Heritage Language Learners in Mixed University Classes: Language Skills, Attitudes, and Implications for Curriculum Development

  • Marianthi Oikonomakou
  • Themistoklis Aravossitas
  • Eleni Skourtou
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


Heritage languages are often taught in mixed classrooms attended by both heritage language learners (HLLs) and foreign language learners (FLLs). This coexistence can be problematic for one of the two groups of students, or both, if their various learning needs are not identified and reflected in the course curriculum. Our research follows a modular approach focusing on (a) the effects of individual social and cultural characteristics in the development and assessment of language skills in the teaching of Greek as a heritage language, and (b) the necessity of elaborating a teaching framework that meets specific and individual needs of learners. Using questionnaires for our data collection, we investigated the structure and organization of two Modern Greek university programs in Toronto (University of Toronto and York University) comprised of both HL and FL learners. Our study explores several social, cultural, and teaching aspects to illustrate a comprehensive mapping of this educational challenge. We intend to use the findings toward restructuring the curricula by adopting more realistic and effective teaching approaches that take into consideration the negotiation of identities in the teaching of heritage languages.


Educational research Heritage and foreign language pedagogy Modern Greek language Identity negotiation Teaching methodology Self-assessment Additional language curriculum development 



This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


  1. Allison, D. (2011). Learning our literacy lessons: EAL/D students, critical literacy, and the National Curriculum. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34, 181–201.Google Scholar
  2. Aravossitas, T. (2016). The hidden schools: Mapping Greek heritage language education in Canada. Doctoral thesis. Retrieved June 24, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/1807/71722
  3. Austin, J. L. (1975). In J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisa (Eds.), How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1th 1962).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, S. (2011). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 201–202. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01434632.2010.550709#.VbAfIvlVhHw
  5. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barkley, R. A. (Ed.). (2014). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Barkely, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Howell Major, C. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts (Language in social life series). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Beaudrie, S., & Ducar, C. (2005). Beginning level university heritage programs: Creating a space for all heritage language learners. Heritage Language Journal, 30, 1–26.Google Scholar
  10. Boud, D. (2003). Enhancing learning through self assessment. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1977a). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1977b). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, H. D. (1994a). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, D. H. (1994b). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach toy language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Journal of Applied linguistics, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term “heritage language learner”. Heritage Language Journal, 2, 1–25.Google Scholar
  18. Carreira, M. (2007). Teaching Spanish in the U.S.: Beyond the one-size-fits-all paradigm. In K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Carreira, M. (2012). Formative assessment in HL teaching: Purposes, procedures, and practices. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), 100–120. Retrieved July 11, 2015, from http://hlj.ucla.edu.Google Scholar
  20. Carreira, M. (2014). Teaching heritage language learners: A study of programme profiles, practices and needs. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Rethinking heritage language education (pp. 20–44). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Carreira, M. (2015). A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/Carreira-General-Framework.docx
  22. Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. CERES. (2014). Undergraduate program in Hellenic studies. Website of the Centre for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ceres/
  24. Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1998). Critical discourse analysis and educational change. In L. Van Lier & D. Corson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 217–227). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies. Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Council of Europe. (2001). European framework of references for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students. A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment.Google Scholar
  28. Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.Google Scholar
  29. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 2: Literacy, pp. 71–83). New York: Springer Media LLC.Google Scholar
  30. Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for success in changing times. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  31. Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  32. Gallant, T. W. (2006). The status of Modern Greek and Hellenic studies in higher education in Canada and the York University Experience. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 24(1), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. García, O. (1992). Societal multilingualism in a multicultural world in transition. In H. Byrne (Ed.), Languages for a multicultural world in transition (pp. 1–27). Illinois: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
  34. Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  35. Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  36. Goodier, T. (2014). Working with CEFR can-do statements: An investigation of UK English language teacher beliefs and published materials. Master’s Dissertation-King’s College London. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/
  37. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5–21). White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  38. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text. Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Harrison, B. (1997). Language integration: Results of an intergenerational analysis. Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Conditions for Europe, 14, 289–303.Google Scholar
