Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

One of the main characteristics of heritage language (HL) teaching in the United States (US) is the diversity of contexts in which it is carried out. Schwartz (2014) and Beaudrie (2016a) note that, in general, these contexts may include: (a) community-based schools or programs developed by community members—families, churches, community organizations, and so on—rather than by public institutions; (b) K-12 education, through immersion programs, two-way (dual) programs, courses for heritage language learners (HLLs), or classes with HLLs within second language (L2) education programs; and (c) higher education, with separate courses or programs for students with a background in the HL, or with L2 courses at a range of levels of proficiency that mix groups of L2 and HL students. Recently, these contexts have diversified further due to the gradual implementation of virtual and blended learning environments, service learning or community engagement programs, and study abroad options for HL students in other parts of the Spanish-speaking world (some recent overviews of these areas of interest are Henshaw 2016a, b; Lowther Pereira 2016; Shively 2016).

As Schwartz (2014, 362) points out, “This variety of educational settings and the range of abilities and diverse profiles of the students in these classes and programs challenge traditional approaches to teacher preparation.” With the goal of learning more about how teachers in these contexts are trained, the author reviewed the collection of Heritage Language Program Profiles on the Alliance website (http://www.cal.org/heritage/profiles/index.html) and found that the most common source of professional development for HL instructors is attending conferences and workshops. In the case of K-12 teachers, district and state supervisors often offer workshops and training sessions, while in community-based programs, support typically comes from either the embassies or consulates of participating communities or non-profit organizations in the US. According to Schwartz , the situation seems to be slightly better for HL instructors in higher education institutions, where they may be able to attend graduate courses, summer training sessions, and in-house seminars on HL pedagogy.

At any rate, the lack of preparation and training for HL instructors at all levels remains a problem, especially due to the lack of more comprehensive perspectives or models that could allow instructors to become more familiar with key notions and dimensions. Several examples include HL acquisition, in contrast to second language acquisition; sociolinguistic knowledge of varieties of the HL spoken by the learners; linguistic prejudices; differentiated instruction for mixed classes, that is, with L2 and HL learners; cultural connections with HL communities; socioaffective needs of HL learners; language policies and ideologies affecting HL education; and the instructorsʼ own beliefs and attitudes about teaching Spanish as a HL as well as their responses to teacher development programs focused on HL teaching issues (Potowski 2002; Potowski and Carreira 2004; Fairclough 2006, 2016a; Beaudrie 2009, 2012).

The main goal of this chapter is to introduce the main theoretical and practical basis of a professional development model that could be useful for instructors working with HL learners in any of the above educational contexts. To this end, the following section will describe several significant components of HL teacher education. Next, we will examine some theoretical and pedagogical features of sociocultural theories, the Multiliteracies approach , and more recently the Learning by Design approach that could be particularly productive for the professional development of instructors working with HLLs. In addition, several charts and tables accompany these sections to explain further how this teacher development model could be applied to some areas of interest for prospective and current HL instructors. The chapter will conclude with some remarks on the relationship between two crucial players in the professional preparation of HL instructors, namely Spanish university departments or programs generally responsible for the development of knowledge and skills about the Spanish language and its diverse cultures and general education programs usually involved with the training on pedagogical issues of different kinds.

Key Components of HL Teacher Preparation

In a recently published paper (Lacorte 2016), I argued that teacher development for instructors working with HLLs should be based on an ecological view of L2 and HL learning and teaching as activities inherently influenced by social, educational, cultural, economic, and political conditions (Hornberger and Wang 2008; Kramsch 2008). This means that teachers should be seen not just as individuals with knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions about their profession, but as “a part of the larger system in which they shape and are shaped by various factors in the system” (Hornberger and Wang 2008, 6).

The aforementioned position on language teacher development should help instructors to become more aware of substantial issues and developments in both HL and L2 education, and adjust their knowledge to their immediate professional and institutional realities (Lacorte 2015). It could also allow instructors to acquire a deeper understanding of the diverse dimensions defining HLLs: historical (immigration history and historical development of the language); linguistic (age and order of languages acquired as well as the variety spoken and amounts of language use); educational (type and amount of schooling in languages spoken); affective (motivation, attitudes, linguistic self-confidence); and cultural (ethnolinguistic identity, family cultural practices, travel to “homeland”) (Beaudrie et al. 2014, 56).

