and their motivational teaching behaviors in EFL classes in Taiwan?
This section attempts to answer research question 1 focusing on the understanding of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their motivational teaching behaviors in the language classroom. In the following, a discussion on the findings of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs is presented first, followed by an explanation for teachers’ use of motivational strategies in a language classroom.
According to Bandura (1997), teachers’ self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to perform certain actions and important teaching tasks with regard to effective teaching and learning. The results in this study indicated that college EFL teachers in Taiwan perceived themselves to have higher self-efficacy for instructional strategies than self-efficacy for classroom management and for student engagement.
To be more specific, the finding revealed that EFL teachers perceived themselves more competent in dealing with students’ learning difficulties and present instruction in a comprehensible way, while they felt less competent to enhance students’ learning
motivation and classroom participation, and to manage a language classroom. The finding is consistent with the studies done by Chacón (2005) and Eslami and Fatahi (2008), in which EFL teachers in Venezuela and in Iran perceived themselves to perform better in efficacy for instructional strategies than in efficacy for classroom management and student engagement.
As for the investigation of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors, the present study revealed that EFL teachers more frequently used strategies to generate students’
initial motivation and to maintain and protect students’ motivation in comparison with the use of strategies to create the basic motivational conditions and to encourage students’ positive self-evaluation. In terms of the most frequently used strategies for generating students’ initial motivation, the teachers reported that they helped students establish a positive attitude and set up specific and attainable goals toward foreign language learning. This finding was considered critical and had pedagogical implications since a great deal of past research confirmed that a specific and attainable goal serves as an effective driving force to motivate language learners, to achieve better performance and to display great commitment toward language learning (Alison, 1993; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). On the other hand, the study revealed that teachers less frequently employed strategies to encourage students’
positive self-evaluation, especially the strategy to help students attribute their success and failure to a proper cause. The finding is worthy to be noted considering the effects of students’ attribution on their language learning (Dörnyei, 2001). As Covington (1998) indicated that “it is not so much the event of failure that disrupts academic achievement as it is the meaning of failure” (p. 75), the present study seems to provide teachers with an insight into the way they can help to motivate and improve students’ language learning.
5.2 Effects of Antecedents on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Research Question 2: What are the effects of antecedents on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy?
This section attempts to answer research question 2 and further to discuss the effects of particular key antecedents or sources on the formation of teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs. The following discussion begins with a general interpretation of the overall results and shifts to the effects of specific antecedents such as teachers’
satisfaction with their past teaching experience, teachers’ highest educational attainment, principal leadership, school climate, and teachers’ self-evaluation of pressure, on teachers’ formation of self-efficacy.
In the current study, the results of multiple regression analyses indicated that the 12 antecedents in this study significantly contributed to the prediction of teachers’
self-efficacy and successfully accounted for 33.7% of the variance to teachers’
self-efficacy. These results imply that these 12 antecedents play an important role in determining teachers’ self-efficacy. Moreover, it is worthy to be noted that there still remain a large number of unfound critical sources and antecedents possessing powerful potential to determine teachers’ formation of self-efficacy. Future research is needed to explore more powerful antecedents of teachers’ self-efficacy.
In addition to significant effects found between antecedents and teachers’
self-efficacy, the results also showed that antecedents had positive effects on the three self-efficacy subscales. Among the three subscales, antecedents were found to be able to predict teachers’ self-efficacy for instructional strategies the most, explaining 37.8% of the explained variance, in comparison with those for teachers’ efficacy for classroom management (32%) and those for teachers’ efficacy for student engagement (26%). In other words, antecedents had stronger predictive power on teachers’
efficacy for instructional strategies. These results may be explained by the nature of antecedents and instructional strategies. Since most of the antecedents such as school
climate and structure, principal leadership, teacher participation in decision making, teaching resources, and pressure perceived in school are all contextual factors related to school, it seems more likely that these school-related factors may have a strong direct impact upon teachers’ beliefs of their competence for the use of instructional strategies.
After the above discussion on the effects of antecedents on teachers’ self-efficacy, the effects of certain particular antecedents on teachers’ self-efficacy are worthy to be further discussed. First, the antecedent, teachers’ satisfaction with their past teaching experience, was statistically shown as the most powerful predictor of teachers’
self-efficacy judgments (β = .365, p < .01) and of teachers’ efficacy for classroom management (β = .323, p < .01) and of efficacy for instructional strategies (β
= .476, p < .001). To be more specific, the present study found that the way teachers perceived their past teaching performance as a success or a failure brought a great impact on the formation of teachers’ self-efficacy, particularly in the aspect of efficacy for instructional strategies. The results are consistent with the findings of Bandura’s (1997), Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998), and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2007) studies. Among the four sources proposed by Bandura (1986, 1997), teachers’ mastery experiences were the most powerful source of teachers’ self-efficacy formation (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). This suggested that teachers’ positive or negative judgments of their past performance would raise or decrease their efficacy beliefs and directly resulted in teachers’ expectation of their future performance (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Another antecedent worth discussing is teachers’ highest educational attainment, i.e., a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, or a PhD degree a teachers is awarded.
The findings in this study indicated that teachers’ highest educational attainment had significant effects on teachers’ efficacy for student engagement (β = .267, p < .05).
The results are consistent with Hoover-Dempsey et al.’s (1987) and Hoy and Woolfolk’s (1993) study. They found that teachers with a graduate degree tended to present stronger teacher self-efficacy than those who do not. A possible explanation given by Ross et al. (1996) is that “extended training contributes to the acquisition of new teaching skills and the strengthening of teachers’ appreciation of the potency of new techniques” (p.5). Moreover, another possible explanation of the findings is that teachers receiving training in TESOL or TEFL graduate school program may equip themselves with more adequate knowledge and skills in enhancing students’ language learning motivation and in dealing with students’ language learning difficulties considering great benefit derived from those courses such as EFL training, English for academic purpose (EAP), English for Specific Purpose (ESP), Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and curriculum design in the program. It is worth noting that qualitative research is obviously required to further prove the above explanations.
Furthermore, regarding the effects of antecedents on teachers’ efficacy for classroom management, two school-related contextual factors, i.e., school climate and principal leadership, were found to be on the verge of significance, exerting negative effects (β = -.183, p = .068; β = -.195, p = .062). In other words, the results showed that a more conservative school climate and a more controlled principal leadership may result in higher teachers’ self-efficacy on classroom management.
These findings are in accord with Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2007) and Lee et al.’s (1991) study, in which the principal of a school reported to appropriately take control over students’ disorder and disruptive behaviors was likely to reinforce teachers’
efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, the results were not compatible with Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) study, in which teaching flexibility offered by a principal was regarded as an important factor in developing teachers’ self-efficacy. As a matter of fact, the inconsistency could be explained by the nature of school climate
and principal leadership. To be more specific, whether absolute freedom or absolute control is all harmful to teachers’ self-efficacy formation, the best way to deal with this may be to view them on a continuum rather than on two extremes and to exercise appropriate freedom and control according to different school contexts.
Lastly, according to regression analyses, teachers’ self-evaluation of pressure was found to significantly contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy for instructional strategies ( β = -.22, p < .05). The lower pressure the teachers experienced, the higher self-efficacy for instructional strategies the teachers showed. These results are consistent with Webb and Ashton’s (1987) study as cited in Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2007) study. In the study, they found that teachers’ excessive role demands appeared to diminish teachers’ perceived self-efficacy. Another possible explanation is that teachers with lower pressure may have more time, space, and flexibility to think of what and how to teach. Gradually, their efficacy for instructional strategies may be enhanced.
5.3 Effects of College EFL Teachers’ Language Proficiency on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
As the results indicated in chapter 4, college EFL teachers’ self-reported language proficiency as an antecedent could significantly predict teachers’
self-efficacy and successfully explain 28.3% of the variance to teachers’ self-efficacy.
As for the effects of language proficiency on the three subscales of teachers’
self-efficacy, college EFL teachers’ language proficiency was shown to be able to significantly account for 33.1 % of the variance to teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategies, which was considered to explain the most in comparison with those in efficacy for student engagement (20.3%) and in efficacy for classroom management (14%). In other words, the better the college EFL teachers’ language proficiency, the
higher the teachers’ self-efficacy, especially the efficacy for instructional strategies.
These results are partially in line with Chacón’s (2005) study, in which Venezuelan EFL teachers’ language proficiency on the four skills corresponded to their efficacy for student engagement and for instructional strategies. Besides, Eslami and Fatahi’s (2008) study also presented a significant positive correlation between teachers’
language proficiency in listening, speaking, and writing and their perception of efficacy for instructional strategies in EFL classroom.
To sum up, based on the results displayed in the present study and in the two above mentioned studies, the effect of college EFL teachers’ language proficiency on teachers’ self-efficacy for instructional strategies is definitely approved, while the effect of college EFL teachers’ language proficiency on their efficacy for student engagement and classroom management has not yet reached to a consensus. This may be interpreted by a much closer relationship between teachers’ language proficiency and their efficacy for instructional strategies. For instance, teachers performing well in item 4 (i.e., provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused), item 3 (i.e., implement alternative teaching approaches in my classroom), and item 18 (i.e., respond to difficult questions from my students) on the scale of teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategies must have a good command in English to a certain extent. Thus, an impact of college EFL teachers’ language proficiency on teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategies may be identified more directly.
5.4 Effects of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their teaching behaviors?
This section aims to answer research question 3 and further to discuss the role of
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in teachers’ self-reported teaching behaviors, in particular its impact on teachers’ self-reported use of motivational strategies in a language classroom. The following discussion begins with an overview of the effects of teachers’ self-efficacy on teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors, and then moves to the impact of a certain specific subscale of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs such as efficacy for classroom management and efficacy for instructional strategies on the four components of process-oriented motivational teaching model, i.e., creating the basic motivational conditions (CBMC), generating initial motivation (GIM), maintaining and protecting motivation (MPM), and encouraging positive self-evaluation (EPSE).
First, according to the regression analyses presented in chapter four, the results indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy significantly contributed to the prediction of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors and accounted for 37.2% of the variance to teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors. In other words, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs could explain more than one third of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors in the language classroom, but the remaining 62.8% may be explained by other factors, which are still unknown and worth exploring in future studies. In addition, the results in this study also indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy could successfully account for more than one fourth of the variance in the four subscales of motivational teaching behaviors individually. Among the four aspects, teachers’ self-efficacy was found to be able to explain the first component of process-oriented motivational teaching model, “creating the basic motivational conditions for students” (37.7%), and the fourth component, “encouraging positive self-evaluation” (33.2 %) the most, in comparison with the other two components. In other words, teachers’ self-efficacy had much greater influence over how often teachers adopted strategies to create the basic motivational conditions for students and to encourage students’ positive
self-evaluation. Following are detailed discussions on some of the most powerful predictors of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors.
Among the three subscales of teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategies was rated as the most powerful and significant predictor of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors and of the three subscales (i.e., creating the basic motivational conditions, teachers’ maintaining and protecting students’
motivation, and encouraging students’ positive self-evaluation) in the process-oriented motivational teaching model. A possible explanation for this may lie in the fact that there is strong correspondence between teachers’ self-reported efficacy for instructional strategies and their use of motivational strategies in a language classroom. The close relationship between these two variables could be revealed by an investigation of the following items. For instance, item 22 (i.e., Use a variety of assessment strategies.) in efficacy for instructional strategies is closely related to item 10 (i.e. Plan multiple assessments that accommodate individual differences among your students) under the subscale of encourage students’ positive self-evaluation.
Another obvious example is item 4 (i.e., Provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused) in efficacy for instructional strategies corresponded to item 9 (i.e., Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning) under the category of maintaining and protecting students’ motivation. Due to this strong correspondence, it is more likely that the stronger the efficacy for instructional strategies perceived, the higher the frequency in teachers’ use of these corresponded motivational strategies.
Moreover, teachers’ efficacy for classroom management significantly made a contribution to the prediction of teachers’ behaviors of creating the basic motivational conditions for students based on the regression analyses (β= .288, p < .05). In other words, teachers’ efficacy for classroom management has influence on their behaviors
to form a basic condition for developing students’ motivation. The higher the teachers’
perceived efficacy for classroom management, the more frequent is the teachers’ use of strategies to create motivational conditions for students. The more likely explanation rests in the close relationship between these two. For instance, the motivational strategy (i.e., Maintain a classroom environment in which students work cooperatively) has a lot to do with teachers’ abilities to manage a language classroom.
If a teacher shows low efficacy for classroom management, the teacher might avoid adopting related strategies of classroom environment into a classroom rather than frequently use these strategies in a classroom.
Lastly, regarding the effects of teachers’ self-efficacy on teachers’ behaviors of generating students’ initial motivation (GIM), teachers’ efficacy for student engagement was found to be the variable on the verge of significance (β= .233, p
= .083). The results implied that teachers’ efficacy for student engagement including helping students value learning, improving the understanding of a student who is failing, and motivating students who show low interest in schoolwork had moderate impacts on their teaching behaviors to generate students’ initial motivation and to establish positive attitudes toward learning.