This article was downloaded by: [Joseph Siegel]

On: 29 February 2012, At: 08:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovation in Language Learning and

Teaching
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

Second language learners' perceptions

of listening strategy instruction
a
Joseph Siegel
a
Center for Language Education, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University, 1-1 Jumonjibaru, Beppu-shi, 874-8577, Japan

Available online: 14 Feb 2012

To cite this article: Joseph Siegel (2012): Second language learners' perceptions
of listening strategy instruction, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
DOI:10.1080/17501229.2011.653110

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.653110

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
2012, 1
18, iFirst article

Second language learners’ perceptions of listening strategy instruction

Joseph Siegel*

Center for Language Education, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, 1-1 Jumonjibaru,
Beppu-shi 874-8577, Japan
(Received 4 September 2011; final version received 19 December 2011)

Much research regarding listening strategies has focused on assembling lists of

reported strategies and gaining better understanding of differences in strategy
usage between less- and more-skilled listeners. Less attention has been given to
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

how the accumulating knowledge based on listening strategies informs listening

strategy instruction as classroom practice. This paper reports on an investigation
into perceptions of listening strategy instruction held by English learners at a
university in Japan. Questionnaire and interview data suggest that learners view
explicit listening strategy instruction positively. Furthermore, this process-
oriented approach to the teaching of listening is recognized to have transferability
beyond the second language classroom. Suggestions are made for the planning
and implementation of an integrated listening strategy component within an
existing curriculum.
Keywords: action research; listening strategies; listening pedagogy; learner
attitudes

Introduction
In recent years, second language (L2) listening pedagogy has received more attention
in the literature than it has enjoyed in the past, resulting in several developments.
To improve listening instruction, Field (2008) recommends attention to decoding the
speech stream and more global meaning-building activities. In addition, Mendelsohn
(1994, 2006) promotes a strategy-based approach to listening. Other methods such as
listening logs (Kemp 2009) and extensive listening (Renandya and Farrell 2011) have
also been suggested. Siegel (2011a) suggests that while extensive listening provides
practice opportunities, direct strategy-based listening instruction may also benefit
learners.
While a clear consensus on the best way to teach L2 listening has not been
reached, all of these developments are attempts to improve upon more traditional
product-based approaches, such as the Comprehension Approach (CA) (Field 2008),
which involves a dubious cycle: students listen to a text, answer corresponding
questions, and check the answers. This approach involves an overemphasis on testing
conditions and overreliance on memory (Lynch 2009). What is more, students do not
receive any model or direction for improving their listening skills.
More traditional approaches to L2 listening are beginning to give way to methods
that focus on cognitive processes and strategy use. As this transition continues,

*Email: jojo.siegel@gmail.com

ISSN 1750-1229 print/ISSN 1750-1237 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.653110
http://www.tandfonline.com
 2 J. Siegel

learner perceptions regarding listening instruction can inform L2 professionals about

any subsequent internal cognitive and metacognitive effects. This article reports on a
study of learner perceptions and attitudes toward listening strategy instruction (LSI)
and considers possible implications for future listening pedagogy.

Background
Listening difficulties
Of the four main language skills (i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing), many
learners maintain that listening is the most difficult (e.g. Field 2008; Renandya and
Farrell 2011). Obstacles reported by L2 listeners include:

“ Concentration difficulties
“ Rate of speech (Hasan 2000; Lynch 2009)
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

“ Inability to recognize spoken forms of words they know (Goh 2000)

“ Inability to separate the speech stream into manageable chunks (Goh 2000)
“ Inability to recognize transitions or markers in speech (Underwood 1989)
“ Length of texts leading to listening fatigue (Hasan 2000; Rost 1994)
“ Failure to comprehend message despite understanding individual words (Goh
2000)
“ Ineffective listening strategy use (Hasan 2000).

In order to address these and other difficulties related to L2 listening, some listening
methodologists (i.e. Mendelsohn 1994; Siegel 2011a) have recommended direct
teaching of listening strategies. However, obstacles to listening strategy use have also
been identified.

Listening strategy obstacles

Chen’s (2005) study revealed impediments to the acquisition and use of listening
strategies. After a course of listening strategy training, Chen identified seven main
groups of obstacles related to listening strategy use. Several of these categories reflect
previously mentioned language processing problems; for example, ‘information
processing barriers [such as] spoken-word recognition . . . processing speed . . . [and]
fatigue’ (2005, 8). The study also mentions specific barriers related to listening
strategies; for instance, forgetting to utilize strategies while listening, dealing with the
complex nature of some strategies, and inability to comprehend a text despite
applying strategies (Chen 2005). These obstacles not withstanding, L2 listening
methodologists to varying degrees are encouraging educators to acknowledge
listening strategies in their classrooms.

Listening theory terminology

What is a strategy?
Though debate over the term ‘strategy’ is prevalent in the literature (e.g. Field 2008,
Macaro 2006), such discussion is beyond the more practical and pedagogic
orientation of this paper. For the purposes of this study, ‘strategy’ includes
‘conscious plans to manage incoming speech, particularly when the listener knows
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 3

that he or she must compensate for incomplete input or partial understanding’ (Rost
2002, 236).

