ISSN 1343-3105
A n n u a l
R e v i e wo fAnnual Review
ofEnglish Learning and Teaching

E n g l i s h
L e a r n i n g

No. 24a n d
Te a c h i n g

Article:The Impact of a Study Abroad Program on College

No.24

Students’ Self-Efficacy in English-Speaking (Part II)

November 30, 2019

Nagisa MIYAUCHI

1

Instructions for Contributors ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

23

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

The
JACET
Kyushu-Okinawa
Chapter

The JACET Kyushu-Okinawa Chapter
November 30, 2019

－ Article －The Impact of a Study Abroad Program on College
Students’ Self-Efficacy in English-Speaking (Part Ⅱ)
Nagisa MIYAUCHI
Graduate Student, Kumamoto Gakuen University
E-mail: miyauchi-n@mail.bears.ed.jp
Abstract
This study investigates how attending a three-week study abroad program in the United Statesaffects students’ speaking self-efficacies mainly from quantitative and qualitative aspects.
Some of the quantitative aspects of this study (e.g., overall changes in self-efficacy scores)
were examined in the author’s previous study (Miyauchi, 2017) and this current study further
analyzes more details of the sources of self-efficacies based on the result of the questionnaire,interviews, and responses to open-ended questions. Three student groups divided by a cluster
analysis (N = 17) were examined as to how they differ in terms of the four sources of selfefficacy information and their in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies. The results suggested thatstudents with initially high self-efficacy had more experiences abroad based on the four
sources of self-efficacy information, especially on mastery experiences, verbal persuasionand emotional states, than those with initially low self-efficacy. Accordingly, the former
students also enhanced their self-efficacy higher than the latter students. On the other hand,
students with initially low self-efficacy lessened their self-efficacy through the sojourn, andvicarious experiences seemed to have worked negatively for them.
Keywords: self-efficacy, four sources of self-efficacy information, study abroad program
Introduction
As globalization and intense business competition have spread, Japanese universities
have started to provide students with various kinds of study-abroad programs. Especially
popular are the programs with a duration of less than one month. Japan Student Services
Organization (JASSO, 2017) says that the number of students who went abroad for less than
one month has increased drastically in the past decade, from 5,924 in 2004 to 29,933 in 2014.
This shows that it has become easier for Japanese students to obtain opportunities to study
abroad and expose themselves directly to the target language and its community.
Despite the increasing popularity of study-abroad programs, relatively few empiricalstudies have examined the relationships between Japanese students’ speaking self-efficacy
and their study-abroad experiences. For instance, Tanaka and Ellis (2003) found significant
changes in students’ beliefs relating to self-efficacy and confidence in L2 learning. However,more studies from qualitative aspects are needed to examine the change of self-efficacy
through the sojourn.
－1－

