Reflecting on and Addressing Second Language Learners’ Listening Difficulties through Journaling

November 2025 – Volume 29, Number 3

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a2

Naheen Madarbakus-Ring
University of Tsukuba, Japan
<drnmringgmail.com>

Liam Ring
Asia University, Japan
<ring_liamasia-u.ac.jp>

Abstract

Listening journals provide a personal space for learners to document and share their inside thoughts about what they think, do, and feel regarding their learning. This study analyzes the journal entries of 19 second- to fourth-year business university learners. Over five weeks, they completed five listening journals on topics of their choice as part of their homework for the Business Listening elective. The learners were asked to write a summary and evaluation before responding to three journal prompts, which asked them to report on their observations, reflections, and goals related to their selected listening materials. The results showed that learners identified speed, accent, and vocabulary as factors affecting their comprehension difficulties. To address these challenges, they found that expanding their knowledge of resources and learning topic-specific vocabulary helped enhance their understanding of the input. They also discovered that using specific techniques to redirect their attention when listening to difficult topics or fast speakers helped them regain focus and boosted their confidence in listening. The study concludes by recommending that listening journals in higher education settings can help learners build their listening confidence and improve their approach to learning a second language.

Keywords: Business learners, Listening resources, Listening journals, Listening and Metacognition, Process-based approaches

In second language learning, listening is regarded as a passive skill and one of the most difficult of the four skills (i.e., listening, reading, writing and speaking) to develop. Additionally, the real-time and non-orthographic nature of listening affects learners’ confidence, motivation, and interpretation (Goh, 2023). Thus, to better understand how listening works, listening processes, such as information processes (Rost, 2024) and cognitive processes (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012), have been developed to help teachers and learners. Given the complex and intrinsic nature of listening, researchers have investigated several facets in their studies to understand how strategy use (Yeldham, 2023), listening resources (Gavenila et al, 2021), and listening approaches (Lee & Cha, 2020) aid listeners. However, despite these directives, learners may remain unequipped to deal with the cognitive demands that they encounter (Graham, 2006).

Metacognitive-based listening instruction offers an approach to help learners manage their cognitive demands, providing self-regulated opportunities for learners to control their learning. Cognitive tasks need learners to maximize consciousness and attention; however, Madarbakus-Ring (2024) states that learners of any level can “build contextualized meaning from speech that draws very little on their cognitive resources” (p. 2). Metacognitive tasks (e.g., reflecting on the process) focus learners on identifying or noticing strategies they use to cope with listening challenges. Consequently, these learners can develop a broader repertoire of learning strategies to address their listening difficulties as and when they arise (Rahimi & Katal, 2012). Recent studies (Chen, 2019; Lee & Cha, 2017, 2020; Madarbakus-Ring & Ring, 2023) have investigated learners’ use of process-based journals to offer insights into how learners can improve their confidence and strategic approaches when listening. Building on these findings, this study examines the listening journals completed by second language learners at a Japanese university to understand how they reflect on their chosen input, evaluate their approach to listening, and address their listening difficulties.

Literature Review

Listening and Metacognition

Vandergrift and Goh (2012) define metacognition as “our ability to think about our own thinking, and by extension, to think about how we process information for a range of purposes and manage the way that we do it” (pp. 83-84). Metacognition provides learners with increased planning, monitoring, and evaluative opportunities to consider how they can use different approaches and strategies when they encounter listening difficulties (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Metacognitive approaches have been used by previous researchers (e.g., Goh & Taib, 2006; Graham, 2006; Vandergrift & Goh, 2018) to understand how learners listen. Specifically, research (see Coskun 2010; Vandergrift, 2003) has shown how giving learners strategic opportunities in learning led to an increase in their use of metacognitive strategies (e.g., goal-setting, reflection) which helped improve their cognitive activity, confidence, and accuracy in listening.

To develop learners’ metacognitive approaches to listening, a key underpinning comes from Flavell’s (1979) metacognitive knowledge framework. Vandergrift and Goh (2018, p. 134) define three components (person, task, and strategy knowledge) that allow learners to reflect on and identify their individual listening approaches.

1. Person Knowledge: The knowledge we have about ourselves.
2. Task Knowledge: The nature and the demands of the task we undertake.
3. Strategy Knowledge: The strategies or conscious steps that we take to improve our performance or achieve a goal.

These three components help learners to focus and provide transparency while they learn (Flavell, 1979). Table 1 lists previous studies that have used Flavell’s (1979) framework to investigate how metacognitive knowledge helped learners reflect on, monitor, and evaluate their listening.

Table 1. Previous studies investigating metacognitive knowledge in L2 listening

Study	Person Knowledge	Task Knowledge	Strategy knowledge
Goh (1997; 2000)  (n=40)	-Learners’ role in the listening process -Obstacles tackled (i.e., shortcomings, memory, personality)	-Identified task demands -Identified task types -Categorized factors (i.e., easy/difficult)	-Categorized 10 problems into 3 groups: 5 Perception, 3 Parsing, 2 Utilization
Graham (2006)  (n=595)	-Enjoyed listening -Concerned about their inability to listen	-Failure linked to low-level ability -Perception difficulties (i.e., speed) misleading	-Awareness of top-down and bottom-up strategies used
Siegel (2013)  (n=54)	-70% used strategies to comprehend input (i.e., music, movies) -60% lacked confidence	-Recall gap-fill / music-based activities -Correct answers did not result in improvement	-Used common test-based strategies (i.e., true/false) to overcome difficulties
Madarbakus-Ring (2024)  (n=24)	-Combined top-down/ bottom-up processes -Enjoyed familiar resources	-Favored familiar tasks -Fixated on word-level difficulties -Need to prime vocabulary	-Writing notes prioritized -Need repair strategies to address breakdown

