Motivational partnerships: increasing ESL

student self-efficacy
ntroduction

Learners of English as a second language (ESL) often encounter discouraging situations, in

and out of the classroom, that make it difficult for them to maintain the positive cognitive
state needed to achieve their desired learning objectives. In order for students to successfully
face such challenges, cognitive interventions may be needed to counteract the negative
cognitive states that students might experience (Bandura 2006a: 171). One such state is lack
of ‘self-efficacy’.

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief about his or her capabilities to perform the
specific tasks required to produce certain outcomes (Bandura 2012: 15). According
to Bandura (2001: 10), ‘unless people believe [that] they … by their actions … can produce
desired results … they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties’.

Over the past several decades, there has been an abundance of research (summarized
by Bandura 2012) in the field of cognitive psychology that has consistently demonstrated
that, regardless of capability, those with greater levels of self-efficacy surpass those with
lower levels in any area of human endeavour examined thus far. Additionally, Bandura
claims that self-efficacy enhances motivation. Examining how the concept of self-efficacy
related to group dynamics, Stajkovic, Lee, and Nyberg’s (2009) meta-analysis based on 96
studies revealed that the stronger the efficacy is within groups, the greater their performance
and achievements. Bandura (2001)additionally claims that collective (group) efficacy fosters
greater motivation, loftier group goals, and stronger resilience during hindrances, setbacks,
and other difficulties.

Self-efficacy has mostly been studied in the fields of workplace-related psychology, sports
psychology, and health psychology (Bandura 2006a: 176). However, there is a growing body
of self-efficacy research in the field of second language acquisition (Mills 2014: 12). The
current study seeks to add to this body of research by showing a method of enhancing self-
efficacy that ESL educators could use in their classes, as suggested by Mills (ibid.: 15).
Given the growing interest in research on self-efficacy in L2 contexts, the current study was
conducted to investigate how to counter the demoralizing effects of possible low levels of
self-efficacy in ESL learners. Students in this study were organized into motivational
partnerships, that is, peer-support partnerships that are formed to increase and maintain
motivation. Through these partnerships, teachers can facilitate the use of strategies to build
up self-efficacy. This study analyses the effects of these strategies on ESL learners’ levels of
self-efficacy and motivation in an adult intensive English programme in the United States.

Literature review
The significance of self-efficacy

In the late 1970s, Albert Bandura sought to develop a theory that explained the processes of
human behavioural change, and claimed that self-efficacy was the core cognitive facet
responsible for such change. Self-efficacy is not a general trait or characteristic ‘manifest
uniformly across [all kinds of] tasks and contexts’ (Bandura 2012: 13), but is a context- and
task-specific attitude of belief about one’s capabilities in any domain of endeavour.

In his seminal publication on Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura (1986) described self-
efficacy as being the first of a specific set of cognitive structural pathways that work within
the decision-making portion of the brain (prefrontal cortex). It is therefore not surprising that
self-efficacy has been the strongest predictor affecting behavioural change in any human
endeavour (see Richardson, Abraham, and Bond 2012). In other words, without adequate
levels of self-efficacy, self-willed behavioural change may not be possible (Bandura 2006a).

Since this claim in the late 1980s, many studies and meta-analyses have been conducted to
investigate the effectiveness of self-efficacy. Boyer, Zollo, Thompson, Vancouver, Shewring,
and Sims (2000) conducted two meta-analyses of self-efficacy studies and found large
positive effect sizes in 95 per cent of these studies. They also found successful intentional
behavioural changes in participants in addition to many other beneficial self-efficacy effects.

According to these studies, therefore, individuals who possessed significant or increased

levels of self-efficacy experienced many benefits. These included a firmer commitment to
given undertakings, an openness to unfamiliar experiences, an increased emotional stability
amid stress, a stronger social proactivity in interpersonal relationships, an elevated sense of
vision in goal setting, a more vigorous effort to reach higher goals, and an increase in
motivation.
 Seeing that a high level of or increase in self-efficacy seems necessary for these effects to
take place, it is important that we understand how to help students increase self-
efficacy. Bandura (1995) states that self-efficacy increases in an individual by their
consciously or subconsciously receiving, processing, and acting on self-efficacy-influencing
sources of information:

1. personally experiencing successes (‘mastery’)

2. observing peer successes as personally attainable (‘modelling’)
3. receiving verbal ‘persuasion’
4. enhancing one’s ‘physiological states’.

