933878

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020933878SAGE OpenFathi et al.

Original Research

SAGE Open

The Effect of Listening Strategy

April-June 2020: 1­–13
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020933878
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020933878

Instruction on Second Language journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Listening Anxiety and Self-Efficacy

of Iranian EFL Learners

Jalil Fathi1 , Ali Derakhshan2  , and Saeede Torabi3

Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of listening strategy instruction on second language (L2)
listening comprehension ability, listening anxiety, and listening self-efficacy of Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL)
learners. To this end, a sample of 52 English major learners of two intact classes from a university in Iran was employed as
the participants of the study. The intact groups were randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. The
experimental group (N = 27) received the listening strategy instruction based on the framework proposed by Yeldham and
Gruba, whereas the participants in the control group (N = 25) were instructed traditionally without receiving any strategy
instruction. To collect the required data, the listening section of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS),
Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS), and Second Language Listening Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SLLSQ) were
administered to assess the listening comprehension, listening anxiety, and listening self-efficacy of the learners before and
after the intervention. The findings of the study indicated that listening strategy instruction significantly improved learners’
listening comprehension ability and reduced learners’ L2 listening anxiety. However, it was revealed that listening strategy
intervention failed to significantly improve L2 listening self-efficacy of the learners. In light of the gained results, the implications
of this study are discussed with respect to L2 teachers, learners, and curriculum developers.

Keywords
EFL, listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, listening strategies, strategy instruction

