1051981

research-article2021
LTR0010.1177/13621688211051981Language Teaching ResearchTsang

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

EFL listening, pronunciation,

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
and teachers’ accents in the sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13621688211051981
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211051981
present era: An investigation journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

into pre- and in-service

teachers’ cognition

Art Tsang
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
The recent decades have seen enthusiastic calls for reconceptualizing English as a foreign language
(EFL) education, taking into account the current socio-lingual status of English and how it is used
genuinely for communication interculturally and internationally. However, a wide gap still exists
between promulgation such as intelligibility over nativelikeness in pronunciation instruction and
realities in the EFL classroom. The study investigated pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition about
accents and the incorporation of different accents in their classrooms. One hundred and sixty-
six EFL teachers (89 pre-service and 77 in-service) from Hong Kong and Guangdong (a province
in China) completed a questionnaire. Contrary to expectations, the teachers’ overall attitude
was neutral rather than positive towards General American (GA) / Received Pronunciation
(RP)1 associated with EFL teachers’ accents and EFL education. Only two thirds of the teachers
were certain about which accents to use and to teach in listening and pronunciation lessons (i.e.
as many as one third were uncertain). Also, the participants were neutral about incorporating
non-GA/RP accents into EFL lessons, with around one third objecting to doing so. Although
no differences were found between pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition, additional analysis
revealed that teachers’ individual background variables, namely teaching experience, self-rated
language proficiency, and knowledge of sound systems (IPA for English; pinyin for Mandarin), have
significant correlations with their cognition.

Keywords
EFL listening, English as a lingua franca/an international language, pronunciation, teachers’
accents, teacher cognition, teachers’ background, World Englishes

Corresponding author:
Art Tsang, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Email: arttsang@cuhk.edu.hk
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

I Introduction
Researchers in the applied linguistics and English as a foreign language (EFL) education
fields should be quite familiar with the emergence of the World Englishes (WE), English
as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and English as an International Language (EIL) paradigms,
and the considerable discussion revolving around them over the past two decades.
Scholars have advocated the importance of reconceptualizing the many facets of English
as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) education, including curricular and assessment
design as well as pedagogical approaches (e.g. Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2011; Tsang,
2019). Among these paradigm-shifting discussions, one which has particularly signifi-
cant implications is the need to re-consider the issue of standard-versus-non-standard
accents in teaching pronunciation and listening. General American (GA) and Received
Pronunciation (RP)1 have long been hailed as the standards in EFL education (e.g. Kang,
2015; Mompean & Fouz-González, 2021; Tsang, 2019). However, they may no longer
be (1) the only legitimate pronunciation yardsticks in the epoch in which ‘English is
owned by speakers who speak the language’ (Tsang, 2019, p. 585) and (2) the only input
learners need to decipher in spoken English communication. Hence, scholars have gener-
ally agreed on the need to focus on intelligibility over nativelikeness in teaching and
learning pronunciation (e.g. Jenkins, 2006; Saito, 2012) and to expose learners to a wider
range of accents in listening (e.g. Hamada & Suzuki, 2021; Sung, 2016; Tsang, 2019).
Despite these discussions, it is ultimately the frontline teachers who act as gatekeep-
ers, making the all-important decisions about how pronunciation and listening are to be
taught in the EFL classroom. It is hence of great significance to understand teachers’
cognition, which comprises attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and perceptions (Baker, 2014),
since it impacts their actual practices in class (e.g. Borg, 2003; Tsunemoto, Trofimovich,
& Kennedy, 2020). However, teachers’ cognition about the teaching and learning of pro-
nunciation is one of the least explored areas to date (Lim, 2016; Tsunemoto et al., 2020).
Only in the past decade did research into teachers’ cognition in this area start to burgeon
(Gordon, 2020). Additionally, while a lot of studies and discussions have revolved
around learners’ pronunciation and their views, very little research has investigated
teachers’ attitudes towards the accents EFL teachers ought to speak with. Non-native-
English-speaking EFL teachers are especially research-worthy, as they are often caught
in a dilemma. On the one hand, along with any non-native English speaker nowadays,
they have the liberty to speak in any accent with which they are comfortable (although
for communicative effectiveness interculturally and internationally, these accents should
be generally intelligible). On the other hand, these teachers may feel obliged to speak
with GA/RP, even though mastering it may never be possible, in order to become role
models and/or to present a sign of competence/professionalism in the EFL classroom.
Given the pervasiveness of GA and RP as the norms in many English education settings
still, the ideal of teachers with GA/RP accents falls within the expectations of students
(e.g. Buckingham, 2015) and even parents and school leaders (Bai & Yuan, 2019). Bai
and Yuan (2019), for example, reported how some non-native-English-speaking EFL
teachers in Hong Kong, because of ‘their own perceived ‘imperfect’ pronunciation’ (p.
134), experienced pressure from social expectations of their pronunciation, adversely
affecting their self-efficacy in teaching pronunciation. This may also lead to issues with
Tsang 3

emotional well-being (e.g. see Song, 2016). It is contentious to suggest that EFL teachers
should speak with a certain accent. Although this controversy is very difficult to address
(perhaps not even addressable), it is nevertheless related to these teachers’ well-being,
emotions, professionalism, and also the quality of input for EFL learners (i.e. teachers’
speech). Shedding light on teachers’ cognition about their (desired) accents would pro-
vide a useful point of departure for exploration and meaningful discussion about this
thorny issue.
This article reports pre- and in-service EFL teachers’ cognition about teaching pro-
nunciation and listening as well as accents. More specifically, following the definition of
teacher cognition by Baker (2014) introduced above, I examined their (1) attitudes
towards GA/RP and non-native English accents associated with EFL teachers (i.e. their
own accents) and students, (2) self-perceived knowledge, in terms of levels of certainty,
about what accents to use and teach in listening and pronunciation, and (3) perceptions
of their own practices of incorporating non-GA/RP accents in their teaching.
Pre-service teachers were thought to be worth researching since a primary goal of
teacher education is to equip them with up-to-date and practical knowledge and skills to
teach effectively. Also, as there is rapidly growing recognition of the importance of WE/
ELF/EIL paradigms, the training pre-service teachers are receiving nowadays may well
be different from that received previously by in-service teachers (e.g. some ESL/EFL
teacher education programmes and ESL/EFL curricula have undergone restructuring in
order to better reflect the current status and authentic use of English internationally).
Indeed, previous studies have also found significant differences between pre- and in-
service teachers’ cognition from different perspectives (e.g. Lee, 2016; Polat, 2010).
Therefore, both pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition were examined and compared in
this part of the study in the hope of yielding more nuanced understanding and generating
more specific implications for these two groups of educators. In the following, I will
briefly discuss teachers’ cognition of accents from the perspective of EFL teachers them-
selves and EFL instruction.

