored out of 30, while the project was evaluated
separately using an instrument scored out of 10. Descriptive statistics were used to
calculate frequencies, means, and differences between assessments. The results showed
an increase in the mean score from 16.30 to 21.20, representing a gain of 4.90 points and
a relative increase of 30.06%. Scores increased across all 20 records, and 17 (85%) moved
to a higher performance category. Fluency and interaction showed the largest gains, at
0.95 points each, while coherence showed the smallest gain, at 0.55 points. The project
achieved a mean score of 8.18 out of 10, with planning and collaboration emerging as
strengths. Speaking scores therefore increased following the PBL intervention supported
by digital tools, with the greatest gains in fluency and interaction.
Keywords: Audiovisual production, digital tools, english as a foreign language, project-
based learning, speaking skills.
Resumen: La expresión oral en inglés requiere estrategias que promuevan la práctica y la
interacción comunicativa. El objetivo general fue analizar el impacto del Aprendizaje Basado en
Proyectos, apoyado en herramientas digitales, en el desarrollo de las habilidades de expresión oral
de los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera. Se empleó un enfoque cuantitativo, aplicado
y evaluativo, con diseño preexperimental de un grupo y mediciones pretest y postest. La muestra
analizada comprendió 20 estudiantes del nivel B1 de NOVA English Academy. La propuesta
English for Change contempló seis sesiones de 90 minutos durante dos semanas, orientadas a
elaborar una campaña colaborativa de videos. La expresión oral se valoró mediante una rúbrica
de seis dimensiones sobre 30 puntos y el proyecto mediante un instrumento independiente sobre
diez. Se aplicó estadística descriptiva para calcular frecuencias, medias y diferencias entre
mediciones. Los resultados mostraron un aumento de la media de 16,30 a 21,20 puntos,
equivalente a 4,90 puntos y un incremento relativo del 30,06 %. Los 20 registros aumentaron sus
puntuaciones y 17 (85 %) avanzaron de categoría. Fluidez e interacción registraron los mayores
incrementos, con 0,95 puntos cada una, mientras que coherencia presentó el menor, con 0,55
puntos. El proyecto alcanzó una media de 8,18/10, destacándose planificación y colaboración.Se
concluye que las puntuaciones de expresión oral aumentaron tras la propuesta de ABP con
herramientas digitales, con mayores avances en fluidez e interacción.
Palabras clave:
Aprendizaje basado en proyectos, expresión oral, herramientas digitales, inglés
como lengua extranjera, producción audiovisual.
Copyright: Derechos de autor 2026 Adriana
Gabriela Flores Escobar, Mónica Noemí
Cadena Figueroa.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional
Creative Commons Atribución-
NoComercial 4.0.
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
554
1. Introduction
Project-based learning (PBL) is an active, constructivist approach in which students collaborate to solve
real-world problems and develop a final product. It integrates different fields of knowledge, with the
teacher guiding the process as a facilitator (Flórez, 2024). Its application supports learning, autonomy,
motivation, and cognitive, social, linguistic, and digital competencies, including critical thinking,
creativity, and communication (Ramírez et al., 2025). It has also shown benefits across curricular areas
and among students with learning difficulties (Ruiz & Ortega-Sánchez, 2022).
Digital tools are technological resources that support and enrich teaching and learning by providing
access to information, communication, and interaction (Reyna, 2023). Tools used in education include
learning management systems, communication applications, and content creation resources, which
can support collaboration, independent learning, and feedback (Romo-Padilla et al., 2023).
Their implementation faces challenges related to infrastructure, connectivity, unequal access,
resistance to change, and training, and therefore requires educational planning and investment in
technology (Puyol-Cortez, 2023).
Digital tools can thus strengthen the implementation of project-based learning across educational
levels. Platforms such as Google Classroom, Trello, and Microsoft Teams support the planning,
coordination, and collaborative management of activities (Hurtado et al., 2025).
Al-Abdullatif & Gameil (2021) found that acceptance and appropriate use of these technologies,
together with student engagement, support academic performance in PBL settings. Digital tools should
therefore be integrated with pedagogical guidance that promotes active participation and project
development (Solís-Franco et al., 2025).
More specifically, digital tools contribute to the development of speaking skills by promoting active,
engaging participation (Añapa et al., 2025). Their integration creates learning environments in which
students can communicate their ideas and emotions with greater confidence, spontaneity, and
creativity (Cifuentes et al., 2025). Implementing PBL through playful, collaborative activities supported
by technology also strengthens listening and speaking, demonstrating the pedagogical relevance of
these strategies to the development of communication skills (Ordoñez et al., 2025).