As Table 1 shows, teachers have utilized Flavell’s (1979) framework to guide their learners in understanding how much they know, control, and direct their listening approaches. In person knowledge, learners can identify how much they know about themselves when listening. Goh (1997, 2000) found that learners’ person knowledge may play a central role in the listening process as they determine how to overcome a range of distractors (e.g., memory, personality) that they experience. Both Siegel (2013) and Graham (2006) reported that most of their learners enjoyed their listening experience. Madarbakus-Ring (2024) also noted how learners equated familiar resources with enjoyable listening. However, Graham (2006) notes that despite her learners’ positivity towards the practices, they still indicated some concerns about being “no good” at listening (p. 173). Siegel’s (2013) learners also reported that they continued to lack listening confidence despite showing improvement as the course progressed. Field (2008) offers reasoning, stating that a lack of listening observability and time pressures may affect learners’ individual listening development. Graham (2006) suggests learners can take more control by listening in sections or replaying the text to help manage their emotional temperature. Thus, this study investigates how learners can manage their own person knowledge approach by choosing their own resources and responding to their experience (e.g., level of understanding, enjoyment) when listening (Milliner, 2017).

In task knowledge, learners can reflect on various task demands, such as familiarity, level of difficulty, or factors related to task completion and their impact on learning (Goh, 2000). However, familiarity may not contribute to effective listening development. For example, learners in Siegel’s (2013) study named gap-fill and music-based activities as familiar and successful tasks, but they also did not necessarily find the tasks helpful for improving their listening, possibly due to the tasks’ simplistic nature. Thus, as Siegel (2013) suggests, learners in this study will be given opportunities to choose their own resources and analyze the tasks undertaken to help them reflect more strategically on their approaches to listening.

In strategy knowledge, learners can identify the difficulties they encounter in listening and learn which strategies help address them. Learners have long found strategy use (e.g., predictions, taking notes) difficult to implement. For example, Goh’s (2000) pioneering study of strategy use analyzed journals from 40 learners to understand their listening difficulties. She found that around 40% of them reported perceiving, interpreting, and utilizing input as problematic. Although learners were given the opportunity to practice a range of strategies, they were unable to use them effectively when listening difficulties arose. Field (2008) notes that learners with low ability or low confidence may have difficulties selecting suitable strategies and need further strategy training through classroom instruction to guide them through the listening process. Such training can include instruction in both top-down (e.g., context-level) and bottom-up (e.g., word-level) strategies, with Graham (2006) finding that her learners showed the potential to orchestrate both sets of strategies when listening. This finding was echoed by Madarbakus-Ring’s (2024) study, whose learners reportedly combined top-down (e.g., predicting) with bottom-up (e.g., keywords) approaches to understand the input after being introduced to them in classroom practices. For example, Madarbakus-Ring (2024) found that providing learners with opportunities to prime potentially difficult vocabulary helped to effectively support learners when encountering word-level difficulties while listening. Thus, learners in this study will practice listening in class to improve their strategy repertoires to help them effectively manage their difficulties in real-time processing appropriately when completing their homework practices.

Using listening journals

Listening journals are a useful metacognitive tool that learners can use as a personal narrative to describe their learning (Lee & Cha, 2017). Dornyei (2007) emphasizes how these “insider” accounts prompt unobtrusive and organic insights into the learners’ listening experience and attitudes. Thus, learners can reflect on and evaluate the process of listening (Lee & Cha, 2017) while teachers can use learners’ self-reports as an ongoing course assessment (Gilliland, 2015).

Paired with effective listening guidelines and resources, listening journals can prompt learners to reflect on their metacognitive knowledge in listening practices. Table 2 shows previous studies that have used listening journals to elicit learners’ approaches to listening.

Table 2. Listening Journal Prompts

Researchers	Study	Journal Prompts
Kemp (2009)	N=42 (8 weeks: 5/6 entries a week)	-Do I do a variety of listening activities? -Was the activity easy or difficult? Why? -Was the vocab/accent/speed/background noise easy? Difficult?
Roe (2013)	N=42 (1 entry every 2 weeks)	-Listening process (Rate how easy/difficult the listening was) -Listening strategies (Analyze what helped you to understand) -Summarize main ideas -Critical thinking (e.g., Relate to course materials) -Personal response (e.g., What impact did the text have on you?)
Chen (2016)	N=14 (10 weeks: 3 entries total) 42 entries written in English/Chinese	-How did I respond? Make it better? Worse? -Was the activity useful? Enjoyable? Will I do it again? -What can I do to help me improve the situation next time? -What listening problems did you experience?
Chen (2019)	N=27 (10 weeks: 3 entries total) 81 audio entries spoken in Chinese and translated into English	-Preparing to listen (e.g., What is the text about? New words?) -Evaluate the first viewing (e.g., % understood, easy, difficult) -Before second viewing (e.g., What should I pay attention to?) -Second viewing (with subtitles) -Evaluate the second viewing (As above with the first viewing) -Third viewing (With Chinese subtitles) -Look at the transcript to check comprehension
Lee & Cha (2017, 2020)	N=42/N=89 (1 semester: 1 entry per week) 415/880 entries written in English/Chinese	-Summary of the listening content -Personal response to the content (e.g., Opinion, Experience) -Reflection on my listening ability (e.g., Strengths, Weaknesses) -Listening strategies used (e.g., make a list of those used)

