EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices

EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices Abstract In this study, we explored the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices using a mixed-methods approach. A total of 190 secondary school EFL teachers completed questionnaires on their self-efficacy beliefs and current teaching practices, and 11 teachers participated in one-to-one interviews. Results indicated that overall self-efficacy beliefs were significantly associated with the use of teaching practices that were student-centred and L2 interaction-focused. Among three sub-types of self-efficacy (instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management), classroom management was a significant predictor of communicative versus non-communicative teaching practices. Classroom management efficacy positively contributed to using communicative practices and was negatively associated with non-communicative practices. Interview data revealed that sociocultural factors and beliefs about ‘ideal’ ways of teaching English also influenced the association between efficacy beliefs and actual teaching. We also found that the two constructs had a circular relationship; the accumulated experience of a particular practice in turn influenced teachers’ self-efficacy. Introduction What teachers know, think, and believe is closely related to what they actually do in the classroom. In particular, their self-perceptions of teaching capabilities, termed ‘teachers’ self-efficacy’ or ‘efficacy beliefs’, are recognized as a powerful aspect of teachers’ perceptions because teachers engage in tasks in which they feel competent and avoid those in which they do not (Bandura 1997). Thus, Bandura considered self-efficacy as one of the most central psychological mechanisms that affect action. General educational research has found that teachers’ self-efficacy not only directly affects the choices of teaching practices but also influences the overall teaching environment. For example, highly self-efficacious teachers believe that they can bring about positive changes in student learning, while those with a low level of self-efficacy believe that external factors exert a more powerful influence on student learning than their own teaching (Gibson and Dembo 1984). Over the past decade, however, only a few studies explored L2 teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to their teaching. Noting that self-efficacy is specific to subject matters and contexts (Bandura ibid.), we aimed to fill this gap in the L2 teacher literature by examining the relationship between EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and two distinct teaching practices: communication-focused and non-communication-focused practices. We employed a mixed-methods approach by using a large set of survey data and incorporating individual teacher’s voices into our data analysis, guided by the following research question: How is EFL teachers’ self-efficacy associated with their use of communicative versus non-communicative teaching practices? Literature review Teachers’ self-efficacy Empirical research has provided compelling evidence for the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy on teacher motivation and teaching behaviours. For example, teachers with a strong sense of efficacy are likely to exert greater commitment to teaching and demonstrate persistence in the face of difficulties (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). Additionally, teachers who feel confident about their teaching seem more receptive to implementing innovative, diverse, and individualized teaching practices (Wertheim and Leyser 2002). In terms of classroom management, highly efficacious teachers tend to emphasize student interaction and autonomy, whereas teachers with low efficacy beliefs tend to have an authoritarian orientation with rigid control of students and reliance on extrinsic inducements (Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy 1990). Additionally, teachers’ efficacy beliefs also serve as a driving force for change in teaching practice (Smylie 1988). L2 teaching practices In recent decades, L2 teaching methodologies have shifted from traditional grammar-focused and teacher-centred approaches to more communicative and learner-centred approaches. However, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Even within communication-focused practices, language form and teacher-centred activities have continued to receive attention, albeit with differing degrees of emphasis. In the actual L2 classroom, teachers do not necessarily use one approach but tend to be eclectic, using several techniques and strategies according to their different teaching contexts. However, the two broad teaching approaches, communicative and non-communicative, are different because they are based on two contrasting views of how languages are learnt, and their instructional objectives and tasks are distinct from each other. Research has indicated that form- and meaning-focused tasks tend to generate different classroom interactions and opportunities for language use (Savignon 1991). While we acknowledge that these two are not the only methodologies for teaching English as an L2, we have compared communicative teaching and traditional non-communicative teaching as the two most commonly used, but somewhat distinctive, teaching practices in our study. English teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices Recent research on ESL/EFL teachers has examined self-efficacy in relation to other teacher characteristics such as target language proficiency and emotional intelligence. However, only a few studies have investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and instructional practices. In a study of Japanese EFL teachers, Nishino (2012) found there was an association between efficacy beliefs and teaching, but the study measured communicative practices only. Chacón (2005) and Eslami and Fatahi (2008) examined both grammar- and communication-focused practices in relation to self-efficacy among EFL teachers in Venezuela and Iran, respectively. Yet, these two studies provide at best correlation coefficients on the relationship, a statistical method that seems limited in explaining the complicated dynamics of the variables. Chacón’s interview data only revealed Venezuelan teachers’ heavier focus on grammar, and did not explore the relationship between communicative and non-communicative practices. Such exploratory findings therefore call for further research to refine our understanding of the relationship between EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom practices. Teaching English in South Korea The current study investigated how efficacy beliefs contributed to teaching practices among secondary EFL teachers in South Korea. Until the 1990s, secondary English education had mainly focused on grammar and translation. Later, the Ministry of Education adopted the sixth National Curriculum (1992–1996) with a functional syllabus heavily focusing on fluency over accuracy. By adding an increased emphasis on language form, the Ministry proposed a grammatical-functional syllabus through the seventh National Curriculum (1996–present). A revision of the seventh Curriculum further emphasized learner-centred and task-based instruction and teaching English through English (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology 2008). Accordingly, non-native English-speaking teachers have increasingly subscribed to the principles of communicative teaching in recent decades (Shin 2012). However, teachers simultaneously feel pressured to teach English in traditional, teacher-centred ways because of high-stakes exams that primarily assess reading comprehension and grammar/vocabulary knowledge (Shin ibid.). Method Participants The participants were 190 non-native EFL teachers at Korean secondary schools (see Table 1; all names are pseudonyms). They were recruited from the government’s in-service teacher training programmes and from a professional networking group for school teachers. Upon completing the questionnaire, 11 teachers agreed to participate in individual interviews. Table 1 Participant information (N = 190) School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  View Large Table 1 Participant information (N = 190) School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  View Large Questionnaire instruments We developed a questionnaire with three subsections. The first section collected the teachers’ demographic information. The second and third sections asked teachers to rate their self-efficacy levels and to report the frequency with which several teaching practices were used ( Appendices 1 and  2). Teachers’ self-efficacy We operationalized the notion of EFL teachers’ self-efficacy through three sub-efficacies: instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management. Although we acknowledge that self-efficacy may not be limited to the three subsets, we saw their overriding importance in assessing self-efficacy in general education research (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy op.cit.). The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation’s (2008) definition of ‘competent English teachers’ as those having abilities in the three areas was also helpful. We adopted 20 items from two pre-existing surveys from teacher education research (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy op.cit.; Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, and Ellett 2008) and modified them in consideration of the construct’s task-specific nature and the local educational context (Bandura op.cit.). As English teaching involves L2 interaction, we added an item asking about teachers’ efficacy in encouraging students to use English. We used a 6-point rating scale, with 1 indicating ‘cannot do it at all’ and 6 indicating ‘highly certain can do it’. We categorized the 21 items into three sub-scales, but they were randomly ordered in the questionnaire. The instructional strategies sub-scale (eight items) asked about teachers’ efficacy in using specific instructional methods. The student engagement sub-scale (seven items) asked about teachers’ capabilities to motivate and engage students with English learning. The classroom management sub-scale (six items) dealt with the management of the classroom atmosphere and student behaviours. Pedagogical practices We developed survey items on a 6-point rating scale (1 = Never; 6 = Always) to measure how frequently teachers employed particular teaching practices, based on previous research (Richards 2006). In line with Richards (ibid.), we define ‘communicative teaching’ as an instructional approach that focuses on contextualized L2 communication and student interaction, with a goal of developing communicative competence (five items). Traditional non-communicative teaching refers to practices that emphasize grammar rules and translation/reading skills in a teacher-fronted manner (three items). The interviews We conducted semi-structured interviews with three prepared questions ( Appendix 3), in order to elicit qualitative information about the relationship between self-efficacy and teaching practices. Eleven teachers participated in one-to-one phone interviews in Korean. Each interview lasted for 30 to 40 minutes and was audio-recorded. Data analyses To offer construct validity in scale development of the questionnaires, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses on the sub-scales and calculated their reliabilities, and found that each sub-scale had reasonable to high internal consistency. Next, we performed a correlational analysis and multiple regressions in order to investigate the statistical relationships between self-efficacy and teaching practices. We analysed the interview responses by linking them to each participant’s questionnaire answers. Then, we went through reiterative processes of comparing the data within and across participants. These processes involved analytical techniques such as counting, making contrasts and comparisons, noting relationships between variables, and checking the possible meanings of outliers. Results and findings Questionnaire results We conducted a bivariate correlational analysis between the three self-efficacy sub-scales and the two teaching approaches (Table 2) to investigate the relationships among the variables. All sub-scales and the total score of self-efficacy were significantly and positively associated with communicative teaching. In other words, teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy tended to use communication-focused practices more frequently. However, no significant correlation was found between overall self-efficacy scores and non-communicative teaching, and none of the self-efficacy sub-scales were correlated with non-communicative teaching. This result indicated that the levels of self-efficacy scores, whether higher or lower, did not predict any prevalence for non-communicative teaching. Table 2 Correlations of self-efficacy and teaching practices   IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04    IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04  Notes: *p < 0.05. CM = classroom management; CT = communicative teaching; IS = instructional strategy; NCT = non-communicative teaching; SE = student engagement. View Large Table 2 Correlations of self-efficacy and teaching practices   IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04    IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04  Notes: *p < 0.05. CM = classroom management; CT = communicative teaching; IS = instructional strategy; NCT = non-communicative teaching; SE = student engagement. View Large We then conducted two simultaneous multiple regressions to examine the contributions of the three sub-efficacies to teaching practices (Table 3). The three efficacy predictors together contributed to 17% of teachers’ individual differences in using communication-focused practices. Among the three sub-efficacies, only classroom management significantly predicted communicative teaching, meaning that the higher efficacy beliefs in classroom management were, the more likely teachers were to use communication-focused practices. Efficacies in instructional strategies and student engagement had no effects on communicative teaching. Put another way, if teachers have stronger efficacy beliefs in classroom management, they will readily employ communicative teaching, no matter what their self-efficacy levels are in instructional strategies and student engagement. Table 3 Regressions of teaching practices on self-efficacy sub-scales     B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*      B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*  Notes: *p < .05 after Bonferroni corrections. CM = classroom management; IS = instructional strategy; SE = student engagement. View Large Table 3 Regressions of teaching practices on self-efficacy sub-scales     B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*      B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*  Notes: *p < .05 after Bonferroni corrections. CM = classroom management; IS = instructional strategy; SE = student engagement. View Large The three self-efficacy predictors together contributed to four per cent of teachers’ individual differences in using non-communicative practices. Among the three sub-efficacy factors, only classroom management significantly but negatively predicted non-communicative teaching, meaning that the higher efficacy beliefs in classroom management were, the less likely teachers were to use non-communicative teaching practices. Instructional strategies and student engagement had no significant effects on non-communicative teaching. In other words, irrespective of self-efficacies in instructional strategies and student engagement, teachers’ self-confidence in classroom management seems connected to their decision of whether they use non-communicative teaching practices. Interview findings As shown in Table 4, highly self-efficacious teachers tended to report their higher self-confidence in communicative teaching or both communicative and non-communicative teaching (four of six teachers), whereas teachers with low efficacy beliefs felt less comfortable with communicative practices (four of five teachers). We identified the following three findings illuminating the relationship between self-efficacy and teaching practices. Table 4 Interviewee background information and responses (n = 11) Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Notes: C = communicative teaching; M = men; NC = non-communicative teaching; W = women. a‘Average’ refers to the overall self-efficacy mean among 190 teachers. View Large Table 4 Interviewee background information and responses (n = 11) Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Notes: C = communicative teaching; M = men; NC = non-communicative teaching; W = women. a‘Average’ refers to the overall self-efficacy mean among 190 teachers. View Large First, teachers’ instructional focus seemed influenced by their ability to manage student behaviours and class procedures while carrying out activities. Teachers with higher efficacy in non-communicative practices believed that it is easier to predict and control student behaviours with this type of teaching, whereas communicative practices require teachers to meet unexpected situations (Namgi, Sooah, Jumee, and Eunjee). For example, Jumee emphasized that teacher-centred grammar teaching is very structured and easy to implement and requires much less preparation time. In contrast, teachers with higher efficacy in communication-focused practices felt that they were more capable of managing their classes when students worked on communicative activities (Dongjoo and Hyunsoo). For example, Dongjoo responded that she found it much more difficult to manage structured teacher-centred teaching because she had to talk for the entire 50-minute class while simultaneously waking up students who were dozing off, whereas she felt it was easier to manage students and procedures during interactive tasks. These interview responses resonate with our questionnaire result that teachers with higher self-efficacy in classroom management tended to use communicative practices more frequently. Second, teachers’ beliefs about desirable English teaching seemed to influence the association between self-efficacy and teaching practices. Two teachers (Eunjee and Jungwon) had higher confidence in non-communicative teaching, with their overall efficacy scores being lower than the average of 190 teachers (Mean = 4.51). However, these teachers explicitly expressed their beliefs in communication-based practices as the more desirable approach to English teaching and their willingness to teach in more communicative ways in the future. Another teacher (Kyungmin), who reported comparable confidence levels in communicative and non-communicative teaching, also expressed a greater sense of accomplishment as an EFL teacher when delivering communicative teaching even though she felt non-communicative teaching was easier for controlling the class. This finding implies that beliefs about desirable teaching approaches may serve as a driving force for employing communicative practices in teachers’ actual teaching despite their low sense of efficacy in communicative practices. Finally, regardless of overall self-efficacy levels, many interviewees pointed out that the accumulated experience of a particular practice influenced their efficacy beliefs about using the practice more frequently. For example, two high school teachers (Jumee and Jungwon) had a greater focus on grammar and translation in their teaching because of the direct influence of college entrance exams, and they commented that their more extensive experience with this approach seemed to explain their higher efficacy in it. A middle school teacher (Yeji) replied that she was eclectic in her teaching because she adopted more grammar-focused teaching when preparing for standardized exams but more communication-focused teaching when exam pressures were relatively less. This more flexible teaching environment at the middle school level might have helped her to gain experience in communicative teaching and feel efficacious in both communicative and non-communicative teaching. Students’ English proficiency also influenced teachers’ accumulation of experiences in specific teaching practices. For example, Hyunsoo, although his overall self-efficacy was lower than the average of 190 teachers, reported that his students at a highly renowned private high school had English proficiency sufficient for communicative activities. Thus, he used communicative practices more frequently and became more efficacious in the approach. In contrast, Jungwon, teaching at a public high school in a low socio-economic neighbourhood, felt that her students did not have sufficient English proficiency and thus had mostly used grammar-focused, non-communicative practices. She further commented that her lack of experience with communicative teaching resulted in her lower confidence in communicative teaching. It seems that these external factors influence the relationship between self-efficacy and pedagogical practices, and the accumulated experience of particular practices in turn influences teachers’ self-efficacy. Discussion We identified the following three main findings that explain the relationship between self-efficacy and teaching practices among the participating teachers. Role of teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching Our findings highlight the relatively more important role of teachers’ self-efficacy for interactive and communicative English teaching than for non-communicative teaching. Each of the three efficacy sub-scales was significantly correlated with communicative teaching but not with non-communicative teaching, a finding that partially agrees with Eslami and Fatahi’s study (op.cit.) but is different from Chacón’s (op.cit.). A strong sense of teaching efficacy would be more likely to lead teachers to employ activities conducive to L2 communication and interaction. In interviews, highly self-efficacious teachers reported their stronger self-confidence in using communicative practices or both approaches, whereas teachers with low efficacy beliefs felt less comfortable with communicative practices. Our regression analyses further illuminated the role of self-efficacy for the two different teaching approaches. Self-efficacy explained 17% of the variance of communicative teaching but only 4% of the variance of non-communicative teaching. One possible interpretation is that the teachers in general seemed more familiar with non-communicative teaching because of their past learning and training experiences. Consequently, the teachers had sufficiently high capabilities in teacher-centred teaching regardless of efficacy levels, so their efficacy beliefs did not significantly influence their actual decisions to use non-communicative practices. In contrast, teachers may need sufficiently high levels of feelings of competence in order to employ communicative practices because of their lack of experience in communicative teaching as learner and teacher. Our finding provides an important implication for teacher education as it demonstrates the importance of heightening teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs if the field is to promote more student-centred, communicative English education than is currently being provided in some contexts. Efficacy in classroom management Among the three self-efficacy sub-scales, only classroom management was significantly associated with teaching practices, but the nature of the association was found to be different for communicative and non-communicative practices. Higher efficacy beliefs in classroom management are likely to lead teachers to employ communicative teaching. Conversely, teachers who feel less capable in classroom management will be more prone to using non-communicative teaching. Interviewees commented on the different natures of the two teaching approaches: interactive and unpredictable versus structured and predictable. Teachers who felt comfortable with rigid control of students and structured class procedures felt more efficacious with non-communicative teaching. In contrast, those who felt capable of controlling students during interactive tasks tended to use communicative teaching methods actively in their teaching. This finding resonates with previous research about other content classes in which less efficacious teachers tend to show more rigid and authoritarian orientations with regard to student behaviours (Woolfolk et al. op.cit.; Wertheim and Leyser op.cit.). Although the L2 field theoretically supports the importance of teachers’ control and authority in learner-centred, communicative instruction, the importance of teachers’ self-efficacy in interaction management and class control has been underexplored in empirical research. Our study provides a new contribution to the field by revealing that self-efficacy in classroom management is a significant antecedent of teaching in the L2 classroom. Complicated natures of self-efficacy and teaching practices Social cognitive theory suggests that efficacy beliefs and teaching have a circular relationship (Bandura op.cit.). Our interview data provided evidence that the experience of successful communicative teaching increases the sense of competence in teaching EFL communicatively, and this increased sense of efficacy creates new successful experiences. In contrast, the more teachers avoid using communicative practices, the more they lose confidence in this type of teaching. Therefore, the shortage of experiences with communicative teaching can negatively influence the development of teachers’ self-efficacy. As Bandura (op.cit.) postulated, the most effective way of developing strong efficacy beliefs is through the accumulation of successful experiences; this cyclical nature makes efficacy beliefs very powerful for teachers’ professional development. We also found that sociocultural factors and other teacher characteristics may influence the relationship between self-efficacy and pedagogical practices. For example, sociocultural environments can constrain the use of communicative teaching even among highly efficacious teachers and thus deprive EFL teachers of opportunities to develop further efficacy for communicative teaching. Teachers’ beliefs about desirable English teaching practices also seem to have the potential of guiding teachers to reflect on their current teaching and incorporate their beliefs into their teaching despite their current low sense of efficacy about those practices. Our findings highlight the complicated relationships among environmental factors, efficacy beliefs, and pedagogical practices. Pedagogical implications Our study has several implications for teacher education. First, teacher training programmes should provide teachers with sufficient opportunities to learn how to teach communicatively, accumulate successful teaching experiences, and strengthen their sense of teaching efficacy. Particularly, guiding trainees about how to manage students and procedures during interactive and student-centred tasks is as important as helping them improve their L2 linguistic knowledge. More experienced teachers or trainers should provide guidance, feedback, and support to enhance mastery experiences. Modelling of successful communicative teaching and the sharing of effective teaching strategies are such examples. Opportunities to observe other teachers’ effective teaching will be another way for trainees to learn through vicarious experiences. Also, teacher educators should be aware of differing self-efficacy levels and prior experiences among their trainees, and work individually with them in a counselling role when necessary. Teacher educators may monitor teachers’ progress or changes in self-efficacy and accordingly modify training methods. Our finding about the circular relationship between self-efficacy and teaching supports the importance of continued teacher development even after trainees exit training programmes. To achieve this goal, teacher educators should help trainees to practise self-reflection and monitoring of their beliefs and teaching practices. Eunjeong Choi recently earned a doctoral degree from the University of Texas at Austin and is currently a teaching faculty at the City University of Seattle. Her scholarship encompasses computer-mediated communication, intercultural aspects of learning and teaching, technology-assisted language learning, and language teacher education. Juhee Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Education at Gyeongsang National University, South Korea. Her research interests include reading and writing connections, communicative language teaching, learner motivations and attitudes, language teaching methodology, technology-mediated language teaching, and teacher education. Email: juheelee.carpediem@gmail.com References Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control . New York: W. H. Freeman. Chacón, C. T. 2005. ‘ Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela’. Teaching and Teacher Education  21/ 33: 257– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett J. J., Olivier D. F., and Ellett C. D.. 2008. ‘ Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: development and use of the TEBS-self’. Teaching and Teacher Education  24/ 3: 751– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Eslami, Z. R. and Fatahi A.. 2008. ‘ Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional strategies: a study of nonnative EFL teachers in Iran’. TESL-EJ  11/ 4: 1– 19. Gibson, S. and Dembo M. H.. 1984. ‘ Teacher efficacy: a construct validation’. Journal of Educational Psychology  76/ 4: 569– 82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. 2008. Required Competences and Evaluation Areas for Secondary English Teachers . Seoul: KICE. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. 2008. Guide of the Revised 7th Curriculum: Middle School Curriculum . Seoul: Korean Textbook Publisher. Nishino, T. 2012. ‘ Modeling teacher beliefs and practices in context: a multimethods approach’. The Modern Language Journal  96/ 3: 380– 99. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Richards, J. 2006. Communicative Language Teaching Today . Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Savignon, S. J. 1991. ‘ Communicative language teaching: state of the art’. TESOL Quarterly  25/ 2: 261– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Shin, S-K. 2012. ‘ It cannot be done alone: the socialization of novice English teachers in South Korea’. TESOL Quarterly  46/ 3: 542– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Smylie, M. A. 1988. ‘ The enhancement function of staff development: organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change’. American Educational Research Journal  25/ 1: 1– 30. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy A.. 2001. ‘ Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct’. Teaching and Teacher Education  17/ 7: 783– 805. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wertheim, C. and Leyser Y.. 2002. ‘ Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers’. The Journal of Educational Research  96/ 1: 54– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff B., and Hoy W. K.. 1990. ‘ Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students’. Teaching and Teacher Education  6/ 2: 137– 48. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Appendix 1 Survey of self-efficacy (all items begin with ‘I can’) Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  View Large Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  View Large Appendix 2 Survey of teaching practices Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  View Large Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  View Large Appendix 3 Interview questions 1 What is the focus of your current teaching, and what types of teaching activities and techniques do you usually use? 2 How much are you confident about your capabilities to perform communicative teaching vs. non-communicative teaching (that is, grammar/translation-focused, teacher-fronted teaching) regardless of the focus of your current teaching? 3 Explain reasons and factors that may have contributed to strong or weak assessments of your capabilities to perform communicative versus non-communicative teaching. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png ELT Journal Oxford University Press

EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices

ELT Journal , Volume Advance Article (2) – Nov 28, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/efl-teachers-self-efficacy-and-teaching-practices-9tfLFbRQAN
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
ISSN
0951-0893
eISSN
1477-4526
D.O.I.
10.1093/elt/ccx046
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract In this study, we explored the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices using a mixed-methods approach. A total of 190 secondary school EFL teachers completed questionnaires on their self-efficacy beliefs and current teaching practices, and 11 teachers participated in one-to-one interviews. Results indicated that overall self-efficacy beliefs were significantly associated with the use of teaching practices that were student-centred and L2 interaction-focused. Among three sub-types of self-efficacy (instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management), classroom management was a significant predictor of communicative versus non-communicative teaching practices. Classroom management efficacy positively contributed to using communicative practices and was negatively associated with non-communicative practices. Interview data revealed that sociocultural factors and beliefs about ‘ideal’ ways of teaching English also influenced the association between efficacy beliefs and actual teaching. We also found that the two constructs had a circular relationship; the accumulated experience of a particular practice in turn influenced teachers’ self-efficacy. Introduction What teachers know, think, and believe is closely related to what they actually do in the classroom. In particular, their self-perceptions of teaching capabilities, termed ‘teachers’ self-efficacy’ or ‘efficacy beliefs’, are recognized as a powerful aspect of teachers’ perceptions because teachers engage in tasks in which they feel competent and avoid those in which they do not (Bandura 1997). Thus, Bandura considered self-efficacy as one of the most central psychological mechanisms that affect action. General educational research has found that teachers’ self-efficacy not only directly affects the choices of teaching practices but also influences the overall teaching environment. For example, highly self-efficacious teachers believe that they can bring about positive changes in student learning, while those with a low level of self-efficacy believe that external factors exert a more powerful influence on student learning than their own teaching (Gibson and Dembo 1984). Over the past decade, however, only a few studies explored L2 teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to their teaching. Noting that self-efficacy is specific to subject matters and contexts (Bandura ibid.), we aimed to fill this gap in the L2 teacher literature by examining the relationship between EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and two distinct teaching practices: communication-focused and non-communication-focused practices. We employed a mixed-methods approach by using a large set of survey data and incorporating individual teacher’s voices into our data analysis, guided by the following research question: How is EFL teachers’ self-efficacy associated with their use of communicative versus non-communicative teaching practices? Literature review Teachers’ self-efficacy Empirical research has provided compelling evidence for the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy on teacher motivation and teaching behaviours. For example, teachers with a strong sense of efficacy are likely to exert greater commitment to teaching and demonstrate persistence in the face of difficulties (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). Additionally, teachers who feel confident about their teaching seem more receptive to implementing innovative, diverse, and individualized teaching practices (Wertheim and Leyser 2002). In terms of classroom management, highly efficacious teachers tend to emphasize student interaction and autonomy, whereas teachers with low efficacy beliefs tend to have an authoritarian orientation with rigid control of students and reliance on extrinsic inducements (Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy 1990). Additionally, teachers’ efficacy beliefs also serve as a driving force for change in teaching practice (Smylie 1988). L2 teaching practices In recent decades, L2 teaching methodologies have shifted from traditional grammar-focused and teacher-centred approaches to more communicative and learner-centred approaches. However, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Even within communication-focused practices, language form and teacher-centred activities have continued to receive attention, albeit with differing degrees of emphasis. In the actual L2 classroom, teachers do not necessarily use one approach but tend to be eclectic, using several techniques and strategies according to their different teaching contexts. However, the two broad teaching approaches, communicative and non-communicative, are different because they are based on two contrasting views of how languages are learnt, and their instructional objectives and tasks are distinct from each other. Research has indicated that form- and meaning-focused tasks tend to generate different classroom interactions and opportunities for language use (Savignon 1991). While we acknowledge that these two are not the only methodologies for teaching English as an L2, we have compared communicative teaching and traditional non-communicative teaching as the two most commonly used, but somewhat distinctive, teaching practices in our study. English teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching practices Recent research on ESL/EFL teachers has examined self-efficacy in relation to other teacher characteristics such as target language proficiency and emotional intelligence. However, only a few studies have investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and instructional practices. In a study of Japanese EFL teachers, Nishino (2012) found there was an association between efficacy beliefs and teaching, but the study measured communicative practices only. Chacón (2005) and Eslami and Fatahi (2008) examined both grammar- and communication-focused practices in relation to self-efficacy among EFL teachers in Venezuela and Iran, respectively. Yet, these two studies provide at best correlation coefficients on the relationship, a statistical method that seems limited in explaining the complicated dynamics of the variables. Chacón’s interview data only revealed Venezuelan teachers’ heavier focus on grammar, and did not explore the relationship between communicative and non-communicative practices. Such exploratory findings therefore call for further research to refine our understanding of the relationship between EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom practices. Teaching English in South Korea The current study investigated how efficacy beliefs contributed to teaching practices among secondary EFL teachers in South Korea. Until the 1990s, secondary English education had mainly focused on grammar and translation. Later, the Ministry of Education adopted the sixth National Curriculum (1992–1996) with a functional syllabus heavily focusing on fluency over accuracy. By adding an increased emphasis on language form, the Ministry proposed a grammatical-functional syllabus through the seventh National Curriculum (1996–present). A revision of the seventh Curriculum further emphasized learner-centred and task-based instruction and teaching English through English (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology 2008). Accordingly, non-native English-speaking teachers have increasingly subscribed to the principles of communicative teaching in recent decades (Shin 2012). However, teachers simultaneously feel pressured to teach English in traditional, teacher-centred ways because of high-stakes exams that primarily assess reading comprehension and grammar/vocabulary knowledge (Shin ibid.). Method Participants The participants were 190 non-native EFL teachers at Korean secondary schools (see Table 1; all names are pseudonyms). They were recruited from the government’s in-service teacher training programmes and from a professional networking group for school teachers. Upon completing the questionnaire, 11 teachers agreed to participate in individual interviews. Table 1 Participant information (N = 190) School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  View Large Table 1 Participant information (N = 190) School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  School  Middle  90  High  100  Gender  Men  22  Women  166  Not answered  2  Age  Less than 30 years old  42  30–50 years old  144  More than 50 years old  4  Teaching experience  Less than 10 years’  145  10–20 years’  35  More than 20 years’  10  Experience of staying in an English-speaking country for study/travel  Yes  167  No  23  Degree  Bachelor’s degree  99  Either held or were working towards a higher degree  90  Not answered  1  View Large Questionnaire instruments We developed a questionnaire with three subsections. The first section collected the teachers’ demographic information. The second and third sections asked teachers to rate their self-efficacy levels and to report