Exploring the contribution of topic familiarity and listening strategies to listening comprehension among L2 learners of English

Abstract

The development of second language (L2) proficiency relies heavily on listening. Despite this, the influence of topic familiarity on L2 listening comprehension has received relatively little empirical attention, and researchers continue to hold divergent perspectives on the effectiveness of listening strategies in facilitating the processing of spoken L2 input. To address the gap, this study aims to explore to what extent learners’ topic familiarity and listening strategy use influence L2 listening comprehension. Eighty-three Chinese learners of English were investigated through an L2 listening comprehension test and two questionnaires for topic familiarity and L2 listening strategy use. In addition, thirty-two of the participants took an interview to recall the listening strategy use during their listening test. Results revealed significant correlations between L2 listening comprehension and both topic familiarity and listening strategy use. Collectively, these predictors explained 23% of the variance in comprehension outcomes. Topic familiarity was found to explain more of the variance in L2 listening comprehension than listening strategy. We discussed pedagogical implications in L2 listening teaching and research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-026-04000-y.

Introduction

Among the core language skills, listening presents particular challenges, but it remains a crucial component in acquiring a second language (L2) [1]. Although various studies have explored the effects of linguistic knowledge [2–5] and non-linguistic knowledge [6–8] on the success of L2 listening comprehension, few studies have focused on the contribution of listeners’ topic familiarity to their L2 listening comprehension and researchers have different views on the contribution of listening strategies to the processing of L2 aural information. Listeners’ familiarity with a topic is thought to affect both their comprehension and their recall of what they hear [9]. But very few early studies have investigated the influence of topic familiarity on L2 listening, e.g., the mediating effect [10] and the direct effect [1, 11]. Notably, contextual and instructional factors further complicate this relationship: listening effort and strategy use are modulated by acoustic conditions (e.g., noise), language dominance (L1 vs. L2), and lexical frequency [12], while metacognitive instruction, whether delivered via classroom or self-led modes, shapes how learners apply such strategies as peer discussion or vocabulary focus to address listening difficulties [13]. Listening strategies are defined as “methods of managing personal mental and observable behavior to accomplish a listening task” [14], (p. 80). Some studies have suggested that listening strategies facilitate L2 listeners’ comprehension proficiency [8, 15], while other studies have suggested that the effect of listening strategies is weaker compared with other variables in predicting L2 listening comprehension proficiency [1]. Given that listening has received comparatively little attention in second language learning research [16], empirical studies are urgently needed to explore factors that may facilitate L2 learners’ processing of aural input.

The current study seeks to fill a research gap by examining how topic familiarity and listening strategy use contribute to second language listening comprehension. Using data from Chinese learners, for whom understanding native English speech has been shown to be particularly challenging [17], the study provides empirical evidence on the extent to which these two factors explain variation in comprehension. The findings are expected to enrich theoretical perspectives and offer practical implications for L2 listening instruction.

Literature review

Topic familiarity and L2 listening comprehension

The connection between topic familiarity and L2 listening comprehension has been widely examined, yet findings remain inconsistent. While several investigations suggest that familiarity with the subject matter enhances comprehension, other work has yielded contrasting evidence.

