readers respond

Research involving L2 listening

instruction and instructors
Joseph Siegel

As a teacher-researcher interested in L2 listening, I read with interest

the article Guidelines for designing and conducting L2 listening
studies (Cross and Vandergrift 2015). This article was a welcome
initiative that sets out many useful parameters and suggestions
for planning and carrying out research on specific pedagogic
interventions for L2 listening. Many of the guidelines, however,
are limited to studies that position L2 learners as subjects and may
overlook the possibilities of L2 listening teachers as participants in
research. In this brief response, I would like to offer both comments
on the guidelines provided by Cross and Vandergrift and suggestions
for researchers who may wish to conduct studies focusing on L2
listening instructors.

Learners
as research
participants

Cross and Vandergrift (ibid.) outline many valid points that will
certainly strengthen the reliability and validity of research findings
for intervention studies, which typically involve a teacher trialling a
specific teaching technique or approach for L2 listening (for example
extensive listening, bottom-up listening activities, shadowing) with
their respective group of learners. The guidelines for setting up and
monitoring control and experimental groups, as well as advice about
pre-/post-testing will help to show whether the intervention had any
meaningful effect on learners listening development.
It is also important for classroom teachers conducting intervention
studies to control for learner exposure to aural texts. As Cross and
Vandergrift (ibid.) observe, all learners in an intervention study should
have equal exposure to the same texts. This type of strict control is
important for the reliability and validity of an experimental study,
and such control is achievable in the classroom context where the
teachers authority prevails. Yet when learners leave the classroom, a
teacher-researcher may have little power to control the outside-of-class
listening experiences students may encounter. With many L2 learners

ELT Journal Volume 69/3 July 2015; doi:10.1093/elt/ccv014 

The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication April 1, 2015

323

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on December 8, 2015

Readers respond is a forum for individuals to contribute their own reactions,

perspectives, or experiences in relation to a specific article or articles published
in a recent issue of ELT Journal. These views are not necessarily those of the
Editor, the Editorial Panel, or the Publisher.

around the world accessing YouTube videos, listening to music in the

L2, and interacting socially using the L2, the amount of L2 exposure
students receive outside the classroom will inevitably vary. While
such exposure could easily influence listening comprehension gains
(Cross and Vandergrift op.cit.: 86) and is therefore undesirable from an
experimental research perspective, it seems challenging for teachers to
reasonably control it in the real world.

Whatever approach is taken, as Cross and Vandergrift (op.cit.) observe,

a mixed-methods approach can generate research that is more robust
than that which relies on a single data collection technique (see, for
example, Cross 2009; Siegel in preparation, which both include
questionnaires, interviews, research journals, and pre-/post-tests in
the data collection). Inclusion of additional research tools also presents
several advantages, such as description of research context, viewpoints
from various participants, and explanatory verification, none of which
are evident from testing data.
In addition to the valuable guidelines promoted in their article, I would
suggest that it is not always desirable, practical, or feasible to adopt a
strictly controlled experimental design for classroom-based research.
In general, it is important for all researchers to make appropriate and
justifiable epistemological and methodological choices that match
their research objectives. For listening studies specifically, the task of
eliminating all outside influences for listening may be impractical for
many teacher-researchers, who operate within their own respective
contextual and institutional limitations. Research carried out in the
classroom will always be vulnerable to layers of ambiguity: some learners
may listen to the L2 online more than others; self-report data represent
only indirect accounts of what students were thinking as they listened;
learners may guess correctly on multiple-choice listening tests, and
therefore an incorrect picture of their listening ability can be obtained.
While researchers rightly place confidence in the experimental design,
not all research needs to be of this type. Given that listening cannot be
324

Joseph Siegel

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on December 8, 2015

Many of the guidelines presented in the article centre on intervention

studies using a quasi-experimental or experimental design, and
as such, the specific suggestions are applicable to this manner of
research. However, beyond these more positivist orientations, other
forms of research can also be useful in informing the L2 teaching and
learning community about listening practices, such as the exploratory
and descriptive observations and questionnaires mentioned in the
article (Cross and Vandergrift op.cit.: 867). Research that adopts
a qualitative, naturalistic, and/or ethnographic stance may provide
deeper understanding of how L2 listening is generally dealt with in the
classroom (if at all), and how L2 learners react to listening pedagogy.
Qualitative studies that elicit learner opinions (for example Chen
2005, 2007) and explanations of learner problems with listening (Goh
2000; Graham 2006) are alternatives to the quasi-experimental or
experimental design. Listening journals are yet another option for
accessing the difficulties learners face when listening (Galloway and
Rose 2014).

directly observed, unlike writing, speaking, and even reading, listening

researchers may need to be open to several approaches to research that
can shed light on learners listening processes. Readers can always
exercise their discretion and scepticism through critical reading as long
as researchers acknowledge any shortcomings.

Teachers
as research
participants

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on December 8, 2015

The notion of listening instructors as the participants in L2 listening

studies is not directly addressed in Cross and Vandergrifts article.
Many of their suggestions seem to relate to intervention studies in
which learners are the source of the data (for example from pre- and
post-tests, questionnaires used after an intervention). Another area
rife with potential research opportunities is that which positions L2
listening instructors as participants. I see this avenue of research as
parallel to the learners as participants approach discussed in their
article and outlined above. While some of the guidelines may overlap,
the notion of teachers as participants necessitates some distinct
considerations.
Listening has long been overlooked in L2 teacher education courses
(Graham, Santos and Vanderplank 2011) and in teacher manuals
(Field 2012). Graham (in preparation) reports that very little is known
about what teachers do in the classroom when addressing the skill
of listening or about teachers pedagogic beliefs about listening.
Therefore, it would seem that researchers may turn some attention to
topics such as: how listening is currently taught in various contexts
(see Siegel 2014; Graham in preparation); how teachers view listening;
if and how they justify their decisions in listening lessons; how learner
proficiency level affects the pedagogic choices teachers make; and
to determine whether concepts from the literature are permeating
through to the classroom.
Numerous research methods and orientations can be employed
to address these topics, with decisions based on contextual
circumstances and researcher preferences. Data collection tools can
gather data on teacher perceptions about listening and/or certain
approaches via questionnaires, interviews, and journals. Empirical
evidence on teaching practices can be gathered through, for
example, class observations, field notes, video recordings, analysis of
classroom interaction, listening materials, and lesson plans. Many
studies involving listening instructors may be exploratory in order
to determine what listening teachers know about listening as well
as their tendencies and preferences when planning and delivering
listening lessons.
The following guidelines are offered as suggestions for those interested
in researching L2 listening from the teacher as participant angle:

embrace various research approaches, including naturalistic,

qualitative, and ethnographic orientations, that correspond to
specified research objectives;
keep data collection procedures standardized across various
participants, who may be teaching in a variety of contexts (for

L2 listening instruction and instructors

325

In this brief response, I have suggested that two parallel avenues are
available for researchers interested in L2 listening: that of learners as
participants and teachers as participants. More research is needed in
both areas. All of us concerned with L2 listening remain in search of what
works best in different situations and in different contexts. Contributions
such as Cross and Vandergrift (op.cit.) are valuable and necessary to keep
this relatively under-reported area of activity progressing.
Final version received January 2015

References
Chen, Y. 2005. Barriers to acquiring listening
strategies for EFL learners and their pedagogical
implications. TESL-EJ 8/4. Available at www.
tesl-ej.org/ej32/a2.html (accessed on 12 January
2015).
Chen, Y. 2007. Learning to learn: the impact of
strategy training. ELT Journal 61/1: 209.
Cross, J. 2009. Effects of listening strategy
instruction on news videotext comprehension.
Language Teaching Research 13/2: 15176.
Cross, J. and L. Vandergrift. 2015. Guidelines for
designing and conducting L2 listening studies.
ELT Journal 69/1: 869.
Field, J. 2012. Listening instruction in A. Burns
and J. C. Richards (eds.). The Cambridge Guide
to Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language
Teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Galloway, N. and H. Rose. 2014. Using listening
journals to raise awareness of Global Englishes in
ELT. ELT Journal 68/4: 38696.
Goh, C. C. M. 2000. A cognitive perspective
on language learners listening comprehension
problems. System 28/1: 5575.
Graham, S. 2006. Listening comprehension: the
learners perspective. System 34/2: 16582.

326

Joseph Siegel

Graham, S. In preparation. Listening strategies

within the context of England. Language
Teaching.
Graham, S., D. Santos, and R. Vanderplank. 2011.
Exploring the relationship between listening
development and strategy use. Language Teaching
Research 15/4: 43556.
Siegel, J. 2014. Exploring L2 listening instruction:
examinations of practice. ELT Journal 68/1:
2230.
Siegel, J. In preparation. Exploring Listening
Strategy Instruction through Action Research.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
The author
Joseph Siegel has taught for several years at
university level in Japan and is currently an
Associate Professor in the Faculty of Economics
at Meiji Gakuin University. He holds a PhD
in Applied Linguistics from Aston University
and an MA (TESL/TEFL) from the University
of Birmingham. His recent publications and
presentations have explored L2 listening
pedagogy and teaching trends, listening
strategies, and pragmatic interaction.
Email: siegeljoseph@hotmail.com

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Southampton on December 8, 2015

Conclusion

example I asked ten teachers to audio-record three lessons each,

which kept the sample from each participant roughly equivalent);
provide each teacher-participant with the same training and/or
materials (if necessary for the research objective);
group teachers accordingly, if possible, depending on the aim of
the study, for example by whether they share the learners L1, by the
proficiency level of the class they teach, by the objectives of their
course (for example test preparation, general communication, lecture
listening), or by their teaching experience;
for wide-ranging studies, involve teachers of different proficiency
levels and in different contexts to understand the viability of various
techniques and approaches under different circumstances.