Self-efficacy of native and non-native English speaker teachers

Self-efficacy of native and non-native English
speaker teachers


Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà

University of Languages and International Studies
M.A Thesis: English Language Teaching Methodology; Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor: M.A. Phùng Hà Thanh
Year of graduation: 2011


Abstract. One of the much under-researched areas in English language education in
Vietnam and elsewhere is teacher self-efficacy. Whereas in developed educational
systems, it is widely acknowledged that self-efficacious teachers effectively create
learning environments conducive to development of cognitive skills. Teachers with a
low sense of instructional efficacy favor a punishment orientation that relies heavily on
negative sanctions to get students to study. The study used questionnaire survey to
collect information of native and non-native English speaker teachers. Results show that
both groups have high beliefs on their capabilities to maintain positive classroom
climates. The two groups also report low level of endorsement on dealing with special
needs students. The native speaker group, on the other hand, reported high level on
monitoring and feedback and classroom management. Implications for even better
professional development for NNESTs are then provided.

Keywords. Tiếng Anh; Phương pháp giảng dạy; Giáo viên

Content

PART A: INTRODUCTION
his opening part illuminates the research problem and rationale for the study, together with the
aims, objectives, and the scope of the research. Primarily, in this part, the research questions are
identified to act as clear guidelines for the whole study.
1. Statement of the research problem and rationale for the study
As English becomes a global language for communication and business and the teaching of
English becomes a fast growth industry, an increasing number of English language teachers who
are non-native speakers of English can be seen in English as a Second Language (ESL) as well
as in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts around the world. This raises so much
T


interest in issues related to non-native English speaker teachers (NNEST) in the field of teaching
English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) that a proliferation of papers, theses,
dissertations, and publications has been dedicated to the topic. Specifically, the issues of
NNESTs have been examined from chiefly three different areas of interest, which are the self-
perceptions of NNESTs (e.g. Amin, 1997; Medgyes, 1983, 1994; Reves & Medgyes, 1994), the
credibility of NNESTs (e.g. Amin, 1997, 1999; Braine, 1999; Thomas, 1999), and the meaning
of the label NNES educator and other parties’ perceptions of NNES educators (e.g., Hansen,
2004; Inbar, 2001; J. Liu, 1999, 2004) (Kamhi-Stein, 2004).
Self-efficacy, on the other hand, has been a fresh and recent research issue in the field of
psychology and education (Bandura, 1995; Llurda, 2005; Graddol, 2007; Liu, 2009, Karimvand,
2011). Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1995), is a person’s beliefs in his or her ability to
succeed in a particular situation. More precisely, it is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995,
p.2). Self-efficacy can have an impact on everything from psychological states to behaviour to
motivation, and thus, has become an important topic among psychologists and educators.
Research on the self-perceptions of native English speaker teachers (NESTs) has received
its fair share of attention (Braine, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2004; Llurda, 2005). However, little has
been done on the self-efficacy of NNESTs, which is the belief in their own capabilities to

succeed in their teaching career which can impact their psychological states, behaviour, and
motivation, etc. and in turn their students’ learning outcomes and achievement.
In reality, at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Languages
and International Studies (FELTE, ULIS) in Vietnam, the teaching of English is in fact provided
by a faculty comprising mainly native speakers of Vietnamese. What is more, FELTE –
previously part of the English Department – under University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi (ULIS, VNUH), is one of the leading and avant-
garde English teaching institutions in Vietnam, with – among many others – the main aim of
providing quality teachers of English for Vietnam. On this ground, the researcher was motivated
to carry out the research entitled “Self-Efficacy of Native and Non-Native English Speaker
Teachers”, which aims to investigate the self-efficacy of NNESTs and to compare it with their
NEST counterpart at FELTE, ULIS, to see what factors affect their teaching and the
effectiveness of their work.
2. Aims of the study
This research aims to investigate the self-efficacy beliefs of NNESTs and to compare it
with the self-efficacy beliefs of their NEST counterpart, and from the findings, to propose some
context-specific suggestions for the betterment of professional development for NNESTs at
ULIS-VNUH in particular and in Vietnam in general.
3. Scope of the study
Within the scope of an MA thesis, the research will not cover every aspect of self-efficacy,
nor with all categories of teachers at ULIS, VNUH. The study focuses on teacher self-efficacy,
among some other types of self-efficacy beliefs (Self-efficacy, 2011). In particular, the study


focuses on the self-efficacy of NNESTs and NESTs at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH. It specifically
targets self-efficacy in the educational context.
4. Methodology
i. Research questions:
1) What are the self-efficacy of NNESTs at FELTE?
2) What are the self-efficacy of NESTs at FELTE?

3) What is the relationship between the self-efficacy of these two parties in terms of
gender and teaching experience?
ii. Participants:
34 non-native English speaker teachers working in the EFL English language teachers
training (ELTT) program at VNUH and 6 native English speaker teachers involved with ELTT
program at VNUH and several other ELTT universities and colleges in Vietnam were involved
in the study.
iii. Instrumentation:
The methodology of this research is mainly quantitative. The study employs the Teacher
Efficacy Beliefs Scale – Self developed by Dellinger et al. (2008) to probe the self-efficacy
beliefs of both native English speaker teachers and non-native English speaker teachers, and to
analyse the correlation between the self-efficacy of these two parties.
iv. Data analysis
The collected data were categorised and quantitatively analysed. Data from questionnaires
were statistically analysed to find answers to the research questions 1, 2, 3.
5. Significance of the study
On the basis of the statistical analyses of data, the self-efficacy of NNESTs and NESTs
will emerge, and thus be compared to existing literature. Then suggestions for better professional
development and eventually even better teaching quality at ULIS, VNUH are proposed.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
his first chapter sheds light on the literature pertinent to the present study, i.e. the theoretical
background and the review of studies relevant to the topic of research.
1.1. Review of literature related to Self-efficacy and Teacher Self-efficacy theories
1.1.1. Definition, roles, sources, and types of self-efficacy
Definition of self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p.2). It is “a context-specific
assessment of competence to perform a specific task, a judgement of one's capabilities to execute

specific behaviours in specific situations” (Pajares & Miller, 1994, p. 194). In other words, self-
efficacy is a “future-oriented belief” about the level of competence a person expects he or she
will display in a given situation.
Self-efficacy should be distinguished from other related self-constructs such as “self-
esteem”, “self-concept”, and “self-perception”. For the purpose of this research, self-efficacy,
T


