Cognitive Load Theory and Listening to Accent Variations in English

CLT AND ACCENT VARIATIONS IN ENGLISH

Bipasha Binte Haque

BA Honours in English (Dhaka), MA in English Literature (Dhaka), MA in ELSM (Warwick)

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Education

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

August 2014

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH iii

iii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH ii

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date………………………………………………………….

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH iii

Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name: Haque

First name: Bipasha Other name/s: Binte

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: Education Faculty: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Title:Cognitive load theory and listening to accent variations in English

iii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH iv

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

Accent variability is an emerging field of study in listening to varieties of English. Mutual intelligibility of accent variations in monolingual, as well as multilingual settings may become challenging for native as well as non-native speakers of English. In a CLT framework this thesis examined the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect in listening to native and foreign-accented English with different levels of expertise groups. The three experiments reported in this thesis addressed issues of how accent variability boosted meaningful understanding of listening comprehensions, and how instructional design could aide learning in perceptual listening environments so that learners did not become entangled in the novelty of the accents; at the same time maximising the learning of such instructional procedures.In Experiment 1 three singleaccent conditions and six multiple-accent conditions were used. The accents were Australian English, Chinese-accented English and Russian-accented English. These three accents were permuted in six combinations to have the six multiple-accent conditions. The results of Experiment 1 did not support the hypotheses. The low expertise learners did not perform better in single-accent conditions and the high expertise learners did not perform better in multiple-accent conditions. In Experiment 2 Russian-accented English and Australian English were employed. The results partially supported the hypotheses. It was found that the single-accent condition was not easier for the low expertise students whereas the dual-accent condition was easier for the high and very high expertise students. In Experiment 3 the low expertise group listening to Indian-accented English found the accent condition easier than the low expertise group listening to both Indian and Arabic-accented English. The high and very high expertise students learned more listening to Arabic and Indian-accented English than listening to Indian-accented English only. The low expertise individuals were more prone to be challenged by the novelty of the dual-accent conditions. The findings of the experiments were explained in terms of accent variability effect and expertise reversal effect in a CLT framework. Instructional design, as pertaining to this thesis facilitated the naïve, as well as expert English language learners’ abilities in extracting accent-independent global adaptation to English within a CLT framework.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH v

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the

University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in

Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

…………………………………………… ………………………………..…… ……….. Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH vi

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to a number of individuals and institutions, without whose generous support I could not have completed the writing of this thesis. Thanks are due first and foremost to my supervisors, Emeritus Professor John Sweller and Dr. Wan NG who provided guidance with the utmost generosity for the entire period of my candidature. Their meticulous perusals of the thesis and their thoughtful comments have provided me with invaluable guidance, without which this dissertation could not have been completed. Thanks are also due to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (former AusAID), Australia, for awarding me Australian Leadership Award. The financial support provided by this scholarship enabled me to undertake this research project.

A special thanks to my family.I am deeply indebted to my husband Mia Mahmudur

Rahim. Mahmud, it is your constant encouragement and dedication and dream that are at the heart of this thesis. You owe a lot.I am indebted to Raya and Rida, my nine and six year old girls. In all the ups and downs they have patiently borne all the issues that came up from time to time and encouraged me to move forward. Words cannot express how grateful I am to my mother-in law, my mother, father and my brother for all of the sacrifices that you’ve made on my behalf. Your prayer for me was what sustained me thus far. I am positive that my mother and father would be the proudest in my achievement were they living to see me completing the thesis. I would also like to thank all of my friends who motivated me to strive towards my goal.

I collected data for my first experiment from three universities in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

I am indebted to the Chairmen of English Departments and the students of University of

Dhaka; Bangladesh University of Business and Technology; and Stamford University who cordially supported me to collect the data. For the second and third experiments I worked

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH vii with students from University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. The Principal of the

Foundation Courses, Mr. Paul Sutton at UNSW Global deserves special thanks to support me.

The Deputy Principal Ms. Elizabeth Rosser who provided me with the logistics support for organising the experiments will be remembered with gratitude. The undergraduate participants who gave their time willingly and cheerfully, and without whose kind participation the thesis would have remained incomplete: I am deeply indebted to these students.

vii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH viii

Abstract

The three experiments reported in this thesis addressed issues of how accent variability boosted meaningful understanding of listening comprehensions, and how instructional design could aide learning in perceptual listening environments so that learners did not become entangled in the novelty of the accents; at the same time maximising the learning of such instructional procedures.In Experiment 1 three single-accent conditions and six multiple- accent conditions were used. The accents were Australian English, Chinese-accented English and Russian-accented English. These three accents were permuted in six combinations to have the six multiple-accent conditions. The results of Experiment 1 did not support the hypotheses. The low expertise learners did not perform better in single-accent conditions and the high expertise learners did not perform better in multiple-accent conditions. In

Experiment 2 Russian-accented English and Australian English were employed. The results partially supported the hypotheses. It was found that the single-accent condition was not easier for the low expertise students whereas the dual-accent condition was easier for the high and very high expertise students. In Experiment 3 the low expertise group listening to Indian- accented English found the accent condition easier than the low expertise group listening to both Indian and Arabic-accented English. The high and very high expertise students learned more listening to Arabic and Indian-accented English than listening to Indian-accented

English only. The low expertise individuals were more prone to be challenged by the novelty

viii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH ix of the dual-accent conditions. The findings of the experiments were explained in terms of accent variability effect and expertise reversal effect in a CLT framework. Instructional design, as pertaining to this thesis facilitated the naïve, as well as expert English language learners’ abilities in extracting accent-independent global adaptation to English within a CLT framework.

Key words

Cognitive Load theory, accent variations, variability effect, accent variability effect, and expertise reversal effect.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH x

Table of Contents

Originality Statement……………………………………………………………….. ii Declaration …………………………………………………………………………. iii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………. vi Abstract……………………………………………………………………………... viii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………… xx List of Figures………………………………………………………………………. xv List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….. xvii List of Appendices………………………………………………………………….. xix Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………... xx

Chapter 1: Introduction and Thesis Overview………………………………….. 1-18

1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………... 1 1.2 Accent Variability………………………………………………………………. 2 1.3 Aim and Significance………………………………………………………...... 6 1.4 The English Language Teaching Context in Bangladesh………………………. 9 1.5 Banglish: the Variety of Practice in Bangladesh……………………………….. 11 1.6 Educational Language Policy in Bangladesh…………………………………... 13 1.7 Where Communicative Method Falls Short………………………………...... 14 1.8 Overview of the Thesis…………………………………………………………. 14 1.9 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………... 18

Chapter 2: Listening Comprehension……………………………………………. 19-28

2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...... 19 2.2 Listening Process……………………………………………………………….. 19 2.3 Factors Influencing Listening Comprehension…………………………………. 25 2.4 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………... 28

Chapter 3: Varieties of English and Studies on Accent Diversifications……..... 29-45

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...... 29 3.2 Rise and Spread of Accent Diversifications……………………………………. 30 3.3 World Englishes………………………………………………………………… 32 3.4 Listening to Accent Variations in English……………………………………… 36 3.5 Empirical Studies on Accent Variations………………………………………... 38 3.6 Using Accent Variations in a CLT Framework for the Present Study……...... 43 3.7Conclusions…………………...... ………………………………………...... 45

Chapter 4: Pronunciation Norms of the Accents Used for the Experiments….. 46-78

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………... 46 4.2 Australian-accented English……………………………………………………. 47 4.2.1 Phonology…………………………..………………………………...... 48 4.2.2 Vowels in Australian English……………………………………………... 48 4.2.3 Consonants in Australian English………………………………………..... 51 4.2.4 Intonation and Pitch……………………………………………………….. 53 4.2.5 Pronunciation……………………………………………………………… 53

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xi

4.3 Chinese-accented English………………………………………………...... 55 4.3.1 Phonology……………………………………………………...... 56 4.3.2 Vowels in Chinese-accented English……………………………………… 56 4.3.3 Consonants in Chinese-accented English………………………………..... 58 4.3.4 Consonant Clusters………………………………………………………... 60 4.3.5 Rhythm and Stress………………………………………………………… 60 4.3.6 Intonation………………………………………………………………….. 61 4.3.7 Juncture………………………………………………………………...... 61 4.4 Russian-accented English………………………………………………………. 62 4.4.1 Phonology……………………………………………………………...... 62 4.4.2 Vowels in Russian-accented English……………………………...... 62 4.4.3 Consonants in Russian-accented English………………………………...... 63 4.4.4 Consonant Clusters………………………………………………………... 62 4.4.5 Rhythm and Stress………………………………………………………… 65 4.4.6 Intonation………………………………………………………………….. 66

4.5 Arabic-accented English……………………………………………………...... 67 4.5.1 Phonology……………………………………………………………...... 67 4.5.2 Vowels in Arabic-accented English…………………………..………...... 68 4.5.3 Consonants in Arabic-accented English………………………………...... 68 4.5.4 Consonant Clusters…………………………………………………...... 70 4.5.5 Effect of English Spelling on Pronunciation………………………………. 70 4.5.6 Rhythm and Stress………………………………………………………… 70 4.5.7 Intonation……………………………………………………….………..... 71 4.6 Indian-accented English………………………………………………………… 71 4.6.1 Phonology……………………………………………………………...... 72 4.6.2 Vowels in Indian-accented English………………………………………... 73 4.6.3 Consonants in Indian-accented English………………………………...... 73 4.6.4 Influence of spelling on Pronunciation……………………..………...... 75 4.6.5Consonant Clusters………………..……………………………………….. 75 4.6.6 Rhythm and Stress………………………………………..……………….. 76 4.6.7 Intonation………………………………………………………..……...... 77 4.7 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………... 78

Chapter 5: Cognitive Load Theory……………………..………………………... 79-120

5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….………...... 79 5.2 Constructivist theory of Learning…………..……………………………...... 80 5.3 Human Cognitive Architecture…………………………………………………. 82 5.4 Discovery Learning and Communicative Language Teaching…………………. 85 5.5 Cognitive Load Theory…………………………………………………………. 86 5.5.1 The Basic Principles of Cognitive Load Theory………….…………...... 87 5.5.1.1The information store principle………..……………………...... 87 5.5.1.2 The borrowing and reorganising principle…….……………………... 88 5.5.1.3 The randomness as genesis principle…………………………...... 90 5.5.1.4 Narrow limits of change principle…………………………..………... 91 5.5.1.5 The environmental organising and linking principle…..………...... 92 5.6 Categories of Cognitive Load………………………………………..…………. 94 5.6.1 Intrinsic Cognitive Load…………………..………………………………. 95 5.6.2 Extraneous Cognitive Load…………………….………………………..... 97

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xii

5.6.3 Germane Cognitive Load………………..………………………………… 100 5.7 Interrelation between categories of Cognitive Load………..…………………... 101 5.8 Critique and Modified Version of Cognitive Load Theory……..………...... 103 5.9 Cognitive Load Effects…………………..……………………………………... 105 5.9.1Variability Effect………………….…………………………………...... 107 5.9.2 Accent Variability Effect………………………………………...... 111 5.9.3 Expertise Reversal Effect………………………………………………...... 112 5.10 Determining Cognitive Load……………………………..………………….... 116 5.11 Conclusions……………………………………………………..……………... 119

Chapter 6: Experiment 1……………………………………..…………...... 121-157

6.1 Introduction ……………………………………………….……….…………… 121 6.2 Method of the Experiment………………………………….………………...... 122 6.2.1 English Teaching Context in Bangladesh…………………………………. 123 6.2.2 Participating Institutions………………………………..…………………. 124 6.2.3 Participant Distribution………………………….…….……………...... 125 6.2.4 Listening Comprehension Materials………………..……………………... 126 6.2.5 Background of Speakers for Voice Recording……………………..……... 131 6.2.6 Total Listening Time for the Two Acquisition Phases…………..…...... 131 6.2.7 Classroom Experimental Procedure…………………..…………………… 134 6.2.8 Measuring Student Performance………………..…………………………. 140 6.2.9 Marking Criteria for Listening Comprehension..…………………...... 141 6.3 Results…………………………………………………………………………... 163 6.3.1 The Acquisition Phase………………….…………………………………. 143 6.3.1.1Task effort and mental load questionnaire for the acquisition phase..... 144 6.3.1.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of the mental load for the accent/accents…….. 144 6.3.1.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of the mental load for the listening comprehension material.……………...... 147 6.3.2 The Test Phase………………………………….…………………………. 148 6.3.2.1 Task effort and mental load questionnaire for the test phase……...... 151 6.3.2.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of the mental load for the accent/accents…...... 152 6.3.2.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of the mental load for the listening comprehension material…………………………………………... 154 6.4 Discussion…………………………...……………………………………...... 155 6.5 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………... 156

Chapter 7: Experiment 2………………………………….…………………...... 158-193

7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….. 158 7.2 Method of the Experiment……………………….……………………………... 159 7.2.1 Similarities and Differences between Experiment 1 and 2………...... 161 7.2.2 Participating Institution……….…………………………………...... 167 7.2.3 Participant Distribution………………….…………………………...... 167 7.2.4 Low and High Prior Knowledge Groups………..………………………… 167 7.2.4.1 The low expertise participants………………………………………... 168 7.2.4.2 The high expertise participants……………………………………..... 169 7.2.4.3 The very high expertise participants………………………………..... 169 7.2.5Listening Comprehension Materials………………..……………………... 170 7.2.6Total Listening Time for the Two Accent Conditions………..…………… 172

xii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xiii

7.2.7Russian and Australian-accented English………………………………..... 172 7.2.8Voice Recording for Listening Comprehension Materials…….………….. 173 7.2.9Classroom Experimental Procedure……………….………………………. 173 7.2.10 Measuring Student Performance…………………………………………. 178 7.2.11 Marking criteria for Listening Comprehension.…………...... 179 7.3 Results………………………………………………………………………...... 180 7.3.1 The Acquisition Phase……………………………………………...... 180 7.3.1.1Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire: the Acquisition Phase…. 182 7.3.1.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of mental load on the accent/accents………..... 183 7.3.1.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of mental load on the listening comprehension materials...... 185 7.3.2 The Test Phase…………………………………………………...... 186 7.3.2.1 Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire: The Test Phase..…...... 188 7.3.2.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of mental load on the accent/accents………..... 188 7.3.2.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of mental load on the listening comprehension materials………………...... 189 7.4 Discussion……….……………………………………………………………… 190 7.5 Conclusions……….…………………………………………………………….. 193

Chapter 8: Experiment 3……………………………………………………...... 194-219

8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...... 194 8.2 Method of the Experiment……………………………………………………… 194 8.2.1 Accent Conditions……………………………………………………...... 195 8.2.2 Participating Institution……………………………………………...... 196 8.2.3 Participant Distribution…………………………………………...... 196 8.2.4 Low and high Prior knowledge Groups………………………………...... 197 8.2.4.1 Low expertise participants…………………………...... 197 8.2.4.2 High expertise participants………………………. ……...... 198 8.2.4.3 Very high expertise participants………………………………...... 199 8.2.5 Listening Comprehension Materials………………………...... 200 8.2.6 Voice Recording for Listening Comprehension Materials…………...... 200 8.2.7 Total Listening Time for the Two Acquisition Conditions……………….. 201 8.2.8 Classroom Experimental Procedure……………………………………...... 202 8.2.9 Measuring Student Performance………………………………………...... 206 8.2.10 Marking Criteria for Listening Comprehension...... ……………...... 207 8.3 Results………………………………………………………………………...... 208 8.3.1 The Acquisition Phase…………………………………………………...... 191 8.3.1.1 Mental Load Questionnaire: The Acquisition Phase…………………. 210 8.3.1.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of mental load on the accent/accents………..... 211 8.3.1.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of mental load on the listening Comprehension material…………………...... 212 8.3.2 The Test Phase…………………………………………...... 213 8.3.2.1 Mental Load Questionnaire: The Test Phase……...... 215 8.3.2.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of mental load on the accent/accents…………. 8.3.2.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of mental load on the listening comprehension material………………...... 215 8.4 Discussion………………………………………………………………………. 216 8.5 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………... 219

xiii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xiv

Chapter 9: General Discussions………………………………………………….. 220-231

9.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...... 220 9.2 Methodologies for the Three Experiments………….………………………...... 224 9.3 Overview of Results……………………..……………………………………... 224 9.4 Implications……………..…………………………………………………...... 227 9.5 Limitations of the Thesis……………………..……………………………...... 229 9.6 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………... 231

References………………………………………………………………………….. 232-257

xiv

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xv

List of Figures

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Vowel sounds in Australian English presented in Clark (1989, p.209-211)…………………………………………………………... 48

Figure 4.2 Australian English diphthongs……………………………………… 48 Figure 4.3 Australian English monophthongs………………..………………… 50 Figure 4.4 Vowel contrasts between Chinese and English presented in Wang 62 (2007, p. 48)………………………………….……………………… Figure 4.5 Consonant sounds in Chinese-accented English from Wang (2007, p. 55)..……………………………………………………………….. 63 Figure 4.6 Vowel sounds in Russian-accented English presented in Monk and Burak (2001, p. 146)…………………………………...... 60

Figure 4.7 Consonant sounds in Russian-accented English presented in Monk and Burak (2001, p. 147)…………………...... 61

Figure 4.8 Vowel sounds in Arabic-accented English presented in Smith (2001, p.196)………………………………………………………… 68 Figure 4. 9 Consonant sounds in Arabic-accented English presented in Smith (2001, p. 197)………………………………………………………... 68 Figure 4.10 Vowel sounds in Indian-accented English presented in Shackle (2001, p. 229)………………………………………………………... 73 Figure 4.1 Consonant sounds in Indian-accented English presented in Shackle (2001, p.230)………………………………………………………… 73

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 Some effects studied within cognitive load theory and why they reduce extraneous cognitive load, presented in Van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005, p. 151)………………………………………………. 92

Figure 5.2 Cognitive load effects presented in Sweller (2010a, p.30)………….. 98 Figure 5.3 An overview of the measurement of cognitive load (Brünken et al., 2010, p.193)…………………………………………………………. 110

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xvi

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Interaction effect of item 1 of the cognitive load questionnaire in acquisition phase...... 146 Figure 6.2 Interaction effect of knowledge test performance scores in the test phase...... 151 Figure 6.3 Interaction effect of item 1 of the cognitive load questionnaire in the test phase...... 153

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1 Interaction effect of knowledge test performance scores in 182 acquisition phase...... Figure 7.2 Interaction effect of item 1 of the cognitive load questionnaire in 184 the acquisition phase...... Figure 7.3 Interaction effect of knowledge test performance scores in the test 188 phase......

Chapter 8

Figure 8.1 Interaction effect of knowledge test performance scores in the acquisition phase...... 210 Figure 8.2 Interaction effect of knowledge test performance scores in the test phase...... 214

xvi

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xvii

List of Tables

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Participant Distribution Across the Nine Accent Conditions……….. 116

Table 6.2 Listening Comprehension Materials………………………………… 120

Table 6.3 Total Listening Time in Three Single Accent 123 Conditions...... …………. Table 6.4 Total Listening Time in Six Multiple Accent Conditions......

Table 6.5 Characteristics of the Listening Comprehension Materials…………. 124 Table 6.6 Classroom Experimental Procedure for the Acquisition and the Test Phases for Russian-accented English Condition…………………….. 125 Table 6.7 Classroom Experimental Procedure for Acquisition and Test Phases in A-C-R-accented English Condition………………………………. 127

Table 6.8 Acquisition Means and SDs of Knowledge Test …………………… 133

Table 6.9 Acquisition Means and SDs of Item 1 and 2 of Subjective Rating Questionnaire………………………………………………...... 136

Table 6.10 Test Means and SDs of Knowledge Test……………………………. 138 Table 6.11 Test Means and SDs of Items 1 and 2 of Subjective Rating Questionnaire………..………………………………………………. 141

Chapter 7

Table 7.1 Contrastive Analysis between Experiment 1 and 2…………………... 148

Table 7.2 English Language Proficiency Requirements for UNSW Foundation Course ………………………………………………………………... 155

Table 7.3 Total Listening Time …………………………………………………. 158

Table 7.4 Classroom Experimental Procedure for Single Accented Conditions... 160 Table 7.5 Classroom Experimental Procedure for Dual Accented Conditions….. 162 Table 7.6 Acquisition Means and SDs for Knowledge Test…………………….. 167 Table 7.7 Means and SDs of Item 1 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire...... 168 Table 7.8 Means and SDs of Item 2 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire…… 170 Table 7.9 Test Means and SDs for Knowledge Test…………………………….. 171 Table 7.10 Means and SDs of Item 1 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire…… 172 Table 7.11 Means and SDs of Item 2 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire…… 173

xvii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xviii

Chapter 8

Table 8.1 English Language Proficiency Requirements for UNSW Foundation Course ………………………………………………………………... 182

Table 8.2 Total Listening Time………………………………………………….. 185 Table 8.3 Classroom Experimental Procedure for Single Accent Conditions...... 186

Table 8.4 Classroom Experimental Procedure for Dual accent Conditions…...... 188 Table 8.5 Acquisition Means and SDs for Knowledge Test…………………….. 192 Table 8.6 Means and SDs of Item 1 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire….... 194 Table 8.7 Means and SDs of Item 2 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire….... 195 Table 8.8 Test Means and SDs for Knowledge Test…………………………….. 196 Table 8.9 Means and SDs of Item 1 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire…… 197 Table 8.10 Means and SDs of Item 2 of the Subjective Rating Questionnaire…… 199

xviii

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xix

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Participant Background Information Form……………………………. 258

Appendix B: Vocabulary Practice Sheet for the Acquisition Phase for Experiment 1. 259 Appendix C: Vocabulary Practice Sheet for the Test Phase for Experiment 1…..….. 260

Appendix D: Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire for the Acquisition Phase 261 for Experiment 1 in Bengali………………………………………………………….. Appendix E: Task Sheet for the Acquisition Phase for Experiment 1 in Bengali.…... 262 Appendix F: Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire for the Acquisition Phase for Experiment 1 in Bengali …………………………………………………………. 263 Appendix G: Task Sheet for the Test Phase for Experiment 1 in Bengali..………….. 264 Appendix H: Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire for the Acquisition Phase for Experiments 2 & 3………………………………………………………………... 265 Appendix I: Task Sheet for the Acquisition Phase for Experiments 2 & 3………….. 266 Appendix J: Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire for the Test Phase for Experiments 2 & 3…………………………………………………………………… 267 Appendix K: Task Sheet for the Test Phase for Experiments 2 & 3………….……… 268 Appendix L: Playlist of the Listening Comprehension Materials………………...... 269 Appendix M: CD of Listening Comprehension Materials…………………………… Inside back cover

xix

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xx

Definition of Terms

Accent Articulation manner atypical to an individual, location, or nation Accent variability Using different accents in listening comprehension material for instruction Accent variability effect The effects of using variable accents in listening comprehension materials for oral/auditory instruction

AuE Australian-accented English/Australian English CLT Cognitive load theory Communicative A method of teaching English language in SL/FL (English as language teaching a second language/foreign language) contexts

Contextual interference When instructional materials are designed either in a blocked materials order (A-A-A, B-B-B, C-C-C etc.) or random order (A-B-C, B-A-C, C-A-B etc.) combinations

EAL English as an Additional Language Element interactivity Levels of information complexity in a learning material that have to be processed simultaneously in working memory

ELT English language teaching Expertise levels A student’s background knowledge of a particular subject FL (English as a) foreign language GCE General Certificate of Education Grammar translation A method of teaching English language in SL/FL contexts method

HSC Higher secondary certificate IELTS International English Language Testing System L1 First language or mother tongue L2 (English as a) second language Language variation Studies on varieties of English Listening comprehension An interactive oral activity where listeners construct meaning from auditory input

LTM Long term memory NE Native Englishspeaker/country SL (English as a) Second Language Speaker variability Using different speakers of a particular accent in listening comprehension material for instruction

STM Short term memory/working memory TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language Variability effect Providing varied context examples to increase or decrease the level of difficulty of the instructional material

Variability materials In instruction creating material by altering surface elements (such as values in geometry) and structural elements (such as values and problem formats in geometry)

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH xxi

xxi

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Thesis Overview

1.1 Introduction

“Spoken words have always been an important component of traditional instruction” in classrooms (Kalyuga, 2012, p.145). Even in modern technology-enhanced instructional situations, spoken texts are more often replacing or supplementing written or on-screen textual representations (Kalyuga, 2012).Withglobalisation we hear English spoken in different accents in different parts of the world. In cosmopolitan places listening to diverse accents of English is very common. Accent enriched cosmopolitans bring native English

(NE) speakers as well as second language (L2) speakers and foreign language (FL)1speakers of English together from a diverse pool of ethno-linguistic backgrounds and cultures; making mutual intelligibility a great challenge. The phenomenon of accent diversity and regional usage of English is so common these days that there is a necessity to research on accent variability in order to equip students with becoming proficient English language users. In the context of teaching listening skills, the learning of accent variations can be considered one of the foremost skills needed to acquire to have an understanding of instructions for executing a task at hand.

The importance of teaching accent variations is increasing, as many native English- speaking countries welcome foreign students for higher educational studies. In Australia for example, education export is the third largest industry. The AEI (2012, p.1) reported

“Australia was the third largest provider of international education in the world in 2009, hosting 7% of all tertiary students”. More recently, Connelly and Olsen (2013) report that

1 This thesis uses L2/SL (English as a second language) and FL (English as a foreign language) synonymously as these two terms can be used interchangeably depending on the context. Whereas L2/SL usage is limited to certain countries only, e.g. in Canada, Ghana, Nigeria, India, Singapore, PapuaNew Guinea, etc.; the FL learning situations are widespread in the global English contexts in the world these days. 1

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 2 education is Australia’s third largest export; and it is the largest service-based industry (p.2).

The AEI (2014, p. 2) reports that in April 2014, about 325,000 students enrolled for higher education in Australian universities from overseas. The report stated that:

As at year-to-date (YTD) March 2014, there were 371,841 enrolments by full-fee

paying international students in Australia on a student visa. This represents a 9.9%

increase on YTD March 2013…There were 138,045 commencements in YTD March

2014, representing a 20.5% increase over the same period in 2013. (AEI, 2014, para

International students from about 200 countries (Invest in Australia, para 2, n.d) make up more than 20% of the university enrolments in Australia each year and the number is increasing rapidly. The comparable figure in the US is 3.5% only. China alone accounted for

38.7%, with India next at 9.0% of international student enrolments in higher education institutions in Australia, from 2013-2014 (AEI, 2014, para 3). Given the rising numbers of overseas students’ enrolment in Australian universities, it is necessary to implement realistic strategies to ensure the industry’s sustainability into the future. From this study’s perspective, taking this context into consideration means that it is necessary to ensure that students coming from all over the world for higher educational studies understand each other’s accents. It is also necessary that accent-related issues do not inhibit the teacher-student communication. This chapter provides an overview of the aims and significance of this thesis, and describes the three-part structure of the dissertation.

1.2 Accent Variability

Accent variability is an emerging field of study in listening to varieties of English.

Among the four skills of English, the teaching of listening skills has been “an area needing significant attention” according to Feyten (1991, p.174) in a native English (NE) context

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 3 within the US. Funk and Funk (1989) made mention of the neglect in teaching listening skills to elementary school students in the context of a NE speaking country. Earlier literature up until the 90s was concerned with teaching listening skills in NE countries (such as Dixon,

1964; Landry, 1969; Devine, 1978; Jacobs, 1986; Pearson, Fielding & Fielding, 1982;

Strother, 1987). However, during the 90s the literature focus was shifted towards the SL paradigm. Various research studies focused on different aspects of deficiencies with teaching or researching listening comprehension. For example, in SL/FL contexts Mendelshon (1998) mentions the failure to incorporate listening and pronunciation, as listening comprehension courses overlook the interactional component between these two. Murphy (1991) mentioned avoidance in teaching pronunciation in non-native English speaking countries. In the FL context, Wilson (2003, p. 335) mentioned the neglect of using “bottom-up approaches that focus on word recognition” which has been “comparatively undervalued” in favour of having an excessive emphasis on top-down approaches to teaching listening. From a cognitive load perspective, an important reason for this inattention could be in our limited understanding of instructional design that caters for the learners’ cognitive load in a perceptual learning environment.

Inclusion of teaching accent variability in the development of listening skills in

English may enhance students’ ability to become good listeners of English. One of the instructional procedures to promote this development involves basing the classroom instruction within a cognitive load theory (CLT) framework. An essential aspect of designing instruction for enhancing listening is that “acoustic-sensory information is more durable than visual-sensory information” (Kalyuga, 2012, p.146).

Understanding of what we mean by ‘accent’ is salient as accent variations is one of the central themes of this thesis. Accent usually refers to pronunciation (Wardhaugh, 2010;

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 4

Bauer, 2007), not grammatical or the syntactic features of a language. Individuals, who learn

English as a foreign language, continue to speak it with a foreign accent, even after years of speaking English. The reason for this is that the sound inventory of a language is the result of two competing forces: one of them involving the sounds that are easy to produce, whilst the other compelling the system producing more distinct sounds; this therefore, having a maximum contrast between elements of the system (Lindblom, 1986).

On the one hand, the native language or the source language of L2 learners works as a phonological filter in this regard, which intrinsically influences the L2 learners’ pronunciation, so that the L2 accent pattern deviates from that of the native speakers of the target language (Polivanov, 1931; Trubetzkoy, 1939/1969). As a result, L2 learners have perceptual blind spots which lead to perceptual errors whilst listening to the target language.

These blind spots prevent the L2 listeners from identifying the foreign phonemes correctly.

Instead, they tend to substitute their own L1 sounds for the foreign phonemes. Hence, the L2 speaker’s first language determines the foreign-accented tone they speak in. On the other hand, the native English speakers ‘phonological filter’ is their mother tongue which intrinsically influences the speakers’ pronunciation of their L1.

The phonological filter plays a key role in the development of a speaker’s speech with a specific accent in a language as well. For example, we can differentiate between native

English speakers’ speaking with accents that are different from each other: such as

Australian-accented English, British-accented English, American-accented English, etc. And within these native varieties of English there are dialectical variations also. The native

English speakers have similar perceptual blind spots that make them commit perceptual errors while listening to foreign accents of English. These blind spots prevent native English listeners from identifying the foreign or unfamiliar phonemes correctly, even if it were a

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 5 dialect of the same language. Thus, native British people may find listening to Cockney perceptually difficult although it is a dialect of British English. Like the L2 listeners, the native English listeners substitute their own L1 sounds for the foreign phonemes when they want to speak the language. The native English speakers’ socio-cultural orientations determine the type of English accent they speak with.

The learning or understanding of a new accent of a language for NE speakers as well as for L2 speakers speaking with accents and understanding other accents of the language, can be viewed as a gyre where NE speakers and L2 speakers are placed at two opposite poles.

As the NE speaker approaches a different accent (of the same language) or a new language, she has to cross the threshold of the phonological filter and immerse into the intricacies of the

L2 accent/language to acquire it. The NE listener works out the new accent/language through reasoning and assimilating the phonological characteristics of the new accent/language with her existing L1 knowledge. Similarly, the L2 listener goes through the same mental process in order to understand a new accent/language. Because of the phonological filter, native

English and L2 speakers face similar challenges while listening to a different accent/language. The same process is also applicable for understanding the dialectical variations within the English language for NE speakers. However, for novice L2 learners, the challenge of learning a new target language including its vocabulary, grammatical structure and orthography etc. can be added alongside processing its accent pattern.

To understand the impact of accent variability within instructional settings, and to design effective instruction to facilitate listeners in overcoming accent variability; this thesis aims to design instruction based on cognitive load theory, which was originally proposed by

Sweller (1994). The theory is about designing instruction with consideration to the limited duration and capacity of human short term memory, when learning biologically secondary

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 6 knowledge. CLT proposes instruction design based on a set of cognitive principles and the understanding that students are different in their cognitive processing ability according to their domain-specific knowledge or expertise in particular fields of knowledge.

Hence, to explore the effect of accent variability in the scope of this thesis, I have worked with participants from many different ethno-linguistic backgrounds in Australia and

Bangladesh, using unidirectional (students respond to auditory input only without any visual aid) listening comprehension passages, in five different accents of English, by thirteen female speakers. Non-native, monolingual Bangladeshi students listened to three different accents of

English in nine different combinations of the same accents (Experiment 1 reported in Chapter

6). Native Australian students listened to Australian-accented English (Experiment 2 reported in Chapter 7) along with non-native students listening to the same accent conditions. Again, native Australian students and non-native students listened to other varieties of English

(Experiment 3 reported in Chapter 8). One of the major focuses of this kind of instructional manipulation was to test whether students were able to overcome the barriers accent variability may have imposed on them. At the same time, the experiments may find an expertise reversal effect whilst working with students having different levels of expertise in

English language.

1.3 Aim and Significance

The purpose of this thesis was to investigate, from a CLT perspective, the effect of accent variability on learning to understand listening comprehension in English for native

Australian, as well as FL students. This thesis investigated the following hypotheses for the experiments it conducted with low, high and very high expertise students:

1. For the low expertise learners a single-accented condition would obtain higher scores

on a listening test than a multiple-accented condition.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 7

2. For the high expertise learners a multiple-accented condition would obtain higher

scores on a listening test than a single-accented condition.

3. For the low expertise learners a single-accented condition wouldobtain higher scores

on a listening test than a dual-accented condition.

4. For the high expertise learners a dual-accented condition would obtain higher scores

on a listening test than a single-accented condition.

The expertise levels of the students were determined by considering the participants’ prior knowledge in English. Thus, for the Bangladeshi FL learners it was determined by their

HSC scores in English (Experiment 1), and for the international and local participants in

Australia (Experiments 2 and 3), by their orientation to an English learning environment. The first two hypotheses were tested in Experiment 1 and the last two were tested in Experiments

2 and 3 respectively of the present study.

These hypotheses were tested to develop an instructional procedure within a CLT framework, in which the variability effect (De Croock, van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Paas

&van Merriënboer, 1994), and specifically the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect,could be tested by using unidirectional listening comprehensions of different accents of English. Most of the previous studies on accent variability were conducted on native English participants adapting to foreign-accented English (Bradlow & Bent, 2008;

Clopper & Pisoni, 2004). The general findings of these studies were that English native speakers could adapt to foreign accents of English; given a suitable instructional procedure.

This present thesis used native as well as non-native English participants, in order to have a comprehensive understanding of the underlying cognitive mechanisms for both kinds of population while processing different accents of English, leading to an accent variability effect and an expertise reversal effect in a CLT framework.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 8

The pioneering study in this vein was conducted by Gao (2012), for her PhD dissertation. She experimented on speaker variability effect, using a CLT framework, where in four experiments she tested Chinese FL undergraduates listening to multiple versus single speakers in different accents of Englishfor three consecutive days for each of the experiments. The five Asian accents and a native English accent she used were Indian-,

Korean-, Thai-, Vietnamese-, Japanese-, and Australian-accented English. She used the same experimental procedures and listening comprehension materials for the four experiments, only the speakers were different between acquisition conditions. Using translation performance scores and cognitive load subjective rating scales, the differences between acquisition conditions on test tasks was measured. In the first experiment it was found that multiple-speaker acquisition facilitated acquisition of foreign-accented English for the high expertise learners. In the second experiment she found that exposure to multiple-speakers facilitated learning of native English for the low expertise students, while the performance remained similar between acquisition conditions for the high expertise students. She explained the results in terms of the expertise reversal effect from a CLT perspective. In the third experiment it was found that multiple-speaker acquisition best facilitated the comprehension of a particular accent of English, and in the last experiment she found exposure to multiple-accent best facilitated the transfer of comprehension with any novel accent of English.

Gao, Low, Jin and Sweller (2013) tested the speaker variability effect on listening to

Indian-accented English with low and high expertise Chinese EFL undergraduates. They found that participants were able to overcome speaker variability effect depending on their prior knowledge of English. The research methodology that the present thesis undertook varied from the two studies mentioned above in terms of usage of accents, listening

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 9 comprehension materials, participant types, participants’ expertise levels and classroom procedure. The approach is similar in the use of the CLT framework.

The practical implications for the findings of this thesis would be in its applicability to English language classes, for non-English as well as native-English speakers. This thesis will shed light on designing instruction for listening to different accents of English in monolingual (the SL/FL countries where English is taught as a second or foreign language) as well as multilingual and/or multicultural (such as native English speaking countries with SL community) settings; especially in multinational settings where mutual intelligibility of accents could be a big challenge for native as well as non-native speakers of English.

1.4 The English Language Teaching Context in Bangladesh

For an understanding of the context of the experimental procedure in a FL country, the educational language policy of Bangladesh (where the first experiment, reported in

Chapter 6, was conducted) needs explication. “The role of English in Bangladesh is purely functional as English is used as an international link language” (Rahman, 2005, p.31). The paradigm of English language teaching in Bangladesh has been critiqued for a multitude of reasons. The English language teaching (ELT) appraisals so far have critiqued the present pedagogic practice of communicative language teaching,its infrastructural and logistic support design and its contents, as being insensitive to socio-cultural and geopolitical setups.

The sources these critiques mostly stem from lack of information about teacher training, curriculum, standards set by British or American linguistic norms, the cultural politics of

English as a global language, and many such interrelated aspects. An important critique source may involve the insufficient instructional design of the communicative method of

English language teaching, which does not comply with the cognitive process of how students learn and transfer knowledge in instructional settings (Mayer, 2004).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 10

Fundamentally, there has not been any scientific evidence-based enquiry into assessing the merits of the instructional method adopted to teach English in Bangladesh until now. Additionally, there has not been any experimental design that manipulates the instructional procedure in controlled or natural classroom settings which could provide any evidence for the incompetence of the current practices.

Educationalpsychology, according to Mayer (2004), can contribute to educational reform as it can offer some testable hypotheses on how people learn. An understanding of the mechanisms by which people learn will also generate hypotheses into how to help people learn. A closely related phenomenon is scientifically rigorous research that builds the foundations for psychology-based disciplines that encompass helping people to learn to read, write and think mathematically (Mayer, 2004). Thus, psychology, precisely educational psychology has a demonstrated ability to resolve educational matters through evidence-based arguments. The responsibility and the inadequacyof the present FL/SL teaching method i.e. communicative language teaching has largely been attributed to multifaceted, affective variables (e.g. Christ & Makarani, 2009;Li, 1998;Yu, 2001; Alam, 2008; Chowdhury & Ha,

2008; Gupta, 2004; Hu, 2005; Le, 2001; McKay, 2003; Rao, 2002; Anderson, 2005;Ellis,

1996; Yoon, 2004; and Kim, 2004); the ELT critiques, however, having not considered the prospect of conducting scientific research in classroom situations by manipulating relevant instructional procedures (to find out if the pedagogy’s inadequacy was due to existing instructional procedure).

In studying English as a foreign language, contextual emphasis is on acquiring the four constituent skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) of English. It also includes explicit grammar and vocabulary learning. Theoretically, communicative language teaching is designed to exercise all the four skills in FL classes. In reality, however, in the Bangladeshi

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 11

FL context, only reading and writing skills are extensively practiced as these two are believed to be the most worthwhile skills for academic purposes. These two are also tested with annual examinations. The other two skills i.e. listening and speaking are not validated – to some extent because of limited logistical support in schools and colleges, and more importantly because these two are not examined in annual examinations. Scarcity of scientific experimental studies on any one or all of the four skills of English makes it difficult to speculate what actually does not work in teaching the constituent skills in classroom situations. In general, the communicative method has been criticised for its overall inadequacy in not being able to uphold the promises and expectations vested in it.

Experimental studies needto be conducted on each of the constituent skills of English before settling how, why, and in which way the communicative methods fall short; and how, why, and in which capacity reforms could be carried out. Based on this background, one way to address the problem is through designing specific instructional tools that cater for the cognitive processes of learners.

1.5 Banglish: The Variety of Practice in Bangladesh

Thespread of English (discussed in Chapter 3) also accounts for a manifest phenomenon that involves the creation of varieties of English across the globe. Banglish, a distinct Indian sub-continental variety is predominant among the 98% monolingual

Bangladeshi users in Bangladesh. The English language arrived with the British Empire to the Indian subcontinent more than two hundred and fifty years ago, in 1757. This specific contact variety of Banglish has come into being after both a diachronic metamorphosis; and, a synchronic one in the late twentieth century, due to rapid technological advancements in the

Anglo American influence on this part of the region. As such, the educational linguistic

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 12 policies of Bangladesh have been subject to sporadic changes in the past four decades (after its independence from Pakistan).

Banglish, like some other sub-continental norms practiced in India, Sri Lanka, and

Pakistan is a part of the evolving model of sub-continental English. Characteristics of this variety, to quote Banu and Sussex (2001, p.145) include “features that unite English in this part of the world: grammatical features like furnitures; lexical features like prepone; phonological features like retroflex consonants and their effects on surrounding vowels.”

More specifically, this variety has a distinct characteristic syllable-timing; stylistically it has a certain conservatism of usage. Furthermore, “in the proportion of modifiers to heads, (it) is typically higher in the more decorated norms of sub-continental English” (p.145).

In 1947 when the British Empire left India, dividing the country into India and

Pakistan; the status of English in Pakistan was becoming increasingly marginalised. The nation state of Pakistan comprised of East and West Pakistan, split by one thousand kilometres of India in the middle.

In 1971 after a war of independence, Pakistan was split and a new nation state,

Bangladesh was born. It is to be understood that the rise of linguistic nationalism lies at the core of Bangladesh, and later, it contributed greatly to the desertion of English from most of the sectors of Bangladeshi life; from official documentation to public communication (Alam,

2002). For the last three and a half decades, up to HSC level English has been taught compulsorily in schools and colleges. As an academic subject, it is only taught in English departments at universities. In 1982 the martial law government passed a decree that ordered the use of Bengali as the sole official language of Bangladesh. This policy initiative had twofold results. While it promoted Bengali to be used in every sector as the sole medium of instruction in educational sectors for all official correspondence, it also housed a new

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 13 generation of English teachers in schools and colleges without sufficient English knowledge.

As a result, the quality of teaching English in Bangladesh remains inadequate.

1.6 Educational Language Policy in Bangladesh

‘Bangla’ or ‘Bengali’ language, as has been postulated before, is very central to the country’s biographical identity (Imam, 2005).The national policy directions insistently promote and guard Bengali. Nevertheless, using English has never ceased in Bangladesh.

Deciding on a single educational language policy nevertheless has been a difficult issue for the policy makers ever since her independence. Political, social and economic changes have affected significantly the importance, domain and nature of English usage in this geopolitical setting since foundation of Pakistan (in 1947), and even after the birth of Bangladesh (in

1971).

The Language Movement in 1952 for establishing Bengali as the state language, (and the policy initiatives since her independence) to a large extent are the factors in deciding the role and status of English in Bangladesh. A related example was the passing of the Language

Act of 1987, emphasising Bengali in all spheres of Bangladeshi life, from legislation to education, administration, commerce and media. Since its inception, the linguistic policy has been subject to massive fragmented and inconsistent changes (Imam, 2005). In 1974, the first

Commission Report explicitly stated that Bengali would be the medium of instruction positioning English as the second language (Ministry of Education, Bangladesh, 1974). The two recent English language teaching (ELT) policy initiatives are introducing English at the earliest grade possible, that is, teaching English from Grade 1 since 1991 (Imam, 2005); and

‘going communicative’ since 1997 (using communicative language teaching method for instruction) to develop Bangladeshi human capital (Hamid & Baldauf, 2008).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 14

1.7 Where Communicative Method Falls Short

A basic premise of communicative language teaching is that students should be engaged in group or pair discussion, assuming they should interact and communicate with each other in English. In this way the students would learn English by practicing it; in other words, they should learn English experientially. The largely unstructured instructional procedure not surprisingly, left students in a vacuum, as the teacher had little role in providing any guidance into structuring or formatting the discussion. Soon it was evident that students would not talk or discuss in groups or pairs, and even if they did engage in discussion, it would not lead to any activities initiated by the groups or pairs or on an individual basis(Alam, 2008;Chowdhury & Ha, 2008). An ultimate interpretation of communicative teaching pedagogy in Bangladesh therefore, became leaving or skipping the group discussion or hands-on-activity. Teachers promptly went back to the traditional grammar translation method where students did not need to be engaged at all in active discussions; rather, they listened to what the teacher said and completed the activities when told to(Alam, 2002, 2008). Given the context of the current pedagogic practice of ELT in

Bangladesh, it is vital to conduct experimental studies applying an appropriate instructional design to suggest a possible instructional strategy to adapt/adoptintothe EFL teaching in

Bangladesh.

1.8 Overview of the Thesis

In instructional psychology, cognitive load theory has been receiving a significant amount of attention in the past few decades. This theory claims the limitation of human cognitive architecture; specifically the working memory which is severely restricted in duration and capacity, and hence, if learners need to engage with too much of their working memory capacity in doing a task, meaningful learning may be compromised as it would incur

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 15 additional cognitive load. Hence task design needs to consider facilitation of learning by minimising cognitive overload.