Literature Review
Self-efficacy and Its Four Sources of Information
The concept of “self-efficacy” was theorized by Albert Bandura in the 1970s, who
defined it as “a judgment of one’s ability to organize and execute given types of performances”(1997, p. 21). High self-efficacy learners hold lower levels of anxiety, continually make more
efforts to achieve their goals, utilize effective learning strategies and are more successful
while low self-efficacy learners tend to demonstrate the opposite behaviors (Britner & Pajares,
2006).
Bandura (1997, p. 79) asserts that self-efficacy beliefs are derived from four sources of
efficacy information: mastery experiences (ME), vicarious experiences (VE), verbal persuasion (VP), and emotional states (ES). ME is derived from successful performances that can
predict one’s future course and is regarded as the most influential source (e.g., Pajares &Valiante, 2006). VE indicates observers’ self-comparison with the performances of their ideal
models (Usher & Pajares, 2008), and the more similarities people perceive toward the models,the more persuasive this influence will become (Bandura, 1997, p. 87). VP denotes
encouragement received from significant others such as parents and teachers about academic
performance (Usher & Pajares, 2008). People who are convinced that they can accomplish
given tasks will make more sustainable efforts than those who are not (Bandura, 1997, p.
101). ES indicates emotional arousal through physiological reactions that one experiences
during an academic task, and while positive emotions can raise one’s self-efficacy for future
successful performances, high levels of anxiety may undermine it (Britner & Pajares, 2006).
Mills (2014) asserts that these four sources have a great influence on how self-efficacy
beliefs are formed, by either heightening or lowering one’s confidence to accomplish a giventask (p. 8). So far, there have been numerous empirical studies which investigated math- or
science-related self-efficacy from the four sources of information (e.g., Britner & Pajares,
2006; Lopez & Lent, 1992; Lopez, Lent, Brown & Gore, 1997; Matsui, Matsui & Ohnishi,
1990), but those which examined speaking self-efficacy are rare (e.g., Paradewari, 2017).
This research area has yet to be fully developed, so it is worth investigating in more detail.
Quantitative Analysis of the Data (Miyauchi, 2017)
The author’s previous study examined how university undergraduates’ English-speaking
self-efficacies (N = 17) changed through participation in a three-week language training
program in the United States. The results of a paired-samples t-test and correlation analyses
revealed significant differences. First, the participants showed greater gains in out-of-classself-efficacy (1.55) than in in-class self-efficacy (0.87). Second, the correlation between
in-class and out-of-class self-efficacies in a post-survey (r = .92, p < .001) was much stronger
than that in a pre-survey (r = .78, p < .001). Finally, the gain in out-of-class self-efficacy
showed medium correlations with ME (r = .63, p < .001) and ES (r = .62, p < .001), while forin-class self-efficacy the correlations were somewhat weaker (r = .40, r = .28, respectively).
－2－The result showed that ME and ES had stronger influence on the participants’ speaking selfefficacy than VE and VP. The correlations between VE and the gains in in-class and out-ofclass self-efficacies were weak (r = -.32, r = .001, respectively). The correlations between VP
and the gains in in-class and out-of-class self-efficacies were also weak (r = .16, r = .33,
respectively). The author concluded that students’ self-efficacy could be enhanced more
outside the classroom, where students are exposed to English in real natural settings.
Objectives and Research Questions
This research aims to examine the relationship between the participants’ experiences
abroad and their self-efficacy more deeply than Miyauchi (2017), using both quantitative andqualitative analyses of the survey results, interviews and open-ended responses. For this aim,
a cluster analysis was employed to group the participants with more similar self-efficacy traits
to each other than to those in other groups and the following research questions were designed:
RQ. 1 H ow do the student groups divided by a cluster analysis differ regarding the four
sources of self-efficacy information?
RQ. 2 H ow do the student groups divided by a cluster analysis differ regarding in-class andout-of-class self-efficacies?
Methods
Participants
The participants in this study were the same as those in the author’s previous study: 17
sophomore and junior undergraduates who took part in a three-week language training
program in Minnesota, the United States, in 2016. They were all English majors at a private
university in the western part of Japan. All the applicants willing to join the program were
accepted, and were provided with preparation lessons once a week at university to learn about
the US culture, lifestyle, and homestay before the program started. While staying with their
host families, they attended morning classes at a university with other foreign students and in
the afternoon attended special events organized by the host university.
Instrument
The original data were from the questionnaire used in the quantitative research in theauthor’s previous study (Appendix, Miyauchi, 2017). The pre-survey questionnaire, which
was conducted 2 weeks before the sojourn, was composed of 12 items, which included 6
items in terms of in-class self-efficacy (e.g., In class activities, I can answer correctly what I
am asked in English.) and another 6 items regarding out-of-class self-efficacy (e.g., I cancommunicate with a foreigner in English when spoken to.). The post-survey questionnaire,
which was conducted just after the sojourn, consisted of the same 12 items in the pre-survey,
plus another 25 items concerning the four sources of self-efficacy information: 7 items for－3－ME (e.g., I talked about TV programs in English with my host family.), 6 items each for VE(e.g., I respect my friends who express their opinions in English.), VP (e.g., I am often praised
about my speaking ability.), and ES (e.g., The mere thought of speaking English makes me
feel excited.). Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for ME, VE, VP, and ES were .91, .85,
.85, and 89, respectively. An 11-point Likert scale ranging from zero (cannot do at all /entirely inapplicable) to ten (certainly can do / completely applicable) was utilized.
At the end of the questionnaire on the post-survey, open-ended questions were attached.
The participants were asked 2 questions reflecting their own experiences in the United States.
The questions were as follows:
1. P lease write about the situations which raised your confidence in English proficiency
through the language training program.
2. P lease write about the situations which diminished your confidence in English proficiency
through the language training program.
The original questions and the participants’ statements were written in Japanese, which werelater translated into English by the author (Appendix).
Interviews
Interview data were obtained from the participants with their permission. A semistructured interview was adopted to provide the participants with the same four questions inthe same order as shown below, which made it easier for the researcher to compare andexamine the students’ responses. The open-ended questions comprised four topics:
1. D uring your stay in the United States, in what kind of situations did you succeed ininteracting with native speakers? (= ME)
2. D uring your stay in the United States, did you have any role models for speaking English?
(= VE)
3. D uring your stay in the United States, did you receive any encouraging words or feedback
from others about your English? (= VP)
4. D uring your stay in the United States, how did speaking English affect you physiologicallyor emotionally? (= ES)
Procedures
Before conducting the qualitative research, the participants were divided into several
groups with similar characteristics in terms of self-efficacy levels and related experiences
based on the four sources of self-efficacy information. A cluster analysis breaks the participants
into groups that reflect the variables that are taken into account in the analysis (i.e., pre- andpost-survey self-efficacies and the four information sources, in this study), so that the resultant
clusters reflect typical combinations of highs and lows on these variables among the－4－participants. Making comparisons across clusters makes it possible to see how the typicalstudent groups report their experiences differently, thus making the interpretation of theinterview results easier than comparisons between individual students.
The face-to-face interview, about 25 minutes long, was held in Japanese two months
after the sojourn. The aim of the interview was to explore what the participants had experienced
abroad in a more direct way than through the quantitative analyses. The aim and procedure
were examined carefully by the ethics committee at the university in advance, and permission
was granted to the author. Thirteen out of seventeen students agreed on the interview, by
responding to the author by e-mail. Seven students were juniors and the rest were sophomores.
All the interview responses were recorded on a voice recorder with the students’ permission.
Recordings were transcribed, and the transcript was later confirmed by the author two or threetimes to increase accuracy.
Data Analysis
SPSS version 23.0 was utilized in analyzing the quantitative data to divide the participants
into several groups with similar traits. A cluster analysis and a correlational analysis wereconducted. For analyzing the qualitative data (RQ. 1 and RQ. 2), face-to-face interviews andopen-ended questions were employed so as to obtain deeper insights into the participants’
self-efficacy gains and to examine how these gains were produced.
Results
Results of Quantitative Analysis
In a cluster analysis, Ward’s method with square Euclidean distance was utilized, and theanalysis was based on in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies on the pre-/post-surveys, and thefour sources of self-efficacy information on the post-survey.
Figure 1 shows the dendrogram using Ward’s method, which shows that it is mostsuitable to divide the whole group into three clusters. They are named the High SE group(cluster 2), Middle SE group (cluster 3), and Low SE group (cluster 1), based on the meansof self-efficacies on the pre-/post-surveys and the four sources of self-efficacy information.
Table 1 shows subscale means for each self-efficacy group, and Table 2 demonstrates
self-efficacy scores and their gains for individual participants. These two tables show that theHigh SE group possessed initially higher self-efficacy, especially concerning in-class selfefficacy (7.13), than the lower self-efficacy groups (4.21 and 3.3). However, the gain in
in-class self-efficacy in the High SE group (0.44) was much smaller than that in the Middle
SE group (1.56). With regard to the four sources of self-efficacy information, the Low SEgroup revealed almost the same mean of VE (8.13) as the other two groups (Table 1) though
the other 3 sources (ME, VP, and ES) were apparently lower than those in the other two SE
groups. Judging from this trait, it can be presumed that the Low SE group possesses almost
the same admiration as the other SE groups for desirable speaking models.
－5－

L1
L2
L3
L4
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8

Figure 1. Dendrogram using Ward’s method. L, M, and H represent a
student in each cluster group based on self-efficacy; L = Low SE student,
M = Middle SE student, and H = High SE student.
Table 1
Subscale Means for Each Self-Efficacy Group
Clustern

Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3458

preICSE
3.33
7.13
4.21

preOCSE
3.08
5.67
4.46

postICSE
3.33
7.57
5.77

postOCSE
3.5
7.9
6.15

ME

VE

VP

ES

3.93
8.46
7.41

8.13
9.33
7.85

2.7
7.2
5.65

4.41
8.53
6.54

Note. N = 17. Cluster 1 = Low SE group, Cluster 2 = High SE group, and Cluster 3 = Middle SE group. Pre-ICSE =Pre-survey in-class self-efficacy, Pre-OCSE = Pre-survey Out-of-class self-efficacy, post-ICSE = Post-survey in-classself-efficacy, post-OCSE = Post-survey out-of-class self-efficacy.