Evidence for the impact of topic familiarity on L2 listening is mixed. Markham and Latham [18] observed that students with knowledge of a lecture topic showed improved recall and comprehension. Conversely, Chiang and Dunkel [11] found no measurable advantage for learners when the lecture subject was familiar, raising questions about the universality of this effect. In their study, no significant differences were found, possibly because the post-lecture comprehension test was taken after a 5-minute rest period when participants had listened to the topic-familiar and topic-unfamiliar lectures lasting for 6 to 9 min. Participants had to comprehend long lectures and hold the information about the lectures in their working memory, which might be a challenge for L2 listeners. Leeser [19] noted that learners’ comprehension is influenced by several factors, including topic familiarity, mode of delivery, and pausing. He further proposed the use of online methods, such as eye-tracking, reaction time measures, and think-aloud protocols, in L2 listening research to capture learners’ cognitive processes during comprehension. By integrating concepts from schema theory and cognitive psychology, Salahshuri [20] emphasized how learners’ prior knowledge about a topic facilitates the comprehension process by providing a mental framework for interpreting incoming auditory information. But the study did not explore to what extent learners’ topic knowledge influenced their listening comprehension. Monteiro and Kim [10] examined how input features and individual learner differences influence L2 comprehension across authentic and modified listening tasks. Their findings showed that topic familiarity supported comprehension in the authentic task, whereas in the modified version, learners with less prior knowledge of the topic achieved higher scores. Their Linear Mixed-Effects Model explained 52% of the variance in listening scores, with topic familiarity contributing 5% to the model. In a more elaborate investigation, Wallace [1] analyzed both the direct and indirect influences of domain-specific knowledge, including vocabulary and topic knowledge, and domain-general cognitive abilities such as metacognitive awareness, memory, and attention on L2 listening comprehension. The findings demonstrated that vocabulary knowledge exerted the most substantial impact on comprehension outcomes. In addition, both topical knowledge and attentional control were found to have direct effects. The study further revealed that learners achieved stronger comprehension when the listening material concerned topics with which they were already familiar, as compared to situations where the topics were less familiar. Additionally, Madarbakus-Ring [13] provided qualitative evidence from 24 EAP learners (13 self-led and 11 classroom instruction learners) that both groups explicitly identified topic knowledge as a key enabler of listening comprehension, further confirming the positive role of topic familiarity in practical learning contexts.

Listening strategy and L2 listening comprehension

Within the field of second language acquisition, considerable research attention has been devoted to the connection between listening strategies and learners’ comprehension, with numerous studies analyzing how the use of strategic processing influences listening proficiency.

The meta-analysis by O’Malley and Chamot [21] established an early framework for understanding how strategic awareness, including the deployment of listening strategies, contributes to improved comprehension. Later, Vandergrift [22] underscored the value of metacognitive strategies in supporting learners’ ability to engage in language study autonomously. The emphasis on metacognitive strategies was further supported by Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari’s [8] research, which highlighted their role in promoting comprehension accuracy and retention among L2 learners. To further explore the interplay between individual differences, learning beliefs, and L2 listening comprehension, Nix [7] emphasized the significant relationships among these variables, highlighting their collective impact on comprehension outcomes. In their study, Du and Man [6] examined how person-related factors and strategic processing contributed to differences in L2 listening comprehension. Results indicated that aural vocabulary knowledge and listening metacognitive knowledge served as significant predictors, while listening strategies themselves did not predict comprehension outcomes. Their research showed that person factors and strategic processing together explained 20.9% of the variance in L2 listening comprehension, with neither listening self-efficacy nor listening strategies emerging as significant predictors. They argued that the lack of significance for listening strategies might be attributed to L2 learners’ limited aural vocabulary, as they “did not reach the threshold of aural vocabulary size for effectively using listening strategies to facilitate L2 listening comprehension” [6], (p. 10). Subsequently, Du and Man [23] extended this line of inquiry by investigating the mediating effect of metacognition on the relationship between listening self-efficacy and L2 listening comprehension. Their structural equation model revealed that both listening self-efficacy and metacognition were positive predictors of listening comprehension, with metacognition partially mediating the effect of self-efficacy. This suggests that learners’ confidence in their listening ability may enhance comprehension indirectly through increased metacognitive awareness, highlighting a nuanced pathway through which motivational and cognitive factors interact. In a more recent study, Du and Man [24] applied expectancy-value theory to examine how motivational beliefs, including listening anxiety, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and listening self-efficacy, predict the use of top-down and bottom-up listening strategies among Chinese EFL learners. Their findings indicated that intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy positively predicted both types of strategy use, whereas extrinsic motivation only predicted bottom-up strategies, and anxiety negatively affected top-down strategies. This study underscores that strategy deployment is not merely a cognitive act but is deeply influenced by learners’ motivational and emotional states. Different from Du and Man [24], Kormos et al. [25] explored how test administration modes shape listening strategy use and anxiety among Austrian young L2 learners of English. The results indicated that learners reported lower listening anxiety in the self-paced condition, but there were no significant differences in strategy use between the single-play and self-paced modes, except for a greater need for intensive concentration in the single-play condition. Notably, the frequency of self-pacing use did not correlate with listening test scores, suggesting that the effectiveness of listening strategies depends on how learners deploy them rather than merely having access to flexible test formats. This study expands the understanding of contextual influences on strategy use by focusing on test environments, a dimension less explored in earlier research.

