92 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) April, 2020

Home , Foreign language anxiety, Heritage language

92 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Heritage Language Anxiety in Two Spanish Language Classroom Environments: A Comparative Mixed Methods Study

Josh Prada Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Paola Guerrero-Rodriguez Diego Pascual y Cabo University of Florida

ABSTRACT While research into foreign language anxiety (i.e., nervousness towards using the second/additional language) has increased substantially in the last decade, little is known about how language anxiety operates among heritage speakers. Following Tallon’s early works on the topic (2009, 2011) and recent publications (e.g., Sevinç & Dewaele, 2018), the present study further conceptualizes and explores the nature of heritage language anxiety in two different classroom environments at the university level: the traditional Spanish (for second language learners) class, and the Spanish for heritage speakers class. Thirty participants completed (i) the DASS21 scale (Rehka, 2012), (ii) a modified version of the foreign language anxiety scale (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014), and (iii) semi structured individual interviews. Participants were distributed between two groups: those in the control group (N=14) were enrolled in a Spanish class for second language learners and those in the experimental group (N=16) were completing a Spanish for heritage speakers course. Results show consistently lower language anxiety rates among participants from the experimental group than among participants from the control group. Additionally, our analyses reveal the role of contextual variables in language anxiety emergence in these two commonly available types of Spanish classrooms.

KEYWORDS: heritage speakers, Spanish, heritage language anxiety, emotions, teaching and learning

1. INTRODUCTION Empirical work examining the emotional component of foreign and second language (L2) learning has enjoyed increased attention in the last decades. Within this body of work, foreign language anxiety (FLA) research, that is, research that examines nervousness toward using a foreign/second language, has been particularly active (e.g., Chao, 2003; Dewaele, 2010; MacIntryre, Gregersen, & Mercer, 2016; Agudo & de Dios, 2018; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre, 1995; Horwitz, 2010; Dewaele & Ip, 2013; Gkonou, Daubney & Dewaele, 2017). Informed by recent developments that call for the incorporation of more dynamic and more ecologically-oriented perspectives where multiple levels of activity come into focus (e.g., Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007; Kramsch, 2008; Ortega & Han, 2017; MacIntyre, 2017), we embrace the assumptions that FLA fluctuates over time, interacting with the learner’s individual differences (i.e., personality traits, emotion, and motivation) and also interacts with contextual factors.

Relatedly, recent work adhering to this approach has identified points of contact between FLA and other emotional and psychological states (e.g., Gregersen, MacIntyre, & Meza, 2014; Piniel &

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 93 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Csizér, 2015; Şimşek & Dörnyei, 2017; Waninge, 2015). An example is Gregersen, MacIntyre and Meza (2014), where six pre-service teachers wore a heart-rate monitor during individual presentations and completed subsequent interviews about their performance. Their findings showed that anxiety was not consistent among all six participants and that it increased as participants stumbled on words or the flow of their presentations underwent breakdowns. Gregersen et al. (2014) brings to light how emotional, cognitive, physical and behavioral levels come into play during episodes of anxiety arousal. Within these developments, most FLA research has focused on L2 teaching and learning contexts (e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre, 1995; Horwitz, 2010; Dewaele & Ip, 2013; Gkonou, Daubney & Dewaele, 2017) leaving the emotional dynamics of heritage speakers (HSs) in language classrooms largely underexplored. But why study language anxiety among Spanish HSs in the United States?

In the U.S. context, English is generally represented and assumed as the default language in mainstream narratives, political discourse, and popular culture (Fishman, 2006; Fuller, 2012. However, as of 2016, 21.6% of the US population aged 5 and older reported speaking a language other than English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016) with one out of every five school children speaking a language other than English at home or in the community (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Spanish is the most widely spoken language other than English with over 37 million speakers (Krogstad & Lopez, 2017). The implications of these demographics for Spanish language education are wide- ranging, and include, among others, the need to develop specific forms of teacher education, curricular design, and programmatic choices. More often than not, speakers of minoritized languages in the U.S. are educated in English-medium programs, with their home languages receiving close to no support, a situation that translates into limited opportunities to develop academic registers or to develop literacy skills in the heritage language (hereafter HL) (e.g., Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012; Carreira, 2004; Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Potowski, 2018). Additionally, HSs often come into contact with unsubstantiated narratives that describe the nature of their linguistic skills (particularly in the HL) as “deficient” or “broken.” Similarly, it is not uncommon for HSs to describe situations of linguistic shaming in Spanish classrooms at all levels (e.g., Carreira & Beeman, 2014). Because of these and other reasons HL learners are often affected by shame and insecurities when using their HL, which in turn may affect their linguistic development (e.g., Cho, Cho, & Tse, 1997) and influence classroom engagement/learning outcomes.

A fundamental difference between HL and L2 learners that makes language anxiety an interesting construct to explore resides in the characteristics of HSs. Unlike L2 learners, HSs acquired their HL naturalistically and from birth (e.g., Valdés, 2000; Polinsky & Kagan, 2007; Rothman & Treffers-Daller, 2014). We therefore follow the rationale that, as native speakers of the HL, the emergence of what appears to be FLA seems surprising, at least taxonomically. Tallon (2011) was accurate to point out early on the need to approach FLA among HSs only after recognizing that the HL is not a “foreign” language for these students (p. 78). As we operate under the definition of HSs as native speakers of the HL, the study of anxiety and nervousness as derived from the mere use of somebody’s native language opens a number of questions. Some of these questions connect with the literature on language and emotions at the theoretical level, such as: why are HSs often described as prone to experiencing discomfort/uncertainty/nervousness when using their HL? What is the nature of heritage language anxiety (hereafter HLA) as a construct? Is it closer to performance anxiety than it is to FLA? How does HLA connect with other psychological

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 94 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

constructs, such as motivation and willingness to communicate? Other questions are more practically-oriented, for example: what are the factors that make this type of native speaker experience HLA in the language classroom context? Is it because of the influence of contextual pressures? What is the role played by potential internalized fears/trauma stemming from previous experiences with monolingual speakers? And are there pedagogical practices that could help HSs regulate their HLA?

Considering the above, a more detailed understanding of the nature of HLA, as well as the factors contributing to its emergence, can help us move towards a more theoretically-saturated model of HSs’ linguistic behavior that connects with socio-affective profiles and contextual elements. To that end, this study follows Tallon’s (2011) call for “further research” into “the type of anxiety experienced by HSs” (p. 78) with a two-fold purpose. First, we seek to extend our current conceptualizations of HLA by approaching mixed data from an ecological perspective. Second, reflecting our roles as educators, we endeavor to better understand how HLA emerges in two types of Spanish classrooms commonly available to HL learners at the college level: the L2 Spanish classroom (i.e., so-called mixed classrooms) and the Spanish for HSs classroom. While these two settings are at times found side by side in Spanish departments/programs, they are defined by different rationales, guiding philosophies, and goals/objectives (e.g., Pascual y Cabo & Prada, 2018).

