IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

The Effect of Proficiency on “Non-Native” EFL Teachers’ Feelings andSelf-Reported Behaviours
Jean-Marc Dewaele
Birkbeck, University of London, United Kingdom
Pearl P. Y. Leung
Birkbeck, University of London, United Kingdom

11

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Abstract
The current study addresses the question whether the level of proficiency of teachers who teacha “non-native” language, English, affects their attitudes, motivation, well-being and selfreported classroom practices. This quantitative study is based on a cross-sectional research
design in order to investigate the relationship between actual English proficiency of 376
English Foreign Language teachers from around the world who had English as a Foreign
Language and feelings and self-reported behaviours. Statistical analyses showed that more
proficient teachers scored higher on the dimensions “Classroom practice” and “Attitudes
toward students and institution”. They were also more motivated and happier. Intermediate(B1-B2) teachers scored significantly lower on these measures than EFL educators with
Advanced proficiency (C1-C2). No significant differences emerged between teachers at Lower
advanced (C1) and Upper advanced levels (C2). An argument is made that all dependent andindependent variables are connected, highly dynamic and interacting directly and indirectly,
which means that causality is multi-directional. The implication is that educational authorities
should organise regular in-service training to maintain and boost teachers’ proficiency because
investing in teachers’ linguistic skills represents a long-term investment in their emotional
well-being and will ultimately benefit their students.
Keywords: attitudes, classroom practices, EFL teaching, foreign language users, motivation,
proficiency, well-being

Erratum: Due to a production error, this manuscript was reuploaded on June 8, 2022, with a correction
made to the article title and the second sentence of Abstract.

12

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Elaine Horwitz, a pioneer of teacher training and foreign language anxiety research, listed thefollowing characteristics of good “non-native” language teachers: “good humour, creativity,
understanding of young people, love of the language and culture, high language proficiency, asolid background in methodology and a flexible teaching style” (1996, p. 371). The paper may
be 26 years old but the notion of what makes a good “non-native” teacher has not changed. She
notes that too many “non-native” teachers think that only fluency matters. She admits that it
would be great for “non-native” teachers to speak the foreign language (FL) flawlessly but
acknowledges that this is rather rare. Teachers who feel unable to reach this level of idealized
proficiency may suffer from debilitating anxiety, even if they did actually achieve very highlevels of proficiency in the FL. Horwitz adds that “non-native” teachers should be proud of
their achievement. She concludes that at an institutional level, it is crucial to organise training
for pre-service and in-service “non-native” teachers to help them maintain and improve theirproficiency in the FL.
One aspect that has changed since 1996 is the use of the term “non-native” which isincreasingly seen as being toxic. Swan, Aboshiha and Holliday (2015) talked about the“tyranny of native-speakerism” in the worldwide English language teaching profession.
Dewaele, Bak and Ortega (2021) argued that the idea that FL learners should attain somemythical unattainable “native” norm is unrealistic and discriminatory. In order to avoid theused of these loaded terms, Dewaele (2018a) introduced the terms “L1 user” and “LX user”.
“LX” refers to any language acquired after the age of three. Contrary to ‘native’ and “nonnative” speaker, the labels “L1/LX” do not imply any level of proficiency. LX users may havevarying levels of proficiency in their LX, from minimal to maximal but crucially they are seen
as legitimate users of the LX. The new L1/LX dichotomy allows researchers to avoid the deficit
view that is inherent in the term “non-native” speaker.
What Horwitz (1996) did not mention was exactly how proficient LX teachers should be toqualify as “good” teachers. Proficiency requirements differ depending on the country, the typeof institution, the age and level of the students. Requirements can also be vague, namely adegree in the FL without any specific mention of proficiency level. In the United Kingdom,
graduate students and student teachers who wish to teach a language that is not their L1 arerequired to have at least C1 level for entry at the Institute of Education, University College
London1, a world-leading provider of teacher training for Early Years, Primary and Secondary
education. The C1 level in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Councilof Europe 2020) refers to advanced, proficient users. This same level (C1-C2) is required inother institutions that offer training courses for teachers for whom English is a FL, such as
Trinity College London. The present paper will investigate whether English Foreign language(EFL) teachers who have only a B1 or B2 level in English differ from their more advanced (C1and C2) colleagues in terms of self-reported practices, emotions, attitudes and motivation. In
other words, is the C1 level really the proficiency threshold for being a “good” teacher?

1

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/graduate/applying-international-student

