Читать книгу Exploring Language Teacher Efficacy in Japan - Gene Thompson - Страница 12
ОглавлениеTeachers are people; they make choices about the courses of action they pursue in trying to influence student achievement. They have agency. By proactively carrying out and reflecting on actions they take, they not only react to environmental forces, but also have the capacity to exercise control and effect change by setting goals and regulating their teaching behaviours (Bandura, 1991). They work with students, as part of teams, and within the confines of classrooms using the technology and resources available to them. As such, they are crucial contributors to what happens in their classrooms (Bandura, 1997), and in many cases, may be the strongest outside influence on the success of their students (Hattie, 2003). The beliefs and practices of teachers have therefore become a key area of research activity.
Teacher efficacy refers to the confidence that teachers have in their capability to organise and carry out educational activities to influence student learning. The application of teacher efficacy to the language teaching field began during the early 2000s (e.g. Chacon, 2005) and has now reached a point at which reviews of language teacher efficacy (LTE) research are being released (e.g. Hoang, 2018; Wyatt, 2018b). This book introduces the reader to this developing field, with a focus on the LTE beliefs of Japanese high school teachers of English (JTEs).
This book helps readers to locate LTE within its theoretical framework (Chapter 2), explains key findings from LTE research (Chapter 3) and outlines approaches to investigate LTE beliefs (Chapter 4). It then introduces an efficacy scale developed specifically for language teachers (Chapter 5), and highlights the multidimensional nature of LTE beliefs (Chapter 6), before focusing on personal and collective domains of efficacy related to perceived second language (L2) capability (Chapter 7), instructional L2 efficacy (Chapter 8) and language teacher beliefs about collaborative capability (Chapter 9). It finishes by discussing how LTE beliefs can be developed (Chapter 10) and highlights areas for future study (Chapter 11).
This chapter introduces the background to the study, highlighting key difficulties of policy and methodology change within (and beyond) Japan, before discussing the rationale for studying LTE beliefs towards such challenges. Although this chapter focuses on language education reform efforts (and research) from the Japanese context, it also attempts to show how such movements reflect wider trends in the language teaching field.
English has become a global language of business, science and education. Foreign language – and specifically English – skill has become a commodity that enables transnational mobility for individuals with sufficient ability (Cameron, 2012). As a result, in many countries where English is used as a foreign language (such as Japan), policies have been introduced during the past 30 years with the specific purpose of encouraging the development of foreign language ‘communicative’ ability in students (e.g. see Hato, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Bui, 2016; Nunan, 2003).
These policies have generally emphasised oral communication in response to a perceived need for ‘communicative’ skills during this period of globalisation (Cameron, 2002), often due to requests from business groups, such as the Japan Business Federation (2000), who bemoaned the lack of English language ability in Japan. At the same time, there was a shift within language teaching towards communicative language teaching (CLT), an approach that focuses on meaning and authentic language use during language instruction (Richards, 2006; Richards & Schmidt, 2002). CLT was derived from L2 acquisition research that emphasised the negotiation of meaning as a crucial aspect of language development (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972; Krashen, 1981), resulting in a change in teaching methodology and policy.
Primarily, reform efforts have been introduced as part of new (and revised) national curricula. For example, policies emphasising the teaching of CLT were introduced in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (see Butler, 2011; Nunan, 2003). Beyond Asia, similar efforts have been implemented in countries across Africa, South America and in the Indian subcontinent (see Diallo, 2014; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017; Obaidul Hamid, 2010). Within Japan, curriculum guidelines are known as the Course of Study (COS). New guidelines for secondary schools were introduced in the late 1990s (Ministry of Education, 1999) with further reforms in the early 2000s by the amalgamated Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2002), referred to using the acronym ‘MEXT’ in this book. These reforms specifically emphasised the importance of CLT as a means of developing the foreign language communicative ability of Japanese.
