1. Introduction
An increasing number of primary school children in Asian countries (e.g., Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam) are learning English either as a school subject or as a medium of instruction. The rapid expansion of English language education for young learners presents a significant challenge due to the shortage of qualified English teachers (Zein & Butler, 2023). In response, many of these countries or certain areas within them have relied on non-specialist teachers, predominantly generalist (homeroom) teachers responsible for teaching all subjects, including English (Copland et al., 2014; Rixon, 2013; Zein, 2016). However, these generalist teachers often lack specific pedagogical training for teaching English and typically have only a basic command of the language, which often leads to anxiety about their perceived effectiveness as English instructors (Darasawang & Singhasiri, 2023; Machida & Walsh, 2015). Consequently, their levels of self-efficacy in teaching English are often lower than those of specialist teachers.
Teacher self-efficacy refers to beliefs about the capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish specific teaching tasks within a given context (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Extensive research across various fields has demonstrated that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy significantly influences their teaching behaviors and dispositions (Klassen & Tze, 2014). Teachers with a strong sense of efficacy typically approach new tasks more positively and conduct teaching and assessment more effectively, resulting in favorable changes in children’s learning and development, compared with those who have greater levels of self-doubt (see Morris et al., 2017; Zee & Koomen, 2016, for a review). Although professional development programs have been used to enhance teachers’ sense of self-efficacy (see Liu & Liao, 2019, for a review), few have specifically targeted non-specialist English teachers (Matsumura, 2022). Given the rapid expansion of early English education and the shortage of specialist teachers in primary schools, examining how professional development can strengthen non-specialist English teachers’ self-efficacy is increasingly important. The present study was designed to address this gap in the research on primary school English teacher education.
2. Background
2.1. Teachers’ English Proficiency and Self-Efficacy
Policymakers and language teachers consider language proficiency to be one of the key factors determining teachers’ successful implementation of English instruction (Baker, 2016; Farrell & Richards, 2007; Nunan, 2003). Given the importance of teachers’ target language proficiency in effective teaching, researchers have conducted empirical studies to explore its relationship with self-efficacy (see Faez & Karas, 2017, for a review). Faez et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies and identified a moderate relationship, suggesting that teachers attributed their self-efficacy, at least in part, to their target language proficiency. Karas and Faez (2021) confirmed a statistically significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and perceived general English proficiency among 122 English teachers at a provincial English language teaching organization in Ontario. In the context of English as a foreign language (EFL), Chacón (2005) found that 100 Venezuelan middle-school EFL teachers’ perceived general English proficiency positively correlated with their self-efficacy. Similarly, Eslami and Fatahi (2008) reported that EFL teachers in Iranian high schools regarded perceived general English proficiency as a key determinant of their self-efficacy, which in turn contributed to more effective and successful teaching practices. Moreover, research has shown that non-specialist primary school teachers often perceive their limited English proficiency as a potential factor negatively affecting classroom practices and student learning outcomes (Copland & Yonetsugi, 2016; Shrestha, 2023). In a study conducted by Butler (2004) focusing on primary school English teachers in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, participants considered their proficiency to be below the minimum level required to implement government policies, particularly those aimed at developing students’ oral communication skills.
While target language proficiency is widely regarded as one of the key factors influencing language teachers’ self-efficacy, there is no clear consensus on the level of proficiency that non-specialist primary school teachers need to teach English effectively (Butler, 2004). However, a commonly shared notion among researchers and teachers alike is that non-native English teachers do not necessarily need to attain native or native-like proficiency levels to be effective. Furthermore, having a high level of general language proficiency does not automatically equate to proficiency in classroom English, i.e., the specific language needed for giving instructions, asking questions, providing feedback and assessments, and interacting with students (Freeman, 2017; Richards, 2017). Freeman et al. (2015) further proposed a shift in focus from teachers’ need for general English proficiency to their functional use of English for instruction and interaction, noting that the essential language skills for teachers primarily involve those required to prepare and deliver lessons. Consistent with this perspective, Nhung (2018) found that in-service primary school teachers in Vietnam preferred classroom English training over general English training, as they viewed it as more relevant and useful in their teaching contexts, thereby suggesting that classroom English training should be prioritized. Similarly, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (hereafter referred to as MEXT) in Japan has acknowledged the importance of equipping non-specialist primary school teachers with classroom English skills and has implemented various policy initiatives, including the dissemination of online classroom English phrase packages for primary school teachers (e.g.,
2.2. Professional Development and Self-Efficacy
Professional development has frequently been recognized for its role in enhancing teachers’ self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Among its various components, teacher collaboration has proven to be particularly influential in fostering self-efficacy (Durksen et al., 2017). Hatlevik and Hatlevik (2024) further observed that novice teachers tended to benefit more from collegial collaboration than their experienced counterparts. Collaboration is believed to provide opportunities for teachers to learn innovative instructional techniques from colleagues (Bandura, 1997), thereby offering a range of efficacy-building experiences. Successful implementation of these techniques may lead teachers to believe in their capability to perform similar tasks confidently (i.e., mastery experience). Moreover, observing their colleagues’ successful performance and comparing it to their own (i.e., vicarious experience) and receiving positive and constructive feedback from colleagues and supervisors (i.e., social persuasion) may result in teachers reassessing their own capabilities and/or acquiring new pedagogical skills. The positive feelings (e.g., satisfaction, enthusiasm, and comfort) and negative feelings (e.g., anxiety, frustration, and fatigue) that teachers experience when working on tasks (i.e., physiological and affective state) seem to boost or undermine their sense of self-efficacy. Findings suggest that the greater the opportunities to collaborate with colleagues, the greater the chance of having such efficacy-building experiences and a resulting sense of self-efficacy (Vangrieken et al., 2015; Yoon & Kim, 2022).
