Self-efficacy and language learning – what it is and what it isn't

Figures & data

Figure 1. Self-regulated learning (adapted from Zimmerman 2013; see also Graham et al. 2020: 695).

Table

Study	Contexts and participants	Nature of intervention	Details of intervention	Measurement of self-efficacy	Basic findings
Baleghizadeh and Mortazavi (2014)	60 Iranian female English language learners at upper intermediate level at a language school in Iran, randomly assigned to a no-feedback condition (NFC), teacher-feedback (TFC), or peer-feedback condition (PFC), or to a control group/no-journal condition (15 students per group).	Reflection on strategy use with or without different kinds of feedback	All learners in intervention groups kept reflective journals, writing on learning strategies, goals, problems encountered in lessons and in learning, as well as strategies they applied to deal with problems and how successful they thought strategies were. Feedback given on use of strategies reported by learners, by the teacher (TFC) or by peers (PFC). NFC just kept journal without feedback.	General Self-Efficacy Scale completed before and after the intervention.	A significant main effect of experimental conditions. Self-efficacy scores for those in TFC were higher than those of other groups, but only significantly so for the NFC and the NJC, i.e. the PFC and TFC were equally effective for self-efficacy. All intervention groups significantly outperformed the NJC. Keeping a reflective journal whether with or without feedback had a positive impact on learner self-efficacy, but was more effective when feedback was received.
Chinpakdee and Gu (2021)	Thai secondary school learners of EFL age 17: 30 learners in intervention class and 32 in comparison class.	Strategy-based instruction for reading	10 week intervention, 50 mins a week – setting goals, preparing for reading, taking notes, imagery, self-questioning, making inferences, summarising and goal checking, how to strategically arrive at word meaning from word parts and contextual clues.	4 group interviews conducted with the intervention class learners to explore how strategy-based intervention affected their perceptions of their ability to read English.	Learners’ experiences during intervention and their improved reading competence made them feel more confident reading English texts; they expressed intention to continue using strategies in future learning tasks, indicating willingness to take control of their learning
Chularut and DeBacker (2004)	79 participants aged 15–22: 55 college undergrads., 24 high school students. At 4 levels of English: beginner, intermediate, advanced and expert. Students assigned by stratified random assignment to 2 groups (concept-mapping and individual study) with each level represented equally.	Concept mapping as a reading strategy	After pre-test, all students participated in 5 × 60-min. study sessions. In each session they studied a different passage. Both groups were encouraged to read passages in order to understand stated and implied information. In concept mapping group, concept mapping was modelled, explained and practised. In individual study group, passage was studied individually w. no specific strategies recommended but instructor-led discussion of meaning and implications.	Pre- and post- intervention, Achievement Test and the Survey of Learning Behaviors was completed. Included 3 subscales, including self-efficacy and self-regulation.	The concept mapping group showed significantly greater gains in self-efficacy over time than the individual study group (medium-large effect sizes). The same was true for self-regulation
Forbes et al. (2021)	268 Year 9 (age 13–14) MFL students in 4 schools in England, divided into a ‘full’ intervention group (n = 87), a ‘partial’ intervention (n = 99) and a control group (n = 82).	Development of students’ multilingual identity	Intervention groups had 6 × 1-hour intervention lessons over 1 academic year (2 per term). Activities provided information about cognitive and social benefits of multilingualism (full and partial intervention groups); full intervention classes also had awareness-raising and reflective activities where learners reflected on how these issues related to their identity.	Pre- and post-intervention questionnaires to collect data on key dimensions of multilingual identity, including ‘Language self-beliefs’ which largely consisted of items related to self-efficacy	Small but significant improvement in language beliefs scores for both full and partial intervention groups but not control.
