Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its Associated Factors

JOURNAL

of the

CHINESE LANGUAGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

Volume 48 : 2 June 2013

Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and

its Associated Factors

Han Luo

Northwestern University

Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association

Volume 48:2, June 2013

Articles

Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its Associated Factors ············ 1Han Luo, Northwestern University

Incorporating Contemporary Social and Cultural Issues into Chinese Language Instruction at the Advanced Level— Curricular Innovations

for Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries ············································ 27Dongming Zhang, Furman University

······················ 45, /

A Preliminary Investigation of Business Chinese Instruction among U.S. Institutions of Higher Education ······························ 69Shuai Li, Georgia State University Shanshan Wang, Confucius Institute at Georgia State University Jing Wang, Kennesaw State University

A CIP Spiral Performance-based Model for Beginner Level Chinese L2 Reading Instruction ································································· 91

Yongfang Zhang, Wofford College

Reviews

Far East Everyday Chinese- Task-Based Listening & Speaking ········································ 119

Min Wang, Shanghai Jiaotong University

Working with Spoken Chinese by Hongyin Tao ···································· 129 Jie Zhang , University of Oklahoma

Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association June 2013, Volume 48:2, pp. 1-25

©2013 The Chinese Language Teachers Association

1

Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its Associated Factors

Han Luo

Northwestern University

Abstract: This study explored the broad profiles of U.S. college-level Chi-nese as a foreign language (CFL) learners' anxiety and the influence of back-ground variables on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety. The anxiety in-strument adopted for this study is a Chinese-specific anxiety scale that ad-dresses anxieties associated with the four skills. Participants were 428 CFL learners from two large public universities in the U.S.. Results showed that U.S. university students’ Chinese Language Learning Anxiety was not high on average in comparison with the anxiety levels of foreign language learn-ers in previous studies. Heritage-learning status and proficiency level had significant effects on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety. Advanced CFL Learners were significantly less anxious than intermediate and elemen-tary learners. Heritage learners with Chinese language background had significantly lower levels of anxiety than non-heritage learners and her-itage learners without Chinese language background.

Key Words: Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL), Foreign Language Anxiety, Chinese Language Learning Anxiety

1. BACKGROUND

Due to the tones and the non-alphabetic writing system of the Chinese lan-guage, it is widely recognized that Chinese is a challenging language for

Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its Associated Factors 2

Americans to learn. The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the Department of State has defined four categories of foreign languages on the basis of thedifficulty for native speakers of English. According to the FSI, the most commonly taught languages—Spanish and French—are both Category I lan-guages, whereas the less commonly taught languages, such as Japanese, Chi-nese, Korean, and Arabic, on the other hand, are classified as Category IV. According to FSI figures, students need to take 1320 hours of instruction in a Category IV language to reach Level 2 (limited working proficiency)1 incomparison with only 480 hours of instruction in Category I languages (Walk-er, 1989).

The survey conducted by Modern Language Association (MLA) shows that the differential in enrollments between lower-level and upper-level classes was dramatic. For every 9 students enrolled in first-year and second-year Chinese, there are only 2 students enrolled in an advanced Chinese course (MLA, 2006). The drop-out rate of Chinese language classes is very high, which is likely due to the difficulty level of Chinese (Samimy & Tabuse, 1992; Norman, 1996; Pease, 1996; Oh, 1996).

Gardner, Moorcroft, and MacIntyre’s (1987) study regarding the second language performance of language dropouts revealed that dropouts had sig-nificantly higher levels of foreign language anxiety. In a study exclusively ex-ploring the relationship between foreign language anxiety and student attri-tion, Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, and Daley (2003) also found that learners with the highest levels of anxiety were more at risk for dropping out of their for-eign language courses than their low-anxious counterparts. The possibility that anxiety might be one of the reasons for the high drop-out rates of Chinese language classes should be explored.

In the past two decades, the study of anxiety has attracted the attention of an increasing number of researchers and language teachers. Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope (1986) proposed that Foreign Language Anxiety was a situa-tion-specific anxiety construct independent of other types of anxieties. They defined foreign language anxiety as “a distinct complex set of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (p.128). They also identified three anxieties related to foreign language anxi-ety: communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1970), fear of negative evalu-ation (Watson & Friend, 1969), and test anxiety (Sarason, 1978), to help language teachers and scholars understand the nature of foreign language

1 According to the FSI Absolute Language Proficiency Rating Scale, a person with limited working proficiency of a language is able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements.

Han Luo 3

anxiety. In addition, they offered an instrument, the Foreign Language Class-room Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), to measure foreign language anxiety.

After the introduction of the FLCAS and a number of other measures of foreign language anxiety (e.g. Gardner, 1985; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994), researchers were able to measure foreign language anxiety relatively more precisely. Many studies have shown that foreign language anxiety is prevalent among foreign language learners (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989, 1991a, 1991b). Studies in a variety of language learning contexts have found that approxi-mately one-third of students studying a foreign language experience at least amoderate level of foreign language anxiety (e.g. Aida, 1994; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Horwitz, 2001; Le, 2004). The fact that approxi-mately one out of every three students suffers from a certain degree of anxiety in foreign language classrooms should be taken seriously in all types of foreign language instruction.

In addition, a large number of studies have investigated the relationship be-tween foreign language anxiety and second language achievement. These stud-ies generally report a consistent moderate negative relationship between measures of language anxiety and language achievement (Horwitz, 2001). For example, Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) found language anxiety to be the largest single correlate of foreign language achievement. Studies have also shown that foreign language anxiety is likely to have a negative impact on students’ attitudes and motivation toward language study (e.g. Phillips, 1990; Spitalli, 2000).

As can be seen, foreign language anxiety is not only prevalent among language learners, but appears to interfere with language learning. Since Chi-nese is a relatively difficult language for American students to learn and Chi-nese has a very high drop-out rate, it is reasonable to believe that anxiety is an important issue among Chinese as foreign language (CFL) learners in the United States.