This thesis reports on three experiments that were conducted with undergraduates having FL as well as native English backgrounds. These participants were tested for the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect, while listening to native as well as foreign accents of English from a CLT perspective. The thesis is designed in three parts, where the first part (Chapters 2-5) lays the background to the theoretical basis as it discusses listening comprehension, accent variability and cognitive load theory.

Chapter two defines listening comprehension and examines empirical studies into listening comprehension and its use in designing instruction for English language classes.

In Chapter three the rise and spread of accent variations in English is discussed. It defines accent varieties and outlines the pioneering studies conducted to understand the phenomenon. This chapter establishes the human speech processing system being so flexible that it can quickly accommodate significant acoustic-phonetic digressions from the speaker’snative language speech patterns.

Chapter four discusses the acoustic and phonetic characteristics of the five different accents of English that were used to create the accent variability in the listening comprehension materials for the experiments.

Chapter five discusses the genesis of cognitive load theory and defines the theory.

While mentioning some of the critiques, it refers to the modified version (Schnotz &

Kürschner, 2007) of the theory as well. The intricate construct of the five elemental principles of cognitive load theory is discussed in this chapter in detail. The intrinsic, extraneous and germane categories of cognitive load are covered, and the interrelationship between them is

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 16 shown. The chapter explains cognitive load effect, specifically variability effect and its instructional implications.It also defines the accent variability effect; a category of the variability effect when instruction is provided in different accents of a language using single modality auditory instruction only.

A central argument of the thesis is that the instructional procedure may induce an expertise reversal effect. The expertise reversal effect implies that the same instructional procedure may reveal opposite effects on the students depending on their expertise in

English. Chapter two and three collectively provides the basis for instructional design when using listening comprehension in a CLT framework. Chapter four examined the acoustic and phonetic variations present in all the accents utilised to develop materials for the thesis.

Chapter five provides the rationale for conducting the empirical studies.

Chapters 6-8 make up the second part of this thesis. This part discusses the empirical experiments conducted for the present research study. The results provide evidence in support of the hypotheses of accent variability effect and expertise reversal effect when processing different accents of English. Experiment 1 is discussed in Chapter six. In this experiment nine groups of Bangladeshi undergraduates were exposed to either single or multiple accents of

English. The three accents used for this experiment were Australian-accented English,

Chinese-accented English and Russian-accented English. These three accents were permuted to have six multiple-accent conditions.

Chapter seven is the discussion of Experiment 2. This experiment was conducted on three groups of expertise levels: low (Foundation course students); high (international undergraduates); and very high (local Australian undergraduates). There were two experimental conditions, a single-accented condition where Russian-accented English was

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 17 used, and a dual accented condition where Russian- and Australian-accented English were used.

The third and last experiment was conducted on three expertise levels which are described in Chapter eight. Like Experiment 2, two different accent conditions were used here; a single accented condition where Indian-accented English was used and a dual accented condition where Arabic and Indian-accented English was used. Experiments 2 and 3 described in Chapters six and seven had the same hypotheses, and Experiment 1 had slightly different hypotheses (discussionin 1.3).

Every experiment was designed in two parts, the first part being ‘acquisition phase’ and the second part being ‘the test phase’. For each of the experiments the same listening comprehension materials were employed. The listening comprehension used for acquisition was “The Antarctic” and for the test it was “The Arctic”. The listening comprehension materials were developed to be used for this thesis and these were tailored to have comparable features in terms of theme, structure and length. These listening comprehension materials were recorded in five different accents of English by thirteen female speakers. With all of the experiments, knowledge test performance scores (writing down from memory from listening comprehension), and a two items, nine-point Likert scale subjective rating was used to measure differences between performance and mental load across acquisition conditions.

In the questionnaire the first question was about the accent/accents used and the second question was about the listening comprehension material. The listening was immediately followed by a task effort questionnaire so as to have an immediate subjective rating of the mental load invested into understanding the accent/accents and the listening comprehension material.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 18

The thesis concludes in Chapter nine (the third part) which discusses the findings of the experiments from a CLT perspective and the educational implications of the findings. It also discusses the limitations and suggestions for further investigation.

1.9 Conclusions

This thesis contributes to new knowledge because, experimental study on accent variability effect that works on learners with native English as well as FL backgrounds from a

CLT perspective has not been conducted yet. Designing such kind of instruction in the CLT framework would enhance our understanding of learners’ adaptations to different types of accent inputs. The benchmark study in aCLT framework by Gao et al., (2013) has shown that multiple-speaker acquisition facilitated perceptual learning of foreign-accented English for

EFL learners; however the gains were dependent upon learners’ English language proficiency. The present thesis extends the research findings. The thesis aimed at facilitating learners’ understanding of, and overcomingthechallenges of, comprehending listening comprehension materials with accent variability within a cognitive load theory framework.

To this end, the present thesis designed instructionfor naïve as well as expert English language learners, so that they may be able to extract accent independent global adaptations to English.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 19

Chapter 2: Listening Comprehension

2.1 Introduction

Amongst the four skills of English, teaching of listening skills has been “an area needing significant attention” according to Feyten (1991, p.174). An important reason for it could be our limited understanding of designing instruction that caters for the learners’ cognitive load in a perceptual learning environment. Hence, the inadequate instructional design of the communicative method of English language teaching that does not comply with the cognitive process of how students learn and transfer knowledge (Mayer, 2004)in a perceptual learning environment could be an important reason for overlooking teaching listening skills in classes.

This chapter is constructed thus: To understand the acquisition of listening skills inmonolingual as well as multilingual settings, firstly it discusses the nature of the listening process and secondly, it discusses the factors that influence listening comprehension. This chapter suggests the necessity of designing instruction of listening to accent variations of

English using an appropriate instructional method.

2.2 Listening Process

Brown comments (1980, p.10) “Listening ability lies at the very heart of all growth, from birth through the years of formal education. The better those learning skills are developed, the more productive our learning efforts”. According to Feyten (1991) people use

45% of their time for listening, 30% for speaking 16% for reading and 9% on writing in daily communication. Students use a lot more time on listening as 57% to 90% of in-school information comes through listening (Wolvin & Coakley, 1996). Primary school students

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 20 spent sixty percent of class-room time in listening (Brown, 1980). ‘Listening’ is different from ‘hearing’ and again, ‘listening’ is different from ‘listening comprehension’. Whereas

‘listening’ may involve listening without interpretation and reaction to the message; ‘listening comprehension’ involves the listener in “meaningful interactive activity to an overall understanding of the text” (Hasan, 2000, p.137). Scholars defined listening from many perspectives. Mead (1985) described the process of listening comprehension comprising of four interrelated factors such as hearing, attending, comprehending and remembering. Later

Bentley and Bacon (1996) defined listening comprehension as an active and complex process during which listeners construct meaning from oral input. Listening comprehension, in other words, is a process in which listeners receive and select information from auditory clues, and relate this information with the existing knowledge in their long term memory for understanding, and also for deeper comprehension (Byrnes, 1984; O’Malley, Chamot &

Küpper, 1989).

In recent years,teaching listening comprehension has been given prominence in language learning and instructional contexts (details of the importance to teaching listening skills is in 1.1); yet, more needs to be done to fill the gap between the pedagogical theory of listening comprehension and practice in multilingual as well as monolingual settings. In these contexts, designing instruction on listening comprehension is a necessity; yet, lacking adequate attention for research and practice. The present thesis attempts to design listening comprehension instruction from a CLT perspective which may be adapted and/or adopted, and used in English language classes for supporting learners to enhance their listening comprehension ability without overloading their cognitive capacity.

The human cognitive system processes and stores information.The cognitive system is the key to all kinds of comprehension in any language (Cook, 2001). In comprehending a first

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 21 language, Anderson (1995) proposed a three phase model including perception, parsing and utilisation. In the perception phase, a person receives acoustic signals, encodes and stores it for a temporary time in sensory memory until it is transferred to working memory. Parsing, the next step, happens in working memory. Parsing transforms incoming words into a mental representation; thereafter the working memorysynthesises and generates a meaningful representation of the original sequence of information (Anderson, 1995). In this phase, the listeners work out the grammatical structure and sentence meanings (Goh, 2000). Utilisation, the third phase, is achieved when the listener relates incoming information to his/her existing knowledge stored in long term-memory (Anderson, 1995). These three phases are interrelated, and can happen concurrently while involved in listening comprehension, according to Anderson (1995). McClelland, Rumelhart et al., (1986; McClelland &

Rumelhart, 1989; and McClelland, & Rogers, 2003) proposed the model called the parallel distributed processing (PDP) model of cognition2, and later Kintsch (1998; Kintsch, &

Welsch, 1999) proposed the construction-integration model3for listening comprehension.

Although Anderson’s (1995) model for listening comprehension is designed for listening/comprehending a first language, it is to a considerable extent applicable to the understanding of second or foreign language comprehension too. Coakley and Wolvin (1986) implied that understanding of foreign language speech is the process of receiving, focusing attention on, and assigning meaning to aural stimuli. Listeners bring prior knowledge of the topic, their linguistic knowledge and cognitive processes interact with the listening task, and it is during a concurrent interaction among these elements that listening takes place.

2PDP is “A computational modelling framework in which cognitive and other mental processes arise from the interactions of simple, neuron like units through their weighted connections. PDP models are a subset of connectionist or artificial neural network models that use distributed representations (a scheme in which the representation of an item is distributed as a pattern of activity across a pool of units also used for the representation of other items) and that treat any act of information processing as involving the simultaneous participation of many units” (McClelland, & Rogers, 2003, p.311).

3The CI model is a “general theory of comprehension” which has “evolved from studies on story comprehension and memory for text to a point where it can be considered seriously as a possible architecture for that large area of cognition that we locate between “perception” on the one hand and “problem solving” on the other” (Kintsch, & Welsch, 1999,p. 2). 21

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 22

Fischerand Farris’ (1995) definition of listening comprehension echoes Coakley and

Wolvin’s (1986) definition, who viewed listening as a process by which students formulate a mental representation of an aural text according to prior knowledge of the topic.

To sum up, in SL/FL contexts, listening comprehension can be viewed as an active and complex process whereby listeners select information from auditory and/or visual clues and connect this information to existing knowledge (of the language) in their long term memory (Hasan, 2000). The definition of the process of listening comprehension is in line with the learning process according to a cognitive load theory perspective.

In SL/FL contexts,Vandergrift (2004) explained that on the one hand, listeners use top-down processes when they use context and prior knowledge (e.g. topic, genre, culture, and other schematic knowledge in long-term memory) to build a conceptual framework for comprehension. On the other hand, listeners use bottom-up processes when they construct meaning by accretion, gradually combining increasingly larger units of meaning from the phoneme-level up to discourse-level features. While the top-down and bottom-upprocesses interact in some form of parallel distributed processing, the degree to which listeners may use one process more than another should depend on the purpose for listening. Research into these cognitive processes suggests that SL/FL listeners need to learn how to use both processes to their advantage, depending on their purpose for listening (Vandergrift, 2004).

Listening, nevertheless, is the critical threshold of acquiring a second/foreign language. Listeningis a channel which concerns processing of language in real time, using pacing, and units of encoding and pausing that are required for spoken language, according to

Rost (1991). He also points out that listening can no longer be treated as a skill area in language performance. Some of the following skill-components are necessary in listening which Rost (1991) believes successful listening integrates:

• ability to discriminating between sounds

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 23

• recognising words

• identifying grammatical groupings of words

• identifying ‘pragmatic units’— expressions and sets of utterances that function as

whole units to create meaning

• connecting linguistic cues to paralinguistic cues (intonation and stress) and to non-

linguistic cues (gestures and relevant objectives in the situation) in order to construct

meaning

• using background knowledge (what we already know about the content and form)

and context (what has already been said) to predict and then to confirm meaning, and

• recalling important words and ideas (Rost, 1991).

These views (such as Vandergrift, 2004; Rost, 1991; Fischer& Farris,1995) share the idea that listening comprehension is not a passive, rather an active process, where listeners are actively processing and interpreting information (Mendelsohn, 1998). Buck (2001) concludes that listening is an on-going process of constructing an interpretation of what the text is about and then continually modifying and adding elements to it as new information becomes available. Mendelsohn (1998) points out that listening should begin as a conscious process; and consequently, this process needs to be brought to a conscious level as it concerns interpreting, not merely decoding.

In SL/FL contexts the listening comprehension process may be perceived as a little complex as there are some factors such as vocabulary, structural complexity of the language and the cultural context of the language which a learner may find difficult to control.

Language knowledge and processing skills are necessary for SL/FL learners as these two must be held in working memory concurrently while processing listening comprehension.

Insufficient linguistic proficiency may demotivate the learner leading to losing concentration

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 24 and giving up listening altogether. SL/FL learners encounter a reduced working memory span in learning English or any other second or foreign languages.

Cook (1977) found that when a task is presented in the second language, the digit span of second language learners, which reflects their basic memory processes of working memory, was below those of native speakers in a working memory test, with 5.9 and 6.7 digits for lower and higher proficient second language learners respectively and 8 digits for natives. The SL learners’ working memory span increased as their English improved; however they were still below native speakers, even when they had higher language proficiency.

These results influenced Cook (1979) to further investigate the matter. He (1979) tested the influence of age on the digit span of working memory of schoolchildren and found that the students’ spans of working memory improved with their age, however, there was a gap between digits from their first language to second language. This decline in working memory’s span between first and second language imply the general fact that working memory capacity is more limited while using a second language.

From the discussion it is pertinent that the listening comprehension process between the first and second language is quite similar except that SL/FL learners need to handle more linguistic, metalinguistic and sociolinguistic barriers during the procedure.

2.3 Factors Influencing Listening Comprehension

Buck (2001) recognised three characteristics of spoken language that make oral text more difficult to master than written text: (1) spoken language is encoded in the form of sounds; (2) it is linear and takes place in real time, in other words, it is transitory in nature; and (3) it is linguistically different from written language. A considerable number of studies

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 25 investigated the factors that may lead to listening comprehension difficulty (Blau, 1990;

Brown & Yule, 1983; Flowerdew & Miller, 1996; Hasan, 2000; Kelly, 1991; Rubin, 1994;

Yagang, 1994).

Brownand Yule (1983) suggested four clusters of factors which can affect the listening comprehension performance: (a) the speaker, (b) the listener, (c) the content, and (d) the support. The speaker refers to the number of speakers, speech rate, the accent with which the speaker speaks, etc. The listener is related to the role of the listener, his/her level of response and interest in the subject. The content includes vocabulary, grammar, structure, etc.

The support is the visual aide assisting the text, such as pictures and diagrams.

Yagang (1994) found the message, the speaker, the listener and physical setting as important factors in listening comprehension, which confirms Brown and Yule’s (1983) suggestions. Rubin (1994) suggested five factors that can influence listening comprehension: text characteristics, interlocutor characteristics, task characteristics, listener characteristics and process characteristics. Hasan (2000) confirmed similar characteristics causing listening difficulty in his study too.

Flowerdewand Miller (1996) conducted an ethnographic study on some socio-cultural aspects in lecturing in a Hong Kong university. The factors were: (a) purpose of lectures; (b) role of lecturers; (c) style of lecturing; (d) simplification; (e) listener behaviour, and (f) humour. They found that a reciprocal understanding on the part of lecturers as well as students of each others’ perceptions on these issues is of value in the preparation of these two groups for participation in second language lecturesBrown (1995) opined that cognitive demands on comprehension of spoken information are significant in listening comprehension.

Brown’s (1995) suggestions concerning the factors affecting listening comprehension relates to the ideas suggested by CLT.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 26

There are also some non-cognitive factors that may influence listening comprehension such as settings, motivation, attitude, aptitude, and other metalinguistic factors from the learners’ point of view; the cognitive factors will remain the focus of this thesis as this thesis uses cognitive load theory as the theoretical framework for the study. According to CLT, two relevant factors may affect listening comprehension, the discussion of which is as follows.

a. Intrinsic difficulty of the input speech may contribute to listening comprehension

difficulty. Intrinsic difficulty may comprise speech rate (Blau, 1990; Griffiths,

1992), vocabulary (Kelly, 1991) and phonological features of the language

(Henrichsen, 1984; Matter, 1989). Long sentence with a fast speech rate,

unfamiliar vocabulary, complex sentence structure, and unfamiliar accent usually

pose the listener with listening comprehension difficulty (Hasan, 2000). Foreign-

accented English, which may induce intrinsic cognitive load according to CLT in

listening comprehension, is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, sections 5.9.1 and

5.9.2.

b. Learner expertise that includes insufficient exposure to the target language is

considered to be a detrimental factor, according to Goh (2000). Lacking

background knowledge that incorporates cultural values, habits, humour and

institutions (Chiang & Dunkel, 1992; Markham & Latham, 1987) adds to the

difficulty too. On the other hand, low L1 proficiency is related to increased

difficulty in perceiving listening comprehension in L2. A sound base in L1 is a

crucial factor, as insufficient language knowledge in L1 will affect acquisition of

L2. Graham (2006, p.165) in her study reported the affective variables discussed

above. In addition she reported learners “own supposed low ability in the skill”

contributes to difficulty in listening comprehension.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 27

To sum up the listening process, it can be said that mere listening to a topic is not an end in itself, as usually it is followed up with some activities. In this thesis listening comprehension is not viewed as an end in itself, as it actively considers the aftermath of listening too. Listening, by default, is temporary in nature, as the aural input comes to an end, so does its reception by our sensory organs. But the effect of listening may linger in the memory of the listeners for some time. The lingering may depend on some internal, external and personal factors. The internal factors may include the construction of the listening materials and levels of difficulty of the input such as vocabulary, sentence structure, length or duration, topic, accent, articulation factors (voice, tone, and pitch of the speakers), etc. The external factors may include external noise, volume or sound, and quality of recordings, device used for listening, visual aide provided or not, etc. Some personal factors can be associated with it, such as background knowledge of the topic, background knowledge in L1 and L2, familiarity with the accents, listeners’ degree of attention while listening, motivational factors (intrinsically or extrinsically motivated), attitude and aptitude towards the accent, relevance and necessity of the listening and what kind of activities are expected after listening, etc. An interesting characteristic of the listening process is that listening invokes a dualreaction in the post listening phase. After listening to a long piece of unidirectional text, the listeners usually recall the latest information first, and earlier information last when they freely recall what they remember. From a CLT perspective, this leads to a transitory information effect.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 28

2.4 Conclusions

This chapter defined listening comprehension and discussed the factors that influence listening comprehension difficulty due to cognitive and non-cognitive factors that include the intrinsic structure of listening texts and relevant external as well as personal factors of the listeners.It also compared the nature of L1 and L2 listening. The quality of successful listening comprehension in L1 and L2 is a combination of all the factors discussed in this chapter. Listeners, by carefully attending to the listening process, can maximise the benefits of listening comprehension and thereby become successful listeners.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 29

Chapter 3: Varieties of English and Studies on Accent

Diversifications

3.1 Introduction

No accent variety in English is superior over any other varieties. It is time that we

“recognise the roles and functions that different varieties of English, including that of standard English, fulfil” Clark (2014, para 6). In her research on accentvariations in the using of English and its implication in education policy and teachers of English, Clark (2014, para

3) highlights “how dynamic, fragmented and mobile the English language has become” nowadays. With this rise of other varieties, the “influence of traditional gatekeepers of

‘standard’ English, such as the BBC” (para 3) is losing its predominant status in the realm of accents, she observes.

In the global context “English crosses national boundaries” and at the same time

“migration brings people together” from different ethno-linguistic backgrounds and cultures

(Clark, 2014, no pagination, para 4). This is why understanding accent variations in their specific linguistic and socio-cultural contexts are crucial. Usage of English in our everyday life is various: for business, travelling, medicine, education and the list is endless. A lot of people in the world today are largely bilingual, if not multilingual: even in native English speaking countries. In parts of Birmingham in the UK, for example, there are primary and secondary schools where nearly 40% of pupils speak English as an additional language(EAL); in many others, 50% is the norm (NALDIC, 2013). The UK National

Association for Language Development in the Curriculum (n.d) reported that in 2013 the highest proportion of EAL learners in primary schools are Tower Hamlets (76%) and

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 30

Newham (75%) and in Birmingham it is 40%.The Daily Telegraph (2012) calculated that there are about 1,638 schools in the UK where more than 50% of students learn English as an additional language.

This chapter depicts the spread of accent variations in English and discusses the empirical studies to understand the phenomenon. The discussions in this chapter imply designing instruction from a CLT perspective so as to maximise listener adaptation to accent variations.

3.2 Rise and Spread of Accent Diversifications

The global role of the English language, it can be argued, has been derived “from the past and present hegemony of the USA and the UK in economics, politics and in the cultural sphere” (Imam, 2005, p. 479). The English language has been a chief instrument for these two superpowers to lead the world in economics, politics and the cultural sphere. Pennycook

(1995, p.42) argues that the spread of English makes the “deliberate policy of English- speaking countries protecting and promoting their economic and political interest”.

Nonetheless, as an important language the spread of English and accent diversification has been an issue of immense interest to different stakeholders to different degrees. For example,

Weinberger (n.d., no pagination, para 1) in the Speech Accent Archive acknowledges that

“Everyone who speaks a language, speaks it with an accent…accent essentially reflects a person’s linguistic background.” The archive puts forward the view that when we listen to someone speak with a different accent other than ours, we notice the difference, and it might tempt us into making “certain biased social judgments about the speaker” (para 1). This archive demonstrates that “accents are systematic rather than merely mistaken speech”

(Weinberger, n.d., no pagination,para 3).Language varieties do not only mean making up of pidgins and creoles; it also denotes creation of accents; and the creation of stylistic, syntactic,

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 31 semantic, orthographic and lexical diversifications. Overall, English language denotes a united paradigm upheld through diversity that splitsand yet, unites the users at some point.

Accent diversification and regional varieties of English owes its debt to the colonial expansion of the British Empire from late sixteenth to twentieth century in different parts of the world. These expansions caused specific contact situations and as some obvious by- products of these contacts new language varieties have evolved (Schneider, 2003). After having singled out varying language transmission patterns (e.g. ‘predominately normal’ vs.

‘predominately scholastic’) and types (e.g. settler migration, informal acquisition, formal teaching), Gupta, (1997 distinguishes five different patterns of English-speaking countries:

‘monolingual ancestral English’ (e.g. US, Australia); ‘monolingual contact variety’ (e.g.

Jamaica); ‘monolingual scholastic English’ (e.g. India); ‘multilingual contact variety’ (e.g.

Singapore);and ‘multilingual ancestral English’ (e.g. South Africa).

Schneider (2003, p. 236) argues that “To a considerable extent the emergence of New

Englishes is a process of linguistic convergence, followed by renewed divergence only later, once a certain level of homogeneity has been reached”. There are other clinchers as well for the global spread of English, like the British dominated industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, a consequence of the superpower role of the US, and the economic and cultural globalisation in the twentieth century. Another significant shift in linguistic dominance is from British to American predomination which “has resulted in the fact that the influence of

American English upon originally British-derived and British-determined varieties is being discussed in many countries around the globe today” (Schneider, 2003, p. 236).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 32

3.3 World Englishes

A speaker can be identified as a member of a speech group by his or her accent. For a native speaker of a language, the accent group is generally determined by the geographical areas where s/he lives, by socio-economic class s/he belongs to, by his/her ethnic origin, etc.

For an L2 speaker of English it is determined by the identity of his/her first language associated with some of the factors mentioned earlier (such as the speaker’s articulation habits and phonological knowledge of his/her L1.

From a listener’s perspective listening to a variety of English can be an enriching experience; although it might challenge the hearer with an initial tonal foreignness. For an adult speaker who learnt English as a foreign language, the foreign accent he/she speaks with does not fade years later--even though the user might have been exposed to a native variety of

English for a good part of his/her life. However, accent can fade depending on the speaker’s prolonged exposure to native English. Nevertheless, the adult L2/FL speaker may never be a proficient speaker of a native English ‘accent’ although he/she may attain a native-like competence in pronouncing the accent. English, as a second or foreign language, is usually heard in varieties of foreign accents because, with the rise and spread of English in diverse colonial settings, it has come in contact with local languages thereof along the way. Having different first languages, the users in these contact settings (for example, the indigenous people when coming into contact with immigrant groups), at different phases of their linguistic journey (that includes (a) foundation, (b) exonormative stabilisation, (c) nativisation, (d) endonormative stabilisation, and (e) differentiation:the five phases of making of a new variety)(Schneider, 2003) have developed new varieties of Englishes worldwide.

These new varieties have introduced a new school of thought called language variation. In the linguistic world, language variation has become a “well established and well described phenomenon”, as observed by (Taylor, 2002, p 18). Language variation has

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 33 twofold manifestations: at micro level this variation’s features includes phonological; morphological and lexical; syntactic and orthographic aspects; and, at the macro level, the variation can be seen in discourse features (in rhetorical structures), and pragmatic features

(the socio cultural context of its usage). The pedagogical changes in methodologies in teaching English has also brought practical problems while adopting teaching materials.

These problems are realised in terms of pedagogy, materials and training, and for testing it is prominent “in matters of standard, norms, models and criteria of judgment”(Taylor, 2002, p.

19).

The flux of relationships between varieties of English is depicted in Kachru (1992b) who defined the term ‘world Englishes’ as the functional and formal variations: world

Englishes embeds itself in divergent sociolinguistic contexts; and, works upon ranges and varieties of English in creativity; and, includes various types of acculturation in parts of the

Western and non-Western world. He (1988) subdivided ‘world Englishes’ into three circles: inner, outer and expanding. For example, in the inner circle are the ‘native’ speakers of

English (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand); Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, and

Pakistan constitute the outer circle. China, Indonesia, Japan and Russia comprise the expanding circle of the world Englishes. Kachru (1992a) explained the global spread of

English in terms of two diasporal transportations. The first dispersal was within the inner circle where a monolingual English-speaking population (the British) migrated to continents like North America and Australia. The second diasporas of the outer and expanding circle was the result of the colonisation of continents like Asia and Africa by the British. In this way

English was transplanted to India, Nigeria, China and Japan, and such other countries. There is a lot of Literature discussing the problems in implementing and adopting teaching/learning materials parallel to the expansion of English (for details, see 1.4 of the present thesis).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 34

Speaker and accent variability has given new insight into learning accented languages.

Foreign accents in English are a rich source of variability in the language. A foreign accent’s diverse acoustic-phonetic features, however, can affect the speech perception for listeners.

For example, non-native speech happens to cause misidentification of words (Lane, 1963;

Munro & Derwing, 1995 a, b; Van Wijngaarden, 2001), and increased processing time

(Munro & Derwing, 1995b). The dividing line that distinguishes the target language features from the L1 of a speaker is the phonological structure of the speaker’s L1. L2 speakers with different language backgrounds encounter this phenomenon in different ways. For example, while Dutch speakers tend to produce the English vowel /æ/ as /e/ (Tops, Dekeyser,

Devriendt & Geukens, 2001), Japanese speakers typically produce it as /a/ (Thompson,

2001).

L2 learners when speaking a second/foreign language, apply the temporal acoustic features of L1 that deviate from those of native speakers. Flege & Port (1981) report that at the segmental level, the effect of obstruent voicing on the duration of preceding vowels was much smaller than the English norm when English words were produced by native Arabic speakers. Similar results for native French speakers are reported in Mack (1982). Again, at syllabic level, non-native speakers avoid producing complex English syllables that are absent in their L1, such as the Korean, Cantonese and Portuguese speakers (Tarone, 1980). Complex syllables were often reduced to simpler central voiced syllables through vowel epenthesis and consonant deletion; which were more consistent with constraints and preferences found in the speakers’ L1.

Mochizuki-Sudo and Kiritani (1991) in a study on English stress-feet found that, with the increase of number of syllables in a foot, the duration between onsets of successive stressed syllables increased more rapidly (more linearly) for Japanese speakers of English

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 35 than for native speakers. The native English speakers’ productions showed more compensatory shortening of the foot-initial stressed vowel than did the Japanese learners’ productions; indicating that stress-foot is a more important unit of timing for native English speakers than for Japanese speakers (Mochizuki-Sudo &Kiritani, 1991).

The trait of accommodating representative sounds of English in Bangladesh “where

Bengali phonology does not match English” is well documented in Banu and Sussex (2001 p.

53).

It is customary for various accommodations to be made in Bengali representations of

English words.... Some of these are conventional, like the replacement of English /z/

by /dʒ/, or of /v/ by /b/ or /bh/, and the use of /ε/ for both English /ε/ and English /æ/.

Bengali does not havephonemic /z/ or /v/. It has /ε/ as well as /æ/. However, both /ε/

and /æ/ in initial position are represented by the one written letter. Thus the phonetic

realization and transliteration of the English wordsand and fat in the examples appear

in Bengali script as /εnd/ and /fεt/ respectively…There isstrong evidence of letter-

by-letter transliteration, especially in the post-vocalic /r/, which is pronounced in

Bengali but not in English, and is copied from the English orthography. (Banu & Sussex, 2001, p.53)

Understanding and studying accent variation hence needs to take into account the following features:

 Accent variation is not just a shift in phonetic recognition as they differ in their

account of phonological segments and their allocation in the lexicon. For example, if

we follow one dictionary and try to adapt the phone models according to its spectral

realisations, it would be inadequate.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 36

 Phonetic variation can cause great spectro-temporal changes in recognition. For

example, monophthongs can become diphthongs, plosives can become fricatives, and

segments can be inserted and deleted. Phone models which are good models of

spectro-temporal variation of a phonological unit in one particular accent may be poor

models in another.

 Sociolinguists generally define accent groups according to some convenient cultural

indicators. It is unlikely that all the known accent groups are necessary or sufficient.

In addition, because the groups are not defined by objective similarity, it is difficult to

find a representative sample of speakers of an accent.

 Accent variation is only one component of variability of a speaker; as speakers also

differ according to their age, size, sex, voice quality, speaking style or emotion

(adapted from Huckvale, 2004)

3.4 Listening to Accent Variations in English

Linguistic variation in language use among speakers or groups of speakers is perceived as a change in language usage that may occur in accent, lexicon or even preferences for particular grammatical patterns (Meecham & Rees-Miller, 2011). This present thesis studies accent variations in English: listening to the English language spoken with various accents is not that unfamiliar these days. Characteristically, foreign-accented English speeches tend to depart from native accents of English, causing perceptual difficulties for listeners (Clarke& Garrett, 2004; Bradlow & Bent, 2003; Wingstedt & Schulman, 1997;

Lane, 1963). Studies investigating techniques that are designed to adapt listeners to dialectical and accented English found that speaker variability during acquisition has been a critical factor (Bradlow & Bent, 2008; Clopper & Pisoni, 2004; Goh, 2005; Logan, Lively &

Pisoni, 1991). Speaker variability is generally defined as having a wide variation in the

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 37 acoustic properties that every speaker of a language has. The variation includes distinctive features in speakers’ voice, gender, speech rates and accent.

Listening to accent variations English is distinctive in that it works into the cognitive processes that make the base for the listeners’ adaptation to new speech pattern as it represents varieties of speech that are significantly different and it comes with multiple acoustic-phonetic dimensions from the pronunciation norms in the native speaker community

(Bradlow & Bent, 2008). The characteristics of any given foreign-accent arise primarily from the interaction of the phonological structures of the speaker’s native language and the target language. The phonetic characteristics of foreign-accented speech are highly systematic and it is remarkably consistent across speakers from the same native language background.

Bradlow and Bent (2008) in their empirical study worked on adaptation to foreign- accented speech to investigate perceptual learning for a variety of speech with a high degree of naturally-produced, systematic variability in the language. What they found in their study is that the subjects performed better on a consequent speech intelligibility task with an unfamiliar Chinese-accented English speaker after being exposed to multiple Chinese- accented English speakers than by being exposed to a single speaker during acquisition.

Bradlow and Bent (2008) argue that listeners might extract speaker-independent accent information from multiple pronunciations, and thereby achieve speaker-independent adaptation to foreign-accented English if exposed to multiple speakers of that speech. We may presume that while comprehending listening passages, the interacting elements (which are intrinsic to the structure of the listening comprehension passage) may not be reduced due to the nature of the structure of the information passages.

From a cognitive load theory perspective, when using listening comprehensions in instructional settings, one way to reduce the element interactivity is to manipulate the accent

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 38 variability that has the potential to reduce working memory load to a certain degree. Hence, exposure to multiple speakers speaking in different accents of English could be a highly effective technique to enrich listening comprehension skills from a CLT perspective. Logan,

Lively and Pisoni (1991) in their study found speaker variability as an effective instructional means in enhancing the listening skill of Japanese FL learners. In other words, these findings provide evidence for highly flexible speech perception processes human beings have that can adapt to speech, even after its substantial deviation from the pronunciation norms in the native speaker community along multiple acoustic-phonetic dimensions.

3.5 Empirical Studies on Accent variations

Below is a review of some empirical studies investigating listeners’ adaptation to speaker and accent variability in English.

Logan, Lively and Pisoni (1991) trained Japanese adult learners to discriminate

English /r/ and /l/ contrasts by exposing them to variable practice. They made use of multiple speakers and a variable phonic environment to increase the practice variability. The Japanese learners trained with high variability stimulus sets were seen to better differentiate English /r/ and /l/ contrasts and they could also generalise to a new voice and new words in a task.

However, since the study had two different variables manipulated at the same time, i.e. multiple speakers and a variable phonic environment, it is unclear which factor had been the exact source of the phonic effect.

In a later study, Lively, Logan and Pisoni (1993) designed two experiments to extend

Logan et al.,’s study (1991). In the first experiment, subjects were trained in an identification task with multiple speakers who produced English words containing the /r/–/l/ contrast. This training resulted in learners’ performance, the learners generalised to new words produced by a familiar speaker and novel words produced by a novel speaker. In the second experiment, a

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 39 new group of subjects was trained with tokens from a single speaker who produced words containing the /r/–/l/contrast in five phonetic environments. Although the subjects’ performance improved, they failed to generalise to tokens produced by a novel speaker.

These results suggest that variability is an important factor in perceptual learning and strong category formation.

Logan’s et al., (1991) work has shown that monolingual Japanese adults who were given intensive high-variability perceptual training improved in both perception and production of English/r/–/l/ minimal pairs. In a further study, Bradlow et al., (1999) extended the findings of Logan et al., (1991) by investigating the long-term retention of learning in both perception and production of this difficult non-native contrast. Results of their study showed that, three months after completion of the perceptual training procedure, the Japanese trainees maintained their improved levels of performance on the perceptual identification task. Furthermore, perceptual evaluations by native American English listeners of the

Japanese trainees’ speech production performance showed that the trainees retained their long-term improvements in the general quality, identifiability, and overall intelligibility of their English /r/–/l/ word productions. The results provide support for the efficacy of high- variability laboratory speech sound training procedures.

To explore the perceptual benefits of short exposure to non-native speech, Clarke and

Garret (2004) exposed native English listeners to English sentences produced by Spanish and

Chinese-accented non-native speakers. They measured perceptual processing speed by tracking reaction times to visual probe words that followed each sentence. The three experiments in their study showed that processing speed was initially slower for accented speech, but this effect disappears within one minute of exposure. The control conditions explicates for the adaptation effect based on practice with the task and general strategies for

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 40 dealing with difficult speech. Further results suggest that adaptation can occur within as few as two to four sentence-length utterances. The findings emphasised the flexibility of the human speech processing system and demonstrated evidence of spoken word recognition that can rapidly contain noteworthy acoustic-phonetic departures from native language speech patterns.

In 2008, Bradlow and Bent investigated two groups of native English speakers over speaker-dependent and speaker-independent perceptual adaptation to Chinese-accented

English. The first experiment investigated speaker-dependent adaptation by comparing the listeners’ recognition accuracy for Chinese-accented English across single and multiple speaker speech conditions. Results showed that the subjects adapted to the foreign-accented speech over the single speaker condition depending on the baseline sentence understandability of the speaker. The second experiment investigated speaker-independent perceptual adaptation to Chinese-accented English. Here, too, the native English listeners listened to Chinese-accented English. The researchers then used a novel Chinese-accented speaker for testing their insight into Chinese-accented English. Results showed that, exposure to multiple speakers did not hinder the subjects to achieve speaker-independent adaptation to this specific accent of English. Overall, the findings of this study provide evidence for highly flexible and adaptive speech perception processes that can adjust to different accents, even though the new accent considerably differs from the pronunciation norms in the native speaker community.

In Clopper and Pisoni’s (2004) experiment, two groups of listeners learned to categorise a group of unfamiliar speakers by dialect region. One group had to categorise a single talker from each of six American English dialect regions, while the other group categorised three speakers from each dialect region. After training, both groups were asked to

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 41 categorise new speakers using the same categorisation task. The single-speaker group was more accurate during training and test phases when speakers were familiar, whereas the three-speaker group performed better on the generalisation task with unfamiliar speakers.

This cross-over effect in dialect categorisation suggests that while speaker variation during perceptual learning leads to more difficult learning of specific exemplars, exposure to inter- speaker variability facilitates robust perceptual learning and promotes better categorisation performance of unfamiliar speakers. The results of the study suggest that “listeners encode and use acoustic-phonetic variability in speech to reliably perceive the dialect of unfamiliar talkers” Clopper and Pisoni (2004, p.112). It also suggests that multiple speaker condition enhanced the listeners’ ability to differentiate accent diversification across six dialect regions.

Weber, Broersma and Aoyagi (2011) conducted two cross-modal priming experiments to investigate the recognition of foreign-accented English words. In the study auditory English primes were either Dutch-accented English or Japanese-accented English.

Dutch and Japanese L2 participants participated in the study. Lexical-decision times to subsequent visual target words showed that foreign-accented words can facilitate word recognition for L2 listeners if at least one of two requirements is met: if the foreign-accented production is quite similar to the language background of the L2 listener, or the foreign accent is perceptually confusable with the standard pronunciation for the L2 listener. If neither one of the requirements is met, no facilitatory effect of foreign accents on L2 word recognition is found. The study suggests that linguistic experience with a foreign accent affects the ability to recognise words carrying this accent, and there is furthermore a general benefit for L2 listeners for recognising foreign-accented words that are perceptually confusable with the standard pronunciation.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 42

Lee and Kalyuga (2011) demonstrated that presenting characters in Chinese sentences and concurrent spoken pronunciation of the character resulted in better learning of pronunciation when written pronunciation information in a transcription system called pinyin was provided next to selected new key characters in the sentences to cue learners’ attention to appropriate parts of the visual display of the characters (Kalyuga, 2012).

In his review article Kalyuga (2012) provided a framework for evaluating potential instructional benefits of spoken text by analysing various instructional situations. These situations depend on whether spoken text is used together with pictures and written text and consider the relations between presented sources of information.

Ikeno and Hansen’s (2007) study provides perceptual assessment of accent variation in native language and in English from a cognitive perspective. They tested how listener’s accent background affects accent perception and comprehensibility. The results from their experiments show that the listeners’ accent background has profound impact on their ability to categorise accents. Speaker accent type also affects perceptual accent classification. The interaction between listener accent background and speaker accent type is significant for both accent perception and speech comprehension. In addition, the results indicate that the comprehensibility of the speech contributes to accent perception. The outcomes point to the complex cognitive processing underplaying into the nature of accent perception.

From a CLT perspective Gao et al., (2013) investigated the effects of speaker variability in perceiving foreign-accented English for EFL learners with different levels of expertise in English. They explored the benefits of using multiple speakers during acquisition in comparison with a single speaker for Chinese EFL learners with a higher or lower English language proficiency level on learning of Indian-accented English. The study used translation performance and cognitive load subjective rating scales to measure the differences in the

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 43 outcome of test tasks between acquisition conditions. Learners were exposed to speaker variability for training across three consecutive days. The study found that multiple-speaker acquisition facilitated perceptual learning of foreign-accented English for EFL learners; however the gains were dependent upon learners’ English language proficiency.

To sum up, the findings of studies pertaining to speaker and accent variability suggest that, if learners are exposed to dual/multiple accents, their understanding of accented English would become better. However, from a CLT perspective, exposure to a variable accents condition may increase intrinsic cognitive load (due to the intrinsic complexity of the learning materials). Considering this issue within a cognitive load theory framework, high expertise and low expertise learners can be exposed to dual/multiple accents of English compared to a single accent of English. When exposing learners in this kind of perceptual learning environments, less expert learners, compared to more expert ones, may have insufficient working memory space to process the additional interacting elements (due to accent variations and learning materials) the multiple/dual accents provide. On the other hand, more expert learners, due to their sophisticated skills in English may encounter lesser challenges in processing the accent variations. However, the advantage of dual/multiple accents may only materialise when learners have the required amount of exposure by training them with listening comprehension materials containing accent variability.

3.6 Using Accent Variations in a CLT Framework for the Present Study

Cognitive load theory, being an instructional design theory, can be used to improve the listening comprehension of the learners. An advantage of designing instruction for enhancing listening in a CLT framework is that our “acoustic-sensory information is more durable than visual-sensory information” (Kalyuga, 2012 p. 148). While designing instruction learners’ levels of expertise needs to be considered as the novice and expert learners’ prior

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 44 knowledge in the related domain is known to have an important role in their performance.

(Gao, et al., 2013; Kalyuga, 2012).

Instructional formats using cognitive load theory have been widely used in different academic fields- in science and technology (Sweller, Chandler, Tierney & Cooper, 1990;

Chandler & Sweller, 1991, 1996; Mayer, Heiser & Lonn, 2001); in mathematics (Paas & van

Merriënboer, 1994; Mousavi, Low & Sweller, 1995); and, in language (Yeung, Jin &

Sweller, 1997; Diao & Sweller, 2007). Recently Gao et al., (2013) investigated the effects of speaker variability in perceiving foreign-accented English for EFL learners with different levels of expertise in English.

Based on the empirical studies on accent variations, and especially after Gao et al.,’s

(2013) study discussed in 3.5, it is pertinent that accent variations may need to be manoeuvred into designing instruction from a cognitive load perspective in order to have fresh insights into the cognitive mechanism of a diverse range of listeners in NE as well as

L2/FL contexts when dealing with novel accents of English. This present thesis used five different accents of English (which are Australian-, Chinese-, Russian-, Indian-and Arab- accented English) to this end. Each of the accents has distinct acoustic phonetic characteristics; hence, familiarity of the pronunciation norms is essential as they are embedded within the context and design of the experiments. Chapter 4 discusses the acoustic and phonetic characteristics of Australian-, Chinese-, Russian-, Indian-and Arabic- accented

English.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 45

3.7 Conclusions

Linguistic variation is a characteristic of all languages, and all linguistic varieties have their own rules and systems. Often these characteristics leak from one variety to another, giving rise to the phenomenon of accent variations. This chapter discussed the varieties of

English as a global phenomenon and emphasised the need to investigate the accent variability effect from a cognitive load perspective to better understand how the challenges this diversity poses can be minimised for the listeners. The chapter emphasised the need to design instruction of listening comprehension for English language classes and established the fact that human speech processing system is so flexible that it can rapidly accommodate significant acoustic-phonetic deviations from native language speech patterns. It defined accent varieties and presented some of the pioneering studies conducted to understand the phenomenon, which facilitated the native as well as non-native listeners to adapt to perceptual speech variations.

Successful listening comprehension is more a question of understanding the content of the message; and becoming proficient to adapt to the accent variations successfully with reasonable cognitive load. This adaptation should be in the contexts of accents used irrespective of whether listening to a ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ accent of English.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 46

Chapter 4: Pronunciation Norms of the Accents Used for the

Experiments

4.1 Introduction

Accent variability, it was assumed, would affect the low and high (including very high) expertise learners’ cognitive ability in terms of schema acquisition and automation to comprehend the listening comprehension tasks in a cognitive load theory framework. As the experiments made use of materials consisting of lengthy informational passages with high element interactivity; it is imperative to evaluate the distinct acoustic and phonetic characteristics of each of the five accents of English used to develop the listening comprehension materials for the experiments.

An understanding of the acoustic and phonetic characteristics of the five accents used to develop the listening comprehension materials for this experiment is necessary. This chapter discusses phonemic and phonetic traits, such as the place and manner of articulation of vowel and consonant sounds, and pronunciation norms such as intonation, stress and rhyming patterns that distinguish Australian English, Chinese-accented English, Russian- accented English, Indian-accented English and Arabic-accented English. The phonological factors are crucial in determining the manners in which speakers of all of these accent groups typically pronounce English. Experiments 1 and 2 used the first three accents, and

Experiment 3 utilised the last two accents of English aforementioned. Experiment 1 (reported in Chapter 6) was conducted with Bengali speaking Bangladeshi students and the three accents used were novel to them. Experiment 2 (reported in Chapter 7) was conducted in

Sydney, Australia with local and international undergraduates where the students were familiar with Australian English; however the Russian-accented English was novel to them as this accent is uncommonly used in educational instruction in Australia. The third experiment

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 47

(reported in Chapter 8) was conducted with a similar population in a comparable setting, where Indian and Arabic-accented English was utilised. These two accents are also rare in educational instruction within Australia. However, the four foreign accented English used in this thesis may have a very limited usage in certain language learning contexts such as in community language classes.