Recent studies have shed new light on strategy use, cognitive constraints, and holistic interactions with other factors. Madarbakus-Ring’ [13] study showed that the two groups of participants (13 self-led and 11 classroom instruction learners) adopted distinctive strategic approaches: the former prioritized vocabulary activities while the latter relied on peer discussions to resolve comprehension gaps. However, both groups faced difficulties with note-taking, highlighting a common challenge in strategy execution across learning modes. Schmidtke et al. [12] provided a cognitive-load perspective using pupillometry, testing 47 participants in their L1 Hebrew and L2 English. The results suggest that L2 listeners’ ability to use strategies is constrained by lexical processing demands, particularly when encountering low-frequency vocabulary. In addition to those mentioned above, Yang and Wu [26] explored the relationships among L2 listening growth mindset, L2 listening self-efficacy, L2 listening enjoyment, and L2 listening comprehension. Their structural equation model demonstrated that listening enjoyment mediated the effects of both growth mindset and self-efficacy on comprehension. Their study introduces a positive psychological perspective, suggesting that fostering a growth-oriented belief in listening ability and enhancing self-efficacy may promote listening enjoyment, which in turn facilitates comprehension, a pathway that complements traditional strategy-focused models.

Overall, the body of literature lacks a consensus on the impact of topic familiarity and listening strategies on L2listening comprehension. In addition, few studies have explored the degree to which topic familiarity could predict L2 listening comprehension, and few studies have adopted qualitative research methods to explore L2 listening strategy use. To address the gap, the current study aimed to explore the following research questions:

1. Do topic familiarity and listening strategy correlate with L2 learners of English listening comprehension?

2. To what extent do L2 learners of English topic familiarity scores and listening strategy scores predict their L2 listening comprehension?

Methodology

Participants

The participants were eighty-three non-English major first-year undergraduates (24 males and 59 females) from a comprehensive university in China for whom English is their L2. They were aged between 17 and 19 years old. All participants took a listening test and filled out two questionnaires. After the listening test, thirty-two of the participants took part in an interview.

Instruments

Listening comprehension test

For this research, the listening comprehension instrument was taken from the Cambridge Preliminary English Test (PET), an internationally recognized exam created by Cambridge English Language Assessment [27]. The PET provides a broad evaluation of learners’ proficiency across the four key skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Specifically, the listening section measures candidates’ ability to follow conversations and monologues in neutral or informal registers, covering common themes such as leisure, transportation, the natural environment, daily activities, and personal information. This section comprises 25 questions, with a maximum score of 25 points, representing one-quarter of the entire exam score. It includes four tasks of increasing length and complexity, from short conversational exchanges to longer spoken texts, all of which must be completed within 35 min, with six minutes reserved for transferring answers. The PET listening component was chosen because it is an international standardized test with widespread recognition for academic, occupational, and immigration-related purposes by universities, employers, and government authorities [27].

Questionnaires

Two questionnaires were used in this study. One questionnaire was used to measure the participants’ familiarity with the topics covered in the test. The questionnaire was designed for this study by the authors of this paper and presented in Chinese. It covered all 10 topics presented in the listening test, e.g., transportation, computer problems, time schedules, ordering food, changing arrangements, watching TV programs, shopping, interviews about photography, a student’s running club, and a college party. Responses were measured according to a scale ranging from 1 (I know little about the topic), which indicates the participant is highly unfamiliar with the topic, to 4 (I know all about the topic), which indicates a high level of familiarity with the topic (see Appendix 1). The readability of the questionnaire was checked by three non-English major first-year undergraduates. The questionnaire yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.76, which, following Field [28], can be considered an acceptable level of internal consistency.