sense of self-efficacy, or self-efficacy belief, used interchangeably, will adopt the above
definition.
The Role of Self-Efficacy in human functioning
A person’s self-efficacy can greatly contribute to how they approach goals, tasks, and
challenges (Cherry, 2011). Generally, people with a strong sense of self-efficacy: view
challenging problems as tasks to be mastered; develop deeper interest in the activities in which
they participate; form a stronger sense of commitment to their interests and activities; recover
quickly from setbacks and disappointments. Meanwhile, people with a weak sense of self-
efficacy: avoid challenging tasks; believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their
capabilities; focus on personal failings and negative outcomes; quickly lose confidence in
personal abilities (Bandura, 1994). Bandura (1997) proposed that self-efficacy beliefs are
“powerful predictors of behaviour”.
Sources of Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy beliefs can develop from four main sources: enactive or mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and emotional states.
In other words, they are “performance attainments; vicarious experiences of observing the
performances of others; verbal persuasion and allied types of social influences that one possesses
certain capabilities; and physiological states from which people partly judge their capability,
strength, and vulnerability” (Nolan, 2009).
Types of Self-efficacy
There are four main types of self-efficacy, i.e. general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy,
academic self-efficacy, and teacher self-efficacy (Self-efficacy, 2011). General Self-Efficacy: the

global confidence in one’s coping ability across a wide range of demanding or novel situations
(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Social Self-efficacy: an individual’s confidence in her/his ability
to engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal
relationships (Schwarzer & Knoll, 2007). Academic Self-efficacy: a student’s belief that he or she
can successfully engage in and complete course-specific academic tasks (Jimenez Soffa, 2006).
Teacher Self-Efficacy: one's perceived competence to deal with all demands and challenges that
are implied in teachers' professional life (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008).
1.1.2. Self-efficacy and Social cognitive theory
Self-efficacy lies at the heart of Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which posits that an
individual can acquire knowledge and develop personality through observing other people, with
the environment, behavior, and personal factors – i.e. cognition, affect, and biological events –
all as the chief factors in influencing development.
According to the social cognitive theory, individuals are more likely to perform tasks they
believe they are capable of accomplishing and are less likely to participate in the ones which
they feel less competent. Thus, individuals’ beliefs in their competencies to accomplish specific
tasks, i.e. self-efficacy, affect the choices that individuals make and the courses of action they
pursue, the effort they exert, their perseverance in front of impediment, and their resilience in the
face of failure (Bandura, 1997).
The triadic reciprocal causation model


Bandura’s social cognitive theory holds the assumption that people are capable of human
agency. This human agency is the product of a dynamic interaction of personal, behavioral, and
environmental influences, resulting in a process called triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura,
1977, 1997, cited in Henson, 2001). The triadic reciprocal causation model is a multi-directional
model suggesting that our behaviour is caused by multiple factors and behaviour can impact
those factors reciprocally. The model, describe in the figure below, is a function of three
interrelated forces: environmental influences, our behaviour, and internal personal factors such
as cognitive, affective, and biological processes.

Behavioral Factors






Personal Factors
(Cognitive, affective, biological
processes)






Environmental Factors


Figure 1 - Bandura’s (1997) Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model

1.1.3. Teacher self-efficacy
Definition of teacher self-efficacy
According to Bandura (1977, 1997), teacher self-efficacy is a special type of self-efficacy.
Dellinger (2001), building from Bandura’s definition, conceptualized teachers’ self-efficacy as
“a belief system that one has concerning his/her self-perceived capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action to acquire given levels of attainment in situation-specific teaching
tasks.”
For the purpose of this study, definition from Dellinger (2001) will be adopted. All the
terms teachers’ sense of efficacy, self-efficacy of teachers, instructional efficacy, teachers’

efficacy beliefs, or teachers’ perceived efficacy can be used interchangeably. Whereas the term
“teacher efficacy” will not be used since it is too often confused with teacher “effectiveness”
(Shaughnessy, 2004).
The role of teacher self-efficacy
Bandura (1993) demonstrated that teachers’ self-efficacy can have influence on the
environment they create in their classroom, their specific instructional practices as well as their
orientation toward the educational process, and their student academic achievement. In general,
teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are confident that even the most difficult students can
be reached if they exert extra effort; e.g. these teachers devote more time to academic learning in
the classroom, provide help to students with difficulty learning, praise students’ accomplishment,
and create mastery experiences for their students. On the other hand, teachers with lower self-


efficacy feel helpless in dealing with difficult and unmotivated students; e.g. they spend more
time on non-academic pastimes, give up on students if they do not get quick results, and criticize
students’ failures (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
Factors that influence teacher self-efficacy
There are many variables which may influence teacher self-efficacy. Akbari & Moradkhani
(2010) classified the variables under two broad categories, namely contextual and demographic
factors.
Contextual factors refer to specific contextual and environmental variables such as the
principal’s leadership, the school’s climate, the colleagues, the students’ characteristics. The
demographic factors include demographic variables such as teacher’s gender, age, experience,
and academic degree. The focus of this study is to examine teacher perceived efficacy in relation
to age and gender. For the purpose of this paper, the factors of teaching experience and gender
will be looked upon thoroughly.
1.2. Demographic factors that affect teacher self-efficacy
1.2.1. Teacher self-efficacy and teaching experience
As previously mentioned, Bandura (1977, 1986) believes mastery experience is the most
important source of self-efficacy, implying that success and accomplishment can develop a

strong sense of efficacy; whereas, failure can weaken it. Since throughout their years of teaching,
teachers usually gain vast experience of successful and unsuccessful performances, this
assumption has facilitated in-depth research into how teachers who have had different lengths of
teaching time perceive their teaching efficacy (Karimvand, 2011).
According to Karimvand (2011) and Akbari & Moradkhani (2008), some studies have
shown a positive correlation between years of experience and efficacy beliefs of teachers, in
which seasoned teacher reported higher level of self-efficacy then their novice counterparts (Lin
and Tsai, 1999; Liu et al., 2007; Wolters and Daugherty, 2007, cited in Karimvand, 2011).
However, some studies have reported results which: (1) contradicted the ones reported above, (2)
showed mixed results, or (3) showed no significant relationship between teacher’s years of
experience and their efficacy beliefs (Woolfolk, 1990; Weinstein, 1988; Gorrell & Dharmadasa,
1994; Guskey, 1987, etc.). Therefore, it might be difficult to conclude that there is a similar
direction regarding the relationship of the two variables, teacher perceived efficacy and teaching
experience.
1.2.2. Teacher self-efficacy and gender
Gender is another demographic variable that might influence teacher’s professional lives.
On reviewing the studies which have focuses on the relationship between gender and teachers'
sense of efficacy, a great number of discrepancies can be seen. Imants and De Brabander (1996),
using a modified version of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), concluded that gender influences
teachers’ self-efficacy. More precisely, their results showed that male elementary teachers’ level
of efficacy beliefs for pupil-oriented and school-oriented tasks seemed to be higher than their
female counterparts. In contrast, both the work of Cheung (2006) and Karimvand (2011) found
that female teachers have significantly more general efficacy than male teachers, while it is
worth noting that female teachers in their studies were either generally older or had longer


teaching experience than male teachers. Finally, some other studies, such as Ghaith and Shaaban
(1999), Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2002), and Wilson et al. (2004), showed that
gender has no signification effect on teachers’ self-efficacy.
Overall, there seems to be no consistent trend or general direction in which teaching

experience, based on years of teaching, and gender might correlate with teachers’ efficacy beliefs
as some discrepancies and opposing observations still exist.
1.3. Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy
Research on teacher self-efficacy has shown that this is a multi-dimensional constructs.
Although researchers in this particular niche area have developed and/or used different
instruments, their findings have unanimously yielded common dimensions of teacher self-
efficacy.
In their study exploring dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain
factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout, Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2007)
developed and factor analyzed the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. Their analysis
supported the conceptualization of teacher self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct. The
authors discovered strong evidence for 6 separate but correlated dimensions of teacher self-
efficacy: Instruction, Adapting Education to Individual Students' Needs, Motivating Students,
Keeping Discipline, Cooperating With Colleagues and Parents, and Coping With Changes and
Challenges.
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001, cited in Cheung 2008) developed their own Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale with 24 items, then extracted three variables, each with 8 items. These
three variables are named Efficacy for Instructional Strategies, Efficacy for Classroom
Management and Efficacy for Student Engagement.
Karimvand (2011), in a recent study on Iranian teachers’ self-efficacy used the
questionnaire TEBS-Self (Teachers' Efficacy Beliefs System- Self) previously developed by
Dellinger, Bobbett, Oliver, & Ellett (2008). The scale was factored into four components of
Accommodating Individual Differences (AID), Positive Classroom Climate (PCC), Monitoring
and Feedback for Learning (MFL), and Managing Learning Routines (MLR). Since the factor
structure used by Dellinger et al. (2008) and Karimvand (2011) appears to encompass all other
dimensions of the construct of teacher self-efficacy employed by other researchers, it is also
utilized in the current research which used the questionnaire developed by Dellinger et al. (2008)
as well.
1.4. Non-native English speaker teacher & Teacher self-efficacy
1.4.1. Non-native vs. Native English speaker teacher

Since the early 1990’s the notion of native and non-native English-speaking teachers has
emerged in the literature of the TESOL field (Brutt-Griffler, & Samimy, 1999; Davies, 1991;
Medgyes, 1994; Phillipson, 1992, cited in Liu, 2009; Liu, 2009; Graddol, 2007). According to
Liu (2009), many researchers have challenged the view that the native speaker (NS) is the ideal
language teacher, claiming that non-native speakers (NNS) can be trained to gain abilities that
are associated with NSs (i.e. fluency, correct usage of idiomatic expressions, and knowledge
about the cultural connotation of English). Also, as NNESTs themselves have gone through the


language learning process, they can more likely predict potential difficulties for their students,
and know how to help them learn based on their own language learning experiences (Tang,
1997). This learning process of NNES teachers is, according to Phillipson (1992, in Liu, 2009),
considered a “valuable quality” that NSs cannot emulate.
However, the NNESTs have long endured what is called the inferiority complex; the belief
that they will never match the linguistics standards so valuable in their profession, such as a
native U.S. or U.K. accent, which in turn will lead them to believe that their interlanguage, the
knowledge of their L2, is perpetually inadequate. Thus, holding the assumption that in order to
meet the high expectations of their students and to prove themselves worthy of being in the
profession, NNESTs must work harder than their NEST counterparts (Liu, 2009).
At this stage, there is an interesting question of whether NNESTs’ sense of efficacy, their
beliefs in their capability to successfully handle a specific prospective teaching situation, is
affected by this dichotomy of nativeness. As Bandura (1993) have demonstrated, teachers’ self-
efficacy can impact the environment teachers create in their classroom, their specific
instructional practices, their orientation toward the educational process, and, subsequently, their
students’ academic achievement. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine NNESTs’ efficacy
beliefs in comparison with their NEST counterparts.
1.4.2. Non-native English speaker teacher self-efficacy
The growing number of non-native English speaker teachers in EFL as well as ESL
contexts around the world has raised so much interest in issues related to non-native English
speaking teachers (NNEST) in the field of TESOL that a proliferation of papers, theses,

dissertations, and publications has been dedicated to the topic. However, studies on the the self-
efficacy beliefs of NNESTs are few; of the available literature, work from researchers examining
NNES teachers in the context of Iran can be observed (Eslami & Fatahi, 2008; Akbari &
Moradkhani, 2010; Karimvand, 2011).
Eslami & Fatahi (2008), using a modified version of Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TSES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and two sub-scales – self-reported
proficiency and pedagogical strategies (Chacón, 2005, cited in Eslami & Fatahi, 2008),
examined the self-efficacy beliefs of EFL NNESTs in Iranian in relation to their perceived
English language proficiency and instructional strategies. They found that the more efficacious
the teachers felt, the higher their perceived level of English proficiency was and the more
inclined they were to use communicative-based strategies.
Akbari & Moradkhani (2010), who also used the TSES, examined 447 NNESTs from a
single English institute in Tehran, Iran in terms of the possible relationships between teaching
experience & academic degree, and teacher efficacy. Their results showed that teacher
experience had a positive relationship with NNESTs’ self-efficacy whereas teachers’ English
related academic degrees did not have significant impacts on their efficacy beliefs.
Karimvand (2011) in a similar strand with Akbari & Moradkhani (2010), explored Iranian
NNESTs’ perceived efficacy relative to their teaching experience and gender, using the Teachers'
Efficacy Beliefs System- Self scale (TEBS-Self). The results also showed that experienced
teachers (with more than or equal to three and a half years of teaching) had significantly more


positive efficacy perceptions than teachers with less than or equal to three years of experience.
Also, the female teachers in Karimvand study were found to have “significantly higher self-
efficacy than the male participants on the whole questionnaire and two components of it.”
In light of all the reviewed literature above, there is, in fact, much research which has been
carried out to examine teacher efficacy from different angles; however, little has been done to
investigate the perceived efficacy of NNESTs in EFL contexts in relation to the efficacy beliefs
of their NEST counterparts. Thus, this research aims to investigate NNESTs’ efficacy beliefs in
comparison with their NEST counterparts in the hope of bridging the research gap, reaching

recommendations for the betterment of NNESTs, and providing the support they need to develop
their mastery experiences, which in turn are the major sources of their perceived self-efficacy.
1.5. The context of teaching at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Training,
University of Languages and International Studies (FELTE, ULIS)
The Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE), which specialises in
training teacher and interpreters/translators of English at the undergraduate level, is a faculty
under ULIS, one of the most prestigious institutions in Vietnam for language teaching, learning,
and research. Regarding teaching staff, teachers at the FELTE, who are all Vietnamese NNESTs,
are methodologically trained in ELT and are highly qualified in terms of English proficiency,
linguistic competence – every teacher being recruited has to undergo English language tests &
professional interviews – and academic degree – which the basic degree requirement for
employment is an honours BA degree. In addition, the faculty annually hires from 3 to 4 native-
speaker teachers from the U.S., U.K., New Zealand, etc. through ELIC, an organisation which
recruits native English speaker teachers to teach English in Asia.
At FELTE, demographically, the female teachers outnumber their male counterpart and
most of the teachers are young with less than three years of experience. This is possibly due to
the fact that there are more female students pursuing ELT career in Vietnam, and FELTE
recruitment policy of employing honours BA holders respectively.
Regarding professional development, teachers at FELTE enjoy many opportunities for
professional development, such as participating in departmental workshops, seminars,
international conferences, annually conducting research in their field of interest, and most
noticeably, joining FELTE mentoring program.
1.6. How does this study fit into other research?
Having examined the relevant literature on the research topic, i.e. teacher self-efficacy and
NNESTs around the world and in the context of the Faculty of English Language Teacher
Education (ULIS, VNUH), this section discusses how the present study fits into the area of
investigation.
In the first place, the present study seeks to find out the self-efficacy beliefs of both
NNESTs and NESTs at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS, VNUH in
relation to the demographic factors: teaching experience and gender. This is in line with current

trends of research in TESOL under the theme of teacher motivation and its subtheme, teacher
self-efficacy. Furthermore, as contended by Bandura (1993) and many others, teachers’ self-
efficacy can impact the environment teachers create in their classroom, their specific


instructional practices, their orientation toward the educational process, and, subsequently, their
students’ academic achievement. Thus, examining NNESTs’ efficacy beliefs proves to be
valuable in the field of TESOL in general, and in terms of teacher professional development in
particular.
Secondly, it appears that, so far, there has been little research on NNES teachers’ self-
efficacy in EFL contexts in Vietnam in general, and at FELTE in particular. Around the world,
other research on teacher self-efficacy has mainly focused either on NESTs (e.g. Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfok Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Paneque & Barbetta, 2005; Henson 2011) or NNESTs (e.g.
Chacón, 2005; Eslami & Fatahi, 2008; Akbari & Moradkhani, 2010; Karimvand, 2011), while
the current research attempts to investigate both NNESTs and NESTs’ sense of self-efficacy in
the hope of producing exhaustive data to the self-efficacy beliefs of these two parties. In this
way, the present study supplements those studies.
Given the context-specific nature of the construct of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995) and the
scarcity of research in this significant area in Vietnam, the researcher was motivated to conduct
the present study to contribute to the available knowledge about the place of teacher self-efficacy
beliefs in ELT, in general, and EFL education in Vietnam, in particular. More precisely, this
study was conducted in order to explore possible effects of teaching experience and gender as
well as their interaction effect on Vietnamese NNESTs' self-efficacy and NESTs’ self-efficacy,
in general, and its different dimensions as conceptualized by Dellinger, Bobbett, Dianne and
Chad (2008).
To sum up, in light of the literature review, the current study on teacher self-efficacy at
FELTE, ULIS, VNUH is worth doing as it is in line with current trends of study on self-efficacy
beliefs of teachers around the world. Furthermore, it is useful and beneficial to FELTE and
English language teaching institutions alike as it will provide insights into NNES teachers’ sense
of efficacy and help further improve the quality of English teaching – learning and training of

future NNES teachers.
1.7. Summary
This chapter has shed light on the relevant literature which forms the theoretical basis of
the study. More precisely, the chapter has reviewed literature pertinent to the conceptualisation
of “self-efficacy” and “teacher self-efficacy”, “the social cognitive theory”, which laid the
theoretical foundations for research. On the practical side, the chapter has examined the issues of
“non-native English speaker teacher” and “NNESTs’ self-efficacy. It ended with a brief review
of related studies hence disclosed the research gap and justified the practical aims and objectives
of the present study.
In the next chapter, the methodology for the investigation to find answers to the research
questions set forth in this study will be presented.



CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
his chapter presents the methodology employed for data collection and analysis. It first
discusses the participants and sampling procedure of the study. It closes with a detailed
description of the instrumentation, the procedure of data collection and analysis; hence, justifies
the reliability and validity of the whole study.
2.0. Research questions
The current study sets out to find answers to the following research questions:
1. What is the self-efficacy of NNESTs?
2. What is the self-efficacy of NESTs?
3. What is the relationship between the self-efficacy of these two parties in terms of
gender and teaching experience?
2.1. Sampling and Participants
2.1.1. Sampling procedures
The study employed a non-probability strategy for sampling as defined by Lund Research
Ltd (2010) as it has to rely on the consent to participate of the subjects that is NESTs and
NNESTs at FELTE. The specific procedures employed was purposive sampling – to recruit both

NNEST and NEST participants – and snowball sampling, i.e. a technique for developing a
research sample in which current study subjects recruit future subjects from among their
acquaintances; thus, the sample group seems to grow like a rolling snowball (Eslami & Fatahi,
2008), to recruit more NESTs because of the relatively small number of NESTs at FELTE. The
unique nature of the sample and its impact on the results are further discussed in Chapter 3 where
the demographic results are reported.
2.1.2 Participants
The participants of the present study were 40 EFL teachers, among them 34 were NNESTs
working at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH, and 6 NESTs working at FELTE and other English language
institutions in Hanoi. In general, their years of teaching experience ranged from less than 1 year
to more than 30 years. The NNESTs had at least a BA TEFL or a BA in English language,
translation, & interpretation. The NEST counterpart all had relevant BA ELT academic degrees
or postgraduate TESOL certificates.
2.2. Instrumentation
Among the different scales which measure teacher self-efficacy, this study adopts the
Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System-Self (TEBS-S) developed by Dellinger et al. (2008).
According to Dellinger et al. (2008), their scale had certain strengths compared to previously
developed instruments. They contended that their instrument was developed based on a
conceptualisation of self-efficacy that is firmly grounded in Social Cognitive Theory. In defining
“teacher self-efficacy”, they have tried to avoid confusing the construct of self-efficacy with
other related and relatively more stable self-constructs such as self-esteem, self-concept, locus of
control, and outcome expectancy. Also, the context-specific nature of efficacy beliefs has been
taken into consideration in their developing of the items in their instrument. For the purpose of
this study, three more questions were added to the questionnaire, probing responses to
T


participants’ gender, teaching experience (in terms of year of teaching), and nationality (See
Appendix 1). The following explains the TEBS-S.
Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System-Self (TEBS-S)

In the TEBS-S, there are 31 survey items which request respondents to make judgments
about the strength of their personal beliefs in their capacity to organize and successfully carry out
specific teaching tasks on a 4-point scale (1=weak beliefs in my ability, 2=somewhat strong
beliefs in my ability, 3=strong beliefs in my ability, and 4=very strong beliefs in my ability).
The 31 items were initially grouped into four dimensions according to Dellinger et al.
(2008), i.e. Accommodating Individual Differences (AID), Maintaining a Positive Classroom
Climate (PCC), Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL), and Managing Learning Routines
(MLR).
Then, following the call from Henson (2001) to use confirmatory factor analysis to validate
the measuring tools used in teacher self-efficacy research, the instrument was factor analysed
using principal component, varimax method with Eigenvalue greater than 1 for validation. Four
factors with loading greater than .40 were extracted. Analysis of the four newly emerged
dimensions shows some different from the ones extracted by Karimvand (2011) who used the
same questionnaire from Dellinger (2008). MFL and AID enjoyed the highest level in terms of
Cronbach’s alpha while PCC had the lowest. On the contrary, in the present study, PCC and
MLR enjoyed the highest level in terms of Cronbach’s alpha while MFL had the lowest. These
could show differences in self-efficiency among Iranian and Vietnamese EFL teachers. Table 1
reports Karimvand’s (2011) instrument.
Dimension
Cronbach’s alpha Coefficient
Accommodating Individual Differences (AID)
(Items: 1, 2, 12, 13 and 27)
.91
Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC)
(Items: 8, 9 and 31)
.80
Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL)
(Items: 16, 17, 18 and 22)
.92
Managing Learning Routines (MLR)

(Items: 3, 4 and 5)
.82
Table 1 - Reliability of Karimvand’s (2011) instrument
Table 2 below reported the scale and establishment of the construct validity of the TEBS-
S. In this study, respective Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each dimension also indicates a
relatively high level of internal consistency reliability although not as high as the one reported by
Karimvand (2011). It may be due to the much smaller sample in the present study compared to
Karimvand’s study.
Dimension
Cronbach’s alpha Coefficient
Accommodating Individual Differences (AID)
(Items: 27, 28)
.80
Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC)
(Items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12)
.84


Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL)
(Items: 7, 22, 24)
.75
Managing Learning Routines (MLR)
(Items: 20, 21, 23, 25)
.84
Table 2 - Cronbach's alpha Coefficients for the TEBS-S
2.3. Procedures of data collection
The procedure of data collection comprises two main stages as described below.
 Stage 1:
At this stage, a review of relevant literature and available teacher self-efficacy scales was
conducted, taking into consideration the specific EFL context at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH. Finally,

the TEBS-S scale was chosen for the reasons mentioned above. Also, necessary preparation for
the sampling procedure was made.
 Stage 2:
This stage involves the administration of survey questionnaires to participants. For the
FELTE NNESTs, questionnaires were administered through two channels, face-to-face contact
and through email, with ethical assurance that their information remained confidential. For the
NESTs at FELTE, currently, there are four NESTs teaching at FELTE that the researcher could
have contact with. The researcher had directly asked for their agreement to participate in the
survey before sending the questionnaire to them through email. Two other NESTs were recruited
through snowball method.
2.4. Procedures of data analysis
The statistical software used was the free open-source statistical software PSPP version 17. In
summary, the statistical analyses in the study included the following procedures:
 Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic and professional
characteristics of the respondents in the sample. Summary statistics are reported for the
total sample, including means, standard deviations and ranges of scores for each item for
all demographic, independent, and dependent variables.
 Factor analysis was calculated to determine the relationships between the self-efficacy
beliefs of NNESTs and NESTs on four psychometric dimensions of the TEBS-S
identified by Dellinger et al. (2008), namely Accommodating Individual Differences
(AID), Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (CC), Monitoring and Feedback for
Learning (MFL), and Managing Learning Routines (MLR).
 Multivariate analysis using independent samples T-test was used to find answers to the
three research questions.
2.5. Summary
This chapter reported the methodology employed in the current M.A. thesis in terms of the
participants and sampling method, and the procedures for data collection and data analysis.
Firstly, the research questions were restated to act as a guideline for the whole methodological
approach. Then the sampling and instrumentation were described in detail. Finally, the coding
scheme, statistical procedures was explained and the research questions reemphasised.

14


CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
his chapter presents the results of data analysis for answers to the three research questions.
The findings are discussed and compared with the relevant literature reviewed in chapter two.
3.1. Results of construct validation of the TEBS-Self
To make sure that the data collected through TEBS-Self can be relied upon, the
researcher used factor analysis to validate the instrument. Using principal component method
with criterion of Eigenvalue greater than 1, four components were extracted from the data.
Table 3 reports the results. Using a more stringent criterion of factor loading greater than .40
(Karimvand, 2011), 16 items were retained for further analysis (see Table 1 & 2).
Internal consistency reliability of the scale and its components were calculated through
Cronbach's Alpha. It was found that the scale enjoyed a reliability of .93, with the
components: Accommodating Individual Differences (AID), Positive Classroom Climate
(PCC), Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL), and Managing Learning Routines
(MLR) estimated to have reliabilities of 0.80, 0.84, 0.75, and 0.84 respectively (see Table 2,
Chapter 2). All results reported in this chapter were based on the scale that has been validated
as above.
3.2. Sample characteristics
There were 40 ELT teachers agreeing to take part in the research. Among them, 33
(accounting for 82.5%) were female, 7 (17.5%) were female.
In terms of teaching experience, 72.5 per cent of the sample (n=29) has been teaching
English for at least 3 years. 11 teachers (27.5%) have been teaching up to three years.
Regarding nationality, Vietnamese teachers occupied 85% (n=34) of the sample. 5
(15%) were from America and 1 from the UK. This group was coded Others for further
analysis.
3.3 Participant profile
Since the aim of this paper is to investigate NNESTs’ perceived efficacy in relation to
their NEST counterpart. In further analysis, teacher participants were divided into two major

