SHL Teacher Development and Critical Language Awareness: From Engaño to Understanding

Abstract

This paper offers insights from a study of 17 high school Spanish teachers enrolled in an online graduate course on Spanish Heritage Language (SHL) Pedagogy. The study analyzed the semester-long transformation of teacher attitudes as expressed in discussion board posts following a content analysis approach. Findings show an initial lack of respect for student dialects and knowledge of US varieties of Spanish coupled with a desire to help students improve via the teaching of “academic Spanish”. Many participants expressed a feeling of engaño (disillusionment) toward their previous training, wondering why they had not studied the aforementioned topics sooner (Russell and Kuriscak 2015). By creating a context where teachers themselves became more critically language aware, they also became “…cognizant of the naturalness of language variation and its loading of social, political, and economic power structures…” (Beaudrie et al. 2021, p. 587). This paper underscores the transformation that can occur when teachers investigate bilingual ideologies and practices and linguistic characteristics of US varieties of Spanish. The concrete suggestions offered here aim to answer Leeman’s (2015) call for “destabilizing teachers’ ideologies” (p. 114) in the hopes of creating a more equitable learning environment for future language students.

1. Introduction

Spanish continues to be the most taught world language at both the secondary and post-secondary levels in the United States (Looney and Lusin 2019), and today’s Spanish language classrooms are filled with a mix of second language (L2) and Spanish as a Heritage Language (SHL) learners (Carreira et al. 2019). Despite this reality, Spanish teacher training programs continue to focus on training teachers in L2 pedagogies, leaving heritage-specific pedagogies on the periphery (Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018). The Department of Education’s Report on the Condition of Public Education 2021 notes that the Hispanic population continues to grow. Most relevant for the present paper is that this growth has not been confined to traditionally Hispanic areas of the United States (Irwin et al. 2021). Even the Midwest has seen an 18% increase in the Latino population (Noe-Bustamonte et al. 2020). As Brown and Thompson (2018) state, “Many Spanish teachers instruct mixed groups of students in the same class that consist of nonnative, native, and heritage learners. Thus, teachers need to be equipped with the tools necessary to address a variety of student needs in the same classroom” (p. 200). They cite teachers’ subpar oral proficiencies in Spanish and lack of familiarity both with US varieties of the language and with SHL-specific pedagogies. Valdés elaborates this point, adding that in the language classroom, “…power is unevenly distributed and…unexamined racializing discourses construct student identities” (Valdés 2017, p. 79). The present study aims to analyze these unexamined discourses by shifting the focus from the students to those who teach them, and responding to the questions: “Where have we failed to prepare Spanish language educators?” and “How can CLA better prepare Spanish language educators to meet the needs of both SHL and L2 students alike?”

By first acknowledging the diverse population of students that we serve, while also acknowledging our shortcomings as a profession, we must strive to better prepare both present and future language teachers for the realities of today’s classrooms. Including the tenets of CLA in teacher training programs can serve as a first step toward reversing the language loss and shift sometimes experienced by SHL students. Beaudrie and Wilson argue that we must help learners to “…become aware of issues of language and power, and the privileging of certain dialects over others”; however, in order to achieve this goal, we must first train the teachers who work with SHL students (Beaudrie and Vergara-Wilson 2022, p. 63). The present study addresses a gap in the literature by examining the transformation in teacher attitudes that developed during a semester-long course that focused on exposing practicing teachers to local bilingual ideologies, practices and common linguistic characteristics of Midwestern varieties of US Spanish, using the lens of CLA as a guide.

1.1. Spanish as a Heritage Language in the Midwest

Research of SHL programs at the post-secondary level conducted by Beaudrie (2011, 2012, 2020) shows that most institutions with a Hispanic population greater than 5% offer one or two courses specifically designed for SHL students. The research on SHL classes at the secondary level is scarcer (though see Valdés et al. 2006 for a snapshot of SHL programs in California). It is safe to assume that there are fewer SHL classes offered in the Midwest than in other areas of the country with larger Latino populations. The 2021 US Census places Ohio at an overall 4% Hispanic population; however, that number is misleading because it does not account for language community clusters and agricultural migrant community clusters that are common outside of major cities.

In the current study, participants came from and taught in cities within Ohio where that percentage reached as high as 17.8%. In the city of Bowling Green, Ohio, home to the institution where the SHL course was offered, the Hispanic population represents 6% of the total population. While there has been an slight downward trend in the state’s overall population, Ohio’s Hispanic population has continued to grow. Most importantly, Ohio’s educational landscape has undergone a noticeable shift in recent years. From 2011–2021, there was a 76% increase in the Hispanic student population across the state, accounting for an additional 46,638 students (ODE Facts and Figures 2022). Despite the growth of the Hispanic student population, Hispanic teachers continue to make up less than 1% of the teaching staff in the state (ODE Facts and Figures 2022). These demographic shifts in our student population require changes to our language teacher preparation programs specifically, though indeed all teacher preparation programs should be preparing teachers to meet the needs of this growing population.

It is important to also recognize that the needs of SHL students are distinct from those of their L2 peers. Although these needs overlap in some cases, in many cases, they are quite different, due to the distinct educational and affective experiences of the learners themselves.

Table 1. Goals of Heritage Language Instruction (Beaudrie et al. 2014, p. 59).

1.	Language maintenance
2.	Acquisition or development of a prestige language variety
3.	Expansion of bilingual range
4.	Transfer of literacy skills
5.	Acquisition or development of academic skills in the heritage language
6.	Positive attitudes toward both the heritage language and various dialects of the language, and its cultures
7.	Acquisition or development of cultural awareness

includes the main goals of SHL instruction, as seet forth by Beaudrie et al. (2014).

L2 learners are not striving to maintain their Spanish, as SHL students are, and although both groups are acquiring a prestige variety and academic skills in the language, in the case of the SHL students, many are developing skills and knowledge they hold prior to entering the classroom. Clearly, the affective needs of SHL students are also quite different than those of their L2 peers in terms of both language and cultural development. The important connections between language, culture and identity cannot be underscored enough in the SHL context. In an area like the Midwest, it is particularly important that we empower teachers with the knowledge of how best to meet the needs of an SHL population that they may have had little contact with prior to having SHL students in their classes.

1.2. Language Teacher Training and SHL

This population shift points to the need to train future Spanish language teachers in more than just the tenets of L2 acquisition and pedagogies. Both current and future teachers need training in Spanish as a Heritage Language as well. Regardless of their geographic location, the odds are high that Spanish teachers will have heritage students in their classes; yet, as Pascual y Cabo and Prada (2018) have pointed out, “the current educational needs of Hispanic bilingual speakers/learners of Spanish in the United States are still second to those of students of Spanish as a FL (e.g., Leeman and García 2007; Leeman 2005; Torres et al. 2018)” (p. 536). Given these demographic trends, it is imperative that we address the needs of all learners in our language teacher training programs and better prepare teachers to meet the needs of L2 and SHL students alike (Torres et al. 2018).

