# Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices: A questionnaire study

Noémi Gyurka

► To cite this version:

Noémi Gyurka. Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices: A questionnaire study. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices, Université Grenoble-Alpes, pp.28-42, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.16694398. hal-05196483

HAL Id: hal-05196483

https://hal.science/hal-05196483v1

Submitted on 2 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices: A questionnaire study

Noémi Gyurka

Pázmány Péter Catholic University

ELTE Eötvös Loránd University

## Abstract

While pronunciation teaching is often promoted, teachers frequently prioritise other skills, due to various reasons. Yet, research shows that explicit pronunciation instruction is effective, as raising awareness helps students understand key language features. In most international contexts as well as in many European countries, teachers' reluctance to explicitly teach pronunciation often results from limited training, lack of confidence, or insufficient resources. However, in the Hungarian educational context, there is limited available data on teachers' practices or the reasons behind choosing to teach or ignore pronunciation. Therefore, the paper reports the results of a study aiming to investigate Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices. A questionnaire completed by 64 teachers revealed a reliance on listen-and-repeat" exercises and coursebook content, with minimal use of explicit techniques. The participants commonly addressed silent letters and dental fricatives, even though these are not the features that are of utmost importance for Hungarian learners. In addition, teachers who believed in the importance of pronunciation tended to engage more actively in teaching it. These findings suggest the need for teacher training programmes to focus on pronunciation teaching so that teachers understand the benefits of pronunciation instruction and have appropriate knowledge and skills to teach this subskill effectively.

**Keywords:** pronunciation instruction, pronunciation teaching, secondary education, teachers' beliefs

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
**1. Introduction**

Pronunciation teaching is no longer considered less important in English language teaching than the other language skills (Murphy & Baker, 2015). It helps learners increase their intelligibility (Pennington, 2021), contributes to the development of their listening skills (Gilbert, 1995; Nunan & Miller, 1995), as well as to lowering their anxiety levels (Baran-Łucarz, 2017). However, pronunciation still remains an underrepresented skill in the language classroom. Many second and foreign language teachers are hesitant about teaching pronunciation. This hesitancy is often linked to a variety of external constraints (e.g., time, school curriculum, etc.) and also to teachers' beliefs about the relevance of pronunciation teaching. Therefore, understanding both the beliefs and the practices of teachers is essential for understanding how pronunciation is approached in different educational contexts.

**2. Theoretical and empirical background**

**2.1 Teacher beliefs**

Teachers' beliefs have been defined as “teachers' psychologically held thinking, conceptions and understanding about EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teaching and learning” (Zheng, 2015, p. 14). In addition to other aspects of teacher cognitions, these beliefs play a pivotal role in the decision-making process in or outside the classroom (Borg, 2003). A teacher's beliefs can influence their practices and, thus, corroborate with the teachers' methods (Zheng, 2015). Nevertheless, this is not always the case. Numerous outside factors related to the educational context can prevent teachers from implementing their beliefs in their practices, for instance, curricula, learner goals, available materials, available timeframe, etc. (Borg, 2005).

In addition, the educational context, classroom practices and beliefs form a system where each component can impact another (Zheng, 2015). For example, classroom experiences can have an influence on beliefs, while beliefs can also change classroom practices. An illuminating example of the latter would be teacher education. In the case of British pre-service ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers, it was found that an intensive education programme on teachers' beliefs enabled them to consciously validate or change their beliefs and modify their practices accordingly (Borg, 2011). Moreover, as mentioned above, the context of education also affects the teacher's beliefs; the school's curriculum, the students' goals and social expectations all interact with the teacher's belief system. In terms of pronunciation teaching, the shortage of time (e.g., Shah et al., 2017), the lack of suitable materials (e.g., Georgiou, 2019), and assessment criteria which do not include pronunciation (e.g., Bai & Yuan, 2019) are all factors that may discourage teachers from teaching it.