groups based on their nationality: Vietnamese or NNESTs (Group 1) and Others, e.g. UK, US
or NESTs (Group 2). Table 3 presents a demographic profile of the two groups.
Based on their years of teaching experience, the participants were divided into two
groups, those who had taught less than three years and those who had taught from three years
or more (with the longest period of teaching being more than 30 years). To avoid using the
highly subjective labels of experienced or inexperienced, the researcher chose to refer to them
as having “Less than three years teaching experience” and “Equal to or more than three
years”.
Regarding gender, while Group 2 had a rather balanced proportion of gender, Group 1
had noticeably more female teachers than male teachers. This fact is due to the “inherent”
demographic nature at FELTE, in which female teachers usually outnumber male teachers.
This might have some possible impacts on the results of the study. However, according to the
literature review, many researchers have found that gender does not seem to have much
significant impact on teachers’ perceived efficacy (Ghaith and Shaaban, 1999; Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2002; and Wilson et al.,2004).
T
15


With teaching experience, it can be seen that most of the teacher participants have had
equal to or more than three years of teaching time (approximately 73% in Group 1, and 67%
in group 2). This might indicate a higher level of efficacy beliefs among the teachers, as
research has shown that there is a positive correlation between teaching experience and
efficacy beliefs.
In this section of the study, the results of the descriptive statistics for the self-efficacy
beliefs the two groups of NNESTs and NESTs are reported.
3.3. Research question 1: What is the self-efficacy of NNESTs?
Table 6 summarises the general efficacy beliefs of NNESTs. Overall, NNESTs have the
highest level of efficacy beliefs in items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31 (these
items received an overall mean equal to or higher than 3, i.e. strong to very strong) with the

highest endorsed efficacy belief in items 8 and 9 (the mean of which were 3.32 and 3.29
respectively); while the efficacy belief items 27, 28 received the lowest level of perceived
efficacy (2.24 & 1.97 respectively, which translate to “weak to relatively moderate”).
In order to examine this data in more exhaustive detail, it is useful to revise the
psychometric dimensions of self-efficacy proposed by Dellinger et al. (2008) in the light of
the scale just validated in this study (see Section 2.2). The compute syntax was used to set up
the four sub-scales of Accommodating Individual Differences (AID) from items 27 and 28;
Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC) from items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 12;
Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL) from items 7, 22, 25; Managing Learning
Routines (MLR) from items 20, 21, 23, and 25. Table 8 reports the statistics of the four sub-
scales among NNESTs in the current study.
Most NNESTs endorsed a high level of efficacy beliefs to self-efficacy belief items 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; collating these items to the dimensions of TEBS-S, we can see that these
items constitute the dimension of “Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC)”. The
highest score of 20.5 (SD=3.88) for this dimension of SEB suggests that most NNESTs have
strong beliefs in their capabilities to create and maintain positive classroom climates for their
students. The second highest scored dimension is Managing Learning Routines (MLR) with a
mean of 11.06 (SD=2.54); then Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL) with a mean of
8.76 (SD=1.64)
Meanwhile, the items which received low levels of endorsement were 27 & 28,
suggesting that most NNESTs have low level of efficacy beliefs in terms of “Accommodating
Individual Differences (AID)”. Further examining suggests that the issues of “students with
special needs” (item 27) and “learning difficulties” (item 28) are rather irrelevant in the
English teaching and learning context at FELTE as actually, there are no disabled students
with serious learning difficulties.
3.4. Research question 2: What is the self-efficacy of NESTs?
Table 9 shows the general efficacy beliefs of NESTs. Overall, NESTs have highest
level of efficacy beliefs in items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31
(these are the items which received an overall mean equal to or higher than 3, i.e. strong to
very strong) with the highest endorsed efficacy beliefs in items 8 and 9 (the mean of which

was 3.83 and 3.50 respectively); while the efficacy belief items 27, 28 received the lowest
16


level of perceived efficacy (a mean of 1.83 and 2.00, respectively, meaning “weak to
relatively moderate” level of efficacy beliefs).
Most NESTs endorsed a high level of efficacy beliefs to self-efficacy belief items 3, 4,
5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, collating these items to the
dimensions of TEBS-S, we can see that these items most constitutes the dimension of
“Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC)”, “Monitoring and Feedback for Learning
(MFL)”, and “Managing Learning Routines (MLR)”; suggesting that most NESTs have
strong beliefs in their capabilities to create and maintain positive classroom climates for their
students, monitor feedback for learning, and maintain their students’ language learning
routines.
Meanwhile, similar to the NNEST counterpart, the items which received low levels of
endorsement were 27 & 28, suggesting that most NESTs also have low level of efficacy
beliefs in terms of “Accommodating Individual Differences (AID)”. This suggest that most
NESTs in this study find the issues of “students with special needs” (item 27) and “learning
difficulties” (item 28) rather irrelevant to their English teaching contexts (at FELTE & other
English language teaching institutions in Vietnam). Summary statistics of the four
dimensions of the SEB scale for NESTs can be found in Table 10.
3.5. Research question 3: What is the relationship between the self-efficacy of these two
parties in terms of gender and teaching experience?
Comparison of the self-efficacy beliefs (SEB) of NESTs and NNESTs using descriptive
statistics show that the two groups share common belief of their capabilities in “Maintaining
a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC)”. They also have low level of efficacy beliefs in terms
of “Accommodating Individual Differences (AID)”. This suggest that most NESTs and
NNESTs in this study find the issues of “students with special needs” (item 27) and “learning
difficulties” (item 28) rather irrelevant to their English teaching contexts (at FELTE & other
English language teaching institutions in Vietnam).