To be clear, we seek to advance our understanding of HLA through an ecological/dynamic perspective adhering to conceptualizations of FLA that incorporate a “contextualized” nature and that define it as continuous “interaction with a number of other learner [and] situational” elements, as well as with “other factors including linguistic abilities, physiological reactions, self-related appraisals, pragmatics, interpersonal relational relationships, specific topics being discussed, and type of setting.” (MacIntyre, 2017, p. 23).

2. BACKGROUND 2.1. Foreign Language Anxiety and Heritage Language Anxiety FLA refers to “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, p. 128) whose effects on the body range from tenseness, trembling, perspiring, and palpitations (Horwitz et al., 1986) to stutter (Blood, Blood, Maloney, Meyer & Qualls, 2007). Subsequently, anxiety measurements can be taken in three ways: 1) behavioral observation; 2) physiological assessment (e.g., heart rates or blood pressure tests); 3) participants’ self-reports (Casado & Dereshiwsky, 2001; Daly, 1991), with the latter being the most commonly used in the field of education (Zheng, 2008). Considering that self-reports are based on participants’ inner feelings and reactions, they can be adapted to measure FLA in the specific context(s) the researcher seeks to measure.

Considering the wide use of participants’ self-reports in the research of LA in educational settings, one of the most common instruments is Likert scales (e.g. Aida, 1994; Ganschow & Sparks, 1996; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Price, 1988; Schlesinger, 1995, Von Wörde, 2003), more precisely the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) developed by Horwitz et al. (1986). The FLCAS is a 33-item scale that is self-reported and ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 95 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

From these 33 items, negative statements (n=9) are inverse coded. The FLCAS measures FLA levels in three areas: communication apprehension, fear of evaluation by peers and teachers, and fear of language tests. This flexibility allows the researcher to focus on the FLA areas of their interest.

2.1.1. Core findings in FLA Early works defined FLA as a form of anxiety related to three other anxiety types, namely, communicative apprehension (McCroskey, 1977), test anxiety (Alpert & Haber, 1960; Sarason, 1978), and fear of negative evaluation (Watson & Friend, 1969). Over time, however, this relation showed non-significant correlations raising fundamental questions about the nature of the construct (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986). From these early conceptualizations, staple works in FLA have made the following assumptions: FLA is not just the combination of test anxiety, communication apprehension, and fear of negative evaluation (e.g., Horwitz, 2010; 2017); FLA connects with other individual differences (e.g., Dewaele, 2002; Rubio-Alcalá, 2017) and with learner-external factors (i.e., contextual elements) (e.g., Gkonou, 2017).

Speaking competency is the skill that most commonly triggers language anxiety (e.g., Swain and Burnaby, 1976; Zheng, 2008). For instance, Swain and Burnaby (1976) observed 63 Canadian kindergarten students immersed in a French program and 68 Canadian kindergarten students enrolled in an English program. Overall findings indicated that class environment had a negative effect on (e.g., enhanced) language anxiety when participants spoke in the target language (i.e., French). Moreover, reading anxiety seems to be linked to the target language’s writing system and how difficult the learner believes reading in the FL is (e.g., Saito, Horwitz, & Garza, 1999; Sellers, 2000; Zheng, 2008), and “learners with higher levels of FL learning anxiety also tend to have higher levels of listening anxiety” (Elkhafaifi, 2005, p. 214).

Moreover, perfectionist tendencies have been identified to play an important role when anxious learners feel unsatisfied with their accomplishments and pay more attention to the mistake they make when compared with non-anxious learners (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002). In their study, Gregersen and Horwitz selected eight students from a pool of respondents. In a previous study by the same authors, four respondents were described as anxious and four were described as not anxious. This study showed strong correlations between high FLA levels and perfectionism. Also focusing on individual differences, Şimşek and Dörnyei (2017) talked about ‘the anxious self.’ Through qualitative data from very anxious learners, the authors explored their participants’ accounts about becoming overtly aware of themselves and their behaviors when they are anxious. Because of findings such as these, Dewaele and Al-Saraj (2015) warn that learners’ individual differences and the psychological traits caused by anxiety should not be taken for granted.

2.1.2. Towards an Understanding of Heritage Language Anxiety While FLA as an isolated construct has received little attention in HL research, notions of nervousness, insecurity, discomfort, negative judgment, and apprehension have been documented widely (e.g., Krashen, 1998; Lee, 2009). These negative emotions have been linked to feelings of shame and frustration reflecting what some have characterized as lack of proficiency in the HL (Chhuon, 2011). Krashen (1998) talked about HSs experiencing linguistic shyness and having a tendency towards avoiding interaction to minimize embarrassment and feelings of inadequacy. In

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 96 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

line with this point, there are many accounts of HS proficiency as stigmatized in the Spanish classroom (e.g., Acevedo, 2003; Colombi, 2003; Parodi, 2008). Villa (2004), however, argues that the varieties themselves spoken by HSs suffer stigmatization, rather than HS speech. Consequently, HSs, as speakers of stigmatized varieties, are caught between the majority’s pressure to assimilate into the Anglo culture, and the criticism and rejection exerted by teachers and classmates (Carreira, 2004; Felix, 2009).

In light of the above, implicit descriptions of HSs experiencing negative emotions in relation to their HL, often in educational contexts, do abound (for a good example of this line of work see Potowski, 2002), although instances of empirical research into HLA are few.

Generally, HLA refers to the specific type of anxiety linked to negative feelings of physical or emotional discomfort experienced in connection with using the HL. Like FLA, HLA can be an inner characteristic of an individual’s personality that remains stable, it can be triggered as a situation-specific anxiety, or as a state anxiety experienced moment-to-moment (Tallon, 2009). Drawing from sociocultural theory, Swain (2013) points out that emotions are not only inner reactions experienced by an individual, but socially and culturally-bounded reactions, which in combination with cognition mediate learning. This conceptualization of emotions as embodied, contextually-sensitive, and dynamic in nature, guides our own take on emotions. Considering Swain’s perspective, HLA, as a type of emotion, can be externally triggered by the need to use the HL itself, the speaker’s relationship with their interlocutors, or the context in which a specific register of the HL may be expected. In addition, language anxiety can be related to the opportunities of practicing the HL, which can be limited, leading to inhibition in certain activities, such as speaking (Sevinç, 2018), or even the (in)ability to understand a message produced in the HL. As we see it, a fundamental difference between FLA and HLA is that the former does not incorporate a history of instances of linguistic shaming, bullying, oppression and stigma. HSs, on the contrary, are partly defined by their historical formation as problematized multilinguals. Therefore, it is critical to emphasize that as a theoretical concept, for us, HLA results partly from the internalized pressures HSs are exposed to in their day-to-day experiences, as described earlier.