Each of these will be discussed more thoroughly in the methodology section.

A large body of research (see Bandura 2012) has consistently demonstrated that ‘individuals
of higher self-efficacy outperform their counterparts of lower ... [self]-efficacy at each level
of ability’ (Bandura ibid.: 24). The research has also helped establish the relevance of the
present study, which addresses the importance of self-efficacy in contexts where it is
typically found to be lacking, for example ESL classrooms.

Self-efficacy and motivation

It is no surprise that the topic of motivation has received much attention in the fields of
psychology and education over the past decade. Thayne (2013: 1) explains that success in L2
learning—as well as in other areas of human undertaking—is often attributed to individuals’
levels of motivation. As a result, self-efficacy—an important contributing factor to
motivation—may have been inadvertently underappreciated. This is evidenced by performing
a topical search of online articles using various databases and search engines, which shows
that only 20 articles address the relation of self-efficacy to ESL, while hundreds more ESL-
related articles deal with the more popular topic of motivation. Consequently, many
educators often turn to motivational practices to enhance student motivation rather than
fostering self-efficacy, which also contributes to motivation.

According to Schunk (1991: 209, 211, 213), self-efficacy is motivation-generating,

motivation-enhancing, and motivation-sustaining. When students are aware that they are
making progress in a particular L2 skill, their self-efficacy increases, and in turn, their
motivation is enhanced (Schunk ibid.: 209). Drawing from nine extensive meta-
analyses, Bandura and Locke (2003: 87) provided further evidence that self-efficacy
enhances motivation.

In sum, if individuals do not believe they can produce certain results, their motivation to
continue exerting effort in the face of challenges is inhibited or nullified (Bandura 2001).

Self-efficacy through motivational partnerships

According to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, people do not live life in social isolation
because much of what people desire is ‘achievable only through socially interdependent
effort: … to secure what they cannot accomplish on their own’ (Bandura 2001: 13). This is
known as using ‘proxy agency’, which is typically activated when an individual believes that
the collective efficacy of a certain social system is greater than their own efficacy to achieve
desired attainments. Bandura (2012: 15) further explained that when people form social
systems, they also create the respective ‘rules and practices, [which], in turn, influence
human development and functioning’.

Stemming from the knowledge of an individual’s need to create social systems that can
achieve more than one can alone, Neil J Anderson, Shelby Werner Thayne, and Paul Cave
(unpublished 2013 research group) conceptualized a simple social system—comprising two
(or more) people who engage in practices that maintain or increase the other person’s
motivation—which they termed ‘motivational partnerships’. This targeted form of peer-
support can emerge from any natural, pre-existing partnership, such as close friendships and
spousal relationships. However, the distinguishing element of a motivational partnership is
the mutual agreement that all individuals are participating in the partnership with the intent of
boosting and maintaining the other’s motivation. Knowing that their partner is there to help
them attain their desired goals, students in such partnerships feel socially safe enough to
combine their knowledge, abilities, resources, and emotional support, in working
interdependently towards their shared or individual objectives (Stajkovic et al. op.cit.). The
current study used this peer-support structure to promote self-efficacy-building strategies.

Research questions

Guiding this study are the following research questions:

1. Does the implementation of self-efficacy-building strategies through motivational
partnerships significantly increase:
o a student self-efficacy?
o b student motivation?
2. To what extent does an increase in self-efficacy enhance motivation?
3. In what other ways do motivational partnerships affect students’ and teachers’ learning
experiences?
Methodology
Participants

This study took place at the English Language Center at Brigham Young University in Provo,
Utah, United States. The participants were an intact class of 16 international students (eight
male and eight female) on an intermediate reading course. Their ages ranged from 18 to 39
(M = 24.5). The participating teacher of this class was the partnership facilitator for the study.
As this study followed Institutional Review Board protocol, the primary researcher received
consent from each of the participants.