Drawing upon a range of relevant sources, Lacorte (2016, 102–103) first outlines several areas for the knowledge base of instructors working with HL learnersFootnote 1:

  • Understanding the historical, cultural, sociolinguistic, and academic backgrounds of HLLs as related to the immediate teaching environment

  • Awareness about the teacherʼs own background (e.g., country of origin, HL proficiency, teaching experience, etc.) and professional identity

  • Awareness about the distribution of language proficiency across modalities and skills among HLLs in connection with their cultural and sociolinguistic background

  • Knowledge about the nature of language proficiency assessment in order to interpret strengths and weaknesses derived from oral and written testing

  • Familiarity with issues of HL acquisition, especially those concerned with the integration of psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic factors

  • Familiarity with general approaches to teaching HLLs (i.e., differentiated instruction, language arts, and critical language pedagogy)

  • Pedagogical strategies to encourage collaboration among HL and FL students with varying levels of proficiency in mixed classrooms

  • Classroom management strategies to address issues of intergroup and (inter?)personal dynamics, motivations, and affective variables

  • Awareness of beliefs and attitudes regarding HL speakers and their language varieties

Second, Lacorte (2016, 104–112) suggests the following components for the professional development of language instructors working with HLLs:

  1. 1.

    Ideological considerations refer to teacher beliefs and attitudes and their impact on classroom practices. Teacher ideologies may come from, among other sources, previous experiences as language learners, personality factors, or attitudes toward different types of instruction or specific individuals or groups learning the language.

  1. 2.

    Cultural considerations involve the role that affinity to the heritage culture and/or language may have in the definition of the heritage learner . “Narrow” views imply that learners have a certain proficiency level in the language, while “broad” views include individuals with strong cultural connections but not necessarily knowledge of the HL (Polinsky and Kagan 2007).

  1. 3.

    Socioaffective considerations focus on the relationship between HL proficiency and maintenance with identity development, self-esteem, confidence, self-determination, social interaction, and motivation, as well as on the instructorsʼ affective practices—expression of feelings, moods, dispositions, and emotions—in their interactions with HLLs.

  1. 4.

    Linguistic considerations deal with the development of HL proficiency in terms of (a) language modalities, that is, reading, writing, speaking, and listening; (b) textual genres (e.g., student essays, formal and informal letters, oral narratives, business and academic reports, etc.); and (c) language registers and their use in different academic, personal, and professional contexts.

  1. 5.

    Curricular considerations concern the HL instructorsʼ knowledge about administrative practices in their institutions in relation to, for example, curricular options for learners with diverse linguistic and/or cultural profiles, extra- or co-curricular activities in HL communities, and the sequencing of articulation between courses for L2 students, HL students, or L2/HL students.

  1. 6.

    Pedagogical considerations are among the most common approaches to teaching HL students, that is (a) language arts (development of general literacy skills); (b) differentiated instruction (strategies or classroom structures to support learning in courses with L2 and HL learners); and (c) critical language pedagogy (practices and strategies to encourage the development of critical reflection and student agency).

  1. 7.

    Professional considerations entail the diverse professional development experiences from which HL instructors could obtain effective knowledge, for example, methods, courses, HL-related modules as part of L2 preparation programs, workshops, faculty discussions and meetings, professional conferences, free-access resources from related organizations, and so on.

HL teacher development has traditionally been more focused on items within the cultural, linguistic, and pedagogical components, while other matters of ideological, socioaffective, curricular, and professional nature have received less attention. However, many if not all of the issues mentioned within the above seven components should be approached from different perspectives and with the same interest. For example, the management of classrooms with HL and L2 learners involves not only pedagogical considerations, but also an assessment of the ideological, socioaffective, and linguistic characteristics of each group of learners (Carreira 2012). In general, this or any other professional development model for HL instructors should be designed so that it could be easily adaptable to a variety of academic/institutional contexts.