Previous research has highlighted the relationship between the development of teachers’ self-efficacy and various forms of collaboration. For instance, Zheng et al. (2018) emphasized that the extent to which Chinese elementary school teachers engaged in deep, critical, and reflective dialogues (i.e., social persuasion) was positively associated with their self-efficacy. Similarly, Suchodoletz et al. (2018) found that American preschool teachers developed their self-efficacy more effectively through coaching from specialists (i.e., social persuasions) than through instruction (i.e., mastery experience) and observation (i.e., vicarious experience). Additionally, Yada et al. (2023) demonstrated that collegial collaboration facilitated Japanese primary and lower secondary school teachers’ engagement in concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, all of which contributed to the development of their self-efficacy.
Studies have also substantiated the effectiveness of collaboration in enhancing teachers’ self-efficacy in EFL contexts. Ravandpour (2019) demonstrated that Iranian EFL teachers’ self-efficacy was positively influenced by the collaborative and reflective practices offered in professional development programs. Similarly, Cheng and Wu (2016) found that Chinese secondary school EFL teachers reported increased confidence when peer-learning opportunities were facilitated. Other studies have highlighted the advantages of collaboration between novice and experienced EFL teachers, noting that such exchanges of pedagogical perspectives encourage teachers to step outside their comfort zones, thereby fostering sustained growth in self-efficacy (Moradkhani et al., 2017; Zonoubi et al., 2017). However, such collaborations are only effective under specific conditions, including adequate collegial support, constructive feedback, opportunities for self-reflection, and the practical application of acquired knowledge (Kharlay et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). These findings suggest that integrating these four sources of self-efficacy is essential for maximizing the impact of collaboration on teachers’ self-efficacy.
Given the significance of collaboration, the present study focused on collaboration between non-specialist and specialist primary school English teachers, as this type of collaboration more accurately reflects the realities of the teaching environment. Due to the scarcity of programs specifically designed to enhance classroom English usage through such collaboration, the extent to which these programs contribute to improving self-efficacy among non-specialist teachers remains unclear. Furthermore, it is not known which sources of self-efficacy most significantly contribute to this improvement, warranting further investigation.
2.3. Context of the Study
The study reported here focused on non-specialist primary school English teachers in Japan. As in other Asian countries, MEXT has acknowledged the increasing need for English as a lingua franca in various business, educational, and social contexts (Matsumura & Tatsuyama, 2024). Recent policy changes have mandated “foreign language activities” (English) as a compulsory subject for fifth and sixth grades in public primary schools since 2011, with implementation extended to the third grade starting in 2020 (MEXT, 2017). The primary objectives of primary English education are to improve students’ English skills, particularly in listening and speaking, to generate interest in foreign cultures, and to foster a positive attitude towards communicating in English.
Despite these policy initiatives, English instruction is often entrusted to generalist (homeroom) teachers who are not necessarily specialized in the subject or certified to teach it. One drawback of relying on these non-specialist teachers is that meaningful communication may not consistently occur during classroom activities, potentially hindering the development of students’ real-world communication skills. For instance, some non-specialist teachers have lamented that their communicative activities in the classroom are little more than displays of routine verbal responses, which are mechanical in nature (Matsumura & Gunderson, 2019).
As of December 2023, specialist teachers responsible for teaching English in primary schools constitute approximately 24.4% of the English-teaching staff, with this figure including secondary English teachers assigned to primary school English instruction (MEXT, 2023). This means that the majority of primary school English teachers are non-specialist homeroom teachers. The question of how best to support non-specialist English teachers through in-service training remains an unresolved issue.
2.4. Research Questions
Against the background discussed above, the present study aimed to determine the following: (RQ1) whether enhancing classroom English proficiency through a professional development workshop contributed to an increase in non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching English; (RQ2) how non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy changed over time during the in-class implementation of what they learned in the workshop; and (RQ3) to which sources of self-efficacy these changes can be attributed. By exploring these questions, this study seeks to clarify the support non-specialist teachers need to perform effectively in the primary school English classroom.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The participants were 76 third- through sixth-grade teachers from 32 public primary schools within one school district located in an urban city in western Japan. These teachers voluntarily applied for a two-day professional development workshop, which consisted of three 90-min sessions each day, focusing on the use of “English for classroom instruction.” The training content shown below was based on the results of an analysis of teachers’ needs conducted in the year preceding the research project. Four applicants were excluded during the initial eligibility check because they had never taught English at the primary level (see Figure 1 below).
The participants were 52 non-specialist teachers (34 females and 18 males; average age = 31.5; average English-teaching experience = 4.5 years) and 20 specialist teachers (16 females and 4 males; average age = 36.2; average English-teaching experience = 8.1 years). Prior to the workshop, participants received both oral and written explanations regarding the purpose, method, and privacy policy of the research and subsequently signed consent forms. Non-specialist teachers were randomly assigned to either a control or treatment group. Although teachers in the control group did not participate in the workshop during this data collection period and were placed on a waitlist, they received priority for selection in the subsequent year’s workshop. Those in the treatment group participated in the workshop together with the group of specialist teachers. Two teacher trainers at the researcher’s institution taught the workshop.
3.2. Treatment
The objective of the workshop was to enhance the confidence of primary school teachers in using English for classroom instruction. Specifically, it emphasized functional aspects of classroom language use such as managing the classroom, understanding and communicating lesson content, assessing students, and providing feedback (Freeman et al., 2015), while focusing on improving accuracy and pronunciation in routinized classroom English. The content of the workshop included (1) sharing participants’ experiences using English in implementing various activities; (2) providing examples of English for instruction typically employed by successful non-specialist and specialist primary teachers; (3) watching videos of several model lessons (not perfect, but real classes in action); (4) engaging in mock lessons; (5) opportunities to receive feedback from both instructors and fellow participants; and (6) facilitated explicit discussions on how to apply what the participants had learned in the workshop to their classroom practice.