13

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Research Questions
The present study aims to address the following research questions:
1. Is the English LX proficiency of EFL teachers linked to their attitudes toward theirstudents and institution, and their self-reported classroom practices?
2. Is the English LX proficiency of EFL teachers linked to their motivation?
3. Is the English LX proficiency of EFL teachers linked to their well-being?
Literature Review
Non-Native Speakers
Llurda (2009) pointed out that at the start of the new millennium researchers started to agree
that “non-native” speakers may be just as good teachers as “native speaker” teachers but that
did not seem to dent the perceived superiority of the “native speaker teacher” in the EFL
profession.
A few years earlier, Mahboob (2004) had already argued that the discrimination against “nonnative” teachers was linked to programme administrators who mistakenly believed thatstudents did not want them and thus avoided hiring them. Holliday (2005) described “nativespeakerism” in the EFL profession as the mistaken belief that that Western “native speakers”
are the best models and teachers of English. He attributed the deep and sustained prejudiceagainst “non-native” teachers as the result of racism and cultural prejudice (Holliday &Aboshiha, 2009). In later work, Holliday (2015) described “native-speakerism” as a “widespread cultural disbelief (…) in the cultural contribution of teachers who have been labelled‘non-native speakers’” (p. 11). Kumaravadivelu (2016) claimed that the inequity against “nonnative” teachers in EFL teaching is continuing and these people are victims of a hegemonic
power structure.
An indication that teachers themselves do no longer share the view that “native speaker”
teachers are superior emerged from Dewaele, Mercer, Talbot and von Blanckenburg (2020).
The researchers developed a research design to measure implicit bias against “non-native” EFL
teachers in judgements of teaching competence. Three hundred Austrian and German preservice EFL teachers watched an identical short video of a teacher in front of an EFL classroom
and used Likert scales to rate her performance on four dimensions (language, teaching,assessment, communication) as well as in item on their willingness to have this person as theirEnglish teacher. Half of the participants were told that the teacher was a “native speaker”
teacher, the other half that she was a “non-native speaker” teacher. The differences between
both conditions were found to be non-significant. The strongest predictor of willingness to havethat teacher was her teaching skill. In other words, there was no bias against “non- native
speaker” EFL teachers. Of course, parents, students and school management may still hold abias against “non-native” teachers.
The Relationship between Teachers’ Proficiency and Teaching Ability
Shin (2008) pointed out that “Having an excellent command of the target language is indeed
one of the most important characteristics of outstanding foreign language teachers” (p. 59). FL
teachers’ proficiency has direct consequences on what takes places in the classroom as teacherswith limited proficiency in the target language might struggle to access language resources,

14

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

including authentic material, and are more likely to stick to the textbook (Farrell & J. C.
Richards, 2007). They also risk providing incorrect responses to students and they may struggle
to notice learner language errors. Their linguistic insecurity may be particularly acute in oralinteractions which may push them to tighten their grip over the class. Researchers have also
used self-reports and test results compiled by institutions using their own instruments (Digap,2016). Other measurements of proficiency rely on observers’ judgments of direct classroom
observation.
Expressing their surprise at the scarcity of research in this area, Moussu and Llurda (2008)
issued the following call: “language proficiency has never been used as an independent variable
in order to observe and describe differences among NNS teachers. Such an analysis might
greatly contribute to a greater understanding of the role of the teacher’s language proficiency
in language teaching” (p. 339). More researchers have focused on this topic since then but theirepistemological and methodological choices have made generalizations difficult. A positive
development is that researchers have started arguing for a more nuanced view of language
teachers’ proficiency and have combatted the deficit view surrounding LX teachers. KamhiStein (2009) argued that language proficiency is only part of the teacher professional profile,and teacher training programmes should focus on issues surrounding language proficiency
regardless of whether the teachers were L1 users or LX teachers. Richards, Conway, Roskvist
and Harvey (2013), for example, pointed out that linguistic proficiency is only one part ofsubject knowledge, among other subsets of skills that for foreign language teachers need tomaster. Other skills include knowledge of the curriculum, of the syllabus, of pedagogicalprinciples, of the target language culture and of the theory of second language acquisition. The
authors carried out a case study of seven New Zealand teachers of foreign languages and foundthat teachers with low level of target language proficiency were able carry out some aspects ofeffective language teaching but they struggled when having to provide meaningful
explanations, rich language input and an ability to improvise. A such, they were more suitedfor beginners’ classes.
Faez and Karas (2017) reviewed the research on the link between teacher proficiency andteaching ability. The authors found a relatively weak positive correlation between teacher’language proficiency and their confidence in their classroom abilities in 10 out of 11 studies.
However, only one study used an actual language proficiency test, all others used self-reported
proficiency measures in the four skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing). Following
the same avenue, Faez, Karas and Uchihara (2021) carried out a meta-analysis of 19 studies toinvestigate the relationship between language proficiency and teaching ability of English LX
teachers. The authors found a moderate positive relationship between language proficiency andteaching self-efficacy.
The Concept of Proficiency
Proficiency is not a static concept, it is merely a snapshot at one moment in time of a process
started many years earlier when the teacher was still a student, and it likely to develop further
in life. Some of these differences are learner-internal (micro-level), others are learner-external
at a meso-level (classroom, school, education system) or even at a macro-level) (historical,
political, ideological context). Variables at these different levels interact, which means that theeffect of any single variable can be different because of the many interactions. High proficiency
is more likely to emerge when micro-, meso- and macro-levels are aligned, namely if a learnerhas all the right personal attributes to learn a target language, with good teaching and plenty ofrich input, in an environment that values the target language. Imperfect alignment of the various

