Exploring Language Teacher Efficacy in Japan. Gene Thompson
Читать онлайн книгу.
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