Note: (compiled in Madarbakus-Ring & Ring, 2023, p. 307)

As Table 2 shows, previous studies have used journal prompts to focus on reflection, monitoring, and evaluation approaches. Specifically, learners can reflect on the process by thinking about what they did to complete the activity, how they listened, and then summarize the input. In turn, they can monitor their understanding of easy/difficult tasks, consider their listening comprehension, and notice the strategies that they engage in. Learners can also evaluate the listening process by critically thinking about the impact that the listening input has had on their personal experience, and how they can improve next time. For example, Chen’s (2016) study found that 14 learners wrote 42 journal entries about their own resource selections in listening. The researcher provided learners with several reflection prompts (e.g., How much did you understand? Was it easy or difficult to understand today?) to scaffold their reflections. Additionally, open-ended questions (e.g., What listening problems did you experience?) helped learners to reflect on their understanding of the completed listening practice. Chen (2016) also encouraged learners to evaluate their listening by asking what they could change for their next listening (e.g., focus on new words, improve journal skills). Chen (2019) described in her later study about the benefits of listening journals for learners as they become more autonomous and confident in identifying and addressing the listening difficulties they encountered. Similarly, in this study, learners will be given various prompts to reflect on their own listening. In turn, their responses will be examined to understand their noticing and problem-solving approaches to listening during their homework practices.

Learners’ Reported Difficulties and Remedies

Given the increased usage of listening journals as a metacognitive tool, researchers have identified several common listening difficulties experienced by learners, as shown in Figure 1.

Note: A vertical bar graph showing the frequency of the reported listening difficulties by six studies. The vertical axis shows 12 common difficulties and the horizontal axis shows the frequency reported by each study.

Figure 1. Reported Listening Difficulties in L2 Listening

Figure 1 shows the reported listening difficulties the learners encountered in these studies. The most common difficulty for learners in all six studies related to the speakers’ rate of speech. Lee and Cha (2020) stated that the text speed affected learners of all listening abilities. Renandya and Farrell (2011) explain that learners tend to lose focus when listening input is faster as they cannot sound out individual words or phrases (i.e., chunks, blends) which, in turn, affects their comprehension. Similarly, the speakers’ accent caused listening difficulties for learners in four of the six studies (Chen, 2016; Ivone & Renandya, 2022; Lee & Cha, 2020; Roe, 2013). Learners in both Chen’s (2019) and Lee and Cha’s (2020) studies commented that non-American accents (i.e., British) were difficult to understand in listening. Further, learners in five of the six studies reported limited vocabulary knowledge to be a distractor (Chen, 2016; Ivone & Renandya, 2022; Lee & Cha, 2020; Renandya & Farrell, 2011; Roe, 2013). In Lee and Cha’s (2017) earlier study, they commented that learners tend to feel frustrated when encountering new or unknown words. Chen (2019) noted that learner anxiety increases if they do not know every word, and goes on to suggest that more problem-solving skills are required for learners to self-monitor their learning. Turning to top-down processing, four studies (Chen, 2016; Ivone & Renandya, 2022; Renandya & Farrell, 2011; Takaesu, 2013) also noted that uninteresting or unfamiliar topics were problematic, emphasizing the difficulties caused by concepts for learners which will often necessarily contain unknown words. In this study’s context, understanding if Japanese learners experience similar accent, speed, vocabulary, and topic difficulties when listening could help inform teachers of the strategies and approaches that instruction needs to focus on in tertiary-level education.

Three studies also examined how learners problem-solve the difficulties that they encountered, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Learners’ approaches to addressing difficulties in L2 Listening

Lee & Cha (2017)	Lee & Cha (2020)	Renandya & Farrell (2011)
-Use subtitles -Focus on content words -Repeat the listening -Monitor vocabulary/text for comprehension -Predict before listening -Take notes while listening -Use background knowledge	-Replay the text -Take notes -Use subtitles -Monitor/use vocabulary-based or context-based strategies	-Heighten strategy awareness -Complete mindmap/checklist -Model/Practice strategies -Choose strategy for own needs -Evaluate strategy use/progress

To overcome their listening difficulties, Lee and Cha (2017, 2020) found that learners in both of their studies would replay the listening to increase their comprehension. Similarly, the learners in Madarbakus-Ring & Ring’s (2023) study reported trying to overcome similar difficulties by slowing down the speed and using subtitles or transcripts, but found that those latter features could be more overwhelming than helpful for their cognitive demands. One remedy, as Renandya and Farrell (2011) describe, is for learners to understand the value of selecting and using their own strategies (e.g., inferencing) to encourage learner training and autonomy when they listen. As Lee and Cha (2017) found, their learners consciously chose and evaluated their strategy use to help their comprehension. Chen (2016) suggests that teachers should allocate time in class instruction to demonstrate strategies for listening practices so learners would be freer to explore and select appropriate problem-solving strategies in their own time. Listening journals could offer learners opportunities to think about the listening process they used, reflect on their strategy repertoires, and select suitable approaches when completing listening practices. As Renandya and Jacobs (2016) note, using journals helps prompt learners to engage in more autonomous approaches to identify their difficulties as they are naturally exposed to different speech rates, topics, and text features from the resources they have chosen. Ultimately, journals can raise learner awareness and increase learner competence in managing their cognitive demands, making them more effective listeners. Building on these previous approaches, this study examines the listening difficulties that the learners reported in their listening journals and how they sought to overcome these challenges.

