Pronunciation Instruction as Pedagogical Decision Making in Multilingual European EFL Classrooms

2.1. Pronunciation Instruction in Multilingual EFL Contexts

Pronunciation instruction has long been recognized as an important component of communicative competence in English language teaching (Derwing & Munro, 2015), yet teachers across EFL contexts frequently report limited preparation, lack of confidence, and difficulty implementing systematic pronunciation pedagogy (Foote et al., 2011). These challenges are particularly pronounced in multilingual educational settings, where teachers must respond to diverse learner linguistic repertoires, varied pronunciation goals, and heterogeneous classroom needs. In linguistically diverse European contexts, multilingual classrooms have become increasingly common due to migration, mobility, and educational policy, intensifying the complexity of pronunciation instruction and the demands placed on teachers. In European EFL contexts, multilingualism often emerges not from English as the dominant societal language, but from increasing mobility and migration within non-English-speaking countries, creating classroom ecologies that differ fundamentally from traditional ESL settings.

Although a substantial body of research has examined pronunciation instruction in English-dominant English as a second language (ESL) contexts such as Canada and the United Kingdom (Bradford & Kenworthy, 1991; Foote et al., 2011), comparatively fewer studies have focused on pronunciation pedagogy in non-English-dominant EFL settings. This distinction is significant because EFL contexts differ structurally from ESL contexts in terms of exposure opportunities, institutional goals, and sociolinguistic positioning of English. In addition to European contexts, pronunciation teaching in EFL environments has been examined in various Asian settings, including Turkey (Yagiz, 2018), Saudi Arabia (Algethami & Alsofyani, 2017; Altoeriqi, 2020), Vietnam (Newton & Nguyen, 2020), and Thailand (Jindapitak, 2014). These studies highlight recurring concerns regarding limited training, teacher confidence, and curricular marginalization of pronunciation. However, much of this work has focused on nationally homogeneous EFL systems rather than linguistically diverse classroom ecologies shaped by migration and mobility within Europe.

Consequently, considerably less attention has been given to how pronunciation is taught in multilingual European EFL classrooms. Existing studies have focused predominantly on learners’ pronunciation acquisition and outcomes (Calvo Benzies, 2016; Smakman & de France, 2015; Gabriel & Thiele, 2017). Although a growing body of research in EFL contexts such as Brazil (Buss, 2016) and Spain (Quesada Vázquez, 2024) has examined teachers’ beliefs and reported practices regarding pronunciation, fewer studies have investigated how teachers’ pronunciation-related decision making unfolds within multilingual classroom ecologies and under specific curricular constraints.

2.2. Teacher Cognition and Pronunciation Pedagogy

Teacher cognition provides a useful lens for examining pronunciation instruction in multilingual contexts. Teacher cognition encompasses the beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, assumptions, and decision-making processes that shape instructional behavior (Borg, 2003, 2015). From this perspective, teaching practices cannot be understood solely through observable classroom actions but must be examined in relation to teachers’ experiences, professional preparation, and classroom contexts. Pronunciation instruction is particularly sensitive to these cognitive dimensions because it involves decisions about instructional priorities, feedback strategies, and pedagogical focus.

Teachers’ declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge develop through teacher education, classroom experience, and personal language learning trajectories. When pronunciation pedagogy receives limited emphasis in teacher preparation programs, teachers often report insufficient training (Buss, 2016; Foote et al., 2011) and tend to rely on reactive, textbook-driven, or repetition-based techniques rather than systematic, research-informed approaches (Buss, 2016). Research consistently shows that EFL teachers often complete pre-service or in-service education with limited practical preparation for teaching pronunciation (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Newton & Nguyen, 2020; Yagiz, 2018). Coursework is frequently described as theoretical, with few opportunities to practice instructional techniques, receive feedback, or develop classroom-oriented pedagogical content knowledge (Henderson et al., 2012). As Murphy (2017) argues, pedagogical content knowledge for pronunciation develops through guided practice, contextualized modeling, and structured opportunities for reflective feedback that link phonological theory to classroom implementation.