**2.2 Pronunciation teaching practices across contexts**

The paradigm shift from considering pronunciation teaching as the “Cinderella of language teaching” (Kelly, 1969, p. 87) to accepting the benefits of explicit pronunciation instruction has already taken place (Jenkins, 2000; Levis, 2018). Research has shown that pronunciation has a positive effect on the learners and teaching it ensures intelligibility (Bai & Yuan, 2019; Buss, 2016; Jafari et al., 2021; Szyszka, 2016). However, even if teachers express the belief that pronunciation instruction is valuable, their practices are not always in line with their beliefs. For example, in the case of Hong Kong primary and secondary school teachers, most participants reported difficulties in terms of integrating pronunciation (Bai & Yuan, 2019). The study examined 16 primary and secondary school teachers with qualitative methods (i.e., written reflections and follow-up semi-structured interviews). The respondents mentioned their
lack of confidence as the main obstacle to teaching pronunciation, which may stem from an
underlying adherence to the nativeness principle within their school environment. The
nativeness principle emphasises the attainment of native-like pronunciation, while the
intelligibility principle prioritizes clear and comprehensible speech as the primary goal (Levis,
2005). The influence of the nativeness principle was further reflected in participants' belief that
only native-speaker teachers are qualified to teach pronunciation, suggesting that native-like
competence was regarded as a prerequisite for effective instruction. The same could be
observed with Iranian and Spanish teachers (Jafari et al., 2021; Nagle et al., 2018). Altogether
66% of the Iranian participants (n = 74) said they would prefer a native-speaker teacher to cover
the pronunciation aspect of language teaching (Jafari et al., 2021). On the other hand, 61% of
the 74 Iranian EFL teachers indicated that they included some form of pronunciation in their
classes, despite believing that a native speaker would be a more suitable model. Sifakis and
Sougari (2005) revealed a similar discrepancy among Greek EFL teachers. Teachers upheld
native speakers as the model, although they also acknowledged that a non-native speaker above
a threshold intelligibility level – achieved when a speaker is fully understood by a listener –
could use the language just as effectively.

In terms of how teachers act upon their beliefs, teachers from Brazil, Poland and Vietnam have reported incorporating pronunciation teaching in their classrooms (Buss, 2016; Szyszka, 2016). Nonetheless, the majority of the techniques applied were implicit and traditional pronunciation teaching methods (e.g., error correction, imitation, and read-aloud sessions) (Szyszka, 2016). In Buss’s study (2016), one participant even considered merely speaking to a student as a pronunciation teaching strategy. Use of only implicit pronunciation techniques with occasional corrective feedback is representative of most studies on teachers’ pronunciation teaching practices (Georgiou, 2019; Quoc et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2017). Only in a few cases are communicative activities or non-traditional methods cited (e.g., Baker, 2014; Jafari et al., 2021). Baker (2014) mentioned that teachers in the US (both native and non-native) used kinaesthetic and tactile methods for reinforcing pronunciation, while Jafari et al. (2021) described a variety of role-play exercises that were more frequently used than repetition. Therefore, despite the fact that teachers advocate for pronunciation instruction and acknowledge the benefits of it, their classroom practices do not necessarily coincide with their beliefs.

The lack of innovative techniques can be attributed to various factors. In most cases, teachers did not receive adequate training in pronunciation pedagogy (Baker, 2011; Buss, 2016; Henderson et al., 2012; Shah et al., 2017). In addition to insufficient training, limited available time (Georgiou, 2019; Quoc et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2017) and a lack of suitable teaching materials (Georgiou, 2019) were among the other aspects that discouraged teachers from using more explicit pronunciation teaching activities in their classroom. Providing teachers with the appropriate tools to integrate pronunciation is crucial: without this, teachers are less confident and less willing to teach pronunciation. Additionally, courses on pronunciation teaching could have an impact on the teachers’ beliefs (Baker, 2011), which might encourage them to include pronunciation more often and in a different manner.

Variables that can influence teachers' beliefs are highly context-dependent, and while teachers' beliefs and practices have been researched, there are no empirical studies specifically on Hungarian EFL teachers' pronunciation teaching beliefs and practices. The few studies available focus on students (Gyurka, 2022; Gyurka & Piukovics, 2023; Piukovics, 2016), and while they do not target teaching practices, data from the students suggest that teachers do not focus on explicit pronunciation teaching (Gyurka, 2022). Uncovering the factors which influence teachers' practices could inform training for pre- and in-service teachers. Therefore, this study was designed to fill the existing gap in the literature and to gain insight into the Hungarian secondary educational context, as well as to address a methodological issue by
validating a questionnaire that could provide information about Hungarian teachers' pronunciation teaching practices on a larger scale. The present research sought to address the following research questions:

**RQ1:** Do the constructs of the questionnaire measure reliably?

**RQ2:** What characterises Hungarian secondary EFL teachers' practices regarding pronunciation as reported by teachers?

**RQ3:** What kind of variables influence Hungarian secondary school EFL teachers' practices regarding pronunciation?

**RQ4:** Are there any significant differences between the pronunciation teaching practices of Hungarian secondary school teachers in terms of (not) having received training in pronunciation teaching methodology?

