Research on the effects of second language (L2) listening strategy instruction (SI) has gained momentum in recent years (e.g. Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). However, the reported results have been inconclusive and varied across studies. Synthesizing the results of quantitative research in this domain, the present meta-analysis sought to determine the overall effectiveness of L2 listening SI as well as to examine the extent to which the effectiveness of instruction is likely to vary as a function of a set of potential moderators (i.e. learning contexts, treatment types, methodological variables, and outcome measures). A comprehensive search identified 45 primary studies, contributing data from 51 independent samples on the effects of SI on L2 listening comprehension. The aggregated findings indicate a medium effect of listening SI (d = 0.69). These effects were also found to vary as a function of several moderator variables. Based on the obtained findings, L2 teachers are recommended to incorporate listening SI into L2 curricula. Pedagogical suggestions and directions for future research are provided in our discussion.
AdesopeO.O.LavinT.ThompsonT.UngerleiderC. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80, 207–245.
2.
AfflerbachP.PearsonP.D.ParisS.G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.
3.
*Al-JahwariM.Al-MekhlafiA.M.Al-BarwaniT.AbdulraheimA. (2019). The effect of metacognitive listening strategy instruction on Omani grade 11 EFL learners’ listening comprehension and their metacognitive listening awareness. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18, 256–275.
4.
ArdashevaY.TretterT.R.KinnyM. (2012). English language learners and academic achievement: Revisiting the threshold hypothesis. Language Learning, 62, 769–812.
5.
ArdashevaY.WangZ.AdesopeO.O.ValentineJ.C. (2017). Exploring effectiveness and moderators of language learning strategy instruction on second language and self-regulated learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 87, 544–582.
6.
*AssadiM. (2018). The effect of metacognitive instruction on maximizing EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness in listening. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics (MJLL), 7, 8–17.
7.
BachmanL.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
8.
BagheriM.KaramiS. (2014). The effect of explicit teaching of listening strategies and gender on EFL learners’ IELTS performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5, 1387–1392.
9.
BaleghizadehS.RahimiA.H. (2011). The relationship among listening performance, metacognitive strategy use and motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1, 61–67.
10.
BerneJ. (1995). How does varying pre-listening activities affect second language listening comprehension?Hispania, 78, 316–329.
11.
BidabadiF.S.YamatH. (2011). The relationship between listening strategies used by Iranian EFL freshman university students and their listening proficiency levels. English Language Teaching, 4, 26–32.
12.
*BirjandiP.RahimiA.H. (2012). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on the listening performance of EFL students. International Journal of Linguistics, 4, 495–517.
13.
*BozorgianH.AlamdariE.F. (2018). Multimedia listening comprehension: Metacognitive instruction or metacognitive instruction through dialogic interaction. ReCALL, 30, 131–152.
14.
*BozorgianH.PillayH. (2013). Enhancing foreign language learning through listening strategies delivered in L1: An experimental study. International Journal of Instruction, 6, 105–122.
15.
BuckG. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.
16.
ChamotA.U. (2016). Teaching learning strategies in a flipped instruction model. In PattisonT., (Ed.), IATEFL 2015 Manchester Conference Selections, 73-64 (pp. 64–73). International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL).
17.
ChenA. (2009). Listening strategy instruction: Exploring Taiwanese college students’ strategy development. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11, 54–85.
18.
*ChenA. (2015). The impacts of listening strategy instruction on strategy use and listening performance of EFL learners. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3, 75–87.
19.
ChengH.F. (2004). A comparison of multiple-choice and open-ended response formats for the assessment of listening proficiency in English. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 544–553.
20.
*ChoY.A. (2007). Metacognitive strategy instruction in L2 listening development for EFL college students. Studies in English Language and Literature, 43, 185–205.
21.
CobbM. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
22.
CooperH. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. 5th edition.Sage.
23.
CooperH.HedgesL.V.ValentineJ.C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 3rd edition.Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
*CoskunA. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4, 35–50.
25.
*CrossJ. (2009). Effects of listening strategy instruction on news videotext comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 13, 151–176.