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
A questionnaire designed to assess perceived self-efficacy for teaching English, aligned with the educational objectives outlined in Japan’s national English curriculum, was developed based on the short version of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. This questionnaire consisted of 12 Likert-type items dividing self-efficacy into three subscales: student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies. Responses were measured on a six-point semantic differential scale anchored by “not at all” and “a great deal.” A score of six represented the highest level of self-efficacy, while a score of one indicated the lowest, yielding a total possible scoring range of 12 to 72 points. The draft questionnaire was piloted by four in-service teachers from the participating school district, and follow-up interviews were conducted for validation purposes. This process was repeated until issues such as multiple-meaning words and abstractions were minimized (see Appendix A for the final version). Furthermore, principal component analysis was conducted to examine the construct validity of the questionnaire. Several criteria were assessed to determine the factor structure of the self-efficacy scale, including eigenvalues (i.e., greater than one), the scree plot, and conceptual alignment. This analysis yielded a conceptually valid three-factor solution, consistent with Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s original study.
The impact of the training was evaluated through a three-wave quasi-experimental design comparing three groups (i.e., 26 non-specialist teachers in the control group, 26 non-specialist teachers in the treatment group, and 20 specialist teachers in the comparison group) with regard to the self-efficacy level measured by the questionnaire. Figure 1 illustrates the treatment design and the evaluation process used in this study. The first measurement point was two months before the workshop (Time 1), the second was immediately after (Time 2), and the third was three months after the workshop had been completed (Time 3). All participants were asked to respond to the self-efficacy questionnaire at each of these times. Complete questionnaire data across the three measurement occasions were available from 19 teachers in the control group, 20 in the treatment group, and 17 in the comparison group. Reliability was estimated using Cronbach’s internal consistency coefficient. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81, 0.78, and 0.80 at the first, second, and third measurement points, respectively. To examine how the level of self-efficacy changed over time and how it differed between groups at each measurement point, a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with the three measurement occasions as a within-subjects variable and treatment conditions as a between-groups variable, followed by post hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment. Partial eta squared (η2p) was computed for the overall effect size, while Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used for effect sizes in the post hoc comparisons (Field, 2001; Rosenthal et al., 2000). Data collected from specialist teachers were used to examine differences in self-efficacy levels between specialist and non-specialist teachers. These data served as a benchmark to assess the extent of improvement in non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy following their training, as well as the longevity of the treatment effect over time.
Additionally, at Time 3, the treatment group was asked to answer two open-ended questions prompting them to reflect on the sources of changes in their self-efficacy: “What experiences have you had in school after the workshop that made you feel more capable of teaching English? Please explain” and “What experiences have you had in school after the workshop that made you feel less capable of teaching English? Please explain.” The experiences described were first analyzed to determine whether they had a positive or negative impact on self-efficacy. Following this initial assessment, they were categorized based on Bandura’s (1997) four principal sources of efficacy information: enactive mastery experiences, social persuasion, vicarious experiences, and physiological/affective states. For example, comments such as “My students have shown more interest in my lesson since I started using more English for instruction. That’s made me feel more confident” were categorized as enactive mastery experiences that positively affected self-efficacy. Conversely, remarks like “Just the thought of how I should use English in the next class makes me feel daunted. I have a feeling that I may not be capable as an English teacher” were categorized as affective states that negatively influenced self-efficacy. Three raters were involved in categorizing the teachers’ comments. In cases of disagreement (approximately 8% in the first round), the categorization criteria were reviewed and discussed until a consensus was reached. Additionally, two English–Japanese bilingual researchers translated and back-translated the original comments made in Japanese for presentation purposes, as shown below. When ambiguities or complexities were identified, the researchers discussed these to improve translation accuracy. Thus, the impact of training and its lasting effect on teachers’ self-efficacy were explored by synthesizing quantitative data on changes in self-efficacy with qualitative data from the open-ended responses regarding sources of self-efficacy.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Changes in the Level of Self-Efficacy
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of self-efficacy scores across the three measurement occasions for the non-specialist control, non-specialist treatment, and specialist comparison groups; Figure 2 visualizes these data. There was no significant difference in self-efficacy levels between the control and treatment groups at Time 1. This reflects the success of randomization in establishing pre-workshop equivalence between the two groups.
As shown in Table 2, the repeated-measures ANOVA indicated significant main effects of both treatment conditions and measurement occasions on self-efficacy levels, with F (2, 53) = 33.25, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.556, and F (2, 106) = 35.44, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.401, respectively. Moreover, the interaction effect between measurement occasions and treatment conditions was significant, as evidenced by F (4, 106) = 38.89, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.595. Mauchly’s test confirmed that the assumption of sphericity was met (χ2 (2) = 3.59, p = 0.166), so there was no need to adjust degrees of freedom in testing the within-subjects effects in the present model. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted for all these significant effects. Results revealed that the comparison group had significantly higher self-efficacy levels than the control group, across all measurement occasions (Mdif. = 8.80, 8.29, and 9.30 and r = 0.87, 0.83, and 0.83 at Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively; all at p < 0.001), suggesting that, as expected, the specialist teachers tended to have stronger self-efficacy for teaching English than the non-specialist teachers. In fact, the average self-efficacy scores of the comparison group were substantially above the midpoint of the response scale from the outset and remained stable, whereas those of the control group remained slightly above the midpoint throughout the study period (see Table 1). These minor fluctuations in these two groups suggested that the main effects of the measurement occasions and treatment conditions were attributable to significant differences in self-efficacy levels within the treatment group over time, as well as between the treatment group and the other two groups. Specifically, self-efficacy in the treatment group significantly increased from Time 1 to Time 2 (Mdif. = 5.55, p < 0.001, r = 0.88) and decreased from Time 2 to Time 3 (Mdif. = −2.35, p < 0.001, r = 0.66). A significant increase was also observed when comparing Time 1 with Time 3 (Mdif. = 3.20, p < 0.001, r = 0.73). Further examination revealed that the treatment group had significantly lower self-efficacy than the comparison group at Time 1 (Mdif. = −8.22, p < 0.001, r = 0.81) but showed a notable increase at Time 2, resulting in a non-significant difference between the two groups (Mdif. = −2.37, p = 0.115, r = 0.33). Interestingly, a decrease in self-efficacy in the treatment group occurred at Time 3, reinstating a significant difference between the treatment and comparison groups (Mdif. = −5.31, p = 0.007, r = 0.94), while the difference between the control and treatment groups remained significant (Mdif. = 3.99, p < 0.001, r = 0.54).
