University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PUNCTURING DISCOURSE

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE: RUSSIAN HERITAGE LEARNER LANGUAGE AND
IDENTITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

by

Matthew Stephen Dame

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Natalia, who was not only the inspiration for
this dissertation, but who always stimulated me to push my cognitive boundaries, question
everything, and be passionate about the art of teaching. Her strength and support enabled me to
overcome the many challenges that this doctorate presented; for that I am eternally grateful.

I also dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Linda, and to the memory of my loving
father, Joe. As my first teachers, they always taught me to follow my dreams and provided the
structure and support to allow me to do just that. I hope that this dissertation shows them that
their predictions came true in more ways than one.

Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to my parents-in-law, Viacheslav and Elena Kolupaev,
who, although roughly 6,300 miles away, always provided steadfast support and praise of my
efforts. I hope that this dissertation makes them proud.

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 3

Acknowledgements
This dissertation was a collaborative effort that required the support and encouragement
of many people. I am indebted to my committee chair, Paula Carbone, for her time, expertise,
and consistent support. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Jenifer
Crawford and Uju Anya for their insight and ability to mentally push me into new philosophical
areas. Finally, I would like to especially thank my wife, Natalia, for her help in translating
documents and aiding with interviews.
I am also very grateful to the teachers and administrators at the three higher education
sites for their willingness and cooperation.

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 7
Chapter One 8
Background of the Problem 11
Defining and Approaching the HLL 12
The Russian HLL and Hybrid Cultural Identity 14
Critical Reflection and Hybrid Cultural Identity 17
Statement of the Problem 21
Purpose 22
Limitations and Delimitations 23
Organization of the Study 24
Definition of Terms 25
Chapter Two 26
Previous HL Research and Identity Frameworks 30
The Current Identity Framework 33
Bourdieu's Linguistic and Symbolic Capital 35
The Practical Applications of Identity Frameworks in HL/FL Research 37
Positioning 38
Translanguaging in the Educational Third Space 43
Translanguaging 44
The HL/FL Teacher and Curricular Choices 48
Textbooks 49
The Role of Reflection in Teacher Education 52
A Brief History of Reflection in Teacher Education 53
Criticisms of Dewey and Schön 56
The Reification of Reflection in Teacher Education 57
Differentiating Critical Reflection from Reflection 60
Summary of Chapter Two 62
Conclusion 64
Chapter Three 65
Methods 67
Sample and Site Selection 68
Sites and Access 68
Preliminary Survey and Participants 69
Data Collection 70
Interviews 71
Observations 72
Artifacts 73
Data Analysis 73
Positionality 75
Chapter Four 76
Sites and Participants 80
Coastal Community College 80
Professor Kusna 82
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 5

Felicia 82
Kalista 83
Steven 84
Arkady 85
San Gabriel College 85
Dr. Rosanova 86
Dasha 87
Topanga State University 88
Dr. Alan 89
Anastasia 89
Dr. Galo 90
Findings for Research Question Number One 91
The RLI's Use of Physical and Discursive Space 91
Physical Space 92
Discursive Space 95
Coastal Community College 96
San Gabriel College 99
Topanga State University 102
Summary 106
Russian Proficiency and Hybrid Cultural Identity Development 107
A Mixed Space 108
San Gabriel College and Coastal Community College 108
Topanga State University 110
Teacher Moves 111
Summary 116
Outdated Textbooks for Russian HLL 117
Beginner's Russian 120
Summary of Research Question One 121
Findings for Research Question Two 123
The Lack of Structured Critical Reflection 124
The RLI's Role in the Russian HLLs' Hybrid Cultural Identity Development 125
Defining Russian Culture and HLL Identity 128
Describing the Russian HLLs 130
The RLI's Relationship to Russia 134
Professor Kusna 134
Dr. Rosanova 135
Dr. Alan 136
Summary of Research Question Two 137
Findings for Research Question Three 139
Russian HLL Engagement 140
Coastal Community College 140
San Gabriel College 144
Topanga State University 146
Russian HLL Awareness of a Hybrid Identity 148
The Language and Culture Division 152
Coastal Community College 152
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 6

San Gabriel College and Topanga State University 155
Summary of Research Question Three 156
Summary of Chapter Four 158
Chapter Five 160
Summary of Findings 162
Discussion 170
Comprehensible Input and Output 170
Professor Kusna 172
Dr. Rosanova 173
Dr. Alan 174
Critical Reflection 175
Implications 181
Future Research 185
Conclusion 186
References 189
Appendix A: Survey 202
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 203
Interview Questions for RLI 204
Interview Questions for HLL 205
Subsequent Interview Questions for RLI and HLL 206
Focus Group Protocol 207
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 209
Informed Consent 215

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 7

Abstract
This study utilizes a post-colonial framework to describe how the linguistic and curricular
choices of university Russian language instructors impact the hybrid cultural identity
development of Russian heritage language learners. The purpose of this research is to advocate
for the use of critical reflection as a pedagogical practice of instructors who have Russian
heritage language learners in a foreign or heritage language setting. The research questions
encompass how Russian language instructors express their employment of language and
curricular materials in the classroom and their subsequent effect on the heritage language
learners’ hybrid cultural identity. This study also examines if the instructors use critical
reflection to handle student identity issues. This qualitative research used a purposeful sample
from three higher education institutions. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews
and classroom observations from three Russian language instructors and five Russian heritage
language learners. Findings from this study show that the instructors were aware of the
pedagogical differences between Russian heritage and foreign language learners, but that they
did not see their heritage language learners’ hybrid cultural identity development as their
responsibility. Likewise, the instructors were not critically reflective of their heritage learners’
attempts to self-identify as Russian-American. Therefore, this study underlines the need for
Russian instructors to be cognizant of the pedagogical and affective implications of their
classroom choices. Findings imply that structured critical reflection would enhance a Russian
instructor’s ability to support her heritage learner’s hybrid cultural identity.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 8

Chapter One
When a Russian heritage learner enters her Russian as a foreign language (FL) class or
her Russian as a heritage language (HL) class at university, what is she seeking to accomplish?
Are her goals the same as her American counterparts in the foreign language class? That is, does
she hope to improve her knowledge of Russian syntax, fluency, and pronunciation? Do these
goals remain the same in the HL class? Or, is she attending for another purpose? Research in the
field of HL has discovered that many Russian heritage language learners (HLL) are attending
university Russian classes to uncover more about their linguistic and ethnic roots (Carreira &
Kagan, 2011) and to better integrate into their ancestral community (Geisherik, 2004).
In light of this cultural and linguistic goal for many Russian HLLs, the classroom
environment presented itself as a locus where Russian HLLs may try to improve their linguistic
proficiency at Russian and negotiate their emerging hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996). The Russian language instructor (RLI) is at the center of this negotiation as she is the one
who chooses classroom materials and determines and engenders discussion topics, which
designates her as the authenticator of language (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell &
James, 1998). Moreover, the RLI plays an integral role in the emotional engagement of the HLL
through her personal classroom behavior and pedagogical approach (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012).
As many educational researchers agree that the teacher is the single largest influence on student
achievement (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Grant, Stronge, & Ward,
2011), the RLIs’ awareness of the importance of the relationship between language and hybrid
cultural identity formation in the FL or HL classroom (Beaudrie, Ducar, & Relaño-Pastor, 2009;
He, 2010; He, 2004; Leeman, 2015; Leeman, Rabin, & Román-Mendoza, 2011; Lo Philip, 2010;
Montrul, 2010) might benefit her in teaching this unique group of students.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 9

