THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND SELF-EFFICACY ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT by Kurt Biehl A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah July 27, 2020 Approved ____________________________________ David R. Byrd, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Peggy J. Saunders, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Thomas J. Mathews, Ph.D. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 2 Acknowledgements This project would not have happened without the great love and support from my amazing wife, Charity. Since beginning this process, we have experienced great change, personal tragedy, and personal growth. Charity has been a constant support and source of encouragement. I literally could not have done this without you. To Hattie, Henry, and Roman, my beautiful and amazing children. I hope this project will help show you that all things are possible with grit, determination, and hard work. Thank you for your unconditional love and support. You are my joy. Finally, I would like to express great appreciation to the faculty and staff at Weber State University who helped guide and direct me during the process of this project. To Dr. Byrd for his help, encouragement, and guidance throughout the course of the project. Dr. Mathews for assisting me in recruiting participants for the study and offering great feedback and a foreign language teacher’s perspective. To Dr. Saunders who filled in on my committee late in the process and provided kind and extremely useful feedback and edits. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.......................................................................................................6 Literature Review.................................................................................................................7 Changes in Teaching Foreign Languages ................................................................8 Foreign Language Teachers Vary in Level of Self-efficacy Related to their Teaching .................................................................................................................12 Interaction between Language Proficiency, Self-efficacy, and Student Achievement ..........................................................................................................16 Summary ............................................................................................................................17 PURPOSE .....................................................................................................................................18 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................19 Participants .........................................................................................................................19 Instrument ..........................................................................................................................20 Procedure ...........................................................................................................................21 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................21 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................22 Correlation between Teachers’ Language Proficiency and Self-efficacy ..........................22 Correlation between Language Proficiency, Self-efficacy, and Student Achievement .....24 Significance of Correlations ..............................................................................................27 DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................28 Correlation between Teachers’ Language Proficiency and Self-efficacy ..........................28 Correlation between Language Proficiency, Self-efficacy, and Student Achievement .....28 Significance of Correlations ..............................................................................................30 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 4 Future Research .................................................................................................................30 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................31 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................33 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................36 Appendix A: ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines...................................................36 Appendix B: Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Example Questions ..................................42 Appendix C: IRB Approval ...............................................................................................43 Appendix C: TSES Permission Letter ...............................................................................44 List of Tables Table 1. Language proficiency levels and teachers’ sense of efficacy scale scores ......................24 Table 2. Language proficiency, teachers’ sense of efficacy scale scores and student achievement...........................................................................................................................................26 Table 3. Correlation coefficients by level of language taught and average of all languages taught by participants ...................................................................................................................27 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 5 Abstract Foreign language teachers at all levels are expected to be proficient in the language they teach and have a belief in their ability to do their job effectively. Teachers with deficiencies in language proficiency or self-efficacy beliefs tend to not stay in the profession for long, leading to teacher shortages. The purpose of this study was to 1) measure the correlations between language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy, 2) measure the correlation between these two factors and student achievement in the foreign language classroom, and 3) measure the extent to which these three factors interact. A survey was designed to collect general teacher demographic information including education history, previous language proficiency scores, and student grade information. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale survey was also used with permission from the survey developers (Tschannen-Woolfork & Hoy, 2001). Educators from the Utah Foreign Language Association (UFLA) were invited to participate in this study. Members of the UFLA were invited to participate in the survey by email and data collection took place over a span of 6 weeks. Positive correlations were found between language proficiency and self-efficacy. Mostly positive correlations were observed between language proficiency, self-efficacy beliefs, and student achievement with stronger correlations for upper level foreign language courses (level 4, AP, and immersion) than teachers of lower level classes (level 1, level 2, and level 3). The correlations did not turn out to be statistically significant but results from this study suggest that some combination of language proficiency and self-efficacy belief is essential to the success of foreign language teachers in the current foreign language teaching environment. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 6 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Foreign language (FL) teachers at all levels are expected to be proficient in the target language in order to teach effectively. Certification requirements to obtain a teaching license to teach an FL vary from state to state, but candidates must demonstrate their knowledge of the FL as well as complete a teacher preparation program or some alternate route to a license (Chambless, 2012). The population of FL teachers has a wide range of target language fluency. Individuals’ history, experience, and ability to maintain their knowledge of the FL are as varied as the people who speak the FL. Many studies have illuminated the issues that occur in FL teacher education (Bateman, 2008; Hlas, 2016; Huhn, 2012), retention of FL teachers (Hiver, 2013; Valmori & De Costa, 2016), as well as discrepancies in effectiveness of native compared to non-native speakers of the language (Fraga-Cañadas, 2010; Thompson & Fioramonte, 2012). In addition to language proficiency, FL teachers are expected to have a belief in their ability to do their job effectively. Dicke et al. (2014) summarized Albert Bandura’s definition of self-efficacy as “a critical self-belief that relates to individuals’ perceptions of their capabilities to successfully undertake the actions required to complete a given task” (p. 571). Therefore, a teacher’s self-efficacy would be defined as a critical self-belief that relates to the teachers’ perception of their ability to successfully undertake the actions required to teach. The population of FL teachers varies in self-belief in their efficacy in the classroom (Skaalvik & Skaalvik 2010). The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) was developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) to measure a teacher’s self-efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. Many studies have investigated factors that contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), how self-efficacy affects teaching abilities SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 7 (Rodriguez et al., 2014), and the effects of outside sources on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Previous research pertaining to the connection between FL teacher language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy has focused on how deficiencies in target language and/or teaching self-efficacy can lead to a variety of undesirable outcomes for FL teachers such as teacher attrition, teacher shortages, and how one affects the other. Several studies have found that low target language proficiency as well as low self-efficacy beliefs are factors related to burnout, low job satisfaction, teacher attrition, and poor student performance (Dicke et al., 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Swanson, 2012). Some researchers have expressed concern that teacher shortages have forced some school districts and states to relax their proficiency standards (Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005), and other researchers have observed a correlation between low target language proficiency and low teacher self-efficacy (Banno, 2003; Choi & Lee, 2016). There has been little to no research, however, on how these two factors affect student outcomes. Therefore, more research needs to be conducted on the interaction between FL teachers’ language proficiency, teacher self-efficacy, and their effect on student achievement. Literature Review This review will begin with a discussion about language proficiencies and skills required for current FL teachers. A discussion about the various aspects of teacher self-efficacy which relate to self-efficacy beliefs, how those beliefs effect teaching abilities, and how outside sources effect self-efficacy beliefs will be next. The review will conclude with how language proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs interact for FL teachers. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 8 Changes in Teaching Foreign Languages Since 1986, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) has established proficiency standards for FL learners (ACTFL, 2012). ACTFL provides guidelines for language proficiency (novice, intermediate, advanced, and superior) as well as proficiency standards in a variety of categories (communication, culture, connections, comparisons, and community). When ACTFL publishes new proficiency standards for language learners, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, formerly known as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, NCATE) publishes Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, which provides guidelines for proficiencies (in areas such as language, culture, language acquisition, instruction, assessment, and professional development), which new FL teachers should demonstrate before graduating from teacher preparation programs (CAEP, 2015). These standards for the teaching and learning of foreign languages represent a shift in the field of FL teaching away from vocabulary and grammar-based curriculum towards a multifaceted communicative process including cultural and community education (Huhn, 2012). Teacher preparation programs take the published standards from ACTFL and CAEP to inform their curriculum to better prepare their teaching candidates to enter the teaching field (Huhn, 2012). Huhn pointed out that the traditional method of teaching foreign languages revolved around the teaching of vocabulary and grammar in order to produce grammatically accurate translations between two languages with the ultimate goal of reading literary works in the target language. The current model focuses on learning various communication forms across cultures and communities in order to acquire new knowledge with the ultimate goal of producing students who are problem solvers who can interpret authentic texts, comprehend cultural SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 9 perspectives, and gain knowledge in content-based courses (Huhn, 2012). These updated outcomes require language teachers to have a higher level of proficiency so that they can assume the role of facilitator in classroom learning. CAEP (2015) suggested 90% usage of the target language in the FL classroom, but little consensus among educators in the appropriate application of the 10% first language use exists. Middle school and high school teachers indicated that the amount of effort it takes to increase the amount of the target language used in the classroom is too high and not worth the effort (Hlas, 2016). In addition to address a lack of consensus on the appropriate use of the first language in the FL classroom, teachers participating in one study indicated that their language proficiency, fatigue, and classroom management issues limited their use of the target language (Hlas, 2016). This study indicates that FL teachers need to have higher proficiency levels in order to achieve the 90% target. By contrast, preservice teachers in an additional study provided some insight into obstacles of using the target language for a high percentage of the class period (Bateman, 2008). Among impediments mentioned were factors related to the preservice teachers themselves (e.g. difficulty with classroom management in the target language), factors related to students (e.g. students limited language levels), factors related to subject matter (e.g. many participants in the study believed that teaching grammar and culture in the students’ native language would be more beneficial than using the target language), and factors related to the mentor teacher (e.g. mentor teachers’ language use affected the preservice teachers’ target language use) (Bateman, 2008). Participants in Bateman’s study expressed a desire to maximize the use of the target language in an initial questionnaire, and then subsequently indicated that their actual use of the target language was influenced by the feedback they received from students. If the participants SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 10 experienced success with the use of the target language, their use of the target language increased. If participants experienced discouragement with the use of the target language, their use of the target language decreased. Some participants also indicated that if students showed a lack of effort to pay attention when the target language was used, they also decreased their efforts to use the target language (Bateman, 2008). Teachers who are non-native speakers of the FL are expected to be “advanced language learners” (Valmori & De Costa, 2016, p. 99), and as such, they seek to advance their language proficiency while they seek to teach the language to their students. In a study of high school FL teachers in Italy, Valmori and De Costa (2016) found that language proficiencies of the teachers in their study were based on the curriculum and aim of their teaching settings. The Italian high school system has three types of schools: college preparation, technical, and vocational. Each of the high schools differ in terms of final language learning goals, types of students, and teaching approaches. Students in college preparation schools learn one or more FL as part of their standard, balanced curriculum. Students in technical schools marginalized FL learning, and vocational school students mainly enroll in vocation specific training classes (e.g. plumbing, mechanics, electrician training, etc.), and learning an FL is not a high priority. Interviews with teachers from college preparation and technical high schools reveal that teachers’ language proficiency adapts to the needs of their school setting and student needs. One teacher indicated that their proficiency level is tailored to the needs of their students (Valmori & De Costa, 2016). This study indicated that different proficiency levels exist within a language, and teachers may have a depth of grammatical and syntax knowledge proficiency that they can pass on to their students but lack adequate vocabulary to teach about conducting business in the same FL. Because of the differences in curriculum, teaching outcomes, and student engagement among SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 11 schools, FL teachers may have varying proficiency requirements based on the needs of their students and the desired outcomes (Valmori & De Costa, 2016). Supporting the idea of FL teachers as advanced language learners, Hiver (2013) found that English FL teachers in Korea who enroll in continuing teacher development courses geared toward improving English language skills are more interested in improving their English language skills than improving their pedagogical skills. Teachers in this study expressed a desire to become like native speakers of the language and acknowledge that they would be more effective teachers with improved language skills (Hiver, 2013). Perceived deficiencies – by school administrators – in language proficiency compared to native speakers of the language, create situations where frequently, non-native language teachers teach lower-level language classes resulting in a lack of challenges and higher-level language interaction. Consequently, these teachers can lose some language proficiency (Fraga-Cañadas, 2010). Almost half of non-native Spanish teachers participating in a study designed to explore perceived level of target language practice inside and outside of the classroom and teachers’ language proficiency levels reported no improvement or a decline in their language proficiency (Fraga-Cañadas, 2010). Participants reported their teacher preparation programs lacked adequate culture-related education and opportunities to speak the language. Participants also identified grammar and teaching methodology as the most important skills for a Spanish teacher. Grammar is the framework of the language from which all other aspects of instruction flow, and teaching methodology can compensate for deficiencies in other areas and provides opportunities for teachers to teach the language more efficiently/effectively. A majority of participants did not believe their oral proficiency (72%) and listening proficiency (78%) had improved since starting teaching, and 85% believe their cultural knowledge had improved since starting teaching. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 12 Participants indicated an increase in time spent using the language in the classroom based on level taught (41% for Spanish I, 53% for Spanish II, 68% for Spanish III, 78% for Spanish IV, and 88% for AP Spanish). Although 83% of teachers in this study indicated that they tried to speak with native Spanish speakers they encounter, most participants did not take opportunities to use Spanish with colleagues in their school because (a) it feels more natural to speak English; (b) concern that their language skills would be scrutinized; (c) colleagues do not address them in Spanish so they did not think to speak in Spanish; (d) they were not confident or felt their skills had declined or were in need of practice; and I time constraints in school (Fraga-Cañadas, 2010). Foreign Language Teachers Vary in Level of Self-Efficacy Related to Their Teaching The role of FL teachers is complex. Not only do language teachers need to demonstrate and maintain their language proficiency (oral and written), they also need to demonstrate competence in managing a classroom and other pedagogical tasks (Chambless, 2012). An important part of the FL teachers’ mental makeup is a belief in how effectively they apply their language and pedagogical skills and abilities in the classroom. This concept is their teaching self-efficacy. Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory refers to one’s self-perception of competence in the application of skills and abilities. Since the publication of Bandura’s theory, a wide range of research has been done on how it relates to different aspects of teachers’ teaching abilities (Dicke et al., 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010) and more specifically FL teachers’ teaching abilities (Choi & Lee, 2016; Hiver, 2013; Swanson, 2012). These studies have assisted in identifying factors that contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, the effects self-efficacy has on teaching abilities, and outside sources that affect self-efficacy beliefs. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 13 Teachers develop their skills through teacher education and career development programs, but their beliefs in their efficacy are based on their classroom experiences and implementing what they have learned into practice (Chambless, 2012). A Norwegian version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy scale (NTSES) was developed to measure six areas of teacher-efficacy: instruction, adapting education to individual students’ needs, motivating students, keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and challenges (Staalvik & Staalvik, 2014). This survey can only measure teachers’ beliefs in the moment they are taking the survey, but it can give an overall picture of the teachers’ belief in their teaching efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy was found to correlate positively to teacher engagement and job satisfaction as well as a moderately positive correlation with autonomy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Which factors produce which result is impossible to determine – does high self-efficacy lead to higher job satisfaction and engagement or does engagement and job satisfaction lead to higher self-efficacy? The findings of this study supported self-efficacy theory in which self-efficacy beliefs determine the perception of environmental factors which may be helpful or detrimental. These researchers speculated that teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs may relish autonomy to implement curriculum changes and teaching strategies that may be more beneficial for their students (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Teachers vary in their self-efficacy beliefs, and this variance can affect teaching abilities (Rodriguez et al., 2014). Teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs were more persistent, focused on academic aspects of activity, used complex instructional methods, and provided more help and praise for students (Rodriguez et al., 2014) than teachers with low self-efficacy beliefs. Teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs were less critical of students when they make mistakes, SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 14 work more with students who have difficulties, and are less inclined to send difficult students to alternative or special classrooms. Perception of self-efficacy will influence teachers’ persistence and their capacity to recover when dealing with difficulties (Rodriguez et al., 2014). After questionnaires were completed, researchers in this study clustered participants into three teacher self-efficacy types: low, intermediate, and high levels of self-efficacy. Data analysis revealed that teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs were more set in their ways and lacked motivation to learn new things, improve capacities, learn to solve problems, and work hard. Teachers with low self-efficacy beliefs and low levels of motivation spent less time planning classes and poorly supervised their classrooms, which negatively affected student motivation and increased test anxiety. Teachers in the intermediate group sought to improve student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. These findings indicate that teachers reporting high self-efficacy beliefs are over-confident in their teaching abilities; teachers with low self-efficacy beliefs disengage from teaching activities; and teachers with moderate self-efficacy beliefs are more engaged and seek more opportunities to improve their craft (Rodriguez et al., 2014). Conversely, it was found that FL teachers in the United States and Canada who reported higher self-efficacy and language proficiency were more likely to seek improvement in language and pedagogical skills (Swanson, 2012). This same study found that issues with classroom management were more predictive of teacher burnout and attrition in language teachers. Even though this study found that the participants in the study who planned on leaving the profession were not representative of the attrition rates reported in the US and Canada, the findings were important in identifying areas for improvement in professional development opportunities (Swanson, 2012). SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 15 Autonomy was also found to be a major factor in teachers’ sense of efficacy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Teachers with a sense of autonomy and ability to make decisions in their classroom were found to have students who felt more engaged and their job satisfaction increased. Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2010) hypothesized that teacher self-efficacy and burnout were more than likely a reciprocal relationship; as self-efficacy declined, emotional exhaustion (leading to burnout) increased, and as emotional exhaustion increased self-efficacy declined even more. Emotional exhaustion and erosion of language skills were found to correlate with diminished student achievement and higher rates of turnover for FL teachers (Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005). Teachers who reported lower self-efficacy beliefs may exert more energy and worry about their jobs more which could lead to emotional fatigue and burnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). A study of 1,065 FL teachers in Canada and the United States found that classroom management efficacy was most predictive of teacher satisfaction (Swanson, 2012). Swanson (2012) found that teachers who lacked confidence to teach cultural knowledge and ability to handle classroom management issues were more likely to leave the profession. Swanson discussed how modern FL curriculum puts less emphasis on cultural awareness in favor of content knowledge and language correctness. Students who took FL courses to learn more about the cultural aspects of the language became disappointed and checked-out of class which lead to student disengagement and higher incidences of classroom management issues. Positive relations with parents, school leadership, and teacher relationships have been found to be some of the outside sources that effect self-efficacy beliefs (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Teachers found parent evaluations important to form a frame of reference for their self-evaluation and self-perception. Supervisory support (e.g., observations, evaluations, positive SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 16 feedback, reward programs, opportunities for autonomy) was also found to increase self-efficacy beliefs. When teachers within a school and district formed a support framework, it was found to increase self-efficacy. Increased support and positive feedback for teachers were factors which can increase self-efficacy and a perceived lack of those factors can lead to a decline of self-efficacy beliefs (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Interaction between Language Proficiency, Self-efficacy and Student Achievement As mentioned in the previous section, a correlation was found between emotional exhaustion, erosion of language skills, and diminished student achievement (Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005). Important findings are that self-efficacy and language proficiency are mutually beneficial (Choi & Lee, 2016) and some college students believed that attributes that relate to pedagogy are more important than language proficiency in the FL classroom. The relationship between language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy is reciprocal. South Korea transitioned from a traditional grammar-based English teaching curriculum to a communicative functional curriculum. This transition created a need for FL teachers to be proficient in the language as well as have high self-efficacy beliefs. In a study of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers in South Korea, Choi and Lee (2016) found that a reciprocal relationship exists between self-efficacy and language proficiency (as English proficiency increased, self-efficacy also increased and vice-versa). The researchers categorized participating teachers into four groups: (a) teachers with high language proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs; (b) teachers with high language proficiency and low self-efficacy beliefs; (c) teachers with low language proficiency and high self-efficacy beliefs; and (d) teachers with low language proficiency and low self-efficacy beliefs. Teachers in the first category are believed to be ideal language teachers and provide the highest quality of language teaching for their student. Authors of this study SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 17 pointed out that scores for self-efficacy and language proficiency are variable and can change over time, indicating need for FL teachers to seek improvement in both areas of their craft (language proficiency and teaching efficacy) (Choi & Lee, 2016). As language proficiency and self-efficacy weigh in the view of FL students, one study found that self-efficacy is more important than language proficiency (Banno, 2003). In a study of college FL students from three different countries (Japan, the United States, and China), participants indicated that the most important attributes for their FL teachers are an ability to explain clearly, be approachable, employ good teaching methods, and an ability to motivate students (Banno, 2003). The researcher in this study concluded that for FL teachers, personality and pedagogy are more important attributes than language proficiency. Summary FL teachers of all levels are expected to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency in the language they teach and teaching self-efficacy in order to teach effectively. ACTFL and CAEP have established standards for different aspects of FL proficiency and provide suggestions for competencies for FL teacher education. The shift in curriculum outcomes for FL courses has changed the competencies required for FL teachers. Teacher self-efficacy beliefs are a function of in-classroom experiences of pre- and in-service teachers regarding how they apply and perceive the feedback from the application of their pedagogical skills. For FL teachers, language proficiency and self-efficacy have a reciprocal relationship which can influence classroom outcomes. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 18 PURPOSE Language proficiency of FL teachers and how that proficiency affects teacher self-efficacy was the focus of this study. Over time, FL curriculum has transitioned from being vocabulary and grammar-based to meaningful communication-based outcomes. This transition has increased language proficiency standards required for FL teachers. Teacher self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be an important factor in classroom outcomes and teaching longevity. The interaction of language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy impact teachers’ job satisfaction and longevity in the teaching profession. The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction of language proficiency, teacher self-efficacy, and student achievement in FL classrooms. The research sought to answer the following questions: 1. For the participants of this study, what correlation, if any, existed between FL teachers’ self-reported language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy beliefs? 2. What correlation, if any, existed between these measures and student achievement in FL classrooms? 3. To what extent did self-reported language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy of FL teachers have an influence on FL learner achievement? SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 19 METHODS This quantitative study used survey data collected from a survey comprising two sections: (a) general and demographic information section including final grade information for the students of the participants in the study and (b) the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). The survey collected data on FL teacher language proficiency, teacher self-efficacy beliefs, and student achievement. Participants The participants involved in the study were teachers and educators from various elementary schools, secondary schools, universities, and other language education settings who are members of the Utah Foreign Language Teachers Association (UFLA). Participants included native speakers, non-native speakers, and heritage speakers of the foreign languages they teach. For the purpose of this study, native speakers are teachers who learned the language they teach as their primary or first language (Thompson & Fioramonte, 2012); non-native speakers are teachers who teach a language which is not their primary or first language (Thompson & Fioramonte, 2012); heritage speakers are teachers who were exposed to the language they teach in early childhood but who lost proficiency in that language in favor of the majority language of their community (Montrul & Perpiñán, 2011). Participants also provided their oral language proficiency (language proficiency) as superior, advanced high, advanced mid, advanced low, and intermediate high (details of each of these proficiency levels can be found in Appendix A). For this study, participants self-reported their language background and proficiency. A total of 95 FL educators submitted the survey, but among them 17 completed all sections relevant for this research study (language proficiency, student grade data, and TSES). Among the 17 participants there were 11 Spanish teachers, 2 German teachers, and 1 teacher SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 20 each for Chinese, French Portuguese and American Sign Language. These teachers taught at the high school (5), junior high (7), elementary school (2), middle school (1), and college (1). One of the included participants did not specify what level they taught. Instrument Responses from the survey were self-reported information which explored FL teachers’ target language proficiency, language background, and student grades. The survey asked teachers to self-report information on their perceived level of target language proficiency. The survey was comprised of 39 questions combining closed question and Likert scale. The survey aimed to collect general information about the teacher, their education history, previous scores on language proficiency assessments, and student grade information. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale survey consists of 24 Likert scale questions (see sample questions from this survey in Appendix B). The 24 questions are designed to measure teachers sense of efficacy in three main areas: (a) student engagement; (b) instructional strategies; and (c) classroom management (8 questions for each area). A score is calculated by computing teachers’ responses to the survey questions on an unweighted basis. An overall score can be assessed as well as individual scores for each main area. Student achievement data was assessed by collecting FL students’ final grade information. Teachers were asked to provide the number of students in each level of language taught who received A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s, and failing grades from the previous academic year. Final grade information was considered a good data source because it allowed the researcher to glean information about how effectively teachers are imparting FL knowledge, engaging, and motivating students in the classroom, and how well students are progressing from one level to the next. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 21 Procedures The first step of this study was to obtain approval from the Weber State University internal review board (see Appendix C for IRB approval letter). Next permission was obtained from the UFLA to include their FL teachers in this study. Once permission was acquired, members of the UFLA were invited to participate in the survey by email with two follow-up reminders. After six weeks of data collection, the online survey was closed, and data were analyzed. Data Analysis Once data collection was complete, data were analyzed by using a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (correlation coefficient) to calculate the interaction between the three factors (FL teachers’ language proficiency, teacher self-efficacy, and student achievement). Teachers’ language proficiency data were coded to facilitate data analysis. Each level of oral language proficiency received the following numbers: superior-5, advanced high-4, advanced mid-3, advanced low-2, and intermediate high-1. Student grade data provided by teachers was analyzed taking the number of students achieving each grade section (A, B, C, D, and Fail) and multiplying it by a corresponding number (4, 3, 2, 1, and 0) then averaging the total of those calculations with the number of students in each language level taught. Teacher sense of efficacy scores were calculated into a total TSES score then calculating different categories (efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in classroom management) which were provided by the developers of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale survey. The correlation coefficient calculation allowed the researcher to assess to what extent teachers’ language proficiency and sense of efficacy interact as well as how both factors SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 22 correlate with student achievement. A two-factor ANOVA was calculated using the language proficiency score, average grades of all levels of language taught, and TSES score. RESULTS The stated purpose of this study was to examine the interaction of language proficiency, teacher self-efficacy beliefs, and student achievement in foreign language (FL) classrooms. This study sought to find: 1. For the participants of this study, what correlation, if any, existed between FL teachers’ self-reported language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy beliefs? 2. What correlation, if any, existed between these measures and student achievement in FL classrooms? 3. To what extent did self-reported language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy of FL teachers have an influence on FL learner achievement? To collect data, a survey was designed and distributed among teachers and educators from elementary and secondary schools, universities and other language education settings who were members of the UFLA. The survey was designed to collect teachers’ general information, education history, former and current perceived language proficiency, teaching experience, student grade information and included the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale survey developed and used with permission from researchers Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) (see Appendix D for the approval letter). The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale survey is designed to measure a teachers’ belief in their ability to teach their class effectively. Correlation between Teachers’ Language Proficiency and Self-efficacy SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 23 The first research question was “For the participants of this study, what correlation, if any, existed between FL teachers’ self-reported language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy beliefs?” Results for this research question can be seen in Table 1. Participants who reported an OPI score of superior also reported the highest TSES score (average of 175), followed by OPI scores of advanced low (173.250), advanced high (171.500), advanced mid (159.000), and intermediate high (151.000). The TSES also allows researchers to score participants sense of efficacy beliefs in three different categories: efficacy in student engagement (engagement), efficacy in instructional strategies (strategies), and efficacy in classroom management (management). For teachers reporting a superior OPI, even though their overall TSES score was the highest, with a higher engagement score (61.5) than other OPI levels, but they scored themselves lower in strategies (60) and management (53.5) than other teachers reporting lower OPI scores. By contrast, teachers reporting an intermediate high OPI scored lower in overall TSES with the lowest engagement (42.667), higher in strategies (56.667), and lower again in management (51.667). The correlation coefficient between teachers’ self-reported language proficiency and teachers’ sense of efficacy score from this study was determined to be positive (r=0.248). The positive correlation indicates that when teachers are more proficient, their sense of efficacy score increased. The correlation coefficient of 0.248 indicated that there was not a strong correlation found in the present data. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 24 Table 1 Language Proficiency levels and teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale scores Correlation between Language Proficiency, Self-efficacy, and Student Achievement The second research question for this study asked “What correlation, if any, existed between these measures and student achievement in FL classrooms?” Results for this research question can be seen in Table 2 and Table 3. Student achievement, for the intent of this study was measured by student final grade data. Teachers self-reported the number of students at each level of language taught who earned A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s, and failing grades the previous academic year. Student achievement was Analyzed by taking the number of students achieving each grade section (A, B, C, D, and Fail) and multiplying it by a corresponding number (4, 3, 2, 1, and 0) then averaging the total of those calculations with the number of students in each language level taught. Correlation coefficients Language Proficiency N TSES Total Engagement Strategies Management Superior 2 175.000 61.500 60.000 53.500 Advanced High 6 171.500 50.333 61.333 59.833 Advanced Mid 2 159.000 48.000 54.500 56.500 Advanced Low 4 173.250 54.500 58.750 60.000 Intermediate High 3 151.000 42.667 56.667 51.667 Average 17 167.235 51.000 58.941 57.294 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 25 were calculated for each level of language taught as well as an average of all levels taught was calculated. Correlation coefficients for the average of all language levels taught allowed for comparison by language proficiency level. For teachers who identified as superior language speakers, students achieved the highest average grade of 3.791 (roughly 94.775% which is a solid A average for their students), all other levels of language proficiencies students scored in the 3.2 range which equate to 80.200-81.465% and a B- average student grade. The correlation coefficient for language proficiency and student achievement did not indicate a strong correlation (r=0.196). The correlation between teacher self-efficacy beliefs and student grades was calculated for each level of language taught as well as an average of all levels of the language participants taught. The correlation coefficient for total TSES and student grades was stronger than the proficiency and self-efficacy correlation (r=0.295). Correlation coefficients were also calculated for the efficacy categories: efficacy in student engagement had the strongest correlation (r=0.366), followed by efficacy in instructional strategies (r=0.248), and efficacy in classroom management had the smallest correlation (r=0.159). Correlation coefficients for each level of language taught by the participants of this study allows for analysis of how language proficiency and sense of efficacy fluctuates by students’ language levels. Table 3 provides correlation coefficients for sense of efficacy scores for each sub-section of the TSES. Language proficiency correlated strongest for upper levels of language taught (AP r=1.000, immersion