Inspection of the results concerning changes over time suggested that, overall, the training focusing on classroom English had positive effects on non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching English, thus providing a positive answer to RQ1 (Did enhancing classroom English proficiency through a professional development workshop contribute to an increase in non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching English?). Regarding RQ2 (How did non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy change over time during the in-class implementation of what they learned in the workshop?), although no differences in self-efficacy levels were observed between the treatment and control groups before the workshop, the treatment group outperformed the control group after the workshop and maintained a significantly higher level of self-efficacy for approximately three months. In contrast, the control group did not show the same level of improvement as the treatment group over the study period. Interestingly, the immediate impact of the training was substantial, leading to a rapid increase in self-efficacy in the treatment group, nearly matching that in the comparison group. However, further inspection suggested that this effect may have lasted for only a short period, as it appeared to have diminished after three months of teaching. Bandura (1997) posits that once an individual’s self-efficacy is firmly established, it becomes resilient to change. However, these results indicated that non-specialist teachers struggled to achieve this level of establishment through the two-day workshop alone. Without follow-up support during the implementation phase, it appears that non-specialist teachers may find it challenging to sustain the increased levels of self-efficacy gained through training.
4.2. Sources of Change in Self-Efficacy
All non-specialist teachers in the treatment group responded to at least one of the two open-ended questions regarding the sources of change in self-efficacy, elaborating on how their experiences influenced their beliefs about their own self-efficacy. The length of their comments varied, ranging from a few sentences to several paragraphs, with most responses comprising four to five sentences for each question. The comments were categorized according to Bandura’s (1997) four sources of self-efficacy, while those from two teachers who merely responded with “nothing in particular” were excluded from the analysis. Inspection of the valid comments confirmed that the non-specialist teachers actively applied the new knowledge and skills they learned about classroom English during the workshop in their classroom practices, and that multiple sources contributed to shaping their individual beliefs about their self-efficacy.
Table 3 summarizes the frequency of sources identified in non-specialist teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions. Overall, the results indicated that teachers reported more negative experiences than positive ones (47 vs. 35 comments). This trend aligns with the quantitative data in Table 1 and Figure 2, which show a decrease in self-efficacy from Time 2 to Time 3 in the non-specialist treatment group. In response to RQ3 (To which sources of self-efficacy can the change be attributed?), the results highlighted contrasts in how the four sources influenced self-efficacy both positively and negatively. Specifically, non-specialist teachers most frequently cited social persuasion as a positive influence on their self-efficacy, followed by vicarious experience, although the latter was mentioned far less often. Interestingly, social persuasion also emerged as the most frequently reported negative experience that decreased self-efficacy. Moreover, mastery experiences and physiological/affective states were both primarily cited as sources contributing to a decrease in self-efficacy rather than an increase. Closer examination of teachers’ comments on these sources revealed the nuanced ways in which they influenced self-efficacy, as discussed below.
4.3. The Dual Role of Feedback and Support in Shaping Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teachers’ comments revealed that evaluative feedback from peers and administrators, particularly following classroom observations, played a significant role in shaping their confidence in teaching English. For instance, one teacher, a PE specialist who had been teaching English for just one year at a school with a strong English focus, described how positive feedback boosted her self-efficacy. She explained, “I attempted to incorporate the classroom English I learned in the workshop, but I always felt anxious about my usage. It was only upon receiving comments from other teachers that my confidence began to grow.” Affirming comments such as, “I enjoyed observing your progress in using English in the classroom” and “Your classes have become much more dynamic than before!” were especially impactful. These findings align with previous research suggesting that ability-related feedback is particularly effective in enhancing self-efficacy among individuals in the early stages of skills development (Pajares, 2006; Schunk, 1984). Positive feedback and encouragement thus appear to significantly support non-specialist teachers in reducing anxiety and building confidence in using English for instruction.
However, challenges in using English appear to have persisted for many non-specialist teachers, even after completing training. Of the 18 comments related to positive social persuasion, 13 included ongoing concerns. For example, one teacher remarked, “I’ve always tried to apply what I learned in the workshop, but at the same time, I need someone to tell me whether my use of English is appropriate, as I can’t make judgments on my own”, highlighting the language obstacles faced by many non-specialist teachers. Similarly, a science specialist who had been teaching English for three years at the same primary school as the PE teacher also noted language difficulties. This teacher underscored the value of collaborative support, particularly from specialist teachers, stating, “Praise from the principal is encouraging, but it’s just that ‘encouraging.’ More importantly, without feedback from a specialist teacher who knows how to teach English, I wouldn’t have felt this capable.” Feedback from colleagues with similar experiences in teaching English (e.g., homeroom and specialist teachers) was seen as more impactful than feedback from administrators. These reflections align with research suggesting that perceived similarity in colleagues’ experiences is essential for social persuasion to effectively enhance self-efficacy (cf. Capa Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005).
Despite the benefits of social persuasion, not all generalist teachers felt comfortable collaborating with specialist teachers. One teacher acknowledged specialists’ expertise but described tension in their relationship, stating, “I understand that they [specialist teachers] have a better command of English than I do. However, I question their approach when, despite being ‘outsiders’ with limited knowledge of my students’ characteristics, they assert what I should say and do in English and point out my mistakes in front of my students.” This sentiment underscores discomfort with specialists assuming an “expert” role, particularly when mutual trust has not been firmly established. These findings align with Brodie’s (2021) research, which indicates that some teachers fear being judged and observed by colleagues in the absence of trust. Additionally, concerns about student perceptions further complicate feedback dynamics. One teacher commented, “I appreciate personal praise, as it boosts my self-efficacy to some extent. However, I’d prefer it not to happen in front of the students, as they might start to see me as less capable than specialist teachers.” Another remarked, “I do worry about whether my students perceive me as a teacher who doesn’t speak English well.” These reflections suggest that students themselves can serve as a source of social persuasion, either positively or detrimentally (e.g., Ma et al., 2022; Milner, 2002; Moradkhani & Haghi, 2017; Phan & Locke, 2015). Future research should explore how student feedback influences the self-efficacy of non-specialist teachers. Furthermore, examining the timing and context of feedback delivery could provide insights into its impact on teacher confidence.
Another generalist teacher reported a decline in self-efficacy over time, despite initially enjoying the application of strategies learned in the workshop to her collaborative teaching with a specialist teacher. She stated, “I enjoyed using phrases like ‘Well, let me think’ and ‘What do you think?’ to navigate classroom activities when uncertain about students’ questions, and I even found myself looking cool.” However, her confidence appeared to wane after beginning collaboration with a newly assigned specialist teacher. She explained, “At first, I found value in having him [the specialist teacher] correct my pronunciation and provide advice. Although I appreciate his efforts to assist me, the constant scrutiny of my spoken English has become stressful, and I now feel somewhat inferior to him in teaching English.” This case illustrates how self-efficacy, while initially bolstered by acquiring classroom English skills, can fluctuate based on how teachers perceive and interpret support from specialist colleagues. Research suggests that professional identity (Avidov-Ungar, 2016) and social interactions (King, 2014) play critical roles in shaping self-efficacy during professional development. Klassen and Durksen (2014) caution that honest, well-meaning feedback from collaborative teachers can sometimes be perceived as criticism. For this particular teacher, the specialist teacher’s feedback unintentionally undermined her confidence, as reflected in her comment: “I’m satisfied with my use of classroom English that I learned in the workshop, but I don’t think I need or want to speak English like him.” This illustrates the delicate balance required when offering feedback, as overly critical or frequent input may hinder rather than support non-specialist teachers’ confidence.
Turning to the second major source that negatively affected self-efficacy (i.e., mastery experience), many of the non-specialist teachers seemed to struggle with overcoming failures to apply what they had learned in the workshop to real-life classroom situations. For example, a Japanese language specialist, who had been responsible for teaching English for approximately five years, mentioned, “Recently, my lesson didn’t go well. I couldn’t improve the situation. Some energetic children were difficult to manage using the classroom English I learned in the workshop. That incident really hurt my confidence and pride as the one responsible for teaching English”. A common factor among these struggling teachers was the lack of opportunities for observation or sufficient collegial support. The same teacher lamented, “When I consulted with my colleagues, they were just too busy with other duties to help me out, so I ended up resorting to using the bare minimum English in my class.” Many similar experiences were reported, often accompanied by negative affective states such as anxiety, frustration, and stress about using English in the classroom. These findings resonate with previous research (Fred et al., 2020; Tam, 2015) that underscored the importance of maintaining adequate collegial support to foster successful professional development among teachers.
Overall, the quantitative findings presented in Table 3 suggest that persuasive and vicarious support from fellow teachers was effective in developing a resilient sense of self-efficacy for teaching English among these non-specialist teachers. The qualitative findings indicate that the non-specialist teachers used classroom English they learned in the workshop while grappling with persistent anxiety and doubts about its usage. This concern was articulated by many who expressed sentiments such as, “I always felt anxious about my usage” and “I do worry about whether my students perceive me as a teacher who doesn’t speak English well.” Given their challenges in evaluating their use of English on their own, they may not be fully confident of their success. Therefore, for non-specialist English teachers, mastery experience may not be the most significant source of self-efficacy (cf. Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Instead, their perceptions of capability appear to be heavily influenced by collegial assurances and support from individuals such as specialist teachers. However, it is important to note that positive interpretations of persuasion from a credible other can empower non-specialist teachers, while negative interpretations may undermine self-efficacy. The findings of this study align with previous research suggesting that social persuasion seems to play a double-edged role (Klassen & Durksen, 2014). Thus, regardless of the effectiveness of classroom English training, non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy and anxiety regarding teaching English appear to be inextricably linked.
4.4. Limitations
While it is hoped that this study will provide valuable insights for a broad audience of teacher educators, researchers, and school administrators, it is not without limitations. First, participants voluntarily applied for the professional development programs, suggesting that they consisted of individuals enthusiastic about improving their teaching knowledge and skills. The same level of program effect might not be expected among those with low motivation for such improvement or who are mandated to participate in periodic in-service training. Second, the self-report questionnaire with a Likert-type scale could potentially be susceptible to issues related to social desirability bias; the quantitative findings could have been reinforced through interviews intended to review participants’ responses to the questionnaire. Third, the sample size in each group was small, limited to one school district, resulting in the restricted generalizability of the findings. Additionally, post-training data for only about three months were collected. A longer data collection period would have enabled a more nuanced understanding of the changes in the non-specialist teachers’ development and associated self-efficacy. Finally, the qualitative data could have been more comprehensively examined through triangulation using interviews and observations, but this was restricted due to administrative reasons imposed by local boards of education.