Considering the above, it should come as no surprise that HSs may experience language anxiety, both in the classroom and in their daily lives. Recently, Sevinç and Dewaele (2018) investigated HLA and majority language anxiety, a term introduced by the authors to refer to nervousness and the use of the official (or majority) language of a country or region among 116 Turkish immigrants from three different generations living in the Netherlands. Their ages ranged from 11 to 85 years old. They completed a questionnaire that included demographic information, language background and competence, HLA and attitudes and experiences. Results showed that HLA was higher for members of the third generation, while the first and second generation of immigrants showed higher levels of majority LA. In a related study, Sevinç (2017) examined LA experienced by 30 Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands when speaking in their majority and minority languages. The research design included measurements of electrodermal activity: skin conductance level and skin conductance response while retelling a story in both Turkish (minority language) and Dutch (majority language). As was also the case in Sevinç and Dewaele (2018), Sevinç’s (2017) results provided evidence that immigrants of the third-generation experience

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 97 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

higher levels of anxiety when speaking in the minority language. In contrast, the first- and second- generation participants showed higher levels of anxiety in the majority language.

Despite the relevance and importance of examining anxiety in language learning, few studies have actually explored HLA in the language classroom setting. One of them, in the Chinese HL context, was conducted by Xiao and Wong (2014), who explored HLA levels of 87 learners attending courses at two U.S. universities. They employed a combination of anxiety scales for the four skills (i.e., writing, reading, speaking and listening) to investigate anxiety levels regarding each one, concluding that writing was the most anxiety-inducing skill, followed by reading. This brings to light the role different writing systems may play in classroom HLA, despite native/heritage non- native/L2 learner taxonomies.

With a focus on Spanish, Tallon (2009) investigated the HLA among 209 Spanish HL learners and 204 L2 learners in the US. Participants completed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). His results showed that HL learners experienced lower levels of anxiety than the L2 learners. The author opined that “instructors first need to be aware of the existence of foreign language anxiety [and] realize that language classes can be intimidating for some students” (Tallon, 2009, p. 125).

Considering the existing literature, and reflecting the study we describe below, we conceptualize HL anxiety as a sense of insecurity and nervousness when HSs use their HL to complete educational, professional or social tasks that require (meta)socio-linguistic resources which (1) HSs have not had opportunities to acquire/develop, and/or which (2) HSs have acquired/developed but are conceptualized as deficient/insufficient by their interlocutors given their (i.e., the interlocutors’) biases in terms of what is linguistically good and right. With this in mind, we now turn to presenting the study.

3. THE PRESENT STUDY The present study explores the relationship between HLA and two commonly available instructional contexts among undergraduate Spanish HSs in the US (i.e., Spanish as an L2 classroom and Spanish as a HL classroom). While HL courses are becoming more common, Spanish classrooms (those designed with L2 learners in mind) continue to be the de-facto option for Spanish students (regardless of their profile) in U.S. colleges and universities. Beaudrie (2012) reviewed a total of 173 universities in the US and found that only 66 of them, or 38%, offered Heritage Language programs and courses. Following Draper and Hicks’s (2000) view that ‘‘the educational system historically has not given priority status to the nurturing of the linguistic abilities of its language minority students’’ (2000, p. 15), Leeman (2012) characterized current Spanish programs as prioritizing L2 learners and neglecting the needs of HSs.

3.1. Pedagogical Contexts: a Spanish for L2 Learners Classroom and a Spanish for HSs Classroom Given that programmatic and departmental differences may result in significant variations among classes and courses across institutions, a necessary first step towards defining our methodology is to provide a clear description of the curricular contexts where the study took place. Both groups

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 98 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

attended intermediate Spanish courses offered by the same modern languages department, and both courses were at the 2000 level (second year). We now turn to describing them.

The Spanish for L2 learners program was large, with over 1,500 students enrolled in any given year. These courses were mostly taught by graduate students completing the Spanish (MA and PhD) programs in the department. All instructors were required to complete a teaching methods course, as well as a semester of compulsory shadowing as they taught their first class. At the time of data collection, the program was following a flipped approach, where students completed online activities focused mostly on grammar and vocabulary, and were exposed to interactive tasks within a communicative framework in the classroom. The class included a cultural component, where students completed readings at home, engaged in classroom discussion, and developed a final project.

The primary goal of these classes was the development of communicative skills in Spanish; while an emphasis on culture was included in the curriculum, due to time restrictions, language development and literacy skills were prioritized. This was reflected not only in the materials used and the classroom activities, but also in the teacher training processes and the assessment materials. There was a target-language policy in the classroom, and error correction and feedback were mostly directed towards non-target grammatical production.

While most students in these classes grew up speaking English (or a language other than Spanish at home) and had no familial or community linkages to Spanish, its speakers, or its cultural affiliations, it was common for instructors to identify some HSs in their groups every semester. HLLs may have been in L2 classrooms for several reasons, including that they may not have completed the placement test, or had scheduling overlaps but needed to take Spanish credits that semester to graduate on time. Once identified, these students were normally informed about the HSs track and given the option to change classes; some of them did while others did not. The respondents from the L2 classroom (the control group) included in this study were all HSs who for a variety of reasons did not enroll in the Spanish for HSs program although they were offered an opportunity to do so.

The second context, a Spanish for HSs program, was also taught by graduate students in the Spanish program. All instructors had been teaching Spanish for L2 learners for at least two semesters before they were allowed to teach in the HSs track. The program director selected new instructors each semester who were trained in Spanish as a HL and socialized into the philosophy informing the program. As training, besides completing the same compulsory teaching methods course required for all Spanish graduate students, they completed a 10-session semester of dedicated shadowing and assistance/active participation in the weekly meetings, all of which were headed by the program director. All prospective HL instructors had to formally apply to teach in the HSs program by providing a statement of purpose.

The HL class curriculum was underpinned by core practices and philosophical positions in the field of Spanish teaching and learning for HSs (e.g., Valdés, 2001; Beaudrie, Ducar & Potowski, 2014; Pascual y Cabo & Vergara Wilson, 2019; Pascual y Cabo & Prada, 2018). A central component was the sociolinguistically-informed nature of the curriculum, reflecting the linguistic

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 99 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

and affective needs of the learners on the one hand, and the social-historical configurations of the area on the other. Moreover, classroom dynamics resembled those of a language arts class, rather than those of a language class, drawing from a variety of topics depending on the instructor’s area of expertise (i.e., literary studies, language studies, cultural studies), and incorporated discussions and reflections about social issues. Classroom materials were designed for HS groups and online coursework was kept to a minimum.

3.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses Considering the differences between both learning environments described above, two research questions drive this study:

1. How do heritage speaker instructional contexts (HL class vs. FL/SL class) interface with Heritage Language Anxiety (HLA)? 2. Which specific aspects of these two contexts impact Heritage Language Anxiety?