Taking Table 2 into consideration, it is notable that the High SE group showed only aslight gain in in-class self-efficacy (0.44), but they showed larger gain in out-of-class selfefficacy on the post-survey (2.23). The Middle SE group shows gains in both in-class (1.56)
and out-of-class self-efficacies (1.69). The Low SE group revealed almost no gain in bothin-class (0.00) and in out-of-class self-efficacy (0.42).
Table 3 shows the correlations between in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies on the presurvey and the four sources of self-efficacy information as well as the gains in in-class/out-ofclass self-efficacies. The correlations between self-efficacies on the pre-survey and the othersubscales reveal several intriguing features. Firstly, ME, VP, and ES had moderate to highcorrelations with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies, which means that thestudents with higher initial self-efficacy had more beneficial experiences to heighten theirself-efficacy than those with lower initial self-efficacy. In contrast, VE correlated weakly－6－

Table 2
Self-Efficacy Scores and Their Gains for Individual Participants
Cluster PreStudent sur.
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H.Ave.
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M.Ave
L1
L2
L3
L4
L.Ave.

6.33
7.33
7.00
7.00
8.00
7.13
3.00
4.17
4.00
3.83
4.50
4.00
4.67
5.50
4.21
3.00
3.33
3.83
3.17
3.33

ICSE
Postsur.
8.17
7.50
8.00
6.50
7.67
7.57
5.17
4.33
6.00
6.33
6.00
6.50
6.00
5.83
5.77
1.50
4.00
4.17
3.67
3.33

Presur.

OCSE
Postsur.

4.33
4.67
6.17
6.83
6.33
5.67
3.17
3.83
4.00
4.33
4.33
5.17
4.67
6.17
4.46
2.67
2.50
3.00
4.17
3.08

7.83
8.50
8.83
7.67
6.67
7.90
5.67
4.50
6.33
7.50
7.17
6.17
7.00
4.83
6.15
1.67
3.33
4.50
4.50
3.50

Ave-SEs
Pre-IC
Post-IC
SE+OC SE+OC
SE/2
SE/2
5.33
8.00
6.00
8.00
6.58
8.42
6.92
7.08
7.17
7.17
6.40
7.73
3.08
5.42
4.00
4.42
4.00
6.17
4.08
6.92
4.42
6.58
4.58
6.33
4.67
6.50
5.83
5.33
4.33
5.96
2.83
1.58
2.92
3.67
3.42
4.33
3.67
4.08
3.21
3.42

G-ICSE G-OCSE Ave-Gs
Post –
Post –
Ave. ofPre-sur. Pre-sur. G-ICSE +G-OCSE
1.84
3.50
2.67
0.17
3.83
2.00
1.00
2.66
1.84
-0.50
0.84
0.16
-0.33
0.34
0.00
0.44
2.23
1.33
2.17
2.50
2.34
0.16
0.67
0.42
2.00
2.33
2.17
2.50
3.17
2.84
1.50
2.84
2.16
2.50
1.00
1.75
1.33
2.33
1.83
0.33
-1.34
-0.50
1.56
1.69
1.63
-1.50
-1.00
-1.25
0.67
0.83
0.75
0.34
1.50
0.91
0.50
0.33
0.41
0.00
0.42
0.21

Note. N = 17. ICSE = In-class self-efficacy, OCSE = Out-of-class self-efficacy, Ave-SEs = Average of in-class plus
out-of-class self-efficacies on each pre- and post-survey, G-ICSE = Gain in in-class self-efficacy, G-OCSE = Gain in
out-of-class self-efficacy, Ave-Gs = Average of gains in in-class plus out-of-class self-efficacies. H = High SE student,
M = Middle SE student, L = Low SE student.

Table 3
Correlations Between In-Class/Out-of-Class Self-Efficacies on the PreSurvey and the Four Sources of Self-Efficacy Information as Well as theGains in In-Class/Out-of-Class Self-Efficacies
ME
VE
VP
ES
G-ICSE
G-OCSE

Pre-ICSE
.61**
.33
.75**
.70**
-.25
.20

Pre-OCSE
.58*
.22
.74**
.60**
-.07
-.06

Note. N = 17. Pre-ICSE = Pre-survey in-class self-efficacy, Pre-OCSE = Pre-survey
out-of-class self-efficacy, G-ICSE = Gain in in-class self-efficacy, G-OCSE = Gain in
out-of-class self-efficacy.
*p < .05, ** p < .001.