4.2 Australian-accented English

The Australian-accented English or Australian English (AuE) used in this study is a major variety of the English language. It can be “differentiated from world Englishes by a constellation of phonetic features including segmental, prosodic and voice quality characteristics” (Cox, Palethrope & Bentink, 2014, p.50). This variety of English started diverging from British English after the founding of the settlement in New South Wales in

1788, and was recognised as being different from British English by 1820. This happened due to the intermingling of early settlers from a great variety of dialectal regions of the British

Isles. Migration from the British Isles continued from the earliest days of settlement, and later from the 1950s from southern Europe, the Middle East and most recently Asia.

Mitchell (1970) identified pronunciation variations across the Australian continent that he labelled Broad, General and Cultivated Australian English. Cultivated is the most prestigious variety spoken by only 10% of the population. One third of the people speak

Broad variety and the rest speak General variety. Over the past forty years, AuE accent has gradually moved towards the centre of this broadness continuum. The majority of younger speakers nowadays use a General type of AuE. The three Australian females whose voices were recorded for this experiment spoke with General AuE.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 48

4.2.1 Phonology

AuE is distinctive from other varieties of English through its unique pronunciation. It shares the most similarities with other southern hemispheric accents, particularly the New

Zealand English and South African English. AuE is distinguished primarily by its vowel phonology. Six vowels are considered salient in AuE, and the broadness continuum (Broad,

General and Cultivated) is discerned according to the speaker’s pronunciation of these vowel sounds; four diphthongs in words such as bait, bite, boat, bout, and two monophthongs in words such as beat, and boot (Cox et al., 2014). Mitchell (1970) found that these six vowels were spoken by 34% Broad, 55% General and 11% Cultivated speakers. Consistent with this finding, Harrington, Cox and Evans (1997) found that the three broadness category is confined mostly to rising diphthongs and to ongliding in /i/. Falling diphthongs were found to be phonetically the most variable of all vowel categories (Harrington et al.,1997).

4.2.2 Vowels in Australian English

AuE vowels are divided according to length. The long vowels, having monophthongs and diphthongs, mostly correspond to the tense vowels used in analyses of RP and its centering diphthongs.

Clark (1989) categorized AuE vowels into four groups which are discussed below.

Figure 4.1 provides an auditory description of AuE vowels adapted from Clark (1989, p.209-

211)

Vowel categories Vowel sounds Representative sounds in AuE

Simple target long vowels /ɐː/; /ɜː/ Nurse

Simple target short vowels /ɪ/;/ə/ Kit

e/; /ɛ/ dress

/ɐ/ strut

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 49

/ʊ/ foot

Complex target long vowels /iː/, /ᵊi/, /əi/ fleece

/oː/, /oᵊː/,/ oə/ cloth

/ ʉː/, /ᵊʉː/, /ʉᵊː/ goose

/ɛe/, /æ e/ face

/ɑe/, /ɔe/ price

/əʉ/ go

/æɔ/, /ɐɔ/ mouth

/oɪ/ choice

/ɪə/, /ɪᵊ/, /ɪː/ near

/eə/, /eᵊ/, /eː/ square

/ʊə/, /ʉə/, /oː/ as in cure

Complex target short vowels æ/, /æᵊ/, /æː/ as in trap

/ɔ/, /ɔᵊ/, /ɔə/ as in lot

The intermediate vowel /ə/ commA, lettER, horSE

Figure 4.1. Australian vowel sounds presented in Clark (1989, p.209-211)

Figure 4.2 shows Australian English diphthongs.

Figure 4.2. Australian English diphthongs

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 50

Figure 4.3 shows Australian English monophthongs.

Figure 4.3. Australian English monophthongs

The short vowels, consisting only of monophthongs, correspond to the RP lax vowels.

There are pairs of long and short vowels with overlapping vowel quality that gives AuE phonemic length distinction, which is rarely seen among the various dialects of English.The weak vowel merger is complete in AuE, similar to General American and New Zealand

English. In Australian English unstressed /ɪ/ (sometimes written as /ɨ/ or /ᵻ/) is merged into /ə/

(Wells, 1982). Some other characteristics of AuE vowel sounds are covered below.

1. /æ/ is split into two phonemes, one long and one short. For example, in some

parts of Australia bad does not rhyme with lad, while in others it does; that is

to say, lad has the long vowel. However, all Australian regions distinguish can

/kæn/ from can /kæːn/ (know how to), to can (tin can of fish, etc.).

2. Many words having /æ/ in pronounced /aː/ instead; this usage varies

regionally.

3. Nasal consonants occasionally influence vowel articulation in AuE. For

example, /æː/ vowel in ‘jam’, ‘man’, ‘dam’ and ‘hand’ shifts towards [e].

4. Tongue position in /oː/ is back, and thus Australian /oː/ has a very different

quality from some British accents such as Scots and Irish /oː/.

5. /ʊə/ is almost unused in AuE, and in most cases speakers use /ʉː.ə/ or /ʉː/

(before /r/) instead.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 51

6. The border between monophthongs and diphthongs is rather fluid, /ɪə/, for

example, is commonly realised as /ɪː/, particularly in closed syllables; though

also found in open syllables such as we’re, here. In open syllables the

pronunciation varies from the bisyllabic /ɪːa/ through the diphthong /ɪə/ to the

long vowel /ɪː/.

7. In the environment of syllable final /l/, the diphthong /əʉ/ assimilates to the /l/,

i.e. becomes /ɔʊ/, and the final /l/ can turn into /w/ when followed by a

consonant; thus /ɡəʉld/ gold sounds /ɡɔʊld/ > /ɡɔʊwd/, creating a minimal pair

with /ɡəʉd/ (goad).

4.2.3 Consonants in Australian English

The characteristics of consonant sounds in AuE are discussed below.

1. Australian English is non-rhotic; that is, the /r/ sound does not appear at the end of a

syllable or immediately before a consonant. A final -er is pronounced as lowered [ɐ]

in most speakers, or [ə] for some. So the words butter /bɐɾə/, here (hɪɐ) and park

(paːk) do not have the /r/ sound.

2. /t/ is pronounced in two distinct ways in AuE. (a) A strongly fricated /ts/, noticeably in

prepausal position e.g. ‘And that’s as far as it went’ [wɛnts] and (b) A flap or tap /ɾ/. It

is widely used in pronouncing the number thirteen [θɜˈɾin] or eighteen [eiˈɾin]. The

first /ts/ is more likely to be used by the Cultivated Australian speakers. Tollfree

(2001) described four variants of /t/ in Australian English: plosive [t], voiced tap [ɾ], a

glotalised variant [ʔ] and a fricative variant [ts] (Horvath, 2004).

3. The /r/ sound can occur when a word that has a final /r/ in the spelling comes before

another word starting with a vowel. For example, in car alarm the sound /r/ can occur

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 52

in car because here it comes before another word beginning with a vowel. The words

far, far more and farm do not contain a /r/ but far out will contain the linking /r/ sound

because the next word starts with a vowel sound.

4. An intrusive /r/ is inserted before a vowel in words that do not contain /r/ in their

spelling. For example, drawing will sound like ‘draw-ring’, saw it would sound like

‘sore it’, the tuner is and the tuna is would both be /ðət/ /ʃʉːnər/ /ɪz/.

5. A homophony will arise for the speakers whose /d/ also undergoes intervocalic

change, such as metal and petal will sound like medal and pedal.

6. Some speakers use a glottal stop as an allophone of /t/ in final position, for example

trait, habit; or in middle position, such as a /t/ followed by a syllabic /n/ is often

replaced by a glottal stop, for example button or fatten.

7. The velarised alveolar lateral approximant or dark L appears in AuE.

8. AuE, like some other varieties of English pronounce /t, d, s, z/ that precedes the

GOOSE vowel [u] either as [tʲ, dʲ, sʲ, zʲ] or the corresponding palatals /tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ/ for

example, [ˈtʲun], [ˈtʃun] for tune, [ˈdʲu], [ˈdʒu] for due (Horvath, 2004). This

palatalisation leads to additional homophony where dew, due and Jew come to be

pronounced identically. /t/ and /d/ in the clusters /tr/-/tw/ and /dr/-/dw/ are similarly

palatalised. For example, [əˈsʲum], [əˈʃum] for assume, and [prəˈzʲum], [prəˈʒum] for

presume.

9. /lj/ merges with /l/ word initially. Remaining cases of /lj/ are often pronounced simply

as /j/ in colloquial speech, though this is stigmatised particularly in the case of the

word Australia, so it is often pronounced as four syllables to avoid the /lj/.

10. /rj/ merges with /r/.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 53

11. /nj/ and other common sequences of consonant with /j/ are retained.

4.2.4 Intonation and Pitch

The distinctive AuE intonation is typically characterised by high rising tone (HRT), which is defined as a rising contour on a declarative clause (Horvath, 2004). The use of a form of upward inflexion is mostly found in descriptions and narratives, and least in opinions and factual texts. In conversational situations, multi-clause turns mostly included HRT. This usage, which is also termed Australian questioning intonation, has a non-propositional, interactive meaning (checking for listener comprehension) and interacts with the turn-taking mechanism of conversation (Guy, Horvath, Vonwiller, Daisley & Rogers, 1986). In the social spectrum, teenagers, working class speakers and women mostly incorporated HRT in speech

(Guy et al., 1986; Horvath, 2004).

4.2.5 Pronunciation

The following characteristics are observable in pronouncing Australian English. The sound system (phonemic system), phonetics (characteristics of individual sounds and how these change with different contexts), phonotactics (when sound combines the word structures), lexical characteristics (how sounds are pronounced in particular words), and suprasegmental characteristics (intonation patterns); mark the unique AuE pronunciation

(Australian Voices, Macquarie University, n.d., para.1). Following is a discussion of AuE pronunciation.

1. Differences in stress, weak forms and standard pronunciation of isolated words

occur between AuE and other forms of English, which while noticeable; do not

impair intelligibility.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 54

2. The affixes -ary, -ery, -ory, -bury, -berry and -mony can be pronounced either

with a full vowel or a schwa. Although some words like necessary are almost

universally pronounced with the full vowel, older generations of Australians are

relatively likely to pronounce these affixes with a schwa while younger

generations are relatively likely to use a full vowel.

3. Words ending in unstressed -ile derived from Latin adjectives ending in -ilis are

pronounced with a full vowel (/ɑel/), so that fertile rhymes with fur tile rather

than turtle.

4. Miscellaneous pronunciation differences exist when compared with other varieties

of English in relation to seemingly random words. For example, the vowel

in yoghurt is pronounced as /əʉ/ (“long ‘O’”) rather than/ɔ/ (“short o”).

Similarly, vitamin is pronounced with /ɑe/ (“long ‘I’”) in the first syllable, rather

than /ɪ/ (“short ‘I’”). Despite this, advertisement is pronounced with /ɪ/. Brooch is

pronounced with /əʉ/ as opposed to /ʉː/, and Anthony with /θ/ rather than /t/.

5. Although /h/ deletion is a common feature in dialects of English, in Australian

English Horvath (1985) found no /h/ insertion and a low rate of /h/ deletion. This

distribution of /h/deletion was more marked in Broad Australian usage and

occurring rarely in Cultivated usage of the accent (Horvath, 2004).

From the discussion above it is evident that the distinct pronunciation patterns of

Australian English are due to a hybrid influence of other varieties of English from Great

Britain, and the accent’s eventual composition in Australia, forming a distinctive native

English variety.

4.3 Chinese-accented English

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 55

In the panorama of world languages the distribution of the Chinese language is so vast that about one fifth of the world’s population is native speakers of Chinese. Chinese is spoken mainly in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia. There are large communities of Chinese speakers throughout south-east Asia, Oceania and North and South

America.

Basically Chinese language is a collection of various dialects which may be classified into eight dialect groups: Northern Chinese or Mandarin, Wu, Hsiang, Kan, Hakka, Northern

Min, Southern Min, and Yueh or Cantonese. Among these dialects Northern Chinese or

Mandarin is the native language of over 70% of the Chinese population. It is the basis of modern standard Chinese, which is the accepted written language for all Chinese. Mandarin is also considered as the national language of China (Chang, 2001). The eight dialect groups of Chinese language share a written language, and they also share imperative basic features at all constituent levels that comprise the language (Chang, 2001). The problems related with pronunciation, as discussed in this section are by and large common to speakers of all

Chinese dialects. The L1 of the three ladies whose voices were recorded for developing listening comprehension materials was Mandarin (for Experiment 1). Moreover, about 75% of the international participants in Experiments 2 and 3 came from China, and most of their

L1 was Mandarin and thereafter the Chinese standard variety (of the language) with a few speaking in Cantonese.

A major aspect of difference between the Chinese and English language is that the former belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family, whereas the latter belongs to the Indo-

European family; and hence the languages have many structural differences. Below is an examination of the phonological features of Chinese-accented English in terms of vowels, consonants and consonant clusters, rhythm and stress, intonation and juncture. These characteristics are prominent in the way Chinese speakers tend to pronounce English.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 56

4.3.1 Phonology

The Chinese phonological system is unique in its own way, and it is very different from that of English. Chinese is a tone language, and the tones are lexically specified. The tones of Chinese, however, do not interfere in any way with the production or perception of

Chinese speakers speaking English (Wang, 2007, p. 45). Also, as Chinese belongs to a different language family, the speakers need to make great efforts to pronounce some English phonemes as these do not have Chinese equivalents and are difficult to master. Again, some

English phonemes resemble Chinese phonemes but are not identical to them in pronunciation, and therefore give rise to confusion. Some more areas of difference are stress, intonation and juncture. For all these reasons Chinese speakers find English hard to pronounce, and have trouble learning to understand the spoken language at any stage of their English learning career.

4.3.2 Vowels in Chinese-accented English

In Figure 4.4 grey cells in source languages denote source sounds that are not needed in the target language. White, grey and black cells in the target language represent identical, similar and new sounds respectively.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 57

Figure 4. 4. Vowel contrasts between Chinese and English presented in Wang, 2007, p. 48

A basic feature of Chinese language is the number of vowel categories in Mandarin

(Wang, 2007). Most phonetic manifestations of vowels in Mandarin occur in a fairly narrow range of contexts, suggesting that they can be reduced to a smaller set of basic vowel categories. There is disagreement on number of surface (phonetic) vowels, as well as on the number of underlying, abstract (phonological) vowels in Mandarin. There are twelve surface vowels and these can be reduced to a smaller number of underlying vowels in different ways.

There are four to six underlying (phonological) vowels (Wang, 2007). The way Chinese speakers tend to speak English is influenced by “transfer of vowel” (Wang, 2007, p.45) sounds from L1 to L2, which are located towards the surface level. The twelve surface vowels identified by Cheng (1966) to their underlying forms are shown below.

/i/ →[i], [ɾ], [Ɩ]

/y/ → [y]

/u/→ [u]

/ə/→ [ɘ], [ə], [o], [ɤ]

/a/→ [a], [ɑ], [ɛ]

Following is a discussion of the characteristics of Chinese vowel sounds.

1. The contrast between /iː/ and /ɪ/ has no equivalent in Chinese. Learners confuse

pairs such as eat/it, bean/bin.

2. The same applies to /uː/ and / ʊː/, leading to confusion, for instance, between fool

and full, Luke and look.

3. /æ/ does not occur in Chinese. Learners tend to nasalise it. It may also be confused

with /ɑː/, /ʌ/ or /e/, so that a word such as cap might be pronounced /kæ̃p/, carp,

cup or ‘kep’.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 58

4. /ɒ/ has no equivalent in Chinese. Learners sometimes make it sound like /ɔː/, /aʊ/,

/ʊ/ or a front vowel. So for instance shot might be pronounced short, shout or

/ʃʊt/.

5. /ʌ/ is sometimes replaced by /a/, which is a close approximation to a Chinese

phoneme.

6. Chinese diphthongs are usually pronounced with quicker and smaller tongue and

lip movements than their English counterparts. Chinese speakers therefore make

these sounds too short, with not enough distinction between the two component

vowels (Chang, 2001, p. 311).

4.3.3 Consonants in Chinese-accented English

Figure 4.5 is a contrastive listing of the Chinese and English consonants arranged by place (across) and manner (down). Some tables contain two sounds; the left one representing the fortis (aspirated), and the right one showing the lenis (unaspirated) member of a pair of obstruents. Grey cells in the Chinese panel denote sounds that do not occur in English and black cells in the bottom panel represent sounds that are there in English but are absent in

Chinese.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 59

Figure 4.5. Consonant sounds in Chinese-accented English presented in Wang, 2007, p. 55

1. In the three pairs of stops /p/ and /b/, /t/ and /d/, /k/ and /g/; the unaspirated group

/b/, /d/ and /g/ are voiced in English but are on the whole voiceless in Chinese.

Chinese students tend to lose the voiced feature in speaking English (Chang, 2001,

p. 311).

2. /v/ is absent from most Chinese dialects. As a result, it is sometimes treated like

/w/ or /f/: invite/inwite; live/lif.

3. Many Chinese dialects do not have /n/. Learners speaking these dialects find it

difficult to distinguish, for instance, night/light.

4. /θ/ and /ð/ do not occur in Chinese. /θ/ is likely to be replaced by /t/, /f/ or /s/, and

/ð/ by /d/ or /z/. So for example thin may be pronounced tin, fin or sin, and this

may be pronounced ‘dis’or ‘zis’ (Chang, 2001, p. 311).

5. /h/ tends to be pronounced as a heavily aspirated velar fricative (as in Scottish

loch), which approximates to a Chinese consonant.

6. Most Chinese dialects do not have /z/. The usual error is to substitute /s/: rise/

rice.

7. /d ʒ/, /tʃ/ and /ʃ/ are distantly similar to a group of three different Chinese

consonants. The pronunciation of these is heavily coloured and sounds foreign.

8. Some southern Chinese find /l/ and /r/ difficult to distinguish. (Chang, 2001, p.

311).

9. Pronouncing the final consonants is a serious challenge for Chinese speakers.

Since there are few final consonants in Chinese, learners get to add an extra vowel

at the end, or to drop the consonant and produce a slight glottal or unreleased stop:

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 60

duck, for instance, may be pronounced /dʌkə/ or /dʌʔ /; wife may be pronounced

/waɪfu:/ or /waʌʔ/ (Chang, 2001, p. 312).

10. /l/ in final position is particularly difficult; it is often substituted by /r/, or followed

by /ə/, or just dropped; bill, may be pronounced beer, /bɪlə/ or /bɪ?/ (Chang, 2001,

p. 312).

4.3.4 Consonant Clusters

1. Chinese language lacks initial consonant clusters and this causes difficulty. The

common error is to insert a slight vowel sound between the consonants,

pronouncing spoon as sipoon.

2. Final clusters in Chinese language are even more troublesome. Learners are likely

to make additional syllables or to simplify the cluster (for instance, by dropping

the last consonant). So dogs may be pronounced /dɒgəz/ or /dɒg/;crisps may be

pronounced /krisipuːsiː/ or /krisipuː/ (Chang, 2001, p.312).

4.3.5 Rhythm and Stress

Rhythm and stress patterns in Chinese and English are completely different, and

Chinese-accented English is often characterized as choppy. Reduced syllables are far less frequent in Chinese than in English. The reduced syllables in Chinese are usually pronounced more prominently than in English, and they undergo fewer phonetic changes. Chinese speakers tend to stress every single syllable in a speech, and give the weak syllables a full rather than reduced pronunciation (Chang, 2001). Again, when stressed syllables are longer, louder and higher or lower pitched than the rest; increasing their duration is a feature that the speakers tend to overlook as they usually rely primarily on pitch to show syllable prominence

(Banzina, n.d.). ’fish ’and ’chips (with and stressed and pronounced /ænd/) ’The ’capital ’of

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 61

’England ’is ’London (with both the and of emphasised). When students try to reduce the accent on the English weak forms, they sometimes find them so hard to pronounce that they omit them: ’fish ’chips (Chang, 2001, p.313).

4.3.6 Intonation

Pitch changes in Chinese (the ‘tones’) are mainly used to distinguish words whose pronunciation is otherwise the same; sentence intonation shows little variation. The English use of intonation patterns to affect the meaning of a whole utterance is therefore difficult for

Chinese to grasp. Unfamiliar with these patterns, Chinese learners tend to find them strange and funny. Some add a tonic value (often a high falling tone) to individual syllables. Thus their speech may sound flat, jerky or sing-song to English ears (Chang, 2001).

4.3.7 Juncture

The monosyllabicity of basic Chinese units leads to learners’ separating English words rather than joining them smoothly into a ‘stream of speech’. This causes the staccato effect of a Chinese accent (Chang, 2001).

The discussion shows that although Chinese is a tone language, the tones of Chinese, however, do not interfere with the production or perception of Chinese speakers speaking

English (Wang, 2007). Also, because Chinese language belongs to a different language family (Sino-Tibetan); whereas English belongs to the Indo-Aryan language family, Chinese learners have to make a great endeavour to pronounce some English phonemes as these do not have Chinese equivalents and are perceptually difficult for them to learn.

4.4 Russian-accented English

Russian language belongs to the Slavonic branch of the Indo-European family of languages. About 148 million people in Russia speak Russian as their first language.

4.4.1 Phonology

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 62

The Russian sound system is different from English in two major aspects, in that it does not distinguish between short-long vowels and it lacks diphthongs. Furthermore,

Russian speakers find English rhythm and stress patterns difficult to master.

4.4.2 Vowels in Russian-accented English

The distinct characteristics of pronouncing vowel sounds in Russian-accented English are covered below.

Shaded phonemes in Figure 4.6 have equivalents or near-equivalents in Russian, and unshaded phonemes usually cause problems for the speakers.

Figure 4.6. Vowel chart of Russian-accented English presented in Monk & Burak (2001, p. 146)

1. The Russian speakers find the sound /ɜː/ difficult as it is absent in their language.

They substitute this sound with /ɜ/ or /o/. Words beginning with /w/ specifically

challenge Russian speakers.

2. /ɑː/ is replaced by the more frontal Russian /a/.

3. /æ/ is usually replaced by a closer sound resembling /e/.

4. The second parts of diphthongs and second and third parts of tripthongs get over-

pronounced.

5. The sound /ɔː/ is characteristically replaced by the more frontal Russian /o/ or

diphthongised into /oʊ/.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 63

6. Long vowels are pronounced insufficiently tense, making them sound similar to short

vowels. For example, field may be pronounced like filled.

7. Apart from diphthongs, the Russian speakers pronounce most English vowels as

glides, such as /ɒ/ is often pronounced like /wɒ/, /ɔː/ as /əʊ/, /ɜː/ as /eə/. The Russian

speakers begin the tense sounds in a relaxed way with the tenseness starting to appear

towards the middle of the articulation, and lax sound tend to be diphthongised due to

lengthening them slightly (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.146).

4.4.3 Consonants in Russian-accented English

Shaded phonemes in Figure 4.7 have equivalents or near-equivalents in Russian, and are pronounced without serious difficulty; unshaded phonemes however, cause problems for the speakers.

Figure 4.7. Consonant chart of Russian-accented English presented in Monk & Burak (2001, p. 147)

The characteristics of pronouncing consonants in Russian-accented English are discussed below.

1. Among the consonant sounds in English, the Russian speakers find /θ/, /ð/, /ŋ/, /w/

very difficult as these sounds are absent in the Russian phonetic system.

2. /θ/ and /ð/ are often replaced by /s/ and /z/.

3. /ŋ/ is replaced by Russian /g/ or dental /n/.

4. /w/ and /v/ is usually clearly not differentiated, causing confused sound between

while/vile, orwest/vest (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.147).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 64

5. The sounds /t/, /d/, /l/, /n/ are often made with the tongue touching the top teeth,

giving them a foreign sound.

6. The Russians devoice the final voiced consonants such as /b/, /d/, /g/; hence sounding

words as lab/lap, said/set, pig/pick.

7. Russians do not aspirate sounds like /p/, /k/, /t/, mispronouncing the beginning sounds

with these in English. For example, pit sounds like bit, come becomes gum, tart

sounds like dart.

8. English /h/ is often replaced by a rougher sound because a more fricative noise is

produced while articulating it.

9. Russians tend to palatalise or soften most of the English consonant sounds before

front vowels like /ɪː/, /ɪ/, /e/, /eɪ/, /ɪə/. Examples are, in tea the sound /t/ resembles /ts/,

in deed the sound /d/ resembles /dz/ (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.147).

10. Dark /l/ (as in full or hill) often replaces clear /l/ (as in light or fly).

11. /ʃ/ is always dark or hard in Russian, so they tend to make /ʃ/ before vowels and at the

end of words harder or darker than the correct English sound; it is slightly palatalised

(Monk & Burak, 2001, p.147).

12. The sound /tʃ/is always slightly soft or palatalised in Russian. It is replaced by the

hard, unpalatalised English sound /tʃ/ such as in chase.

13. The sound /dʒ/ is absent in Russian, though it has separate sounds /d/ and /ʒ/. This

sound only comes in Russian with borrowed words from English, like jeans, jack, and

some other foreign languages. They pronounce English sound /dʒ/ as two separate

sounds without enough blending of the two parts.

14. Russians pronounce the /j/ sound with accompanying fricative noise (Monk & Burak,

2001, p.148).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 65

4.4.4 Consonant Clusters

1. The combinations /θ/ + /s/, /ð/+ /z/ or /s/+ /ð/ (as in months, clothes, sixth) are usually

a major challenge for Russian speakers learning English, they often tend to substitute

/ts/ and /z/.

2. Linking up two consonant sounds particularly arises whilst pronouncing /t/, /d/, /s/, /z/

followed by /j/ as in situation, and education. In these instances Russians speakers

ignore the phonemic phenomenon of accommodation or assimilation of adjacent

sounds (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.148).

3. When combining two plosive consonants like /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /g/, the Russians

usually explode the first plosive sound and it is carried over into pronunciations of

words such as asked, hugged,and lobbed (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.148).

4. Russians speakers of English insert the neutral sound /ə/ in the combinations of /tl/,

/dl/, /tn/, /dn/; that makes pronouncing little as /lɪtəl/, button as /bʌtən/ (Monk and

Burak, 2001, p.148).

5. The initial clusters /tw/, /tr/, /pr/, /dr/, /br/ are also difficult for Russian speakers,

making it challenging to pronounce words such as twice, tree, price, dry and bright.

The speakers tend to pronounce the component letters in these clusters separately,

often inserting a neutral vowel between the two sounds (Monk and Burak, 2001).

4.4.5 Rhythm and Stress

In terms of rhythm and stress, Russian stress patterns are as variable as English. One difference is that Russian speakers lose secondary stresses in long English words such as competition /kəmpɪˈtɪʃn/ and compatibility /kəmpətəˈbɪlɪtɪ/ (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.149).

4.4.6 Intonation

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 66

In Russian-accented English, intonation is characterised by low fall which is not deep enough, and the low rise which does not begin low enough and tends to shoot upwards abruptly. Additionally, the Russians complete their yes/no questions with a fall; tag questions in rising tone, and alternative questions are often ended with a rise (Monk & Burak, 2001, p.149).

The unique nature of Russian-accented English is marked in the way Russians speak

English while maintaining the pronunciation norms of their first language, giving the accent an exotic flavour.

From the discussion above it is visible that the three accents, namely Australian,

Chinese and Russian-accented English have distinct pronunciation patterns and are pronounced in ways significantly different from each other. Whereas the rise of the

Australian accent is due to a hybrid influence of other varieties of English and their eventual meltdown in Australia forming into a distinct native English variety of the language; for

Chinese-accented English it belongs to a language family that is characteristically different from the English language. Moreover, with regards to Russian-accented English, this pronunciation pattern is due to the active influence of the distinct features of the Russian language.

4.5 Arabic-accented English

Arabic is a Semitic language. There is a universal ‘pan Arabic’ language which is taught in schools and used by the media in all Arab countries, including Libya. The lady whose voice was recorded for developing listening comprehension materials came from

Libya, an Arabic speaking country. In Libya and across Arabia, Arabic is the sole language used for official correspondence. The phonological system of the Arabic language is very

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 67 different from the English phonological system. It is pertinent not only in the range of sounds used in both, but also in the emphasis placed on vowels and consonants on expressing meaning. Arabic has only eight vowels and diphthongs to 32 consonants, whereas English has 22 vowels and diphthongs to 24 consonants (Smith, 2001). Following is a discussion of the characteristics of Arabic vowel and consonant articulation, and other relevant aspects that give Arabic-accented English its unique nature.

4.5.1 Phonology

Arabic-accented English is characterised by features such as the following:

1. Arabic has more energetic articulation than English, with greater stressed syllables;

though it has fewer clearly articulated vowels, which gives a dull, staccato jabbering

effect.

2. A common characteristic of Arabic speakers is to use glottal stops before initial

vowels, thus they break up the natural catenation of English.

3. They have a general habit of omitting consonants with words ending in ed suffix such

as climbed (Smith, 2001). Hence climbed sounds like climb-bed where /b/ is strongly

pronounced.

4.5.2 Vowels in Arabic-accented English

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 68

Figure 4.8. Vowel sounds in Arabic-accented English presented in Smith (2001, p. 196)

Sounds such as /iː/, /ɪ/, /æ/, /eɪ/, /ɑː/, /ʊ/, /aʊ/, /uː/ have equivalents or near equivalents in Arabic and are articulated without much difficulty, though causing some confusion at times. All English vowels may cause problems for Arabic speakers. The following ones, however, are most challenging for them:

1. /ɪ/ and /e/ are sometimes confused with bit pronounced as bet; /ɒ/ and / ɔː/ are

sometimes confused with cot pronounced caught.

2. Dipthongs /eɪ/ and /əʊ/ are pronounced quite short and they are confused with /e/ and

/ɒ/ such as in red for raid and hop for hope (Smith, 2001; Munro, 1993).

4.5.3 Consonants in Arabic-accented English

Figure 4.9 Consonant sounds for Arabic-accented English presented in Smith (2001p. 197)

Phonemes such as /b/, /f/, /θ/, /ð/, /t/, /d/, /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, tʃ/, /dʒ/, /k/, /g/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /j/,

/w/, /h/ have equivalents or near equivalents in Arabic; hence the speaker can understand and utter them without much challenge, although sometimes causing difficulty. Phonemes such as

/p/, /v/, /ʒ/ and /ŋ/ are particularly demanding for Arabic speakers of English (Smith, 2001).

1. The Arabic sound system has one letter to express sounds between /g/- / dʒ / sounds,

which is pronounced as /g/ in some areas, and as / dʒ / in other areas.

2. /tʃ/ as a phoneme is found in a few dialects; however this sound happens naturally in

junctures of /t/ and /ʃ/ in all other Arabic dialects.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 69

3. English /h/ phoneme has two approximations for Arabic speakers. The common

tendency is an unvoiced, harsh aspiration as the Arabic speakers tend to pronounce

English /h/ quite harshly.

4. /r/ in Arabic is a voiced flap, unlike the RP /r/. Generally Arabic speakers’ over-

pronounces the post-vocalic r, as is car park.

5. /p/ and /b/ are allophonic and tend to be used randomly by Arabic speakers of

English: I baid ten bence for a bicture of Pig Pen (Flege & Port, 1981).

6. /v/ and /f/ are allophonic and both are pronounced as /f/, e.g. It is a ferry nice fillage.

7. /g/ and /k/ are confused at times in some Arabic dialects which do not have the

phoneme /g/.

8. In literary Arabic /θ/ and /ð/ occurs, but in colloquial varieties it is pronounced as /t/

and /d/ by Arabic speakers of English.

9. The phoneme /ŋ/ is pronounced as /n/ or /ng/ or /nk/ (Smith, 2001).

4.5.4 Consonant Clusters

Arabic has a narrow range of consonant clusters compared to English. The initial two- segment clusters that do not occur in Arabic are pr, pl, gr, gl, thr, thw, and sp. The initial three-segment clusters that never occur in Arabic are spr, skr, str, and spl. In these pronunciations the Arabic speakers insert short vowels to support the pronunciation. For example, perice or pirice for price; ispring or sipring for spring (Smith, 2001).

Arabic language has a narrow range of final clusters. In English there are 78 three- segment clusters and fourteen four-segment clusters occurring finally in English. None of these clusters occur in Arabic. The Arabic speakers insert short vowels while pronouncing the final clusters such as arrangid for arranged or neckist for next (Smith, 2001).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 70

4.5.5 Effect of English Spelling on Pronunciation

The Arabic and English writing systems are completely different from each other.

Arabic spelling is simple and practically phonetic within its own system. For pronouncing

English words the Arabic speakers have to approach them phonetically. They face severe pronunciation problems as difficulty in forming consonant clusters is added to the influence of the written form: istobbid for stopped, forigen for foreign.

4.5.6 Rhythm and Stress

Arabic is a stress-timed language, and word stress in particular is predictable and regular. Arabic speakers, therefore, have problems grasping the unpredictable nature of

English word stress. The idea that stress can alter meaning, as in a toy ˡfactory and a ˡtoy factory, or con ˡvict (verb) and ˡconvict (noun) is entirely strange.

Phrase and sentence rhythms are similar in the two languages, and should cause few problems. Primary stresses occur more frequently in Arabic, and unstressed syllables are pronounced more clearly with neutral vowels; however not `swallowed' as in English. Arabs reading English aloud will often avoid contracted forms and elisions, and read with a rather heavy staccato rhythm.

4.5.7 Intonation

Intonation patterns in Arabic are similar to those of English in contour and meaning.

Questions, suggestions and offers are marked much more frequently by a rising tone than by any structural markers, and this is carried over into English. When reading aloud, however, as

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 71 opposed to conversing; the Arabic speaker tends to intone or chant, reducing intonation to a low fall at the ends of phrases and sentences (Smith, 2001).

It is pertinent from the discussion that Arabic-accented English is pronounced in a unique way due to the acoustic and phonetic norms of pronouncing its vowel and consonant sounds incorporated with the rhyme, stress and intonation pattern; along with the grammatical features specific to the language.

4.6 Indian-accented English

Indian-accented English is an umbrella term that is characteristically spoken in India,

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Arabian Peninsula, East Africa and

Mauritius. India, being a multilingual country hosts sixteen major languages. Basically two families of local languages are common there; the Dravidian family and Indo-Aryan family.

The Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages are rooted in Sanskrit. The two ladies whose voices were recorded for developing listening comprehension materials spoke in Hindi, which is an

Indo-Aryan variety of Indian language. Therefore, some characteristic traits relevant to the

Indo-Aryan type of Indian-accented English are discussed below.

The Indian subcontinent and its adjacent countries were under British rule for nearly three hundred years, allowing for a very firm establishment of the English language in the whole South-Asian region. In India, English is one of the lingua francas besides the national language of Hindi. Indian English contains characteristics derived from South Asian languages, and the South Asian English is spoken with a remarkable degree of uniformity throughout the region and also among the immigrants in England; though some regional variation is visible, particularly in accent. Indian-accented English has achieved the status of a separate standard in the global English context, on a par with American or Australian

English (Shackle, 2001; Pickering & Wiltshire, 2000).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 72

4.6.1 Phonology

The phonological systems of Indian languages and English differ significantly, especially when distinguishing between vowels and consonants. English has 22 vowels and diphthongs and 24 consonants; Hindi has only ten vowel phonemes but distinguishes over 30 consonants. The aspirated and unaspirated consonants are distinguished very cautiously in

Hindi, and in place of the English alveolar series /t/, /d/, there is both a series of dentals produced with the blade of the tongue behind the teeth, /t/, /th/, /d/, /dh/, and the typically

Indian-accented retroflex series produced with the tip of the tongue curled back behind the alveolar ridge, /t /, /t h/, /d /, /d h/ (Shackle, 2001).

Some features of Indian-accented English are:

1. It has increased tense articulation, more so than English; where vowels are

produced further forward, leading to the loss of some distinctions between different

vowels.

2. Voiceless consonants /p/, /t/, /tʃ/, /k/ have no aspiration in all positions of words.

3. English alveolar consonants /t/ and /d/ are pronounced as the heavier retroflex consonants /t ˏ/ and /dˏ /.

4. Its intonation system is remarkably different from that of English.

4.6.2 Vowels in Indian-accented English

The shaded phonemes in Figure 4.10 have equivalents or near-equivalents in Indian- accented English and are understood and pronounced without serious difficulty, although some confusion may still arise. The unshaded phonemes in the chart may cause problems

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 73

Figure 4.10. Vowel sounds in Indian-accented English presented in Shackle (2001, p. 229)

1. /e/ and /æ/ are often confused: said and sad.

2. /ɒ/ and /ɔː/are confused with /ɑː/, and the same vowel /ɑː/ is used in pronunciations of

such sets of words as lorry, law, and laugh.

3. The diphthong /eɪ/ is usually pronounced as the close monophthong /eː/ : /meːd/ for

made. The diphthongs /aɪ/ and /ɔɪ/ are realised as /aːɪ/: tie for toy.

4. The diphthong /əʊ/ is usually pronounced as the close monophthong / ɔː/: /kɔːt / for

coat (Shackle, 2001).

4.6.3 Consonants in Indian-accented English

The shaded phonemes in figure 4.11 have equivalents or near-equivalents in most of the languages in this region, and are understood and pronounced without any serious difficulty, although some confusion may still arise. The unshaded phonemes are more prone to cause problems for speakers.

Figure 4.11. Consonant sounds in Indian-accented English presented in Shackle (2001p. 230)

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 74

1. The voiceless consonants /p/, /t/, / tʃ /, /k/ are pronounced without aspiration in all

positions of words; the /p/ in pit having the same value as that in spit.

2. The fricative consonants /t/ and /d/ are swapped by the aspirated dental /th/ and the

unaspirated /d/ respectively: /dem/ for them. /f/ is often replaced by the aspirated /ph/:

thus /phɪtˏ / for fit, as opposed to /pɪt/ for pit.

3. The alveolar consonants /t/ and /d/ are often replaced by the retroflex consonants /tˏ/

and / d /, e.g. /d en/ for den, as opposed to /dem/ for them.

4. There is only one phoneme in the area of /v/ and /w/, posing a major difficulty for

learners, for example, vet and wet.

5. /z/ is an allophone of /dʒ/, and words like bridges may be perceived as tongue-

twisters.

6. Absence of the phoneme /ʒ/ is generally realised as /z/, /ʃ/, /dʒ / or even /j/ in such

words as pleasure.

7. The ‘dark’ l as in fill is generally replaced by the ‘clear’ l as in light.

8. /r/ is pronounced as a tap or fricative in all positions where it is written without

affecting the quality of the preceding vowel.

9. In some areas such as Bengal, Gujarat, and Nepal there is only one phoneme in the

area of /s/ and /ʃ/, making it difficult to distinguish between these two sounds and

confusing pairs of words like self and shelf (Shackle, 2001), hoʃpital for hospital,

mediʃine for medicine.

4.6.4 Influence of Spelling on Pronunciation

The written scripts in this region are mostly phonetic in nature; hence spelling is mostly an accurate guide to pronunciation. The speakers’ pronunciation of English words is consequently over-reliant on the written forms:

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 75

1. /r/ is pronounced wherever r is written, including positions where it comes before a

consonant or silence, as in market, officer, order. The quality of the preceding vowel

is not affected as in RP, and some common false rhymes are created; notably /di:ɔr/

for there, rhyming with here.

2. A written h may be interpreted as indicating one of the voiced aspirate consonants and

pronounced as such in words like ghost, which.

3. The written -ed of the regular past tense is often pronounced as it is written, even after

stems ending in a voiceless consonant, as in /d eveləped / for developed, or

/ɑːsked / for asked.

4. The written -s of the plural may be pronounced as /s/, even after a voiced consonant,

as in walls, or a long vowel, as in fees, where it should be pronounced /z/ (Shackle,

2001).

4.6.5 Consonant Clusters

The range of consonant clusters occurring at the beginning and end of English words is much wider than in Indian-accented English used in the South Asian region. Many such clusters are simplified:

1. Initial two-segment clusters beginning with /s/ may be prefixed by /ɪ/: istation for

station, istreet for street, etc.

2. Initial clusters of most types are liable to be broken up by the insertion of the short

vowel /ə/ to assist the pronunciation: faree for free, salow for slow, etc.

3. Final clusters may be similarly broken up, or simplified by the omission of a

consonant: filam or filim for film, toas for toast, etc.

4. A final /l/ or /n/ following a consonant, as in little, button, etc., is pronounced as a

complete syllable with a clear vowel /ə/ before the /l/ or /n/ (Shackle, 2001).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 76

4.6.6 Rhythm and Stress

English is a stress-timed language in which word stress is both heavily marked and not always predictable. In contrast, Indian-accented English is syllable-timed. Stress is secondary to rhythm, which is based primarily upon the arrangement of long and short syllables. Word stress accordingly tends to be weakly realised, and is always predictable.

The appropriate stressing of syllables in English words and compounds is therefore an area of great difficulty for speakers. The variation in stress in sets of related words may not be properly realised, producing for example neˡcessary and neˡcessity. Incorrect stressing of the initial syllable is particularly common, as in ˡdevelopment, ˡevent (Shackle, 2001).

The grammatical contrast between nouns with stress on the first syllable and verbs with second syllable stress is lost in favour of a weak stress on the second syllable for nouns as well as verbs, as in reˡcord, transˡport. There is a similar confusion between noun-noun combinations and free combinations of adjective with noun, so that a ˡtoy factory is not distinguished from a toy ˡfactory (Shackle, 2001).

Full vowels tend to be retained, even in unstressed syllables; so that both the e of cricket and the second o of Oxford retain their value. Many common words normally pronounced as reduced ‘weak forms’ in English, like and, but, than, as, is, has, was, will, would, similarly keep their full ‘strong form’ values in all positions, and receive a relatively strong stress (Shackle, 2001).

4.6.7 Intonation

Intonation varies greatly in detail in this region. The most notable difference of Indian- accented English from English is in the use of substantially raised pitch, without heavier articulation to indicate emphasis. This prominent contrast with the normal English pattern

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 77 contributes further to the ‘sing-song’ impression of Indian-accented English that derives primarily from the syllable-timed character of the languages of the region (Shackle, 2001).

The classic rising intonation of questions in English is kept for expressions of surprise in most Indian-accented English expressions. Their characteristic interrogative pattern, in which the end of a question is marked by a rise-fall in the intonation, is quite unlike the

English norm and can easily cause misinterpretation. Particularly with polite requests, an unfortunate impression of peremptoriness is liable to be created. The intonation, rhythm and stress are all especially likely to cause problems for speakers of Indian-accented English, specifically in the production of weak forms and in the production and recognition of contrastive stress used to emphasise particular elements within a sentence (Shackle, 2001).

From the above discussion it is patent that Indian-accented English is a distinct form in speech-accent regime due to the way it is pronounced complying with its definite intonation pattern; and also due to the maintaining of the rhythm and stress that gives it the unique sing- song quality. Both the female speakers participating in this experiment spoke in Hindi, and were from North India. They spoke English with a North Indian accent, which reflects the

Indo-Aryan trait of the accent; the phonetic and other characteristics being discussed in this part.

4.7 Conclusions

Listeners and speakers of a language are greatly influenced by their ethno-linguistic origins in belonging to a particular accent group. The formation and dissemination of

Australian English suggests that the unique pronunciation norms of this accent are due to the influences of accents used in the British Isles and their eventual adaptation within Australia to 77

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 78 form a new native variety. The acoustic and phonetic properties of English pronunciation with a foreign accent(s) is a consequence of the articulation norms of the speaker’s L1 influences (for the L2/Fl speakers). The five different accents of English fused into the fabric of the listening comprehension materials for this thesis were remarkably different from each other, being characterized by acoustic and phonetic divergences in terms of their articulation patterns. Listening to the accent variability presented in the experiments was assumed to induce intrinsic cognitive load (Sweller, 2010b) to invoke germane learning in learners who had a diverse range of ethno-linguistic backdrops. The discussion of pronunciation norms relating to the accents used for the experiments contributes to an understanding of underlying factors determining perceived levels of challenges encountered by listeners; these resulting from the speakers’ L1 backgrounds and also the listeners’ individual L1 linguistic orientations.

Chapter 5: Cognitive Load Theory

5.1 Introduction

Chapter 2 and 3 provided an overview of the spread of English and the necessity of teaching accented English in L1 and L2/FL contexts. The empirical studies conducted on

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 79 speaker and accent variations provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of accent variations at policy and implementation levels to various stakeholders in different degrees.

This chapter lays the foundation for this experimental study in the instructional science of cognitive load theory.

The thematic framework of this chapter is a critical analysis of the practices of social or cognitive constructivism in favour of ‘structured guidance’ (Mayer, 2004; Kirschner,

Sweller & Clark, 2006; Sweller, Kirschner & Clark, 2007) within instruction, that is in harmony with the cognitive architecture of the novice learner; following reviews of particular instructional designs such as pure discovery, guided discovery and the expository method. When teaching English asa biologically secondary knowledge (Geary, 2002, 2005;

Geary & Huffman, 2002), the curriculum and instructional design needs to be structured to considerthe limitations of a severely constrained working memory. To this end, first the chapter delves into the constructivist theory of learning. Thereafter it reviews cognitive load theory for designing research into the acquisition of listening comprehension skills within a

CLT framework, taking into account the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect.