15

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

levels is not necessarily an obstacle if the learner is willing to make an effort and if alternative
paths are available to improve mastery of the target language. These various levels continue toplay a role when LX learners become LX teachers. There will inevitably be variation in theextent to which new teachers will be willing and able to maintain and develop their proficiency.
It is likely that if they feel respected and valued in their institution, they may decide to further
improve their proficiency.
The concept of proficiency is the bedrock of the Common European Framework of Reference(CEFR) developed by the Council of Europe. Six levels of language proficiency are
distinguished: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, which can be regrouped into three broad levels: BasicUser, Independent User and Proficient User. Measurement happens through “can-do”
descriptors for listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production and writing(https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/leveldescriptions).
Foreign Language Education policy is very much influenced by the CEFR which serves as abenchmark for language education around the world and influences educational policies (seefor example, Rehner, Popovitch & Lasan, 2021). It allows transparency in comparing expected
progress and outcomes of FL learning and it allows officials to set thresholds for both learners
and teachers. For example, Thai secondary school English teachers are expected to havereached B2 level, yet a CEFR-referenced online placement test organised by the ministry ofeducation in 2015 revealed that 94% had failed to reach this level and that A2 level (basic user)
was much more common than expected (Franz & Teo, 2018).
Freeman, Katz, Gomez and Burns (2015) have called for a reconceptualization of teacher
language proficiency, taking a language-for-specific-purposes approach, arguing that teacher
language proficiency should not be seen as general language proficiency such as probed by the
CEFR but rather specific command of classroom English. This debate lies beyond the scope of
the present paper.
The Relationship between EFL Teachers’ Classroom Behavior and their Emotional,
Motivational and Attitudinal Dimensions
The field has witnessed a rapid growth of interest in the topic of teacher psychology (de Dios
Martinez Agudo, 2018; Gkonou, Dewaele & King, 2020; Mercer & Gregersen, 2020; Mercer& Kostoulas, 2018). Dewaele and Mercer (2018) developed an online questionnaire to collectself-reports from of 513 EFL teachers from around the world who had English as an L1 or as
an LX. Four studies have been published on parts of the dataset and the present study is thefifth, focusing on a subgroup of participants in the database, namely the English LX users. The
first study was Dewaele and Mercer (2018) that looked at individual differences in selfreported attitudes toward their students. Participants with higher Trait Emotional Intelligence,
more experience and higher proficiency were found to have significantly more positive
attitudes toward their students. The second study on the same database showed that participants
with high levels of Trait Emotional Intelligence scored significantly higher on pedagogicalskills, creativity and classroom management. Teachers who had been in the profession for
longer also reported significantly better classroom management and pedagogical skills andmore creativity in their classrooms (Dewaele, Gkonou & Mercer, 2018). The third study(Dewaele, 2018b) zoomed in on the effect of Global Trait Emotional Intelligence as well as
the specific effect of the four factors that constitute this personality trait (sociability, wellbeing, self-control and emotionality). Sociability and well-being turned out to be most strongly

16

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

positively correlated with classroom management and pedagogical skills. A difference was also
uncovered between L1 and LX users of English, with Global Trait EI and emotionality being
significantly positively linked to the English proficiency of the latter but not to that of theformer. The fourth study (Dewaele, 2020) looked for links between dimensions of teacher
motivation, dimensions of Trait Emotional Intelligence, teaching experience, status of English,
English proficiency, age and gender. Motivation was found to be positively linked with all four
factors of Trait Emotional Intelligence. High proficiency in English was linked to stronger
motivation. Female teachers were also found to be more highly motivated.
This literature review shows that researchers have found links between teachers’ proficiency
and various aspects of their teaching ability, confidence and motivation, which are in turnlinked to psychological and sociobiographical variables. Considering the Thai ministry’s
requirement that its secondary English teachers reach a B2 level (Franz & Teo, 2018) andUniversity College London’s insistence on C1 as threshold for their graduate students andEnglish LX teachers, the study will investigate whether a difference exists in the self-reportedclassroom behavior, attitudes toward students and institution, motivation, and well-being of
EFL teachers who had English as an LX who scored above or below C1.
Methodology
A combination of convenience and purposive sampling was used to reach potential participants
who had to be EFL teachers (Ness Evans & Rooney, 2013). Calls for participation with a linkto the anonymous questionnaire were sent out widely through direct communication andthrough posts on social media including forums of EFL teacher associations in 2016.
Participants were invited to forward the call to their EFL colleagues. A total of 513 participantsfrom across the world filled out the questionnaire in English2. The present study focusses on a
sub-group, namely 376 EFL teachers for whom English was an LX. Participants varied in age,country of residence and language background which strengthens the ecological validity of thedata, as local effects are averaged out. Participants completed a short sociobiographicalquestionnaire before doing a lexical decision task to determine their English proficiency. They
then answered the closed questions about their attitudes, motivation and classroom behavior.
The research design received ethical approval from the authors’ institution.
Participants
A total of 376 participants (295 females, 77 males, 4 preferred not to say) filled out thequestionnaire. The largest group were Ukrainians (n = 37), Greek (n = 30), Azerbaijani (n =25), Argentinian (n = 14), Chinese (n = 14), and smaller numbers of participants with othernationalities. Most participants were teaching English at university (n = 197), others taught insecondary schools (n = 120) and primary schools (n = 59). Further demographic informationof the participants in presented in table 1.

2

We assumed that a B1 level of English was sufficient to understand the questionnaire.