－7－

with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies. This might reflect the result shown in
Table 1 that the Low SE group strongly admired their role models and accordingly marked arelatively high score on VE.
Table 3 also shows that the correlations between pre-survey in-class/out-of-class selfefficacies and their gains turned out to be negative and low (r = -.25, r = -.06, respectively).
These results indicate that students with higher initial self-efficacy made smaller gains thanthose with lower initial self-efficacy.
Considering the results above, it becomes clear that these SE groups showed zero to
outstanding gains in both in-class and out-of-class self-efficacies, from 0.00 to 2.23 (Table 2).
Among the three groups, the Low SE group revealed the smallest gain in both in-class andout-of-class self-efficacies. However, the negative, though weak, correlations between presurvey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies and the gains (Table 3) mean that students withinitially low self-efficacy made slightly larger gains than high self-efficacy students on an
individual basis. This negative correlation seems worth reassessing more thoroughly from aqualitative perspective, which is discussed in Results of Qualitative Analysis (Research
Question 2).
The following is the summary of the quantitative analyses:
1. The Low SE group possessed relatively high mean of VE, which might have led to theoverall low correlations between VE and pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies.
2. M E, VP, and ES showed moderate to high correlations with both pre-survey in-class andout-of-class self-efficacies.
3. The correlations between pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies and their gains
turned out to be slightly negative.
4. The Low SE group made smaller gain than the higher SE groups.
5. S
 E gain in the High SE group is not necessarily larger than that in the other two groups.
		 The background causes of these results above will be explored in the next sections.
From the next section, analyses based on a qualitative data will be discussed.
Results of Qualitative Analysis (Research Question 1)
RQ. 1 asked how the student groups divided by a cluster analysis differed in terms of thefour sources of self-efficacy information.
In Table 3 in this study, ME and ES showed moderate to high correlations with presurvey in-class (r = .61, r = .70) and pre-survey out-of-class self-efficacies (r = .58, r = .60).
This reveals that those who have high initial self-efficacy tend to show higher ME and ES as
well as larger self-efficacy gain than those who have low initial self-efficacy. With theseresults in mind, the interview started with ME and ES. The interview was conducted inJapanese, and the interview excerpts below are translated into English by the author.

－8－

Mastery Experiences (Interview Results and Responses to Open-ended Questions)
ME is derived from successful performances that can predict one’s future course, and isregarded as the most influential source (e.g., Bandura, 1997, p. 80). Table 1 shows higher ME
for the High and the Middle SE groups than for the Low SE group, where the High SE groupshows slightly higher ME than the Middle SE group. Investigations into the interview
responses found the following.
Though the High SE group first felt diffident, they seemed to have interacted willingly
not only with their host family but also with local people. This allowed them to accumulate
substantial successful experiences (see also Appendix, Responses to Open-Ended Questions).
The following are two High SE students’ accounts:
First, I was talking with my host family because I had to, but in three weeks, I tried to convey what I
wanted to, even though I could not make myself understood, and gradually, I came to talk with them
about a more difficult topic such as politics in Japan and the United States. I realized that I could makeit if I had high motivation. (H5)
When I saw people understand what I said, I realized that I could make myself understood in English.
As time went by, I learned to speak English more and more, while using responses and nodding
frequently. (H3)

		 Meanwhile, the Middle SE group seemed to have succeeded in shopping or talking with
their host family or Chinese friends, which seemed to have raised their confidence, as shownin their responses to open-ended questions (Appendix). They willingly talked to people in
English without worrying about their grammatical errors. One student talked about his
experience in the interview:
Within a week, I was able to convey what I wanted to, word by word, and I felt a sense of attainment,
while enjoying conversation. (M4)		 The Low SE group also succeeded in communicating with their host family or native
people (see also Appendix). However, they seemed not to be confident of their English skills,
and sometimes had difficulty interacting with local people. The following is one student’s
account in the interview:
I could not make myself understood when I asked a native speaker the way to the coffee shop becauseof my unclear pronunciation of it. She was kind enough to correct my pronunciation. Around the endof the program, I was able to ask the way by myself. (L1)		 This particular student L1, in fact, did not always feel successful, but had considerable
difficulty, as demonstrated by her comments as shown in Emotional States (Interview Results),－9－Vicarious Experiences (Interview Results) sections, and later in Results of Qualitative Analysis(Research Question 2).
In summary, it was found that the High SE group had extensive and successful experiences
to build up their self-efficacy while the Middle SE group gradually became accustomed to
speaking English. With regard to the Low SE group, even though they had several successful
experiences, these experiences did not seem to be strong enough to boost their self-efficacy.
Emotional States (Interview Results)
ES is defined as emotional arousal through physiological reactions that a person
experiences while performing an academic task (e.g., Britner & Pajares, 2006). Table 1
shows that the High SE group is higher on ES than the other two groups, and the Low SEgroup is the lowest on ES. Support of this was found in the interview responses.
As for the High SE group, their initial anxiety about speaking English decreased as time
went by, and eventually this same activity came to be seen as fun. This is what one student
stated in the interview:
When I came to the United States, I was nervous, but by talking and communicating with local people,
my worries disappeared and I felt it was fun to communicate with native speakers. (H4)

		 Another student in the High SE group stayed positive even in a difficult situation. During
the second week, she was struggling with the natural speed at which local people spoke. Her
host mother noticed her disappointment and encouraged her, saying that she was doing pretty
well using L2, which became a big relief to her. The student said in the interview:
I wanted to return to Japan, not because I felt homesick but because I wanted to brush up my English
skills. I realized my current level of English was poor, so I wanted to go back to Japan, study English
harder, gain more confidence, and come back again. Of course, I felt depressed at that time, but I had
no choice but to stand up, so I changed my mind in a positive way. (H5)		 These two accounts reveal that the High SE group seems to possess strong confidence intheir capacity, because they viewed adverse conditions favorably with positive emotions.
Regarding the Middle SE group, their initial anxiety from speaking English decreased astime passed, and in three weeks they were able to communicate with local people in a morenatural way. The following is one student’s account of this:First, I was nervous, but I got used to my life sooner than I had expected. I was able to interact morenaturally by the end of the program, rather than feeling forced to speak English. (M8)		 As for the Low SE group, they felt bewildered by speaking English, compared with theother self-efficacy groups. One of three participants whom the author interviewed maintained－10－the same feeling throughout the entire program. Her anxiety about speaking English did notdiminish and remained the same. The following is her narrative demonstrating this situation:
I was scared at first, wondering if I could make myself understood. But actually I had no choice but
to speak English, so around the end of this program, I tried hard speaking English with a dictionary in
my hand, but it was difficult... (L1)		 Another student in the Low SE group talked about her physiological states clearly,
provoked by her anxiety about speaking in English:
Well, when I went to the United States, for a while, I was nervous because I had to use English in all
situations. I was at a loss what to do, and I sweated a little with fear. Anyway, the first week was really
tough for me. (L2)		 Her condition might be related to Schunk’s assertion (1995, p. 282) that physicalsymptoms triggered by anxiety might imply that students lack skills.
In brief, it can be inferred that those in the High SE group overcame their difficult
situations by finding fun and raising their motivation through interacting with local people,
which contributed to their self-efficacy gains. The Middle SE group also seems to haveenjoyed interacting with local people gradually. Concerning the Low SE group, it is evident
that their higher speaking anxiety prevented them from gaining more confidence.
The results based on the accounts above might support the results of the quantitative
analyses that ME and ES could influence self-efficacy.
Vicarious Experiences (Interview Results)
VE is defined as observers’ self-comparison with how well their selected models perform(e.g., Usher & Pajares, 2008). VE tends to reveal an unstable and weak influence on thestudents’ self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 1977).
In this present study, VE correlated weakly with pre-survey in-class (r = .33) and out-ofclass self-efficacy (r = .22), indicating that initially high self-efficacy barely guarantees high
VE in the subsequent study-abroad program. Table 1 shows that this is mainly because the
Low SE group marked fairly high on VE. Interview analysis found some clues as to what
their high VE means, as discussed below.
The High SE group seems to have acquired confidence by looking at numerous people
they interacted with, such as their host family and teachers at the host university, selecting
them as their models. These are two students’ narratives to show this:Looking at my host family who spoke to me using easy English words, I realized that I could
communicate in simple English. (H4)－11－