Based on this link between the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development
(Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996), language, and role of the RLI, the purpose of this paper is to
understand: (a) how RLIs described their use of language and curricular materials in the FL/HL
classroom as they related to hybrid cultural identity development, and (b) how the Russian HLLs
comprehended the impact of the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic choices on their hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) formation. The last question aimed to examine (c) how the
RLIs use of critical reflection (Howard, 2003) might support the RLIs understanding of the effect
of these linguistic and curricular choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
development. These three questions were linked to one specific problem of practice in HL
education: the decision of the Russian HLL to maintain her HL by staying in the college or
university FL/HL classes or to abandon studying the HL.
HL loss in the United States has been documented as an educational problem since the
early 1990s (Cho & Krashen, 1998; Cummins, 2005; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Kit Fong-Au,
2008; Lo Philip, 2010; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). This problem could exist for many reasons;
however, one possible reason related to Russian HLLs is that most university, college, and
community colleges in the United States do not have Russian HL programs. As of this writing,
there was only one confirmed Russian HLL program in Southern California. Due to this fact,
many Russian HLLs are placed into Russian FL classes with non HLLs (Friedman & Kagan,
2008). This situation can create many pedagogical challenges for the RLI as HLLs and FL
students may have different motivations for studying Russian, have different linguistic needs, or
need to be assessed differently (Kagan & Dillon, 2009). On the other hand, if a Russian HLL is
in an HLL class at university or college, then the cultural and linguistic situation changes. In this
scenario, it was assumed that the RLI would be more aware of the specific linguistic and cultural
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 10

challenges of teaching HLLs than a traditional Russian as a foreign language teacher. However,
this scenario also had its difficulties as Russian HL classes might also have had different
proficiency levels of Russian speakers. As an example, Dubinina and Polinsky (2013)
emphasized the fact that American-born Russian HLLs had a more difficult time maintaining
Russian than Russians who were born in Russia and had spent a minimum amount of time in the
country. Another concern is that the HLL may speak a different variety of Russian if the student
is from a country in the former Soviet Union that has diglossia, or the use of two languages by
one community. This circumstance could position an instructor who is not familiar with the
HLL’s multi-linguistic attributes to view the student from a deficit perspective (Kagan &
Polinsky, 2007). For example, Kagan (2012) documented several cases of HLL abandonment of
the HL due to the instructor’s stigmatization of the student’s dialect (Wiley, 2008) or improper
use of the target language. Another possible situation that could surface in the classroom is how
the HLL employs identity practices (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017).
The Russian HLL is a hybrid of two and possibly three cultures; thus, owing to her
cultural background, she arrives in the HL/FL class with different experiences than the
traditional Russian foreign language learner (FLL) (Lo-Philip, 2010). These experiences affect
her identity practices as she has “a multifaceted identity as someone who is both similar to and
different from members of the target culture since he/she is socio-historically connected with the
target culture yet experientially displaced from it” (He, 2004, p. 208). This displacement of the
Russian HLL places her in a possible position to self-identify negatively with her Russian
identity (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017). Indeed, the Russian HLL could engage in positive or
negative identity practices (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) as it concerns her hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Negative identity practices are when a Russian HLL
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 11

defines her identity according to what she is not, as opposed to a positive identity practice, such
as when a Russian HLL constructs an identity that she chooses. Although neither identity
practice is on its own a detrimental action, a Russian HLL might choose to favor her American
identity and English as a language more than her Russian one as the American identity could be
viewed as carrying more linguistic and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991;
Grenfell & James, 1998) than Russian. Thus, if the RLI does not authenticate the Russian HLL’s
language (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998), provide curricular
materials that encourage a positive attachment to Russia, Russian, or her pan-Slavic ancestry,
and support her cultural hybrid identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996), then the Russian HLL’s
reconnection with her linguistic and cultural roots could be severed and lead to Russian HL loss.
Background of the Problem
There were three issues associated with heritage language (HL) research that
contextualized the present problem of practice; that is, the role that the Russian language
instructors’ (RLI) linguistic and curricular choices in the HL classroom might have had on the
Russian heritage language learners’ (HLL) hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996). These issues could conceivably lead to a Russian HLL to abandon her HL studies.
The three main issues were: (a) how an instructor substantiated or did not substantiate a Russian
HLL’s linguistic and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James,
1998) as an expression of her hybrid cultural identity, (b) how an instructor employed social
positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) to encourage or discourage an HLL’s hybrid cultural identity
by allowing or disallowing discursive practices such as translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge,
2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014),
or the creation of a Third Space (Bhahba, 1994; Gutiérrez, Baquedano ‐López, & Tejeda, 1999;
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 12

Moje, Ciechanowski, Kramer, Ellis, Carrillo, & Collazo, 2004) for an HLL to express her hybrid
cultural identity, and (c) how the instructor utilized pedagogical materials with the HLL as tools
that either affirm or disaffirm the student’s hybrid cultural identity.
This section introduces these topics by analyzing how an RLI might define and approach
an HLL in a FL or HL classroom based on the previous research on this topic. The next section
explicates who Russian HLL’s are and what their hybrid cultural identity might entail. The final
section examines and advocates for the role that critical reflection could play in aiding the RLI to
be aware of (a) the connection between her students’ hybrid cultural identity and language, (b)
the RLI’s awareness of her own cultural identity (Hall, 1996) and use of language and materials
in the classroom, and (c) the impact that her choices might have on her Russian HLLs.
Defining and Approaching the Russian HLL
Defining heritage language learners (HLL) has proven to be problematic for heritage
language (HL) researchers in recent years (Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Kagan & Polinsky, 2007;
Leeman, 2015; Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003). Historically, one of the main questions researchers
have grappled with is whether to classify a HLL according to her affiliation with a language
group or her language proficiency (Valdés, 2001; Wiley, 2001). This dichotomy is important for
this research as many Russian HLLs might be placed in university foreign language (FL)
classrooms due to a lack of established Russian HL programs (Friedman & Kagan, 2008).
Therefore, such factors as the student’s decision to identify herself as a Russian HLL, the
presence of Russian foreign language learners (FLL), and the HLLs’ linguistic proficiency at
Russian might influence how the Russian language instructor (RLI) approaches her linguistic and
curricular choices. Since this research presupposes that many Russian HLLs will be found in FL
classrooms, the HLL definitions discussed below relate to both HL and FL environments and
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 13

provide a scaffolding from which to construct a working definition of Russian HLLs for the
current research.
Valdés (2001) offered one of the more current and accepted pedagogical definitions of an
HLL in FL classrooms as a student who “is raised in a home where a non-English language is
spoken, who speaks or at least understands the heritage language, and who is to some degree
bilingual” (p. 38). However, the idea of a HLL having some proficiency in the language was
problematized by Van Deusen-Scholl (2003), who expanded the definition to include those
HLLs who may not speak the language at all but who might be culturally connected to the
language and have motivation to learn it. This classification of a HLL was rejected by two of the
main researchers of Russian HLLs (Kagan, 2010; Kagan & Polinsky, 2007; Polinsky, 2011),
who argued that a culturally-connected HLL with no linguistic ability would be considered a
FLL. Therefore, for the Russian HL researchers, the HLL is not a native speaker of the language
nor a FL learner.
Despite the strong support of a sociolinguistic definition of HLLs by the Russian
researchers, more nuanced definitions of HLLs have surfaced in recent years that focus more on
HLL agency and identity. Hornberger and Wang (2008) reinforced Van Deusen-Scholl’s (2003)
definition, by providing an ecological definition of HLLs that suggested the notion of an outside
source defining a HLL was depriving HLLs of agency; they stated that the power to define
oneself should rest in the hands of the HLL. Recently, Leeman et al. (2011) and Leeman (2015)
aligned their views with those of Hornberger and Wang’s (2008) ecological definition of HLLs
by arguing that the term HLL was a constructed definition placed on HLLs by teachers,
administrators, and researchers. Moreover, Leeman et al. (2011) contended that due to these
artificial constructs, HL education should be viewed through a critical lens, where HLLs develop
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 14

