A SURVEY OF AN INTERNATIONAL EFL COURSEBOOK SERIES IN TERMS OF PRONUNCIATION TREATMENT

Abstract

Despite digital advances, coursebooks remain central to language education (Modén et al., 2023), yet pronunciation is still underrepresented (Topal, 2022). This study addresses the gap in research on pronunciation content in tertiary-level EFL coursebooks. An international coursebook series was analyzed across five proficiency levels (A1–C1). The analysis focused on segmentals and suprasegmentals, alignment with Celce-Murcia et al.'s (2010) communicative framework, and adherence to pronunciation materials design principles (Levis & Sonsaat, 2016). Suprasegmentals dominated, with stress, intonation, and connected speech being common. Segmentals focused on select vowels, consonants, and symbols. Most activities emphasized discrimination and analysis and generally followed design principles. Findings suggest improved integration but highlight areas for further improvement and research.

Keywords
communicative pronunciation teaching; coursebook analysis; pronunciation materials; segmentals; suprasegmentals

Introduction

Despite the acknowledged significance of intelligible pronunciation for successful verbal communication (Levis, 2018), it remains one of the marginal skills, compared to grammar and vocabulary, in English as a second/foreign (EFL/ESL) language contexts (Jones, 2018; Munro & Derwing, 2015). Many EFL/ESL learners are reported to have finite opportunities for speaking practice (Chen & Goh, 2011), contributing to the salience of instructional materials, coursebooks in particular, in presenting, practicing, producing, and assessing pronunciation (Alghazo, 2015; Zimmerman, 2018). The situation becomes more grave when teachers are personally or institutionally dependent on coursebooks (Tosun & Cinkara, 2019). However, research shows that the pronunciation content of the widely used EFL/ESL materials, primarily coursebooks, is often decontextualized, scarce, or disproportionate to units and proficiency levels (Derwing et al., 2012; Topal, 2022).

Many European countries, including all European Union (EU) states and international language education contexts, have adopted the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001, 2020) guidelines in language curriculum and coursebook design (Jordan & Gray, 2019; Little, 2006), since the CEFR aims to serve as a standardized framework for developing language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, assessments, coursebooks, and other materials throughout Europe (Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR’s updated companion volume also included phonological control (overall phonological control, sound articulation, and prosodic features) as one of the linguistic competences under communicative language competences and expanded the descriptors for the qualitative features of spoken language with phonology (Council of Europe, 2020). Correspondingly, fluency, a closely related skill to connected speech important for speech intelligibility (Thomson, 2015), is one of the pragmatic competences and constructs in the qualitative features of spoken language (Council of Europe, 2020). In that sense, adopting these CEFR benchmarks is expected to promote a shift from mainstream pronunciation models to more intelligibility-based and listener-oriented outcomes in pronunciation teaching and assessment (Isaacs, 2018).

Notwithstanding the growing influence of the CEFR on shaping language learning, teaching, and assessment in general, curriculum design and materials development in particular, the prevalent use of coursebooks as teaching materials among teachers in Europe (Henderson et al., 2012) and around the globe (Richards, 2014; Tomlinson, 2012), there is still need for more empirical evidence on how pronunciation is handled in international coursebooks with regard to activities and design.

The current study addresses this gap by evaluating pronunciation treatment in Macmillan’s Skillful (A1-C1) through the lens of two well-established instructional models: Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) Communicative Framework for Teaching Pronunciation (CFPT) for activity sequencing and Levis and Sonsaat’s (2018) design principles for pronunciation materials. The former is a graded instructional approach that guides learners from awareness to controlled and communicative use of pronunciation features, while the latter offers design-oriented criteria (i.e., prioritizing intelligibility, relationship with other skills, and teacher support) that must be included in published materials (i.e., coursebooks) for evidence-based, learner-oriented pronunciation instruction. Taken together, both frameworks serve as analytical tools and indicators of optimal practice in pronunciation pedagogy, adding to their relevance to coursebook evaluation in terms of pronunciation treatment.

This study aims to contribute to the line of inquiry on pronunciation in language materials development and offer theoretically grounded and practically relevant insights in assessing the international EFL textbook series regarding pronunciation treatment. Specifically, the findings are intended to inform materials writers, teacher educators, and classroom practitioners through a systematic analysis of pronunciation treatment in a globally used EFL coursebook series and recommendations for more learner-friendly coursebooks that prepare learners for communicative competence in real-world contexts.

Literature Review

This section reviews previous scholarship to evaluate pronunciation treatment in EFL coursebooks and lays the theoretical foundation for the current study. The review is structured around three key strands. First, it examines the status of pronunciation instruction in commercial EFL coursebooks, particularly focusing on how pronunciation has been represented, sequenced, and integrated. Second, it elaborates on two pedagogical frameworks, which provide the analytic lens for this study and merge findings from studies that include the frameworks. Third, it synthesizes findings from prior research that has evaluated pronunciation components of published materials. By organizing the literature this way, the review ensures a focused and theoretically informed basis for the subsequent analysis of Macmillan’s Skillful series.

Pronunciation in EFL Coursebooks

Appel (2012) once said, “In no other school subject do coursebooks exert a similar influence as in language teaching” (p.50), highlighting the significant place coursebooks occupy in language education contexts. Indeed, previous work confirms this by echoing the prevalence of coursebooks among teachers as primary teaching materials (Henderson et al., 2012; Richards, 2014). In his classification of published materials, Richards (2015) positions language coursebooks within “multilevel coursebook series for domestic or international markets” (p.595). Coursebooks designed for international audiences are produced by major Anglophone publishing houses, including Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Pearson Education, MacMillan, and National Geographic Learning (Hughes, 2019; Mishan, 2022). However, they are also subject to criticism for representing the Western perspective and ideology, which is also reflected in their content (Andarab, 2015). Specifically, it is argued that globally published EFL textbooks generally portray the source culture and include native varieties (e.g., American English and British English) (Shin et al., 2011; Syrbe & Rose, 2018; Tajeddin & Pakzadian, 2020).

Since “EFL coursebooks inform about the target language, support language practice, provide language experience, urge language use, and assist with language discovery on the part of language learners (Topal, 2021, p.309), they are expected to be “informative, instructional, experiential, eliciting, and exploratory” (Tomlinson, 2012, p.143). However, previous studies reveal insufficient preparation of language learners to interact with non-native speakers in a global world (Nguyen et al., 2021; Su, 2016). Internationally designed language coursebooks do not yet include content that equips learners with the content knowledge for intercultural communication due to their reliance on native English varieties (García & Cerezo, 2020). In addition, language teaching materials (e.g., coursebooks) are disconnected from research findings (Levis, 2016), albeit with attempts to integrate non-native varieties in coursebook content for a more learner-friendly pedagogy (Takahashi, 2014).

It is now well-established that pronunciation instruction must aim for intelligibility and comprehensibility rather than prioritizing native-speakerism (Galante & Piccardo, 2022; Levis, 2005; Munro & Derwing, 2015). Both segmental and suprasegmental pronunciation features influence speech intelligibility (Gordon & Darcy, 2022; Yenkimaleki & van Heuven, 2021). Therefore, coursebook writers must consider a research-based approach to incorporating these features into coursebook content. Similarly, many non-native EFL/ESL teachers lack confidence or training in teaching pronunciation (Barrantes-Elizondo & Gordon, 2024; Couper, 2017; Murphy, 2014). Moreover, most EFL/ESL teachers lack the necessary content and pedagogical content knowledge to teach pronunciation (Barrantes-Elizondo & Gordon, 2024; Topal & Altay, 2024). Accordingly, language coursebooks must be provided with teacher support for pronunciation instruction. Furthermore, research has evidenced that pronunciation may be learned better when integrated or presented with other skills (Jones, 2016; Siccola & Darcy, 2015). Additionally, pronunciation is an underemphasized skill in published materials (Levis & Sonsaat, 2016). Therefore, language coursebooks must incorporate pronunciation activities in an integrated fashion.