Regarding the first question, we hypothesized that given the curricular design of the HL program under study underpinned by the best practices shaping its pillars (e.g., Pascual y Cabo & Vergara Wilson, 2019), its focus on socio-affective factors and the training received by the instructors explained earlier, participants who were attending the Spanish for HSs course would experience lower degrees of HLA than those who were attending the traditional Spanish course for L2 learners. Regarding the second question, we hypothesized that normative language policy in the classroom, a sharp focus on metalinguistic knowledge, rigid grammar, and vocabulary evaluations, would trigger HLA among the participants.

3.3. Participants A total of 30 participants, 18 males and 12 females, took part in the study. The average age of participants was 23. All participants grew up in the United States and were exposed to Spanish in the household or in the local community. Eighty six percent of participants were born in the continental United States (mostly in the state of Texas) whereas 14% were born in other countries (mostly Mexico, Central American nations) or Puerto Rico) and relocated to the U.S. with their parents or relatives by the age of 5. All participants reported using Spanish daily at home or in the community. Importantly, they also reported using English on a daily basis, at home, work, and the university. Most participants except for one female began to acquire both English and Spanish before the age of 6. Before enrolling in their respective Spanish courses, all participants completed a placement exam and an individual interview that determined their speaker/learner profile as Spanish HSs. The core criteria used to determine who qualified as a HS included growing up exposed to Spanish, familial connection with a Spanish-speaking community, and showing some degree of bilingualism in Spanish and English. However, due to scheduling conflicts, some of them enrolled in Spanish as a second language courses.

At the time of data collection, all participants were completing a bachelor’s degree at a U.S. university in the U.S. Southwest. As part of their course requirements, all participants were enrolled in an intermediate Spanish college course. Fourteen of them were attending a Spanish as a L2 course, and 16 were attending a Spanish for HSs course. Table 1 shows the profile of the participants from each group.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 100 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Table 1.

Profile of the Participants from Each Group

Control Group Experimental Group (L2 Spanish course) (Spanish for HSs course) Number of students N=14 N=16 (N=30) Age of onset of Sequential N=5 Sequential N=6 bilingualism Simultaneous N=91 Simultaneous N=10 Gender Male: 10 Male: 8 Female: 4 Female: 8

3.4. Data Elicitation Instruments and Analysis Each participant completed three forms of data elicitation: (1) the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS21), (2) an adapted version of Horwitz et al. (1986)’s Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale based on Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014), and (3) individual semi-structured interviews. Data collection was done three weeks before the end of the semester. By delaying data collection until the end of the semester, we sought to allow for ample time for students to become acquainted with their classmates and instructors, to become acquainted with the pedagogical dynamics, and to fully experience each course type.

3.4.1. Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS21) The DASS21 is a clinical assessment tool used to measure depression, anxiety and stress. It contains 21 Likert-scale items, each ranging from 0 to 3, with 0 representing “did not apply to me at all” and 3 representing “applied to me very much, or most of the time”. For the purpose of this study, the DASS21 provided a baseline measure of participants’ anxiety and stress –the depression items were eliminated as this construct fell out of the scope of this study. As per the DASS21, two participants reported having general high levels of stress and anxiety, and therefore were removed from the study. The rest of the sample exhibited none to mild degrees of anxiety and stress, which are considered typical of late adolescents and young adults attending university courses.

3.4.2. Adapted Version of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale In their 2014 study, Dewaele and MacIntyre developed an adapted (shorter) version of Horwitz et al. (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale containing 8 Likert-scale items. Given that the present study is part of a larger project, and therefore other types of data were elicited, we opted for using this shortened version of the FLCAS in order to avoid exhausting the participants. Moreover, we adapted the wording in each item to reference the “Spanish class you’re currently taking.” For this version of the FCLAS, participants were asked to rate eight statements by choosing between anchors ranging from 1 to 5 (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree). All participants completed an online version of the questionnaire on Qualtrics ©, which was made accessible from the participants’ mobile devices and laptop computers.

3.4.3. Semistructured Individual Interviews

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 101 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Semistructured individual interviews were conducted in a lab setting and lasted from 14 to 23 minutes. Participants were asked if they had any linguistic preferences for the interview, and were told that could respond in Spanish, English or Spanglish with no restrictions. Four core questions drove the interviews: (1) How do you feel when speaking Spanish in Spanish class? (2) What kind of situation makes you feel uncomfortable or anxious in Spanish class? (3) Are there any specific activities that make you anxious? and (4) Are there any specific people that make you feel anxious when using Spanish in class? Each one of these questions was followed up by other questions for elaboration when necessary (e.g., Could you give me an example?; how did that happen?; why do you feel that happens?) Upon completion, the participants’ responses were transcribed and categories were identified through qualitative content analysis.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Due to the limited sample size, we opted for conducting a descriptive analysis of combined qualitative and quantitative data. Additionally, instead of focusing on traditional significance tests and values, which have been argued not to be the best proxy for gauging practical significance in our field (e.g., Plonsky & Oswald, 2014), our analysis is further supplemented with effect sizes, which better characterizes the meaningfulness of group differences (e.g., Cohen 1992; Plonsky & Oswald 2014). Following general guidelines, an effect size of .20 or lower is considered a small effect size, .50 is a moderate effect size and anything .80 or higher is considered a large effect size (Cohen, 1992; but see Plonsky & Oswald, 2014).

To begin our description of the data, we first present the quantitative data. Table 2 shows the average group responses, standard deviations and absolute Cohen’s d values for each of the eight questions of the adapted version of Horwitz et al.’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale, developed by Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014). As can be seen, our data shows consistent differences between members of the two groups in terms of their self-reported HL anxiety in the classroom context.

Table 2.

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale Scores for Each Group

HL L2 Cohen’s d Question Classroom Classroom value 1. Even if I am well prepared for Spanish class, I feel 1.57 (.64) 2.91 (1.09) 1.49 anxious about it

2. I always feel that the other students speak Spanish better 2.53 (.99) 2.25 (.98) .29 than I do

3. I can feel my heart pounding when I am going to be called 1.5 (.75) 2.75 (1.04) 1.37 on in my Spanish class

4. I do not worry about making mistakes in my Spanish class 2.47 (.79) 2.5 (.7) .04

5. I feel confident when I speak in my Spanish class 3.06 (.84) 2.2 (.63) 1.13

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 102 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

6. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my 2 (.84) 3 (.86) 1.17 Spanish class

7. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation 1.66 (.61) 3.07 (.82) 1.92 in my Spanish class

8. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my class 1.73 (.79) 2.9 (.8) 1.46

The first item, ‘Even if I am well prepared for Spanish class, I feel anxious about it’ connects general anxiety levels in the Spanish classroom to readiness. In this item, the experimental group reported an average score of 1.57 out of 4, over one point below the control group (2.91). We take this to indicate that, qualitatively, the HL classroom provides a less threatening environment for HSs. In fact, the qualitative data presented below explain how the pedagogical dynamics typical of this classroom environment, such as the discussion of social issues, the reflection on personal histories and the critical exploration of community issues, as well as the instructor’s personal investment in the classroom, promote a sense of belonging and allow students to drawn on their knowledge as resource for classroom participation. Responses to the second item ‘I always feel that the other students speak Spanish better than I do’ show how participants in the experimental group acknowledge that the overall fluency of the HL classroom is slightly higher than in the L2 classroom (2.53 vs. 2.25). This item brings to light a paradox that, in our view, deserves more attention in the literature: it is common for HSs enrolled in a HL course to evaluate their linguistic skills in Spanish to be below the group average. This issue, while directly connected to HL anxiety and performance anxiety, is also relevant to questions of motivation, self-esteem, and the histories of internalized deficit discourse HSs are exposed to throughout life (e.g., Carreira & Beeman, 2014). Interestingly, while HL groups are, by definition, heterogeneous, general low self-reported fluencies in comparison to other HSs is yet another window onto the emotional make-up of this student profile.