awareness of dominant language ideologies and become agentic in deciding whether or not to
accept the dominant English linguistic narrative, adding that HLLs should be instructed in how
to be proud of their heritage, identity, and language. The requests made by Hornberger and
Wang (2008), Leeman et al. (2011) and Leeman (2015) appear apt if the HLL is located in a
social environment where the student’s HL is viewed from a deficit perspective. However, the
question is whether this would still be the case in an FL or HL classroom where the student’s HL
is the primary focus of learning.
Despite recent attempts to define HLLs ecologically (Hornberger & Wang, 2008;
Leeman, 2015) and to use the classroom space to encourage ethnic pride (Leeman et al., 2011),
researchers into Russian HLLs primarily define them pedagogically, that is, according to their
linguistic abilities with the standard version of the HL (Kagan, 2010; Kagan & Polinsky, 2007;
Polinsky, 2011). Thus, the Russian HLL is not a native speaker of the language, nor is he a FL
learner (Valdés, 2001). What this suggested is that the way the RLI approached Russian HLLs
in an HL or a FL classroom is primarily contingent upon the Russian HLLs’ linguistic
proficiency (Kagan, 2005; Kagan & Dillon, 2006). Concomitant with this approach is the
definition of an ideal Russian speaker; as this definition is more of an implied understanding as
opposed to a set of clear criteria, the main research in Russian HLLs and their proficiency levels
compare them to speakers of Standard Russian (Kagan, 2005; Kagan & Dillon, 2006; Swender,
Martin, Rivera ‐Martinez, & Kagan, 2014) or the main dialect spoken in Russia.
The Russian HLL and Hybrid Cultural Identity
Having defined the Russian heritage language learners (HLL), it is necessary to provide
some depth to better understand the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996). This research defines hybrid cultural identity from a post-colonial perspective based on
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 15

the work of Bhabha (1994) and Hall (1996). As stated above, the Russian HLL is a hybrid of
several cultures, and as such occupies more than one cultural space; for example, a Russian-
American would occupy two cultural spaces as she is both Russian and American. Another
example would be an Armenian, (a) who was born in Russia to an Armenian family, (b) grew up
speaking Russian and Armenian, and then (c) moved to the United States in the 6
th
grade. This is
an example of someone who occupies three cultural spaces, Armenian, Russian, and American.
Based on the hybrid nature of Russian HLLs, the work of Bhabha (1994) helps to
articulate the cultural spaces that they inhabit. Indeed, Bhabha (1994) posits that it is in-between
these cultural spaces, or in what he calls the Third Space, “where discourse is translated and
negotiated, that the meaning of culture is reconstituted” (p. 38). Although the idea of the Third
Space has also been defined and applied in three different ways to education (Moje et al., 2004),
this research utilizes the definition of Gutiérrez et al. (1999), which outlined the Third Space as a
place where the discourses of community and home were combined with that of the school.
One of the pedagogical tools that a Russian language instructor (RLI) could employ in
the Third Space is translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger &
Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014). Translanguaging is how bilinguals employ their hybrid
language skills to make sense of their world (García, 2009). This research defines
translanguaging as a hybrid language practice (Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Palmer et al., 2014) that
may present itself in the form of codeswitching in class by the students or through teacher
scaffolding of exercises that privilege both English and Russian. It is in the process of this
discourse and negotiation that the creation of a hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996) and the Third Space become a reality.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 16

Hall (1996) has a two-part definition of cultural identity; the first part suggests that
cultural identity is the shared experiences of a people that provide them with concrete common
conventions that represent their existence. This definition is juxtaposed with a second,
associated definition that views cultural identity as a process of becoming and constant
transformation. This process is in continual flux as cultural identities are subject to the endless
“play of history, culture, and power” (p. 112). It is the second definition of cultural identity
which closely associates with Russian HLLs, as an HLL is connected to two places and cultures
that are in constant discourse with one another. Therefore, this study combines these two
theories to refer to the Russian HLLs as having a hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996). However, the larger questions for this research are which identity the RLLs choose and
whether the Russian language instructor (RLI) provides a pedagogical Third Space (Gutiérrez et
al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for the development of this identity.
To further understand the history of Russian HLLs and their hybrid nature, it is necessary
to briefly explore Russian immigration to the United States. According to Kagan and Dillon
(2006), Russian immigrants arrived in five waves: the first wave was directly after the Russian
Revolution in 1917, the second wave occurred after World War II, a third wave took place at the
end of the 1970s, the fourth wave came in the 1990s, and the fifth wave came around or after the
year 2000. Although all of the waves of immigration are noteworthy, the final three waves of
immigrants from Russia are more closely related to Russian HLL as it is the children of these
immigrants who are presently studying at American universities and colleges (Kagan, 2005;
Kagan & Dillon, 2006).
The findings of the National Heritage Language Survey in 2007-2009 (Kagan, 2010)
provided more detailed information about the Russian HLL that is important in understanding
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 17

the demographics and cultural attributes of this group. Some of the more salient information
found from the 219 students surveyed was that: (a) 70% were born in the former Soviet Union
with an average age between 19 and 21, (b) they began speaking more English at home after the
age of 5, (c) 42% have never traveled to a Russian-speaking country, (d) most gained literacy
(speaking, reading, and writing) in Russian at an American university, (e) although Russian was
spoken at home by 72% of those surveyed, Russian was not encouraged by their families and, (f)
even though 40% answered that they continued to speak Russian, or a combination of Russian
and English, it was ascertained that once many students started elementary school that they
stopped speaking Russian in favor of English (Kagan, 2010).
Taking the results of the survey and the aforementioned definitions of HLLs into account,
I defined Russian HLLs as students at a community college, college, or university who have a
hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Moreover, Russian HLLs were students: (a)
who were raised in a home where Russian was the home language, but who may or may not
prefer to speak English outside of class (Kagan, 2010), (b) who are to some degree bilingual in
Russian and English (Valdés, 2001), (c) who may or may not refer to themselves as Russian
HLLs (Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Leeman, 2015 Leeman et al., 2011), and (d) who are
motivated to learn Russian because of cultural or familial ties (Kagan, 2005).
Critical Reflection and Hybrid Cultural Identity
Many researchers in heritage language (HL) studies view identity and language as
integral components of one nucleus (Beaudrie et al., 2009; He, 2010; He, 2004; Leeman, 2015;
Leeman et al., 2011; Lo Philip, 2010; Montrul, 2010) that is socially constructed through the use
of interactions, or discourses (Gee, 2000; Gee, 2001; Leeman, 2015). Therefore, the linguistic
emphasis in defining Russian heritage language learners (HLL) (Kagan, 2005; Kagan & Dillon,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 18