I cannot hit upon a certain person as my speaking model, but maybe, my host family or teachers at theuniversity in the U.S., who I thought were good at nodding or listening to others. (H2)

		 On the other hand, the Middle SE group tends to regard their Japanese friends as theirrole models. This is what one student stated in the interview:
In the host university, looking at my Japanese friends talking and interacting with the teachers, I
realized that I could mimic some phrases they used in their conversation. (M7)		 As for the Low SE group, anyone other than themselves could be their models due totheir lower confidence in English proficiency. The following is one student’s account for this:Well, I don’t have a good command of English, compared with my classmates. I didn’t understand thelectures at all. Everyone except me asked questions willingly in class, but I could not… (L1)		 From this statement, it can be presumed that the Low SE group first thought of their
Japanese classmates as good role models to mimic, but that admiration for these models
worked ineffectively and negatively for them because they felt intimidated and overwhelmed.
Table 2 reveals that student L1 is the only student who lowered both in-class and out-of-classself-efficacies among all the students. This result obviously implies that she did not havemeaningful experiences to build up her confidence abroad, which was indicated by her
repeated remark in the interview, “I am not good at English at all.” It is notable here that she
marked the highest score, 10.0, on VE, indicating that vicarious experiences to her, thoughlarge in quantity, were dominantly negative experiences of being intimidated by betterspeakers, particularly her peers, in the English-only environment. Regarding the other three
students in the Low SE group, they also marked relatively high scores on VE (6.3, 7.0, and9.2). Therefore, the average score of VE in this Low SE group is not so different from that of
the other SE groups. Table 2 also shows that the Low SE group showed the smallest averageof in-class self-efficacy (3.21) and out-of-class self-efficacy (3.42) as well as the smallest
gain in in-class self-efficacy (0.00) and out-of-class self-efficacy (0.42). In short, while the
Low SE group revealed almost the same score on VE as the other two groups, they showed
the lowest self-efficacy and the lowest self-efficacy gains. This, together with the case of L1
mentioned above, suggests that although VE may work effectively for most of the language
learners, they can have adverse effects on learners with initially low self-efficacy by making
them realize how poor their English is and consequently intimidating them.
Taking both the means of VE in the three SE groups (Table 1) and the interviews into
consideration, it can safely be said that the High and Middle SE groups had beneficial
hands-on experiences based on VE, but the Low SE group did not, despite their high mean of
VE. In other words, the Low SE group’s high mean of VE just demonstrated their strong
admiration for speaking models. This difference can be seen in the interviews. The High SE－12－group student seemed to make better use of what he learned from his host family or local
people. In contrast, the Middle SE group student seemed to regard his Japanese peers asmodels because he might have felt that Japanese peers were more similar to him and might
have learned more from them than from local people. Similarly, the Low SE group student
used her Japanese friends as speaking models, but it seems that the student L1 just felt
overwhelmed by their superiority and lost confidence.
In summary, VE’s negative or low correlations with the gains in in-class/out-of-classself-efficacies in the author’s previous study and VE’s low correlations with pre-survey
in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies in this current study might have been derived from two
inner aspects of the students. Firstly, the Low SE group scored surprisingly high on VE due
to mere admiration for role models, but this initial admiration might have turned out to work
negatively as it led to feelings of intimidation and inferiority. Secondly, judging from theinterviews, it seems that most of the students did not identify particular role models to learn
from. Their perception about role models is obscure, and there was always silence for 3 to 5
seconds before they identified who their role models were. This may prove that VE possesses
weaker effects on the participants than the other sources. This corresponds to other findingsthat VE possesses weaker effects on self-efficacy (e.g., Britner & Pajares, 2006). Therefore,
these two inner aspects may have combined to produce the negative and low correlations withthe gains in in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies and with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class selfefficacies in both studies.
Verbal Persuasion (Interview Results and Responses to Open-Ended Questions)
VP denotes positive feedback from significant others such as parents and teachers about
an academic performance (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Similar to VE, VP alone does not become
an influential source of self-efficacy (e.g., Britner & Pajares, 2006) because of its weakinfluence on self-efficacy, which is easily negated by unsuccessful results (Schunk, 1995, p.
282). Concerning VP, there was an interesting result in this study. Though several studies
have found that VP often has a weak influence on self-efficacy (e.g., Usher & Pajares, 2008),
it showed fairly strong correlations with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies (r =.75, r = .74, p < .001, respectively). These high correlations reveal that the students withinitially high self-efficacy had more positive feedback about their English. Table 1
demonstrates this. In addition, interviews and open-ended questions demonstrated this.
The High SE group seemed to have received a great deal of praise and positive feedback
from their host family or university teachers in the United States (see also Appendix), as
shown in the higher mean of VP than those of the other two groups in Table 1. This is what
one student said in the interview:
What delighted me most was my teacher’s remark, “Your English is beautiful.” What’s more, I
received a letter from my host family, saying that I can communicate well using simple English. I am

－13－

now more and more eager to study English. (H3)

		 Regarding the Middle SE group, two of them stated that they were praised by their hostmothers, saying “Your English is getting better.” but the others did not mention anything
special. This result shows that the members in the Middle SE group might have received
fewer encouraging words and less positive feedback than those in the High SE group.
With regard to the Low SE group, they did not mention any particular positive feedback
from local people, which demonstrates their struggle with speaking English.
The students’ written statements (Appendix) also revealed that the amount of positive
feedback provided to the students varied significantly among the three self-efficacy groups.
The High SE group obviously received more encouraging words about their English fromvarious people, including their host family, their teachers at the university, and local people.
It was interesting that three out of five students in the High SE group referred to praise as a
crucial event which gave them confidence. Two out of eight students in the Middle SE groupwere also given praise, but it was limited to their host family. Meanwhile, none of the Low
SE group wrote down any encouraging feedback provided to them by local people.
The interviews and responses to open-ended questions reveal that the higher the students’initial self-efficacy is, the more positive feedback they are provided, helping them establish
greater confidence. In particular, the praise given by local people seems to have become
motivation for the students. The results above accord with those of this study that VP
correlated strongly with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies.
Summary of Research Question 1
RQ. 1 asked how the student groups divided by a cluster analysis differ regarding thefour sources of self-efficacy information, which can be answered from the quantitative andqualitative results as follows. Concerning the High and Middle SE groups, it was shown thatthe higher the students’ initial self-efficacies were, the more beneficial experiences theyobtained to increase their self-efficacy, which was clarified by the High SE group’s higher
means of the four sources of self-efficacy information compared to those of the Middle SE
group (Table 1). Regarding the high means of VE in the High and Middle SE groups, it canbe assumed that the students are eager to imitate their role models to improve their speaking
skills. The qualitative results also revealed that both these SE groups seemed to havenumerous experiences based on the four sources of self-efficacy information, which
contributed to their self-efficacy gain. However, the High SE group showed more extensive
and meaningful experiences to boost their self-efficacy than the Middle SE group, which may
have been derived from their initially high self-efficacy.
The Low SE group demonstrated much lower means of ME, VP and ES than the Highand Middle SE groups. However, they showed high means of VE, which was found to work
negatively in the interview. The qualitative results also showed that their limited English－14－

skills kept them from accumulating self-efficacy gains, which might have made them feeldiffident throughout the sojourn.
In other words, students who originally possessed high self-efficacy accumulated more
successful and meaningful experiences interacting with local people (= ME), acquiring morepositive influence from speaking models (= VE), obtaining more opportunities to be praisedby others (= VP), and accordingly gaining more confidence and a greater sense of fulfilment(= ES) than the lower self-efficacy students (cf. Cubillos & Ilvento, 2012). Meanwhile,
students who initially possessed low self-efficacy failed to accumulate successful interpersonal
experiences (= ME), tended to acquire a negative influence from speaking models (= VE),
and received less encouragement from local people than higher self-efficacy students (= VP),
which resulted in reducing their confidence and motivation (= ES).
Results of Qualitative Analysis (Research Question 2)
RQ. 2 raised the question of how the student groups divided by a cluster analysis differedin terms of in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies.
In this current study, the correlations between self-efficacies on the pre-survey and theirgains turned out to be negative though the relationships are weak (Table 3), which indicatesthat the students with initially high self-efficacy did not necessarily make more gains in selfefficacy than those with low initial self-efficacies, despite their substantial experiences. This
result needs to be examined together with that of the interviews. In analyzing each SE group(Table 2), it was clarified that the High and Middle SE groups enhanced their self-efficacies
more than the Low SE group. The interview excerpts below might also help confirm that theHigh and Middle SE groups actually maintained higher confidence and self-efficacy even twomonths after the program than the Low SE group. The following are three students’ accountsof this:When my host family told me that I could speak English well, using grammar and vocabulary that I
learned in my home country, I thought that I actually could. They made me realize that I was doing
pretty well using L2, which has given me a lot of confidence. (H5)
The other day I had a chance to talk with a native English teacher. He asked me some difficult
questions, such as, how I felt if other subjects were taught in English. Experiences in the United States
enabled me to answer his questions willingly, and have become a source of confidence for me. (M7)
Actually, there were many things I felt were difficult. I could not communicate well with my hostfamily, nor could I understand them even though they talked to me a lot, so I felt sorry for them. I felt
staying in Japan is more comfortable. (L1)		 These accounts may reveal that the higher the students’ self-efficacies were, the moreexperiences to boost their self-efficacies they had. Therefore, considering both the quantitative－15－

and qualitative results above, it would be difficult to conclude only from the negative
correlation on Table 3 that the students with initially high self-efficacy actually made smaller
gains.
In addition, there were several students whose self-efficacies were lowered on the postsurvey, H4 and H5, M8 and L1 (Table 2). In terms of students H4 and H5, they showedalmost no additional gains through the program in spite of their positive remarks about theirexperiences abroad in the interview. As aforementioned, there was only a slight gain in
in-class self-efficacy (0.44) with the High SE group. Students H4 and H5 had lowered in-classself-efficacy on the post-survey, -0.50 and -0.33, respectively. This might be because their
original self-efficacy on the pre-survey was high, 7.00 and 8.00, so it might have been difficult
for them to assess much higher self-efficacies on the questionnaire scale on the post-survey.
Freed (1990) claims that students in the higher self-efficacy group are situated closer to theupper limit of the scores, so they might have less headroom to present their further growth.
For of M8, her out-of-class self-efficacy dropped on the post-survey (-1.34). It can beassumed that she may have obtained fewer experiences to boost her self-efficacy than she had
expected, but on the contrary she talked about her useful experiences quite positively in theinterview. What can be inferred from the open-ended questions is that she had difficulty withher poor pronunciation (Appendix), which she said prevented her from being understood by
local people. This may be the reason why she obtained a lower out-of-class self-efficacy on
the post-survey and underestimated her own self-efficacy. Concerning student L1, her
peculiar situation was already analyzed in Vicarious Experiences (Interview Results) section,and therefore additional explanation is omitted here.
Judging from the interviews and the possible reasons why several exceptional students
lowered their self-efficacy score on the post-survey, it seems that the High SE group kept theirself-efficacy high while the Low SE group maintained a sense of inferior ability during theirstudy abroad.
Discussion
In the quantitative analysis, pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies had negative
and weak correlation with their gain, (r = -.25, r = -.06, respectively), as shown in Table 3.
Moreover, the gain in-class self-efficacy was especially lower with the High SE group. These
results show that the High SE group does not always have a larger self-efficacy gain thanlower SE groups, but this point needs to be examined carefully.
It was also found from the quantitative result that the high mean of VE in the Low SEgroup (Table 1) did not contribute to self-efficacy gain. Rather, it was revealed from thequalitative result that this high mean of VE shows just high admiration for desirable speaking
models, which in turn makes the Low SE group feel intimidated or overwhelmed by suchmodels. This finding above can be drawn from the result of low and nonsignificant correlationof VE with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies in Table 3 and interview results in－16－

Vicarious Experiences (Interview Results). It can be said that VE might work negatively
toward the Low SE group in the study abroad setting, comparing themselves with theirsuperior models, and making them feel demotivated.
So far, conflicting arguments have been found on self-efficacy gain between the studies
which claim that high self-efficacy or highly motivated groups had a larger gain (e.g., Isabeli,
2000) and those with the opposite result (e.g., Cubillos and Ilvento, 2012). Isabelli (2000)
found in her research on motivation and SLA in a study abroad context that learners who werehighly motivated interacted with local people more extensively using L2 than those who werenot, which correlated with their linguistic gains. On the other hand, Cubillos and Ilvento(2012) demonstrated that students who possessed initially higher speaking self-efficacy
showed lower gains, regardless of the length of the program. This current study suggests thatstudents should first cultivate basic language proficiency and confidence before studying
abroad for meaningful communication with L2 community members and enhance their selfefficacy. This is because gaining higher language proficiency is related to higher self-efficacy(e.g., Asakereh & Dehghannezhad, 2015). If students went abroad without sufficient language
proficiency, their self-efficacy would not be able to increase sufficiently during the sojourn.
The results of face-to-face interviews and responses to open-ended questions including
the four sources of self-efficacy information clarified that students with initially high selfefficacy had more meaningful experiences to boost their self-efficacy. It is likely that thehigher quantity and quality of interactions that the High and Middle SE students had withlocal people were the main cause of their larger gains of self-efficacy than the Low SE students(Table 2).
The negative correlations with pre-survey in-class/out-of-class self-efficacies and theirgains might be attributed to the ceiling effect, which could also explain the results of Cubillos
and Ilvento (2012) mentioned above. In Results of Quantitative Analysis, it was pointed outthat the High SE group showed only a slight gain in in-class self-efficacy (0.44), but they
showed a larger gain in out-of-class self-efficacy on the post-survey (2.23). This might bebecause their pre-survey in-class self-efficacy score was already high (7.13) and their presurvey out-of-class self-efficacy score was low (5.67). It might be difficult for the High SE
students to mark even higher scores on the post-survey in-class self-efficacy scale because
they had already reached almost the highest score on the pre-survey, with less headroom toshow more growth. This is consistent with Freed’s (1990) assertion that lower-level students
are likely to demonstrate more linguistic gains than high-level students due to the limiting
ceiling effect. Though Freed (1990) is about linguistic gains, and not about self-efficacy, this
could happen with any measurement if the initial value is considerably high.
Considering these findings aforementioned, it could be interpreted that the small gain in
self-efficacy in the High SE group was produced due to the ceiling effect. Therefore, it might
be possible to think that the High SE group may have showed larger gain in self-efficacy thanthey actually did, though the gain was small in number.
－17－

Summarizing all the quantitative and qualitative data, research questions, and otherresearchers’ findings aforementioned, several main findings result from this study.
1. I nterviews and responses to open-ended questions reveal that the students with initiallyhigh self-efficacy have more experiences based on the four sources of self-efficacy
information, especially ME, VP and ES, than those with initially low self-efficacy.
2. S
 tudents with initially high self-efficacy may have experienced better improvement ofself-efficacy than those with low initial self-efficacy.
3. I t is possible that students with initially low self-efficacy lessen their self-efficacy evenmore through study abroad programs.
4. VE can work negatively for low self-efficacy students.
5. I t is desirable to acquire sufficient language proficiency before studying abroad.
Limitations
This study has a few limitations that should be resolved in future studies. Firstly, thequalitative part of the analyses relied on a limited number of comments from a few selectedparticipants. This was done because this study is composed of quantitative and qualitative
analyses, where the qualitative part was examined referring to the quantitative results.
Therefore, several interview excerpts were selected based on the result of the quantitative
analysis. Still, the generalizations made here should be read with reservations, and should beverified in future studies. Secondly, the author was not in the position to join this studyabroad program with the participants, which prevented the author from obtaining moredetailed and valid data about the participants’ own experiences in the U.S. Had the authorjoined the program, the study could have included memos or diary entries of day-to-day
experiences of the participants. This should wait for another study in the future.
Conclusion
RQ. 1 and RQ. 2 clarified that students with initially high self-efficacy had moremeaningful experiences which could boost their self-efficacies than those with initially low
self-efficacy. Especially, the negative effect of VE on the Low SE group was noteworthy.
The results of this study show that students who are planning to study abroad should firstenhance their language proficiency enough to interact sufficiently with local people. Thoughnumerical data concerning English proficiency was not obtained in this study, improving
one’s language proficiency might be regarded as one measurement for heightening selfefficacy. This hypothesis might explain why other researchers insisted on the importance ofacquiring initial language skills. Segalowitz et al. (2004) affirmed that threshold levels of
linguistic skills might be required for students who study abroad to develop their speaking
skills. Furthermore, Schunk (1995, p. 283) asserted that even highly self-efficacious students
cannot perform well if they lack the necessary knowledge and skills.
However, this does not deny the positive effects of study abroad for even low－18－self-efficacy students with initially lower language proficiency. It can certainly be said thatstudy-abroad programs are not only for advanced and intermediate level students but also fornovice level students. Martinsen (2010) asserted that significant oral proficiency gains were
found by the majority of participants in a short-term study abroad program. Nevertheless, it
may also be true that students will not be able to interact willingly and confidently withpeople of the target language unless they possess a certain level of language skills. Therefore,raising L2 proficiency in their home country will contribute not only to sojourners’ further
gains in their self-efficacy but to their confidence and willingness to interact with people andculture of the target language.
Acknowledgements
While revising early drafts of this research paper, the author received insightful andvaluable suggestions from Prof. Hideo Hayashi as well as three anonymous reviewers, who
all greatly helped improve this paper. The author is also grateful to all the participants fortheir time and effort.
References
Asakereh, A., & Dehghannezhad, M. (2015). Student satisfaction with EFL speaking classes:
Relating speaking self-efficacy and skills achievement. Issues in Educational Research,
25, 345–363.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499. doi:10.1002/tea.20131
Cubillos, J. H., & Ilvento, T. (2012). The impact of study abroad on students’ efficacy
perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 494–511. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.
12002.x
Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive
and non-interactive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 459–477.
Isabelli, C. L. (2000). Motivation and extended interaction in the study abroad context:
Factors in the development of Spanish language accuracy and communication skills(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
JASSO (2017). Kyoteitou ni motozuku nihonjin gakusei ryuugaku joukyou cyousa [Thesummary of results on an annual survey of international students in Japan]. Retrieved
from http://www.jasso.go.jp/about/statistics/intl_student_s/index.html
Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high school
students. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 3–12. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1992.
－19－

tb00350.x
Lopez, F. G., Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1997). Role of social-cognitive
expectations in high school students’ mathematics-related interest and performance.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 44–52.
Martinsen, R. A. (2010). Short-term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign
Language Annals, 43, 504–530. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01095.x
Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-efficacy
learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 225–238.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(90)90042-z
Mills, N. A. (2014). Self-efficacy in second language acquisition. In S. Mercer, & M. Williams(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 6–22). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Miyauchi, N. (2017). The impact of a study abroad program on college students’ self-efficacy
in English speaking. Annual Review of English Learning and Teaching, 22, 1–18.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development.
In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research(pp. 158–170). New York: Guilford.
Paradewari, D. S. (2017). Investigating students’ self-efficacy of public speaking. International
Journal of Education and Research, 5, 97–105.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),
Self- efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281–
303). New York: Plenum Press.
Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., Collentine, J., Lafford, B., Lazar, N., & Díaz-Campos, M. (2004).
A comparison of Spanish second language acquisition in two different learning contexts:
Study abroad and the domestic classroom. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad, 10, 1–18.
Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about
language learning. JALT Journal, 25, 63–85.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of theliterature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796.
doi:10.3102/0034654308321456－20－

Appendix (Responses to Open-Ended Questions)
P (positive) means gained confidence and ○N (negative) means lost confidence.
○Group

Written Statements
P I was praised by the teacher, my host family, and other native speakers for my English○
proficiency.
N I could not communicate well with the clerks, nor understand conversations between○
native speakers because they spoke really fast.(H1)

Cluster 2High
SE group

P I could mostly understand the lecturers at university except fast speakers. I asked them○
many questions.
N My awful pronunciation prevented me from making myself understood in English.(H2)○
P I was praised by the teacher and my host family for my English ability.
○
N I could not make my partner understand my English.(H3)○
P I enjoyed talking with the teachers at university as well as my host family. I gained○
confidence from understanding what others said in English.
N I sometimes had to ask my partner to repeat what he/she told me.(H4)○
P I gained confidence from speaking English when I was praised by my host family.
○
N I could not convey in English what I wanted to, nor understand the clerks.(H5)○P I could understand what the native speakers said.
○
N I could not keep up with the speed at which native speakers spoke.(M1)○
P My host family praised me for my improving English-speaking. They answered my○questions honestly.
N I could not understand what the clerks said at all.(M2)○
P I could do some shopping. I made some Chinese friends.
○
N I could not keep up with the speed at which native speakers spoke.(M3)○

Cluster 3
MiddleSE group

P I talked willingly without worrying about grammatical mistakes.
○
N I could not understand what the clerks said because they spoke really fast.(M4)○
P I could improve my listening skills. I got confidence when my host family told me that○my speaking was getting better.
N I could not make myself understood in English, nor understand what the clerks said at○all.(M5)
P I enjoyed talking with my host family a lot.
○
N I could not understand what my partner said.(M6)○
P I could not gain a lot of confidence, but I enjoyed talking with my host family and○learned to use new words.
N My awful pronunciation and lack of vocabulary prevented me from making myself○
understood in English.(M7)
P I could understand the contents of movies. I enjoyed talking with my host family.
○
N I couldn’t make myself and my pronunciation understood by native speakers.(M8)○
P At last three weeks passed and the training program was over. I was relieved.
○
N I could not speak English at all or understand what others spoke in English.(L1)○

Cluster 1

P I could talk with native speakers other than my host family.
○
N I could not explain in English what I wanted to convey. (L2)○Low
SE group

P I gained confidence from speaking English. I talked with my host family a lot.
○
N I could not find suitable words when speaking.(L3)○
P I could listen to what others said in English.
○
N I found my English grammar and pronunciation were not good.(L4)○

Note. N = 17. Brackets at the end of each statement correspond to the students in Table 2.

－21－

2019（令和元）年11月20日
2019（令和元）年11月30日

編集・発行

大学英語教育学会 九州・沖縄支部

編集者（代表） 原
発

行

所

印刷
発行

隆

幸

大学英語教育学会 九州・沖縄支部事務局〒808-0135 北九州市若松区ひびきの1-1
北九州市立大学 基盤教育センター
ひびきの分室筒井英一郎研究室内
TEL 093-695-3728
FAX 093-695-3712
E-mail: e-tsutsui@kitakyu-u.ac.jp

印

刷

所

株式会社 キャンパスサポート西南〒814-0006 福岡市早良区百道1-14-29
TEL 092-823-3271
FAX 092-823-3272