Introduction (Goh, 2017; Graham, 2017; Ngo, 2019; Vandergrift &

Second or foreign language (L2) listening is a crucial skill
that provides the L2 learners with the ability to process L2
input and to have interaction with speakers of other lan-
guages in their real-life everyday communications (Xu &
Huang, 2018). L2 listening is conceptualized as a perceptual
process requiring learners to employ auditory phonetics
to organize, detect, and overcome lexical segmentation
in­adequacies (Field, 2003). Moreover, it is a complex and
demanding process that involves invoking both linguistic
knowledge and world knowledge to comprehend the aural
texts (Vandergrift & Baker, 2015). In comparison with other
L2 skills such as reading and writing, listening has not been
adequately researched (Goh, 2017).
The current view toward L2 listening is the fact that it
should not be considered as a skill that is developed naturally
on its own, but it is a skill that requires explicit instruction to
be developed (Goh, 2010; Ngo, 2019). As a result of this con-
ceptualization of the skill, numerous researchers have investi-
gated the effectiveness of strategic instruction for L2 listening
Tafaghodtari, 2010; Yeldham, 2016). Listening strategies are
subsumed under language learning strategies that are viewed
as procedures, techniques, or deliberate activities carried out
by learners so as to enhance learning, processing, and remem-
bering of both linguistic and schematic knowledge (Chamot,
2005). L2 learning strategies have been conceptualized as one
of the most influential individual difference factors in L2
learning (Lu & Liu, 2011). A significant research base on lan-
guage learning strategies asserts that teaching language learn-
ing strategies assists language learners in fostering the
effective use of strategies (Chamot, 2005), and that effective
strategy use and L2 achievements are positively correlated
1
University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2
Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
3
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
Corresponding Author:
Jalil Fathi, Assistant Professor in TEFL, University of Kurdistan, Pasdaran
Street, Sanandaj, Kurdistan 66177-15177, Iran.
Email: jfathi13@yahoo.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
(Oxford et al., 2004). Listening strategy instruction is regarded
as a means of fostering the learners’ competence in selection
and coordination of appropriate strategies for their listening
objectives and needs so as to be able to comprehend more
effectively (Cohen, 2011b).
As research into the use of L2 strategies accumulated,
numerous researchers attended to the employment of strate-
gies in particular L2 tasks and skills (Cohen, 2011a; Oxford,
1990). Skill-specific strategies are effective in helping
learners to make up for L2 inadequacies in doing particular
L2-related skills or tasks (Nakatani, 2010). In line with this
heightened interest in L2 strategies, listening strategies
were also received with some research attention by
researchers (Vandergrift, 2003, 2004, 2007). As successful
comprehension is a function of the balanced coordination
and synchrony of top-down and bottom-up strategies
(Siegel, 2015), one way to help the learners to be able to
effectively synchronize these processes is strategy use.
Furthermore, listening strategies are a set of direct and
deliberate techniques employed to improve listening and to
remedy experienced or predicted comprehension inadequa-
cies or breakdowns (Field, 2003). Because of the warranted
merits associated with successful use of listening strategies,
listening strategy instruction programs received research
attention by numerous researchers (e.g., Graham, 2017;
Graham & Macaro, 2008; Vandergrift & Baker, 2015;
Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Strategy instruction
programs have been set to provide the listeners with a col-
lection of workable strategies to help them successfully
carry out listening tasks in real-life contexts (Mendelsohn,
1994). The strategic instructions can be designed to enhance
top-down processes of learners to guess meaning and to
make more accurate predictions about the aural text
(Vandergrift, 2007). These instructional programs should
also pay due attention to bottom-up processes that can
enhance meaning-centered comprehension and sentence-
level linguistic processing necessary for successful com-
prehension (Tsui & Fullilove, 1998).
With regard to strategy instruction approaches or models,
the recent intervention studies have used either more explicit
instructional approaches (e.g., Graham & Macaro, 2008) or
more implicit models mainly designed for instruction of
metacognitive strategies (e.g., Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari,
2010). Oxford (2011) conceptualizes explicit strategy
instruction as a “completely informed strategy training”
(p. 181), in which strategies are named, demonstrated, taught,
and practiced. Learners are made cognizant of metacognitive
knowledge and strategies’ contingent benefits in academic
and real-world listening. These strategies can tell us what the
strategy is and what it does and, thus, culminating in the
maintenance and transfer of strategies to other contexts and
tasks (Carrier, 2003). However, strategy use is integrated in
doing various language tasks in more implicit models
(Oxford, 1990). The underlying tenet governing either of
these models is the necessity of strategy instruction and
acknowledging the fact that listening cannot be naturally
developed through just exposure to language input. Given
the fact that the research evidence on strategy instruction has
yielded inconclusive results, and with respect to the dearth of
research on listening strategy instruction (Siegel, 2015), the
present research can hone our understanding of the effective-
ness of strategy instruction on the listening comprehension
ability, listening anxiety, and self-efficacy.
As one variable under the investigation of this study, lis-
tening self-efficacy is mainly based on the assumptions of
self-efficacy in mainstream education (Graham, 2011).
Vandergrift (2003) persuasively mentioned that empirical
evidence has substantiated that the effective use of metacog-
nitive listening strategies plays a pivotal role in successful
listening comprehension, assists learners to boost their self-
regulation and autonomy in listening (Vandergrift, 2002),
and has an important relation with listening self-efficacy
(Vandergrift, 2005). Considered mainly as the belief in one’s
own capability and being assigned a sense of agency to exert
control over the surrounding situations and activities
(Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy, rooted in sociocognitive the-
ory, is one of the most important affective variables influ-
encing the individuals’ selections of actions and devotion of
efforts in doing tasks. As far as L2 research is concerned, a
burgeoning body of empirical evidence has revealed that
self-efficacy beliefs affect language achievement, are cor-
related with a set of significant learning attributes, and can
be pedagogically influenced (e.g., Graham & Macaro, 2008;
Mills et al., 2007). From Bandura’s (1986) perspective,
sources of self-efficacy consist of mastery experience,
vicarious experience, persuasions, and psychological states.
As the other variable under the examination of this study,
L2 listening anxiety is viewed as a category of foreign lan-
guage anxiety (FLA). Considered as the anxiety felt when a
context or task needs the use of L2 by learners who are not
very competent language users (MacIntyre & Gardner,
1994), FLA is claimed to be existing in all dimensions of L2
such as the four skills (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Horwitz et al., 1986;
Vogely, 1999). Listening anxiety pervasively exists in doing
L2 listening tasks mainly because of the variables such as
unintelligibility, perceived difficulty, unfamiliarity of tasks,
and fear of failure in comprehension (Elkhafaifi, 2005). A
bulk of L2 listening research states that L2 listening anxiety
is separate from global FLA and has detrimental effects on
L2 listening performance (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Vogely, 1999).
In spite of the fact that FLA has received much research
attention by L2 researchers (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014;
Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994), skill-­
specific L2 anxiety (i.e., listening anxiety) has remained
more of a less researched construct (Elkhafaifi, 2005). By
the same token, although numerous studies have indicated
that FLA is closely related with the use of L2 strategies
(Lu & Liu, 2011; W. Zhang & Liu, 2013), the associations
between L2 skill-specific anxiety and strategy use have not
been widely researched (Liu, 2016).
Fathi et al. 3
The Present Study
In spite of the existence of a significant bulk of literature on
L2 listening comprehension, research into affective variables
and individual differences in L2 listening is essentially scarce
compared with other skills (Andringa et al., 2012). Because
listening seems to be a formidable and complex skill for
many L2 learners (Graham, 2011), the investigation of the
effect of instructional interventions, especially strategy
instruction on L2 listening affective factors (i.e., anxiety and
self-efficacy), is much needed. Because of the complex
nature of listening process, successful listening is highly reli-
ant on an array of individual and affective characteristics of
L2 listeners (Bang & Hiver, 2016). It is argued that in addi-
tion to cognitive dimensions of linguistic knowledge as well
as strategy use in L2 listening, affective variables have a sig-
nificant share of variance in positively affecting L2 listening
success (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Affective variables,
which can positively cooperate with other cognitive and lin-
guistics aspects, play a very influential role in enhancing L2
listening ability (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). Overall, L2
listening as well as its psychological factors has remained an
underresearched area with relatively few empirical studies.
Therefore, replication studies are called for to shed more
light on cognitive and affective variables in L2 listening
(Vandergrift & Cross, 2017).
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the use and effective-
ness of language leaning strategies are context dependent
(Griffiths, 2013; Ngo, 2019). From this perspective, strategy