Why is SHL teacher training so important? In a general sense, studies have shown that teachers’ attitudes shape students’ attitudes (Lee and Oxelson 2006; Macías 2003). Specifically, studies have demonstrated that teachers play a role in shaping students’ attitudes toward language maintenance (Lee and Oxelson 2006). Since language maintenance is one of the primary goals of SHL instruction, it is imperative that teachers impart positive attitudes towards student varieties of the language. Several studies have examined the role of teachers’ attitudes in the SHL context (Ducar 2008; Lacorte and Canabal 2005; Leeman 2005; Loza 2017; Potowski 2002; Russell and Kuriscak 2015), and goals of SHL instruction have been clearly stated (see Table 1). Despite this, more recent research continues to find problems with a lack of teacher familiarity with SHL topics. In Bateman and Wilkinson’s 2010 study of secondary school teachers of Spanish in Utah, the authors found that only 1/3 of those surveyed reported that SHL was covered in the methods classes they took, and 45% of those surveyed stated they had no preparation at all to help them better prepare for teaching their SHL students. Overall, SHL students’ needs were not being met in mixed classes, as “Only 41% of the teachers of these classes feel ‘‘adequately prepared’’ or ‘‘very well prepared’’ to teach Spanish HL students…” and “Approximately half ‘‘rarely’’ or ‘‘never’’ use the SHL materials in their textbooks or make accommodations in their instruction and assessment of heritage language students…” (Bateman and Wilkinson 2010, p. 343). Over a decade has passed since this study was realized, and one would hope that improvements have occurred. However, Russell and Kuriscak’s (2015) study of high school HL teachers found a similar tension between teachers’ dispositions and their practices. In the most recent survey on this topic, the HLExchange found that not much has changed in recent years; only “… half of survey respondents reported that they are “very prepared” to meet the needs of HL learners and nearly 20% reported that they are “not at all prepared” (2022); these needs were greatest for secondary school teachers (15 March 2022). These findings point to a need for teacher preparation programs to provide more direct training and field experiences related to SHL (Russell and Kuriscak 2015).

1.3. Critical Language Awareness and Language Teacher Training

Language teacher training has traditionally focused on preparing world language teachers to teach in secondary school settings by educating them on topics of L2 acquisition and teaching methodologies designed for L2 learners (Holguín Mendoza 2017; Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018; Randolph 2022). As the Douglas Fir Group has acknowledged, even second language acquisition research itself continues to value and thereby perpetuate ideologies of monolingualism (Douglas Fir Group 2016). Not only are the needs of SHL learners absent in most language teacher training programs, but so too is a critical awareness of the powerful inequities that underly issues of language access both in the classroom and beyond. As Holguín Mendoza poignantly stated, “traditional Spanish language pedagogy has left heritage speakers deeply alienated and disempowered” (Holguín Mendoza 2017, p. 1).

Norman Fairclough is credited with bringing the ideas of critical language awareness (CLA) to the forefront. In his seminal 1992 text, Fairclough defines CLA as a practice that emphasizes “…how language conventions and language practices are invested with power relations and ideological processes which people are often unaware of” (Fairclough 1992, p. 7). The tenets of CLA have played a pivotal role in what has been termed the “critical turn” in SHL research and teaching (Loza and Beaudrie 2022). Leeman (2018) proposes that the goals of CLA in the context of SHL teaching and learning are two-fold: “CLA helps students understand how language prejudice is intertwined with broader social hierarchies and power relations. Further, it seeks to promote students’ development of critical resources for resisting and challenging those hierarchies” (Leeman 2018, p. 348). However, we cannot expect to achieve these goals if we do not address these same issues and include CLA as a central component of our teacher training programs.

Including the tenets of CLA in teacher training programs is imperative to reversing SHL loss and shifts caused by negative attitudes toward student varieties of the language. Specifically, instructors should strive to help students to: (1) understand that language variation is natural and that all language varieties hold value, (2) understand the socioeconomic and sociopolitical underpinnings of linguistic hierarchies that privilege certain varieties of language over others, (3) understand dominant language ideologies that undermine bilingual practices and (4) become agents of linguistic choice (Loza and Beaudrie 2022). Indeed, CLA must be central to both SHL and L2 teacher training. World language instructors are trained in standard language ideologies—their own school experiences coupled with those of their teacher training programs have shown them that their success depends on mastery of the so-called “standard” variety (see also Holguín Mendoza 2017).

Thus, we must prioritize the teaching and learning of local varieties of Spanish; “rejecting the foreignness of Spanish and instead situating the language within local contexts that are more immediate to the students’ communities and lived experiences” (Randolph 2022, p. 182). Bearing in mind the gate-keeping procedures that are in place to ensure that language teachers meet the minimum standard of language proficiency necessary to be successful, it should come as no surprise that undoing these beliefs and ideologies requires time and effort on the part of everyone involved. It is hard to convince teachers to value local varieties of the language when they know that exams such as the Advanced Placement Exam and ACTFL’s Oral Proficiency Interview or Writing Proficiency Task require the rejection (at least in part) of those same local varieties of the language (see also Ilieva 2012; Torres et al. 2018). As Holguín Mendoza states, L2 pedagogies and assessments “…have historically perpetuated and legitimized dominant knowledge, thereby privileging hegemonic Eurocentric values and power relations prevailing among class, race, ethnic, and gender categories” (Holguín Mendoza 2017, p. 3). CLA asks teachers to examine the power structures that lie hidden in the textbooks we use, the exams we give and our own practices in the classroom. As Rosa states, “Because of the ways that we define academic language, and frankly, the ways that we populate our teaching staff, we create an adversarial situation where a teacher’s legitimacy in the classroom is defined in relation to their knowledge of particular verb tenses and conjugation patterns that they can then use to say ‘Oh see I’m a legitimate user and teacher of this language and you’re not because I know imperfect subjunctive…and that’s what makes me acceptable as a teacher’” (Conlon Perugini and Johnson 2020, 22 min). The reality is that, save for a service-learning-based class, there is little opportunity to acquire a local variety of the language and even less opportunity to see that variety valued by inclusion on exams that provide a pathway to licensure.

Additionally, there are few programs that require SHL training in their teacher training programs, let alone CLA training specifically for SHL teachers. That puts teachers at a double disadvantage. They often, through no fault of their own, lack knowledge in two fields that are essential to their career: understanding the realities of their SHL students and understanding the historical and current prejudices that underlie the teaching of Spanish in the United States. Though there are a few programs that include courses on these topics, such programs are not yet a mainstay of teacher training. Moreover, even in places where such courses are offered, these classes are rarely required coursework. The current study emphasizes the need to place both SHL and CLA at the forefront of language teacher training programs in the United States.

2. Current Research

Numerous authors have called for the incorporation of SHL pedagogies within the field of world language teacher training. Over two decades ago, The American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese published the Spanish for native speakers: AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook for Teachers K-16. A handbook for teachers. Since then, several texts have been developed with SHL teachers in mind (see Beaudrie et al. 2014; Beaudrie and Fairclough 2016; Potowski 2005). These texts were designed to help teachers in the field better understand the needs and realities of SHL students while also equipping them with knowledge of best practices for teaching SHL students. Despite the improvements in access to information on the topics that these texts, and online workshops such as Startalk’s Teaching Heritage Languages: An Online Workshop offer, teacher training continues to focus on the needs of L2 students and best practices for L2 students at the expense of SHL students and pedagogies. More recently, researchers have called for a critical refocusing of teaching Spanish in the United States, one that places local communities of Spanish speakers at the forefront of all language teacher training in order to best equip both L2 and SHL students to interact in the bilingual communities nearest to them (see Martinez and Train 2020; Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018; Torres et al. 2018). This critical turn in the SHL context is discussed at length in the edited volume by Loza and Beaudrie (2022). Although researchers and pedagogues alike have called for CLA to become a central component of SHL classes, language teacher training has not yet made CLA a cornerstone of its programs (Loza 2017). This paper aims to investigate this disconnect and highlight the transformations that are possible through SHL- and CLA-specific training.

2.1. Examining Teachers’ Ideologies and Practices

This study followed the trajectories of 17 Midwestern high school Spanish teachers enrolled in an online graduate course on Spanish Heritage Language Pedagogy. The study analyzed the semester-long transformation of teacher attitudes as evidenced in weekly discussion board posts, using a content analysis approach (see Pereira 2015; Krippendorff 2004). This analysis provides insight into the changes that can occur when instructors are exposed to CLA pedagogies for the SHL context.

