When I was writing this paper with Tom some 10 years ago, I was simply trying to call to attention a different paradigm for understanding and researching L2 listening.
Back then, the dominant research framework was strategy-based listening instruction. The thinking behind this framework is that students need to be taught explicit listening strategies to help them comprehend spoken text.
In a strategy-based approach, strategies often used by so-called good listeners such as predicting, comprehension monitoring, inferencing, clarifying and summarizing are selected for systematic and intensive teaching in the classroom.
Note that these strategies are mostly metacognitive in nature, i.e., they are mental processes that can be used to direct, organize, monitor, and evaluate learning.
A typical model of strategy instruction normally involves a three-step procedure of presentation (what is is), practice (how it is done) and evaluation (whether it works or not).
I wasn’t too happy with the strategy-based approach. Something was not right. That’s not how I acquired my ability to understand spoken language. This is not what other successful learners did to acquire the target language.
Indeed, listening strategies can help students answer listening comprehension questions. No issue here!! But do they improve students’ fluency in listening, i.e., the ability to comprehend spoken language with greater ease, confidence and enjoyment?
I then took it upon myself to dig more deeply into the literature on listening strategies. Yes I found some studies that produced positive results in favour of strategy instruction.
But the the number of these studies was few and far between. In other words, quire rare. And of those that produced positive results, the gain in listening scores was small. Statistically significant, but miniscule in practical terms.
So in my 2011 paper above, I made the following points:
- Listening strategies, while useful, make only a small contribution to L2 listening development
- Research showed that the effect of strategy instruction was negligible
- Extensive listening (EL), modelled after its twin sister, extensive reading (ER), deserves research attention
- I made a claim that if the theory behind EL is correct (which I think it is), then students can enjoy much more language learning benefits from doing EL than doing listening strategies.
To my knowledge, there have been two published responses to my 2011 paper (click to download the papers below):
- Siegel, J. (2011). Thoughts on L2 listening pedagogy. ELT journal, 65(3), 318-321.
- Blyth, A. (2012). Extensive listening versus listening strategies: response to Siegel. ELT journal, 66(2), 236-239.
Siegel was critical of my paper and spoke in defense of listening strategy instruction. Blyth on the other hand was supportive of my claim about extensive listening.
The issue of course is not about who is right and who is wrong. The jury is still out there as to which of the two listening approaches is more beneficial for our students.
I think I have achieved my goal of filling in a gap in the literature and getting people to discuss, debate, disagree, and to do more research on L2 listening.
To date, my paper has generated 270 plus citations. Siegel and Blyth’s response papers have gathered 38 and 20 citations respectively.
What does the citation count mean? It means that a growing number of people have now acknowledged that EL is a viable research topic within L2 listening.
Is it too late for you to jump on the bandwagon and join the other EL researchers?
I don’t think so. There are not that many people in the wagon yet. But before it gets too crowded, go get your ticket.
Sooner … rather than later.
FURTHER READING (Free download)