# 3. Research methodology

## 3.1 Participants

The sample of the study involved Hungarian secondary school teachers working in various types of secondary institutions (e.g., general secondary schools, vocational secondary schools, vocational schools). To recruit them, an online questionnaire was used applying convenience as well as snowball sampling.

A total of 64 secondary school teachers participated in the study with a mean age of 47.78 (SD = 9.57). This showcases the ageing population of primary and secondary school teachers, a phenomenon observed throughout Hungary. The teachers of the study had considerable experience in teaching English as a foreign language measured as number of years in the profession (M = 22.39; SD = 9.66); the youngest participant (age = 25) had 2 years, while the oldest (age = 71) had 49 years of teaching experience.

## 3.2 Data collection and analysis procedures

To answer the research questions, a questionnaire was designed (see Appendix), with questions related to participants' demographic and professional background (e.g., age, teaching experience, prior education in pronunciation teaching), as well as 4 types of Likert scales for rating statements. Items related to two of the constructs from Buss's (2016) survey were adapted to the Hungarian secondary school context.

One set of 16 items targeted teachers' beliefs related to pronunciation teaching in a secondary school environment, e.g., *I think pronunciation teaching is important at a secondary school level*. A second set of 4 items focused on teachers' attitudes regarding such teaching, e.g., *I am confident when teaching pronunciation*. These items used 5-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree.

Likert scales were also used to measure declared frequency of items: first, 15 items explored the construct of how frequently different pronunciation teaching techniques were used, e.g., *Focus on rules: Explicitly teaching English phonetic and phonological rules and showing how they differ from the rules of Hungarian*. Another 15 items probed how often teaching focused on English pronunciation features which are specifically relevant to Hungarian learners of English, e.g., *Word stress e.g., imPORT (verb) – IMport (noun)*. These 30 items also utilised a Likert scale, but the five points represented frequency ranging from never to weekly: 1 = *never*, 2 = *less frequently than every 2-3 months*, 3 = *every 2-3 months*, 4 = *monthly*, 5 = *weekly*. In addition, the questionnaire included an open-ended question, where participants had to type in how frequently they taught pronunciation in general and provide an explanation as to what they
meant by pronunciation teaching. This question was asked at the end of the questionnaire as well to see if their answers had changed.

The questionnaire was administered in May 2023 in an online format, and it took two months to recruit enough participants to be able to validate the questionnaire. The respondents were informed that participation was voluntary and anonymous, and they could opt out at any time. For the quantitative data analysis process, IMB SPSS was used. As a next step, descriptive statistics was used to describe the dataset, and later on, based on the distribution of the data, inferential statistical procedures were run.

# 4. Results

## 4.1 The internal reliability of the constructs (RQ1)

To answer the first research question, the reliability of the scales was checked. Cronbach's alpha values were calculated for each scale to see internal consistency (see Table 1). Dörnyei and Csizér (2012) suggest that the desired Cronbach's alpha level is above 0.7, and in accordance with this, the results showed that the scales had acceptable Cronbach's alpha values except for the pronunciation teaching beliefs. Although the scale measuring attitudes toward pronunciation teaching yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.67, this value was deemed acceptable, as the lower reliability coefficient may have been due to the limited number of items in the scale. However, the scale measuring pronunciation teaching beliefs barely reached the minimum 0.6 Cronbach's alpha value suggested by Dörnyei (2007), therefore, during the analysis, the items were used individually and not as one construct.

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*Reliability Analysis of the Scales*

<table><thead><tr><td>Scales</td><td>Cronbach's alpha</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beliefs</td><td>0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation features</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation teaching techniques</td><td>0.88</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.2 Hungarian secondary-school EFL teachers' pronunciation teaching practices (RQ2)

Qualitative data gathered with the open-ended questions showed that a considerable number of teachers equated pronunciation teaching with teaching vocabulary; teaching a new vocabulary item was mentioned as a form of pronunciation teaching in 20 responses (31.25%). Another frequent occurrence was treating pronunciation teaching as corrective feedback: "If somebody pronounces a word incorrectly, I correct it and ask them to repeat it" (P24). Respondents indicated that they correct their students when necessary, rather than devote time to
pronunciation specifically. These open-ended results are seemingly in line with the most commonly used pronunciation teaching technique the teachers reportedly used (see Table 2).