26.
CumminsJ. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
27.
DalmanR.M. (2016). The relationship between listening anxiety, listening comprehension strategies, and listening performance among Iranian EFL university students. International Journal of Modern Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 241–252.
28.
DaviesA.BrownA.ElderC., et al. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge University Press.
29.
De SilvaR. (2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19, 301–323.
30.
*DoustiH.AbolfathiaslH. (2013). The effect of metacognitive listening strategy: Training on EFL learners’ listening sub-skills performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2, 50–55.
31.
*FathiJ.HamidizadehR. (2019). The contribution of listening strategy instruction to improving second language listening comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Instruction, 12, 17–32.
32.
GassS.LoewenS.PlonskyL. (2021). Coming of age: The past, present, and future of quantitative SLA research. Language Teaching, 54, 245–258.
33.
GohC. (2002). Teaching listening in the language classroom. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
34.
GohC.TaibY. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222–232.
35.
GooJ.GranenaG.YilmazY.NovellaM. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). John Benjamins.
36.
GrahamS. (2017). Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting. Language Teaching, 50, 107–119.
37.
*GrahamS.MacaroE. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58, 747–783.
38.
GrahamS.MacaroE.VanderplankR. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and on success. In CohenA.D.MacaroE. (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice (pp. 165–185). Oxford University Press.
39.
GrahamS.SantosD.VanderplankR. (2010). Strategy clusters and sources of knowledge in French L2 listening comprehension. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 1–20.
40.
*GuanY. (2014). The effects of explicit listening strategy instruction on the listening comprehension of English as second language (ESL) community college students Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
41.
HarrisV. (2007). Exploring progression: Reading and listening strategy instruction with near beginner learners of French. Language Learning Journal, 35, 189–204.
42.
HerbertD.M.BurtJ.S. (2003). The effects of different review opportunities on schematisation of knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 13, 73–92.
43.
Hong-NamK.LeavellA.G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34, 399–415
44.
*HosseiniF. (2013). Teach how to listen: The effect of listening strategy instruction on documentary video comprehension. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 9, 11–21.
45.
In’namiY. (2006). The effects of task types on listening test performance: A quantitative and qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba, Japan.
46.
In’namiY.KoizumiR. (2009). A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on multiple-choice and open-ended formats. Language Testing, 26, 219–244.
47.
*İrginP. (2018). Exploring the role of strategy training in second language listening comprehension in a blended learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
48.
*JafariK.HashimF. (2012). The effects of using advance organizers on improving EFL learners’ listening comprehension: A mixed method study. System, 40, 270–281.
49.
JeonE.H.KayaT. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–211). John Benjamins.
50.
*JinK.-A. (2002). The effect of teaching listening strategies in the EFL classroom. Language Research, 38, 987–999.
51.
*KalantarianS.R. (2016). The effect of strategy-based instruction on EFL learners’ listening performance. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3, 12–23.
52.
KarimiM.N. (2013). Enhancing L2 students’ listening transcription ability through a focus on morphological awareness. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 451–459.
53.
*KhavaziM.YousefiM.KharaghaniN. (2018). The effect of note taking vs. summarizing strategy on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7, 42–51.
54.
KırkgözY. (2010). Promoting students’ note-taking skills through task-base learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4346–4351.
55.
*KobayashiA. (2018). Investigating the effects of metacognitive instruction in listening for EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15, 310–328.
56.
Kökİ. (2018). Relationship between listening comprehension strategy use and listening comprehension proficiency. International Journal of Listening, 32, 163–179.
57.
Larson-HallJ.PlonskyL. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65, 127–159.
58.
LeeJ.JangJ.PlonskyL. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.
LiuH. (2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use, listening proficiency levels and learning style. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 5, 84–104.
61.
LynchT. (2009). Teaching second language listening. Oxford University Press.
62.
LynchT. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 79–88.
63.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
64.
MacaroE.ErlerL. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29, 90–119.
65.
*MaftoonP.Fakhri AlamdariE. (2016). Exploring the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on metacognitive awareness and listening performance through a process-based approach. International Journal of Listening, 30, 1–20.