Cognitive and metacognitive strategies

According to Goh (2000), cognitive strategies are those that are directly applied to
linguistic input in order to make sense of and gain meaning from it. Mendelsohn
(1994) points out that cognitive strategies are used for particular materials being
learned. Thus, the cognitive strategies one uses may differ according to text or
situation. Cognitive strategies involve processes such as prediction, inference, and use
of prior knowledge (Goh 2000). Metacognitive strategies, on the other hand, are used
to manage cognitive strategies (Goh 2000). They contribute to a conscious awareness
of the cognitive processes used when listening (Mendelsohn 1994). Examples of
metacognitive strategies include: preparing to listen, monitoring listening progress,
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

and evaluating listening (Goh 2000).

Top-down and bottom-up approaches

It has been theorized that two complimentary processes combine during the listening
process: the top-down and the bottom-up approach (e.g. Graham and Macaro 2008).
The top-down approach begins with a global, broad view and moves from the whole
to the individual parts (Lynch and Mendelsohn 2002). In other words, listeners
process the context of the listening situation using their existing knowledge and build
up expectations about what they will likely hear. In contrast, the bottom-up
approach begins with the parts and combines them in an ascending direction towards
holistic understanding. It focuses on the perception of individual sounds, which
combine to form words, then sentences, and so on (Lynch and Mendelsohn 2002).

Strategy-based listening instruction

The shift in L2 listening pedagogy is moving away from the products of listening
(Flowerdew and Miller 2005) to the cognitive and metacognitive processes that occur
within the mind of the learner. A process-based approach to listening involves
teaching students ‘how to’ listen in an L2 by promoting the transfer of first language
(L1) listening strategies to the L2 as well as developing other necessary listening
strategies specifically in the L2 (Goh 2008; Mendelsohn 1994). Mendelsohn
was among the first to describe in detail the specific workings of a strategy-based
approach to the teaching of L2 listening: ‘It is an approach that sees the objective . . .
as being to train students how to listen, by making learners aware of the strategies
that they use, and training them in the use of additional strategies that will assist
them in tackling the listening task’ (1994, 37).
A strategic approach must include development of both bottom-up and top-
down processes (Flowerdew and Miller 2005). While top-down strategies have been
widely advocated in the past, bottom-up approaches are beginning to gain
momentum in the literature (Vandergrift 2010). Moreover, a combination of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies is also necessary for effective listening
instruction (Goh 2005; Vandergrift 2003).
 4 J. Siegel

Previous listening strategy research

Several studies have generated frequency data on and inventories of listening
strategies (e.g. Goh 2002) as well as investigated ways in which learners
utilize strategies (e.g. Goh and Taib 2006; Graham and Macaro 2008). Other studies
focus on differentiating between less- and more-skilled listeners (e.g. Vandergrift
2003). Nevertheless, more research is needed in order to develop our understanding
of listening processes and, importantly, how best to teach them (Field 2008; Goh
2005). Although description of strategy use is a requisite initial step, and evaluations
of the effectiveness of strategy instruction represent the potential of listening
strategies, there is a need to transfer the body of accumulating research knowledge to
pedagogic improvements in the listening classroom.

Acknowledging learners’ perceptions

Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

To further the expanding field of L2 listening pedagogy, student perceptions of LSI

are needed to help educators better understand how to best guide learners in
developing their L2 listening skills. Data on strategy utilization demonstrate patterns
of usage, and pre- and post-test scores measure gains in listening ability. However,
learner perspectives on LSI also deserve attention, as they can offer insights on any
resulting internal cognitive and metacognitive changes stimulated by LSI, as well as
viewpoints as to the effectiveness of a strategy-based approach. Beliefs such as these
are not often revealed through listening test scores, and they need to be better
understood for listening pedagogy to continue its evolution. Learner beliefs
regarding LSI can offer some indication as to whether it is viewed as a practical
undertaking or an ineffective use of class time. Furthermore, results of strategy
instruction may not manifest themselves in the short term, which could explain the
lack of consensus noted by Graham and Macaro (2008) concerning the value of such
methods and the mixed results of previous LSI studies.
The underlying rationale for this study is based in part on the integration of two
works, one on listening strategy program evaluation, the other on learners’ beliefs
about listening comprehension. In the former, Chen (2007) discusses alternative
methods for evaluating strategy instruction and promotes qualitative methods of
assessment in order to provide more comprehensive understanding of strategy
instruction results. The conceptual model she proposes includes the following
dimensions: learner attitudes, strategy transfer, and language proficiency (Chen
2007). Chen (2007) argues that qualitative information may be a more appropriate
measure of the impact of LSI, and her report on Taiwanese junior college students
demonstrates both positive feedback and difficulties of strategy methodologies.
The notion of qualitative methods for listening strategy evaluation is also linked
to Graham’s (2006) study of French learners, which investigated learner perceptions
of listening difficulties. As Graham (2006) notes, while the number of studies on
general language learning beliefs is growing, investigations of beliefs about listening
are less common. Those in existence often focus on the strategies learners believe
they use, or in the case of Graham’s (2006) study, on learner perceptions of success
and struggle when listening. Fewer studies focus on learner perceptions about
listening pedagogy. Therefore, the study described in this paper merges alternate
methods of strategy instruction evaluation with learners’ points of view in an effort
to determine whether LSI is a worthwhile option for L2 listening pedagogy.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5

The study
Overview
Although previous authors have described methods for implementing LSI (e.g.
Mendelsohn 1994, 2006), few reports have investigated how university students
perceive such teaching methods; therefore, the current project was begun in order to
address this gap.
This study reports on the initial phase of an ongoing longitudinal project related
to learner beliefs about LSI. The study sought to investigate the following research
questions:

(1) What are learner perceptions of LSI?