The next sections will, first, describe some theoretical and pedagogical frameworks based on the interaction between individual, collective, and contextual factors in language learning and teaching, and second, provide some ideas and examples to operationalize these frameworks in the field of HL teacher education.

Sociocultural Theory and Language Teacher Education

Among social perspectives to language development, sociocultural theory “offers the most-developed L2 pedagogical implications and clearest vision of learning goals, means, and instructional support” (Toth and Davin 2016, 158). Based on Vygotsky ʼs (1978) work on social psychology, human cognition is understood as inherently social. Specifically, every cognitive function appears first on a social level between individuals and later on an individual level within the personʼs mind. That is, being situated in diverse cultural environments allows individuals to develop the representational systems, such as language, that eventually become the medium, mediator, and tools of thought (for further details see Lantolf and Poehner 2014; Lantolf et al. 2015; Negueruela-Azarola and García 2016).

The application of sociocultural theory to language teacher education is mainly due to the work of Johnson and her colleagues (Johnson 2009, 2016; Johnson and Golombek 2011, 2016). As a starting point, these experts view language teacher education as:

a process of appropriation of culturally valued patterns of the social situations within which teachers interact on a regular basis. Typically, this involves appropriating normative ways of acting and interacting that reflect the values, assumptions, and attitudes that are embedded in the classrooms where teachers were once students, in the teacher education programs where they receive their professional credentialing, and in the schools where they eventually work. (Johnson and Kuerten Dellagnelo 2015, 11)

Johnson and Kuerten Dellagnelo (2015) also note several challenges for this process of appropriation, mainly (a) the differences between the way in which prospective teachers were taught and the more theoretically and pedagogically sound instructional practices of teacher education programs, and (b) the contrasts between what is learned in these programs and the actual ways in which things are done in different educational contexts. Addressing these and other related challenges seems to be particularly relevant for HL instructors in light of the different academic environments in which they work/will be working, and the significant complexity of their knowledge base.

In considering the essential positions of sociocultural theory in relation to L2 teacher education, Johnson and Golombek (2011) redefine two types of concepts around which L2 teachers develop their professional careers. In the first place, everyday concepts concern teachers’ personal knowledge about teaching and learning in general, as well as their own experiences as learners. Therefore, these concepts are mainly based on “observations and/or generalizations gleaned from a surface-level understanding of what language learning and teaching is all about” (Ibid., 2). While this kind of experimental knowledge related to “empirical learning ” is insufficient for the teachersʼ professional development, it may also be deeply ingrained in their attitudes and performance. For this reason, the transition toward scientific concepts , that is, knowledge originated from systematic observations and theoretical investigations and presented in L2 teacher education programs, should be grounded in activities mediating between teachersʼ personal experiences and theoretical and pedagogical dimensions in order to “bring these concepts to bear on concrete practical activity” (Ibid., 2). Otherwise, these programs run the risk of leaving prospective or current teachers with “empty verbalism ,” that is, terms or notions that may be relevant at a purely theoretical level, but not internalized “in such a way that they become psychological tools for thinking” (Ibid., 3).

In connection with the previous remark about the weight of institutional and professional realities in L2 teaching (Lacorte 2015), I would argue that the mediation between everyday concepts and scientific concepts should also implicate a sound understanding of contextual concepts , that is, knowledge about the institutional, social, and political conditions that define not only any of the educational spheres where language learning and teaching take place, but also the very structure of the teacher education programs where future or current instructors obtain guidance about their profession. As Auerbach (1995, 9) notes, social and ideological questions become apparent “even if they seem to be based on apolitical, professional considerations.” Among many others, some of the questions that should arise in the field of Spanish as a L2/HL could be: In what way(s) is power revealed in relation to standard and other varieties of the language? In what way(s) do social categories like race, gender, or class interact with the power relations in a Spanish classroom or program? What type(s) of stereotypical or negative outlooks can there be toward a L2/HL, its culture, and its speakers? To what extent could such attitudes toward Spanish as a L2 or HL inside and outside the classroom affect the teachersʼ professional motivation, their interaction with students, and the development of certain classroom activities? What determines the degree of curricular and institutional commitment to the development of activities allowing for greater access to Spanish-speaking communities outside the institution? (Lacorte 2015) (Fig. 8.1).