A second questionnaire was administered to assess participants’ awareness and use of listening strategies. For this purpose, the study employed the Listening Comprehension Strategy Questionnaire (LCS-Q) developed by Wakamoto and Rose [29]. The instrument consists of 19 items, targeting three categories of strategies: cognitive strategies (six items), referred to activities related to “sets of mental processes that are consciously implemented to regulate thought processes and content in order to achieve goals or solve problems” [30], (p. 453); metacognitive strategies (five items), referred to activities of thinking about one’s learning process, planning for one’s learning, monitoring of one’s comprehension or production while it is taking place, and one’s self-evaluation after he has completed the learning activity [21]; and practical or self-regulatory strategies (eight items), referred to “actions directed at acquiring information or skill that involve agency, purpose (goals), and instrumentality self-perceptions by a learner” [31], (p. 615). The authors of this paper adapted the questionnaire by mixing the order of the 19 items. Illustrative examples include Item 7, “I use the words I understand to guess the meaning of the words I don’t understand” which reflects a cognitive strategy; Item 10, “I use my experience and knowledge to help me understand,” which captures a metacognitive strategy; and Item 1, “I do listening practice with other skills practice” which represents a practical strategy. Responses were recorded on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (see Appendix 2). The adapted questionnaire was translated from English into Chinese by the authors of this paper, and a pilot test was carried out with three first-year undergraduates from non-English majors to evaluate its clarity and reliability. Pilot results yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92, indicating that the adapted questionnaire had high internal consistency. For the main dataset, Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire remained high at 0.89.

Interview

An interview was conducted to gather information on the listening strategies that participants employed during the listening test. The interview was guided by five questions: (1) Did you try to imagine that scene while listening? (2) Did you use personal experience and knowledge to help you understand what you were listening to? (3) When you heard unfamiliar words, did you stop and think for a moment or just keep listening? (4) Did you try to repeat in your mind the texts that you had not understood? (5) Did you make use of the general idea of the text that you were listening to help you guess the meaning of unfamiliar words? (see Appendix 3). The questions were asked in Chinese. The participants gave their answers based on their own listening test papers, the topic familiarity questionnaire, and the listening strategy questionnaire that they had completed.

Data collection

Data collection was divided into two stages. In the first stage, data from the listening test, the topic familiarity questionnaire, and the listening strategy questionnaire were collected. The eighty-three participants took the listening test in seven batches over two days. They were asked to complete the test based on a unified recording. They then filled out a topic familiarity questionnaire and a listening strategy questionnaire. The whole process took about one hour, at the end of which the authors collected all the test papers and the questionnaires.

In the second stage, within a week of the listening test, an interview was conducted among thirty-two participants, with one participant each time. Prior to the interview, the authors returned the participants’ listening test papers as well as the topic familiarity questionnaire and the listening strategy questionnaire, and gave the participants about two minutes to recall the actual listening strategies they used. In order to prevent interference with the participants, the listening test papers were not labeled or graded. In the interview process, the first author asked the participants to explain the main listening strategies they had used. The participants could either share the strategies they used in the whole test or share them in combination with specific topics. The first author then asked the participants more detailed questions, for example, whether they imagined the scenario described by the speaker during the test, or what strategies they had used in combination with specific questions. The entire interview process was audio-recorded, transcribed through speech-to-text software during subsequent processing, and analyzed to document both the range of listening strategies and the frequency reported by participants.

Scoring

To investigate the impact of topic familiarity and listening strategies on L2 listening comprehension, the authors graded each participant’s listening test. Since specific scoring criteria for the subjective questions in the listening test were not provided, the two authors of this paper discussed and agreed upon a scoring scale as follows: 1 point was awarded for a correct answer, while no points were given for an incorrect answer with key information missing. However, minor spelling errors were not penalized, such as failing to capitalize a word.

Ethical considerations

All participants were given detailed information about the purpose, the process, and the timing of the study. The consent that was obtained from all of the participants was informed. All of the participants signed written consent forms to declare their participation before the study started. The participants were assured that all the information collected from them would only be used for academic purposes.

All procedures in this study are in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible human experiments committee and the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, most recently revised in 2024). In addition, this study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee, College of Language and Culture, Northwest A&F University (Approval number 20230605-1).

Data analysis

The authors analyzed the data collected. First, correlation analyses were carried out to examine the association between topic familiarity and L2 listening comprehension, as well as the association between listening strategy use and L2 listening comprehension, thereby responding to RQ1. Second, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the extent to which topic familiarity and listening strategies contributed to L2 listening comprehension, thereby addressing RQ2.

The interview data were then analyzed. The interview recordings were first transcribed into text. The specific listening strategies employed by each participant were identified. These identified strategies were then cross-validated with the quantitative data provided by each participant in the questionnaire. By comparing the responses in the questionnaire with the strategies mentioned during the interviews, it was verified that the quantitative data collected in the questionnaire was consistent with the actual listening strategies employed by the participants. This process ensured the accuracy and the reliability of the research findings.