17

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Table 1
Demographic Information of Participants

AgeYears as a teacher
Number of languages known

Minimum
19
0.1
2

Maximum
76
50
6

Mean
38.8
14.2
3.5

Std. Deviation
10.2
10.1
1.1

Independent Variable
The independent variable was general English proficiency3, based on the 60-item testdeveloped by Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012), which takes 5 minutes to complete. The
LexTALE test requires participants to distinguish real English words from English-looking
words that do not exist in English, using a YES/NO format. Its scores correlate highly withTOEIC test results, an established test of English proficiency that takes approximately 2½hours to complete. Thus, even though LexTALE was not designed to capture general English
proficiency fully, scholars recognize it as a good indicator for intermediate to (very) highproficiency LX users. Although there has been some debate about the sampling rate of
LEXTALE (Masrai, 2022), the test, which has been translated in different languages, isconsidered to be a sound and effective instrument for measuring vocabulary size, as a proxyfor general L2 proficiency (Zhou & Li, 2021). The mean score for LEXTALE among the study
participants was 83.5%, with a standard deviation of 12.9%.
Lemhöfer and Broersma (2012) equate scores below 59% on LexTALE as corresponding to
the lower independent users and the lower level descriptors of the CEFR (B1 and lower).
LexTALE scores between 60% and 80% correspond to Upper independent users (B2), scores
between 80% and 90% correspond to Lower advanced (C1) and scores above 90% correspondto Upper advanced (C2). In the present study 140 participants had a score between 60% and80%. The researchers consequently created a single category of “Independent users” (B1-B2).
One hundred and four participants had a score between 80.1% and 90% and were labeled“Lower advanced users” (C1). The 132 participants with scores above 90.1% were labelled“Upper advanced users” (C2), 18 of which scored the maximum 100% (see Figure 1 for the
distribution of proficiency level).

3

Given the fact that the authors are not aware of valid and reliable tests that measure the command of classroom
English in no more than five minutes, it was necessary to use a test that measures general proficiency instead. We
feel that “teacher language proficiency” (cf. Freeman et al., 2015) is not radically different from “general language
proficiency” and hence that measuring the latter provides a sufficient reflection of the former. Entering in thisdebate lies beyond the scope of this paper.

18

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Figure 1
Distribution of Participants According to Proficiency Level

35%

37%

B1/B2
C1
C2

28%

Dependent Variables
The first cluster of dependent variables include the Likert scale responses to 7 items out of alist of 11 items published in Dewaele (2018b). It contains statements accompanied by 5-point
Likert scales ranging from “absolutely not” to “absolutely yes”. The first group of statements
reflect teacher emotions, attitudes, classroom practice and skills.
1. I love the English language [Passion for English]
2. I have a positive attitude toward the institution in which I teach [Attitude toward theinstitution]
3. I have a positive attitude toward my students [Attitude toward students]
4. I enjoy having lively students [Enjoy lively students]
5. I use English frequently in class [Frequency of use]
6. I see myself as a creative teacher [Creative teacher]
7. I frequently allow my students to work independently [Independent students]
8. My classes are predictable (i.e. I often stick to a similar class routine). [Class routine]
9. I can influence the selection of teaching content and language skills [Influence onteaching content]
10. I am a good English teacher in terms of classroom management skills [Classroom
management skills]
11. I am a good English teacher in terms of pedagogic or didactic skills [Pedagogic anddidactic skills]
Table 2 presents the range, mean scores and standard deviations for these 11 items.

19

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Table 2Range, Means and Standard Deviations for the First Cluster of Dependent Variables
VariableLove English
Attitude toward institution
Attitude toward students
Enjoy lively students
Frequency use of English
Creative teacher
Allow independent work
Predictable
Influence over content and skills
Classroom management
Pedagogical skills

Minimum
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
2

Maximum
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Mean
4.7
3.9
4.4
4.3
4.6
3.8
3.7
3.0
3.7
3.8
3.9

SD
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to identify latent dimensions in the elevenitems. Items with a communality below 0.2 suggest were eliminated from the analysis becauseof their low common variance (Child, 2006). As a result, five items including passion forEnglish, frequency of use, independent students, class routine, and influence on teachingcontent were removed from the analysis due to low communality. The communality of theremaining six variables is shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Communalities
Item
Attitude toward the institution
Attitude toward students
Creative teacher
Enjoy lively students
Classroom management skills
Pedagogic and didactic skills

Initial
.209
.276
.295
.168
.379
.394

Extraction
.312
.640
.389
.215
.544
.604

The determinant score of this EFA model is .308, showing an absence of multicollinearity(Yong & Pearce, 2013). The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is .694,
indicating the sample size is just sufficient (Field, 2018). The Bartlett’s test for sphericity issignificant (p < .001), indicating factorability in the data (Yong & Pearce, 2013). Two factors
were extracted in the remaining six items using Principal Axis Factoring (Table 4). Analysisof the scree plot shows two factors above the eigenvalue of 1, suggesting two factors in the
exploratory factor analysis. The first factor, “Attitude toward students and the institution” hasa Cronbach’s alpha of .610, which indicates sufficient internal reliability (Dörnyei & Dewaele,2022). The second factor, ‘Classroom practice’, has a Cronbach’s alpha of .711, whichindicates an acceptable internal reliability.

20

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Table 4
Factor Loadings on Attitude toward Students and the Institution, and Classroom Practice
FactorItem

Cronbach’s
alpha

Attitude toward the institution
Attitude toward students

Factorloading
1
2
.556
.800

Attitude toward
students and theinstitution
Classroom practice

Creative teacher
Enjoy lively students
Classroom management skills
Pedagogic and didactic skills

.587
.418
.733
.770

.711

.372
.313

.610

Extraction method: principal axis factoring; Rotation: Promax with Kaiser normalisation, 2 factors extracted.