use and strategy instruction may yield different results in the
particular socioeducational context of Iran. Concerning
English language instruction in Iran, it is worth noting that
English language is a compulsory subject in school curricu-
lums from Grade 7 to Grade 12 in public schools. However,
the curriculum for public schools is mainly focused on gram-
mar instruction than on communication skills and it fails to
develop students’ communicative competence effectively
(Dahmardeh, 2009). Therefore, Iranian English as a foreign
language (EFL) learners prefer to attend private language
centers so that they can learn spoken language and oral skills
more effectively (Haghighi & Norton, 2016). Nevertheless,
Iranian learners are very unlikely to be exposed to spoken
English outside the class, making it more difficult for them to
improve their speaking and listening. In addition, other fac-
tors such as educational facilities, large class sizes, students
with heterogeneous language backgrounds, inadequate
materials, and inappropriate evaluation procedures have hin-
dered the effective development of communicative skills.
Moreover, listening instruction in Iran is based on the prod-
uct approach in which no real instruction may occur, and stu-
dents are just required to listen and answer the questions. In
the Iranian EFL classrooms, strategy instruction appears to
be absent in L2 listening instruction, which is more con-
cerned with doing listening activities and tasks than with
enhancing and teaching listening. Therefore, in the light of
these theoretical and empirical backdrops and to bridge the
gaps pointed out above, the present study was set to investi-
gate the effects of listening strategy instruction on listening
ability, listening anxiety, and listening self-efficacy of Iranian
EFL learners.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: Does listening strategy instruction
significantly enhance Iranian EFL learners’ L2 listening
comprehension ability?
Research Question 2: Does listening strategy instruction
significantly reduce Iranian EFL learners’ L2 listening
anxiety?
Research Question 3: Does listening strategy instruction
significantly improve Iranian EFL learners’ L2 listening
self-efficacy?
Review of the Related Literature
As discussed above, although listening strategy instruction in
L2 and EFL contexts has received some attention by the
researchers (e.g., Goh, 2017; Graham, 2017; Ngo, 2019;
Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Yeldham, 2016), an
empirical investigation of the effects of strategy instruction
on affective variables and individual variables related to L2
listening seems to be absent on L2 listening research agenda.
In this line of enquiry, some studies are found in the litera-
ture. For example, Goh and Taib (2006) investigated the
effect of metacognitive listening intervention on a sample of
L2 listeners. The participants of this small-scale research
included a number of primary school pupils participated in
the study intervention. The intervention included eight par-
ticular lessons encompassing listening exercises, personal
thinking on their conducted listening activities, and teacher-
led talks encouraging learners’ evaluation and application of
their personal and group metacognitive knowledge and strat-
egy use. Findings revealed that the participants gained a
more in-depth knowledge of the nature and the requirements
of listening. It was also found that learners became more
confident in carrying out listening tasks and acquired the
effective strategies to cope with difficult listening tasks.
Similarly, Cross (2009) did a quasi-experimental research to
find out the effectiveness of listening strategy instruction on
L2 listening comprehension. The Japanese advanced-level
learners in the experimental group received a 12-hr listening
strategy instruction, encompassing the presentation, practice,
and review of listening strategies, whereas the control group
was taught traditionally with no explicit strategy instruction.
Results revealed that the experimental group outperformed
the control group significantly.
In another study, Graham and Macaro (2008) explored
the impact of teaching strategies on the listening achieve-
ment and self-efficacy perceptions. The participants of the
study were a sample of lower intermediate students of
4 SAGE Open
French in the United Kingdom. The results of the study
revealed that listening strategy instruction was effective
both in enhancing listening performance and fostering the
self-efficacy of the participants. Moreover, the interplay
between listening strategy use and listening individual vari-
ables such as anxiety and self-efficacy has been the focus of
some correlational studies. For instance, Wong (2005)
examined the relationship between language learning strate-
gies and language self-efficacy among a number of preser-
vice teachers. A sample of 74 graduate L2 preservice
teachers in Malaysia took part in the present study. The
results obtained from Pearson correlation coefficients indi-
cated that a significant positive relationship existed between
language learning strategies and language self-efficacy. The
results of qualitative data from interviews confirmed the
findings of the correlational analyses, suggesting that higher
self-efficacy was correlated with more frequent employ-
ment of more number of language learning.
In a recent study, Xu and Huang (2018) also examined the
mediating influence of listening metacognitive awareness
between listening anxiety and listening performance, also
between test anxiety and listening performance. The partici-
pants of the study were 402 Chinese EFL learners who
answered the questionnaires. Data analysis from structural
equation modeling revealed that metacognitive knowledge
of listening mediates not only the correlation between listen-
ing anxiety and listening performance but also the correla-
tion between test-related anxiety and listening performance.
Likewise, in a recent study in which the role of context in
strategy instruction was emphasized, Ngo (2019) investi-
gated the effects of a listening strategy instruction program
on a sample of 27 Vietnamese EFL learners. The listening
strategy instruction program designed based on the needs
included 22 sessions for a period of 11 weeks. A series of
focus group discussions were carried out to explore the learn-
ers’ perceptions of changes in using listening strategies
because of their experience in the strategy instruction pro-
gram. The findings obtained from the focus group interviews
indicated that the participants reported to be able to use lis-
tening strategies more effectively. These changes and effects
of strategy instruction were explained in the light of cultural
context of English learning and teaching in Vietnam. Overall,
the findings of this study underscores a more learner-cen-
tered atmosphere in which the learners are scaffolded and
mediated by their instructor, peers, and materials to enhance
their use of listening strategies.
Empirical Studies in the Iranian Context
Carrying out a recent study in the Iranian context, Movahed
(2014) examined the effects of metacognitive strategy
instruction on the listening achievement, metacognitive abil-
ity, and listening anxiety of EFL learners. A number of 55
Iranian EFL learners studying English translation were the
participants of the study. The participants were randomly
selected and divided into experimental (n = 30) and control
(n = 25) groups. The students of the experimental group
were exposed to strategy instruction according to the model
delineated by Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (2010) for a
period of eight sessions, whereas the control group was
taught traditionally. To collect the data for the objective of
this research, listening section of Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL), the Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire (MALQ), and Foreign Language Listening
Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) were also administered to the par-
ticipants. The findings of the study indicated that the meta-
cognitive strategy instruction significantly improved
learners’ listening proficiency and metacognitive awareness.
Furthermore, it was found that strategic instruction contrib-
uted to reducing listening anxiety of the participants.
By the same token, Rahimirad and Zare-ee (2015)
explored the impact of metacognitive strategy instruction on
listening self-efficacy among EFL learners. Forty homoge-
nized female students of English literature served as the par-
ticipants of the study and were randomly assigned to the
experimental (n = 20) and the control (n = 20) groups. The
experimental group received 8 hr of metacognitive strategy
instruction during eight sessions according to the model
introduced by Vandergrift (2003), whereas the control group
was taught traditionally without any explicit strategy instruc-
tion. The results of this research showed that teaching listen-
ing metacognitive strategies significantly improved listening
self-efficacy of Iranian EFL learners.
In a similar line of inquiry, Mohamadpour et al. (2019)
recently investigated the effectiveness of metacognitive strat-
egy instruction in reducing listening anxiety of Iranian EFL
learners. Sixty-three intermediate EFL learners who were ran-
domly selected and randomly assigned to two experimental
and two control groups served as the participants of the study.
As for the strategy instruction framework, two models of
Integrated Experiential Learning Task (IELT; Goh, 2010) and
Metacognitive Pedagogical Sequence (MPS; Vandergrift,
2004) were employed. All the students in the four classes
were instructed by the same teacher, and the same listening
comprehension materials were used for all the groups. One of
the experimental classes was taught listening strategies based
on IELT and the other experimental group was taught accord-
ing to MPS model, whereas both control groups were taught
based on the traditional product-oriented listening instruction.
To collect the data, FLLAS and the listening component of
Preliminary English Test (PET) were given to all groups
before and after the instruction. The findings of the study
revealed that both IELT and MPS were useful in reducing lis-
tening anxiety. However, it was found that the MPS was more
effective in lowering listening anxiety of the learners.
In another study, Golzadeh and Moiinvaziri (2017)
explored the interplay between listening anxiety and meta-
cognitive strategy awareness among 105 Iranian EFL learn-