1 EFL teachers’ accents and teacher cognition

Teacher cognition of EFL teachers’ accents has received very little attention. While per-
haps all English speakers, including EFL learners, have the latitude to speak with any
(intelligible) accents they desire in line with the WE/ELF/EIL spirit, there are other con-
siderations for EFL teachers who may want to speak with GA/RP in order, for instance,
to demonstrate their competence and professionalism. Most of the studies about EFL
teachers’ accents so far have centred around learners’ perceptions (see Tsang, 2020a,
2020b), and only a few have investigated teacher cognition.
Tsunemoto et al. (2020) investigated Japanese pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about
instructors’ pronunciation. The participants were somewhat neutral towards the state-
ment, ‘In helping learners to improve their pronunciation of English, it’s more important
to have a nativelike accent than it is to have training in teaching pronunciation’ (M =
428/1,000, SD = 212). In contrast, the participants seemed to agree slightly with the
statement that, ‘I think anyone who teaches pronunciation should have a nativelike
accent’ (M = 678/1,000, SD = 220). Similarly, most Iranian EFL teacher participants
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

(67%) in Khatib and Monfared’s (2017) study thought that ‘teachers should demonstrate
native-based accent’ (p. 225), while only 33% agreed that non-native accents are accept-
able for teachers. In Uchida and Sugimoto (2020), a study with 100 EFL teacher partici-
pants in Tokyo, as many as 84 participants (strongly) agreed with the statement, ‘it is
desirable for teachers to acquire native-like pronunciation’ and 71 (strongly) disagreed
that ‘teachers’ pronunciation leaving traces of a Japanese accent is acceptable’ (p. 28).
However, Lim (2016) found that the Cambodian participants were proud of their non-
native accents and believed that ‘with adequate preparation, they could teach English
pronunciation as effectively as a qualified NES [Native English speaker] teacher could’
(p. 319). The overall findings are therefore somewhat mixed. Teacher cognition of
accents can be a complicated issue for EFL teachers, potentially or directly impacting
their well-being, emotions, professionalism, and input for learners (i.e. teacher speech).
The topic of what EFL teachers think of accents in relation to their status (as EFL teach-
ers) thus warrants more investigation.

2 Accents, EFL pronunciation and listening instruction, and teacher

cognition
Most scholars would agree that intelligibility, rather than nativelikeness, is the most
appropriate goal of EFL pronunciation instruction (although, as a reviewer pointed out,
it is possible to achieve both for some people). With regard to listening instruction, it is
important to expose learners to accents other than the standard, namely GA/RP, as they
are likely to engage in communication with people with non-GA/RP accents. However,
there is often a divide between these oft-repeated calls and realities in EFL education
(Tsang, 2019). The standard accents are still very much the norm in pronunciation and
listening lessons. To establish greater understanding of the divide, teacher cognition
research plays a pivotal role.
He and Zhang (2010) examined 189 Chinese EFL teachers’ views regarding whether
they would ‘prefer [their students] to be’ those who had native-like accents or those who
had non-native-like but intelligible accents. These researchers found that more teachers
opted for the former (56.6% for native-like accents) than the latter (43.4%). Partly simi-
lar results were presented by Uchida and Sugimoto (2020). As many as 95/100 teacher
participants chose standard British/American accents as the preferred pronunciation
model in EFL education. However, the teachers were less strict regarding their expecta-
tions of students’ actual pronunciation. This was evident in their overall slight agreement
with ‘pronunciation proficiency which does not inhibit communication is sufficient for
students’ and their neutral attitude towards ‘it is desirable for students to acquire native-
like pronunciation’ (p. 28). In another study, conducted by Khatib and Monfared (2017),
over 85% of Iranian EFL teachers chose GA as the best pronunciation model for their
learners and merely 3% chose non-GA/RP accents. Similar to Uchida and Sugimoto
(2020), however, most teachers were more flexible with students’ actual pronunciation,
with around 67% of the participants favouring ‘as long as communication is not adversely
affected, we shouldn’t insist on native-like [pronunciation]’. Only 33% chose ‘students
should follow standard American or British accent as “proper” pronunciation’ (p. 225).
Some researchers have also investigated pre-service EFL teachers’ cognition related to
Tsang 5

this matter. Wong (2018) found that her participants in Hong Kong generally preferred to
use ‘native English as the teaching and learning model’. In a focus-group interview,
some interviewees stated that they would correct students’ pronunciation errors making
reference to the standard accents. They also believed that ‘teachers should teach “stand-
ard English and the right pronunciation” and that native English was the “standard
English” ’ (p. 180). In Cambodia, Lim (2016) found that although the pre-service EFL
teacher participants favoured intelligibility over nativelikeness in teaching pronuncia-
tion, some participants referred to GA as a point of reference for intelligibility. Therefore,
the findings have generally been consistent in that pre- and in-service teachers seem to
favour GA/RP in pronunciation instruction, yet they may not require their learners to
speak with GA/RP (though some seemed stricter, as reported by Wong (2018) and others
more lenient, such as those in Lim (2016)).
Fewer studies have homed in on EFL teachers’ cognition about the choice of accents
used in teaching listening. In a study conducted in Taiwan, Curran and Chern (2017)
found that the pre-service teacher participants generally agreed ‘it is important that stu-
dents be exposed to English used by proficient second language speakers [and] English
spoken by a range of native speakers (e.g. Australians, Indians, Africans, etc.)’ (p. 141).
Teachers’ positive attitudes towards exposing learners to non-standard Englishes have
also been reported by other researchers, such as Sung (2019) and Lim (2016). Sung
(2019) investigated 135 pre-service EFL teachers in Korea and found that they recog-
nized the importance of exposing learners to different Englishes; nevertheless, despite
their willingness to provide such exposure, they thought they were ill-equipped to incor-
porate WE into their classrooms. In Lim’s (2016) study, the participants also held a posi-
tive attitude towards Englishes, but they were reluctant to incorporate these into their
lessons as they thought doing so would be against their learners’ expectations and might
also lead to their being judged negatively by the learners.
The reviewed studies, though small in number, have painted converging patterns of
teacher cognition about pronunciation and listening instruction, but details have not been
looked into. There has been little research comparing in-service (i.e. generally older;
more experienced) and pre-service (generally younger; less experienced) teachers within
the same context. As stated above, younger teachers may well be receiving EFL educa-
tion and teacher training programmes different from those experienced by their older
colleagues. Also, younger teachers have grown up in an era (the recent decades) in which
WE/ELF/EIL are more salient than they were for older generations. It would hence be
worthwhile to examine whether the two groups of teachers have different cognition of
these phenomena. Another important point to note is that in previous studies, distinctions
have usually been made between native and non-native accents. A more nuanced distinc-
tion, such as GA/RP (i.e. standard English), non-standard2 English (e.g. Scottish and
Australian), and second/foreign language (L2) accents would yield more insights given
that GA and RP have been and still often are considered as the standards in EFL contexts
(e.g. Kang, 2015; Mompean & Fouz-González, 2021; Tsang, 2019). In response to teach-
ers not receiving enough input about pronunciation and listening instruction against the
backdrop of WE/ELF/EIL, it was considered worthwhile to collate teachers’ perceived
levels of certainty about the accents they should use as listening input and as pronuncia-
tion models in teaching. Attempts were made to address these gaps in this study.
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