5.2 Constructivist theory of learning

The constructivist (Marshall, 1996; Phillips, 1998; Steffe & Gale, 1995; Jonassen,

1991) school of thought in education is about how students learn. An underlying principle of the constructivist teaching method is that “learning is an active process in which learners are active sense makers who seek to build coherent and organized knowledge” (Mayer, 2004,

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 80 p.14). Hence, students are supposed to be ‘active’ during learning. Constructivism assumes that learners need to be presented with goals or targets only, and presented information should be kept minimal in instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006).

A common practice under a constructivist instructional mode is to encourage students to work in a free learning environment with little or no instructional guidance. This instructional method is known as discovery learning (Anthony, 1973; Bruner, 1961); minimally guided approach (Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller, Kirschner & Clark, 2007); problem-based learning or PBL (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Schmdit, 1983); inquiry learning (Papert, 1980; Rutherford, 1964), and experiential learning (Boud, Keogh & Walker,

1985; Kolb & Fry, 1975). For instance, learning that involves books, lectures and online presentations are termed as non-constructivist or passive teaching. Group discussions, hands- on activities and interactive games are interpreted as constructivist or active teaching (Mayer,

2004, p.14). In SL/FL contexts, a grammar translation method is an example of passive teaching and a communicative approach is an active teaching practice.

A fundamental premise of constructivism is “meaningful learning occurs when the learner strives to make sense of the presented material by selecting relevant information, organizing it into a coherent structure, and integrating it with other organized knowledge”

(Mayer, 2004, p.17). Hence, meaningful learning will happen when instructional methods foster these processes. Constructivism by most educators (e.g. Lefrancois, 1997; Kurland

&Pea, 1985; Papert, 1980; Bruner, 1961) has been interpreted as a ‘doctrine-based approach’ i.e. as a pure discovery method involving hands-on activity and a great emphasis on group discussion. Mayer (2004, p.17) comments that although students might be engaged in group discussion or hands-on activity, it might fail to invoke “the first cognitive process, namely, selecting relevant incoming information”. As a consequence, although students attain much

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 81 freedom they may “fail to come into contact with the to-be-learnt material” (Mayer, 2004, p.17), resulting in a gap with understanding the material-to-be-learnt. The activity or discussion becomes futile as it does not lead to a desirable end.

Minimal guidance or pure discovery method during instruction has been associated with relatively low levels of knowledge acquisition (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). In their paper, Kirschner et al., (2006) provide evidence that guided instruction is superior by analysing what we know about human cognitive architecture; the difference between experts and novices, and cognitive load. Whether or not to provide instruction, and if provided, in which degrees it should be; has been disputed amongst educational scholars for at least the last fifty years (Ausbel, 1964; Craig, 1956; Mayer, 2004; Shulman & Keisler, 1966).

Students’ best learn in unguided or minimally guided environments as they themselves discover or construct essential information (Bruner, 1961; Papert, 1960; Steffe & Gale,

1995). This is the respected belief of those favouring unguided or minimally guided instruction.

The other side of the constructivist continuum, Kirschner et al., (2006) refers to

Cronbach and Snow (1977), Klahr and Nigam (2004), Mayer (2004), Shulman and Keisler

(1966), and Sweller (2003); with the viewpoint that there are educators suggesting novice learners need direct instructional guidance as the concepts and procedures of specific disciplines can be explored only by such. Direct instructional guidance, as Kirschner et al.,

(2006 p.75) defines; is designed in a way that it provides “information that fully explains the concepts and procedures” of the learning materials the learners are supposed to learn, whilst imparting “learning strategy support…compatible with human cognitive architecture”.

Minimal guidance in instruction is discordant with human working memory, long-term memory and their intricate relationship; resulting in recommendations by educators that are

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 82 hardly possible to implement. Hence, “the most efficient teachers may either ignore the recommendations or, at best, pay lip service to them” (Kirschner et al., 2006 p.76).

5.3 Human Cognitive Architecture

Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) model on sensory memory, working memory and long-term memory has laid the basis of most modern research on human cognitive architecture. Working memory or short-term memory and long-term memory have been identified for processing and storing information, thereby reckoned as two complementary facilitators in the educational process.

Cowan (2009, p.324), like Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968), used the term short-term memory to refer to the mechanism of human memory “that can hold a limited amount of information in a very accessible state temporarily.” Cowan (2008, p.324) assumes that “not every temporarily accessible idea is, or even was, in conscious awareness.” Cowan (2008) exemplifies the working of STM thus: when “you are speaking to a person with a foreign accent and inadvertently alter your speech to match the foreign speaker’s accent, you are influenced by what was until that point an unconscious (and therefore uncontrollable) aspect of your short-term memory.” Short-term memory can be related to a pattern of neural firing that represents a particular idea, presuming that the idea would remain in short-term memory only when the firing pattern, or cell assembly, is active (Hebb, 1949; Cowan, 2008). The individual may or may not be conscious of the cell assembly during the specific time of its activation.

Working memory refers to memory as it is used to plan and carry out human behaviour (Miller et al., 1960). Working memory is not completely distinct from short-term memory. Examples of working memory could be to “retain the partial results while solving an arithmetic problem without paper”; or “to combine the premises in a lengthy rhetorical

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 83 argument,” (Cowan, 2008, p. 325).The concept of working memory became dominant in literature after Baddeley and Hitch (1974) demonstration that a single module could not account for all kinds of temporary memory. In their study Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed an influential model of central executive which is related to the attention related processes of human memory. In this model, verbal-phonological and visual-spatial representations were held separately, and were managed and manipulated by the central executive. In 2000, Baddeley added the concept of an episodic buffer to the mechanism of the central executive. Incorporation of the episodic buffer helped to explain the working of STM in terms of features that did not match the other memory stores (especially semantic information in memory) and also to explain cross-domain associations in WM, such as the retention of links between names and faces. Because of the work of Baddeley et al. (1975), working memory is considered to be a combination of multiple components that work together. The storage and processing capacity of WM can be minimised substantially if the information is previously stored in the long-term memory (Miller, 1956; Ericsson & Kintsch,

1995).For example, “the letter series IRSCIAFBI can be remembered much more easily as a series of acronyms for three federal agencies of the United States of America: the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI)” (Cowan, 2008, p.325). There is not much difference between the substance of WM and STM except for the fact that working memory includes short-term memory and other processing mechanisms that help to make use of short-term memory

(Cowan, 2008, p.325).

In the critical interface between long-term memory and working memory, learning happens. Long-term memory or LTM, the central storehouse of human learned information determines and influences our vision, listening and thought processes.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 84

To understand the function of LTM, Kirschner et al., (2006) provide a classic example of chess expertise by way of a study by De Groot (1945/65), and later Chase and Simon

(1973). These studies found that expert chess players far excel novice players to reproduce shortly seen board configurations that are taken from real games; however they do not differ much in random board configurations. Such findings suggest that expert problem solvers derive their skills by drawing on the huge experience within their LTM. They can quickly select and apply the most appropriate procedure for solving problems. Human problem- solving skill explains how important long-term memory is to cognition. In educational situations, the consequence of long-term memory on instruction is to change/alter long-term memory because “If nothing is changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned”,

(Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 77).

Working memory processes the information of which we are consciously aware.

Again, working memory is characterised by two principles; (a) when it processes novel information; it is severely restricted in duration and capacity. Almost all information stored in short-term memory that is not rehearsed is lost within 30 seconds (Peterson & Peterson,

1959), and the capacity of working memory is limited to a very small number of elements

(Miller, 1956). The number is about seven according to Miller, but may be as low as four, plus or minus one (Cowan, 2001). When processing information, the number of elements that could be processed might be two or three. The second principle, (b) involves the way that long-term and working memory combined, process information through their intricately subtle interaction (Sweller, 2003, 2004). It should be noted that the processing and storage limitations of working memory are applicable to only new, yet to be learned materials that have not yet been stored in the long-term memory. Instruction, hence, should cater for the limitations of working memory and its correspondent long-term memory.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 85

Inquiry-based instruction demands learners find problem-relevant information and the searching activity incurs a heavy cognitive load on working memory. Working memory, being engaged in problem-solving tasks, may not be available to learn and store information in long-term memory; thus hindering the purpose of learning. Studies by Sweller, Mawer and

Howe (1982), show that learners can meander in searching for information with little modification to the long-term memory. If the object of learning is to alter long-term memory, then this kind of problem search is not advisable as learners need structured and focused guidance if they are to fulfil the object of learning. Consequently, literature encompassing the underlying mechanisms of working memory and LTM has laid the foundations of many instructional theories; it also calls for the design of scientific research into a guided format

(Kirschner et al., 2006).

5.4 Discovery Learning and Communicative Language Teaching

There seems to be a close affinity between communicative language teaching in FL contexts and the constructivist discovery method of instruction. In implementing constructivist theory, there has been a “shift of emphasis away from teaching a discipline as a body of knowledge toward an exclusive emphasis on learning a discipline by experiencing the processes and procedures of the discipline” (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 78). This is comparable to implementing communicative language teaching in FL contexts.

The problems English language learners face are that without any explicit instruction or guidance from the teacher, they are incapable of establishing relationships between different pieces of information in the task-at-hand, because merely partaking in a discussion about the topic may not bring any fruitful solution to the problem. Although a pro-student approach, communicative language teaching suffers because it is fundamentally unable to spur the cognitive process of learning. It is in this suspension of an instructional practice that

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 86 we need to think beyond the English language teaching pedagogy that is largely incapable of fostering meaningful learning in instructional settings. When the pedagogy does not cater for learners’ attitudes and aptitudes towards learning, demotivation affects and hinders their orientation towards learning the target language.

5.5 Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory is based on speculations concerning human cognitive architecture. Relatively recently, this theory has become one of the most influential theories in instructional psychology, being applied in various areas of education. Learners are often overwhelmed by the number of information elements and their interactions that need to be processed simultaneously before meaningful learning can commence (Paas, Renkl & Sweller,

2004). To facilitate meaningful learning whilst learning complex cognitive tasks, cognitive load theory (CLT) (Paas et al., 2003, 2004; Paas & van Gog, 2006; Sweller 1999, 2003, and

2005; Sweller & Chandler, 1994; Sweller, van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998) has been developed. In other words, it has been designed “to provide guidelines intended to assist in the presentation of information in a manner that encourages learner activities that optimize intellectual performance” (Sweller et al., 1998, p. 25).

In instructional psychology, cognitive load theory has been receiving significant attention as it claims that because of the limitations of human cognitive architecture, specifically working memory, which is severely restricted in duration and capacity, instructional design has to facilitate learning by minimising cognitive overload. An argument

CLT poses is that many traditional instructional designs do not take into account the limitations of human cognitive architecture, therefore resulting in tasks that overload the learner’s working memory and hamper learning. Integrating “knowledge about the structure and functioning of the human cognitive system with principles of instructional design”

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 87

(Schnotz & Kürschner, 2007, p.470) in a CLT framework attempts to facilitate and optimise learning.

5.5.1 The Basic Principles of Cognitive Load Theory

The cognitive architecture utilised by cognitive load theory as covered in 5.3 above, is based on a natural information processing system that also theorises about evolution by natural selection (Sweller & Sweller, 2006). In this thesis an analysis from a biological evolutionary perspective by Sweller and Sweller (2006) is outlined (see also Sweller, 2003,

2004, 2006). This system works in conjunction with five basic principles.

5.5.1.1 The information store principle. This principle assumes that natural information processing systems need a large store of information in human long-term memory. Information stored in long-term memory is fundamental to the theory as it guides the bulk of cognitively-based activities. It was evident in the works of De Groot ([1945]

1965) and Chase and Simon (1973),that long-term memory stores the information for solving problems, as chess masters’ skills come from their extensive knowledge of chess board configurations that have been stored in the long-term memory.

Human long-term memory stores information in a highly structured and organised way. Schemas that work under either automatic or conscious control are often referred to as the building blocks of knowledge providing the underlying structure for long-term memory

(Bartlett, 1932; Gick & Holyoak, 1983). With considerable time and effort, novel information becomes automated (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). For example, recognising and learning any letter from the alphabet for a child (who has just started to read), will take considerable time and effort, and with gradual practicere cognising it will become automated. Human long-term memory provides an ample storage of information that is essential for controlling the

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 88 majority of human cognitive activities. This is similar to a genome that supplies the bulk of information needed when functioning biologically in a complex environment.

5.5.1.2 The borrowing and reorganising principle. Iacoboni and his colleagues

(Iacoboni, Woods, Brass, Bekkering, Mazziotta & Rizzolatti, 1999) studied the mirror neuron system. They found that this system was as active when subjects were observing an action, as it was when they were performing motor actions. Another study by Tettamanti, Buccino and

Saccuman et al., (2005) found that a particular condition of listening to a description of an action resulted in activation of the mirror neuron system. Both of these studies, in Sweller and Sweller’s (2006) opinion; articulate the fact that imitation is a significant mechanism for acquiring information.

Though imitation is biologically primary, the information sought by imitation may not be necessarily primary. As long as humans are able to imitate, they can use the technique to acquire secondary knowledge such as adapting to different accents in listening comprehension.

This principle also provides an explanation for the source of the bulk of information stored in long-term memory. The borrowing and reorganising principle assumes that the information stored in long-term memory is borrowed from the long-term memories of other people (Sweller, 2003, 2004). We directly or indirectly borrow information from other people, sometimes by reading or listening to what they say. Bit by bit the accumulated information is combined with the already stored information in our long-term memory. This information needs to be reconstructed and modified by the borrowers in order to fit their own knowledge stored in long-term memory.

Sweller (2003, 2004) argued that schema theory reflects this reconstruction and modification process. Schemas are known to have two functions; one is organising information in the long-term memory and the other is reducing working memory load.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 89

Schema automation also functions in reducing working memory load. According to the borrowing and reorganising principle, the borrowing or transmitting of information is never exact; rather, previous knowledge affects it substantially (Sweller & Sweller, 2006). Hence, schemas are constantly being constructed and modified by previously stored personal knowledge and thus produce unique, rather than copied schemas.

The borrowing and reorganising principle of the CLT underlies adaptation to the new accent/accents the listeners are exposed to. For example, the novice SL/FL user or a native speaker of English, when listening to a novel accent of English or learning a foreign language, is initially challenged by the amount of information provided, such as the intonation pattern of the speaker, the pitch, and the speaker’s speech rate. Above all, the novelty of the accent/language (the listening process and accent diversification discussed in

Chapter 2-3) may overwhelm the novice listener. However, in Tettamanti, Buccino and

Saccuman et al., (2005) study, as well as in schema theory (Sweller 2003, 2004; Sweller &

Sweller, 2006) it is evident that listening to a description activates the recognition and assimilation process. Considering the mirror neuron system and schema theory, we can presume that while learning accent variations in English, listening to the speech input activates the imitating process, i.e. the mirror neuron system; and the listener starts mapping out the underlying structure of the accent through schema acquisition. The borrowing and reorganising principle, hence, actively supports the listening process. This principle, however, does not explain the process of how humans acquire their original knowledge.

5.5.1.3 The randomness as genesis principle. This principle suggests that sometimes information from other people may not be available to solve problems, and so random generations followed by tests of effectiveness are required (Sweller, 2003; Sweller & Sweller,

2006). Long-term memory acts as a central executive when it deals with familiar information, however, knowledge is unavailable to help organise new information (Sweller, 2004). In

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 90 these situations, the only alternative is to generate novel information during problem-solving using a random generate and test procedure. When deciding a problem-solving move, some combination of previous knowledge from long-term memory and random decisions must be used to generate each problem-solving transformation (Diao & Sweller, 2007). In effectiveness tests, only useful information is retained while the non-beneficial is ignored.

Retained moves are incorporated into long-term memory. In learning English as a L2/FL, the randomness as genesis principle may be directly related. For example, when English language learners learn grammar or composition etc. They may need to meander in random search to look for answers to problems such as they would need when learning other biologically secondary subjects such as science, geography, etc., according to this principle.

In listening to a new accent of English, a listener may need to engage in random search followed by tests of effectiveness to recognise the accent. In this regard, the listener may incorporate this principle with the borrowing and reorganising principle (i.e. depending on their existing L1 knowledge), to supply them with the necessary linguistic input in order to recognise the accent, and also to constitute schemas of the accent pattern of the target language. Hence, learners, by comparing and contrasting the new accent with their existing

L1 knowledge, and also with the knowledge of other accents of English (if available), would be able to create schemas of the novel accent.

Cognitive load theory assumes that the ultimate source of human creativity is reflected in the ability to generate novel information in this way. And, in the context of learning accent variability, the randomness as genesis principle may be incorporated into the learners’ understanding of a novel accent, and ultimately gaining a global adaptation to the foreign accented English.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 91

5.5.1.4 Narrow limits of change principle. CLT suggests that the processes of human cognitive architecture are analogous to the processes of evolution by natural selection

(Sweller, 2003, 2004; Sweller & Sweller, 2006). A basic postulation of evolution by natural selection is that an alteration to a genome happens as a consequence of random mutations followed by tests of effectiveness. Any change that contributes to survival is kept, discarding the failed ones. These changes are believed to be incremental and slow.

In a similar way, human cognitive architecture adopts changes to long-term memory.

These changes are slow and gradual owing to random generation followed by testing. The narrow limits of change principle postulates that working memory’s limited capacity ensures that changes to long-term memory are limited and incremental (Sweller, 2003, 2004; Sweller

& Sweller, 2006), and thus it protects the stored information from destruction (Diao &

Sweller, 2007).Human working memory is limited both in capacity (Cowan, 2001) and duration (Peterson & Peterson, 1959). This principle assumes that only very small amounts of novel information can be dealt with in working memory in order to avoid combinatorial explosions (Leslie, Low, Jin & Sweller, 2012).

Designers and educators need to design instruction in a way that it does not overload working memory or exceed its limited capacity. We know that human cognition is limited to seven items to be held in working memory (Miller, 1956), and to four items to be processed

(Cowan, 2001). A way to avoid these limits is to utilise the schemas that are held in long- term memory. A schema can permit multiple elements to be treated as a single element in working memory, and takes load from working memory. As a result, expert learners in a particular field can overcome these processing limitations as their schemas have already been acquired and automated. On the other hand, novice learners face the limitations of working memory when they deal with novel information (Sweller, 2003, 2004). Thus, cognitive load

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 92 theory suggests that instructional procedure needs to encompass the limitations of working memory when dealing with novel information.

In designing instruction for teaching accent variability, we have to consider the characteristic traits of the target accent/s, and how it is pronounced (details of listening comprehension and accent variability in English are in Chapters 2-3); and how the novelty of the accent should be reflected within instructional design. For example, a good way to introduce teaching accent variability in a FL context would be to teach the language first.

Once SL/FL learners have sufficient proficiency in English, they would be able to recognise, differentiate, categorise and understand accent variability presented in the listening comprehension passages. According to the narrow limits of change principle, the learnt language/s (learners’ L1 and L2) would be complementary factors (due to the borrowing and reorganising principle), facilitating her to recognise the new accent patterns of the English language. Due to the narrow limits of change principle, the learner’s STM gradually would face lesser challenges while processing and storing the novel accents. By the time the novel accents are introduced, the LTM has accumulated a comprehensive storage of the principles of the English language. The changes/additions in LTM are slow and incremental. In other words, information stored in LTM is permanent. Processing the accented input would therefore be comparatively less challenging for the STM, as the LTM would steadily supply the necessary linguistic information needed to process the new accent.

5.5.1.5 The environmental organising and linking principle. This principle assumes that when working memory deals with previously organised and stored information from long-term memory, the capacity and duration limits associated with novel information become redundant. The lack of working memory limits when dealing with organised information from long-term memory provides the ultimate justification for human cognitive architecture and for learning. These constituent principles, which are at the heart of cognitive

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 93 load theory, have significant instructional implications. They imply that “the major function of instruction is to alter knowledge held in long-term memory and that the goal is most likely to be achieved if instruction is presented in a pre-organised form that does not require problem-solving search” (Diao & Sweller, 2007 p.79).

The connotation of pre-organised knowledge in this study’s context means working with a language the learners are familiar with. In this thesis the environmental organising and linking principle was utilised thus: the listening comprehension materials of accent variability was based on a language student were familiar with. The novelty of such instructional procedure is that it provides instruction in accent/accents that are uncommonly used in their educational institutions except for Experiment 2 where in dual-accent condition the native

Australian undergraduates listened to Australian-accented English along with Russian- accented English. Hence, the environmental organising and linking principle was utilised in the usage of a familiar language. The native Australian students (Experiments 2 and 3), however, had an added benefit in this regards, as they listened to a language that was biologically primary to them. For the FL listeners, it was a biologically secondary one.

In typical listening tasks, for example when listening to conversations or lectures in

English, where learners listen to the instruction and are provided with assorted text types in written and oral form simultaneously, they become engaged in problem-solving search to find relations and correspondences between the written and oral forms, whilst at the same time concentrating on answering the tasks. Cognitive load theory explains this scenario thus: To the extent that specific knowledge is unavailable to a learner, the randomness as genesis principle reduces the efficiency of instruction. Search activity increases the load of working memory, and since working memory is narrowly restricted for processing and storing new information. According to the narrow limits of change principle, such redundancy interferes

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 94 with problem-solving and hinders task performance. However, instructional manoeuvre using unidirectional listening comprehensions controlled such redundancies to happen in the experiments conducted for the thesis.

The framework of the five basic principles of the CLT was actively taken into consideration during the experimental designs of this thesis. The purpose of instructional manipulation was to boost germane learning of English language users. Therefore, its concern was only with the intrinsic cognitive load of the learning materials.

5.6 Categories of Cognitive Load

An indicator of successful instruction is that it ensures tasks are designed within the capacity of working memory. The total amount of cognitive load human working memory deals with while being engaged in tasks is divided into intrinsic and extraneous load. Hence, the total cognitive load can be measured by the sum total of intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load (Sweller, 2010b). Intrinsic load, which is determined by the intrinsic complexity of the learning materials, cannot be altered except by changing the nature of what needs to be learned or by increasing the expertise of learners (Sweller, 2010b). Extraneous load is imposed by instructional design that unnecessarily increases working memory load and can be reduced by effective instructional procedures. Germane load is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge (Sweller, 2010b; Sweller et al., 2011). It refers to the working memory resources that are needed to deal with intrinsic cognitive load. As inappropriate instruction imposes added load on working memory, causing extraneous load. However, extraneous load can be reduced by effective instruction, thereby freeingsome working memory resources which in turn can be devoted to intrinsic load, resulting in an ultimate boost of germane cognitive load.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 95

5.6.1 Intrinsic Cognitive Load

Intrinsic cognitive load (Sweller, 1994; Sweller & Chandler, 1994) is connected to the

“natural complexity of information that must be understood and material that must be learned” (Sweller, 2010b, p. 124). Hence it is concerned with the “intrinsic complexity of information” (Sweller, 2010, p.123) in learning material. Intrinsic cognitive load depends on the knowledge level of the learner and number of elements of a particular task that need simultaneous processing in working memory (Van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005). In learning, a concept or a procedure can be considered as an element (Sweller, 2010b). If element interactivity in materials is low, individual elements can be learnt without referring to other materials and thus lesser intrinsic cognitive load is imposed. Whereas if element interactivity in materials is high, i.e. materials heavily interact with each other and cannot be learned separately, it poses a high intrinsic cognitive load on learners. Sweller (2010b) gives example of mathematics equations where all of the related elements require simultaneous processing, as all elements interact together.

Previously it was speculated that intrinsic cognitive load is not controllable through instructional manipulations. However in 2003, Paas, Renkl and Sweller suggested the possibility of reducing intrinsic cognitive load by manipulating the material element interactivity and the subject-task interaction. Sweller (2006) speculated that there are two ways that intrinsic cognitive load can be reduced; one is by manipulating the to-be-learned material, and the other is by schema acquisition and automation. Manipulating material to-be- learned is discussed first.

Pollock, Chandler and Sweller (2002) tested techniques for reducing intrinsic cognitive load in an industrial training context, using a strategy called the ‘isolated-elements procedure’. In this process they dissected the material into isolated elements and presented it

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 96 to learners one by one, enabling them to learn the elements partially and gradually rather than simultaneously. In a much similar way, (Clarke, Ayres & Sweller, 2005; Sweller, 2006) suggested that to avoid a high intrinsic cognitive load, complicated material divided into isolated elements can be taught first, and the interactivity between elements can be taught later.

Ayres (2006), using a similar strategy, examined the impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load in algebra. His study found that an instructional strategy that isolates the elements of the to-be-learned material reduced cognitive demands, rather than when using an integrated-elements strategy i.e. when all elements are taught together. However, expertise levels i.e. prior knowledge of learners is a crucial factor that determines who benefits more from any particular instructional strategy. What Ayres (2006) found wasthat learners with more prior knowledge benefited less from isolated tasks than learners with less prior knowledge.

Schema acquisition and automation also make it possible to manipulate intrinsic cognitive load. The number of interactions between elements in working memory can be decreased when several elements are treated as a single element. Hence enhancing schema acquisition can decrease intrinsic cognitive load. The effectiveness of this method has been found in many studies, including those of Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler and Sweller (2003) and

Renkl and Atkinson (2003). Providing pre-training is another technique to reduce intrinsic cognitive load. It was used by Mayer, Mathias and Wetzell (2002), Mayer and Moreno

(2003), and also by Clarke, Ayres and Sweller (2005). These studies found that providing learners with training on relevant elements before applying the complete learning procedure enhanced the subsequent learning process. This particular instructional technique aimed to build learners’ prior knowledge before they received the actual learning. Eventually, this

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 97 exercise strengthened the argument for constructing schemas leading to minimising intrinsic cognitive load.

To summarise, a common characteristic shared amongst almost all instructional manoeuvres intended to reduce intrinsic cognitive load is that they intend to strengthen the supposition that prior knowledge embedded in schema acquisition and automation, is crucial when dealing with complicated materials having high element interactivity. Furthermore, learners’ familiarity with the subject of the new material also influences the degree of intrinsic cognitive load it would impose on them. Therefore, a good utilisation of prior knowledge has been demonstrated to be efficient (Ayres, 2006).

5.6.2 Extraneous Cognitive Load

Extraneous cognitive load is concerned with “the manner in which instruction is designed” (Sweller, 2010b p. 123). Besides the intrinsic complexity of learning materials,

“less than optimal” (Sweller, 2010b, p.125) instructional procedure also raises working memory load. It is this ‘nonoptimal’ instructional procedure that has been referred to as extraneous cognitive load, the reducing of which is a primary concern of cognitive load theory. Sweller (2010b) suggests that element interactivity is the major source of working memory load underlying extraneous cognitive load. The cognitive load would be extraneous

“if element interactivity can be reduced without altering what is learned” Sweller (2010b, p.125). A determining factor for both types of load is the subject matter that needs to be learned. For example, when learning certain concepts, the jargon used in the text may impose an extraneous cognitive load; again, if learning the specialised language used in an area, jargon can be intrinsic to the task (Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007). Thus the same information in material may impose intrinsic or extraneous cognitive load, depending on what needs to be learned.

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 98

Material low in element interactivity may not need any reduction of extraneous cognitive load because the total cognitive load may not exceed working memory capacity. On the contrary, materials having high element interactivity demands reducing extraneous cognitive load critically (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). Sweller and Sweller (2006) asserted that an instructional method imposes a high extraneous load by ignoring the narrow limits of change principle i.e. ignoring the limitation of working memory or by relying on the randomness as genesis principle, rather than the borrowing principle. Any aimed change for the information store, claimed Sweller, is likely to be ineffective if an instructional method was not designed according to cognitive architecture principles, since it may cause a high extraneous cognitive load.

Cognitive load theory suggests various techniques to manipulate extraneous cognitive load such as goal free problems (Ayres, 1993; Sweller, 1988; Sweller & Cooper, 1985;

Sweller & Levine, 1982; Sweller, Mawer & Ward, 1983; Tarmizi & Sweller, 1988); presenting materials using dual mode instruction (Jeung, Chandler, & Sweller 1997; Mayer &

Moreno, 1998; Moreno & Mayer, 1999; Mousavi, Low & Sweller, 1995; Tindall-Ford,

Chandler & Sweller, 1997), and an emphasis on using worked examples instead of conventional problems (Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Paas, 1992; Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994;

Sweller & Cooper, 1985). In a hypermedia environment, Schwartz and his colleagues

(Schwartz, Andersen, Hong, Howard & McGee, 2004) stated that when setting up an educational website, instructional designers need to take into account the cognitive demands a website structure places upon learners’ working memory.

There are several effects resulting from these instructional methods that are used to reduce cognitive load, under the umbrella of cognitive load theory. These are the goal-free effect, the split-attention effect, the modality effect, the redundancy effect, the problem

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 99 completion effect, the worked example effect, the variability effect, and the expertise reversal effect (Sweller, 2003). The accent variability effect, a component of variability effect and expertise reversal effect are central to this thesis; hence these three cognitive load effects are discussed in detail in 5.9.2 and 5.9.3.

Figure 5.1was presented in Van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005, p. 151). It summarises the effects and outlines the reasons behind reducing extraneous cognitive load. The table provides some cognitive load effects and how these effects approach traditional instruction, and how they reduce the extraneous load caused by traditional instruction.

Effect Description Extraneous load

Goal-free effect Replace conventional problems Reduces extraneous cognitive load caused by with goal-free problems that relating a current problem state to a goal state provide learners with a specific and attempting to reduce differences between goal. them; focus learners’ attention on problem states and available operators.

Worked example Replace conventional problems Reduces extraneous cognitive load caused by effect with worked examples that must weak method problem- solving; focus be carefully studied. learners’ attention on problem states and useful solution steps.

Completion Replace conventional problems Reduces extraneous cognitive load because problem effect with completion problems, giving part of the solution reduces the size of providing a partial solution that the problem space; focus attention on problem must be completed by the states and useful solution steps. learners.

Split attention Replace multiple sources of Reduces extraneous cognitive load because effect information with a single, there is no need to mentally integrate the integrated source of information. information sources.

Modality effect Replace a written explanatory Reduces cognitive load because the text and another source of visual multimodal presentation uses both the visual information such as a diagram and auditory processor of working memory. (unimodal), with a spoken explanatory text and a visual source of information (multimodal).

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 100

Redundancy Replace multiple sources of Reduces extraneous cognitive load caused by effect information that are self- unnecessarily processing redundant contained with one source of information. information. Figure 5.1.Cognitive load effects presented in Van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005, p. 151)

5.6.3 Germane Cognitive Activity

Acquisition of knowledge and “learner characteristics” (Sweller, 2010b, p. 126) are the concerns of germane cognitive load. This type of load refers to the working memory resources that the learner devotes to the intrinsic cognitive load related to the information.

Germane load is related to intrinsic load in that increased intrinsic cognitive load may boost obtain higher scores on a listening test germane learning. It happens when “intrinsic cognitive load is high and extraneous low”, as a result, “germane cognitive load will be high because the learner must devote a large proportion of working memory resources to dealing with the essential learning materials” (Sweller, 2010, p.126).

On the other hand, “If extraneous cognitive load is increased, germane cognitive load is reduced and learning is reduced because the learner is using working memory resources to deal with the extraneous elements imposed by the instructional procedure rather than the essential, intrinsic material” (Sweller, 2010, p.126). According to Sweller (2010) “…germane cognitive load is purely a function of the working memory resources devoted to the interacting elements that determine intrinsic cognitive load.”Hence, germane cognitive load does not provide any individual or independent source of working memory load.

Paas and van Merriënboer (1994), in their experiments, found that although high variability during the training period caused high cognitive load, the subjects’ performance on transfer problems was enhanced and resulted in better schema acquisition. Since then, germane cognitive load has been regarded as beneficial and essential for schema construction as long as the total cognitive load does not exceed working memory capacity. Furthermore,

100

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 101

Van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005) suggested that to improve learning, instructional methods should be manipulated in such a way that reduces extraneous cognitive load and as a consequence, frees germane cognitive load; thereby encouraging learners to invest the free working memory capacity to construct schemas. Sweller (2010b) and Paas, Renkl and

Sweller (2003) argued that despite the effectiveness of germane cognitive load, its value depends on learner motivation.

There were two key directions of research into germane cognitive load. Firstly, experiments using contextual interference were conducted by Van Merriënboer and his colleagues (Van Merriënboer, Schuurman, De Croock & Paas, 2002; De Croock, van

Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Van Merriënboer, De Croock & Jelsma, 1997). In these studies, it was found that high contextual interference increased cognitive load during the training phase, however performance improved in the test phase. The other approach was using self- explanation. Renkl and his colleagues used this method to investigate germane cognitive load

(Renkl & Atkinson, 2001; Renkl, Stark, Gruber & Mandl, 1998); concluding that students who explained the procedures of worked examples reported a higher mental effort and at the same time outperformed students who were not asked for self-explanations. Hence, the group of students who explained the procedure devoted more mental effort and at the same time outperformed the control group providing evidence for germane cognitive load.

5.7 Interrelation between Categories of Cognitive Load

Researchers assume interactions between these categories of cognitive load. Sweller

(2010b) provides a formula that encompasses the three categories of cognitive load in terms of element interactivity in response to the ambiguity and anomaly (Beckmann, 2010; Schnotz

& Kürschner, 2007) regarding the categories of cognitive load; thereby providing a uniform foundation for the divisions into their categories.

101

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 102

Paas, Renkl and Sweller (2003) suggested an asymmetric and recurring relation between cognitive load categories. They supposed that human cognition during learning deals first with the intrinsic cognitive load, then any remaining working memory capacity will be consumed to handle extraneous and germane cognitive load. Once working memory capacity is available to free germane cognitive load by reducing extraneous cognitive load, this accessible germane cognitive load can be used for schema construction and automation. Once a learner acquires the needed schemas, he/she gains expertise in the specific field and subsequently less intrinsic cognitive load will be encountered.

Eventually total cognitive load is minimised, learning is enhanced and the newly learned material will be used to construct more advanced schemas, with a new cycle commencing (Paas et al., 2003). Therefore, employing minimal working memory resources to handle extraneous cognitive load is quite essential to free germane cognitive load and stimulate this cycle to occur. In a different field, Scott and Schwartz (2007) found that when the imposed cognitive load was high and extraneous, performance suffered. However, when the cognitive load was high and germane, performance was enhanced. Nonetheless, germane cognitive load should not exceed the limits of working memory capacity otherwise it will decrease rather than increase performance (e.g. Große & Renkl, 2006). In their study into learning mathematics, Große and Renkl (2006) found that learning was decreased when students were asked to provide self-explanations. Sweller (2006) in his commentary on this study attributed these results to an increase in germane cognitive load beyond the limits of working memory, with insufficient time given to accommodate this expansion in cognitive load.

Researchers assume that these three categories are additive, and if the total cognitive load exceeds the available working memory capacity, learning is likely to be compromised.

102

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 103

Paas and van Merriënboer (1994, p. 123) suggested a schematic representation of the cognitive load construct. They assumed there are several factors that affect the invested mental effort such as the task environment characteristics (e.g. task structure, type of reward system and time pressure); the learner characteristics (e.g. the learner cognitive capability and their previous knowledge), and the interaction between them (e.g. motivation or personal expectations of performance).

5.8 Critique and Modified Version of Cognitive Load Theory

Schnotz and Kürschner (2007 p.501), in their study questioned the validity of some generalised empirical results as CLT “allows different and contradicting possibilities” in interpreting them. They pondered that reducing cognitive load may not bring desirable results it may impair learning rather than enhances it . Highlighted were some of the main contrastive features between the traditional versions of cognitive load theory, while offering a modified version of the theory in their paper.

Thus these are:

1. The traditional version holds that Intrinsic Load is fixed. The version modified articulates that it is fixed for a given learning task, expertise and educational objective.

2. Extraneous Load happens due to unnecessarily increased element interactivity, according to the traditional account. The modified version suggests that extraneous cognitive load happens (a) due to interactivity of relevant information at the limits of working memory; (b) due to maintaining relevant information (without increased element-interactivity); (c) due to interactivity of irrelevant information, and (d) due to waste of time and effort (without increased element interactivity) where extraneous load is imposed on learners.

103

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 104

3. Germane Load, the third type of cognitive load, according to the traditional literature happens (a) due to schema construction and automation, and (b) is constrained by working memory capacity. Schnotz and Kürschner (2007) in their modified version report that germane load happens (a) due to processes in working memory aiming at intentional learning going beyond simple task performance, and (b) it is constrained by (i) working memory capacity; (ii) intrinsic load and (iii) motivation.

4. Learning in the traditional approach (a) requires working memory capacity as schema construction and automation impose germane load; (b) learning can be impeded by an unnecessary increase of element interactivity, and (c) learning could also be affected by germane load. However Schnotz and Kürschner (2007) found that learning does not necessarily require working memory capacity, as schema construction and automation can occur without germane load. They also concluded that learning could be impeded by an unnecessary increase of element interactivity; by unnecessary mental effort (without increased element interactivity), or by too low an intrinsic load. Furthermore, learning could be affected by germane load combined with intrinsic load.

5. Instructional design principles, in the traditional literature (a) tend to reduce extraneous load as far as possible, and (b) suggest increasing germane load as far as possible. The modified version Schnotz and Kürschner (2007), proposes that instructional design principles

(a) reduce extraneous load as far as possible; (b) adapt intrinsic load to the learner’s expertise, hence reducing intrinsic load if task difficulty is too high thus enabling or facilitating task performance within the learner’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD); (c) increase intrinsic load if task difficulty is too low, and (d) consider an adoption of germane load to the intrinsic load for the enhancement of instructional design.

104

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 105

The critique and modified version of CLT, in other words, have contributed to understanding the conceptualisations and instructional implications of the theory. The theoretical construct of this thesis is based on CLT and it agrees with the framework suggested in Schnotz and Kürschner (2007).

5.9 Cognitive Load Effects

The sole purpose of cognitive load theory is to devise effective instructional designs to reduce extraneous cognitive load effects (Sweller, 2003, 2004) and induce germane learning. The cognitive effects in a CLT framework include certain effects resulting from the instructional designs that are used to reduce extraneous cognitive load. These can include the worked-example effect, the problem completion effect, the split-attention effect, the modality effect, the redundancy effect, the expertise reversal effect, the guidance fading effect, and the goal-free effect. Some cognitive load effects happen when instruction deals with the intrinsic interacting elements of a learning object (the element interactivity effect and the isolated/interacting elements effect), and furthermore; certain effects are related to inducing positive germane learning such as the variability effect and imagination effect. Cognitive load effects can be established by considering the relationship between instructional methods, learner characteristics and learning outcomes (Kalyuga, 2009).

Figure 5.2 provides an overview of cognitive load effects presented in Sweller (2010a, p.30)

Cognitive load Description Primary cognitive effect load source

Worked-example Studying worked examples results in better performance on Extraneous

subsequent tests of problem-solving than solving the

equivalent problems (Renkl, 2005).

Completion Requiring learners to complete partially solved problems can Extraneous

105

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 106

be justified as effective as worked examples (Paas & van

Merriënboer, 1994).

Split-attention Multiple sources of information that are unintelligible in Extraneous

isolation result in less learning when they are presented in

split-attention, as opposed to integrated format (Ayres

&Sweller, 2005).

Modality Multiple sources of information that are unintelligible in Extraneous

isolation result in less learning when they are presented in

single-modality as opposed to dual-modality format (Low &

Sweller, 2005).

Redundancy The presence of sources of information that do not contribute Extraneous

to schema acquisition or automation interfere with learning

(Sweller, 2005).

Expertise reversal With increased expertise, instructional procedures that are Extraneous

effective with novices can lose their effectiveness; whereas

ineffective techniques can become effective (Kalyuga, 2005).

Guidance fading With increasing expertise, learners should be presented with Extraneous

worked examples followed by completion problems and the

full problems; rather than worked examples alone (Renkl,

2005).

Goal-free Problems presented in goal-free form enhance learning Extraneous

compared with conventional problems (Paas, Camp & Rikers,

2001).

Element Cognitive load effects are only obtainable using high rather Intrinsic interactivity than low element interactivity material (Sweller, 1994).

Isolated/ Learning is enhanced if very high element interactivity Intrinsic interacting material is first presented as isolated elements followed by element interacting element versions, rather than as interacting

elements initially (Pollock, Chandler & Sweller, 2002).

Variable example Examples with variable surface features enhance learning Germane

106

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 107

compared with examples with simpler features (Paas& van

Merriënboer, 1994).

Imagination Imagining procedures or concepts enhance learning compared Germane

with studying materials (Leahy & Sweller, 2004).

Figure 5.2. The table showing cognitive load effects was presented in Sweller (2010a, p.30)

This thesis is concerned with the accent variability effect, which is a component of the variability effect. First the variability effect is explained and then the accent variability effect is discussed. Finally the expertise reversal effect is discussed.

5.9.1 Variability Effect

Varied context examples (Clark, Nuguyen & Sweller, 2006) contributing to the variability effect have been discussed in a number of studies associated with cognitive load theory (De Croock, van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Magill & Hall, 1990; Paas &van

Merriënboer, 1994; Van Merriënboer, Schuurman, De Croock & Paas, 2002; Sweller et al.,

2011).It occurs when instruction using the borrowing and organizing principle includes highly variable examples that result in increased transfer performance, compared to less variable, more similar examples (Sweller et al., 2011). Increased variability, it can be hypothesised; helps students in learning how to differentiate relevant and irrelevant features of worked examples (Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005). Through high variability, students may be able to abstract schemas to transfer to long-term memory, thus incorporating knowledge of principles and learning when to apply those principles (Clark et al., 2006, p.212) via the environmental organising and linking principle; therefore enhancing transfer

(p.212). This enhanced performance in transfer is interpreted as being solely due to alterations in intrinsic cognitive load (Sweller, 2010b; Sweller et al., 2011). When practicing variable tasks that are similar in nature, it induces intrinsic cognitive load which is devoted to

107

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 108 the processing, construction and automation of schemas, hence increasing performance with learning (Clark et al.2006). Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) in their study found that when students learn to deal with a greater range of problems, it increases knowledge which in turn boosts transfer performance to new tasks because the probability that the new task is similar to the one already faced increases with variability (Sweller et al., 2011).

Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) tested variability effect of practice on learning performance, transfer performance and cognitive load. In the experiments they used either worked examples with a similar structure or worked examples with a greatly variable structure; to teach a procedure of geometrical problem-solving. Results showed that learner performance following variable practice was worse than learner performance following instruction with similar practice, on solving the problems during the training period; as high variability caused high cognitive load. However, learners following instruction with a greater variation in structural features tended to perform better on solving novel geometrical problems during the transfer test. In the same experiments, Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) also tested the effects of high-variability practice problems on learning to solve geometrical problems in conventional conditions, in which only the problems were presented. Compared to worked example conditions in which the problems were presented with solutions, the conventional conditions consumed greater mental resources in instructional processes that were irrelevant for learning; such as solving problems, generating incorrect solutions and studying correct solutions.

Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) found that training in conventional problems imposed a much heavier cognitive load, thereby leading to worse learning performance during both training and transfer tests, than training with worked examples. When increasing the variability of practice problems in conventional conditions, the positive effects of practice

108

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 109 variability which were found on worked example conditions, did not appear due to a heavy cognitive load. These results demonstrated that variability of practice type during training was important to schema acquisition; however it would be manifested only when extraneous cognitive load could be reduced through instructional methods. It was pertinent that training with conventional problems was not effective as it imposed a heavy extraneous cognitive load.

Paas and van Merriënboer’s (1994) study differed from the previous studies exploring the effects of variability in that for the first time the study highlighted that cognitive load was crucial to the use of variability during training. The study did not; however, explain the reasons for the positive effects of variability on schema acquisition. Later on, De Croock, van

Merriënboer and Paas (1998) attributed these reasons in terms of variations in germane cognitive load. In instruction using high variability, different practice items could be constructed and compared with each other to induce germane cognitive load, thereby enhancing schema construction.

We get an alternative explanation for the variability effect by Sweller (2010b), as he explains this in terms of an alteration of intrinsic cognitive load. According to Sweller, element interactivity provides a common explanatory mechanism for all types of cognitive load and most cognitive load effects. Under this mechanism, germane cognitive load refers to the working memory resources that are devoted to dealing with intrinsic cognitive load associated with information. Unlike intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load which are two independent sources of cognitive load, germane cognitive load is only a function of working memory resources available to deal with the element interactivity that determines intrinsic cognitive load. Within the capacity of working memory, if the intrinsic cognitive load is increased, germane cognitive load may be increased and learning will be facilitated because

109

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 110 learners will then devote working memory resources to work with the necessary learning materials.

High variability or high contextual interference tasks have a substantially higher degree of element interactivity compared to low variability or low contextual interference tasks. As a result, more working memory resources need to be used to process the element interactivity associated with a high intrinsic cognitive load under contextual interference conditions. In contrast, under low contextual interference conditions, when a similar set of surface elements are reduced, it decreases the number of elements that must be processed in working memory. Sweller’s (2010b) explanation of the variability effect is different from that of previous scholars, though a common principle was shared among all studies exploring the variability effect. This is that instruction under high variability conditions induces effective germane cognitive load and facilitates schema construction and automation, as long as the total cognitive load does not exceed working memory limitations.