This research seeks to address the issue of whether exposure to US varieties of Spanish, linguistic variation in general and critical language awareness theories can result in a change in teacher attitudes toward SHL students’ language. Traditionally, instructors are trained in standard language ideologies. Everything they have experienced as students both in teacher training programs and in their own schooling has shown them that adhering to a standard language ideology paves the way for success (see also Holguín Mendoza 2017). Thus, this class spent the second half of the semester intentionally exposing students to US varieties of Spanish (see Appendix A for a list of course topics). Students not only read sociolinguistic studies on grammatical and lexical traits common to US varieties of the language, but they also investigated these same forms in linguistic corpora databases. The goal was to show them that the aspects we were studying, common to US varieties of the language, are also common across many varieties of Spanish. In addition, participants also read about student agency, critical language awareness and translingualism. What follows below offers a view of participants’ change in perspective as evidenced through their discussion board posts.

2.1.1. Participants

The current study is based on data obtained from 17 students who were practicing teachers, enrolled in a three credit hour, online, graduate-level SHL pedagogy course. The actual class consisted of a mixed cohort of students, composed of three distinct groups, as outlined in

Table 2. Class participants.

Number	Student Status	Location
17	Full-time high school teachers	Northwest Ohio
3	(2) Second year MA Spanish students and (1) first year MA student	On campus
8	First year MA students	Studying abroad in Spain

.

This study focuses solely on information obtained from the 17 full-time high school Spanish teachers. At the time of the class, many of these practicing teachers were pursuing graduate credits in Spanish in order to qualify to teach in the state’s College Credit Plus1 program, a program that allows high school students to earn college credit by enrolling in college-level classes at their high schools. In order to be qualified to teach such a class, instructors needed an MA in or a minimum of at least 18 graduate-level credits in their field of expertise, Spanish in this case. These students chose to take this course out of personal interest. There was a myriad of other courses being offered online during the school year and in the summer, but these individuals specifically indicated a need to learn the material presented in this class.

Thus, the pool of participants for the current study was composed of 17 full-time high school Spanish teachers in Northwest Ohio. All teachers had at least one SHL student in their classes, with most serving several SHL students each year. Because of the demographics in their school districts, and the funding issues faced by language education in Ohio and indeed in the US in general, none of these individuals taught SHL-specific classes.

Table 3. Demographic characteristics of study participants2.

	Heritage Speaker	L2 Speaker of Spanish	Partner Is a Heritage Speaker of Spanish	Years of Teaching Experience
Marisol	X (Mexican-American)			7
Gisela	X (Cuban-American)			10
Grace	X (Mexican-American)			14
Baasim	X3	X		5
Liliana		X	X (partner is Mexican-American)	2
Carina		X	X (partner is Mexican-American)	5
Arianna		X		6
Mark		X		5
Emi		X		5
Austin		X		5
Jack		X		23
Kayla		X		6
Karter		X		8
Jordyn		X		5
Sharon		X		15
Evelyn		X		10
Anita		X		25

offers a synopsis of the general characteristics of the 17 study participants.

Their years of teaching experience ranged from 2–25, with the majority having taught for 5–10 years. Teachers reported having at least 1 SHL student every year, though three teachers had 12–15 students per year across several levels of Spanish classes. Despite the low SHL enrollment in their schools, all teachers reported having more SHL students now than ever before. The increasing SHL demographic was the impetus for their interest in the course. These teachers-turned-students felt ill-equipped to meet the needs of their SHL students.

2.1.2. Research Purpose and Questions

This research sought to examine the evolution of participants’ opinions regarding both who SHL students are and the language that they bring to the classroom. The research questions posed here stem from the course topics presented and the discussions that surrounded those topics (see Appendix A). Participants in this course felt unprepared to teach SHL students, were unfamiliar with the Spanish their SHL students brought to the classroom and were looking for ways to “reach” these students. The SHL course aimed to better equip those enrolled to meet the needs of their SHL students, to broaden their understanding of and exposure to US varieties of Spanish and to instill a critical element to their teaching. Thus, the current research aims to investigate the preparation of Midwest teachers to address the needs of the growing population of SHL students in this area. These teachers studied to be Spanish language educators at public universities in the Midwest, whose programs follow a traditional teacher formation plan. Teachers take the required courses in education and complete coursework in Spanish at the advanced undergraduate level, with no specific requirements aside from one required class in Hispanic linguistics. All future Spanish educators in Ohio must pass the Oral Proficiency Exam and the Writing Proficiency Task at the Intermediate High level. Given the lack of requirement for SHL-specific teacher training, the current research aims to address the following research questions:

• Do Ohio’s high school Spanish teachers feel prepared to teach and meet the needs of their SHL students?
• What are these Ohio teacher participants’ perceptions of SHL student language?
• Can exposure to varieties of US Spanish, linguistic variation in general and critical language awareness result in a change in teacher attitudes toward SHL student language?

By investigating these questions, it is hoped that specific changes can be suggested for similar teacher training programs that will better equip future teachers to meet the needs of all their students before they enter the classroom as teachers.

3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection occurred over the course of the semester of study. As specified earlier, the research presented here focuses on the 17 practicing teacher participants.

3.1. Data Collection

Data collection included: (1) final project submissions, (2) course evaluations and (3) weekly online discussion board posts. These were the three written submissions that were required of all participants. The final project for this class afforded students three options: composing a unit lesson plan, writing up an administrative proposal to establish an SHL program in their district, and writing a traditional final paper. These distinct formats did not allow for a uniform analysis of content. Because of the size of the online class, weekly discussions via the online discussion board occurred in four groups of seven students. Groups were rotated halfway through the semester. Students were required to post a 250–350-word submission during 11 of the 14 weeks of class. Additionally, each week all students needed to respond to at least two classmates’ comments in a “substantial manner” as indicated on the course syllabus. It was hoped that this would provide for fruitful dialogue between students and minimize simple comments (i.e., estoy de acuerdo). This was a deliberate intent on the part of the instructor to produce more discourse; however, it turned out that the students enrolled in the course had such a vested interest in the topic that discussion board posts and replies were literally pages long. Though weekly discussion board posts varied in length, the average text produced per group of seven ranged from 6000 to 8000 words. Clearly, participants were motivated by the topics at hand and wrote much more than anticipated. Because of the extensive data provided in these discussions and the uniformity of post types across participants, the current analysis focuses solely on student discussion board posts. The analysis focused on participants’ comments in weeks 1–3 and again in weeks 11–14, in order to see if change had occurred as the semester progressed. Rather than analyzing teacher surveys and interviews as earlier studies have performed, this research attempts to look at participant attitudes when they are in the role of student, with the goal of assessing learning and growth. It is hoped that the insights gained here can be used to inform future classroom practices in language teacher training programs.

3.2. Analysis

All data gathered from the 17 participants’ weekly online discussion posts were correlated into a single word document and read through multiple times and analyzed using a content analysis approach. Krippendorf defines content analysis as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” (Krippendorff 2004, p. 18). I have also drawn from the tenets of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in order to inform my research. CDA is defined by van Dijk (1988) as the linguistically based study and analysis of written texts and spoken words in order to reveal the underlying discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality and bias evidenced in both. Many have critiqued CDA, specifically within the educational context, for ignoring the population which it purports to help. This research addresses this critique by examining the voices of teacher-practitioners to see what insights they provide regarding the need for change in language teacher preparation programs. CDA uses linguistically based discourse analysis and takes this analysis one step further by enacting an explicitly critical analysis of textual practices and presentations.

Themes responding to the research questions were identified after multiple read-throughs of the data. The research questions served as guides for seeking out themes in the data—key word searches were performed for the following words: RQ1—preparation, SHL student needs, training; RQ2—language, dialects, registers, varieties, correction, mistakes; RQ3—phrases from RQ1 and RQ2 were repeated, using data from weeks 11–14 in the semester. Themes that were repeated across posts and across participants multiple times were counted as salient themes and were tallied under different topic headings as responding to the research questions. An example of a salient category is that of lack of training. The topic was found in the responses of all participants; even the outlier mentioned lack of training in HL pedagogies. All phrases related to teacher training were coded. Only those themes that were echoed across posts and participants are included here as salient.