Fig. 8.1
figure 1

Concepts involved in L2 teacher development

Full size image

Johnson and Golombek (2011), and more recently Johnson (2016), point out that achieving a productive and truly relevant relationship between these three types of concepts from language teachersʼ first steps in their professional development continues to be a major challenge for programs that are “often disconnected in any substantive way from the practical goal-directed activities of actual teaching” (Johnson and Golombek, 2). For this reason, sociocultural theory applied to L2 teacher education underlines the importance of considering these concepts and the knowledge derived from them as interrelated. In other words, the constant mediation between what is taught, how it is taught, and where it is taught should become an essential foundation for the development of teaching expertise. Table 8.1 shows the types of knowledge related to everyday, scientific, and contextual concepts that should be understood holistically in any teacher preparation program or activity.

Table 8.1 Types of knowledge in teacher preparation/education programs
Full size table

Personal practical knowledge (Connelly et al. 1997) (also “practical pedagogical knowledge ” or “pedagogical content knowledge ”) refers to the procedures, strategies, and/or techniques that teachers resort to in their everyday teaching in order to make the content of their instruction significant and accessible to students. For example, the way in which a Spanish instructor may arrange the physical distribution of HL and L2 students in an advanced-level course on Hispanic Sociolinguistics, decide to incorporate more pedagogical materials focusing on a specific variety of Spanish which may be more relevant for his or her students, or encourage HL and L2 students to interact actively in peer review activities for essays or exam answers. Scientific concepts in language teaching involve both the knowledge of the subject that instructors teach ( subject matter knowledge , for example, linguistic structures and terms, cultural products and artifacts, and other areas of the Spanish language and its cultures), and the knowledge of general pedagogical processes that instructors would need to gain for their daily activities to become more effective ( general pedagogical knowledge of, for example, theories of second language acquisition, curriculum design, development of materials, classroom management, etc.). Finally, contextual knowledge about the institutional, social, and political conditions of L2/HL learning and teaching could allow instructors, for example, to better understand the complex underlying academic and institutional forces behind courses dealing with different aspects of Spanish as a subject matter, usually offered by Spanish departments or programs, and courses on general curricular and pedagogical frameworks, typically as part of foreign- or world-language education programs in Schools of Education . Also, this kind of knowledge could be quite useful for instructors to gain a broader understanding of the ideological and institutional factors that define—or “curricularize” (Valdés 2017)—the development of any program for the teaching and learning of Spanish as a HL in the US.

The Multiliteracies Approach, Learning by Design, and Language Education

As the teaching and learning of Spanish as a HL has given more attention to the expansion, appropriation, and critical reflection of the linguistic and cultural repertoires of HLLs (see, e.g., Beaudrie et al. 2014; Fairclough and Beaudrie 2016; Pascual y Cabo 2016), a growing number of experts have become more interested in the implementation of a Multiliteracies pedagogical framework which, as the sociocultural perspective, views language as “socially constructed” and its teaching and learning as “dynamic and shifting processes of meaning-making and the divergent cultural practices, values, and ideologies that are involved” (Thorne 2013, 2). Next, I am going to highlight some features of the Multiliteracies framework, and in particular of the Learning by Design pedagogy (see Chap. 1 for further details), that are especially significant for L2/HL teacher education (as illustrated in the following section):

  1. 1.

    The interpretation and production of texts as stretches of written or spoken language used in combination with non-linguistic signs to make meaning facilitates an understanding of how people actively and/or passively make choices from the resources available to them when communicating in particular contexts to achieve a variety of purposes (New London Group 1996).

  2. 2.

    Language teaching curricula should account for a continuum of genres linking the linguistic (and semiotic) alternatives included in texts with particular contexts and conventions, from those concerning private domains—for example, informal letter or personal stories—to those more commonly found in public contexts—for example, academic and professional texts (Gee 2002).

  3. 3.