Methodology

Research Questions

This study used a homework listening component to elicit learners’ listening difficulties and the subsequent approaches they used to address them. The study was led by two research questions:

1. What difficulties did the learners experience in their homework listening practices?
2. What did the learners do to overcome the listening difficulties they experienced?

Participants. The 19 participants in this study were recruited from two Business Listening elective classes at a university in Japan. The participants chose this non-compulsory class to practice and improve their listening skills on business topics. The second-to-fourth year International Studies learners had completed a mandatory first-year English course, aiming to achieve a TOEIC score of at least 500 (i.e., CEFR A2 or pre-intermediate level) by the end of that academic year. The learners from both classes were aged between 19-21, were mainly Japanese with some international students, and had studied English for between 5-10 years in Japan or overseas.

Materials

The Business Listening Course. The Business Listening elective course consisted of a weekly 200-minute lesson conducted over seven weeks. The course included both classwork and homework so learners could use the listening skills they had practiced in class in a listening component for independent study. In their weekly lessons, learners focused on one of five listening skills to develop their skills when listening. The teacher introduced a weekly skills sheet before conducting an in-class practice with a TED Talk-based listening lesson. The individual learners then chose a listening resource to practice the in-class taught listening skill as weekly homework. The in-class and homework listening components were assigned as shown in Table 4:
Table 4. Research design

Week	In-Class Instruction		Homework Listening Component
	In-class Listening	In-class journal Instruction/Feedback	Homework Listening selection	Homework Listening Journal
1	Listening Practice	Journal Guidelines
2	TED Talk 1	Journal Check-in	Chosen Resource 1	Journal 1
3	TED Talk 2	Feedback 1	Chosen Resource 2	Journal 2
4	TED Talk 3	Feedback 2	Chosen Resource 3	Journal 3
5	TED Talk 4	Feedback 3	Chosen Resource 4	Journal 4
6	TED Talk 5	Feedback 4	Chosen Resource 5	Journal 5
7	Listening Exam	Feedback 5

The homework component consisted of listening to a resource of their choice each week for five weeks. The journals provided a list of suggested resources along with guidelines to help learners choose the appropriate input for this listening practice (see Appendix 1). Each learner completed a weekly journal for five weeks between Week 2 and Week 6. Learners were presented with the following five-step guidance (adapted from Chen, 2016) before it was posted on their classroom LMS (learner management system) to view anytime.

1. Write five journal entries for your listening this term. Each of your journals will be counted as 3% towards your final grade. There is no word count, but please write a detailed entry.
2. Please write your journal in English.
3. Use the list to select your listening for this week. Listen to your chosen resource and then write your journal. Please write your journal as soon as you finish listening. On the journal page, please write the title of the resource, the website link, and the date and time that you completed your journal, and then answer the journal prompts.
4. You can choose a listening resource from the list or choose your own website.
5. Ask or email the teacher if you have any questions.

In Week 1, the guidelines were presented to the learners in class. An in-class listening practice with a TED Talk lesson was then completed starting from Week 1 to demonstrate to learners how they could complete their skill-based listening homework component. After completing their journals at home, learners would discuss their homework listening practice with each other at the start of the following week’s class. Anonymous group feedback was shared via a PowerPoint slide in each class to share the listening experience, difficulties, and problem-solving approaches that were reported in the previous week’s journals. Learners could also ask any clarification questions during class time if needed.

Research Instruments

Learners used the listening journal to examine their approaches and self-report their listening difficulties to remedy these encounters (see Appendix 2). The prompts first elicited information about the resource (e.g., website, title, speaker, link) and their experience (e.g., comprehension/enjoyment percentage) before using metacognitive reflection prompts. Learners were given three sets of prompts to help them to observe, reflect on, and set goals about their listening, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Journal Structure and Prompts

Metacognitive focus (Flavell, 1979)	Journal Section (Takaesu, 2013)	Journal Prompts (adapted from Roe (2013) and Chen (2016))
Person knowledge	1. Observations	1.How did you feel about your listening today? 2.What helped you to understand the talk the most? Why? 3.Which activities were easy? Why? 4.Did you work with other people?
Task knowledge	2. Reflections	1.Did you meet your listening goal today? 2.What did you find difficult today? Why? 3.What did you do to help you understand the talk more easily? Did it help? Why/why not?
Strategy knowledge	3. Goals	1.What will you do differently to help you listen next time? Why? Any other comments?

The reflective qualitative data used Flavell’s (1979) metacognitive knowledge framework together with journal prompts from Chen’s (2016), Roe’s (2013), and Takaesu’s (2013) studies. The prompts were adapted to elicit self-reports from the learners about their resource selections, their approaches and difficulties when listening, and their strategic selections to overcome their listening difficulties. The same prompts were used for all five journal entries.

Ethics Procedure

In Week 1, the researcher presented and provided an overview of the study to the learners. The learners were then invited to give consent for their listening journals to be included as data in this study. The researcher presented each learner with a consent form so they could indicate their intent to participate. The researcher informed the learners that they could choose not to participate in the study; however, they would still need to submit five listening journals as a graded task. The researcher also explained to the learners, that irrespective of whether they chose to participate (or not participate) in the study, there would be no judgement or effect on their overall grade for the course. Learners could also ask questions anytime to find out more about the study before completing their consent forms.

Data collection

The participants were recruited from each class using convenience sampling as the researcher was teaching both classes. Of the 31 learners who completed the listening component, 19 participants gave permission, and completed the five journal entries and the final class survey.