Pedagogical Frameworks for Pronunciation Instruction

Historically, the attention paid to pronunciation has evolved across language teaching methods in line with the paradigm shifts (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Traditionally, pronunciation activities can be categorized into two main approaches: intuitive-imitative and analytical-linguistic. The prior hinges on learners’ ability to imitate the target language sounds and rhythms through exposure to quality audio models, a process increasingly supported by advancements in recording and playback technologies (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). The latter supplements listening and imitation with explicit instruction using tools like phonetic symbols, articulatory diagrams, and contrastive analysis to raise learners’ awareness of target language sounds (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010).

However, the emergence of more communicative approaches to language teaching resulted in the renewal of the presentation of pronunciation activities. More situated within a communicative pronunciation instruction is a framework that integrates pronunciation into oral communication rather than a stand-alone skill, prioritizes suprasegmentals and their communicative role, attaches particular attention to prosodic features (e.g., linking, stress, thought groups, and rhythm), promotes a learner-centered approach, includes natural and contextual speech, and presents meaningful and relatable tasks (Levis & Sonsaat, 2017; Munro & Derwing, 2015). Language teachers previously voiced temporal, institutional, and curricular concerns underlying their reluctance to teach pronunciation (Alghazo, 2015; Baker & Murphy, 2011; Couper, 2017). In this regard, they may benefit considerably from targeted, meaningful, evidence-based pronunciation instruction embedded in coursebooks.

Against this backdrop, Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT (Figure 1) emerges as a highly recommended approach to pronunciation teaching. Incorporating both form and meaning in pronunciation learning and teaching (Sicola & Darcy, 2015), the framework comprises five phases: description and analysis, listening discrimination, controlled practice, guided practice, and communicative practice. As the components may suggest, the framework endorses progressive integration of activities into the pronunciation lesson, moving from form-focused instruction to contextual and fluent use. The first component intends to raise learner awareness of the target feature through explanation and visual support, while the second trains learners to recognize the feature in input and distinguish it from similar or incorrect forms. The third one provides structured repetition and drills focused on accurate production, while the fourth engages learners in semi-controlled activities where pronunciation features are used with some communicative intent. The last component allows learners to use pronunciation features in authentic communicative tasks that mirror real-life interaction.

Figure 1
The Communicative Framework for Teaching Pronunciation

Relevant studies using the CFPT framework revealed positive attitudes (Nushi & Shahhosseini, 2020), more accurate performances (Canning et al., 2015), support for teachers’ pronunciation knowledge and skills (Nguyen & Newton, 2021), alignment with automated speech recognition technologies (Gottardi & Silveira, 2025), and compatibility with mobile technologies (Goodale & Yang, 2019). Comparing the French and Polish secondary school coursebooks using the CFPT, Henderson and Jarosz (2014) reported more pronunciation coverage in French textbooks with a focus on intonation, word stress, and focus, and segmental prioritization in Polish textbooks (e.g., -ed endings and third-person singular endings). In another study, Nowacka (2015) examined English pronunciation books for Polish students and revealed a lack of communicative practice. In his content analysis of state-published English textbooks, Topal (2022) revealed limited, mostly non-communicative pronunciation activities and highlighted a mismatch with curricular goals emphasizing communicative competence.

In another study, Martins et al. (2016) developed an instrument to evaluate software programs for teaching English pronunciation to EFL/ESL learners, considering pedagogical and technological characteristics, and tested its reliability and validity. Using the framework for designing online instruction, Dalman (2025) examined L2 learners’ perceptions of an online pronunciation course and reported high participant satisfaction and a preference for the online format. In another study, Schaefer and Machida (2025) concluded that Japanese onomatopoeia can be systematically integrated into instruction through culturally grounded, task-based, and technology-supported activities and offer valuable opportunities for pronunciation practice.

Building on Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) model and the intelligibility principle (Levis, 2005), Levis and Sonsaat (2016) identified three key principles for developing pronunciation materials: prioritizing intelligibility, relationship with other skills, and teacher support. Analyzing twelve intermediate-level four-skills books to investigate their pronunciation teaching practices, Levis and Sonsaat (2016) revealed that pronunciation is often underemphasized and not sufficiently supported for teachers, despite its integration into the books. Therefore, they proposed the three principles, arguing that pronunciation materials should prioritize intelligibility, be integrated into teaching other skills, and provide sufficient support for non-native English-speaking teachers and untrained or inexperienced teachers.

Research on Coursebook Pronunciation Content

The treatment of pronunciation in English coursebooks has been examined in various contexts. For example, Buckledee (2010) examined three English coursebooks and found that the materials promote native-speaker pronunciation models, raising concerns about their relevance for learners who primarily use English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). In the Polish context, Sobkowiak (2012) compared beginner-level EFL textbooks from different periods to examine how pronunciation is treated in initial units. He found that some degree of control is feasible through attention to variables like pronunciation difficulty and L1 transfer, with tools like the phonetic difficulty index, although space for phonetic instruction is limited. In her thesis, Wieczorek (2014) examined the treatment of pronunciation in three widely used Polish secondary school English coursebooks (i.e., New Matura Solutions, English File, and Upstream), revealed significant differences in task variety and quality, and offered insights for materials evaluation and future coursebook development.

Alghazo (2015) explored whether outdated curriculum design and misaligned teaching materials hinder EFL learners’ pronunciation development in Saudi Arabia. He revealed that most students view the curriculum as a major obstacle and called for urgent reforms incorporating learner perspectives. Kiczkowiak (2021) analyzed six internally published coursebooks in terms of pronunciation features important for intelligibility and revealed between five and thirty-three percent representation. In his doctoral dissertation, Lindade (2022) investigated the role of pronunciation in English language teaching in Portuguese public schools by analyzing 57 coursebooks, examining teaching methods and materials, designing communicative pronunciation resources, and collecting teacher feedback to inform future materials development and enhance pronunciation instruction for 21st-century learners.

In the Italian context, Caleffi (2023) explored English pronunciation teaching in primary ELF contexts by analyzing three coursebooks to assess the presence of pronunciation activities, the support provided for teachers, and the extent to which these reflect an emerging ELF-aware pedagogy suited to multilingual classrooms with non-native English teachers. They revealed the learners’ and teachers’ passive role in pronunciation learning and teaching. In the Turkish context, Katırcı and Karakaş (2023) reported limited ELF interactions, dependence on native-speaker models, and insufficient multicultural content in English coursebooks. In the Spanish context, Juan Rubio’s (2024) mixed-methods study indicated the underrepresentation of pronunciation, more emphasis on pronunciation by international publishers than national ones, and a gap in integrating pronunciation as an essential skill.

Relevant studies indicate contextual diversity and recurring issues, from overreliance on native-speaker models to limited support for ELF-aware pedagogy and insufficient integration of pronunciation as a core language skill. Collectively, research urges more inclusive, intelligibility-oriented, and context-sensitive materials that reflect the realities of global English use and address diverse learner and teacher needs.

The Current Study

The coursebook series analyzed in this study is utilized in the Turkish EFL context, particularly in the preparatory school of a major state university. Türkiye has used the CEFR guidelines since 2004 (Hazar, 2021). Turkish EFL students take English courses from the second grade until Grade 12. The twelve grades comprise the primary, secondary, and upper secondary education levels, administered by the education ministry. The exit level from the last education level (upper secondary) is B2 (in CEFR). Relevant curricula indicate little to no emphasis on pronunciation (Ministry of National Education, 2018a, 2018b), also supported in previous work (Topal, 2022; Topal & Altay, 2022).