Despite the increasing popularity of the Chinese language in the U.S. and the potential problems experienced by American students of Chinese, studies on teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language in the United States are scarce. During the last two decades, most studies involving American stu-dents studying Chinese have focused on teachers, teaching, and testing, in-structional methods, character learning, teaching materials, and error analysis. Affective factors such as attitudes, motivation, beliefs, and anxiety have not attracted enough attention although studies have repeatedly shown that affec-


tive factors could have important impact on foreign language learning (e.g.Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Dornyei & Csizer, 2002).

There have been a few motivation studies on CFL learners (e.g. Wen, 1997, 2011; Comanaru & Noels, 2009), but studies related to CFL learners' anxiety are very rare. There is only one published study (Zhao & Whitchurch, 2011) addressing anxiety and its associated factors in college-level Chinese classrooms in the U.S.. The results of this study show that anxiety was nega-tively correlated to both subjective and objective measures of performance and those students who perceived the course as harder than they expected had high-er anxiety than those who thought otherwise. The foreign language anxiety lev-els differed with respect to experience in the target country but not gender or course level.

Zhao and Whitchurch (2011) used the Foreign Language Classroom Anxi-ety Scale (FLCAS) as the measure of learners' anxiety in CFL classes. To date, the FLCAS, a generic foreign language anxiety scale developed by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986), has been the most widely used instrument to measure foreign language learners’ anxiety for all target languages. However, the FLCAS mainly addresses foreign language speaking anxiety and it does not take into consideration the characteristics of specific target lan-guages. Studies using the FLCAS have suggested that there are no significant differences in anxiety levels among learners of different target languages (e.g. Saito, Horwitz & Garza, 1999). This “against-common-sense” result may be due to the generic nature of the FLCAS, or due to the fact that the FLCAS does not include enough items reflective of listening, reading and writing anxieties in foreign language learning.

In addition, the participants in Zhao and Whitchurch’s (2011) study were all non-heritage students, so they did not get a chance to explore the influence of heritage-learning status on Chinese language learning anxiety, which can be a very interesting topic. Other background variables such as ethnic background, year in college, school, proficiency level, and elective-required status may also have effects on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety. However, they were not discussed in Zhao and Whitchurch’s (2011) study.

In order to fill the gap, this study used the Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale (Luo, 2011) that addresses the characteristics of the Chinese language and anxieties related to the four skills (not only just speaking) to ex-plore Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and the influence of background variables.

Han Luo 5

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The present study attempts to explore Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its associated factors among college-level CFL learners in the U.S.. The re-search questions include the following:

1. What are the broad profiles of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety among college-level CFL learners in the U.S.?

2. What is the influence of background variables such as gender, school, herit-age-learning status, ethnic background, year in the college, Chinese profi-ciency level, and elective-required status on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety?

3. METHODS

3.1 Participants Participants were 428 (225 males, 202 females; 1 missing the gender indica-

tion) CFL learners with an age range of 15 to 59 (M = 20.9, SD = 3.9) at two large public universities in the U.S.. One university is in southwestern U.S. and the other is in midwestern U.S.. 245 participants were from the southwestern university and 183 participants were from the midwestern university. They were taking credit-bearing Chinese language courses at the two universities. 211 (49.0%) participants were taking the Chinese course as an elective and 217 (50.7%) participants were taking it as a required course. 65 (15.2%) participants were freshmen, 117 (27.3%) were sophomores, 126 (29.4%) were juniors, 105 (24.5%) were seniors, 7 (1.6%) were graduate students, and 8 (1.9%) indicated other categories.

Among the 428 participants, 188 (43.9%) of the participants were white, 155 (36.2%) were Chinese American, 36 (8.6%) were Asian but not Chinese Ameri-can, 23 (5.4%) were Asian international students, 16 (3.7%) were Hispanic, 1 (0.2%) was African American, and 8 (1.9%) were from other ethnic backgrounds. As the numbers of participants for Hispanic, African American, and other ethnic backgrounds were too small for meaningful statistic analysis, the present study combined these three ethnic groups with "white" to form one group under "Non-Asian". Therefore, the present study classified learners' ethnic backgrounds into 4 groups: Chinese American, Asian but not Chinese American, Asian (inter-national students), and Non-Asian (white, Hispanic, African-American & other).

Previous studies have found that anxiety levels tend to be different among language learners of different proficiency levels (e.g. Samimy & Tabuse, 1992;


Saito & Sammy, 1996). In this study, participants’ language proficiency was classified according to their current instructional level: first year Chinese, “ele-mentary level” (n=234, 54.7%); second year Chinese, “intermediate level” (n=118, 27.6%); and third year Chinese, “advanced level” (n=76, 17.8%).

Researchers have also reported that heritage-learning status affects Chinese language learning (e.g. Wen, 2011; Comanaru & Noels, 2009). There have been different ways to classify heritage learners (e.g. Comanaru & Noels, 2009; Kon-do-Brown, 2005; Kondo-Brown & Brown, 2008). Comanaru & Noels (2009) classified participants in their study into three groups in terms of herit-age-learning status. Each student indicated whether his or her mother, father, both parents, or neither parent were native Chinese (including all varieties of Chinese, hereafter) speakers. If at least one parent was a native speaker of Chi-nese, the participant was classified as a heritage language learner. This group was further divided into those participants who claimed their native language to be Chinese and those who claimed their native language to be non-Chinese. As can be seen, Comanaru & Noels (2009) grouped native speakers of Mandarin and native speakers of other varieties of Chinese into one group.

Chinese has many varieties and Mandarin is the language being taught in Chinese classrooms in the U.S., which may impact what it means to be a Chinese heritage learner. In terms of anxiety, learners who speak Mandarin at home may be different from those who speak a variety of Chinese other than Mandarin (Cantonese, Shanghai dialect) at home. In this study, there were 140 learners who spoke or understood a variety of Chinese (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Taiwanese, etc.) before taking any Chinese classes. Among the 140 participants, 84 (60%) participants spoke or understood Mandarin before taking any Chinese classes, whereas 56 (40%) participants spoke or understood a variety of Chinese other than Mandarin (e.g. Cantonese, Taiwanese, etc..) before taking any Chinese classes. The researcher of the present study used one-way ANOVA to see whether speaking Mandarin vs. a variety of Chinese other than Mandarin at home has an effect on participants' anxiety in learning Chinese. The results showed that the two groups of participants' anxiety levels did not differ significantly (F=3.806, df=1, p=.053). This may be due to the possibility that Mandarin and other varie-ties of Chinese share many characteristics such as the writing system, vocabulary, etc.. It may also be due to the fact that learners who spoke a variety of Chinese other than Mandarin at home were exposed to Mandarin as well, since Mandarin is the official language for many Mandarin speaking areas and used extensively on TV, the Internet, and other media. Therefore, the researcher combined the two groups into one.