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*Descriptive Statistics of Pronunciation Teaching Techniques*

<table><thead><tr><td>Pronunciation teaching technique</td><td><em>M</em></td><td><em>SD</em></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>using listen-and-repeat</td><td>3.77</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>teaching an exercise from the coursebook</td><td>3.39</td><td>1.34</td></tr><tr><td>using pair work</td><td>3.06</td><td>1.50</td></tr><tr><td>marking pronunciation in drawing (e.g., underlining the stressed syllable)</td><td>2.91</td><td>1.47</td></tr><tr><td>using the minimal pair technique</td><td>2.89</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>teaching how to read the IPA symbols</td><td>2.39</td><td>1.33</td></tr><tr><td>using a game to practice pronunciation</td><td>2.30</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><td>giving metalinguistic explanations; pointing out the differences between English and Hungarian</td><td>2.20</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>teaching pronunciation by relying on touch (e.g., touching the neck to feel voiced consonants)</td><td>2.13</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><td>using videos</td><td>2.06</td><td>1.18</td></tr><tr><td>using online games for practice</td><td>2.03</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>teaching how to recognise IPA symbols</td><td>1.97</td><td>1.20</td></tr><tr><td>using Jazz Chants</td><td>1.89</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>using movement (e.g., clapping)</td><td>1.77</td><td>1.18</td></tr><tr><td>having the students record themselves</td><td>1.69</td><td>0.87</td></tr></tbody></table>

The participants stated that they most frequently employed the “listen and repeat” technique for pronunciation teaching, once every month. This suggests that they only used ‘listen and repeat’ when correcting errors, because vocabulary items are introduced more often than just every month. The second most commonly used technique was using exercises from a coursebook every two to three months. Interestingly, respondents reported very limited use of IPA symbols in the classroom. The results showed that IPA symbols were used for demonstration purposes less frequently than every two to three months, whereas teaching how to write and use IPA symbols was even rarer.

In terms of pronunciation features (see Table 3), silent letters and the dental fricatives were taught the most often; both features were reported to come up around every month. Among the least frequently taught features were the stress-timed rhythm, the weak pronunciation of grammar words, and aspiration. These features were rarely addressed, less frequently than two to three months.
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

*Descriptive Statistics of Teaching Pronunciation Features*

<table><thead><tr><td>Pronunciation feature</td><td><em>M</em></td><td><em>SD</em></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>silent letters</td><td>4.05</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>the dental fricatives</td><td>3.87</td><td>1.24</td></tr><tr><td>word stress</td><td>3.84</td><td>1.35</td></tr><tr><td>the differences between SSBE (Standard Southern British English) and GA (General American)</td><td>3.55</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>the -ed suffix</td><td>3.53</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>the -s suffix</td><td>3.52</td><td>1.17</td></tr><tr><td>the difference between /w/ and /v/</td><td>3.50</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>the /ŋ/ sound</td><td>3.25</td><td>1.32</td></tr><tr><td>vowel reduction in unstressed syllables</td><td>3.23</td><td>1.49</td></tr><tr><td>syllabic consonants</td><td>3.06</td><td>1.44</td></tr><tr><td>the difference between /əʊ/ and /ɔ:/</td><td>3.03</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>aspiration</td><td>2.83</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>the differences between native accents of English (other than SSBE and GA)</td><td>2.50</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>weak forms of grammar words</td><td>2.39</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td>stressed-time rhythm</td><td>2.36</td><td>1.24</td></tr></tbody></table>

The overall results of these two scales suggest that Hungarian secondary school teachers include pronunciation features every two to three months (M=3.23; SD=0.91), and that they use some teaching techniques only occasionally (M=2.30; SD=0.71).

**4.3 Variables influencing Hungarian teachers' pronunciation teaching practices (RQ3)**

First, to determine which variables might impact on teachers' pronunciation teaching practices, a series of regression analyses were run using the frequency of pronunciation teaching techniques, and then the frequency of teaching pronunciation features as a dependent variable. The 16 items measuring beliefs about pronunciation teaching were initially entered into the model as independent variables. Items that did not exert a statistically significant influence on the dependent variables were subsequently removed one at a time, with the analyses being rerun after each removal.

The results (see Table 4) show that the explanatory power of the first model is somewhat stronger as it accounted for a greater percentage of variance in the case of the pronunciation features (R² = 0.54) Notwithstanding, the second model also accounts for a considerable proportion of the variance (R² = 0.49). The belief that pronunciation teaching is important at a secondary school level had a positive, albeit weak impact on the frequency of pronunciation features addressed in the lessons. Interestingly, the belief that pronunciation teaching can improve the learners' confidence had a moderately positive effect on the various techniques employed during the lessons, but this did not have an impact on the pronunciation features
taught. The similarity between the two models is that the belief that pronunciation can improve on its own had a weak, but negative influence on how frequently teachers taught pronunciation features and used various pronunciation teaching techniques.

