Student attitudes and Cantonese proficiency in a Cantonese dual immersion school

Abstract

Previous research reports the positive impact of dual immersion programs on students’ language proficiency, yet fewer studies have examined students’ attitudes in such programs. The current study examined student attitudes and language proficiency in a Cantonese dual immersion school and explored relationships between students’ attitudes and language proficiency in Cantonese. Language proficiency results showed that, on average, Cantonese immersion student performances indicated attainment of Intermediate High level in listening, Novice Mid level in reading, and Novice High level in writing. In addition, heritage learners outperformed non-heritage learners in reading and listening skills. Survey data revealed that heritage learners held more positive attitudes toward learning Cantonese compared to non-heritage learners but that there were no differences in attitudes toward the focal school between the two student groups. Regression analysis revealed that students’ attitudes towards the dual immersion school explained significant variance in their Cantonese reading, listening and speaking skills. Qualitative data also revealed that students’ positive attitudes toward their school were shaped by their experiences with their principal, teachers, and school activities. These findings shed light on the role that positive school and learning environments play in helping dual language immersion school students acquire proficiency in the partner language.

The presence and absence of race in world language education literature

“…Articles from these preliminary searches that did not appear in this article's search results explore topics such as: Black and African American student experiences in WL (e.g., Davis & Markham, 1991; Moore, 2005); Asian student attitudes toward WL learning (e.g., Wen, 1997; Yang, 2003; Yang et al, 2018); support for Indigenous language learning and the inclusion of Indigenous cultures in WL curricula (de Galbert & Woogen, 2021; Flintoff, 2002; Lee, 2014; Moreno‐Lopez et al, 2008); the development and inclusion of racially and linguistically minoritized curricula (e.g., Bostick, 1972; Clark, 1980, 1982; Jackson, 1978; Shirley, 1980; Williams, 1978); the intersection of racialization and heritage language status (e.g., Coryell & Clark, 2009; Grainger, 1997); WL instructional practices to support racially minoritized learners (Beyer & Kluck, 1982; Ford, 1978; Gómez Soler & Fuentes, 2021; Moore & English, 1998; Troyan et al, 2021); and the differential linguistic labor that racially minoritized students and teachers perform (e.g., Colomer & Harklau, 2009; Flori, 1982; Nichols & Colon, 2000).…”

Heritage language education in the United States: A national survey of college‐level Chinese language programs

“…He, ; Jia, ; Jia & Bayley, ; Ming & Tao, ; Xiao, , , , , , ), identity issues (A. He, , ; Wong & Xiao, ; Wu & Leung, ), dialect CHL learners (Dai & Zhang, ; Wong & Xiao, ; Wu & Leung, ), comparison of HLs’ and nonheritage language learners’ proficiency development (Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva, ; Xu, Padilla, & Silva, ; Yang, Leung, Tong, & Uchikoshi, ), motivation (Comanaru & Noels, ; Wen, ), and anxiety (e.g., Luo, ; Xiao & Wong, ).…”