(2) Do students believe LSI will be useful to them in their futures? If so, how?
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

Context
This project was set at a private university in Japan in 2010. It involved an action
research intervention (Burns 2010) of LSI in two intermediate English classes. The
two classes were taught by the same teacher using the same methodology, materials,
and classroom activities. A total of 54 Japanese university students were enrolled in
the two classes.
The study took place in Intermediate English 2 (IE2), a course that focuses on
listening, reading, and vocabulary skills. A TOEFL score of 450 was required for
enrolment. The course met four times per week for 90 minutes over the 15-week
semester. Classes met twice a week in computer labs and lecture rooms, respectively.
According to the course syllabus, class time is typically spent on teacher directed
listening and reading activities, student pair and group work, and individual
computer-based language study. Also included are video lectures, which consist of
authentic video material (e.g. documentaries, presentations, etc.) divided into brief
one to two minute segments and interspersed Power point slides with related listening
activities and discussion topics.

Course modification
Previous IE2 listening pedagogy
After teaching IE2 for one semester, I felt that the existing course materials for
listening had some fundamental shortcomings. One issue was a traditional CA
pedagogic cycle, which has been identified by several authors as one that emphasizes
the products of listening rather than the cognitive processes that lead to those
products (e.g. Field 2008; Flowerdew and Miller 2005). To put it another way, this
course relied to a large extent on a ‘listen, answer, check’ sequence. It continuously
tested listening, but any actual teaching of listening was largely absent.
A second drawback was a lack of directions, instructions, or methods that
students could use to develop their aural abilities. In other words, requisite listening
skills would develop naturally without explicit attention from teachers or learners, a
teaching method promoted by Ridgway (2000). Furthermore, listening in the course
was limited in scope, as it only addressed correct answers in a classroom context. It
did not encourage development of listening skills that were transferable to real life
tasks beyond the classroom.
 6 J. Siegel

Integration of listening strategies

To modify IE2’s listening component so that it included a more process-based
orientation, a pedagogical change involving LSI was designed, which aimed to
address the shortcomings described above: a product-based approach, no method for
improvement, and the limiting of listening to a classroom context. The underlying
notion of the LSI intervention was that development of listening strategies would
enable students to apply those strategies in and out of the classroom. Learners were
exposed to instruction that could improve their listening through introduction and
scaffolded practice of strategies. In addition, connections between listening strategies
and real life contexts were made, thereby encouraging transferability from items
practiced in the classroom to experiences outside. The capacity of LSI to foster
learner autonomy is gradually being recognized, and several commentators support
methodology which is based on developing a set of listening skills and strategies that
can be transferred to new and future situations beyond the classroom context (e.g.
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

Field 2008; Lynch 2009). Chen defines such strategy transfer as ‘the learners’ ability
to generalize a strategy learnt in connection with a specific task . . . to other related
tasks’ (2007, 21). Oxford also observes that integrated strategy instruction may
include teaching students ‘when [strategies] should be transferred to other tasks or
situations’ (2011, 180).

Modifying course materials

This LSI element included alterations to existing video materials and corresponding
worksheets. Although additional or replacement video material may have been better
suited to LSI, administrative policies dictated that existing video materials be used;
therefore, videos were re-edited with LSI in mind. I watched the videos and
attempted to identify the internal listening processes and the external linguistic input
that aided my successful comprehension. I also consulted video transcripts to locate
linguistic features that helped me unlock meaning, as well as consulted with other
teachers on the course. The strategies and linguistic features we identified became the
foundation of the new IE2 classroom listening materials. Worksheet items were
changed to reflect the shift in focus from products to processes; for example, rather
than completing a matching exercise, students were asked to list keywords repeated in
a text, which could be used to reconstruct a main idea. Additional materials were
designed to introduce, practice, and review the listening strategies.

Explicit strategy instruction

This LSI component was taught in a direct, explicit, and integrated manner. It was
‘completely informed strategy training’ (Oxford 2011, 181), in which strategies were
named, demonstrated, taught, and practiced. Students were made aware of the
strategies and their potential benefits in academic and real world listening. Hajer
et al. provide an example of explicit instruction: ‘Strategy X . . . is a useful technique.
Here is an example of how you can use it . . . Here are practice opportunities to help
you learn this strategy . . . Here is how you can transfer it to another exercise’ (1996,
121). Techniques for explaining listening strategies included teacher modeling (Goh
2008) and Power point slides as well as gestures and diagrams (Oxford 2011).
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7

Integrated strategy instruction

During integrated strategy instruction, strategies are taught through existing
curriculum and materials. The course content is decided first, after which a strategic
approach is applied. Nunan endorses integrated strategy training: ‘[when strategies
are] woven into the ongoing fabric of the lesson . . . learners can see the applications
of the strategies to the development of effective learning’ (1998, 7). Other
endorsement for integrated instruction is also evident in the literature on strategy
training in general (e.g. Oxford 1990) and for LSI in particular (e.g. Vandergrift
2004).
When the overhaul was complete, a typical LSI cycle spanned 1 week:

“ Monday: Introduction, awareness raising, brief practice;

“ Tuesday: Practice with authentic video materials;
“ Thursday: Review and expansion to other listening situations (i.e. real world
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

and academic affairs);

“ Friday: Integrated listening practice with interview videos and discussion.