Results

Table 1 shows the mean, SD, maximum, and minimum listening scores, topic familiarity scores, listening strategy scores, and the correlations among the three variables. Analysis showed that participants achieved an average L2 listening score of 12.11 (SD = 3.85), with observed scores falling between 5 and 23. The results suggest that the overall level of proficiency for the group of participants can be considered moderate. The standard deviation of 3.85 indicates a moderate amount of variability in the participants’ scores.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 83)

	M	SD	Max	Min	Skewness	Kurtosis	1	2	3
1.L2 listening	12.11	3.85	23	5	0.61	0.12
2.Topic familiarity	22.39	4.45	36	12	0.48	1.08	0.43**
3.Listening strategy	83.63	11.31	112	38	-0.77	2.72	0.35**	0.26**

**p < .01

From the data on topic familiarity, it can be observed that the participants’ topic familiarity scores had a mean of 22.39 (SD = 4.45), with scores ranging from 12 at the lowest and 36 at the highest. The findings suggest that participants differed in the degree to which they were familiar with the topics presented. While the maximum score of 36 suggests that some participants were highly familiar with the topics, the minimum score of 12 suggests that some participants had relatively low levels of familiarity. Overall, the group’s average score of 22.39 suggests that they had a moderate level of topic familiarity.

The data for the listening strategy variable shows a mean score of 83.63 (SD = 11.31), with individual scores spanning from 38 to 112. The standard deviation of 11.31 indicates a moderate amount of variability in the participants’ scores. The maximum score of 112 suggests some participants had excellent listening strategies, while the minimum score of 38 indicates that there is room for improvement for some individuals. Overall, the group’s average score of 83.63 suggests a relatively high level of listening strategy use.

To address RQ1, which examined the correlations between topic familiarity, listening strategy use, and L2 listening comprehension, a correlation analysis was conducted. The variables entered into the analysis included scores for topic familiarity, recalled listening strategies, and listening comprehension. Results showed that L2 listening is significantly correlated with topic familiarity (r = 0.43, p < .01, see Table 1) and L2 listening is significantly correlated with listening strategy use (r = 0.35, p < .01, see Table 1). As noted above, L2 listening comprehension showed a moderate level of correlation with both participants’ reported topic familiarity and their reported use of listening strategies.

To address RQ2, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. In the initial step, topic familiarity was entered as the sole predictor of L2 listening comprehension, followed by the addition of listening strategy use in the second step. The regression model with topic familiarity alone was significant, R² = 0.19, adjusted R² = 0.18, F (1, 81) = 18.58 (p < .001) (see Table 2). When listening strategy scores were included, the change in R² was significant, ΔR² = 0.06, F (2, 80) = 13.21 (p < .05). Overall, the two predictors jointly accounted for 23% of the variance in L2 listening comprehension, with listening strategies uniquely contributing 6%.

Table 2.

Regression models explaining L2 listening comprehension with topic familiarity and listening strategies as predictors

Model	Predictive variables	Unstandardized			Standardized		t		p		R 2		Adjusted R2		ΔR2
		B	SE			β
1	Topic familiarity	0.374	0.087		0.432		4.310		0.000		0.19		0.18
2	Listening strategies	0.088	0.034		0.257		2.563		0.012		0.25		0.23		0.06

In the second hierarchical regression, the order of entry for the predictors was reversed. Listening strategy use was entered first, followed by topic familiarity. When listening strategy served as the sole predictor, the model was significant, R² = 0.12, adjusted R² = 0.11, F (1, 81) = 11.42 (p < .001). The subsequent inclusion of topic familiarity yielded a significant increase in explained variance, ΔR² = 0.13, F (2, 80) = 13.21 (p < .001). These results demonstrated that topic familiarity uniquely accounted for 13% of the variance in L2 listening comprehension. The overall model indicates that both listening strategies and topic familiarity independently contribute to comprehension, though topic familiarity explains a larger proportion of the variance.

In order to better understand which listening strategies participants might have applied while completing the test, the study incorporated an interview component. The results of the interview (Table 3) reflected participants’ reported types of strategies and beliefs of strategy use when they coped with the challenges of L2 listening comprehension. The most frequently reported strategies, “Finding answers based on keywords” and “Understanding texts based on prior knowledge”, suggest that participants prioritized efficient, cue-driven processing and leveraged existing knowledge to navigate the listening tasks. The reported use of prior knowledge aligns with the quantitative finding that topic familiarity was a stronger predictor of comprehension. Furthermore, the prominence of keyword reliance and knowledge-based understanding is consistent with the finding that topic familiarity has a substantial impact.