5. Conclusions and Implications
In many EFL countries in Asia, reformative efforts aimed at making English a compulsory part of the curriculum and lowering its starting age in primary schools have become a growing trend, leading to a shortage of specialist teachers (Shrestha, 2023; Xiong & Peng, 2023). Recruiting native English speakers to co-teach with non-specialist teachers has been considered as an option to address this shortage (MEXT, 2020). However, due to the challenges in ensuring their qualifications and the high turnover rate, this approach is neither cost-effective nor a fundamental solution. Another option was considered, involving the reassignment of secondary school teachers to teach English at the primary level (Stelma & Onat-Stelma, 2010), but it proved ineffective due to the difficulties associated with handling young learners. Therefore, there is a pressing need to empower non-specialist teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary for teaching English with confidence. The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of professional development opportunities designed specifically for non-specialist teachers, an area that has been under-researched thus far, offering a potential strategy to alleviate the shortage.
The findings of the present study have several pedagogical implications. First, enhanced self-efficacy among non-specialist teachers can be achieved through professional development programs aimed at improving their use of classroom English. Although these programs primarily focus on the accuracy and pronunciation of formulaic and routinized classroom commands in specific teaching contexts, they significantly contribute to building confidence among non-specialist teachers. Cultivating a resilient sense of independence as an English instructor, and being perceived as such by specialist teachers, school administrators, and students, hold significant importance for mitigating the anxiety of non-specialist teachers. Given that many non-specialist teachers perceive the teaching of English as an unnecessary burden rather than a rewarding challenge due to their low general English proficiency (Ng, 2016), improving their classroom English proficiency appears to be the initial, immediately effective step in their growth process.
Second, although professional development is often deemed more effective when sustained over time (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021), it is evident that even short programs such as the two-day workshop in this study can significantly enhance self-efficacy. In the current case, this appears to have been because the workshop’s content was determined based on an analysis of needs, and participants had the opportunity to revisit it upon returning to their schools and engaging in teaching. Ensuring congruence between the content of professional development programs and the needs of non-specialist teachers is crucial for facilitating their professional growth. Given teachers’ busy schedules (Liu & Liao, 2019), providing professional opportunities in this manner might be an effective way to address the limited availability for their professional development.
Third, to sustain a heightened level of self-efficacy, it is crucial to establish a peer-support system within individual schools. Previous research has shown that school-embedded collaborations can promote more sustainable and context-specific professional growth (Admiraal et al., 2021; Bergmark, 2023). Addressing the professional needs and interests of non-specialist teachers, such as assessment, continuous encouragement, and emotional support, is essential for effectively translating what they have learned in training into classroom practices. Specialist teachers, with their broader teaching expertise, can play a pivotal role in providing the necessary support and guidance to enable non-specialist teachers to take risks, experiment with new knowledge and skills, learn from failures, and iteratively refine their teaching methods. Conversely, a complete division and a sense of misalignment between these two types of teachers within individual schools may impede the enhancement of non-specialist teachers’ self-efficacy. Moreover, one-way transmission of knowledge and skills from specialists to non-specialists is not only likely to fail in cultivating a resilient sense of self-efficacy among non-specialist teachers but is also likely to hinder the development of an independent teaching identity. Therefore, it is crucial for program administrators to establish a platform where both non-specialists and specialists can collaborate, not only to facilitate co-construction of knowledge and skills to promote student learning but also to deepen their mutual understanding of and respect for their respective teaching styles.
Finally, given the limited scope of the present study, more research is needed to explore the impact of professional development programs aimed at improving non-specialist teachers’ classroom English proficiency in relation to their self-efficacy. As Asterhan and Lefstein (2024) have critiqued, it is problematic to assess the effectiveness of professional development programs in a one-size-fits-all manner. Further exploration should therefore involve larger sample sizes, diverse school settings, and a longitudinal approach.
Conceptualization, S.M.; methodology, S.M. and Y.H.; validation, S.M. and Y.H.; formal analysis, Y.H.; investigation, S.M.; resources, Y.H.; writing, S.M. and Y.H.; project administration, S.M.; funding acquisition, S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ryukoku University (ID: 202342, issued on 6 March 2024).
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Changes in teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching English. Groups 1, 2, and 3 denote the non-specialist control, non-specialist treatment, and specialist groups, respectively.
Results of descriptive statistics for the self-efficacy variable.
| Group | Time | Mean | SD | 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| Control | 1 | 43.32 | 2.11 | 42.04 | 44.60 |
| (n = 19) | 2 | 43.53 | 3.19 | 41.97 | 45.09 |
| 3 | 43.11 | 2.94 | 41.32 | 44.89 | |
| Treatment | 1 | 43.90 | 3.09 | 42.65 | 45.15 |
| (n = 20) | 2 | 49.45 | 4.16 | 47.93 | 50.97 |
| 3 | 47.10 | 4.85 | 45.36 | 48.84 | |
| Comparison | 1 | 52.12 | 3.04 | 50.77 | 53.47 |
| (n = 17) | 2 | 51.82 | 2.46 | 50.18 | 53.47 |
| 3 | 52.41 | 3.48 | 50.52 | 54.30 | |
Repeated-measures ANOVA for teachers’ self-efficacy.