Because the variables Attitude toward student and the institution, and classroom practice are
not normally distributed (KS = .19 and .12, p < .001 respectively), non-parametric statistics
were used, namely Kruskal Wallis analyses.
The second cluster of dependent variables are the scores on teacher motivation dimensions thatemerged from the Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers which deals with motivation fortask completion (Fernet et al., 2008). It assesses “the constructs of intrinsic motivation,
identified, introjected, and external regulations, and amotivation toward six work tasks (i.e.,class preparation, teaching, evaluation of students, class management, administrative tasks, andcomplementary tasks)” (p. 274). The items were reformulated in order to focus specifically on
the motivation to teach English. This includes 3 items per dimension with 5-point Likert scales.
Possible answers ranged from “not especially” (1), “so-so” (2), “quite a lot” (3), “a lot” (4), to“very much” (5).
The first dimension is “intrinsically motivated behaviors” that teachers “are engaged in for thepleasure or the satisfaction derived from performing them” (Fernet et al., 2008, p. 258). One
item was: Because teaching English is pleasant. The distribution was not normal (KS = .173,
p < .0001). The second dimension is identified regulation, defined as “behavior that individuals
choose to perform because it is congruent with their own values and goals” (p. 258). One item
was: Because it is important for me to teach English. Because the Cronbach alpha value falls
below the minimal threshold for internal consistency (Dörnyei, 2010), this dimension was
excluded from further analyses. The third dimension is introjected regulation, which“corresponds to the process whereby an external demand becomes an internal representation”(Fernet et al., 2008, p. 258). One item was: Because if I don’t teach, I will feel bad. The
distribution was not normal (KS = .085, p < .0001). The fourth dimension is external
regulation, which “occurs when behaviors are regulated to obtain a reward or to avoid aconstraint” (Fernet et al., 2008, p. 258). One item was: I teach English because I’m paid to doit. Mean score was 3.46 (SD = .75). The distribution was not normal (KS = .153, p < .0001).
Because the Cronbach alpha value was extremely low, this dimension was excluded fromfurther analyses. The fifth and final dimension is amotivation, which “refers to being neither
intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated” (Fernet et al., 2008, p. 258). One item was: I don’tknow why because I don’t always see the relevance of teaching English. The distribution was
not normal (KS = .180, p < .001).

21

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

The final dependent variable was Wellbeing, one of the four main factors of Trait Emotional
Intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). It reflects “a general sense of well-being, extending
from past achievements to future expectations, overall, individuals with high scores feelpositive, happy and fulfilled” (Petrides, 2009: 61). It was measured through 6 items such as I
generally believe that things will work out fine in my life. Table 5 presents an overview of thesecond cluster of dependent variables.
Table 5.
Range, Means and Standard Deviations for the Second Cluster of Dependent Variables
Variable
Intrinsic Motivation
Identified Regulation
Introjected Regulation
External Regulation
Amotivation
Wellbeing

Minimum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.20

Maximum
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
7.00

Mean
4.34
4.21
2.87
3.46
1.73
5.62

SD
0.68
0.67
0.95
0.75
0.74
1.05

Cronbach
alpha
0.84
0.58
0.82
0.02
0.82
0.83

A Spearman rank correlation analysis was run to check for intercorrelation between thedependent variables (see Table 6). It shows that all variables are positively linked, with the
exception of amotivation. Three correlation coefficients have a small effect size (Rho between.25 and .399) or no significant effect (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). The dependent variables canthus be considered to be independent dimensions with limited overlap.
Table 6
Intercorrelation between the Dependent Variables

Attitude toward
students andinstitution
Classroom practiceIntrinsic motivation
Introjected
regulation
Amotivation

Attitudetowardstudents andinstitution-

Classroom Intrinsic Introjected
practice
motiva- regulation
tion

Amotiva-tion

Wellbeing.286**.295**.150**-.291**.272**-.328**-.186**.365**--.246**-.291**-.016.249**.270**.057-.270****Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Results
A series of Kruskal Wallis analyses revealed that English proficiency level had a significant
positive link with EFL teachers’ attitudes toward their students and the institution where theytaught: Chi2(2) = 14.6, p < .001 (Figure 2), as well as with their classroom practices: Chi2(2) =7.1, p < .029 (Figure 3). The effect sizes are small (Field, 2018).

22

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Figure 2
Mean Plot of Attitude toward Students and the Institution and Levels of Language Proficiency

Figure 3
Mean Plot of Classroom Practice and Levels of Language Proficiency

A series of pairwise Kruskal Wallis comparisons showed that the B1-B2 group scoredsignificantly lower than the C1 group (adjusted p < .001) and the C2 group (adjusted p < .025)
in their positive attitude toward their students and the institution. The difference between theC1 and C2 groups was not significant (see Table 7).

23

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Table 7
Pairwise Comparison of Attitude toward Students and the Institution and Language
Proficiency
B1, 2 – C1
B1, 2 – C2
C2 – C1

Test statistic
-50.0
-33.7
16.3

Std. Error
13.6
12.8
13.8

p
.001
.008
.237

Adj. p*
.001
.025
.712

*Significance values adjusted with Bonferroni correction

A series of pairwise Kruskal Wallis comparisons revealed a similar significant pattern for theeffect of proficiency on classroom practices, i.e. higher proficiency is linked to better selfperceived classroom management, pedagogic and didactic skills, being more creative in class,and more likely to enjoy lively students. The B1-B2 group scored significantly lower onclassroom practice than the C2 group (adjusted p = .024). The difference between the B1-B2
group and the C1 group, and between the two advanced groups was not significant (see Table
8).
Table 8Pairwise Comparison of Classroom Practice and Language Proficiency
B1, 2 – C1
B1, 2 – C2
C2 – C1

Test statistic
-20.1
34.5
-14.4

Std. Error
13.9
13.0
14.1

p
.148
.008
.307

Adj. p*
.444
.024
.920

*Significance values adjusted with Bonferroni correction

Proficiency was found to have a significant link with intrinsic motivation (Chi2(2) = 9.6, p <.008) (Figure 4) and amotivation (Chi2(2) = 18.1, p < .001) (Figure 5). A series of pairwise
Kruskal Wallis comparisons revealed that lower levels of proficiency corresponded withsignificantly lower levels of intrinsic motivation. The B1-B2 group had significantly lower
levels of intrinsic motivation than the C1 group (adjusted p < .006). The other comparisonswere not significant (see Table 9).

24

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Figure 4
Mean Plot of Intrinsic Motivation and Levels of Language Proficiency

Figure 5
Mean Plot of Amotivation and Levels of Language Proficiency

25

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Table 9Kruskal Wallis Pairwise Comparison of Intrinsic Motivation and Language Proficiency
B1, 2 – C1
B1, 2 – C2
C2 – C1

Test statistic
-42.1
-15.0
27.1

Std. Error
13.6
12.7
13.8

p
.002
.238
.049

Adj. p*
.006
.714
.148

*Significance values adjusted with Bonferroni correction

A series of pairwise Kruskal Wallis comparisons revealed that lower levels of proficiency
corresponded with higher levels of amotivation. The B1-B2 group had significantly higher
levels of amotivation than the C1 group (adjusted p < .0001) and the C2 group (adjusted p <.003) (see Table 10).
Table 10
Kruskal Wallis Pairwise Comparison of Amotivation and Language Proficiency
Test statistic
Std. Errorp
B1, 2 – C1
53.2
13.6
.001
B1, 2 – C2
42.4
12.8
.001
C2 – C1
-10.7
13.8
.437
*Significance values adjusted with Bonferroni correction

Adj. p*
.001
.003
1.000

A final series of pairwise Kruskal Wallis comparisons revealed that lower levels of proficiency
were linked with lower levels of well-being, Chi2(2) = 8.6, p < .013 (Figure 6). The B1-B2
group had significantly lower levels of well-being than the C1 group (adjusted p < .011). No
other comparisons were significant (see Table 11).
Figure 6
Mean Plot of Well-Being and Levels of Language Proficiency

26

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Table 11
Kruskal Wallis Pairwise Comparison of Well-Being and Language Proficiency
Test statistic
Std. Error
B1, 2 – C1
-40.9
14.0
B1, 2 – C2
-21.3
13.1
C2 – C1
19.6
14.2*Significance values adjusted with Bonferroni correction

p
.004
.015
.168

Adj. p*
.011
.315
.503

Discussion
The first research question focused on the relationship between the actual English LX
proficiency of EFL teachers and their attitudes toward their students and the institution where
they taught, and their self-reported classroom practices. The second research question
considered the link between proficiency and three dimensions of teacher motivation: intrinsic
motivation, introjected motivation and amotivation. The third research question looked at thelink between proficiency and well-being. Table 12 offers an overview of the findings, withindependent variables sorted according to effect size (r). The effect sizes are below .250, andthus are all classified as small (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). It is striking that proficiency had alinear effect for classroom practices only but that the effect was curvilinear for the attitude
variable, the two motivation and the well-being dimensions.
Table 12
Summary of Results with Variables Ordered According to Effect Size
Dependent variable

Kruskal-Wallis
test

PairwiseAdj.
comparison p

r

.001
.003

Std. test Squarestatistics root of
N
3.8
19.3
3.3
19.3

Amotivation

Chi2(2) = 18.1
p < .001

B1, 2 – C1
B1, 2 – C2

Attitudes toward
students andinstitution

Chi2(2) = 14.6
p < .001

B1, 2 – C1
B1, 2 – C2

.001
.025

-3.6
-2.6

19.3
19.3

-.189
-.136

Intrinsic motivation

Chi2(2) = 9.6
p = .008

B1, 2 – C1

.006

-3.1

19.3

-.160

Well-Being

Chi2(2) = 8.6
p = .013

B1, 2 – C1

.011

-2.9

19.3

-.150

Classroom practice

Chi2(2) = 7.0
p = .029

B1, 2 – C2

.024

-2.6

19.3

-.137

Introjected
regulation

Chi2(2) = 5.9
p = ns.201.171

The findings confirm and expand previous research (Dewaele, 2018c, 2020; Dewaele et al.,2018; Digap, 2016; Farrell & Richards, 2007; Shin, 2008). It shows that English LX
proficiency of EFL teachers is linked to their emotions, attitudes, motivation and even their

