Читать книгу Exploring Language Teacher Efficacy in Japan - Gene Thompson - Страница 14

3 Language Teacher Efficacy

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 behaviour, especially for language teachers attempting to implement communicative language teaching (CLT; e.g. Li, 1998; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Valdes & Jhones, 1991). Later studies have examined the relationship between EFL teacher efficacy beliefs and L2 proficiency (e.g. Eslami & Fatahi, 2008; Nishino, 2012; Yilmaz, 2011), confirming the positive relationship identified by Chacon (2005). The relationship between L2 ability and LTE appears crucial and is discussed further in Section 3.5 and Chapter 7 of this book.

Other important findings from LTE research relate to the difference between teaching a language versus other subjects. In a study of the teacher efficacy beliefs of university graduate students of French literature, Mills (2011) highlighted that the pedagogic knowledge required to effectively teach a language may be considerably different to teaching a related subject (such as French literature). Thus, the instructional strategies and pedagogic knowledge required for language teaching may be domain specific, indicating that LTE may have certain dimensions related to language capability (Nishino, 2012; Swanson, 2008) and L2 teaching strategies (e.g. instructional strategies for CLT, such as in Nishino, 2009, 2012). This domain of LTE is explored further in Chapter 8.

Few studies have explored the collective efficacy beliefs of language teachers, despite calls for such studies (Klassen et al., 2011). Accordingly, little is known about how collective efficacy operates in language teaching contexts. However, in alignment with studies carried out in the general field of teacher efficacy, L2 teacher collective efficacy appears positively related to job satisfaction (Göker, 2012) and teacher empowerment (Baleghizadeh & Goldouz, 2016). For example, in a study that examined the collective teacher efficacy beliefs of 25 EFL instructors at a foundation school in North Cyprus, Göker (2012) used Tschannen-Moran and Barr’s (2004) Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale (CTEBS) and found that perceived collective efficacy was positively related with job satisfaction. As collective efficacy beliefs appear to influence individual efficacy, which in turn affects teacher effort and practice, Göker argued for stronger group cohesion and collaboration, suggesting that ‘principals should nurture work cultures that value and support their members’ learning by modelling, guiding, and facilitating participation in professional communities that value learning’. One implication from the study was that collaboration was an essential element for encouraging stronger collective (and by association) individual teacher efficacy. Few studies have explored teacher efficacy beliefs towards collaborative practice, and this domain of activity is discussed in Chapter 9.

Given that many language teaching environments (e.g. EFL in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam) involve teachers who may have a stronger collectivist orientation (Phan & Locke, 2015), a factor which has been shown to be a mediating factor related to job satisfaction, stress and collective efficacy (Klassen et al., 2010), it seems clear that more studies are needed to understand the influence of cultural forces on individual efficacy beliefs for L2 teachers in various settings. This theme is discussed in Chapter 10.

3.2 Dimensions of Language Teacher Efficacy

As discussed in Chapter 2, teacher efficacy beliefs can be investigated at the task (i.e. towards a specific teaching activity) and domain (i.e. towards a certain area of teaching, such as instruction versus classroom management) level. In the field of language teaching, much of the research has used variations of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) TSES instrument to investigate differing domains of efficacy beliefs. The short (12 item) form of the TSES has been adapted (in one way or another) in a number of studies for use in language teaching contexts (e.g. Atay, 2007; Chacon, 2005; Eslami & Fatahi, 2008; Swanson, 2010a; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009; Yilmaz, 2011), while the longer 24-item form has also been extensively used (e.g. Cabaroglu, 2014; Ghonsooly & Ghanizadeh, 2013; Moradkhani et al., 2017).

A number of studies (e.g. Cabaroglu, 2014; Chacon, 2005; Ghonsooly & Ghanizadeh, 2013; Moradkhani et al., 2017; Yilmaz, 2011) have used the TSES in different cultural contexts without examining the underlying factor structure of the instrument. In other words, such studies have generally accepted that the three factors identified in the original study (Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, Classroom Management, see Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) are satisfactory as generalisable dimensions of teacher efficacy. In such studies, researchers have used inferential statistics to compare the strength of teacher efficacy for each factor with correlational analyses (e.g. versus perceived language capability) to highlight different areas of activity where teacher efficacy beliefs appear to be stronger (or weaker). Such studies (e.g. Chacon, 2005; Eslami & Fatahi, 2008; Yilmaz, 2011) have generally found teachers to be more efficacious towards instructional strategies in comparison to student engagement and classroom management.

However, there is also evidence that teacher efficacy beliefs (Ho & Hau, 2004; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009), including those of language teachers (Phan & Locke, 2015), operate in different ways in different contexts, particularly within East Asian Confucian contexts (Ho & Hau, 2004; Phan & Locke, 2015; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009). A study carried out with language teachers in the United States (Swanson, 2010a) used the short 12-item form of TSES to examine LTE belief dimensions, finding the same three-factor structure identified by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). In another study of 435 Iranian EFL teachers, Karami et al. (2019) demonstrated the same three-factor structure for the 24-item TSES, although the authors did identify one item (‘How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?’) with inadequate fit. On the other hand, studies using the TSES in East Asian contexts have had mixed results when the factor structure is examined (e.g. Cheung, 2006, 2008; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009). For example, in a study carried out in Hong Kong, Tsui and Kennedy (2009) found differences in the underlying factor structure. Specifically, a single factor referred to as ‘Efficacy in teaching and learning’ was identified, which comprised of items that had loaded as two distinct factors (‘Student Engagement’ and ‘Instructional Strategies’) in the original TSES. Accordingly, the authors suggested that the underlying dimensions of teacher efficacy were different for Hong Kong teachers, where ‘Student Engagement’ and ‘Instructional Strategies’ loaded together because they both reflected general Confucian cultural values regarding the responsibilities of teachers, thus were not separate dimensions of teacher efficacy beliefs for local teachers. Thus, the Tsui and Kennedy study (and others, e.g. Cheung, 2006, 2008; Kennedy & Hui, 2006) has demonstrated that the underlying dimensions of teacher efficacy beliefs may change in different cultural contexts.

Furthermore, teacher efficacy beliefs are not ‘monolithic’ (Morris et al., 2016: 24); they change by context and domain. Thus, it seems clear that LTE has additional dimensions to those identified by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) in the TSES. One example specific to LTE beliefs concerns teacher self-beliefs about their capability to use their content knowledge and L2 capability in teaching. Most LTE studies have investigated L2 proficiency as a factor related to (i.e. an influence on) teacher efficacy (e.g. Chacon, 2005; Eslami & Fatahi, 2008; Yilmaz, 2011); however, some studies have considered content and L2 knowledge not only as a skill that is drawn on, but also as a dimension of LTE (Nishino, 2009, 2012; Swanson, 2010a). For example, in a study of foreign language teachers (of mainly Spanish and French) carried out in the United States, Swanson (2010a) adapted and added to the TSES by developing the 10-item Foreign Language Teacher Efficacy Scale (FLTES). Exploratory factor analysis identified two underlying dimensions, which the researcher named ‘foreign language teacher knowledge’ and ‘foreign language teacher as facilitator’. The additional dimensions (i.e. separate from the TSES) focused on teachers’ self-beliefs about their capability to use the foreign language (foreign language teacher knowledge) and their capability to use their language knowledge as a tool to aid student learning (foreign language teacher as facilitator). Another study carried out in Japan (Nishino, 2009, 2012) identified ‘L2 confidence’ (i.e. L2 self-efficacy) as a separate belief dimension from ‘CLT self-efficacy’ (i.e. instructional efficacy for CLT practices). Thus, it seems apparent that LTE may have additional dimensions separate from those identified within the wider teacher efficacy field.

Therefore, while the use of established scales has the benefit of comparability with other studies in the field, and develops understanding about teacher efficacy across cultural contexts, the use of such scales may also fail to identify other significant challenges for language teachers in the local contexts where their efficacy beliefs operate, reducing the value of efficacy expectations as predictors of behaviour (Bandura, 1997, 2006). It is vital to remember that efficacy beliefs, as an area of interest, emerged from research concerned with the adaptation and change of human behaviour (Bandura, 1977; Bandura et al., 1977). Indeed, one of the key reasons for understanding the dimensions of teacher efficacy is that it helps teacher educators identify domains of teaching (and associated) activity where efficacy is weak and efforts are needed to help individuals take greater agency. Teachers are not only responsive to their environments – they can help shape them. Thus, gaining a better understanding of the different and various underlying dimensions of LTE may help to identify areas where education interventions may be most effective and are most needed in providing teachers with strategies they can use to be better educators.