Preparatory schools serve as a transitional education level between high school and university (Topal, 2024). Universities with EMI programs provide at least one year of compulsory or voluntary English education, typically between B1 and B2 levels, to newly admitted college students. Currently, many state and foundation universities offer preparatory education. Given their potential, these institutions use various internationally published coursebooks by Oxford, Cambridge, MacMillan, Pearson, and National Geographic Education. In preparatory schools, language instructors are highly dependent on the coursebooks or skills books provided by the administration. They are expected to follow weekly, monthly, or semiannual syllabi from the program and materials units. Preparatory students receive around 20-26 hours of English classes weekly.

That being the case in the Turkish EFL context, few studies have examined how commercially produced, CEFR-aligned EFL coursebooks operationalize pronunciation instruction through a pedagogically grounded lens, despite the growing interest in pronunciation pedagogy and its importance in communicative competence. The present study intends to bridge this gap through a systematic content analysis of Macmillan’s Skillful coursebook series through the frameworks proposed by Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) and Levis & Sonsaat (2016).

The Skillful series represents a valuable case for analysis for several reasons. First, it is widely used in international university-preparatory (e.g., Gazi University, Ibn Haldun University, Istanbul Commerce University, Karabük University) and academic English programs (De Bartolo & Mancuso, 2021; Gadomska & Krajka, 2018; Kryszewska, 2014), particularly in CEFR-aligned contexts where pronunciation is treated as a core sub-skill within speaking and listening components. Second, Macmillan Education’s products claim to integrate 21st-century skills and communicative language teaching principles (Akçay, 2019; Duman, 2024), making it a promising candidate for examining how modern pedagogy is reflected in pronunciation instruction. Third, the Skillful series includes student and teacher components, allowing for a more comprehensive review of how pronunciation is treated across materials and instructional guidance.

Parallel to the discussion made thus far, the study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: Which types of pronunciation features—segmental or suprasegmental—are more prevalent in the analyzed coursebook series, and what specific features are included?

RQ2: What types of pronunciation activities are incorporated in the coursebooks, and to what extent do they align with Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT and Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) design principles for pronunciation materials?

Method

Research Design

The study employed a content analytic approach to examining the prevalent pronunciation features in Macmillan’s Skillful series and their alignment with Celce-Murcia et al’s (2010) CFPT and Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) pronunciation materials design. Content analysis is a research method that systematically examines print or electronic texts (Krippendorff, 2019). In our case, these were the relevant courseware platform and coursebook print-outs with pronunciation activities. Notwithstanding its different categorization, content analysis typically includes qualitative and quantitative content analysis depending on the data type (numerical vs. non-numerical) (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2023; Riffe et al., 2023). In our case, this study utilized both types to answer the research questions: qualitative for the second part of the first research question and quantitative for the rest.

Data Source and Selection Criteria

The data were collected using Macmillan Education, a courseware platform providing comprehensive access to all instructional materials, including digital coursebooks. In addition, the researcher obtained print-outs of these relevant pages. The materials were initially screened to determine which components included pronunciation activities. This screening revealed that the reading and writing books across all levels (L0–L4, corresponding to CEFR levels A1–C1) did not contain any pronunciation activities. Consequently, only the listening and speaking books were retained for analysis. Further details about the analyzed coursebook series can be found in Table 1.

Table 1
The Analyzed Coursebook Series

Level	Book Titles	Authors
A1	Skillful Third Edition L0 Listening & Speaking	David Bohlke & Dorothy E. Zemach
A2	Skillful Third Edition L1 Listening & Speaking	Lida Baker, Steven Gershon, David Bohlke, Dorothy E. Zemach
B1	Skillful Third Edition L2 Listening & Speaking	Louis Rogers, David Bohlke, Robyn Brinks-Lockwood, Dorothy E. Zemach
B2	Skillful Third Edition L3 Listening & Speaking	Louis Rogers, Dorothy E. Zemach, Ellen Kisslinger, Lida Baker
C1	Skillful Third Edition L4 Listening & Speaking	Emma Pathare, Gary Pathare, Lindsay Warwick, Louis Rogers, Dorothy E. Zemach

Overview of Analytical Frameworks

The pronunciation activities were analyzed in relation to the research questions. For the first research question, activities were categorized into segmentals (e.g., individual vowels and consonants) and suprasegmentals (e.g., intonation, rhythm, stress), and a deeper analysis of the segmental and suprasegmental features in the activities was performed. For the second research question, activities were coded according to the five components of Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT, whose details are presented in Figure 1. As Celce-Murcia et al. (2010, p. 45) described, the CFPT is a progressive model that moves from analysis and awareness-raising to production-focused practice. At the same time, the design of the materials was evaluated based on the three principles outlined by Levis and Sonsaat (2016), which propose that effective pronunciation instruction should (i) prioritize intelligibility, (ii) integrate with other language skills, and (iii) offer sufficient support for teachers.

Coding Scheme and Rating

Prior to analysis, print-outs of the relevant coursebook pages were obtained for future analysis. The researcher created four sheets corresponding to the research questions (two sheets per question) in Microsoft Excel. For the first research question, sample codes included frequencies of pronunciation features across the coursebook levels and identification of the specific pronunciation features across the levels. For the second question, codes involved the alignment of pronunciation features with the CFPT components and the design principles. Examples of pronunciation features from each coursebook level are displayed in Figure 2 (from top to bottom corresponding with A1-C1).

Figure 2
Example Pronunciation Features across All Coursebook Levels (A1-C1)

Three experienced EFL instructors, one being the researcher, were recruited to conduct the analysis. All three hold PhD degrees in TESOL and have delivered listening and pronunciation courses at the tertiary level. They were selected based on their familiarity with phonological concepts and frameworks, particularly CFPT and the Levis and Sonsaat (2016) model, which had been previously used in their teacher training programs or academic research. The coders received a 90-minute training session to familiarize themselves with the rubric and data categories before the analyses. During the session, they reviewed (i) definitions and examples of segmentals and suprasegmentals, (ii) operational definitions of each CFPT component, (iii) sample coding using a pilot dataset (i.e., samples from each coursebook level), (iv) criteria for determining integration and teacher support features, and (v) a printed coding manual was also provided as a reference throughout the process.

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

Each rater received a print-out of the relevant coursebook pages with pronunciation activities. Each then independently coded the entire dataset on the print-outs. For instance, they wrote “segmental” or “suprasegmental” and their frequencies on the print-outs for the first research question. Meanwhile, the pronunciation activities usually included the pronunciation features they were about (e.g., contractions of be and weak forms). Therefore, the raters only wrote the specific pronunciation feature. The cases of uncertainty, on the other hand, were resolved in a post-coding meeting. For the second question, the raters matched each pronunciation activity with the components of the two frameworks (CFPT and design principles). The first rater (the researcher) collected all the coded print-outs, held a post-analysis meeting to resolve discrepancies, and entered the codes into the relevant sheets of Microsoft Excel.

Cohen’s kappa (McHugh, 2012) was calculated for each major coding category (segmental/suprasegmental and components of CFPT and design principles) to assess interrater reliability. Agreement scores ranged between κ = 0.72-0.84, indicating substantial to excellent agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). In total, 12% of the entries showed initial disagreement across one or more dimensions. These were discussed collectively, and a consensus was reached through discussion and reference to the coding manual. No unresolved disagreements remained in the final dataset. The ultimate dataset was then subject to descriptive analyses (frequency and percentage) using Microsoft Excel.