1.1.1 Challenges to CLT implementation
Unsurprisingly, such reforms created a range of challenges for teachers and administrators, including significant gaps between classroom realities and policy intentions. Similar to the experience of other countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Senegal, see Diallo, 2014; Mok-Cheung, 2001; Obaidul Hamid, 2010), change in teaching and assessment within Japan has not necessarily followed policy directives. A substantial body of teacher cognition research investigated Japanese teachers’ beliefs and practices during the 2000s (e.g. Kurihara & Samimy, 2007; Nishino, 2008; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2002) with a focus on the implementation of CLT at the high school level and the difficulties that teachers had in implementing communicative-focused language learning. A number of structural problems were shown to limit the integration of communicative teaching in Japanese and secondary school classrooms: (1) the continuing orientation on university entrance preparation in classes at the expense of communicative activities (Brown & Yamashita, 1995; Nishino, 2008; Underwood, 2012); (2) the continuation and reliance on teacher-fronted grammar-translation (yakudoku) teaching techniques (Gorsuch, 2001; Kikuchi & Browne, 2009; Thompson & Yanagita, 2017); (3) a lack of knowledge about how to implement or adapt CLT to context-appropriate teaching practices (Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2002, 2005); (4) resistance to innovation (Cook, 2009; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004; Underwood, 2012); and (5) poor pre-service and in-service teacher training (Kizuka, 2006; Lamie, 1998; Yonesaka, 1999).
These challenges are not limited to Japan. The difficulty of implementing CLT while attending to examination preparation appears to be broadly transferable to a range of teaching contexts (e.g. see Carless, 2007; Hatipoglu, 2016; Li, 1998). Collaborative action, whether that involves team teaching, text selection or group materials design (e.g. see Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017; Nunan, 1992), is another domain of activity common to many – if not most – language teaching contexts. Pre-service and in-service training experiences (e.g. see Diallo, 2014; Li & Baldauf, 2011; Obaidul Hamid, 2010), and a reliance on teacher-fronted instruction (e.g. see Li, 1998; Li & Baldauf, 2011; Orafi & Borg, 2009), are also commonly cited factors that have limited ‘communicative’ curriculum implementation in a variety of language teaching contexts across Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Another effort to develop greater mutual ‘international’ understanding and English language skill improvement in Japan was the introduction of the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme in 1986, which involves having ‘native’-speaking (i.e. L1) non-Japanese work as assistant language teachers (ALTs) in English classes at elementary and secondary schools. These instructors work with Japanese teachers in the planning and implementation of lessons, that is, they are involved with collaborative materials design and team teaching. Similar programmes have been introduced in Hong Kong (where such teachers are known as native-speaking English teachers [NETs], see Carless & Walker, 2006; Nunan, 2003), and as part of the English Programme in Korea (EPIK) in South Korea (see Carless, 2006). The successes and difficulties of the JET and associated team teaching programmes represent a book in themselves, but generally speaking ALTs often perceive themselves to be sidelined. Team teaching represents a significant challenge for both the local Japanese and non-Japanese ALT teachers; communication difficulties and differences in the perception of each other’s role are two key problems (see Carless, 2006; Mahoney, 2004; Moote, 2003). These issues have been noted in other countries (e.g. in China, see Rao & Chen, 2019), and given that team teaching is now expanding beyond Asia (e.g. Chile, see Barahona, 2017) and may grow in use due to the integration of content and language learning (see Fan & Lo, 2015; MacDonald et al., 2012), team teaching – and the associated challenges of collaborative planning and instruction – may become of greater importance for language education researchers.
1.1.2 English as a medium of instruction
Historically, English classes at Japanese high schools have been mediated in Japanese. Reflecting the movement across Asia towards English medium instruction (see Hu & McKay, 2012), a new Course of Study (MEXT, 2011b) was announced in 2011 which mandated that from 2013, high school English classes should be conducted ‘primarily’ in English. The English translation of the MEXT (2011b: 3) curriculum guidelines stated, ‘when taking into consideration the characteristics of each English subject, classes, in principle, should be conducted in English’.
