Carreira’s (
2014,
2017) national survey of 294 college-level language programs showed that there are HL programs available in many of these minority languages across the United States. At the time the survey results were published, HL programs were available in Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Farsi, Hindi/Urdu, and Arabic. However,
Carreira (
2017) identified notable differences related to what types of programs were offered for each of these languages. For instance, while approximately 80% of the Spanish programs surveyed offered HL courses, just over 50% of the Chinese programs and only 25% of Hindi/Urdu programs had similar course offerings. Spanish is the heritage language with the highest rates of program availability and the one that is most diverse in terms of course offerings. Programs created specifically for Spanish HL learners have been continuously implemented in the United States over the last two decades (
Beaudrie 2012;
Carreira 2017;
Potowski 2018), and it is expected that the demand for Spanish HL courses will continue as the Hispanic student population continues to grow in higher education contexts (
Beaudrie 2020).
1.2. Previous Research in Mixed HL/L2 Teaching Contexts
Previous research in mixed HL/L2 teaching contexts has focused primarily on student motivation (e.g.,
O’Rourke and Zhou 2018) and HL/L2 interactions (e.g.,
Bowles et al. 2014;
Torres 2020), and only recently on student attitudes, language ideologies, and identities (
Leeman and Serafini 2020;
Vana 2020).
O’Rourke and Zhou’s (
2018) research suggests that HL learners are less motivated to study their language(s) and less likely to believe in the academic and professional opportunities of studying a language. Similarly,
Bowles et al.’s (
2014) study shows that HL and L2 learners alike saw their interactions as more beneficial for L2 learners’ development, which further suggests that mixed educational contexts are not ideal for HL learners.
Vana’s (
2020) research offers a detailed account of the language attitudes of HL and L2 students to Spanish and its varieties. Overall, this study shows that standard language ideologies are very common in both groups of students.
Leeman and Serafini’s (
2020) study is the first one that, in addition to examining learners’ perceptions of mixed HL/L2 classes, focuses on the connections between mixed classes and language ideologies and learner identities. In this study, both groups of participants referred to the differences between HL and L2 students. For example, L2 students were perceived as having more metalinguistic knowledge and HL students as generally being more fluent and accurate. According to
Leeman and Serafini (
2020, p. 7), these comments, apparently descriptive in nature, “revealed different values assigned to different types of linguistic and cultural knowledge” and, in multiple instances, reproduced standard language ideologies in both groups of learners. When asked about the advantages and disadvantages of mixed classes, students were in agreement that L2 learners benefit from interacting with HL learners in class. In addition, HL learners thought of themselves as helpful to L2 learners and tended to portray their linguistic knowledge as superior. However, although L2 learners discussed their grammatical knowledge of the language as beneficial for HL learners, the latter group did not share this view. This is not a new phenomenon, as other researchers (e.g.,
Blake and Zyzik 2003) have also noted this trend where HL learners serve as resources for their peers, but do not perceive significant linguistic benefits from their interactions with L2 learners in mixed classes.
According to
Leeman and Serafini (
2020), in contrast with previous research on linguistic insecurity among HL learners, the HL students in their study “often asserted their linguistic and cultural authority and expertise. Rather than accepting ascribed identities and discourses that portray them as linguistically deficient, they frequently constructed themselves as models and guides for their less adept L2 peers” (11). This finding is very significant as it shows that HL learners can resist and overcome standard language ideologies in this instructional context. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand how mixed HL/L2 classes shape HL students’ language ideologies and language use. In the same way, it would be beneficial to move beyond classes to explore the impact of mixed HL/L2 language programs. While HL programs tend to attend HL learners’ various needs through critical pedagogical approaches, mixed HL/L2 programs are known for following traditional L2-oriented pedagogies. In the following section, the proliferation of critical pedagogical approaches in Spanish HL education is explored in order to illustrate their importance, particularly for the recognition of students’ language practices and the exploration of language ideologies.
1.3. Rise of Critical Approaches in Spanish Heritage Language Pedagogy
In the last few years, it has become apparent that HL education has been strongly influenced by a standard language ideology that excludes and devalues heritage varieties by placing standard varieties at the center of instruction and failing to recognize HL speakers’ varieties and language practices (e.g.,
Martínez 2003;
Leeman 2005,
2012,
2018;
Leeman et al. 2011;
Leeman and Serafini 2016;
Holguín Mendoza 2018;
Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018). While research has suggested that in some contexts HL students can resist, at least partially, the standard language ideology that has traditionally shaped HL education (e.g.,
Leeman and Serafini 2020), a number of authors continue to highlight the profound impact of this ideology on students’ identity construction and language use. Holguín
Mendoza (
2018), for instance, emphasizes that traditional HL pedagogies have resulted in the alienation and disempowerment of HL speakers. Similarly,
Tseng (
2020) discusses the internalized linguistic insecurity that many HL speakers experience as a result of language purity ideologies and explains that, in many cases, linguistic insecurity leads to the avoidance of HL use. Additionally,
Cabo and Prada (
2018) criticize the monolingual lens that most HL programs in the U.S. have adopted. According to these authors: “Pursuing the promotion of bilingualism without offering students the tools to understand the processes at work in becoming and being bilingual contributes to perpetuating the myths, folk attitudes, ideologies, and expectations concerning bilingualism” (
Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018, p. 538). Furthermore,
Leeman et al. (
2011) explained that, in addition to often leading to the marginalization of students’ language varieties and practices, dominant monolingual ideologies result in the erasure of their multilingual identities and experiences, and add that they reinforce linguistic discrimination and reduce learners’ “chances of attaining educational and societal success” (482).