The listening component was given to learners to complete as homework. Learners were asked to complete five weekly journals by choosing a listening resource and a journal entry about their listening experience. No word count limit was assigned to the journal and learners were given a 3% completion grade for each of their submitted journals. Each journal was hand-written and submitted the following week via individual listening portfolios (i.e., physical clear plastic folders) which were provided by the teacher and created in Week 1 of the course. In the next class, learners would discuss the previous week’s journal with their peers before the researcher provided the whole class with anonymous group feedback (i.e., easy/difficult listening components, strategy use) via a PowerPoint slide. Each week, the researcher would process the journals for data analysis by typing each entry verbatim on Microsoft Word. The above procedure was repeated each week for the five-week journal data collection period.

Data analysis

Data analysis was guided by Thomas’ (2006) general inductive approach, which “primarily use[s] detailed readings of raw data to derive concepts, themes, or a model through interpretations made from the raw data by an evaluator or researcher” (p. 238). Researchers can analyze the data without the restraints of structured methodology to allow frequent, dominant, or significant themes to emerge (Thomas, 2006). The approach uses a five-step process as follows (Thomas, 2006, pp. 241-242):

1. Preparation of raw data files: The data are organized into a common format, such as questions, comments
2. Close reading of the text: The raw text is read until the researcher is familiar with the content and understands the themes/events included in the text
3. Creation of categories: The researcher identifies categories and defines themes which may derive from the research aims (e.g., vivo coding). Categories are created by highlighting text segments or moving actual phrases into emerging categories
4. Overlapping coding and uncoded text: The researcher checks which text segments have been coded into more than one category and confirms that less than 50% of the text is used in each category to ensure relevance to the research aims
5. Continuing revision and refinement of category system: The researcher reviews each category, searches for sub-topics, and similar/contradictory views and insights, combines any necessary categories that support themes and sub-themes, and selects quotations that convey the core theme for the study

This study presents the qualitative data results from the journals. Data analysis was prepared by dividing the participant journal responses into two separate word documents for the high and low groups. As the 19 participants entered the class having completed three online L&R TOEIC tests during the previous academic year, they were categorized as low (under 500) and high (over 500) according to the TOEIC 500 score threshold for the purposes of this study. Their aggregate scores from all three TOEIC tests were used to determine this categorization, which resulted in 11 high participants and eight low participants. The participants were allocated participant codes (i.e., BL21) to observe anonymity and confidentiality protocols.

The data were tabulated and categorized according to participants using the journal prompts and weekly responses for each item. The raw data were then read by the researchers to build familiarity with the observations, reflections, and goals that were reported from the homework listening practices. Once the researchers were familiar with the entries, potential themes (i.e., listening difficulties, listening goals) for each question were identified. The journal section was used as the main theme and the journal prompts were identified as sub-themes (see Table 4). Each sub-theme response was coded with a short phrase (e.g., difficulty – speed) and tabulated by week and sub-theme to correspond with the respective journal. The text segment or relevant phrases were also highlighted in the raw text and color-coded to correspond with the sub-theme and the week it was recorded. Next, the researchers checked the text segments which had been highlighted and their relevance to the identified category and research question (e.g., speed, accent = listening difficulty). Both researchers also checked the chosen themes and sub-themes for relevance to the participants’ reported listening difficulties (e.g., speed, topic) and their approaches to address their listening difficulties (e.g., listen again, shadowing). The selected text was then confirmed or moved to another category to ensure each chosen text segment conveyed the core theme to be reported in the results section. The qualitative results from the journal data are outlined in the next section.

Results

Nineteen learners completed five weekly journals using three sets of reflection prompts for each of their chosen homework listening practices (see Table 4). The results are categorized by lower-level (below TOEIC 500) and higher-level (above TOEIC 500) learners following the two research questions that led this study (see Appendices 3-6 for the full results tables).

Learner Processing, Resource, and Vocabulary Difficulties

The following describes the lower-level and higher-level learners’ journal responses concerning their listening difficulties (see Appendices 3 and 4). For lower-level learners, they reported difficulties primarily with their personal feelings, content, and vocabulary knowledge. Some learners found culturally attuned jokes in resources such as TED Talks to be off-putting, as they did not understand why the audience laughed. Speed and accent were also regularly cited as difficulties, with learners specifying quick speech and native accents as problematic. The learners also emphasized their impatience with not understanding new words, noting their difficulties with attempting to strategically guess unknown words. Finally, regarding journal activities, the content presented task difficulties as despite some learners self-reporting more confidence with notetaking techniques, others, like BL310, were unable to achieve their own task goals (e.g., complete the diagram).

Higher-level learners self-reported processing difficulties relating to the input and their cognition. First, they commented that input, such as news-related resources, was particularly difficult when previous knowledge was lacking and more technical terms about unfamiliar topics were heard. Although these learners were also more aware of proper nouns, meaning and connected speech (e.g., identifying word boundaries) led to parsing and comprehension difficulties. The higher-level learners also commented that the speed of the text meant they often reverted to transcribing every word they heard rather than using their real-time cognitive processes to select key words or relevant phrases. Although opinions were deemed easier to compose as the learner could agree or disagree with the speaker, the task to perceive, parse, and utilize the information from their notes to their own summary remained problematic.