2006; Swender et al., 2014) places much curricular responsibility on the Russian language
instructor (RLI) in facilitating discourse in the HL or foreign language (FL) classroom by
creating a Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) where the Russian HLL’s
hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) has an opportunity to be expressed in a
positive manner. One pedagogical tool that could support the RLI in handling such a large
responsibility is critical reflection.
This research defines a critically reflective practice as the RLI’s awareness of the
sociocultural, socioeconomic, and sociolinguistic background of her Russian HLLs as well as the
moral and ethical implications of how she might employ language and materials in the classroom
(Howard, 2003). This awareness would also correlate to the idea of emancipation from routine
pedagogical actions and thought processes (Dewey, 1933; Freire, 1990; Habermas, 1968) when
dealing with HLLs and their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). One way to
concretize this cognizance is through the use of structured critical reflection (Jay & Johnson,
2002). Although critical reflection is explained in more detail in the following chapter, it is
important to briefly outline its connection to identity and language in the classroom here as a
basis.
Structured critical reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) involves the use of a typology that
requires the RLI to self-analyze her actions, beliefs, and behavior in the classroom, moving
through three levels: “descriptive, comparative, and critical” (p. 77). Although all of the levels
are interconnected and important, it is the critical level that directly relates to this research’s
investigation of hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). By asking herself the
questions from the critical level, the RLI is able to examine the implications of her classroom
choices on her HLLs, the alternative perspectives, and their connection to the RLI’s own morals
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 19

and ethics. An example of some questions the RLI might ask are: did my use of language
socially position (Davies & Harré, 1990) my HLLs as competent Russian and English bilinguals?
Did I substantiate their Russian dialect and present it as equal to Standard Russian? Did I
provide a linguistic space in which my HLLs could express their hybrid cultural identity as a
positive choice (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017)? Do my own morals and ethics prevent me from
understanding my HLLs? The last question involves the RLI in being aware of her own cultural
identity (Au, 1998; Hall, 1996) to better comprehend how she presents herself and relates to the
Russian HLLs and their hybridity (Bhabha, 1994).
The use of structured critical reflection could also aid the RLI in other, more specific
pedagogical situations. An example of this is when the university RLI has Russian HLLs in a FL
class and wants to allow the HLLs to self-identify positively (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) with
their Russian identity and avoid what Krashen (1998) called “language shyness” (p. 41), or when
the HLL knows the language but is not completely fluent and might have problems with certain
grammatical constructions. This lack of linguistic expertise could lead the HLL to avoid
interacting in the language and not self-identifying with the HL; as such, this situation would
suggest that the RLI should create a classroom environment where the HLL might speak freely
and avoid conspicuous criticism of grammatical errors. As many Russian HLLs have been
documented with such incomplete acquisition of Russian (Kagan & Dillon, 2006), the creation of
this classroom space in a FL class could help to maintain their engagement with Russian as
research showed that their motivation to learn Russian is different from that of foreign language
learners (FLL) (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Geisherik, 2004).
On the other hand, if the university RLI is leading a Russian HL class, then the RLI can
have a significant positive of negative effect on the HLLs’ engagement with Russian through her
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 20

use of materials and language (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012). In the best-case scenario, the RLI, as
the authenticator of language in the classroom (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell &
James, 1998), can create a space for the HLLs to express their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996) orally without fear of repercussion due to incorrect grammar (Krashen, 1998).
In a less desirable scenario, the RLI could discard bilingual language practices such as
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014) that support a hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) or use anachronistic
classroom materials that might present Russia in a negative fashion. Furthermore, the RLI could
create a class that focuses solely on grammatical correctness that could inhibit the HLLs’ ability
to converse (Krashen, 1998).
In addition to the aforementioned challenges the RLI faces, the results of the survey
(Kagan, 2010) present more issues that could surface in a university FL or HL classroom and
might require the RLIs engagement in critical reflection. To begin, the findings from the survey
showed that many Russian HLLs might have stopped speaking Russian after starting elementary
school and could prefer speaking English (Kagan, 2010). This discovery was supported by
Cummins’ (2005) earlier research, who found that many different HLLs lose fluency in the
United States at primary school as a result of the buttressing of English and the de-emphasizing
of the HL by school policy. In similar research, Kit-Fong Au (2008) accentuated the increased
rapidity of HL loss due to the dominance of English in HLLs’ households, stating that many HL
homes might have parents speaking the HL and their children responding in English, creating a
generational and cultural disconnection because of language. Kagan’s (2010) findings as well as
those of Cummins (2005) and Kit-Fong Au (2008) corresponded to recent research conducted by
Zabrodskaja (2015) on Russian HLLs living in the Baltic States. In her study, Zabrodskaja
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 21

(2015) discovered that younger Russians that were raised in the Baltic countries of Latvia,
Estonia, and Lithuania were not maintaining their ties to the Russian language nor the Russian
culture due to the influence of the dominant Baltic languages. Zabrodskaja (2015) ascertained
that these young Russians were constructing hybrid identities (Bhabha, 1994) to assimilate into
the home cultures and learning the dominant languages for social mobility. This idea of identity
erasure that is taking place in the Baltic States (Zabrodskaja, 2015) has examples in other
languages spoken in the United States, such as African-American English (Alim, 2010) and
Spanish (Beaudrie et al., 2009; Leeman et al., 2011). Therefore, there might be serious
consequences to the Russian HLLs’ attempt to reconnect with their hybrid cultural identity
(Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) if the RLI is not critically reflective of how she employs her
curricular materials and her language. The consequences might be the Russian HLLs’ mental
disengagement (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012), language shyness (Krashen, 1998) and possible HL
loss (Cho & Krashen, 1998; Cummins, 2005; Kit Fong-Au, 2008; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Lo
Philip, 2010; Wong-Fillmore, 1991) if the Russian HLLs were to decide to abandon their
Russian studies at university or community college.
Statement of the Problem
Since many Russian heritage language learners (HLL) might be using the community
college, college, or university classroom to reconnect with their ethnic and linguistic roots
(Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Geisherik, 2004), the Russian language instructor (RLI) might face
many of the challenges stated in the previous section. To combat these challenges, I view critical
reflection (Howard, 2003) and its potential representation as a structured typology (Jay &
Johnson, 2002) as the basis for determining several classroom approaches that the RLI could
employ to be aware of how she uses language and curricular materials and their subsequent
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 22

effect on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996).
These approaches are linked to three interconnected ideas: (a) the Russian HLLs’ hybridity
(Bhahba, 1994; Moje et al, 2004) as members of at least two cultures, (b) their linguistic and
symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) as bilingual Russian
and English speakers in an English-dominant society, and (c) the social positioning of Russian
HLLs by the RLI in the classroom (Davies & Harré, 1990). These three foundational ideas are
supported by classroom practices that the RLI might perform, such as critical reflection and
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014) to support the Russian HLLs hybrid cultural identity development. In view of these
bases, the following research questions guided this investigation:
1. How do RLIs in higher education describe their use of classroom language and materials
as they relate to the hybrid cultural identity formation of their heritage students?
2. How might critical reflection aid the RLIs in understanding the effect of these linguistic
and curricular choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development?
3. How do Russian HLLs comprehend the impact of the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic
choices on their hybrid cultural identity formation?
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to comprehend how the linguistic and curricular choices of the
university Russian language instructor (RLI) impacted the hybrid cultural identity development
of her Russian heritage language learners (HLL). This study was qualitative as it sought to
understand how the RLIs interpreted (Maxwell, 2013) their classroom choices and the relevance
of those choices in their Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
formation. If it were to be discovered that the RLI was not critically reflective (Howard, 2003)
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 23

of her use of language and materials, then the purpose of this study was to use that data to
advocate for the inclusion of RLI critical reflection in heritage language (HL) studies at the
university level.
Limitations and Delimitations
This qualitative study had several limitations. First, time was a limitation as I only
observed and interviewed the Russian language instructors (RLI) two to three times depending
on the location and the access. Likewise, my observations of the RLIs included observations of
her Russian heritage language learners (HLL); I interviewed willing Russian HLLs at each site
once and then created a focus group of two Russian HLLs at one site and met with them once as
well. While I had hoped to talk with a focus group of five to eight HLLs, I ended up with only
two who showed up, and one of which I had interviewed earlier. Although not a significant
limitation in and of itself, a more longitudinal study might have provided a more holistic view of
the RLIs, their Russian HLLs and the classroom atmosphere. A second limitation is that I had a
small sample size of RLIs as there were few colleges and universities in Southern California that
employed RLIs with the qualifications that I required and the willingness to do the study. The
third limitation was the geographical boundary, as the study took place at one community
college, one college, and one university in Southern California as opposed to a wider study that
could have encompassed all of California and possibly other states, providing a larger sample
size of RLIs. The last limitation was access to the RLIs and the Russian HLLs. On the one
hand, I did find several RLIs who met the qualifications to participate in my study, but only three
were willing participate. Out of those three, only one allowed me to interview her three times,
whereas the other two permitted only two and one interviews, respectively. Likewise, I found
multiple Russian HLLs at the community college who were willing to participate, but I had only
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 24