Findings and Discussion

Prevalence and Specification of Pronunciation Features

The first question explored the prevalence and specification of pronunciation features across the analyzed coursebook levels. As Figure 3 displays, suprasegmentals (n = 50) outweighed segmentals (n = 10) across all levels (A1 through C1). This means that a little more than two-thirds of the pronunciation activities were related to suprasegmental (prosodic) features. The frequency of segmentals was quite close at the A1, A2, and B1 levels. However, no segmentals were included in the B2 and C1 levels. This staged approach aligns well with the cognitive load theory and pedagogical practicality (Plass et al., 2010), given the concreteness of segmentals and abstractness of suprasegmentals (Jeong, 2009). Previous studies also found the dominance of suprasegmentals in coursebooks, aligning with our finding (Derwing et al., 2012; Hendersen & Jarosz, 2014; Kralova & Kucerka, 2019; Topal, 2021, 2022).

Figure 3
Prevalence of Pronunciation Features across Coursebook Levels

The predominant presence of suprasegmental features in the coursebook content is congruent with the recommendations of pronunciation researchers (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Gordon & Darcy, 2022; Levis & Sonsaat, 2016). However, the prevalence of suprasegmentals should not necessarily mean sidelining segmentals, as previous research also indicated their impact on intelligibility (e.g., Tang & He, 2024; Yenkimaleki & van Heuven, 2021). Instead, L1-specific problem-causing pronunciation features should be incorporated rather than general segmental or suprasegmental features (McAndrews & Thomson, 2017). Due to contextual and individual factors, research findings on the segmental and suprasegmental debate revealed variations (Wang, 2022). This, in turn, lends credence to the argument that pronunciation instruction, along with teaching materials, must address specific pronunciation problems of non-native English speakers.

The second part of the question determined the specific segmental and suprasegmental features included in the analyzed coursebooks. The findings are presented in Figure 4 and Table 2. Figure 4 shows the distribution of pronunciation features in the coursebook activities by phonological focus across levels, while Table 2 presents the specific features embedded in each coursebook level.

Figure 4
Distribution of Pronunciation Features by Phonological Focus (A1–C1 Levels)

Table 2
Distribution of Pronunciation Features across the Coursebook Levels

CEFR Level	Pronunciation features
A1	• Contractions of be • plural -s sounds • is he/is she • there is/there are • /a/ - /ʌ/ • /θ/ - /ð/ • /əʊ/ - /ʌ/ • reduced and • word stress • pausing and intonation in long lists • connected speech in questions • intonation in questions • pronunciation of numbers • saying dates • stress in compound nouns and adjectives • contrastive stress
A2	• Reduced final /t/ before a consonant • word stress in sentences • intonation in statements • stress and intonation in questions • reduced forms 1 • contractions in the present progressive • weak forms • pronouncing syllable stress • thought groups and pausing • /ed/ endings • glottal stop • pronouncing can/can’t; be able to/not able to • consonant clusters • stress for emphasis • silent syllables • pronouncing contractions with will
B1	• Elision of vowel sounds • weak forms • stress in phrasal verbs • consonant clusters • continuing speech (intonation) • pauses and thought groups • sounds in dates and numbers • stress in phrases connected with and • homophones • stress in modifiers before data • taking time to think (pausing) • catenation • emphatic stress for storytelling • /g/ - /k/ • linking vowel sounds between words • word stress with word suffixes
B2	• Intonation in declarative statements • stress in statements of contradiction • intonation to express feelings and attitudes • intonation to infer attitudes and feelings • word stress with content and function words • intonation with tag questions • question intonation • word stress for agreement and disagreement • thought groups
C1	• Stress in key words in colloquial language • intonation when expressing and eliciting information • intonation for presentations • emphasis for hedging (emphatic stress) • rhythm in rhetorical devices • prominence in questions • pronouncing numbers and math and science symbols • catenation and elision

As Table 2 indicates, a total of 32 pronunciation activities were included in A1 and A2 levels. For A1 level, pronunciation activities about specific grammar points (e.g., be, plural –s, and there is/there are), minimal pairs (e.g., /a/ - /ʌ/, /θ/ - /ð/, and /əʊ/ - /ʌ/), suprasegmental features (e.g., reduction, pausing, intonation, stress, and connected speech), and subjects (e.g., numbers and dates) were included. The A2 level coursebook contained similarities and differences. Different pronunciation features were thought groups, syllable stress, -ed endings, glottal stop, consonant clusters, and silent syllables. Despite the similarities of suprasegmental features, their focus was different, such as the grammar points (e.g., be able to and will).

Additionally, it manifests the pronunciation features (n = 25) involved in B1 and B2 coursebook levels. The B1 coursebook included an individual minimal pair (/g/ and /k/), suprasegmental features (e.g., elision, linking, word stress, pauses, and intonation), individual subjects like homophones, and segmentals like consonant clusters. The B2 level coursebook was inclined towards suprasegmentals, such as intonation, stress, and thought groups, notwithstanding the variations in focus (e.g., tag questions, content/function words, and statements of contradictions). Moreover, the C1-level coursebook included more advanced uses of suprasegmentals, such as intonation for expressing/eliciting information, emphasis for hedging, and rhythm in rhetorical devices. This book involved a total of eight pronunciation activities.

Overall, the segmental features included specific consonants and vowels and the pronunciation of numbers, dates, and symbols, while the suprasegmental features covered stress, intonation, and connected speech.

Figure 4 illustrates a clear developmental trend from segmental features in earlier levels (A1-B1) to a suprasegmental focus in later levels (B2-C1), aligning with Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT, positing that early pronunciation instruction often begins with segmental awareness but gradually shifts toward suprasegmental and discourse-level features that support intelligibility and fluency.

Intonation is the most frequent suprasegmental feature, appearing 12 times across all levels, with the greatest concentration at B2 (5) and C1 (3), concurring with Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) findings. However, it diverges from Topal’s (2021) results, revealing the prevalence of connected speech and word stress in Pearson’s SpeakOut series. This reflects the increasing need for pragmatic competence among advanced learners (e.g., expressing emotion, signaling attitude, or managing interactional turn-taking), coinciding with the communicative functions of intonation (Wickmann, 2015).

Importantly, grammar-linked forms (e.g., contractions of be, plural -s sounds, is he/is she, there is/there are, and reduced final /t/ before a consonant) appear as the second most common phonological focus. Their accumulation in earlier levels (A1-A2) and disappearance in advanced levels (B2-C1) indicate their importance in early instruction to support accurate pronunciation of morphosyntactic elements like plural -s, contractions, and tense endings (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). The focus on grammatical-linked forms is congruent with the idea that pronunciation should be integrated with other skills (e.g., grammar and vocabulary) (Levis & Sonsaat, 2016; Sicola & Darcy, 2015), and ungrammatical language use affects comprehensibility (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2012; Munro & Derwing, 1999; Varonis & Gass, 1982).

Connected speech and thought groups are most present at B1 (3 and 3 respectively), aligning with the transition from controlled to communicative practice and supporting fluency, prosodic cohesion, and speech naturalness (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). Additionally, the limitation of minimal pairs and homophones to early levels is consistent with the view that phonological contrast and syllable-level decoding are foundational skills best addressed at beginner stages (Baker, 2014; Strange & Shafer, 2008). Ultimately, including rhythm and presentation-related prosody in advanced levels (C1) reflects advanced-level expectations for rhetorical effectiveness, discourse organization, and audience engagement in academic and professional settings (Pickering, 2018).

Overall, the distribution of pronunciation features across CEFR levels (A1–C1) shows a shift from segmental focus at lower levels to suprasegmental emphasis at higher levels. Segmentals dominate A1–B1, supporting early intelligibility (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010), while suprasegmentals (e.g., especially intonation, stress, and connected speech) are increasingly targeted from B2 onward to support fluency and discourse competence (Isaacs, 2018; Trofimovich & Baker, 2006). Grammar-linked features are most common at A1–A2, aiding early morphophonemic development (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2012), while rhythm and prosody emerge at C1, reflecting advanced communicative demands (Pickering, 2018).

Adherence of Pronunciation Activities to the CFPT and Design Principles

The second research question addressed how the pronunciation activities in the coursebook levels adhered to Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT and Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) design principles. Figure 5 illustrates variations in the total number of pronunciation activities across the coursebook levels. Most activities accorded with the first three coursebook levels, followed by C1 (n = 36) and B2 (n = 31). Concerning the CFPT, the majority of the pronunciation activities were related to the listening and description component (n = 101), followed by description and analysis (n = 65) and controlled practice (n = 53). The number of guided practice (n = 15) and communicative practice (n = 6) activities across all coursebook levels was noticeably low, suggesting more guided and communicative pronunciation practice. Our findings differed from Topal’s (2021), concluding the predominance of description and analysis and controlled practice activities in Pearson’s Speakout coursebook series. Similarly, Topal (2021) reported no guided and communicative practice activities in his study. However, the current study revealed 21 related activities, albeit with low frequency. Henderson and Jarosz (2014) equally reported no guided practice and communicative practice activities in Polish EFL textbooks and a relatively low number in French EFL textbooks (8.5% and 1.0%, respectively), coinciding with our study.

Figure 5
Distribution of CFPT Components across the Coursebook Levels

The CFPT is grounded on a continuum in which the risk level increases from description and analysis to communicative practice, the freedom level rises toward communicative practice, and the focus is on form in description and analysis and meaning toward communicative practice (Henderson & Jarosz, 2014). Alternatively, this can be interpreted as the low frequency of meaning-focused pronunciation activities in the analyzed coursebook series. Conversely, most relevant coursebook activities were focused on form, with students taking low risks and having little freedom.

Correspondingly, the second part of the question tackled how the pronunciation activities in the analyzed coursebook series complied with Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) principles of pronunciation materials design (prioritizing intelligibility, integrating pronunciation with other skills, and teacher support). As Table 2 presents, all activities were intended to encourage intelligibility, given their focus on segmentals and suprasegmentals. Previous research indicated the impact of both pronunciation features on intelligibility (Gordon & Darcy, 2022, 2024), supporting our claim. However, achieving intelligibility depends on various factors, from context and individual differences to pronunciation instruction (Gonçalves & Zárate-Sández, 2024; Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2008; Suzukida, 2021).

For instance, the pronunciation activity about stress in phrasal verbs shown in Figure 6 was categorized under the listening and discrimination component of CFPT. As previous research indicated, college instructors may avoid pronunciation activities, including this, due to a lack of confidence and knowledge and curricular restrictions (Barrantes-Elizondo & Gordon, 2024; Couper, 2017; Murphy, 2014). In parallel, pronunciation is often disregarded in the Turkish EFL context where this coursebook series is utilized, since it is not assessed through quizzes or exams. Furthermore, the CFPT is “well-suited for a course focused entirely on pronunciation, but it can be difficult to implement in a more general communication or multi-skills course, both in terms of in-class time and preparation time” (Rothgerber, 2020, p.1). Therefore, the presence of pronunciation activities aligning with the CFPT does not necessarily mean effective pronunciation teaching, especially within fixed and time-constrained course curricula (Rocha, 2023).

Figure 6
A Sample of Pronunciation Activity in Listening and Discrimination

Concerning the second principle, the coursebook designers assembled the pronunciation activities under listening and speaking skills, as Levis and Sonsaat (2016) pointed out. With a little difference, most pronunciation activities targeted perception (n = 65) rather than production (n = 51). The close gap in quantity of perception and production activities does not inevitably yield desirable learning outcomes in favor of production. Rather, it solely indicates an adjacent amount of pronunciation activities targeting perception and production. The effectiveness of pronunciation learning and teaching, as aforementioned, relies on various individual, contextual, curricular, institutional, and pedagogical factors.

Table 3
Compliance with Pronunciation Materials Design

Levels/Components	Prioritizing Intelligibility		Skills Integration		Teacher Support
	Yes	No	Listening	Speaking	Yes	No
A1	16	0	16	11	0	16
A2	16	0	16	12	0	16
B1	16	0	16	13	0	16
B2	9	0	9	7	0	9
C1	8	0	8	8	0	8
Total	65	0	65	51	0	65

As Figure 7 displays, regardless of the targeted skill (perception or production), the follow-up exercises may fail to complement teaching or support learning of pronunciation features – consonant clusters in this case. Also, the absence of pronunciation features in the reading and writing components of the coursebook series is another striking finding to discuss. Pronunciation is closely interconnected with both reading and writing, particularly through the development of phonological awareness and spelling-sound correspondences (Ehri, 2022). Similarly, focusing on orthography may promote intelligibility (Sicola & Darcy, 2015). Also, vocabulary knowledge comprises form, meaning, and use (Nation, 2001), entailing the knowledge of how words are pronounced (form), what meanings different pronunciations may convey (meaning), and what stress and intonation patterns to use in different contexts (use).

Figure 7
A Pronunciation Activity Targeting Speaking (Production)

Pronunciation is also closely connected with grammar (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010), with the success of target grammar use depending partly on its phonetic realization (Sicola & Darcy, 2015). Similarly, specific grammar structures (e.g., statements, listing, and interrogatives) require using different intonation patterns (Levis, 1999). Despite these close relationships between pronunciation and other language skills (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, reading, and writing), Macmillan’s Skillful series neglects incorporating relevant pronunciation activities, contradicting the second principle of materials design (Levis & Sonsaat, 2016).

Regarding the third principle of designing pronunciation activities (i.e., teacher support), analysis of the coursebook content did not reveal any materials to help instructors teach the pronunciation features. The coursebook series only provides some background information (Figure 8) on the specific pronunciation features in the book content, which is already available to learners. This piece of information will be insufficient for instructors with varying pronunciation cognitions. Our finding diverges from Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) in that their examination of the coursebooks included conceptual explanations, reminders, and rules for teachers to varying degrees. No supporting materials were found in our analysis of the teacher’s books.

Figure 8
An Example of Background Information on Pronunciation Features

Overall, the pronunciation activities in the analyzed coursebook series aligned mostly with listening and discrimination (n = 101) and description and analysis (n = 65) components of CFPT, leaving gaps for a more communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. At the same time, the inclusion of pronunciation activities targeting perception and production does not imply their effective learning or teaching. The lack of integration of pronunciation with other skills, particularly reading, writing, vocabulary, and grammar, is something that coursebook writers and publishing houses must consider. Equally, providing sufficient teacher support materials will not only coincide with the third principle of designing pronunciation materials but also enable novice or unconfident teachers to teach pronunciation features.

Conclusion

Motivated by the argument that coursebooks are primary teaching materials preferred by teachers, the underrepresentation of pronunciation in coursebooks, and the scant attention attached to pronunciation treatment in these teaching materials, this study evaluated Macmillan’s Skillful series (A1-C1), an internationally published coursebook series used in the preparatory school of a Turkish state university. The study specifically addressed the segmentals and suprasegmentals and specific pronunciation features distributed across the coursebook levels. It also examined the congruence of pronunciation activities with the principles of Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT and Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) materials design.

Concerning the first question, the coursebook content showed similar tendencies to the previous work and the prevalent approach to pronunciation instruction. Specifically, the dominance of suprasegmental features (e.g., intonation, lexical stress, and sentence stress) indicates potential opportunities for an intelligibility-oriented pronunciation teaching. However, the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction does not merely rely on coursebook content and quality but on manifold dynamics (e.g., context, quality of instruction, teacher’s knowledge, and individual differences). Similarly, the presence of grammar-linked forms as the second most frequent phonological feature theoretically shows the integration of pronunciation with grammar. However, it does not warrant any desirable outcomes in practice. Equally, targeting perception and production through segmentals and suprasegmentals also does not mean thoroughly addressing these skills. Additionally, the accumulation of activities towards the beginning levels (A1-A2) necessitates a more balanced distribution across all coursebook levels. Accordingly, experimental, classroom, and longitudinal research are needed to corroborate the study’s findings.

The second question tackled the conformity of pronunciation activities to Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) CFPT and Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) materials design principles. Despite the varying distribution of pronunciation activities across all CFPT components, the predominance of listening, discrimination, description, and analysis activities implies reduced opportunities for communicative pronunciation practice. Comparably, the existence of both segmentals and suprasegmentals may appear as a chance for prioritizing intelligibility per the pronunciation materials design principles (Levis & Sonsaat, 2016). However, it does not necessarily guarantee achieving favorable learning outcomes. In parallel, despite the presence of grammatical forms and perception and production activities, the coursebook series fails to address other language skills, including grammar, vocabulary, reading, and writing. At the same time, the lack of supplementary materials for teachers disagrees with Levis and Sonsaat’s (2016) third principle (teacher support), urging the provision of ancillary materials, such as conceptual descriptions and rule explanations for inexperienced and unconfident teachers.

Notwithstanding the similarities and differences between the study’s findings and previous research, the current study recognizes some limitations. First, the findings are limited to Macmillan’s Skillful series, despite the overlapping and differentiating results. Further studies may explore other products by the same publishing house or compare those by different ones. Second, the study only performed a content analysis of the coursebook series. Future researchers may consolidate the findings through classroom observations and interviews with learners and teachers. Parallel to this, prospective studies may look into the effectiveness of variables (e.g., coursebooks, instruction, affective factors, and individual differences). Nonetheless, the study’s findings are expected to contribute to the relevant line of inquiry from theoretical and practical aspects.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Datasets related to this research will be available upon contact with the corresponding author.

References

• Alghazo, S. (2015). The role of curriculum design and teaching materials in pronunciation learning. Research in Language, 13(3), 316-333. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0028
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0028
• Alhamami, M., & Ahmad, J. (2018). EFL teachers' attitudes toward commercial textbooks in EFL programs. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 9(4), 69-87. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.5
  » https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.5
• Al-khresheh, M. H. (2024). Phonetic challenges in English: the impact of mispronunciation of the bilabial plosive/p/on communication among Saudi EFL learners. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 11(1), 2390777. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2390777
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2390777
• Andarab, M. S. (2015). Representation of the characters in the claimed English as an international language-targeted coursebooks. Studies in English Language Teaching, 3(4), 294. https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v3n4p294
  » https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v3n4p294
• Appel, J. (2012). Moments of practice: Teachers' knowledge and interaction in the language classroom. In J. Hüttner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl & B. Schiftner (Eds.) Theory and practice in EFL teacher education: Bridging the gap (pp. 38–54). Multilingual Matters.
• 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
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.99
• Baker, A., & Murphy, J. (2011). Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: Staking out the territory. TESL Canada Journal, 29-50. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v28i2.1071
  » https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v28i2.1071
• Barrantes-Elizondo, L., & Gordon, J. (2024). Between pedagogical content knowledge and confidence: A case study of pronunciation training and teacher preparation. Ilha do Desterro, 77, e99365. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2024.e99365
  » https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2024.e99365
• Buckledee, S. J. (2010). Global English and ELT coursebooks. In C. Gagliardi & A. Maley (Eds.), 2010. EIL, ELF, global English: Teaching and learning issues (pp. 141–151). Peter Lang.
• Caleffi, P.M. (2023). Teaching pronunciation to young learners in an ELF context: An analysis of pronunciation activities in English coursebooks for the primary school. Educazione Linguistica Language Education, 12(2), 5-36. https://dx.doi.org/10.30687/ELLE/2280-6792/2023/02/001
  » https://doi.org/10.30687/ELLE/2280-6792/2023/02/001
• Canning, D., Dabrowski, A., & Woolf, J. (2015). The Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin communicative framework for teaching pronunciation: A case study. In A. Dabrowski, D. Canning, & J. Woolf (Eds.), Teaching and learning the English sound system (pp. 2-10). Temple University.
• Chen, Z., & Goh, C. (2011). Teaching oral English in higher education: Challenges to EFL teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(3), 333-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.546527
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.546527
• Chien, C. Y., & Young, K. (2007). The centrality of textbooks in teachers' work: Perceptions and use of textbooks in a Hong Kong primary school. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(2), 155–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.3860/taper.v16i2.255
  » https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v16i2.255
• Choi, H. M., & Tsang, E. Y. M. (2020). Using custom coursebooks as distance learning materials: A pilot study in the OUHK. In K.C. Li, E.Y.M. Tsang & B.T.M. Wong (Eds.), Innovating education in technology-supported environments (pp. 163–173). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-156591-5_12
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-156591-5_12
• Choi, S., & Kang, O. (2023). The roles of suprasegmental features in assessing paired speaking tasks in high-stakes language assessment. System, 119, 103183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103183
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103183
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
• Council of Europe. (2020). The common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume Council of Europe.
• Couper, G. (2017). Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: Teachers' concerns and issues. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 820-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.354
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.354
• Couper, G. (2021). Pronunciation teaching issues: Answering teachers' questions. RELC Journal, 52(1), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220964041
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220964041
• Crowther, D., Holden, D., & Urada, K. (2022). Second language speech comprehensibility. Language Teaching, 55(4), 470-489. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000537
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000537
• Dabouis, Q., & Fournier, J. M. (2023). The stress patterns of English verbs: Syllable weight and morphology. In N. Ballier, A. Przewozny, J-M. Fournier, &E. Yamada (Eds.), New perspectives on English word stress, (pp. 154-191). Edinburgh University Press.
• Dalman, M. (2025). Second language (L2) learners' perceptions of online-based pronunciation Instruction. Languages, 10(4), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10040062
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10040062
• Darcy, I. (2018). Powerful and effective pronunciation instruction: How can we achieve it? CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 13–45. http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CJ30.1_darcy.pdf
  » http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CJ30.1_darcy.pdf
• Darcy, I., Rocca, B., & Hancock, Z. (2021). A window into the classroom: How teachers integrate pronunciation instruction. RELC Journal, 52(1), 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220964269
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220964269
• De Bartolo, A. M., & Mancuso, C. (2021). The promotion of intercultural understanding in English-language teaching textbooks: A content analysis. Educazione Linguistica Language Education, 10(3), 411-434. http://doi.org/10.30687/ELLE/2280-6792/2021/03/004
  » https://doi.org/10.30687/ELLE/2280-6792/2021/03/004
• Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL coursebooks address pronunciation?. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1124
  » https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1124
• Duman, Ö. (2024). An analysis of 21st century themes in an English language teaching coursebook series: MacmillanMacmillan Gateway (Master's thesis). Maltepe University, Türkiye.
• Gadomska, A., Krajka, J. (2018). Addressing EAP students` needs in the tertiary context on the use of digital course books in English for language teaching academic purposes. In D. Kergel, B. Heidkamp, P. Telléus, T. Rachwal, & S. Nowakowski (Eds.) The digital turn in higher education (pp. 175-191). Springer.
• Galante, A., & Piccardo, E. (2022). Teaching pronunciation: toward intelligibility and comprehensibility. ELT Journal, 76(3), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab060
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab060
• García, Z. X. R., & Cerezo, E. A. (2020). Who are the non-native speakers of English? A critical discourse analysis of global ELT textbooks. Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura, 30(2), 281-296. https://doi.org/10.15443/RL3022
  » https://doi.org/10.15443/RL3022
• Goodale, E., & Yang, J. (2019). English Pronunciation [Review]. In J. Levis, C. Nagle, & E. Todey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference (pp. 449-453). Iowa State University.
• Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2022). Teaching segmentals and suprasegmentals: Effects of explicit pronunciation instruction on comprehensibility, fluency, and accentedness. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 8(2), 168-195. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.21042.gor
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.21042.gor
• Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2024). Pedagogical decisions in the teaching of segmentals and suprasegmentals. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 10(1), 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.23046.gor
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.23046.gor
• Gottardi, W., & Silveira, R. (2025). A theoretical assessment of ASR-based pronunciation activities for classroom learning. Texto Livre, 18, e56636. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-3652.2025.56636
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-3652.2025.56636
• Gray, J. (2010). The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT global coursebook. Springer.
• Hazar, E. (2021). The influence of the CEFR in Turkish national curriculum. African Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.92.21.087
  » https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.92.21.087
• Henderson, A., & Jarosz, A. (2014). Desperately seeking a communicative approach: English pronunciation in a sample of French and Polish secondary school coursebooks. Research in language, 12(3), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0015
  » https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0015
• Henderson, A., Frost, D., Tergujeff, E., Kautszch, A., Murphy, D., Kirlova Naskova, A., ... & Cunick, L. (2012). English pronunciation teaching in Europe survey: Selected results. Research in Language, 10(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0047-4
  » https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0047-4
• Hughes, S. H. (2019). Coursebooks: Is there more than meets the eye?. ELT journal, 73(4), 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz040
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz040
• Isaacs, T. (2018). Shifting sands in second language pronunciation teaching and assessment research and practice. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 273-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1472264
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1472264
• Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners' L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150
• Isbell, D. R., & Sakai, M. (2022). Pronunciation assessment in classroom contexts. In J. M. Levis, T. M. Derwing, & S. Sonsaat-Hegelheimer (Eds.), Second language pronunciation: Bridging the gap between research and teaching. (pp. 194-214). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Jeong, W. D. (2009). Segmental and suprasegmental sounds in Korean language education. Studies in Linguistics, 14, 143-154. https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..14.200905.143
  » https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..14.200905.143
• Jones, T. (2018). Pronunciation with other areas of language. In O. Kang, R. I. Thomson, & J. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation (pp. 370- 384). Routledge.
• Jones, T. (Ed.). (2016). Pronunciation in the classroom: The overlooked essential TESOL Press.
• Jordan, G., & Gray, H. (2019). We need to talk about coursebooks. ELT Journal, 73(4), 438-446. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz038
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz038
• Kang, O., Rubin, D. O. N., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x
• Katırcı, S., & Karakaş, A. (2023). Coursebook writers' orientations towards ELF: The case of coursebooks used in a private university. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 12(3), 501-514. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1094889
  » https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1094889
• Kiczkowiak, M. (2021). Pronunciation in course books: English as a lingua franca perspective. ELT Journal, 75(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa068
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa068
• Kochem, T., Ghosh, M., Compton, L., & Cotos, E. (2020). Oral communication for non-native speakers of English Iowa State University Digital Press.
• Kralova, Z. & Kucerka, M. (2019). The content analysis of English coursebooks for primary schools-teaching pronunciation. Elementary Education Online, 18(2), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.561889
  » https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.561889
• Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage.
• Kryszewska, H. (2014). Short book reviews. Humanising Language Teaching, 16(3). http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jun14/pubs02.htm
  » http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jun14/pubs02.htm
• Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice and software Sage.
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 363-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
• Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485
• Levis, J. M. (2016). Research into practice: How research appears in pronunciation teaching materials. Language Teaching, 49(3), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000045
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000045
• Levis, J. M. (2018). Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation Cambridge University Press.
• Levis, J., & Sonsaat, S. (2016). Pronunciation materials. In M. Azarnoosh, M. Zeraatpishe, A. Favani & H. R. Kargozari (Eds.), Issues in materials development (pp. 109–119). Sense Publishers.
• Levis, J., & Sonsaat, S. (2017). Pronunciation teaching in the early CLT era. In O. Kang, R. Thomson & J. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English pronunciation, (pp. 267-283). Routledge.
• Lindade, C. (2022). A comprehensive analysis on how ELT coursebooks promote teaching pronunciation in Portuguese public schools (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Vigo, Spain. http://hdl.handle.net/11093/3939
  » http://hdl.handle.net/11093/3939
• Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167-190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003557
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003557
• Mäkinen, L. (2021). The role of pronunciation in Finnish EFL coursebooks and EFL teaching (Unpublished Master's thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Finland. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202107064193
  » http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202107064193
• Martins, C.G.D.F.M., Borges, V.M.C., & Levis, J. (2016). The design of an instrument to evaluate software for EFL/ESL pronunciation teaching. Ilha do Desterro, 69(1), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n1p141
  » https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n1p141