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

*Linear Regression Predicting Frequency of Pronunciation Features and Teaching Techniques*

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>R<sup>2</sup></th><th>Importance</th><th>Confidence</th><th>Improve</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pronunciation features</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.36</td><td>n.s.</td><td>-0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation teaching techniques</td><td>0.49</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.40</td><td>-0.23</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Notes.* (p<0.05). Importance = belief that teaching pronunciation is important at a secondary school level; Confidence = belief that pronunciation teaching improves the learners' confidence; Improve = belief that the learners' pronunciation can improve on its own.

**4.4 The effect of training on pronunciation teaching practices (RQ4)**

To determine whether the training teachers received related to pronunciation teaching methodology played a significant role in terms of their practices, independent-samples *t*-tests were run on the construct of pronunciation teaching techniques and pronunciation features. As there was no significant difference between teachers with and without prior education in relation to either the frequency of teaching pronunciation features or the frequency of using pronunciation teaching techniques, the latter construct was examined for possible latent dimensions to see whether the different dimensions would show a significant difference. The 15 items of the scale were subjected to factor analysis.

<caption>**Table 5**</caption>

*Result of the Factor Analysis*

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Pronunciation teaching techniques</th><th colspan="2">Factor loadings</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>reading IPA symbols</td><td>.837</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>writing IPA symbols</td><td>.888</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>teaching rules (metalinguistic explanation)</td><td></td><td>.480</td></tr><tr><td>the minimal pair technique</td><td></td><td>.692</td></tr><tr><td>listen and repeat</td><td></td><td>.467</td></tr><tr><td>drawing</td><td></td><td>.841</td></tr><tr><td>pair work</td><td></td><td>.700</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Notes.* Extraction method: Maximum likelihood; Rotation method: Oblimin. Loadings smaller than 0.45 were removed.
Prior to this, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was verified<fnref n="1" />. The results yielded a two-factor solution, which can be seen in Table 5. Factor 1 presents a dimension that subsumes teaching the IPA symbols, while factor 2 contains teaching techniques other than the use of IPA in the classroom.

The independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare teachers with prior education in pronunciation teaching methodology (n = 28) and teachers without prior education (n = 36). As the results in Table 6 indicate, there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the frequency of pronunciation teaching when it comes to teaching IPA in the classroom, but not in the case of the other pronunciation teaching techniques.

<caption>**Table 6**</caption>

*The Results of the Independent-Samples t-tests*

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">frequency of using other techniques</td><td>with education</td><td>3.20</td><td>0.99</td><td rowspan="2">1.69</td><td rowspan="2">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>without education</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">frequency of teaching IPA</td><td>with education</td><td>2.57</td><td>1.11</td><td rowspan="2">2.30</td><td rowspan="2">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>without education</td><td>1.90</td><td>0.84</td></tr></tbody></table>

**5. Discussion**

The results revealed that Hungarian secondary school teachers indicate that they did not address pronunciation often during lessons, and whenever they did devote time to pronunciation teaching, it was to teach vocabulary items. Dealing with pronunciation only when teaching a new vocabulary item is not sufficient on its own; pronunciation should be considered as worthy of being taught, just like other language aspects, e.g., grammar.

In terms of teaching techniques, “listen and repeat” and coursebook exercises were selected as among the most frequently used techniques, showing the same tendency as in other geographical contexts (see Jafari et al., 2021; Szyszka 2016). Furthermore, the extensive use of listen-and-repeat” is not surprising, as a considerable number of the participants considered vocabulary teaching or mere corrective feedback to constitute explicit pronunciation teaching.

Respondents selected silent letters as the most commonly addressed pronunciation feature. This may be linked to pronunciation being included in the lessons whenever the pronunciation of a vocabulary item seemed problematic. While it is possible to teach the appearance of silent letters as a system, it is highly unlikely that teachers devoted time to demonstrate the pattern to their students. Based on the qualitative answers, teachers probably addressed this feature whenever it caused an issue related to a single vocabulary item. The other pronunciation feature with the highest frequency of teaching was the dental fricatives. This finding leads to an

<footnote n="1">¹ The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.73, which exceeded the 0.60 recommended minimal value (George & Maller, 2019); the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity proved to be statistically significant ($X^2$ = 138.70, *p* < 0.001), which further demonstrated that the data was sufficient for the analysis. Then, factor analysis was performed using maximal likelihood and Direct oblimin rotation as it was assumed that the results would correlate.</footnote>
interesting discrepancy between the theoretical underpinnings of pronunciation teaching and
sactual practices, which indicates that the participants' teaching practices might not have been
informed by pronunciation teaching theory. As it has been established that pronouncing the
dental fricatives does not influence intelligibility (Jenkins, 2000), it might be unnecessary to
focus on teaching them. It may nevertheless be valuable to identify and target specific
pronunciation features that present persistent challenges for Hungarian learners (e.g., word
stress) and whose improvement could further enhance overall intelligibility.