66.
*MahdaviN.MiriM. (2017). Co-shaping metacognitive awareness and developing listening comprehension through process-based instruction. International Journal of Listening, 33, 53–70.
67.
MahdiH.S.Al KhateebA.A. (2019). The effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training: A meta-analysis. Review of Education, 7, 733–753.
68.
*MalikF.A.SarudinI.MuhamadA.J.IbrahimE.H.E. (2011). Effects of metacognitive listening strategy training on listening comprehension and strategy use of ESL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
69.
MarsdenE.MackeyA.PlonskyL. (2016). Breadth and depth: The IRIS repository. In MackeyA.MarsdenE. (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1–21). Routledge.
70.
McAndrewsM. (2020). Short periods of instruction improve learners’ phonological categories for L2 suprasegmental features. System, 82, 151–160.
71.
MendelsohnD. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language learner. Dominie Press.
72.
MendelsohnD. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In Uso-JuanE.Martinez-FlorA. (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 75–89). Mouton de Gruyter.
73.
*MobarakiM.NiaM.R. (2018). The effect of listening strategy instruction on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL learners’ listening ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7, 188–192.
74.
*MoradiK. (2013). The impact of listening strategy instruction on academic lecture comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 406–416.
75.
*MoradianM.R.Kogani BaharvandP. (2017). Exploring the role of process–based instruction in improving young EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension: A sociocultural perspective. Teaching English Language, 11, 145–166.
76.
*MovahedR. (2014). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on listening performance, metacognitive awareness and listening anxiety of beginner Iranian EFL students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4, 88–99.
77.
NegariG.M. (2011). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners’ writing skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 299–307.
78.
*NejadS.P. (2015). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on listening performance pre-intermediate Iranian EFL learners. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5, 1474–1480.
79.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
80.
NorrisJ.M.PlonskyL.RossS.J.SchoonenR. (2015). Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65, 470–476.
81.
O’MalleyJ.M.ChamotA.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
82.
*O’MalleyJ.M.ChamotA.U.Stewner-ManzanaresG.RussoR.P.KüpperL. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557–584.
83.
OswaldF.L.PlonskyL. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.
84.
OwolewaO.O.OyewoleO. (2017). Effects of listening strategies’ instruction on students’ attitude to listening. European Journal of Education Studies, 3, 624–642.
85.
*OzekiN. (2000). Listening strategy instruction for female EFL college students in Japan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, USA.
86.
*PaulauskasS. (1994). The effects of strategy training on the aural comprehension of L2 adult learners at the high beginning/low intermediate proficiency level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
87.
PlonskyL. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.
88.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
89.
PlonskyL. (2019). Recent research on language learning strategy instruction. In ChamotA.U.HarrisV. (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 3–21). Multilingual Matters.
90.
PlonskyL.BrownD. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31, 267–278.
91.
PlonskyL.DerrickD.J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.
92.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2012). How to do a meta-analysis. In MackeyA.GassS. (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 275–295). Wiley-Blackwell.
93.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
94.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). Routledge.
95.
PlonskyL.ZhuangJ. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge.
96.
*RahimiM.KatalM. (2013). The impact of metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’ listening comprehension and oral language proficiency. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32, 69–90.
97.
*RahimiradM.ShamsM.R. (2014). The effect of activating metacognitive strategies on the listening performance and metacognitive awareness of EFL students. International Journal of Listening, 28, 162–176.
98.
RanjbarM.KargarA.A.BehjatF. (2014). Investigating the effect of listening strategies instruction on reducing foreign language listening anxiety in anxiety Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6, 282–297.
99.
*RasouliM.MollakhanK.KarbalaeiA. (2013). The effect of metacognitive listening strategy training on listening comprehension in Iranian EFL context. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2, 115–128.
100.
Rees-MillerJ. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679–689.
101.
RossiterM.J. (2005). Developmental sequences of L2 communication strategies. Applied Language Learning, 15, 55–66.
102.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Benjamins.
103.
SaitoK.PlonskyL. (2019). Measuring the effects of second language pronunciation teaching: A proposed framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69, 652–708.
104.
SeoK. (2005). Development of a listening strategy intervention program for adult learners of Japanese. International Journal of Listening, 19, 63–78.
105.
ShihY.C.ReynoldsB.L. (2015). Teaching adolescents EFL by integrating Think-Pair-Share and reading strategy instruction: A quasi-experimental study. RELC Journal, 46, 221–235.
106.
SiegelJ. (2011). Learner development through listening strategy training. In IrieK.StewartA. (Eds.), Realizing autonomy: Practice and reflection in language education contexts (pp. 78–93). Palgrave Macmillan.
*SimasangyapornN. (2016). The effect of listening strategy instruction on Thai learners’ self-efficacy, English listening comprehension and reported use of listening strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
109.
*SoboutiF.AmiriM. (2014). The impact of listening strategy instruction on the improvement of Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ comprehension of news videotexts. Academic Research International, 5, 334–344.
110.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
111.
*TaguchiK. (2017). Metacognitive listening strategy instruction for EFL learners. The Bulletin of the Institute of Human Sciences, Toyo University, 19, 63–83.
112.
TakallouF. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 13, 272–301.
113.
TavakoliM.ShahrakiS.RezazadehM. (2012). The relationship between metacognitive awareness and EFL listening performance: focusing on IELTS higher and lower scorers. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 24–37.
114.
TaylorA.M. (2014). L1 glossing and strategy training for improving L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 2, 39–68.
115.
*ThompsonI.RubinJ. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension?Foreign Language Annals, 29, 331–342.
116.
*VafaeesereshtK. (2014). Metacognitive listening strategy training to Iranian English majors. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 1, 26–42.
117.
VandergriftL. (1996). The listening comprehension strategies of core French high school students. Canadian Modern Langauge Review, 52, 200–223.
118.
VandergriftL. (1997). The strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–409.
119.
VandergriftL., (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53, 463–496.
120.
VandergriftL. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210.
121.
VandergriftL.BakerS.C. (2018). Learner variables important for success in L2 listening comprehension in French immersion classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74, 79–100.
122.
VandergriftL.GohC. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
123.
*VandergriftL.TafaghodtariM. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60, 470–467.
124.
VanderplankR. (2013). Listening and understanding. In DriscollP.MacaroE.SwarbrickA. (Eds.), Debates in modern languages education (pp. 53–65). Routledge.
125.
*ViswatL.J.JacksonS.A. (1994). The effect of strategies training on student errors on a listening cloze. Journal of the Himji Dokkyo University College of Foreign Languages, 1994, 235–249. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411669.
126.
WagnerE. (2013). Assessing listening. The Companion to Language Assessment, 1, 47–63.
127.
WallaceM.P. (2020). Individual differences in second language listening: Examining the role of knowledge, metacognitive awareness, memory, and attention. Language Learning. Epub ahead of print 8July2020. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12424.
128.
*WebbT. (2017). Effects of a metacognitive approach to teaching L2 listening. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Malmö Universitet, Malmö, Sweden.
129.
WenZ.MotaM.B.McNeillA. (2013). Working memory and SLA: Towards an integrated theory. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 23, 1–18.
130.
*WhiteheadE. (2020). Application of meta-cognitive strategy instruction in listening comprehension to the level III student teachers. Excellence in Education Journal, 9, 104–119.
131.
WolfgrammC.SuterN.GökselE. (2016). Examining the role of concentration, vocabulary, and self-concept in listening and reading comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 30, 25–46.
132.
YeldhamM. (2016). Second language listening instruction: Comparing a strategies-based approach with an interactive, strategies/bottom-up skills approach. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 394–420.
133.
ZengY.GohC. (2018). A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement and metacognitive awareness. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 153–164.
134.
*ZhangJ. (2019). Research on the strategy-based instruction of news broadcast listening for English minors in China. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10, 103–113.
135.
*ZoblerA.C. (2010). Effects of listening strategies instruction on listening comprehension, oral proficiency, and metacognition on second language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, USA.