Table 3.

Recalled listening strategies and frequencies in the interview

Listening strategy	Frequency
Finding answers based on keywords	31
Understanding texts based on prior knowledge	22
Not giving up even if unable to understand	14
Guessing meaning of unknown words with the help of words understood	9
Guessing meaning of unknown words based on texts	9
Visualizing the speaker’s description	5
Identifying keywords by focusing on emphasized words	3
Making inferences based on known information	3
Repeating unknown words in mind	2
Understanding overall texts and answering questions afterwards	1
Quickly adjusting when realizing incorrect interpretation	1

Discussion

Topic familiarity: association and predictive role

The study underscores the link between learners’ topic familiarity and their performance in L2 listening comprehension. The findings support earlier studies [1, 10, 18]. The findings do not support Chiang and Dunkel [11] in that their research suggested that topic familiarity may not consistently guarantee improved understanding, indicating that the influence of topic familiarity on L2 listening comprehension might be passage-dependent. According to Chiang and Dunkel [11], passage-dependent items in a test are used to assess L2 listeners’ comprehension of the information that has been presented in a lecture; while passage-independent items probe listeners’ prior knowledge of the lecture topics. The observed differences in results between the current study and the prior research may stem from variations in participant characteristics or test designs.

With respect to the role of topic familiarity in L2 listening comprehension, the present study lends support to the findings of Monteiro and Kim [10]. Specifically, the results showed that topic familiarity accounted for 13% of the variance in listening comprehension. In comparison, Monteiro and Kim’s [10] Linear Mixed-Effects Model explained 52% of the variance in listening scores, with topic familiarity contributing 5% to the model. In addition, recent empirical research incorporating affective factors suggests that the benefits of topic familiarity may be channeled through positive psychological states. For instance, Yang and Wu [26] found that L2 listening self-efficacy and enjoyment mediated the impact of motivational beliefs on comprehension. It is plausible that familiarity with a topic boosts a listener’s confidence (self-efficacy) and reduces anxiety, thereby freeing up cognitive resources for deeper processing, a pathway not measured in the current study but worthy of future exploration. Furthermore, contemporary systems models of L2 listening emphasize that topic familiarity interacts with affective factors: learners with high self-efficacy tend to leverage familiar topics more proactively (e.g., predicting content, connecting details), while anxiety may impair the activation of topic-related knowledge even when familiarity is high [25]. This interactive mechanism may explain why the predictive power of topic familiarity varies across studies. The importance of the present study lies in its reinforcement of prior evidence demonstrating the impact of topic familiarity on L2 listening comprehension. By corroborating earlier findings, this study suggests the role that familiarity with topics plays in comprehension. Moreover, the findings may carry pedagogical implications, suggesting that instructors could design materials that introduce learners to essential background knowledge across a variety of topics. They could also open avenues for further research, for example, examining the differential effects of passage-dependent versus passage-independent topic familiarity on L2 listening comprehension.

Listening strategies: relationship with comprehension and predictive power

The present research confirms a significant correlation between the use of listening strategies and L2 listening comprehension, supporting earlier findings reported in the literature [1, 6, 8]. Consistent with Wallace’s [1] observation of a strong correlation between metacognitive awareness and L2 listening comprehension (SCC = 0.41, p < .001), the current study similarly demonstrated a positive association between listening strategy use and comprehension outcomes (r = 0.35, p < .01).