27

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

well-being. It concurs with the findings that a positive relationship exists between teacher’language proficiency, their self-confidence, efficacy and professional identity (Diagap, 2016;
Faez & Karas, 2017). It also fits with the pattern reported in Faez, Karas and Uchihara’s metaanalysis (2021) on the relationship between language proficiency and teaching ability ofEnglish LX teachers. An original finding is that LX teacher proficiency is not linked toteachers’ attitudes (Dewaele & Mercer, 2018) but to their motivation and even their well-being.
Higher proficiency LX teachers suffered less from amotivation, had stronger intrinsic
motivation, had higher well-being and had more positive attitudes toward their students andtheir institution.
Moreover, proficiency was found to exert a particularly strong effect on self-reportedclassroom practices which included pedagogic and didactic skills and creativity. The finding
fits nicely with H. M. Richards et al.’s (2013) observation that lower proficiency limits
teachers’ ability to improvise, to provide meaningful explanations and to give students richlanguage input.
The findings offer support to the idea that a proficiency threshold may exist for English LX
teachers. Where significant proficiency effects were found, the differences were always bigger
between the independent users (B1-B2) and the advanced users, than within the advanced
group (C1 and C2) where the differences were never significant. It suggests that teachers who
were assessed to be independent users (B1-B2 level) scored significantly lower for classroom
practices, intrinsic motivation, attitudes toward students, well-being and scored significantly
higher for amotivation than advanced users. Interpreting these results is challenging because
causality could be bi-directional. While there is no doubt that being more proficient has positive
consequences on attitudes, motivation well-being and classroom practices, one could argue thatcausality also runs in the opposite direction. All the dependent variables are interconnected (cf.
Table 6) which means they could change together and could be linked to other variables. Allvariables, including unidentified ones, could have exerted a collective pull on proficiency,
creating a feedback loop, where increased positivity in attitudes, emotion, well-being andmotivation could have led to increased effort by the teacher to become more proficient. In otherwords, the causal pathways in the statistical analyses could be bi- or even multi-directional.
Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that LX teachers who feel highly motivated by theirjob, who love their students, who feel creative in class, and who have a high sense of wellbeing, will do things in English both inside and outside the classroom that were not measured(cracking jokes with students, having them sing along, as well as extra-curricular activities likereading, watching films or material on the internet, going to a museum, finding Englishspeaking partners or friends) which could, all combined, boost proficiency in English. It may
also be acknowledged that the sample, having been collected through a combination of
convenience and purposive sampling, is not representative of the whole field of EFL teachers.
However, given the large size of the sample and the diversity in background of the participants,
the study may provide a glimpse of more general statistical patterns that exist among EFL
teachers around the world. Finally, there was no information on participants’ teaching degrees,
which could also have explained some of the variation (Akbari & Moradkhani, 2012) but thepattern that university teachers scored higher on proficiency than secondary school colleagues
fits the pattern reported in Digap (2016).
The finding that teachers with C2 levels of English do not do significantly better than thosewith C1 levels shows that it is not necessary to be maximally proficient in order to be a goodteacher, confirming the argument in Horwitz (1996). However, the finding that teachers at B1B2 levels scored significantly lower than colleagues at C1-C2 levels on some crucial

28

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

dimensions has important pedagogical implications. It could be used as an argument for
educational authorities to assure that teachers have sufficient proficiency and organise regularin-service training to maintain and boost that proficiency. Investment in teachers’ linguistic
skills also represents a long-term investment in their emotional well-being. Crucially, having
proficient, motivated and happy teachers will ultimately benefit their students.
The study is not without limitations, which are linked to the nature of the research design.
Because the aim of the study was to identify broad statistical patterns about the effect of
proficiency, there were no participants’ voices which could have contributed to a more granular
understanding of the phenomena that were observed. Interviews could provide explanations on
why EFL teachers with a B1-B2 level lack confidence about their classroom practices, havelower intrinsic motivation, higher amotivation, less positive attitudes toward students, andlower well-being compared to their more proficient colleagues. Further qualitative research isneeded to investigate this in more detail.
Conclusion
The present study found that University College London’s C1 threshold for graduate students
and for English LX users wishing to enrol in teacher training courses is spot on. While a higher
proficiency is an extra strength for LX teachers, it ceases to matter much anymore once theyreach the threshold of advanced users (C1 or C2). Proficiency does however start to have astronger effect if English LX teachers are B1-B2 users or below because it limits their ability
to create an optimal environment with sufficient rich language interactions which learners will
enjoy and which is likely to quicken their progress as a result. Of course, the relationshipbetween teachers’ proficiency and teaching ability is complex and highly dynamic with several
interacting variables. Part of the complexity of the relationship is related to the nature of
proficiency itself which changes over time. The same is true for attitudes, emotion, motivation
and well-being. Any teacher can testify to the occasional disappointment when a class does not
go according to plan and, as a consequence, attitudes, emotion, motivation and well-being may
sag momentarily. Trying to pin down the exact influence and position of each variable, and therelative distance between them, is akin to trying to frame a whorl of colourful flower petals
gently swaying in the breeze in a black and white two-dimensional space.