2.3. Instructional Constraints in Pronunciation Teaching

Beyond training limitations, pronunciation instruction presents a range of pedagogical challenges that are intensified in multilingual classrooms. Learners’ L1 influence has been widely identified as one of the most persistent challenges for pronunciation teaching (Bardakci, 2015; Grandyna, 2018; Calvo Benzies, 2016). Predictable patterns of phonological transfer can result in segmental and suprasegmental difficulties that require targeted instructional responses. Teachers without strong phonological and diagnostic expertise may struggle to identify the sources of these difficulties or to design effective instructional interventions.

Structural constraints related to curriculum, materials, and time also play a central role in shaping pronunciation instruction. In many EFL contexts, pronunciation is marginalized in syllabi, underrepresented in textbooks, or treated as an optional component rather than an integral part of communicative competence (Georgiou, 2019; Derwing & Munro, 2015). Teachers frequently report a lack of suitable pronunciation materials, requiring additional preparation time and personal resource development (Algethami & Alsofyani, 2017). Time pressure is particularly acute, as teachers are often expected to cover extensive curricular content within limited instructional periods (Batool et al., 2021; Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2016; Newton & Nguyen, 2020).

2.4. Multilingual Classrooms and Pedagogical Complexity

Multilingual classrooms intensify these cognitive and pedagogical dynamics. Teachers working with learners from multiple linguistic backgrounds must manage diverse phonological systems, varying levels of metalinguistic awareness, and heterogeneous pronunciation goals. While some research suggests that multilingual learners may demonstrate heightened metalinguistic awareness that supports pronunciation development (Haukås, 2016), other studies emphasize the increased planning, differentiation, and diagnostic demands placed on teachers in linguistically diverse classrooms (Eurostat, 2023; Eurydice, 2023). Pronunciation instruction in such contexts therefore involves adapting instructional decisions to diverse learner needs and contextual constraints.

2.5. Pronunciation Instruction as Pedagogical Decision Making

Across the literature, recurring challenges include insufficient teacher preparation, curriculum and material limitations, time pressure, L1 influence, and diverse learner needs. These factors suggest that pronunciation teaching involves ongoing pedagogical decision making. Teachers must determine when to address pronunciation, which features to prioritize, how to adapt instruction to diverse learner profiles, and how to balance pronunciation with other curricular demands. This perspective aligns with broader discussions of teacher agency, which emphasize teachers’ capacity to make contextually responsive instructional choices within structural constraints. In multilingual classrooms, such decision making becomes particularly complex due to competing demands and heterogeneous learner needs.

The present study addresses this gap by examining how EFL teachers working across diverse European contexts understand and enact pronunciation instruction. Grounded in teacher cognition theory, the study explores teachers’ training experiences, instructional challenges, and pedagogical strategies that shape pronunciation-related instructional decision making. By situating pronunciation instruction within multilingual classroom contexts, the study contributes to understanding how teachers navigate linguistic diversity through context-sensitive instructional decisions.

3.1. Research Design

This study employed an exploratory mixed-methods research design to investigate how EFL teachers working across diverse European contexts conceptualize and enact pronunciation instruction in multilingual classroom settings. Mixed-methods approaches integrate quantitative and qualitative data to support a more comprehensive understanding of complex educational phenomena (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). An exploratory design was selected to map broad patterns in teachers’ experiences while also examining how teachers interpret and respond to multilingual instructional demands in practice.

Quantitative survey data were used to identify patterns related to teacher training, instructional challenges, pronunciation teaching practices, and experiences in multilingual classrooms. Qualitative interview data were then used to explore teachers’ reasoning, beliefs, and instructional decision-making processes in greater depth. This design aligns with research on language teacher cognition, which emphasizes the importance of examining teachers’ beliefs and practices through multiple sources of evidence to capture the complexity of instructional decision making (Borg, 2015).

3.2. Participants

Forty-three EFL teachers completed the online survey. Eight teachers participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews, four of whom had also completed the survey, resulting in a total of 47 unique participants. Four additional interview participants who did not complete the survey were included to increase contextual diversity and to capture perspectives from teachers working in settings not fully represented in the survey sample. These participants were incorporated to deepen qualitative insight into pronunciation-related instructional decision making rather than to support direct comparison with survey responses. They did not complete the survey because they were recruited independently during the interview phase and entered the study directly at that stage. Survey participants were employed across 22 European countries. The largest representations were from Germany (n = 6) and Poland (n = 6), followed by the Czech Republic (n = 5) and Greece (n = 4). Austria, Spain, and Turkey each accounted for two participants, while Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Ukraine were each represented by one participant.