Regarding the contribution of listening strategies, the findings of this study diverge from those reported by Du and Man [6]. Du and Man [6] argued for a threshold of aural vocabulary size for effective strategy use. Their research showed that person factors and strategic processing together explained 20.9% of the variance in L2 listening comprehension, with neither listening self-efficacy nor listening strategies emerging as significant predictors. Their subsequent study [23] provided a more nuanced view, revealing that metacognition partially mediated the relationship between listening self-efficacy and comprehension. This suggests that strategies, particularly metacognitive ones, may often exert their influence indirectly, through enhancing learners’ regulatory awareness and control. In contrast, the present study found that topic familiarity and listening strategies jointly accounted for 23% of the variance in comprehension, with listening strategies uniquely explaining 6%. This correlation, though moderate, aligns with Schmidtke et al.’s [12] finding that strategy effectiveness is modulated by contextual factors: in the controlled test environment (single-play aural input without background noise) of the current study, strategies such as inferencing and attention control were more consistently applied than in noisy or multi-tasking contexts, which may explain the stable positive association observed. Moreover, the types and the quality of strategy use may be governed by underlying motivational beliefs. Du and Man [24] found that intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy positively predicted both top-down and bottom-up strategy use, while anxiety negatively impacted top-down processing. The findings of the current study reveal the nuanced role of listening strategy use in L2 listening comprehension, emphasizing that while it contributes to some extent, other factors, including topic familiarity, have a more substantial impact. The difference in the importance of L2 learners’ strategy use in Du and Man [6] and the current study might be that through the interview, the current study simply showed that participants knew what strategies to use, but perhaps they lacked the capacity (e.g., vocabulary/working memory) to execute them effectively, which would explain the relatively low variance explained (6%). However, since listening strategy use was found to contribute to L2 listening comprehension, teachers are suggested to tailor instructional materials to help facilitate L2 learners’ listening comprehension, to focus on cultivating learners’ awareness of listening strategies, and to help them flexibly use various listening strategies in the process of L2 listening comprehension.

While our model identifies significant contributions from topic familiarity and strategies, which explained 23% of the variance in L2 listening comprehension, the large amount of unexplained variance underscores the established importance of other factors, such as linguistic knowledge (vocabulary/syntax) and domain-general cognitive abilities (working memory/attention), which should be integrated into future models.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study investigated the correlations between topic familiarity, listening strategy use, and L2 listening comprehension, as well as the contribution of each factor to comprehension outcomes. The results indicated significant and positive associations between topic familiarity, listening strategy use and L2 listening comprehension, though the relationships were moderate. It was found that together the two factors could explain 23% of the variance in L2 listening comprehension scores. Topic familiarity was found to explain more of the variance in L2 listening comprehension (13%) than listening strategy use (6%). Among the strategies employed, “finding answers based on keywords” and “understanding texts using prior knowledge” were reported as the most frequently used by L2 learners.

The present study has limitations. Firstly, this study was carried out among first-year undergraduates in one university and the sample size was relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future researchers are suggested to broaden the range of L2 learners, e.g., including learners of different language proficiency and different L1 backgrounds, and recruiting a large number of participants. Secondly, the interviews were conducted one week after the listening test, raising the possibility that participants may have forgotten some of the strategies they employed during the listening test. Nevertheless, because their unmarked test papers were provided in the interview, it was anticipated that the test papers would help them recall the strategies they had used. It is also suggested that in future studies, researchers measure L2 learners’ actual use of strategies during listening comprehension, rather than their awareness of strategy use. Thirdly, although this study has adopted a mixed research method, it failed to explore L2 learners’ dynamic processing and emotions during listening comprehension processes. Future researchers are suggested to explore the effects of those factors on L2 listening comprehension via eye-tracking or thing-aloud methods, in order to build a more comprehensive understanding of L2 listening comprehension.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization, Y.W. and L.H.; methodology, Y.W. and L.H.; validation, Y.W.; formal analysis, L.H.; investigation, Y.W. and L.H.; resources, Y.W. and L.H.; data curation, Y.W. and L.H.; writing—original draft preparation, L.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.W. and L.H.; visualization, Y.W.; supervision, Y.W.; project administration, Y.W.; funding acquisition, Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by Shaanxi Province Education and Science funding, China (Grant No. SGH24Y2906), Chinese Universities Scientific Fund (Grant No. 2452022037) and Northwest A&F University, China (Grant No. 2452021185).

Data availability

Data and materials are provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We declare that all participants were given detailed information about the purpose, the process, and the timing of the study. The consent that was obtained from all of the participants was informed. All of the participants signed written consent forms to declare their participation before the study started. The participants were assured that all the information collected from them would only be used for academic purposes.

All procedures in this study are in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible human experiments committee and the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, most recently revised in 2024). In addition, this study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by Research Ethics Committee, College of Language and Culture, Northwest A&F University on June 5th 2023 and numbered 20230605-1.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.