Han Luo 7

Table 1 Sample Distributions Number of Par-

ticipantsProficiency Level Elementary 234 Intermediate 118 Advanced 76 EthnicityChinese American, 231 Asian but not Chinese American 155 Asian (international students) 37 Other 23 Heritage-learning status Heritage learners without Chinese Background 31 Heritage learners with Chinese Background 140 Non-heritage learners 257

Thus, the total sample of 428 participants in this study was divided into three groups: participants at least one of whose parents was a Chinese native speaker but who did not speak or understand a variety of Chinese before they took any Chinese classes (Group 1: heritage learners without Chinese language back-ground), participants who spoke or understood a variety of Chinese before they took any Chinese classes (Group 2: heritage learners with Chinese language background), and participants neither of whose parents was a Chinese native speaker (Group 3: non-heritage learners). Among the 428 participants, there were 257 (60%) non-heritage learners (Group 3), 140 (32.7%) heritage learners with Chinese language background (Group 2), and 31 (7.2%) heritage learners without Chinese language background (Group 1). Please see Table 1 for a summary of distributions of participants in terms of proficiency level, ethnicity, and herit-age-learning status.

3.2 Instruments The instruments for this study included the Chinese Language Learning

Anxiety Scale (Luo, 2011) and a Background Questionnaire. The Background Questionnaire elicited participants' background information such as gender, age, ethnicity, year in college, proficiency level, heritage-learning status, etc.

The Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale is a 16-item self-report measure that consists of items scored on a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from


strongly disagree to strongly agree (strongly disagree=1; disagree=2; neither agree nor disagree=3; agree=4; strongly agree=5). On this scale, items were evenly distributed for anxieties associated with the four skills, i.e., speaking, lis-tening, reading, and writing. In other words, the Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale consists of four 4-item subscales measuring speaking, listening, reading and writing anxieties in learning Chinese. The Chinese Language Learn-ing Anxiety Scale and its four subscales were found to have high reliability and validity2. The internal consistency reliability (using Cronbach’s Alpha) of the Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale was .90 (Luo, 2011).

Chinese Language Learning Anxiety was calculated as the sum of the num-ber of items in the scale (i.e., 16). Negatively phrased items were coded reverse-ly. The possible range of score for Chinese Language Learning Anxiety is 16-80.

3.3 Data Analysis Methods For descriptive analyses of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety, means and

standard derivations and the frequencies of the responses (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) of the 16 items in the Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale were calculated and compared.

In terms of the influence of background variables on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety, one-way, two-way, and three-way ANOVA analyses were used to compare Chinese Language Learning Anxiety among different subgroups of CFL learners. The background variables included heritage-learning status, gender, university, year in college, Chinese language proficiency level, ethnic background, and elective-required status. Before the ANOVA tests were con-ducted, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test along with skewness and kurtosis statistics were performed with the score of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety to see whether the data were normally distributed.

2 Luo (2011) reported the details of the scale development process, which consisted of three phases: 1) gen-eration of an initial pool of items; 2) consultation with experts for content validity of the items; 3) administration of the revised pool of items to Chinese language learners for item analysis and tests of the reliability and valid-ity of the scale. The initial pool of items approved by five experts were administered to 447 Chinese language learners from two large public universities in the U.S.. The results of exploratory factor analysis and cross-validation analysis provided strong support to the construct validity of the scale. Results of reliability analysis and correlation analyses indicated that the Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale and its four sub-scales have good internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and criteri-on-related validity.

Han Luo 9

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Broad Profiles of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety In order to answer research question 1, the researcher calculated the means

and standard deviations of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and counted the frequencies of the responses of the items in the anxiety scale. Considering learn-ers’ heritage-learning status may have an influence on Chinese Language Learn-ing Anxiety, the researcher calculated the means, standard deviations, and fre-quencies of responses for the three groups (i.e., heritage without Chinese lan-guage background, heritage with Chinese language background, and non-heritage) separately.

4.1.1 Means and Standard Deviations The means and standard derivations of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety

are shown in Table 2. In order to compare the score of Chinese Language Learn-ing Anxiety with foreign language anxiety scores found in other studies, the re-searcher divided the means by 16, i.e., the number of items in the scale, and cal-culated the mean item response for Chinese Language Learning Anxiety3.

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety

Anxiety Type Mean Standard Deviation Mean Item Response Chinese Language Learning Anxiety

41.2 11.9 2.58

As can be seen from Table 2, the mean item response for Chinese Language Learning Anxiety (M=2.58/5) is not very high, indicating that CFL learners in this sample were not very anxious on average. Considering Chinese is a rela-tively difficult language for native English speakers, this finding is a little sur-prising.

The means of foreign language anxiety as measured by the 33-item FLCAS for Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope's (1986) study, Aida's (1994) and Le's (2004) study were 94.5, 96.7, and 110.21 respectively. Divided by the number of items, i.e., 33, they become 2.86, 2.93 and 3.34, which are all higher than the 2.58 mean item response for Chinese Language Learning Anxiety reported in this

3 One reviewer suggests that the correlation between self-reported anxiety levels for different skills be calculated. The researcher agrees that this is meaningful and interesting. A separate paper investigating Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and the four skills is in preparation.


study. In Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope's (1986) study, students were begin-ning-level Spanish students; In Aida's (1994) study, the target foreign language was Japanese; In Le's (2004) study, learners were American university students who studied Chinese at study-abroad programs in China. It seems that CFL learners in the present study, in general, experienced lower levels of anxiety than the Spanish language learners in Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope's (1986) study, the Japanese language learners in Aida's (1994) study, and students in Chinese study-abroad programs in Le's (2004) study.