Addressing Learner Processing, Resource, and Vocabulary Difficulties

The following describes how the different level learners addressed their listening difficulties, as reported in their journals (see Appendices 5 and 6). For the lower-level learners, themes from their journal responses were learner processing, resource, and vocabulary solutions. First, these learners chose to gain control of the listening input when they encountered listening difficulties. One common approach was to use subtitles and transcripts to help provide orthographic support for the input. Learners also accessed transcripts after listening to monitor their understanding of sentences. Another approach was to use vocabulary strategies to overcome comprehension difficulties. Learners used online dictionaries to check both words and phrases to aid their comprehension. Lastly, using visuals to support comprehension helped prime lower-level learners in the pre-listening and while-listening stages.

The higher-level learners reported addressing their difficulties by using several approaches to manipulate the input so they could understand better. They often repeated the listening input to write more notes, or even, as with BL211, paused the recording to give themselves more time to take notes. These learners also referred to the transcripts to check words or spellings, paused, and read when re-listening to a section. Higher-level learners also varied the text speed according to their level to tailor the listening to their ability. Further, learners indicated that resource familiarity helped their listening comprehension. Familiar resources also increased the learners’ confidence in expecting slides or illustrations they could use to predict new words or increase their understanding.

Discussion

Learners’ Person, Task, And Strategy Knowledge

Both groups self-reported person, task, and strategy knowledge difficulties. First, in person knowledge, the resource content affected the learners’ focus and concentration when listening both negatively and positively. The lower-level learners commented that they were distracted by contextual-level cultural references (i.e., humor) as BL29 noted that despite an interest in the talk, a lack of pre-knowledge on humor or topics may have affected their basic comprehension of the input. Madarbakus-Ring (2025) observes how jokes could be confusing as listeners might not understand the context. However, for higher-level learners, like BL216, jokes could provide useful hints for them to understand the input. Higher-level learners also experienced comprehension difficulties when listening to unfamiliar topics, emphasizing the importance of familiar topics and priming background knowledge for more confident listening, in both in-class and extensive listening practices. Possibly a result of choosing more ambitious resources such as TED lectures, these choices may reflect learners’ desire to use their self-study time to work with resources relevant to their studies or priorities outside of the classroom (e.g., proficiency tests, study abroad programs).

Learners also commented on how knowledge of the resource’s structure helped with listening. Identifying the resource structure, conventions, and text type helps with choosing relevant or interesting topics (Milliner, 2017). For example, BL29 prepared for listening to a TED Talk by reading the speaker’s information or story synopsis before listening and by linking information they heard with the visuals (i.e., slides, illustrations) they saw while listening. BL33 echoes this notion, commenting on synopses being available before listening to focus their attention and introduce the topic of the input before listening. Chen (2019) and Lee and Cha (2020) note the importance of familiar resources in their studies, suggesting that learners benefit from increasing their awareness of the input structure. These approaches underline the importance of learners being aware of background information, having the appropriate topic or vocabulary knowledge, and having orthographic or visual support from the input.

Learners’ task knowledge also highlighted difficulties with the learners’ priorities and real-time processing of the input. Lower-level learners had more anxiety, as their chosen task goals (e.g., table completion) were affected when they lacked confidence and could not interpret the input. These learners also noted that they lost focus when listening to faster speech, reporting that accents and unknown vocabulary were more difficult to recognize. These observations indicate that learners had more anxiety completing these tasks. Similar to Graham’s (2006) finding, as they were unable to recognize key words in the speakers’ connected speech, this affected their listening confidence and their ability to complete tasks. Chen (2019) notes how learners’ listening anxiety increases if words or ideas are unknown, suggesting that more real-time problem-solving approaches are needed. One vocabulary-based remedy, as explained by BL217, is to identify one word and its word family relationships (i.e., graph, photograph, thermograph). In this way, learners can control their own interpretation of the input while completing tasks.

The speakers’ speed also affected the higher-level learners’ confidence in taking notes as connected speech and unfamiliar topics resulted in difficulties with interpreting the input. For these learners, difficulties in real-time processing of the input resulted in them writing their notes verbatim or relying on dictation techniques when input was difficult to interpret. However, these approaches resulted in learners only delaying these interpretation difficulties to the subsequent summarizing task. Specifically, this affected the content of their summaries in the post-listening stage as they found paraphrasing and delayed comprehension of the text difficult. Goh (2023) notes how learners may not know how to address interpretation difficulties appropriately, highlighting their mismanagement of strategies. As Field (2008) describes, learners may lack confidence or the required repertoire to select the appropriate approaches they need to overcome their real-time processing difficulties. One approach is for teachers to model, practice, and help learners to choose strategies in lessons (e.g., shadowing) before listening to help equip them to overcome the real-time difficulties they experience (Hamada, 2022; Renandya & Farrell, 2011).

Lastly, in learners’ strategy knowledge, using appropriate strategies to overcome vocabulary difficulties was problematic for both levels. Lower-level learners were unable to select suitable strategies to overcome their encounters with unknown or context-specific vocabulary, stating an impatience to learn new words or infer their meaning when listening. They were unable to parse connected speech without orthographic support while listening which decreased their confidence and affected their notetaking ability. Specifically, BL37 felt vocabulary represented the most significant barrier to their comprehension difficulties. Although strategies, such as inferencing, was identified as ones they needed to develop, learners also reported needing to broaden their vocabulary knowledge and memorize key words. For example, BL37 stated that listening for a second time with subtitles was useful to comprehend the input and increase their listening confidence. In this study, learners would regularly rely on subtitles when listening again, to help “see” the input. In line with the reported difficulties with unknown vocabulary and phrases, learners lacked the confidence to choose strategic approaches when encountering new and context-specific vocabulary (e.g., embryos).