As to the third item ‘I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on in Spanish class,’ a typical physiological indication of nervousness/anxiety, HSs enrolled in the L2 classroom reported higher degrees of anxiety than those attending the HL course (2.75 versus 1.50). This result is particularly interesting in light of the previous item, raising the question: if HSs in a HL classroom report lower fluency when compared to other classroom members than HSs in a L2 classroom, why do they still feel less anxious when called on in class? Intuitively, one would hypothesize that there should be a correlation between being surrounded by speakers who are more fluent than oneself and higher anxiety when using the target language. To better understand this apparent mismatch, we must turn to the qualitative data (discussed below) which, taken together, describe the HL classroom as a non-threatening environment where students can be themselves and their linguistic skills are respected as they are, as opposed to questioned. Against this, we wonder whether answers to this question would be different (or more similar to those provided by the control group) had the survey been administered during the first classroom meeting of the semester instead of towards the end of the semester? We venture to speculate that answers would indeed be more consistent among both groups.

Regarding the fourth item ‘I don't worry about making mistakes in Spanish class’ (a reverse-coded item)’ both groups reported similarly. Here, the control group agreed slightly more with the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 103 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

statement, and therefore reported feeling slightly less worried about making mistakes in class, at 2.50, than the experimental group at 2.47. Besides the similar reports from both groups, a central aspect regarding this item is how both groups report to be “indecisive”.

The fifth item ‘I feel confident when I speak in Spanish class’ shows that the experimental group displays an average of 3.06, almost one point above the control group (2.20). Importantly, because this item is reverse-coded, it points towards lower levels of anxiety, and therefore, more confidence for those HSs enrolled in the HL classroom. The measurement of positive psychological traits, as is the case of enjoyment and confidence, is fundamental to arrive at a more holistic picture of emotional dynamics among HSs. We will get return to this point when discussing our qualitative data.

Moving on to the sixth item, ‘I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my Spanish class,’ HSs in the HL course report lower degrees of anxiety. More specifically, they report a whole point below the HSs attending the L2 course (2.00 vs. 3.00). Given that the entire pool of participants shared comparable sociolinguistic backgrounds, we take this to indicate that classroom/instructional factors may be responsible for such differences. In this case, we highlight the nature of the topics covered in oral interactions in both classes. HL courses cover a more relevant thematic variety than L2 classrooms. Students participating in the former may be expected to talk about issues of language and grammar, but also about their own experiences, their communities, their perspectives on socio-political issue, and so on, whereas HSs in L2 classes often will be =asked to provide answers related to target-structures, which heavily rely on their metalinguistic knowledge, an area in which HSs receive little or no training in school. Another issue raised in the qualitative data that is relevant to this question is the language policy of the classroom. As we discuss below, the qualitative component of the study unveiled a connection between the more flexible bilingual practices typical of the HL classroom and less fear to participate in class.

The groups’ responses to the seventh item, ‘I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in Spanish class’ also support the view that HSs in the HL classroom seem to experience lower degrees of HL anxiety (1.66 versus 3.07). As was the case with item six, we also connect these findings to the differential nature of discussions and the thematic focus of HL classrooms when compared to L2 classes. As for the last item, ‘It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my Spanish class,’ the experimental group reported to be over a point below the control group (with 1.73 and 2.90, respectively). Interestingly, regardless of the more personal (and a priori, perhaps intimidating) nature of HL classroom dynamics, HSs in the experimental group reported feeling less embarrassed to volunteer answers in class than the participants in the control group. To elaborate on this answer, it is important to consider that HSs may feel observed or even profiled due to the presupposed mastery of the language as Latinxs (e.g., Rosa, 2014). In the HL classroom this is normalized: all classroom members belong to the same broad category, whereas HSs in the L2 classroom are at times (often) a racial minority who is expected to also have expertise in the subject. Given that this presumed expertise in the subject is imagined and ideological, the pressure to know the accurate answer in an environment that regards metalinguistic knowledge and target structure accuracy in monolingual Spanish is an obvious source of uncertainty, and connectedly, HL anxiety. Taken together, the participants’ responses to these eight items provide

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 104 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

a consistent description of how HLA remains lower for those students enrolled in the HL course than for those completing L2 courses. To complement this picture of lower levels of HLA in HL courses, and to better understand what may trigger HLA, a qualitative exploration of the factors at play in the emergence of HLA is in order.

Five general themes emerged upon examination of the qualitative data: (1) the role of the teacher’s personality, (2) the nature of the topics covered in the materials and discussions, (3) the classroom linguistic policy, (4) belonging versus standing out among classroom members (in cultural and linguistic terms), and (5) explicit focus on grammar and monolingual behavior as target.

The role of the teacher’s personality is often brought to light in the students’ responses, particularly among those HSs attending the Spanish as a HL course. Participant 4, a HS in the HL course, provides an answer that is highly representative of how teachers may be a factor at play in triggering HL anxiety. P4 responded, “the biggest difference between [HL instructor] and other Spanish teachers I had is that [HL instructor] does not make you feel like you have to know the answer or you’ll be in trouble. Like, sometimes, in other classes I know the answer but I don’t wanna say it because if something is wrong…like…even a word or some pronunciation, the teacher will be like: ‘no, eso está mal’(no, that’s wrong). Of course, I don’t wanna talk in front of people like that… I mean, if you’re going to judge me for everything I say I’ll keep my mouth shut and go home”. Other participants in the experimental group shared similar perspectives, such as P8, who stated: “Ella [the HL instructor] no nos mira como si estamos hablando mal, y otros maestros de la universidad y también de la prepa eran muy diferente. Siempre estaban buscando los problemas y siempre los decían para que todos los otros estudiantes los podían oír…yo era el ejemplo de lo que está mal en español. Pero en esta clase no, siempre hay conversaciones y la maestra es más amistosa” (she [the HL instructor] doesn’t look at us as if we’re talking badly and other university instructors and also in high school were very different. They were always looking for mistakes, and they always pointed them out in front of everyone else…I was an example of bad Spanish. But in this class, I wasn’t, there are always conversations and the teacher is friendlier) Another important issue here is brought in by P3, who talked about the HL instructor acknowledging her own limitations when not understanding something one of the students would say. Participant 3 stated, “[HL instructor] sometimes wouldn’t understand something one of us would say…because we use Spanish from el rancho…you know, like… Mexican Spanish, and she is more proper…but she’d be like ‘that does that mean?’, like ‘that’s cool’, like… she was also learning…Other Spanish teachers always know everything…but she was interested in how we speak Spanish”. These participants illustrate how the instructor in the HL classroom centralized the students’ linguistic practices and their linguistic experiences, and was willing to learn from them, which, according to them, represents a drastic change from teacher-centered dynamics and standard language discourses typical of L2 classes. Conversely, P18’s response, who was in the L2 group, was representative of their group: “Sometimes I didn’t even know if I was speaking good Spanish or like I was making up a word…the teacher always says ‘this is how we say it in Mexico,’ or would sometimes smile…kinda laugh…when I said a word that wasn’t proper.”