It is well known in the field that the first HL approaches that were put forward in the 1970s relied on deficit-based approaches (
Martínez and Schwartz 2012) that strongly stigmatized the language of the students, favored exclusively the teaching of standard(ized) language varieties, and sought to suppress or eliminate the linguistic varieties of the students (
Valdés 1978;
Beaudrie 2015). Although HL pedagogies have since moved away from deficit-based approaches, HL education continues to adopt approaches that fail to recognize students’ varieties and linguistic practices. In other words, while students’ varieties and linguistic practices are not actively discriminated in the classroom, they continue to be treated as peripheral.
Recently, a number of researchers and practitioners have called for sociolinguistically informed approaches that focus on the recognition of language diversity (e.g.,
Villa 1996;
Bernal-Enríquez and Hernández-Chávez 2003;
Wilson and Pascual y Cabo 2019).
Bernal-Enríquez and Hernández-Chávez (
2003) observe that teaching standard varieties does not meet the affective needs of HL students. They emphasize the pedagogical value of students’ varieties and maintain that it is only through the use of their varieties that their language practices can be legitimated. Similarly,
Wilson and Pascual y Cabo (
2019) stress that the appreciation and promotion of students’ linguistic diversity, in addition to contributing to their linguistic needs, allows for the validation of their linguistic experiences and the creation of spaces in which their socio-affective needs can be addressed.
In addition to promoting the recognition of language diversity, socio-linguistically informed approaches focus on the development of a critical language awareness (CLA) (e.g.,
Martínez 2003;
Leeman 2005,
2012,
2018;
Correa 2011,
2016;
Leeman and Serafini 2016;
Parra 2016;
Holguín Mendoza 2018;
Leeman 2018;
Beaudrie et al. 2020).
Leeman and Serafini (
2016, p. 12) define CLA as the ability to examine “how ideologies, politics, and social hierarchies are embodied, reproduced and naturalized through language”. They explain that the examination of language variation, as well as the mechanisms by which some varieties are stigmatized and subordinated, is a central component of CLA, and underline that the ultimate goal of CLA approaches is “for students to actively engage in questioning dominant language ideologies” (63). To do so, among many strategies, they propose helping students recognize variation “as an inherent characteristic of language” (67) through the study of how language varies across time, space, social groups and contexts. Additionally, they suggest the use of blogs, wikis, or similar tools to collaboratively collect, share, and discuss examples of language ideologies in mainstream media. Further,
Beaudrie et al. (
2020) describe that, in addition to being inclusive and respectful of language variation and diversity, CLA approaches have a positive impact on learners’ linguistic self-confidence in their HL varieties by placing them at the center of instruction. In the same vein,
Martínez (
2003) emphasizes the importance of dialect awareness for HL learners, and proposes a critical classroom-based model that goes beyond a formal understanding of dialects and language variation to include the functions of dialects, the distribution of dialects, and the evaluation of dialects.
Leeman’s (
2005) proposal focuses on the importance of students’ agency. In addition to exploring and questing assumptions about language variation, Leeman explains the need to empower students to make their own linguistic decisions. For example, she recommends that students explore the effect of their linguistic decisions on dominant norms. In addition, she promotes the exploration of the creative potential of students’ language practices.
In regard to the acknowledgement of HL students’ language practices, some researchers have recently advocated for the explicit recognition and integration of students’ language mediation practices (e.g.,
Angelelli 2010,
Colina and Lafford 2018;
Gasca Jiménez 2019,
forthcoming,
in press). Relying on research on language brokering
1 (e.g.,
McQuillan and Tse 1995;
Tse 1995a,
1995b,
1996;
Orellana et al. 2003a,
2003b;
Valdés 2003;
Weisskirch 2007;
Katz 2010;
López et al. 2019), these researchers argue that language brokering is a very common communicative activity in immigrant communities, which should be considered part of the unique linguistic practices of HL speakers. Additionally, (
Gasca Jiménez in press) argues for the specialization of HL speaker’s mediation skills in the context of HL education, and offers pedagogical suggestions to do so. This author underscores the different roles of mediation as a plurilingual language practice, a pedagogical activity, and a professional skill.
Regarding CLA pedagogical proposals,
Leeman (
2018) notes that, in addition to focusing on central themes such as dialect awareness or language ideologies, educators should prioritize students’ linguistic and life experiences “to promote students’ critical consciousness of their own circumstances and the relation of those circumstances to broader issues” (353). In order to promote the adoption of CLA approaches,
Beaudrie et al. (
2020, p. 5) propose the following instructional goals for HL education:
Students will be able to see language variation as natural and recognize the intrinsic value of their own variety and all others;
Students will be able to develop a consciousness of the political, social, and economic power structures that underlie language use and the distribution of the so-classed prestige and nonprestigious varieties;
Students will be able to uncover dominant language ideologies that hide in daily monolingual/bilingual practices;
Students will be empowered to exercise agency in making their own decision about language use and bilingualism.