Participants taught English across primary, secondary, and adult education settings and worked with learners ranging from beginner (A1) to advanced (C2). Participants were not required to teach in multilingual classrooms. Rather, multilingual classroom composition was examined as a contextual variable. Of the 43 participants, 30 reported teaching in linguistically diverse (multilingual) classrooms, while 13 reported teaching in relatively linguistically homogeneous settings. Table 1 summarizes key demographic and professional characteristics of the survey sample, including geographic distribution, classroom composition, proficiency levels taught, and pronunciation-related preparation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics (Survey Sample, N = 43).

Characteristic	n	%
Teaching context
Multilingual classroom	30	69.8
Linguistically homogeneous classroom	13	30.2
CEFR levels taught
A1 (Beginner)	29	67.4
A2 (Elementary)	24	55.8
B1 (Intermediate)	22	51.2
B2 (Upper-intermediate)	24	55.8
C1 (Advanced)	17	39.5
C2 (Proficient)	14	32.6
Pronunciation coursework
At least one course	36	83.7
No coursework	7	16.3
Highest degree
Bachelor’s degree	13	30.2
Master’s degree	28	65.1
Other (high school/associate/doctoral)	2	4.7
Geographic distribution
Countries represented	22	—

Table 2 presents the distribution of participants based on their level of participation in the study. Survey data (N = 43) were used for descriptive quantitative analysis, while interview data (N = 8) provided qualitative insight into teachers’ instructional decision making. Four participants contributed to both data sources, enabling partial triangulation across methods. Because participation was voluntary and recruitment occurred through multiple channels, the groups are not evenly balanced and were not intended for direct comparison.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Participant Structure by Data Source.

Participation type	n	Description
Survey only	39	Completed questionnaire only
Interview only	4	Participated in interview but did not complete survey
Survey + interview	4	Completed both survey and interview
Total unique participants	47	—

3.3. Instruments

3.4. Procedures

The survey link was disseminated through professional networks and social media groups targeting EFL teachers working in European contexts. Survey respondents were invited to indicate interest in participating in a follow-up interview at the end of the survey. Additional interview participants were recruited through public calls posted on professional online platforms, including European EFL teacher Facebook groups and LinkedIn networks. The recruitment message briefly described the study’s focus on pronunciation instruction in multilingual European classrooms and invited currently practicing EFL teachers in Europe to volunteer for a 30–45 minute online interview conducted via Zoom. This recruitment strategy aimed to obtain a diverse sample of teachers working across different European EFL contexts. Interviews were scheduled at times convenient for participants and conducted via online video conferencing. Participants were informed of the study’s aims, confidentiality procedures, and voluntary nature, and informed consent was obtained prior to participation.

Interview-only participants were recruited through separate professional networks and public calls. Because recruitment occurred through multiple channels and participation was voluntary, not all interview participants completed the survey. In addition, survey participation and interview participation were not linked procedurally, and some participants entered the study directly at the interview stage. Their inclusion reflects the study’s exploratory design and emphasis on capturing a range of teaching contexts rather than constructing matched samples.

3.5. Data Analysis

Survey data were analyzed descriptively to identify patterns in teacher preparation, beliefs about pronunciation, pronunciation teaching practices, instructional challenges, and technique use. Frequencies were calculated for all closed-ended items and are reported as counts to support descriptive interpretation. Open-ended survey responses were analyzed thematically to identify recurring themes related to pronunciation challenges, instructional strategies, and multilingual classroom influences.

Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Codes were developed to capture dimensions of teacher cognition relevant to pronunciation instruction, including beliefs about pronunciation, perceived adequacy of training, L1-related concerns, instructional decision making, and contextual factors associated with multilingual classrooms. Themes identified in the qualitative analysis were compared with quantitative survey patterns to support analytic triangulation across data sources.