ers. The participants were of upper intermediate and
advanced proficiency levels. To gather the required data for
Fathi et al. 5
Table 1.  Distribution of the Participants Across Each Group.
Groups Number Male Female
Experimental group 27 9 18
Control group 25 10 15
Total number 52 19 33
this correlational study, MALQ and FLLAS were adminis-
tered. The results of data analysis revealed that a negative
correlation existed between the learners’ listening anxiety
and their metacognitive strategy use.
Method
This study is a quantitative research in nature. Because it was
not possible to select and divide the participants randomly in
this research context (Islamic Azad University), quasi-exper-
imental design was used. This design is usually employed in
case it is not logistically possible to carry out a randomized,
controlled trial study (Ary et al., 2019). In this design, par-
ticipants are not randomly assigned to groups. Two intact
classes served as the participants of this quasi-experimental
research design.
Participants
To achieve the aims of this research, a sample of 52 English
major learners from two intact classes at one of the branches
of Islamic Azad University in Iran were recruited as the par-
ticipants of this research (see Table 1). They were both male
(N = 19) and female (N = 33) learners whose age ranged
from 19 to 24 years. The two intact groups were randomly
assigned to an experimental group (N = 27) and a control
group (N = 25). To make sure about the homogeneity of the
participants with regard to their English proficiency, Oxford
Placement Test (OPT; Allan, 2004) was given to the students
of both groups. The scores of students on OPT revealed that
the participants can be categorized as upper intermediate in
general English proficiency. All the participants had at least
a 5-year experience of learning English in language learning
institutes. Both groups were instructed by the same instruc-
tor, and an identical textbook and the same learning materials
were used for both classes. The strategy instruction interven-
tion lasted for about 16 weeks.
Instruments
English proficiency test.  OPT (Allan, 2004) was used to inves-
tigate the homogeneity of the students of both groups in
terms of their general English proficiency. OPT can be given
to various learners of different abilities to identify their lev-
els. OPT consists of a six-rating scale; students whose scores
lie between 0 and 17 are categorized as basic (A1), and stu-
dents whose scores fall between 18 and 29 are considered as
Table 2.  Results of the OPT for Each Group.
Groups M (SD) T Significance
Experimental 42.66 (11.35) −0.58 .56
Control 44.50 (11.14)  
Note. OPT = Oxford Placement Test.
elementary students (A2). Students whose scores are between
30 and 39 are in the lower intermediate group (B1). Those
students with scores of 40 to 47 are labeled as upper interme-
diate (B2) and the students with scores 48 to 54 and 54 to 60
are categorized as advanced (C1) and very sophisticated (C2)
levels, respectively. The internal consistency of OPT as esti-
mated by Cronbach’s alpha was reported to be .86 in this
study. OPT is a time-saving and reliable English language
proficiency test, which was developed by Cambridge Eng-
lish for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Oxford
University Press and was validated in 20 countries by more
than 6,000 students.
To compare the OPT mean scores of the two groups, an
independent-samples t test was carried out. The results
presented in Table 2 demonstrated that there was no statis-
tically significant difference in between the mean scores of
the experimental group (M = 42.66, SD = 11.35) and the
control group (M = 44.50, SD = 11.14), t(50) = −0.58,
p > .05, revealing that both groups were homogeneous in
terms of their general English ability before initiating the
intervention.
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) listening
section.  To measure the listening comprehension ability of
the participants prior to the intervention and after the inter-
vention, the IELTS listening practice tests (Scovell et al.,
2004) were administered. There are four parts in the IELTS
listening module. The first two parts are concerned with top-
ics of general interest. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient indices for the pre- and posttests were .79 and
.82, respectively.
FLLAS.  To measure listening anxiety of the participants
before and after the intervention, FLLAS that was devel-
oped by Kim (2000) was administered to the participants.
FLLAS is a self-report scale in the form of a 5-point
Likert-type questionnaire designed mainly according to
Horwitz et al.’s (1986) scale, which was developed and
validated to measure general FLA. FLLAS includes 33
items measuring three dimensions of L2 listening anxiety:
tension and worry (10 items), lack of confidence (seven
items), and problems encountered (16 items). Kim (2000)
reported the internal consistency of the scale to be .93. The
reliability coefficient of the scale, as measured by Cron-
bach’s alpha formula, was .81 in the present study. With
respect to its validity, it has been administered in the Ira-
nian context by other researchers.
6 SAGE Open
Second Language Listening Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SLLSQ).  Table 3.  Description of Listening Strategy–Based Instruction.
To assess L2 listening self-efficacy of the participants, SLLSQ
that was developed and designed by Kassem (2015) was
employed in the present study. This scale includes 40 items in
the form of a 5-point Likert-type scale measuring five under-
lying subscales: progress (one’s perception of present perfor-
mance in comparison with past performance), observational
comparison (one’s perception of his or her performance in
comparison with that of peers), physiological states (the
learner’s feelings while doing listening tasks), strategic
awareness (learner’s ability in dealing with listening task and
overcoming difficulties), and challenge (the learner’s willing-
ness to do such a task). The internal consistency of the ques-
tionnaire, as estimated by Cronbach’s alpha formula, was
reported to be .79 in this study.
Procedure
The present research was a part of a bigger project wherein
the effects of a listening strategy instruction program on
several L2 listening cognitive and affective variables were
investigated. Nevertheless, this article reports the details of a
section of the procedure in which the effect of strategy
instruction on listening anxiety and self-efficacy was under
investigation.
One session prior to initiating the intervention of the
study, the English proficiency test (OPT) was given to the
learners of both groups. The purpose was to make sure that
the intact groups are not of different level of language profi-
ciency. Besides, the listening section of the IELTS was
administered to measure the listening comprehension ability
of the students before (i.e., as pretest) and after (i.e., as post-
test) the strategy instruction. Then, the two scales of listening
anxiety and listening self-efficacy were administered to the
students as the pretests of the study.
During the first week of the intervention for the experi-
mental group, the teacher discussed the significance of teach-
ing listening strategies very briefly and provided the learners
with a general description of the instructional program for
the whole strategy instruction period. He also briefly
explained the strategy instruction framework utilized in the
program. Yeldham and Gruba’s (2014) model was adopted as
the framework for strategy instruction in the current research.
Yeldham and Gruba believed that such a mixture could be
more productive and could solve the likely shortcomings
in either approaches. They maintained that a totally embed-
ded approach can be tedious for learners (Vandergrift &
Tafaghodtari, 2010), whereas very explicit procedures might
be too prescriptive too be interesting to learners.
The strategy teaching framework employed for the pres-
ent study was cognitive academic language learning approach
(CALLA; Chamot & O’malley, 1994) developed by Chamot
et al. (1999), constituting five key phases of preparation, pre-
sentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion (see Table 3).
Moreover, the strategy instruction model used for this study
Phases Description of activities
Preparation - Teacher made students think about the
strategies they had learned before (or in the
previous session)
Presentation - By thinking aloud, teacher modeled how to
employ a particular strategy with examples
- Teacher provided a definition of the listening
strategy and clarified when and how to
employ the strategy
- Students were asked to discuss the
presented strategy with peers
Practice - Students were required to practice using the
strategies they had learned in doing listening
tasks
- Students had peer discussions on which
strategies to be selected and how to use
them
- Teacher provided the students with
necessary support if they had difficulty doing
listening tasks or selecting appropriate
strategies
Evaluation - Students had reflection on their own
strategy use and their comprehension of
listening texts
- Students provided comments on strategy
use and listening comprehension of their
peers
Expansion - Students were given further listening tasks
as homework
- Students were encouraged to use all their
learned strategies on their own and develop
their individual combination of listening
strategies while doing listening assignments
outside the class
consists of three categories of top-down, bottom-up, and
metacognitive set of strategies. Concerning the top-down
strategies, the learners of the experimental group were taught
on how to make predictions about aural content and lexical
items, infer and deduce the meaning of unknown vocabular-
ies in texts, guess the new aspects of text, make use of con-
textual clues to understand the aural text, and utilize textual
markers to predict complicated content and the succeeding
content. As for the bottom-up strategies, the learners were
instructed on how to make use of cues and jot down key-
words during listening activities to improve their own com-
prehension, use discourse and text markers to enhance their
understanding, and recognize stressed content words in spo-
ken language. Regarding the metacognitive strategies, the
students were taught on how to grasp an overview of various
listening strategies, concentrate on metacognitive orchestra-
tion of different strategies, and monitor more successfully
and productively, for example, how to monitor text for mal-
formed utterances and to monitor utterances including con-
fusing schema (Yeldham & Gruba, 2014). Following what
Fathi et al. 7
Vandergrift et al. (2006) identify, metacognitive listening
strategies are categorized into five types of strategies, encom-
passing problem solving, planning and evaluation, mental
translation, person knowledge, and directed attention.
Vandergrift et al. mention that problem solving manifests a
group of strategies that listeners need to draw on to predict
what they do not infer in the process of listening and to moni-
tor these inferences. Planning and evaluation strategies per-
tain to those strategies that listeners utilize to prepare
themselves for listening tasks and to evaluate the results of
their listening efforts. They further argue that mental transla-
tions are those strategies that listeners need to avoid if they
want to become tactful listeners (Vandergrift, 2003). Person
knowledge strategies encompass listeners’ perceptions and
attitudes with respect to the difficulty of the listening task
and their self-efficacy about second language (L2) listening.
Directed attention entails strategies that listeners embark on
to concentrate and stay on listening task. Vandergrift et al.
postulate that the listeners’ awareness of these five types of
strategies that can help them regulate the process of L2 lis-
tening comprehension.
During the sessions of strategy instruction intervention,
listening strategic instruction was incorporated into the regu-
lar instruction. This was carried out using the instructional
cycle proposed by Vandergrift (2007) to assist learners in
coordinating their used strategies. In these sessions, the stu-
dents were also taught on how to make predictions about the
content of the aural texts after having listened to its initial
utterances or to identify its topic. In addition, upon being
exposed to the text for the first time, the learners checked
their predictions as well as their guesses and compared their
understanding of the text with that of their peers. When they
listened for the second time, they reexamined their own
understanding, and talked about their comprehension and
interpretations of the aural text with their classmates. While
listening for the third time, the learners reflected on their
comprehension and made planning for similar subsequent
listening activities. In the meantime, the learners in the con-
trol group were taught traditionally without receiving any
strategy instruction. By traditional, we mean that they did not
work on different types of three categories of top-down,
bottom-up, and metacognitive set of strategies. Moreover,
the teacher did not have any discussion on strategy use, nei-
ther did he engage the participants in any systematic attempt
to reflect on their employed approach to listening. More par-
ticularly, the traditional listening instruction was based on
the listen–answer–check (Vandergrift, 2004) approach, in
which the participants were required to listen to numerous
aural texts and then answer the following listening compre-
hension questions. The aural texts were either dialogues or
monologues with various task demands including multiple-
choice items, fill-in-the-blank questions, and open-ended
items (i.e., responding to Wh-questions). The control group
received the same listening activities and tasks from the
identical course book.
Table 4. Paired-Samples t Test for Listening Scores in Each
Group.
Pretest Posttest
Groups M SD M SD t Significance
Experimental 17.77 5.70 22.93 6.42 −5.84 .00
Control 18.43 5.14 20.23 6.47 −2.36 .02
Finally, at the end of the completion of the strategy
instruction intervention, the learners of both groups were
invited to answer FLLAS and L2 Listening Self-Efficacy
Questionnaire as the posttests of the study. It is noteworthy
that during both pretest and posttest, the teacher was present
to clarify any sort of misunderstanding while completing the
questionnaires.
Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, three one-way between-
groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed.
According to Pallant (2013), ANCOVA can be used when
there is a pretest/posttest design (e.g., comparing the effects
of two different interventions, taking before and after mea-
sures for each group). The scores on the pretest are consid-
ered as a covariate to “control” for preexisting differences
between the groups. Moreover, to demonstrate the within-
group change from pretest to posttest for each variable,
paired-samples t tests were also carried out.
Results
Research Question 1: Does Listening Strategy
Instruction Significantly Enhance Iranian EFL
Learners’ L2 Listening Comprehension Ability?
Because participants’ listening comprehension ability plays
an indispensable role before and after the intervention as one
of the variables of the study, paired-samples t tests were car-
ried out to compare the listening scores in the pretest and
posttest. The results demonstrated that there was a significant
increase of the mean scores for both experimental and control
groups. Table 4 reveals that the listening mean scores of the
experimental group significantly improved (t = −5.84, p <
.05); moreover, the performance of the control group statisti-
cally improved (t = −2.36, p < .05). The results indicated
that the mean score of the experimental group was 17.77 on
the pretest and it increased to 22.93 on the posttest, which was
statistically significant. Likewise, the listening pretest mean
score for the control group rose from 18.43 to 20.23 on the
posttest, which led to the significant difference.
In addition, a one-way between-groups ANCOVA was
run to find out the effects of the two types of listening instruc-
tions utilized in the control group and the experimental
8 SAGE Open
Table 5.  ANCOVA Results for Listening Comprehension Scores.
Source Type III sum of squares
Corrected model 293.766
Intercept 216.441
Pretest listening 198.991
Group 122.007
Error 789.595
Total 25,423.168
Corrected total 1,083.361
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance.
Table 6. Paired-Samples t Test for L2 Listening Anxiety Scores.
Pretest Posttest
Groups M SD M SD t Significance
Experimental 44.37 10.56 37.00 10.31 37.03
Control 45.62 11.79 43.08 11.43 9.17
group. The strategy instruction was the independent variable
and the dependent variable was the scores on the listening
test; students’ scores on the pretest of the listening test served
as the covariate in this analysis. The researchers were ascer-
tained that there was no violation of normality, linearity,
homogeneity of variances, homogeneity of regression slopes,
and reliable measurement of the covariate. As Table 5 illus-
trates, there was a significant difference between the two
groups on posttest scores of listening comprehension ability,
F(1, 49) = 7.57, p = .008, partial η2 = .13.
Research Question 2: Does Listening Strategy
Instruction Significantly Reduce Iranian EFL
Learners’ L2 Listening Anxiety?
To investigate the effect of listening strategy instruction on
listening anxiety of the participants, a paired-samples t test
was carried out to compare the mean scores of both groups
from the pretest to posttest. As presented in Table 6, the
results show that there was a statistically significant change
from the pretest to posttest of L2 listening anxiety for both
the experimental group, t(26) = 37.03, p < .00, and the con-
trol group, t(24) = 9.17, p < .00. As seen in Table 6, the lis-
tening anxiety mean score for the experimental group
decreased from 44.37 on the pretest to 37.00 on the posttest.
Similarly, the listening anxiety mean score of the control
group decreased from 45.62 on the pretest to 43.08 on the
posttest. These results indicated that listening anxiety of both
groups was significantly reduced.
In addition, a one-way between-groups ANCOVA was
carried out to compare the effects of the two types of L2 lis-
tening instructions employed in the present study on the L2
listening anxiety. The independent variable was the type of
df M square F Significance Partial η2
2 146.883 9.115 .000 .271
1 216.441 13.432 .001 .215
1 198.991 12.349 .001 .201
1 122.007 7.571 .008 .134
49 16.114  
52  
51  
instruction (i.e., strategy-based instruction or traditional),
and the dependent variable was the scores of the participants
on the posttest of listening anxiety. The pretest scores of
listening anxiety were considered as the covariate in the
ANCOVA. Preliminary analyses were conducted to make
.00
sure that the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogene-
.00
ity of variances, homogeneity of regression slopes, and the
reliable measurement of the covariate were not violated. The
results of the ANCOVA (see Table 7) show that a statistically
significant difference existed between the two groups in the
mean scores on the posttest of L2 listening anxiety, F(1, 49)
= 225.10, p = .000, partial η2 = .82. These results reveal
that teaching L2 listening strategies contributed to reducing
listening anxiety of the experimental group more than the
traditional L2 listening instruction.
Research Question 3: Does Listening Strategy
Instruction Significantly Improve Iranian EFL
Learners’ L2 Listening Self-Efficacy?
The third research question aimed to examine the effect of
listening strategy instruction on EFL learners’ L2 listening
self-efficacy. To answer this question, a paired-samples t test
was conducted to investigate the mean scores of L2 listening
self-efficacy for both the experimental and control groups
from the pretest to posttest. In fact, the purpose of this analy-
sis was to investigate the effects of the strategy-based instruc-
tion and traditional listening instruction on the listening
self-efficacy of the participants. As Table 8 indicates, there
was a statistically significant increase in the mean scores of
L2 listening self-efficacy from the pretest to posttest for both
the experimental group, t(26) = −2.25, p < .05, and the con-
trol group, t(24) = −2.39, p < .05. As presented in Table 6,
the mean score of L2 listening self-efficacy for the experi-
mental group increased from 46.77 on the pretest to 50.74 on
the posttest. Likewise, the listening self-efficacy mean scores
of the control group was raised from 44.04 on the pretest to
48.56 on the posttest.
Furthermore, a one-way between-groups ANCOVA was
also run to compare the effectiveness of the two types of L2
listening instruction. The type of intervention (i.e., strat-
egy-based instruction or traditional) was the independent
Fathi et al. 9

Table 7.  ANCOVA Results for L2 Listening Anxiety Scores.

Source Type III sum of squares df M square F Significance Partial η2

Corrected model 6,316.842 2 3,158.421 2,315.054 .000 .990
Intercept 34.839 1 34.839 25.536 .000 .343
Pretest anxiety 5,836.989 1 5,836.989 4,278.387 .000 .989
Group 307.110 1 307.110 225.105 .000 .821
Error 66.851 49 1.364  
Total 89,264.000 52  
Corrected total 6,383.692 51  

Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance.

Table 8. Paired-Samples t Test for L2 Listening Self-Efficacy.
Pretest Posttest
Groups M SD M SD t Significance
Experimental 46.77 8.08 50.74 8.23 −2.25 .03
Control 44.04 6.14 48.56 8.02 −2.39 .02
variable, and the learners’ scores on the posttest of L2 lis-
tening self-efficacy served as the dependent variable. Also,
the learners’ scores on the pretest of L2 listening self-­
efficacy were considered as the covariate in the ANCOVA.
Preliminary analyses revealed that there was no violation of
normality, linearity, homogeneity of variances, homogene-
ity of regression slopes, and reliable measurement of the
covariate. The results of the ANCOVA (see Table 9) indi-
cated that there was no statistically significant difference
between the two groups in the mean scores on the posttest
of L2 listening self-efficacy; F(1, 49) = 0.358, p = .552,
partial η2 = .00. These results show that listening strategy
instruction failed to improve Iranian EFL learners’ L2 lis-
tening self-efficacy.
Discussion and Conclusion
This research sought to examine the effects of teaching lis-
tening strategies on the listening comprehension, listening
anxiety, and listening self-efficacy of Iranian EFL learners.
To accomplish the objectives of this study, Yeldham and
Gruba’s (2014) model of strategy instruction was incorpo-
rated into a 16-week treatment period. Results of the first
research question indicated that the experimental group sig-
nificantly outperformed the control group on the listening
performance test, corroborating that the listening strategy
instruction may be effective in boosting participants’ listen-
ing comprehension. The findings of this study resonate with
those of previous studies (Graham & Macaro, 2008;
Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Yeldham & Gruba, 2014)
and are not in alignment with those of Rees-Miller’s (1993)
and Rossiter’s (2003). Furthermore, the findings of this study
are suggestive of the fact that Yeldham and Gruba’s model
proved to be effective in developing learners’ comprehension
ability. Because this model is a combination of the explicit
and embedded approaches, it yields the most successful
results, which have been substantiated by other studies
(Oxford, 2011; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Unlike most
previous studies that focused on few participants and have
focused on the explicit teaching of strategies (Yeldham &
Gruba’s, 2014), the present study was conducted with a big-
ger sample of Iranian EFL students of upper intermediate
proficiency level and employed a quasi-experimental design.
Furthermore, the previously conducted bodies of research
focused on the metacognitive strategies and top-down pro-
cessing (e.g., Goh, 1998; Vandergrift, 1997), but this study
employed bottom-up skills and strategies to teach listening
as well. This finding is consistent with that of Yeldham and
Gruba, concluding that drawing on just bottom-up strategy
instruction, without the integration of top-down skills and
strategies, is less likely to boost the learners’ listening com-
prehension. This study embarked upon presenting and mod-
eling strategies, and students were given enough practice,
which ultimately resulted in the better listening performance
of the participants.
The improved listening comprehension of the partici-
pants in the experimental group may be justified in light of
sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), in a sense that, listen-
ing strategy use was mediated by the scaffolding of the
teacher as a more capable person in the learning process of
the students (Gardner, 2010). Explaining and modeling the
strategy use, the teacher helped the EFL learners to use lis-
tening strategies more effectively. As such, the learners
might have been empowered to fill the gap between the
strategies they knew and their actual competence for using
them, an effective situation that helped the learner to
improve their listening comprehension.
The results of the second research question demonstrated
that listening strategy instruction significantly reduced
Iranian EFL learners’ listening anxiety. This finding concurs
with a significant body of L2 listening research in emphasiz-
ing the role of strategy instruction in decreasing listening
anxiety (Goh & Taib, 2006; Mohamadpour et al., 2019;
Movahed, 2014; Vandergrift, 2007). Such a finding also veri-
fies the findings of correlational studies (e.g., Golzadeh &
10 SAGE Open
Table 9.  ANCOVA Results for L2 Listening Self-Efficacy.
Source Type III sum of squares df
Corrected model 309.128 2 154.564
Intercept 1,568.588 1 1,568.588
Pretest self-efficacy 247.397 1 247.397
Group 22.373 1 22.373
Error 3,059.948 49
Total 131,774.000 52
Corrected total 3,369.077 51
Note. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance.
Moiinvaziri, 2017; Xu & Huang, 2018), which indicated that
a negative correlation exists between strategy use and listen-
ing anxiety. This finding is attributed to some reasons. First
and foremost, one key cause of listening anxiety in L2 is
exposure to new vocabularies (Vogely, 1998; X. Zhang,
2013). As the strategy instruction program helped the listeners
to make informed guesses about the meaning of unfamiliar
words and have less difficulty processing new vocabularies,
the participants of the experimental group felt less listening
anxiety after receiving strategy instruction. Guessing the
meanings from the text that has been frequently employed by
the communicative L2 teaching approaches is reported to be
conducive in reducing listening anxiety (X. Zhang, 2013). In
addition, strategy instruction might have increased the par-
ticipants’ risk-taking level, which encouraged the learners
not to be resistant in guessing incorrectly or making mistakes
in L2 classrooms (Yan & Horwitz, 2008). This increased risk
taking of the participants could have reduced listening anxi-
ety of the learners.
Moreover, as the listening strategy instruction involved
further interaction among students and the teacher through
teacher’s regular feedback, the participants perceived less
distance between themselves and the teacher. Therefore, a
more comfortable and nonthreatening learning environment
was created for the learners who enjoyed doing listening
tasks and might have reduced their listening anxiety. This
stress-free learning environment is likely to have changed
the perceptions of participants on listening and to have cre-
ated positive attitudes among them. It is also likely that par-
ticipants of the experimental group, perceiving the less
distance with the teacher, might have verbalized their feel-
ings and shared their listening difficulties with the teacher
who could have provided them with solutions or workable
strategies, which contributed to reducing their listening
anxiety.
Furthermore, it can be argued that strategy instruction
might have encouraged the participants to manage and moni-
tor their learning, take responsibility of their learning, and
gain more self-confidence in doing learning tasks, thereby
reducing their anxiety. Appropriate strategy use may assign
the learners the competence and confidence to take control of
their own learning process and feel more autonomy (Siegel,
2015), all of which might have contributed to reducing
M square F Significance Partial η2
2.475 .095 .092
25.118 .000 .339
3.962 .052 .075
0.358 .552 .007
62.448  
 