Data-collection procedure
All 54 students responded to an online questionnaire, and 7 students participated in
group interviews at the end of the semester. Questionnaire data provided a general
descriptive overview of beliefs and perceptions related to listening instruction, while
the interview data offered more in-depth explanatory information. These are two of
the research methods recommended by Oxford (2011) for general strategy assessment
studies. The questionnaire was administered first, followed approximately 2 weeks
later by the group interviews. In an effort to limit ‘social desirability response bias’
(Oxford 2011, 142), students were informed that their questionnaire and interview
responses would be kept confidential and would not affect their course grades.

Questionnaire
The questionnaire design was based on one used in a previous study on perceptions
of LSI (Siegel 2011b). It consisted of 24 statements pertaining to listening
background, the LSI component of IE2, the roles of various aspects of the classroom
context, and projected listening strategy usage (see Appendix 1). Scaled options were:
strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, and I don’t know.
The questionnaire was administered in both English and Japanese in order to
increase the trustworthiness of responses. Since the questionnaire was administered
online, the respondents had no opportunities to ask for clarification if necessary.
Likewise, the researcher was not able to exemplify or rephrase items if respon-
dents were uncertain. Therefore, the questionnaire was presented in a bilingual
format.

Interviews
Group interviews were used for practical reasons such as time and availability. Data
from interviews proved valuable as they provided more detailed thought processes,
 8 J. Siegel

explanations for stated attitudes, and reactions to the methodological changes

introduced in IE2. Dörnyei highlights the ‘exploratory nature [of interviews] as
an effective way of exploring new, uncharted areas’ (2007, 39). Furthermore, Mann
(2011) points out that qualitative interviews are receiving increased attention in
applied linguistics.
The interview format was semi-structured and consisted of 15 main items (see
Appendix 2), which built on questionnaire items. Questions were thematically
organized (Burns 2010) for clarity of responses and recording of data. During the
interviews, the order of items shifted in response to participant replies. The
researcher wrote field notes and digitally recorded the interviews, which lasted
approximately one hour each. Responses were first quantified and then scrutinized in
order to determine their explanatory value in relation to the research questions.
In contrast to the bilingual questionnaires, the interviews were conducted in
English, the students’ L2. Because the interviews were conducted in person, the
researcher was able to assess learners’ comprehension of the questions and rephrase
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

or exemplify items if needed. As these students were at the L2 upper intermediate

level, it was felt that they would be able to understand and respond to the items with
available support from the researcher. Use of English during the interview was
thought to be an incentive for students (e.g. Cross 2010), who often seek
opportunities for English conversation, especially in an EFL context like Japan.

Results
This section displays findings from both the online questionnaire (n54) and the
group interviews (n7). Interviewees are labeled as Students A
G for anonymity.
Results are organized into three categories: general listening background; perceived
listening improvement; and future listening strategy use. In each subsection,
questionnaire findings are displayed first, followed by interview data.
The questionnaire was completed anonymously; therefore, it was not possible to
compare questionnaire and interview responses for a given student. However,
individual interview responses were compared to the overall class findings manifested
by the questionnaire data. In addition, not all data were deemed relevant to the
stated research questions; therefore, some data have been omitted.

General listening background

Results displayed in Figure 1 show that a majority of students either strongly agree
(57.7%) or somewhat agree (40.4%) that they enjoy listening to English. Despite this
enjoyment, most students lack confidence when listening: 17.6% strongly disagree
that they are confident when listening to English, while 45.1% somewhat disagree. In
response to the statement ‘I practice listening outside of class,’ more than half of the
students (45.1% somewhat agree; 25.5% strongly agree) indicated that they engage in
some form of independent listening practice.
To the question ‘Which of the four main language skills is most important to
you?’ some interviewees responded with more than one skill. Three students
responded that listening was the most crucial language skill, while two replied that
both listening and speaking were equally important. Student A said that the most
important skill was context dependent: in academic situations, reading and writing
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 9

Figure 1. General listening background.

Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

abilities are paramount, but for person-to-person communication, speaking and

listening skills are needed.
Student B cited the close chronological relationship between listening and
speaking:

If we can’t listening English, we can’t speak English. I think listening skill is connected
to speaking skill, so listening is most important.

Student F described listening as essential:

Listening . . . absolutely listening, because if no skill of listening we can no skill of

conversation and don’t understand each other, so we absolutely need listening.