Nevertheless, developing speaking skills remains a challenge in teaching English as a foreign
language because of limited opportunities for interaction, a lack of confidence in communicating, low
participation, and the prevalence of activities with little connection to real communicative situations
(Ortiz, 2024).
Although PBL supported by digital tools can create authentic settings for research, collaboration,
content production, and the presentation of findings in English, its integration is not always guided by
pedagogical planning specifically directed toward strengthening speaking skills. In some cases,
technology is used only to access or transmit information, without taking advantage of its potential to
promote interaction, feedback, and oral production (Solórzano et al., 2024).
For these reasons, it is relevant to examine changes in the speaking skills of learners of English as a
foreign language following a project-based learning intervention supported by digital tools. The B1
group at NOVA English Academy, an institution dedicated to teaching English as a foreign language,
was selected because this level represents an appropriate stage for strengthening oral communication.
Students have the linguistic resources needed to manage everyday situations but need to consolidate
their fluency, accuracy, and ability to sustain interactions and express well-organized ideas.
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
555
The intervention provides opportunities to use English for a communicative purpose through the
planning, development, and presentation of collaborative digital products. Comparing the initial and
final assessments will allow changes in fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical accuracy,
coherence, and interaction to be described. The findings may inform teaching practices in the setting
studied and contribute to the design of learning experiences suited to the needs of B1-level students.
The following research question is posed: To what extent does project-based learning using digital
tools contribute to improving speaking skills among learners of English as a foreign language?
The general objective of this study is therefore to analyze the impact of project-based learning
supported by digital tools on the development of speaking skills among learners of English as a foreign
language. Specifically, the study seeks to identify students’ initial speaking proficiency, design project-
based activities using digital tools to encourage oral production, and evaluate the impact of the strategy
on the development of students’ speaking skills.
2. Methodology
Research Approach
The study adopted a quantitative approach because numerical data on students’ speaking proficiency
were collected and analyzed. This approach enabled participants’ performance to be measured before
and after the intervention, their scores to be compared, and changes in the skills assessed to be
identified.
Speaking was assessed using indicators related to fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical
accuracy, coherence, and interaction. Each dimension was rated using an analytic rubric, allowing
observed performance to be converted into quantifiable, comparable scores.
Type of Research
The research was applied in nature, as it addressed a specific educational need related to students’
difficulties in communicating orally in English. Based on the initial assessment, a project-based
learning strategy supported by digital tools was designed and implemented.
The applied nature of the study was reflected in the use of pedagogical and technological
knowledge to improve an identified situation in teaching and learning. Accordingly, the research
went beyond describing speaking proficiency and incorporated an intervention aimed at
strengthening this skill.
Research Scope
The study had an evaluative scope because it examined the outcomes of a pedagogical intervention by
comparing scores obtained before and after implementation. It also included an explanatory
component, as it considered whether the recorded changes in speaking performance were related to
the strategy implemented.
Because the study involved a single group without random assignment, the results were interpreted
within the educational context studied. Consequently, the changes identified were not attributed
exclusively to the intervention with the same level of certainty that an experiment with a control group
would have provided.
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
556
Research Design
A one-group pre-experimental design with pretest and posttest assessments was used. In the first
stage, a speaking performance assessment was administered to identify students’ initial proficiency.
The project-based learning strategy supported by digital tools was then implemented. Once the
intervention had been completed, a second speaking performance assessment was administered.
The design was represented as follows:
:
→ →
Here, G represented the participating group; O₁, the pretest; X, the intervention based on projects
and digital tools; and O₂, the posttest. Comparison of the two assessments enabled changes in speaking
skills to be identified.
Research Methods
The research combined documentary review and fieldwork. The literature review provided the
theoretical basis for project-based learning, the pedagogical use of digital tools, and the development
of speaking skills in English as a foreign language.
Fieldwork enabled information to be collected directly from students in their educational context.
The pretest, pedagogical intervention, observation of activities, and posttest took place in the setting
where teaching and learning normally occurred.
Population and Sample
The population comprised twenty students enrolled at B1 level at NOVA English Academy, an
institution dedicated to teaching English as a foreign language. The entire population was included
through a census; no sample selection was therefore performed. All twenty students participated in
the pretest, the project-based learning (PBL) intervention, and the posttest.
The inclusion criteria were enrollment at B1 level, voluntary participation, provision of the required
consent, completion of the pretest and posttest, attendance at a minimum of 80% of sessions, and
participation in developing the communicative projects.