Graham and Macaro (2008)	107 learners of French in England (age 16–17, 5 years learning French i.e. intermediate proficiency level). Intact classes, matched across conditions, assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 2 intervention groups (High Scaffolding Group, n = 29; Low Scaffolding Group, n = 39) and a comparison group, n = 39.	Self-regulatory listening strategy instruction	Over 6 months, both HSG and LSG learners were taught to use range of listening strategies. Included tick-sheets to remind them of strategies to use, and to record which strategies they had used and how helpful they were. HSG also had awareness-raising session at start of instruction, as well as attribution-directed feedback from researchers on their strategy use and its effectiveness.	Pre and post intervention learners completed a self-efficacy for listening questionnaire, in which they indicated on a scale of 0–100 how confident they were about 4 areas of listening.	At post-test, higher mean scores for total listening self-efficacy for HSG, followed by LSG, with lowest for CG. Significant differences between HSG and CG, and between LSG and CG, but not between HSG and LSG .
Graham et al. (2020)	529 learners of French, 1st year of secondary education (aged 11–12) in England. Intact classes were divided into 2 instruction groups (reading strategies or phonics) plus control (no reading instruction but same texts read as other 2 groups).	Self-regulatory reading strategy instruction	Learners experienced 1 of 3 approaches for reading over 16 weeks, for 20–30 minutes a week. All 3 approaches used same challenging texts covering culturally interesting topics. Strategy instruction included awareness raising, modelling by teacher, guided practice using modelled strategies with challenging texts, use of ticksheets to record and reflect on strategy use, sometimes discussed with peers. Phonics instruction group were taught French phonics, and used that knowledge to read aloud sections of challenging texts and answer simple comprehension questions.	Pre- and post-intervention, learners completed self-efficacy for reading questionnaire, in which they indicated how confident they were about 5 areas of reading in relation to the kind of challenging text they had just read as part of the pre and post-test. Cluster analysis divided participants into 3 clusters, based on their reading self-efficacy, linguistic knowledge, reported reading strategy use.	For Cluster 3, where learners had low reading, self-efficacy and linguistic knowledge scores and low reported strategy use at pre-test, increases in self-efficacy were the most marked. Significant differences on gain scores between the strategies group and the phonics group (small to medium effect size) and between the strategies group and the texts group (small effect size).
Lanvers (2020)	MFL learners in England, age 13–14: 220 in intervention groups (across 3 schools), 52 in control groups (across 2 schools)	Awareness-raising and tackling negative mindsets.	Over 6 sessions, through whole class and small group teaching, learners’ awareness was raised of issues such as cognitive benefits of language learning, how setbacks and challenges are a normal part of language learning, and how differences in curriculum focus and time could explain their perceived low language proficiency, as a way of challenging low self-efficacy.	Questionnaire, pre-post test changes explored	1 item from those aimed at assessing self-efficacy showed significant change, but with small effect size, in the intervention group only: The language I’m trying to speak is v. difficult/difficult/ medium/easy/v. easy.
Macaro and Erler (2008)	Learners of French aged 11–12 in England. 6 participating school with 1 class each. Learners in 3 schools were taught reading strategies (n = 62); those in the other 3 groups received normal French instruction without reading strategies (n = 54)	Self-regulatory reading strategy instruction	Over 14 months, spanning 2 school years, intervention group received reading strategy instruction Steps also taken to enhance metacognition about decisions on which clusters of strategies to use. Researchers gave attribution-directed written feedback on learners’ records of strategy use. Strategy instruction conducted using what the authors describe as ‘challenging’ texts. Some decoding taught to support strategy of ‘sounding out’ a word to work out its meaning.	Before and after intervention, learners used a point scale to say how happy they were with reading (and other language skills). They also completed a pre- and post-intervention questionnaire on strategy use, as well as reading comprehension tests. All 3 measures represented an aspect of self-efficacy, i.e. reading confidence; reading agency via ‘text engagement’ strategies, vs. ‘teacher reliance’ strategies; persistence in reading the text used in the post-test.	At Time 2, intervention group showed significantly higher levels of positivity towards French reading; significantly greater use of text engagement strategies and lower levels of teacher reliance strategies. 97% of intervention cohort attempted the Idea Units text at Time 2 vs. only 77% of the comparison cohort.