Instruments

The primary researcher used two instruments to investigate student levels of self-efficacy and
motivation: Bandura’s (2006b) Self-efficacy Scale, and Guilloteaux and Dörnyei’s
(2008) Student Motivational State Questionnaire. These have been modified to fit the context
of the present study and are provided in the Appendix.

In the Self-efficacy Scale:

[students] record[ed] the strength of their [task-specific] efficacy beliefs on a 100-point

scale, ranging in 10-unit intervals from 0 (‘Cannot do’); through intermediate degrees of
assurance, 50 (‘Moderately certain can do’); to complete assurance, 100 (‘Highly certain
can do’). (Bandura 2006b: 312)

The Scale measured student self-efficacy (pre- and post-treatment) in three specific domains
of scholastic endeavour: reading proficiency (13 items; the area of most interest to the study),
self-regulated learning behaviour (four items), and sociability (four items).
The Student Motivational State Questionnaire was used in the present study (pre- and post-
treatment) to assess the students’ motivational states and perceptions regarding their ESL
reading course. Both instruments were given in English as first developed by their original
authors. Because the students were at an low-intermediate level of English reading
comprehension, they were invited to seek clarification from the instructor if certain items
could not be fully understood.

Administration of tests

The teacher administered the pre-tests of both the Self-efficacy Scale and the Student
Motivational State Questionnaire during the first week of class. Students were told what each
of these instruments would measure. The teacher administered the post-tests of the Scale and
Questionnaire during the week preceding the students’ final proficiency exams. Students
were also reassured that their results would not be disclosed, nor would their results affect
their proficiency grades in any way. Thus, at the top of each test, students drew a unique
symbol only they could recognize as their own. After the teacher collected the tests, he then
marked each with a number between 1 and 16 for test identification and organization
purposes. The duration of administration of both the Scale and the Questionnaire to the 16-
student class was approximately 80 minutes (20 minutes for the Scale and 60 minutes for the
Questionnaire).

Treatment: organizing motivational partnerships and the self-efficacy-building

strategies training

After calculating the students’ self-efficacy and motivation scores, the teacher plotted
students on an x–y axis by rank (1 to 16 for both measures). The teacher then organized
students into motivational partnerships by coupling students of similar motivation levels but
opposing self-efficacy levels. For example, a student with high levels of motivation and self-
efficacy was paired with a student of high motivation but low levels of self-efficacy. Pairing
students of similar motivation levels was done with the intention of fostering a mutual drive
and common goal mindset, and minimizing conflicts of interest that could potentially lead to
tension in the partnerships. The additional criterion in the pairing of the students was that of
opposing levels of self-efficacy. This was done so that one of the partnership members could
act as a natural leader in the building of self-efficacy within the partnership. Students were
told that their partnerships were determined by their pre-test scores of both instruments and
the pairing criteria.
At the beginning of a class period at the end of the first week, students identified their pre-
test by their respective symbol and located the identification number attached to their test.
The teacher announced the partnerships by calling out the corresponding identification
numbers. Students were invited to sit by their new motivational partner, and were told that
they would be doing the majority of in-class work during the semester with that partner. The
teacher then allowed a few minutes of class time for the partners to become better acquainted.

The teacher told the students that the purpose of these partnerships was to help individuals
increase their self-efficacy and consequently motivation by implementing four self-efficacy-
building strategies. The concept of self-efficacy was explained to the students in
intermediate-level language.

Students were trained on each of the following self-efficacy-building strategies based

on Bandura’s (1995) self-efficacy-influencing sources of information by the teacher
demonstrating general examples of what a dialogue might look like between students who
use the strategies sincerely (Extracts 1–4):

Extract 1 Personally experiencing successes: helping one another be aware of and

celebrate personal successes, for example:

Student A: What big or small successes have you had today?

Student B: Well, I’m getting a little faster at previewing texts.

Student A: That’s great! I know you’ve been working hard at that. Keep it up!

