Self-Efficacy Beliefs Influencing Year 9 Students’ Actions in a Bilingual Learning Management System

  • Ulla Freihofner


Student perspectives and experiences have been mainly overlooked in the current research literature regarding technological tool use, managed learning environment design and their application in bilingual educational settings in Australian high schools. The overall information found is pedagogy driven, focused on best practice and relating to efficient language acquisition. This qualitative study is attempting to fill this gap by contributing valuable insight into student perceptions negotiating a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) environment, the mastery of different speech genres, and learning in a new learning management system (LMS). Data were collected from 22 Year 9 students (aged 13 and 14 year) covering 18 biology lessons during 6 weeks, over two consecutive years. The students’ interactions were audio and video recorded to gain a deeper understanding on students’ opinions and experiences working in a CLIL LMS. Additionally a focus group interview was conducted to clarify student understanding on self-regulation and scientific open inquiry strategies, learning in a bilingual context, as well as using digital tools in a LMS. The discourse analysis based on theories of student voice, dialogism and heterology, CLIL communication, self-efficacy, self-theory, and self-regulation revealed firstly that Year 9 student self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory practices developed primarily through the exposure to a bilingual classroom setting. Secondly it is highly plausible that students benefit from the exposure to a bilingual setting, as it is affording students more possibilities to explore self-efficacy beliefs leading to the uptake of self-regulation strategies and therefore improved learning opportunities. Consequently, the results of this study might have interesting implications for the future customization of managed learning spaces for high school students not only applicable to a CLIL environment but also to a wider range of subject areas.


Bilingual education CLIL Student voice Self-efficacy Self-theory Self-regulation Learning management system 



The author wishes to thank Dr. Simone Smala (The University of Queensland), Dr. Chris Campbell (Griffiths University, Brisbane), and Dr. Tony Wright (The University of Queensland) for their ongoing support.


  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2014). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring, developing, and assessing TPCK (Vol. 2015). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). Information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities. Retrieved from
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2006). How does information technology shape thinking? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 130–145. Retrieved from Scholar
  7. Bell, B. T. (2016). Understanding adolescents. In L. Little, D. Fitton, B. T. Bell, & N. Toth (Eds.), Perspectives on HCI research with teenagers (pp. 10–24). Basel, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.Google Scholar
  9. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329. Retrieved from Scholar
  11. Bonnet, A. (2012). In depth: Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant perspectives in CLIL research. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 66–78.Google Scholar
  12. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. Retrieved from Scholar
  13. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In M. Boerkaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 41–84). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  16. Corte, A. A. (2012). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 621–624. Retrieved from Scholar
  17. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. Retrieved from Scholar
  19. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Demetriou, A. (2000). Organisation and development of self-understanding and self-regulation: Toward a general theory. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 209–251). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2012). The learning place flyer.Google Scholar
  22. Drake, S. M., Reid, J. L., & Kolohon, W. (2014). Interweaving curriculum and classroom assessment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  24. Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dweck, C. (2009). Who will the 21st-century learners be? Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 8.Google Scholar
  26. Francis, B. (2012). Gender monoglossia, gender heteroglossia: The potential of Bakhtin’s work for re-conceptualising gender. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(1), 1–15. Retrieved from Scholar
  27. Fuller, A. (2005–2006). Into the mystery of the adolescent mind. The Byron Child, 14–22.Google Scholar
  28. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. (2005). Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Hao, Y. (2016). Middle school students’ flipped learning readiness in foreign language classrooms: Exploring its relationship with personal characteristics and individual circumstances. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 295–303. Retrieved from Scholar
  32. Kitsantas, A., Dabbagh, N., Huie, F. C., & Dass, S. (2013). Learning technologies and self-regulated learning: Implications for practice. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Application of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 325–354). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Kudo, H., & Mori, K. (2015). A preliminary study of increasing self-efficacy in junior high school students: Induced success and a vicarious experience. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 631–642. Retrieved from Scholar
  34. Kuhl, J. (2000). Functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111–169). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A users guide. Riverside County, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Lust, G., Vandewaetere, M., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2014). Tool-use in a content management system: A matter of timing? Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 319–337. Retrieved from Scholar
  37. Marenzi, I., & Zerr, S. (2012). Multiliteracies and active learning in CLIL: The development of LearnWeb2.0. Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(4), 336–348. Retrieved from Scholar
  38. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Pellegrino, E., De Santo, M., & Vitale, G. (2013). Integrating learning technologies and autonomy: A CLIL course in linguistics. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1514–1522. Retrieved from Scholar
  41. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers/Johnny Saldaña (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Schraw, G. J., & Robinson, D. H. (2008). Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, C. (2015). Education perfect. Retrieved from
  44. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Todorov, T. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin: The dialogical principle (W. Godzich, Trans. Vol. 13). Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Xuelian, L. (2011). Designing online collaborative tasks for language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(2), 191–193.Google Scholar
  48. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeider (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, B. J., Bembenutty, H., & Schunk, D. H. (2013). Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulla Freihofner
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations