Self-efficacy refers to a person's belief in how well they can accomplish a task or group of tasks (Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Language learners with a high self-efficacy who believe they can learn a language are more likely to learn a language than learners who believe they cannot learn a language.
Self-phenomena such as self-concept, self-esteem, confidence, and self-confidence have been well-documented (Coopersmith, 1967; Griffee, 1997a; Heyde, 1979; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976; Templin, 1995; Yule, Yanz, & Tsuda, 1985). Although researchers have used these constructs to describe and explain human behavior, they have not used them to predict human behavior because these constructs lack five important features: (1) judgement of capabilities, (2) multiple dimensions, (3) contexts, (4) mastery-criterion, and (5) pre-task measurements (Zimmerman, 1995). Self-efficacy researchers can predict human behavior by including these five features.
First, self-efficacy examines a person's judgement of their capabilities rather than personal qualities. Consider two fictional learners, Emi and Satoshi. Self-efficacy researchers might ask Emi to judge her capabilities and find out that she believes she can introduce herself in English at a party. In contrast, self-phenomena researchers might ask Satoshi to judge his personal qualities and find out that Satoshi feels good about his English. However, even though Satoshi feels good about his English, we do not know if Satoshi believes he can use it to communicate.
Second, self-efficacy recognizes that people judge their capabilities differently in different dimensions. A self-efficacy researcher might conclude that Emi thinks she can introduce herself in English at a party but does not think she can write a short self-introduction in English. A researcher of the other self-phenomena might conclude that Satoshi is confident in English but not notice which dimensions of English Satoshi is confident in and which dimensions he is not: speaking, listening, writing, reading, grammar, discourse, sociolinguistic knowledge, etc.
Third, self-efficacy researchers try to study how various contexts affect a persons judgement of their capabilities--Emi may believe she can introduce herself in the context of a party of students, but she may believe she cannot introduce herself at a Rotary Club meeting. Although context is a necessary part of self-efficacy studies, it is not a requirement for other self-phenomena studies.
A fourth feature of self-efficacy is mastery-criterion. A self-efficacy researcher must specify Emi's level of self-efficacy based on some criterion, usually defined by numerical values: Emi thinks she can introduce herself and people will understand at least 90% of what she says. Other self-phenomena researchers compare participants to other people: Satoshi shows more confidence than his classmates in introducing himself. Comparing Satoshi with his classmates does not tell us whether Satoshi believes he can introduce himself or not.
Fifth, self-efficacy measurements must be taken before participants actually perform the task. Emi should be asked to fill out a questionnaire about how well she thinks she can introduce herself in English at a party before she goes to the party. Other self-phenomena researchers, however, are inconsistent about when they take measurements. Satoshi may be asked to fill out a questionnaire in regard to a task before he performs it, after he performs it, or he may never perform the task at all. If researchers take measurements after participants perform a task, or if participants never perform the task, researchers cannot predict anything about task performance.
Making Predictions
Many hypotheses (sometimes mislabeled as theories) in second language acquisition (SLA) and psychology cannot predict much of anything (Bandura, 1986; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Locke & Latham, 1990). In the aerospace field, no one wants to fly in a plane that scientists can describe and explain but cannot predict whether or not it will stay in the air. Self-efficacy predicts a person's attention, effort, persistence, strategies, and goals (Bandura, 1997). People with high self-efficacy will exert more attention, effort, persistence, and strategies than those with lower self-efficacy. When those with low self-efficacy fail, they tend to blame their failures on external events rather than their own shortcomings.
People with high self-efficacy set more challenging goals for themselves than those with low self-efficacy. Challenging goals lead to increased performance (Griffee, 1997b; Griffee & Templin, 1998; Locke & Latham, 1990); consequently, people with high self-efficacy outperform people with low self-efficacy.
In dangerous situations such as scuba diving or parachuting, people with too much self-efficacy can get themselves killed, but in less dangerous situations, lacking self-efficacy can lead to a lifetime of regret: "educational opportunities forsaken, valued careers not pursued, interpersonal relationships not cultivated, risks not taken, and failures to exercise a stronger hand in shaping one's life course" (Bandura, 1997, p. 71).
Self-Efficacy and Language Learning
Although applied linguists rarely study self-efficacy in L2 acquisition, psychology researchers have studied the relationships between self-efficacy and first language (L1) skills for gifted and remedial students in speaking (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), listening (Schunk & Rice, 1984), writing (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), and reading (Schunk & Rice, 1993). They have showed that students with high self-efficacy performed better than those with low self-efficacy. Psychology researchers were able to help low self-efficacy language learners raise their self-efficacy; consequently, these students' linguistic performance improved as well.
Pilot Study
Consistent with self-efficacy research in psychology and student-centered syllabi in applied linguistics (Brown, 1995; Nunan, 1988), we piloted a self-efficacy syllabus for teaching English to Japanese university students. Rather than first focusing on language, we first focused on raising students' self-efficacy in English.
Twenty Japanese university students signed up for a two-week (20-day) summer intensive English course to make up for English courses they had failed in previous semesters. Because the English course was short, and many of these students failed their previous classes due to excessive absences and tardiness, we made a strict attendance policy. Six students who came late or missed the first day of class were not allowed to continue.
Self-Efficacy Syllabus
How do you raise someone's self-efficacy? There are four ways to raise a person's self-efficacy: enactive mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and psychological/physiological states (Bandura, 1997). To accomplish the above, we developed the objectives in Appendix A.
Enactive mastery experience
Students must experience success. We taught four skills: speaking, writing, listening, and reading. We taught students the objectives we expected them to perform, the conditions they would perform under, and the criterion we would use to judge their performance at the end of the course (see Appendix A, I).
Vicarious experience
For our students to experience the mastery objectives through vicarious experiences, we relied on the characters depicted in commercial English Language Teaching materials: texts, CDs, and videos. Students also experienced accomplishing the objectives through observing classmates (collaborating) and teachers (modeling) demonstrate the objectives. Although the text, CD, and video were useful, students need characters they can more closely identify with in regards to nationality, level, situation, etc.
Verbal persuasion
Students need verbal persuasion, especially praise. In our course, the teachers made a conscious effort to praise students' English skills as they performed role-plays, presentations, and volunteered in class (regardless of whether students made mistakes or not). The teachers wrote comments of praise on students' written assignments.
Physiological and affective states
Physiological and affective states can affect students' self-efficacy. Excessive physical and psychological fatigue or stress can negatively impact students' self-efficacy. Pauk (1997) gave us various ideas about improving students' psychological and physiological states which we describe below.
The First Week
On the first morning of class, students filled out a one-week schedule plotting how they spend their time. We hoped to help them overcome the stress that can result from poor time management. In the afternoon, to help students relax so their anxieties would not interfere with learning or language performance, the teacher gave deep breathing instruction (in Japanese).
On the second morning, the teacher turned out the lights, closed the curtains, and asked the students to put their heads on their desks for 15 minutes. During that time, almost everyone fell asleep. The teacher woke the students up and explained that people who get enough sleep do not fall asleep when a room is darkened for 15 minutes. Next, students filled out a sleep and food survey (Appendix B). They interviewed a classmate and compared their answers. Then, the instructor reviewed the answers with the class.
Later that morning, the students shared their time schedules from the first day of class and gave each other feedback regarding wasted time and where more study time was needed. Students revised their schedules based on the feedback. Some students also scheduled rewards (camping, drinking, celebrating, etc.) for completing the course. For homework, students had to put their schedule where they could look at it easily every morning. At the end of each day, they were to mark with a colored pen the parts of the time schedule they followed.
In the afternoon, a psychology instructor from the university's counseling center spoke about how to relieve psychological stress and encouraged students to visit the counseling center if they wanted to discuss stress in more detail.
On the third morning, the teacher introduced a five minute reading homework assignment to help students overcome procrastination and develop a daily study routine. The teacher distributed copies of reading materials and instructed students to set a time and place to read. The teacher told them to keep their reading material, checklist, pencil, and clock in the same place in order to start promptly at the reading time. Students also had to avoid interruptions like the TV and phone calls; write the starting page and time on the checklist; start reading at their own pace; read for five minutes, and then decide whether to continue or stop. When finished, students were to fill out the remainder of the checklist. Students brought their checklist to class, and the teacher followed up on students doing the checklist throughout the two weeks. (This five-minute technique can be used for objectives other than reading.) A couple of students went well beyond the five-minute reading (about 30 minutes a day) and finished all the materials.
In the afternoon, students practiced stepping up on their chairs and stepping back down on the floor (20 rounds) to get them physically active. This is particularly important from 2:00-4:00 p.m. when people become most sleepy. The instructor also taught deep breathing again, which she repeated almost every day. Later that afternoon, students wrote their inner dialogue based on three points: (1) Describe fears about this course; (2) Change the negative "I can't" responses in (1) to "I can" phrases; and (3) Describe how to put these "I can" statements into effect. One student said he did not have any worries and did not fill out the survey. Half of the students were concerned whether they could get up early and attend class on time, and most gave good solutions to their own problems (example, go to bed early, reduce part-time job hours, self-reward, etc.).
On the fourth day, students showed a partner their revised time schedules and what they actually did. One third of the students had not revised their schedules or recorded what they did in enough detail for the partner to understand what the revisions and actions were. When the partners pointed out parts of the schedule that were not followed, students had to verbalize excuses (in Japanese). Students thus realized the weaknesses of their excuses, possibly because their peers were more critical than they were. Students were told to bring their revised schedules to class throughout the two weeks to encourage them to follow through with their plans.
During the morning of the fifth day, the teacher asked the students to recall their past experiences of success. Students wrote a one-page essay in Japanese about something they achieved and were happy about. They had to tell about what their goal was, what obstacles they encountered, how they overcame the obstacles, and what they achieved. Students wrote about getting a drivers license, passing the university entrance exam, travelling around Okinawa by bicycle, and playing in the national high school baseball tournament (Koshien). Initially, we hoped this essay would give students a source of strength and ideas to refer to when taking on new challenges. We were surprised at how interesting the essays were. Since we were better able to understand the students' special talents and experiences, we felt that we provided better assistance. For teachers who do not read Japanese, this essay is still important for students and should not be eliminated from the course.
The Second Week
During the second week of the course, we spent most of class time teaching the English objectives of the course for mastery (Appendix A, I). Although psychological/physiological states, verbal praise, and vicarious experiences are helpful to raise self-efficacy, mastery is still the most important way for students to improve their self-efficacy in English. It is doubtful that students' self-efficacy will increase if their language abilities do not increase in some way.
Discussion
Our strict attendance policy was helpful--it is hard to teach any kind of syllabus if students do not show up to class. While the self-efficacy syllabus was demanding, students seemed more eager to study and attentive in class as a result .Their positive attitudes helped them achieve the course goals.
We noticed a dramatic increase in our students' English ability to describe people, talk about vacations, and ask questions. Although not as dramatic, we noticed improvement in our students' essays--students who could only stare at a blank page at the beginning of the course could write about 50 words (Appendix A, I: Writing) by the end. One possible reason for students' speaking and writing success was that we presented course goals as specific objectives at a level that challenged our students (Appendix A, I: Speaking and Writing). We observed very little improvement in our students' reading and listening abilities. The main reason for this failure is probably because our reading and listening objectives (Appendix A) were too easy.
We asked for students to comment (anonymously in Japanese) on the course. No students had negative comments. A couple of students wrote that they were not sure whether the course helped them or not. The remainder of the students made positive comments. One wrote, "By going to school every day for two weeks, I not only got confidence in learning English, but I got confidence I can learn in other subjects, too" (translation ours). Another said, "I learned that if I seriously try, there's nothing I can't do."
Conclusion
Based on this pilot study, we think it is feasible to conduct further studies on raising learners' English abilities using a self-efficacy syllabus. It would be useful to compare classes under the self-efficacy syllabus with others using different syllabi. Since we had less than 20 students in our pilot, we would modify our plans for larger classes.
While some English teachers may feel that it is not their job to include lessons to help students manage their physiological and affective states, we have found it to be beneficial. We were surprised to find out that some of our students work eight hours a day; although they are supposed to be full-time students with part-time jobs, they work full-time and attend school part-time. Teachers must decide whether to leave failing students behind or to find out what is wrong and try to help.