In addition to that, the higher endorsement level for “Monitoring and Feedback for
Learning (MFL)” by NESTs compared to the NNESTs counterpart suggest that most NESTs
have strong beliefs in their capabilities to monitor and provide feedback for learning. Table
11 presents the comparison.
For a more rigorous picture of the relationship between the self-efficacy of NESTs and
NNESTs, independent samples t-test was used to compare the means of NESTs and NNESTs
on all the four sub-scales of AID, PCC, MFL, MLR. The results yielded, however, were not
statistically significant. This could be due to the small size of the samples involved. Table 12
reports the results.
As gender and teaching experience have been found to have some influence on teacher
self-efficacy, independent samples t-test was used to explore the relationship between the
SEB of NESTs and NNESTs and with both group as a whole with gender and teaching
experience as grouping variables.
The results indicate a mixed relationship between SEB of NESTs and NNESTs as
measured in the present study. NESTs scored lower than NNESTs on the AID, PCC AND
MLR components of teacher self-efficacy. NNESTs, however, scored lower than NESTs on
MFL. Although the current study does not set the objective to probe the reason why there is
17


such a difference between NESTs and NNESTs, it could happen that compared to the NESTs,
the NNESTs in the study have not been well-prepared in using corrective feedback to monitor
their students’ work for better learning.
With both groups collapsed into one sample, gender appears to have little effect on SEB
of the teachers in the sample. Except for the dimension of Monitoring and Feedback for
Learning (MFL), the male show a consistently lower level of endorsement than the female on
the self-efficacy scale (see Table 13). The finding was in line with finding by Cheung (2006,
cited in Karimvand 2011) and Karimvand’s (2011: 173) findings which showed that female
teachers “have significantly more general efficacy than male teachers, while it is worth
mentioning that female teachers in this study were generally older and had longer teaching

experience than male teacher”.
Teaching experience then was explored with the whole sample. Descriptive statistics
show interesting results. While teachers in group 1 with less than 3 years of teaching
experience consistently show a lower level of endorsement of AID, PCC and MLR, they
appear to endorse Monitoring and Feedback for Learning - MFL more than their counterpart
group 2, teachers with 3 or more than 3 years of teaching experience. Group 1 mean score for
MFL is 8.82 (SD=1.47), whereas group 2 mean score is 8.79 (SD=1.90).
This finding supports the results of Karimvand’s (2011, p. 177) study that found that
“experience significantly affects Iranian EFL teachers’ self-efficacy”.
In summary, the NESTs and NNESTs in the present study appeared to show similar
trends in their beliefs about their teaching efficacy. They found themselves to be efficacious
in Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC), Managing Learning Routines (MLR)
and Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL). They all reported that they are not self-
efficacious in Accommodating Individual Differences (AID). NESTs even rated themselves
to be less efficacious than NNESTs in this aspect. A careful scrutiny of the ELT
Methodology program at FELTE-ULIS-VNU Hanoi revealed that the program does not have
any module on special education, a theoretical base for accommodating individual
differences.
On the basis of the findings, the study offers some suggestion and recommendations for
EFL teacher development. The next chapter presents the information.

CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
n general, the study achieved the objectives set out at the introductory part and answered the
three questions set out for the research. This chapter aims to propose what should be done
when ELT teachers, both NNESTs and NESTs, reported that they found themselves
efficacious in Maintaining a Positive Classroom Climate (PCC), Managing Learning
Routines (MLR) and Monitoring and Feedback for Learning (MFL) and not self-efficacious
in Accommodating Individual Differences (AID).
4.1. Teacher development at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH
In recent years, with the emergence of the postmethod pedagogy which empowers

language teachers to become “both theorizers and practitioners” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) and
critical pedagogy which considers teachers as “transformative intellectuals” (Pennycook,
1989, p. 613, cited in Akbari & Moradkhani, 2010), more attention has been paid to the
I
18


teacher’s role in the process of education. The teacher, among the other people involved in
the contribution to education, i.e. administrators, policy makers, curriculum planners, teacher
educators, and textbook writers, is considered the agent of change who shapes and reshapes
the learning outcome. In fact, the teacher can play a decisive role in the success or failure of
an education endeavour (Richards and Renandya, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). It is,
therefore, wise to invest in professional development of teachers in general, EFL teachers at
FELTE, in particular. Such a program would benefit much from the findings of the present
study on teacher self-efficacy in two ways.
Firstly, the fact that both native English speaker teachers and non-native English
speaker teachers report a high level of beliefs on their abilities to maintain a Positive
Classroom Climate (PCC), to manage Learning Routines (MLR) and to monitor and provide
Feedback for Learning (MFL) show that the training programs for these teachers have done
very well on these aspects. Future training programs could build on these solid grounds for
even more success.
Secondly, the fact that both native English speaker teachers and non-native English
speaker teachers report a low level of beliefs on their abilities to accommodate Individual
Differences (AID) shows that this very aspect is lacking in the training programs for ELT
teachers. ELT teacher trainers may take advantage of available sources on teaching students
with special needs in other subject areas to incorporate relevant approaches and techniques
into the ELT training programs to better prepare English teachers for inclusive education, a
policy promoted by Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training and strongly supported
by major donors in educational field.
4.2. Teacher training program design at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH

As mentioned above, the lack of an element of special education to provide teachers
with knowledge and skills on how to Accommodate Individual Differences (AID) in the
training programs for ELT pre-service teachers points to the need to design a module on
special education in ELT.
The design should follow standard procedures of needs analysis, material development,
piloting, editing and so on. Approaches, methods and techniques could be borrowed from
established procedures used in other subject matters.
The design module may not just focus on catering for the needs of disabled students but
also on providing English teachers with appropriate techniques and procedures for
individualisation in English language teaching. It may also looks at practical tips for teaching
mixed abilities classes, a real problem in many English language classrooms.

PART C: CONCLUSION
eacher self-efficacy is an important indicator of educational success. According to Bandura
(1993), self-efficacious teachers effectively create learning environments conducive to
development of cognitive skills, while teachers with a low sense of instructional efficacy
favor a punishment orientation that relies heavily on negative sanctions to get students to
study.
This study used the TEBS-Self questionnaire survey developed by Dellinger et al.
(2008) to collect information about the self-efficacy beliefs of native and non-native English
T
19


speaker teachers in the Vietnamese higher education teaching context. Results show that both
groups have high beliefs on their capabilities to maintain positive classroom climates. The
two groups also report low level of endorsement on dealing with special needs students. The
native speaker group, on the other hand, reported high level on monitoring and feedback and
classroom management. Finally, the study provided recommendations and implications for
even better professional development for NNESTs.