29

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

References
Akbari, R., & Moradkhani, S. (2012). Is a degree relevant? A comparison of pedagogicalthought units of teachers with and without ELT-related academic credentials.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(12).
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n12.5
Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum.
Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages(CEFR). https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-referencelanguages/level-descriptions
de Dios Martínez Agudo, J. (Ed.) (2018). Emotions in second language teaching. Theory,
research and teacher education. Berlin: Springer.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2018a). Why the dichotomy ‘L1 Versus LX User’ is better than ‘native
versus non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics, 39, 236–240.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw055
Dewaele, J.-M. (2018b). The relationship between Trait emotional intelligence andexperienced ESL/EFL teachers´ love of English, attitudes toward their students andinstitution, self-reported classroom practices, enjoyment and creativity. Chinese
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 468–487. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-20180034
Dewaele, J.-M. (2020). What psychological, linguistic and sociobiographical variables power
EFL/ESL teachers’ motivation? In C. Gkonou, C., J.-M. Dewaele, & J. King, (Eds.),
Language Teaching: An Emotional Rollercoaster (pp. 269–287). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M., Bak, T., & Ortega, L. (2021). Why the mythical “native speaker” has mud on
its face. In N. Slavkov, S. Melo Pfeifer & N. Kerschhofer (Eds.), Changing Face ofthe "Native Speaker": Perspectives from Multilingualism and Globalization (pp. 23–
43). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter,
Dewaele, J.-M., Gkonou, C., & Mercer, S. (2018). Do ESL/EFL teachers´ emotional
intelligence, teaching experience, proficiency and gender, affect their classroom
practice? In J. de Dios Martínez Agudo (Ed.), Emotions in Second Language
Teaching. Theory, Research and Teacher Education (pp. 125–141). Berlin: Springer.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Mercer, S. (2018). Variation in ESL/EFL teachers´ attitudes toward theirstudents. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Teacher psychology in SLA (pp. 178–
195). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M., Mercer, S., Talbot, K.R., & von Blanckenburg, M. (2020). Are EFL preservice teachers’ judgment of teaching competence swayed by the belief that the EFL
teacher is a L1 or LX user of English? European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2),1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2019-0030
Digap, A.L.C. (2016). Self-efficacy, English proficiency and effectiveness of teachers ofEnglish in the secondary schools. SMCC Higher Education Research Journal, 2, 72–
89. https://doi.org/10.18868/sher2j.02.00416.07
Dörnyei, Z., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2022). Questionnaires in second language research:
Construction, administration, and processing (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

30

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Faez, F. (2011). Are you a native speaker of English? Moving beyond a simplistic
dichotomy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8, 378–99.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2011.615708
Faez, F., & Karas, M. (2017). Connecting language proficiency to (self-reported) teachingability: A review and analysis of research. RELC Journal, 48, 135–151.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217694755
Faez, F., Karas, M., & Uchihara, T. (2021). Connecting language proficiency to teachingability: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 754–777.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819868667
Farrell, T. S .C. & Richards, J. C. (2007). Teachers’ language proficiency. In T.S.C. Farrell(Ed.), Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice (pp. 55–66).
London: Continuum.
Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes inteacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 514–525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013
Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2018). ‘A2 is Normal’ – Thai secondary school English teachers’
encounters with the CEFR. RELC Journal, 49(3), 322–338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217738816
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). London: Sage
Publications.
Freeman, D., Katz, A., Gomez Garcia, P., & Burns, A. (2015). English for teaching:
Rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom. ELT Journal, 69, 129–139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217691073
Gkonou, C., Dewaele, J.-M., & King, J. (Eds.) (2020). The Emotional Rollercoaster ofLanguage Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Holliday, A. R. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Holliday, A. R. (2015). Native-speakerism: Taking the concept forward and achieving
cultural belief. In A. Holliday, P. Aboshiha & A. Swan (Eds.), (En)Countering
Native-speakerism. Global Perspectives (pp. 11–25). Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Holliday, A. R. & P. Aboshiha (2009). The denial of ideology in perceptions of ‘Nonnative
Speaker’ teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 669-689.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00191.x
Horwitz, E .K. (1996). Even teachers get the blues: Recognizing and alleviating language
teachers' feelings of foreign language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01248.x
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2009). Teacher preparation and nonnative English-speaking educators.
In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), (pp. 91–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern
act? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 66-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.202

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 1 – 2022

Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical
Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
Llurda, E. (2009). The decline and fall of the native speaker. In Li Wei & V. J. Cook (Eds.),
Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 37–53).
Oxford: Continuum.
Masrai, A. (2022). The development and validation of a lemma-based Yes/No vocabulary
size test. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221074355
Mercer, S., & Gregersen, T. (2020). Teacher Wellbeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.) (2018). Teacher psychology in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Demystifying the Native Speaker in TESOL. SPELT Journal, 19, 1–14.
Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers:
History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005028
Ness Evans, A., & Rooney, B.J. (2013). Methods in psychological research (3rd ed.). New
York: Sage Publications.
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical Manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires(TEIQue). London Psychometric Laboratory.
Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometricinvestigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425448. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’?: Interpreting effect sizes in L2
research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Rehner, K., Popovich, A., & Lasan, I. (2021). How the CEFR is impacting French-as-aSecond-Language in Ontario, Canada: Teachers’ self-reported instructional practices
and students’ proficiency exam results. Languages, 6(1), 15.
https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010015
Richards, H .M., Conway, C., Roskvist, A., & Harvey, S. (2013). Foreign language teachers’
language proficiency and their language teaching practice. The Language Learning
Journal, 41, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.707676
Shin, S. J. (2008). Preparing non-native English speaking ESL teachers. Teacher
Development, 12, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701827749
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on
exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2),79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
Zhou, C., & Li, X. (2021). LextPT: A reliable and efficient vocabulary size test for L2
Portuguese proficiency. Behavior Research Methods.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01731-1
Corresponding author: Jean-Marc Dewaele
Email: j.dewaele@bbk.ac.uk

32