Research Into Second Language Learners’ and Teachers’ Self‐Efficacy Beliefs: Making the Connections

Most theoretical frameworks applied to the study of teacher motivation (e.g., achievement goal theory, self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory) have developed directly from research into these dimensions of student motivation, with which they retain close links (Butler, 2014). Curiously, though, this is not the case with the most widely used construct in second language (L2) teacher motivation research: self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have previously been defined as these teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to support language learning in various task-, domain- and context-specific cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social ways (Wyatt, 2018a, 2018b). Nevertheless, although this definition suggests a link between learning and teaching, the burgeoning fields of inquiry into language learners’ self-efficacy (LLSE) and teachers’ self-efficacy (LTSE) beliefs (each numbering over one hundred studies in the 21st century) have developed separately. Examples include the following: Despite both fields deriving from Bandura’s (1977) original research into self-efficacy, almost no reference is made in either line of inquiry to the other field. Consequently, notwithstanding research in mainstream education that suggests a link between efficacious teachers and motivated learners (Zee & Koomen, 2016), burning questions that remain largely unanswered include the following: What are the relationships (causal/reciprocal/and how strong?) between LLSE and LTSE beliefs in key dimensions of language learning? And how are these relationships mediated by L2 proficiency? This article aims to make connections between the fields of LLSE and LTSE beliefs explicit, with a view to supporting independent reflexive professionalism (Leung, 2009) amongst researchers. Reflexivity, which implies self-questioning one’s own beliefs and practices, may be a particularly crucial aspect of professionalism in research areas where practice has been routinized. Routinized practice may lead to insufficient consideration of the alternative research perspectives that related research fields can provide. This may be the case with LLSE and LTSE beliefs research. To provide a snapshot of current preoccupations in these research areas: LLSE beliefs researchers highlight the value of developing self-regulated learning strategies (Zimmerman, 2000) and of providing learner training in subskills of listening (e.g., Graham, 2007), reading (e.g., Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2006), writing (e.g., Han & Hiver, 2018), and speaking (e.g., Leeming, 2017). The use of innovative pedagogy has been found to boost LLSE beliefs in well resourced educational contexts, such as in the United Kingdom, the United States, Korea, and Japan. However, there is usually a lack of reference to contextual issues and “located second language teacher education” needs (Nguyen & Dang, 2020, p. 409) in different parts of the world that would impact the applicability of such methods more widely. Moreover, more of the research could investigate connections between LLSE beliefs and learner achievement (Thompson, Aizawa, Curle, & Rose, 2019). Meanwhile, there is a growing body of research exploring the relationship between LTSE beliefs and L2 proficiency (Faez, Karas, & Uchihara, 2019). Such research is often set in the expanding English-medium instruction contexts worldwide (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018) where nonnative speaker English teachers can be positioned negatively as a group in public discourse and suffer from conditions such as imposter syndrome (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Nevertheless, LTSE beliefs tend to be elicited in only general terms, for example in relation to aspects of classroom management, rather than in specific domains of language teaching/learning, investigating which is a strength of the other field; LTSE beliefs research, therefore, frequently appears insufficiently close to L2 teachers’ and learners’ concerns and contexts (Wyatt, 2018a). Accordingly, this article recommends that researchers of LLSE beliefs (who tend to have a teaching role in the contexts they are researching) and researchers of LTSE beliefs (who tend to be teacher educators or academics conducting investigations across multiple institutions they do not teach in) strive to combine their research endeavors. First, however, I introduce the theory. Self-efficacy beliefs can be defined as people’s judgments of their abilities to plan and enact behavior that may lead to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). These beliefs interact with outcome expectations, which are beliefs about the impact the actions taken by the individual will have. Self-efficacy beliefs play a central role in influencing choice of activity, the degree of effort expended on any given task, and the length of time this effort is sustained (Bandura, 1986); they can be distinguished from broader expectancy for success constructs by their task, domain, and context specificity (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Interest in self-efficacy beliefs was sparked by Bandura’s (1977) original experimental work with mental health patients fighting depression and phobias, through which he explored how different forms of treatment predicted beneficial psychological changes (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Self-efficacy