    The literacy process should explore the multiple semiotic resources (i.e., linguistic, visual, audio, spatial, tactile, gestural) of any given text, and develop knowledge about how these diverse resources may be independently and interactively used to construct different types of meaning (Kress 2000; Unsworth and Bush 2010).

  4. 4.

    Linguistic diversity within the realm of a specific language—intra-linguistic diversity—and across languages—inter-linguistic diversity—should be adequately addressed as part of language instruction at all levels in order to overcome hegemonic or biased positions about certain languages or varieties of a given language (Lo Bianco 2000), even those that are based on translingual practices (Creese and Blackledge 2010).

  5. 5.

    Critical analysis and reflection are central for students to develop a critical stance in relation to any type of text. In this way, learners can develop not only a stronger awareness about schemas and structures typical in dominant genres, but also about being agents of social change, that is, “active designers—makers—of social future” (Cope and Kalantzis 2000, 7).

  6. 6.

    Creativity and transformative processes are emphasized so students have opportunities to (a) master the forms that are more common in particular genres and (b) appreciate the variability of genres as they are used in social practices.

  7. 7.

    Key concepts for transformative processes within the Multiliteracies pedagogy are (1) the notion of “design” as both the internal structure or morphology of a text and the act of building or constructing texts; (2) “available designs,” or the multiple resources for the act of “design,” that is, the wide variety of oral, written, visual, and digital texts that are available to students; (3) the act of “design” or “designing,” which transforms the available designs through the use of old materials and reproduces and/or transforms knowledge, social relations, and identities; and (4) “the redesigned,” or transformed resources originated from the “designing” process which subsequently become “available designs” (Cope and Kalantzis 2009; Kumagai and López-Sánchez 2016).

In relation to these and other features of the Multiliteracies approach , several authors suggested four curricular components that can guide pedagogical practice (Kalantzis and Cope 2008). These components are often interconnected and overlapping, and therefore not hierarchical and linear. Since they do not necessarily follow any particular sequence, they should be combined in a variety of ways in order to structure and scaffold language instruction. While these components have already been introduced in other educational theories and practices (Cope and Kalantzis 2000), special emphasis is given here to consider all of them as equally important to/in the pedagogical process. These components include:

  • Situated Practice: immersion of learners in experience and language use

  • Overt Instruction: assistance in conceptualizing and understanding, making tacit knowledge explicit, and translating specifics to generalizations

  • Critical Framing: conscious reflection about the meanings under study in relation to their contexts of use

  • Transformed Practice: opportunities to design, redesign, and reshape texts with respect to real-world situations and learnersʼ interests, experiences, and aspirations

Kalantzis and Cope (2008) reformulated these components to reflect knowledge and pedagogical processes identified in Bloom ʼs (1956) taxonomy, specifically “Experiencing,” “Conceptualizing,” “Analyzing,” and “Applying.” These authors also divided each of these processes into two subcategories to account for the changing aspects of the conventionalized (“available designs”) and the new or the creative (“redesigning”) that are inherent in any act of communication. The following table—adapted from Kumagai and López-Sánchez (2016, 17–19) and Samaniego and Warner (2016, 200)—shows the curricular components, pedagogical processes, and subcategories discussed in regard to this point (Table 8.2):

Table 8.2 Curricular and pedagogical components/processes of a pedagogy of multiliteracies
Full size table

In recent years, the field of teaching and learning Spanish as a L2/HL has contributed a significant number of theoretical and practical studies that, explicitly or implicitly, reflect the above pedagogical components and processes related to the Multiliteracies approach. Some recent examples are: Belpoliti and Fairclough (2016), inquiry-based cultural projects for HL students at different levels through the Internet, surveys, interviews, and field data collection; García and Kleyn (2016), ethnographic case studies about how translanguaging is used in lesson designs and teaching events within bilingual classrooms; García et al. (2017), classroom strategies, unit designs for instruction and assessment, and teacher-initiated research suggestions for translingual pedagogy; Leeman and Serafini (2016), critical language awareness and critical translingual competence; Oskoz and Elola (2014), development of digital stories through the integration of texts, images, and sound; Parra (2013), translingual competence, transcultural critical thinking, and social consciousness through community engagement and artwork, and (2016), critical pedagogy in connection with sociolinguistic awareness, multiliteracies, and service learning in the community; and Samaniego and Warner (2016), progress of writing instruction in HL education until current “postprocess” or “genre” approaches.

In line with the primary pedagogical criteria of the Multiliteracies approach, these authors offer an extensive list of resources for the analysis and creative transformation of a variety of texts relevant to heritage learners, among them:

  • Music, film, literature

  • Other cultural and artistic artifacts

  • Newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, Internet

  • Maps, graphics, tables, etc.

  • Summaries or abstracts of research projects

  • Official reports or surveys

  • Google, Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines online

  • Questionnaires, surveys, interviews, etc. designed by students

  • Oral narratives (individual, collective, family, public, digital)

  • Blogs, wikis, YouTube channels, and other personal spaces online

  • Research on linguistic landscapes

  • Advertising online and in mass media

  • (Non) participant observations in the community

…As described in the next section, most if not all of these textual options should be equally attractive and productive for our model of professional development for HL instructors.

A Multiliteracies Approach to Heritage Language Teacher Education

The theoretical and practical aspects of the sociocultural theory and the Multiliteracies approach discussed so far in this chapter have obvious implications for the professional development of language instructors working with L2 and HL students. As López-Sánchez and Kumagai (2016) note, both frameworks view language teaching as inherently based on the collaboration between individuals with different profiles, skills, and perspectives regarding the language that they are either learning or teaching. Also, these frameworks are not particularly concerned with replicating the competence of idealized “native” speakers, or the skills of idealized “perfect language teachers.” Rather, they are more interested in developing an awareness of language users and language teaching professionals about their personal and social agency in the L2, more critical competence, and more resources to interpret and produce a wide range of texts in diverse social spaces. This type of language pedagogy therefore requires teachers to be able to implement competently a number of roles in the socially situated practices of teaching and learning, among them “co-inquirer,” “mediator,” “transformation agent,” “designer,” “facilitator,” and “empowerer.” What else does the above mean for the preparation and/or education of instructors working with HL students?

In the first place, it is important that HL teacher education programs of any type (graduate courses or modules, workshops, seminars, etc.) develop their curricula and activities based on the relationship between the three concepts—everyday, scientific, and contextual—that feed the interconnected types of teacher knowledge —personal practical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and contextual knowledge. Let us consider, for example, the topic of individual characteristics of heritage learners initially included as part of the “Cultural” component in our model of professional development of HL instructors. A teacher education activity about this topic could begin with some oral narratives of heritage learners talking about their personal experiences growing up with two languages at home and in other social contexts (see, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d75fSTAStcI), or with personal narratives of the prospective or current instructors attending the training activity as a means of strengthening the connection between their experiences and the development of their professional expertise (see Boche 2014 for an account of narrative enquiries as part of a teacher education program within a Multiliteracies framework). Following this initial contact with and reflection on the issue under consideration, the teacher educator could ask participants to read one or more bibliographic sources about different options for the definition of heritage learners (see, e.g., Van Deusen-Scholl 2003; Polinsky and Kagan 2007; Chapter 2 of Beaudrie et al. 2014) and then decide what key points about the topic are made by these sources. As noted earlier, it is crucial to encourage an active mediation between the contents of these two pedagogical stages to avoid purely theoretical (or anecdotal) positions. Such mediation should also lay out a conducive transition to the next stage, when participants could be asked to consider the extent to which the characteristics of heritage learners discussed so far during the activity are similar to or different from those of students in their immediate personal or professional context, or the degree to which a greater awareness could affect their current or future teaching philosophy, for example, regarding “narrow” and “broad” views of the definition of heritage learners.