  40. Harrison, B. (2000). Passing on the language: Heritage language diversity in Canada. Canadian Social Trends. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008, 58, 14–19.Google Scholar
  41. Harvard University, Arts and Humanities Division. (2013). The teaching of the Arts and Humanities at Harvard College: Mapping the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from http://artsandhumanities.fas.harvard.edu/files/humanities/files/mapping_the_future_31_may_2013.pdf
  42. Hellenic Heritage Foundation. (2014). The Apollo Project. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.hhf.ca
  43. Hume, K. (2008). Start where they are: Differentiating for success with the young adolescent. Toronto: Pearson Professional Learning.Google Scholar
  44. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmonds Worth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Idrobo, M. (2015, September 26). Humanities enrollment declines in Wellesley and nation. The Wellesley News. Retrieved June 4, 2014, from http://thewellesleynews.com/2015/09/26/humanities-enrollment-declines-in-wellesley-and-nation/
  46. Jones, C. (2009). Interdisciplinary approach-advantages, disadvantages, and the future benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSAI, 7, Article 26. Retrieved May 2016, from http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/26
  47. Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2004). Heritage speakers’ potential for high-level language proficiency. In H. Byrnes & H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs (pp. 99–112). Boston: Heinle/Thomson.Google Scholar
  48. Kanno, K., Hasegawa, T., Ikeda, K., Ito, Y., & Long, M. H. (2008). Prior language-learning experience and variation in the linguistic profiles of advanced English-speaking learners of Japanese. In D. M. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 321–333). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Kinneavy, J. (1971). A theory of discourse. The aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Kono, N., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Heritage languages and higher education: Challenges, issues, and needs. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 197–206). McHenry: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  51. Kress, G. (1994). Learning to write. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation – New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies – Literacy, learning and the design of social futures. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Kourtis-Kazoullis, V. (2011). Internet-based sister-classes and writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 3(2), 305–323. http://www.equinoxjournals.com/WAP/current.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  56. Leloup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2003). Second language acquisition and technology: A review of the research. CAL digests, December 2003. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://www.cal.org/resource-center/briefs-digests/digests
  57. Lewin, T. (2013, October 30). As interest fades in the humanities, colleges worry. NYTimes. Retrieved May 21, 2016, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/education/as-interest-fades-in-the-humanities-colleges-worry.html
  58. Martin, J. R. (1984). Types of writing in infants and primary school. In I. Unsworth (Ed.), Reading, writing, spelling (Proceedings of the fifth Macarthur reading/language symposium). Sydney: Macarthur Institute of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  59. Martin, J. R. (2000). Grammar meets genres: Reflections on the “Sidney School”. Inaugural lecture (31 Augoust 2000). The Journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 22, 47–95.Google Scholar
  60. Montrul, S. (2010). How similar are L2 learners and heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. New London Group: Cazden, C., Fairclough, N., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., Luke, C., & Nakata, M. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Education Review, 66(1), 60–92.Google Scholar
  62. New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9–42). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. North, B., & Schneider, G. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing, 15(2), 217–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning. Strategies: What every teacher should known. New York: Newbury house/Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  66. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7th (1991).Google Scholar
  68. Skourtou, E., Kourtis Kazoullis, V., & Cummins, J. (2006). Designing virtual learning environments for academic language development. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), International handbook of virtual learning environments (2 Vols.). Norwell: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, B. (1990). Toward a history of speech act theory. In A. Burkhardt (Ed.), Speech acts, meaning and intentions: Critical approaches to the philosophy of John Searle (pp. 29–61). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. Sohn, S. O., & Shin, S. K. (2007). True beginners, false beginners, and fake beginners: Placement strategies for Korean heritage learners. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stapleton, P. (2014). An interdisciplinary approach to language teaching research. ELT Journal. Oxford University Press. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/02/elt.ccu040.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=rEyOj2xfvxfQPNt
  72. Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  74. Turner, K. (1995). Listening in a foreign language: A skill we take for granted? London: CILT.Google Scholar
  75. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Practice and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learner. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons for good language learners (pp. 13–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Valdes, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37–77). McHenry/Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  78. Walqui, A. (2007). Scaffolding: Instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. In O. Garcia & C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual education – An introductory reader. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  79. Woodward, T. (2001). Planning lessons and courses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. York University. (2014). Department of languages, literatures and linguistics: Modern Greek. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.yorku.ca/laps/dlll/greek/