Students were excluded from the analysis if they failed to complete either assessment, withdrew
voluntarily, attended fewer than the required proportion of sessions, or did not participate in the main
intervention activities.
Study Variables
The independent variable was project-based learning supported by digital tools. This was understood
as an active strategy through which students worked collaboratively to respond to a communicative
situation, develop a digital product, and present it orally in English.
The dependent variable was the development of speaking skills. This was defined as the student’s
ability to communicate ideas orally in a comprehensible, fluent, organized, and appropriate manner.
Fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, coherence, and interaction were assessed.
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
557
Assessment Method and Instruments
To assess speaking skills in English before and after the educational intervention, individual pretest
and posttest assessments were administered, each with an intended duration of 6–8 minutes. Both
instruments comprised three activities: a personal interview, a description of a situation, and a
response to a communicative situation.
The pretest included questions about personal interests, daily activities, and technology use; a
description of students working collaboratively on a school project; and a proposal for a digital
campaign to promote healthy habits.
The posttest addressed experiences of collaboration, technological tools for learning, and the
usefulness of English; a description of a digital project presentation; and the development of a proposal
for environmental protection.
Questions and scenarios differed between the two assessments, while the overall structure,
instructions, and assessment criteria remained the same. Participants were required to respond orally
in English using complete sentences, without dictionaries, translators, notes, or prepared answers,
although they could ask for questions to be repeated.
Pretest and Posttest Assessment Rubric
The same rubric was used in both assessments. Each dimension received a score from one to five, for
a maximum total of 30 points (see Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1
Pretest and Posttest Rubric
Dimension 5: Very high 4: High 3: Medium 2: Low 1: Very low
Fluency
Spoke
continuously and
naturally, with
few pauses
Sustained speech
with some pauses
that did not affect
understanding
Paused frequently
but managed to
complete ideas
Pauses and
hesitation made
the message
difficult to
develop
speech
Pronunciation Pronounced
words clearly and
used appropriate
intonation
Made few errors,
and the message
was
comprehensible
Made frequent
errors, although the
overall meaning
was understood
Errors
considerably
hindered
understanding
Pronunciation
being understood
Vocabulary
Used varied,
precise, and
appropriate
vocabulary
Used sufficient
vocabulary, with
little repetition
Used basic
vocabulary to
express the main
ideas
Used limited
vocabulary with
frequent
repetition
ideas
Grammatical
accuracy
Used different
grammatical
structures
correctly
Made minor errors
that did not affect
meaning
Made frequent
errors, but the
overall message
was
comprehensible
Errors partly
affected
understanding
most of the message
understood
Coherence
Organized and
connected ideas
clearly and
logically
Presented a
comprehensible
sequence with
minor difficulties
Expressed related
ideas, although
with limited
organization
Ideas were
disorganized or
loosely connected
comprehensible
message
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
558
Interaction
Initiated,
responded to, and
sustained
conversation
naturally
Participated
actively and
responded
appropriately
Answered
questions but
needed occasional
support
Gave brief
answers and
needed constant
support
respond or sustain
interaction
Table 2
Scores by Speaking Proficiency Level
Total score Speaking proficiency level
26-30 Very high
21-25 High
16-20 Medium
11-15 Low
6-10 Very low
Equivalence of the Assessments
The pretest and posttest assessed the same skills and maintained an equivalent structure. The only
difference concerned the topics addressed (see Table 3).
Table 3
Pretest and Posttest Components
Component Pretest Posttest
Interview Daily life and technology use Collaborative work, technology, and projects
Description
Students preparing a project
Students presenting a project
Communicative situation Campaign on healthy habits Project on environmental protection
Duration 6–8 minutes 6–8 minutes
Dimensions Six Six
Maximum score 30 points 30 points
Rubric Five-level analytic rubric Same rubric
Validation and Reliability
The assessments and rubric were reviewed by three experts in English language teaching, educational
assessment, and research methodology. The experts evaluated the clarity, relevance, coherence, and
sufficiency of each activity and indicator. Their feedback informed adjustments to the instructions and
descriptors before final administration.
Procedure
In the first stage, institutional authorization and the required consent were obtained. The pretest was
then administered, and students’ oral productions were scored using the analytic rubric. The results
established their initial speaking proficiency.
In the second stage, the English for Change project-based learning intervention was designed to
strengthen the English speaking skills of twenty B1-level students through a video campaign
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
559
addressing a social issue. The problem, audience, central message, responsibilities, and schedule of six
90-minute sessions over two weeks were defined. The final product comprised twenty interconnected
vertical videos, each led by one student, incorporating vocabulary, grammatical structures, and
language support appropriate to B1 level.