One possible explanation is that the demographic profile of Chinese language learners in the present study is significantly different from the foreign language learners in the previous three studies. For example, there may be more heritage learners among Chinese language learners. Studies have shown that heritage learners tend to be less anxious in foreign language classes than non-heritage learners (e.g. Tallon, 2009). In order to further pursue this possibility, the re-searcher calculated the means, standard deviations, and mean item responses of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety for the three subgroups by heritage-learning status.

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety (Grouped by Heritage-learning Status)

Heritage-learning Status Mean Standard Deviation

Mean Item Response

Group 1 43.90 9.41 2.74

Group 2 36.56 11.68 2.28 Group 3 43.42 11.59 2.71

Note: Group 1=Heritage Learners without Chinese Language Background; Group 2=Heritage Learners with Chinese Language Background; Group 3= Non-heritage Learners.

As can be seen from Table 3, Chinese heritage learners with Chinese lan-guage background experienced much less anxiety than non-heritage learners and heritage learners without Chinese language background. This seems to suggest that prior exposure to the language may help alleviate learners’ anxiety. Howev-er, even non-heritage learners and Chinese heritage learners without Chinese

Han Luo 11

language background in the present study were less anxious than the learners in the three studies mentioned above4.

4.1.2 Frequency Analyses Responses to the 16 items in the Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Scale

are reported in Table 4 across the three groups by heritage-learning status. All frequencies and percentages refer to the number of students who agreed or strongly agreed (or disagreed or strongly disagreed) with statements indicative of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety to the nearest whole number. Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding.

Table 4 Chinese Language Learning Anxiety Items with Frequencies and Per-centages of Students Selecting Each Alternative.

SD D N A SA

Y1. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my Chinese class.

Group 1 N=31

6 (19.4%) 10 (32.3%) 6 (19.4%) 8 (25.8%) 1 (3.2%)

Group 2 N=140

55 (29.3%) 40 (28.6%) 27 (19.3%) 15 (10.7%) 3 (2.1%)

Group3N=257

68 (26.5%) 81 (31.5%) 57 (22.2%) 36 (14.0%) 15 (5.8%)

TotalN=428

129 (30.1%) 131(3.6%) 90 (21.0%) 59(13.8%) 19 (4.4%)

*Y2. I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on in my Chinese class. Group 1 7 (22.6%) 7 (22.6%) 9 (29.0%) 7 (22.6%) 1 (3.2%)

Group 2 55 (39.3%) 41 (29.3%) 19 (13.6%) 20 (14.3%) 5 (3.6%)

Group 3 63 (24.5%) 73 (28.4%) 53 (20.6%) 45 (17.5%) 23 (8.9%)

Total 125 (29.2%) 121(28.3%) 81 (18.9%) 72 (16.8%) 29 (6.8%)

4 Although the scale adopted for the present study is different from the FLCAS adopted by the three studies mentioned above. The anxiety levels found by these studies could be compared by calculating the mean item responses.


* *Y3. I feel confident when I speak in my Chinese class.

Group 1 1 (3.2%) 12 (38.7%) 6 (19.4%) 8 (25.8%) 4 (12.9%)

Group 2 28 (20.0%) 52 (37.1%) 33 (23.6%) 20 (14.3%) 7 (5.0%)

Group 3 25 (9.7%) 64 (24.9%) 87 (33.9%) 63 (24.5%) 18 (7.0%)

Total 54 (12.6%) 128 (29.9%) 126 (29.4%) 91 (21.3%) 29 (6.8%)

* *Y4. I feel very self-conscious about speaking Chinese in front of other stu-dents.Group 1 7 (22.6%) 7 (22.6%) 6 (19.4%) 7 (22.6%) 4 (12.9%)

Group 2 50 (35.7%) 31 (22.1%) 30 (21.4%) 23 (16.4%) 6 (10.7%)

Group 3 36 (14%) 74 (28.8%) 57 (22.2%) 61 (23.7%) 29 (11.3%)

Total 93 (21.7%) 112 (26.2%) 93 (21.7%) 91 (21.3%) 39 (9.1%)

* *Y5. I get frustrated when I cannot distinguish among the Chinese tones even after I have worked hard to learn them. Group 1 7 (22.6%) 8 (25.8%) 7 (22.6%) 5 (16.1%) 4 (12.9%)

Group 2 58 (41.4%) 27 (19.3%) 17 (12.1%) 23 (16.4%) 15 (10.7%)

Group 3 39 (15.2%) 48 (18.7%) 50 (19.5%) 73 (28.4%) 47 (18.3%)

Total 104 (24.3%) 83 (19.4%) 74 (17.3%) 101 (23.6%) 66 (15.4%)

* *Y6. I get nervous when all the Chinese tones sound the same to me.

Group 1 7 (22.6%) 13 (41.9%) 3 (9.7%) 6 (19.4%) 2 (6.5%)

Group 2 66 (47.1%) 31 (22.1%) 20 (14.3%) 16 (11.4%) 7 (5.0%)

Group 3 48 (18.7%) 65 (25.3%) 66 (25.7%) 54 (21.0%) 24 (9.3%)

Total 121 (28.3%) 109 (25.5%) 89 (20.8%) 76 (17.8%) 33 (7.7%)

Han Luo 13

* *Y7. I get anxious when I don’t understand what my classmates are saying in Chinese.Group 1 5 (16.1%) 7 (22.6%) 9 (29.0%) 8 (25.8%) 2 (6.5%)

Group 2 70 (50.0%) 40 (28.6%) 19 (13.6%) 9 (6.4%) 2 (1.4%)

Group 3 36 (14.0%) 68 (26.5%) 67 (26.1%) 67 (26.1%) 19 (7.4%)

Total 111 (25.9%) 115 (26.9%) 95 (22.2%) 95 (19.6%) 23 (5.4%)

* *Y8. It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in Chi-nese. Group 1 3 (9.7%) 6 (19.4%) 10 (32.3%) 9 (29.0%) 3 (9.7%)

Group 2 60 (42.9%) 38 (27.1%) 21 (15.0%) 20 (14.3%) 1 (0.7%)

Group 3 34 (13.2%) 68 (26.5%) 71 (27.6%) 64 (24.9%) 20 (7.8%)

Total 97 (22.7%) 112 (26.2%) 102 (23.8%) 93 (21.7%) 24 (5.6%)

Y9. When I’m reading Chinese, I get so confused I can’t remember what I’m reading.Group 1 3 (9.7%) 21 (67.7%) 5 (16.1%) 1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%)

Group 2 42 (30%) 58 (41.4%) 28 (20%) 10 (7.1%) 2 (1.4%)

Group 3 67 (26.1%) 112 (43.6%) 42 (16.3%) 30 (11.7%) 6 (2.3%)

Total 112 (26.2%) 191 (44.6%) 75 (17.5%) 41 (9.6%) 9 (2.1%)

*Y10. I feel intimidated whenever I see a whole page of Chinese in front of me.