Together with the attention given to everyday, scientific, and contextual concepts and the different types of related knowledge, HL teacher education programs or activities should integrate the pedagogical processes that define the Multiliteracies approach Learning by Design—that is, Experiencing, Conceptualizing, Analyzing, and Applying. As noted before, while these elements do not necessarily need to be implemented in a hierarchical or linear fashion, they should be sequenced around activities promoting continuous critical reflection (Fig. 8.2):

Fig. 8.2
figure 2

Pedagogical sequence and critical reflection in HL teacher education

Full size image

As a first example of how to structure a teacher education module within this approach, the exploration of differentiated instruction in classes with HLLs could begin with questions about personal experiences as learners or teachers in (a) classrooms with a combination of L2 and HL students, or (b) classrooms with only L2 or HL students with diverse levels of proficiency, motivation, or attitudes ( Experiencing the known ). Some sample questions could be: “Have you ever been in a classroom where students seemed to have quite uneven proficiency levels?” “Or students with very different attitudes toward the subject or the instructor?” “To what extent could those differences affect the interaction/rapport/dynamics of the course?” “Did you notice any specific strategies or techniques used by the instructor to balance those differences?” This initial stage could also include a discussion about perspectives offered by others ( Experiencing the new ) on the same issue (see, e.g., the resources provided at http://www.caroltomlinson.com/, or the performances by some film teachers displaying funny or inspiring techniques for inclusion and differentiated instruction at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6rEy3Lqfio). The next activity would have participants develop a more general understanding of differentiated instruction through, for example, (a) naming and classifying the strategies or techniques discussed in the previous stage ( Conceptualizing by naming ) and/or (b) linking those strategies or techniques to the key concepts of a framework for differentiated instruction such as the one suggested by Carreira (2016) ( Conceptualizing with theory ). Analyzing activities should allow the participants to examine the main concepts presented so far in relation to their own academic and/or professional contexts. In the case of differentiated instruction, the participants could be asked to (a) consider the possible effects of implementing the strategies and tools listed by Carreira (Analyze functionally) and/or (b) discuss how L2 and HL students, other instructors, or even administrators could react to the implementation of the new framework (Analyze critically). Finally, the Applying stage could, among other options, involve activities to (a) put into effect the strategies and tools analyzed throughout the activity ( Applying appropriately ) and/or (b) create new differentiation strategies for a given local academic context of special interest to individual participants ( Applying creatively ). The structure of activities for this final phase would depend on the particular conditions of the teacher preparation program, for example, if participants have or do not have access to actual classrooms with HL/L2 students. Otherwise, participants could be asked to create some teaching/learning scenarios where they could apply specific differentiation strategies accordingly.

The second example deals with the teaching and/or treatment of varieties of Spanish in courses with HLLs. An initial activity would have participants fill out a questionnaire to describe their dialect identity, beliefs, and practices ( Experiencing the known ) and to discuss the answers with their peers ( Experiencing the new ). A possible resource for this phase could be the questionnaire prepared by Andión (2013). In the next stage, participants could contrast the most frequent answers from the group with those highlighted by Andión in her study, or categorize the answers that show more negative or more positive beliefs ( Conceptualizing by naming ). At this point, participants could compare the notions of dialect identity, beliefs, and practices with the key concepts presented by Fairclough (2016b) as part of her multidialectal model to include additional varieties into an individualʼs linguistic repertoire ( Conceptualizing with theory ). Participants could now go back to the previous contrast between their answers to the questionnaire and the results of Andión ʼs study to infer possible reasons for differences and similarities (Analyze functionally), and/or to evaluate their own and the other respondentsʼ perspectives on Spanish varieties, with specific attention to their treatment in courses with HLLs (Analyze critically). The next activity could involve (a) the application in real-life contexts or in hypothetical scenarios of the contrastive techniques suggested by Fairclough (2016b, 156–159) ( Applying appropriately ) and/or (b) the consideration of complementary strategies for a given academic setting of interest to participants ( Applying creatively ).