As Krippendorff notes, “Texts can provide information about…ideas in people’s minds…” (Krippendorff 2004, p. 23), and yet as a researcher, I recognize that I am imposing a subjective interpretation upon these texts, and other interpretations are also possible. I contend that my knowledge of the participants and close working relationship with them, coupled with my background in discourse analysis, allows me a unique perspective for understanding. The current study looked for repeated linguistic references that revealed participants’ attitudes and evaluations surrounding the three main themes presented in the research questions.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative and Qualitative Results

This study analyzed the semester-long transformation of teacher attitudes as evidenced in discussion board posts. The main analysis was qualitative in nature, though some overall quantitative results are included as well.

4.1.1. Demographic Information

As mentioned previously, 3 of the 17 participants were heritage learners themselves, with differing backgrounds and differing amounts of Spanish. Only one of the three had taken heritage classes as a student, during her own high school career in Miami. Two additional participants were married to heritage learners, and one participant was a heritage speaker of Arabic. The personal insights and experiences of these six individuals significantly added to the online discussions and readings. All other participants were traditional L2 learners, though all had experience studying abroad. In fact, 94% of all participants had studied abroad in Spain, while one participant had lived for a significant amount of time in Cuba. Additionally, 76% of participants had been teaching 5–10 years. One individual was in her second year of teaching and two individuals had been teaching for 20 years or more. Of all participants, 82% taught in rural school districts, the other three taught in inner city schools in Toledo (2—Grace and Gisela) and Cleveland (1—Anita).

4.1.2. General Quantitative Results

94% (16/17) of the participants stated that they lacked training in SHL-specific pedagogies. The same 94% also expressed a desire to better understand SHL pedagogies and US varieties of the language. Although all participants stated that they respected SHL students’ language, at one point or another during the semester, all also expressed different realizations of linguistic prejudice (Lippi-Green 2004). Most importantly for the present study, there was a notable shift in the way the participants’ talked about their students’ language from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. Again, 94% explicitly stated that their understanding of the language their students bring to the classroom changed throughout the term.

4.1.3. Outlier Data

I want to pause here and acknowledge that the group had one outlier. This individual did not feel that heritage students belonged in Spanish classes and was very vocal about this opinion throughout the course. In his own words, “Propongo que el gol de las clases de español en las escuelas secundaria no es ni está diseñado para los ¨heritage learners¨, ni en realidad, los ¨nativos¨ de la lengua, por ejemplo, un estudiante extranjero que viene de un país donde la lengua oficial es Español. Propongo yo, que la intención de las clases de idiomas extranjeras, sea español, francés, alemán, o chino, es específicamente y exclusivamente desenado para estudiantes que NO SON hablantes de tal lengua” (I propose that the goal of high school Spanish classes is not nor were such classes designed for “heritage learners”, nor were they really designed for “native” speakers of the language, for example, foreign students from a country where the official language is Spanish. I propose that the intention of foreign language classes, be they Spanish, French, German, or Chinese is specifically and exclusively designed for students that ARE NOT speakers of those languages4). This participant’s attitude did not change throughout the semester. He engaged in dialogue with his classmates, consistently asserting his perspective while referencing the course discussions, presentations and readings. It should be noted that he was active in the class, in every sense of the word, but unlike the other participants5, no change in attitude was observed.

4.2. Qualitative Results

The remaining discussion reports the results of the content analysis of the weekly online discussion board posts. The sheer amount of data prohibits including all participant responses. Therefore, only the most representative text is included.

4.2.1. SHL Teacher Preparation

Teachers overwhelmingly expressed feeling under-prepared to meet the needs of their SHL students. The word cloud included in Figure 1 helps to visualize common words used by participants to describe their feelings towards their preparation to teach SHL students.

As Anita states, “una confesión antes de empezar: me siento engañada por mi educación. Recibí una maestría en enseñar lenguas extranjeras, pero ninguna clase nos preparó para enseñar a los hablantes nativos” (A confession before I begin: I feel cheated by my education. I earned an MA in foreign language teaching, but not a single class prepared us to teach native speakers). This sentiment, of feeling cheated, was expressed repeatedly during the third week’s discussion, which centered around the goals of SHL instruction. Andrea echoed Anita’s feelings, stating “En la universidad recibí mi experiencia de enseñar para los estudiantes del L2- nadie dijo ni una palabra de qué hacer con los estudiantes de herencia hispánica” (In college, I gained experience on how to teach second language Spanish students, no one ever said anything about what to do with students of Hispanic heritage). Jordyn repeats these ideas, stating “ya sé cómo hablar y escribir en términos académicos, pero me siento una carencia muy grave en mi educación de los registros más comunes y coloquiales. Por eso, como estudiante me gustaría mucho si hubiera más énfasis en los estudiantes de LH en nuestras clases universitarias” (I already know how to talk and write in academic terms, but I feel my education had a serious lack of training on common, colloquial registers. Because of this, as a student I would have liked to see more emphasis on HL students in our university level classes). Austin also specifically highlighted his lack of familiarity with local dialects of Spanish, stating “Habiendo haber aprendido el español exclusivamente en la universidad, no tengo un registro informal muy bien desarrollado, y para personas como yo, probablemente nos hará falta acostumbrarnos a oír y hablar en registros más bajos a veces” (Having learned Spanish exclusively in college, I don’t have a very developed informal register, and for people like me, we will need to get used to hearing and speaking in lower registers sometimes). Here we can see not only Austin’s frustration with his lack of familiarity with different varieties of Spanish, but also his judgement of those varieties as lower varieties of the language. His statement highlights the dangers that can result from the lack of training in local varieties of the language and the need to include local linguistic variation as a central component of teacher training programs. All in all, these teacher participants are literally calling on the field to create space for HL-specific training in their teacher preparation programs.

Participants also expressed frustration at trying to manage the needs of L2 students and SHL students in their mixed classes. Many expressed feeling “useless” and “ineffective” when it came to helping their SHL students. One participant, Grace, correlated the very different needs of her SHL students with those of students on IEPs: “Y sí X, es como tener estudiantes con IEPs o 504. Hay que hacer acomodaciones. Pero si voy a estar honesta, muchas veces no me siento que tengo los recursos ni la sabiduría para satisfacer todos las necesidades de mis estudiantes. Sin embargo hay esperanza y la disposición para aprender y probar cosas nuevas” (And yes X, it’s like having students on IEPs or 504s. You have to make accommodations. But if I’m going to be honest, a lot of times I don’t feel like I have the resources or the knowledge to satisfy the needs of my students. Nevertheless, I’m hopeful and I’m anxious and ready to try and learn new things). Carina echoed the difficulties of creating a lesson suitable to all students, stating that “...sería muy difícil proveer una educación individualizada para cada estudiante del idioma de herencia -es difícil “diferenciar” la educación para los estudiantes “regulares” que tenemos ahora, ¿no? Ay—la lucha es verdad” (…it would be difficult to provide an individualized education for each HL student—it’s already difficult to differentiate education for the “regular” students that we have right now, isn’t it? Ugh—the struggle is real). We can almost feel teachers’ frustration at being asked to do more without the necessary resources. How can we expect teachers to create differentiated lessons for HL students when they have only been trained to meet the needs of their “regular” L2 students? Furthermore, what does it mean that our teacher training characterizes the L2 students as regular students? What implications does that have for how we categorize the HL students? Are they irregular? Abnormal? Is it wrong to compare them, as Grace did, to the students on IEPs? Until HL learners are given equal treatment in teacher training programs, materials and assessments, their place at the periphery accentuates the reality that HL students’ linguistic expertise “…has not been valued in the same way as that of those developing their expertise in contexts of elite multilingualism” (Flores and Rosa 2019, p. 146).