Group 1 4 (12.9%) 6 (19.4%) 9 (29.0%) 10 (32.3%) 2 (6.5%)

Group 2 37 (26.4%) 40 (28.6%) 30 (21.4%) 25 (17.9%) 8 (5.7%)

Group 3 40 (15.6%) 81 (31.5%) 44 (17.1%) 61 (23.7%) 31 (12.1%)

Total 81 (18.9%) 127 (29.7%) 83 (19.4%) 96 (22.4%) 41 ( 9.6%)


Y11. I have difficulty distinguishing among Chinese characters when reading Chinese.Group 1 0 (0%) 14 (45.2%) 11 (35.5%) 5 (16.1%) 1 (3.2%)

Group 2 41 (29.3%) 49 (35%) 28 (20%) 18 (12.9%) 4 (2.9%)

Group 3 62 (24.1%) 86 (33.5%) 55 (21.4%) 39 (15.2%) 15 (5.8%)

Total 103 (24.1%) 149 (34.8%) 94 (22.0%) 62 (14.5%) 20 (4.7%)

Y12. I feel confident when I am reading in Chinese.

Group 1 1 (3.2%) 8 (25.8%) 13 (41.9%) 6 (19.4%) 3 (9.7%)

Group 2 17 (12.1%) 54 (38.6%) 42 (30%) 22 (15.7%) 5 (3.6%)

Group 3 30 (11.7%) 74 (28.8%) 86 (33.5%) 55 (21.4%) 12 (4.7%)

Total 48 (11.2%) 136 (31.8%) 141 (32.9%) 83 (19.4%) 20 (4.7%)

Y13. Writing Chinese characters makes me forget what I'm trying to convey.

Group 1 7 (22.6%) 13 (41.9%) 6 (19.4%) 5 (16.1%) 0(0%)

Group 2 45 (32.1%) 53 (37.9%) 26 (18.6%) 13 (9.3%) 3 (2.1%)

Group 3 80 (31.1%) 96 (37.4%) 42 (16.3%) 33 (12.8%) 6 (2.3%)

Total 132 (30.8%) 162 (37.9%) 74 (17.3%) 51 (11.9%) 9 (2.1%)

Y14. I’m usually at ease when I’m writing in Chinese.

Group 1 0 (0%) 12 (38.7%) 11 (35.5%) 5 (16.1%) 3 (9.7%)

Group 2 14 (10%) 40 (28.6%) 48 (34.3%) 30 (21.4%) 8 (5.7%)

Group 3 23 (8.9%) 68 (26.5%) 79 (30.7%) 62 (24.1%) 25 (9.7%)

Total 37 (8.6%) 120 (28.0%) 138 (32.2%) 97 (22.7%) 36 (8.4%)

Y15. I freeze up when I am unexpectedly asked to write Chinese characters dur-ing my Chinese class. Group 1 7 (22.6%) 11 (35.5%) 7 (22.6%) 5 (16.1%) 1 (3.2%)

Group 2 43 (30.7%) 52 (37.7%) 27 (19.3%) 9 (6.4%) 9 (6.4%)

Han Luo 15

Group 3 58 (22.6%) 77 (30.0%) 56 (21.8%) 42 (16.3%) 24 (9.3%)

Total 108 (25.2%) 140 (32.7%) 90 (21.0%) 56 (13.1%) 34 (7.9%)

Y16. I feel unsure of myself when I'm writing in Chinese.

Group 1 3 (9.7%) 6 (19.4%) 14 (45.5%) 5 (16.1%) 3 (9.7%)

Group 2 20 (14.3%) 44 (31.4%) 38 (27.1%) 29 (20.7%) 9 (6.4%)

Group 3 32 (12.5%) 76 (29.6% 64 24.9%) 67 (26.1%) 18 (7.0%)

Total 55 (12.9%) 126 (29.4%) 116 (27.1%) 101 (23.6%) 30 (7.0%)

Note: SA=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neither agree nor disagree, D=disagree, SD=strongly disagree. Group 1=heritage learners without Chinese background (N=31), Group 2=heritage learners with Chinese background (N=140), Group 3= non-heritage learners (N=257). Response frequencies identified with an asterisk are significantly related to language group at p=.05, df=8; those with two aster-isks are significantly related to language group at p=.01, df=8. All percentages refer to the number of students who agreed or strongly agreed (or disagreed or strongly disagreed) with statements indicative of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety to the nearest whole number. Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding. Items Y3, Y12 and Y14 are reversely coded.

Students who scored high on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety reported

anxiety over speaking, listening to, reading, and writing Chinese. Anxious stu-dents were afraid to speak Chinese in class. They endorsed items indicative of Speaking Anxiety such as "I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on in my Chinese class" (25.8%) and "it embarrasses me to volunteer an-swers in my Chinese class" (18.2%). Anxious students were also worried that they were not able to understand the teacher or their classmates. They agreed or strongly agreed with statements like "I get anxious when I don’t understand what my classmates are saying in Chinese" (25%) and "it frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in Chinese" (27.3%). Student responses to "I feel intimidated whenever I see a whole page of Chinese in front of me" (31%) and "when I’m reading Chinese, I get so confused I can’t remember what I’m reading" (11.7%) showed that they experienced anxiety while reading Chinese. Students also reported anxiety over writing in Chinese, which mainly involves writing characters rather than composing an essay in Chinese classes. They disa-greed or strongly disagreed with "I’m usually at ease when I’m writing in Chi-


nese" (25.8%) and endorsed "I feel unsure of myself when I'm writing in Chi-nese" (30.6%).