We also need to take into account that students not only need self-efficacy in English, but they need self-efficacy in other areas (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994): finishing assignments by deadlines, studying, concentrating in class, taking notes, participating in class, resisting peer pressure, and not skipping school when feeling bored or upset.
This article does not begin to explore the influence of parents, teachers, and others on students' self-efficacy in English. Obviously, there is much room for further studies on how self-efficacy affects language learning in Japan and elsewhere.
Note
We thank Meio University for providing a research grant and Albert Bandura, Laura MacGregor, Kimiko Miyagi, Masayuki Onishi, Hiroshi Yabiku, and the anonymous reviewers. Comments regarding this article should be addressed to Stephen A. Templin, Meio University, International Cultural Studies Division, 1220-1 Biimata, Nago-shi, Okinawa, Japan 905-0005; f: 0980-52-4640 (w); <steve@ics.meio-u.ac.jp>.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.
Griffee, D. T. (1997a). Using goals and feedback to improve student performance on vocabulary homework. The Language Teacher, 21 (7), 19-25.
Griffee, D. T. (1997b). Validating a questionnaire on confidence in speaking English as a foreign language. JALT Journal, 19, (2), 177-197.
Griffee, D. T., & Templin, S. A. (1998). Goal-setting affects task performance. In Visgatis, B. (Eds.) On JALT97: Trends and transitions (p. 21-26). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Heyde, A. (1979). The relationship between self-esteem and the oral production of a second language. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 315-342.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pauk, W. (1997). How to study in college. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1984). Strategy self-verbalization during remedial listening comprehension instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 49-54.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Templin, S. A. (1995). Goal-setting to raise speaking self-confidence. JALT Journal, 17, 269-273.
Yule, G., Yanz, J. L., & Tsuda, A. (1985). Investigating aspects of the language learner's confidence: An application of the theory of signal detection. Language Learning, 35, 473-488.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
Appendix A: Self-Efficacy Objectives
I. Enactive Mastery Experience
Speaking: Do the following in an interview without: (i) asking the interviewer to repeat the question more than twice; (ii) speaking more than two non-English words; and (iii) pausing for more than four seconds.
(a) Describe someone (friend, family member, teacher)
(b) Tell about a real or imaginary vacation (place, weather, people)
(c) Ask a question
Listening: Listen to four phone conversations and fill in messages with 50% accuracy.
Writing: Do the following in a 50-word letter to a friend without: (i) writing less than 30 words; and (ii) repeating the same ideas, writing about a different topic, or writing unclearly.
(a) Describe someone (friend, family member, teacher)
(b) Write about a real or imaginary vacation (place, weather, people)
Reading: Read directions, look at a map, and choose the place which matches the directions with 66% accuracy.
II. Vicarious Experience and Verbal Persuasion
(a) Experience performance of mastery objectives vicariously through text, audio, video, teachers, and classmates.
(b) Receive persuasion (verbal and written) from teachers regarding the mastery objectives.
III Physiological and Affective States
Experience proper ways to reduce psychological and physiological stress in the areas of breathing, positive thinking, sleep, and exercise.
Appendix B: Sleep and Food Survey
| Sleep | Me | My Partner |
| 1. How many hours do you sleep each night? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 2. Could you wake up without your alarm clock? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 3. Do you fall asleep in class? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 4. Can you stay awake in a dark room for 15 minutes? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 5. Do you wake up the same time every morning? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 6. Do you use caffeine after 4 p.m.? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 7. Do you use alcohol after 8 p.m.? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 8. Do you eat, study, or worry in bed? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 9. Do you do 20 minutes of aerobic exercise every day? |
_____ |
_____ |
| Food | . | . |
| 10. Do you study or work while you eat? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 11. Do you have to watch the clock as you eat? |
_____ |
_____ |
| 12. Do you eat a balanced diet of meat, fruits & vegetables, rice, and milk? |
_____ |
_____ |
Desired results:
| 1. 6-9 | 2. Yes | 3. No | 4. Yes | 5. Yes | 6. No |
| 7. No | 8. No | 9. Yes | 10. No | 11. No | 12. Yes |