Perceived listening improvement

This subsection addresses student perspectives about the LSI component in IE2 and
its relation to listening development. Specifically, results of items on student
impressions of the following are displayed: the course in general, teacher explana-
tions, listening materials, listening activities, and LSI.
A combined 80.8% of students either somewhat agree or strongly agree that this
class helped improve their listening ability. While 17.3% responded I don’t know, only
a single student responded that they somewhat disagree that the class enhanced their
listening skills. Results indicate that LSI-based teacher explanations along with
listening materials, practices, and activities were effective in development of student
listening ability. In addition, a large proportion (49% somewhat agree and
31.4% strongly agree) considered LSI advantageous to their listening development.
However, nearly 20% of students were unsure about the effectiveness of LSI
(Figure 2).
A series of interview questions explored the impact made by these various
pedagogic aspects. When asked if their listening skills stayed the same, decreased, or
increased as a result of the listening component in IE2, six of the seven participants
responded that their skills increased. Only Student A responded that her listening
ability decreased due to a decline in English exposure compared to high school.
Students also expressed their perceived improvements by citing gains on listening
 10 J. Siegel

Figure 2. Perceived listening improvement.

Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

sections of standardized tests (for example, TOEFL) and increased confidence when
listening to English in academic and social situations.
A focus on standardized tests was likewise evident when students were asked
about the teacher’s listening explanations and modeling of listening processes. All
commentary included some acknowledgment that teacher input contributed to
listening test-taking ability and test-taking strategy usage. Student F also commented
that the teacher modeling was accessible and clear:

Not speedy, it’s like . . . how do I say . . . every time, it’s easy to understand and explain to
us very well so I think it’s very useful.

Moreover, Student G recognized that teacher input itself provides opportunities for
listening practice:

Before I listen, if I listen to instruction by you, I can prepare for listening and also get
practice.

Listening strategy recall

Participants were also asked about listening strategies they recalled from class. This
question was asked with no priming, in an effort to determine if students could
report strategies unprompted. Two students did not answer this question, possibly
because they could not recall any specific strategies. Responding partici-
pants reported listening for keywords and focusing on question front words as
strategies practiced in class, along with listening for main ideas and tenses. Inference
was also mentioned, as was recognition of phrase and sentence relationship.
After reviewing a list of strategies along with corresponding activities and texts
that had been covered in class, I asked: ‘Which of these strategies do you think is the
most useful?’ Six students replied that predicting upcoming content was the most
useful strategy. Student E discussed the relationship of prediction to success on the
TOEFL test, but Student G described a more interactional application of prediction:

I think prediction because when I talk with foreign students, sometimes foreign students
like forgot the vocabulary so I can help them because I can guess the vocabulary.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 11

The only student who gave a different answer was Student F, who believes that no
single strategy is superior to the others:

All this is . . . all things is good. Each is different to grow up English skill so nothing is
better, nothing is worse.

Future listening strategy use

In an effort to determine whether students believe the listening strategies introduced
and practiced in class will be utilized beyond the classroom, interviewees were asked
to speculate about future perceived strategy use. Although responses are hypothe-
tical, they demonstrate that students consider LSI useful not only for immediate
academic purposes but also for broader objectives as well.
Responses in Figure 3 demonstrate that students believe listening strategies will
benefit them in a number of contexts, including academic, business, and travel. When
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

responses from the categories somewhat agree and strongly agree are combined:

“ 62.7% of students believe LSI will help them in English content classes;
“ 74% believe LSI will help them when listening in conversation;
“ 78.4% say LSI will be advantageous when listening to English entertainment
such as movies or music;
“ 66.6% think LSI will be useful in future employment;
“ 82.3% answer that LSI will help them when traveling.

While a majority of students answered positively regarding perceived future strategy

use, notable percentages of students replied I don’t know to the same items, which
may be indicative of the speculative nature of this data.
Interviewees responded in line with the questionnaire data, citing academic,
business, travel, and interpersonal situations as circumstances in which they believe
listening strategies will be beneficial. Several students mentioned that LSI will help
them understand lectures in their English content courses. Student F observed that:

Figure 3. Perceived future strategy use.

 12 J. Siegel

[IE2] helped me understand other classes in English because if I didn’t take this class
and go to English-based class, this maybe understand on 1%, I think, because native
speaker speaking is very hard to understand, really, really difficult . . . so now I took this
class, a little bit understand, maybe 5% or 10%.

When probed to elaborate beyond the immediate academic context, four students
cited travel benefits, two mentioned study abroad programs and business, and one
specified social situations as occasions when LSI would aid his comprehension.

Discussion
Overview
In general, both questionnaire and interview data show that these learners have
positive perceptions of the LSI framework. Many students reported that their
listening abilities improved as a result of the course as a whole, and specific aspects of
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

the LSI were identified as useful elements for listening pedagogy. However, most
students reported via the questionnaire that their confidence when listening to
English remained fragile. Additionally, students recognized that the cognitive
developments resulting from LSI are potentially advantageous for academic and
social situations beyond the L2 course. Some of their reports indicate that the
transferable nature of listening strategies can impact their English listening futures.