In the third stage, the project was implemented through research, the development of a vocabulary
bank, scriptwriting, storyboard design, rehearsals, and video recording and editing. Throughout the
process, self-assessment, peer assessment, and teacher feedback addressed fluency, pronunciation,
vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, coherence, and interaction.
The intervention concluded with the presentation of the campaign, responses to spontaneous
questions, and an individual reflection in English. Dissemination of the products was planned through
authorized publication or a simulation in a private setting.
The PBL activity was assessed using a specific analytic rubric comprising five criteria: planning and
collaboration; fluency, pronunciation, and interaction; vocabulary, grammar, and coherence; content
and social impact; and video quality and reflection. Each criterion was rated at four performance levels:
excellent (2 points), good (1.5 points), developing (1 point), and beginning (0.5 points), for a maximum
total score of 10 points.
The language criteria were adapted to the participants’ B1 level. This assessment evaluated the work
process, digital product, and oral presentation, and its score was kept separate from the pretest and
posttest scores.
In the fourth stage, the posttest was administered under conditions equivalent to those of the
pretest. Responses were scored using the same rubric and by the same assessors. The initial and final
scores were then compared.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis used descriptive statistics. Absolute frequencies and percentages were
calculated to present the distribution of the twenty participants across pretest and posttest
performance levels and PBL project rubric categories. Percentages were obtained by dividing the
frequency in each category by the total number of participants and multiplying the result by 100.
Arithmetic means were calculated for total and dimension scores, together with percentages relative
to each instrument’s maximum score. The pretest and posttest were compared using absolute score
differences and relative increases, calculated as [(posttest − pretest) / pretest] × 100. The results were
organized into individual and group tables, keeping the PBL project assessment separate from the
speaking assessments. The analysis was limited to describing observed changes, without statistical
significance testing.
3. Results
Pretest Results
The initial speaking assessment showed heterogeneous performance among the 20 participants, as
presented in Table 4. Scores ranged from 12 to 23 out of 30, with a mean of 16.30, equivalent to 54.33%
of the maximum possible score, and a standard deviation of 2.90. Nine students (45%) were in the low
category, ten (50%) in the medium category, and one (5%) in the high category. None were in the very
low or very high categories. This distribution showed a concentration in the low and medium
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
560
categories, indicating a need to strengthen communication skills, particularly among students with
lower initial scores.
Table 4
Individual Pretest Results
Student Score /30 % of maximum Level
E1 20 66.67 Medium
E2 14 46.67 Low
E3 23 76.67 High
E4 15 50.00 Low
E5 16 53.33 Medium
E6 19 63.33 Medium
E7 13 43.33 Low
E8 19 63.33 Medium
E9 17 56.67 Medium
E10 20 66.67 Medium
E11 14 46.67 Low
E12 18 60.00 Medium
E13 12 40.00 Low
E14 18 60.00 Medium
E15 15 50.00 Low
E16 13 43.33 Low
E17 13 43.33 Low
E18 15 50.00 Low
E19 16 53.33 Medium
E20 16 53.33 Medium
Mean 16.30 54.33 Medium
Note. Performance levels correspond to the instrument’s scale: very low, 6–10; low, 11–15; medium, 16–20; high, 21–25; very high, 26–30.
Percentages express the score obtained relative to the maximum possible score.
Analysis by dimension showed that grammatical accuracy had the highest initial mean, at 3.00 out of
5, followed by interaction at 2.95 out of 5. Pronunciation and coherence each scored 2.80 out of 5, while
fluency scored 2.75 out of 5. Vocabulary had the lowest score, at 2.00 out of 5, equivalent to 40% of the
maximum possible score. This initial profile indicated a greater need for support in vocabulary range
and use, as well as continuity of speech. Although grammatical accuracy had the highest mean, its
score also indicated room for improvement within the scale used (see Table 5).
Table 5
Initial Performance by Dimension
Dimension
Mean /5
% of maximum
Fluency
2.75
55.00
Pronunciation
2.80
56.00
Vocabulary
2.00
40.00
Grammatical accuracy
3.00
60.00
Coherence
2.80
56.00
Interaction
2.95
59.00
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
561
Results of PBL Implementation
The English for Change project assessment considered five criteria related to planning and
collaboration, speaking performance, linguistic resources, social content, and audiovisual product
quality. Each criterion was scored out of two points, for a maximum total of ten. This rubric assessed
project performance as evidence complementary to the speaking assessments.
