1
THE EFFECT OF NONNATIVE SPEAKER ACCENT ON EFL STUDENTS’ LISTENING
COMPREHENSION
Submitted by
Lisa Barlow
to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Education in TESOL
September 2009
This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and then
no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.
I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no
material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any
other university.
2
ABSTRACT
With the increasing demand for English language proficiency in today’s global
environment, comes a need for trained English as a Second or Foreign Language (ESL/EFL)
teachers. Many countries such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are establishing bachelor and
master degree programs in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages
(TESOL). The majority of students in these programs are nonnative speakers of English. While
these new graduates should be able to fill the growing demands for English teachers in tertiary
and non-tertiary institutions within the UAE, they and other experienced nonnative English
speaking teachers (NNEST) are often not hired. Most often this is due to a nonnative speaker
bias, the view that only native English speaking teachers are better suited to teach English. This
bias extends particularly to the teaching of oral and aural skills. There is a belief that accented
English is difficult for students to comprehend especially in academic listening which implies
that nonnative teacher accent can hinder ESL/EFL student listening success. However, current
research has not provided empirical evidence to verify or disprove this opinion.
Current research on nonnative speakers and listening comprehension has been based on
teacher and student self-perceptions and attitudes towards nonnative speaking teachers (Butler,
2007; Flowerdew, 1994; Friedrich 2000; Huang, 2004; Major et al., 2002; McKenzie, 2008;
Moussu, 2002). However, there is little quantitative data to support if and how these attitudes
and perceptions may or may not correlate to EFL student listening performance. This thesis will
attempt to resolve this deficiency. Another issue this thesis will undertake which has not been
examined widely is the effect of nonnative speaker accent on academic listening. Various
3
studies have been conducted on student difficulty in comprehending academic lectures from
native and nonnative speakers (Ferris & Tagg, 1996; Flowerdew & Miller, 2005; Huang, 2004;
Lynch, 1994; Powers, 1985; Richards, 1983; Vogely, 1995). Yet, currently, the literature is
sparse on the influence of nonnative speaker accent as a factor, or effect, in the listening
comprehension of L2 students’ understanding of academic lectures. Further, existing research in
NNESTs is also missing empirical or quantitative evidence which proves or disproves the
prevailing theory that native inner circle English accents are significantly better for EFL student
academic listening comprehension. Thus, another goal of this thesis is to provide evidence to
disprove this assumption. Finally, this research will provide qualitative data to understand how
students view accent as it relates to their academic achievement and prospective careers.
This thesis will propose new empirical data relating to nonnative speaker accent and
listening comprehension in ESL/EFL. It will provide evidence that there is no significant effect
of accent on academic listening test scores for EFL students enrolled in a university foundations
program at UAE University.
In this research, six EFL professionals (from China, Egypt and the USA) and 108 EFL
students participated in the study. The female students were between 18-20 years old, from the
UAE, and studying at the Under Graduate Requirements Unit at UAE University in Al Ain,
UAE. All students responded to a pre-test questionnaire in a Likert scale format. A week later,
the students listened to one recording, took a corresponding exam, and answered a post-test
survey. Two to three days later, 18 randomly selected students were interviewed. The
interviews consisted of open-ended questions.
The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Analysis of the quantitative
data shows that the majority of participants considered native speakers of English easier to
4
understand, specifically in terms of pronunciation and understandability, but had no opinion as to
whether a non-native speaker was easier to understand than a native speaker. As per the
listening test scores, there were no significant differences between the six groups of students who
had listened to six different speaker accents. Analysis of the interviews shows that students have
no bias against nonnative English teachers. In fact, several students favored Arab nonnative
English speaking teachers to translate vocabulary and complex ideas from English to Arabic.
These students also demonstrated an unrealistic grasp of their need to understand the varieties of
English they will encounter in their future workplaces.
5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of the people who have helped me to conduct this research, write
the thesis, and love the research process itself: my insightful thesis advisors Dr. Susan Riley and
Dr. Salah Troudi, who soundly barraged me with critical questions on my proposal and
throughout the writing process of this thesis which brought much depth and clarity to my
writing; my lecturers in the doctoral program, Marion Williams, Dr. Robert Burden, and Prof.
Tedd Wragg who instructed me on the research process and inspired me to become actively
engaged in educational research; all the UGRU UAE University faculty and students who
supported me by participating in surveys, interviews, recordings and pilot studies with much
kindness and patience; Dr. Hana Sulieman, of American University of Sharjah, who assisted me
with the statistics; my parents, who always had confidence in me and never complained when
vacation time was spent working on research; and finally to my friends, Dr. Mashael Al Hamly,
who translated the pre-test survey into Arabic and was always ready with sound advice, and a
special thank you to Dr. Christine Coombe, who always encouraged me with her wisdom and
continually reminded me that with hard work and endurance my thesis would be completed. She
was right! To all of you, thank you.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One—Introduction……………………………………………………………..
12
1.0
Rationale for the study…………………………………………………………… 12
1.1
Significance of the study…………………………………………………………
16
1.2
Contribution to knowledge…………………………………………….................
18
1.3
Thesis organization………………………………………………………………. 20
Chapter Two—Background……………………………………………………………..
22
2.0
History…………………………………………………………………...............
22
2.1
Culture……………………………………………………………………………
23
2.2
Education…………………………………………………………………………
25
2.3
Socio-economic factors…………………………………………………………..
29
2.4
Political factors…………………………………………………………...............
31
2.5
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..
32
Chapter Three—Literature review……………………………………………………...