beliefs are now studied in areas of business, medicine, sports, and education. Research into LLSE beliefs took inspiration primarily from late 20th-century research into self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings more generally (Pajares, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Researchers such as Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989) had focused on the development of language skills such as reading and writing, but in first rather than second or foreign language contexts. Early LLSE beliefs researchers, such as Mills (2004) and Wang (2004), drew explicitly on such influences. The origins of LTSE beliefs research are somewhat murkier, with roots that can be traced back to investigations into teachers’ self-efficacy (TSE) beliefs in general education in the late 1970s. Unfortunately, however, much of the early TSE beliefs research was conceptually confused, conflating Bandura’s (1977) theories with Rotter’s (1966) ideas about locus of control (Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011; Wyatt, 2014). Since Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), however, which has influenced numerous LTSE beliefs researchers, TSE beliefs research has generally been more closely aligned to Bandura’s (1977) theory. Methodological approaches utilized by LLSE and LTSE beliefs researchers have included qualitative case study (e.g., Wang, 2004; Wyatt, 2008), an approach that can be valuable because it can allow research participants to explore self-efficacy beliefs in relation to tasks they perceive as important in their own contexts (Wyatt, 2015). However, quantitative and mixed methods research designs have tended to predominate in both fields. Where the fields of LLSE and LTSE beliefs noticeably differ is in the kinds of questions posed research participants. The following examples are drawn from studies of LLSE beliefs: Evidently, LLSE beliefs researchers have tended to focus on specific real-world language skills (e.g., listening) and subskills (e.g., listening for gist or details). They have also frequently elicited self-regulated learning strategies (e.g., Graham, 2007; Kim, Wang, Ahn, & Bong, 2015). Real-world language skills and learning strategies are generally regarded as essential for the autonomous development of communicative competence in L2 use in international contexts (Kumaravadivelu, 2001), facilitating ownership of the L2 for multiple purposes (Leung, 2005). However, LTSE beliefs researchers have rarely elicited teachers’ beliefs regarding supporting the development of aspects of their L2 learners’ communicative competence. Exceptions include the following: In contrast, most LTSE beliefs researchers have tended to adapt (usually very minimally) an instrument from Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001): the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). Chacón (2005, p. 263), for example, posed the following questions: Clearly, using the TSES may help researchers to focus on dimensions of teaching (student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies) originally identified as important by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) in their research with preservice and in-service mainstream Kindergarten–Grade 12 (K-12) teachers in the United States. However, one might ask about the relevance of the TSES with regard to L2 learning and teaching in different contexts. There can obviously be issues about taking research instruments developed in one part of the world, changing them only minimally, and then using them elsewhere. Even if cultural imperialism (Canagarajah, 1999) is not intended, the very widespread practice of eliciting LTSE beliefs with the TSES (Faez et al., 2019; Thompson, 2020; Wyatt, 2018b) might reflect a rather monolithic view of what good teaching is; “the epistemic and value preferences” (Leung, 2009, p. 51) of the survey giver are laid bare, and the survey taker, who may be a novice in the process of working out what is important to them in their own context, is exposed to a kind of sponsored professionalism, which Leung explains to be a potentially inhibiting force in a dynamically changing educational world. Even in their U.S. context with mainstream K-12 teachers, there were doubts about one of the three factors in the TSES, as Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) report of the trialling stage; however, their conviction “that classroom management is an important element of teaching” led them to retain and indeed strengthen their assessment of this factor (p. 798). This acknowledgement in itself would suggest that researchers wishing to use an adapted version in other national contexts ought to at least use factor analysis reflexively, so that they can assess the relevance of different components of the instrument for their own context. However, in the case of LTSE beliefs research, factor analysis is frequently neglected (Faez et al., 2019), which is unfortunate since the TSES appears to work differently in Confucian heritage cultures (Hoang & Wyatt, 2020; Thompson, 2020). As an apparently rather blunt instrument, it would seem likely to produce less distinct results. Indeed, Faez et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis of 19 quantitative studies that explored the relationship between LTSE beliefs and L2 proficiency raises this issue. According to these authors, studies that used more domain-specific ways of eliciting LTSE beliefs than allowed for by minimal adaptation of the TSES reported more