one who participated from the college and one from the university. Fortunately, these limitations
had possible solutions, which I discussed in more detail in the Methods section of this paper.
The setting and the participants are the two main delimitations to this study. The setting
and the participants were determined by the results of a preliminary search of the area to find
community colleges, colleges, and universities that met my criteria. After that, I administered a
preliminary survey to the RLIs with the permission of the director of the Russian language
program or department. In this survey, I discovered my potential participants and utilized
purposeful sampling to choose them. My choice of participants and their acceptance determined
the locations of the observations, interviews, and focus group.
Organization of the Study
This study was organized around the theme of how Russian language instructors (RLI)
could employ critical reflection (Howard, 2003) to engender positive hybrid cultural identity
construction for the Russian HLLs (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). This study first investigated the
relationship between the RLI and her heritage language learners (HLL) in a classroom
environment and unpacked how the RLI’s use of language and curricular materials might have
inadvertently socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) her HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity and
language as opposed to how the HLLs might have self-identified. Next, a historical basis for
critical reflection was provided, followed by a description of the current state of critical
reflection in the field of education and heritage language (HL) education. Finally, I investigated
the importance of critical reflection as a potential tool to support the RLIs in being aware of how
they used curricular materials and language to socially position their Russian HLLs in the foreign
language (FL) and heritage language (HL) classroom.

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 25

Key Terms: Russian heritage language learner, hybridity, critical reflection, symbolic
capital, hybrid cultural identity, social positioning (2 categories: interactive and reflexive), third
space (two definitions), linguistic capital, and translanguaging.

1. A Russian HLL is a university student: (a) who was raised in a home where Russian was
the home language but who may or may not prefer to speak English outside of class, (b)
who is to some degree bilingual in Russian and English, (c) who may or may not refer to
herself as a Russian HLL, but (d) who has a cultural connection to Russian and the desire
to learn the language.
2. Hybridity is when one is located between several narratives e.g., home narrative, school
narrative, cultural narrative (Bhabha, 1994) (see Third Space).
3. Critical reflection is when a teacher takes the moral, ethical, and sociocultural aspects of
teaching into consideration (Howard, 2003).
4. Symbolic Capital is defined as the transformed linguistic capital into other forms of
capital, such as cultural capital, of a HLLs’ speech and discourse practices as a bilingual
living in an English-dominat society (Bourdieu, 1977; Lo-Philip, 2010).
5. Social Positioning is when individuals determine themselves by the discursive practices
that they undertake and when they bring their own self and history, e.g. hybrid cultural
identity, as well as the multiple discourses in which they engaged in before into the
discussion. Social positioning can be interactive or reflexive (Davies & Harré, 1990).
6. Interactive positioning is how one positions another in discourse.
7. Reflexive positioning is how we position ourselves in discourse.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 26

8. Hybrid cultural identity is viewed as the shared experiences of a people that provide them
with immutable common conventions that denote their uniqueness. This definition is
juxtaposed with a second, associated definition that views hybrid cultural identity as a
process of becoming and constant transformation (Hall, 1996).
9. The Third Space is the discursive space that is created when different people come
together and resist cultural signs and symbols based on the idea in postcolonial theory
that these signs and symbols are not fixed, but are open to interpretation (Bhabha, 1994;
Moje et al., 2004)
10. Third Space is also defined educationally or as an activity space between the different
locales in which hybridity operates, e.g. the competing discourses of home, community
and school where learning can occur (Gutiérrez, Baquedano ‐López, & Tejeda, 1999)
11. Linguistic Capital is a product of linguistic production relations that view language and
language relations as symbolic power relations (Bourdieu, 1977).
12. Translanguaging is the way bilinguals employ their hybrid language skills to make sense
of their world (García, 2009). It is also considered a hybrid language practice (Gutiérrez
et al., 1999; Palmer et al., 2014) for this research.
Chapter Two
The French intellectual, Roland Barthes, wrote that “speech is irreversible” (p. 379);
meaning that once an utterance has exited someone’s mouth, the only way to negate it is to speak
additional utterances in which the previous utterance is withdrawn (Barthes, 1982). However,
the question is which utterance is remembered by the listener? The former or the latter? It was no
mistake that Barthes was explicating this phenomenon through referencing the teacher/student
paradigm. According to Barthes (1982) “when the teacher speaks to his audience, the other is
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 27

there puncturing his discourse” (p. 383). The other is the student body, that implicitly analyzes
the teacher’s flow of speech and prosody. In this paradigm lies one of the main issues of this
paper: what is the effect of the teacher’s discourse on the students? And when this student is a
heritage language learner (HLL), the situation is magnified as language becomes a vehicle for
hybrid cultural identity formation (Beaudrie et al., 2009; Hall, 1996; He, 2004; He, 2010;
Leeman, 2015; Leeman et al., 2011; Lo Philip, 2010; Montrul, 2010). Thus, does the teacher
comprehend the power that she wields with her words and actions?
Although there has been much research into defining Russian HLLs through their
linguistic proficiency (Friedman & Kagan, 2008; Kagan, 2005; Swender et al, 2014), little has
been done for the study of their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) formation
and how that identity is deconstructed and reconstructed in the foreign language (FL) or heritage
language (HL) classroom based on the classroom Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al.,
2004) and hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) created and utilized by the Russian
language instructor (RLI). In chapter one, I established that the RLI can have a profound effect
on the engagement of the Russian HLL to learn the HL and reconnect with her hybrid cultural
identity (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; He, 2010; Li & Duff, 2008). This power to engage the HLL
comes not only from the HL/FL teacher’s choice of classroom materials and language, but also
from the way the HL/FL teacher uses her choices to socially position her HLLs (Davies & Harré,
1990). For example, if the HL/FL teacher’s social positioning of her HLLs does not match their
self, or reflexive positioning, then there might be a high risk of student resistance to learning
(Helmer, 2013), de-motivation (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; Li & Duff, 2008), language shyness
(Krashen, 1998), or a disengagement from her Russian identity in favor of her American one
(Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017). These forms of resistance could result in the HLL not continuing
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 28

in the program and be a precursor to HL loss (Cummins, 2005; Cho & Krashen, 1998; Kit Fong-
Au, 2008; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Lo-Philip, 2010; Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
In view of these issues, this research seeks to better understand how the RLI describes her
use of language and classroom materials and their subsequent effect on her Russian HLLs’
hybrid cultural identity formation (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Because the RLI’s linguistic and
curricular choices might negatively impact her Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
development, it might be beneficial for the RLI to be aware of the connection between the study
of the HL and hybrid cultural identity. Moreover, the RLI might profit from understanding the
practical manifestations of hybrid cultural identity development in the classroom and her role in
each. For example, these considerations may include the unintentional nature of social
positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990), the positive effect on identity development through
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014), and the unequal power of linguistic exchanges and their transference into symbolic
capital in the HL classroom and American society (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell &
James, 1998). Therefore, it might aid the RLI to be conscious of the fact that she is the one who
is choosing classroom materials, leading classroom dialogue, creating the classroom culture
(Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998), affecting student achievement (Brouwer &
Korthagen, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Grant, Stronge, & Ward, 2011), and presenting
herself as a linguistic and symbolic model for the Russian HLLs to follow.
Due to the RLI’s aforementioned position in the classroom, I employed critical reflection
(Howard, 2003) as a lens through which one might understand the reasoning behind the RLI’s (a)
pedagogical and curricular choices and (b) her awareness of English and Russian language use in
the classroom, the symbolic and linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell &
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 29