High-level learners often identified difficulties with parsing as they could not recognize the spelling, meaning, or segmentation of proper nouns, technical terms, or connected speech when listening. Specifically, their presence in the content was confusing, particularly concerning notetaking accuracy, such as spelling. BL216 explained how these visual hints (e.g., subtitles) helped her to understand and focus on details where she may usually lose concentration. Madarbakus-Ring and Ring (2023) concur, suggesting that learners can redirect their attention and support their listening by using visual aids (e.g., subtitles, transcripts) to support their comprehension and concentration. Further, previous knowledge also helped learners when predicting ideas and keywords as they could relate heard ideas to background knowledge. As Vandergrift and Goh (2012) suggest, activating their previous knowledge of similar ideas was also useful to prepare their contextual and semantic understanding of the topic they had chosen. These approaches illustrate how learners can use different cognitive approaches to address their difficulties when listening to the input.

Renandya and Farrell (2011) comment that faster speech often results in learners losing focus when listening as they are unable to sound out words or chunks. To remedy this, learners like BL33 could identify the speed (e.g., 0.75) at which they could listen better. Further, other higher-level learners reported addressing their difficulties by using several approaches to manipulate the input so they could understand better. They often repeated the listening input to write more notes, or even, as with BL211, paused the recording to give themselves more time to take notes. Milliner (2017) suggests that learners should practice with their own selections to increase their familiarity with the text features and choose more level-appropriate input to increase their confidence when listening. Lee and Chen (2017; 2020) emphasize the value of using repeated listenings as support for learners to improve their vocabulary knowledge, regardless of level. For example, in their studies, lower-level learners would often rely on subtitles or transcripts in their repeated listenings to add observability, thereby increasing exposure to new vocabulary through reading. One approach is using subtitles, which assisted learners like BL29 and BL212, to follow the listening as they could read while they listened (particularly the second listening when choosing a slower speed). BL37 stated that listening for a second time with subtitles was useful to comprehend the input and increase their listening confidence. These strategies show how listening again while using subtitles or transcripts can add observability for learners to alleviate the real-time pressures of lexical difficulties in the input (Field, 2008).

Pedagogical Implications

The results from this study point to three main pedagogical implications for learners: making suitable resource selections, developing metacognitive approaches, and improving strategy management. First, suitable resources allow learners to control the input of level-appropriate materials so they can focus their attention on the content when listening. Goh (2000) notes how providing learners with a central role in their listening can help them to determine how they overcome a range of listening obstacles. Milliner’s (2017) resource components provide learners with suitable guidance to choose their own input, helping them encounter resources with different discourse features, and encouraging them to listen to level-appropriate input. Thus, learners are provided with better guidance through the plethora of English language listening resources available.

In line with building learners’ confidence through their access to suitable resources, learners can also increase their cognitive activity (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). The learners’ journal reflections highlighted their difficulties while listening, emphasizing the importance of supporting task completion in the while-listening stage. Lee and Cha’s (2017) study found that repeating the input, taking notes, and using subtitles were useful approaches. Graham (2006) concurs, underlining how learners who can choose the speed and repeat the input can understand better. As Chen (2016) explains, teachers need to allocate more time to demonstrate strategy instruction more explicitly before listening for learners to prepare effectively so they can select and use the appropriate strategies they need to overcome their difficulties in the while-listening stage.

Lastly, improving the learners’ strategy management can help increase their strategy usage. As this study has illustrated, listening journals are a useful metacognitive tool to help the learner reflect on and evaluate their listening experience. As Renandya and Jacobs (2016) observe, learners can use journals to identify common difficulties such as different speech rates, unfamiliar topics, and new text features as they listen. Renandya and Farrell (2011) further suggest improving the learners’ strategy management by using strategy mindmaps or checklists to help practice the strategies they need to evaluate their strategy use and progress after each listening event. Madarbakus-Ring & Ring (2023) concur, describing how learners can use listening journals to reflect on their listening, attend to their learning, and evaluate the methods they have used. In this way, learners can identify their strategic gaps and build on the strategies they need to address their individual listening difficulties.

Conclusion

This study discussed the listening journals of 19 learners from a homework listening component. Learner self-reports were elicited and analyzed from listening journals to identify the person (e.g., motivations behind which listening resources were chosen), task (e.g., use of cognitive processes), and strategy knowledge (e.g., approaches used when listening) of learners. The results indicated that unfamiliar topics and resources affected learners’ focus and concentration. Further, all learners commented on difficulties related to real-time processing of the input and how enabling them to better manipulate the resource (e.g., speed, subtitles) aided their comprehension. Finally, learners identified a need for better strategy knowledge (e.g., inferencing, redirecting attention) to address their listening difficulties.

From these results, this study has three main limitations. First, the learners used their L2 (English) to write their journal entries. Using their L1 (first language) may have prompted learners to give more detailed responses. Next, the study analyzed a total of 95 journal entries from 19 learners over five weeks. Other researchers (see Lee & Cha, 2017; 2020) have analyzed more than 800 journal entries, providing a broader insight into learners’ listening processes. Collecting journals over a longer period (i.e., a semester) from more learners could provide more longitudinal insights using a similar listening component. Lastly, future studies could focus on developing learners’ cognitive repertoires when listening. As this study showed, learners need more awareness and guidance in using real-time problem-solving strategies when listening. Following Renandya and Farrell’s (2011) framework, future research could examine the effects of strategy awareness and usage by learners in listening studies. By using journaling, teachers can identify their learners’ listening difficulties while learners can reflect on their listening progress and identify useful approaches for their learning development.