Designing experiments using variable materials can be categorized into two groups:

(a) variable materials and (b) contextual interference materials. In using variable materials germane learning can be induced by altering surface elements (such as values in geometry), as well as structural elements (values and problem formats in geometry). Studies show that altering structural elements revealed superior performance (Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994;

Quilchi & Mayer, 1996). In contextual interference experiments, materials are designed either in a blocked order (A-A-A, B-B-B, C-C-C) or random order (A-B-C, B-A-C, C-A-B etc.) combinations. Empirical studies revealed superior performance when high variability materials were presented in random order (De Croock, van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Van

Merriënboer et al., 2002). In Experiment 1 of this thesis, listening comprehension materials were presented in ‘contextual interference combinations’ with nine different accent

110

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 111 conditions; and in Experiments 2 and 3, ‘variable material combinations’ were used in two different accent conditions.

5.9.2 Accent Variability Effect

The accent variability effect may happen when variable accents are used in any instructional situation, specifically with oral instructions. It may be restricted to oral instruction only. Oral instruction is transitory in nature. As it is auditory instruction, the length of the auditory input is important. The length is dependent on the purpose of instruction and expertise of the intended learners. Visual aids such as animations, transcripts, pictures and diagrams may be used to aid the aural input, and depending on the purpose of the instruction provided; so that it does not incur split attention or redundancy effects. Accents that are unfamiliar or familiar to the target learners can be used to design instruction.

Dialectical variations in accents can also be used in this type of instructional design. Accent variability, as a component of the variability effect can be tested and used in any kind of educational discipline. The accent variability effect has the potential to train learners to process and retain more information in their long-term memory, and enhance students’ understanding of certain accents. For example, if Chinese students find Indian-accented

English hard to understand and vice versa, it may be appropriate to train the learners in listening to the accent and gradually they may be able to understand it better; at the same time overcoming any preconceived notions they may have had towards the accent.

Variability can be created by altering the structure of the accents such as putting together accents that are dissimilar to pronounce, for instance Chinese-accented English vs.

Russian- accented English. Variability can also be created by altering surface elements such as using the same accent in different voices, for example using Russian-accented English in two female voices for developing variability materials (such as in Experiment 2 reported in

111

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 112

Chapter 6 of this thesis). Accent variability tasks can have transfer tests where a new accent can be added to test the learning outcome. Gao (2012) used transfer tests with an unfamiliar accent and also with unfamiliar speakers in her PhD thesis, and Gao et al., (2013) had transfer tests with an unfamiliar speaker. Similarly designed texts presented in different accents of

English could be used in this kind of structure as it supports schema acquisition and automation.

5.9.3 Expertise Reversal Effect

Cognitive load theory suggests a variety of instructional designs aiming to decrease working memory limitations and promote schema construction and automation. A series of empirical studies exhibited strong evidence for the effectiveness of these instructional methods which were dependent upon learners’ background knowledge or expertise level. The expertise reversal effect was initially predicted as “a form of redundancy effect”, and it occurs when instruction “beneficial to novice learners becomes redundant to those more knowledgeable” (Sweller et al., 2011, p. 155). These scholars exemplified one instance of the expertise reversal effect, hence “detailed textual explanations, especially if they are embedded into diagrams thus reducing the possibility of ignoring them, may be essential for novices but redundant for experts” (p.155). This effect “flows as a logical consequence of some fundamental features of human cognitive architecture” (p.155). The information stored in LTM is fundamental to human cognition. Information stored in LTM is accessible via the environmental organising and linking principle. In this mechanism of knowledge acquisition, a learner’s knowledge in the specific domain becomes the crux that discerns the cognitive load effects he/she may experience due to the instructional procedure. Thus learners’ experiences, as already familiar with the topic and processing the same information “via the borrowing and reorganizing principle, may result in an extraneous cognitive load due to

112

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 113 narrow limits of change principle” (p.155). Hence learners will be required to process additional interacting elements. Reversely, learners who do not possess the required information will need to process those elements. A basic premise of instructional design should therefore be the consideration of the knowledge acquisition process, depending on the expertise of the students in the specific knowledge domain.

Yeung, Jin and Sweller (1997) found that expertise levels intervened in having different cognitive load effects even when using an identical method for instruction with reading comprehension. An integrated vocabulary-and-text format that reduced split-attention was advantageous for the less proficient readers. This instructional format facilitated their cognitive load related to the search for meaning, compared to readers who were presented with a separated vocabulary-and-text format on the textual comprehension. On the contrary, for more proficient readers when applying the integrated vocabulary-and-text format; the comprehension performance decreased, as for them vocabulary meanings were not necessary but redundant and hard to avoid in the instructional procedure, thus increasing extraneous cognitive load. Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller (1998) obtained a fairly similar expertise reversal effect. In three experiments they showed that an integrated diagram-and-text instructional format was more effective for inexperienced electrical trainees to learn about electrical circuits, as compared with diagram-only instructions. The effect became inferior as levels of learner expertise in the field increased. In these two studies the split-attention effect for novices was replaced by the redundancy effect for experts. A detailed description of the split-attention effect and the redundancy effect can be found in Figure 5.2.

In addition to the split-attention effect, other instructional effects were also found to be dependent upon learner expertise. Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller (2000) identified the modality effect in the use of an on-screen animated diagram together with simultaneously

113

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 114 narrated explanations; as the most favourable for low expertise learners when being taught how to operate industrial manufacturing machinery. Additional training made them more efficient in understanding the instructional format of diagram-only. After further training the learners became more knowledgeable in the domain, and as a consequence the findings reversed in that diagram-only instruction was significantly more advantageous than diagram with audio texts instruction. The auditory explanations integrated with a diagram; which were essential for less knowledgeable learners, were redundant and so best eliminated for the high expertise learners. Hence, the modality effect for novices was replaced by the redundancy effect for experts in this study.

A significant interaction between instruction and levels of expertise was pertinent in certain studies related to the worked example effect (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen &

Sweller, 2001; Kalyuga, Chandler & Sweller, 2001). Worked-out example instruction in these studies, was valuable for less knowledgeable learners; however lost its advantage only to become redundant as the knowledge level of learners was raised due to further training.

Taken together, the results of these earlier studies and some later studies (such as Oksa,

Kalyuga & Chandler 2010; Gao et al., 2013), explore the interaction between instructional formats and learner expertise levels noting that the efficacy of instructional methods may reverse when used with learners having different levels of expertise in a specific knowledge area. Kalyuga and his colleagues defined the reversal phenomenon of cognitive load effects with (low and high) expertise, as the expertise reversal effect (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler &

Sweller, 2003). An instructional design which is appropriate for naïve learners may not be suitable for more proficient learners. Sweller (2010b) suggested that a change of interacting elements related to intrinsic cognitive load contributes to the expertise reversal effect.

Learners’ increasing expertise in a field renders the interacting elements (of a task) that are essential for low expertise learners, extraneous for the more knowledgeable learners. When

114

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 115 supplementary elements are given to more knowledgeable learners, they experience the redundancy effect. Consequently, learners’ expertise levels determine whether the same instructional design would impose an intrinsic or extraneous load on them.

Scheiter and Gerjets (2007) experimented with two types of variability materials in algebra word problems. The problems were grouped based on their surface or structural features. The first experiment found the advantageous effect of surface feature grouping over structural features. In the second experiment less expert learners benefited from surface features as these people were required to learn the defining structural features (each of the structural features were different from one another with given surface feature groupings). For the high expertise learners the results reversed, as they benefited more from instructions with alterations at structural features; exemplifying the expertise reversal effect. It was evident that the high expertise people had superior performance when presented with problems grouped upon structural, rather than surface features. Scheiter and Gerjets (2007) postulated that it is crucial to provide relevant simplification of instruction to learners who do not have prior knowledge in distinguishing problems according to categories. High expertise learners, due to their sophisticated skills may be presented with materials that are categorized by structural features.

The materials in this thesis were categorised into low and high accent variability groups (discussion on accent variability materials can be found in Chapter 6, section 6.2.4). It was predicted that increased variability would be beneficial for more expert learners but that the advantage would reverse for less expert learners. Hence the variability of materials may interact with expertise and lead to the expertise reversal effect. It is presumed that the suitability of the type of instructional procedure (high or low accent variability conditions) is dependent on learners’ levels of expertise.

115

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 116

5.10 Determining Cognitive Load

When engaged in tasks, working memory resources are employed in dealing with the intrinsic complexity of the learning material (intrinsic cognitive load), and with the manner in which instruction is designed (extraneous cognitive load). Changes to any of these cognitive load types affect learning results. From a CLT perspective it is essential to ensure that the total cognitive load stimulated during learning does not surpass the capacity of working memory. In view of that, measurement of the total amount of cognitive load induced by a particular instructional design is required.

Several methods to measure cognitive load were adopted in a CLT framework, including subjective measures of cognitive load; objective measures of cognitive load and combined measures of cognitive load (Brünken, Seufert & Paas, 2010). In earlier research the most commonly used objective indicator of the intensity of cognitive load involved measuring learners’ performance scores in learning tasks and assuming that the differences on learning performance happened because of the varied amount of cognitive load induced by a specific instructional method. Many studies in a CLT framework estimate the invested cognitive load between different instructional conditions by measuring the differences in their learning outcomes. Learning outcomes, in turn are considered by measuring task performances that vary greatly in terms of structural complexity of task designs. From a CLT perspective a retention task and a transfer task are two task types that are most commonly used to measure learning outcomes.

A possible drawback with the objective method of cognitive load measurement in the early days of CLT research was that this method did not estimate cognitive load directly; hence the reliability of using performance scores of learning outcomes to measure cognitive load was doubted by CLT scholars. Thereafter, a subjective rating of the supposed cognitive

116

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 117 effort was applied to research studies in the CLT genre (Paas & van Merriënboer, 1993,

1994). This has encompassed numerous cognitive load ratings scales that reflect students’ perceived mental efforts invested in understanding or completing a task used in cognitive load research. Popularly, seven to nine point Likert scales to estimate the cognitive load, varying from ‘very, very low’ or ‘extremely easy’ to ‘very, very high’ or ‘extremely difficult’, or ‘very, very easy’ to ‘very, very difficult’; are used to this end. The subjective rating method has been widely used until now. However, the validity of this self-report rating measure has been questioned (Brünken et al., 2010) on the grounds that subjective ratings of mental effort should be based on the postulation that learners are able to “make a reliable and valid estimation of the amount of load they were confronted with in a specific situation”

(Brünkenet al., 2010, p 182). Addressing this critique, several CLT researchers have endeavored to increase the validity of subjective mental load ratings by using repeated measurements when doing tasks (Tabbers, Martens &van Merriënboer, 2004).

There are other methods suggested by CLT scholars in addition to the kinds of measurement of cognitive load, as discussed earlier. Ayres (2006b) suggested a subjective rating of intrinsic cognitive load by measuring task difficulty. This method, to a great degree then contributed to the question of deciding which type of cognitive load caused the reported level of mental load among the three types of cognitive loads. In objective measurement approaches, neuro-physiological measures (Aasman, Mulder & Mulder, 1987; Paas &van

Merriënboer, 1994), time-on-task (Tabbers, Martens & van Merriënboer, 2004), information retrieval behaviour (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers &van Gerven, 2003) and dual-task procedures

(Brünken, Plass & Leutner, 2003) have been used.

The table shown in Figure 5.3 was presented in Brünken, Seufert and Paas’s paper

(2010, p.193), summarising the cognitive load measures and outlining their applications.

117

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 118

Measure Main research question Research examples Type of cognitive load measure

Subjective rating scales Learner’s subjective Paas and van Merriënboer Subjective assessment of task (1993)

demands

Objective Learning outcomes Relation between Mayer (2005); Mayer and

instructional design and Moreno (1998)

knowledge acquisition

Time-on-task Learner’s investment Tabbers et al., (2004)

n the learning process

Navigation behaviour, Relation among Moller and Muller-Kalthoff

help-seeking behaviour affordances, (2000)

instructional design and

knowledge acquisition

Task complexity Relation among Seufert et al., (2007)

affordances,

instructional design and

knowledge acquisition

Behavioural data (heart Global or specific Van Gerven et al., (2004)

rate, pupil dilation) physiological reactions

of the organism

involved in a learning

process

Secondary task analysis Mental load induced by Brünken et al., (2002)

the (primary) learning

task

Eye-tracking analysis Basic behavioural Folker et al., (2005)

aspects of information

118

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 119

processing and their

relation to learning

outcomes

Combined Efficiency measures Optimizing Paas et al., (2003)

instructional design

decisions by calculating

the relation of invested

effort and learning

outcome

Figure 5.3.An overview of the measurement of cognitive load presented in Brünken et al., (2010, p.193)

5.11 Conclusions

In instructional psychology, cognitive load theory has been receiving significant attention in the past few decades. It claims the limitations of human cognitive architecture; specifically working memory which is severely restricted in duration and capacity, may compromise meaningful learning. Task design has to be such that it facilitates learning by minimising cognitive overload. This chapter discussed constructivist theory and advocated employing Cognitive Load Theory for instructional design. While mentioning some of the critiques, it pointed out the modified version (Schnotz & Kürschner, 2007) of the theory. The construction of the five elemental principles of cognitive load theory was discussed in this chapter in detail. Intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load were examined and interrelated. Cognitive load effects, specifically the variability effect and its application to accent variability effect; were explained and their instructional implications shown. A fundamental theme of the experimental procedure was that due to both low and high expertise learners, the experiments may demonstrate an expertise reversal effect. The expertise reversal effect was discussed and its instructional implication outlined.

119

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 120

The literature review of previous chapters (chapters2 and 3) emphasised the fact that experimental studies to test the accent variability effect in a CLT framework on a specific population incorporating FL, as well as native English speakers; has not yet been explored.

The premise of instructional design in the theoretical framework of CLT should enhance our understanding of learners’ adaptations to different types of accent input. The benchmark study in a cognitive load theory framework by Gao et al., (2013) indicates that multiple- speaker acquisition facilitated perceptual learning of foreign-accented English for EFL learners; however the gains were dependent upon learners’ English language proficiency. The research project reported in this study presumed that if instruction considers novice as well as expert learners’ cognitive mechanisms, learners may be able to extract accent-independent adaptations to English when exposed to various accents of the language, leading to the accent variability effect. However, this adaptation might be dependent on learners’ prior knowledge or levels of expertise in the field leading to the expertise reversal effect.

Chapter 6: Experiment 1

6.1 Introduction

The variability effect, according to cognitive load theory, has been discussed in a number of studies (De Croock, van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Magill & Hall, 1990; Paas &

120

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 121 van Merriënboer, 1994; Van Merriënboer, Schuurman, De Croock& Paas, 2002; Sweller, et al., 2011). It happens when instruction (borrowing and organizing principle) that includes highly variable examples results in increased transfer performance compared to less variable, more similar examples (Sweller et al., 2011). Increased variability, it can be hypothesized, helps students in learning how to differentiate relevant and irrelevant features of worked examples (Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005).

Through high variability, students may be able to abstract schemas to transfer to long term memory that incorporate knowledge of principles and learn when to apply those principles (Clark, Nguyen & Sweller, 2006, p.212) via the environmental organizing and linking principle, thus enhancing transfer (p.212). This enhanced performance in transfer is interpreted as being solely due to alterations in intrinsic cognitive load (Sweller, 2010b;

Sweller et al., 2011). When practicing variable tasks that are similar in nature, the variability task induces intrinsic cognitive load which is devoted (Clark et al., 2006) to the processing, construction and automation of schemas, and therefore increases the performance on learning. Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) in their study found that when students learn to deal with a greater range of problems, the type of task increases knowledge that in turn, increase transfer performance to new tasks because the probability that the new task is similar to one already faced increases with variability (Sweller et al.,2011). The present experiment tested the accent variability effect, a type of variability effect from a CLT perspective.

6.2 Method of the Experiment

Experiment 1 was designed to investigate the effects of accent variability on perceptual learning of foreign-accented English for non-native English speakers (Bengali) with different levels of English language proficiency. The cognitive load perspective that generated findings of variability effect was first applied to the materials of listening to accent

121

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 122 variations for EFL learners in a study by Gao et al., (2013). Specifically, this present experiment explored the benefits of using multiple accents during acquisition compared to single accents for Bangladeshi FL learners using three different accents of English. In this experiment it was assumed that training the high expertise learners in multiple accents of

English would be more beneficial than training them in single accented English as these learners can easily adapt to the variable listening environment without incurring much mental load on their working memory. On the other hand, for the low expertise learners, training in a single accent of English would be beneficial compared to training them in multiple accents as these learners may find adapting to a single accent condition to be easier as it will impose a lesser amount of mental load on their working memory.

Nine acquisition conditions of Bangladeshi listeners with either higher- or lower- expertise levels of English language proficiency were recruited for the current study: (1) six multiple accents conditions with low and high prior knowledge participants, and (2) three single accents conditions with low and high prior knowledge participants. The underlying principle for designing instruction using variable accent conditions was that if increased variability produces increased intrinsic cognitive load that must be handled by the limited working memory, three factors are relevant to the amount of intrinsic cognitive load: (1) learners’ expertise level, (2) variability during acquisition, and (3) familiarity with the target accent. Accordingly, learners’ expertise level of English language (higher-expertise level, lower-expertise level) and acquisition conditions with different levels of variability of acquisition accents (A-C-R; A-R-C; C-A-R; C-R-A; R-A-C;and R-C-A;where the three letters are the initial letters of “Australian, Chinese and Russian” accented English4) were considered as independent variables in this design.The dependent variable wasa retention test

4 The three accents used for this experiment had been permuted to have six different combinations of multiple accent conditions. These are A-C-R (Australian-Chinese- Russian); A-R-C (Australian-Russian-Chinese); C-A-R (Chinese- Australian-Russian); C-R-A (Chinese-Russian-Australian); R-A-C (Russian-Australian-Chinese) and R-C-A (Russian- Chinese-Australian). 122

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 123 with the familiar accent to all nine acquisition conditions. The accent conditions were counterbalanced in the six multiple accent conditions.

By considering these issues within a cognitive load theory framework, we can generate two main hypotheses:

1. For the low expertise learners a single-accented condition would obtain higher

scores on a listening test than a multiple-accented condition.

2. For the high expertise learners a multiple-accented condition would obtain higher

scores on a listening test than a single-accented condition.

By exploring the effects of multiple accents vs. single accents for learners with different EFL proficiency levels within a CLT framework, this experiment may provide information on the implications for the use of variable accents on learning variable accents of

English.

6.2.1 English Teaching Context in Bangladesh

In studying English as a foreign language context in Bangladesh, emphasis is given on acquiring the four constituent skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) of English. It also includes explicit grammar and vocabulary learning. Theoretically, communicative language teaching is designed to exercise all the four skills in FL classes. In reality, however, in Bangladeshi FL context, only reading and writing skills are extensively practiced as these two are believed to be the most worthwhile skills for academic purpose. These two are tested in annual examinations too. The other two skills i.e. listening and speaking are not considered seriously – to some extent because of limited logistic support in schools and colleges, and more importantly because these two are not examined in annual exams. Scarcity of scientific experimental study on any one or all of the four skills of English makes it difficult for us to speculate what actually does not work in teaching the constituent-skills in classroom

123

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 124 situations. In general, the method has been criticized for its overall ineffectiveness of not being able to uphold the promises and expectations vested on it. One way to addressing the problem is through designing some instructional tools that cater for the cognitive process of learners. Contextualising the teaching of English in the context of the present study, this experiment concentrated on the acquisition of listening skills with tertiary level students in

Bangladesh. Detailed discussion of the ELT context in Bangladesh is in Chapter 1, sections

1.4-1.7.

6.2.2 Participating Institutions

The experiment was carried out in three universities, University A, University B and

University C. The first year undergraduates at these universities were studying different undergraduate courses. All of the students were studying an English language course which is compulsory for all first year Bengali undergraduate students in Bangladesh. All were attending the EFL class for four hours per week on average. Three lecturers, one at each university, were the instructors of the students participating in this study. The study required about two hours of each student’s time. Each university provided three classrooms, one classroom for each condition.

Table 6.1 shows participant distribution across the nine accent conditions.

Table 6.1

Participant distribution across the nine accent conditions

124

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 125

Accent Number of University Department condition participants

Australian- 26 University English accented (15 Low, 11 A English High)

Chinese- 21 University B English; accented (8 Low, 13 Textile English High) Engineering

Russian- 22 University C Journalism; accented (13 Low, 9 English English High)

A-C-R 22 University C BBA (16 Low, 6 High) A-R-C 17 University B English (13 Low, 4 High) C-A-R 24 University English (9 Low, 15 A High) C-R-A 24 University C Architecture (12 Low, 12 High) R-A-C 21 University B English (6 Low, 15 High) R-C-A 24 University English (14 Low, 10 A High)

6.2.3 Participant Distribution

A total of 201 participants were tested consisting of 26 participants for Australian- accented English; 21 participants for Chinese-accented English; 22 participants for Russian- accented English; 22 participants for A-C-R;17 participants for A-R-C;24 participants for C-

A-R; 24 participants for C-R-A; 21 participants for R-A-C; and 24 participants participated for R-C-A accent condition.

The low and high expertise groups were determined by the English score they obtained in their higher secondary certificate examination. In the HSC examination in

125

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 126

Bangladesh, students are given scores in a five point band scale. Each participant reported his/her HSC English score before the experiment. Their scores were categorized into high and low proficiency groups. Students, who scored between 2.49-3.74 in the HSC examination; were categorised as low prior knowledge or low expertise, and students who scored between

3.75-5.00 in the HSC examination were considered high prior knowledge or high expertise.

Accent conditions were randomly allocated in University A, B, and C. Each of these universities was allocated with a single-accent condition and two multiple accent conditions.

6.2.4 Listening Comprehension Materials

The accent variability materials used for this experiment were sequenced either in a block order or randomly. Variability of this kind is known as contextual interference. In the low variable condition, problems were positioned next to each other in time and required the same set of skills to solve the problem and hence, the contextual interference was low. On the other hand, in the high variability condition, problems were positioned next to each other and learners required a different set of skills, so the contextual interference was high. Van

Merriënboer, Schuurman, De Croock and Paas (2002) used this kind of contextual interference material in their study. The contextual interference effect is a learning phenomenon where interference during practice is beneficial to skill development. This experiment used contextual interference materials containing low and high variable accent conditions, and it also differentiated between learner expertises according to their prior knowledge in the specific field of knowledge.

In this experiment low contextual interference was produced in the single accented conditions where single accented material was produced in a blocked order (A-A-A; C-C-C; and R-R-R) for the three single accented experimental conditions. In contrast, in the high contextual interference condition, materials were produced in six multiple accented

126

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 127 sequences (A-C-R; A-R-C; C-A-R; C-R-A; R-A-C and R-C-A) by linking together practice on the different accents. Hence, for the low contextual interference groups the element interactivity intrinsic to the listening materials was reduced by presenting the materials in a blocked order, whereas for the high contextual interference groups the element interactivity was increased using high variability of practice listening to different accents.

The listeners were exposed to listening comprehension through one (in the single accent conditions) or three different accents (in the multiple accents condition). The listening comprehension materials used in this experiment were “The Antarctic” (for the acquisition phase) and “The Arctic” (for the test). Our biologically secondary knowledge, such as

English for FL/SL learners, to a large extent is domain specific. The listening comprehension text of the similar test had been tailored to have comparable features with that of the listening text used for acquisition, as we know that domain-specific knowledge facilitates learners to process more interacting elements at a time, hence reduces intrinsic load unneeded for such learners (Sweller et al., 2011).

In this experiment it was assumed that the high content (i.e. large amounts of spoken information), requires complex processing, thereby imposing additional load on working memory. These materials were presented in lengthy chunks of information linked to each other and must be held in working memory in order to understand the general gist. In high element interactivity material, information from one sentence needs to be stored in working memory while information from another sentence is integrated with it. Hence due to the intrinsic nature of the high content informational passages, the element interactivity for the materials can be assumed to be reasonably high for both the low and high contextual interference conditions. Below is a discussion of the listening comprehension materials used for this experiment.

127

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 128

The listening comprehension materials were informational texts containing geographic description of the southern and northern poles of the Earth. Both the materials had similar and contrastive features. This is reflected in the vocabulary and sentence structure used in both. For example, the opening statement of the Antarctic was “Did you know that

Antarctica is a continent surrounded by ocean?” whereas in “The Arctic” it was “Did you know that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by lands?”Both the paragraphs had equivalent structures and the information provided had overlaps in many cases. In line 3 of both the passages similar information was given. In “The Antarctic” it was “The name of Antarctica comes from the Greek word ‘Arktikos’— meaning ‘bear’, or ‘near the bear’”. In the Arctic the word ‘Antarctic’ was replaced by ‘arctic’ as both the names originate from the same root word ‘Arktikos’. The table below shows a comparative analysis of both the listening materials.

Table 6.2

Listening comprehension materials

The Antarctic The Arctic

1. Did you know that Antarctica is a continent 1. Did you know that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by ocean? surrounded by lands?

2. It is a large ice covered area located at the 2. It is a large area located at the northern part of the southern part of the globe. globe.

3. The name of Antarctica comes from the Greek 3. The name ‘Arctic’ comes from the Greek word word ‘Arktikos’— meaning ‘bear’, or ‘near the ‘Arktikos’— meaning ‘bear’, or ‘near the bear’. bear’.

4. It is geographically the opposite from the Arctic. 4. It is geographically the opposite from the

Antarctic.

5. In Antarctica, icebergs are released from glaciers 5. In the Arctic icebergs are seasonally released and shelf ice all the year round. from glaciers.

128

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 129

6. The icebergs are measured in cubic kilometres. 6. The icebergs are measured in cubic kilometres.

7. Interestingly enough, sea ice forms at its borders 7. In the Arctic, sea ice builds up over several years annually and doubles the size of the continent in and the region stays the same size all the year winter. round.

(No equivalent/contrastive sentence about the 8. The largest water body in the Arctic is the Arctic

Antarctic used here) Ocean comprised of sixteen seas altogether.

8. Over 97% of the Antarctic land is covered by the 9. Here, land ice is found in limited areas, the unbroken South Polar ice sheet. largest being the Greenland ice sheet.

9. It contains about 69% of the world’s fresh water. (No equivalent/contrastive sentence about the Arctic

used)

10. Elevation at the South Pole is 2835 metres 10. Elevation at the North Pole is 0.91 metres of sea above sea level, although the mother rock is only ice and the mother rock is located 427 metres below

30.4 metres above sea level, this makes Antarctica sea level. the highest of all continents.

11. Antarctica, as you may know, is the coldest 11. The annual temperature at the North Pole is - continent on the Earth, the annual temperature at 17.8°Celcius on average. this place is -50°Celcius on average.

12. You may call Antarctica a true desert, as just 7 12. The Arctic’s rainfall is very low as less than 50 centimetres of rain water falls here annually. centimetres of rain water falls here annually.

13. The land has continuous daylight during the 13. The land has continuous daylight during the summer and continuous darkness during the winter. summer and continuous darkness during the winter.

14. Antarctica is, as you may know, a clean and 14. The Arctic is comparatively clean, although pollution free continent, its snow and ice are the certain pollution issues are threatening the purest in the world. environment and the health of people living around

these pollution sources.

15. There is no Tundra or tree lines in this continent. 15. In the Arctic the Tundra or tree lines is well

developed and marked by a bushy line of plants.

16. You may be surprised to know that there are no 16. Not surprisingly, plenty of land animals such as land animals that live here. polar bears, reindeer, foxes, wolves, and many more

live here.

129

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 130

17. The marine animals include whales, porpoises 17. The marine animals include whales, seals, and seals. porpoises, and some amphibious animals.

18. There is no record of human beings living in 18. There are records of human beings living on

Antarctica. continents all around the Arctic for a very long time.

19. Human population south of 60°S is rare and 19. The human population north of 60°N is more happens at scattered scientific stations. than two million with modern settlements.

20. Until today, people have not exploited the 20. This place is widely exploited for its natural natural resources from this land. resources and technological development.

21. The most famous resident of the Antarctic is the (no equivalent/contrastive sentence about the Arctic penguin; seventeen types of penguins live in used)

Antarctica.

22. The first crossing of the Antarctic Circle was by 21. The first crossing of the Arctic Circle is

James Cook in 1773. prehistoric, that is a time before recorded history.

23. The Antarctic—truly an amazing region. 22. The Arctic—truly an amazing region to know

about.

There were 23 sentences in “The Antarctic” whereas in “The Arctic” there were 22 sentences. The information provided in both of them was mostly contrastive in nature, except for some similarities in lines 6 and 13 of each passage. There were two relevant sections of information provided about Antarctica in “The Antarctic” that did not have any equivalent sentence in “The Arctic”. In line 9, information about Antarctica’s reserve of most of the world’s fresh water was given, and in line 21 information about the most famous residents of

Antarctica was provided. In “The Arctic” in line 8, information about how the arctic has been formed was provided. “The Antarctic” and “The Arctic” were recorded in Australian,

Chinese and Russian accented English and they were used for three single accent conditions or low contextual inference conditions and six multiple accented conditions or high contextual interference conditions.

130

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 131

6.2.5 Background of Speakers for Voice Recording

Nine female speakers from three linguistic backgrounds were recruited for voice recording of their reading of the texts for this experiment. Among the participants, three were native Australian females, three Russian females, and three Chinese females. All the participants were studying different postgraduate courses at UNSW. Each participant was paid AU$30 for their participation.

Before recording, the 9participants were given a copy of the reading materials to practice. They were given some general instructions for voice recording. They were instructed to speak comprehensibly at a normal pace. They were not supposed to speak in an

‘imposed’ or artificial way. The speakers were also instructed to speak in a reasonably neutral and natural accent of English; to keep the distinct tone, pitch, stress marks, and interrogative tones of the accent of English they normally used. The recordings of the listening materials were made in a soundproof room using a noise reduction voice recorder. The recordings were transferred to cassettes and played using a cassette player.

6.2.6 Total Listening Time for the Two Acquisition Phases

Table 6.3

Total listening time for both the acquisition phases in three single accent conditions

The Antarctic The Arctic Accent

Speaker Time(in Speaker Time (in

minutes and minutes and

seconds) seconds)

Australian A 2.55 A 2.50

B 2.32 B 2.20

131

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 132

C 2.27 C 2.24

A 2.47 A 2.58 Chinese B 2.54 B 2.55

C 2.48 C 2.48

A 2.27 A 2.30 Russian B 3.02 B 3.02

C 2.30 C 2.32

Table 6.4

Total listening time for both the acquisition phases in six multiple accent conditions

132

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 133

The Antarctic The Arctic Accent Speaker Time (in Speaker Time (in minutes and minutes and

seconds) seconds) Australian A 2.55 Australian A 2.53 A-C-R Chinese A 2.58 Chinese A 2.59 Russian A 2.32 Russian A 2.30 Australian A 2.55 Australian A 2.53 A-R-C Russian A 2.49 Russian A 3.00

Chinese A 2.58 Chinese A 2.59

CA-R Chinese A 2.58 Chinese A 2.59 Australian A 2.55 Australian A 2.53 Russian A 2.34 Russian A 2.37 C-R-A Chinese A 2.58 Chinese A 2.59 Russian A 2.27 Russian A 2.30 Australian A 2.55 Australian A 2.53 R-AC Russian A 2.27 Russian A 2.30 Australian A 2.55 Australian A 2.53 Chinese A 2.58 Chinese A 2.59 R-C-A Russian A 2.27 Russian A 2.30 Chinese A 2.58 Chinese A 2.59 Australian A 2.55 Australian A 2.53

Table 6.4 summarises the novelty and familiarity of listening comprehension materials, accents and speakers used for the two phases of the experiment.

Table 6.5

The characteristics of the listening comprehension materials

Phases Acquisition phase Test phase

133

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 134

Listening Materials A new listening task A new listening task

Accent/Accents A novel accent/ Familiar

accents accent/accents

Speakers Novel speakers Familiar speakers

6.2.7 Classroom Experimental Procedure

The present experiment was divided into two sections: the first was the ‘acquisition phase’ and the second one was the ‘test phase’. In the experiment there were two tests, one during the acquisition phase and the other during the test phase. The test is called a

‘knowledge test’ because, during the test students wrote down what they remembered from the listening comprehension materialfrom memory.

After the student participants settled down (2 min), they were given handouts including vocabulary, questionnaire, and activity handouts (1 min). The instruction was orally provided to the participants for 2 minutes. After this instruction, they turned over the 1st handout, practicing the 13 items vocabulary list from English to Bengali for 10 minutes. After vocabulary practice, with an interval of one minute, students listened to the listening comprehension by three female speakers with a single accent (in the three single accent conditions)or multiple accents (in the six multiple accent conditions)English accents. The time spent on listening is indicated in Table 6.3. After listening, students turned over the

2ndhandout, filled in the task effort and cognitive load questionnaire for two minutes. After responding to the questionnaire they turned over the 3rd handout and took the 10 minutes

134

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 135 knowledge test. The knowledge test was presented to each class rather than individually.

Finally handouts were collected (2 min). The total time needed for the acquisition phase was

38 minutes. Learners were given a break of ten minutes before starting the test phase.

The acquisition phase and test phase had a similar classroom procedure. The test phase followed the same sequencing of classroom instruction of acquisition. The total time for this experiment was 1 hour 34 minutes.

The classroom experimental procedure for one of the single accent conditions (the Russian- accented English) is shown in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6

The classroom experimental procedure for the acquisition and the test phase for Russian- accented English

The Acquisition Phase

Steps Classroom Procedure Time

Students settle down 2 min

Handouts are provided Handouts consist of vocabulary, questionnaire and activity for 1 min

acquisition and test.

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and 2 min

procedure of the experiment.

Vocabulary practice Students practice vocabulary items of the Antarctic from 10 min

English to Bengali.

Listening to “The Students listen to the listening material in Russian-accented 2.32sec

Antarctic” English by Speaker A. They do not take any notes while they

listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to “The Students listen to “The Antarctic” in Russian-accented 3.04

Antarctic” Englishby Speaker B. They do not take any notes while they sec

135

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 136

listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to “The Students listen to “The Antarctic” in Russian-accented 2.34

Antarctic” Englishby Speaker C. They do not take any notes while they sec

listen.

Subjective rating Students turn over the second handout; fill in the task effort and 2 min

questionnaire mental load questionnaire. The first question was How difficult

was the accent to understand, and the second question was how

difficult was the material to understand. The questionnaire had a

nine point Likert scale starting from very, very easy to very,

very difficult.

Knowledge test Students turn over the third handout; write down what they 10 min

remember from the listening comprehension in Bengali.

Total time for acquisition 38 min

Break Students relax during the time. 10 min

The Test Phase

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and 1 min

procedure of the experiment.

Vocabulary practice Students turn over the fourth handout, practice vocabulary items 10

of the Arctic from English to Bengali.

Listening to “The Arctic” Students listen to “The Arctic” in Russian-accented English by 3.33sec

Speaker A. They do not take any notes while they listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to “The Arctic” Students listen to “The Arctic” in Russian-accented English by 2.53

Speaker B. They do not take any notes while they listen. sec

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to the “The Students listen to “The Arctic” in Russian-accented English by 2.37

Arctic” Speaker C. They do not take any notes while they listen. sec

Subjective rating Students turn over the fifth handout; fill in the task effort and 2 min

questionnaire mental load questionnaire. The first question was How difficult

136

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 137

was the accent to understand, and the second question as how

difficult was the material to understand. The questionnaire had a

nine point Likert scale starting from very, very easy to very,

very difficult.

Knowledge test Students turn over the sixth handout; write down what they 10 min

remember from the listening comprehension in Bengali.

Handouts collected Experiment is over, handouts are collected with thanks. 2 min

Total time for the test 37 min

Total time for the 1 hr 35

experiment min

The classroom experimental procedure for one of the multiple accent conditions (A-

C-R-accented English) is shown in Table 6.7. The classroom experimental procedures for the experimental conditions were similar, except for that fact that, the listening time in each of the accent conditions varied slightly(in the three single and six multiple accented conditions, shown in Table 6.3), due to the individual differences present in the speaker’s speech processing and articulation pattern. In the present experiment the multiple accent conditions were counterbalanced so as to have homogeneity in research methodology.

Table 6.7

137

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 138

The classroom experimental procedure for the acquisition and the test phase in A-C-R accented English

The Acquisition Phase

Steps Classroom Procedure Time

Students settle down 2 min

Handouts are provided Handouts consist of vocabulary, questionnaire and activity 1 min

for acquisition and test.

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and 2 min

procedure of the experiment.

Vocabulary practice Students practice vocabulary items of “The Antarctic” from 10 min

English to Bengali.

Listening to “The Students listen to the listening material by Speaker A in 2.54sec

Antarctic” Australian-accented English. They do not take any notes

while they listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to “The Students listen to “The Antarctic” by Speaker A in 2.47 sec

Antarctic” Chinese-accented English. They do not take any notes

while they listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to “The Students listen to “The Antarctic” by Speaker A in 2.27 sec

Antarctic” Russian-accented English. They do not take any notes

while they listen.

Subjective rating Students turn over the second handout; fill in the task effort 2 min

questionnaire and mental load questionnaire. The first question was how

difficult it was to understand the accent, and the second

question was how difficult it was to understand the

material. The questionnaire had a nine point Likert scale

starting from very, very easy to very, very difficult.

Knowledge test Students turn over the third handout; write down what they 10 min

remember from the listening comprehension in Bengali.

138

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 139

Total time for acquisition 38 min

Break Students relax during the time. 10 min

The Test Phase

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and 1 min

procedure of the experiment.

Vocabulary practice Students turn over the fourth handout; practice 10 10

vocabulary items of “The Arctic” from English to Bengali.

Listening to “The Arctic” Students listen to the listening material by Speaker A in 2.50sec

Australian-accented English. They do not take any notes

while they listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to “The Arctic” Students listen to “The Arctic” by Speaker A in Chinese- 2.58 sec

accented English. They do not take any notes while they

listen.

Break Students take a break for one minute. 1 min

Listening to the “The Students listen to “The Arctic” by Speaker C in Russian- 2.30 sec

Arctic” accented English. They do not take any notes while they

listen.

Subjective rating Students turn over the fifth handout; fill in the task effort 2 min

questionnaire and mental load questionnaire. The first question was how

difficult it was to understand the accent, and the second

question as how difficult it was to understand the material.

The questionnaire had a nine point Likert scale starting from very, very easy to very, very difficult.

Knowledge test Students turn over the sixth handout; write down what they 10 min

remember from the listening comprehension in Bengali.

Handouts collected Experiment is over, handouts are collected with thanks. 2 min

Total time for the test 36 min

Total time for the 1 hr 34 min

139

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 140

experiment

Before listening to the acquisition comprehension passage and doing the knowledge test, the participants practiced some vocabulary items from English to Bengali to (a) familiarise themselves with the topic and also, (b) to support retrieving the knowledge test in

Bengali. Empirical studies show positive relations between learners’ vocabulary knowledge and a number of aspects of their language ability, such as aspects of listening comprehension

(Bonk, 2000; Kelly, 1991), speaking performance (Daller, van Hout & Treffers-Daller,

2003), reading comprehension (Laufer, 1992; Qian, 2002), and written performance (Engber,

1995; Laufer & Nation, 1995). However, in this study, there was no test to check their understanding of the vocabulary items. The vocabulary items were only used as a procedural device to increase students’ familiarity with the context of the listening comprehension passages. There were 13 vocabulary items in the acquisition phase and 11 items in the test phase.

6.2.8 Measuring Student Performance

For the knowledge test performance scores (retention of what the students remember from the listening comprehension passage), and a nine-point Likert cognitive load subjective rating scales of acquisition and tests were used to measure the differences between acquisition conditions.

The students answered the knowledge test in their first language, which was Bengali.

The rationale was that they were being tested for their listening comprehension skills in

English, not their written skills in English. The 9-point mental load and cognitive load questionnaire was given right after listening as they responded to the accent/accents and task difficulty for listening comprehension.

140

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 141

6.2.9 Marking Criteria for Listening Comprehension

The answer scripts of the listening comprehension passages were marked by two experienced EFL university lecturers teaching in Bangladesh. The ethnic origin of the two university lectures was Bengali. Both the markers taught Foundation courses in English at universities. Due to the specific nature of the marking scheme of the present experiment, the markers were instructed in detail to follow the specific criteria. Each knowledge test was marked out of 20. The marking criteria for the activity are described below.

1. Five marks were allocated for information retrieval reflecting the amount of

information the listener retrieved from the listening comprehension.

2. For the effect of accent, 5 marks were allocated. If no such evidence was

found, the participant was given an average score equivalent with (a)

information retrieval and (b) overall understanding of the text. The markers

considered two interrelated factors for marking this item, Bengali

orthography and transliteration in Bengali. Firstly, corresponding to the

pronunciation of the English word, in Bengali orthography words and

sentences are written verbatim according to how it is heard in English,

although it follows a particular spelling pattern. Secondly, the way the

speakers speak their first language influences how they transliterate spoken

and written texts from English to Bengali. Therefore, when checking

whether accent influenced the retrieval in Bengali it was assumed that if the

participant misspelt any English word/words while writing it/them in

Bengali, or wrote a different meaning of any word or sentences from what

was spoken in the listening comprehension passage while transliterating any

words/sentences; and if the markers thought that the deviation from the

141

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 142

original words/sentences was due to the effect of accent/accents, they could

deduct some marks allocated for this item.

3. Five marks were allocated for chronology or consistency, i.e. writing the

passage down from beginning to end.

4. Five marks were assigned for an overall understanding of the listening

comprehension passage.

5. The last item in the scale was associated with the inappropriate use of

schemata. If a student wrote any information which had not been in the

actual listening, a maximum of 2 marks was deducted from the total the

person scored in the test.

6.3 Results

Data were analysed in three steps. Firstly, a Pearson correlation analysis was used to demonstrate inter-rater reliability between the raters for marking both the knowledge tests in both the conditions. For intra-rater reliability Cronbach’s alpha analysis was conducted. The knowledge test scores were obtained by combining the means of both the raters in both the experimental conditions. Secondly, a9 (accent conditions: Australian; Chinese; Russian; A-C-

R; A-R-C; C-A-R; C-R-A; R-A-C; and R-C-A) X 2 (expertise levels: high expertise and low expertise) ANOVA was conducted on knowledge test scores for both acquisition and test conditions. Following significant interactions, simple effect tests were conducted on the nine accent conditions to understand the effect of accent in each of the individual conditions for both expertise levels. Thirdly, a 9X2 analysis were carried out on mental load ratings for retention and tests to estimate any difference in perceived difficulty in understanding the individual accent conditions learners had been exposed to which may contribute to an explanation for the learner performance in the retention and test conditions. Following

142

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 143 significant interactions, simple effect tests were conducted on the nine accent conditions to understand the effect of accent in each of the individual conditions for both the expertise levels. The .05 level of significance was used throughout this thesis unless otherwise specified.

There were 69 participants in single accents groups and 132 participants in multiple accents groups. Among these participants, 106 were in low expertise groups and 95 participants were in high expertise groups. Participant distribution is shown in Table 6.1.

6.3.1 The Acquisition Phase

A Pearson correlation demonstrated a high level of inter-rater reliability, r (201) = .91 for 12 items. The internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s Alpha which was .81 for rater 1, and .80 for rater 2, showing a high level of internal consistency. The mean and SD for rater 1 was 10.00(3.65) for 5 items (the five items mentioned in the marking scheme in

6.2.9of this report. The 6th item is the total score). For rater 2 the mean and SD was 10.00

(3.70) for 5 items.

The means and standard deviations of knowledge test scores in the acquisition condition are shown in Table 6.8. In acquisition, the accent conditions had a significant effect, F (8,183) = 2.18, MSe = 9.12, p = .03, partial = .08. Expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect in the retention task, F (1,183) = 46.63, MSe = 9.12, p <.001, partial = .20. However, there was no significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (8,183) = 1.77, MSe = 9.12, p = .08, partial = .07.

143

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 144

Table 6.8

Means and SDs of knowledge test performance scores for acquisition phase

Accent Australian Chinese Russian A-C-R A-R-C C-A-R C-R-A R-A-C R-C-A conditions Low(n) 15 8 13 16 13 9 12 6 14 High(n) 11 13 9 6 4 15 12 15 10

Means and 8.00(2.70) 10.30(2.95) 8.00(3.18) 9.01(3.55) 5.60(2.54) 9.44(1.68) 7.22(3.26) 9.10(2.75) 10.00(3.73) SDs 11.63(3.14) 12.60(3.54) 9.60(2.82) 10.33(4.78) 10.75(3.43) 11.90(2.78) 13.91(2.47) 11.70(2.22) 12.22(2.33)

6.3.1.1 Task effort and mental load questionnaire for the acquisition phase.The task effort and mental load questionnaire had two items. The first item was about the accent/accents and the second item was about the listening comprehension material. It used a nine point

Likert scale starting from ‘very, very easy’ to ‘very, very difficult’. The questionnaire immediately followed listening to the comprehension so as to reflect the cognitive load the students experienced while listening.

6.3.1.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of the mental load for the accent/accents. The means and standard deviations of the subjective rating questionnaire for the first item can be found in Table 6.8. For the task effort and mental load questionnaire for item 1, accent conditions were not significant, F (8, 183) = .96, MSe = 1.47, p= .47, partial = .04. The expertise levels were not significantly different, F (1, 183) = .38, MSe =

1.47, p =.56, partial = .00. However, a significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels was found, F (8, 183) = 2.89,

MSe = 1.47, p <.01, partial = .11. Following the significant interaction nine simple effect tests were carried out to determine the causes for the

144

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 145 interaction. These results indicate that the significant interaction was due largely to a significant difference between experts and novices in the Australian-accented single accent condition.

Simple effect tests for the single accent conditions. Simple effect tests for the three single accent conditions are discussed below. The simple effect tests tested differences between expertise levels.

Australian-accented English.This single accent condition had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 24) = 21.10, MSe = .77, p <.001, partial = .48.

Chinese-accented English.This accent condition did not have any significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 19) = .05, MSe = 2.00, p = .81, partial = .00.

Russian-accented English.This accent condition did not have any significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 20) = .02, MSe = 1.80, p = .87, partial = .00.

Simple effect tests for multiple accent conditions. Simple effect tests for the six multiple accent conditions for acquisition condition are discussed below. The simple effect tests were tested for expertise levels.

A-C-R-accented English. This multiple accent condition did not have any significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 20) = .41, MSe = .68, p = .21, partial = .07.

A-R-C-accented English. This accent condition did not have a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 15) = 4.04, MSe = 1.83, p = .06, partial= .21.

C-A-R-accented English. This accent condition did not have a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 22) = 2.92, MSe = 1.44, p = .10, partial = .11.

C-R-A-accented English. This multiple accent condition did not have a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 22) = .28, MSe = 1.30, p = .60, partial = .01.

145

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 146

R-A-C-accented English. This multiple accent condition did not have a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 19) = 1.90, MSe = 1.21, p = .18, partial = .10.

R-C-A-accented English. This multiple accent condition did not reveal any significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 22) = .74, MSe = 2.70, p = .40, partial = .03.

Figure 6.1

Interaction effect between accent conditions and expertise levels for item 1 of the questionnaire for acquisition phase

The simple effect test for item 1 of the questionnaire for acquisition phase indicate that only Australian-accented English had a significant effect between the expertise levels during acquisition, the rest of the accent conditions did not have any significant effect between expertise levels in the acquisition phase. Hence, the interactional effect was due to the Australian-accented high expertise students’ indicating a significantly lesser cognitive

146

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 147

load for comprehending the accent condition than the low expertise students’ listening to the same accent.

6.3.1.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of the mental load for the listening comprehension material. The means and standard deviations of the subjective rating questionnaire for the second item can be found in Table 6.8. For the mental load questionnaire for item 2, the accent conditions (for the listening comprehension material) was significant, F (8, 183) =

2.55, MSe = 1.50, p <.01, partial = .10. The expertise level was not significantly different,

F (1, 183) = 1.78, MSe = 1.50, p =.18, partial = .01. Also, there was no significant interaction between accent condition (for the listening comprehension material) and expertise levels, F (8, 183) = .46, MSe = 1.50, p= .88, partial = .02.These results indicate that accent conditions had significant effect although expertise levels were not significant and there was no significant interaction between accent conditions and listening comprehension material for this item of the questionnaire.

Means and SDs of the nine-point Likert scale subjective rating questionnaire for items 1 and

2 for the acquisition condition are shown in Table 6.9 in the next page.

147

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 148

Table 6.9

Acquisition means and SDs of item 1 and 2 of subjective rating questionnaire

Accent Exp(n) Australian Chinese Russian A-C-R A-R-C C-A-R C-R-A R-A-C R-C-A conditions Expertise Low(n) 15 8 13 16 13 9 12 6 14 levels High(n) 11 13 9 6 4 15 12 15 10 Mean and L 4.00(.92) 5.00(1.70) 5.54(1.12) 5.06(.68) 5.31(1.43) 5.33(1.32) 5.17(1.33) 5.33(.81) 4.71(1.60) SD for H 5.64(.80) 5.15(1.21) 5.44(1.60) 4.67(.51) 3.75(.95) 4.47(1.12) 5.42(.90) 4.60(1.18) 5.30(1.70) Item 1 Mean and L 4.80(1.20) 4.50(1.41) 5.50(1.20) 4.75(.68) 4.62(1.26) 5.00(1.11) 5.00(1.34) 4.20(1.00) 4.00(1.35) SD for H 4.40(.80) 3.92(1.11) 4.90(1.45) 4.33(1.21) 4.75(2.36) 4.60(1.35) 5.25(1.28) 3.70(1.11) 4.30(1.20) Item 2

After acquisition phase the students were tested with similar accent/accents but with different listening comprehension materials. The results of the test phase are discussed next.

6.3.2 The Test Phase

For the test a Pearson correlation showed a high level of inter-rater reliability between the markers r (201) = .91 for 12 items. The internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s Alpha. Rater 1 had .82 and rater 2 had .81, showing a high level of internal consistency. The mean and SD for rater 1 was 11.06(3.5) for 5 items. For rater 2 the mean and SD was 11.11(3.50) for 5 items.

148

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 149

The means and standard deviations of the knowledge test scores for the testing condition can be found in Table 6.10.In the retention task of the test the accent conditions had a significant effect F (8, 183) = 2.61, MSe = 7.50, p <.01, partial = .10. The expertise levels also had a highly significant effect, F (1, 183) = 83.64, MSe = 7.50, p <.001, partial = .31.

The interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels was also significant, F (8,

183) = 2.73, MSe = 7.50, p <.01, partial= .10. Following the significant interaction nine simple effect tests were carried out to determine the causes for the interaction.

Simple effect tests for single accent conditions. The simple effect tests of knowledge test performance scores for the three single accent conditions for the test phase are discussed below. The simple effect tests were tested between expertise levels.

Australian-accented English. This accent condition had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 24) = 8.83, MSe = 8.00, p <.01, partial = .26.

Chinese-accented English. This accent condition did not have a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 19) = 3.43, MSe = 8.80, p = .08, partial = .15.

Russian-accented English. This accent conditions had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 20) = 5.14, MSe = 8.80, p = .03, partial = .20.

Simple effect tests for multiple accent conditions. The simple effect tests for the six multiple accents conditions for the test phase for expertise levels are discussed below.

A-C-R-accented English. This accent conditions had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 20) = 12.04, MSe = 7.13, p <.01, partial = .37.

A-R-C-accented English. This accent condition had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 15) = 11.40, MSe = 9.00, p <.01, partial = .43.

C-A-R-accented English. This accent condition had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 22) = 15.18, MSe= 3.82, p <.001, partial = .40.

149

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 150

C-R-A-accented English. This accent condition had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 22) = 35.86, MSe =10.00, p<.001, partial

= .62.

R-A-C-accented English. This accent condition had a significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 19) = 5.76, MSe = 6.70, p = .02, partial

= .23.

R-C-A-accented English. This accent condition did not have any significant effect for expertise levels, F (1, 22) = 1.46, MSe = 6.00, p =

.24, partial = .06.

The simple effect tests for the testing condition reveal that except for the R-C-A-accented English the rest of the accent conditions had significant effects between expertise levels.

Table 6.10

Means and SDs of knowledge test performance scores for the test phase

Accent Exp(n) Australian Chinese Russian A-C-R A-R-C C-A-R C-R-A R-A-C R-C-A conditions Expertise Low(n) 15 8 13 16 13 9 12 6 14 levels High(n) 11 13 9 6 4 15 12 15 10

Mean and Low 9.40(3.00) 11.30(3.50) 8.25(3.40) 10.10(2.55) 6.83(3.26) 10.55(2.41) 7.35(3.73) 9.20(2.73) 11.00(2.47) SD High 12.70(2.53) 13.75(2.61) 11.20(2.23) 14.50(3.00) 12.62(1.50) 13.80(1.63) 15.10(2.45) 12.20(2.52) 12.22(2.39)

150

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 151

Figure 6.2

Interaction effect of knowledge test performance scores for accent conditions and expertise levels in the test phase

The interaction effect for the comprehension performance in the test phase was due to the three single and five multiple accent conditions, except for the R-C-A-accented English.

In these accent conditions the high expertise groups outperformed their single accent counterparts in knowledge test performance scores.

6.3.2.1Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire for the Test Phase

There were two items in the task effort and mental load questionnaire. The first question was about the accent conditions and the second question was about the listening comprehension material. For the cognitive load questionnaire, a nine point Likert scale starting from ‘very, very easy’ to ‘very, very difficult’ was used. Following is a discussion of the findings of these two items of the questionnaire. 151

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 152

6.3.2.1(a) Item1:Self ratings of mental load for the accent/accents. The means and standard deviations of the item 1 of the questionnaire for the testing condition can be found in

Table 6.10.For the mental load questionnaire for item 1, accent was found to be significant, F

(8, 183) = 3.71, MSe = 1.90, p <.001, partial = .14. Expertise levels was found to be significant, F (1, 183) = 7.51, MSe = 1.90, p <.01, partial = .03. There was a significant interaction between accent and expertise levels, F (8, 183) = 3.07, MSe = 1.90, p <.01, partial

 = .11.Following the significant interaction nine simple effect tests were carried out to determine the causes for the interaction.

Simple effect tests for the single accent conditions. The simple effect tests for the three single accents conditions for the test are discussed below. The simple effect tests were tested between expertise levels.

Australian-accented English. Expertise levels was found to be significant for

Australian- accented English, F (1, 24) = 11.23, MSe = 1.55, p <.01, partial = .31.

Chinese-accented English. Expertise levels was not significant for Chinese-accented

English, F (1, 19) = .73, MSe = 2.32, p = .40, partial = .03.

Russian-accented English. Expertise levels was not significant for Russian-accented

English, F (1, 20) = .47, MSe = 3.30, p = .50, partial = .02.

Simple effect tests for multiple accent conditions. The simple effect tests for the six multiple accents conditions for the test are discussed below.

A-C-R-accented English. Expertise levels was not significant for A-C-R accented

English, F (1, 20) = 2.00, MSe = 6.37, p = .09, partial = .14.

A-R-C-accented English. Expertise levels was significant for A-R-C accented English,

F (1, 15) = 6.15, MSe = 1.03, p = .02, partial = .29.

C-A-R-accented English. Expertise levels was significant for C-A-R accented English,

F (1, 22) = 10.44, MSe = 1.10, p <.01, partial = .32.

152

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 153

C-R-A-accented English. Expertise levels was not significant for C-R-A accented

English, F (1, 22) = 3.31, MSe = 1.81, p = .08, partial = .13.

R-A-C-accented English. Expertise levels was not significant for R-A-C accented

English, F (1, 19) = 1.68, MSe = 2.10,p = .21, partial = .08.

R-C-A-accented English. Expertise levels was not significant for R-C-A accented

English, F (1, 22) = .95, MSe = 2.74, p = .33, partial = .04.

Figure 6.3

Interaction effect between accent conditions and expertise levels for item 1 of the cognitive load questionnaire for test phase

153

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 154

Simple effect tests for item 1 of the questionnaire revealed that expertise levels had a significant effect for Australian-accented English, and for A-C-R; A-R-C; C-A-R and C-R-A-accented English. In these accent conditions the high expertise students had a lesser mental load for processing the accent/accents than the low expertise students. The rest of the accent conditions were not significant for expertise levels.

6.3.2.1(b) Item 2: Self ratings of the mental load for the listening comprehension material. The means and standard deviations of the knowledge test scores for the testing condition can be found in Table 6.11. For the mental load questionnaire for item 2, accent conditions (for the listening comprehension material) was found to be significant, F (8, 183) = 2.08, MSe = 1.80, p=.04, partial = .08. There was a significant difference for expertise levels, F (1, 183) = 5.40, MSe = 1.80, p= .02, partial = .02. However, the interaction between accent conditions (for the listening comprehension material) and expertise levels was not significant, F (8, 183) = 1.86, MSe = 1.80, p= .06, partial = .07.

Table 6.11

Means and SDs of item 1 and 2 of subjective rating questionnaire of the test phase

Accent Exp(n) Australian Chinese Russian A-C-R A-R-C C-A-R C-R-A R-A-C R-C-A conditions Expertise Low(n) 15 8 13 16 13 9 12 6 14 levels High(n) 11 13 9 6 4 15 12 15 10 Mean and L 4.80(1.14) 5.13(1.80) 4.77(1.36) 4.88(1.31) 4.70(1.03) 5.22(1.30) 6.08(1.24) 5.50(1.64) 4.57(1.60) SD for H 6.45(1.36) 4.54(1.33) 5.22(1.71) 3.67(1.63) 3.25(.95) 3.80(.86) 5.08(1.44) 4.60(1.35) 3.90(1.72) Item 1

Mean and L 5.00(1.00) 4.88(1.45) 4.38(1.12) 4.63(1.08) 4.54(1.26) 5.11(1.16) 5.75(1.05) 4.17(.98) 4.00(1.35) SD for H 5.73(1.48) 3.85(1.28) 4.90(1.61) 4.00(1.78) 4.75(1.70) 3.60(.98) 4.75(1.42) 3.67(1.11) 4.30(1.16) Item 2

154

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 155

6.4 Discussion

Although the main 9X2 analyses obtained significant effects, including interaction effects in the test, they did not support the hypotheses of the experiment. The hypotheses for this experiment were that for the novice learners a single accented condition would exhibit greater comprehension than a multiple accented condition, and for the high expertise learners a multiple accented condition would exhibit greater comprehension than a single accented condition. These results were not obtained. The significant simple effect tests did not support the hypotheses.

The possible reasons that may have led to these results are discussed below.

1. The groups’ distribution across the three participating institutions were not equal

in ability although the scale used for labelling them as low and high expertise

groups was based on the participants’ HSC English scores. Hence, the significant

simple effect tests could be due to factors unrelated to the hypotheses of the

experiment.

2. The three participating universities were not equal in terms of academic strength

and performance. University A was the topmost university in Bangladesh.

University B and C had a mediocre standard in terms of educational excellence. In

other words, students’ belonging to educational institutions that did not have equal

academic strength may have contributed to having the unequal group distributions

leading to selection bias. We can consider selection bias into account for not

getting results in the expected direction.

3. The students were doing English language courses with three different instructors,

one in each of the three participating universities. However owing to the two

aforementioned reasons (a chance factor causing selection bias) the results varied

greatly.

155

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 156

Due to the aforementioned causes we may assume that a few accent groups were challenged to encode and analyse the contextual interference materials which was “intrinsic to the speech in working memory” Gao et al., (2013, p. 658) to construct the necessary schemata during the processing of the accent variations. Taken together, both the single and multiple accents conditions could not make significant impacts on the adaptation to the variable English accented inputs as they were unable to successfully understand and interpret the texts. Hence, the expertise levels of the learners and variability of accents did not have a significant impact on the performance scores and mental load of the participants.

6.5 Conclusions

The main goal of this experiment was to investigate the accent variability effect using contextual interference materials either in a blocked order or in random order with high and low prior knowledge groups of students. To compare the two contextual interference conditions, the comprehension performance scores of blocked order groups (single accent conditions) were compared directly with the random order groups (multiple accents). In

Experiment 1, the results revealed that the performance scores and mental load between the low expertise learners’ performance in single accent conditions and high expertise learners’ performance in multiple accent conditions may not have been sufficiently large to support the hypotheses of the study. As a result, the students in high contextual interference condition did not significantly outperform students listening in low contextual conditions on acquisition and test phases. The results of this experiment did not support previous studies on the variability effect (such as De Croock, van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Magill & Hall, 1990;

Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Van Merriënboer, Schuurman, De Croock & Paas, 2002;

Sweller, 2010a, b; and Gao et al., 2013) possibly due to a chance factor or selection bias.

156

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 157

In Experiment 2 the variable materials were presented in the same manner as this experiment with some changes in methodology. In the present experiment(Experiment 1), in the single accented condition both the expertise levels found Russian-accented English most difficult as they produced the lowest scores in the test. It was also found that in multiple accents condition, the performance was the highest when the last accent had been Australian- accented English. This shows that this combination of accents had two different effects.

Experiment 2 emphasised these accents to test whether an expertise reversal effect might be obtained.

157

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 158

Chapter 7: Experiment 2

7.1 Introduction

The aim of Experiment 2 was to design instructions in an attempt to reduce the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect in listening comprehension tasks within a

CLT framework. To reach this aim, the present experiment examined task performance and cognitive load (Sweller, 2010; Sweller &van Merriënboer et al., 1998)while acquiring listening comprehension skills of different accents of English. The experiment was conducted using university undergraduates with a versatile pool of English language backgrounds.

Among the participants there were students who learnt English as a foreign language as well as students who learnt English as their native language.

The accent variability effect, a component of the variability effect may happen by altering intrinsic cognitive load in instructional design from a CLT perspective. Hence two accent conditions were used for this experiment; namely Russian-accented English and

Russian and Australian-accented English, with three levels of expertise groups, assuming that the three levels of expertise groups may experience the accent variability effect according to the cognitive load vested on their working memory. It can be predicted that increased variability will be beneficial to more expert learners but that the advantage will reverse for less expert learners. Hence, the experiment may yield an expertise reversal effect as effective application of the instructional procedure (high or low variability accent conditions) depends on students’ levels of expertise.

158

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 159

7.2 Method of the Experiment

Within the cognitive load theory framework for Experiment2, two main hypotheses were generated. Thus:

1. For the low expertise learners a single-accented condition would obtain higher

scores on a listening test than a dual-accented condition.

2. For the high expertise learners a dual-accented condition would obtain higher

scores on a listening test than a single-accented condition.

The present experiment was designed using two of the accents that were used for

Experiment 1. The reason for having Russian-accented English for this experiment was that, in Experiment 1 both the expertise levels found it the most difficult, and their performance scores and mental load ratings also reflected that processing this accent was especially challenging for the participants. In the present experiment, for the dualaccent condition, the participants listened to Russian-accented English first. A reason for having Australian- accented English at the tail end ofthe listening sequence was that in Experiment 1, it was found that in multipleaccents condition performance was the highest when the last accent had been Australian-accented English. For example, in C-R-A-accented English, the mean and

SD was15.08 (2.46) for the high expertise group (the highest performance scores for the test), however it was 7.35(3.73) for the lowexpertise group (the lowest performance scores for the test phase) (Table 6.10). This shows that this combination of accents had two different effects on the two expertise levels. Hencefor this experiment it was assumed that having Australian- accented English may reveal a similar finding on a different population, andthat more able students may benefit more and less able learners may benefit less from this combination of accents.

Among the three accents used for Experiment 1, the reason for not using Chinese- accented English for the present experiment is that this accent is widely used by most of the

159

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 160 international undergraduates in Australia as a large number of Chinese students come to

Australia to study different higher degree courses. A reason for having Australian English for the dual accent condition is that it is the L1 of all the native Australian students; moreover the international students listen to this accent too. However, listening to Australian-accented

English in combination with a novel accent may still challenge the listeners as they not only listen to the accents, while listening they would need to construct relevant schemata to automate for later retrieval.

Research shows that experience with accented speech improves perceptual accuracy

(Bradlow & Bent, 2003; Clarke, 2000; Weil, 2001; Wingstedt & Schulman, 1987). Also,

Bradlow, Akahane-Yamada, Pisoni and Tohkura (1999) opined that “adult phonetic system is plastic and thus capable of undergoing linguistically meaningful modifications”(p. 978).

Studies investigating listener adaptation to variable speakers and accents are many. In numerous studies however, speaker identification has been the primary focus (such as

Bradlow & Bent, 2008; Lively et al., 1993; Logan et al., 1991; Gao et al., 2013). There exist other studies that recognisethe effects of accented speech (such as Akasaka, 2009; Anderson-

Hsieh & Koehler, 1988; Arslan & Hansen, 1996; Faria, 2006; Flege, 1984; Magen, 1998;

Ikeno & Hansen, 2007). Learner expertise has been one of the determinant factors with designing instructions within a CLT framework, and previous studies such as Gao et al.,

(2013) also found ‘expertise dependent’ speaker-specific effect and accent-specific effect, with Chinese FL learners listening to foreign-accented English to comprehend listening comprehension materials.

160

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 161

7.2.1 Similarities and Differences between Experiment 1 and 2

Although this experiment used the same listening comprehension passages and two of the accent conditions used in Experiment 1, these two experiments have some intrinsic differences as well. These fundamental shifts in procedure were made depending on availability of research participants, the characteristics of each of the expertise levels, and feasibilityfactors such as the amount of time required from each research participant for participation. Hence, it was crucial to reasonably design classroom instructional procedure.

Below is a discussion of the differences between Experiment 1 and 2 in three categories: place where the experiments were conducted, population and classroom procedure.

Table 7.1

Differences between Experiment 1 and 2

Ite Categories Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Reason for change ms

1. Where the This experiment was This experiment was For working with

experiment conducted with conducted with monolingual EFL

s were Bangladeshi first year undergraduates studying at students, Experiment 1

conducted undergraduates in Dhaka, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. was conducted in Dhaka,

Bangladesh studying These undergraduates were Bangladesh. For working

different undergraduate local and international with multilingual local

courses at three different students completing and international

universities. different undergraduate students, Experiment 2

courses at the university. was conducted in

Sydney, Australia.

2.a. Population The first language of all Two groups, namely low Between Experiment 1

: these participants was and high expertise groups and 2,the students had

Orientation Bengali; they learnt learnt English as a foreign various linguistic

161

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 162

to English English as a foreign language in countries of orientations in terms of

language language. their origin and the third English language

group, which comprised of learning.

local Australian students,

learnt English as one of

their native languages.

These local students were

born and/or raised in

Australia and most of them

spoke different first

languages at home as their

parents migrated to

Australia from different

countries. b. Population The participants were The participants were The two different scales

: divided into two divided into three expertise were used to determine

Determinin expertise groups levels according to their the expertise of the

g expertise according to their HSC orientation in English. The participating students for

levels score in English. The Foundation Course both of the experiments,

English score of low- students were categorised according to feasibility

expertise participants as a low expertise group as and convenience for the

ranged within 2.49 - 3.74 they were quite new to an classification.

in the HSC; whereas for Australian academic

the high-expertise environment. The

participants it was within highexpertise groups were

3.75 - 5. international

undergraduates who have

been studying

undergraduate courses at

UNSW. Hence these

162

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 163

students are studying in

Australia for a reasonable

length of time. The very

highexpertise participants

were local students who

were born and brought up

in Australia and have been

studying in Australian

educational institutions

throughout their academic

life. c. Population The three accents were For the single and dual No students of Russian

: novel to all the accented condition, no origin were recruited in

Orientation participants. students with Russian Experiment 2. On the

to accent background were other hand, familiarity

variations recruited. However in with Australian accent

thedual accented was common to all

condition, all students students in Experiment 2.

were familiar with the

Australian accent.

3.a Classroom There were three There were one single and Experiment 1 had a

procedure: singleaccented one dualaccented holistic approach to

Accent conditions and six conditions used in this accent variability and its

conditions multipleaccented experiment. research design

conditions used in this encompassed a wider

experiment. population.

Alternatively, the second

experiment had lesser

accent conditions but

more expertise levels.

163

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 164

Due to time constraints

for Experiment 2,

research design was kept

to a basic level where we

observed specific effects

of a particular accent on

the target population. b. Classroom These participants These participants listened In Experiment 1 three

procedure: listened to each listening to each of the listening accents were used. In

Exposure comprehension passage comprehension passages multiple accents

to listening for three times, either in twice, either in a single condition each listening

comprehen a singleaccent or in three accent or in two different comprehension passage

sion different accents. accents. was played once in each

passages accent, whereas in

singleaccents condition

the listening

comprehension passages

were played three times

by three female speakers

in the same accent. With

Experiment 2 in

dualaccent condition, the

listening comprehension

passages were played

twice in two different

accents; whereas in

singleaccent condition,

the listening

comprehension passages

were played twice in the

164

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 165

same accent by two

different speakers. c. Classroom Before listening they These participants did not In Experiment 1 as

procedure: practiced vocabulary have vocabulary practice. students would retrieve

Vocabular from English to Bengali. the listening

y comprehension in

Bengali after listening,

they needed to

familiarise themselves

with the translation of

some of the key words in

Bengali. In Experiment 2

the three levels of

expertise groups had

different L1s, and it was

not feasible to translate

words into different

languages. Hence, these

students did not have

bilingual vocabulary

practice. d. Classroom With exception to the Classroom instruction was WithExperiment 1

procedure: listening of the listening in English for all the instruction was

Language comprehension passages participants. conducted in Bengali, the

used for in different accents of L1 of the students, as it

instruction English, the rest of the was expected that they

classroom instructional would be exposed to

procedure had been accent variations through

conducted in Bengali, the listening materials

which was the first only. Hence, to enhance

165

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 166

language of all these their understanding of

participants. instructional procedure,

instruction was delivered

in Bengali. For

Experiment 2, English;

the lingua franca was

used to have a common

platform for classroom

instruction. Due to

similar reasons

mentioned above,

classroom instruction

was conductedin English. e. Classroom The participants wrote The participants wrote In Experiment 1, the

procedure: down the knowledge test down the knowledge test reasonthe students

Language in Bengali. in English. retrieved the listening in

used for Bengali was that they

retention were being tested for

tests listening comprehension

capability, not their

writing capability. In

Experiment 2 the writing

was in English as we

needed a common lingua

franca for marking the

written knowledge test. It

was feasible to check the

scripts of the

multilingual students in a

common language used

166

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 167

by all.

The experimental procedure for this experiment is discussed below.

7.2.2 Participating Institution

This experiment was carried out at the University of New South Wales. The lowexpertise participants were studying Foundation Courses at the university. The high and very highexpertise participants were studying different undergraduate courses at the university. The study required about fifty minutes of each student’s time. The experiments were conducted in the School of Education at UNSW for the high and veryhigh expertise groups. For the lowexpertise groups, they were conducted within UNSW Global at the

UNSW Institute of Languages.

7.2.3 Participant Distribution

A total of 87 participants were tested for this experiment. There were 29 participants for the lowexpertise group, 15 in singleaccented condition and 14 in dualaccented condition.

There were 29 participants for the highexpertise group, 15 in singleaccented condition and 14 in dual accented condition. Additionally, there were 29 participants in the very highexpertise group consisting of 14 participants in the singleaccented group and 15 participants in the dualaccented group. A total of 44 participants were in the singleaccented condition and 43 students in the dualaccented condition.

7.2.4 Low and High Prior Knowledge Groups

The low and high expertise groups were determined by participants’ orientation to

English learning environments.

167

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 168

7.2.4.1The low expertise participants. These students were studying Foundation courses at

UNSW. It was the first semester of their study. The ethno-linguistic background of 95% of the students was from China, with a few others having backgrounds from countries such as

Hong Kong, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Cambodia. The students were majoring in commerce and engineering degree streams. The first languages of most of them were Chinese. These participants’ first languages represent the mainstream languages spoken in these countries.

The age of these participants was between 17-20 years and they had learnt English for 6-8 years.

The low expertise students were studying Foundation courses prior to entering undergraduate courses at UNSW. These students were intending to major in engineering and commerce degrees upon completion of Foundation courses. The students were studying the

Standard Program ofthe Foundation Course. All of them either fulfilled the entry requirement for the English proficiency test (which was a 5.5 overall band in IELTS with consistent sub- scores in listening, speaking, reading and writing skills); or they had equivalent scores in some other proficiency tests such as TOEFL, A Levels or GCE. The students had strong results in years 11or 12at high school. The Chinese students, for example, had 80 per cent scores over main academic subjects in Middle 3 or year 12 in high school. Students from other FL countries such as Hong Kong, Cambodia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and such, studying the Foundation Course fulfilled equivalent English language proficiency criteria for enrolling into the course. The Foundation Course students who were classed as novices were contacted through the Principal of the Foundation courses at UNSW.

168

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 169

Table 7.2

English language proficiency requirements for UNSW Foundation Course

Expertise Stream Accent condition English language proficiency Low Commerce and Single accent 5.5 overall band in Engineering IELTS with 5.0 sub- Low Commerce and Dual accent scores in listening, Engineering speaking, reading and writing

7.2.4.2 The high expertise participants. These students were studying different undergraduate courses at UNSW. 80% of them came from Malaysia, 10% from Brunei Dares

Salam, 5% from China and 5% from Indonesia. The first languages of these participants represented the mainstream languages spoken in the countries they came from. Most of the participants were majoring in engineering degrees, and thereafter in commerce degrees. The age group of these participants was between 19-23 years and they had learnt English for 15-

18 years on average.

7.2.4.3 The very high expertise participants. These students were also studying different undergraduate courses at UNSW. All of these native Australian students were born and/or brought up in Australia. Three of them were born overseas but raised in Australia from early childhood. These participants had different first languages, 70% were Bengali, 25%

Arabic and 5% consisted of Indonesian, Pakistani and Chinese origin Australians. Most of their first languages represented the countries their parents came from, except for a few who used English at home. The age of these participants was between 19-23 years and they had learnt English for 15-18 years on average.

169

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 170

None of the students reported a speech or hearing impairment during the experiment.

The participation was voluntary and none of the participants were given any incentive for taking part. The international and local undergraduates who were classed as experts volunteered for participation by responding to an advertisement inviting the students to participate in the study. This experiment did not recruit students with a Russian background to participate in the study.

7.2.5 Listening Comprehension Materials

This experiment used the same listening comprehension materials as was used for

Experiment 1. In this experiment participants listened to the listening comprehension materials twice with a break of one minute in between. A CD player was used to play the recordings for all the experimental conditions.

In the single accent condition, accent variability was lowered by positioning problems

(i.e. the same accent) next to each other. This required the same set of skills for solution, such as familiarisation with the articulation pattern of the specific accent by the two female speakers. For these participants, listening to the same listening material in the same accent by two different female speakers involved adjusting their receptive skills to the articulation differences in the voices of the same accent.

On the other hand, in the dual accent condition, accent variability was increased by positioning problems (i.e. accent combinations) in a random order. This involved familiarisation with the articulation difference between the two accents spoken by two female speakers. While listening, the dualaccent students had to constructa schema for the articulation pattern of both accents, and to do it first of all while listening to Russian-accented

English, they had to internalise the distinct pronunciation, stress and intonation; thereby developing a schema of the articulation pattern of the Russian-accented English. Later, while

170

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 171 listening to the same material in Australian-accented English, students had to readjust their listening skills to the articulation pattern of Australian-accented English. By contrasting the pronunciation differences between the two accents; variability was increased for the dual accent groups.

Inthe low variability condition, the material was produced in a singleaccented sequence (R-R). In contrast, with the high variability condition, the listening material was produced in a dualaccented sequence (R-A) by linking together listening to the same listening comprehension passage in both the accents.

The low, high and very highexpertise students were exposed to listening comprehension through one (in the singleaccent condition)or two different accents (in the dualaccent condition). Like Experiment 1, the listening comprehension materials used in this experiment were “The Antarctic” (for the acquisition phase) and “The Arctic” (for the test phase). Hence, the listening comprehension text for the test phase had been tailored to have comparable features with the listening text used for acquisition phase. A detailed discussion of the listening comprehension materials can be found in 6.2.4.

171

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 172

7.2.6 Total Listening Time for the Two Accent Conditions

Table 7.3 summarises the total listening time for both the accent conditions.

Table 7.3

Total listening time for the experiment

Accent The Antarctic The Arctic

Speaker Time (in Speaker Time (in

minutes and minutes and

seconds) seconds)

Russian- and Russian A 2.32 A 3.33

Australian Australian A 2.55 A 2.53

Russian Russian A 2.32 A 2.33

Russian B 3.04 B 2.55

Two female speakers’ voices were recorded for Russian-accented English. They were labelled as Speaker A and Speaker B for the single accent condition. For the dual accent condition the voice of Speaker A of Russian-accented English, and the voice of Speaker A of

Australian accented English was used. The same female voices were used for boththe listening comprehension materials for the acquisition and the test phase.

7.2.7 Russian and Australian-accented English

The discussion on phonological features such as the place and manner of articulation of vowel and consonant sounds, together with pronunciation norms such as intonation, stress and rhyming patterns of Russian-accented English and Australian English, can be found in

Chapter 4, sections 4.4 and 4.2of the thesis.

172

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 173

7.2.8 Voice Recording for Listening Comprehension Materials

One Australian female and two Russian female voices were used for this experiment.

The same female voices were used for Experiment 1also. The three females (one Australian female and two Russian females), were studying different postgraduate courses at UNSW.

The participants were provided with some general instruction before voice recording. They were instructed to speak comprehensibly at a normal pace. They were not supposed to speak in an ‘imposed’ or artificial way. Each speaker was also instructed to speak in a reasonably neutral and natural accent of English; to keep the distinct tone, pitch, stress marks, interrogative and exclamatory tones of the accent of English she normally used. The recordings of the listening materials were made in a soundproof room using a noise reduction voice recorder. The recordings were transferred to CDs for playing in the classes.

7.2.9 Classroom Experimental Procedure

After the student participants settled down (2 min), they were given handouts including questionnaire and activity handouts (1min). The instruction was orally provided to the participants for 2 minutes. After instruction students listened to the listening comprehension by two female speakers in a single or in dual accents of English with a break of 1 minute in-between. After listening, students turned over the 1st handout, filled in the task effort and cognitive load questionnaire for 2 minutes. After responding to the questionnaire they turned over the 2nd handout and took the 10 minute knowledge test. Finally handouts were collected (1 min). The total time needed for the acquisition phase was 24 minutes.

Learners were given a break of five minutes before starting the test phase of the present experiment.

In the test, after instruction the students listened to both the listening comprehension passages in the specific accent/accents with a break of one minute in-between. After listening

173

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 174 they responded to the task effort questionnaire for 2 minutes. Following that they took the knowledge test for 10 minutes. Handouts were collected thereafter for 1 minute. The total time for the experiment was 50 minutes.

Classroom experimental procedures for the single and dual accents conditions are discussed in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.

Table 7.4

Classroom experimental procedure for the single accent conditions

Steps Procedure Time

Students settle down 2 min

Handouts are provided Handouts consist of questionnaire and activity for 1 min

acquisition and test.

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose 2 min

and procedure of the experiment.

Listening to the first Students listen attentively to the listening material 2.32sec

listening by Speaker A. They do not take any notes while

comprehension they listen.

material “The

Antarctic” for

acquisition in Russian-

accented English

Break Between both of the listening materials there is a 1 min

break for 1 minute.

Listening to the second Students listen attentively to the same listening 3.04 sec

listening material by Speaker B. They do not take any notes

comprehension while they listen.

material “The

174

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 175

Antarctic” for

acquisition in Russian-

accented English

Cognitive load Students turn over the first handout; fill in the task 2 min

questionnaire effort and mental load questionnaire. The first

question was “How difficult was the accent to

understand?”, and the second question was “How

difficult was the material to understand?” The

questionnaire had a nine point Likert scale rating,

starting from very, very easy to very, very difficult.

Knowledge test Students turn over the second handout; write down 10 min

what they remember from the listening in English.

Break 5 min

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose 1 min

and procedure of the experiment.

Listening to the first Students listen attentively to the listening material 3.33sec

listening by Speaker A. They do not take any notes while

comprehension they listen.

material “The Arctic”

for the test in Russian-

accented English

Break Between both of the listening materials there is a 1 min

break for 1 minute.

Listening to the second Students listen attentively to the same listening 2.53 sec

listening material by Speaker B. They do not take any notes

comprehension while listening occurs.

material “The Arctic”

for the test in Russian-

accented English

Cognitive load Students turn over the third handout; fill in the task 2 min

175

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 176

questionnaire effort and mental load questionnaire. The first

question was “How difficult was the accent to understand?”, and the second question was “How

difficult was the material to understand?” The

questionnaire had a nine point Likert scale rating

starting from very, very easy to very, very difficult.

Knowledge test Students turn over the 4th handout; write down what 10 min

they remember from the listening in English. Handouts collected Experiment is completed, handouts are collected 1 min

with thanks.

Total time 50 minutes

176

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 177

Table 7.5

Classroom experimental procedure for the dual accents conditions

Steps Procedure Time

Students settle down 2 min

Handouts are Handouts consist of questionnaire and activity for 1 min provided acquisition and test.

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and 2 min procedure of the experiment.

Listening to the first Students listen attentively to the listening material by 2.32sec listening Speaker A. They do not take any notes while they listen. comprehension material “The Antarctic” for acquisition in Russian-accented English Break Between both the listening materials there is a break for 1 1 min minute. Listening to the Students listen attentively to the same listening material by 2.55 sec second listening Speaker A. They do not take any notes while they listen. comprehension material “The Antarctic” for acquisition in Australian-accented English Cognitive load Students turn over the first handout; fill in the task effort 2 min questionnaire and mental load questionnaire. The first question was “How difficult was the accent to understand?”, and the second question was “How difficult was the material to understand?” The questionnaire had a nine point Likert scale rating starting from very, very easy to very, very difficult. Knowledge test Students turn over the second handout and write down 10 min what they remember from the listening in English. Break Between acquisition and test, students take a break for five 5 min minutes. Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and 1 min

177

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 178

procedure of the experiment. Listening to the first Students listen attentively to the listening material by 3.33sec listening Speaker A. They do not take any notes while they listen. comprehension material “The Arctic” for the test in Russian-accented English Break Between both ofthe listening materials there is a break for 1 min 1 minute. Listening to the Students listen attentively to the same listening material by 2.53 sec second listening Speaker A. They do not take any notes while they listen. comprehension material “The Arctic” for the test in Australian-accented English Cognitive load Students turn over the third handout; fill in the task effort 2 min questionnaire and mental load questionnaire. The first question was “How difficult was the accent to understand?”, and the second question was “How difficult was the material to understand?” The questionnaire had a nine point Likert scale rating, starting from very, very easy to very, very difficult. Knowledge test Students turn over the fourth handout; write down what 10 min they remember from the listening in English. Handouts collected Experiment is completed, handouts are collected with 1 min thanks. Total time 50 minutes

No feedback was provided to the participants at any time during the experiment.

7.2.10 Measuring Student Performance

The knowledge test performance scores (retention of what the students remembered from the listening comprehension passage), and nine-point Likert cognitive load subjective rating scales of acquisition and tests, were used to measure the differences between

178

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 179 acquisition conditions. The nine-point scale started from ‘very very easy’ to ‘very very difficult’.

The students answered the knowledge test in English. The 9-point mental load and cognitive load questionnaire was given right after listening as they responded on the accent and task difficulty for the listening comprehension. Students’ performance was measured in this experiment in the same way as Experiment 1 of this thesis.

7.2.11 Marking Criteria of listening comprehension

The scripts were marked by two experienced English language teachers, teaching

English in Foundation courses in Australia. They used a four point criteria scheme for each of the answers for the activity. Each knowledge test was marked out of 15. The marking criteria for the knowledge tests are described below:

1. 5 marks were allocated for information retrieval reflecting the amount of

information the listener retrieved from the listening comprehension.

2. 5 marks were allocated for chronology or consistency, i.e. writing the passage

down from beginning to end.

3. 5 marks were assigned for an overall understanding of the listening

comprehension passage.

4. This item in the scale was associated with the inappropriate use of schemata. If a

student wrote any information which was not given in the actual listening, a

maximum of 2 marks was deducted from the total the person scored in the

knowledge test.

179

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 180

7.3 Results

The final knowledge test scores were obtained by taking the means of the total scores of both the raters for marking scripts. Secondly, a 2 accent conditions (Russian-accented English and

Russian and Australian-accented English) x 3 expertise levels (low, high and very high expertise) ANOVA was conducted on knowledge test scores for both acquisition and test conditions. And thirdly, a 2X3 analysis was carried out on mental load ratings to estimate any difference in perceived difficulty, in order to understand the individual accent conditions learners had been exposed to. Following significant interactions in acquisition, simple effect tests were conducted on the mental load ratings of accent conditions to understand the effect of these for the three expertise levels. The .05 level of significance is used throughout this thesis unless otherwise specified.

7.3.1 The Acquisition Phase

A Pearson correlation demonstrated a high level of inter-rater reliability, r (87) = .90 for acquisition. The internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s alpha, which was .83 for both the raters, showing a high level of internal consistency.The mean for rater 1 was 8.68 and SD was 2.74 for 4 items (the four items mentioned in marking criteria in 7.2.11 of this report). For rater 2 the mean was 6.01 and SD 2.94 for 4 items. The means of total scoresbetween rater 1 and rater 2were analysed for the main 2X3 analysis.

The means and standard deviations of acquisition performance scores can be found in

Table 7.6. The 2X3 ANOVA shows that in acquisition the accent conditions had a significant effect, F (1, 81) = 6.69, MSe = 2.63, p <.01, partial n2= .07. Expertise levels of the students

180

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 181 had a significant effect in the retention task, F (2, 81) = 67.40, MSe = 2.63, p<.001, partial n2= .62. There was a significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, F

(2, 81) = 4.30, MSe = 2.63, p<.01, partial n2= .09. Following this significant interaction, simple effect tests were carried out to determine the causes of the interaction.

Low expertise groups. The accent conditions did not have a significant effect for the lowexpertise groups, as the single and dualaccented groups did not have any significantlydifferent knowledge test performance scores, F (1, 27) = .34, MSe = 4.27, p =

.56, partial n2= .01.

High expertise groups.The dual accented condition did not obtain significantly higher scores in knowledge test performance than the single accented condition, F (1, 27) = 3.68,

MSe = 2.51, p = .06, partial n2= .12.

Very high expertise groups.The dual accented condition obtained significantly higherperformance scores than the single accented condition in the knowledge test, F (1, 27)

= 26.57, MSe = 1.11, p <.001, partial n2= .49.

Table 7.6 Acquisition means and SDs for knowledge test

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (15) 4.74(2.21) Low expertise(14) 4.30(1.90)

High expertise (15) 7.92(1.95) High expertise(14) 9.05(1.05)

Very high expertise 8.05(1.46) Very high expertise 10.07(.40) (14) (15)

181

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 182

Figure 7.1

The interaction effects between the three expertise levels and two accent conditions for knowledge test performance scores

The results indicate that in the simple effect tests the low and high expertise groups did notattain any significant difference between the single and dual accent conditions on the knowledge test scores in acquisition. The very highexpertise groups had significant effects for knowledge test performance scores in the knowledge tests. Hence, the interactional effect was due to the very high expertise group’s greater performance scores in the dual accented condition in this phase.

7.3.1.1 Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire: the Acquisition Phase

The task effort and mental load questionnaire had two items, the first item was about the accent and the second item was about the listening comprehension material. Students

182

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 183 rated their cognitive load in a nine-point Likert scale questionnaire starting from ‘very very easy’ to ‘very very difficult’. Following is the discussion of the subjective ratings for acquisition.

7.3.1.1(a) Item 1: Self ratings of mental load on the accent/accents. The means and standard deviations of the first item of the questionnaire can be found in Table 7.7. In this item the students were asked how difficult it was to understand the accent/accents. In acquisition phase, accent conditions were found to be significant; F (1, 81) = 5.79, MSe =

1.68, p = .01, partial n2= .06. The expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect, F (2, 81) = 7.67, MSe=1.68, p <.001, partial n2= .15. Also, a significant interaction was found between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (2, 81) = 3.26, MSe=1.68, p =

.04, partial n2= .07. Following the significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, simple effect tests were conducted to determine the causes for the interaction.

Low expertise groups.For the task effort and mental load questionnaire for item 1,

(“How difficult it was to understand the accent?”), accent conditions were not significantly different for low expertise learners, as the single and dualaccent groups had comparable mental loads for this item;F (1, 27) = .31, MSe=2.46,p = .57, partial n2= .01.

High expertise groups. For the highexpertise learners this item of the questionnaire was found significant as the dualaccent group found accent conditions markedly easier than the singleaccent group, F (1, 27) = 10.28, MSe =1.12, p<.01, partial n2= .27.

Very high expertise groups. This item was found significant for the very high expertise groups as the dual accented group found the accent condition significantly easier than the singleaccent group, F (1, 27) = 5.76,MSe =1.44, p = .02, partial n2= .17.

183

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 184

Table 7.7

How difficult it was to understand the accent/accents

Means and SDs of item 1 of the mental load questionnaire

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (15) 5.60 (1.80) Low expertise (14) 5.93(1.26)

High expertise (15) 5.33 (1.17) High expertise (14) 4.07(.91)

Very high expertise 5.07(1.32) Very high expertise 4.00 (1.06) (14) (15)

Figure 7.2

Interaction effect between two accent conditions and three expertise levels for item 1 of the cognitive load questionnaire

The cognitive load of students after listening to the accented English was measured using a nine-point Likert scale questionnaire starting from ‘very very easy’ to ‘very very

184

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 185 difficult’. The lowexpertise groups had similar mental load ratings for processing the two accent conditions. The high and very highexpertise groups had lower mental load for processing the accents than the lowexpertise groups. Also, the high and very high expertise single accent individuals found the accent harder than their dual accent counterparts. Hence, the significant interaction was due to the high and very high expertise groups’ significantly different mental load ratings for this item of the questionnaire.