One of the instructors, Anita, who teaches in an inner-city context, shared the following: “Más de 10 por ciento de mis estudiantes son “Heritage learners” (no sé cómo decir esto en español todavia!) No sólo esto, pero por primera vez me siento sinceramente inefectiva en cómo ayudarlos en la clase. Noto que son todos muy diferentes; la mayoría de México, pero algunos de Guatemala o Puerto Rico etc. Aunque aprendí mi español en latinoamérica, me encuentro muchas veces incapaz de comprenderlos cuando me hablan. Tengo que pedirlos repetir lo que han dicho, y muchas veces todavía no los entiendo” (More than 10% of my students are “heritage learners” (I still don’t know how to say that in Spanish) Not only that, but for the first time, I feel truly ineffective trying to help them in class. I can tell that they are all very different, the majority are from Mexico, but some are from Guatemala or Puerto Rico, etc. Although I learned my Spanish in Latin America, I find myself unable to understand them when they talk to me. I have to ask them to repeat what they said, and many times, even then, I don’t understand them). Reading these excerpts, one can almost feel the palpable exasperation felt by instructors who truly have a desire to help their students but feel they cannot, for a multitude of reasons. As expressed here, participants did not receive formal training in SHL pedagogies, are overwhelmed by the idea of creating individualized instruction for so many students, and in some cases, cannot even understand their students in order to help them.

Overall, there was a sense of outrage among participants at the lack of training for language teachers. The overwhelming feeling expressed by the participants was one of frustration. They wondered “aloud” in their online discussion posts about how they were expected to meet the needs of SHL students without the proper training. They understood that they needed to differentiate their lessons, and many thought they needed to correct the students’ Spanish, but none of them felt that they had been taught the necessary tools to effectively do either.

4.2.2. Teachers’ Attitudes towards Student Language

Several themes emerged during discussions of US varieties of Spanish and students’ language. Many participants talked about the need to correct students’ Spanish while at the same time disclosing their own linguistic insecurities. In general, participants evaluated students’ language in terms of their grammatical production, though notably few mentioned lexical differences as problematic. To help the reader visualize, Figure 2 includes another word cloud of commonly used words associated with student language.

In fact, many acknowledged the variation present in the different varieties of Spanish their students bring to the class; Grace noted “No existe un hablante perfecto porque no hay una variedad perfecta y dentro de cada variedad existen diferencias personales—el ‘idialecto’ de cada uno. Como profesores debemos tener eso en cuenta en todo momento” (There’s no such thing as a perfect speaker because there is no perfect variety and personal differences exist within each variety—the idiolect of each person. As teachers, we should keep this in mind all the time). Grace initially had expressed frustration at her own lack of knowledge, despite her insider role as an HL herself. The class helped her find the words to express to her students what she herself has already lived. Many participants shied away from discussing their own actions in the classroom, and instead commented on observations of colleagues. Jordyn, for example, commented “los profesores critican a los estudiantes, creo que es por la variedad o la clase de español que se usa. Sin embargo, he observado lo mismo ocurrir con la diferencia entre el español latinoamericano y el español peninsular. Una amiga mía tiene raíces y tendencias orales peruanas, y una profesora de nuestra escuela secundaria siempre la daba ‘un tiempo duro’. Es muy triste, porque ahora mi amiga casi no persigue aprender el español en nada” (Teachers criticize the students, I think because of their variety of Spanish or the class of Spanish they use. Nevertheless, I’ve seen the same thing happen with differences between Latin American and Peninsular Spanish. A friend of mine is Peruvian and she has Peruvian tendencies when she talks, and a teacher in our high school always gave her a hard time. It’s so sad because now my friend almost doesn’t want to continue learning Spanish at all). This participant recognizes the effects that negative criticism can have on students and draws a parallel between the treatment of US Spanish and the treatment of “Latin American varieties of the language”. Earlier, Jordyn had specifically said that she wished she had been trained in colloquial registers of Spanish. This class afforded her the opportunity to investigate and better understand some aspects of language variation in Spanish and allowed her to draw parallels between varieties of Latin American and US Spanish and was empowering for her as a teacher.

Despite this recognition, both covert and overt linguistic prejudice still appeared in participant comments. According to Austin, “En cuanto a errores gramaticales, yo sé que va a ser difícil para mí no corregir algunos errores que mis posibles estudiantes de HL hagan. Sólo aprendí español en la universidad y tengo poca experiencia con situaciones informales, y por lo tanto cosas como haiga me parecen muy extrañas, pero es algo que tendré que trabajar. Pero por hablar de errores, pienso que no deberíamos ser débiles como profesores. Entiendo que hay ciertos rasgos distintivos de dialectos informales que no deberíamos reprimir, pero pienso que hay ciertas cosas que necesitamos manejar como errores verdaderos, específicamente errores de ortografía” (In terms of grammatical errors, I know that it’s going to be difficult for me to not correct some errors that my possible HL students make. I only learned Spanish in college and I have very little experience with informal situations, and because of that, things like haiga seem very strange to me, but it’s something that I’m going to have to work on. But speaking of errors, I think that we shouldn’t be weak as teachers. I understand that there are certain distinctive traits of informal dialects that we shouldn’t repress, but I think there are certain things that we need to treat as true errors, specifically orthographical errors). Austin dialogues back and forth, recognizing the limitations of his own familiarity with informal Spanish. He is very forthright about the fact that haiga and other differences are quite literally foreign to him. He also brings up the idea about not being weak as teachers, a topic that comes up repeatedly in these participants’ comments.

Some participants were more direct in their judgements of SHL students’ Spanish. Baasim stated, “Hay que notar que la mayoría de los latinos nacidos de padres hispanos no saben escribir….(En Las Vegas) descubrí que los estudiantes de español como lengua heridada no sabían escribir ni deletrear Su ortografía y su gramática eran muy debiles” (I have noticed that the majority of US Latinos born to Latino parents don’t know how to write. (In Las Vegas) I discovered that the SHL students didn’t know how to write or spell. Their spelling and grammar were very weak). Another participant, Karter, referred to earlier as the outlier, was even more outspoken in his critique of his heritage students’ Spanish: “Para cambiarme de opinión, me tengan que ofrecer algo más concreto. Ofrezca ejemplos del español, en mp3, hablado por los ¨heritage speakers¨ que no es un registro bajo del español ni coloquialismo, ni ¨Spanglish¨ y ayúdame ver porque lo deberíamos incluir en nuestras clases de español como idioma extranjero” (To change my opinion, you have to offer me something more concrete. Offer examples in Spanish, on mp3, spoken by heritage speakers that don’t come from a low register of Spanish, don’t have colloquialisms or Spanglish and help me to see why we should include this in our Spanish as a foreign language classes). Here we see direct use of the words “colloquialisms”, “Spanglish” and the idea of a “low register” of Spanish. This participant needs convincing of the value of students’ Spanish and is looking for that value in traditional venues. Baasim’s and Karter’s comments here highlight the fact that the tenets of CLA, often included in ESL/TESOL programs, are not often included in world language teacher training programs, at least in this area of the country. Part of elevating students’ dialects and indeed, US Spanish in general, must involve mainstreaming our students’ ways of speaking translingually. Kayla explains the association with student varieties of Spanish and lower registers using Kim Potowski’s oft-cited clothing metaphor (see Potowski 2005): “Al fin y al cabo, todos saben, hay muchas profesiones donde es cierto, Guste o no le guste, la afiliación requiere corbata y camisa, y si no las tiene, la entrada (al grupo) está prohibido. Prefiero ofrecer mis estudiantes una corbata y camisa” (In the end, everyone knows, there are many professions where it’s true, whether you like it or not, membership requires a shirt and tie and if you don’t have those, entrance into the group is prohibited. I prefer to offer my students a shirt and tie.). Much has been said about the issue of using appropriate language in appropriate contexts; course readings aimed to challenge these ideas and help students to see the importance of agency in developing translingual competence. This is discussed in depth in the Discussion section.