Project scores ranged from 6.00 to 9.50 out of 10, with a mean of 8.18, equivalent to 81.75% of the
maximum possible score, and a standard deviation of 0.83. Sixteen participants, representing 80% of
the group, scored at least eight points. E3 achieved the highest score, at 9.50 out of 10, while E2 had the
lowest score, at 6.00 out of 10. The distribution showed differences in performance during project
development, making it useful to examine the criteria separately to identify each participant’s
strengths and support needs (see Table 6).
Table 6
Individual PBL Project Rubric Results
ID C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Total /10
E1 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 8.00
E2 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 6.00
E3 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 9.50
E4 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 8.50
E5 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 9.00
E6 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 7.00
E7 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 8.50
E8 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 8.50
E9 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 9.00
E10 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 7.50
E11 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 7.00
E12 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 8.50
E13 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 8.00
E14 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 9.00
E15 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 9.00
E16 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 8.00
E17 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 8.00
E18 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 8.50
E19 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.50 8.00
E20 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 8.00
Note. C1 = planning and collaboration; C2 = fluency, pronunciation, and interaction; C3 = vocabulary, grammar, and coherence; C4 = content
and social impact; C5 = video quality and reflection. Each criterion was scored out of two points.
Planning and collaboration was the highest-rated criterion, with a mean of 1.73 out of 2, equivalent to
86.25% of the maximum possible score. Ten students (50%) were rated excellent, nine (45%) good, and
one (5%) developing. For vocabulary, grammar, and coherence, the mean was 1.68 out of 2: eight
participants (40%) were rated excellent, eleven (55%) good, and one (5%) developing (see Table 7).
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
562
Table 7
Group Performance by PBL Project Criterion
Criterion Mean /2
% of
maximum
Excellent n
(%)
Good n (%)
Developing n
(%)
Planning and
collaboration
1.73 86.25 10 (50.00%) 9 (45.00%) 1 (5.00%)
Fluency, pronunciation,
and interaction
1.58 78.75 6 (30.00%) 11 (55.00%) 3 (15.00%)
Vocabulary, grammar,
and coherence
1.68 83.75 8 (40.00%) 11 (55.00%) 1 (5.00%)
Content and social
impact
1.63 81.25 9 (45.00%) 7 (35.00%) 4 (20.00%)
Video quality and
reflection
1.58 78.75 6 (30.00%) 11 (55.00%) 3 (15.00%)
Note. Excellent = 2 points; good = 1.5; developing = 1; beginning = 0.5. No participant was rated at the beginning level.
Content and social impact, and video quality and reflection, varied among participants. In each
criterion, one student was rated as developing. These ratings indicate areas requiring further support
in substantiating the message, audiovisual production, and reflection on learning. The “content and
social impact” criterion reflects the assessment of the message and proposed actions; it does not
measure the campaign’s actual effect on its audience.
Posttest Results
The final assessment yielded scores ranging from 14 to 28 out of 30, with a mean of 21.20, equivalent
to 70.67% of the maximum possible score, and a standard deviation of 3.29. Ten students (50%) were
in the high category, eight (40%) in the medium category, one (5%) in the very high category, and one
(5%) in the low category. No participant was in the very low category. E3 achieved the highest final
score, at 28 out of 30 (see Table 8).
Table 8
Individual Posttest Results
Student Score /30 % of maximum Level
E1 24 80.00 High
E2 20 66.67 Medium
E3 28 93.33 Very high
E4 20 66.67 Medium
E5 20 66.67 Medium
E6 25 83.33 High
E7 16 53.33 Medium
E8 23 76.67 High
E9 24 80.00 High
E10 24 80.00 High
E11 18 60.00 Medium
E12 23 76.67 High
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
563
E13 14 46.67 Low
E14 23 76.67 High
E15 21 70.00 High
E16 18 60.00 Medium
E17 19 63.33 Medium
E18 22 73.33 High
E19 22 73.33 High
E20 20 66.67 Medium
Mean 21.20 70.67 High
Across dimensions, interaction achieved the highest final mean, at 3.90 out of 5, followed by
grammatical accuracy at 3.85 out of 5. Fluency scored 3.70 out of 5 and pronunciation 3.55 out of 5,
while coherence scored 3.35 out of 5. Vocabulary had the lowest final mean, at 2.85 out of 5, equivalent
to 57% of the maximum possible score. This profile showed stronger performance in communicative
participation and the use of grammatical structures, while also indicating that expanding lexical
resources and organizing speech remained areas for improvement (see Table 9).