 
listening anxiety. The effect of strategy use in reducing L2
anxiety has been acknowledged in L2 literature (Lu & Liu,
2011). The findings of the present study are also partially
consistent with those of Sioson (2011), who found that the
use of metacognitive language strategies could reduce L2
anxiety by enabling the learners to become more competent
in setting goals, planning, and self-monitoring their learning
process. This also verifies the claim made by Vandergrift
(2002), who stated that metacognitive instruction or raising
learners’ metacognitive awareness can equip the L2 learners
with listening competencies to be able to successfully trans-
fer what they have learned in listening tasks to authentic tar-
get language situations outside the class.
More particularly, the findings of the present study con-
firmed the effectiveness of the adopted strategy instruction
framework (Yeldham & Gruba, 2014) in lowering listening
anxiety. One likely reason might be the fact that this frame-
work was a composite of the three sets of top-down, bottom-
up, and metacognitive strategies. It is argued that overreliance
on limited bottom-up strategies makes the learners become
too preoccupied with word-level processing and consume
much attentional processing at the expense of ignoring higher
order semantic processing of the text (Field, 2003). However,
Yeldham and Gruba’s (2014) model helped EFL learners to
use their top-down strategies and schematic knowledge to
process the aural texts more effectively. In the meantime,
metacognitive strategies of the model encouraged the learn-
ers to plan, monitor, and orchestrate their employed strate-
gies more effectively. Therefore, the perceived success in
comprehending texts, accompanied by less cognitive load
due to receiving strategic instruction, is likely to have
reduced the anxiety of the participants. This is consistent
with the findings of I. Chen and Chang (2009) who found
that further cognitive load and less working memory pro-
cessing could increase L2 listening anxiety.
Moreover, concerning the third research question, it was
revealed that teaching L2 listening strategies failed to
improve listening self-efficacy of the students more than the
traditional listening instruction. This finding is at variance
with numerous previous studies (e.g., Graham & Macaro,
2008; Rahimirad & Zare-ee, 2015; Wong, 2005) revealing
that strategic instruction can affect self-efficacy of the par-
ticipants. The listening self-efficacy of the two groups in the
Fathi et al. 11
present study increased in the posttest, and there was no sig-
nificant difference between the two groups. This finding
might be accounted for by the fact that both groups were
engaged in experiencing listening activities by which they
have gained a sense of mastery that contributed to increasing
listening self-efficacy of both groups. Although the control
group did not get exposed to any strategy instruction, they
had adequate exposure to various listening tasks and activi-
ties during their instruction. Successful experience of the
control group students in doing listening activities has served
as a key source of listening self-efficacy for the experimental
and control groups. According to Bandura’s (1997) notion of
self-efficacy grounded in sociocognitive theory, mastery
experience or successful doing of something acts as the most
significant source of self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, the two
groups were taught by the same teacher who tried to encour-
age the students of both groups by providing them with rela-
tively identical verbal persuasion as the other source of
self-efficacy. Another plausible reason for the insignificant
difference between the experimental and control groups’
level of listening self-efficacy might be due to the relatively
short period of the instruction. However, the treatment con-
ducted by Graham and Macaro (2008), which confirmed the
effectiveness of strategy instruction in enhancing listening
self-efficacy, lasted for a period of 6 months.
Moreover, it is argued that students’ verbalization of
listening strategies after being modeled by a teacher could
improve listeners’ self-efficacy because verbalization
encouraged learners to pay more attention to the taught strat-
egies and foster their encoding (Graham, 2011; Schunk &
Rice, 1984). The participants of the experimental group did
not practice to repeat the used strategies verbally. In fact, the
teacher modeled the use of listening strategies and explained
them out loud, but the participants did not repeat them ver-
bally prior to implementing them to listening activities. This
may be considered as another possible justification for the
fact that listening strategy instruction did not significantly
enhance L2 listening self-efficacy of the learners.
As far as the Iranian EFL context is concerned, L2 practi-
tioners seem to be neither competent nor willing to teach lis-
tening strategies in their own classrooms (Eslami & Ranjbary,
2003). Nor do EFL curriculum developers and syllabus
designers pay adequate attention to teaching listening strate-
gies explicitly. Most of the listening class hours are devoted
to completing tasks and doing activities by the students. As a
result, focusing on just the end points and products in the
form of carried-out listening exercises, activities, and tasks is
likely to increase listening anxiety of the EFL learners.
Therefore, integration of listening strategic instruction into
regular classrooms might be a promising venue for EFL
teachers not only to improve the listening proficiency of their
students but also to reduce their anxiety as well as enhance
their motivation and self-efficacy in doing listening tasks.
By the same token, EFL teachers should inculcate in their
pupils a positive attitude toward using strategies to increase
the effectiveness of strategic instruction in culminating in the
most favorable outcomes in both cognitive and affective
variables related to the particular L2-related tasks or skills
(Oxford, 1990). Furthermore, L2 teacher education programs
should equip the practitioners with necessary theoretical and
practical competencies to be able to effectively implement
strategic instructions in their classrooms. This issue becomes
more crucial as far as listening instruction is concerned
because it is argued that teachers play an influential role in
teaching listening effectively (Graham & Santos, 2015).
Limitations and Directions for Further Research
Given the fact that L2 listening has been more underre-
searched than other skills (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) as well
as given the invisible and intricate nature of listening process
(Vandergrift & Cross, 2017), doing further empirical research
on L2 listening and its related psychological factors (i.e.,
anxiety, self-efficacy, and motivation) across different con-
texts using various interventions seems to be very warranted.
In addition, because strategy use is a covert process, some
researchers have recommended using qualitative research
procedures to gain a more comprehensive and in-depth
insight into learners’ use of listening strategies (Y. Chen,
2005; Ngo, 2019). More specifically, the use of quantitative
self-report scales for measuring affective variables may not
provide a deep insight into the effects of strategy instruction
on such affective variables as anxiety and self-efficacy. Also,
participants’ general sense of efficacy and academic self-
efficacy might have affected the results of this study with
regard to the effectiveness of strategy instruction on listening
self-efficacy. As a result, future researchers may investigate
the moderating effects of general and academic self-efficacy
on L2 listening self-efficacy.
Future researchers are recommended to replicate similar
studies using qualitative or mixed-methods research designs.
The use of stimulated recalls and think-aloud protocols can
help future researchers to cast a better picture of the effect of
listening strategy instruction programs on listening affective
variables such as anxiety and self-efficacy. Also, future
researchers may employ delayed posttests to investigate
whether the impacts of listening strategy instruction could be
maintained over time. Finally, future researchers can exam-
ine the effect of other models of listening strategy instruction
on listening ability, anxiety, and self-efficacy of bigger sam-
ples of learners at different levels of language proficiency
using different listening tasks with various genres.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
12 SAGE Open
ORCID iDs
Jalil Fathi   https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1146-1024
Ali Derakhshan   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6639-9339
References
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford University Press.
Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R.,
& Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and
non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences
approach. Language Learning, 62(1), 49–78.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2019).
Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Cengage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (pp. 3–
604). W.H. Freeman.
Bang, S., & Hiver, P. (2016). Investigating the structural rela-
tionships of cognitive and affective domains for L2 listen-
ing. Asian-pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language
Education, 1(1), Article 7.
Carrier, K. A. (2003). Improving high school English language
learners’ second language listening through strategy instruc-
tion. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 383–408.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current
issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25,
112–130.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. D., & Robbins, J.
(1999). The learning strategies handbook. Pearson Education.
Chamot, A. U., & O’malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook:
Implementing the cognitive academic language learning
approach. Addison-Wesley.
Chen, I., & Chang, C. C. (2009). Cognitive load theory: An empiri-
cal study of anxiety and task performance in language learning.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,
7(2), 729–746.
Chen, Y. (2005). A qualitative study on the effect of language learn-
ing strategy training [Paper presentation]. The Conference
on English Teaching and Learning, National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei City.
Cohen, A. D. (2011a). Second language learner strategies. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teach-
