In her Reference Graham2017 article ‘Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting,’ Suzanne Graham outlines ways that research-derived principles of listening instruction have (not) been adopted in second language (L2) classrooms. She organizes her argument into three categories, discussing research findings that have not been well applied, those that have been over-applied, and areas she views as holding good potential for application. In this short response, I compare Graham's conclusions about the extent of research adoption to my own experiences as a language teacher and make additional comments about the application of those research findings in the context of post-secondaryFootnote ¹ L2 English instruction.

The first research finding that has not been well applied in language classrooms, according to Graham, is that learners benefit from being taught how to listen in the target language, rather than simply being tested repeatedly. She describes a typical approach to listening instruction (what Field (Reference Field2008) calls the Comprehension Approach): ‘learners listen to a text and complete an accompanying exercise, which is then corrected’ (p. 110). According to Graham, this type of activity merely tests learners' comprehension, without providing many opportunities for learners to improve the processes that contribute to successful listening. While she is writing primarily about foreign language classrooms in secondary schools in England, this observation applies equally well to my own teaching experiences at universities in China and the United States. In both contexts, the default classroom listening activity was to listen to an extended passage, answer multiple choice comprehension questions, and then discuss why particular answers were correct, or incorrect. Among my colleagues, the implicit justification for this approach seemed to be based on the eventual assessment of students' learning, a point that Graham also makes. Learners will be tested on their comprehension, so why not model instruction on the repeated practice of that type of activity? But as Graham points out, targeting listening processes, rather than an exclusive focus on the final product, benefits learners. She advocates strongly for developing metacognitive listening strategies (e.g., monitoring and evaluating comprehension) through explicit instruction, reflection, and peer discussion, and argues that this approach has not been adequately taken up by language teachers. While I agree that research on metacognitive strategies has not been adopted in sophisticated ways in many listening classes that I have observed or led, I believe that this type of instruction is less applicable in post-secondary contexts such as my own. Post-secondary learners have extensive experience in listening to complex spoken texts in at least one language besides the target language; they are already strategic listeners. In my experience, these learners apply metacognitive strategies in an L2 without prompting. For example, when they misunderstand some part of a listening passage, their incorrect interpretations often draw on information that was presented previously in the same thematic unit, demonstrating the strategic integration of prior knowledge into listening comprehension. Given this pre-existing expertise, some learners find it patronizing or a waste of time to be told to draw on their background knowledge while listening, or how inference works. I do agree with Graham, however, on the benefits of peer discussion for developing listening skills. One type of activity that I have found particularly valuable in this regard is the group dictogloss (Lim & Jacobs, Reference Lim and Jacobs2001), which provides rich opportunities for discussing the processes, metacognitive or otherwise, that led learners to successful comprehension at different points in a spoken text, and for identifying problematic features for future instruction.

According to Graham, another element of teaching learners how to listen that has not been adequately adopted by teachers is a focus on bottom-up listening processes, such as the segmentation of connected speech. Graham observes that foreign language textbooks in England contain fewer bottom-up activities than many L2 English textbooks, and that teachers in the former context ‘relied heavily on textbooks as sources of listening material and activities’ (p. 111). In my experience, I have also found that English textbooks usually include a variety of short bottom-up activities. In contrast, however, many of my colleagues have had a negative view of textbooks, and used them sparingly for listening instruction, possibly due to negative attitudes toward commercial entities in formal academic settings, or a perceived lack of authenticity. In this case, teachers might be more likely to include bottom-up listening activities if their importance is highlighted in a professional development workshop, as Graham suggests later, including guidance on how to modify short textbook activities to provide more extensive practice.

For research findings that have been over-applied in language classrooms, Graham discusses pre-listening prediction activities, and reducing learner anxiety by simplifying listening passages. In classes I have observed or led, making predictions about the content or vocabulary of an upcoming passage has indeed been a common activity. Graham suggests that too much emphasis on prediction, particularly of vocabulary, might draw learners' attention away from comprehending the global meaning of the passage itself, a point that is well taken. Regarding the simplification of listening passages, Graham concludes that teachers often do a disservice by not providing challenging listening materials, in the name of reducing learners' anxiety. Frankly, I have observed the opposite problem in post-secondary classrooms: Having a negative view of the course textbook and needing copious amounts of extended listening passages to pursue a Comprehension Approach to instruction, teachers often scour the internet for videos pertaining to a given topic. Many of the videos they identify, and subsequently present to learners as listening materials, are very complex (TED Talks are a favorite). Time and time again, I have seen post-secondary learners become frustrated or ignore the task at hand when the listening passage is too difficult.

Graham concludes her article by discussing one area that she believes holds good potential for applying listening research findings: teacher cognition and professional development. She suggests that professional development interventions can shift teachers' beliefs and practices of listening instruction if the intervention supports teachers' access and understanding of research, and encourages them to ‘examine their own current beliefs and practices in light of what the research literature says’ and ‘transform research findings into practice in a way that is meaningful to their own context’ (p. 116). In my experience, this type of professional development can be accomplished within language teaching units at post-secondary institutions, with practicing teachers taking the lead. In these contexts, many teachers can read and synthesize research at a high level and lead their colleagues to examine their beliefs and practices in light of the findings. I have found that teachers are especially eager to serve as facilitators of an in-house research-based professional development workshop when they perceive that role as potentially benefitting their current or future job prospects, or when they are fresh out of graduate school.

As a brief post-script, I feel it should be mentioned that among her recommendations for listening instruction, Graham does not address the issue of learners' interest in the content of listening materials. As a teacher, I find that it is crucial to select listening passages on topics that interest learners. Nothing heightens learners' attention and motivation to complete a listening activity to the best of their ability more than a genuine desire to comprehend what a speaker is saying.