Last but certainly not least, I would be remiss to not discuss participants’ own linguistic insecurities and shortcomings. All quotes included in this article are copied directly as they were written by the participants in the discussion forums. Recognizing possible haste as a contributing error to typos, we must also acknowledge the type of Spanish produced by these participants, who are serving as instructors to both L2 and SHL students alike. Take the following comment by Sharon. She states: “Estoy una estudiante quien prefiere tener correcciones a mi español y usualmente yo preguntaría para ellos directamente. Pero porque de mi curiosidad sobre el proceso de aprendizaje de idiomas y otras maneras para enseñarlo y apoyar el desarrollo de habilidades linguísticas, estoy dispuesto a confiar el proceso” (I am a student that prefers to have my Spanish corrected and I usually ask for those directly. But because of my curiosity about the language learning process and other ways to teach language and support the development of linguistic abilities, I am ready to trust the process). My aim here is not to detail all of the deviations from multiple varieties of Spanish in this participants’ post or in the other posts included in this article, but rather to point out an additional obstacle, that indeed many participants explicitly recognize their own limited abilities in Spanish, whether they be like Austin, where they lack familiarity with US varieties of Spanish and informal varieties of Spanish in general, or like Sharon, where they are fighting against rusty Spanish that has deviations that are not permissible in most if not all varieties of the language. These same teachers are faced with students whose Spanish is, at times, more fluent than their own, resulting in a disrespecting or othering of the teacher (Helmer 2013). Emi experienced such a situation: “Estoy de acuerdo que estos estudiantes anaden a una clase con su cultura y experiencia- pero ambien tuve una experiencia con un estudiante heradado y siempre estaba corregiendome, con palabras colloquiales o gramatica y aveces no era correcto…entonces era muy dificil a mantener la clase” (I agree that these students add to the class with their culture and experience, but I also had an experience with a heritage student, and he was always correcting me, with colloquial words or grammar and sometimes it wasn’t correct…therefore it was very difficult to maintain the class). Emi struggles with recognizing the contributions that these students afford to her classes, while at the same time maintaining her role as purveyor of knowledge. Being corrected by her SHL student caused her to lose control of her classroom, much as was the case of Beth in Helmer’s 2013 study. Teachers’ linguistic insecurities and shortcomings can also play a role in oppositional educational behaviors (Helmer 2013). As Leeman points out, “the one-way transmission of sociolinguistic ‘rules’ from teacher to student … as objective description is oppressive for any student” and it is “particularly troubling in the case of heritage speakers of Spanish” (Helmer 2013, p. 38).

Thus, the need to bring critical language awareness into Spanish teacher training generally and SHL teacher training specifically, is underscored by the comments in this section. Participants voiced concerns over students’ grammar and language in general, while also struggling with their own linguistic shortcomings and insecurities. The next section details the change in participants’ attitudes as they were empowered with knowledge of some of the tendencies common in US varieties of Spanish as well as the role of teacher as translingual advocate. By exposing participants to critical language awareness, participants gained tools to understand the underpinnings of an oppressive system of language regulation that extends far beyond the walls of their classrooms. Importantly, they learned how to give agency to their students and to themselves in order to make informed linguistic decisions.

4.2.3. Critical Language Awareness and Transformation

This section addresses the issue of whether exposure to US varieties of Spanish, linguistic variation in general and critical language awareness theories can result in a change in teacher attitudes toward SHL students’ language. Figure 3 highlights common responses across participants.

Many students voiced an appreciation for the SHL pedagogy course they were enrolled in, emphasizing the importance of such classes in teacher training programs. Sharon voiced concern over how slowly things change in school systems and education in general, and she and many others discussed the difficulty in gaining both financial and administrative support. In her words, the system “…probablemente no va a cambiar pronto. Entonces necesitamos clases como esta, para preparar y aprender cómo ayudar estos estudiantes heredados en clases que no están diseñadas para ellos” (…probably it isn’t going to change soon. Therefore, we need classes like this one, to prepare us and learn (teach us) how to help these heritage students in classes that aren’t designed for them). The importance of such classes is encapsulated in a response by Jordyn: “…nunca había considerado yo que este grupo tiene otras necesidades que no están satisfechos por las clases de estudiantes nuevos- probablemente porque yo consideraba aprender un idioma y una cultura como linea” (I had never considered that this group had other needs that aren’t satisfied in classes for new students, probably because I considered learning a language and culture linear). These revelations, of a need for classes or at a minimum, differentiated course work that focuses on the strengths and needs of SHL students, led to more in-depth critiques of the system.

Carina comes to the realization that offering coursework relevant to HL students helps to affirm their identities: “Es importante reconocer las identidades representadas dentro de las clases y celebrarlas, no enterrarlas. Es importante reconocer y dar valor a estudiantes de dialectos diferentes, niveles diferentes y experiencias diferentes. Es imperativo que por lo menos diferenciemos la instrucción para estos estudiantes si no podemos ofrecer una clase específica para estudiantes de lengua heredada” (It’s important to recognize and value students’ dialectal differences, their different levels and experiences, rather than burying those differences. It’s imperative that, at a minimum, we differentiate instruction for these students if we can’t offer an HL specific class). Remember, this is the same participant who earlier in the semester talked about what a struggle it would be to create lessons for HL learners. Here we see that she now finds differentiating instruction for these students to be imperative, rather than the struggle that she referred to earlier. Anita, who earlier lamented her lack of training in SHL pedagogy, later recognizes that it is not just her own lack of training that is problematic, but also that the materials used in “regular” Spanish classes are designed with L2 learners in mind. She states: “puede ser difícil incluir nuestros estudiantes de HL cuando estudiamos culturas de otros países. Nuestras “preguntas esenciales” siempre incluyen la idea de comparar y contrastar con su propia cultura, pero puede ser complicado…” (It can be difficult to include our HL students when we’re studying cultures from other countries. Our “essential questions” always include the idea of comparing and contrasting those cultures with their own culture, but it’s complicated…). Anita laments the lack of materials and recognizes that in addition to her own training, there is a dearth of materials that are inclusive of SHL students. The overt focus on the viewpoints of L2 learners in textbooks not only excludes SHL students, but also places a greater burden on teachers who must create additional materials to include all their students. Jordyn goes on to argue that in materials and classes in general, there is a “…falta de representación del lenguaje regional de los estados, la falta de incluir a los hispanohablantes locales, y el énfasis en el dialecto castellano como estándar” (…lack of representation for regional language in the states, a lack of local Spanish speakers and a continued emphasis on the Castilian dialect as standard). This recognition shows further growth in her ability to perceive the different needs of this group of students and again emphasizes the need to equip future teachers with the knowledge to create materials that will satisfy the different needs of their SHL students.