| Type III | df | Mean Square | F | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between-subjects effects | |||||
| Treatment | 700.63 | 2 | 350.31 | 33.25 | <0.001 |
| Error | 558.42 | 53 | 10.54 | ||
| Within-subjects effects | |||||
| Time | 93.79 | 2 | 46.90 | 35.44 | <0.001 |
| Time × treatment | 205.83 | 4 | 51.46 | 38.89 | <0.001 |
| Error | 140.28 | 106 | 1.32 |
Sources of change in self-efficacy identified in teachers’ comments.
| Sources | Frequency | (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Increasing self-efficacy | ||
| Mastery experience | 5 | 14.29 |
| Social persuasion | 18 | 51.43 |
| Vicarious experience | 8 | 22.86 |
| Physiological/affective state | 4 | 11.43 |
| (Total comments) | 35 | |
| Decreasing self-efficacy | ||
| Mastery experience | 15 | 31.91 |
| Social persuasion | 19 | 40.43 |
| Vicarious experience | 3 | 6.38 |
| Physiological/affective state | 10 | 21.28 |
| (Total comments) | 47 |
Appendix A
Primary School Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale for Teaching English
How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in learning English?
How much can you do to make students believe that they can do well in English?
How much can you do to help students see the value of learning English?
How much can you do to make the English class enjoyable for all students?
How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in your English classroom?
How much can you do to get students to follow your English classroom rules?
To what extent can you make clear what attitudes you expect from students in your English class?
How well can you establish a class management system with each group of students in your English class?
To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies in your English class?
To what extent can you provide alternative explanations or examples when students are confused in your English class?
To what extent can you craft good questions for your students in your English class?
How well can you incorporate aspects of intercultural understanding and cultural comparison in your English class?
References
Admiraal, W.; Schenke, W.; Jong, L. D.; Emmelot, Y.; Sligte, H. Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of their teachers?. Professional Development in Education; 2021; 47,
Asterhan, C. S. C.; Lefstein, A. The search for evidence-based features of effective teacher professional development: A critical analysis of the literature. Professional Development in Education; 2024; 50,
Avidov-Ungar, O. A model of professional development: Teachers’ perceptions of their professional development. Teachers and Teaching; 2016; 22,
Baker, L. L. Re-conceptualizing EFL professional development: Enhancing communicative language pedagogy for Thai teachers. TEFLIN Journal; 2016; 27,
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control; Freeman: 1997.
Bergmark, U. Teachers’ professional learning when building a research-based education: Context-specific, collaborative and teacher-driven professional development. Professional Development in Education; 2023; 49,
Brodie, K. Teacher agency in professional learning communities. Professional Development Education; 2021; 47,
Butler, Y. G. What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly; 2004; 38,
Capa Aydin, T.; Woolfolk Hoy, A. What predicts student teacher self-efficacy?. Academic Exchange Quarterly; 2005; 9,
Chacón, C. T. Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2005; 21,
Cheng, X.; Wu, L.-Y. The affordances of teacher professional learning communities: A case study of a Chinese secondary school. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2016; 58, pp. 54-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.008]
Copland, F.; Garton, S.; Burns, A. Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly; 2014; 48,
Copland, F.; Yonetsugi, E. Teaching English to young learners: Supporting the case for the bilingual native English speaker teacher. Classroom Discourse; 2016; 7,
Darasawang, P.; Singhasiri, W. Butler, Y. G.; Zein, S. Needs analysis of primary school English teachers: Implications for teacher training in Thailand. English for young learners in Asia: Challenges and directions for teacher education; Routledge: 2023; pp. 65-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003016977-5]
Durksen, T. L.; Klassen, R. M.; Daniels, L. M. Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2017; 67,
Eslami, Z. A.; Fatahi, A. Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional strategies: A study of nonnative EFL teachers in Iran. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language; 2008; 11,
Faez, F.; Karas, M. Connecting language proficiency to (self-reported) teaching ability: A review and analysis of research. RELC Journal; 2017; 48,
Faez, F.; Karas, M.; Uchihara, T. Connecting language proficiency to teaching ability: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research; 2019; 25,
Farrell, T. S. C.; Richards, J. C. Farrell, T. S. C. Teachers’ language proficiency. Reflective language teaching: From research to practice; Continuum: 2007; pp. 55-66.
Field, A. P. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods; 2001; 6,
Fred, H.; Pierre, V. M.; Ellen, R.; Marjan, V. How to enhance teachers’ professional learning by stimulating the development of professional learning communities: Operationalizing a comprehensive PLC concept for assessing its development in everyday educational practice. Professional Development in Education; 2020; 46,
Freeman, D. The case for teachers’ classroom English proficiency. RELC Journal; 2017; 48,
Freeman, D.; Katz, A.; Gomez, P. G.; Burns, A. English-for-teaching: Rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom. ELT Journal; 2015; 69,
Hatlevik, I. K. R.; Hatlevik, O. E. Variations in sources of job satisfaction and teacher efficacy between novice and experienced teachers. Teachers and Teaching; 2024; pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2024.2400170]
Karas, M.; Faez, F. Self-efficacy of English language teachers in Ontario: The impact of language proficiency, teaching qualifications, linguistic identity, and teaching experience. The Canadian Modern Language Review; 2021; 77,
Kharlay, O.; Wei, W.; Philips, J. How do I teach? Exploring knowledge of reflective practice among in-service EFL teachers in Ukraine. Teachers and Teaching; 2022; 28,
King, F. Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: An evidence-based framework. Professional Development in Education; 2014; 40,
Klassen, R. M.; Durksen, T. L. Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction; 2014; 33, pp. 158-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.003]
Klassen, R. M.; Tze, V. M. C. Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review; 2014; 12,
Liu, Y.; Liao, W. Professional development and teacher efficacy: Evidence from the 2013 TALIS. School Effectiveness and School Improvement; 2019; 30,
Ma, K.; Cavanagh, M.; Mcmaugh, A. Sources of pre-service teacher self-efficacy: A longitudinal qualitative inquiry. Asia Pacific Journal of Education; 2022; pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2136140]
Machida, T.; Walsh, D. J. Implementing EFL policy reform in elementary schools in Japan: A case study. Current Issues in Language Planning; 2015; 16,
Matsumura, S. Self-efficacy beliefs among non-specialist teachers in primary English education. Language Teaching for Young Learners; 2022; 4,
Matsumura, S.; Gunderson, L. Examining the relationships among teachers’ self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional strategies: A study of EFL teachers in Japan [Paper presentation]. The Multidisciplinary Approaches in Language Policy and Planning Conference; Toronto, ON, Canada, August 22–24; 2019.