Anxious students showed low confidence in Chinese class. They disagreed or strongly disagreed with statements such as "I feel confident when I speak in my Chinese class" (28.1%), and "I feel confident when I am reading in Chinese" (24.1%). The uniqueness of the Chinese language including tones and characters seemed to be anxiety-provoking. Anxious students agreed or strongly agreed with statements such as "I get frustrated when I cannot distinguish among the Chinese tones even after I have worked hard to learn them" (39%), "I get nervous when all the Chinese tones sound the same to me" (25.5%), "I have difficulty distinguishing among Chinese characters when reading Chinese" (19.2%), and "Writing Chinese characters makes me forget what I'm trying to convey" (15.1%). Peer pressure or peer competition also seemed to be a cause of anxiety in CFL classes. Anxious students endorsed items such as "I feel very self-conscious about speaking Chinese in front of other students" (31%), and "I get anxious when I don’t understand what my classmates are saying in Chinese" (25%).

A chi-square analysis for relationships between the heritage-learning status and response frequencies on the individual anxiety items was performed. Results of this analysis were reported in Table 4 (Items for which there was a significant relationship between the groups and responses frequencies are marked with an asterisk (*) (p<.05, df=8) or two asterisks (**) (p<.01, df=8)). Significant Chi-square relationships were found for items Y2, Y3, Y4, Y5, Y6, Y7, Y8 and Y10. Y2, Y3, Y4, Y5, Y6, Y7 and Y8 were reflective of Speaking and Listening Anxiety whereas Y10 reflected Reading Anxiety. All the items indicative of Reading and Writing Anxiety except item Y10 were found not to have a signifi-cant relationship with regard to the three groups. In other words, Speaking and Listening Anxiety tended to vary with the heritage-learning status of Chinese language learners whereas Reading and Writing Anxiety did not.

More specifically, the researcher found heritage learners with Chinese lan-guage background to be less anxious about speaking and understanding Chinese than heritage learners without Chinese language background and non-heritage learners. Compared to heritage learners with Chinese language background, more heritage learners without Chinese language background and non-heritage learners endorsed items indicative of Speaking and Listening Anxiety such as "I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on in my Chinese class" (25.8% for Group 1, 17.9% for Group 2, 26.4% for Group 3. The order of the percentages is the same hereafter); "I feel very self-conscious about speaking Chinese in front of other students" (35.5%, 27.1%, 35%), "I get frustrated when I cannot distinguish among the Chinese tones even after I have worked hard to

Han Luo 17

learn them" (29%, 27.1%, 46.7%), "I get nervous when all the Chinese tones sound the same to me" (25.9%, 11.9%, 30.3%), "I get anxious when I don’t un-derstand what my classmates are saying in Chinese" (32.3%, 7.8%, 33.5%), "It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in Chinese" (38.7%, 15%, 32.7%).

4.2 The Influence of Background Variables In order to answer research question 2, ANOVA was used to compare mean

differences in Chinese Language Learning Anxiety with students' background characteristics as independent variables. The background variables examined here included: 1) gender, 2) school, 3) heritage-learning status, 4) ethnic back-ground, 5) year in college, 6) Chinese proficiency level, and 7) the elective vs. required status.

Since seven independent variables in the same ANOVA analysis may pro-duce unequal and small cells, three separate ANOVA analyses5 (i.e. three-way ANOVA by school, gender & heritage-learning status, two-way ANOVA by eth-nic background & college year, two-way ANOVA by proficiency level & re-quired-elective status) were conducted.

Before the ANOVA analyses were conducted, the researcher examined the normal distribution together with Skewness and Kurtosis to see whether the score of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety was normally distributed. Results showed that Chinese Language Learning Anxiety satisfactorily formed normal distribution and that the absolute value for the Skewness and Kurtosis was lower than 2. In addition, The Levene's tests for the three ANOVA tests (p= .214, .118, .928 respectively) were all not significant, suggesting that there was not sufficient evidence to indicate that the assumption of homogeneity of variance/covariance had been violated. All these results indicated that ANOVA analyses were appropriate for the current data.

4.2.1 Three-Way ANOVA by School, Gender and Heritage-learning Status Results of tree-way ANOVA analyses by school, gender, and herit-

age-learning status showed that there were no significant differences in Chinese Language Learning Anxiety by school (p=.981) or gender (p=.095), but there were significant differences by heritage-learning status (p=.0001). In other words, students from the two universities were not significantly different on Chinese 5 Three separate ANOVA analyses were adopted for this study mainly because the researcher worries that seven independent variables in the same ANOVA could produce unequal and small cells. This could be a limitation of this study. Future studies may need a larger sample to conduct analyses with the seven independent variables in the same ANOVA.


Language Learning Anxiety, and female and male students did not differ signifi-cantly on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety6. Heritage learners without Chi-nese language background (Group 1), heritage learners with Chinese language background (Group 2), and non-heritage learners (Group 3) experienced signifi-cantly different amounts of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety. None of the interactions between the three background variables was significant.

Table 5 Post-Hoc Analyses with Heritage-learning Status (I)Group2

(J)Group2 Mean Dif-

ference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Group 1 Group 2 7.3061* 2.28120 .006

Group 3 .4830 2.18362 .976 Group 2 Group 1 -7.3061* 2.28120 .006

Group 3 -6.8231* 1.20921 .000 Group 3 Group 1 -.4830 2.18362 .976

Group 2 6.8231* 1.20921 .000

A close look at the Scheffe Post-Hoc test (see Table 5) revealed that heritage learners without Chinese language background (Group 1) and non-heritage learners (Group 3) were not significantly different (p=.976) on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety, whereas heritage learners with Chinese language background (Group 2) was significantly different from both Group 1 and Group 3. Heritage learners with Chinese language background (M= 2.28) experienced significantly less anxiety compared to heritage learners without Chinese language background (M=2.74, p=.006) and non-heritage learners (M=2.71, p=.0001).