Given the exploratory mixed-methods design, the analysis focused on descriptive patterns rather than inferential statistical comparisons. The sample size and uneven distribution across countries did not support statistical testing of group differences, and findings should therefore be interpreted as indicative rather than generalizable. The researcher-designed questionnaire was intended to capture context-specific aspects of pronunciation teaching in multilingual European EFL classrooms. In addition, multilingual and multicultural classroom contexts were combined in a single survey item, which limited the ability to distinguish between linguistic and cultural diversity. These methodological considerations align with the exploratory aims of the study while also representing limitations for interpretation.

4.1. Teacher Preparation and Instructional Readiness

Survey findings revealed substantial variation in teachers’ formal preparation for pronunciation pedagogy. Of the 43 participants, 15 reported completing only one course related to phonology or pronunciation pedagogy, while seven reported receiving no formal training at all. Eighteen teachers reported completing two or three related courses, and only three indicated having completed more than four courses in phonology or pronunciation pedagogy. Although participants represented 22 European countries, the small number of teachers per country precluded meaningful country-level comparisons. These distributions are presented in Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Number of Pronunciation or Phonology Courses Completed by Participants (N = 43).

Courses completed	n
0	7
1	15
2–3	18
4+	3

Consistent with these distributions, 23 participants indicated that their teacher training had not prepared them effectively to teach pronunciation, while 9 expressed uncertainties about the adequacy of their preparation. In this study, teacher training referred to participants’ self-reported formal preparation related to pronunciation teaching, which may have included pre-service university coursework as well as subsequent professional development.

Interview data described similar experiences. Teachers frequently characterized their preparation as theoretical rather than practice-oriented and reported limited exposure to classroom-ready pronunciation pedagogy (Table 4). Several teachers reported developing instructional approaches independently, often through online resources, professional workshops, or study-abroad experiences. One teacher described this distinction between pronunciation knowledge and instructional preparation:

“There was only a phonology class, and it helped me pronounce better but not teach effectively.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Perceived Effectiveness of Teacher Training in Pronunciation (N = 43).

Response category	n	%
Strongly agree	4	9%
Somewhat agree	16	37%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	28%
Somewhat disagree	8	19%
Strongly disagree	3	7%

4.2. Pronunciation Confidence and L1 Influence

Teachers’ self-perceived pronunciation confidence varied considerably. Thirteen participants reported consistently feeling confident in their English pronunciation, while the remaining teachers described periodic uncertainty or difficulty. Given the relatively small number of participants per L1 group, systematic comparisons across linguistic backgrounds were not conducted. Eighteen teachers indicated experiencing pronunciation-related anxiety at least occasionally. Although none reported persistent lack of confidence, few described themselves as uniformly confident across teaching situations.

L1 influence was frequently reported. Thirty-two participants indicated that their mother tongue affected their English pronunciation to some extent. Interview accounts described phonological contrasts that teachers reported as challenging, including interdental fricatives, vowel contrasts, and prosodic features. Some teachers described adjusting rhythm and intonation patterns associated with their L1. One teacher stated:

“The ‘th’ sound is difficult for us because we don’t have such a sound in our language.”

Teachers also described connections between their own pronunciation experiences and their instructional practices. Some participants reported being cautious when modeling pronunciation or providing corrective feedback, while others described using shared linguistic backgrounds with learners to anticipate pronunciation difficulties.

4.3. Instructional Challenges and Structural Constraints

Across the survey, pronunciation was widely perceived as a challenging area of instruction. Twenty-nine participants described pronunciation as difficult to teach, while seven characterized it as both time consuming and unengaging. Ten participants reported experiencing little difficulty teaching pronunciation.

Participants reported multiple sources of difficulty. Learners’ L1 influence was the most frequently reported challenge, with 42 participants rating it as at least moderately difficult. Lack of teacher training and lack of appropriate instructional materials were each identified as challenging by 40 participants. Additional constraints included limited curriculum or syllabus support, reported by 34 teachers, and insufficient instructional time, reported by 32 teachers. These distributions are summarized in Table 5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Most Challenging Aspects of Pronunciation Teaching Reported by Participants (N = 43).