James, 1998) of each, and their subsequent effect on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). In doing so, I aim to add to the growing body of
literature that continues to unpack the relationship between the heritage learner, hybrid cultural
identity, and language. As such, the following research question guides this study:
1. How do RLIs describe their use of language and curricular materials in the HL/FL
classroom?
2. How might critical reflection enhance the RLIs understanding of the effect of her
linguistic and curricular choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
development?
3. How do the Russian HLLs comprehend the impact of the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic
choices on their hybrid cultural identity formation?
In this section, I examine the literature on the role of the HL/FL teacher’s possible
influence on her students’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development. This
study investigates previous literature that analyzes the HL identity development to provide an
identity framework for the current research. This analysis links with an examination of the RLI’s
role in establishing the linguistic and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell
& James, 1998) of the HLLs home language in the HL/FL classroom as equal to that of English
through the creation of a Third Space (Bhahba, 1994; Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Moje, et al., 2004)
where positive hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) such as translanguaging (Creese
& Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) might occur.
This research also investigates the role of social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) in the
FL/HL classroom and its subsequent effect on student engagement in learning the FL/HL. In
addition, I analyze how language textbooks can act as enforcers of cultural stereotypes and the
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 30

role of the teacher in being aware of such portrayals. After that, I segue to a brief history of
reflection in education and some of the methods for reifying reflection and juxtapose it with
critical reflection. Finally, I investigate the current state of critical reflection in HL teaching and
show that there is a gap in the research as it relates to how a RLI might use critical reflection to
be aware of her language use and its effect on Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
development.
Previous HL Research and Identity Frameworks
A heritage language learner’s (HLL) identity has been a substantial topic of interest in
heritage language (HL) research since the late 1990s (He, 2006; He, 2010; Hornberger & Wang,
2008; Leeman, 2015; Lo Philip, 2010; Seals, 2017; Tse, 1998). Much of this research has
focused on providing a framework for investigating the role that identity plays in HLL identity
development. In one of the earliest works on HL identity, Tse (1998) aligned her framework
with the idea that minorities would develop their HL if they obtained comprehensible input, or
meaningful and understandable input in their target language and had a strong desire to attain the
HL or become a member of a group that respected their HL. Tse’s (1998) early work has been
expanded, most notably by He (2006, 2010). In her extensive research, He (2006) established an
identity framework that she developed from several second language acquisition (SLA)
structures that included ten hypotheses under the umbrella of three foundational elements of HL
learning: time, space, and identity. Under this framework, He (2006) viewed the HLL as a social
actor who has the power to transform her identity through her participation in multiple social
spaces and discourses. He (2010) developed her original theory and incorporated it into two
different versions of sociocultural theory that she reviewed. One theory emphasized a social
constructivist approach, whereas the other was more correlational, or that a HLL’s traits were
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 31

constant and did not change despite the situation in which the HLL was located. He (2010)
concluded that a HLL developed her language through social practice and the constant
adaptation to changing environments. He’s (2006, 2010) findings about the social connection
between the HL and identity development were modified to include the ideas of linguistic capital
by Pierre Bourdieu, the idea of heteroglossia by Mikhail Bakhtin, the situated language theory by
James Paul Gee and the educational Third Space of Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, and Tejeda by
Lo Philip (2010).
By utilizing the aforementioned theories as complementary foci in building an identity-
based framework for HLL literacy development, Lo Philip (2010) highlighted the phenomenon
of HL loss as a reason for comprehending the HLL as inherently different from the foreign
language learner (FLL), utilizing the aforementioned theories as complementary foci in building
an identity-based framework for HLL literacy development. To briefly summarize, Lo Philip
viewed the HLL as located in Gee’s (2001) larger social Discourse, in which language and other
non-verbal types of “being-doing” (p. 719) are incorporated into what Gee referred to as a social
“identity-kit” (p. 719). Lo Philip (2010) combined this social identity-kit with Bakhtin’s (1981)
idea of heteroglossia and voice, or the idea that the FLL interacts in multiple voices that are in
constant dialogue with each other. Although Bakhtin was referring to literature and discussing
the dialogue between the reader and the author, Lo Philip (2010) utilized his idea to forward an
argument that the FLL combines her voice with that of previous learners in the larger Discourse
(Gee, 2001).
Lo-Philip’s (2010) last two hypotheses involved the intertwined theories of Gutiérrez et
al.’s (1999) educational Third Space and Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) idea of symbolic capital. Lo
Philip adapted the third educational space as a transformational interactional space for students
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 32

to combine and interpret the Discourses of home, school, and community; in other words, a
hybrid language space for heteroglossia. Lo Philip employed Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) idea of
symbolic capital to show that the language and social class of an individual ascribes to that
person a symbolic capital that can be transformed into other types of capital, be it, cultural,
social, or economic. As it relates to second language learning (SLA), certain Discourses (Gee,
2001) carry more symbolic capital that others. For example, in the United States, English carries
more symbolic capital than Russian for the majority if its citizens. Therefore, Lo Philip
combined these ideas to present a theory that an HLL was located in a larger Discourse (Gee,
2001) where her first language might not carry the symbolic capital of the dominant language.
However, the third educational space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) could act as a place to allow HLLs
to express themselves and establish their voice, transform language, and establish their identity.
Other studies that examine the effects of the dominant language on HLLs include
Leeman (2015) and Hornberger and Wang (2008). Hornberger and Wang (2008) found that
HLL identity in the United States could be chosen by HLLs to associate with the dominant
society or the HL community and that the identity construct of the HLL could change with the
choice of the language. The authors also found that the HLL’s use of the language might be non-
standard and that certain linguistic constructions might have fossilized. Hornberger and Wang
(2008) also suggested that if the language instructors were not aware of how they enforced the
standard language, then the HLLs could revert to language shyness (Krashen, 1998). In parallel,
Leeman (2015) expressed concern that the HLLs’ hybrid linguistic “identity-kit” (Gee, 2001, p.
719) could lead them to be labeled as “foreign” (p. 114) by Americans or native speakers.
These findings are important when placed in the context of the previous theories about
HLL identity construction. What these theories suggest is that a HLL’s identity is hybrid, fluid,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 33

and socially situated through the use of language (Gee, 2001; He, 2010; Lo Philip, 2010). They
also indicate that the HLL brings a multilingual repertoire to the classroom (Lo Philip, 2010) and
that this repertoire might carry less linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell
& James, 1998) than the dominant language, or English. Moreover, the HLL’s language in the
classroom could be non-standard, which, if not handled correctly by the language instructor,
could lead to language shyness (Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Krashen, 1998) or even HL loss
(Cho & Krashen, 1998; Cummins, 2005; Kit Fong-Au, 2008; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Lo
Philip, 2010; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). Finally, research also suggests that these effects could be
avoided through the creation of an educational Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Lo Philip,
2010; Moje et al., 2004).
The Current Identity Framework
The above-mentioned theories are important as they provide the basis for the current
identity framework. As discussed in chapter one, this research utilizes a postcolonial framework
for identity that suggests that a Russian heritage language learner’s (HLL) identity is hybrid
(Bhabha, 1994) and located in multiple cultural spaces. Furthermore, the Russian HLL’s identity
is fluid (Hall, 1996), socially situated, and linguistically expressed (Gee, 2001; He, 2010; Lo
Philip, 2010). To better understand how a Russian HLL’s hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996) is constructed and expressed through discourse in the university classroom,
this research adopts Gee’s (2000) four interrelated views of identity to examine how students
might self-identify in the university or community college heritage language (HL) or foreign
language (FL) classroom.
Gee’s (2000) identity framework is applicable to this study as it has been employed by
researchers investigating student identity in elementary school (Brown, Reveles, & Kelly, 2005),
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 34

