Strategies for Teaching Pronunciation to ESL Learners with Strong Regional Accents.

Aldo Coka
Strategies for Teaching Pronunciation to ESL
Learners with Strong Regional Accents.

[Link]
1.1 Background of the Study: Global Prevalence of English
Language Learning and Diversity of Learners' Linguistic
Backgrounds
English has established itself as a global lingua franca, serving as a primary medium for
international communication, business, science, and technology. This widespread adoption has
led to a significant increase in English language learners worldwide, encompassing a vast array
of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The diversity among these learners is profound, reflecting
a multitude of native languages, dialects, and cultural nuances. This heterogeneity presents
unique challenges and opportunities in English language education, as educators must navigate
and respect the varied linguistic landscapes that learners bring to the classroom.
While pronunciation instruction has traditionally emphasized native-like accuracy, contemporary
research underscores the importance of intelligibility and mutual comprehension over accent
elimination (Derwing & Munro, 2009; Jenkins, 2004). This shift in pedagogical focus is
particularly relevant for ESL learners with strong regional accents, who often face challenges in
acquiring English pronunciation patterns while maintaining their linguistic identity.
Numerous studies have explored strategies for teaching pronunciation to ESL learners,
highlighting various approaches, including explicit phonetic training, exposure to diverse English
accents, and the integration of speech technology (Gilakjani, 2017; Baratta & Halenko, 2022).
Gilakjani (2017) emphasizes the role of structured pronunciation instruction, advocating for
targeted phonetic training to help learners overcome accent-related challenges. Similarly, Khatib
and Monfared (2017) explore educators' attitudes toward pronunciation instruction, arguing that
effective pronunciation teaching should accommodate linguistic diversity rather than impose
standard norms. This aligns with Buckingham’s (2015) findings, which suggest that
pronunciation teaching should be flexible and sensitive to learners' sociolinguistic backgrounds.
Moreover, the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction has been linked to the incorporation of
technology-driven approaches, such as AI-assisted pronunciation tools and speech recognition
software, which provide learners with immediate feedback and personalized learning pathways
(Varasarin, 2007). Research by Saito (2014) and Kang (2015) further underscores the
significance of providing ESL learners with exposure to various English dialects to enhance their
adaptability in real-world communication.

1
Despite the wealth of research on pronunciation teaching, there remains a gap in the literature
regarding specific pedagogical strategies tailored to ESL learners with strong regional accents.
While previous studies highlight general principles of pronunciation instruction, there is a need
for more targeted interventions that address the phonetic challenges unique to learners from
different linguistic backgrounds. This thesis aims to bridge this gap by exploring evidence-based
strategies for teaching pronunciation to ESL learners with strong regional accents, focusing on
phonetic awareness, stress and intonation training, and the use of technology in language
learning.
By building on the foundation of existing research, this study seeks to contribute to the growing
discourse on pronunciation pedagogy, advocating for a more inclusive and effective approach to
teaching pronunciation that prioritizes communicative competence over accent reduction.
Through an analysis of best practices and innovative teaching methodologies, this research will
offer practical insights for educators seeking to enhance their students' pronunciation skills while
respecting linguistic diversity. Given the growing importance of English in Albania, there is a
need to explore how regional accents impact English pronunciation learning and which
teaching strategies are most effective.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Many Albanian ESL learners struggle with English pronunciation due to phonetic differences
between Albanian and English. While native-like pronunciation may be difficult to attain
(Saito, 2021), the primary goal should be improving intelligibility rather than accent eradication
(Derwing & Munro, 2002). However, there is limited research on effective pronunciation
teaching strategies tailored to Albanian learners. Pronunciation is a fundamental aspect of
language learning, directly influencing intelligibility, communication effectiveness, and speaker
confidence. However, for Albanian ESL learners, acquiring accurate English pronunciation
presents unique challenges due to significant phonetic and phonological differences between the
two languages (Stavre & Pojani, 2014; Toçi, 2020). Despite years of exposure to English, many
Albanian learners continue to struggle with articulating key English sounds, mastering stress and
intonation patterns, and adapting to the rhythm of spoken English. These difficulties hinder
effective communication and can contribute to misunderstandings, decreased fluency, and a lack
of confidence in oral expression.
One of the primary issues is the mismatch between the phonetic inventories of English and
Albanian. English contains several vowel and consonant sounds that do not exist in Albanian,
such as the front vowel /æ/ (as in "cat"), the schwa /ə/, and dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ (as in
"think" and "this"), which are often substituted with /t/ and /d/, respectively (Tyfekci & Islami,
2016; Alimemaj, 2021). Furthermore, Albanian learners frequently struggle with consonant
clusters in English, which are less common in their native language, leading to sound insertions
or omissions (Lekli, 2019).

2
Another significant challenge is stress and intonation. English follows a relatively fixed system
of word and sentence stress, whereas Albanian exhibits more variability, leading to difficulty in
correctly stressing English words and phrases (Toçi, 2020). This lack of stress awareness often
results in unnatural-sounding speech and reduced intelligibility. Similarly, English intonation
patterns, especially in questions, statements, and tag questions, pose difficulties for Albanian
speakers who are not accustomed to the pitch variations required for conveying meaning in
English discourse (De Leeuw et al., 2018).
Despite these challenges, pronunciation instruction in Albanian ESL classrooms is often limited
or inconsistent. Traditional teaching methods tend to focus on grammar and vocabulary, with
minimal emphasis on phonetic training or pronunciation drills (Ymeri, 2022). Additionally, there
is a lack of comprehensive pronunciation resources tailored to Albanian learners, making it
difficult for students to receive structured guidance in improving their spoken English (De
Leeuw, Kapia & Lewis, 2023). This gap in pedagogical approaches exacerbates pronunciation
difficulties, leaving many students unable to achieve a level of pronunciation that allows them to
communicate effectively in real-world contexts.
Furthermore, while some studies advocate for the use of technology, AI-assisted pronunciation
tools, and phonetic training, these approaches are not widely implemented in Albanian ESL
education (Stavre & Pojani, 2014; Toçi, 2020). The limited use of pronunciation software,
minimal exposure to diverse English accents, and a lack of structured feedback further impede
pronunciation development.
Given these issues, there is a pressing need for targeted pronunciation instruction that addresses
the specific phonetic challenges faced by Albanian ESL learners. This thesis aims to explore
effective teaching strategies that can bridge the gap between the phonological systems of English
and Albanian, improve pronunciation accuracy, and enhance learners' confidence in spoken
communication. By examining evidence-based approaches, this study seeks to contribute to the
field of ESL education by offering practical recommendations for improving pronunciation
instruction in Albanian learning contexts.

1.3 Significance of the Study

This research contributes to ESL pedagogy by identifying best practices for pronunciation
instruction. Findings can help language teachers develop effective lesson plans and inform future
research on L2 pronunciation. By emphasizing comprehensibility over accent reduction, this
study aligns with modern ESL teaching approaches (Munro & Derwing, 1995).This study is
significant as it aims to address a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of English language
learning in Albania—the impact of strong regional accents on pronunciation acquisition among
ESL learners. While pronunciation difficulties among Albanian learners have been explored in
previous studies (Stavre & Pojani, 2014; Toçi, 2020; Tyfekci & Islami, 2016), most research has

3
primarily focused on general phonetic challenges rather than examining how regional variations
in Albanian accents affect English pronunciation learning. By investigating this issue, this study
will contribute to the field of phonetics, ESL pedagogy, and language acquisition in Albania in
several key ways.

1.3.1 Gaps in Existing Literature & How This Study Fills Them
1. Lack of Focus on Regional Accents and Their Impact on ESL Learning
 Existing research acknowledges that Albanian learners struggle with certain English
sounds (e.g., /θ/, /ð/, /æ/) due to phonetic differences between English and Albanian
(Lekli, 2019; Alimemaj, 2021).
 However, the specific influence of regional Albanian accents (such as Gheg, Tosk, or
other local dialectal variations) on the ability to acquire English pronunciation has not
been sufficiently explored.
 This study will bridge this gap by analyzing how Gheg regional accent speech patterns
influence English pronunciation difficulties, offering more localized and dialect-sensitive
pronunciation teaching strategies.
2. Limited Research on Stress, Rhythm, and Intonation Differences Between English and
Albanian
 Prior studies focus heavily on segmental pronunciation issues (i.e., vowel and consonant
mismatches) but pay less attention to suprasegmental features like stress, rhythm, and
intonation (Toçi, 2020).
 Albanian lacks a fixed stress pattern, while English stress is highly structured and affects
meaning. This mismatch leads to mispronunciations and decreased intelligibility among
Albanian ESL learners.
 This study fills the gap by investigating how Albanian regional accents further
complicate stress and intonation acquisition and proposes solutions for teaching English
prosody more effectively.
3. Insufficient Pedagogical Strategies for Pronunciation Teaching in Albania
 In Albania, pronunciation instruction is often overlooked in ESL classrooms, where the
focus is predominantly on grammar and vocabulary (Ymeri, 2022).
 Current ESL teaching methods in Albania lack structured pronunciation training
programs tailored to the specific phonological challenges of Albanian learners.
 This study will contribute by developing and recommending practical teaching strategies
that consider both phonetic challenges and regional accent influences, helping teachers
incorporate pronunciation instruction more effectively.

4
4. Limited Use of Modern Pronunciation Tools and Technology in Albanian ESL Education
 AI-based pronunciation tools, speech recognition software, and interactive phonetics
training apps are underutilized in Albania due to a lack of awareness and resources
(Stavre & Pojani, 2014).
 This study will assess the effectiveness of these tools in enhancing pronunciation training
and recommend ways to integrate them into ESL curricula in Albania.

1.4 Overall Contributions of the Study

This research will:
1. Provide the first in-depth analysis of how regional Albanian accents affect English
pronunciation learning, addressing an understudied aspect of ESL education in Albania.
2. Develop targeted pronunciation training strategies that account for both phonetic
challenges and regional linguistic influences.
3. Enhance teacher training by proposing innovative methodologies for incorporating
phonetic instruction into ESL curricula in Albania.
4. Introduce modern pronunciation technologies to Albanian ESL learners and educators to
improve speech accuracy and self-assessment.
5. Address the psychological barriers caused by pronunciation difficulties and offer
confidence-building strategies for ESL learners in Albania.
By filling these critical research gaps, this study will contribute not only to linguistic research on
Albanian ESL learners but also to improving English education in Albania, making
pronunciation instruction more effective, accessible, and culturally relevant.

1.5 Research Objectives

This study aims to:
 Evaluate the effectiveness of different teaching strategies in improving pronunciation.
 Gather teacher and learner perspectives on pronunciation instruction.
 To identify the key pronunciation difficulties experienced by Albanian ESL learners with
strong regional accents.
 To analyze the phonetic and phonological differences between English and Albanian and
their impact on pronunciation.
 To assess the influence of regional Albanian accents on the acquisition of English
pronunciation.

5
  To examine how stress, rhythm, and intonation patterns in English differ from those in
Albanian and their effects on speech intelligibility.
 To evaluate existing teaching methodologies and determine their effectiveness in
improving pronunciation in students with strong regional accents.
 To investigate the role of modern pronunciation technologies, such as AI-based apps, in
enhancing phonetic awareness and accuracy.
 To explore student and teacher attitudes toward pronunciation instruction and how these
perceptions shape learning outcomes.
 To develop practical recommendations for ESL instructors on how to design
pronunciation-focused curricula that cater to Albanian learners with regional accents.

1.6 Research Questions

1. What are the key pronunciation difficulties faced by Albanian ESL learners?
2. Which teaching strategies are most effective for improving comprehensibility?
3. How do teachers and learners perceive the role of pronunciation in ESL learning?
4. What pedagogical adjustments can be made to better support Albanian ESL learners in
achieving clear and intelligible English pronunciation?

2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Pronunciation is a fundamental component of spoken communication, directly impacting
intelligibility, fluency, and speaker confidence in English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts.
While some pronunciation errors may not hinder communication, others can lead to
misunderstandings and reduced comprehensibility, particularly in professional and academic
settings (Derwing & Munro, 2009). Among ESL learners, those with strong regional accents face
additional pronunciation challenges due to phonological interference from their native language
(L1), making intelligible speech acquisition more difficult.
For Albanian ESL learners, pronunciation is one of the most challenging aspects of English
acquisition due to the phonetic and phonological differences between Albanian and English
(Stavre & Pojani, 2014; Toçi, 2020). Additionally, regional Albanian accents (Gheg, Tosk, and
local dialects) introduce phonetic variations that further complicate the learning process. Despite
these challenges, pronunciation instruction remains largely neglected in Albanian ESL
classrooms, where the focus is primarily on grammar and vocabulary (Ymeri, 2022).
This chapter reviews existing literature on pronunciation challenges among Albanian ESL
learners, analyzing the phonetic difficulties they face, the impact of regional accents, and the

6
strategies currently used to teach pronunciation. It also examines modern techniques—such as
phonetics-based training, AI-powered learning tools, and structured pronunciation curricula—to
provide a foundation for this study’s exploration of effective pronunciation teaching strategies
for Albanian ESL learners with strong regional accents.

2.2 The Importance of Pronunciation in ESL Learning

Several studies emphasize that pronunciation is a key factor in communicative competence,
affecting fluency, comprehension, and speaker confidence (Jenkins, 2004; Derwing & Munro,
2009). Unlike vocabulary or grammar mistakes, pronunciation errors can create significant
communication barriers, making it difficult for non-native speakers to be understood by native
English speakers (Gilakjani, 2017).
According to Saito (2014), pronunciation errors are particularly persistent because adult
language learners struggle to reconfigure their phonetic system once their L1 phonology is
deeply ingrained. This is relevant for Albanian ESL learners, whose phonetic system differs
significantly from English, leading to persistent pronunciation difficulties.
However, despite its importance, pronunciation is often overlooked in ESL instruction (Toçi,
2020). Albanian learners, in particular, receive minimal phonetic training, and teachers in
Albania rarely incorporate pronunciation-focused exercises into their curricula (Ymeri, 2022).
The lack of structured pronunciation instruction has led to a persistent gap in Albanian ESL
learners’ ability to acquire native-like speech patterns.

2.3 Phonetic and Phonological Differences Between

English and Albanian
2.3.1 Vowel System Differences
One of the biggest challenges for Albanian learners is mastering English vowels, as the Albanian
vowel system is more limited (Lekli, 2019). While English has around 20 vowel phonemes,
Albanian has only seven (/a, e, i, o, u, y, ə/), making it difficult for learners to perceive and
produce English vowels accurately.
Key vowel pronunciation difficulties for Albanian learners:
 The English vowel /æ/ (as in cat) does not exist in Albanian. Learners often replace it
with /a/, making words like man and men indistinguishable.
 The schwa /ə/ (the most common English vowel, found in unstressed syllables like sofa)
is difficult for Albanian learners because it has no equivalent sound in Albanian.

7
  Diphthongs in English (e.g., /aɪ/ in time, /oʊ/ in go) are simplified by Albanian speakers
into monophthongs (e.g., pronouncing time as tam).

2.3.2 Consonant System Challenges

Several English consonants are absent from Albanian phonology, leading to substitution errors
(Tyfekci & Islami, 2016).
Major consonant difficulties for Albanian learners:
 The dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ (as in think and this) do not exist in Albanian. Albanian
learners often replace /θ/ with /t/ (tink instead of think) and replace /ð/ with /d/ (dis
instead of this).
 The /v/ and /w/ distinction: Albanian lacks /w/, leading to mispronunciations such as
wery instead of very.
 Consonant clusters: English frequently has complex consonant clusters (spring,
glimpsed), while Albanian does not. Learners often insert vowels (espring instead of
spring).

2.3.3 Stress, Rhythm, and Intonation

Another major obstacle is that English is a stress-timed language, whereas Albanian is syllable-
timed (Toçi, 2020).
 In English, stressed syllables are emphasized, while unstressed syllables are reduced
(photograph → pho-TO-graph, photographic → pho-to-GRAPH-ic).
 Albanian learners often fail to stress the correct syllables, leading to unnatural prosody.
 English intonation patterns, particularly in questions and statements, differ from
Albanian. This can make Albanian speakers sound flat or emotionally unexpressive when
speaking English (De Leeuw et al., 2018).

2.4 The Influence of Regional Albanian Accents on

Pronunciation
Albanian regional dialects (Gheg, Tosk, and sub-dialects) influence how learners acquire English
pronunciation.
 Gheg speakers tend to nasalize vowels, which distorts English vowel pronunciation.
 Tosk speakers have a softer articulation, leading to difficulties producing English
aspirated consonants

8
However, ESL teaching approaches in Albania fail to address regional phonetic differences,
treating all Albanian learners as homogeneous (Ymeri, 2022).

2.5 Current Pronunciation Teaching Approaches in Albania

Challenges in Pronunciation Instruction
 Minimal phonetic instruction: Most Albanian ESL teachers lack specialized phonetic
training (Toçi, 2020).
 Limited access to pronunciation technology: AI-based pronunciation apps are not widely
used in Albanian ESL programs (Stavre & Pojani, 2014).
 Overemphasis on grammar and vocabulary, with little focus on pronunciation drills.
Modern Pronunciation Training Strategies
Recent research suggests several effective pronunciation teaching strategies:
1. Phonetics-based instruction: Teaching learners how to position the tongue, lips, and vocal
cords can improve articulation (Lekli, 2019).
2. Minimal pairs training (e.g., bit vs. beat) helps learners distinguish similar sounds
(Alimemaj, 2021).
3. Shadowing technique: Repeating sentences after native speakers improves fluency (De
Leeuw et al., 2018).
4. AI pronunciation tools: Apps like ELSA Speak provide real-time feedback (Stavre &
Pojani, 2014).

2.6 Conclusion
This literature review reveals that Albanian ESL learners struggle with pronunciation due to
phonetic differences, regional dialectal influences, and inadequate instruction. While some
solutions exist, they are not widely implemented in Albania. This study seeks to fill these gaps by
proposing effective pronunciation teaching strategies for Albanian learners with strong regional
accents.

9
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design and Approach
This study employs a qualitative, non-experimental, exploratory research design to investigate
pronunciation challenges faced by Albanian ESL learners with strong regional accents. The core
aim is to examine how dialectal variations—particularly between Gheg and Tosk—affect English
pronunciation learning and to identify teaching strategies that can effectively respond to these
linguistic differences. A qualitative design was selected due to the nature of pronunciation issues,
which are closely linked to learners' lived experiences, phonetic perceptions, and sociolinguistic
identity. Quantitative methods alone would not sufficiently capture the nuanced influence of
regional accents on learners’ oral performance, nor provide a rich understanding of classroom
practices and pedagogical challenges.
The research follows a descriptive approach, gathering non-numerical data from learners and
teachers to develop a comprehensive picture of current pronunciation instruction practices and
learner difficulties. It also allows for an in-depth exploration of the ways in which regional
accents shape pronunciation learning outcomes and classroom dynamics in Albanian ESL
settings. This approach is particularly suitable for understanding pronunciation as both a
cognitive-linguistic process and a social experience that intersects with identity, motivation, and
pedagogy.

3.2 Participants and Sampling

Data for this study was collected from three different high schools located in geographically and
linguistically distinct regions of Albania. The schools were purposefully chosen to represent both
the Gheg and Tosk dialects, which are central to the study’s comparative focus. The first
institution, “Havzi Nela” High School, is situated in Kukës in the north of Albania, a region
dominated by Gheg dialect speakers. This site also served as the researcher’s practicum
placement, providing valuable insight into classroom routines, pronunciation instruction, and
learner engagement over a three-month teaching period. The second site, “Elez Isufi” High
School in Kamëz, is located in central Albania and holds personal relevance for the me as my
former school. Although geographically central, this area is influenced primarily by northern
(Gheg) speech patterns. The third site, “Petro Nini Luarasi” High School, is located in Ersekë
in southern Albania, offering representation of Tosk-speaking students. The geographic
distribution of these sites ensures a balanced sample of dialectal diversity and makes the regional
context a crucial component of this research.
A total of 123 students from these three high schools participated in the study. They ranged in
age from 15 to 18 years and were selected to represent a wide cross-section of English language
learners from different dialect backgrounds. Their participation was voluntary and coordinated

10
with the assistance of head teachers at each school, who supported the distribution and
administration of the research instruments. Alongside the student participants, 12 ESL teachers
were also included in the study. These teachers, who work across the three participating schools,
were selected for their experience in teaching English pronunciation and their familiarity with
the phonological characteristics of the local dialects. Their input provides professional insights
into pronunciation instruction and the perceived challenges faced by learners in real classroom
contexts.
The sampling method employed in this study was purposive, allowing for the deliberate selection
of schools and participants who could provide rich, context-specific data related to regional
pronunciation challenges. By focusing on schools that represented both Gheg and Tosk dialect
regions and working with teachers and learners who were actively engaged in English language
instruction, the study ensures that its findings are directly relevant to the pedagogical realities of
ESL education in Albania.

3.3 Data Collection Methods

Data collection in this study relied on two complementary methods: student questionnaires and
teacher interviews. For the student participants, a structured questionnaire was developed and
distributed via Google Forms in both printed and digital formats. This ensured accessibility for
students across the three school sites, regardless of their technological resources or preferences.
The questionnaire included a mix of multiple-choice questions, Likert-scale items, and open-
ended prompts. These were designed to elicit information about students’ personal experiences
with English pronunciation, the specific phonetic and prosodic difficulties they encounter, their
use of pronunciation tools or strategies, and their attitudes toward pronunciation instruction. The
head teachers at each school played an instrumental role in facilitating the administration of the
questionnaires, organizing classroom sessions for completion, and ensuring that students
understood the voluntary and confidential nature of their participation.
In parallel, data was also gathered from 12 ESL teachers through in-person, semi-structured
interviews. These interviews provided a platform for teachers to share their professional
perspectives on the pronunciation issues commonly observed among Albanian learners,
particularly in relation to regional accent interference. Each interview lasted approximately 60
minutes and was conducted in a private setting at the teacher’s school to encourage open and
reflective discussion. Topics explored during the interviews included instructional techniques,
challenges in addressing specific phonetic problems, use of technology or resources, and
perceived student attitudes toward pronunciation training.
Together, the student questionnaires and teacher interviews offer a robust data set that captures
the multi-dimensional nature of pronunciation instruction in Albanian high schools. The
integration of learner self-reports with teacher observations ensures that the analysis reflects both
experiential and pedagogical dimensions of the research problem.

11
3.4 Data Analysis
The data collected from the 123 student questionnaires and 12 teacher interviews was analyzed
using a descriptive qualitative approach complemented by simple frequency analysis to
identify dominant patterns, recurring themes, and representative experiences.
Student responses, collected via Google Forms, were downloaded and organized in a structured
spreadsheet format. Open-ended responses were coded manually using thematic coding, with
particular attention to recurring challenges related to segmental (e.g., /θ/, /ð/, consonant clusters)
and suprasegmental features (e.g., stress and intonation). Frequency counts were used to
summarize categorical items such as perceived difficulty, regional background, and motivation
levels. Patterns were compared across dialectal lines (Gheg vs. Tosk) to understand regional
variance in pronunciation struggles.
For teacher interviews, the qualitative data was transcribed and analyzed inductively. Recurrent
themes included the role of native dialect interference, instructional strategies used to address
pronunciation issues, perceptions of pronunciation’s importance in ESL learning, and the use (or
lack thereof) of technological tools such as AI-based apps. Common observations across teachers
were grouped into thematic clusters, and any notable divergences were explored to provide a
balanced interpretation of instructional realities.
This analytical strategy ensured that both the learners’ perspectives and the teachers’
instructional experiences were adequately represented, with a special focus on how regional
dialects mediate the acquisition of English pronunciation.

Table 1
Age, gender, and grade of the student participants

Grade\Gender Male Female Total Students

10th 18 25 43
11th 17 25 42
12th 18 20 38
Total 53 70 123

12
3.5 Ethical Considerations
All necessary ethical precautions were taken during the planning and implementation of this
study. Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from both students and teachers.
Students under the age of 18 participated with the approval and supervision of their respective
head teachers, who also facilitated classroom-based survey administration. Participation was
entirely voluntary and anonymous; respondents were assured that they could skip any question or
withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
In the case of teacher interviews, verbal consent was obtained before recording any responses,
and interviews were conducted in a private setting to encourage honest and uninfluenced
reflections. No identifying information—such as names, personal school affiliations beyond the
publicly named institutions, or personal contact information—was collected or disclosed in the
analysis or publication of results.
All digital data were stored securely on encrypted local devices, accessible only by the
researcher. The use of online survey tools such as Google Forms followed privacy compliance
protocols. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of academic integrity,
respect for persons, and research transparency.

3.6 Limitations of the Study

While the study was designed to explore pronunciation instruction in a regionally balanced and
methodologically rigorous manner, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample
size, though representative of three distinct regions in Albania, remains modest, particularly for
generalizing across the entire country. With 123 students and 12 teachers, the findings should be
interpreted as indicative rather than definitive.
Secondly, while the questionnaire captured a broad range of pronunciation-related experiences, it
relied on self-report data, which may be affected by recall bias, social desirability, or limited
metalinguistic awareness among younger students. Additionally, the absence of phonetic or
acoustic analysis means that pronunciation difficulties were interpreted based on participant
perceptions rather than empirical sound recordings or transcriptions.
Finally, although efforts were made to balance representation between Gheg and Tosk regions,
the categorization of dialects remains somewhat generalized, especially for students in
transitional or mixed-dialect areas. Future research could address these limitations through
larger-scale studies, inclusion of phonological assessments, and comparative classroom
observations.

13
Chapter IV Findings and results
This chapter presents a statistical and interpretive analysis of the survey data collected from 122
Albanian ESL learners aged 15 to 18. The data are examined through charts and supported by in-
depth academic commentary, focusing on demographic composition, self-perceived proficiency,
stress and intonation difficulty, intelligibility, and the influence of regional accent on English
pronunciation. The first section of this chapter deals exclusively with quantitative and qualitative
data gathered from student surveys. The second part, addressed separately, will present a
thematic and reflective analysis of the teacher interview data.

Chart 1. Age distribution

14
Figure 1

 Age 15: 36 students

 Age 16: 34 students

 Age 17: 32 students

 Age 18: 21 students

The age profile of the student participants was distributed across four groups: 15, 16, 17, and 18
years. The sample included 36 students aged 15 (29.3%), 34 students aged 16 (27.6%), 32
students aged 17 (26.0%), and 21 students aged 18 (17.1%), totaling 123 respondents. This
distribution reflects a deliberate skew toward younger age groups, particularly students in the
earlier stages of upper secondary education.

From a pedagogical perspective, this distribution is highly relevant. Students aged 15 to 16 are
typically at the formative stage of pronunciation development in a foreign language, where their
phonological awareness is still malleable and responsive to instruction. The higher representation
of these age groups supports the study's emphasis on early intervention in pronunciation
instruction and the effectiveness of tools and strategies during a learner’s foundational ESL
years.

Meanwhile, the inclusion of older students (ages 17 and 18) offers a comparative dimension,
enabling insights into how pronunciation challenges may persist or evolve despite increased
exposure and instructional time. It may also reflect a trend in which older learners, although
more advanced in general proficiency, still encounter deeply embedded phonological transfer
issues from their L1.

15
Importantly, the age variation supports a developmental view of pronunciation acquisition,
allowing for analysis not only of linguistic competence but also of motivational, cognitive, and
affective shifts as learners progress through adolescence. The relatively lower representation of
18-year-olds may also hint at curricular or logistical constraints affecting senior students'
participation in language-focused research, a consideration worth exploring in the study's
limitations.

Chart 2. Gender Distribution

The gender distribution in the sample shows a slightly higher participation of female students
(56.9%) compared to male students (43.1%). This may reflect broader trends in language
education participation, where female learners often show greater engagement in language
learning environments. While gender was not a primary variable in the study, this balance
ensures diverse perspectives and provides a sound basis for generalizing findings related to
pronunciation learning preferences. As supported by the teachers this trend reflects mass
immigration in the last 10 years, which is predominantly male.

16
Chart 2. Regional Distribution

The regional representation is slightly weighted toward Gheg-speaking respondents (52.8%),

aligning with the study's aim to explore how Gheg accents impact English pronunciation. This
balance allows for comparative insight between Albania’s major dialects—Gheg and Tosk—and
ensures that the findings are both regionally representative and capable of identifying dialect-
specific pronunciation challenges. The slight lean toward Gheg also supports a deeper
investigation into the hypothesis that Gheg speakers may experience more interference due to
phonological features like nasalization and reduced consonant aspiration.

Chart 3: English Proficiency Levels

17
  Upper-Intermediate (B2): Most common
 Advanced (C1–C2): Substantial group
 Intermediate (B1–B2): Smaller portion

Most participants self-identified as Upper-Intermediate (B2) or Advanced (C1–C2), indicating

they have sufficient linguistic competence to engage with nuanced aspects of pronunciation such
as stress, intonation, and segmental phonemes. This proficiency base strengthens the reliability
of their self-assessments and ensures that pronunciation difficulties reported are not merely a
byproduct of low general proficiency, but rather persistent issues worthy of targeted instruction.

How long have you been learning English?

18
Chart 4. Self-Reported Difficulty with Stress and Intonation

19
 Nearly half (49.2%) of the respondents reported finding stress and intonation “very easy.”

 23.8% found it “somewhat easy,” while a substantial 27.1% indicated some level of
difficulty.

 The combined difficulty group (“somewhat difficult” and “very difficult”) reflects a
meaningful subset of learners who may require targeted instructional support.

Most participants self-identified as Upper-Intermediate (B2) or Advanced (C1–C2), indicating

they have sufficient linguistic competence to engage with nuanced aspects of pronunciation such
as stress, intonation, and segmental phonemes. This proficiency base strengthens the reliability
of their self-assessments and ensures that pronunciation difficulties reported are not merely a
byproduct of low general proficiency, but rather persistent issues worthy of targeted instruction.

Chart 5. Frequency of Needing to Repeat Oneself

20
This bar chart illustrates the distribution of student responses regarding how frequently they feel
the need to repeat themselves while speaking English. The professional style ensures clarity and
academic appropriateness for formal presentation.
 The most common response was “Rarely” (32%), indicating that while many learners
feel generally understood, this does not imply full confidence or accuracy.
 However, nearly half the respondents selected “Sometimes,” “Often,” or “Very Often,”
reflecting a significant issue with spoken intelligibility.
 The fact that 14.8% report needing to repeat themselves “Very Often” highlights a clear
barrier to communicative success in real-life interactions.
Although a portion of students reported ease with stress and intonation, a significant minority
experienced difficulty—especially those from Gheg backgrounds. This suggests that
suprasegmental features remain a pedagogical gap. In the context of syllable-timed Albanian
versus stress-timed English, this is expected. These findings underscore the need for structured,
prosody-focused pronunciation instruction, particularly for speakers of dialects that diverge
significantly from English prosodic norms.

21
Chart 6. Perceived Impact of Regional Accent on English Pronunciation

This chart presents student perceptions of how their native Albanian accent influences their
English pronunciation:
 A majority (59.8%) indicated that their accent does not affect their English
pronunciation at all.
 However, nearly 40% of respondents recognized some level of interference:
o 18.9% said “Yes, somewhat”
o 7.4% believed it significantly affects their English
o 13.9% chose “No, not really,” suggesting mild uncertainty or underestimation
A notable number of students reported having to repeat themselves during communication,
highlighting real-world intelligibility challenges. This metric acts as a proxy for communicative
competence in spoken English. Learners who frequently repeat themselves likely struggle with
phoneme articulation, stress placement, or rhythm—reinforcing the case for intelligibility-
focused teaching over native-like accent mimicry.

22
Open-ended questions
What is the biggest challenge you face when trying to pronounce English words correctly?

Table 1.1: Thematic Breakdown of Student Pronunciation Challenges

Challenge Theme Number of Students Percentage (%)
Stress/Intonation 45 36.9
Vowel/Consonant Sounds 30 24.6
Clusters/Pronunciation 20 16.4
Accent Influence 10 8.2
In order to gain a more nuanced understanding of learners’ difficulties with English
pronunciation, students were asked an open-ended question about the specific challenges they
encounter. Responses were thematically coded, yielding six dominant categories that reflect both
linguistic and affective barriers. These themes and their distribution among respondents are
presented below.
The most frequently reported challenge, cited by approximately 37% of students, was related to
stress and intonation. This is consistent with previous research on the suprasegmental
interference between Albanian and English (Gilakjani, 2012). English, being a stress-timed
language, poses structural difficulties for Albanian learners, especially for speakers of Gheg,
which often features variable stress patterns. Learners expressed confusion about where to place
emphasis within multisyllabic words and how to use intonation to convey meaning, rhythm, and
intention.
Approximately 25% of students reported difficulties with vowel and consonant sounds,
highlighting the segmental level of pronunciation. English phonology contains a wider inventory
of vowel phonemes than Albanian, which often leads to misarticulation and minimal pair
confusion (e.g., ship/sheep, bit/beat). Consonant challenges were particularly associated with the
interdental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/, which do not exist in Albanian and are often substituted with
/t/, /d/, or /s/.
About 16% of respondents identified consonant clusters and general articulation as difficult,
especially when these clusters appeared at the beginning or end of words (e.g., strengths, crisps).
This aligns with common phonotactic challenges faced by learners whose L1 has more restrictive
syllable structures.

23
A smaller but notable group of students (8.2%) cited their regional accent as an obstacle. Some
acknowledged that their Gheg or Tosk accent transferred phonetic habits into their English
speech, such as nasalization or vowel elongation. Others noted embarrassment or hesitation due
to fear of their accent being perceived negatively by peers or teachers.
Another 8.2% of learners emphasized issues related to fluency and speaking speed, noting that
rapid speech made it more difficult to maintain proper pronunciation. These students often
conflated fluency with pronunciation, underscoring the need to distinguish between fluency (rate
of delivery) and accuracy (sound production) in pronunciation pedagogy.
Finally, 7% of students highlighted affective barriers, such as lack of confidence, anxiety, and
fear of being judged. These affective factors, while not linguistic in nature, significantly affect
learners’ willingness to engage in pronunciation practice and risk-taking in oral communication.
This finding reinforces the importance of creating psychologically safe learning environments
for oral practice.
Overall, this analysis suggests that both segmental and suprasegmental issues persist among
Albanian learners, with an added layer of sociolinguistic and emotional complexity. These
findings justify the integration of pronunciation instruction that is both explicit and supportive,
targeting individual sounds, prosodic features, and learner confidence.

Table 1.2: Perceived Impact of Regional Accent on English Pronunciation

Perceived Accent Impact Number of Students Percentage (%)
Negative Impact 36 29.5
Moderate Awareness 30 24.6
Unaware/Denial 30 24.6
Identity Awareness 26 21.3
Uncategorized 0 0.0

Perceptions of Regional Accent Influence on Pronunciation

To better understand students’ metalinguistic awareness and self-perceived difficulties,
respondents were asked how they believe their regional accent affects their English
pronunciation. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed four principal categories,
with roughly even distribution, reflecting a diverse range of attitudes and awareness levels.
A substantial proportion of learners (30%) denied any impact of their native accent, offering
responses such as “not at all” or “I don’t think it affects me.” This group likely lacks exposure

24
to contrastive phonological analysis or may normalize their accent’s features as unproblematic, a
common tendency among monolingual speakers in homogeneous linguistic communities.
Conversely, 36 students (30%) described their accent as having a negative effect on their
pronunciation, citing issues like mispronunciation, difficulty being understood, or interference
from native phonological habits (e.g., vowel nasalization, syllable timing). This group
demonstrates both phonetic awareness and communicative sensitivity, suggesting that
pronunciation issues have become salient through feedback or breakdowns in understanding.
Another 30 students (25%) acknowledged moderate or occasional effects, often qualifying
their answers with uncertainty (e.g., “maybe a little,” “sometimes,” or “not always”). These
learners may be in a transitional awareness stage, recognizing some difficulties but unable to
fully articulate or address them in technical terms.
Lastly, 26 respondents (21.3%) referenced their regional identity explicitly—mentioning
Gheg, Tosk, or Albanian phonology. This group does not necessarily view their accent as
negative but recognizes it as a feature that colors their English production. Some expressed pride
or cultural awareness, while others mentioned it as a known factor that "makes them sound
different."
Overall, these findings highlight the complex interplay between linguistic competence and
sociolinguistic identity. They also suggest the value of integrating explicit phonological
comparison in the ESL classroom to build student awareness and confidence, especially in
dialectally diverse regions like Albania.

Table 1.3: Strategies Used by Students to Improve English Pronunciation

Improvement Strategy Number of Students Percentage (%)
Listening Practice 40 32.8
Imitating Native Speakers 25 20.5
Dictionary Use 20 16.4
AI/Apps/Tools 15 12.3
Peer/Teacher Feedback 10 8.2
Self-Monitoring 7 5.7
Uncategorized 5 4.1

25
Strategies Used by Students to Improve Pronunciation
In response to the open-ended question regarding pronunciation improvement strategies, students
reported a diverse set of methods, reflecting both autonomous and guided learning practices. The
responses were categorized into six major strategy types, indicating the varied resources and
learning preferences among Albanian secondary students.
The most frequently mentioned category was listening-based practice, cited by 32.8% of
respondents. This includes the use of English-language music, podcasts, and YouTube videos,
through which students engage in passive or semi-active pronunciation exposure. The popularity
of this strategy may stem from its accessibility and entertainment value, although it may not
always offer structured phonological input.
Approximately 20.5% of students reported imitating native speakers, a technique often aligned
with the “shadowing method” or movie-based mimicry. This suggests that learners are attuned to
rhythm, intonation, and pronunciation through direct emulation, though the accuracy and
effectiveness of imitation may vary depending on feedback and awareness.
Another 16.4% utilized online dictionaries and pronunciation tools, indicating a preference
for precise, reference-based learning. These learners are likely self-directed and seek phonetic
models for unfamiliar words, reflecting a higher degree of metacognitive regulation.
A smaller group (12.3%) mentioned using AI applications and digital tools such as ELSA
Speak, Google Translate’s pronunciation feature, or pronunciation-focused apps. These tools
provide automated feedback and may be particularly appealing to tech-savvy students seeking
structured input.
Peer or teacher feedback was cited by only 8.2%, suggesting limited formal instruction or
hesitation to seek corrective input. Given the importance of feedback in phonological
development, this area may represent a pedagogical gap.
Lastly, 7 students reported self-monitoring techniques, including recording their own voice
and comparing it to native pronunciation. Although this number is relatively small, it reflects a
developing sense of self-awareness and learner autonomy.
Overall, the findings reveal that while many learners engage in pronunciation improvement, their
strategies vary significantly in focus, reliability, and instructional support. Encouraging guided
imitation, structured feedback, and strategic use of digital tools may yield more effective
pronunciation outcomes.

26
[Link] of Teacher Interviews
Following the quantitative analysis of student questionnaire data, this second section of Chapter
4 presents a qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with English
language teachers in Albanian secondary schools. The aim of this component is to explore
instructors’ perceptions, classroom practices, and pedagogical challenges related to teaching
English pronunciation—particularly in light of regional accent variation among students.
The teacher interviews offer essential professional insight into how pronunciation is approached
in practice and how regional dialects, such as Gheg and Tosk, are perceived to influence student
performance. While student data provide a learner-centered perspective on pronunciation
difficulties and strategies, teacher responses add a pedagogically reflective layer to the analysis,
enabling triangulation of findings and a more comprehensive view of pronunciation instruction
in the Albanian ESL context.
The analysis is based on open-ended responses collected from teachers using a standardized
interview protocol. Thematic coding was applied to extract key categories such as:
 perceptions of regional accent interference,
 teaching strategies employed for pronunciation instruction,
 challenges faced in the classroom,
 use of instructional materials and feedback mechanisms, and
 attitudes toward intelligibility versus native-like pronunciation.
Each theme is presented with representative quotations and critical interpretation to identify
recurring pedagogical patterns, tensions, and areas for potential development in pronunciation
instruction. This interpretive approach is intended not only to highlight what teachers do and
observe, but also to critically assess the structural and methodological gaps in existing classroom
practices.

Table 1
Teacher participants

Options Experience Level Number of teachers

1 More than 6 years 4

2 More than 3 years 3

3 More than 2 years 2

4 Less than 2 years 2

27
 5 Less than 1 year 1

Total 12

The distribution of teaching experience among the participants reveals a balanced blend of
novice, mid-career, and veteran teachers. Several educators report over a decade of classroom
experience, which lends authority and depth to their insights on pronunciation instruction. The
presence of teachers with fewer years also contributes a contemporary view shaped by more
recent training or exposure to evolving methodologies. This mixture ensures that the findings
represent a broad pedagogical spectrum and are not overly influenced by one generation of
educators.

Chart 1

The majority of teachers indicated they had not received formal training specifically in
pronunciation pedagogy. This result highlights a systemic issue in teacher education, where
pronunciation often remains underemphasized in both pre-service and in-service training. The
absence of structured phonological instruction can leave teachers unprepared to address
segmental and suprasegmental challenges effectively. It also helps explain why many rely on

28
general intuition, mimicry, or textbook exercises rather than explicit, research-backed
pronunciation techniques.

Chart 2

Despite limited training, nearly all respondents consider pronunciation a very important or
extremely important component of ESL teaching. This high level of perceived importance
underscores a disconnect between teacher beliefs and institutional support or curricular focus.
While educators recognize that intelligible pronunciation is crucial for oral communication and
academic success, they are often left without the tools or time to teach it effectively. This belief-
practice gap justifies the need for improved training modules and curriculum integration.

29
Chart 3

The reported frequency of pronunciation instruction varies significantly. Some teachers

incorporate exercises regularly, while others do so only occasionally or rarely. This variability
suggests that while teachers value pronunciation, it is not consistently prioritized in lesson
planning. Factors such as time constraints, standardized testing pressure, or lack of resources
may influence this inconsistency. The data suggest a need for institutional encouragement and
curricular frameworks that make pronunciation practice a regular, structured component of ESL
instruction.

30
Chart 4

Responses regarding AI-based pronunciation tools were largely positive, with many teachers
recognizing their potential. Applications like ELSA, Google Translate’s voice features, or
interactive phonetic games are seen as supportive complements to classroom instruction.
However, some respondents expressed uncertainty, likely due to unfamiliarity or skepticism
about student access and feedback quality. These findings suggest that while there is openness to
integrating technology, more professional development is needed to guide effective use and
critical evaluation of these tools.

31
Chart 5

The most frequently mentioned barriers include lack of training, insufficient materials, time
constraints, and a curriculum overly focused on grammar. These align closely with systemic
issues documented in other EFL contexts. Additional concerns include lack of student motivation
and limited access to technology. Together, these barriers form a multi-layered challenge that
cannot be addressed by teachers alone. Solutions must be systemic—requiring institutional
investment, curriculum revision, and greater emphasis on pronunciation in teacher education
programs.

32
Open-ended questions

[Link] do you think regional accents influence English pronunciation learning?