Molway and Mutton (2019)	5 Year 9 German classes in England (N  =  127), divided into intervention group (n = 43) and control group (n = 73). Data from 119 students analysed.	Reading strategy instruction and changing mindsets	Over 2 months approx., 2 classes received both a ‘Theories of Intelligence’ (TI) and Reading Strategy (RS) intervention. 2 other classes had just the RS intervention. TI involved giving learners explicit, research-informed information about nature of intelligence and its malleability. RS involved 2 × 1-hour sessions. Learners shown how to use reading strategies and given opportunities to practise them.	Assessed indirectly via questionnaire items administered at 4 points before, during and after intervention, targeting causal attributions for success and failure, and beliefs about the nature of intelligence. Descriptive statistics only, plus a correlation analysis between reading scores on test administered and answers to questions about Theories of Intelligence.	Some shift in mindsets to a more incremental view of intelligence in intervention group but not in control. Graphs provided claim to support an increase in reported ‘adaptive’ classroom behaviours in TI & RS classes (e.g. When I get things wrong in German I try to understand what my mistakes were so that I can avoid them next time) and a decrease in agreeing with the statement When I get things wrong in German I feel depressed. Learners receiving RS intervention more likely to attribute success to successful use of strategies. Strong correlations were established between an incremental mindset at Time 4 and willingness to attempt questions in a reading test that posed a moderate and high challenge.
Moskovsky et al. (2013)	296 Saudi EFL, aged 12–25 at different levels of study and English proficiency (beginner, intermediate, advanced). Experimental group = 153, control group = 143. Two groups matched on key variables (teachers and learners).	Motivational teaching strategies	These included: teachers expressed belief in students’ efforts to learn and capabilities to succeed; increased amount of target language used in the classroom; tried to make activities attractive to learners with new & humorous elements.	Motivation questionnaire including items relating to self-efficacy.	Statistically significant improvement at post-test in learning self-efficacy and English self-efficacy for experimental group (small-medium effect sizes).
Van Batenburg et al. (2019)	147 Dutch learners of EFL, aged 14–15, in pre-vocational classes, divided randomly into 3 groups: form-focused (n = 48), language-directed (n = 46) and strategies-directed (n = 53)	Different kinds of instruction for oral interaction: form-focused (FF) vs. language-directed (LD) vs. strategies-directed (SD).	All groups worked with same sample dialogues modelling use of targeted language in 9 × 40–45-minute lessons, taught over 12 weeks. FF focused on learning language forms needed for different functions, with noticing target forms in dialogues, explicit rule presentation, and controlled practice. LD same as FF except learners completed information gap activities. SD focus was on explicit teaching and practice of interaction strategies, with same information gap tasks as LD.	Pre- and post-intervention questionnaire, including items targeting oral self-confidence and perceived competence to speak (accurate) English, e.g. I feel confident when I have to speak English; When I have to speak English with a classmate, I am afraid to make mistakes	Self-confidence for EFL oral interaction developed significantly after SD instruction, but not after LD or FF instruction.
Zarrinabadi and Rezazadeh (2020)	210 female intermediate language learners (mean age 17) assigned to 7 experimental conditions, 30 in each.	Different kinds of feedback	Over 12 sessions, all groups to write 6 assignments. Each group received different type of comment on writing: feedback, feed up, feed forward, feedback + feed up, feedback + feed forward, feed up + feed forward, and feedback + feed up + feed forward. Feedback = comments on errors & correct forms; Feed up = reminders about goals and success criteria of task; Feed forward = comments on next steps in learning.	Writing self-efficacy scale. Before and after intervention participants indicated how sure they were they could perform different writing skills (e.g. ‘write a strong paragraph that has a good topic sentence or main idea’).	Learners receiving just feedback, and those receiving feed up and feed forward together with feedback, had significantly higher levels of writing self-efficacy vs. the feed up and feed forward groups, and showed significant pre-post test improvement.
Ziegler (2014)	Learners of English in Germany. Intervention = 318 students in grades 4–9 in 4 schools. Control = 257students in grades 5–9 in 2 schools.	Self-regulated learning	Intervention group used ELP (European Language Portfolio): learners set language learning targets, monitored progress, and recorded and reflected on language learning & intercultural experiences. Tasks encouraged self-reflection and reflection on learning strategies, learning goals and progress.	Questionnaire incl. items adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al. 1991) and the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al. 2000).	After intervention, compared w. control, intervention group had higher academic self-efficacy (small effect size), higher self-regulatory efficacy (medium effect size), more aspects of self-regulated learning, including mastery goals, higher academic self-efficacy, and reported using more effective learning strategies.