graduate school (Abasi, Akbari & Graves, 2006), and community college (Hammond, 2016). In
particular, Abasi, Akbari, and Graves (2006) employed Gee’s (2000) identity framework with
English as a Second Language (ESL) graduate students, presenting the framework’s versatility in
defining student identity constructs for first and second language learners. Therefore, the
framework’s adaptability was important because this research examined the relationship between
the RLI, her Russian HLLs, and hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development
in multiple contexts.
Gee’s (2000) four views of identity are: (a) nature-identity, which is any state bestowed
upon us by nature such as one’s height, (b) institutional identity, which is any identity
determined by our association with an institution, such as a student at a university, (c) discourse-
identity, or any identity that is constructed through discourse and verified by rational individuals
of their own accord; for instance, a Russian HLL’s classmates might refer to her as “cool” or “in-
the-know”, and (d) an affinity-identity, which is understood as any identity associated with a
connection to specific group; for example, a Russian HLL might identify as being a Russian
HLL or not (Gee, 2000).
Gee’s (2000) identity framework, specifically his idea of discursive-identity construction,
is complementary to positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990) and provides a useful tool to
assess how the RLI employs language to position the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
(Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) in the higher education classroom. However, Gee’s (2000)
discursive identity construction and Davies and Harré’s (1990) positioning theory supplement
another major component of this research’s identity framework: French sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu’s ideas of linguistic and symbolic capital.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 35

Bourdieu’s linguistic and symbolic capital. In his work in sociology and education,
Bourdieu (1977, 1991) theorized that languages cannot be separated from their cultural context.
As such, he suggested that certain dialects, or languages have more capital in and of themselves
than others, including convertible cultural, social and economic capital, due to the dominant class
that uses that dialect. Bourdieu emphasized the educational system as a locus for the inculcation
of linguistic norms and competencies through which the masses are taught and learn to speak the
dominant dialect. As a primary location for this installation of linguistic standards, he cited the
teacher as an example of a person who would be viewed as a credible authority on language, thus
giving the teacher a significant amount of power in the classroom over authoritative language. In
addition, Bourdieu (1977) stated that “discourse is a symbolic asset which can receive different
values depending on the market on which it is offered” (p. 651). Therefore, for the current
research it is stated that English “dominates the market” (p. 652) and has more symbolic capital
than Russian.
Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) theory is important for this study for several reasons. First,
research has shown that many Russian heritage language learners (HLL) might not be
encouraged to speak Russian by their parents and might have already stopped speaking Russian
by the time they arrived in elementary school (Kagan, 2010). This data raises the possibility that
many Russian HLLs might have a preconceived notion that English is a more symbolically
valuable language than Russian and that fluency and mastery of English could lead to greater
social, economic and cultural capital; in short, English could carry more symbolic capital
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) for the Russian HLLs, leading them
to view Russian as only a conversational home language and not part of a greater “identity-kit”
(Gee, 2001, p. 719). Second, many American-born Russians HLLs might have a more difficult
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 36

time sustaining their Russian due to a lack of time spent in Russia (Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013).
Finally, many Russian HLLs might arrive in the Russian foreign language (FL) or heritage
language (HL) classroom speaking a hybrid form of Russian and English (Dubinina & Polinsky,
2013) that could be viewed by the Russian language instructor as an incorrect form of the
standard dialect.
Many of the above-mentioned situations depend on how the RLI socially positions
(Davies & Harré, 1990) not only her HLLs and their language, but Russia as a country and a
culture as well. Thus, Bourdieu’s belief that the teacher is the language authenticator in the
classroom (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) is pertinent as the RLI is
in a position to present Russian culture and language as equal to those of the United States,
carrying the same symbolic capital. This presentation and social positioning of these two
cultures and languages could reinforce the HLL’s desire to reconnect with her Russian roots and
positively establish her identity as culturally hybrid (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). On the other
hand, if the RLI is unaware or her role as the authenticator of language, then she could:
1. Socially position (Davies & Harré, 1990) the Russian HLL’s dialect as inferior to the
standard dialect
2. Rigidly enforce the standard dialect’s grammar, which might encourage the Russian HLL
to become language shy (Krashen, 1998; Hornberger & Wang, 2008)
3. Not create an educational third discursive space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004)
for the Russian HLL to express her hybrid cultural identity
4. Discard hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) such as translangauging
(Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Wang, 2012; Palmer et al.,
2014) that support a hybrid cultural identity in favor of monolingual Russian usage
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 37

5. Present Russia and Russian as having less symbolic and linguistic capital than English,
thus implicitly indicating that the HLL’s Russian identity is of less worth than her
American identity; this could lead to the HLL distancing herself from her Russian
identity (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017)
In order to avoid such consequences, the RLI could employ classroom-based practices
that encourage bilingual and multilingualism, which is discussed in the following section.
The Practical Applications of Identity Frameworks in HL/FL Research
There is a considerable amount of research on the relationship between teachers, students,
and identity formation found in the teaching of other heritage languages (HL) (Abdi, 2006; Cho,
2014; Coles-Ritchie & Lugo, 2010; Kim, 2015; Martínez & Palmer, 2013; Menard-Warwick,
2008; Showstack, 2015) and the teaching of English Language Learners (ELLs) (Reeves, 2010;
Reeves, 2009; Stroud & Wee, 2007; Yoon, 2008). The reason why research in the teaching of
foreign languages (FL), and more specifically ELLs, is germane to the study of heritage language
learners (HLL) is due to the definition of HLLs as bilingual language learners and the parallel
pedagogical approaches that instructors utilize in teaching HLLs, foreign language learners
(FLL) and bilingual students.
Researchers place HLLs within the context of bilingual education (Valdés, 2001; Valdés,
2005) and FL education (Montrul, 2010; Kondo-Brown, 2010). This link between bilingual
education, FL education and the study of HLLs provides a research base from which to
investigate the impact of the Russian language instructor’s (RLI) social positioning and hybrid
language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999), specifically, translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge,
2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Wang, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) on the HLLs’ identity
formation. The reason for the inclusion of the FL viewpoint is because research suggests that
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 38