Liliana plans to change how she teaches in acknowledgement of what she has learned in the course; referencing the teaching of past narration, she states: “…necesito alejarme de las explicaciones gramáticas detalladas que muchas veces hago con mis estudiantes de L2 (que tampoco quiero hacer tanto, pero es otra cosa en que necesito trabajar). Eso me ayuda a pensar en mi plan de la unidad, porque quiero ayudar a los HLL mejorar su habilidad de escribir y de presentar formalmente, sobre el tema de los antepasados y las historias personales. Ahora sé que en vez de hablar del tiempo pasado con trabajos detallados sobre el pretérito y el imperfecto, por ejemplo, debo ayudarles a escribir más en el pasado como normalmente hacen, y de allí utilizar más ideas del formative assessment” (…I need to get away from detailed grammar explanations that I often do for my L2 students (that I also don’t want to do so often for them, but that’s something else I need to work on). This helps me to think about my unit plan, because I want to help the HLLs to improve their personal history narrative writing and formal presentations about their ancestors. Now, I know that instead of talking about the past tense with detailed work on the preterit and the imperfect, for example, I should help them to just write more in the past, like they normally do, and from there use ideas from formative assessments (to help them)). Evelyn concurs with Liliana, stating: “los estudiantes de HHL no necesitan clases especificas sobre la gramática. Este es algo beneficial a los estudiantes de L2. En vez de clases con sus compadres de L2 ellos necesitan clases separadas en donde pueden usar sus “intrinsic knowledge” aprender en una manera más autentica y por eso más útil para ellos” (HHL don’t need special classes about grammar. These are more beneficial to the L2 students. Instead of taking classes with their L2 classmates, they need separate classes where they can use their intrinsic knowledge and learn in a more authentic and useful way for them). The two teacher participants recognize the need to change their own teaching practices and discuss specific ways to better meet the needs of their SHL students. Such transformation highlights the pressing need to include elements of critical language awareness and Spanish Heritage Language Pedagogy as central components of teacher training programs.

Emi succinctly states that an important part of meeting the needs of both L2 and SHL students involves creating new goals in the classroom. She states: “es nuestro trabajo y nuestro meta a crecer una población de aceptación y tolerancia” (it is our job and our goal to create an accepting and tolerant population). She says this in specific reference to the teaching of language and the need to include student varieties in the classroom. Recall that earlier, she mentioned a problem with a specific SHL student that resulted in a power struggle in her classroom. She hopes that by including her students’ language in class, she can gain the confidence of students like the one she mentioned earlier. Austin goes a step further, expressing outrage: “Me da rabia cuando un profesor le dice a un estudiante “No, eso no es la manera correcta de decir eso”, porque entiendo que no hay un hablante “perfecto” porque la norma varía tanto de región a región. Valgo diversidad lingüística, y creo que es algo que necesitamos acoger en vez de “corregir”” (It makes me furious when a teacher tells a student “No, that’s not the correct way to say that” because I understand that there is no perfect speaker, because the standard varies so much from region to region. I value linguistic diversity, and I believe that’s something we need to embrace instead of correct). Although Austin’s statement reflects on the teaching practices of others, Kayla includes herself in her reflection: “hay una percepción que los estudiantes HL sólo perciben nuestros cursos como un “A fácil” y no valoran lo que podemos compartir con ellos. Y creo que nosotros los corrigen para probarles, “¿Ves? No sabes todo. Tienes que trabajar igual que los demás”. Para cambiarlo, tenemos que cambiar nuestra actitud…Nuestro deber es ayudarlos, no juzgarlos” (There’s a perception that HL students only perceive our courses as an easy A and they don’t value all that we can share with them. I believe that we correct them to show them “See? You don’t know everything. You have to work just as hard as everyone else”. In order to change that we have to change our attitude…Our job is to help them, not judge them).

Although there are many other examples of a change in perspective, Gavin’s post summarizes nicely all that he feels he gained during the semester: “las experiencias de los hispano hablantes deben ser clave en las clases de ELH puesto que la identidad, la cultura y la lengua son intrínsecamente conectados. Además, para mí la motivación y el respeto mutuo entre el profesor y los alumnos (hablo del respeto hacia las variedades que hablan) son claves para que los estudiantes de ELH tengan experiencias positivas y exitosas en clase…Otro punto importante es centrarse en las diferencias entre las variedades que se hablan en casa y la variedad estándar, que, como ya sabemos, no es mejor que la que traen los alumnos a clase” (the experiences of Spanish speakers should be key in SHL classes, given that identity, culture and language are intrinsically connected. Furthermore, for me, motivation and mutual respect between teacher and students (I’m talking about respect toward the varieties they speak) are key in order for the SHL students to have positive experiences and be successful in the class…another important point is to focus on the differences between varieties that are spoken at home and the standard, and as we all know it’s not better than what the students bring to the class). Jack’s comment dovetails off of Gavin’s, and he emphasizes student autonomy in deciding how each student wants to portray themselves at different moments: “Creo que es muy importante que los estudiantes sigan desarrollando las habilidades…lenguaje es social y nos da la libertad de ser quienquiera somos” (I think it’s important that students continue to develop their abilities…language is social and it gives us the freedom to be who we are).

As stated earlier, not everyone was open to the ideas of valuing the varieties of Spanish that students brought to the classroom and one participant repeatedly stated that serving the needs of SHL students was not a part of his job as an L2 instructor of Spanish. In his own words, Karter said: “A los ¨heritage speakers¨ les digo que…si ¨los heritage speakers¨ quieren aprender de sus raíces, cultura y avanzar su uso de su versión de ¨español¨, sea ¨tex mex¨o lo que sea, deberían evitar las clases de ¨español¨, como lengua extranjera y meterse en un curso de ¨hispanic o latino¨studies” (To heritage speakers I tell them that if the heritage speakers want to learn about their roots, culture and advance their version of Spanish, be it “tex mex” or whatever, they should avoid Spanish classes, as a foreign language and join a course on Hispanic or Latino studies). All this is to say that readings, discussions, observations and lectures are not always enough to change someone’s perspective, particularly if they have years of teaching experience. This case points to the need to make SHL students and their needs equal in the training of future language teachers. Knowledge of heritage languages should not be gleaned from a workshop offered in the evening or a webinar viewed in one’s spare time. It must be central to our language teacher training programs. In fact, some researchers argue that the shift in perspective required to change such deeply latent understandings lies on the shoulders of those of us teaching and researching in the field of SHL itself. SHL should not be “a “special” program…different from that which we offer for all students” (Martinez and Train 2020, p. 81). Indeed, the current study voices teachers’ concern that they are underprepared to meet their students’ needs; they lack the tools they need to help the students that they care about so deeply. The Discussion section addresses the steps that need to be taken to begin to rectify this situation.

5. Discussion and Suggestions

It should be noted that this study was carried out in the fall of 2016, just after the start of the critical turn in SHL research and pedagogy (Loza and Beaudrie 2022). Given that, it is not surprising that the teacher training programs for these participants, which occurred prior to 2016, did not include much in terms of the needs of and best practices for SHL students. The general quantitative findings reported here align with those of Gironzetti and Belpoliti (2021), and Carreira (2022). In all cases, participants reported having experience teaching mixed classes. The major difference lies in the fact that at least half of the participants in the two previously mentioned studies had received SHL-specific training, whereas those in the current study had not.

5.1. Teacher Training Reform

Qualitative data show that the lack of SHL-specific training led to feelings of ineffectiveness and uselessness. Much like Randolph’s findings, teachers expressed frustration at how difficult it is to differentiate instruction for SHL and L2 students in mixed cohorts (2022). Participants discussed a need to prove themselves to students at times, feeling the need to “…continually establish themselves as the linguistic authority in the classroom” (Randolph 2017, p. 281). As Loza (2017) points out, even well-intentioned instructors might not have the knowledge necessary to implement CLA in the language classroom; in this case, not only do teachers lack knowledge of CLA, but they also lack knowledge of general SHL pedagogies.