Chart 1

When asked how regional dialects such as Gheg and Tosk influence students’ acquisition of
English pronunciation, the majority of teachers (42%) indicated a strong phonetic or
phonological influence. These teachers noted that the segmental and suprasegmental features of
regional Albanian—such as vowel coloration, intonation patterns, and syllabic timing—
frequently carry over into students’ English speech. For example, a Gheg-speaking student may
exhibit vowel reductions or tonal contours that differ markedly from standard English, making
them more susceptible to intelligibility issues.
Three teachers (25%) expressed a moderate view, suggesting that accent influence depends on
individual awareness, exposure, and the specific sounds being learned. They noted that some
students manage to compensate for their regional features through mimicry or feedback, while
others remain strongly marked by L1 patterns.
Two teachers (17%) reported minimal or no impact, implying either a belief in universal
phonetic learning capacity or that students are able to compartmentalize L1 and L2

33
pronunciation. These responses may reflect specific teaching experiences or perhaps a lack of
focused observation on prosodic interference.
One teacher (8%) acknowledged uncertainty, stating they were not sure how regional accents
impacted pronunciation learning. Another was unclassified due to an unclear or ambiguous
response.
Overall, this distribution affirms that L1 influence is a prominent concern among Albanian
ESL educators, particularly in pronunciation acquisition. It also supports the need for regionally
informed instruction that explicitly addresses dialectal interference in both segmental articulation
and prosodic control.

[Link] strategies do you think work best for helping Albanian learners with pronunciation?
Chart 2

When asked to identify the most effective strategies for helping Albanian students improve their
English pronunciation, teachers presented a range of pedagogical preferences. The chart reflects
a balanced distribution of commonly recommended practices, all of which reflect key strands in
contemporary pronunciation instruction.
Three teachers (25%) emphasized the role of media exposure—including movies, songs, and
authentic audio materials—as a primary means of improving learners’ phonological awareness.
These strategies rely on the natural acquisition of pronunciation through passive or semi-active
listening, fostering familiarity with English prosody, intonation, and rhythm. This reflects a
communicative or input-rich approach consistent with second language acquisition theory.

34
Another group of teachers (25%) recommended classroom drills and structured repetition,
often in the form of choral reading, minimal pairs, or phoneme isolation. This strategy aligns
with form-focused instruction, where learners systematically build muscle memory and
articulatory accuracy through practice and feedback.
Two teachers advocated for explicit pronunciation instruction, which includes dedicating
specific lesson time to phonemic distinctions, mouth positioning, and contrastive analysis
between Albanian and English sounds. These practices reflect a growing emphasis on
metalinguistic awareness in pronunciation pedagogy.
Others recommended language immersion or peer exchange as highly beneficial. Two teachers
believed students improve pronunciation significantly through contact with native or near-native
speakers, highlighting the value of authentic communication contexts.
Finally, two teachers stressed the importance of ongoing feedback and error correction,
emphasizing the teacher’s role in drawing attention to intelligibility issues and guiding
improvement. This category is particularly important for sustained progress, as pronunciation
problems often go unnoticed without structured corrective input.
Together, the responses suggest that a multimodal approach—combining exposure, practice,
explicit instruction, and feedback—is seen by educators as the most effective way to develop
pronunciation skills. These strategies, however, depend on institutional support, teacher training,
and the availability of resources.

3. Which methods do you find most effective for teaching pronunciation?

35
When teachers were asked to identify the methods, they found most effective for teaching
English pronunciation, their responses coalesced around several established pedagogical
techniques. The distribution, summarized in the bar chart above, illustrates both methodological
consensus and instructional variety.
The most frequently cited method (33%) was shadowing and repetition drills. This approach
involves learners mimicking native speech patterns in real-time, reinforcing rhythm, stress, and
intonation. Teachers value this technique for its ability to improve fluency and auditory
discrimination through practice, especially when coupled with authentic audio input. It reflects a
procedural learning model, where students internalize prosodic and segmental patterns through
repetition and correction.
Three teachers (25%) emphasized phonetic training, including the use of the International
Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and explicit articulation instruction. These methods aim to improve
learners’ awareness of English sound systems, helping them produce unfamiliar phonemes more
accurately. Teachers who support phonetic training often seek to build students’ metalinguistic
competence, enabling them to diagnose and correct their own errors.
Minimal pair drills, which were endorsed by two teachers (17%), focus on fine-tuning students’
ability to distinguish and produce phonemes that contrast meaningfully in English (e.g.,
ship/sheep, bat/bet). This contrastive approach is particularly useful for students whose L1 does
not encode such distinctions.
AI-based tools, such as pronunciation apps or speech analysis software, were highlighted by
another two respondents. These tools offer individualized practice with feedback and gamified
features that may motivate students outside the classroom. Their inclusion reflects growing
openness to technology-enhanced language learning, especially in resource-constrained settings.
One teacher provided a method that did not clearly fit into the dominant themes and is grouped
under “Other”.
In summary, the findings suggest that teachers favor a combination of drill-based, cognitive,
and technological methods for improving learner pronunciation. These varied techniques
suggest that a blended, adaptive approach is most effective, combining theory-informed training
with practical, repetitive input.

[Link] you had access to better pronunciation tools, what would you like to use?

36
In response to a question about their ideal pronunciation tools, teachers suggested a mix of
technology-driven, input-based, and traditional methods, revealing preferences that balance
innovation with familiarity.
The most common response came from five teachers (42%) who favored AI-based tools and
apps. This category includes applications that offer pronunciation modeling, speech recognition
feedback, and interactive practice—such as ELSA Speak, Google pronunciation features, or app-
based IPA training. Teachers view these tools as scalable, learner-centered, and adaptable to
diverse classroom settings. Their preference suggests growing trust in digital pedagogy and a
desire for more modern, individualized learning options.
Three teachers (25%) requested better access to listening-based resources, such as curated
audio recordings, podcasts, or pronunciation-focused listening exercises. These tools support a
more implicit and receptive acquisition of pronunciation, often helping students absorb stress
patterns, rhythm, and intonation naturally through exposure.
Two teachers (17%) expressed a preference for drills and repetition-based tools. These
methods focus on structured, repetitive output and are often favored for their reliability and
simplicity. While less novel than AI or multimedia approaches, such methods are praised for
reinforcing articulation through muscle memory and habit formation.
One teacher was uncertain or expressed no strong preference, and another proposed a tool that
did not fit within the major themes and was categorized as “Other.”
Together, these responses suggest that teachers appreciate both modern technology and time-
tested practices, and that a blended approach—supported by institutional investment in varied

37
tools—would best meet instructional needs. Importantly, the findings indicate that teacher
receptiveness to innovation is already present, but currently constrained by resource
availability and training gaps.

38