Challenge	n reporting moderate to extreme difficulty
Learners’ L1 influence	42
Lack of teacher training	40
Lack of instructional materials	40
Limited curriculum or syllabus support	34
Insufficient instructional time	32
Lack of instructional support or motivation	25

Interview data reflected similar observations. Teachers described curricular pressures that limited opportunities for sustained pronunciation instruction and noted that textbooks often prioritized grammar and vocabulary with minimal attention to pronunciation. Several teachers reported that pronunciation was rarely mandated in institutional guidelines and was often treated as optional. Teachers with limited training described difficulty addressing these constraints, particularly in multilingual classrooms where differentiated support was required.

These findings describe institutional and structural factors reported by participants in relation to pronunciation instruction.

4.4. Instructional Techniques as Responses to Constraint

Teachers reported using a wide range of pronunciation teaching techniques. Thirty-nine participants reported using listen-and-repeat activities, and 38 reported using games, songs, chants, or tongue twisters. Because participants reported student language proficiency rather than school level, the educational context (e.g., primary vs. secondary) cannot be determined. The sample included teachers working with learners across proficiency levels, including A1 and A2. By contrast, fewer than 10 participants reported regularly using IPA transcription or dictionary-based pronunciation activities. These distributions are presented in Table 6.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Reported Pronunciation Teaching Techniques (Select All That Apply) (N = 43).

Technique	n
Listen and repeat	39
Games, songs, tongue twisters, poems, chants	38
Reading aloud	31
Realia	23
Websites or mobile applications	18
Mirror technique (articulation)	18
Pictures, diagrams, or slides	16
Shadowing	11
Dictionaries	9
IPA transcription	7

Interview data described variation in instructional choices across learner age, proficiency level, and classroom context. In open-ended responses, some participants who identified working with young learners described rhythm-based and playful activities to support engagement and sound awareness. Others who referenced adult learners reported relying more heavily on structured repetition and explicit modeling. Several interviewees, including two who worked with young learners and one who worked with adult learners, described using mirror techniques or exaggerated articulation when teaching sounds that differed from learners’ L1s.

These findings describe variation in instructional techniques reported across different classroom contexts.

4.5. Multilingual Classroom Contexts and Instructional Complexity

Of the 43 participants, 30 reported teaching in multilingual classrooms, while 13 indicated that their classrooms were linguistically more homogeneous. The following analysis focuses on the 30 teachers working in multilingual settings. Among these teachers, 16 indicated that linguistic diversity influenced their pronunciation instruction, 5 reported that it did not, and 9 expressed uncertainty. These distributions are presented in Table 7.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Perceived Influence of Multilingual/Multicultural Classroom Context on Pronunciation Teaching (N = 30).

Response category	n	%
Strongly agree	9	20%
Somewhat agree	15	34%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	29%
Somewhat disagree	1	3%
Strongly disagree	6	14%

Teachers who perceived multilingual classrooms as challenging described the need to design differentiated activities for learners with distinct L1 backgrounds and phonological profiles. By contrast, teachers who reported fewer challenges often taught in contexts where learners shared a dominant L1, which they described as resulting in more predictable pronunciation patterns. One participant stated:

“Students come from different language backgrounds, and each group has different pronunciation problems.”

Survey data further indicated that 26 participants perceived pronunciation instruction as more predictable and manageable in classrooms where learners shared the same L1. Interview data reflected similar descriptions, with teachers explaining that shared linguistic backgrounds facilitated instructional planning and enabled more targeted feedback.

These findings describe teachers’ reported experiences in multilingual and linguistically homogeneous classroom contexts.

5.1. Training and Beliefs in Pronunciation Instruction

Addressing Research Question 1, the findings indicate that pronunciation instruction is shaped by the interaction between teachers’ formal training experiences and their beliefs about pronunciation, including self-perceived competence and L1 influence. These dimensions are analytically distinct: while training refers to formal preparation in pronunciation pedagogy, beliefs reflect teachers’ self-perceptions, prior linguistic experiences, and assumptions about pronunciation and its role in instruction, consistent with teacher cognition frameworks (Borg, 2003, 2015).