This result echoes Tallon's (2009) finding that heritage Spanish learners ex-perienced lower levels of foreign language anxiety than non-heritage learners, but Tallon did not further classify heritage learners into subgroups. In contrast, Comanaru & Noels (2009) reported that there were almost no differences in terms of motivation between heritage learners who declared Chinese as a mother tongue (corresponding to Group 2 in this study) and those who declared English as a mother tongue (corresponding to Group 1 in this study). Both heritage groups indicated that they chose to learn Chinese because they saw it as a means to achieve a goal that was personally important to them and because it was an 6 It is worth mentioning that female (M=2.84) and male (M=2.56) students’ anxiety levels in Chinese class were also reported not to be significantly different in Zhao and Whitchurch’s (2011) study.

Han Luo 19

integral part of who they were. As can be seen, although subgroups of heritage Chinese learners may be equally motivated, they could have different anxiety levels in Chinese class perhaps due to differences in prior exposure to Chinese.

Heritage learners with Chinese language background can speak or at least understand Mandarin or another variety of Chinese before taking Chinese courses. This advantage may make them more at ease in Chinese classes. In contrast, her-itage learners without Chinese language background have no prior exposure to the Chinese language. However, due to their cultural heritage or their Chinese “faces”, teachers or their families may have high expectations of them when it comes to learning Chinese. This might explain why heritage learners without Chinese language background in this study experienced the highest levels of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety among the three subgroups.

4.2.2 Two-way ANOVA by Ethnic Background & Year in the College Results of two-way ANOVA analyses by ethnic background and year in col-

lege showed that there were no significant differences in Chinese Language Learning Anxiety by ethnic background (p=.052) or year in college (p=.363). That is to say, the levels of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety experienced by Chinese American, Asian but not Chinese American, Asian international students, and Non-Asians (i.e., White, Hispanic, African American, etc.) were not signifi-cantly different; freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors and graduate students' anxiety levels did not differ from one another significantly either.

4.2.3 Two-Way ANOVA by Proficiency Level & Elective-required Status Results of two-way ANOVA analyses by proficiency level and elec-

tive-required status) showed that elective-required status had no significant effect on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety (p=.600), but there were significant dif-ferences by proficiency level (p=.0001). The interaction effect of elec-tive-required status by proficiency level was not significant (p=.099).

The finding that elective-required status had no significant effect on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety was not expected. Students who take Chinese as a required course are likely to feel more pressed to perform well in Chinese classes, so the researcher thought these students may experience more anxiety than their counterparts. In contrast with the finding of this study, Aida (1994) did find that the Required Group had a significantly higher level of anxiety than the Elective Group among Japanese language learners. As the survey of the present study was conducted in the fall semester, a large number of participants were freshmen who had not declared their majors yet at the time. This group of students tended to mark the Chinese course as “elective”, but it may turn out to be a required course


later, which may have affected the results. Therefore, further study on the effect of course type on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety is needed.

Table 6 Post-Hoc Analyses with Proficiency Level (I) Proficiency Level

(J) Profi-ciency Level Mean Differ-

ence Std. Er-ror Sig.

1 2 1.7697 1.31818 .407 3 6.3685* 1.54141 .000

2 1 -1.7697 1.31818 .407 3 4.5988* 1.71713 .029

3 1 -6.3685* 1.54141 .000 2 -4.5988* 1.71713 .029

A close examination of the Post-Hoc Sheffe analysis with proficiency level (see Table 6, 1= elementary; 2=intermediate; 3=advanced) revealed that both elementary and intermediate students' anxiety levels were significantly different from those of advanced students (p=.0001, .029 respectively). Elementary stu-dents and intermediate students did not differ significantly (p=.407). Elementary students experienced the highest level of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety, followed by intermediate, with advanced students being the least anxious. In oth-er words, as proficiency level or years of Chinese study increased, CFL learners’ anxiety levels decreased.

When students first start to learn Chinese, they could be easily intimidated by the foreignness of the Chinese language such as tones and characters or frustrated by the requirements and assignments of Chinese classes. As they move on to the intermediate or advanced level, they could get more used to the Chinese language and the Chinese classroom practices and thus be less anxious. In addition, stu-dents who choose to continue studying Chinese for the third year are likely to be more motivated and confident in learning Chinese, which may also contribute to their lower levels of anxiety in Chinese classes.

Many studies (e.g. Liu, 2006; Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009) have shown that language anxiety differs across proficiency levels, but the results on specific relationships between proficiency levels and foreign language anxiety have been mixed. For example, in Liu's (2006) study of EFL learners in China, more profi-cient students tended to be less anxious. In Marcos-Llinas & Garau’s (2009) study of Spanish learners in the U.S., advanced learners showed higher levels of anxiety than beginning and intermediate learners. Zhao and Whitchurch (2011)

Han Luo 21

found that elementary college-level CFL learners in the U.S. were a little more anxious than the intermediate learners, but the difference was not significant. It seems that more studies on anxiety and proficiency level under different circum-stances are needed.

5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study found that College-level CFL learners in the U.S. were not very anxious on average (M=2.58), not as anxious as foreign language learners of Spanish and Japanese in previous studies (e.g. Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; Aida, 1994). However, frequency analyses showed that quite a number of CFL learners experienced high levels of anxiety in all four skills, indicating that Chi-nese Language Learning Anxiety should be taken into serious consideration in Chinese instruction. Considering the fact that anxiety interferes with foreign language learning, it is important for CFL instructors to be aware that quite a number of students might be highly anxious in their classes. It is also essential that instructors be able to identify these anxious students in the class. Therefore, it is recommended that CFL instructors should receive proper training on foreign language anxiety. For example, a good knowledge of the symptoms or manifestations of foreign language anxiety could help instructors to identify highly anxious learners. Common manifestations of foreign language anxiety include distortion of sounds when speaking, freezing up when called on to perform, forgetting words and phrases just learned, refusing to speak and remain silent, complaining of difficul-ties discriminating the sounds and structures when listening to a foreign language message, over-study without any improvement in grades, a desire to gain teacher approval, avoiding eye contact, joking, short answer responses, avoiding activi-ties in class, coming unprepared to class, acting indifferent, cutting class, putting off taking the foreign language until the last year, and crouching in the last row (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Young, 1991). This study also found that heritage learners with Chinese language back-ground experienced significantly less anxiety in Chinese class than non-heritage learners and heritage learners without Chinese language background. Heritage learners without Chinese language background were found to be more anxious than non-heritage learners, but these two groups did not show a significant dif-ference.