Table 9
Final Performance by Dimension
Dimension
Mean /5
% of maximum
Fluency
3.70
74.00
Pronunciation
3.55
71.00
Vocabulary
2.85
57.00
Grammatical accuracy
3.85
77.00
Coherence
3.35
67.00
Interaction
3.90
78.00
Pretest–Posttest Comparison
All 20 participants increased their scores between the pretest and posttest. Seventeen students (85%)
moved to a higher performance category, while three (15%) increased their scores without changing
categories. The group mean rose from 16.30 to 21.20 out of 30, a difference of 4.90 points and a relative
increase of 30.06%. Expressed relative to the maximum test score, the mean increased from 54.33% to
70.67%, representing a difference of 16.33 percentage points. These indicators show the magnitude of
change across the group and complement the individual results in Table 10.
Table 10
Individual Changes Between the Two Assessments
ID Pretest /30 Posttest /30 Difference Increase% Change in level
E1 20 24 4 20.00
Medium → High
E2 14 20 6 42.86 Low → Medium
E3 23 28 5 21.74
High → Very high
E4 15 20 5 33.33 Low → Medium
E5 16 20 4 25.00 Medium → Medium
E6 19 25 6 31.58
Medium → High
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
564
E7 13 16 3 23.08 Low → Medium
E8 19 23 4 21.05 Medium → High
E9 17 24 7 41.18
Medium → High
E10 20 24 4 20.00 Medium
→
High
E11 14 18 4 28.57
Low → Medium
E12 18 23 5 27.78 Medium → High
E13 12 14 2 16.67 Low → Low
E14 18 23 5 27.78
Medium → High
E15 15 21 6 40.00 Low → High
E16 13 18 5 38.46 Low → Medium
E17 13 19 6 46.15
Low → Medium
E18 15 22 7 46.67 Low → High
E19 16 22 6 37.50
Medium → High
E20 16 20 4 25.00 Medium → Medium
Mean 16.30 21.20 4.90 30.06 Medium → High
Note. Relative increase = [(posttest − pretest) / pretest] × 100. The percentage reported for the mean represents the change in the group mean.
The largest gains across dimensions were observed in fluency and interaction, each increasing by 0.95
points. Vocabulary and grammatical accuracy increased by 0.85 points, while pronunciation showed a
difference of 0.75 points. Coherence had the smallest gain, at 0.55 points, rising from 2.80 to 3.35 out of
5 (see Table 11).
Table 11
Comparison of Means by Dimension
Dimension
Pretest /5
Posttest /5
Difference
Fluency
2.75
3.70
0.95
Pronunciation
2.80
3.55
0.75
Vocabulary
2.00
2.85
0.85
Grammatical accuracy
3.00
3.85
0.85
Coherence
2.80
3.35
0.55
Interaction
2.95
3.90
0.95
4. Discussion
The pretest–posttest comparison showed an increase in speaking scores across the 20 B1-level records.
The mean rose from 16.30 to 21.20 out of 30, a difference of 4.90 points and a relative increase of 30.06%.
All 20 participants increased their scores, although only 17 (85%) moved to a higher performance
category. This pattern can be discussed within the pedagogical framework of Flórez (2024) and Ruiz
& Ortega-Sánchez (2022), who emphasize active participation and the application of knowledge in
PBL. The comparison describes a favorable trend but does not allow it to be attributed exclusively to
the strategy.
The pretest showed that vocabulary was the group’s main area of need, with a mean of 2.00 out of
5, followed by fluency at 2.75 out of 5. In addition, 45% of participants were in the low category and
50% in the medium category, meaning that initial performance was concentrated in categories
requiring support. This profile allows the planning of the intervention to be related to the oral
communication difficulties addressed by Ortiz (2024). The vocabulary bank, language support, and
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
565
rehearsals can therefore be regarded as relevant components for addressing specific needs, rather than
assuming that all dimensions required the same type of intervention.
Fluency and interaction showed the largest gains, at 0.95 points each. Fluency rose from 2.75 to 3.70
out of 5, while interaction increased from 2.95 to 3.90 out of 5 and achieved the highest final mean.
Pedagogically, these components relate to the sustained practice, peer exchanges, and responses to
spontaneous questions included in English for Change. Cifuentes et al. (2025) provide a reference point
for the use of podcasts and mini vlogs to develop oral production. The similarity lies in the use of
audiovisual resources for communicative purposes; it does not establish equivalence between the
study designs or the magnitude of their results.
Vocabulary and grammatical accuracy each increased by 0.85 points: vocabulary rose from 2.00 to
2.85 out of 5, and grammatical accuracy from 3.00 to 3.85 out of 5. However, vocabulary retained the
lowest final mean, showing that a score increase does not mean that an initial need has been resolved.
Romo-Padilla et al. (2023) and Reyna (2023) provide background on the potential of digital tools in
learning. In the intervention, searching for information, selecting expressions, and developing scripts
linked these resources to specific language tasks. The final profile suggests maintaining vocabulary
work and encouraging its use in less rehearsed situations.
Pronunciation increased from 2.80 to 3.55 out of 5, a difference of 0.75 points, while coherence rose
from 2.80 to 3.35 out of 5 and showed the smallest gain, at 0.55 points. Overall improvement was
therefore accompanied by gains of different magnitudes and should not be interpreted as uniform
development of speaking skills. Although scriptwriting and message revision formed part of the
intervention, discourse organization remained an area for improvement. In instructional planning, this
profile supports consideration of more targeted activities on sequencing ideas, using linking
expressions, and developing messages, without assuming that video production alone addresses every
skill.
The project assessment yielded a mean of 8.18 out of 10, equivalent to 81.75% of the maximum
possible score before rounding, and 16 participants (80%) scored at least eight points. Planning and
collaboration was the highest-rated criterion, with a mean of 1.73 out of 2; ten students (50%) were
rated excellent, nine (45%) good, and one (5%) developing. Hurtado et al. (2025) and Al-Abdullatif &
Gameil (2021) provide reference points for examining work organization and technology integration
in PBL. Ramírez et al. (2025) and Ordoñez et al. (2025) also help contextualize its participatory
dimension, although their settings are not directly equivalent to learning English speaking skills.
Individual differences help distinguish the project assessment from the speaking assessments. E3
scored 9.50 out of 10 on the project and 28 out of 30 on the posttest, while E4 scored 8.50 out of 10 on
the project and finished with 20 out of 30 in speaking, within the medium category. E2 scored 6.00
out of 10 on the project and increased from 14 to 20 points between assessments, equivalent to
42.86%. These examples show that a score for a collaborative product and a change in speaking
performance represent different aspects. The former incorporates planning, content, and audiovisual
quality; it should therefore neither be interpreted as an equivalent measure nor added to speaking
scores.
The integration of technology and pedagogical guidance is central to interpreting the intervention.
Solís-Franco et al. (2025) and Añapa et al. (2025) provide background for discussing the integration of
digital resources and communicative activities. English for Change includes research, scriptwriting,
rehearsals, and presentations, incorporating technology into a sequence of activities with linguistic
objectives.
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
566
5. Conclusions
The initial assessment yielded a mean of 16.30 out of 30, with 95% of participants concentrated in the
low and medium categories. Vocabulary had the lowest mean, at 2.00 out of 5, followed by fluency at
2.75 out of 5. This profile identified the components requiring greater attention and informed planning
aimed at expanding lexical resources and strengthening continuity in oral production.
The English for Change intervention integrated PBL with digital tools through research,
scriptwriting, rehearsals, and video recording, editing, and presentation, with a planned organization
of five teams of four students. The project assessment yielded a mean of 8.18 out of 10, with planning
and collaboration emerging as a strength, at a mean of 1.73 out of 2 and 50% of participants rated
excellent. This assessment complemented the speaking tests by incorporating the work process and
the characteristics of the audiovisual product.
The final comparison showed a mean of 21.20 out of 30, a gain of 4.90 points and a relative increase
of 30.06%. Scores improved across all 20 records, and 17 (85%) moved to a higher performance
category. The largest gains were in fluency and interaction (0.95 points each), while coherence showed
the smallest increase (0.55 points).
References
Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Gameil, A. A. (2021). The effect of digital technology integration on students’
academic performance through project-based learning in an e-learning environment.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(11), 189–210.
hps://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19421
Añapa, D., Yumbo, L., Lescay, D., & Robinson, J. (2025). Estrategia pedagógica para el desarrollo de la
comunicación oral con el uso de recursos tecnológicos educativos en la educación básica. [A
pedagogical strategy for developing oral communication through educational technology
resources in basic education] Reincisol, 4(7), 821-846.
hps://doi.org/10.59282/reincisol.V4(7)821-846
Cifuentes, M., Beltrán, M., Díaz, W., & Castañeda, R. (2025). Promoviendo la autonomía y la fluidez
oral en inglés con podcasts y mini vlogs como herramientas de aprendizaje [Promoting
autonomy and oral fluency in English through podcasts and mini vlogs as learning tools].