Across the dataset, teachers frequently reported a gap between formal preparation in pronunciation pedagogy and the instructional demands encountered in classroom contexts. Although 36 participants reported completing at least one course in phonology or pronunciation, these experiences were often described as theoretical rather than practice-oriented. Teachers reported limited opportunities to rehearse pronunciation instruction, observe model lessons, or receive feedback on classroom-based pedagogical decisions. This pattern aligns with prior research suggesting that pronunciation is often treated as an abstract linguistic domain rather than as a classroom-oriented pedagogical practice (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Georgiou, 2019). As a result, teachers described relying on self-directed professional development, experimenting with instructional techniques, drawing on online resources, or modeling their practice on perceived native-speaker norms. Newton and Nguyen’s (2020) notion of autonomous professionalization is relevant in this context, as teachers reported developing instructional competence independently in the absence of systematic institutional support.

From a teacher cognition perspective, limited preparation has implications for instructional decision making. As Murphy (2017) argues, pedagogical content knowledge for pronunciation develops through guided practice, contextualized modeling, and reflective feedback. In the absence of such preparation, teachers may develop declarative phonological knowledge without the procedural expertise required to adapt instruction to classroom conditions. These findings indicate that training alone does not sufficiently account for how teachers approach pronunciation instruction in practice.

In addition to formal preparation, teachers’ beliefs about their own pronunciation competence and perceived L1 influence emerged as important factors shaping instructional decision making. Although many teachers expressed general confidence, nearly three-quarters acknowledged that their L1 influenced their English pronunciation. For some participants, this influence was associated with hesitation when modeling pronunciation or providing corrective feedback, consistent with findings from Bardakci (2015), and Altoeriqi (2020). At the same time, several participants described using their own L1 experience as a resource for anticipating learner difficulties, suggesting that perceived limitations may also function as pedagogical assets.

Participants also described differing views regarding pronunciation norms. Some teachers reported engaging in study-abroad experiences to improve their pronunciation, suggesting that native-speaker models continued to inform professional self-perceptions. At the same time, others emphasized that shared linguistic backgrounds with learners facilitated anticipation of pronunciation difficulties, aligning with Jindapitak’s (2014) argument that non-native teachers may draw on shared linguistic experience in instruction. Some participants emphasized intelligibility over native-like accuracy, reflecting contemporary pronunciation frameworks. However, endorsement of intelligibility did not consistently correspond to instructional confidence, particularly in multilingual classrooms where variability in learner needs was greater.

Overall, these findings suggest that pronunciation-related instructional decisions are shaped not only by formal training but also by teachers’ beliefs, self-perceived competence, and prior linguistic experiences. From a teacher cognition perspective (Borg, 2003, 2015), pronunciation instruction emerges as a site where knowledge, beliefs, and contextual factors interact, particularly in the absence of sustained, practice-oriented preparation.

5.2. Contextual Constraints and Instructional Decision Making

Addressing RQ2, which examined institutional and classroom factors influencing pronunciation-related instructional decision making, the findings indicate that pronunciation instruction is shaped by multiple interacting constraints, including L1-related phonological challenges, curricular and material limitations, instructional time pressure, and classroom linguistic composition.

Learners’ L1 influence was frequently described as a central challenge, consistent with research on cross-linguistic phonological transfer (Syed & Hussein Abdelrady, 2022; Grandyna, 2018; Kralova & Mala, 2018). Teachers reported segmental and suprasegmental difficulties, such as interdental fricatives and rhythmic patterns, that required targeted instructional responses. Interview data also described learner reluctance to modify established articulatory habits, which participants associated with comfort and familiarity in pronunciation use (Martinez & Joy, 2017). These challenges required teachers to make ongoing decisions about which pronunciation features to prioritize and how to provide effective feedback within constrained instructional conditions.

At the same time, structural constraints related to curriculum, materials, and time limited teachers’ capacity to respond systematically. As reported in prior studies (Algethami & Alsofyani, 2017; Luan, 2021), pronunciation was often treated as optional within curricular frameworks, leaving teachers to supplement instruction through personally developed resources. These material constraints increased preparation demands, particularly in classrooms with diverse learner needs. Time pressure further restricted instructional opportunities, with teachers describing pronunciation as one of the components reduced when curricular demands intensified, consistent with Batool et al. (2021). Participants also reported that providing differentiated feedback required additional instructional time, further constraining pedagogical options.