• Matzinger, T., Ritt, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2020). Non-native speaker pause patterns closely correspond to those of native speakers at different speech rates. PLoS One, 15(4), e0230710. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230710
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230710
• McAndrews, M. M., & Thomson, R. I. (2017). Establishing an empirical basis for priorities in pronunciation teaching. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(2), 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.2.05mca
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.2.05mca
• McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://hrcak.srce.hr/89395
  » https://hrcak.srce.hr/89395
• Ministry of National Education (2018a). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [English language curriculum for primary and secondary education (grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=327
  » https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=327
• Ministry of National Education (2018b). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) [English language curriculum (grades 9, 10, 11, and 12)]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342
  » https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342
• Mishan, F. (2022). The Global ELT coursebook: A case of Cinderella's slipper?. Language Teaching, 55(4), 490-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000646
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000646
• Mishan, F. (2022). The Global ELT coursebook: A case of Cinderella's slipper?. Language Teaching, 55(4), 490-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000646
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000646
• Modén, M. U., Tallvid, M., & Lundin, J. (2023). Exploring the role of digital coursebooks in education. In S. Willermark, A.D. Olofsson & J.O. Lindberg (Eds.), Digitalization and digital competence in educational contexts (pp. 133-145). Routledge.
• Molværsmyr, T. (2017). Teachers' coursebook use in English. Newly qualified teachers' use of coursebooks in planning and execution of English lessons (Master's thesis). UiT the Arctic University of Norway. https://hdl.handle.net/10037/11554
  » https://hdl.handle.net/10037/11554
• Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49, 285-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.49.s1.8
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.49.s1.8
• Murphy, J. (2014). Myth 7: Teacher training programs provide adequate preparation in how to teach pronunciation. In L. Grant (Ed.), Pronunciation myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 188–224). University of Michigan Press.
• Nguyen, L. T., & Newton, J. (2021). Enhancing EFL teachers' pronunciation pedagogy through professional learning: A Vietnamese case study. RELC Journal, 52(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220952476
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220952476
• Nguyen, T. T. M., Marlina, R., & Cao, T. H. P. (2021). How well do ELT textbooks prepare students to use English in global contexts? An evaluation of the Vietnamese English textbooks from an English as an international language (EIL) perspective. Asian Englishes, 23(2), 184-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794
• Nowacka, M. (2015). English phonetic and pronunciation resources for Polish learners in the past and at present. In E. Waniek-Klimczak & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Teaching and researching the pronunciation of English: Studies in honour of Włodzimierz Sobkowiak (pp. 77-106). Springer.
• Nushi, M., & Shahhosseini, K. (2020). On the efficacy of a communicative framework in teaching English phonological features absent in Persian to Iranian EFL learners. Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 57-91. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.51623.486
  » https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.51623.486
• Pennington, M. C. (2021). Teaching pronunciation: The state of the art 2021. RELC Journal, 52(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211002283
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211002283
• Pickering, L. (2018). Discourse intonation: A discourse-pragmatic approach to teaching the pronunciation of English University of Michigan Press.
• Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.
• Ren, J., & Wang, M. (2023). Sensitivity to word endings as probabilistic orthographic cues to lexical stress among English as second language learners. Memory & Cognition, 51(8), 1881-1897. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01432-4
  » https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01432-4
• Richards, J. C. (2001). The role of coursebooks in a language program. Retrieved 04.01.2025, from https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wpcontent/uploads/role -of-coursebooks.pdf
  » https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wpcontent/uploads/role -of-coursebooks.pdf
• Richards, J. C. (2014). The ELT textbook. In S. Garton & K. Graves (Eds.), International perspectives on materials in ELT (pp. 19–36). Palgrave MacmillanMacmillan.
• Richards, J.C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching Cambridge.
• Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., & Lovejoy, J. (2023). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research Routledge.
• Rubio, A. D. J. (2024). Inclusion of pronunciation in English coursebooks for Primary Education: A mixed study. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 28(3), 191-213. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v28i3.29542
  » https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v28i3.29542
• Rubio, A. D. J. (2024). Inclusion of pronunciation in English textbooks for primary education: A mixed study. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 28(3), 191-213. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v28i3.29542
  » https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v28i3.29542
• Sari, E. P. (2021). Government-made (BSE-Buku sekolah elektronik) vs commercial coursebooks: Which one ıs better?. SCIENTIA: Social Sciences & Humanities (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Seminar on English Language Studies (ASELS) 2021), 1(1), 213-220. https://doi.org/10.51773/asels2021.v1i1.35
  » https://doi.org/10.51773/asels2021.v1i1.35
• Schaefer, V., & Machida, K. (2025). Speaking Japanese perapera or berabera? Systematic exposure to Japanese onomatopoeia for learners of Japanese as an additional language. In J. M. Levis, M. Duris, S. Sonsaat-Hegelheimer, & I. Na (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 1-20). Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/psllt.18438
  » https://doi.org/10.31274/psllt.18438
• Schaefer, V., Darcy, I., & Abe, L. (2019). The distress in not stressing and destressing stress in English: Using wordplay to boost awareness, intelligibility, and communicative competence. Tesol Journal, 10(3), e00411. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.411
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.411
• Shin, J., Eslami, Z. R., & Chen, W. C. (2011). Presentation of local and international culture in current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(3), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2011.614694
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2011.614694
• Sicola, L., & Darcy, I. (2015). Integrating pronunciation into the language classroom. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 471-87). Wiley Blackwell.
• Sobkowiak, W. (2012). This is Tom = /zyzys'tom/. Pronunciation in beginners' EFL textbooks then and now. Research in Language, 10(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0028-7
  » https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0028-7
• Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The reduction of selective perception. In J. G. Hansen-Edwards & L. Z. M (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 153-192). Johns Benjamins.
• Su, Y. C. (2016). The international status of English for intercultural understanding in Taiwan's high school EFL textbooks. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959469
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959469
• Sugimoto, J. & Uchida, Y. (2018). How pronunciation is taught in English coursebooks published in Japan. Seishin Studies, 130, 154–186.
• Syrbe, M., & Rose, H. (2018). An evaluation of the global orientation of English textbooks in Germany. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 152-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1120736
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1120736
• Tajeddin, Z., & Pakzadian, M. (2020). Representation of inner, outer and expanding circle varieties and cultures in global ELT textbooks. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00089-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00089-9
• Takahashi, R. (2014). An analysis of ELF-oriented features in ELT coursebooks: Are attitudes towards non-native varieties changing in English language teaching policy and practice in Japan?. English Today, 30(1), 28-34.
• Tang, J., & He, J. (2024). Segmentals weigh much more in comprehensibility than nuclear stress in read speech. Acta Psychologica, 247, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104313
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104313
• Tang, J., & He, J. (2024). Segmentals weigh much more in comprehensibility than nuclear stress in read speech. Acta Psychologica, 247, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104313
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104313
• Thomson, R. I. (2015). Fluency. In J. Levis & M. Reed (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 209–226). Wiley.
• Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179.
• Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528
• Topal, I. H. (2021). An investigation into pronunciation representation in an EFL coursebook series utilized in a Turkish state university. Language Related Research, 12(5), 305-331. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-55179-en.html
  » http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-55179-en.html
• Topal, I. H. (2022). Pronunciation in EFL coursebooks published by the Turkish Ministry of National Education. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v46n2-17
  » https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v46n2-17
• Topal, I. H. (2023). A critical evaluation of pronunciation teaching in an ELT department in Turkey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Türkiye. https://hdl.handle.net/11655/33780
  » https://hdl.handle.net/11655/33780
• Topal, İ. H., & Altay, I. F. (2022). Revisiting the problematic English sounds for prospective Turkish EFL teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 9(4), 1794-1816. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1353592.pdf
  » https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1353592.pdf
• Topal, I. H., & Altay, I. F. (2024). An examination of Turkish EFL teacher trainees' pronunciation knowledge, perception, and production. Moderna Språk, 118(3), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v118i3.23554
  » https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v118i3.23554
• Topal, İ.H. (2024). An inquiry into the perceptions of English language learning: Voices from the preparatory school students in Türkiye. International Journal of Language Academy, 12(2), 364-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijla.75529
  » https://doi.org/10.29228/ijla.75529
• Tosun, Ö. Ö., & Cinkara, E. (2019). Coursebook dependency in secondary and tertiary-level EFL teachers. HOW, 26(1), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.26.1.445
  » https://doi.org/10.19183/how.26.1.445
• Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060013
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060013
• Ulla, M. B. (2019). Western-published ELT coursebooks: Teacher perceptions and use in Thai classrooms. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(3), 970–977. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.13.970
  » https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.13.970
• Uzun, T. (2022). The salient pronunciation errors and intelligibility of Turkish speakers in English. Mextesol Journal, 46(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v46n1-9
  » https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v46n1-9
• Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1982). The comprehensibility of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(2), 114-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000437X
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000437X
• Wang, X. (2022). Segmental versus suprasegmental: Which one is more important to teach?. RELC Journal, 53(1), 194-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220925926
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220925926
• Wickmann, A. (2015). Functions of intonation in discourse. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 139–156). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Wieczorek, K. (2014). Teaching pronunciation in English File, Upstream and New Matura solutions - Coursebook evaluation (Master's thesis). Jagiellonian University, Poland. https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/entities/publication/5d8b2aa0-a282-4cbb-afbd-8ce9df04b0f1
  » https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/entities/publication/5d8b2aa0-a282-4cbb-afbd-8ce9df04b0f1
• Yazıcı, Y. & Hayta, P. (2021). An EFL coursebook evaluation in terms of design and language: Private school samples in Sinop. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 2021(16), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.789472
  » https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.789472
• Yenkimaleki, M., & van Heuven, V. J. (2021). Effects of attention to segmental vs. suprasegmental features on the speech intelligibility and comprehensibility of the EFL learners targeting the perception or production-focused practice. System, 100, 102557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102557
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102557
• Yenkimaleki, M., van Heuven, V. J., & Soodmand Afshar, H. (2023). The efficacy of segmental/suprasegmental vs. holistic pronunciation instruction on the development of listening comprehension skills by EFL learners. The Language Learning Journal, 51(6), 734-748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2073382
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2073382
• Zimmerman, E. (2018). Reconsidering assumptions of beginner teachers' needs: An examination of commonly used pronunciation textbooks. The CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.5070/B5.35973
  » https://doi.org/10.5070/B5.35973

Edited by

• Section editor:
  Roberta Pires de Oliveira

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  08 Dec 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  18 May 2025
• Accepted
  27 Oct 2025