II The study
This article reports part of the findings from a larger study of teachers’ and learners’
perceptions of accents, and teaching and learning EFL listening and pronunciation. The
foci of the present article are on teachers’ cognition about EFL teachers’ accents and
incorporating different accents into their lessons. The following research questions
guided the study.

•• Research question 1: What is EFL teachers’ attitudes towards accents, especially

RP and GA, associated with EFL teachers and students? Are there differences
between pre- and in-service teachers?
•• Research question 2: What are EFL teachers’ levels of certainty about what
accents to use and teach in listening and pronunciation? Are there differences
between pre- and in-service teachers?
•• Research question 3: What is EFL teachers’ perceptions of their own practices of
incorporating non-GA/RP accents in their teaching? Are there differences between
pre- and in-service teachers’?

Research question 1 was therefore about teacher’ general attitudes towards accents, the
second in part about their perceived knowledge of accent choices in teaching, and the
third revolved about their perceived practices.

III Methods
1 The participants
A total of 166 EFL teachers (89 pre-service and 77 in-service) from Hong Kong and
Guangdong (a province in China) participated voluntarily in the study. They were
recruited via convenience (e.g. through the author’s network) and snowball (e.g. partici-
pants encouraging their colleagues to take part) sampling. All of the participants spoke
either Mandarin or Cantonese (both are dialects of Chinese) as their first language (L1)
and English as their L2/FL. The pre-service teachers (Mage = 21.17, SD = 2.35, Females
= 57, Males = 32) were undergoing their EFL teacher training leading to an officially
recognized English teacher status at a university in Hong Kong. Although studying at the
same tertiary institute, the pre-service teachers’ came from different primary and second-
ary schools, so they represented a very wide range of recent EFL education experiences.
The in-service English teachers (Mage = 32.60, SD = 9.10, Females = 61, Males = 13)
were already teaching in different primary (n = 29) or secondary (n = 36) schools (two
were teaching at tertiary institutions; 10 did not state) in Hong Kong or Guangdong.
Their teaching experience ranged from 0.5 to 32 years, M = 9.79, SD = 9.15, Median =
5.00. Teaching experience and age were found to have an almost perfect correlation, r =
.98, p < .01.
As there are far fewer EFL teachers than EFL students, conducting a large-scale study
of teacher cognition would be more challenging than a study of learners’. However, stud-
ies with smaller numbers of teacher participants are still significant, given that each pre-/
in-service EFL teacher (will) teach a large number of students per year. In this study, it
Tsang 7

was conjectured that the 166 teachers (when the pre-service teachers also join the work-
force) would have a direct impact on at least 10,000 students each year (a safe estimate
of each teacher teaching two to three classes with 30 students each annually).

2 The questionnaire and measures

To investigate all English accents, three categories were created: (I) the standard L1
accents (i.e. GA/RP), (II) non-standard L1 accents (e.g. Australian), and (III) L2 accents
(e.g. Japanese-accented English). As evident in the pilot test, the pre-/in-service English
teacher participants generally had no difficulty distinguishing between these three broad
groups; they were asked to leave the items blank if they were unsure.
The questionnaire sections pertaining to this study were the background information
and the cognition sections. The former elicited their age, gender, status (pre-/in-service),
place of origin, L1(s), L2/FL(s), recent English proficiency level (only for pre-service
teachers since virtually no in-service teachers had taken any tests in the recent five years),
self-rated English listening, speaking and pronunciation skills, knowledge of sound sys-
tems (International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) for English and pinyin for Mandarin),
level(s) at which they were teaching, and year of teaching experience (both of these
items for in-service teachers only). Their recent English proficiency was reflected either
in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) or the Hong Kong
Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) English examination, which was bench-
marked with IELTS in 2012 (Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority
[HKEAA], 2015). The participants were asked to provide their attainment scores in one
or both of these tests if they had taken them within the previous five years. Therefore,
this item was only relevant to the pre-service teachers, all of whom had taken one or both
tests recently upon completing their secondary education. The participants chose from 1
to 5 to indicate their self-rated language skills, with 5 being ‘native-like’ proficiency.
They were also asked to indicate their familiarity with the English IPA and Mandarin
pinyin systems (three choices were provided: Very familiar/familiar/somewhat familiar).
They were asked to leave these blank if they had no knowledge or if they were unsure.
The majority of the participants had at least some knowledge of English IPA and pinyin,
as shown in Table 1, which lists the language-related background information of both
groups of participants.
The cognition section of the questionnaire was comprised of nine five-point Likert-
type items (from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) (see Figure 1). Items 1–5 elicited
the participants’ attitudes towards accents associated with EFL teachers and students (i.e.
Research question 1), items 6–7 related to their level of certainty about what accents to
use and teach in class (i.e. Research question 2), and items 8–9 about their incorporation
of non-GA/RP accents (i.e. the use of audio/audio-visual materials with specific accents)
into their teaching (i.e. Research question 3). Since there are no relevant validated scales,
these nine items were constructed based on relevant studies and discussions such as Tsang
(2019, 2020b), Kang (2015), and Scales et al. (2006). The items were analysed individu-
ally, which is acceptable in construct measurement (Dewaele & McCloskey, 2015).
Although perhaps not as rigorous as multiple items for one construct, this one-item
approach has been applied by many researchers (e.g. Curran & Chern, 2017; Khatib &
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 1. Language-related background of the participants.

Item Pre-service In-service All teachers

teachers teachers

M SD n M SD n M SD n
Number of spoken languages* 2.24 0.48 89 2.10 0.42 77 2.17 0.45 166
Overall English proficiency** 7.20 0.36 86 – – – – – –
Self-rated English listening proficiency*** 4.34 0.77 88 3.88 0.91 73 4.13 0.87 161
Self-rated English speaking proficiency*** 4.23 0.74 88 3.88 0.94 73 4.07 0.85 161
Self-rated English pronunciation*** 4.22 0.81 88 3.85 0.86 73 4.05 0.85 161
Knowledge of IPA**** 1.62 0.67 84 1.70 0.67 69 1.65 0.67 153
Knowledge of pinyin**** 1.99 0.73 70 1.91 0.80 66 1.95 0.76 136
Years of learning EFL 17.92 2.17 87 23.57 7.21 69 20.42 5.78 156

Notes. * range = 2 to 4 languages. ** lowest = 1, highest = 9. *** lowest = 1, highest = 5. **** lowest = 1,
highest = 3.