7.3.1.1(b) Item 2: self rating of mental load on the listening comprehension material. The means and SDs for the second item of the questionnaire can be found in Table

7.8. This item was about the listening comprehension material where students rated how difficult it was for them to understand the listening comprehension material. For the mental load questionnaire the accent conditions (for the listening comprehension material), were not significant; F (1, 81) = .90, MSe =1.96, p = .34, partial n2= .01. Expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect, F (2, 81) = 6.52, MSe =1.96, p <.001, partial n2= .13.

However, there was no significant interaction between accent conditions (for the listening comprehension material) and expertise levels, F (2, 81) = .78, MSe =1.96, p = .46, partial n2=

.01.

Table 7.8

How difficult it was to understand the listening comprehension material

Means and SDs of item 2 of the mental load questionnaire

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and SDs conditions (n) (n)

Low expertise (15) 4.73 (1.38) Low expertise (14) 4.93 (1.58)

High expertise (15) 3.93(.80) High expertise (14) 3.21 (.97)

Very high expertise 4.00(1.80) Very high expertise 3.67 (1.63) (14) (15)

185

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 186

The cognitive load of students after listening to the accented English was measured using a nine-point Likert scale questionnaire starting from ‘very very easy’ to ‘very very difficult’. In the 2X3 analysis, the expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect, but the accent conditions (for listening comprehension materials) were not significantly different. Also, there was no significant interaction between the accent conditions and expertise levels for listening comprehension materials in the acquisition phase.

7.3.2 The Test Phase

A Pearson correlation demonstrated a high level of inter-rater reliability, r (87) =.88 for the test. The internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s alpha which were .83for both the raters, showing a high level of internal consistency for their marking. The mean for rater 1 was 9.46 and SD was 2.90 for 5 items (the four items mentioned in marking criteria in

7.2.11 of this report. The 5th item is the total score). For rater 2 the mean was 5.97 and SD

2.88 for 5 items.

The means and standard deviations of test performance scores can be found in Table

7.9. The 2X3 analysis of variance shows that in the test, accent condition did not have a significant effect; F (1, 81) = 3.19, MSe =2.27, p = .07, partial n2= .03. Expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect for the retention task, F (2, 81) = 75.75, MSe =2.27, p

<.001, partial n2= .03. A significant interaction was found between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (2, 81) = 3.46, MSe =2.27, p = .03, partial n2= .07. Following this significant interaction three simple effect tests were carried out to determine the causes of the interaction.

Low expertise groups. The accent conditions did not have a significant effect for the lowexpertise groups as the single and dual accent groups did not have any significantly

186

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 187 different performance scores in the knowledge test, F (1, 27) = .74, MSe=3.65, p = .39, partial n2= .02.

High expertise groups. The accent conditions had a significant effect for the high expertise groups as the dual accent group outperformed their single accent counterpart in knowledge test performance scores, F (1, 27) = 5.14, MSe =2.50, p = .03, partial n2= .16.

Very high expertise groups.The accent conditions had a highly significant effect for the very high expertise groups as the dual accent group outperformed their single accent counterpart in knowledge test performance scores, F (1, 27) = 11.30, MSe = .65,p <.001, partial n2= .30.

Table 7.9 Means and SDs of knowledge test performance scores for the test

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and SDs conditions (n) (n)

Low expertise (15) 5.44 (1.96) Low expertise (14) 4.83 (1.84)

High expertise (15) 8.40 (2.00) High expertise (14) 9.72 (.94)

Very high expertise 9.10 (1.03) Very high expertise 10.11 (.51) (14) (15)

187

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 188

Figure 7.3

Interaction effect between two accent conditions and three expertise levels for knowledge test performance scores for the test phase

The results signify that high (including very high) expertise groups performed significantly better in knowledge tests in the dual accent condition than their singleaccent counterparts; whereas the low expertise group in the single accent condition, were not significantly better than their dual accent counterpart. These findings resemble the findings from the acquisition phase for the lower as well as higher ability students.

7.3.2.1 Task Effort and Mental Load Questionnaire: the Test Phase

7.3.2.1(a) Item 1: self ratings of mental load on the accent/accents. The means and standard deviations for the first item of the questionnaire can be found in Table 7.10. In this item the students were asked how difficult it was to understand the accent/accents. In the test,

188

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 189 accent conditions were not significantly different; F (1, 81) = 3.60, MSe =1.52, p = .06, partial n2= .22. The expertise levels of the students were not significantly different, F (2, 81)

= 1.93, MSe =1.52, p = .15, partial n2= .04. There was no significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (2, 81) = 2.36, MSe =1.52, p = .10, partial n2= .05.

Table 7.10

How difficult it was to understand the accent conditions

Means and SDs of Item 1 of the subjective rating questionnaire

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and SDs conditions (n) (n)

Low expertise (15) 4.60 (1.45) Low expertise (14) 4.86 (1.46)

High expertise (15) 5.13 (1.18) High expertise (14) 4.00 (.78)

Very high expertise 4.43 (1.34) Very high expertise 3.80 (1.01) (14) (15)

7.3.2.1(b) Item 2: self rating of mental load on the listening comprehension material. The means and standard deviations for the second item of the questionnaire can be found in Table 7.11. The question was about the listening comprehension material, where students rated how difficult was it for them to understand the listening material. In this item the accent conditions (for the listening comprehension material) were not significantly different, F (1, 81) = 3.23, MSe =1.65, p = .07, partial n2= .03. The expertise levels of the students were not found significantly different, F (2, 81) = 2.30, MSe =1.65, p = .10, partial n2= .05. Furthermore, there was no significant interaction between accent conditions (for the listening comprehension materials) and expertise levels, F (2, 81) = .69, MSe = 1.65, p = .50, partial n2= .01.

189

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 190

Table 7.11 How difficult it was to understand the listening comprehension material

Means and SDs of item 2 of the subjective rating questionnaire

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and SDs conditions (n) (n)

Low expertise (15) 4.27 (1.28) Low expertise (14) 4.14 (1.30)

High expertise (15) 4.20 (1.20) High expertise (14) 3.30 (.82)

Very high expertise 3.71 (1.50) Very high expertise 3.27 (1.48) (14) (15)

7.4 Discussion

This experiment investigated the effectiveness of accent variability for learners having NE and FL backgrounds due to their different ethno-linguistic orientations in the setting of an English speaking country. It tested whether these learners were able to handle the challenges of comprehending the cognitively demanding task of listening to variable- accented English following a similarly structured experimental procedure.

One of the two main hypotheses for this experiment was that the lowexpertise learners would find a single accented condition better than a dual accented condition i.e. they would have higher comprehension of the accent conditions. It was predicted that their mental load would be lesser for the single accented condition compared to the dual accented condition. The second hypothesis was that the high (including very high) expertise learners would find a dual accented condition better than a single accented condition i.e. they would have higher comprehension of the accent conditions, and that their mental load would be lesser in the dual accented condition. It was assumed that all of the participants would perform better in test phases with decreased mental load because of the familiarity of the instructional procedure. The hypotheses were tested by analysing comprehension

190

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 191 performance scores comprising of knowledge test scores and subjective mental load ratings of processing information in two acquisition conditions with different levels of accent variability. The performance results partially supported the major hypotheses of the study.

Regarding the mental load questionnaire, little support was found for using the subjective ratings of cognitive load from the present experiment.

From a CLT perspective, the results can be explained as they partially demonstrate the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect. The variability effect (Sweller,

2010b) due to ‘accent’ variations in this study was optimum when the instructional materials had high variability practice materials with the high (including very high) expertise groups.

However in the simple effect tests, the lowexpertise learners’ performance in knowledge test scores and mental load ratings for the accent conditions and listening comprehension material had comparable means. Hence, the performance scores for bothof the low expertise groups did not reveal any statistically significant difference due to accent variability. In contrast to the lowexpertise groups, the accent variability materials enhanced performance scores for the highexpertise groups (including very high), due to their higher expertise in English.

Although in the present experiment the number of elements was increased by using variable accents in listening comprehension materials, the variability under high variable conditions may not be higher than under low variability conditions for the high and very high expertise learners; as these people had the ability to process the variability elements involved in the different accents simultaneously, leading to a partial expertise reversal effect (Kalyuga et al., 2003; Sweller, 2010b). Accent variability materials, due to the many interacting elements within them, may be considered as a single element for the higherability learners, whereas the same elements may be considered as relatively separate elements for the lowerability learners. In a CLT framework it is seen that after sufficient practice the schemas can become automated and facilitate comprehension without any conscious control over the

191

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 192 subject. The experiment revealed an expertise reversal effect as high variability listening comprehension materials were easier for the high (and very high) expertise groups whereas low variability (single accent) listening comprehension materials were not easier for the lower expertise learners. Such findings of this experiment supported Scheiterand Gerjets

(2007) findings on using variable materials leading to the expertise reversal effect.

It can be speculated that the two high expertise groups found the dual accent condition easier than the lowexpertise individuals, as for them the element interactivity was decreased due to two reasons: first, being proficient in English they rapidly adapted to the significant acoustic phonetic deviations in the listening comprehension materials, and second; providing a familiar accent of English in the dual accent conditions. Such findings are reported in Ikeno and Hansen (2007) and Weber et al., (2011), where they found that learner background influenced adaptation to foreign-accented English. Ikeno and Hansen (2007) reported the effect of listener background in perceiving accents which they found made a profound impact on their ability to categorise accents. Hence, the interaction between listener accent background and speaker accent type is crucial for accent perception and speech comprehension. Weber et al., (2011) reported that foreign-accented words can facilitate word recognition if the foreign-accented production is quite similar to the participant’s L1 background or the foreign-accent is perceptually confusable with the standard pronunciation of L2 listeners. This may therefore explain the findings of the present experiment.

It can be argued that while designing instruction with variable accents, sequencing the accents in tuition can play important roles, such as which accent goes first and what the subsequent accents are. Factors also depend on the English language orientations of the particular participants the accents are going to be tested on. From the findings of this experiment it can be speculated that the presence of Australian-accented English (which was familiar to the participants) at the tail end of the sequence optimised performance while

192

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 193 decreasing the mental load. We can assume that schema automation of the auditory information through this transition from one accent to the next in dualaccent condition has contributed in lessening the mental load and thereby has minimised element interactivity.

7.5 Conclusions

The variability of materials, when designed in line with novice as well as expert learners’ cognitive mechanisms, permitted learners to become capable of extracting accent- independent global adaptations when listening to English, even if they were exposed to variable accents of the language. The experimental findings supported the hypothesis that highexpertise learners found training in a dualaccented condition was easier than a singleaccent of English. However, the lower ability single and dualaccented students did not have significantly different performance scores in acquisition and test, nor did they have any markedly different mental load ratings for accent conditions and listening comprehension materials.

As found in this experiment and in the Gao (2012) and Gao et al., (2013) studies, adaptation to variable accents was dependent on the learner’s prior knowledge in English.

This experiment also confirmed the Weber et al., (2011), and Ikeno and Hansen (2007) studies expounding that the presence of a familiar accent contributed to better performance in a perceptual accent and intensified instructional procedures. We can conclude from the findings of this experiment that a partial accent variability effect and also, a partial expertise reversal effect occurred with the high (including very high) expertise groups when the instruction was designed using variable listening comprehension materials in a CLT framework.

193

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 194

Chapter 8: Experiment 3

8.1 Introduction

The aim of Experiment 3 was to design instruction to further study the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect in listening comprehension tasks. To test the hypotheses, Indian-accented English was used for the single accent conditions and Indian and Arabic-accented English was used for the dualaccent conditions. To reach this aim, it examined knowledge test performance and cognitive load in accent conditions and listening comprehension materials (Sweller, 2010b; Sweller &van Merriënboer et al., 1998) during acquiring listening comprehension in different accents of English.

8.2 Method of the Experiment

To test the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect, this experiment generated two major hypotheses:

1. For the low expertise learners a single-accented condition wouldobtain higher scores

on a listening test than a dual-accented condition.

2. For the high expertise learners a dual-accented condition would obtain higher scores

on a listening test than a single-accented condition.

It is necessary to outline the similarities and differences between Experiment 2 and

Experiment 3 in terms of research methodology.

Differences: Experiment 3 departs from Experiment 2 in terms of using two novel accents of English. The accents used in Experiment 3 were Indian-accented English and

Arabic-accented English.

194

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 195

Similarities: The listening materials used for Experiments 1, 2 and 3 remained as the same text, “The Antarctic” for acquisition phase and “The Arctic” for the test phase.

Listening time for each of the listening texts also remained the same. The classroom procedure for Experiments 2 and 3 was also duplicated. Like Experiment 2, in Experiment 3; three expertise levels of students were used, namely lowexpertise, highexpertise and very highexpertise groups.

Research shows that experience with accented speech improves perceptual accuracy

(Bradlow & Bent, 2003; Clarke, 2000; Weil, 2001; Wingstedt & Schulman, 1987).

Furthermore, studies investigating listener adaptation to variable speakers and accents are many. In several of these studies however, speaker identification has been the primary focus

(such as Bradlow & Bent, 2008; Lively et al., 1993; Logan et al., 1991; Gao et al., 2013).

Other studies thatrecognisethe effects of accented speech are Akasaka (2009); Anderson-

Hsieh and Koehler (1988); Arslan and Hansen (1996); Faria (2006); Flege (1984); Magen

(1998); and Ikeno and Hansen (2007). Learner expertise has been one of the determinant factors with designing instruction within a CLT framework, and previous studies such as Gao et al., (2013) identified expertise dependent speaker-specific effect and accent-specific effect, with Chinese FL learners listening to foreign-accented English tounderstand listening comprehension materials. A partial accent variability effect and also, a partial expertise reversal effect were identifiedin Experiment 2 of this thesis also.

8.2.1 Accent Conditions

In Experiment 2 of this study it was found that the single accent condition was not easier for the low expertise students, whereas the dual accent condition was easier for the high (including the very high) expertise students. In that experiment, Russian-accented

English was used for the singleaccent condition and Russian and Australian-accented English

195

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 196 was used for the dual accent condition. From the results it was possible that the presence of

Australian-accented English may have caused the superior performance and lesser cognitive load for the dual accent conditions. Hence, for this experiment, two new accents were chosen:

Indian-accented English and Arabic-accented English. These two accents are rare in the instructional settings of educational institutions within Australia. Both the accents used for this experiment were pronounced differently from each other, and each carried traces of their own pronunciation norms embedded in its own culture of origin.

An understanding of both the accents used for this experiment is necessary. The discussion on acoustic and phonetic characteristics outlining the distinct features these two accents of English carry, in order to better understand the phonetic properties of accents intrinsic to this experimental procedure; can be found in Chapter 4.

8.2.2 Participating Institution

This experiment was carried out at the University of New South Wales. The lowexpertise participants were studying Foundation courses at the university. The high and very highexpertise participants were studying different undergraduate courses at the university. The study required about fifty minutes of each student’s time. The experiments were conducted in the School of Education at UNSW for the high and veryhigh expertise groups. For the lowexpertise groups, they were conducted within UNSW Global at the

UNSW Institute of Languages.

8.2.3 Participant Distribution

A total of 106 UNSW students participated in this study, among them 58 students were in the dual accent condition and 48 students in the singleaccent condition.

196

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 197

There were 19 students in the low, single accent condition which comprised of 10 students from the commerce stream and 9 students from the physical science stream. In dual accent condition there were 29 students in the low expertise group, which comprised of 15 students studying commerce and 14 students studying physical science.

There were 15 students in the high expertise, single accent condition and 15 students in the high expertise, dual accent condition.

There were 14 students in the very high expertise, single accent condition and 14 students in the very high expertise, dual accent condition.

Three students from the physical science stream in the low expertise, single accent condition, and one student from the physical science stream in low expertise, dual accent condition did not answer the knowledge tests. These students were excluded from the data analysis.

8.2.4 Low and High Prior Knowledge Groups

The low and high expertise groups were determined by participants’ orientation to

English learning environments.

8.2.4.1 Low expertise participants.The ethno-linguistic origin of 80 per cent of these students was from mainland China. The rest of the 20% of students comprised of other nationalities such as Burmese, Colombian, Hong Kong nationals, Indonesian, Malaysian,

Vietnamese, Singaporean, Mongolian and South Korean students, whose first languages generally represented the mainstream languages used in the countries they originated from.

All of them were in the first semester of their study.

The low expertise students were studying foundation courses prior to entering undergraduate courses at UNSW. These students were intending to major in physical science and commerce streams upon completion of the Foundation Course. Both the streams were

197

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 198 studying the standard program. All of them fulfilled the entry requirement of English proficiency, which was a 5.5 band in IELTS with consistent sub-scores or equivalent scores in other English language proficiency tests. They also had strong results in year 11or year 12 in high school. The Chinese students, for example; had an 80 percent score over their main academic subjects in Middle 3 or year 12 of high school. Students from other countries such as Vietnam, Columbia, Kuwait, Myanmar, Indonesia, South Korea and Hong Kong studying the Foundation Course, fulfilled equivalent entry criteria for enrolling into the course. The age of these participants was between 17-20 years and they had learnt English for 6-8 years.

Table 8.1

English language proficiency of the low expertise students

Expertise Stream Accent condition English language proficiency Low Commerce and Single accent 5.5 overall band in

Physical Science IELTS with 5.0 sub-

Low Commerce and Dual accent scores in listening,

Physical Science speaking, reading

and writing

8.2.4.2 High expertise participants. The ethno-linguistic origin of the majority of high expertise international undergraduates participating in this experiment was from China, contributing to 85% of the population. Further to these students, there were students from

Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Japan; the first languages for these students being Mandarin, Cantonese, Malay and Japanese. The highexpertise students were already enrolled in undergraduate degrees majoring in commerce, science and arts and social science subjects such as journalism, economics, and social welfare. The age group of these participants was between 19-23 years and they had learnt English for 15-18 years on average.

198

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 199

8.2.4.3 Very high expertise participants.The very high expertise students were either,

(a) born and brought up in Australia; or (b) they were born overseas and brought up in

Australia from early childhood. They studied in Australian educational institutions throughout. The first language of these local undergraduates was English, and some of them were bilinguals. The bilingual students spoke Mandarin, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Thai and

Malay as their first languages. Similar to the high expertise international undergraduates, they were already enrolled in undergraduate degrees and were studying at different semesters of their degrees; majoring in commerce, science (computer science and medical science), civil engineering, medicine, psychology and arts, and social science subjects such as law and criminology at the university. The age of these participants was between 19-23 years.

None of the students reported a speech or hearing impairment during the experiment.

The students’ participation in the study was voluntary, and none of them were offered any incentive for their participation. The Foundation Course students who were classed as novices were contacted through the Principal of the Foundation Courses at UNSW. The local and international undergraduates who were classed as experts volunteered for participation by seeing the advertisement inviting students to take part in the study. The study required about fiftyminutes of each student’s time. The experiments were conducted in the School of

Education, UNSW for the high and very high expertise groups. For the low expertise groups, the experiment was conducted in UNSW Foundation courses at the University of New South

Wales.

International and local undergraduates who were of Indian descent such as Indian- origin students from Singapore or Malaysia, or students who were from South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India; were not recruited to participate. Similarly, local and international students having an Arabic

199

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 200 background were not recruited except for one student from Kuwait in the low expertise single accent condition. This student listened to Indian-accented English only.

8.2.5 Listening Comprehension Materials

Two listening comprehension passages were used for this experiment. For acquisition phase it was “The Antarctic” and for the test phase it was “The Arctic”. The same materials were used for Experiments 1 and 2. In this experiment participants listened to the listening materials twice with a break of one minute in-between. A CD player was used to play the recordings for all the experimental conditions.

In the low variability condition, the material was produced in a single-accented sequence (I-I). In contrast, with the high variability condition, the listening material was produced in a dual-accented sequence (A-I) by linking together listening to the same listening comprehension passage in both the accents. A detailed discussion of the listening comprehension materials can be found in 6.2.4 and 7.2.5.

8.2.6 Voice Recording for Listening Comprehension Materials

Two Indian and one Libyan female of Arab origin volunteered for recording their voices for the study. The participants were studying different MA degree courses at UNSW.

Before recording, the participants were given a copy of the reading materials to practice. They were also given some general instructions for voice recording. They were instructed to speak comprehensibly and at a normal pace. They were not supposed to speak in an ‘imposed’ or artificial way. The speakers were also instructed to speak in a reasonably neutral and natural accent of English; to keep the distinct tone, pitch, stress marks, and interrogative tones of the accent of English they normally used. The recordings of the

200

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 201 listening materials were made in a soundproof room using a noise reduction voice recorder.

The recordings were transferred to CDs to be played in classes.

8.2.7 Total Listening Time for the Two Acquisition Conditions

Table 8.2

Total listening time for both the accent conditions

Accent The Antarctic The Arctic conditions

Speaker Time (in Speaker Time (in

minutes and minutes and

seconds) seconds)

Indian A 2.38 A 2.38 Indian and Arabic A 2.43 A 2.36 Arabic

Indian A 2.38 A 2.38 Indian Indian B 2.47 B 2.50

Two Northern Indian female speakers’ voices were recorded for Indian-accented

English. One Libyan female speaker’s voice was recorded for the Arabic-accented English.

The Indian speakers were labelled as Speaker A and Speaker B for single accent condition.

For the dual accent condition, the voice of Speaker A of Indian-accented English and the voice of Speaker A of Arabic-accented English were used. The same female voices were used for bothofthe listening materials for the acquisition and the test phase.

201

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 202

8.2.8 Classroom Experimental Procedure

After the student participants settled down (2 min), they were given handouts including the questionnaire, and activity handouts (1min). The instruction was orally provided to the participants for 2 minutes. Following this instruction, students listened to the listening comprehension by two female speakers in a single or in dual accents of English, with a break of one minute in-between. After listening, students turned over the 1st handout, filled in the task effort and cognitive load questionnaire for 2 minutes. After responding to the questionnaire they turned over the 2nd handout and took the 10 minute knowledge test.Finally handouts were collected (1 min). The total time needed for the acquisition was 25 minutes.

Learners were given a break of five minutes before starting the test.

In the test, after instruction the students listened to the listening comprehension passages by two female speakers in a single or in dual accents of Englishwith a break of one minute in between. Thereafter they responded to the self-rating task effort questionnaire for 2 minutes. Following that, they took the knowledge test for 10 minutes. Handouts were collected thereafter for 1 minute. The total time for the experiment was 50 minutes.

The classroom experimental procedures for both the accent conditions are discussed in Tables 8.3 and 8.4.

Table 8.3

Classroom experimental procedures for the single accent conditions

Steps Classroom Procedure Time

Students settle down 2 min

Handouts provided Handouts consisted of questionnaire and activity for acquisition and test. 1 min

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and procedure of the 2 min

experiment.

202

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 203

Listening to the first Students listened to the listening material by Speaker A. They did not 2.47sec listening comprehension take any notes while they listened. material “The Antarctic” for acquisition in Indian- accented English

Break Between both the listening materials there was a break for 1 minute. 1 min

Listening to the second Students listened to the same listening material by Speaker B. They did 2.38 listening comprehension not take any notes while they listened. sec material “The Antarctic” for acquisition in Russian- accented English

Cognitive load Students turned over the first handout; filled in the task effort and mental 2 min questionnaire load questionnaire. The first question related to how difficult it was to

understand the accent, and the second question related to how difficult it

was to understand the material. The questionnaire had a nine point Likert

scale, starting from ‘very, very easy’ to ‘very, very difficult’.

Knowledge test Students turned over the second handout; wrote down what they 10 min

remembered from the listening material in English.

Break Students relaxed during this time. 5 min

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and procedure of the 1 min

experiment.

Listening to the first Students listened to the listening material by Speaker A. They did not 2.50sec listening comprehension take any notes while they listened. material “The Arctic” for the test in Indian-accented

English

Break Between both the listening materials there was a break for 1 minute. 1 min

Listening to the second Students listened to the same listening material by Speaker B. They did 2.38 listening comprehension not take any notes while they listened to the listening material. sec material “The Arctic” for

203

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 204

the test in Indian-accented

English

Cognitive load Students turned over the third handout; filled in the task effort and 2 min questionnaire mental load questionnaire. The first question was “How difficult was it

to understand the accent/accents?”, and the second question was “How

difficultwas it to understand the listening material?”The questionnaire

had a nine point Likert scale rating, starting from ‘very, very easy’ to

‘very, very difficult’.

Knowledge test Students turned over the fourth handout and wrote down what they 10 min

remembered from the listening material in English.

Handouts collected Experiment was done, handouts were collected with thanks. 1 min

Total time 50

minutes

204

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 205

Table 8.4

Classroom experimental procedures for the dual accents conditions

Steps Classroom Procedure Time

Students settle down 2 min

Handouts provided Handouts consisted of questionnaire and activity for acquisition and test. 1 min

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and procedure of the 2 min

experiment.

Listening to the first Students listened to the listening material by Speaker A. They did not 2.38sec listening comprehension take any notes while they listened. material “The Antarctic” for acquisition in Indian- accented English

Break Between both the listening materials there was a break for 1 minute. 1 min

Listening to the second Students listened to the same listening material by Speaker A. They did 2.43 listening comprehension not take any notes while they listened. sec material “The Antarctic” for acquisition in Libyan- accented English

Cognitive load Students turned over the first handout; filled in the task effort and mental questionnaire load questionnaire. The first question was “How difficult was it to 2 min understand the accent/accents?”, and the second question was “How

difficult was it to understand the listening material?” The questionnaire

had a nine point Likert scale rating, starting from ‘very, very easy’ to

‘very, very difficult’.

Knowledge test Students turned over the second handout; wrote down what they 10 min

remembered from the listening in English.

Break Between acquisition and test, students took a break for five minutes. 5 min

Instruction Verbal instruction provided regarding the purpose and procedure of the 1 min

experiment

205

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 206

Listening to the first Students listened to the listening material by Speaker A. They did not listening comprehension take any notes while they listened. 2.38sec material “The Arctic” for the test in Indian-accented

English

Break Between both the listening materials there was a break for 1 minute. 1 min

Listening to the second Students listened to the same listening material by Speaker A. They did 2.36 listening comprehension not take any notes while they listened. sec material “The Arctic” for the test in Australian- accented English

Cognitive load Students turned over the third handout; filled in the task effort and questionnaire mental load questionnaire. The first question was “How difficult was it 2 min to understand the accent/accents?”, and the second question was “How

difficult was it to understand the listening material?” The questionnaire

had a nine point Likert scale rating, starting from ‘very, very easy’ to

‘very, very difficult’.

Knowledge test Students turned over the fourth handout; wrote down what they 10 min

remembered from the listening in English.

Handouts collected Experiment was done, handouts were collected with thanks. 1 min

Total time 50

minutes

No feedback was provided to participants at any time during the experiment.

8.2.9 Measuring Student Performance

The knowledge test performance scores (retention of what the students remembered from the listening comprehension passage); nine-point Likert cognitive load subjective rating scales of acquisition, and test were used to measure the differences between acquisition

206

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 207 conditions. The Likert scale questionnaire had two items. The first item was about the accent and the second item was about the listening comprehension material. In the scale, 1 was for

‘very very easy’ and 9 was for ‘very very difficult’.

The students answered the knowledge test in English. The 9 point cognitive load questionnaire was given right after listening as they responded to the accent and task difficulty for the listening comprehension.

8.2.10 Marking Criteria for Listening Comprehension

All the scripts were marked by two experienced English language teachers, teaching

Foundation courses at universities in Australia. They used four point criteria for each of the answers for the activity. Each knowledge test was marked out of 15. The marking criteria for the knowledge test are described below:

1. Five marks were allocated for information retrieval reflecting the amount of

information the listener retrieved from the listening comprehension.

2. Five marks were allocated for chronology or consistency, i.e. writing the passage

down from beginning to end.

3. Five marks were assigned for an overall understanding of the listening

comprehension passage.

4. The last item in the scale was associated with the inappropriate use of schemata. If

a student wrote down anyinformation which was not provided in the actual

listening, a maximum of 2 marks could be deducted from the total the person

scored in the test.

The same marking criteria were used as in Experiment 2 of this study (which was out of 15 marks).

207

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 208

8.3 Results

Data were analysed in three steps. A Pearson correlation analysis was used to demonstrate inter-rater reliability between the raters for marking the knowledge tests in both the conditions. For intra-rater reliability, Cronbach’s alpha analysis was conducted. The final performance scores were created by combining the means of both the raters’ scores for the

2X3 ANOVA analysis. Secondly,a 2 accent conditions (Indian-accented English and Arabic and Indian-accented English) X 3 expertise levels (low, high and very highexpertise)

ANOVA was conducted on knowledge test scores for both acquisition and test conditions.

And thirdly, a 2X3 analysis was carried out on mental load ratings to estimate any difference in perceived difficultyto understand the individual accent conditions learners had been exposed to, which may contribute to an explanation for the learner performance in acquisition and test conditions. Following significant interactions, simple effects tests were conducted on bothaccent conditions, to understand the effect of accent in each of the individual conditions for the three expertise levels.

8.3.1 The Acquisition Phase

A Pearson correlation demonstrated a high level of inter-rater reliability, r (106) = .91 for the acquisition phase.The internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s Alpha which was .83 for rater 1, and .82 for rater 2; showing a high level of internal consistency.

The mean for rater 1 was 6.37, and SD was 2.52 for 4 items (the four items mentioned in the

Marking Criteria in 8.2.10 of this report.). For rater 2 the mean was 6.25 and SD 2.27 for 4 items.

Means and standard deviations for the retention task in acquisition can be found in

Table 8.5. The 2X3 ANOVA showed that in acquisition, the accent conditions had a significant effect on the retention task, F (1, 100) = 9.02, MSe =2.60, p <.01, partial n2= .08.

208

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 209

The expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect in the retention task, F (2,

100) = 38.55, MSe = 2.60, p <.001, partial n2= .43. There was a highly significant interaction between accent and expertise levels, F (2, 100) = 14.90, MSe = 2.60, p <.001, partial = .23.

Following this significant interaction, simple effects tests were carried out to determine the cause of the interaction.

Low expertise groups. During acquisition, the single accent condition obtained significantly higher scores than the dual accent condition in knowledge test performance scores, F (1, 46) = 6.64, MSe = 2.80, p <.01, partial  .12.

High expertise groups. The dual accent condition obtained significantly higher scores in knowledge test performance scores than the single accent condition, F (1, 28) = 6.06,

MSe= 2.60, p =.02, partial  .18.

Very high expertise groups. The dual accent condition obtained significantly higher scores in knowledge test performance scores than the single accent condition, F (1, 26)=

22.62, MSe = 2.33, p <.001, partial=.46.

Table 8.5

Means and SDs of acquisition retention test

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (19) 5.47(2.06) Low expertise (29) 4.21 (1.33)

High expertise (15) 6.63 (1.62) High expertise (15) 8.10 (1.60)

Very high expertise 6.51 (1.50) Very high expertise 9.25 (1.60) (14) (14)

209

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 210

Figure 8.1

Interaction effect between accent conditions and expertise levels for knowledge test performance scores for acquisition phase

These results indicate that the significant interaction was due to the crossover interactions of three participant groups. While the low expertise single accent condition outperformed its dual accent counterpart, the high and very high dual accent conditions significantly outperformed their single accent counterparts.

8.3.1.1 Mental Load Questionnaire: The Acquisition Phase

The task effort and mental load questionnaire had two items, the first item was about the accent and the second item was about the listening comprehension material. Students rated their cognitive load on a nine point Likert scale questionnaire.Following is the discussion of the subjective ratings for acquisition.

210

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 211

8.3.1.1(a) Item 1: self-rating of mental load on the accent/accents. Themeans and standard deviations of self-rating questionnaire for item 1 can be found in Table 8.7. In this item the students were asked how difficult it was to understand the accent conditions.In acquisition the first item of the self-rating questionnaire shows that the accent conditions did not have a significant effect, F (1, 100) = .06, MSe = 2.16,p=.80, partial = .00. The expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect on the retention task, F (2, 100)

= 12.35, MSe = 2.16, p <.001, partial = .20. However, there was no significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (2, 100) = .14, MSe = 2.16, p =.94, partial

= .00. The results indicate that only the expertise levels had a significant effect on listening to variable accents. The accent conditions did not have a significant effect for this item, and neither was there a significant interaction between accent conditions and listening comprehension material.

Table 8.6

How difficult it was to understand the accent/accents

Means and SDs of Item 1 of acquisition

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (19) 5.53 (1.71) Low expertise (29) 5.45 (1.50)

High expertise (15) 4.60 (1.84) High expertise (15) 4.70 (1.30)

Very high expertise 3.90 (1.30) Very high expertise 3.64 (.74) (14) (14)

211

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 212

8.3.1.1(b) Item 2: self-rating of mental load on the listening comprehension material. The means and SDs of the subjective rating questionnaire for item 2 can be found in Table 8.8.

Item 2 of the questionnaire was about the listening comprehension material where students rated how difficult it was for them to understand the listening material. In the acquisition phase, the accent conditions (for listening comprehension material) did not have a significant effect on the retention task, F (1, 100) = .19, MSe = 1.66, p =.66, partial = .00. The expertise levels of the students had ahighly significant effect on the retention task, F (2, 100)

= 7.50, MSe = 1.66, p <.001, partial = .13. Additionally, there was no significant interaction between the accent conditions (for listening comprehension material) and expertise levels, F (2, 100) = .53, MSe = 1.66, p = .60, partial = .01. The results indicate that only the expertise levels had a significant effect for the listening material. The accent conditions did not have a significant effect for this item and neither was there a pronounced interaction.

Table 8.7 How difficult it was to understand the listening comprehension material

Means and SDs of item 2 of acquisition

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (19) 4.43 (1.40) Low expertise (29) 4.62 (1.14)

High expertise (15) 3.93 (1.50) High expertise (15) 4.00 (1.20)

Very high expertise 3.64 (1.44) Very high expertise 3.14 (1.10) (14) (14)

212

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 213

8.3.2 The Test Phase

A Pearson correlation demonstrated a high level of inter-rater reliability, r (106) = .91 for the test.The internal consistency was analysed using Cronbach’s Alpha which was .83 for rater 1, and .82 for rater 2; showing a high level of internal consistency. The mean for rater 1 was 7.51, and SD was 2.66 for 4 items (the four items mentioned in marking criteria in 8.2.8 of this report.). For rater 2 the mean was 7.33 and SD 2.30 for 4 items.

Means and standard deviations of knowledge test scores can be found in Table 8.8.

The 2X3 ANOVA showed that on the test, accent conditions had a highly significant effect on the retention task, F (1, 100) = 27.80, MSe = 2.30, p <.001, partial =.11. The expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect in the retention task, F (2, 100) = 44.40,

MSe = 2.30, p <.001, partial = .47. There was a highly significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (2, 100) = 23.83, MSe =2.30, p <.001, partial =

.32. Following this significant interaction, simple effects tests were carried out to determine the cause of the interaction.

Low expertise groups. The single accent condition obtained significantly higher scores than the dual accent condition, F (1, 46) = 13.85, MSe = 2.14, p <.001, partial = .23.

High expertise groups.The dual accent conditions obtained significantly higher scores than the single accent condition, F (1, 28) = 8.54, MSe = 2.37, p <.01, partial = .23.

Very high expertise groups.The dual accent condition obtained significantly higher scores than the single accent condition, F (1, 26) = 27.84, MSe= 2.50, p<.001, partial =.52.

213

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 214

Table 8.8

Means and SDs of knowledge test for the test

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (19) 6.80 (1.73) Low expertise (29) 5.20 (1.22)

High expertise (15) 7.40 (1.50) High expertise (15) 9.04 (1.60)

Very high expertise 7.65 (1.54) Very high expertise 10.80 (1.60) (14) (14)

Figure 8.2

Interaction effect between accent conditions and expertise levels for the test phase

The main 2X3 analyses during acquisition and test revealed a similar pattern of results as the significant interaction was due to the disordinal interaction among the three participant groups. While the low expertise single accent condition outperformed their dual accent

214

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 215 counterparts, the high and very high dual accent conditions significantly outperformed their single accent counterparts respectively.

8.3.2.1 Mental load Questionnaire: the Test Phase

8.3.2.1(a) Item 1: self-rating of mental load on the accent/accents. Themeans and standard deviations of the self-rating questionnaire for item 1 of the test can be found in

Table 8.9. The mental load ratings for item 1 of the questionnaire show that the test accent conditions did not have a significant effect on the retention task, F (1, 100) = .01, MSe =

2.00, p = .92, partial = .00. The expertise levels of the students had a highly significant effect in the retention task, F (2, 100) = 17.67, MSe =2.00, p <.001, partial = .26. However, there was no significant interaction between accent conditions and expertise levels, F (2, 100)

= 1.22, MSe = 2.00, p= .30, partial = .02.

Table 8.9

How difficult it wasto understand the accent/accents

Means and SDs of the test for Item 1

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (19) 5.53 (1.93) Low expertise (29) 6.07 (1.41)

High expertise (15) 4.40 (1.64) High expertise (15) 4.20 (.94)

Very high expertise 4.21 (1.12) Very high expertise 3.80 (.90) (14) (14)

8.3.2.1(b) Item 2: Self-rating of mental load on the listening comprehension material. The means and SDs of the self-rating questionnaire for item 2 of the test can be found in Table 8.10. The mental load ratings for item 2 of the questionnaire showed that in the test accent conditions (for listening comprehension material) did not have a significant

215

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 216

effect on the retention task,F (1, 100) = 1.38, MSe = 1.30, p= .24, partial = .01. The expertise levels of the students had a significant effect in the retention task, F (2, 100) = 5.06,

MSe = 1.30, p <.01, partial = .10. Furthermore, there was no significant interaction between the accent conditions (for listening comprehension material) and expertise levels, F

(2, 100) = 2.76, MSe = 1.30, p = .06, partial = .05.

Table 8.10

How difficult it was to understand the listening comprehension material

Means and SDs of the test for Item 2

Single accent Means and SDs Dual accent condition Means and conditions (n) (n) SDs

Low expertise (19) 4.37 (.95) Low expertise (29) 4.80 (1.05)

High expertise (15) 4.87 (1.25) High expertise (15) 4.13 (1.06)

Very high expertise 4.00 (1.41) Very high expertise 3.50 (1.22) (14) (14)

8.4 Discussion

In a CLT framework this experiment investigated the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect using native English-speaking students, and students who spoke

English as a foreign language. It tested whether these learners were able to handle the challenges of comprehending the cognitively demanding task of listening to variable listening comprehension materials following a similarly structured experimental procedure. One of the two main hypotheses for this experiment was that the lowexpertise learners would find a singleaccent condition better that a dual accent condition. The second hypothesis was that the highexpertise (including the very high expertise) learners would find a dualaccent condition better than a singleaccent condition. It was assumed that lower ability learners’ mental load would be lesser in single-accented condition and higher ability learners’ mental load would

216

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 217 be lesser in dual-accented condition. In addition, it was predicted that all of the participants would perform better in tests with decreased mental load because of the familiarity of the instructional procedure. The hypotheses were tested by analysing comprehension performance scores comprising knowledge test scores and self-ratings of mental load questionnaire for processing information in two acquisition conditions with different levels of variability. The performance results supported both the major hypotheses of the study but there was little support using subjective ratings of cognitive load.

Previous studies into accented English (such as Church & Schacter, 1994; Goh, 2005;

Nygaard & Pisoni, 1998; Palmeri, Goldinger & Pisoni.,1993; Goldinger, 1996;Gao et al.,

2013; and Gao, 2012) show that students performed better in speaker-specific conditions when they listened to familiar, rather than unfamiliar speakers. However, in this study participants were not exposed to unfamiliar speakers or any unfamiliar accent/accents in the test. This study differed from the previous studies in that it investigated accent-specific effects while being exposed to different accents of English.

The results of this experiment can be explained from a CLT perspective. In the acquisition and the test, accent conditions had a great effect on both the expertise groups. The low expertise single accent people outperformed their dual accent counterparts in acquisition and test conditions, meaning the single accent individuals learned more from listening to

Indian-accented English only, and retrieved more information in the knowledge test; whereas the dual accented people learned less from listening to Indian and Arabic-accented English.

Listening to a single accent facilitated schema acquisition and automation for the lower ability learners, whereas listening to the dual accent condition was perceptually challenging for them to handle. The dual accent condition encouraged learning for the more able learners in that they could handle complex information as their working memory did not

217

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 218 become overloaded while processing and storing the information provided in variable accents of English. They were well adept in schema automation by receiving, sorting, categorizing, storing and recalling the variable materials and therefore they were able to overcome the effect of accent variability. The high interaction effect in acquisition and test condition shows that variable accent conditions and expertise levels of the students’ understanding of the accents; was enhanced by being exposed to variable accents. They comprehended the listening material better as their working memory processed the highly variable information provided in the text. Their LTM retained the material better also, and this was reflected in their knowledge test scores.

We can explain the accent variability effect as an example of the variability effect

(Sweller, 2010b). Simultaneously, instructional manoeuvres also yielded an expertise reversal effect in this experiment (Kalyuga et al., 2003; Sweller, 2010b). Sweller explains the variability effect in terms of an alteration of intrinsic cognitive load. According to Sweller

(2010b), element interactivity provides a common explanatory mechanism for all types of cognitive loads and most cognitive load effects. Germane cognitive load is only a function of working memory resources available to deal with the element interactivity that determines intrinsic cognitive load. Within the capacity of working memory, if the intrinsic cognitive load is increased, germane cognitive load may be increased and learning will be facilitated because learners will then devote working memory resources to working with the necessary learning materials.

High variability tasks in this experiment had a substantially higher degree of element interactivity compared to low variability tasks. As a result, more working memory resources needed to be used to process the element interactivity associated with the high intrinsic cognitive load under dual accent conditions. In contrast, under low accent variability

218

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 219 condition, when the set of surface elements were reduced; it decreased the number of elements that must be processed in working memory. Materials with many interacting elements may be considered as a single element for the higher ability learners, whereas the same elements may be considered as separate elements for the lower ability learners.

Sweller’s (2010b) explanation of the variability effect is that instruction under high variability conditions induces effective germane cognitive load and facilitates schema construction and automation, as long as the total cognitive load does not exceed working memory limitations. Sweller’s explanation is applicable to the findings of this experiment, as accent variability facilitated effective germane cognitive load for the learners according to their prior knowledge of English.

8.5 Conclusions

In Experiment 3 it was found that single accent conditions induced germane learning for the low expertise students, whereas the dual accent conditions induced germane learning for the high (including very high) expertise students. This experiment confirmed that students could overcome the accent variability effect in that the participants learnt the content of listening materials which had high variability informational passages given that the total cognitive load for the listening materials did not exceed their working memory limitations.

The experiment induced the expertise reversal effect by providing variable listening comprehension materials to three different levels of expertise groups. This experiment also validated the findings of Gao et al., (2013) in terms of the variability effect and the expertise reversal effect; Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) and the Quilchi and Mayer (1996) study in the variability effect, together with the expertise reversal effect findings of Scheiter and

Gerjets (2007); all from a CLT perspective.

219

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 220

Chapter 9: General Discussions

9.1 Introduction

The accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect were relevant to the instructional designs of this study within a CLT framework. The experiments reported in this thesis investigated these effects in an attempt to extend the application of the variability effect in the instructional contexts of listening to different accents of spoken English from a CLT perspective. The results reported in this study, along with providing practical suggestions for developing effective instruction using variable accents of English for native, as well as non- native English speakers; supported the practical application of CLT to a broad range of instructional settings. The experiments reported in this thesis partly addressed issues of how accent variability boosted meaningful understanding of learning objectives, and how instructional design could aid learning in perceptual listening environments; so that learners do not become entangled in the novelty of the accents, at the same time having their learning maximised via such instructional procedures.

The literature review in Part 1 of this thesis (Chapters 2, 3 & 4) argued that research pertaining to understanding accent variability (Bradlow & Bent, 2008; Clopper & Pisoni,

2004, etc.) and within CLT (Gao, 2012; Gao et al., 2013); suggested that high variability practice materials can induce learning. Gao et al., (2013) investigated listening to a broad variety of speakers, as a type of high variabilitypractice which induced effective learning to understand spoken English. Nevertheless, most studies (Chapter 2) in this tradition focused exclusively on native English speakers exposed to foreign-accented English. Gao et al.,

(2013) took the context to EFL Chinese speakers learning foreign accents of English, where

220

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 221 students listened to multiple speakers of the accents that were used. The present research attempted to further extend the empirical basis for incorporating lessons that exposed listeners to variable accents of English for native, as well as non-native speakers.

It is pertinent that oral instruction; the traditional conveyer of any type of instruction in class, is being used in modern technology-enhancedinstructional settings. With globalisation we are becoming more receptive to hearing English spoken with different accents, which makes mutual intelligibility a great challenge. Accent usually refers to how we pronounce English; it does not refer to the grammatical or syntactic features of the language. Individuals, who learn English as a second/foreign language, continue to articulate it with a foreign accent, even after years of speaking English. Accent diversity is so common these days that it is a necessity to research the topic in order to understand the underlying cognitive mechanismswhen students are given instructions in unfamiliar accents of English.