In relation to the different variables which might influence teachers’ pronunciation teaching practices, it was found that the belief that pronunciation improves on its own negatively impacts the frequency of teaching. Along these lines, the belief that pronunciation should be taught in secondary education and that it improves the students’ confidence had a positive impact on the frequency of inclusion. These findings undeniably highlight the need for well-designed pronunciation teaching methodology courses in teacher education, since only training can provide insight to teachers that can equip them with the necessary knowledge to inform their practices (Borg, 2011).

The important role of teacher education in influencing teachers’ practices was also evident
as there was a difference between teachers who had a course on pronunciation teaching and
teachers who did not. As could be seen above (Table 6), there was a significant difference in
terms of teaching IPA symbols, which was expected, since using the IPA symbols to adequately
provide metalinguistic explanations might be difficult for untrained teachers. All of these results
point to the same tendency observed in contexts outside Hungary: teacher education plays a
pivotal role in later pronunciation inclusion (see Henderson et al., 2012; Shah et al., 2017).

**6. Implications**

The findings of this study underscore several important pedagogical implications for
pronunciation instruction in Hungarian secondary education. First, the limited nature of
pronunciation teaching (typically tied to vocabulary instruction) suggests a need to move
beyond this approach. Pronunciation should be taught systematically in the same manner as
other language skills, and not merely addressed when individual lexical items are problematic
or when introducing new vocabulary items. Second, the results of this study point to the
importance of teacher education in pronunciation teaching methodology. More than half of the
teachers indicated that they had not received formal instruction in this area. Therefore, there is
a pressing need for pronunciation teaching methodology courses in pre-service and in-service
teacher education in Hungary. If this came to pass, and teachers had adequate theoretical
knowledge of why and how to integrate pronunciation effectively into their classroom practice,
their beliefs might change and they might promote pronunciation in their classrooms just like
any other language skill.

**Acknowledgements**

The research has been supported by the EKÖP-24 University Excellence Scholarship Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation from the Source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. This study was also conducted in the frame of project no. PPKE-BTK-KUT-23-2, supported by the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of Pázmány Péter Catholic University.
References

Bai, B., & Yuan, R. (2019). EFL teachers' beliefs and practices about pronunciation teaching. *ELT Journal*, 73(2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy040

Baker, A. (2011). ESL teachers and pronunciation pedagogy: Exploring the development of teachers' cognitions and classroom practices. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 2nd pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference* (pp. 82–94). Iowa State University. https://apling.engl.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/221/2015/05/PSLLT_2nd_Proceedings_2010.pdf

Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of second language pronunciation techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student perceptions. *TESOL Quarterly*, 48(1), 136–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.99

Baran-Łucarz, M. (2017). FL pronunciation anxiety and motivation: Results of a mixed-method study. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. Szymańska-Czaplak & M. Szyszka (Eds.), *At the Crossroads: Challenges of Foreign Language Learning* (pp. 107–133). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55155-5_7

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. *Language Teaching*, 36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903

Borg, S. (2005). Teacher cognition on language teaching. In K. Johnson (Ed.), *Expertise in second language learning and teaching* (pp. 190–209). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523470_10

Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. *System*, 39(3), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009

Buss, L. (2016). Beliefs and practices of Brazilian EFL teachers regarding pronunciation. *Language Teaching Research*, 20(5), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815574145

Dörnyei Z. (2007). *Research methods in applied linguistics*. Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), *Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide* (pp. 74–94). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347340.ch5

Georgiou, G. P. (2019). EFL teachers' cognitions about pronunciation in Cyprus. *Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development*, 40(6), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1539090

Gilbert, J. (1995). Pronunciation practice as an aid to listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), *A guide for the teaching of second language listening* (pp. 97–102). Dominie Press.

