in Wyatt, 2010a, 2010b, 2013b), Bandura (1997: 76) has suggested that, ‘some self-doubt about one’s efficacy provides incentives to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to function successfully’. In other words, efficacy beliefs are not only driven by perceptions of success, but may also be mediated by perceptions of failure, anxiety and self-doubt. A number of researchers have highlighted the need for establishing a social environment (Cabaroglu, 2014; Karimi, 2011; Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2015; Zonoubi et al., 2017) that provides teachers with opportunities for positive efficacy development (e.g. via action research and observation) when they experience such doubts.
Thus, reflection appears to be a key aspect of the cognitive processing that individuals engage in during the assessment of their efficacy beliefs, and is represented as central to the conceptual framework presented in Figure 2.1. Self-reflective thought involves the individual noticing and evaluating information from different sources. In other words, individuals carry out ‘strategic thinking about how to manage the environment’ and evaluate the ‘adequacy’ of their ‘knowledge, thinking skills, capabilities, and action strategies’ (Bandura, 1997: 5). Such considerations integrate the four sources of efficacy information, including the role of task knowledge and perceived skill (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Morris et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), while also recognising that source information may be directly or indirectly related to experience with the task. Thus, an enactive mastery experience may directly influence efficacy beliefs via attributions of perceived success. It may also indirectly contribute to efficacy beliefs via information that is appraised by the individual, such as by providing knowledge of the task demands. The extent to which the source and knowledge are attended to (i.e. the cognitive process) is reliant on the individual, where ‘knowledge, competence, and various forms of self-knowledge and self-belief act in concert’ (Usher & Pajares, 2008: 790). As Bandura (1986, 1997) and others (Wyatt, 2015) have noted, while self-efficacy beliefs are key mediators of behaviour, they do not work alone and in isolation, thus other personal factors are likely to exert influence on efficacy beliefs (directly and indirectly). Finally, the conceptual framework develops on previous models by emphasising that beliefs and performances are located within and assessed against the contextual situation; significant changes in context are likely to lead to change in efficacy expectations (Wyatt, 2013b, 2014). This framework reflects findings presented later in this book, as efficacy sources, contextual factors and other personal factors (e.g. beliefs about language learning) appear to influence language teacher efficacy beliefs.
As Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001: 783) have explained, ‘teacher efficacy is a simple idea with significant implications’. Research has suggested that teachers with a lower sense of efficacy experience more stress, that teacher efficacy is negatively correlated with teacher burnout (Betoret, 2006; Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and that teachers with a higher sense of efficacy are more likely to be committed to teaching (Chan, 2008; Chesnut & Burley, 2015; Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Furthermore, teachers with stronger efficacy are likely to be more persistent (Enochs et al., 1995; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006) and more open to innovation and change (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Accordingly, efficacy beliefs appear to act as predicted by SCT, by mediating the reciprocal relationship between self-beliefs, contextual factors and teaching behaviour.
This chapter has discussed the theoretical foundations of teacher efficacy as a form of self-efficacy, and has shown how teacher efficacy research has developed. It has introduced research findings that have provided support for the theorised ways in which teacher efficacy beliefs develop, and has provided a conceptual model for the assessment of teacher efficacy beliefs. The chapter has also highlighted a number of areas where further research is needed, such as developing a better understanding of the relationship between individual and collective efficacy, particularly in ‘international’ contexts such as many L2 teaching situations; understanding the development of teacher efficacy beliefs in different cultural contexts; and developing a better understanding of the types of information that may directly or indirectly influence efficacy beliefs. The research presented in this book contributes to information about these three areas, and is discussed in Chapters 6 through 10. Chapter 3 focuses specifically on the smaller field of language teacher efficacy. It reviews the knowledge that has been generated from previous language teacher efficacy studies, and suggests areas where future work is needed to develop greater understanding of the relationship between language teacher efficacy and other personal and contextual factors.
Chapter 2 outlined the theoretical foundations of teacher efficacy and discussed the ways in which teacher efficacy beliefs develop and are assessed by individuals. This chapter starts by discussing the movement of teacher efficacy research into the field of applied linguistics. Teacher efficacy research in the wider field has generally been focused on North American or other European contexts; however, most language teacher efficacy research has come from West Asian settings, where research from Turkey (Atay, 2007; Cabaroglu, 2014), Iran (Abednia, 2012; Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2011; Moradkhani & Haghi, 2017) and Oman (Wyatt, 2010b, 2013a, 2013b) has advanced understanding about language teacher efficacy (LTE) development. More recently, LTE research has expanded to East Asian settings (Nguyen & Ngo, 2017; Phan & Locke, 2015; Shin, 2012), and studies have raised interesting questions about the ways in which efficacy beliefs are assessed by teachers from Confucian backgrounds.
This chapter introduces the reader to the growing field of LTE research in order to show what has been learned about the dimensions of LTE, the development of LTE beliefs and what factors are associated with stronger and weaker LTE beliefs. For structured reviews of LTE research, Wyatt (2018b) and Hoang (2018) are recommended. This chapter concludes by discussing the small body of work carried out to examine LTE within Japan.
3.1 Self-Efficacy for Language Teaching
Since the early 2000s, the teacher efficacy beliefs of language educators has received greater attention; the growth in LTE research has followed a parallel body of work that continues to explore the role of self-efficacy for language learners (e.g. Cubukcu, 2008; Graham, 2011; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Thompson, 2018). Although much of the work in this field has been carried out with teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL; e.g. Chacon, 2005; Göker, 2012; Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2015), there have also been a number of studies that have examined the efficacy beliefs of teachers of other languages such as French (Mills, 2011; Mills & Allen, 2008) and other foreign languages (Swanson, 2010a, 2010b). Other related research has investigated the efficacy beliefs of teachers working with students who use English as an additional language (EAL) (e.g. Tangen, 2007; Tran, 2015) and EAL teachers (e.g. Spooner-Lane et al., 2009).
One of the first studies to consider the teacher efficacy beliefs of EFL teachers was carried out by Chacon, who used mixed methods to examine the teacher self-efficacy beliefs of Venezuelan middle school English teachers. The study used an adapted version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and highlighted a positive relationship between efficacy beliefs and self-reported English proficiency. Referencing the teacher efficacy assessment process of Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), Chacon (2005) argued that a
lack of competency in English influences teachers’ self-efficacy because in analyzing the teaching tasks, teachers will make judgments on their teaching competence to teach students speaking, listening, reading, and writing in English. Thus, lower efficacy in teaching English would lead teachers to put less effort in motivating students to learn and value English learning. (Chacon, 2005: 269)
In other words, Chacon highlighted the important relationship between (perceived) English proficiency and teaching behaviour for teachers who use English as a second language (L2). This is a commonly noted issue in contexts where language teachers, as EAL users themselves, have noted L2 proficiency as a key attribute inhibiting their teaching