Although accent variability is an emerging field of study, most studies in this domain have failed to focus on the cognitive mechanisms of working memory capacity in relation to dealing with a large number of interacting elements, when processing the auditory learning materials in variable-accented English. The archetypal study measuring learners’ cognitive ability whilst engaging with accented English was conducted by Gao et al., (2013) using a

CLT perspective.

The teaching of listening skills needs significant attention in native and non-native

English-speaking contexts. To teach English, various methodologies have been implemented with differing degrees of success. The latest methodology is communicative language teaching, which, in turn has been critiqued for its inadequacy by many EFL experts.

Nevertheless, this thesis ponders that as a result of our understanding of human cognitive mechanisms (which are at the heart of instructional design in a CLT framework), which

221

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 222 comply with the learners’ working memory’s processing ability, can be implemented in the design of classroom instruction to increase its effectiveness. An important aspect of listening is that information received through acoustic channels is more durable than that received through visual channels.

To contextualise listening skills in the framework of this thesis, it was indicated that linguistic variation is a characteristic of all languages, and that all varieties have their own rules and systems. The thesis discussed the varieties of English as a global phenomenon and emphasised the need to investigate the accent variability effect to better understand how listeners can cope with the challenges this diversity posits on their learning. A central argument of the experiments was that the experiments would reveal an expertise reversal effect. Instructional design work in a CLT framework using variable materials demonstrated an expertise reversal effect in Scheiter and Gerjet’s (2007) experiments. Gao et al., (2013) also identified an expertise dependent variability effect.

Difficulty in understanding listening comprehension arises due to cognitive and non- cognitive factors that include the intrinsic structure of listening texts and relevant external, as well as personal factors affecting listeners (Chapter 2). Listeners, by carefully attending to the listening process, can maximise the benefits of listening comprehension and thereby become successful listeners. Designing effective instruction within a CLT framework for listening comprehension is crucial to this end. By designing instruction in this framework it may guide learners in overcoming the challenges listening comprehension tasks may initially impose on them; eventually minimising cognitive overload and maximising overall learning with such activities.

The literature review encompassed the rise and spread of accent variations of English in different parts of the world (Chapter3). Chapter 4 discussed the acoustic and phonetic

222

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 223 characteristics of the five different accents of English used to create the variable accent listening comprehension materials for the experiments. The accents utilised to create a variable accent effect were Australian-accented English, Chinese-accented English, Russian- accented English, Arabic-accented English and Indian-accented English.

In instructional psychology, cognitive load theory has been receiving significant attention for the past few decades as it claims the limitations of human cognitive architecture affect learning and instruction (Chapter 4). Task design has to facilitate learning by minimising cognitive overload. Within the theoretical construct of cognitive load effects, the variability effect and the accent variability effects were explained, and their instructional consequences were tested in the experiments conducted for the thesis. In addition, the thesis discussed the expertise reversal effect as it was predicted that increased variability would be beneficial for more expert learners but that the advantage would reverse for the less expert learners; hence resulting in theexpertise reversal effect. The central argument of the thesis was that students’ levels of expertise determine which instructional procedure (high or low variability) is more appropriate for them.

The main goal of the three experiments was to investigate the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect from a CLT perspective using listening comprehension materials with monolingual FL students, as well as native English students. The instructional designs were constructed taking into account two complementary factors that contribute to intrinsic cognitive load: learners’ expertise levels and variability during acquisition. For the studies two major hypotheses were formulated: (a) for the low expertise learners, a singleaccent condition was hypothesised to be better than a dual/multiple accent condition and (b) for the high expertise learners, a dual/multiple accent condition was hypothesised to be better than a singleaccent condition.

223

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 224

9.2 Methodologies for the Three Experiments

To address the hypotheses, in Experiment 1 there were three single accent conditions and six multiple accent conditions. The three accents that were used for this experiment were

Australian English, Chinese-accented English and Russian-accented English. These three accents were permuted in six combinations to have the six multiple accent conditions. The purpose of having the six permuted combinations was to test if any of these combinations had any advantageous effect in terms of listening to the accent combinations. Two listening comprehension passages were developed to be used for the experiments. The same listening comprehension materials; “The Antarctic” and “The Arctic” were used in all the experiments.

Monolingual Bangladeshi first year students at three different universities were recruited to participate in the study. These students were divided into low and high expertise groups based on their HSC English scores. To understand the accent variability effect and the expertise reversal effect, Experiments 2 and 3 were conducted in Australia on UNSW undergraduate students who learnt English as a first language, and also on students who learnt it as a foreign language. Whereas Experiment 2 used Russian-accented English and

Australian-accented English; Experiment 3 employedArabic-accented English and Indian- accented English. The classroom experimental procedure between Experiment 1 and

Experiment 2 had some fundamental shifts in procedure due to certain practical issues. The reasons for the changes in procedure can be found in Chapter 7, section 7.2.1 of the thesis.

The classroom experimental procedure for Experiments 2 and 3 remained the same.

9.3 Overview of Results

In Experiment 1, the results revealed that the low expertise learners did not perform better in single accent conditions and the high expertise learners did not perform better in multiple accent conditions; thus contradicting the two main hypotheses of the study. It can be

224

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 225 argued that while designing instruction with variable accents of a given language (in this case

English);sequencing the accents used in the listening comprehension material can play a significant role, such as which accent goes first and what the subsequent accents are. It also depends on the English language orientations of the specific participants. Experiment 1 of this thesis found that the presence of Australian-accented English at the end of a sequence of accents optimised performance while decreasing mental load. Experiment 2 used a combination of Russian and Australian-accented English with Russian-accented English at the beginning ofa listening sequence. This accent was found most difficult for both low and high expertise individuals in Experiment 1. Additionally, Experiment 2had Australian- accented English; a familiar accent to all the participants, which they listened to at the end of the listening sequence.

The main analysis of Experiment 2 partially confirmed the hypotheses of the study. In this experiment the single accent condition was not easier for the low expertise students whereas the dual accent condition was easier for the high, including the very high expertise students. In addition, in Experiment 2 the low, high and very high expertise groups found

Russian-accented English very hard, although the levels of difficulty for listening comprehension decreased from the low to very high expertise group. However, the single and dual accent conditions were equally challenging for the low expertise groups. There was no significant difference on the knowledge test performance scores between these two accent conditions. The mental load ratings of both the questionnaire items also revealed similar findings. It was evident from the findings that the low expertise group listening to Russian- accented English did not find the accent condition easier than the low expertise group listening to both Russian and Australian-accented English. On the contrary, the high and very high expertise students learned more listening to Russian and Australian-accented English than listening to Russian-accented English only.

225

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 226

From the results of Experiment 2 it was predicted that the presence of Australian- accented English, due to its familiarity by the participants, could influence the superior performance and lesser cognitive load for the dual accent conditions. In dual accent conditions the heavy mental load invested while listening to Russian-accented English was substantially minimised when listening to Australian-accented English afterwards. It can be argued that using Australian-accented English with native Australian participants whose L1 was Australian English, and also with international students who were familiar with

Australian English; may have influenced the significant findings of the experiment.

Moreover, in Ikeno and Hansen (2007) and Weber et al., (2011), it was seen that the presence of perceptually familiar accents improved foreign language comprehension skills. Experiment

2 partially supported these findings.

To further investigate the findings of Experiment 2, for Experiment 3 two new accents were used: Indian-accented English and Arabic-accented English. These two accents were rare in the instructional settings of educational institutions within Australia. These accents were pronounced differently from each other, and each carried traces of its own pronunciation norms embedded in its own culture of origin (discussions on the acoustic and phonetic characteristics of Arabic-accented English and Indian-accented English can be found in sections 4.5 and 4.6 of Chapter 4). The findings of Experiment 3 confirmed the major hypotheses of the thesis. From the main analysis of Experiment 3it was seen that the low expertise group listening to Indian-accented English found the accent condition easier than the low expertise group listening to both Indian and Arabic-accented English. The high and very high expertise students learned more listening to Arabic and Indian-accented

English than listening to Indian-accented English only. The low expertise people were more prone to be challenged by the novelty of the dual accent conditions. The high expertise

226

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 227

(including very high) individuals; on the other hand, did not find the dual accent challenging due to their sophisticated schemata in handling accent variations.

The role of subjective ratings in assessing the participants’ cognitive load in the three experiments did not support the empirical findings of other studies (such as Gao et al., 2013;

Diao & Sweller 2007; Gerjets et al., 2006; Lee& Kalyuga, 2011; Pollock et al., 2002) in a

CLT framework. The two item cognitive load questionnaire in the present thesis did not align with performance scores.

9.4 Implications

The finding of this study that listeners can adapt to accent variations when listening to different accents of English has two applications in different instructional contexts. On the one hand it has implications for non-English speaking students of FL/SL countries, who are in pursuit of higher studies in native English-speaking countries. These students can be trained to listen to accent variations which may facilitate them in getting used to the dominant accents used in the specific countries they are intending to study in. Furthermore, adult immigrants who come to a native English-speaking country can be trained to listen to the mainstream English accent/accents used in the country. On the other hand, understanding of other accents of English is increasingly becoming important for native English speakers also, as they are engaged in businesses or teaching FL/SL students. Training in listening to accents not only makes listeners proficient English users; it also assists them with comprehending instructions in educational or workplace contexts. In countries like Australia, UK, USA, and

Canada where the societies accommodate multicultural communities, mutual understandability may challenge the listeners and speakers alike. In such contexts training people in adapting to other accents by designing instruction from a cognitive load perspective may be implemented, as this type of instructional procedure is useful for novice as well as

227

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 228 expert listeners, and ultimately determines how much learning may happen under certain instructional conditions.

Training in accent variations is a foremost skill that learners need to comprehend in the world of English contexts today. The importance of teaching accent variations is significantly increasing, as many native English-speaking countries welcome foreign students into higher degree courses. To this end, the instructional methodology of teaching accent variations, if designed in a CLT framework; has potential to minimize cognitive overload by providing learners with instruction they are able to process. In this way learners can gradually process and store large amounts of accent-independent schemata; their working memory can process more interacting elements and their LTM can retain the information.

For developing curricula for teaching accent variations, accent groups have to be identified first. Based on acoustic-phonetic characteristics, accents can be clustered into groups; for instance the East Asian accent group, South Asian accent group, Eastern

European accent group and so forth. This is how the regional varieties of English can be compared and contrasted with the other accent varieties and as such a corpus can be developed. When developing a curriculum for studying accent variations these could provide the preliminary ground work, and once achieved, lessons could be developed on topics related to disciplines students would be trained in. This type of training may enable international, as well as local students to become better listeners as they would be able to accommodate a large number of accent-specific schemata. This training would also enable them to process larger amounts of subject-specific schemata and thereby maximizing the achievement of learning objectives.

228

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 229

9.5 Limitationsof the Thesis

A possible limitation of the study could be that due to time constraints, the experiments were short in duration. Whereas Experiment 1 took about 1 hour and 35 minutes of each student’s time, Experiments 2 and 3 took about 50 minutes of each student’s time.

A second possible limitation could be that the non-significant findings of Experiment

1 could be due to a chance factor. Students from three different universities studying different undergraduate courses participated in the experiment. University A was the topmost university in Bangladesh in terms of academic excellence, whereas Universities B and C were of an average standard. The scale used for dividing the participants into low and high expertise groups was based on their HSC scores in English. However, in some of the accent conditions such as Chinese-accented English and R-C-A-accented English, it was observed that the difference between performance scores of these two expertise groups was small. Such findings may be due to a selection bias.

A third possible limitation could be constraints in randomly allocating the low expertise participants of Experiments 2 and 3. These participants were studying Foundation courses at UNSW and were randomly divided into single and dual accent groups. The four groups of students in Experiment 2 were studying the Foundation course in physical science and commerce streams. The single accent condition comprised of one physical science and one commerce stream, and the other two equivalent groups comprised of the dual accent condition. They were tested in separate classes. A similar process applied working with the

Experiment 3 low expertise groups. However, the focus of determining expertise levels for these experiments was participants’ orientation to English learning, and these students fulfilled the criteria as they were very new to the Australian academic environment.

Furthermore, these students also fulfilled one of the admission criteria for entering the

229

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 230

Foundation courses; which is to have a 5.5 overall band in IELTS or equivalent scores in other English language proficiency tests. Because these students were equivalent in ability, upon admission they were randomly assigned into different classes. The high and very high expertise students in these two experiments were randomly assigned to single and dual accent conditions.

A fourth possible limitation could be that students were not pre-tested for their listening comprehension ability. In Experiment 1 students practised some key vocabulary items from English to Bengali that were used in the listening comprehension materials, so as to help them retrieve knowledge in Bengali, which was their first language. They were not tested in vocabulary items. Vocabulary practice was only to help them remember the listening texts. In the experiment the students wrote answers to the knowledge test in Bengali. The rationale was that they were being tested for their listening comprehension ability, not their writing ability. In the instructional designs of Experiments 2 and 3, the vocabulary practice was excluded as all groups would be writing answers to the knowledge test in English, thus it was not necessary to have any vocabulary practice.

A fifth possible limitation closely related to the first one could be the occasional inconsistency between knowledge test performance scores and mental load ratings, especially in Experiment 1. The cognitive load questionnaire was provided right after listening to the listening comprehension in acquisition and test conditions, in all three experiments. In earlier studies within a CLT framework, subjective rating scale measures were widely used which traditionally incorporated test scores and subjective ratings to indicate the amount of vested cognitive effort. Studies such as Gao et al., (2013); Diao and Sweller (2007); Gerjets et al.,(2006); Lee and Kalyuga (2011); Pollock et al.,(2002) etc. employedthese measurement scales that have been tested for theoretical and empirically consistent results.

230

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 231

9.6 Conclusions

Cognitive load theory suggests designing instruction that is in harmony with the learner’s capability for processing information, whilst acknowledging the severely constrained limitations of a working memory when it comes to dealing with novel information (Sweller, 2010a; Sweller, van Merriënboer& Paas, 1998; Van Merriënboer,

Kester & Paas, 2006). This thesis tested the use of variable accents with different levels of expertise, revealing an accent variability effect and expertise reversal effect. The three experiments suggest the following observations.

1. The accent variability effect is expertisedependent. Without sufficient background

knowledge in English, exposure to multiple accents of English may cause cognitive

overload for novice learners. Low expertise students may benefit from exposure to a

single accent first, followed by exposure to more accents as their expertise increases.

2. Proficiency levels are significant in understanding accent variations of English.

Competence in complementary language skills such as reading and writing may need

to be reasonably developed to benefit from the instructional procedures used.

3. The adaptation of accented English is achievable if students are exposed to multiple

accents of English. With sufficient knowledge, students can internalise a large amount

of accent-independent schemata.

4. Native and non-native English speakers can obtain benefits from such instructional

procedures as they support internalisation and automation of normatively different

accent variations, and thereby allow students to overcome the cognitive load

associated with accent variability.

231

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 232

References

Aasman, J., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J. (1987). Operator effort and the measurement of

heart-rate variability.Human Factors: The journal of the human factors and

ergonomics society,29(2), 161-170.

Akasaka, R. (2009). Foreign accented speech transcription and accent recognition using a

game-based approach. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/10066/10170.

Alam, F. (2002). Using post-colonial literature in ELT. English Teacher. 5 (2), 123-136.

Alam, F. (2008). The commodification of English studies in Bangladesh. Paper presented at

the 2nd international conference "Democracy, the 'New World order' and English

studies" Dhaka, 12-13 December, 2008.

Anderson‐Hsieh, J., & Koehler, K. (1988). The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on

native speaker comprehension. Language learning, 38(4), 561-613.

Anderson, C. (2005). The commodification of education: The case of TESOL. Paper presented

at the the British Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Bristol,

September, 2005. Anonymous (2012, March 22).Almost 1m schoolchildren in

England speaking English as a second language.The Daily Telegraph.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9160389/Almost-1m-schoolchildren-in-

England-speaking-English-as-a-second-language.html

Adventure Life (n.d). Antarctic vs. Arctic Pole comparison.Retrieved from

http://www.adventure-life.com/articles/pole-comparison-180

Arslan, L. M., & Hansen, J. H. (1996). Language accent classification in American

English. Speech Communication, 18(4), 353-367.

232

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 233

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. Psychology of learning and motivation, 2, 89-195.

Ausubel, D. P. (1964).Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by

discovery. Arithmetic Teacher, 11(5), 290-302.

Australian Education International. (2012). International education snapshot. Retrieved from

https://aei.gov.au/IEAC2/Consultation(IEAC)/ Documents/ Data Snapshot.pdf

Australian Education International. (2014). Monthly summary of international student

enrolment data-Australian-YDT March 2014. Retrieved from

https://aei.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Documents/Monthly%20

summaries%20of%20international%20student%20enrolment%20data%202014/03_M

arch_2014_MonthlySummary.pdf

Australian Education International. (2014). International Student Data 2014. Retrieved from

https://aei.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Pages/International

StudentData2014.aspx#Time_Series

Australian Education International. (2014). Monthly Summary of International Student.

Retrieved from https://aei.gov.au/research/International-Student-

Data/Pages/InternationalStudentData2014.aspx

Australian Accent. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://clas.mq.edu.au/australian-voices/australian-accent

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (4th Edition). New York:

Freeman.

Anthony, W. S. (1973). Learning to discover rules by discovery. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 64(3), 325-328.

Arctic and Antarctic. (2009).Arctic and Antarctic collection.Retrieved from

http://www.arcticantarcticcollection.com/polardifferences.htm

233

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 234

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89-195.

Ayres, P. L. (2006a). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a

mathematical domain.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287-298.

Ayres, P. L. (2006b). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive

load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389-400.

Ayres, P. L. (1993). Why goal-free problems can facilitate learning. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 18(3), 376-381.

Banu, R., & Sussex, R. (2001). Code-switching in Bangladesh. English Today, 17(2), 51-61.

Banzina, E. (n.d).Useful Tips for Chinese Speakers of English. Retrieved from

http://www.accentwork.com/chinese-accent-reduction

Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical

education. New York: Springer.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: An experimental and social study.Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden–On some issues with the conceptualisation

and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 250-264.

Bentley, S., & Bacon, S. E. (1996). The all new, state-of-the-art ILA definition of listening:

Now that we have it, what do we do with it. Listening Post, 56(1), 5.

Blau, E. K. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listening

comprehension.TESOL Quarterly, 24, 746-753.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Ed). (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into

learning. New York: Routledge.

234

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 235

Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2003). Listener adaptation to foreign-accented English.In

Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona

August 3-9, 2003.(pp. 2881-2884).

Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech.Cognition,

106(2), 707-729.

Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. I. (1999). Training

Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l: Long-term retention of learning in

perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977-985.

Brown, G. (1995). Dimensions of difficulty in listening comprehension. InMendelsohn, D. J.,

& Rubin, J. (Ed) A guide for the teaching of second language listening, (pp.59-73).

San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983).Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Bauer, L. (2007). The linguistics student’s handbook. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery.Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.

Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. London: Cambridge University Press.

Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in

multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.

Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R.

Moreno & R. Brünken (Ed) Cognitive load theory, (pp.181-202). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Byrnes, H. (1984). The role of listening comprehension: A theoretical base. Foreign

Language Annals, 17(4), 317-329.

235

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 236

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.

Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer

program.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151-170.

Chang, J. (2001). Chinese speakers. In Swan, M.& Smith, B. (Ed), Learner English: A

teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 310-324). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess.Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55-81.

Cheng, R. L. (1966). Mandarin phonological structure.Journal of Linguistics, 2, 135–158.

Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and

listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 345-374.

Chowdhury, R., & Ha, P. (2008). Reflecting on Western TESOL Training and

Communicative Language Teaching: Bangladeshi Teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of

Education, 28(3), 12.

Church, B. A., & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit

memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 521-533.

Clark, J. (1989). Regional dialects in Australian English phonology. In Blair, D. & Collins,

O. (Ed), Australian English: the language of a new society (pp.205-231). St Lucia:

University of Queensland Press.

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006).Efficiency in learning: evidence based

guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Clark, U. (2014, April 22) Which variety of English should you speak? [web log post]

Retrieved from

236

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 237

http://www.britishcouncil.org

Clarke, C. M., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English.Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3647-3658.

Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005).The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on

learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications.Educational Technology

Research and Development, 53(3), 15-24.

Clopper, C. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004).Some acoustic cues for the perceptual categorization

of American English regional dialects.Journal of Phonetics, 32(1), 111-140.

Coakley, C. G., & Wolvin, A. D. (1986). Listening in the native language. In Wing, B.H.

(Ed) Listening, reading, writing: Analysis and Application, Middlebury, VT: NE

Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (pp.11-42).

Connelly, S. & Olsen, A. (2013). Education as an Export for Australia: Green Shoots, First

Swallows, but Not Quite Out of the Woods Yet. Retrieved from

http://www.spre.com.au/download/AIEC2013ModelingPaper.pdf.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language

Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402-423.

Cook, V. J. (1977). Cognitive processes in second language learning. IRAL-International

Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 15(1-4), 1-20.

Cook, V. J. (1979). Aspects of memory in secondary school language learners.Interlanguage

Studies Bulletin -Utrecht, 4, 161-172.

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on

mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4),

347-362.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental

storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114.

237

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 238

Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working

memory?. Progress in brain research, 169, 323-338.

Cox, F, Palethorpe, S., & Bentink, S. (2014). Phonetic archaeology and 50 years of change to

Australian English/iː. Australian Journal of Linguistics,34(1), 50-75.

Craig, R. C. (1956). Directed versus independent discovery of established relations. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 47(4), 223.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for

research on interactions. Irvington, England: Oxford.

Daller, H., van Hout, R., & Treffers‐Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous

speech of bilinguals.Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222.

Dekeyser, Devriendt & Geukens (2001) Dutch Speakers. In Swan & Smith (Ed), Learner

English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 1-20). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

De Croock, M., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). High versus low contextual

interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: Effects on transfer

performance and invested mental effort. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 249-

267.

De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton, 1965.

Diao, Y., & Sweller, J. (2007). Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension

instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction,

17(1), 78-88.

Devine, T. G. (1978). Listening: What do we know after fifty years of research and

theorizing? Journal of Reading, 21, 296-304.

Dixon, N. R. (1964). Listening: Most neglected of the language arts. Elementary English,

285-288.

238

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 239

Education and training industry in Australia (n.d).Invest in Australia, Retrieved from

http://www.investinaustralia.com/industry/education-training/education-training-

industry-Australia

Engber, C. A. (1995).The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL

compositions.Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139-155.

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological review,

102(2), 211.

Feyten, C. M. (1991). The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language

acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 173-180.

Flege, J. E. & Port, R. (1981). Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English.

Language and Speech, 24, 125-146.

Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L. (1996). Student perceptions, problems and strategies in second

language lecture comprehension RELC Journal, 23 (2), 60–80.

Folker, S., Ritter, H., & Sichelschmidt, L. (2005). Processing and integrating multimodal material

– The influence of color coding. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Ed),

Proceedings of 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 690–695).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gao, Y., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2013). Effects of speaker variability on learning

foreign-accented English for EFL learners. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 105(3), 649.

Gao, Y. (2012). Effects of speaker variability on learning spoken English For EFL learners.

Doctoral dissertation. University of New South Wales. Retrieved from

http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/52157

Geary, D. C. (2002). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology.Learning and

Individual Differences, 12, 317-345.

239

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 240

Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general

intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Geary, D. C., & Huffman, K. J. (2002). Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity

and functions of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 667-698.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive

Psychology, 15(1), 1-38.

Goh, W. (2005). Speaker variability and recognition memory: Instance-specific and voice-

specific effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 31, 40-53.

Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and

recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 22, 1166 –1183.

Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2), 165-

182.

Griffiths, R. (1992). Speech rate and listening comprehension: further evidence of the

relationship. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 385-391.

Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics

learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 122-138.

Gupta, A.F. (1997). Colonisation, migration, and functions of English.In Schneider (Ed), vol.

1, 47–58.

Gupta, D. (2004). CLT in India: context and methodology come together. ELT Journal,

58(3), 266.

Guy, G., Horvath, B., Vonwiller, J., Daisley, E., & Rogers, I. (1986). An intonational change

in progress in Australian English. Language in Society, 15(01), 23-51

240

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 241

Hamid, M. O., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Will CLT bail out the bogged down ELT in

Bangladesh?. English Today, 24(03), 16-24.

Harrington, J., Cox, F., & Evans, Z. (1997). An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and

cultivated Australian English vowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 17(2), 155-

184.

Hasan, A. S. (2000). Learner’s perceptions of listening comprehension problems.Language,

Culture and Curriculum, 13, 137-153.

Henrichsen, L. E. (1984). Sandhi-variation: a filter of input for learners of ESL. Language

Learning, 34, 103-126.

Horvath, B.M. (2004). Australian English: Phonology. In Kortmann, B., Schneider, E. W.,

Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R., & Upton, C. (Ed), A handbook of varieties of English: a

multimedia reference tool (pp.625-644), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Horvath, B. M. (1985). Variation in Australian English.The sociolects of Sydney. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hu, G. (2005). ‘CLT is best for China’—an untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59(1),

65.

Huckvale, M. (2004). Speech, Hearing and Phonetic sciences, UCL Division of Psychology

& Language Sciences. Retrieved from

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/accent/

Iacoboni, M, Woods, R.P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J.C., Rizzolatti,

G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science 286:2526–2528.

Ikeno, A., & Hansen, J. H. (2007). The effect of listener accent background on accent

perception and comprehension.EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music

Processing, 2007(3), 4.

241

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 242

Imam, S.R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building education

in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41 (4), 471-486.

Jacobs, L. B. (1986). Listening? A skill we can teach. Early Years, 17,109-10.

Jeung, H. J., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory

mode instruction.Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329-345.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm?. Educational technology research and development, 39(3), 5-14.

Kachru, B. B. (1988). The sacred cows of English.English Today, 16(4), 3-8.

Kachru, B. B. (1992a). The second diaspora of English: English in its Social Contexts:

Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1992b). The other tongue: English across cultures. USA: University of

Illinois Press.

Kalyuga, S. (2012). Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load

factors. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 145-159.

Kalyuga, S. (2005).When less is more in cognitive diagnosis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Eribaum Associates.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003).The expertise reversal

effect.Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.

Kalyuga, S. (2009).Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. New York:

Information Science Reference.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998).Levels of expertise and instructional

design.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,

40(1), 1-17.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the

design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.

242

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 243

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001).Learner experience and efficiency of

instructional guidance.Educational Psychology, 21(1), 5-23.

Kelly, P. (1991). Lexical ignorance: The main obstacle to listening comprehension with

advanced foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching, 29(2), 135-149.

Kim, S. (2004). Coping with Cultural Obstacles to Speaking English in the Korean Secondary

School Context. Asian EFL Journal, 6(3).

Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its

implications for instruction. Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5, 1270-

1328.

Kintsch, W., & Welsch, D. M. (1991). The construction-integration model: A framework for

studying memory for text. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.colorado.edu/ics/sites/default/files/attached-files/90-15.pdf

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,

41(2), 75-86.

Klaiman, M. H. (1987).Aktionsart, semantics, and function in the Japanese “Passive”.Studies

in language, 11(2), 401-434.

Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning.In C.

Cooper (Ed), Theories of group process. London: Wiley.

Kurland, D. M., & Pea, R. D. (1985). Children's mental models of recursive LOGO

programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 235-243.

243

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 244

Landry, D. L. (1969).The neglect of listening. Elementary English, 46 (5), 599-605.

Lane, H. (1963). Foreign accent and speech distortion.Journal of Acoustic Society of

America, 35, 451-453.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension.Vocabulary and

Applied Linguistics, 3, 16-323.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written

production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004).Cognitive load and the imagination effect.Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 18(7), 857-875.

Le, V. (2001). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Teacher’s Edition, 7, 34-40.

Lee, C. H., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Effectiveness of on-screen pinyin in learning Chinese: An

expertise reversal for multimedia redundancy effect. Computers in Human

Behavior, 27(1), 11-15.

Lefrancois, G. R. (1997). Psychology for teachers (9thed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2012).Redundancy and expertise reversal effects

when using educational technology to learn primary school science.Educational

Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 1-13.

Lindblom, B. (1986). Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J.& Jaeger.

J.(Ed),Experimental phonology (pp.13-44). Orlando: Academic Press.

Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify

English/r/and/l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning

new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(3 Pt 1),

1242.

244

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 245

Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify

English/r/and/l: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89(2),

874.

Low, R. & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge

Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 147-158). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Mack, M. (1982). Voicing-dependent vowel duration in English and French: Monolingual

and bilingual production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 173-178.

Magen, H. S. (1998). The perception of foreign-accented speech. Journal of Phonetics, 26(4),

381-400.

Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor

skill acquisition.Human Movement Science, 9(3), 241-289.

Markham, P., & Latham, M. (1987). The influence of religion‐specific background

knowledge on the listening comprehension of adult second‐language

students. Language Learning, 37(2), 157-170.

Marshall, H. H. (1996). Implications of differentiating and understanding constructivist

approaches.Educational Psychologist, 31, 235-240.

Matter, J. (1989).Some fundamental problems in understanding French as a foreign

language.In Dechert, H.W., Raupach, M. (Ed), Interlingual Processes (pp. 105-119).

Gunter Narr: Tübingen.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed),

Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31-48). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning.

American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.

245

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 246

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence

for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia

learning.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning:

When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.

Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia

messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model

construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Applied, 8(3), 147.

McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D.E., the PDP Research Group (Ed). (1986). Parallel distributed

processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 2: Psychological and

Biological Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1989). Explorations in parallel distributed processing: A handbook of models, programs, and exercises. USA: MIT press.

McClelland, J. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2003). The parallel distributed processing approach to

semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(4), 310-322.

McKay, S. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: reexamining common ELT

assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.

Mead, E. (1985). Listening and comprehension in schools. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, N.

(Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, (Vol. 5).

Oxford: Pergamon Press.

246

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 247

Meecham, M., Rees-Miller, J., (2001).Language in social contexts.In O’Grady, W,

Archibald, J., Aronoff, M., et al., (Ed). Contemporary Linguistics, 4th

Edition (pp. 537-590). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Mendelsohn, D. J. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-

101.

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior;

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Ministry of Education, Bangladesh. (1974). Qudrat-e-Khuda Education Commission

1974.Ministry of Education: Dhaka.).

Mitchell, A. (1970). The Australian accent. In Ramson, W. S. (Eds.), English Transported:

Essays on Australasian English (pp. 1-14). Canberra: Australian National University

Press.

Mochizuki-Sudo, M. & Kiritani, S. (1991). Production and perception of stress-related

durational patterns in Japanese learners of English.Journal of Phonetics, 19, 231-248.

Moller, J., & Muller-Kalthoff, T. (2000). Learning with hypertext: The impact of navigational

aids and prior knowledge. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 116-123.

Monk, B., Burak, B. (2001). Russian speakers. In Swan, M., & Smith, B. (Ed). Learner

English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 145-161).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of

modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.

Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory

and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.

247

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 248

Munro, M. J. (1993). Productions of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic

measurements and accentedness ratings. Language and Speech, 36(1), 39-66.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995a). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and

intelligibility in the speech of second language learners.Language Learning, 45(1),

73-97.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995b). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in

the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38(3),

289-306.

National association for language development in the curriculum (n.d) EAL pupils in schools.

Retrieved from

http://www.naldic.org.uk/research-and-information/eal-statistics/eal-pupils

National snow and ice data center. (n.d). Arctic vs. Antarctic. Retrieved from

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998).Talker-specific learning in speech perception.Perception

& Psychophysics, 60, 335-376.

Oksa, A., Kalyuga, S., & Chandler, P. (2010).Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory

notes for readers of Shakespearean text. Instructional Science,38(3), 217-236.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in

second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 418-437.

Paas, F. G. W. C., Camp, G., & Rikers, R. (2001). Instructional compensation for age-related

cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 93(1), 181-186.

Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and

transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.

248

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 249

Paas, F. G. W.C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in

statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429.

Paas, F.G.W.C., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional

design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Paas, F.G.W.C., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional

implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive

architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1-8.

Paas, F.G.W.C., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load

measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory.Educational Psychologist,

38(1), 63-71.

Paas, F.G.W.C., &van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different

ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87-91.

Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and

transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 86(1).

Palmeri, T. J., Goldinger, S. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes

and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 309-328.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic

Books.

Pearson, P. Fielding, D. & Fielding, L. (1982). Research update: Listening Comprehension.

Language Arts, 59, 617-29.

Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/the world in English. In Tollefson, J. (Ed) Power

and Inequality in Language Education.(pp. 34–58). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

249

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 250

Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal

items.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193-198.

Phillips, D. C. (1998). How, why, what, when, and where: Perspectives on constructivism in

psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3,151–194.

Pickering, L., & Wiltshire, C. (2000). Pitch accent in Indian‐English teaching

discourse. World Englishes, 19(2), 173-183.

Polivanov, E. (1931). La perception des sons d’une langue e´trange`re. Travaux du Cercle

Linguistique de Prague, 4, 79–96.

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning

and Instruction, 12(1), 61-86.

Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and

academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning,

52(3), 513-536.

Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize

statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144.

Rahman, S. (2005). Orientations and motivation in English language learning: A study of

Bangladeshi students at undergraduate level. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 29-55.

Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative

activities in EFL classroom. System, 30(1), 85-105.

Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E.

(Ed), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.229-244).New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2001). The effects of gradually increasing problem-solving

demands in cognitive skill acquisition. In 9thEuropean Conference for Research on

Learning and Instruction, Switzerland: Fribourg.

250

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 251

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to

problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.

Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.

Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples:

The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 23(1), 90-108.

Rost, M. (1991). Listening in action: Activities for developing listening in language teaching.

New York: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research.The Modern

Language Journal, 78 (2), 199–221.

Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 2(2), 80-84.

Scheiter, K.,& Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments.Educational

Psychology Review, 19(3), 285-307.

Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem‐based learning: Rationale and description. Medical

Education, 17(1), 11-16.

Schneider, E. W. (2003). The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to

dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233-281.

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007).A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational

Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.

Schwartz, N. H., Andersen, C., Hong, N., Howard, B., & McGee, S. (2004). The influence of

metacognitive skills on learners’ memory of information in a hypermedia

environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 77-93.

251

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 252

Shackle, C. (2001).Speakers of South Asian languages. In Swan, M., & Smith, B. (Ed.),

Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 227-243).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information

processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general

theory.Psychological Review, 84(2), 127-190.

Shulman, L. S., & Keisler, E. R. (1966). Learning by discovery. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Smith, B. (2001). Arabic speakers. In Swan. M., & Smith, B. (Ed.), Learner English: A

teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 195-213). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Ed.) (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. The Psychology of Learning

and Motivation,43, 215–266Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of

an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive

architecture.Instructional Science. 32(1/2), 9-31.

Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R.

E.Mayer, (Ed), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30).New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional

design.Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.

Sweller, J. (2010a). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In Plass, J. L.,

Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (Ed.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29-47). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J, (2010b). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive

load.Educational Psychology Review.22,123-138.

252

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 253

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive

Science, 12(2), 257-285.

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER

Press.

Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and

Instruction, 16(2), 165-169.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P.,& Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and

Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.

Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tiemey, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective

attention as factors in the structuring of technical material.Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 119, 176-192.

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem

solving in learning algebra.Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.

Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and

learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

8(5), 463.

Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching

techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2),

115-121.

Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Howe, W. (1982). Consequences of history-cued and means-end

strategies in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 455-483.

Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical

problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(4), 639.

253

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 254

Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems.Evolutionary

Psychology, 4, 434-458.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and

instructional design.Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and

cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 74(1), 71-81.

Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving.Journal

of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424.

Tarone, E. (1980).Some influences on the syllable structure of interlanguage

phonology. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 139-152.

Taylor, L. (2002). Assessing learner’s English: but whose/which English(es)? Research

Notes, 10, 18-20.Cambridge: University of Cambridge ESOL examinations..

Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., Fazio,F.,

Rizzolatti, G.,Stefano, F., Cappa, S.F., & Perani, D.(2005). Listening to action-related

sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 17(2), 273-281.

Thompson, I. (2001). Japanese speakers. In Swan, M.& Smith, B. (Ed), Learner English: A

teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 296-309). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997).When two sensory modes are better than

one.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257.

Tops, G. A., Dekeyser, X., Devriendt, B., & Geukens, S. (2001). Dutch speakers. In Swan,

M. & Smith, B. (Ed), Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other

Problems (pp. 1-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

254

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 255

Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzu¨ge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de

Prague 8: Prague.

Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969). Principles of phonology translated by C.A. Baltaxe. Berkeley, CA:

University of California.

Van Gerven, P. W., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004).Memory

load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging.Psychophysiology, 41(2), 167-174.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its

design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 53(3), 5-13.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning:

Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2),

147-177.

Van Merriënboer, J. J.G., De Croock, M. B., & Jelsma, O. (1997). The transfer paradox:

Effects of contextual interference on retention and transfer performance of a complex

cognitive skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84(3), 784-786.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple

tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 343-352.

Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Schuurman, J.G., De Croock, M.B.M., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (2002).

Redirecting learners’ attention during training: effects on cognitive load, transfer test

performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11-37.

Van Merriënboer, J. J.G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning:

Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2),

147-177.

255

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 256

Van Wijngaarden, S. J. (2001). Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech.Speech

Communication, 35(1), 103-113.

Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen?Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 24, 3-25.

Wang, H. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Mutual intelligibility of Chinese, Dutch and

American speakers of English. Doctoral dissertation. Leiden University.Netherlands

Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT), Utrecht. Retrieved from

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/8597

Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics (6th Edition). Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Weber, A., Broersma, M., & Aoyagi, M. (2011).Spoken-word recognition in foreign-

accented speech by L2 listeners.Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 479-491.

Weinberger, S.H. (2014).The speech accent archive. Retrieved from

http://accent.gmu.edu/about.php

Wells, J. C. (Ed). (1982). Accents of English: An Introduction(Vol. 1). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wingstedt, M., & Schulman, R. (1987).Comprehension of foreign accents. In Phonologica

1984: Proceedings of the 5thinternational phonology meeting (pp. 339-344).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wolvin, A.D., & Coakley, C.G. (1996). Listening. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. (2006). Compare the poles. Retrieved from

http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/index.html

Yagang, F. (1994). Listening: Problems and solutions. In Kral, T. (Ed),Teacher Development:

Making the Right Moves. Washington, DC: English Language Programs Divisions,

USIA.

256

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 257

Yeung, A. S., Jin, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split

attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 23, 1-21.

Yoon, K. (2004). CLT theories and practices in EFL curricula. A case study of Korea. Asian

EFL Journal, 6(3), 1–16.

257

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 258

Appendix A

Participant Background Information Sheet

Cognitive Load Theory and Listening to Accent Variations in English

Questionnaire for participant background

1. Please circle your gender. MALE FEMALE

2. What’s your major? ______

3. When did you start to study at the university? ______year ______

month

4. What’s your age? ______

5. How long have you learnt English? ______years ______months

6. Where were you born? ______

7. What’s your native language? ______(please specify if you are bilingual or

have any dialect).

8. Please circle whether you have history of speech or hearing impairment?

YES NO

258

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 259

Appendix B

Vocabulary Practice Sheet for the Acquisition Phase: Experiment 1

দয্া enাকর্ িটক

আমরা 10 িমিনট সমেয়র মেধয্ ei শbেলার aথর্ েশখার েচা করব

1. Continent: মহােদশ

2. Surrounded: চািরিদেক েঘরা

3. Iceberg: িহমৈশল

4. Glacier: িহমবাহ

5. Elevation: ucতা

6. Mother rock: মূল িশলা

7. Scattered: িবিcn

8. Exploit(ed): pাকৃ িতক সmদ uেtালন করা

9. Porpoise: ডলিফন বা ক

10. Tundra: গাছপালা

11. Marine: পািনেত বসবাস করা

12. Polar region: েম pেদশ

13. Pollution: দষণূ

259

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 260

Appendix C

Vocabulary Practice Sheet for the Test Phase: Experiment 1

দয্া আকর্ িটক

আমরা 10 িমিনট সমেয়র মেধয্ ei শbেলার aথর্ েশখার েচা করব

1. Ocean: মহাসাগর

2. Seasonally: বছেরর িনিদর্ ঋতু েত

3. Limited: সীিমত িকছু জায়গায়

4. Amphibious: uভচর

5. Prehistoric: pাৈগর্িতহািসক

7. Reindeer: বলগাহিরণ

8. Polar bear: েম pেদশীয় ভালুক

9. North Pole: utর েম

10. Comparatively: তু লনামূলক ভােব

11. Natural resources: pাকৃ িতক সmদ

260

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 261

Appendix D

Task Effort Questionnaire for the Acquisition Phase: Experiment 1

দয্াenাকর্ িটক pমালার িনেদর্ িশকা pমালািট পূরণ কর. 2 িমিনট সমেয়র মেধয্. যিদ েকােনা p থােক, তেব ei গেবষকেক eখিন িজেগয্স করেত হেব.

কােজর েচার pমালা

নাম………………………………………………………………………………..

1 েথেক 9 পযর্n েয নmরেলা আেছ, েসেলার মেধয্ েযিট ei aনুেcদ eর বয্াপাের েতামার aনুভূ িত pকাশ কের, েসিটেত িটক (√) দাo.

(ক) iংেরিজ ucারণ িছল:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 খুব, খুব খুব সহজ কিঠন েবশ সহজ কিঠন খুব খুব, খুব সহজ সহজ নয় কিঠন নয় কিঠন কিঠন নয়

(খ) েয aনুেcদিট েনিছ, েসিট িছল:

261

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 262

Appendix E

Task Sheet for the Acquisition Phase: Experiment 1

দয্া enাকর্ িটক

তু িম যতটু k মেন করেত পােরা পূেবর্ েশানা aনুেcদ েথেক, ততটু k েলখ. পয্ারাgাফিট তু িম বাংলােতi েলখ. eিট েলখার জনয্ 10 িমিনট সময় রেয়েছ.

নাম………………………………………………………………………….

262

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 263

Appendix F

Task Effort Questionnaire for the Test Phase: Experiment 1

দয্াআকর্ িটক pমালার িনেদর্ িশকা pমালািট পূরণ কর. 2 িমিনট সমেয়র মেধয্. যিদ েকােনা p থােক, তেব ei গেবষকেক eখিন িজেগয্স করেত হেব.

কােজর েচার pমালা

নাম………………………………………………………………………………..

(ক) iংেরিজ ucারণ িছল:

(খ) েয aনুেcদিট েনিছ, েসিট িছল:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 খুব, খুব খুব সহজ কিঠন েবশ সহজ কিঠন খুবকিঠন খুব, খুব সহজ সহজ নয় কিঠন নয় কিঠন নয়

263

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 264

Appendix G

Task Sheet for the Test Phase: Experiment 1

দয্া আকর্ িটক

নাম………………………………………………………………………………..

264

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 265

Appendix H

Task Effort Questionnaire for the Acquisition Phase: Experiments 2 & 3

Cognitive Load Theory and Listening to Accent Variations in English

Task effort questionnaire for “The Antarctic”

Name………………………………………………………………

Tick (√) the number 1-9 that shows how you feel about the listening comprehension.

1. The accent was:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very, very easy not not too not difficult very very, very easy difficult difficult easy difficult very easy difficult

2. The listening material was:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very, very easy not not too not difficult very very, very easy difficult difficult easy difficult very easy difficult

265

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 266

Appendix I

Task Sheet for the Acquisition Phase: Experiments 2 & 3

Cognitive Load Theory and Listening to Accent Variations in English

Name ______

Write down what you remember from the listening of “The Antarctic”. You have 10 minutes for writing it.

266

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 267

Appendix J

Task Effort Questionnaire for the Test Phase: Experiments 2 & 3

Cognitive Load Theory and Listening to Accent Variations in English

Task effort questionnaire for “The Arctic”

Name………………………………………………………………

Tick (√) the number 1-9 that shows how you feel about the listening comprehension.

1. The accent was:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very, very easy not not too not difficult very very, very easy difficult difficult easy difficult very easy difficult

2. The listening material was:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very, very easy not not too not difficult very very, very easy difficult difficult easy difficult very easy difficult

267

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 268

Appendix K

Task Sheet for the Test Phase: Experiments 2 & 3

Cognitive Load Theory and Listening to Accent Variations in English

Name ______

Write down what you remember from the listening of “The Arctic”. You have 10 minutes for writing it.

268

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY AND LISTENING TO ACCENT VRIATIONS IN ENGLISH 269

Appendix L

CD Playlist for Listening Comprehension Materials

The Acquisition Phase

Arabic-accented English Speaker A Australian-accented English Speaker A Speaker B Speaker C Chinese-accented English Speaker A Speaker B Speaker C Indian-accented English Speaker A Speaker B Russian-accented English Speaker A Speaker B Speaker C

The Test Phase

269