Gyurka, N. (2022). Pronunciation activities in the EFL classroom: Important or useless? In K. Heller & I. Steiner (Eds.), *Under the umbrella of applied linguistics* (pp. 200–214). ELTE BTK Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti és Fonetikai Tanszék. [original title: Kiejtésfeladatok a középiskolai angol nyelvórán: fontos vagy felesleges? In K. Heller & I. Steiner (Eds.), *Az alkalmazott nyelvészet esernyője alatt* (pp. 200–214). ELTE BTK Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti és Fonetikai Tanszék.] https://www.eltereader.hu/media/2022/10/alknyelv-2021-22_jav.pdf

Gyurka, N., & Piukovics, Á. (2023). Tailoring international activities for Hungarian learners of English. *Research in Language*, 21(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.21.3.06

Henderson, A., Frost, D., Tergujeff, E., Kautzsch, A., Murphy, D., Kirakova-Naskova, A., Waniek-Klimczak, E., Levey, D., Cunningham, U., & Curnick, L. (2012). The English pronunciation teaching in Europe survey: Selected results. *Research in Language*, 10(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0047-4

Jafari, S., Karimi, M. R., & Jafari, S. (2021). Beliefs and practices of EFL instructors in teaching pronunciation. *Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning*, 10(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.21580/vjv11i110812

Jenkins, J. (2000). *The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals*. Oxford University Press.

Kelly, L. G. (1969). *25 centuries of language teaching*. Newbury House Publishers.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. *TESOL Quarterly*, *39*(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485

Levis, J. M. (2018). *Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108241564

Murphy, J. M., & Baker, A. A. (2015). History of ESL pronunciation teaching. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), *The handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 36–65). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch3

Nagle, C., Sachs, R., & Zárate-Sánchez, G. (2018). Exploring the intersection between teachers’ beliefs and research findings in pronunciation instruction. *The Modern Language Journal*, *102*(3), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12493

Nunan, D., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1995). *New ways in teaching listening* (2nd ed.). TESOL.

Pennington, M. C. (2021). Teaching pronunciation: The state of the art 2021. *RELC Journal*, *52*(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211002283

Piukovics, Á. (2016). The changing role of the IPA in the EFL classroom. In A. Á, Reményi, Cs. Sárdi, & Zs. Tóth (Eds.), *Perspectives in contemporary Hungarian applied linguistics* (pp. 155–164). Tinta Könyvkiadó. [original title: The changing role of the IPA in the EFL classroom. In A. Á, Reményi, Cs. Sárdi, & Zs. Tóth (Eds.), *Távlatok a mai magyar alkalmazott nyelvészetben* (pp. 155–164). Tinta Könyvkiadó.]

Quoc, T. X., Thanh, V. Q., Dang, T. D. M., Mai, N. D. N., & Nguyen, P. N. K. (2021). Teachers’ perspectives and practices in teaching English pronunciation at Menglish Center. *International Journal of TESOL & Education*, *1*(2), 158–175. https://i-jte.org/index.php/journal/article/view/62

Shah, S. S. A., Othman, J., & Senom, F. (2017). The pronunciation component in ESL lessons: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. *Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics*, *6*(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4844

Sifakis, N. C., & Sougari, A. (2005). Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. *TESOL Quarterly*, *39*(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588490

Szyszka, M. (2016). English pronunciation teaching at different educational levels: Insights into teachers’ perceptions and actions. *Research in Language*, *14*(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0007

Zheng, H. (2015). Teacher beliefs as a complex system: English language teachers in China. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23009-2

# Appendix

## *Study questionnaire*

### Part 1. The frequency of pronunciation teaching in general

*How often do you teach pronunciation in your lessons?*

1 – never

2 – less frequently than every 2-3 months

3 – every 2-3 months

4 – weekly

5 – almost every single lesson

*Can you explain in a few sentences why?*
**Part 2. Beliefs about pronunciation teaching**

Below you will find statements about pronunciation teaching. Please indicate your level of
agreement on a scale of 1 to 5.

1 – completely disagree; 5 – completely agree

1. Teaching pronunciation is important at secondary school level.

2. Pronunciation should be taught to beginners.

3. The language learner's age influences the effectiveness of pronunciation teaching.

4. English spoken with a strong Hungarian accent leads to discrimination abroad.

5. The aim of pronunciation teaching at secondary school level is to eliminate the Hungarian accent.

6. The aim of pronunciation teaching at secondary school level is to make the learner's accent intelligible.

7. The best teacher for teaching pronunciation is a native speaker.

8. When teaching pronunciation, teachers should point out the differences between the sound systems of English and Hungarian.