Motivated, yet lacking confidence

Listening background data show that these students are motivated to become more
successful listeners of English, as they both enjoy and spend time outside of class
listening to English. As evidenced by the interview data, several students recognize
the classification of listening as a crucial language skill. At the same time, however,
these learners report a lack of confidence in their listening ability. This lack of
confidence exists despite the fact that so many students believe their listening abilities
improved as a result of IE2. These findings seem inconsistent with those of Yashima,
who, in her study of Japanese EFL learners’ willingness to communicate, found that
‘a motivated individual tends to perceive that his or her competence is higher . . . than
a less motivated person . . . [and that] studying gives learners confidence in
communication’ (2002, 62). While it might be expected that perceived improvements
in listening abilities would trigger increases in confidence as well, this assumption
was not demonstrated in the present study.
These results are, however, consistent with other findings in the literature. Field
(2008) points out students are more insecure about their listening abilities than any of
the other major language skills. Reasons for insecurity may include a lack of tangible
evidence that listening skills are developing and the time pressure of understanding
spoken speech as it happens. Regarding Japanese learners specifically, O’Donnell
(2003) found that student confidence was low in all four main language skills, and
that of 135 participants, 46.7% reported having no ability in listening and 43% only
reported a little ability. Therefore, the findings of low confidence mentioned above
are not unusual for the Japanese EFL context. Furthermore, after Chen’s (2005)
listening strategy training session, some learners expressed frustration that they were
unable to notice any progress in their listening skills.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 13

Such feelings of low confidence and disappointment regarding students’

development of L2 listening capabilities may be due to lack of tangible evidence of
listening success, as Field (2008) points out. They may also be related to the slow rate
of development in aural abilities. In other words, listening improvement often occurs
incrementally and is not immediately or clearly perceptible. In addition, many
Japanese learners believe that they do not have a natural aptitude for learning
English (O’Donnell 2003). High levels of anxiety and fear of making errors are other
characteristics that may be detrimental to the confidence of Japanese EFL students
(O’Donnell 2003). Another reason for the low confidence levels may be due to
assumptions on the parts of learners that perfect test scores or precise word for word
comprehension are achievable goals for all L2 learners. That is, they may only feel
confident after answering all questions correctly or after they are able to understand
every single word in a text, goals which are unrealistic. Failure to meet such high
expectations, in turn, may result in low confidence.
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

This study did not examine other aspects of L2 learner psychology, nor did it
separate the notion of confidence into constituent parts. Additionally, it should be
noted that students with similar levels of confidence may rate them differently, and
thus, it is difficult to measure the feeling of confidence. Still, the situation seems
frustrating: students feel their listening abilities improved in class, and they commit
to additional practice; however, their confidence remains fragile. Despite being
motivated, students struggle to achieve adequate levels of confidence when listening.
Perhaps listening teachers, materials, and methodologies are failing to improve
student confidence when listening, and this point signals the need for more attention
to L2 listening pedagogy.

Emphasis on test scores

Results also indicate that a majority of students believe the LSI improved their aural
abilities. This listening improvement is especially applicable to standardized tests of
listening, which were referenced repeatedly in interviews. The fact that students
found LSI useful for language testing is positive, as they feel the LSI addresses one of
their listening priorities. However, any LSI should have a broader goal of preparing
students not only for listening on tests, but also listening in other academic (e.g.
discussions, lectures) and social (e.g. conversations, travel) situations. While students
did acknowledge these other listening circumstances, much of their focus was on the
relationship between LSI and test scores.
There may be several reasons why test scores were important to this group of
students. First, part of their IE2 grade (30%) was based on their TOEFL score.
Secondly, many students at this university participate in study abroad and immersion
programs, which require minimum TOEFL scores for acceptance. Thirdly, although
a conjecture on the part of this author, it is possible that because of the pervasive
emphasis on test scores throughout Japanese education, some of these students may
equate (perhaps to some degree) their TOEFL test score with their English ability.
To enhance this study, pre- and post-test scores could be included to determine
any quantifiable gains in student listening ability according to standardized tests,
although inclusion of product-based test scores is incompatible to an extent with the
process-oriented nature of LSI.
 14 J. Siegel

Previous classroom listening experiences

In the interviews, students described what they remember from past listening
methodologies, and the use of music and gap-fill exercises to teach listening was
consistently reported. This approach is similar to the CA (Field 2008) and the notion
of testing, rather than teaching listening (e.g. Flowerdew and Miller 2005). Such
listening activities (i.e. fill in the blank, matching, etc.) are not uncommon, as this
manner of ‘teaching’ listening is established and accepted in the field of L2
education. Indeed, recent textbooks feature music and corresponding comprehension
questions (e.g. Kadoyama and Capper 2011). However, as Student B pointed out, in
such exercises:

[answers] are just correct or wrong . . . It’s not feel I improve my English skill.

This viewpoint suggests that university students may be aware of the limitations of
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

such activities. While this approach may be suitable for younger learners, it seems
somewhat simplistic and limited in scope for university students. Recent L2 listening
methodologists (e.g. Goh 2008; Mendelsohn 2006) are encouraging teachers and
materials writers to foster more worthwhile underlying approaches and classroom
practices.