Monfared, 2017; Uchida & Sugimoto, 2020; Yu & Shen, 2012). In the present study, in
addition to item-level analysis, the items were also combined to form three scales, illus-
trating a more holistic picture. These were teachers’: Favourability towards GA/RP (items
1–3 and 5; hereinafter referred to as the GA/RP favourability scale), level of certainty
about what accents to use and teach in classrooms (items 6 and 7; hereinafter referred to
as the accent certainty scale), and incorporation of non-GA/RP accents in teaching (items
8 and 9; hereinafter referred to as the non-GA/RP incorporation scale). All three scales
show satisfactory reliability, α ⩾ .75 (see Table 4 below), deleting any item resulting in a
lower α for the GA/RP favourability scale. The items were randomized and different ver-
sions were distributed to different participants to prevent an order effect.
As in the study by Tsang (2020a), the questionnaire was pre-piloted using think-aloud
interviewing in which two teacher participants expressed their thoughts verbally whilst
completing it (Collins, 2003). It was also piloted with two pre- and two in-service teach-
ers. All the (potential) problems, such as lack of clarity, were addressed prior to the main
study.

3 Data entry and analysis

The collected data were screened. Thirteen questionnaires were discarded as they were
largely incomplete or had not been completed in a conscientious manner, resulting in 166
questionnaires (89 pre-service and 77 in-service). Table 1 shows how the background
variables were entered. The numbers of spoken languages and years of EFL learning
were entered directly. For overall English proficiency, the IELTS scores or the HKDSE-
to-IELTS conversion scores were entered, hence 9 being the highest (as in IELTS). Self-
rated proficiency scores (from 1–5) were entered directly. Knowledge of IPA and pinyin
was converted to the score from 1 (somewhat familiar) to 3 (very familiar).
As for the level of agreement for the nine items in the cognition section, a score of 1–5
was entered for each item (Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neither agree nor disagree =
3, Disagree = 2, and Strongly Disagree = 1). The average scores for each of the three
Tsang 9

Five items on accents associated with EFL teachers and teaching (RQ1)

[1] Ideally, English teachers should speak with a standard British/American accent.
[2] Strictly speaking, English teachers without a standard American/British English accent are
not appropriate English teachers.
[3] As an English teacher, I would require myself to work hard to speak with a standard British/
American accent.
[4] English teachers should not speak with non-native accents.
[5] As an English teacher, I would require my students to work hard to speak with a standard
British/American accent.

Two items on level of certainty about accents to use and teach (RQ2)

[6] I am clear what accents to choose as listening input.

[7] I am clear what accents to teach in pronunciation lessons.

Two items on incorporating non-GA/RP accents in teaching (RQ3)

[8] I would incorporate other native English accents (i.e. not standard American/British such
as Australian and Scottish) in my English lessons.
[9] I would incorporate non-native English accents in my English lessons such as Hong Kong
and Japanese accents.

Figure 1. The nine items in the cognition section of the questionnaire.

Note. RQ = research question.

scales were also calculated. All values for skewness and kurtosis for all nine individual
item scores and three scale scores fall between –2 and +2, the range denoting normal
univariate distribution (George & Mallery, 2011). In fact, most values are only between
–1 and +1, with the highest absolute value being 1.20 for kurtosis in the accent certainty
scale.
To address the research questions, descriptive statistical analyses were conducted,
followed by independent-samples t-tests (with Bonferroni correction) to examine differ-
ences between pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition.

IV Results and discussion

Research question 1: Teachers’ cognition of accents associated with EFL
teachers and teaching
Table 2 (items 1–5) presents the teachers’ cognition of accents associated with EFL
teachers and teaching. The teachers showed a slightly positive attitude towards the idea
of themselves and other English teachers conforming to GA/RP: teachers should speak
with GA/RP (M = 3.55, SD = 0.93) and I work hard towards GA/RP (M = 3.67, SD =
0.90). However, the participants generally disagreed that those without GA/RP are inap-
propriate English teachers (M = 2.16, SD = 0.87) and teachers should not speak with
 10

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the nine items in the cognition section (all teacher participants).

Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly M SD

Agree nor disagree disagree (/5)
[1] Teachers should speak with GA/RP. 17 (10.2) 89 (53.6) 30 (18.1) 28 (16.9) 2 (1.2) 3.55 0.93
[2] Teachers without GA/RP are inappropriate teachers. 1 (0.6) 14 (8.4) 30 (18.1) 86 (51.8) 35 (21.1) 2.16 0.87
[3] I work hard towards GA/RP 23 (13.9) 89 (53.6) 32 (19.3) 20 (12.0) 2 (1.2) 3.67 0.90
[4] Teachers should not speak with L2 accents. 2 (1.2) 24 (14.5) 37 (22.3) 85 (51.2) 18 (10.8) 2.44 0.91
[5] I require my students to speak GA/RP. 7 (4.2) 51 (30.7) 35 (21.1) 62 (37.3) 11 (6.6) 2.89 1.05
[6] I know what accents to use as listening input. 11 (6.6) 105 (63.3) 34 (20.5) 16 (9.6) 0 (0.0) 3.67 0.74
[7] I know what accents to teach in pronunciation lessons. 16 (9.7) 100 (60.6) 31 (18.8) 15 (9.1) 3 (1.8) 3.67 0.84
[8] I incorporate non-standard L1 accents in class. 8 (4.8) 53 (32.1) 46 (27.9) 48 (29.1) 10 (6.1) 3.01 1.03
[9] I incorporate L2 accents in class. 9 (5.5) 64 (38.8) 40 (24.2) 42 (25.5) 10 (6.1) 3.12 1.05
[1–3, 5] GA/RP Favourability 3.06 0.73
[6–7] Accent certainty 3.67 0.71
[8–9] non-GA/RP Incorporation 3.06 0.93

Notes. n = 165–166 for each item. Percentages in parentheses.

Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Tsang 11

L2 accents (M = 2.44, SD = 0.91). The teachers slightly disagreed that they would
require their students to speak GA/RP, M = 2.89, SD = 1.05. Overall, from the GA/RP
favourability scale, the teachers seemed to show a neutral attitude towards GA/RP in
relation to EFL teachers and teaching, M = 3.06, SD = 0.73.
Separate frequency distributions of pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition in all nine
items are presented in Appendices 1 and 2. There are no significant between-group dif-
ferences for items 2–4 or for the GA/RP favourability scale. Significant differences were
found for item 1 and 5. For item 1, Mpre-service = 3.69, SD = 0.87, which is higher than
Min-service = 3.39, SD = 0.98, t(164) = 2.06, p = .04, d = 0.33. As for item 5, Min-service
= 3.08, SD = 0.98, was higher than Mpre-service = 2.72, SD = 1.09, t(164) = −2.22, p =
.03, d = 0.35. However, these differences are insignificant after the Bonferroni correc-
tion. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are no differences between the two groups
of teachers.

Research question 2: EFL teachers’ level of certainty about what accents

to use and teach in class
These results are also presented in Table 2 (items 6–7). The participants were quite cer-
tain about what accents to use in listening (M = 3.67, SD = 0.74) and to teach in pronun-
ciation lessons (M = 3.67, SD = 0.84). The overall level of certainty is quite high, M =
3.67, SD = 0.71. Nevertheless, 30.1% and 29.7% indicated not being sure what accents
to use in listening and to teach in pronunciation lessons respectively. No statistically
significant between-group differences were found for the items or the scale.

Research question 3: Teachers’ cognition of incorporating non-GA/RP

accents in their teaching
The teachers’ cognition of incorporating non-GA/RP accents into their teaching is shown
in Table 2 (items 8–9). They were relatively neutral about incorporating non-standard L1
(M = 3.01, SD = 1.03), and L2 accents (M = 3.12, SD = 1.05). Overall, the mean score
is 3.06, SD = 0.93. However, it is noteworthy that 35.2% and 31.6% of the teachers
indicated that they would not incorporate non-standard L1 or any L2 accents respectively
into their teaching. No statistically significant between-group differences were found for
the items or the scale.
As no between-group difference was found, which seems different from some previ-
ous studies, further analysis was run to examine if there were any relationships between
their language-related backgrounds and their cognition. The correlations between differ-
ent aspects of teachers’ cognition are shown below.

The relationships between teachers’ background variables and their

cognition
The item-item correlations (1) between the nine items, and (2) between these items and
the background variables are presented in Table 3. Following Field (2018), ±.1, ±.3,
 12

Table 3. The participants’ cognition and its correlations with background variables (individual items).
Item [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Teach. Learn. No. of Actual Self Self Self Know. Know.
Exp.# Exp. Langs. Eng. Eng. Speak Eng. Lis. Eng. of of
Prof.# Prof. Prof. Pron. IPA Pinyin

[1] Teachers should speak GA/RP. .43** .64** .43** .52** .37** .25** .36** .17* .22*
[2] Teachers without GA/RP are .29** .52** .51** .16* .42** –.20* –.20*
inappropriate teachers.
[3] I work hard towards GA/RP .37** .42** .34** .30** .21** .39** .17* .27**
[4] Teachers should not speak with L2 .47** .20* .23** –.18* .31**
accents.
[5] I require my students to speak GA/RP. .29** .31** .58** –.19* –.29**
[6] I know what accents to use as listening .60** .28**
input.
[7] I know what accents to teach in .26** .30**
pronunciation lessons.
[8] I incorporate non-standard L1 accents .62**
in class.
[9] I incorporate L2 accents in class.

Notes. * p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 135–166 for each correlation. # Teach. Exp. only for in-service teachers (n = 75), and Actual Eng. Prof. only for pre-service teachers (n = 86).
Language Teaching Research 00(0)
 Tsang

Table 4. The participants’ cognition and its correlations with background variables (scales).

Item α [2] [3] Teach. Learn. No. of Actual Self Eng. Self Eng. Self Eng. Know. Know.
Exp.# Exp. Langs. Eng. Prof.# Speak Prof. Lis. Prof. Pron. of IPA of Pinyin
[1] GA/RP favourability .78 .38** .55** –.22** .19*
[2] Accent certainty .75 .17* .19* .32**
[3] Non-GA/RP .77
incorporation

Notes. * p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 135–166 for each correlation. # Teach. Exp. only for in-service teachers (n = 75), and Actual Eng. Prof. only for pre-service teach-
ers (n = 86).
13
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

±.5 represents small, medium, and large effects (i.e. mild, moderate, and strong correla-
tions). Items 1–5, which correspond to the participants’ cognition of accents (especially
GA/RP) in relation to teachers and teaching, are all moderately to strongly positively
inter-correlated, rs ranging from .29 to .64, all ps < .01. These five items are also gener-
ally mildly to moderately correlated with items 6 and 7 (i.e. the level of certainty regard-
ing the accents to use and teach), rs ranging from .16, p < .05, to .37, p < .01 (although
no significant correlation was found between item 2 and 7). As expected, items 8 and 9,
which are related to incorporating non-GA/RP accents, are strongly correlated, r = .62,
p < .01, and so are items 6 and 7, r = .60, p < .01.
As for the background variables, no correlations were found between the participants’
cognition and years of EFL learning, numbers of languages spoken, actual English pro-
ficiency, and self-rated English pronunciation. However, the number of years of EFL
teaching experience (note that this only included in-service teachers) correlates moder-
ately to strongly (rs from .31 to .58, ps < .01) with their views of accents associated with
teachers and students (i.e. items 1–5). Self-rated speaking and listening proficiency were
found to be negatively correlated with items 2 and 5, with rs from –.19 to –.29, ps < .05.
Teachers’ knowledge of English IPA and Pinyin are mildly to moderately positively cor-
related with items 1, 3 (both of which related to favourable attitudes towards teachers
with GA/RP), and 7 (the accents to teach in pronunciation lessons). Knowledge of Pinyin
is also correlated with item 6 (the accents to use in listening lessons). All rs range from
.17 to .30, ps < .05.
Considering the three scales (see Table 4), the GA/RP favourability scale correlates
with the accent certainty scale, r = .38, p < .01. The favourability scale is also strongly
correlated with teaching experience, r = .55, p < .01, negatively correlated with self-
rated listening proficiency, r = –.22, p < .01, and positively correlated with knowledge
of Pinyin, r = .19, p < .05. No significant correlations were found between the non-GA/
RP incorporation scale and any of the background variables investigated. Finally, the
accent certainty scale was found to be positively correlated with self-rated English pro-
nunciation (r = .17, p < .05), knowledge of IPA (r = .19, p < .05) and Pinyin (r = .32,
p < .01).

