TESOL Quarterly - 2020 - Wyatt - Research Into Second Language Learners and Teachers Self Efficacy Beliefs Making The

INVITED RESEARCH ISSUES
TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their work.
These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers.
Edited by CONSTANT LEUNG

King’s College London
Research Into Second Language Learners’ and Teachers’ Self-Effi-

cacy Beliefs: Making the Connections
MARK WYATT
Khalifa University
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
doi: 10.1002/tesq.3010
M ost theoretical frameworks applied to the study of teacher motiva-

tion (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 motiva-
tion research: self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Language teachers’ self-ef-
ficacy 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:
• LLSE beliefs studies of U.S. college students learning French
(Mills, 2004) and U.S.-based Chinese young learners of English
(Wang, 2004); and
• LTSE beliefs studies of in-service teachers of English as a second
or foreign language in Venezuelan (Chac on, 2005) and Omani
(Wyatt, 2008) contexts.
296 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 55, No. 1, March 2021
© 2020 The Authors. TESOL Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of TESOL International Association
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
15457249, 2021, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3010 by Cochrane Saudi Arabia, Wiley Online Library on [31/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
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 ques-
tions 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 particu-
larly crucial aspect of professionalism in research areas where practice has
been routinized. Routinized practice may lead to insufficient considera-
tion 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 lear-
ner 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 con-
texts, 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 lear-
ner achievement (Thompson, Aizawa, Curle, & Rose, 2019).
Meanwhile, there is a growing body of research exploring the relation-
ship 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 nega-
tively as a group in public discourse and suffer from conditions such as im-
poster syndrome (D€ ornyei & 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 lan-
guage 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).
L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 297

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 insti-
tutions they do not teach in) strive to combine their research endeav-
ors. First, however, I introduce the theory.
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
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 dis-
tinguished from broader expectancy for success constructs by their
task, domain, and context specificity (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Inter-
est 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 treat-
ment predicted beneficial psychological changes (Pintrich & Schunk,
1996). Self-efficacy beliefs are now studied in areas of business, medi-
cine, sports, and education.
LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ AND TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY

BELIEFS: A BRIEF HISTORY
Research into LLSE beliefs took inspiration primarily from late 20th-
century research into self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings more gen-
erally (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 sec-
ond 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-effi-
cacy (TSE) beliefs in general education in the late 1970s. Unfortu-
nately, however, much of the early TSE beliefs research was
conceptually confused, conflating Bandura’s (1977) theories with Rot-
ter’s (1966) ideas about locus of control (Klassen, Tze, Betts, &
298 TESOL QUARTERLY

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 ISSUES IN RESEARCHING LLSE

AND LTSE BELIEFS
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). How-
ever, 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:
• “How sure are you that you can listen to and understand the
main ideas of a conversation in which a tourist requests infor-
mation and receives simple instructions in French?” (Mills et al.,
2006, p. 292).
• “How confident are you that you can order a meal in a Chinese
restaurant in Mandarin?” (Henderson, Huang, Grant, & Hen-
derson, 2012, p. 410).
• “How sure are you that you can read and understand the speci-
fic details of a one-page magazine article written in English
related to one of your hobbies (e.g., fashion, sports, music,
movies)?” (Leblanc, 2015, p. 21).
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 compe-
tence in L2 use in international contexts (Kumaravadivelu, 2001), facili-
tating 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 follow-
ing:

• Wyatt and Dikilitasß (2019, p. 6), eliciting LTSE beliefs for differ-
ent approaches to grammar instruction in Turkey through ques-
tions such as “How confident are you in guiding students to
discover grammatical meaning from examples?”
• Thompson (2020, p. 52), in Japan, asking “How confident are
you that you can provide activities in which your students can
enjoy communicating in English?”
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).
Chacon (2005, p. 263), for example, posed the following questions:
• “How much can you do to motivate students who show low
interest in learning English?”
• “How much can you do to get students to follow classroom rules
in your English classroom?”
• “To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or
example when your English students are confused?”
Clearly, using the TSES may help researchers to focus on dimen-
sions of teaching (student engagement, classroom management, and
instructional strategies) originally identified as important by Tschan-
nen-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 (Canagara-
jah, 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 Tschan-
nen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) report of the trialling stage; how-
ever, 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
300 TESOL QUARTERLY

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 pro-
duce 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 & Dikilitasß, 2019), it still appears to be rare.
LLSE AND LTSE BELIEFS: KEY RESULTS
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:
• training in listening strategies combined with scaffolding (Gra-
ham, 2007);
• introducing reading circles (Leblanc, 2015);
• providing genre-based L2 writing instruction (Han & Hiver,
2018);
• innovating a project-based curriculum to develop speaking skills
(Mills, 2009); and
• bringing the virtual world platform Second Life into the class-
room to support oral communication (Henderson et al., 2012).
Pedagogical recommendations to boost LLSE beliefs have included
addressing the affective dimensions of learning, incorporating mind-
fulness 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-Eng-
lish-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 (D€
ornyei & 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 con-
tribute to enhancing or undermining the teacher’s confidence” is sup-
ported by various LTSE beliefs studies. For example, low LTSE beliefs
and limited L2 proficiency may interact to
• shape very minimal target language use in class (Choi & Lee,
2016), to the likely detriment of L2 learning, because input for
acquisition is then reduced (Macaro, 2001), and/or
• lead to the avoidance of interactive discovery-learning grammar
activities, given the unpredictable linguistic demands managing
these activities may place on the L2 proficiency of teachers
(Wyatt & Dikilitasß, 2019).
Research could explore whether a further consequence of low LTSE
beliefs and limited L2 proficiency interacting would be reduced scaf-
folding 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 scaffold-
ing, mediated by L2 proficiency, contribute to these beneficial out-
comes. Investigations of L2 proficiency in such research should be
framed not from a native-speakerist perspective but from a considera-
tion as to what is the English needed for teaching (Faez et al., 2019).
CONCLUSION
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
302 TESOL QUARTERLY

(Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 545), and ideally the support of teachers
possessing competence, confidence, and commitment. Although with-
out efficacious teachers L2 learners in difficult circumstances may nev-
ertheless 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 tea-
cher 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 aspira-
tional” (Lamb & Wyatt, 2019, p. 530). Freed from worrying about their
L2 proficiency to some extent, though L2 proficiency can be sup-
ported 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
• examine causal as well as reciprocal relationships between LTSE
and LLSE beliefs;
• consider the role of L2 proficiency as a variable in influencing
not only LTSE beliefs but also, because teaching is a learning
profession, nonnative-speaking teachers’ LLSE beliefs; and
• investigate more fully relationships between LLSE beliefs and
learner achievement.
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:
• Researchers in the two fields could collaborate across contexts,
perhaps facilitated by the outreach activities of organizations
such as TESOL and IATEFL.
• One strategy would be for such partnerships to utilize collabora-
tive action research designs (Burns, 1999) involving both aca-
demics/teacher educators and in-service L2 teachers, with the

latter group perhaps reflecting longitudinally on their develop-
ing LTSE beliefs while also investigating the LLSE beliefs of
their learners.
• Research instruments designed to elicit LLSE/LTSE beliefs
could be developed for local contexts in consultation with local
experts, as in some recent research (e.g., Thompson, 2020;
Wyatt & Dikilitasß, 2019), while measures of L2 proficiency in
LTSE beliefs research should really be focused on the English
needed for teaching (Faez et al., 2019).
• While LTSE beliefs regarding classroom management may be of
interest, for example in preservice teacher education in Turkey
(Cabaroglu, 2014), there could be a greater focus in LTSE
beliefs research with in-service teachers on their scaffolding of
autonomy-oriented L2 learning practices (Smith et al., 2018).
• For the innovative pedagogy at the heart of research into LLSE
beliefs in technology-rich, well resourced contexts to be more
applicable elsewhere, researchers could consider L2 teacher
education needs worldwide more fully while disseminating
results and framing recommendations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the editor and two anonymous peer reviewers for their
insightful advice.
THE AUTHOR
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.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.
191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, R. (2014). What teachers want to achieve and why it matters: An achieve-
ment goal approach to teacher motivation. In P. W. Richardson, S. A.
304 TESOL QUARTERLY

Karabenick, & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp.
20–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cabaroglu, N. (2014). Professional development through action research: Impact
on self-efficacy. System, 44, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.003
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Chac on, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign lan-
guage teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.001
Choi, E., & Lee, J. (2016). Investigating the relationship of target language profi-
ciency and self-efficacy among nonnative EFL teachers. System, 58, 49–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.010
D€
ornyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.).
Harlow, England: Longman.
Faez, F., Karas, M., & Uchihara, T. (2019). Connecting language proficiency to
teaching ability: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819868667
Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection.
Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09571730701315832
Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psy-
chological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing,
40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001
Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S., & Henderson, L. (2012). The impact of Chi-
nese language lessons in a virtual world on university students’ self-efficacy
beliefs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 400–419. https://doi.
org/10.14742/ajet.842
Hiver, P. (2013). The interplay of possible language teacher selves in professional
development choices. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 210–227. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168813475944
Hoang, T., & Wyatt, M. (2020). Exploring the self-efficacy beliefs of Vietnamese
pre-service teachers of English as a foreign language. System, 96. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102422
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2009). Teacher preparation and non-native English-speaking
educators. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second language teacher education
(pp. 91–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, D.-H., Wang, C., Ahn, H. S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners’
self-efficacy profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies.
Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lind
if.2015.01.016
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher effi-
cacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35,
537–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588427
Lamb, M., & Wyatt, M. (2019). Teacher motivation: The missing ingredient in tea-
cher education. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English
language teacher education (pp. 522–535). London, England: Routledge.
LeBlanc, C. (2015). Investigating high school students’ self-efficacy in reading cir-
cles. The Language Teacher, 39(1), 15–21. https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-
article/39.1tlt_art3.pdf

Leeming, P. (2017). A longitudinal investigation into English speaking self-efficacy
in a Japanese language classroom. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Lan-
guage Education, 2(12), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0035-x
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative
competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119–144. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00084.x
Leung, C. (2009). Second language teacher professionalism. In A. Burns & J. C.
Richards (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 49–58). Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–
548. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00124
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of
English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–
76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
Mills, N. A. (2004). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation
to motivation, achievement, and proficiency (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Mills, N. A. (2009). A guide to Routard simulation: Increasing self-efficacy in the
standards through project-based learning. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 607–639.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01046.x
Mills, N. A., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety:
Self-efficacy, anxiety and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. For-
eign Language Annals, 39, 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb
02266.x
Nguyen, C. D., & Dang, T. C. T. (2020). Second language teacher education in
response to local needs: Preservice teachers of English learning to teach diverse
learners in communities. TESOL Quarterly, 54, 404–435. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tesq.551
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0092976
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
Smith, R., Kuchah, K., & Lamb, M. (2018). Learner autonomy in developing coun-
tries. In A. Chik, N. Aoki & R. Smith (Eds.), Autonomy in language learning and
teaching (pp. 7–27). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thompson, G. (2020). Exploring language teacher efficacy in Japan. Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Thompson, G., Aizawa, I., Curle, S., & Rose, H. (2019). Exploring the role of self-
efficacy beliefs and learner success in English medium instruction. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1651819
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
306 TESOL QUARTERLY

Wang, C. (2004). Self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy beliefs of chil-
dren learning English as a second language (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Wyatt, M. (2008). Growth in practical knowledge and teachers’ self-efficacy during
an in-service BA (TESOL) programme (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Wyatt, M. (2014). Towards a re-conceptualization of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs:
Tackling enduring problems with the quantitative research and moving on.
International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 37(2), 166–189. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.742050
Wyatt, M. (2015). Using qualitative research methods to assess the degree of fit
between teachers’ reported self-efficacy beliefs and their practical knowledge
during teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), Article
7. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.7
Wyatt, M. (2018a). Language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: An introduction. In S.
Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 122–140). Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Wyatt, M. (2018b). Language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: A review of the litera-
ture (2005–2016). Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 92–120.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.6
Wyatt, M., & Dikilitasß, K. (2019). English language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for
grammar instruction: Implications for teacher educators. Language Learning
Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.
1642943
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on class-
room processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A syn-
thesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86, 981–1015.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

TESOL Quarterly - 2020 - Wyatt - Research Into Second Language Learners and Teachers Self Efficacy Beliefs Making The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Quarterly - 2020 - Wyatt - Research Into Second Language Learners and Teachers Self Efficacy Beliefs Making The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Quarterly - 2020 - Wyatt - Research Into Second Language Learners and Teachers Self Efficacy Beliefs Making The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INVITED RESEARCH ISSUES

Edited by CONSTANT LEUNG

Research Into Second Language Learners’ and Teachers’ Self-Effi-

M ost theoretical frameworks applied to the study of teacher motiva-

L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 297

Self-efficacy beliefs can be defined as people’s judgments of their

LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ AND TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY

298 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCHING LLSE

L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 299

300 TESOL QUARTERLY

LLSE AND LTSE BELIEFS: KEY RESULTS

While perhaps contemplating how to refocus their studies with the

L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 301

If L2 learners are “willing and able to take charge of their own

302 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 303

Mark Wyatt is an associate professor of English at Khalifa University in the United

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

304 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 305

306 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS: LEARNERS/TEACHERS 307

You might also like