Additionally,
Beaudrie et al. (
2020) showed qualitatively that CLA approaches can have a positive impact on CLA development. They evaluated the impact of a critical-oriented curriculum on the CLA development of 19 heritage learners enrolled in a Spanish heritage course for intermediate-level learners at a large university in the U.S. Southwest. The curriculum addressed four main areas: language variation and diversity; language ideologies and linguistic prejudice; Spanish in the United States and bilingualism; and language maintenance. The pretest and posttest results show that the curriculum had a positive impact on the improvement of students’ CLA. The authors note that, in addition to becoming more aware of the equal value of all variants and more appreciative of language diversity, students became more tolerant of bilingual varieties. However, they also note that approximately a quarter of the students did not show any CLA gains at the end of the semester. They attribute this lack of improvement to the fact that they already had high levels of CLA at the beginning of the semester. They also explain that it may be tied to “deep-seated ideologies” (17) that can hardly be changed in just one semester of instruction. In order to further promote language diversity, they propose assignments that allow students to develop their home varieties, such as interpreting assignments that take advantage of students’ language brokering experiences.
Correa (
2016) offers a number of pedagogical suggestions for the implementation of CLA-oriented approaches, which align with the instructional goals proposed by
Beaudrie et al. (
2020). For example, she encourages the use of informal surveys and diagnostic assessments throughout the course to learn about students’ sociolinguistic backgrounds, language practices, linguistic profiles, and personal interests. She also stresses the importance of selecting materials that are authentic, as well as culturally and linguistically relevant. For the selection of authentic materials, she recommends using materials that come from a variety of places, including the community where most of the students are from. She explains that linguistically diverse materials that represent different varieties and registers are crucial, because they allow students to recognize their culture(s) as worthy of study and increase their ability to communicate with speakers of other varieties, which, in turn, expands their intercultural and linguistic competence. Similarly, Holguín
Mendoza (
2018) details the creation and implementation of a CLA-centered curriculum. As a first step, she encourages the creation of a strong group of educators who are willing to engage in “a continuous process of self-reflection and pedagogical revision” (68). Next, Holguín
Mendoza (
2018) emphasized the need to build a coherent curriculum that normalizes bilingualism and focuses systematically on language awareness of sociolinguistic, stylistic, and pragmatic variation. Regarding the development of critical socio-pragmatic language awareness, Holguín
Mendoza (
2018) promotes students’ agency. Students are ultimately responsible for making their own informed decisions about their language practices and use.
In a service-learning context,
Leeman et al. (
2011) explain the importance of creating structured contexts outside the classroom in which HL speakers are positioned as “language experts”. According to these authors, critical service-learning programs promote student engagement and promote agency against subordinating ideologies that devalue students´ language and language experiences. Similarly,
Lowther Pereira (
2015,
2018) underscores that, by establishing diverse community partnerships and creating service-learning opportunities in multiple fields such as education, law or healthcare, educators can successfully respond to and foster students’ professional interests. In addition,
Lowther Pereira’s (
2015) study demonstrates that service-learning contributes positively toward HL learners’ awareness of Latinx sociolinguistic and sociopolitical issues, as well as the construction of positive identities.
Lowther Pereira (
2015) describes the impact on CLA development of an advanced Spanish HL course which promotes engagement with the local Latinx community. The course offered different types of service-learning experiences, such as tutoring Latinx school children, giving presentations on local community services and resources, and providing interpreting and translation services. It should be noted that these service-learning experiences were fully integrated into all course assignments and projects. For instance, students kept a journal of written reflections about their experiences with the local community and, at the end of the semester, completed a portfolio that included all their service-learning activities. Additionally, students were given the opportunity to regularly share their experiences with their peers in class. At the end of the course, most students reported feeling a stronger sense of belonging to the local Latinx community. Additionally, a qualitative analysis of students’ reflections showed increased language awareness, gained mainly, according to the author, from exposure to language variation in a diverse ethnic, sociolinguistic, and geographic local community.
Consistent with CLA approaches to HL education, we conceptualize HL learners as plurilingual speakers, rather than bilingual or multilingual speakers (
Gasca Jiménez, forthcoming). The terms multilingualism and plurilingualism “connote different ways of perceiving the relationship between languages in a society and individual repertoire” (
Canagarajah and Liyanage 2012, p. 50). While a bilingual/multilingual perspective focuses on the addition of one language to another, a plurilingual one underlines the integration of languages and assumes that plurilingual speakers have an integrated, holistic language repertoire (
Piccardo et al. 2019). Plurilingual speakers, as opposed to bilingual/multilingual speakers, do not keep languages separated, they build up “a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact” (
Council of Europe 2001, p. 4). Additionally, plurilingual speakers may not have equal or advanced proficiency in all the languages, but they use all their languages and competences to communicate.