The announcement of the new guidelines led many to speculate that teachers would not or could not make such a shift in teaching practice. In a series of studies, Glasgow (2012, 2013, 2014) showed that JTEs themselves felt underprepared for the introduction of the new curriculum, and lacked ‘confidence’ in their ability to implement the guidelines. Specifically, teachers discussed a lack of confidence in their perceived L2 ability (Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute, 2011; Glasgow, 2014), and the MEXT itself recognised that only 24% of junior high school and 49% of senior high school teachers had attained the required English proficiency benchmark level (Commission on the Development of Foreign Language Proficiency, 2011). Quite simply, it seemed that many teachers just did not feel that they had sufficient L2 resources, or experiences, to use the L2 as a teaching language. Other research (Underwood, 2012) highlighted the social context of teacher practice, indicating that teacher intentions towards the implementation of the new curriculum were influenced by the teams that they worked with – where social pressure and school culture may lead teachers to reject making changes to their teaching practice.
This shift towards L2-mediated L2 instruction in Japan is similar to reforms being implemented in other countries – with similar difficulties arising. Indonesia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Nepal (see Baldauf et al., 2011; Choi, 2015; Hamid et al., 2013) are examples of countries that are moving towards – or have implemented – English medium instruction during compulsory English language education. South Korea is one of the leaders in this movement and has been steadily introducing curriculum changes regarding the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL; see Choi, 2015; Kim, 2008). Teachers have been required to use English as the primary teaching language since the mid-2000s, stimulating a significant amount of research about the impact of the policy on teachers (e.g. Choi, 2015; Kim, 2008; Shin, 2012). Research findings highlight the transferability of key challenges across contexts, as similar difficulties have been found in South Korea as those noted above for Japan. For example, teachers have had difficulty in adapting CLT to match the local context (Li, 1998), often because no specific methodology is prescribed in the guidelines beyond a mandate to employ a CLT approach (Choi & Andon, 2014). Similar concerns about a lack of L2 proficiency appear to limit the teaching behaviour of Korean teachers (Choi & Lee, 2016; Kim, 2008), while other research (Shin, 2012) has noted that teachers work primarily within teams – many of which may not support curriculum changes – leading to policies not being implemented.
1.1.3 Teacher beliefs and teaching practice
Throughout this process, a wide body of research about teacher cognitions – defined by Borg (2003: 81) as ‘what teachers know, believe and think’ – has been carried out. This is due to the generally accepted assumption that the beliefs of teachers are a key influence on their judgements of pedagogic practice and teaching behaviours (see Pajares, 1992). However, extant research of the relationship between teacher beliefs and practice from the wider field of education (e.g. Chen, 2008; Fang, 1996; Shi et al., 2014), within the smaller field of language teaching (e.g. Basturkmen, 2012; Basturkmen et al., 2004; Farrell & Bennis, 2013), and of language teachers in Japan (e.g. Sakui, 2004, 2007; Taguchi, 2002, 2005) has often revealed significant inconsistencies between teachers’ reported beliefs and behaviours.
With respect to CLT and the integration of the L2 into teaching practice, research from Japan (e.g. Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2005) and other language teaching contexts (e.g. Hong Kong and Libya, see Mak, 2011; Orafi & Borg, 2009) has often shown a divergence between (generally) positive teacher beliefs about CLT or the integration of ‘communicative’ activities and teachers actual classroom practices, which are often teacher fronted with a focus on knowledge transmission. Conflicting beliefs and contextual influences often appear to account for these inconsistencies. For example, in a study of three EFL teachers in Libya, Orafi and Borg (2009) identified positive beliefs in two participants about pair work; however, due to negative perceptions of student capability, the teachers explained that they avoided such activities. As examinations assessed students’ receptive skills, teachers emphasised preparation via translation and knowledge transmission, rather than making use of opportunities for English usage. Similar patterns are noted by Basturkmen (2012), who reviewed the relationship between language teacher beliefs and practices, finding that contextual (e.g. examination pressure and colleague support) and personal (e.g. perceived L2 ability) factors often influenced the extent to which beliefs and practices were in alignment.