Indeed, not only are they lacking in SHL-specific pedagogical training, but they are also lacking in general sociolinguistic awareness of US varieties of Spanish. Because of the way language teacher education programs are structured, and the gate-keeping exams that both block and lead the way to licensure, this notion of a standard language ideology as the goal of language classes persists (Lippi-Green 2004). I concur with Pascual y Cabo and Prada’s call for “the reformulation of Spanish teaching from sharply focused on language to also include attention to the development of positive learner identities, linguistic self-esteem, and the development of critical awareness…” (Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018, pp. 539–40). Participants themselves echoed this call. As Baasim stated: “Este problema tiene que ser la responsibilidad de las universidades de educación que deben tener medidas pedagógicas para ayudar a los maestros” (This problem has to be the responsibility of education colleges. They should have the pedagogical means to help teachers). Indeed, it is the responsibility of universities to include SHL training as an integral part of future language teacher training for all languages.

5.2. Increasing Teachers’ Knowledge of Students’ Varieties of Spanish

Participants were open about struggling with how and when to correct students’ Spanish. They voiced concerns about students’ grammar and language in general, while also struggling to assert their own credibility in the classroom. Their linguistic shortcomings and insecurities fed into a climate of having to prove oneself, both for the instructors and students alike. The notion of a standard variety and its importance to education took the foreground to issues of linguistic diversity. Few participants mentioned the need to incorporate the Spanish of the local community in their teaching initially. As Holguín Mendoza notes, teachers must “… become knowledgeable about the processes underlying bilingualism and languages in contact, sociolinguistic dynamics and the variation in Spanish in the United States, and their students’ cultural backgrounds and their relationships with Hispanic cultures” (Holguín Mendoza 2017, p. 4). Recall that one participant mentioned that haiga just sounds weird to him. Given that high school instructors in areas without large Latino populations are faced with teaching in a mixed classroom, it is imperative that they be aware of the normal language practices of their local Spanish-speaking communities. We must reject “… the foreignness of Spanish and instead situating the language within local contexts that are more immediate to the students’ communities and lived experiences” (Randolph 2022, p. 182). In order to be able to reject this notion of foreignness, teachers must be exposed to the Spanish that is in their own backyard. Including service learning experiences as a central part of language teacher training beyond traditional student teaching is imperative (Holguín Mendoza 2017; Pereira 2015). In addition, the need to accept and integrate experiences of studying within is important, as opposed to studying abroad. The university these students were enrolled in requires language teachers to study abroad and even boasts its own long-standing study abroad program in Spain. Despite the benefits of studying abroad, we must recognize that it is financially out of reach for many students. Study abroad continues to value the learning of outside varieties of Spanish over the learning of US varieties of Spanish. Ignoring this reality continues to perpetuate “…the cultural and linguistic erasure of U.S. Spanish speakers in language education (e.g., Alvarez 2013; Alonso 2007; Leeman and García 2007; Villa 2002)” (Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018, p. 536). By making service learning and study within opportunities a norm of language teacher training programs, we can shift to a more community-centered learning environment.

5.3. CLA as a Means to Revamp the System and Transform Understanding

As evidenced in the participants’ discussion board posts, there was a clear transformation from the beginning to the end of the semester in terms of understanding SHL students’ language and reassessing the best ways to meet those students’ needs. As participants learned more about the different varieties of Spanish and began to correlate this variation with variations in English, they grew to understand that multiple varieties of languages are used by everyone in order to successfully navigate daily life. Students expressed epiphanies while learning about bilingual communities in the US: “Nunca me había ocurrido que es posible que haya comunidades que nunca han hablado una lengua aparte del español” (It never had occurred to me that it is possible that some communities have never spoken a language other than Spanish). Mark mentioned that we should all remember that in any language there are many ways to express the same idea: “Es algo que todos los maestros y personas en general necesitan tener en cuenta. Aunque un estudiante dice algo diferente de nosotros, la frase todavía puede ser correcta” (It’s something that all teachers and people in general need to keep in mind. Although a student says something differently than us, the phrase can still be correct). Gaining a more ample understanding of US varieties of Spanish and Latin American varieties of Spanish was empowering for these teachers. This understanding gave rise to empathy; as Evelyn shared, “las asociaciones malas con el idioma español son estereotipos que siempre estamos luchado como profes de español y como HLL ellos tienen la misma responsabilidad…” (bad associations surrounding Spanish are stereotypes that we are always fighting against as teachers and as HLL they have the same responsibility). Evelyn went from trying to correct students’ Spanish to trying to empower them to fight back against negative linguistic stereotypes. Even Grace, an HL teacher participant, felt she gained something by learning about the different varieties of Spanish and being able to explain that some of the changes evidenced in US Spanish are also present in other varieties of the language. By creating a context where teachers themselves became more critically language aware, they also became “…cognizant of the naturalness of language variation and its loading of social, political, and economic power structures…” (Beaudrie et al. 2021, p. 587). When US varieties of Spanish become a focal point of our teaching, local communities and Spanish teachers alike are both validated and empowered, thereby creating a teaching force that is better equipped to meet the needs of both L2 and SHL students alike (Pascual y Cabo and Prada 2018).

Critical language awareness is one of the most essential tools in the SHL teachers’ toolbox and has been recognized as such in the literature (Loza and Beaudrie 2022); however, it must become an essential tool of all language teachers. By relegating the conversation around CLA to the field of SHL, we are missing the wider audience of language teachers that need this crucial information. As Valdés affirms, “Future language teachers are not socialized to question underlying conceptualizations of language or views about what it means to know a language, what it means to be bilingual, and what it means to be a user or a speaker of a specific target language in a dominant context as well as a speaker and user of a heritage language within a particular minority community” (Valdés 2017, p. 83). CLA must be a central component of all teacher training programs. Without CLA and indeed without heritage languages as central tenets of language teacher education, it is doubtful that SHL as a field, and SHL students as a group, will ever move from the periphery, particularly in areas that do not have a large Latino population. We must move beyond separate curricula for L2 and SHL learners and emphasize the need to incorporate the needs and tools for both at all curricular levels (Torres et al. 2018); the same must be required of our teacher training programs. Since the critical turn in SHL, researchers have urged practitioners to guide students toward an unpacking of the underlying values associated with the ideas of correctness and standard language; that also holds true for teachers of those students (Randolph 2022).

6. Conclusions

The concrete suggestions offered in this paper aim to answer Leeman’s (2015) call for “destabilizing teachers’ ideologies” (p. 114) in the hopes of creating a more equitable learning environment for future language students. This study calls on teacher training programs to expand their training to include the tenets of linguistic diversity, SHL pedagogies and CLA as central parts of their programs. It is inexcusable, in a country of over 60 million Latinos, that Spanish teachers can graduate with a degree in Spanish education and possess little to no knowledge of the Spanish that exists in their own backyard. Rather than relegating such training to professional development workshops and webinars (see Gironzetti and Belpoliti 2021), we must prioritize this training at the onset of teachers’ careers. That is not to say that professional development workshops and webinars on this topic do not have a place, indeed they do, for we must continue to reach those who are already teaching in the field for real change to happen. As Loza points out, even well-intentioned instructors might not have the knowledge necessary to implement CLA in the language classroom (2017), and CLA itself is essential for developing an ideological stance for all language teachers in order to equally emphasize local language communities and indeed empower all language learners, HL and L2 alike. All present and future learners will go on to interact in a United States that has a large Spanish-speaking population. Equipping teachers and students to interact with local populations will empower both teachers and learners to meet the needs of US-Spanish-speaking communities while helping them address the asymmetries of power present in texts and materials used for teaching Spanish. Decentralizing these asymmetries is the first step toward developing a more just treatment of all varieties of the language.

Assessments of future teachers must move beyond essentialized notions of standard language, such as those found in Praxis exams, AP exams and ACTFL’s OPI and WPT exams. These gate-keeping assessments serve to not only keep our SHL students out of the language teaching field, but they also reinforce the hegemonic notion of the importance of one idealized standard. By including local service-learning opportunities in teacher training programs and familiarizing future teachers with local varieties of Spanish, we can begin to shift the tenets of CLA out beyond the discussions of SHL researchers and back into the classroom, where change must occur.