r=0.998, level 4 r=0.856) compared to lower levels of language taught (level 1 r=0.350, level 2 r=0.084, and level 3 r=0.260). Correlation coefficients for AP level courses are perfectly correlated (1.000) because only two of the participants in this study SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 26 taught that level. Strong correlation coefficients for level 4 and immersion classes may be high because of lower number of participants in these levels (level 4 n=3 and immersion n=3) compared to participants in lower levels of the language (level 1 n=8, level 2 n=8, and level 3 n=9). Teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs were also found to have stronger correlations for higher level courses (level 4 r=0.551, AP r=1.000, and immersion r=0.638) than lower level courses (level 1 r=0.438, level 2 r=-0.549, and level 3 r=-0.180). Table 2 Language Proficiency, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale scores and student achievement Language Proficiency Average GPA TSES Total Engagement Strategies Management Superior 3.791 175.000 61.500 60.000 53.500 Advanced High 3.208 171.500 50.333 61.333 59.833 Advanced Mid 3.266 159.000 48.000 54.500 56.500 Advanced Low 3.252 173.250 54.500 58.750 60.000 Intermediate High 3.259 151.000 42.667 56.667 51.667 Average 3.303 167.235 51.000 58.941 57.294 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 27 Table 3 Correlation coefficients by level of language taught and average of all languages taught by participants Level Language Proficiency TSES Total Engagement Strategies Management 1 0.350 0.438 0.634 0.435 0.107 2 0.084 -0.549 -0.264 -0.387 -0.605 3 0.260 -0.180 0.021 -0.216 -0.195 4 0.856 0.551 0.353 0.639 0.639 AP 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Immersion 0.998 0.638 0.782 0.552 0.552 Average 0.196 -0.248 -0.321 -0.214 -0.114 *none of the correlations in this table are significant at the p<.05 level Significance of Correlations The third research question for this study read “To what extent did self-reported language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy of FL teachers have an influence on FL learner achievement?” After each of the factors was calculated and correlations found, a two-factor ANOVA was calculated using the language proficiency score, average grades of all levels of language taught, and TSES score. The correlations from this research study were not statistically significant (F=0.973, p=0.506, where α=0.05). SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 28 DISCUSSION Correlation between Teachers’ Language Proficiency and Self-Efficacy In a 2017 meta-analysis of 11 research studies comparing language proficiency and teacher sense of efficacy, Faez and Karas (2017) found that the correlation between these two measures is only moderate to low, measuring between 0.2 and 0.4. The correlation coefficient calculated for the present study (r=0.248) is consistent with the correlation measures found in the studies included that meta-analysis. Faez and Karas (2017) proposed that the measures used to assess teachers’ language proficiency might not be completely accurate. Similar to the present study, most studies that measure the correlation between language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy beliefs rely on self-reported measures of language proficiency instead of performance-based assessment. Based on the findings from the present study, it seems to be clear that some combination of language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy beliefs is essential to the success of foreign language teachers in the current world-language teaching environment. This analysis is consistent with previous research which found an interdependent relationship between language proficiency and teacher self-efficacy (Choi & Lee, 2016). Language proficiency, however, is much more complex than a simple measure of oral proficiency can indicate. Because most world-language teaching positions require at least an oral-proficiency measure, these data are more accessible than measures of other language proficiencies. Correlations between Language Proficiency, Self-Efficacy, and Student Achievement Correlation research on the three specific data points for this research study —teacher self-efficacy beliefs, teachers’ language proficiency and student achievement— has not been conducted; however, the interaction between teacher self-efficacy and student achievement has SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 29 been researched. In a meta-analysis of research examining into the correlation between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and student achievement, the researchers found a positive correlation between the two factors (Kim & Seo, 2018). Additionally, Swanson (2014), using TSES scores and student performance on the National Spanish Exam, found a positive correlation between teachers’ efficacy scores and students’ performance on the national exam. Correlation coefficients for the current study turned out to be negative between teachers sense of efficacy beliefs and average student grades for all levels of language taught (r=-0.248). Negative correlations were found for teachers of level 2 (r=-0.549) and level 3 (r=-0.180), indicating that as self-efficacy beliefs decrease, student achievement increases for these levels of courses. Positive correlation coefficients were found in all other levels of language taught (level 1, level 4, AP, and immersion) when comparing self-efficacy scores and average student grades. These findings indicate that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are more important to produce student success in higher level language courses than they are for lower level courses. Stronger correlation coefficients in lower level language courses for teachers’ sense of efficacy scores versus language proficiency also supports previous research where students identified pedagogy and teacher self-efficacy beliefs as more important than language proficiency (Banno, 2003). An investigation of the correlation between teachers’ language proficiency and student grades indicates stronger correlations with student grades than self-efficacy beliefs in upper level courses (level 3, level 4, and immersion). The correlation for teachers of AP level courses was 1.000 or -1.000, but this extremely strong correlation might be explained by the low number of teachers participating in this study who teach AP courses (n=2). Overall, however, when taking the average grades of all levels of the language taught, the correlation between self-efficacy SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 30 scores and student grades was stronger but negative (r=-0.248), than the correlation between language proficiency and student grades (r=-0.196). These findings support the notion that both language proficiency and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are important to the success of students. Teachers with higher language proficiency levels tend to have higher performing students and, for the most part, so do teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs. Just like there are different measures of a teachers’ language proficiency, there are also different and possibly more effective measures of student achievement. Significance of Correlations Two-factor ANOVA scores for background (F=1.014, p=0.468, where α=0.05) were found to be different from the same scores for language proficiency (F=0.973, p=0.506, where α=0.05) when compared to TSES and average student grades. The comparison of correlations between the measures of language proficiency and language background on student achievement and on TSES, language proficiency had a stronger correlation coefficient (r=0.248 for language proficiency and TSES scores versus r=0.021 for language background and TSES scores, or r=0.196 for language proficiency and average of all levels of student grades versus r=0.132 for language background and average of all levels of student grades). These data indicate that language proficiency is a better measure of teacher language ability than a teachers’ language background would be. Future Research Previous research identified a variety of other factors important in possible outcomes for world-language students (Fraga-Cañadas, 2010). From the current study, strong correlations were found between gender and TSES scores (r=-0.513), age (r=0.463) and education (r=-0.151). These correlations were not part of the current study’s stated purpose, but they offer direction for SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 31 future research on these topics. Teaching experience would have also been a good data point for this and future research but was not a data point collected in the current study. Future studies could benefit from using a variety of language proficiency measures (reading comprehension, writing, as well as spoken language). These other measures might be helpful to capture a better picture about how language proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs interact, but these data would be more difficult to