V Discussion
The study examined pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition, which encompasses atti-
tudes, beliefs, knowledge and perceptions (Baker, 2014) in the realm of accents, listening
and pronunciation in the EFL context. The specific foci were their attitudes towards GA/
RP and non-native English accents associated with EFL teachers and students, their per-
ceptions of their own practices of incorporating non-standard accents in their teaching,
and their perceived knowledge about what accents to use and teach in EFL listening and
pronunciation.
From a certain perspective, the participants’ slightly positive attitude towards GA/RP
associated with teachers corroborates findings in previous studies such as Khatib and
Monfared (2017) and Uchida and Sugimoto (2020). However, the participants in this
study did not think GA/RP is an essential quality for an EFL teacher, and speaking with
an L2 accent is acceptable. This echoes the views of Lim’s (2016) participants, who were
Tsang 15

generally more open-minded towards L2 accents. Different from He and Zhang (2010),
but similar to Khatib and Monfared (2017) and Uchida and Sugimoto (2020), the partici-
pants slightly disagreed that it was necessary for their students to speak with GA/RP.
Therefore, overall, the teacher participants only displayed a neutral attitude towards GA/
RP, which is different from the expectation of EFL speakers in Hong Kong and China who
tend to generally favour GA/RP (e.g. Luk, 1998; Ren, Chen, & Lin, 2016; Tsang, 2020b).
This less-than-positive attitude resonates with a very recent large-scale study in Hong
Kong in which EFL learners were also found to be less positive than expected towards
GA/RP (Tsang, 2020a). Those familiar with the Hong Kong context would not cast much
doubt over its ‘strongly exonormative orientation towards native-speaker models’ (Sewell,
2009, p. 37); however, it seems that some attitudinal change has taken place organically
which could probably be propelled by the ubiquity and/or promotion of WE/ELF/EIL.
Years have passed since scholars started indefatigably advocating the move away from
accentual standards in EFL pronunciation and listening. A paradigm shift seems to have
taken place among some EFL teachers and learners (see also Tsang, 2020a).
Taking a closer look at the two groups of teachers, it is interesting to note that no dif-
ference in their GA/RP favourability was found. This somewhat contradicts the findings
in Lee (2016) in which pre-service teachers were more native-speaker-oriented than in-
service teachers. A possible reason is that there was a sizeable proportion of relatively
young in-service teachers in the present study (n = 37 under the age of 30, in a total of
68 in-service teachers who indicated their age). Their cognition may be somewhat simi-
lar to pre-service teachers’. This speculation is partly supported by the strong correlation
between teaching experience (which shows an almost perfect correlation with age) and
favourability towards GA/RP. It seems that younger teachers, whether pre-/in-service,
had more welcoming attitudes towards non-GA/RP accents than the older teachers due
possibly to the differences in teacher training and the EFL education they received influ-
enced by the WE/ELF/EIL paradigms. As stated by Tsunemoto et al. (2020), teacher
cognition is shaped by multiple experiences such as teacher training and their own teach-
ing and learning histories. These conjectures need to be further investigated in future
studies, especially qualitative ones in which in-depth data can be collated.
It seems that most teacher participants were confident about their knowledge of the
kinds of accents to use or teach, although the exact accents and reasons need further
research. However, it is still noteworthy that around 30% were not sure what accents they
should use or teach. Similar uncertainties were raised by the Korean EFL teacher partici-
pants in Sung’s (2019) study. A highly likely reason is the inadequate focus on approaches
to teaching pronunciation (especially in relation to WE/ELF/EIL) in some teacher educa-
tion programmes; it is not uncommon for teachers to express a lack of sufficient training
and knowledge about pronunciation instruction (Levis, 2021). To the best of my knowl-
edge, WE/ELF/EIL has not been institutionalized fully in many teacher education pro-
grammes (more programmes have now indeed considered these paradigms, as discussed
at the beginning of this article, but they are often not considered as key components).
Consequently, it is easy to imagine that some teachers are not fully aware of how to
select appropriate accents for teaching listening and pronunciation to specific groups of
learners. Although no differences between the two groups were found, the accents they
were certain about were not collated. Such data could have revealed insightful findings
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

(e.g. although both groups had similar levels of certainty, they could be certain about
teaching different sets of accents). This can be a direction for further studies.
Previous studies have generally revealed the positive attitudes teachers hold towards
exposing learners to different English accents (e.g. Curran & Chern, 2017; Lim, 2016;
Sung, 2019), but the teacher participants in this study were only generally neutral towards
this idea, with around one-third not intending to expose learners to non-standard L1 or
L2 accents. One likely explanation is that the amount of time devoted to actual listening
in EFL lessons is generally scarce and teachers mostly rely on audios with accompanying
exercises from publishers as reported by teacher interviewees in different EFL contexts
such as China, Japan, and Korea (Tsang, in press). These audios, as familiar to many
learners, teachers, and scholars, are often representations of GA/RP. Referring to Lim’s
(2016) study, another possible reason may be that exposing learners to non-standard
accents is against learners’ expectations and doing so might lead to negative judgments
of the teacher. Further investigation is needed to examine teacher cognition as to why
they would not be enthusiastic about using non-standard accents in their classes. The
lack of differences in cognition between the pre- and in-service teachers is also notewor-
thy. One would think that pre-service teachers could be more open-minded towards
including different accents in the classroom given that they should have grown up in
more multilingual and globalized environments and received a teaching training educa-
tion which reflected current trends. This was not the case. More in-depth research, pref-
erably qualitative ones, is needed to delve into this.
Finally, from the correlation analyses, a few important findings deserve some atten-
tion. The more the participants were GA/RP-oriented (or L1-accents oriented), the
clearer they were regarding which accents to use and teach. This was perhaps because
these GA/RP-oriented participants tended to use GA/RP mostly, if not always, hence
their greater certainty. It also implies that teachers’ attitudes potentially shape their
knowledge and vice versa. It is also interesting to note that those who were more open-
minded to incorporate non-standard L1 accents were also eager to include L2 accents
in their teaching. Intriguingly, those who favoured GA/RP tend to be teachers who
rated their listening proficiency lower. A possible explanation could be that these
teachers were indeed less proficient or confident (hence the lower self-rating) in listen-
ing; therefore, they favoured GA/RP, which they should find familiar. The positive
relationship between knowledge of English IPA and Pinyin and GA/RP orientation can
be explained by one’s understanding of sound systems and hence greater conformity to
the orthodoxy, namely GA/RP. It is rather unexpected that none of the background
variables examined was related to teachers’ willingness to incorporate non-GA/RP
accents into their teaching, which has been advocated by many scholars. Finally, posi-
tive correlations were found between self-rated English pronunciation, IPA and Pinyin
knowledge, and certainty about the choice of accents in teaching. Those who thought
they had better pronunciation and knowledge about sound systems tended to be more
certain about which accents to select when teaching listening and pronunciation. Due
to the lack of research and discussion in the literature, a lot of the explanations here are
conjectures, which require further examination in future studies.
The findings have yielded some important implications for EFL teachers and teacher
educators. From the overall results, it seems that WE/ELF/EIL ideologies could have had
Tsang 17

some effect on teachers and teacher training in the past decade, whether this was due to
reforms in teacher education programmes and EFL education in primary or secondary
schools, or an osmosis process through which teachers gradually embrace the concept of
Englishes. Workshops and seminars in the form of professional development may be
provided for teachers, especially older or more experienced ones, to inform them of cur-
rent trends in English education (e.g. intelligibility rather than nativelikeness) and the
reasons behind these shifts in ideology. Both pre- and in-service teachers also need more
input as to why and how non-GA/RP accents should and can be incorporated in their les-
sons (on listening to global Englishes, see, for example, Hamada & Suzuki, 2021; for
relevant questions teachers raised, see Couper, 2021; see also Tsang, 2019). This can be
content-based (e.g. the use of ELF for intercultural communication in this globalized era;
characteristics of different accents, registers, and phonetic symbols as suggested by
Mompean & Fouz-González, 2021) and pedagogy-based (e.g. where to obtain non-GA/
RP accents; how to adapt these for teaching in class without compromising the profes-
sionalism as a teacher (see Lim, 2016)). Many EFL listening lessons are mostly about
listening to audio recordings and completing comprehension exercises routinely (Tsang,
in press). This lack of focus on content and overwhelming focus on comprehension in
current listening instruction can have adverse effects on students’ learning and emotions
(Tsang, 2020c). Therefore, if teachers are educated about these topics, they may include
more content-oriented topics (e.g. WE, intercultural communication and features of dif-
ferent accents) to enrich their listening lessons. Teachers’ certainty about materials to be
used for teaching is an important sign of professionalism and teacher self-efficacy
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Most teacher participants in this study seemed certain
about their choices of accents to use and teach; however, around 30% of the teachers
were in fact not clear about their choices. Teacher education and professional develop-
ment providers can consider assisting teachers to make informed choices of accents to
use in teaching listening and pronunciation (for a discussion of how accents are con-
nected to different goals in ESL/EFL education, see, for example, see Tsang, 2019). It
also seems that teachers with greater knowledge of phonological systems (as reflected in
their familiarity with English IPA and Pinyin in this study; there could be other indica-
tors) and better self-rated pronunciation demonstrated greater confidence about their
choices of accents for their teaching. Therefore, imparting teachers with such knowledge
and helping them to improve their desired pronunciation as well as exploring definitions
of good pronunciation with them (e.g. it does not have to be GA/RP-like) may all con-
tribute to their greater confidence about accents selection for their classrooms.

VI Conclusions
Against the backdrop of WE/ELF/EIL, the study examined pre- and in-service teachers’
cognition about accents, EFL teachers themselves, students, and teaching. The findings
have painted an overall, somewhat optimistic, picture of closer alignment to WE/ELF/EIL
in teacher cognition. These teachers were based in Hong Kong and Guangdong, two areas
known to be highly GA/RP-oriented, yet the findings here seem to be incongruent with this
deep-seated belief. Although the teachers in this study seemed to be more open-minded,
more work still has to be done to promote and guide teachers’ understanding of why
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

non-GA/RP accents deserve a role and how they can be incorporated in EFL education.
Further research is needed to explore this topic and address the limitations of the current
study: Only a quantitative method was used to examine general patterns; qualitative meth-
ods need to be employed to explain teacher cognition in greater depth (e.g. what accents are
they certain about to be included in their EFL classes? What are the differences in input
between the pre- and in-service teachers during their teacher training?). Further quantita-
tive studies on this topic should also try to obtain larger samples from different contexts so
as to enable the findings to be more generalizable and enable comparisons, yielding a more
nuanced understanding of teacher cognition in this area. Finally, given the prevalence of
the use of technology in the classroom, it is also worthwhile examining how teachers think
of computer aided pronunciation training (CAPT) tools, which typically detect mispronun-
ciations and provide corrections (see the review by Agarwal & Chakraborty, 2019), in the
present era where GA/RP-orientedness and the notion of accuracy in pronunciation seem
to be gradually fading.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Art Tsang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2507-157X

Notes
1. RP, a form of Southern British English (Matthews, 2014), is used to refer to general standard
southern British English accents in this article.
2. This does not signify any inferiority; they are simply not regarded as common models in most
EFL educational contexts.

References
Agarwal, C., & Chakraborty, P. (2019). A review of tools and techniques for computer aided
pronunciation training (CAPT) in English. Education and Information Technologies, 24,
3731–3743.
Bai, B., & Yuan, R. (2019). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about pronunciation teaching. ELT
Journal, 73, 134–143.
Baker, A. (2014). Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge of Second Language Pronunciation Techniques:
Teacher Cognitions, Observed Classroom Practices, and Student Perceptions. TESOL
Quarterly, 48, 136–163.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of
Life Research, 12, 229–238.
Couper, G. (2021). Pronunciation Teaching Issues: Answering Teachers’ Questions. RELC
Journal, 52, 128–143.
Curran, J. E., & Chern, C. L. (2017). Pre-service English teachers’ attitudes towards English as a
lingua franca. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 137–146.
Tsang 19