Classroom linguistic composition added an additional layer of complexity. Teachers working in multilingual classrooms described increased differentiation demands, as learners brought diverse L1 backgrounds and phonological systems. In contrast, teachers working with learners who shared a dominant L1 described pronunciation instruction as more predictable and manageable. These findings align with Rasheed et al.’s (2017) argument that linguistically diverse classrooms require greater diagnostic and adaptive expertise. At the same time, unfamiliarity with learners’ L1s was reported as limiting teachers’ ability to explain articulatory contrasts and respond to pronunciation difficulties effectively.

However, multilingual classrooms were not uniformly described as challenging. Some participants emphasized pedagogical opportunities associated with learners’ prior bilingual experience and metalinguistic awareness, consistent with Haukås (2016). These findings suggest that multilingualism functions both as a source of instructional complexity and as a potential resource, depending on teachers’ preparedness and instructional conditions.

The findings indicate that pronunciation-related instructional decision making is shaped by the interaction of institutional constraints and classroom linguistic diversity. Teachers described adapting their instructional choices in response to competing demands, balancing available time, resources, and learner needs when determining how and when to address pronunciation. Rather than following fixed instructional routines, pronunciation teaching in these contexts appears to involve context-dependent decision making under conditions of structural and pedagogical constraint.

5.3. Synthesis and Responses to the Research Questions

In response to RQ1, the findings indicate that pronunciation instruction is shaped by the interaction between teachers’ training experiences and their beliefs about pronunciation, including self-perceived competence and L1 influence. Preparation was frequently described as insufficiently practice-oriented, leading teachers to rely on self-directed professional learning. At the same time, perceived L1 influence affected instructional confidence, at times creating hesitation in modeling pronunciation while also supporting teachers’ ability to anticipate learner difficulties.

In response to RQ2, pronunciation-related instructional decision making was shaped by multiple interacting contextual factors, including L1-related pronunciation challenges, curricular marginalization, material limitations, and instructional time pressure. Classroom linguistic composition further influenced instructional complexity, particularly in multilingual settings where teachers were required to differentiate instruction across diverse learner profiles.

Taken together, the findings indicate that pronunciation instruction in European EFL contexts involves context-dependent pedagogical decision making emerging from the interaction between teacher cognition and structural classroom conditions. Rather than following fixed instructional routines, teachers described adapting their practices in response to training experiences, beliefs, institutional constraints, and learner diversity. This positions pronunciation instruction as a dynamic site of pedagogical decision making in multilingual EFL classrooms.

6.1. Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the study focused exclusively on EFL teachers working in European contexts. Although online data collection enabled broad geographic reach, recruitment across multiple time zones posed logistical challenges, and several interested teachers were unable to participate in follow-up interviews. Additional interviews could have strengthened the qualitative depth of the analysis.

Second, while participants represented 22 countries, some national contexts were represented by only one or two teachers. This limits the extent to which country-specific teacher education systems or curricular structures can be compared. Future research with larger and more balanced samples within individual national contexts could provide more fine-grained insights into regional variation.

Third, the survey data were analyzed descriptively, and the sample size did not support inferential statistical comparisons. As a result, the findings should be interpreted as indicative patterns rather than generalizable relationships between variables. Future research using larger samples could examine group differences and associations more systematically.

The inclusion of interview-only participants resulted in uneven participation across data sources, limiting direct comparison between survey and interview findings.

Fourth, the survey instrument was researcher-designed and not formally validated through psychometric procedures. Therefore, findings based on survey responses should be interpreted as exploratory and descriptive rather than as validated measurement outcomes. Future research could refine, pilot, and validate instruments for examining pronunciation teaching in multilingual EFL contexts.

Finally, the survey grouped multilingual and multicultural classroom contexts together. Participants interpreted these categories in different ways, which may have influenced their responses. Future research should distinguish more explicitly between linguistic and cultural diversity to capture their distinct pedagogical implications with greater precision.

6.2. Implications and Recommendations