Matsumura, S.; Tatsuyama, T. Enhancing pre-service EFL teachers’ self-efficacy through the use of ELF in a multilingual world. Education Sciences; 2024; 14,
MEXT [The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan]. The 2017 elementary school Course of Study; Kairyudo: 2017.
MEXT,. The results of a survey on implementation of English language teaching in elementary schools; 2020; Available online: https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1415042.htm (accessed on 1 July 2020).
MEXT,. The results of a survey on implementation of English language teaching in elementary schools; 2023; Available online: https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20240509-mxt_kyoiku01-000035833_2.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023).
Milner, H. R. A case study of an experienced English teacher’s self-efficacy and persistence through “crisis” situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. High School Journal; 2002; 86,
Moradkhani, S.; Haghi, S. Context-based sources of EFL teachers’ self-efficacy: Iranian public schools versus private institutes. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2017; 67,
Moradkhani, S.; Raygan, A.; Moein, M. S. Iranian EFL teachers’ reflective practices and self-efficacy: Exploring possible relationships. System; 2017; 65, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.011]
Morris, D. B.; Usher, E. L.; Chen, J. A. Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational Psychology Review; 2017; 29,
Ng, C. L. P. Primary school English reform in Japan: Policies, progress and challenges. Current Issues in Language Planning; 2016; 17,
Nhung, P. T. H. General English proficiency or English for teaching? The preferences of in-service teachers. RELC Journal; 2018; 49,
Nunan, D. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asian-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly; 2003; 37,
Pajares, F. Pajares, F.; Urdan, T. Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents; Information Age Publishing: 2006; pp. 117-137.
Phan, N. T. T.; Locke, T. Sources of self-efficacy of Vietnamese EFL teachers: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2015; 52,
Ravandpour, A. The relationship between EFL teachers’ continuing professional development and their self-efficacy: A structural equation modelling approach. Cogent Psychology; 2019; 6,
Richards, J. C. Teaching English through English: Proficiency, pedagogy, and performance. RELC Journal; 2017; 48,
Rixon, S. British Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide; British Council: 2013.
Rosenthal, R.; Rosnow, R. L.; Rubin, D. B. Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach; Cambridge University Press: 2000.
Schunk, D. H. Sequential attributional feedback and children’s achievement behaviours. Journal of Educational Psychology; 1984; 76,
Shrestha, P. N. Zein, S.; Butler, Y. G. Primary English language teaching in Bangladesh: Classroom practices and teacher identities. Teaching English to young learners in Asia: Challenges and directions for teacher education; Routledge: 2023; pp. 106-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003016977-7]
Sims, S.; Fletcher-Wood, H. Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement; 2021; 32,
Stelma, J.; Onat-Stelma, Z. Foreign language teachers organizing learning during their first year of teaching young learners. The Language Learning Journal; 2010; 38,
Suchodoletz, A. V.; Jamil, F. M.; Larsen, R. A. A. A.; Hamre, B. K. Personal and contextual factors associated with growth in preschool teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs during a longitudinal professional development study. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2018; 75, pp. 278-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.009]
Tam, A. C. F. The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: A perspective from teacher beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching; 2015; 21,
Tschannen-Moran, M.; McMaster, P. Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal; 2009; 110,
Tschannen-Moran, M.; Woolfolk Hoy, A. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2001; 17,
Tschannen-Moran, M.; Woolfolk Hoy, A.; Hoy, W. K. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research; 1998; 68,
Vangrieken, K.; Grosemans, I.; Dochy, F.; Kyndt, E. Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review; 2015; 15, pp. 17-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002]
Wang, X.; Fang, F.; Elyas, T. ‘I have survived and become more confident’: Effects of in-service TKT-based training on primary school English teachers’ professional beliefs and self-efficacy. Cambridge Journal of Education; 2023; 53,
Xiong, T.; Peng, Y. Zein, S.; Butler, Y. G. An evaluative case study of a professional development program for primary school English teachers in a rural region in China. Teaching English to young learners in Asia: Challenges and directions for teacher education; Routledge: 2023; pp. 156-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003016977-9]
Yada, T.; Yada, A.; Choshi, D.; Sakata, T.; Wakimoto, T.; Nakada, M. Examining the relationships between teacher self-efficacy, professional learning community, and experiential learning in Japan. School Effectiveness and School Improvement; 2023; 34,
Yoon, I.; Kim, M. Dynamic patterns of teachers’ professional development participation and their relations with socio-demographic characteristics, teacher self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2022; 109,
Zee, M.; Koomen, H. M. Y. Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research; 2016; 86,
Zein, S. Pre-service education for primary school English teachers in Indonesia: Policy implications. Asia Pacific Journal of Education; 2016; 36,
Zein, S.; Butler, Y. G. English for young learners in Asia: Challenges and directions for teacher education; Routledge: 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003016977]
Zheng, X.; Yin, H.; Li, Z. Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership; 2018; 47,
Zonoubi, R.; Rasekh, A. E.; Tavakoli, M. EFL teacher self-efficacy development in professional learning communities. System; 2017; 66, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.003]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Hinoki, Yushi