Zimmerman, B.J. 2013. From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: a social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist 48, no. 3: 135–147. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Graham, S., R. Woore, A. Porter, L. Courtney and C. Savory. 2020. Navigating the challenges of l2 reading: self-efficacy, self-regulatory reading strategies, and learner profiles. The Modern Language Journal 104, no. 4: 693–714. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12670.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Baleghizadeh, S. and M. Mortazavi. 2014. The impact of different types of journaling techniques on EFL learners’ self-efficacy. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 16, no. 1: 77–88. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v16n1.37184.

 Google Scholar

*Chinpakdee, M. and P.Y. Gu. 2021. The impact of explicit strategy instruction on EFL secondary school learners’ reading. Language Teaching Research, March. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168821994157.

 Google Scholar

*Chularut, P. and T.K. DeBacker. 2004. The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29, no. 3: 248–263. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Forbes, K., M. Evans, L. Fisher, A. Gayton, Y. Liu and D. Rutgers. 2021. Developing a multilingual identity in the languages classroom: the influence of an identity-based pedagogical intervention. The Language Learning Journal 49, no. 4: 433–451. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1906733.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Graham, S. and E. Macaro. 2008. Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning 58, no. 4: 747–783. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00478.x.

 Google Scholar

*Lanvers, U. 2020. Changing language mindsets about modern languages: a school intervention. The Language Learning Journal 48, no. 5: 571–597. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1802771.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Macaro, E. and L. Erler. 2008. Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics 29, no. 1: 90–119. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm023.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Molway, L. and T. Mutton. 2019. Changing mindsets in the modern foreign languages classroom: an intervention combining intelligence theories and reading strategies. The Language Learning Journal 48, no. 5: 598–612. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1554693.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Moskovsky, C., F. Alrabai, S. Paolini and S. Ratcheva. 2013. The effects of teachers’ motivational strategies on learners’ motivation: a controlled investigation of second language acquisition. Language Learning 63, no. 1: 34–62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00717.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Van Batenburg, E.S.L., R.J. Oostdam, A.J.S. Van Gelderen, R.G. Fukkink and N.H. De Jong. 2019. Oral interaction in the EFL classroom: the effects of instructional focus and task type on learner affect. The Modern Language Journal 103, no.1: 308–326. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12545.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zarrinabadi, N. and M. Rezazadeh. 2020. Why only feedback? Including feed up and feed forward improves non-linguistic aspects of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research, September, 136216882096072. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820960725.

 Google Scholar

*Ziegler, N.A. 2014. Fostering self-regulated learning through the European Language Portfolio: an embedded mixed methods study. The Modern Language Journal 98, no. 4: 921–936. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12147.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pintrich, P., D. Smith, T. García, and W. McKeachie. 1991. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

 Google Scholar

Midgley, C., M.L. Maehr, L.Z. Hruda, E. Anderman, L. Anderman, K.E. Freeman, and T. Urdan 2000. Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.

 Google Scholar