collect. Future research can explore the same research questions and examining the relationship between a FL teacher’s language proficiency (or language background), self-efficacy beliefs, and the interaction of those two factors on student outcomes. Other research studies can explore other measures of student outcomes such as: student performance on OPI style tests, end of curriculum tests, randomly selected student interviews, standardized tests, etc. Participants for future research can be selected among school districts or states instead of a single state’s foreign language association or similar organization. The survey from this study asked for language background information and correlations were calculated between a teachers’ background with the language they teach, teacher self-efficacy beliefs, and student grades, but the correlations for these measures were not as strong as the correlations reported in the study. A larger number of participants in future studies might show more significant differences for language background than language proficiency, so this data point might be worth investigating in the future. Further research on the interaction between language proficiency, teacher self-efficacy beliefs, and student achievement can help to identify areas of teacher development emphasis, school recruitment practices for world-language teachers, and improve curriculum and teaching practices. Conclusion Foreign language teachers at all levels are expected to be proficient in the language they teach and have a certain belief that they can teach the language effectively in order to produce SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 32 desirable student outcomes. Results from this and previous research studies assist in identifying the most important areas of focus for future studies, teacher education, and continuing education for foreign language teachers. It is apparent that teachers should continually strive to improve their language proficiency and hone their skills to increase their own sense of efficacy in classroom teaching. The current focus on communicative language instruction in the foreign language classroom will require teachers to be more proficient in the language they teach. Focusing research on student outcomes would be ideal, because student advancement and improvement are the ultimate focus of the education system. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 33 REFERENCES American Council on the Teaching of Foreign languages [ACTFL]. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Banno, E. (2003). A cross-cultural survey of students’ expectations of foreign language teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 339–346. Doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02118.x Bateman, B. (2008). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using the target language in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 11–28. Doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03277.x Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP] (2015). ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. Washington, DC: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation Chambless, K. (2012). Teachers’ oral proficiency in the target language: Research on its role in language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 141–162. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330. Choi, E., & Lee, J. (2016). Investigating the relationship of target language proficiency and self-efficacy among nonnative EFL teachers. System, 58, 49–63. Doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.010 Dicke, T., Parker, P., Marsh, H., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 569–583. Doi: 10.1037/a0035504 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 34 Faez, F., and Karas, M (2017). Connecting language proficiency to (self-reported) teaching ability: A review and analysis of research. RELC Journal, 48(I), 135-151. Doi: 10.1117//003368217694755 Fraga-Cañadas, C. (2010). Beyond the classroom: Maintaining and improving teachers’ language proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 395–421. Doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01090.x Hiver, P. (2013). The interplay of possible language teacher selves in professional development choices. Language Teacher Research, 17(2), 210–227. Doi: 10.1177/1362168813475944 Hlas, A. C. (2016). Secondary teachers’ language usage: Beliefs and practices. Hispania, 99(2), 305–319. Doi: 10.1353/hpn.2016.0060 Huhn, C. (2012). In search of innovation: Research on effective models of foreign language teacher preparation. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 163–183. Doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01184.x Kim, K., & Seo, E. (2018). The relationship between teacher efficacy and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(4), 529-540. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6554 Montrul, S, & Perpiñán, S. (2011). Assessing differences and similarities between instructed heritage language learners and L2 learners in their knowledge of Spanish tense-aspect and mood morphology. Heritage Language Journal, 8(1), 90-133. Rodriguez, S., Regueiro, B., Blas, R., Valle, A., Piñeiro, I., & Cerezo, R. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and its relationship with students’ affective and motivational variables in higher education. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 7(2), 107–120. Doi: 10.1989/ejep.v7i2.183 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 35 Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069. Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001 Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. Doi: 10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0 Swanson, P. (2012). Second/foreign language teacher efficacy and its relationship to professional attrition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(1), 78–101. Doi: 10.3138/cmlr.68.1.078 Swanson, P. (2014). The power of belief: Spanish teachers’ sense of efficacy and student performance on the national Spanish examinations. Hispania, 97(1), 5-20. Doi: 10.1353/hpn.2014.0015 Thompson, A., & Fioramonte, A. (2012) Nonnative speaker teachers of Spanish: Insights from novice teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 564–579. Doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.01210.x Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. Doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Valmori, L., & De Costa, P. I. (2016). How do foreign language teachers maintain their proficiency? A grounded theory investigation. System, 57, 98–108. Doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.003 Veilleux, I., & Bournot-Trites, M. (2005). Standards for the language competence of French immersion teachers: Is there a danger of erosion? Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 487–507. Doi: 10.2307/4126480 SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 36 Appendix A ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 – Speaking https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/guidelines/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012.pdf SUPERIOR Speakers at the Superior level are able to communicate with accuracy and fluency in order to participate fully and effectively in conversations on a variety of topics in formal and informal settings from both concrete and abstract perspectives. They discuss their interests and special fields of competence, explain complex matters in detail, and provide lengthy and coherent narrations, all with ease, fluency, and accuracy. They present their opinions on a number of issues of interest to them, such as social and political issues, and provide structured arguments to support these opinions. They are able to construct and develop hypotheses to explore alternative possibilities. When appropriate, these speakers use extended discourse without unnaturally lengthy hesitation to make their point, even when engaged in abstract elaborations. Such discourse, while coherent, may still be influenced by language patterns other than those of the target language. Superior-level speakers employ a variety of interactive and discourse strategies, such as turn-taking and separating main ideas from supporting information through the use of syntactic, lexical, and phonetic devices. Speakers at the Superior level demonstrate no pattern of error in the use of basic structures, although they may make sporadic errors, particularly in low-frequency structures and in complex high-frequency structures. Such errors, if they do occur, do not distract the native interlocutor or interfere with communication. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 37 ADVANCED Speakers at the Advanced level engage in conversation in a clearly participatory manner in order to communicate information on autobiographical topics, as well as topics of community, national, or international interest. The topics are handled concretely by means of narration and description in the major times frames of past, present, and future. These speakers can also deal with a social situation with an unexpected complication. The language of Advanced-level speakers is abundant, the oral paragraph being the measure of Advanced-level length and discourse. Advanced-level speakers have sufficient control of basic structures and generic vocabulary to be understood by native speakers of the language, including those unaccustomed to non-native speech. Advanced High Advanced High Speakers at the Advanced High sublevel perform all Advanced-level tasks with linguistic ease, confidence, and competence. They are consistently able to explain in detail and narrate fully and accurately in all time frames. In addition, Advanced High speakers handle the tasks pertaining to the Superior level but cannot sustain performance at that level across a variety of topics. They may provide a structured argument to support their opinions, and they may construct hypotheses, but patterns of error appear. They can discuss some topics abstractly, especially those relating to their particular interests and special fields of expertise, but in general, they are more comfortable discussing a variety of topics concretely. Advanced High speakers may demonstrate a well-developed ability to compensate for an imperfect grasp of some forms or for limitations in vocabulary by the confident use of communicative strategies, such as paraphrasing, circumlocution, and illustration. They use precise vocabulary and intonation to express meaning and often show great fluency and ease of SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 38 speech. However, when called on to perform the complex tasks associated with the Superior level over a variety of topics, their language will at times break down or prove inadequate, or they may avoid the task altogether, for example, by resorting to simplification through the use of description or narration in place of argument or hypothesis. Advanced Mid Advanced Mid Speakers at the Advanced Mid sublevel are able to handle with ease and confidence a large number of communicative tasks. They participate actively in most informal and some formal exchanges on a variety of concrete topics relating to work, school, home, and leisure activities, as well as topics relating to events of current, public, and personal interest or individual relevance. Advanced Mid speakers demonstrate the ability to narrate and describe in the major time frames of past, present, and future by providing a full account, with good control of aspect. Narration and description tend to be combined and interwoven to relate relevant and supporting facts in connected, paragraph-length discourse. Advanced Mid speakers can handle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of events that occurs within the context of a routine situation or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar. Communicative strategies such as circumlocution or rephrasing are often employed for this purpose. The speech of Advanced Mid speakers performing Advanced-level tasks is marked by substantial flow. Their vocabulary is fairly extensive although primarily generic in nature, except in the case of a particular area of specialization or interest. Their discourse may still reflect the oral paragraph structure of their own language rather than that of the target language. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 39 Advanced Mid speakers contribute to conversations on a variety of familiar topics, dealt with concretely, with much accuracy, clarity and precision, and they convey their intended message without misrepresentation or confusion. They are readily understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives. When called on to perform functions or handle topics associated with the Superior level, the quality and/or quantity of their speech will generally decline. Advanced Low Advanced Low Speakers at the Advanced Low sublevel are able to handle a variety of communicative tasks. They are able to participate in most informal and some formal conversations on topics related to school, home, and leisure activities. They can also speak about some topics related to employment, current events, and matters of public and community interest. Advanced Low speakers demonstrate the ability to narrate and describe in the major time frames of past, present, and future in paragraph-length discourse with some control of aspect. In these narrations and descriptions, Advanced Low speakers combine and link sentences into connected discourse of paragraph length, although these narrations and descriptions tend to be handled separately rather than interwoven. They can handle appropriately the essential linguistic challenges presented by a complication or an unexpected turn of events. Responses produced by Advanced Low speakers are typically not longer than a single paragraph. The speaker’s dominant language may be evident in the use of false cognates, literal translations, or the oral paragraph structure of that language. At times their discourse may be minimal for the level, marked by an irregular flow, and containing noticeable self-correction. More generally, the performance of Advanced Low speakers tends to be uneven. SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 40 Advanced Low speech is typically marked by a certain grammatical roughness (e.g., inconsistent control of verb endings), but the overall performance of the Advanced-level tasks is sustained, albeit minimally. The vocabulary of Advanced Low speakers often lacks specificity. Nevertheless, Advanced Low speakers are able to use communicative strategies such as rephrasing and circumlocution. Advanced Low speakers contribute to the conversation with sufficient accuracy, clarity, and precision to convey their intended message without misrepresentation or confusion. Their speech can be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives, even though this may require some repetition or restatement. When attempting to perform functions or handle topics associated with the Superior level, the linguistic quality and quantity of their speech will deteriorate significantly. INTERMEDIATE Speakers at the Intermediate level are distinguished primarily by their ability to create with the language when talking about familiar topics related to their daily life. They are able to recombine learned material in order to express personal meaning. Intermediatelevel speakers can ask simple questions and can handle a straightforward survival situation. They produce sentence-level language, ranging from discrete sentences to strings of sentences, typically in present time. Intermediate-level speakers are understood by interlocutors who are accustomed to dealing with non-native learners of the language. Intermediate High Intermediate High speakers are able to converse with ease and confidence when dealing with the routine tasks and social situations of the Intermediate level. They are able to handle successfully uncomplicated tasks and social situations requiring an exchange of basic SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 41 information related to their work, school, recreation, particular interests, and areas of competence. Intermediate High speakers can handle a substantial number of tasks associated with the Advanced level, but they are unable to sustain performance of all of these tasks all of the time. Intermediate High speakers can narrate and describe in all major time frames using connected discourse of paragraph length, but not all the time. Typically, when Intermediate High speakers attempt to perform Advanced-level tasks, their speech exhibits one or more features of breakdown, such as the failure to carry out fully the narration or description in the appropriate major time frame, an inability to maintain paragraph-length discourse, or a reduction in breadth and appropriateness of vocabulary. Intermediate High speakers can generally be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives, although interference from another language may be evident (e.g., use of code-switching, false cognates, literal translations), and a pattern of gaps in communication may occur SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 42 Appendix B Sample questions from the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001) Each question is scored using a 9-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates none at all, 3 indicates very little, 5 indicates some degree, 7 indicates quite a bit, and 9 indicates a great deal. Efficacy in student engagement: 1. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? 2. How much can you do to help your students think critically? Efficacy in instructional strategies: 7. How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students? 10. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught? Efficacy in Classroom Engagement: 3. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 5. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior? SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 43 Appendix C SELF-EFFICACY, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 44 Appendix D