Student B: Thanks!
Extract 2 Observing peer successes as personally attainable: helping one another see
how to obtain the success they have personally experienced, for example:

Student A: I have a hard time finding specific details quickly; I’ll never be able to do it.

Student B: Hey! Don’t get discouraged! I had the same problem too, but look at what I
tried. It’s been working great. If I can do it, so can you!
Extract 3 Receiving verbal persuasion: helping one another believe they can accomplish
tasks and thereby attain their desired objectives, for example:
Student A: You can do this! You’ve been improving little by little and you’ll get there
sooner than you think; I’ll help you get there. You have to believe that you can do this!’

Student B: All right, I will. Thanks again for looking out for me.
Extract 4 Enhancing one’s physiological states: helping one another stay accountable
for good health and wellness habits, for example:

Student A: I’m so tired today; I can’t focus.

Student B: Drink some water and stretch. Also, be sure to go to bed earlier. I can send
you a reminder text if you want.

Student A: Yes. That sounds good. Thank you!

After receiving the above training on how to implement these four strategies, students were
encouraged to select and sincerely implement one or more of the four strategies with their
partner during the first two to three minutes of class each day. At the end of every week,
students reported how frequently they used certain strategies on a private online Google
spreadsheet (for example ‘strategy #1: 3 times, #2: 2 times’). The teacher gave a basic review
of one of the strategies at the beginning of each week to keep the know-how of strategies
fresh in the minds of students.

Findings and discussion

A Pearson correlation analysis was used to find students’ self-efficacy and motivation change
over time and the total frequency of self-efficacy-building strategies use each student had
reported throughout the semester.

Quantitative findings (RQ1 and RQ2)

The correlation between student use of self-efficacy-building strategies and student self-
efficacy improvement was statistically significant, r(14) = .681, P = .004, accounting for
nearly 43 per cent of student self-efficacy improvement, (r2 = .425). This finding suggests
that the use of self-efficacy-building strategies within motivational partnerships helped
increase student self-efficacy (RQ1a).
 Likewise, student use of these strategies and increases in motivation were strongly
correlated, r(14) = .669, P = .005, explaining nearly 41 per cent of the variance (r2 = .409).
This suggests that these partnerships may also enhance student motivation (RQ1b).

Finally, self-efficacy and motivation improvement showed the greatest correlation when
compared to the rest of the analyses, r(14) = .836, P < .001, accounting for approximately 68
per cent of the increased motivation (r2 = .678). This finding suggests that, on average,
motivation improves along with self-efficacy (RQ2).

Qualitative findings (RQ3)

During part of a class period approximately seven weeks into the semester, the teacher
facilitated an informal class discussion for students to share their opinions on and perceptions
of motivational partnerships. The student responses were audio-recorded for transcription.
Common themes were found amongst their responses, from which four salient positive
effects of motivational partnerships can be derived:

 ■ an increase in student confidence and decrease in their fears;

 ■ greater student collaboration;
 ■ consistently rendered and conveniently available emotional support for students by
their partners; and
 ■ greater class unity.

Pseudonyms in the following text have been included to preserve student anonymity, and the
exact wording of these students has been maintained despite some non-standard English.

Increased student confidence/decreased student fears

A majority of students frequently mentioned that, due to these partnerships, their fears
decreased and their confidence increased. Consider Angelica’s representative comments on
the matter:

When I arrived here it’s like, ‘I know nothing’! … [And] I was always afraid. And then we
had a motivation partner. Then I feel like, ‘I can do this’! And even when I don’t believe,
my motivational partner … believes in me.
This supports Bandura’s (2000) findings that higher collective efficacy led to greater
resilience when facing situations that give rise to doubt.

Greater student collaboration

Another commonly noted advantage of these partnerships by the students was that they
collaborated more to help each other reach their goals. Of this point, Beatrice said, ‘We can
talk and give or receive some suggestions from each other. The motivational partnerships is
better than just do individual’. David added, ‘Motivational partners is very good because we
can talk each other results and concerns, and that helps a lot in order to improve ourselves’.
These statements concur with Stajkovic et al.’s (op.cit.) meta-analytic finding that the greater
the collective efficacy and interdependent effort, the greater the group productivity and
performance.