The final example of how the Learning by Design framework may be applied to HL teacher education concerns assessment, an umbrella term that may include placement, quantitative measurement procedures, and other more qualitative kinds of assessment such as portfolios, journals, or observations. The module could begin with some questions about personal experiences and preferences regarding different forms of assessment ( Experiencing the known ), followed by a review of closed-ended/open-ended written exams, essays, oral presentations or oral interviews produced by HL and L2 students to compare grammatical or textual features ( Experiencing the new ). Then, participants could be asked to think, in general terms, about advantages and disadvantages of the previous—and other—assessment options ( Conceptualizing by naming ) in relation to either HL or L2 students. Next, participants would contrast their general impressions with key points about, for instance, the assessment process (reliability and validity) and/or types of test (diagnostic, formative, summative) ( Conceptualizing with theory ) (see, e.g., Chapter 10 of Beaudrie et al. 2014; Fairclough 2012; Beaudrie 2016b; Nik. Ilieva and Clark-Gareca 2016). After that, participants could backtrack to their own experience with assessment practices as language learners or teachers in order to consider whether formative or summative options were more common, what types of activities or items appeared more frequently in those options, or the extent to which any of the other key concepts presented in the previous stage were taken into account (Analyze functionally). Next, participants could reflect on possible reasons for which assessment options may be more or less popular in different academic or institutional contexts, and on their implications for HLLs in the short and long term (Analyze critically). Finally, participants would be asked to design new forms of diagnostic/formative/summative assessment options (or transform summative tasks into formative ones) in academic or institutional contexts of special interest to the participants ( Applying creatively ).

I am aware that many of the activities and/or resources described in these examples may already be used in existing HL teacher preparation programs and that the stages around which we have structured them are also present in other educational theories and practices (Cope and Kalantzis 2000). However, our main goals have been to (a) underline the equal importance of each of these pedagogical stages in order to reinforce the role of prospective and current HL instructors as designers of their own professional development and (b) emphasize the value of mediating between teachersʼ personal experiences, theoretical and pedagogical dimensions, and institutional and professional conditions. If a Multiliteracies language curriculum should provide learners with opportunities to become familiar with, analyze critically, and create from a wide variety of texts, HL teacher preparation programs should afford instructors opportunities to gain control over theoretical, pedagogical, and professional resources so they can effectively apply or even transform these resources in any educational context where they teach or will be teaching.

Conclusion

As mentioned earlier, a key feature of this or any other professional development model for HL instructors should be its adaptability to diverse academic or institutional settings. With regard to the seven key components included in our model, Lacorte (2016, 103) points out that users “should assess all or some of them according to her or his own knowledge and experience as an instructor, teacher, educator, curriculum developer, language program director, researcher, or administrator, among others.” (Quite likely, other authors with broader experience in HL teacher development [see, e.g., Potowski 2005; Kagan and Dillon 2009; Beaudrie et al. 2014] would agree with this position.) On the other hand, we would like to, first, underline the importance of bearing in mind (a) the different types of teacher concepts and knowledge and (b) the curricular and pedagogical stages presented in this chapter as the pedagogical basis for the development of programs, courses, modules, seminars, workshops, discussions, and so on about any issues within the above components of HL teacher education (Fig. 8.3).

Fig. 8.3
figure 3

Model for heritage language teacher preparation/education

Full size image

Second, I would like to argue for a much stronger communication between Spanish departments or units and general education programs, since these two may possibly be the most instrumental points of reference for prospective and even current HL instructors. Valdés (2016, 2017) has recently defined “curricularization of language ” as a process of “treating language as an academic subject in school contexts […] informed and controlled by a complex interacting system of ideological, epistemological, theoretical and practical mechanisms” (2017, 76–77). The same could be said about many HL teacher preparation programs, often affected by diverging, or even contradictory, perspectives on (a) the components of the professional development model presented in this chapter: ideological, cultural, socioaffective, linguistic, curricular, pedagogical, and professional; (b) the types of knowledge associated with everyday, scientific, and contextual notions developed by instructors: personal practical, subject matter, pedagogical, and contextual; and (c) the pedagogical processes or stages around which instruction of teacher preparation programs may be structured: experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing, applying. As we are aware of the common trend in our language teaching profession toward fragmentation, it will be crucial that those of us involved in the professional development of HL instructors make greater institutional, academic, and curricular efforts to work together on, for example, cross-listed and/or team-taught courses, reading groups, co-directed theses, co-sponsored workshops or seminars, collaborative research projects and grant proposals, and so on. Together with HL instructors, we all share the same objective: providing our HL students with the best Spanish language education possible.