Though the researcher has carried out the study with full prudence and seriousness,
there remain certain limitations in the study.
First and foremost, due to other responsibilities and the lack of time, the researcher
could not carry out interviews of NNESTs and NESTs to probe elucidation to their perceived
efficacy, and the extent to which these perceived efficacy affect their work achievement, their
teaching practices, their outlook of the process of education, and subsequently, their students’
academic achievement.
Next, within the scope of this research, the concept of self-efficacy was particularly
examined in the educational context. More precisely, the study looked at teacher self-efficacy
from the psychometric dimensions developed by Dellinger et al. (2008) which is only a small
aspect of a larger picture.
On the methodology of the research, this study utilises a single survey questionnaire,
namely the Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale – Self (TEBS-S) developed by Dellinger et al.
(2008). Though the TEBS-S has been analysed thoroughly for internal consistency validity,
some factors/ items remain rather irrelevant to the teaching context of the participants in the
research.
In view of the limitations of this study, the researcher would like to make some
recommendations for further research into the same topic.
First of all, further research on teacher self-efficacy beliefs and their potential impacts
on teachers’ work achievement and their students’ academic attainment should be carried out.
Secondly, as the study looked at teacher self-efficacy from the psychometric
dimensions developed by Dellinger et al. (2008) which is only a small aspect of a larger
picture, other researchers are encouraged to examine the topic based on different authors’
conceptualisation of teacher self-efficacy for a more wide-ranging view.
Finally, as, according to Dellinger, teacher efficacy is “a belief system that one has
concerning his/her self-perceived capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to
acquire given levels of attainment in situation-specific teaching tasks” (Dellinger, 2011),
more comprehensive and context-specific tools to gauge teachers’ self-efficacy should be
developed for thorough and exhaustive findings.

References

Akbari, R., & Moradkhani, S. (2010). Iranian English Teachers’ self-efficacy: Do Academic
Degree and Experience make a difference? Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 56,
Special Issue, 25-47.
20


Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social psychology, 6, pp. 1-62. New York: Academic Press. Retrieved on the World
Wide Web at
Bandura. A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioural Research and
Therapy, 1, 237-269.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman &
Company.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bao Kham, (2010). Problems of novice EFL teachers in Vietnam. Retrieved from the World
Wide Web at

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cheung, H.Y. (2008). Teacher Efficacy: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong and Shanghai

Primary In-Service Teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, Volume 35,
Number 1, April 2008.
Cherry, K. (2011). What is self-efficacy?. Retrieved on February 20
th
, 2011 from the World
Wide Web at

Dellinger, A.B. (2001). A study of the measurement and sources of teachers’ self and
collective efficacy beliefs in professional learning environments. Dissertation,
Louisiana State University.
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring Teachers’ Self-
Efficacy Beliefs: Development and Use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher
Evaluation: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24 (3), 751-766.
Efficacy. (2011). Oxforddictionaries.com. Oxford University Press. Retrieved August 30,
2011, from
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2004). Nonnative-English-speaking educators: A research summary.
NNEST Newsletter, 6(2).
Karimvand, P. N. (2011). The Nexus between Iranian EFL Teachers’ self-efficacy, Teaching
Experience and Gender. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 171-183.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Graddol, D. (2007). English Next. UK: British Council.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
21


Harmer, J. (2003). How to teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of English
Language Teaching. Ninth impression. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher Self-Efficacy: Substantive Implications and Measurement

Dilemmas. Retrieved on the World Wide Web at

Hoang, V. V. (2011). The Current Situation and Issues of the Teaching of English in
Vietnam. Retrieved on the World Wide Web at />rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_22-1/RitsIILCS_22.1pp.7-18_HOANG.pdf
Jimenez Soffa, S. (2006). Inspiring academic confidence in the classroom: An investigation
of features of the classroom experience that contribute to the academic self-efficacy of
undergraduate women enrolled in gateway courses. Dissertation completed at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2000). How languages are learned. Revised edition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Liu, Jun. (2009). Complexities and Challenges in Training Nonnative English Speaking
Teachers: State-of-the-Art. CamTESOL conference materials. Retrieved on
November 1
st
, 2009 at

Llurda, E. (Ed.) (2005). Non-Native Language Teachers. Perceptions, Challenges, and
Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer.
Maum, R. (2009). Nonnative-English-Speaking Teachers in the English Teaching Profession.
ERIC Digest. Retrieved on October 10
th
, 2009 at />4/teaching-profession.html/
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
Nolan, D. (2009). A Study of The Relationship of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and the Impact of
Professional Learning Community as an Organizational Structure. Doctoral
dissertation, Louisiana Tech University. Retrieve on the World Wide Web at

Ngo, V. H. P. & Vu, T. P. T. (2011). An interactive evaluation of a mentoring program for
beginning teachers. TESOL Conference 2011 presentation slides. Retrieved from
/>ong%20&%20Vu%20Thi%20Phuong%20Thao.pptx

Opp-Beckman, L., & Klinghammer, S. J. (2006). Shaping the way we teach English:
successful practice around the world. Washington, DC: Office of English Language
Program.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved
February 19
th
, 2011, from
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem solving: a path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
86(2), 193-203.
Paneque, O. M. & Barbetta, P. M. (2005). A Study of Teacher Efficacy of Special Education
Teachers of English Language Learners with Disabilities. Proceedings of The Fourth
Annual College of Education Research Conference, 99-104.
22


Richards, J. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. (2002). Curriculum development in language teaching. 2
nd
printing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. (2005). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on December 18
th
, 2007 at

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Editors) (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching:
an Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. (2007). "Professional development effects on teacher efficacy;
Results of randomized field trial". The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-

66.
Self-efficacy. (2011). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from

Social cognitive theory. (2011). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 7,
2010 from
/>/
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job
stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Special Issue: Health and Well-Being, 57, 152-171.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.
Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal
and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Schwarzer, R., & Knoll, N. (2007). Functional roles of social support within the stress and
coping process: A theoretical and empirical overview. International Journal of
Psychology, 42, 243-252.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations
with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625. American Psychological
Assoc/educational publishing foundation. Retrieved from

Tang, C. (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly,
31(3), 577-580.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1994). Teacher Efficacy: Its
Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202 - 248.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2007). "Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL
teacher". TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 657 – 680.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vijay Gupta (1999). SPSS for beginners. SPSS: Vijay Gupta.
Vietnam National University (2005). Undergraduate Programs. Hanoi: VNUH.

Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Watzke, J. L. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a developmental
23


theory of beginning teacher practices. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 63 – 82.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in
mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(1), 215-246.