Shared emotional support in partnerships

Students also frequently reported giving each other more emotional support in their
partnerships during challenging or discouraging situations. Fernanda highlighted this
advantage in the following statement:

[My partner] always encourages. And every day he turn to me ‘How was your score’? I
say ‘Today is 38/100’. He say, ‘It’s ok. That’s good!’ When times are hard to me he
always says you can do it. And now know I can do it and then I know I can progress.

This outcome supports the findings of past research (Bandura 2000), which reveals that when
a group possesses significant amounts of collective efficacy, they also have a greater staying
power in the face of setbacks.

Greater class unity

Many students related that they experienced greater class unity than usual. Consider
Eduardo’s statement on this advantage:

I think we, as class, we are like more united than other classes because we are more
concerned with each other with partnerships. We know more about each other.
 Eduardo’s comment mirrors Bandura’s research on the power of collective efficacy, which
states that ‘a high sense of [collective] efficacy promotes … cooperativeness, helpfulness,
and sharing, with a vested interest in each other’s welfare’ (Bandura 2001: 15).

In addition to students’ positive reception of the partnerships, the participating teacher’s

observations are as follows:

From the time motivational partnerships were created, students seemed a lot more
relaxed and safe. They demonstrated more enthusiasm and positivity than any other
class I have taught. There was more focus in class. Group work was easily facilitated.
Students had someone to conveniently turn to in times of emotionally difficult
situations. The students are also a lot more aware of the progress they make because
someone is always there to help them see their improvement.

It is also important to note that other teachers had noticed a positive difference in the
participating students, and often inquired of the participating teacher as to how they could
implement these partnerships in their own classes. In the same vein, the Methodology section
of this study serves as a guide for teachers seeking to implement this pairing system in their
respective classes.

Limitations

This study was by design intended to be small and exploratory in nature. Therefore, future
research into motivational partnerships could apply the following to avoid the limitations of
the current study:

 ■ ensure a much larger student participant size;

 ■ provide a standard motivational partnership training module for participating
teachers; and
 ■ conduct researcher-participant interviews which include a specific set of questions
regarding students’ and teachers’ perception of the partnerships; an electronic survey
could also accomplish the same end.
Conclusion

The quantitative results of the current study suggest that student use of self-efficacy-building
strategies through motivational partnerships produces a significant increase in both student
self-efficacy and student motivation. Additionally, the results reaffirm and contribute to an
understanding of Schunk’s (op.cit.) and Bandura and Locke’s (op.cit.) claim that self-efficacy
enhances motivation. Furthermore, apart from an increase in self-efficacy and motivation, the
qualitative findings reveal that there are many other positive effects of implementing these
partnerships.

Motivational partnerships have shown promising effects thus far in ESL education. As such,
other uses and benefits of these partnerships merit further investigation, not only in the field
of ESL, but in other L2 contexts, as well as other fields of human endeavour. Finally,
institutions or programmes may benefit from including motivational partnerships as part of
their social infrastructure.

Paul N. Cave received his Masters in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
from Brigham Young University. He has been involved in teaching second languages,
namely French, Spanish, and English, for many years in the United States. Paul’s research is
primarily focused on motivation, self-efficacy, and other cognitive processes of second
language acquisition. Paul currently works as adjunct faculty at Brigham Young University’s
English Language Center.

Norman W. Evans is the Department Chair of Linguistics and English Language at

Brigham Young University. He has been an ESL teacher, programme administrator, teacher
trainer, researcher, and author for over 25 years. His research and publications have focused
on international student adjustment issues, language curriculum development, and second
language writing, specifically written corrective feedback.

Dan P. Dewey, Associate Professor of Linguistics at Brigham Young University, received a

PhD in Second Language Acquisition from Carnegie Mellon University. His research focuses
largely on language acquisition in settings other than the classroom (study abroad,
internships, foreign language housing, autonomous online learning, etc.), but he is interested
in social interaction, motivation, self-regulation, and stress management both in and out of
the classroom.