Journal of Science and Research, 10(I SIEILE). hps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17601425
Flórez, L. (2024). Metodologías activas de aprendizaje: Aprendizaje basado en proyectos, problemas y
retos [Active learning methodologies: Project-based, problem-based, and challenge-based
learning]. Revista Investigación & Praxis en Ciencias Sociales, 3(1), 97–120.
hps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=10018096
Hurtado, M., Arequipa, S., Torres, M., & Paredes, P. (2025). El aprendizaje basado en proyectos (ABP)
como enfoque pedagógico innovador: Una revisión bibliográfica [Project-based learning (PBL)
as an innovative pedagogical approach: A literature review]. Polo del Conocimiento, 10(2), 2035–
2055. hps://polodelconocimiento.com/ojs/index.php/es/article/view/9021
Ordoñez, B., Fernández, L., & Sancho, D. (2025). Efectividad del aprendizaje basado en proyectos en la
adquisición de habilidades sociales en niños [Effectiveness of project-based learning for the
acquisition of social skills in children: A systematic review]. Revista InveCom, 6(1), 1-
12. hps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15501505
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
567
Ortiz, K. (2024). El desarrollo de la competencia oral en la enseñanza-aprendizaje del inglés como
lengua extranjera a través del uso de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación
[Developing oral competence in teaching and learning English as a foreign language through
information and communication technologies]. Revista Torreón Universitario, 13(37), 133–145.
hps://doi.org/10.5377/rtu.v13i37.18182
Puyol-Cortez, J. (2023). Tecnologías emergentes en la educación del siglo XXI [Emerging technologies
in twenty-first-century education]. Multidisciplinary Collaborative Journal, 1(4), 40-55.
hps://doi.org/10.70881/mcj/v1/n4/25
Ramírez, M., Cudris, L., & Agudelo, L. (2025). Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos ABP para Promover
la Lectura Crítica en una Institución Rural [Project-based learning to promote critical reading
in a rural institution]. Revista Latinoamericana De Calidad Educativa, 2(3), 12-20.
hps://doi.org/10.70625/rlce/260
Reyna, D. (2023). Herramientas digitales en entornos educativos de formación universitaria: Una
revisión sistemática [Digital tools in university education seings: A systematic review]. Revista
de Climatología, 23, 318–327. hps://doi.org/10.59427/rcli/2023/v23cs.318-327
Romo-Padilla, G., Rubio-Caicedo, C., Gómez-Rodríguez, V., & Nivel-Cornejo, M. (2023). Herramientas
digitales en el proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje mediante revisión bibliográfica [Digital tools in
teaching and learning: A literature review]. Polo del Conocimiento, 8(10), 313–344.
hps://www.polodelconocimiento.com/ojs/index.php/es/article/view/6127
Ruiz, D., & Ortega-Sánchez, D. (2022). Aprendizaje basado en proyectos: una revisión sistemática de la
literatura (2015-2022) [Project-based learning: A systematic literature review (2015–
2022)]. HUMAN REVIEW / Revista Internacional de Humanidades, 14 (6), 1–14.
hps://www.historicoeagora.net/revHUMAN/article/view/4181
Solís-Franco, G., Granja-Banchón, S., Vasco-Delgado, J., Macas-Padilla, B., & Vasco-Delgado, L. (2025).
Ambientes virtuales de aprendizaje y su aplicación en el desarrollo de competencias
emprendedoras [Virtual learning environments and their application to the development of
entrepreneurial competencies]. Multidisciplinary Latin American Journal (MLAJ), 3(3), 357–376.
hps://doi.org/10.62131/MLAJ-V3-N3-019
Solórzano, A. A., Vélez, N., & Zambrano, Z. L. (2024). Los medios comunicativos tradicionales y la
convergencia digital [Traditional media and digital convergence]. Universidad, Ciencia y
Tecnología, 28(123), 72–81. hps://doi.org/10.47460/uct.v28i123.806
Esprint Investigación
https://rei.esprint.tech
Vol. 5 N° 2, julio-diciembre 2026 (553-568)
ISSN: 2960-8317
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar
, Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa
568
Transparency
Conflicto de interés
Las autoras declaran que no existen conflictos de interés de naturaleza alguna como parte de la
presente investigación.
Fuente de financiamiento
Las autoras financiaron completamente la investigación.
Contribución de autoría
Adriana Gabriela Flores Escobar: Conceptualización, validación, análisis formal, investigación, gestión
de datos, visualización, redacción - preparación del borrador original, redacción - revisión y edición,
financiamiento, recursos, supervisión.
Mónica Noemí Cadena Figueroa: Conceptualización, metodología, software, validación, análisis
formal, investigación, redacción - revisión y edición, financiamiento, administración del proyecto,
recursos, supervisión.
Las autoras contribuyeron activamente en el análisis de los resultados, revisión y aprobación del
manuscrito final.