powerful correlations. LTSE beliefs researchers might consider, then, using not an off-the-shelf instrument like the TSES but developing their own instrument reflexively in consultation with local educators familiar with real-world language needs in the local context. While this strategy has been employed (e.g., Hoang & Wyatt, 2020; Thompson, 2020; Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2019), it still appears to be rare. While perhaps contemplating how to refocus their studies with the support of local educators, LTSE beliefs researchers could reflect on pedagogy that has successfully raised LLSE beliefs. Such pedagogy has included the following: Pedagogical recommendations to boost LLSE beliefs have included addressing the affective dimensions of learning, incorporating mindfulness training, and nurturing learners’ self-beliefs. Nevertheless, LLSE beliefs studies, typically set in technologically rich, well resourced contexts, tend to be silent on any teacher education needed for such autonomy-oriented pedagogy to be employed by others. So, second language teacher education needs (Nguyen & Dang, 2020) in places where teaching takes place in “difficult circumstances” (Smith, Kuchah, & Lamb, 2018, p. 13) tend not to be considered. This is unfortunate, given that many teachers working in difficult circumstances face constant threats to their LTSE beliefs and would benefit from increased support. One issue is that many nonnative-English-speaking teachers suffer from various overt and covert forms of discrimination (Wyatt, 2018a), including being held unnecessarily and unfairly to native-speaker standards of pronunciation (Leung, 2009) and are sometimes mocked by students for minor linguistic errors (Hiver, 2013). Consequently, they can be subject to considerable stress relating to their L2 proficiency (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Kamhi-Stein’s (2009, p. 95) conviction that L2 proficiency “plays an important role in a teacher’s instructional practices since it may contribute to enhancing or undermining the teacher’s confidence” is supported by various LTSE beliefs studies. For example, low LTSE beliefs and limited L2 proficiency may interact to Research could explore whether a further consequence of low LTSE beliefs and limited L2 proficiency interacting would be reduced scaffolding of autonomy-oriented L2 learning practices (Smith et al., 2018). Or, from an alternative viewpoint, given that the use of language learning strategies and skills that facilitate L2 learner autonomy appear to relate positively to high LLSE beliefs in well resourced contexts (Graham, 2007; Kim et al., 2015), a promising issue to investigate would be to what extent high LTSE beliefs in providing such scaffolding, mediated by L2 proficiency, contribute to these beneficial outcomes. Investigations of L2 proficiency in such research should be framed not from a native-speakerist perspective but from a consideration as to what is the English needed for teaching (Faez et al., 2019). If L2 learners are “willing and able to take charge of their own learning,” they require cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social learning strategies, the motivational drive to use them (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 545), and ideally the support of teachers possessing competence, confidence, and commitment. Although without efficacious teachers L2 learners in difficult circumstances may nevertheless still succeed (Smith et al., 2018), with efficacious teachers committed to supporting their LLSE beliefs many more L2 learners are likely to thrive. There are implications for teacher education and research. A crucial pedagogical issue is that socioculturally oriented L2 teacher education not only provides “a locally responsive curriculum” (Nguyen & Dang, 2020, p. 405) but also engages fully with teacher motivation, which is often taken for granted or ignored (Lamb & Wyatt, 2019). If teachers are working, for example, in contexts where there is social stigma concerning limited L2 proficiency, this needs to be explicitly addressed and confronted (Kamhi-Stein, 2009); the advantages of bilingualism need to be highlighted (Macaro, 2001), while learning aims need to be presented as “additive and aspirational” (Lamb & Wyatt, 2019, p. 530). Freed from worrying about their L2 proficiency to some extent, though L2 proficiency can be supported if this is what is wished for (Hiver, 2013), teachers could focus more on supporting L2 learning in contextually sensitive cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social ways (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). Both their own LTSE beliefs and their learners’ LLSE beliefs might become stronger. Such linkages require exploration. Studies could ideally Moreover, since over-routinized practices characterize LLSE/LTSE beliefs research, particularly the latter, there is an urgent need for the more widespread adoption of individual reflexive professionalism (Leung, 2009) to facilitate the out-of-the-box thinking required in study design. For example, consider the following: I would like to thank the editor and two anonymous peer reviewers for their insightful advice. Mark Wyatt is an associate professor of English at Khalifa University in the United Arab Emirates. He previously worked for the Universities of Leeds (on a BA TESOL Project in Oman) and Portsmouth. His research into teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs has appeared in various journals, including most recently in System.