K. James Hartshorn received his PhD in instructional psychology with a specialization in

second language acquisition. He has been involved in second language education in the
United States and Asia for three decades. Currently, James serves as Coordinator of Brigham
Young University’s English Language Center. In addition to teacher preparation, James’
research centres on the effects of formal instruction on second language development.

Appendix
Bandura’s (2006b) adapted Self-efficacy Scale (as used in the study)
Questionnaire

Symbol: draw a unique symbol in the space provided that only you can identify.

IMPORTANT: complete honesty is very much needed and appreciated. Your answers will
NOT affect your grade in any class.

In each of the blanks, please rate how certain you are that you can do the following things:

Cannot do at all Can do moderately well Highly certain can do

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
View Large

*Examples:

Lift a car with only my arm strength __0 (I write 0 because I do not think I can lift a car at
all!)

Play Basketball well __50 (I write 50 because I think I can play basketball moderately well.)

Drink a glass of water –100—— (I write 100 because I am highly certain I can drink a glass
of water.)

Please rate how certain you are that you can do the following things:

Use many reading strategies very well now ______

Read at a speed of 200 words per minute most of the time ______

Always understand 70% or more on most reading passages ______

Increase my reading comprehension significantly throughout this semester ______

Increase my reading speed (words per minute) significantly throughout this semester ______

Become better at many reading strategies throughout this semester ______

Increase my reading rate to 200 words per minute (or more) throughout this semester ______

Get an A grade in this class ______ Increase my reading comprehension to 70% (or more) by
the end of this semester ______

Become very good at many reading strategies ______

Always read fluently (200 words per minute with 70% or more comprehension) ______

Always concentrate on school subjects during class ______

Make myself study when there are other interesting things to do ______

Be in or go to a place to study without distractions ______

Make myself do school work when I don’t want to ______

Make and keep friends of the opposite gender ______

Make and keep friends of the same gender ______

Carry on conversations with others ______

Work well in a group ______

The Student Motivational State Questionnaire (adapted from Guilloteaux and

Dörnyei 2008)

Symbol _____________________

Below is a list of statements about language learning. Please indicate how true you believe
the statement is of you. Please be as honest as possible in responding to each of the
statements. Your responses will not be used in any way to influence your grades this
semester.
Please put a check mark (✓) in the appropriate box on the continuum between ‘Definitely not
true of me’ to ‘Totally true of me’ that indicates your reaction to the statement. Please put
only one check mark for each item.
 Fairly Quite
Definitely Slightly Somewhat true true Totally
not true true of true of of of true of
of me me me me me me

1 I wish we had
English class more
often this
semester.

2 I feel I am making
progress in English
this semester.

3 I get very worried

if I make mistakes
during English
class this semester.

4 I know that I am
responsible for my
own learning.

5 I am a good
student in English
and in other
subjects.

6 English is a very
important subject
for me to study so
that I can be
successful in the
future.

7 The teacher
should tell me what
I need to study in
order for me to
make progress.

8 I believe I will
receive good
grades in English
this semester.

9 I like my English
class this semester.

10 I am afraid that
my classmates will
laugh at me when I
have to speak in
English class.

11 I choose to
study outside of
class things that I
want to.

12 I learn well in
English class as
well as in other
subjects.

13 It is essential
that I have strong
ability in English in
order to be
successful in my
chosen career.

14 I feel more
nervous in English
class this semester
than in my other
classes.

15 I often
experience a
feeling of success in
my English class
this semester.

16 English is one of
my favourite
subjects this
semester.

17 I pay careful
attention in class
when the teacher
corrects errors
(mine or those of
my classmates) so
that I can learn.

18 When I make
mistakes I am not
too embarrassed
but use the mistake
as a learning
opportunity.

19 When the
English class ends, I
often wish it could
continue.

20 I often volunteer
to do speaking
presentations in
English class.

21 When I meet an
English-speaking
foreigner, I take the
opportunity to
practise my
language.

22 I need English in
order to
accomplish my
career goals.

23 I want to work
hard in English
class to make my
teacher happy.

24 I reward myself
when I have
successes in my
English study.

25 I have set clear

goals for myself in
my study of
English.