The second theme that emerged in the data in connection to HLA concerns the topics covered in class. Generally, as foreshadowed, HL curricula focus on a variety of topics, which include grammar and linguistic structures, but also include readings and conversations about the US Latinx

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 105 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

experience, sociolinguistics, the community, and other social, linguistic and political issues, as opposed to L2 courses which focus on grammar structures and more superficial treatments of ‘Hispanic’ culture as foreign to U.S. Latinxs. P6, from the HS group, summarizes how the centralization of relevant topics and the discussion of local issues was helpful. She stated “I have never really taken a Spanish class that was about me…we spoke about Cuba and Mexico, but there are people in class that come from Cuba and Mexico, or their parents come from there…it’s more like we were talking about ourselves rather than about other countries…that was nice. When we spoke about Puerto Rico, I could talk about my granma cause she’s from Puerto Rico, and I could talk about myself as Puerto Rican.” P22, from the L2 group, explained that they were assigned to complete a final project that felt “fake”: “Our final project is like, you have to do a paper about Hispanics in the United States…like… cliché…like…we don’t talk about that…what am I going to say? Do you want me to talk about my family? It’s like a fake project, you know…nobody in that class cares about the Hispanic community…not even the teacher…” This contrast suggests that the treatment of topics that are relevant to our local population may help create a classroom environment that nurtures a sense of care, which over time, may translate into less threatening engagement/participation – and thus, less HLA.

The third category, the classroom linguistic policy, refers to the possibility that a more flexible approach to students’ linguistic repertoires may stimulate more open conversations. A representative couple of excerpts are taken from P21 and P2. P21, from the L2 group, emphasized how “I felt so embarrassed when I wasn’t sure if I was speaking Spanglish or Spanish…sometimes you don’t really know…or… maybe it’s not even Spanglish, but Spanish like… del rancho, you know?”, while P2, from the HS group described how it was refreshing to hear a teacher tell you that “we all speak Spanish differently” and “even she had to make an effort to understand other native speakers sometimes.” P2 continued by explaining how they were allowed to use English in groups, and to ask questions about grammar, and how the instructor often compared both languages during grammatical explanations. These answers support recent arguments that call for the incorporation of a translanguaging perspective in university Spanish HS classrooms (Leeman & Serafini, 2016; Prada, 2019; in press) in which the students’ linguistic repertoires are conceptualized as growing and evolving, with features that are typically described as English and Spanish interacting with one another in transformative ways (Prada, in press).

The fourth theme referred to whether participants developed a sense of belonging versus a sense of standing out among classroom members (in cultural and linguistic terms). For example, P7 from the L2 group stated “there are some other Hispanics in the class but, like… we don’t talk much…I sit next to two white girls, one spends the whole class on her phone and the other one is always talking and asking questions wearing her sorority shirt….” Similarly, P3 explained how he did not feel like he belonged in that class: “It’s a Spanish class for people who don’t know Spanish. I know Spanish. Most people look at me like, why you even here?”. Participants from the HS group, on the other hand, explained how “this class [the Spanish for HS class] is a really nice community. We’re in this together.” This was supported by P19, who explained how he “wasn’t expecting to find this kinda class at [university]. There really is a big Hispanic community on campus, and a lot of us meet in these classes...we have a lot in common.” The contrast between the perspectives from both groups brings into focus how the HS group enjoyed an environment that encouraged a sense of belonging, which in turn contributed to a more relaxed atmosphere.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 106 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Finally, the fifth category referred to the explicit focus on grammar characterizing the L2 classroom environment. More specifically, several respondents brought to light the “textbook Spanish” approach to teaching the target language and the emphasis on “how to write” (P4) and how to “say things right” (P12). Four out of 5 codes in this category came from the L2 group. For example, P6 stated that “it [the class] has a lot of grammar. Even things you don’t say…The quizzes have pictures and you have to write what it is, with acentos, and if you don’t get it right it’s all wrong. Sometimes I write something that’s almost right, but I don’t get any points because I missed like a ‘h’ or something, and then everyone else gets it right but can’t actually say anything. It’s a little frustrating.” Further, P12 explained how “if you don’t write things right with proper grammar you’ll get like a C, even if you can speak Spanish.” One participant from the HS group (P30) mentioned, only briefly, how “in class we learn some grammar and how to put the tildes markings, you know, but getting the message right is what matters, I think.” This last category suggests that conceptualizing the treatment of grammar, as well as spelling conventions, as part of a larger, more ecological framework including social and historical elements and critical readings and discussions create a less anxiety-inducing learning environment.

The above discussion lends support to our hypotheses that HL classes, given their multiple foci, the specific training received by its instructors (regarding HL teaching/learning), the materials used, and the flexible classroom language policy would create a more welcoming atmosphere for HL learners. Further, our data support the need for departments and institutions whose HS populations are substantial enough to incorporate HS-specific alternatives. This line of argument, in dialogue with current findings in the field, including strategies for literacy development in the HL (Belpoliti & Bermejo, 2019) and the psychological benefits of heritage language courses (e.g., Sanchez-Muñoz, 2016), continue to add empirical evidence to the need for higher education institutions to provide these courses and programs. Furthermore, our data may be used to inform neighboring areas of research and practice as it taps on the need to include readings and discussions about how emotions come into play with language acquisition and use in language teacher training courses in general, and SHL pedagogy courses in particular.

In fact, the findings in this study point to the need to research other emotions that HSs feel in these two instructional contexts, as well as in others (including study abroad and service learning). We show data on HSs experiencing more enjoyment in the HL classroom than in the L2 classroom, an area that remains fully unexplored in our field, at least through studies that target this construct. Alternatively, forthcoming work by ourselves, for example, brings into focus the interplay of emotional dynamics with identity work among HSs who are completing a study abroad program in their heritage countries. The participants’ narratives bear on affective changes and underscore the emotionally-laden trajectories that extend beyond HL anxiety. This strand of work joins other publications investigating socially-embedded attitudes and preconceived notions associated with the HL (and their communities of speakers), as well as issues of group membership or ethnicity embraced by L2 instructors that only foment the emotional discomfort and sense of shame of HL learners, and influence the self-efficacy HSs experience in regular L2 classroom settings.