34
Importance of listening in language learning…………………………………….
34
3.1.1 Process involved in academic listening………………………………….
35
3.1.2 Differences in general and academic listening…………………………..
39
3.2
Difficulties of researching listening……………………………………………...
41
3.3
Speaker variables that affect listening comprehension…………………………... 44
3.1
3.3.1 Varieties of English or accent……………………………………………. 44
3.3.1.1 What is a non native speaker?........................................................
45
3.3.1.2 Previous studies of the effect of accent…………………………..
47
7
3.3.1.3 Students’ experiences of learning listening from NNESTs……… 48
3.4
3.3.2 Gender……………………………………………………………………
49
3.3.3 Speed……………………………………………………………………..
50
3.3.4 Teacher talk………………………………………………………………
50
Listener variables that affect listening comprehension…………………………..
51
3.4.1 Accent, attitude and stereotyping………………………………………...
51
3.4.2 Background knowledge…………………………………………………..
56
3.4.3 Prosodic features…………………………………………………………. 57
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..
57
Chapter Four—Methodology…………………………………………………………..
59
The scientific paradigm………………………………………………………….
60
4.0.1
Knowledge / epistemology……………………………………….
60
4.0.2
Social reality / ontology………………………………………….. 61
4.0.3
How research is judged in the scientific paradigm……………….
61
4.0.4
Quantitative methodology………………………………………..
62
The interpretive paradigm………………………………………………………..
63
4.1.1
Knowledge / epistemology……………………………………….
64
4.1.2
Social reality / ontology………………………………………….. 65
4.1.3
How research is judged in the interpretive paradigm…………….
66
4.1.4
Qualitative methodology…………………………………………
67
4.2
Mixed model design……………………………………………………………...
69
4.3
Selection of instruments………………………………………………………….
70
Subjects…………………………………………………………..
70
3.5
4.0
4.1
4.3.1
8
4.3.2
Speakers………………………………………………………….
4.3.3
Listening scripts………………………………………………….. 73
72
4.4
Pilot study………………………………………………………………………..
74
4.5
Phases of the study……………………………………………………………….
76
4.6
Data analysis……………………………………………………………………... 80
4.7
Issues of validity………………………………………………………………….
82
4.7.1
Speaker accent……………………………………………………
82
4.7.2
Marking criteria…………………………………………………..
82
4.7.3
Playing recording………………………………………………… 84
4.8
Ethical considerations……………………………………………………………. 84
4.9
Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………..
85
4.9.1
Subjects…………………………………………………………... 85
4.9.2
Speakers………………………………………………………….. 86
4.9.3
Classroom teachers……………………………………………….
86
Chapter Five—Analysis and discussion………………………………………………...
88
Research question 1………………………………………………………………
88
5.1.1
Pre-test survey: preconceived attitudes of English varieties……..
88
5.1.2
Pre-test survey: beliefs about native and nonnative accents……... 94
5.1
5.2
Research question 2………………………………………………………………
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.3
Listening comprehension test scores: the effect of native
language on listening comprehensibility…………………………
97
Listening comprehension test scores: the effect of gender on
listening comprehensibility………………………………………. 101
Research question 3………………………………………………………………
5.3.1
97
Post test survey: ability to differentiate between native and
102
9
nonnative speakers……………………………………………….. 102
5.4
Research question 4………………………………………………………………
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
106
Post-test interviews: student attitudes toward past experience
with varieties of English………………………………………….
107
Post-test interviews: student attitudes toward varieties of English
in faculty courses…………………………………………………
111
Post-test interviews: student attitudes toward varieties of English
in the future employment………………………………………… 114
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..
118
Chapter Six—Conclusion and recommendations……………………………………….
121
5.5
6.0
Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 121
6.1
Implications and recommendations………………………………………………
6.2
Limitations……………………………………………………………………….. 131
6.4
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..
125
134
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….. 135
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………. 142
A: Pre-Test Beliefs Inventory Arabic translation………………………………………..
142
B: Pre-Test Beliefs Inventory English translation……………………………………….
144
C: Text 1: Listening comprehension test…………..…………………………………….
146
D: Exam 1: Listening comprehension test questions….………………………………… 149
E: Text 2: Listening comprehension test…………………………………….…………..
150
F: Exam 2: Listening comprehension test questions…………………………..…..........
153
G: Immediate post-test survey…………………………………………………………...
154
H: Post-test attitudinal interview………………………………………………………...
155
10
I: Student interview sample: Azza……………………………………………………... 157
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Pre-test beliefs survey: total percentages all classes (n=111)………………………..
89
2.
Pre-test beliefs survey: beliefs about native and nonnative speakers…………………
90
3.
Pre-test beliefs survey: total percentages all classes (n=111)………………………..
94
4.
Pre-test beliefs survey: beliefs about accents…………………………………………
95
5.
Listening comprehension test scores: Summary statistics for the six groups
including the 95% confidence intervals and class average score…………………….
98
6.
Listening comprehension test scores: ANOVA test for significant differences……..
98
7.
Listening comprehension test scores: means and standard deviation by gender and
nativeness or non-nativeness………………………………………………………….
101
8.
Immediate post-test survey. In my opinion…………………………………………..
103
9.
Immediate post-test survey. In my opinion, the speaker is from…………………….
104
10. Students’ future careers……………………………………………………………….
114
11
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Quantitative protocol…………………………………………………………………...
63
2. Qualitative protocol…………………………………………………………………….
68
3. Thesis research protocol………………………………………………………………..
74
4. Schedule of listening comprehension tests and interviews……………………………..
78