desire to master it (Wyatt, 2018a). Such challenges may strongly impact efficacy (i.e. beliefs about capability to bring about actions to stimulate learner L2 development) as teachers struggle to identify and implement effective teaching behaviours to negotiate contextual demands. Few studies have examined the influence of contextual factors on LTE beliefs; studies have considered the type of school (Chong et al., 2010; Moradkhani & Haghi, 2017; Nishino, 2009) and professional support (Göker, 2006; Shin, 2012), leading to calls for research to examine other potential influences on LTE beliefs (Choi & Lee, 2016; Moradkhani & Haghi, 2017; Nishino, 2011). By better understanding how personal and contextual variables influence beliefs of perceived capability, efficacy research may be able to provide insights for teacher development programmes.
In summary, teacher efficacy research can stimulate knowledge about teacher confidence towards different tasks, and there is strong evidence that these beliefs connect with teacher practice. Research has shown that teacher efficacy beliefs can be strengthened (Bautista & Boone, 2015; Morris & Usher, 2011; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009), leading to change in teaching behaviour (Wyatt, 2013b, 2015; Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2015). As a result, efficacy beliefs are not only of academic interest, but may also have importance for those with an interest in teacher development and the successful implementation of new policies, such as the English medium instruction initiatives of Japan and other countries.
1.2.4 Need for more teacher efficacy research
There remains much to be learned about LTE. Klassen et al. (2011) have suggested that a number of challenges remain for teacher efficacy researchers. The authors highlighted six key areas for efficacy researchers to attend to:
(1) Resolution of conceptual/measurement problems.
(2) Attention to domain specificity.
(3) Investigation of the sources of teacher efficacy.
(4) Increased attention on collective efficacy research.
(5) Internationalisation of teacher efficacy research.
(6) More diverse methodologies.
The research discussed in this book represents one attempt to respond to a number of these challenges. This book discusses a new measure for examining LTE that was created in accordance with Bandura’s guidelines for efficacy scale development (i.e. Area 1); explores the dimensions of LTE beliefs (i.e. Area 2); examines factors that may influence LTE efficacy beliefs, including sources of information that inform LTE (i.e. Area 3); identifies and discusses a collective dimension of LTE related to collaborative practice (i.e. Area 4); and represents one of the first studies of LTE beliefs carried out in Japan (i.e. Area 5). The study also uses a sequential mixed method design, drawing on multiple means of data analysis (i.e. Area 6).
Given the predictive role of efficacy beliefs on performance, and the cyclical nature of efficacy belief development, suggestions for teacher development are presented with discussion of key findings. Much work remains for LTE researchers, and Chapter 11 provides a number of suggestions on how knowledge can be extended within this developing field via future research.
The movement within language teaching towards English medium instruction, including government policies for English education that require L2-speaking teachers to use English as the teaching language, has seen a change in the demands placed on teachers. This movement has generated a resurgence in interest about teacher L2 proficiency (e.g. Freeman et al., 2015; Katz, 2017; Richards, 2017), teacher knowledge and instructional strategies (Choi & Andon, 2014; Humphries & Burns, 2015), and how these interact with teacher behaviour (Nishino, 2012). This book contributes to understanding how these factors interact, by providing an in-depth examination of the complex associations between teacher self-beliefs of perceived capability against personal and contextual variables that may influence these beliefs (e.g. personal past experiences).
These topics are discussed with respect to the Japanese high school English language teaching context, and accordingly, some of the findings presented may not be universal to other language teaching environments. Nevertheless, many of the challenges discussed in this book are likely to be present in other language teaching situations. For example, the difficulty of implementing CLT while attending to examination preparation is one faced by teachers across Asia (e.g. Hatipoglu, 2016; Li, 1998; Ramezaney, 2014). Collaborative action, whether that involves team teaching, text selection or group materials design (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017; Nunan, 1992), is another domain of activity common to most language teaching contexts.
As a developing field of study that bridges the applied linguistics and education psychology fields, there remains much to be learned about LTE beliefs and how these influence student learning. Research from a variety of teaching contexts has suggested that teacher efficacy beliefs are key mediators of behaviour, and as these beliefs can be developed via effective professional development programmes, the research discussed in this book is not only presented to extend academic knowledge about LTE beliefs, but also to highlight areas where development efforts can be targeted in order to equip language teachers with stronger agency beliefs as they attempt to bring about growth in students.
Within the applied linguistics field of language cognitions research, the use of teacher efficacy as a construct for investigating language teacher ‘confidence’ has a number of benefits. Teacher efficacy is a beliefs construct that has both theoretical and empirical support; it links beliefs, behaviour and context within a framework that shows how such beliefs can be developed (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001; Bandura et al., 1977). The theorised process of efficacy assessment and development also broadly aligns with conceptual frameworks of language teacher cognition (Borg, 2003, 2006). Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical background of teacher efficacy in greater depth, presents a brief history of research within the general field (i.e. beyond language teaching) and shows the cyclical nature of the efficacy development process.
2 Teacher Efficacy as a Form of Self-Efficacy
This chapter helps the reader to locate teacher efficacy within its theoretical framework. As Borg (2003) has noted, definitional and conceptual clarity is an essential aspect of teacher belief research, and the lack of such clarity has been a recurring problem in teacher efficacy research (Klassen et al., 2011). The first section of this chapter introduces teacher efficacy with respect to its historical research context, shows how it is now viewed as a type of self-efficacy and discusses the theoretical underpinnings of efficacy beliefs by showing how teacher efficacy relates to social cognitive theory (SCT). The chapter then clarifies how efficacy beliefs differ from other self-beliefs, before introducing the reader to the process of efficacy belief development. The chapter concludes by providing a conceptual framework by which efficacy beliefs are assessed.
2.1 A Brief History: Two Views of Teacher Efficacy
Although teacher efficacy research now clearly reflects a self-efficacy orientation, it was born from two psychology theories related to control: Rotter’s (1966) locus of control and Albert Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory. There was an early divergence in views about how the construct of teacher efficacy was viewed; one strand of research followed the locus of control distinction (i.e. the extent to which teachers perceived that they could influence student learning and achievement) while another strand of teacher efficacy research integrated Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (i.e. teacher’s perceptions of capability to bring about the actions required for student learning and achievement to occur).
The first study to investigate ‘teaching efficacy’ was the 1976 Rand Corporation study (Armor et al., 1976) of reading programmes in Los Angeles. Two items were used to investigate differences between teachers regarding their outcome expectations:
(1) When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much – most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment
(2) If I try