As we see it, the role of emotions in HL practice is not only central to the classroom setting. We cannot help but wonder that if grammar-heavy environments/tasks stimulate higher HL anxiety

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 107 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

rates, how does it translate into experimental settings, particularly in designs that rely on written input? How can researchers working on HL acquisition and development in experimental settings devise data collection tools and contexts that do not induce HL anxiety in ways that results might be affected? Moreover, how is our current understanding of HL acquisition and performance affected by HL anxiety triggered by the methods/context used in the experiment itself? We therefore call for considering the potential effects of anxiety and nervousness in the description of research outcomes in experimental settings.

Before moving on to the conclusion, we offer four (brief) pieces of advice for instructors working with HSs who would like to move towards what we call socioaffectively responsive pedagogies. Firstly, different contexts promote different emotional dynamics. That, however, does not mean that we cannot adjust contextual factors in order to make them less anxiety-inducing. Secondly, designing a brief questionnaire based on the insight we have laid out in this article, and administering it to our students at the beginning of the semester, may provide teachers with key information (i.e., describing the individuals and the group) in terms of what pedagogical practices would best fit the group in question. Thirdly, we vouch for leveraging pedagogies that position the teacher as learner, at least at some points in the session, and in doing so encourage students to take responsibility to move the classroom forward. This comes into play in our fourth, and last piece of advice: engaging in flexible linguistic practices, at least in some moments, allows for bilingual students to act bilingually–a practice that is often considered malpractice in the Spanish language classroom (Prada, forthcoming). Decisions concerning the types of skills and knowledge included in curricula are inherently ideological, and monolingual language ideologies and la norma culta (“educated standard”) still guide fundamental pedagogical choices in the SHL classroom (Leeman, 2012). These ideologies typically cut across institutional levels and are naturalized and perpetuated through curricularization in multiple areas, from materials to teacher-training programs, affecting how instructors and students alike navigate the SHL classroom (Prada, 2019).

7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS This study contributes to current dialogues about the role of emotions in language learning. Specifically, it examines the notion of HL anxiety. Given the array of backgrounds, proficiencies and profiles exhibited by HSs, HL anxiety must be understood in close relationship with individual cultural, linguistic and historical formations, the personal traits linked to such processes, and with contextual pressures affecting particular exchanges. Thus, in short, we conceptualize HL anxiety as a sense of insecurity and nervousness when HSs use their HL to complete educational, professional or social tasks requiring (meta)socio-linguistic resources that (1) HSs have not had opportunities to acquire/develop, and/or (2) HSs have acquired/developed but are conceptualized as deficient/insufficient by their interlocutors given their (i.e., the interlocutors’) biases in terms of what is linguistically good and right.

Two questions drove this study: (1) Does instructional environment [HL vs. L2] have an effect on HL anxiety among college Spanish HSs in the US?, and (2) If so, what factors connect with/trigger HL anxiety?

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 108 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Mixed data obtained by means of an adapted version of the FLCAS and individual interviews were used to answer our questions. The pool of 30 HSs, fairly evenly distributed in two groups, consistently reported higher HL anxiety and nervousness in the Spanish as a L2 classroom than in the Spanish for HSs classroom. Additionally, a series of factors emerged from the qualitative data, including the role of the teacher’s personality, the nature of the topics covered in the materials and discussions, the classroom linguistic policy, belonging versus standing out among classroom members (in cultural and linguistic terms), explicit focus on grammar and expectations for monolingual behavior.

Given the limited work available in the area of HL teaching/learning and emotions, we emphasize the need to further explore how they interplay in different contexts, how they develop, and how we (as researchers and practitioners) can incorporate this body of work into our pedagogies. Pressing if broad, questions include, but are by no means limited to, how our students’ personal histories (which clearly include an emotional component) come into focus in our classrooms, how positive emotions come into play in our classrooms, and how particular classroom strategies stimulate different emotional responses. This makes us reflect on how teachers are educated to understand the emotional dynamics of our students, as well as how well we integrate interdisciplinarity across the different domains of our field. As we have said elsewhere (Pascual y Cabo & Prada, 2018; Prada, forthcoming), heritage language teaching and learning is a pedagogical activity that transcends the teaching/learning of language alone. Its focus is or should be flexible. As we gain more nuanced insight into the linkages between emotions, language use, language acquisition, and educational and social structures, we will approach a new, exciting, and important stage in our field: the socio-affective turn of heritage language studies.

REFERENCES Acevedo, R. (2003). Navegando a través del registro formal: Curso para hispanohablantes bilingües. In A. Roca and M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 257-268). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Agudo, M., & DeDios, J. (2018). Emotions in second language teaching. New York, NY: Springer. Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: the case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 155-167. Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 207-215. Beaudrie, S. M., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education Create. Beaudrie, S. (2012). Research on university-based Spanish heritage language programs in the United States: The current state of affairs. In Beaudrie, S., & Fairclough, M. (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 203-221). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Belpoliti, F., & Bermejo, E. (2019). Spanish heritage learners' emerging literacy: Empirical research and classroom practice. London, UK: Routledge. Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., Maloney, K., Meyer, C., & Qualls, C. D. (2007). Anxiety levels in adolescents who stutter. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40(6), 452-469.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 109 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Carreira, M., & Beeman, T. (2014). Voces: Latino students on life in the United States. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40-64. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term. Heritage Language Journal, 2(1). Available from http://www. heritagelanguages.org Casado, M. A., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (2001). Foreign language anxiety of university students. College Student Journal, 35(4), 539-551. Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 226-239. Chao, C.T. (2003). Foreign language anxiety and emotional intelligence: A study of EFL students in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station. Chhuon, V. (2011). Adolescent heritage speakers of less commonly taught languages in the United States. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(9), 666-676. Cho, G., Cho, K. S., & Tse, L. (1997). Why ethnic minorities want to develop their heritage language: The case of Korean‐Americans. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 106-112. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Colombi, M. C. (2003). Un enfoque funcional para la enseñanza del ensayo expositivo. In Roca, A., & Colombi, M. C. (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 78-95). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Daly, J. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for language educators. In Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 3-14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dewaele, J. M., & Al-Saraj, T. M. (2015). Foreign language classroom anxiety of Arab learners of English: The effect of personality, linguistic and sociobiographical variables. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 205-228. Dewaele, J. M., & Ip, S. T. (2013) The link between foreign language classroom anxiety, second language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among Chinese learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47-66. Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237– 274. Dewaele, J. M. (2010). Multilingualism and affordances: Variation in self-perceived communicative competence and communicative anxiety in French L1, L2, L3 and L4. IRAL- International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(2-3), 105-129. Dewaele, J. M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 23-38. Draper, J. B., & Hicks, J. H. (2000). Where we’ve been; what we’ve learned. In Webb, J. B., & Miller, B. L. (Eds.), Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the classroom (pp. 15-35). Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 206-220.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 110 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Felix, A. (2009). The adult heritage Spanish speaker in the foreign language classroom: A phenomenography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(2), 145-162.