Alternative assessment methods

While Field (2008) observes that comprehension questions are necessary, efficient,
and widely used methods of determining student comprehension levels, they are
often misused as tools for ‘teaching’ listening rather than for their evaluative
function. A gap exists between LSI pedagogy and methods to evaluate its effects in a
more process-oriented way; however, new methods for the evaluation of listening are
evolving. Chen’s conception of strategy assessment includes ‘changes in the learners’
internal learning processes’ (2007, 27), which can be applied to listening evaluations.
Other studies (e.g. Graham and Macaro 2008; Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari 2010)
have attempted to evaluate strategy transfer between listening tasks.

Listening outside the classroom

As Lynch (2009) observes, a listening teacher’s goal is to help students prepare for
listening beyond the classroom. When teachers ask students to identify, for example,
a specific number or name from a text, that particular piece of information often has
little use beyond the context of that question or classroom. Of more potential use to
the student is the development of cognitive processes that lead to appropriate
identification of the answer, rather than the answer itself. As such, one goal of LSI is
to support cognitive development so that it can be applied in whatever situation a
student needs to function.
Regarding the potential transferable qualities of listening strategies, these data
indicate that students acknowledge a connection between the LSI and their lives
outside the L2 classroom. Per the IE2 course schedule, each Thursday included a
segment in which a particular strategy was demonstrated and practiced in relation to
different contexts. This strategy review and extension session proved a key factor in
encouraging learners to envision the possibilities of what they can accomplish
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 15

through effective application of listening strategies. Students believe that listening

strategies are potentially useful in a myriad of situations, including English content
classes, employment, and travel. Such expectations could be seen as contrasting with
the ‘testing, not teaching’ approach in which each correct answer is restricted to one
isolated question.
One aim of this LSI was for students to be able to use the strategies after the
completion of the course. Based on student perceptions, they will be able to do that
in a number of ways. Regardless of whether students actually use the strategies in the
future, they believe that they have a cache of listening strategies that they can operate
in the future. Many acknowledge that they have gained a skill set that they can
take with them and transfer to other situations. Still, several students were uncertain
about the potential use of these strategies.
While an investigation of listening strategy use after completion of the course
would provide valuable follow-up information, one has not been conducted with
these students as yet. Chen refers to this area of research as ‘strategy main-
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

tenance . . . [which] measures how long the learners retain a given strategy in their
learning technique repertoire’ (2007, 21). Such investigations are needed in order to
determine whether time spent on strategy instruction is actually being used
advantageously. Though no data is currently available, student projections of future
strategy use are promising.

A strategic component?
With the majority of students claiming that LSI contributed to their listening
improvement, it seems that a strategic component should be included, in some way,
in university listening courses. However, some students were unsure if LSI helped
them, which may reflect larger uncertainties related to listening: How can it be
taught? How can it be learned? What leads to improvement? These questions are far
from answered.

Conclusion
This paper acknowledges learner perceptions as valuable to the understanding of
process-based LSI methodology. It has asserted that LSI is a viable improvement on
previous L2 listening pedagogy as focus shifts from the products to the strategic
processes of listening. In doing so, this LSI encouraged the transfer of listening
strategies beyond the classroom. Findings showed that students have a positive view
of LSI as it enhanced their listening abilities and has potential to positively influence
subsequent L2 encounters. To build upon this study, future research may include
classroom observation in combination with LSI (e.g. Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari
2010), pre- and post-test scores, and teacher viewpoints. A further need is to develop
better teacher education as it pertains to the teaching of L2 listening in order to
equip teachers with the ability to plan and deliver LSI effectively.

Notes on contributor
Joseph Siegel has taught for several years at university level in Japan. He is currently a PhD
candidate in applied linguistics at Aston University (UK), where his research focuses on the
implementation of L2 listening strategy instruction at university level.
 16 J. Siegel

References
Burns, A. 2010. Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners.
New York: Routledge.
Chen, Y. 2005. Barriers to acquiring listening strategies for EFL learners and their pedagogical
implications. TESL-EJ [online] 8, no. 4. http://www.tesl ej.org/ej32/a2.html (accessed April
10, 2011).
Chen, Y. 2007. Learning to learn: The impact of strategy training. ELT Journal 61, no. 1: 20
9.
Cross, J. 2010. Utilizing dialogic recalls to determine L2 listeners’ strategy use. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching 5, no. 1: 81
100.
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Field, J. 2008. Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J., and L. Miller. 2005. Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goh, C. 2000. A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension
problems. System 28: 55
75.
Goh, C. 2002. Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns.
System 30: 185
206.
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