ing and learning (Vol. II, pp. 681–698). Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. (2011b). Strategies in learning and using a second
language (2nd ed.). Longman.
Cross, J. (2009). Effects of listening strategy instruction on news
videotext comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 13,
151–176.
Dahmardeh, M. (2009). English language teaching in Iran and
communicative language teaching (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). University of Warwick, Coventry.
Dewaele, J. M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus?
Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies
in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237–274.
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the
Arabic language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 89,
206–222.
Eslami, -R. Z., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy
training for vocabulary learning. http://www-writing.berkeley.
edu/TESLEJ/ej26/a5.html
Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: Lexical segmentation in L2
listening. ELT Journal, 57(4), 325–334.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisi-
tion: The socio-educational model. Peter Lang.
Goh, C. C. M. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening
abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language
Teaching Research, 2, 124–147.
Goh, C. C. M. (2010). Listening as process: Learning activities
for self-appraisal and self-regulation. In N. Harwood (Ed.),
English language teaching materials: Theory and practice
(pp. 179–206). Cambridge University Press.
Goh, C. C. M. (2017). Cognition, metacognition, and L2 listening.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 214–228). Routledge.
Goh, C. C. M., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in
listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232.
Golzadeh, N., & Moiinvaziri, M. (2017). Metacognitive strategy
awareness and listening anxiety: The role of gender and profi-
ciency level among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal
of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 5(19), 91–109.
Graham, S. (2011). Self-efficacy and academic listening. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 113–117.
Graham, S. (2017). Research into practice: Listening strategies in
an instructed classroom setting. Language Teaching, 50(1),
107–119.
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening
for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning,
58(4), 747–783.
Graham, S., & Santos, D. (2015). Strategies for second language
listening: Current scenarios and improved pedagogy. Springer.
Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language
learning. Multilingual Matters.
Haghighi, F. M., & Norton, B. (2016). The role of English language
institutes in Iran. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 428–438.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(1),
125–132.
Kassem, H. M. (2015). The relationship between listening strategies
used by Egyptian EFL college sophomores and their listening
comprehension and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching,
8(2), 153–169.
Kim, J. H. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of
Korean students learning English (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). The University of Texas at Austin.
Liu, M. (2016). Interrelations between foreign language listening
anxiety and strategy use and their predicting effects on test per-
formance of high-and low-proficient Chinese university EFL
learners. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 647–655.
Lu, Z., & Liu, M. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and strategy
use: A study with Chinese undergraduate EFL learners. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), 1298–1305.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The effects of induced
anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized
vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
16(1), 1–17.
Mendelsohn, D. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based
approach for the second-language learner. Dominie Press.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college
intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and
motivation. Language Learning, 57(3), 417–442.
Fathi et al. 13
Mohamadpour, P., Talebinejad, R., & Tabatabaei, O. (2019).
Impact of metacognitive strategy instruction on Iranian EFL
learners’ listening anxiety. International Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching and Research, 7(26), 57–68.
Movahed, R. (2014). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruc-
tion on listening performance, metacognitive awareness and lis-
tening anxiety of beginner Iranian EFL students. International
Journal of English Linguistics, 4(2), 88–99.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL
learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using
multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language
Journal, 94(1), 116–136.
Ngo, N. (2019). Understanding the impact of listening strategy
instruction on listening strategy use from a socio-cultural per-
spective. System, 81(1), 63–77.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in
second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every
teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning
strategies. Longman.
Oxford, R. L., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H. (2004). Effect of the
presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory
study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 42(1), 1–48.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill.
Rahimirad, M., & Zare-ee, A. (2015). Metacognitive strategy
instruction as a means to improve listening self-efficacy among
Iranian undergraduate learners of English. International
Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 117–132.
Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training:
Theoretical bases and teaching applications. TESOL Quarterly,
27(4), 679–689.
Rossiter, M. J. (2003). The effects of affective strategy instruction
in the ESL classroom. The Electronic Journal for English as
a Second Language, 7(2). http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/
issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a2/
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1984). Strategy self-verbalization
during remedial listening comprehension instruction. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 49–54.
Scovell, D., Pastellas, V., & Knobel, M. (2004). 404 essential tests
for IELTS: Academic module. Adams & Austen Press.
Siegel, J. (2015). Exploring listening strategy instruction through
action research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sioson, I. C. (2011). Language learning strategies, beliefs, and anxiety
in academic speaking task. Philippine ESL Journal, 7(1), 3–27.
Tsui, A. B., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down pro-
cessing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied
Linguistics, 19(4), 432–451.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second lan-
guage (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language
Annals, 30, 387–409.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were
right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehen-
sion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555–575.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model
of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning,
53(3), 463–496.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen?
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orienta-
tions, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening.
Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70–89.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and for-
eign language listening comprehension research. Language
Teaching, 40(3), 191–210.
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second
language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analy-
sis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390–416.
Vandergrift, L., & Cross, J. (2017). Replication research in L2 lis-
tening comprehension: A conceptual replication of Graham &
Macaro (2008) and an approximate replication of Vandergrift
& Tafaghodtari (2010) and Brett (1997). Language Teaching,
50(1), 1–10.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning sec-
ond language listening: Metacognition in action. Taylor &
Francis.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M.
(2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire:
Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–
462.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learn-
ers how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study.
Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
Vogely, A. J. (1998). Listening comprehension anxiety: Students’
reported sources and solutions. Foreign Language Annals,
31(1), 67–80.
Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety.
In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and sec-
ond language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-
anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 106–123). McGraw-Hill
College.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and devel-
opment. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3),
34–41.
Wong, M. S. L. (2005). Language learning strategies and language
self-efficacy: Investigating the relationship in Malaysia. RELC
Journal, 36(3), 245–269.
Xu, J., & Huang, Y. T. (2018). The mediating effect of listen-
ing metacognitive awareness between listening test anxiety
and listening test performance. The Asia-pacific Education
Researcher, 27(4), 313–324.
Yan, J. X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of
how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional fac-
tors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative
analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58(1),
151–183.
Yeldham, M. (2016). Second language listening instruction:
Comparing a strategies-based approach with an interactive,
strategies/bottom-up skills approach. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2),
394–420.
Yeldham, M., & Gruba, P. (2014). Toward an instructional approach
to developing interactive second language listening. Language
Teaching Research, 18(1), 33–53.
Zhang, W., & Liu, M. (2013). Evaluating the impact of oral test
anxiety and speaking strategy use on oral English performance.
The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(2), 115–148.
Zhang, X. (2013). Foreign language listening anxiety and listen-
ing performance: Conceptualizations and causal relationships.
System, 41(1), 164–177.