Fishman, J. (2006). Acquisition, maintenance and recovery of heritage languages. In G. Valdés, J. Fishman, R. Chávez, & W. Pérez (Eds.), Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California (pp. 12–22). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fuller, J. M. (2012). Bilingual pre-teens: Competing ideologies and multiple identities in the US and Germany. New York, NY: Routledge. Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1996). Anxiety about foreign language learning among high school women. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 199-212. Gkonou, C. (2017). Towards an Ecological Understanding of Language Anxiety. In: Gkonou, C., Daubney, M & Dewaele, J, (Eds.), New Insights into Language Anxiety: Theory, Research and Educational Implications. Second Language Acquisition. Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & Dewaele, J. M. (Eds.). (2017). New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications. Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gregersen, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Meza, M. D. (2014). The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of learners' foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 574-588. Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non- anxious. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 562-570. Horwitz, E. K. (2017). On the misreading of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) and the need to balance anxiety research and the experiences of anxious language learners. New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications, 31-47. Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(2), 154-167. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132. Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41(3), 389-408. Krashen, S. (1998). Language shyness and heritage language development. In Krashen, S., Tse, L., McQuillan, J. (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 41-49). Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Lee, T. S. (2009). Language, identity, and power: Navajo and Pueblo young adults’ perspectives and experiences with competing language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8, 307–20. Leeman, J., & Serafini, E. J. (2016). Sociolinguistics for heritage language educators and students. In Fairclough, M., & Beaudrie, S. M. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 56-79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. (2012). Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a heritage language. Beaudrie, S. M., & Fairclough, M. (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 43-59). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 111 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & Dewaele, J-M (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11-30). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (Eds.). (2016). Positive psychology in SLA. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning., 39, 251-275. McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 78-96. Ortega, L., & Han, Z. (2017). Complexity theory and language development. Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Parodi, C. (2008). Stigmatized Spanish inside the classroom and out. In Brinton, D., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 199-214). New York, NY: Routledge. Pascual y Cabo, D., & Prada, J. (2018). Redefining Spanish teaching and learning in the United States. Foreign Language Annals, 51(3), 533-547. Pascual y Cabo, D. & Vergara Wilson, D. (2019). Teaching Spanish heritage language for the first time: Ten suggestions. American Association for Applied Linguistics Public Affairs Engagement Briefs. Retrieved from https://www.aaal.org/news/teaching-spanish-as-a- heritage-language-for-the-first-time-ten-suggestions Krogstad, J. M., & Lopez, M. H. (2017). Use of Spanish declines among Latinos in major U.S. metros] [Pew Research Center FactTank News in the Numbers article]. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/31/use-of-spanish-declines among- latinos-in-major-u-s-metros/ Piniel, K., & Csizér, K. (2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during the course of an academic writing seminar. Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning, 164-194. 10.21832/9781783092574-015. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368-395. Potowski, K. (Ed.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language. New York, NY: Routledge. Potowski, K. (2002). Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin, 33(3), 35-42. Prada, J. (2019). Exploring the role of translanguaging in linguistic ideological and attitudinal reconfigurations in the Spanish classroom for heritage speakers. Classroom Discourse, 10(3- 4), 306-322. Prada, J. (in press). Translanguaging thinking y el español como lengua de herencia. In Torres, J., & Pascual y Cabo, D. (Eds.) El Español como Lengua de Herencia. New York, NY: Routledge. Price, M. L. (1988). Anxiety and the foreign language learner: Correlates of foreign language anxiety (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50-02A, 0377.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 112 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Rekha, A. V. (2012). Adaptation and validation of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS21) among Students of the University of Colombo. Presentation from: Annual research Symposium 2012, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Retrieved from http://archive.cmb.ac.lk:8080/research/bitstream/70130/3898/1/Adaptation_and_validation.P DF Rosa, J. D. (2010). Looking like a language, sounding like a race: Making Latina/o panethnicity and managing American anxieties. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rubio-Alcalá, F. D. (2017). The links between self-esteem and language anxiety and implications for the classroom. New insights into language anxiety: theory, research and educational implications. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rothman, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2014). A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93-98. Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 202-218. Sarason, D. (1978). Function theory on the unit circle: Notes for lectures at a conference at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. Schlesinger, H. (1995). The effectiveness of anxiety reduction techniques in the foreign language classroom. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50-01A, 0139. Sellers, V. D. (2000). Anxiety and reading comprehension in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 512-520. Sevinç, Y. (2018). Language anxiety in the immigrant context. An interdisciplinary perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Norway. Sevinç, Y., & Dewaele, J. M. (2018). Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 159-179. Sevinç, Y. (2017). Language anxiety in the immigrant context: Sweaty palms? International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(6), 717-739. Şimşek, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Anxiety and L2 self-images: The ‘anxious self.’ In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney & J. M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety theory, research and educational implications (pp. 51–69). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195-207. Swain, M., & Burnaby, B. (1976). Personality characteristics and second language learning in young children: a pilot study. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 11, 76-90. Tallon, M. (2011). Heritage speakers of Spanish and foreign language anxiety: A pilot study. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 15(1), 70-87. Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish: A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 112-137. U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Quick Facts United States. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-80). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics. Washington, DC: CAL, ERIC; [McHenry, IL]: Delta Systems Co., Inc.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access 113 Heritage Language Journal, 17(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.1.4 April, 2020

Valdés, G. (2000). The teaching of heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic teaching professionals. In Kagan, O., & Rifkin, B. Rifkin, with Bauckus, S. (Eds.), The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures (pp. 375-403). Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Villa, D. J. (2004). Heritage language speakers and upper-division language instruction: Findings from a Spanish linguistics program. In Byrnes, H., & Maxim, H. (Eds). Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs. Issues in language program direction (pp. 88-98). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=ED482772 Von Wörde, R. (2003). Students' perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, 8(1), 27-44. Waninge, F. (2015). Motivation, emotion and cognition. Attractor states in the classroom. In Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 195-213). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448-457. Xiao, Y., & Wong, K. F. (2014). Exploring heritage language anxiety: A study of Chinese heritage language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 589-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12085 Zheng, Y. (2008). Anxiety and second/foreign language learning revisited. CJNSE/RCJCÉ, 1(1), 1-12.

NOTES

1. Sequential bilinguals are those individuals who acquired their second language after their mother tongue had been acquired, while simultaneous bilinguals are exposed to both languages from birth, or before the level that is typically constructed as native proficiency has been reached in one language during early childhood.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 06:35:43PM via free access