Heritage learners with Chinese language background were significantly less anxious than non-heritage learners and heritage learners without Chinese lan-guage background probably because they had intensive prior exposure to the


Chinese language at home. In other words, heritage learners with Chinese lan-guage background had higher proficiency levels than the other two groups. Con-sidering the fact that peer competition is a major source of foreign language anx-iety (e.g. Luo, 2012), it is important for instructors to acknowledge the differ-ences among the three sub-groups of CFL learners and, if possible, to instruct them in three separate groups. At least, Chinese heritage learners with Chinese language background should not be in the same class with non-heritage learners or heritage learners without Chinese language background.

Chinese instructors may also need to pay attention to the finding that heritage learners without Chinese language background had even higher anxiety levels than non-heritage learners. This group of learners have a Chinese "face". Their cultural heritage could cause instructors and peers to impose a high expectation on them in terms of Chinese learning, which, in turn, causes anxiety. Thus, it is important for instructors to understand that heritage learners without Chinese language background have no advantage in Chinese learning compared to non-heritage students. Appropriate expectations from instructors would probably help alleviate this group of learners' anxiety in Chinese class. Another major finding of this study revealed that proficiency level had a sig-nificant effect on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety. More specifically, ad-vanced learners were found to be significantly less anxious than elementary and intermediate learners. Intermediate learners were less anxious than elementary learners although the two groups' anxiety levels did not differ significantly. The high levels of anxiety among elementary learners could be due to the fact that they were intimidated by the "foreignness" of the Chinese language or due to the possibility that they were not familiar with the classroom practices and requirements in Chinese classes. Therefore, it may be advisable for instructors to hold orientation workshops for beginners, demystifying the Chinese language and informing them about the requirements, classroom practices, and efforts expected for Chinese classes, which may help students be emotionally prepared for Chinese classes. In addition, the finding that learners get less anxious as their proficiency lev-els increase may suggest that increasing exposure to the target language could reduce foreign language anxiety. If this is the case, instructors may be advised to create more opportunities for the students to be exposed to the Chinese language outside classroom. For example, instructors could involve the students in local Chinese communities or use internet technology to set up virtual Chinese com-munities for the students.

Han Luo 23

REFERENCES Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of for-

eign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. Modern Lan-guage Journal,78, 155-168.

Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2003). Foreign Language anxiety and Student Attrition. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7, 304-308.

Comanaru, R. & K. A. Noels (2009). Self-determination, motivation, and the learning of Chinese as a heritage language. The Canadian Modern Lan-guage Review, 66, 131-158.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and mo-tivation: Results of a national longitudinal survey. Applied Linguistics, 23,421–462.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective var-iables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.

Gardner, R. C., Moorcroft, R., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1987). The role of anxiety in second language performance of language dropouts. Research Bulletin No. 657. London, Ontario, Canada: The University of Western Ontario.

He, A. & Y. Xiao. (2008). Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry. Honolulu: University of Hawaii National Foreign Lan-guage Resource Center.

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal, 89, 563–581.

Kondo-Brown, K., & Brown, J. D. (2008). Teaching Chinese, Japanese and Ko-rean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment. ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional series. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Le, J. (2004). Affective characteristics of American students studying Chinese in China: a study of heritage and non-heritage learners' beliefs and foreign language anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.


Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System, 34, 301-316.

Luo, H. (2012). Sources of Foreign Language Anxiety: Towards a Four-dimension Model. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 12, 49-61.

Luo, H. (2011). Construction of a Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) anxiety scale: towards a theoretical model of foreign language anxiety. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as pre-dictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and So-cial Psychology, 15, 3–26.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39, 251-275.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Methods and results in the study of anxiety in language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85-117.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Investigating language class anxiety using the focused essay technique. Modern Language Journal, 75,296-304.

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44,283-305.

Marcos-Llinas, M & Garau, M. (2009). Effects of language anxiety on three pro-ficiency-Level courses of Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign lan-guage Annals, 42, 94-111.

MLA (Modern Language Association). (2006). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, all 2006. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/2006_flenrollmentsurvey.

Mccroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. SpeechMonographs, 37, 269-277.

Norman, J. (1996). Leaning Chinese in the 1990s. ADFL Bulletin, 27, 4-8. Oh, M-J T. (1996) Beliefs about language learning and foreign language anxiety:

a study, of American university, students learning Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.

Phillips, E. M. (1990). The effects of anxiety on performance and achievement in an oral test of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

Pease, J. (1996). Teaching Chinese at an Urban University. ADFL Bulletin, 27, 9-13.

Han Luo 25

Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K. & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83, 202-218.

Saito, Y. & Samimy, K. (1996). Foreign language anxiety and language perfor-mance: A study of learner anxiety in beginning, intermediate, and ad-vanced-level college students of Japanese. Foreign Language Annals, 29,239-251.

Samimy, K. K.& Tabuse, M. (1992). Affective variables and a less commonly taught language: A study in beginning Japanese classes. Language Learning, 42, 377-398.

Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 193-216). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.

Spitalli, E. J. (2000). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and at-titudes toward multicultarilism in high-school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Benedictine University, Lisle, IL.

Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish: A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 112-137.

Walker, G. (1989). The less commonly taught languages in the context of Amer-ican pedagogy. In H. S. Lepke (Eds.), Shaping the future: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 111-37). Report of the Northeast Conference on the teaching of foreign languages. Middlebury, VT: The Northeast Confer-ence.

Watson, D. & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457.

Wen, X. (1997). Motivation and language learning with students of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 235-251.

Wen, X. (2011). Chinese Language Learning Motivation: A Comparative Study of Heritage and Non-heritage Learners. Heritage Language Journal, 8(3), 41-66.

Zhao, A. & A. Whitchurch (2011). Anxiety and its Associated Factors in Col-lege-Level Chinese Classrooms in the U.S. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, 46, 21-47.

Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its Associated Factors

Documents

Transcript of Chinese Language Learning Anxiety and its Associated Factors