9. Pronunciation is best taught by explaining rules.

10. Students' pronunciation improves spontaneously with language use.

11. Spending at least six months in the target language country helps improve the learner's pronunciation.

12. Explicit pronunciation instruction helps improve pronunciation.

13. My students like it when I correct their pronunciation.

14. I think my students would like to change their pronunciation.

15. Teaching pronunciation gives students confidence when using the language.

16. Knowing the pronunciation of words improves the learners' listening comprehension.

**Part 3. Attitudes related to pronunciation teaching**

The following are statements related to your experience when teaching pronunciation. Please also indicate here how much you agree with them on a scale of 1 to 5.

1 – completely disagree; 5 – completely agree

1. I enjoy teaching pronunciation.

2. I am confident when teaching pronunciation.

3. Teaching pronunciation is difficult.

4. It is exhausting to teach pronunciation.

**Part 4. Pronunciation features**

How often do you teach the following features? Consider all your groups regardless of level and age.

1 – never, 2 – less frequently than every 2-3 months, 3 – every 2-3 months,

4 – monthly, 5 – weekly
1. “th” sounds, e.g., *thanks, mother*

2. the difference between *wet* and *yet*

3. the difference between *boat* and *bought*

4. in words ending in -ng, there is no pronounced 'g', e.g., *sing*

5. the three-way pronunciation of the -ed suffix, e.g., *loo'kt' - clea'nd' - nee'id*

6. the three-way pronunciation of the -s suffix, e.g., *ca'tsz' - do'gz' - bus'iz*<fnref n="2" />

7. word stress, e.g., *poLICE, parTicular*

8. silent letters, e.g., *debt, pneumonia, gnome, write*

9. pronouncing a short 'h' after 'p', 't', 'k', e.g., *pʰ ie, tʰ ap, kʰ ite*

10. the pronunciation of -ism at the end of words, e.g., *tourism* pronounced 'turizöm' and not 'turizmö'<fnref n="3" />

11. the pronunciation of grammar words with an ö-like sound, e.g., the sentence *There was a boy* sounds like 'dö vöz ö'

12. unstressed syllables, e.g., *pencil, lemon* sound like 'penszöl', 'lemön', respectively

13. rhythm, e.g., pronouncing the sentence *'Bob died'* takes the same amount of time as *'Bob could have died'*

14. the difference between British and American accents

15. differences between other accents, e.g. Canadian, Australian, North of England, etc.

**Part 5. Pronunciation teaching techniques**

*How often do you use the following techniques? Consider all your groups regardless of level and age.*

1. never, 2. less frequently than every 2-3 months, 3. every 2-3 months,

4. monthly, 5. weekly

1. Completing the pronunciation tasks in the coursebook.

2. Teaching how to recognise phonetic symbols.

3. Learning how to write phonetic symbols.

4. Students listen to the teacher or a recording and then repeat the utterance/word, trying to imitate it as accurately as possible.

5. Practising the difference between words which only differ in one sound, e.g., *bed* - *bad, bought - boat, wet - vet, etc.*

6. Marking pronunciation in a text, e.g., marking stress, drawing intonation arrows, etc.

7. Teaching pronunciation by feeling, e.g., touching the neck with a hand while pronouncing voiced and voiceless sounds

8. Teaching pronunciation through movement, e.g., clapping, head bobbing, etc.

9. Using pronunciation teaching videos in class.

10. Using classroom games focusing on pronunciation.

11. Teaching pronunciation using online games.

12. Practising in pairs or groups with dialogue or role-play, with particular attention to pronunciation.

13. Explaining English pronunciation rules and comparing them with Hungarian.

<footnote n="2">² Hungarian orthography was used to represent the endings (/s/, /z/, and /ız/) for easier understanding.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Hungarians often equate the sound /ø/ (represented with <ö> in spelling) with the schwa, which is why this item was formulated as is.</footnote>
14. Using Jazz Chants for rhythmic practice.

15. Learners record their pronunciation and listen to it.

**Part 6. The frequency of pronunciation teaching in general (again)**

I would like to ask you the very first question again. Please answer how often you usually teach pronunciation and if you think your opinion has changed, please describe why.

1 – never

2 – less frequently than every 2-3 months

3 – every 2-3 months

4 – weekly

5 – almost every single lesson

Can you explain in a few sentences why?

**About the author**

Noémi Gyurka is Assistant Lecturer at Pázmány Péter Catholic University (PPCU). She holds an MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Teaching Hungarian Language and Literature as a First Language (PPCU, 2022). She is doing her PhD in Language Pedagogy and English Applied Linguistics at Eötvös Loránd University. Her research interests are pronunciation teaching and pronunciation integration in the Hungarian English as a foreign language classroom. She has been working at PPCU since 2022, as a full-time lecturer since September 2024.

Email: gyurka.noemi@btk.ppke.hu