Dewaele, J. M., & McCloskey, J. (2015). Attitudes towards foreign accents among adult multilin-
gual language users. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36, 221–238.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th edition. SAGE.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference
18.0 update. 11th edition. Pearson.
Gordon, J. (2020). Implementing explicit pronunciation instruction: The case of a nonnative
English-speaking teacher. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 20 August
2020. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820941991.
Hamada, Y., & Suzuki, S. (2021). Listening to Global Englishes: Script-assisted shadowing.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31, 31–47.
He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspective of
learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 769–789.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). (2015). IELTS. http://www.
hkeaa.edu.hk/en/recognition/benchmarking/hkdse/ielts/
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua
franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157–181.
Kang, O. (2015). Learners’ perceptions toward pronunciation instruction in Three Circles of World
Englishes. TESOL Journal, 6, 59–80.
Khatib, M., & Monfared, A. (2017). Exploring English teachers’ attitudes towards Pronunciation
issues and varieties of English in three circles of world Englishes. Applied Research on
English Language, 6, 213–236.
Lee, J. H. (2016). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers’ beliefs about the monolin-
gual approach: Differences between pre-service and in-service Korean teachers of English.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37, 759–773.
Levis, J. M. (2021). Conversations with Experts–In Conversation with John Levis, Editor of
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation. RELC Journal, 52, 206–219.
Lim, S. (2016). Learning to teach intelligible pronunciation for ASEAN English as a lingua franca:
A sociocultural investigation of Cambodian pre-service teacher cognition and practice. RELC
Journal, 47, 313–329.
Luk, J. C. M. (1998). Hong Kong students’ awareness of and reactions to accent differences.
Multilingua, 17, 93–106.
Matthews, P. H. (2014). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. 3rd edition. Oxford
University Press.
Mompean, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (2021). Phonetic symbols in contemporary pronunciation
instruction. RELC Journal, 52, 155–168.
Polat, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of pre- and in-service teacher beliefs about readiness and
self-competency: Revisiting teacher education for ELLs. System, 38, 228–244.
Ren, W., Chen, Y. S., & Lin, C. Y. (2016). University students’ perceptions of ELF in mainland
China and Taiwan. System, 56, 13–27.
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-
experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 842–854.
Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S. (2006). Language Learners’ Perceptions of
Accent. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 715–738.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Sewell, A. (2009). World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and the case of Hong Kong
English. English Today, 25, 37–43.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of educa-
tional psychology, 99, 611–625.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Song, J. (2016). Emotions and language teacher identity: Conflicts, vulnerability, and transforma-
tion. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 631–54.
Sung, C. C. M. (2016). Exposure to multiple accents of English in the English Language Teaching
classroom: from second language learners’ perspectives. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 10, 190–205.
Sung, K. (2019). Korean Elementary Pre-service Teachers’ Experience of Learning and Using
English and Attitudes towards World Englishes. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16, 67.
Tsang, A. (2019). Re-conceptualizing speaking, listening and pronunciation: Glocalizing TESOL
in the contexts of World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca/an international language.
TESOL Quarterly, 53, 580–588.
Tsang, A. (2020a). Are learners ready for Englishes in the EFL classroom? A large-scale survey of
learners’ views of teachers’ accents and non-standard accents. System, 94, 102298.
Tsang, A. (2020b). Why English accents and pronunciation ‘still’ matter for teachers nowadays:
A mixed-methods study on learners’ perceptions. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 41, 140–156.
Tsang, A. (2020c). The synergistic effect of phonology and songs on enhancing second/foreign
language listening abilities. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30, 232–243.
Tsang, A. (in press). The roads not taken: Greater emphasis needed on ‘sounds’, ‘actual listening’,
and ‘spoken input’. RELC Journal. DOI: 10.1177/00336882211040273.
Tsunemoto, A., Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about sec-
ond language pronunciation teaching, their experience, and speech assessments. Language
Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 2 July 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820937273.
Uchida, Y., & Sugimoto, J. (2020). Non-native English teachers’ confidence in their own pro-
nunciation and attitudes towards teaching: A questionnaire survey in Japan. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30, 19–34.
Wong, R. (2018). Non-native EFL Teachers’ Perception of English Accent in Teaching and
Learning: Any Preference? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8, 177–183.
Yu, B., & Shen, H. (2012). Predicting roles of linguistic confidence, integrative motivation and sec-
ond language proficiency on cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 36, 72–82.
 Tsang

Appendix 1. Descriptive statistics of the nine items in the cognition section (pre-service teacher participants).

Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly M (/5) SD

agree nor disagree disagree
[1] Teachers should speak GA/RP. 12 (13.5) 49 (55.1) 16 (18.0) 12 (13.5) 0 (0.0) 3.69 0.87
[2] Teachers without GA/RP are inappropriate teachers. 1 (1.1) 5 (5.6) 15 (16.9) 51 (57.3) 17 (19.1) 2.12 0.82
[3] I work hard towards GA/RP 14 (15.7) 47 (52.8) 19 (21.3) 9 (10.1) 0 (0.0) 3.74 0.85
[4] T eachers should not speak with L2 accents. 2 (2.2) 13 (14.6) 20 (22.5) 45 (50.6) 9 (10.1) 2.48 0.94
[5] I require my students to speak GA/RP. 4 (4.5) 23 (25.8) 14 (15.7) 40 (44.9) 8 (9.0) 2.72 1.09
[6] I know what accents to use as listening input. 8 (9.0) 55 (61.8) 16 (18.0) 10 (11.2) 0 (0.0) 3.69 0.79
[7] I know what accents to teach in pronunciation lessons. 11 (12.4) 49 (55.1) 17 (19.1) 10 (11.2) 2 (2.2) 3.64 0.92
[8] I incorporate non-standard L1 accents in class. 5 (5.6) 33 (37.1) 20 (22.5) 26 (29.2) 5 (5.6) 3.08 1.06
[9] I incorporate L2 accents in class. 4 (4.5) 44 (49.4) 15 (16.9) 20 (22.5) 6 (6.7) 3.22 1.06
[1–3, 5] GA/RP Favourability 3.07 0.69
[6–7] Accent certainty 3.66 0.76
[8–9] non-GA/RP Incorporation 3.15 0.94

Notes. n = 89 for each item. Percentages in parentheses.

21
 22

Appendix 2. Descriptive statistics of the nine items in the cognition section (in-service teacher participants).

Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly M (/5) SD

agree nor disagree disagree
[1] Teachers should speak GA/RP. 5 (6.5) 40 (51.9) 14 (18.2) 16 (20.8) 2 (2.6) 3.39 0.98
[2] Teachers without GA/RP are inappropriate teachers. 0 (0.0) 9 (11.7) 15 (19.5) 35 (45.5) 18 (23.4) 2.19 0.93
[3] I work hard towards GA/RP 9 (11.7) 42 (54.5) 13 (16.9) 11 (14.3) 2 (2.6) 3.58 0.96
[4] Teachers should not speak with L2 accents. 0 (0.0) 11 (14.3) 17 (22.1) 40 (51.9) 9 (11.7) 2.39 0.88
[5] I require my students to speak GA/RP. 3 (3.9) 28 (36.4) 21 (27.3) 22 (28.6) 3 (3.9) 3.08 0.98
[6] I know what accents to use as listening input. 3 (3.9) 50 (64.9) 18 (23.4) 6 (7.8) 0 (0.0) 3.65 0.68
[7] I know what accents to teach in pronunciation lessons. 5 (6.6) 51 (67.1) 14 (18.4) 5 (6.6) 1 (1.3) 3.71 0.75
[8] I incorporate non-standard L1 accents in class. 3 (3.9) 20 (26.3) 26 (34.2) 22 (28.9) 5 (6.6) 2.92 0.99
[9] I incorporate L2 accents in class. 5 (6.6) 20 (26.3) 25 (32.9) 22 (28.9) 4 (5.3) 3.00 1.02
[1–3, 5] GA/RP Favourability 3.06 0.77
[6–7] Accent certainty 3.68 0.65
[8–9] non-GA/RP Incorporation 2.96 0.92

Notes. n = 76–77 for each item. Percentages in parentheses.

Language Teaching Research 00(0)