26 I am sure that
one day I will be
able to speak
English well.

27 I learn from my
mistakes.

28 I enjoy my
English class this
semester because
what we do is
neither too hard
nor too easy.

29 I seek input
from my teacher on
ways to improve
my English.
30 English is a very
important language
for me to study.

31 I learn from the

mistakes of my
classmates.

32 I seek input
from my friends
who have higher
proficiency in
English than me, on
ways to improve
my language.

33 I would rather
spend my time on
subjects other than
English.

34 In English class
this semester, I
usually understand
what to do and how
to do it.

35 I am responsible
to motivate myself
to learn and study.

36 Although
studying English
can be difficult at
times, I know I can
meet the learning
challenge.

37 I can learn
anything I set my
mind to.
38 Sometimes
studying English is
challenging but I
know that I have to
keep working
hard.

39 My teacher is
responsible to
motivate me in
class.

40 This semester, I
think I am good at
learning English.

41 I know that I
will be using
English in my job
for many years to
come.

42 Learning
English at school is
a burden for me
this semester.

43 I am worried
about my ability to
do well in English
this semester.

44 In English class
this semester, we
are learning things
that will be useful
in the future.

45 Sometimes I am
so nervous in
English class this
semester that I
cannot think well.
 View Large
References
Bandura

A
.
1986
.
Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory
.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
:
Prentice Hall
.
Bandura

A
. (ed.).
1995
.
Self-efficacy in Changing Societies
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef

Bandura

A
.
2000
.‘
Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy
’.
Current Directions in Psychological Science

9
/
3
:
75
–
8
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef
Bandura

A
.
2001
.‘
Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective
’.
Annual Review of Psychology

52
:
1
–
26
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef
PubMed

Bandura

A
.
2006a
.‘
Toward a psychology of human agency
’.
Perspectives on Psychological Science

1
/
2
:
164
–
80
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef

Bandura

A
.
2006b
.‘
Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales
’ in
Pajares

F.
Urdan

T.
(eds.).
Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents
.
Charlotte, NC
:
Information Age Publishing
.
Bandura

A
.
2012
.‘
On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited
’.
Journal of Management

38
/
1
:
9
–
44
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef

Bandura

A.
Locke

E.
.
2003
.‘
Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited
’.
Journal of Applied Psychology

88
/
1
:
87
–
99
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef
PubMed

Boyer

D. A.
Zollo

J. S.
Thompson

C. M.
Vancouver

J. B.
Shewring

K.
, and
Sims

E.
.
2000
.
‘A quantitative review of the effects of manipulated self-efficacy on performance’
.
Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society
,
Miami, Florida
.
Guilloteaux

M. J.
Dö rnyei

Z.
.
2008
.‘
Motivating language learners: a classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of
motivational strategies on student motivation
’.
TESOL Quarterly

42
/
1
:
55
–
77
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef

Mills

N
.
2014
.‘
Self-efficacy in second language acquisition
’ in
Mercer

S.
Williams

M.
(eds.).
Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA
.
Bristol
:
Multilingual Matters
.
Richardson

M.
Abraham

C.
, and
Bond

R.
.
2012
.‘
Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
’.
Psychological Bulletin

138
/
2
:
353
–
87
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef
PubMed

Schunk

D. H
.
1991
.‘
Self-efficacy and academic motivation
’.
Educational Psychologist

26
/
3&4
:
207
–
31
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef

Stajkovic

A. D.
Lee

D.
, and
Nyberg

A. J.
.
2009
.‘
Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their
relationships, and test of a mediation model
’.
Journal of Applied Psychology

94
/
3
:
814
–
28
.
Google Scholar
CrossRef
PubMed

Thayne

S. W
.
2013
.
‘Facilitating language learner motivation: teacher motivational practice and teacher
motivational training’
.
Unpublished MA thesis
,
Brigham Young University
,
Provo, USA
.