Teacher cognition research has highlighted key insights into the (sometimes conflicting) beliefs of language teachers, and has helped identify important personal and contextual challenges that may limit implementation. However, one limitation – particularly in Japan – has been linking teacher self-beliefs with their intentions and/or practice. This may be due to the decontextualised manner in which beliefs have been investigated. To illustrate, some studies have compared teacher beliefs about curriculum changes or teaching approaches and their perception of confidence towards implementation (e.g. Glasgow, 2014; Hamamoto, 2012), finding that positive attitudes towards such policies or approaches were often not aligned with (negative) teacher confidence to implement them. In other words, although teachers may have positive beliefs about teaching approaches or activities when considered in a general manner, they may have weak confidence about putting them into action. This may be due to teachers assessing the influence of contextual factors (e.g. school setting, social support) and their personal ability (e.g. teaching skill, L2 knowledge) when assessing their confidence for implementation, rather than simply their beliefs about the value of the approach.
1.1.4 Teacher ‘confidence’
As greater attention has been turned to teaching via the L2, researchers within and beyond Japan (e.g. Butler, 2011; Glasgow, 2014; Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2008; Zein, 2017) have discussed a lack of ‘confidence’ towards teaching in English and the implementation of CLT. Others have discussed how L2 teacher ‘confidence’ can be developed as part of in-service training programmes, suggesting that teacher confidence directly influences teaching behaviour (e.g. Burns, 2017; Freeman, 2017; Freeman et al., 2015).
However, although research has indicated a link between confidence and teaching practice, few studies have considered the relationship within a theoretical framework of beliefs and practices. For example, a number of studies have discussed a lack of ‘confidence’ in teachers (e.g. Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2008; Slaouti & Barton, 2007; Zein, 2017), or examined factors that appear to influence confidence (e.g. Butler, 2011; Glasgow, 2014; Kurihara & Samimy, 2007; Nagamine, 2007), without discussing or defining what is meant by teacher confidence. Thus, while it seemed that ‘teacher confidence’ is an important construct that may influence teaching behaviour – particularly with respect to the implementation of L2 medium instruction – it also seemed clear that a deeper exploration of these beliefs was necessary. This represented the starting point for the research reported in this book, which began with the purpose to examine Japanese high school English teachers’ ‘confidence’ for teaching English, in response to calls for further examination of Japanese teacher self-beliefs against the backdrop of the 2013 Course of Study curriculum guidelines (Glasgow, 2014; Nishino, 2012).
1.2 Why Study Teacher Efficacy?
Confidence is a general term that refers to the certainty of a belief (Cramer et al., 2009: 322), not what the belief is about (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, perceptions of self-confidence reflect beliefs about oneself, rather than beliefs towards the achievement of a task or outcome (Schunk, 1991). Thus, a language teacher with strong ‘self-confidence’ may believe that they are a competent teacher, but may have little confidence towards implementing English medium instruction in their classroom. As a result, such a belief may not predict their behaviour, as the specific teaching task and context are not necessarily represented by the self-belief.
1.2.1 Teacher efficacy is a type of task-focused confidence
Teacher efficacy, on the other hand, can be considered as the confidence (i.e. perception of certainty) that teachers have in their ability to carry out tasks in the pursuit of teaching outcomes. Teacher efficacy is type of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997), a self-belief construct derived from the field of psychology focused on the cognitive perceptions of individuals to organising and executing the ‘courses of action required to produce given attainments’ (Bandura, 1997: 3). As Wyatt (2018a) has noted, one value of teacher efficacy is its task and context specificity. Language teachers may feel stronger or weaker confidence towards different tasks or areas of professional practice. For example, English medium instruction policies may require teachers to make radical changes to some of their behaviours. By investigating their efficacy towards different tasks (e.g. giving instructions, correcting student work) or dimensions (e.g. towards classroom management, instructional strategies), research can highlight specific areas of practice where efficacy is strong or weak. Such findings not only contribute to knowledge in the field, but may also be vital for driving development efforts; by identifying areas where teacher efficacy is weak, teacher education programmes can target specific tasks or domains of activity.