Goh, C. 2005. Second language listening expertise. In Expertise in second language learning and
teaching, ed. K. Johnson, 64
84. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goh, C. 2008. Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory,
practice and research implications. RELC 39, no. 2: 188
213.
Goh, C., and Y. Taib. 2006. Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT
Journal 60, no. 3: 222
32.
Graham, S. 2006. Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System 34: 165
82.
Graham, S., and E. Macaro. 2008. Strategy instruction in listening for lower intermediate
learners of French. Language Learning 58, no. 4: 747
83.
Hajer, M., T. Meestringa, Y. Park, and R. Oxford. 1996. How print materials provide strategy
instruction. In Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives,
ed. R. Oxford, 119
41. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press.
Hasan, A. 2000. Learners’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems. Language,
Culture, and Curriculum 13, no. 2: 137
53.
Kadoyama, T., and S. Capper. 2011. English with hit songs. Tokyo: Seibido.
Kemp, J. 2009. The listening log: Motivating autonomous learning. ELT Journal 64, no. 4:
385
95.
Lynch, T., and D. Mendelsohn. 2002. Listening. In An introduction to applied linguistics, ed. N.
Schmitt, 193
210. London: Arnold.
Lynch, T. 2009. Teaching second language listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macaro, E. 2006. Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the
theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 90, no. 3: 320
37.
Mann, S. 2011. A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics 32, no. 1: 6
24.
Mendelsohn, D. 1994. Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language
learner. San Diego: Dominie Press.
Mendelsohn, D. 2006. Learning how to listen using listening strategies. In Current trends in the
development and teaching of the four language skills, ed. E. Usó Juan and A. Martı́nez-Flor,
75
89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nunan, D. 1998. Approaches to teaching listening in the language classroom. In Proceedings
of the 1997 Korea TESOL Conference, 1
10. Taejon, Korea: KOTESOL.
O’Donnell, K. 2003. Uncovering first year students’ language learning experiences, their
attitudes, and motivations in a context of change at the tertiary level of education. JALT
Journal 25, no. 1: 31
62.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
Oxford, R. 2011. Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, UK:
Longman.
Renandya, W., and T. Farrell. 2011. Teacher, the tape is too fast! Extensive listening in ELT.
ELT Journal 65, no. 1: 52
9.
Ridgway, T. 2000. Listening strategies
I beg your pardon? ELT Journal 54, no. 2: 179
85.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 17

Rost, M. 1994. Introducing listening. London: Penguin.

Rost, M. 2002. Teaching and researching listening. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Siegel, J. 2011a. Thoughts on L2 listening pedagogy. ELT Journal 65, no. 3: 318
21.
Siegel, J. 2011b. Listening strategies beyond the classroom: Evidence of transfer. Paper
presented at the American Association for Applied Linguists Conference, March 26
29, in
Chicago, USA.
Underwood, M. 1989. Teaching listening. New York: Longman.
Vandergrift, L. 2003. Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second
language listener. Language Learning 53, no. 3: 463
96.
Vandergrift, L. 2004. Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 24: 3
25.
Vandergrift, L. 2010. Researching listening. In Continuum companion to research methods in
applied linguistics, ed. B. Paltridge and A. Phakiti, 160
73. London: Continuum.
Vandergrift, L., and M. Tafaghodtari. 2010. Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a
difference: An empirical study. Language Learning 60, no. 2: 470
97.
Yashima, T. 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. Modern Language Journal 86, no. 1: 54
66.
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

Appendix 1. Questionnaire results

Items from the questionnaire are listed in Table A1, accompanied by Likert scale rating
averages, chi square (x2), and degree of freedom (df) statistics. Questionnaire options were
assigned as follows: Strongly disagree 1; Somewhat disagree 2; Somewhat agree3;
Strongly agree 4; I don’t know 0.

Table A1. Further analysis of questionnaire items.

Rating
Questionnaire item average x2 df
I like listening to English. 3.56 25.2 2
I feel confident when listening to English. 2.22 29.1 4
I practice listening outside of class. 2.84 29.5 4
My listening ability improved as a result of my teacher’s 2.90 22.1 3
explanations.
My listening ability improved as a result of listening 2.63 35.1 4
materials used in this class.
My listening ability improved as a result of listening 3.12 31.5 4
practices and activities in this class.
The listening strategy training in this class helped to 2.73 6.6* 2
improve my English listening ability.
I will be able to use listening strategies in future classes 2.37 15.7 3
conducted in English.
I will be able to use listening strategies in conversations. 2.78 10.3 3
I will be able to use listening strategies when listening to 2.82 18.0 3
entertainment in English.
I will be able to use listening strategies in future jobs. 2.39 12.5 3
I will be able to use listening strategies when traveling. 2.88 24.3 3
*pB 0.01
Note: Only items relevant to this article are given.
 18 J. Siegel

Appendix 2. Group interview questions

Note: Only questions relevant to this article are given.

(1) Is studying English important for you? Why or why not?

(2) There are four main language skills: reading, writing, speaking, listening. In general,
which one do you think is the most important for you?
(3) Do you feel your English skills improved during this semester? If yes, in which skills?
(4) One of the skills this class focused on was listening. Did your listening skills stay the
same/go down/go up because of this class? Why?
(5) Was the teacher’s listening instruction in this class useful? Why or why not?
(6) Did the listening activities help your listening skills? How?
(7) How was listening taught in your previous English classes?
(8) Was the teaching of listening in this class the same or different than in other English
classes you’ve taken (junior high, high school, APU)?
(9) Listening strategies were introduced and practiced in this class. What listening
strategies can you remember?
(10) In your class, you learned these strategies. (Remind participants of a full list of
Downloaded by [Joseph Siegel] at 08:24 29 February 2012

strategies.) Which strategies do you think are the most useful? Why?
(11) Which strategies do you think are the least useful? Why?
(12) Will you be able to use these listening skills in the future? Why or why not? If yes,
please give an example.