the frequency with which several teaching practices were used ( Appendices 1 and  2). Teachers’ self-efficacy We operationalized the notion of EFL teachers’ self-efficacy through three sub-efficacies: instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management. Although we acknowledge that self-efficacy may not be limited to the three subsets, we saw their overriding importance in assessing self-efficacy in general education research (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy op.cit.). The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation’s (2008) definition of ‘competent English teachers’ as those having abilities in the three areas was also helpful. We adopted 20 items from two pre-existing surveys from teacher education research (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy op.cit.; Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, and Ellett 2008) and modified them in consideration of the construct’s task-specific nature and the local educational context (Bandura op.cit.). As English teaching involves L2 interaction, we added an item asking about teachers’ efficacy in encouraging students to use English. We used a 6-point rating scale, with 1 indicating ‘cannot do it at all’ and 6 indicating ‘highly certain can do it’. We categorized the 21 items into three sub-scales, but they were randomly ordered in the questionnaire. The instructional strategies sub-scale (eight items) asked about teachers’ efficacy in using specific instructional methods. The student engagement sub-scale (seven items) asked about teachers’ capabilities to motivate and engage students with English learning. The classroom management sub-scale (six items) dealt with the management of the classroom atmosphere and student behaviours. Pedagogical practices We developed survey items on a 6-point rating scale (1 = Never; 6 = Always) to measure how frequently teachers employed particular teaching practices, based on previous research (Richards 2006). In line with Richards (ibid.), we define ‘communicative teaching’ as an instructional approach that focuses on contextualized L2 communication and student interaction, with a goal of developing communicative competence (five items). Traditional non-communicative teaching refers to practices that emphasize grammar rules and translation/reading skills in a teacher-fronted manner (three items). The interviews We conducted semi-structured interviews with three prepared questions ( Appendix 3), in order to elicit qualitative information about the relationship between self-efficacy and teaching practices. Eleven teachers participated in one-to-one phone interviews in Korean. Each interview lasted for 30 to 40 minutes and was audio-recorded. Data analyses To offer construct validity in scale development of the questionnaires, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses on the sub-scales and calculated their reliabilities, and found that each sub-scale had reasonable to high internal consistency. Next, we performed a correlational analysis and multiple regressions in order to investigate the statistical relationships between self-efficacy and teaching practices. We analysed the interview responses by linking them to each participant’s questionnaire answers. Then, we went through reiterative processes of comparing the data within and across participants. These processes involved analytical techniques such as counting, making contrasts and comparisons, noting relationships between variables, and checking the possible meanings of outliers. Results and findings Questionnaire results We conducted a bivariate correlational analysis between the three self-efficacy sub-scales and the two teaching approaches (Table 2) to investigate the relationships among the variables. All sub-scales and the total score of self-efficacy were significantly and positively associated with communicative teaching. In other words, teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy tended to use communication-focused practices more frequently. However, no significant correlation was found between overall self-efficacy scores and non-communicative teaching, and none of the self-efficacy sub-scales were correlated with non-communicative teaching. This result indicated that the levels of self-efficacy scores, whether higher or lower, did not predict any prevalence for non-communicative teaching. Table 2 Correlations of self-efficacy and teaching practices   IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04    IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04  Notes: *p < 0.05. CM = classroom management; CT = communicative teaching; IS = instructional strategy; NCT = non-communicative teaching; SE = student engagement. View Large Table 2 Correlations of self-efficacy and teaching practices   IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04    IS  SE  CM  CT  NCT  Self-efficacy total  IS  1            SE  0.76*  1          CM  0.83*  0.75*  1        CT  0.35*  0.31*  0.42*  1    0.38*  NCT  –0.02  0.02  –0.11  –0.21*  1  –0.04  Notes: *p < 0.05. CM = classroom management; CT = communicative teaching; IS = instructional strategy; NCT = non-communicative teaching; SE = student engagement. View Large We then conducted two simultaneous multiple regressions to examine the contributions of the three sub-efficacies to teaching practices (Table 3). The three efficacy predictors together contributed to 17% of teachers’ individual differences in using communication-focused practices. Among the three sub-efficacies, only classroom management significantly predicted communicative teaching, meaning that the higher efficacy beliefs in classroom management were, the more likely teachers were to use communication-focused practices. Efficacies in instructional strategies and student engagement had no effects on communicative teaching. Put another way, if teachers have stronger efficacy beliefs in classroom management, they will readily employ communicative teaching, no matter what their self-efficacy levels are in instructional strategies and student engagement. Table 3 Regressions of teaching practices on self-efficacy sub-scales     B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*      B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*  Notes: *p < .05 after Bonferroni corrections. CM = classroom management; IS = instructional strategy; SE = student engagement. View Large Table 3 Regressions of teaching practices on self-efficacy sub-scales     B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*      B (β)  T  p  Total F  df  Total R2  Communicative teaching  IS  –0.01 (–0.01)  –0.05  0.96  12.57* (p = 0.00)  3, 186  0.17  SE  0.02 (0.01)  0.12  0.91  CM  0.55 (0.41)  3.22  0.00*  Non- communicative teaching  IS  0.20 (0.16)  0.84  0.40  2.76* (p = 0.04)  3, 186  0.04  SE  0.36 (0.22)  1.84  0.07  CM  –0.59 (–0.36)  –2.70  0.01*  Notes: *p < .05 after Bonferroni corrections. CM = classroom management; IS = instructional strategy; SE = student engagement. View Large The three self-efficacy predictors together contributed to four per cent of teachers’ individual differences in using non-communicative practices. Among the three sub-efficacy factors, only classroom management significantly but negatively predicted non-communicative teaching, meaning that the higher efficacy beliefs in classroom management were, the less likely teachers were to use non-communicative teaching practices. Instructional strategies and student engagement had no significant effects on non-communicative teaching. In other words, irrespective of self-efficacies in instructional strategies and student engagement, teachers’ self-confidence in classroom management seems connected to their decision of whether they use non-communicative teaching practices. Interview findings As shown in Table 4, highly self-efficacious teachers tended to report their higher self-confidence in communicative teaching or both communicative and non-communicative teaching (four of six teachers), whereas teachers with low efficacy beliefs felt less comfortable with communicative practices (four of five teachers). We identified the following three findings illuminating the relationship between self-efficacy and teaching practices. Table 4 Interviewee background information and responses (n = 11) Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Notes: C = communicative teaching; M = men; NC = non-communicative teaching; W = women. a‘Average’ refers to the overall self-efficacy mean among 190 teachers. View Large Table 4 Interviewee background information and responses (n = 11) Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Efficacy levels  Interviewee (pseudonym)  Gender  Age  Teaching year  Questionnaires  Interviews  Overall self-efficacy  Teaching focus  Higher efficacy  High  Misun  W  28  3  5  Both  Both    Kyungmin  W  32  6  5.7  NC  Both    Namgi  M  32  5  5.1  NC  NC    Sooah  W  28  5  4.99  NC  NC    Yeji  W  33  11  4.76  NC  Both    Dongjoo  W  28  5  4.81  C  C  Averagea  Jumee  W  31  6  4.51  NC  NC  Low  Eunjee  W  29  5  4.46  NC  NC    Hyunsoo  M  35  5  4.37  C  C    Jungwon  W  29  3  4.27  NC  NC    Boyeon  W  27  4  3.61  C  NC  Notes: C = communicative teaching; M = men; NC = non-communicative teaching; W = women. a‘Average’ refers to the overall self-efficacy mean among 190 teachers. View Large First, teachers’ instructional focus seemed influenced by their ability to manage student behaviours and class procedures while carrying out activities. Teachers with higher efficacy in non-communicative practices believed that it is easier to predict and control student behaviours with this type of teaching, whereas communicative practices require teachers to meet unexpected situations (Namgi, Sooah, Jumee, and Eunjee). For example, Jumee emphasized that teacher-centred grammar teaching is very structured and easy to implement and requires much less preparation time. In contrast, teachers with higher efficacy in communication-focused practices felt that they were more capable of managing their classes when students worked on communicative activities (Dongjoo and Hyunsoo). For example, Dongjoo responded that she found it much more difficult to manage structured teacher-centred teaching because she had to talk for the entire 50-minute class while simultaneously waking up students who were dozing off, whereas she felt it was easier to manage students and procedures during interactive tasks. These interview responses resonate with our questionnaire result that teachers with higher self-efficacy in classroom management tended to use communicative practices more frequently. Second, teachers’ beliefs about desirable English teaching seemed to influence the association between self-efficacy and teaching practices. Two teachers (Eunjee and Jungwon) had higher confidence in non-communicative teaching, with their overall efficacy scores being lower than the average of 190 teachers (Mean = 4.51). However, these teachers explicitly expressed their beliefs in communication-based practices as the more desirable approach to English teaching and their willingness to teach in more communicative ways in the future. Another teacher (Kyungmin), who reported comparable confidence levels in communicative and non-communicative teaching, also expressed a greater sense of accomplishment as an EFL teacher when delivering communicative teaching even though she felt non-communicative teaching was easier for controlling the class. This finding implies that beliefs about desirable teaching approaches may serve as a driving force for employing communicative practices in teachers’ actual teaching despite their low sense of efficacy in communicative practices. Finally, regardless of overall self-efficacy levels, many interviewees pointed out that the accumulated experience of a particular practice influenced their efficacy beliefs about using the practice more frequently. For example, two high school teachers (Jumee and Jungwon) had a greater focus on grammar and translation in their teaching because of the direct influence of college entrance exams, and they commented that their more extensive experience with this approach seemed to explain their higher efficacy in it. A middle school teacher (Yeji) replied that she was eclectic in her teaching because she adopted more grammar-focused teaching when preparing for standardized exams but more communication-focused teaching when exam pressures were relatively less. This more flexible teaching environment at the middle school level might have helped her to gain experience in communicative teaching and feel efficacious in both communicative and non-communicative teaching. Students’ English proficiency also influenced teachers’ accumulation of experiences in specific teaching practices. For example, Hyunsoo, although his overall self-efficacy was lower than the average of 190 teachers, reported that his students at a highly renowned private high school had English proficiency sufficient for communicative activities. Thus, he used communicative practices more frequently and became more efficacious in the approach. In contrast, Jungwon, teaching at a public high school in a low socio-economic neighbourhood, felt that her students did not have sufficient English proficiency and thus had mostly used grammar-focused, non-communicative practices. She further commented that her lack of experience with communicative teaching resulted in her lower confidence in communicative teaching. It seems that these external factors influence the relationship between self-efficacy and pedagogical practices, and the accumulated experience of particular practices in turn influences teachers’ self-efficacy. Discussion We identified the following three main findings that explain the relationship between self-efficacy and teaching practices among the participating teachers. Role of teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching Our findings highlight the relatively more important role of teachers’ self-efficacy for interactive and communicative English teaching than for non-communicative teaching. Each of the three efficacy sub-scales was significantly correlated with communicative teaching but not with non-communicative teaching, a finding that partially agrees with Eslami and Fatahi’s study (op.cit.) but is different from Chacón’s (op.cit.). A strong sense of teaching efficacy would be more likely to lead teachers to employ activities conducive to L2 communication and interaction. In interviews, highly self-efficacious teachers reported their stronger self-confidence in using communicative practices or both approaches, whereas teachers with low efficacy beliefs felt less comfortable with communicative practices. Our regression analyses further illuminated the role of self-efficacy for the two different teaching approaches. Self-efficacy explained 17% of the variance of communicative teaching but only 4% of the variance of non-communicative teaching. One possible interpretation is that the teachers in general seemed more familiar with non-communicative teaching because of their past learning and training experiences. Consequently, the teachers had sufficiently high capabilities in teacher-centred teaching regardless of efficacy levels, so their efficacy beliefs did not significantly influence their actual decisions to use non-communicative practices. In contrast, teachers may need sufficiently high levels of feelings of competence in order to employ communicative practices because of their lack of experience in communicative teaching as learner and teacher. Our finding provides an important implication for teacher education as it demonstrates the importance of heightening teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs if the field is to promote more student-centred, communicative English education than is currently being provided in some contexts. Efficacy in classroom management Among the three self-efficacy sub-scales, only classroom management was significantly associated with teaching practices, but the nature of the association was found to be different for communicative and non-communicative practices. Higher efficacy beliefs in classroom management are likely to lead teachers to employ communicative teaching. Conversely, teachers who feel less capable in classroom management will be more prone to using non-communicative teaching. Interviewees commented on the different natures of the two teaching approaches: interactive and unpredictable versus structured and predictable. Teachers who felt comfortable with rigid control of students and structured class procedures felt more efficacious with non-communicative teaching. In contrast, those who felt capable of controlling students during interactive tasks tended to use communicative teaching methods actively in their teaching. This finding resonates with previous research about other content classes in which less efficacious teachers tend to show more rigid and authoritarian orientations with regard to student behaviours (Woolfolk et al. op.cit.; Wertheim and Leyser op.cit.). Although the L2 field theoretically supports the importance of teachers’ control and authority in learner-centred, communicative instruction, the importance of teachers’ self-efficacy in interaction management and class control has been underexplored in empirical research. Our study provides a new contribution to the field by revealing that self-efficacy in classroom management is a significant antecedent of teaching in the L2 classroom. Complicated natures of self-efficacy and teaching practices Social cognitive theory suggests that efficacy beliefs and teaching have a circular relationship (Bandura op.cit.). Our interview data provided evidence that the experience of successful communicative teaching increases the sense of competence in teaching EFL communicatively, and this increased sense of efficacy creates new successful experiences. In contrast, the more teachers avoid using communicative practices, the more they lose confidence in this type of teaching. Therefore, the shortage of experiences with communicative teaching can negatively influence the development of teachers’ self-efficacy. As Bandura (op.cit.) postulated, the most effective way of developing strong efficacy beliefs is through the accumulation of successful experiences; this cyclical nature makes efficacy beliefs very powerful for teachers’ professional development. We also found that sociocultural factors and other teacher characteristics may influence the relationship between self-efficacy and pedagogical practices. For example, sociocultural environments can constrain the use of communicative teaching even among highly efficacious teachers and thus deprive EFL teachers of opportunities to develop further efficacy for communicative teaching. Teachers’ beliefs about desirable English teaching practices also seem to have the potential of guiding teachers to reflect on their current teaching and incorporate their beliefs into their teaching despite their current low sense of efficacy about those practices. Our findings highlight the complicated relationships among environmental factors, efficacy beliefs, and pedagogical practices. Pedagogical implications Our study has several implications for teacher education. First, teacher training programmes should provide teachers with sufficient opportunities to learn how to teach communicatively, accumulate successful teaching experiences, and strengthen their sense of teaching efficacy. Particularly, guiding trainees about how to manage students and procedures during interactive and student-centred tasks is as important as helping them improve their L2 linguistic knowledge. More experienced teachers or trainers should provide guidance, feedback, and support to enhance mastery experiences. Modelling of successful communicative teaching and the sharing of effective teaching strategies are such examples. Opportunities to observe other teachers’ effective teaching will be another way for trainees to learn through vicarious experiences. Also, teacher educators should be aware of differing self-efficacy levels and prior experiences among their trainees, and work individually with them in a counselling role when necessary. Teacher educators may monitor teachers’ progress or changes in self-efficacy and accordingly modify training methods. Our finding about the circular relationship between self-efficacy and teaching supports the importance of continued teacher development even after trainees exit training programmes. To achieve this goal, teacher educators should help trainees to practise self-reflection and monitoring of their beliefs and teaching practices. Eunjeong Choi recently earned a doctoral degree from the University of Texas at Austin and is currently a teaching faculty at the City University of Seattle. Her scholarship encompasses computer-mediated communication, intercultural aspects of learning and teaching, technology-assisted language learning, and language teacher education. Juhee Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Education at Gyeongsang National University, South Korea. Her research interests include reading and writing connections, communicative language teaching, learner motivations and attitudes, language teaching methodology, technology-mediated language teaching, and teacher education. Email: juheelee.carpediem@gmail.com References Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control . New York: W. H. Freeman. Chacón, C. T. 2005. ‘ Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela’. Teaching and Teacher Education  21/ 33: 257– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett J. J., Olivier D. F., and Ellett C. D.. 2008. ‘ Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: development and use of the TEBS-self’. Teaching and Teacher Education  24/ 3: 751– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Eslami, Z. R. and Fatahi A.. 2008. ‘ Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional strategies: a study of nonnative EFL teachers in Iran’. TESL-EJ  11/ 4: 1– 19. Gibson, S. and Dembo M. H.. 1984. ‘ Teacher efficacy: a construct validation’. Journal of Educational Psychology  76/ 4: 569– 82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. 2008. Required Competences and Evaluation Areas for Secondary English Teachers . Seoul: KICE. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. 2008. Guide of the Revised 7th Curriculum: Middle School Curriculum . Seoul: Korean Textbook Publisher. Nishino, T. 2012. ‘ Modeling teacher beliefs and practices in context: a multimethods approach’. The Modern Language Journal  96/ 3: 380– 99. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Richards, J. 2006. Communicative Language Teaching Today . Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Savignon, S. J. 1991. ‘ Communicative language teaching: state of the art’. TESOL Quarterly  25/ 2: 261– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Shin, S-K. 2012. ‘ It cannot be done alone: the socialization of novice English teachers in South Korea’. TESOL Quarterly  46/ 3: 542– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Smylie, M. A. 1988. ‘ The enhancement function of staff development: organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change’. American Educational Research Journal  25/ 1: 1– 30. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy A.. 2001. ‘ Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct’. Teaching and Teacher Education  17/ 7: 783– 805. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wertheim, C. and Leyser Y.. 2002. ‘ Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers’. The Journal of Educational Research  96/ 1: 54– 62. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff B., and Hoy W. K.. 1990. ‘ Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students’. Teaching and Teacher Education  6/ 2: 137– 48. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Appendix 1 Survey of self-efficacy (all items begin with ‘I can’) Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  View Large Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  Instructional strategies   Provide students with an alternative explanation/example when students are confused.   Use a variety of assessment strategies.   Adjust teaching/learning activities as needed.   Accurately deliver content knowledge to students.   Provide students with specific feedback about their learning.   Solicit a variety of good questions throughout the lesson.   Implement teaching methods/materials that accommodate students’ individual differences.   Communicate to students the specific learning objectives and outcomes of the lesson.  Student engagement   Use teaching methods to motivate students with low interest in learning English.   Maintain high levels of student engagement in learning tasks.   Get students to believe they can do well in English.   Help my students value learning English.   Motivate students to perform to their fullest potential.   Clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning.   Provide a positive influence on students’ academic development.  Classroom management   Maintain a positive classroom climate of courtesy and respect.   Maintain an environment in which students work cooperatively.   Manage student discipline and control disruptive behaviour.   Establish a classroom management system with each group of students.   Create an atmosphere that encourages students to use English freely in class.   Effectively use allocated time for various activities and manage routines and procedures.  View Large Appendix 2 Survey of teaching practices Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  View Large Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  Communicative teaching   The teacher fosters an atmosphere that encourages students to speak English freely in class.   The English class focuses on communication, with grammar explanation when necessary.   The teacher engages students in English conversations about various topics through pair or group work.   The teacher teaches English in English.  Non-communicative teaching   The teacher explicitly explains grammatical rules and gives students examples to practice.   Students learn a lot of grammar rules and how to best translate English into Korean.   The teacher asks students to translate English phrases or sentences into Korean as in-class activities or homework.  View Large Appendix 3 Interview questions 1 What is the focus of your current teaching, and what types of teaching activities and techniques do you usually use? 2 How much are you confident about your capabilities to perform communicative teaching vs. non-communicative teaching (that is, grammar/translation-focused, teacher-fronted teaching) regardless of the focus of your current teaching? 3 Explain reasons and factors that may have contributed to strong or weak assessments of your capabilities to perform communicative versus non-communicative teaching. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

ELT JournalOxford University Press

Published: Nov 28, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off