1.2.2 Teacher efficacy beliefs and teacher behaviour
Furthermore, efficacy beliefs have generally been shown to be a stronger predictor of behaviour in comparison to other self-belief constructs (e.g. see Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Thompson et al., 2019). As a result, teacher efficacy research may help bridge the mismatches identified between teacher self-beliefs and practices. There is significant evidence that teacher efficacy beliefs mediate teacher action, effort and also student achievement. As discussed further in Chapters 2 and 3, research from the wider field of education has shown that teacher efficacy beliefs are associated with greater persistence (Enochs et al., 1995; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006), openness to innovation and change (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and higher student achievement (Bolshakova et al., 2011; Chang, 2015; Goddard et al., 2000).
Despite such findings, LTE is a relatively underdeveloped area of research (Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018). Although few studies have investigated the link between LTE and teaching practice, two studies have found LTE beliefs to mediate (Nishino, 2012) and moderate (Choi & Lee, 2016) the influence of other self-perceptions and skills on language teaching behaviour. In an important study of teacher beliefs and reported behaviour carried out in Japan, Nishino (2009, 2012) found that positive beliefs about CLT had no direct influence on classroom practices, but that these beliefs did indirectly affect classroom practices via teacher efficacy beliefs towards CLT. Furthermore, the study showed interrelationships between contextual (e.g. perceptions of student ability) and personal (e.g. perceived L2 ability) factors. As a result, the construct of teacher efficacy may be useful for helping to connect teacher beliefs with their teaching behaviour and other variables.
1.2.3 Teacher efficacy beliefs operate within a theoretical framework
As a belief construct, self-efficacy developed from a desire to understand and influence behavioural change (see Bandura, 1977), and is located within a theoretical system that recognises the interactions between behaviour, context and other self-beliefs (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2012). As a result, the relative impact of different personal and contextual variables can be examined on these beliefs. By investigating the relationship between such factors on efficacy beliefs and teacher behaviour, knowledge can be used to inform teacher development efforts.
As discussed further in Chapter 2, self-efficacy is a key component of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory (SCT), a psychological theory of human agency and learning which views individuals’ self-beliefs about their capabilities as crucial for exercising control of their lives. Efficacy beliefs not only influence motivation, effort and action, but can also be strengthened and developed based on attributions from experience, feedback and affective responses (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Usher & Pajares, 2009). These attributions inform efficacy assessment, as individuals consider the skills and capability to manage task conditions that they perceive to be available to them (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Simply put, individuals who perceive themselves to have sufficient skills will be more likely to have stronger confidence towards task success, and vice versa.
As a result, teacher efficacy beliefs are likely to be reliant on individuals perceiving themselves to have appropriate knowledge and skills for successful completion of a task. These may be personal abilities, such as L2 or pedagogic knowledge. Within the small body of LTE research, a common finding has been a positive relationship between L2 proficiency and the strength of teacher efficacy beliefs (Chacon, 2005; Choi & Lee, 2016; Eslami & Fatahi, 2008). For example, in the Nishino study (2009, 2012), teacher ‘L2 self-confidence’ was also found to influence CLT teacher efficacy beliefs, and therefore indirectly influence teacher practice. Such a relationship between perceived personal language ability, CLT teacher efficacy and teaching behaviour is intuitive. However, it may be an important factor, as teacher L2 proficiency difficulties appear to contribute to the challenge of implementing CLT and English medium instruction, within and beyond Japan (e.g. see Baldauf et al., 2011; Butler, 2011; Hamid et al., 2013).
Successful task completion also involves negotiating contextual difficulties. Teachers may need specific strategies for dealing with the materials or equipment available for use. Language teachers, in particular, may work with highly motivated groups, or learners forced to study a language with little 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.