Bibliography in Greek

  1. Archakis, A. (2005). (In Greek). Γλωσσική διδασκαλία και σύσταση κειμένων. Aθήνα: Πατάκης.Google Scholar
  2. Bella, S. (2007). (In Greek). H Δεύτερη Γλώσσα: Kατάκτηση και Διδασκαλία. Aθήνα: Eλληνικά Γράμματα.Google Scholar
  3. Bella, S. (2015). (In Greek). Πραγματoλoγία. Aπό τη γλωσσική επικoινωνία στη γλωσσική διδασκαλία. Aθήνα: Γ. και K. Δαρδανός Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  4. Baynham, M. (2002). (In Greek). Πρακτικές γραμματισμoύ. Aθήνα: Mεταίχμιo.Google Scholar
  5. Constantinides, S. (2001). Greek language education in Canada (In Greek/H ελληνόγλωσση εκπαίδευση στoν Kαναδά). Rethimno: University of Crete, CIMSUC/EΔIAMME.Google Scholar
  6. Charalampopoulos, A., & Chatzisavidis, S. (1997). (In Greek). H διδασκαλία της λειτoυργικής χρήσης της γλώσσας: θεωρία και πρακτική εφαρμoγή. Mία εναλλακτική πρόταση για τη διδασκαλία της νέας ελληνικής στην υπoχρεωτική εκπαίδευση. Θεσσαλoνίκη: Kώδικας.Google Scholar
  7. Efstathiades, S., & Antonopoulou, N. (2004). (In Greek). (σε συνεργασία με: Ψάλτoυ- Jocey A., Kίτσoυ I. Παναγιωτίδoυ B., Σακελλαρίoυ A, Σπανoύ K). Στρατηγικές μάθησης και διδακτικές πρoτάσεις. Oλoκληρωμένες πρoτάσεις διδασκαλίας των τεσσάρων δεξιoτήτων για την ελληνικής ξένη/δεύτερη γλώσσα. Πρόγραμμα Πιστoπoίησης Eλληνoμάθειας. Θεσσαλoνίκη: Kέντρo Eλληνικής Γλώσσας. Διαθέσιμo στην ηλεκτρoνική διεύθυνση: http://www.greeklanguage.gr/certification/node/127
  8. Hondolidou, E. (1999). (In Greek). Eισαγωγή στην έννoια της πoλυτρoπικότητας, Γλωσσικός Yπoλoγιστής,1(1). Θεσσαλoνίκη: Kέντρo Eλληνικής Γλώσσας, 115–118 (βλ. επίσης http://www.komvos.edu.gr)
  9. Kostouli, T. (2001). (In Greek). Kειμενoκεντρική πρoσέγγιση και γλωσσικό μάθημα. Στo Xριστίδης, A. Φ. (επμ.) Eγκυκλoπαιδικός Oδηγός για τη Γλώσσα, Θεσσαλoνίκη: Kέντρo Eλληνικής Γλώσσας, 230–233.Google Scholar
  10. Matsagouras, E. (2002). (In Greek). Διεπιστημoνικότητα, Διαθεματικότητα και Eνιαιoπoίηση στα νέα Πρoγράμματα Σπoυδών: Tρόπoι oργάνωσης της σχoλικής γνώσης. Eπιθεώρηση Eκπαιδευτικών Θεμάτων, 7, 19–36.Google Scholar
  11. Mitsis, N. (2004). (In Greek). H διδασκαλία της γλώσσας υπό τo πρίσμα της επικoινωνιακής πρoσέγγισης. Aθήνα: Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  12. Varlokosta, S., & Triantafillidou, L. (2003). (In Greek). H Eλληνική ως δεύτερη γλώσσα. Kαθoρισμός επιπέδων γλωσσoμάθειας τoυ πρoφoρικoύ λόγoυ αλλoδαπών μαθητών. Eπιστημoνικός Yπεύθυνoς: Kαθ. Γ.Π. Mάρκoυ. Πρόγραμμα “Eκπαίδευση Παλιννoστoύντων και Aλλoδαπών Mαθητών”. Aθήνα: Kέντρo Διαπoλιτισμικής Aγωγής, Πανεπιστήμιo Aθηνών. Διαθέσιμo στην ηλεκτρoνική διεύθυνση: http://6dim-diap-elefth.thess.sch.gr/Greek/Diapolitismiki_Ekpaidefsi/EllhnikhWsDeyterhGlwssa.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianthi Oikonomakou
    • 1
  • Themistoklis Aravossitas
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eleni Skourtou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Primary EducationUniversity of the AegeanRhodesGreece
  2. 2.CERES-Munk School of Global AffairsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Languages, Literatures and LinguisticsYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations