The motivational role of
self-efficacy in L2 learning
Background of the study
•
L2 learning as a taxing and complex undertaking
•
Students lack confidence in their English and expectation of success
(Lamb, 2002).
•
“tude ts’ oti atio a ed due to their tea hers’ perso ality a d
teaching methods (Lamb, 2007).
•
Differences in learning outcomes.
Self-efficacy?
•
P
eople’s o i tio of their a ility to o plete a desig ated
task (Bandura, 1986).
•
An important human agency mechanisms and affects
people’s eha iours Ba dura, 977,
1993; Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2003 ).
•
Academic success
depe ds ot o ly lear ers’
skill and
Self-efficacy?
•
A significant predictor of achievement across subjects (Wang, Shannon, &
Ross, 2013; Wilson & Narayan, 2014; Woodrow, 2011 ).
•
Self-efficacious learners are likely to be more self-regulated (Anam &
Stracke, 2016; Shang, 2010; Wong, 2005).
•
Self-efficacy has received only little attention in L2 research (Kim, Wang,
Ahn, & Bong, 2015; Woodrow, 2011)
•
The majority of self-efficacy research has been questionnaire-based (Usher,
2009).
•
Most of the few L2 studies (e.g. Heidari, Izadi, & Ahmadian, 2012;
Research question
Methods
•
12 six graders in urban primary schools, selected on the basis of their
self-efficacy scores
•
Semi-structured interview
Results and discussion
•
Cognitive and behavioural engagement
Cognitive and behavioral engagements
Engagements High
Low
Strategy use
- Rehearsal strategies
- Learning with/from others
- Greater range of learning
resources
- Error-monitoring
- Structuring physical
environment for learning
- Organizing time for task
completion/learning
- Seeking opportunities for
practice in and out of
•
High self-efficacy students tend to employ deep strategies while their
low self-efficacy peers tended to resort to surface strategies
(Mizumoto, 2012, 2013; Prat-Sala & Redford, 2010).
•
The evidence lends support to
Ba dura’s 99
theoretical claim that
self-
effi a y affe ts stude ts’ self
-regulatory abilities or learning
Attentiveness in language learning
Self-efficacious students were more attentive, like engagement in
classroom interaction, while some low self-efficacy students frequently
reported occasional off-task activities.
e.g.
Motivational engagements
1. Effort in L2 learning
- frequency of learning English
- preparing assignments/finishing homework
- varied learning activities in and out of classroom
…
kadang saya cerita sama pembantu di rumah cerita di majalah
…
juga
sering latihan
…
ngomong bahasa Inggris sama teman
…
seperti
Motivational engagement (cont.)
2. Persistence in the face of difficult tasks
e.g.
1. Less efficacious learners tended to easily give up, leave questions
unanswered, or answer questions recklessly.
2. Most of less efficacious learners preferred easy tasks, while
efficacious learners preferred difficult and challenging ones.
3. Interest in L2 learning
•
Differences in motivational behaviours are likely to be affected by
self-efficacy and in turn affect achievement (Bandura, 1977;
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).
•
This e ide e supports Ba dura’s 99 lai that people ho
Motivational engagements (cont.)
4. Attributions of success and failure
Effort was the attributional factor of achievements for high and low
self-efficacy learners.
This finding in part does not support past research that students with high
self-efficacy tend to ascribe their achievement to internal or controllable
factors, such as effort and ability, while their low self-efficacy counterparts to
external and uncontrollable factors, such as task difficulty or environmental
support (Graham, 2006; Hsieh & Kang, 2010).
Effort
attri utio s e dorsed y the stude ts are healthy attri utio s Hsieh
Pedagogical implications
•
Teacher educators might need to equip the teachers with the
know-ho of raisi g a d sustai i g their stude ts’ self
-efficacy.
•
Teachers could train their students in evaluating their ability to cope
with specific tasks accurately.
•
Teachers need to design instructional activities that can nurture the
References (1)
Anam, S., & Stracke, E. (2016). Language learning strategies of Indonesian primary school students: In relation to self-efficacy beliefs. System, 60, 1-10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socio cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (2001). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in cognitive task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353-363.
Clement, R., D̈rnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.
Diseth, ̊. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 191-195.
Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection. Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81–93.
Heidari, F., Izadi, M., & Ahmadian, M. V. (2012 . The relatio ship et ee Ira ia EFL lear ers’ self-efficacy beliefs and use of vocabulary learning strategies. English Language Learning, 5(2), 174-182.
Hsieh, P. P.-H., & Kang, H.-S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60(3), 606–627. Hsieh, P. P.-H., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for a u dersta di g of u dergraduates’ oti atio i a foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 513–532.
Kim, D.-H., Wang, C., Ahn, H. S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners' self- efficacy profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 38(0), 136-142.
Lamb, M. (2002). Explaining successful language learning in difficult circumstances. Prospect, 17(2), 35-52.
Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. Tesol Quarterly, 41(4), 757-780.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 119-137.
References (2)
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mizumoto, A. (2012). Exploring the effects of self-efficacy on vocabulary learning strategies. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 423-437.
Mizumoto, A. (2013). Effects of self-regulated vocabulary learning process on self-efficacy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 253-265. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 116-125.
Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 283-305.
Shang, H. F. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(2), 18-42.
Su, M.-h., & Duo, P. . EFL lear ers’ la guage lear i g strategy use a d per ei ed self- efficacy. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(3), 335-345. Wang, C.-H., “ha o , D. M., & Ross, M. E. . “tude ts’ hara teristi s, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.
Wilson, K., & Narayan, A. (2014). Relationships among individual task self-efficacy, self- regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a computersupported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. Wong, M. S.-L. (2005). Language learning strategies and language self-efficacy: investigating the relationship in Malaysia. RELC, 36(3), 245-269. Woodrow, L. (2005). The challenge of measuring language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 90-98.
Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39(4), 510-522. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017 Yang, N.-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.