In summary, the underlying dimensions of teacher efficacy beliefs may be expected to differ when instruments are adapted for use in contexts that may have significantly different cultural or teaching features. For this reason, LTE researchers should consider research designs that strengthen the cultural and content validity of any scales used – either by adding additional dimensions or by developing context-specific instruments. Chapter 5 provides an example of how this was attempted in the research presented in this book, while Chapter 6 discusses the dimensions of Japanese high school teacher of English (JTE) efficacy beliefs. Results indicate context-specific domains of LTE beliefs in Japan reflecting local teaching challenges.

3.3 Development of Language Teacher Efficacy Beliefs

Gaining a better understanding about how LTE beliefs develop can provide insights into how teacher education programmes can be structured (i.e. towards domains such as discipline or instruction), as well as suggesting the types of instruction or experiences that are needed (e.g. teaching practice, feedback or observation opportunities). Research on LTE development has mirrored the general trends from the wider teacher efficacy field, identifying enactive mastery experiences via personal experience (Atay, 2007; Karimi, 2011; Zonoubi et al., 2017) as the key source of stronger efficacy beliefs. For example, in an experimental study of 60 teachers carried out in Iran (treatment group of 30, control group of 30), Karimi (2011) found that teachers who participated in a professional development course, which involved three modules related to language teaching practice, had significantly higher teacher self-efficacy beliefs at the end of the course in comparison to the control group who received no training. As the course involved a teaching practicum, the researchers attributed the increase to enactive mastery experiences.

Similarly, Zonoubi et al. (2017) investigated the influence of participation in a professional learning community (PLC) on 10 EFL teachers in Iran. Teachers participated in two six-month modules and were interviewed using self-efficacy prompts developed by Abednia (2012). Thematic analysis of interview findings identified developments in participants’ pedagogic self-efficacy (i.e. towards instruction), as well as perceived language proficiency. The researchers found that all sources of efficacy development were present, as

the participants’ experience of taking part in the PLC interventions afforded them the opportunity to observe accomplishments in their own teaching (mastery experiences) and their peers’ (vicarious experiences), to receive positive and constructive feedback from their colleagues and supervisors on their contributions to the PLC discussions, their teaching performance, and their professional growth (social persuasion), and to gain a sense of pleasure and satisfaction as a result of observing their own and peers’ professional development (emotional states). (Zonoubi et al., 2017: 9)

Thus, it seems clear that professional development activities provide efficacy development information, as different activities (e.g. teaching practice, observation) may act as specific sources (i.e. enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences) of influence on teacher efficacy beliefs. Zonoubi et al. (2017) also emphasised the role of peer and supervisor feedback as contributors to stronger efficacy beliefs, and such feedback is often a reinforcement of personal mastery, indicating (as discussed in Chapter 2) that different sources of efficacy development information may be working together in a united fashion.

The relationship between pedagogic skill and efficacy belief development is a common feature of LTE research. In a series of studies, Wyatt (e.g. 2010a, 2010b, 2013b, 2015) emphasised the importance of reflection as part of the process of efficacy belief development. Personal experiences (i.e. enactive mastery experiences) were a key source of efficacy information, due to a focus on experimentation in practice followed by reflection. In some of these studies (e.g. Wyatt, 2010a, 2010b; Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2015), the participants may have been going through the process of skill development (i.e. were relatively novice teachers who may not have had sufficient knowledge to implement new teaching strategies). For such teachers, both positive and negative personal experiences, including self-doubts (see Wheatley, 2002), may act as drivers of efficacy belief development as they learn about the areas of practice where skill improvement is needed (Bandura, 1997).

Such individuals can be differentiated from teachers who have (supposedly) developed the necessary skills for language teaching. Indeed, in self-efficacy theory, Bandura (1997: 75–76) considered the skill development phase as separate from ‘the use of established skills to manage situational demands’. In other words, efficacy doubts may be useful drivers of reflection and may stimulate efficacy development for language teachers who perceive themselves to be lacking in skill. However, at the point where teachers perceive themselves to have the required skills, such doubts may negatively influence efficacy beliefs. This highlights a personal factor that appears to be an important source of efficacy information, which is years of teaching experience. Although time, itself, is not necessarily a specific source, a number of studies (Ghonsooly & Ghanizadeh, 2013; Swanson, 2010a) have shown teaching experience to be positively related to stronger teacher self-efficacy beliefs.