About the Authors

Naheen Madarbakus-Ring is an assistant professor at the University of Tsukuba in Japan. She has taught in South Korea, the UK and New Zealand. Naheen received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of Wellington (NZ). She is the author of Metacognitive Listening Instruction in the Second Language Classroom: Integrating Method, Theory, and Practice (Routledge). Her research areas include listening strategies, curriculum design, and material development. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0857-9515

Liam Ring is a visiting faculty member at Asia University in Japan. He has worked in Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. His research interests include examining receptive skills and learner development. ORCID ID: 0009-0002-8744-4124

To Cite this Article

Madarbakus-Ring, N. & Ring, L. (2025). Reflecting on and addressing second language learners’ listening difficulties through journaling. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a2

References

Chen, C. W. (2016). Listening diary in the digital age: Students’ material selection, Listening problems, and perceived usefulness. JALTCALL Journal, 12(2), 83-101. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112424.pdf

Chen, C. W. Y. (2019). Guided listening with listening journals and curated materials: a metacognitive approach. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.1381104

Coskun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(1), 35-50. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509339.pdf

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Gavenila, E. I., Wulandari, M., & Renandya, W. A. (2021). Using TED Talks for Extensive Listening. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 61, 147- 175. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1304993

Gilliland, B. (2015). Listening logs for extensive listening practice. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom (pp. 29-38). Routledge.

Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 361-369. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.361

Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3

Goh, C. C. (2023). Learners’ cognitive processing problems during comprehension as a basis for L2 listening research. System, 119, 103164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103164

Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002

Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2), 165 182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.11.001

Hamada, Y. (2022). Developing a new shadowing procedure for Japanese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 53(3), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220937628

Ivone, F. M., & Renandya, W.A., (2022). Bringing extensive listening into the second language classroom. In M. Reed & T. Jones (Eds.). Listening in the classroom: Teaching students how to listen. TESOL International Association.

Kemp, J. (2009). The listening log: Motivating autonomous learning. ELT Journal, 64(4), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp099

Lee, Y., & Cha, K. (2017). Listening logs for extensive listening in a self-regulated environment. Asia Pacific Education Resource, 26 (5), 271-279.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40299-017-0347-0

Lee, Y. J., & Cha, K. W. (2020). Writing listening logs and its effect on improving L2 students’ metacognitive awareness and listening proficiency. International Journal of Contents, 16(4), 50-67. https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO202006763002649.pdf

Madarbakus-Ring, N. (2025) Metacognitive listening instruction in the second language classroom: integrating method, theory, and practice. Routledge. ISBN 9781032478760

Madarbakus‐Ring, N. (2024). Learner Reflections: Metacognitive Knowledge Approaches in L2 Listening Instruction. English Language and Teaching Journal. 1-24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42321-024-00177-w

Madarbakus-Ring, N., & Ring L., (2023). Journal Jargon: Using online listening diaries to measure the learning process. In J Bilodeau & L Hughes (Eds). Creating motivational online environments for students. (pp. 305-328). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/journal-jargon/120180

Milliner, B. (2017). Five online resources for extensive listening in the Japanese EFL classroom. Accents Asia, 9(2), 1-10. https://accentsasia.org/issues/9-2/Milliner.pdf

Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive listening strategies awareness in learning English as a foreign language: A comparison between university and high-school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(2012), 82-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.020

Renandya, W. A., & Farrell, T. S. (2011). ‘Teacher, the tape is too fast!’ Extensive listening in ELT. ELT Journal, 65(1), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq015

Renandya, W. A., & Jacobs, G. M. (2016). Extensive reading and listening in the L2 classroom. In W.A. Renandya, & H. P. Widodo., (Eds), English Language Teaching Today. Springer.

Roe, L. (2013). Designing and evaluating an e-listening component for an EAP context. CLESOL 2012: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL, 1-14, Palmerston North. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/144150a2-11f7-4b92-a406-5d14a1a81983/content

Rost, M. (2024). Teaching and researching: Listening. Routledge. (fourth edition).

Siegel, J. (2013). Second language learners’ perceptions of listening strategy instruction. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.653110

Takaesu, A. (2013). TED Talks as an extensive listening resource for EAP students. Language Education in Asia, 4(2), 150-162. https://leia.org/LEiA/LEiA%20VOLUMES/Download/Asian_Focused_ELT_Research_and_Practice.pdf#page=121

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Vandergrift, L., (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00232

Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.

Vandergrift, L. & Goh, C. (2018). Introduction to listening. In J. M. Newton, D. R. Ferris, C.C. Goh, W. Grabe, F. L. Stoller, & L. Vandergrift (Eds.), Teaching English to second language learners in academic contexts: Reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Routledge.

Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x

Yeldham, M. (2023). Second language listening instruction and learners’ vocabulary knowledge. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61(3), 819-850. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2021-0021/html

Appendices

Appendix 1. Extensive Listening Guidelines

[back]

Appendix 2. Extensive Listening Journal Template

[back]

Appendix 3

Difficulties lower-level learners experience in extensive listening practices

Appendix 4

Difficulties higher-level learners experience in extensive listening practices

Appendix 5

Lower-level learners self-reported approaches to overcome difficulties in extensive listening practices

Appendix 6

Higher-level learners self-reported approaches to overcome difficulties in extensive listening practices

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.