Russian HLLs could be found in Russian FL classrooms at university (Kagan & Dillon, 2006;
Kagan, 2010). The fact that Russian HLLs might be in university FL classrooms is important as
the results of the National Heritage Language Survey found that a majority of the HLLs surveyed
stated that their HL was useful, a valuable skill, and an important part of who they are (Carreira
& Kagan, 2011). Thus, the majority of HLLs saw a utilitarian purpose to learn Russian as well
as a desire to linguistically reconnect with who they are. Therefore, how the HL teacher controls
classroom discourse and materials might support the HLLs’ decision to sustain their Russian or
abandon it. One of the ways in which research has shown how discourse is situated in the
classroom is positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990).
Positioning Theory
Davies and Harré (1990) utilized positioning theory to suggest that individuals are
determined by the discursive practices that they undertake and that when people act or speak
from a certain position, they bring their own self and history as well as the multiple discourses in
which they engaged in before into the process. This theory complements Gee’s (2000)
discursive-identity construction as well as Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) idea of linguistic capital as
positioning theory presents itself as a method to observe how identity is constructed and situated
orally in the foreign language (FL) and heritage language (HL) classrooms.
Positioning theory maintains two types of positioning: one type of positioning is
interactive positioning, or how one positions the other. The second type is reflexive positioning,
or how one positions oneself (Davies & Harré, 1990). Positioning theory (Davies & Harré,
1990) has been employed by several researchers in English as a Second Language (ESL) and
HLs to understand (a) how teachers and students use discourse to construct their identity in a
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 39

given situation (Abdi, 2006; Menard-Warwick, 2008) and (b), how teachers interactively
position their students (Cho, 2014; Kim, 2015).
Concerning the way in which social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) relates to
identity construction in the classroom, Menard-Warwick (2008) discovered that one ESL teacher
at a community language school socially positioned her Latina students as domestic workers
even though many of the students were businesswomen in their home country, attempting to
reconnect with their previous identity. In a similar study, a Spanish heritage language (SHL)
teacher socially positioned one of her students as non-Hispanic due to her hesitancy and lack of
fluency in speaking Spanish (Abdi, 2011), despite the fact that the student was Hispanic and
aimed to re-join with that part of her identity. Whereas some of the Latina women in Menard-
Warwick’s (2008) study were able to overcome their interactive positioning (Davies & Harré,
1990) due to advanced fluency in English, others with lower levels of fluency lost their
classroom voice and stopped talking. Similarly, Abdi’s (2011) student-participant stopped
talking Spanish when she was positioned as non-Hispanic by her teacher. As a result, Menard-
Warwick (2008) and Abdi (2011) suggested that teachers should maintain awareness of how they
use language so as not to interactively position their students in a manner that opposes the
students’ reflexive positioning.
As it concerns heritage language (HL) teachers, Kim’s (2015) research on the
motivational practices of two HL teachers in a Saturday Korean heritage school discovered that
the teachers’ past experiences and reflexive positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) determined how
they related to their heritage language learners (HLL). Kim (2015) further ascertained that the
HL teacher in her study who valued student agency and high student motivation had more
satisfied students. In a related, but more critical study, Cho (2014) explored HL teacher identity
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 40

in a community-based HL school through the use of critical pedagogy and found that his HL
teacher-trainees’ previous ideas about HL identity as a fixed as opposed to fluid construct could
change over time if the trainees were provoked to question the existing ethnic stereotypes
surrounding heritage language learners (HLL) and the HL.
These studies relate to this research as they highlight the importance of the HL teacher to
account for: (a) her own interactive and reflexive positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990), (b) its
effect on her students’ discursive identity construction (Gee, 2000), and (c) her ability to
understand how her students might interactively position each other. In each of the aforesaid
studies, the HL or ESL teacher was recognized as the one who had language authority and the
power to establish classroom norms (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James,
1998).that provided safe access to the HL (or the target language) and a safe space for students to
develop their identities The aforementioned research also indicated that if the teacher did not
position her students in a manner that matched their discursive-identities (Gee, 2000),
consequences such as language shyness (Krashen, 1998) could occur. In order to establish
classroom norms and spaces for student access to the HL (or target language), it is important for
the HL or FL teacher to have the requisite pedagogical skills and research-based knowledge
about her students as this information can play a major role in student motivation and
achievement.
In the case of English language learners (ELL), one of the major pedagogical issues is
how a general education teacher feels about their inclusion in general education classes (Reeves,
2009; Reeves, 2006; Yoon, 2008). For example, Reeves (2006) surveyed 279 teachers from high
schools in one southeastern American city and found that many of the teachers welcomed ELLs
in their classrooms, but worried about their ability to adequately instruct ELLs who were not
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 41

fluent in English and the time that such an endeavor would consume. In addition, many teachers
showed ambivalence to professional development in the teaching of ELLs, stating that it was not
their responsibility and a lack of understanding about second language acquisition (SLA), such
as the length of time it would take an ELL to learn English (Reeves, 2006).
A lack of teacher knowledge about SLA research was also evident in Reeves’ (2009)
study of how one teacher interactively positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) his ELLs. According
to Reeves’ (2009) study, the teacher positioned his ELL students as linguistically equal to his
native-speaking students, thus placing unrealistic academic goals upon the ELLs and not taking
into account their limited language ability to resist his interactive positioning. Likewise, in her
qualitative study about ELLs’ inclusion in general education classes, Yoon (2008) employed
positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990) to understand teachers’ impressions of their roles in
working with ELLs and found that of the three teachers that she observed and interviewed, only
the instructor who was able to engage and socially position her students as integral parts of the
class as opposed to a burden received strong ELL participation. These studies correlate to HL
literature as many general education teachers are not prepared to teach HLLs either. For
example, Lee and Oxelson (2006) conducted research into public school teachers’ attitudes about
having HLLs in their classrooms. Despite the fact that the ten teachers interviewed had an
average of ten years of experience, it was found that only those teachers who had their Bilingual
Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) credential or English as a
second language (ESL) training agreed that maintaining the HL for language minority students
was a benefit for their home and academic life. The teachers who did not have the said training
stated that they did not have the time or the knowledge to attend to their HLLs, or that they
understood their maintenance as a family endeavor.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 42

These studies in ESL and HL relate directly to this research as many Russian HLLs might
encounter similar situations in the Russian FL classroom (Kagan & Dillon, 2006; Kagan, 2010).
For example, the aforementioned findings on ELLs and HLLs underlined a general disconnect
between what teachers believed about ELLs and HLLs and what the research had to say about
them. This disconnect led to teachers socially positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) their students
in ways that did not match their students’ reflexive positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990), or in the
case of the HLLs, not viewing their HL maintenance as their responsibility. It is possible to find
similar issues between FL teachers and HLLs at university as much research in HLs has stressed
the linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural differences between HLLs and FL learners and the
necessity for FL teachers to be prepared for HLL and FL learner differences (Carreira & Kagan,
2011; Kondo-Brown, 2010; Van Deusen Scholl, 2003).
Whereas the previous studies in ESL and HL focused on the role of the teacher to create a
safe space for students to interact and discursively develop their identity (Gee, 2000), several
studies in HL emphasized the need for the teacher to authenticate the students’ colloquial or
home language as opposed to the dominant state or classroom language (Beaudrie et al., 2009;
Coles-Ritchie & Lugo, 2010; Showstack, 2015; Stroud & Wee, 2007). For instance, Beaudrie et
al. (2009), Coles-Ritchie and Lugo (2010) and Showstack (2015) investigated how Spanish
Heritage Language (SHL) teachers had to navigate the difficult linguistic terrain between
standard Spanish and local dialectical variants. In each study, the researchers determined that
teachers needed to be aware of the different variants of Spanish so as not to enforce the Standard
variant and de-legitimize the regional variant and, by proxy, their Spanish HLLs hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). In a similar study of ELLs in Singapore, Stroud and Wee
(2007) investigated how an ELL teacher permitted the use of Singaporean English, or Singlish,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 43

in her classroom and thereby authenticated the dialect, despite the Singaporean government’s
desire to eradicate it in favor of Standard English. The authors suggested that by validating
Singlish, the teacher was justifying the students’ resources and providing a more effective
framework for learning Standard English.
The above-mentioned studies present important findings that relate to this research. First,
they show the need for the teacher to be knowledgeable about her students and their linguistic
attributes to avoid interactively positioning them in ways that do not correspond to their reflexive
positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990). These studies also emphasize the importance of the
teacher’s role as the language authenticator of the student’s home dialect – an assertion that
relates to Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) idea of linguistic capital. Although most of this research
concerned SHL, it is also applicable to HLLs due to the fact that many Russian HLLs might
bring a different variant of Russian into the HL or FL classroom (Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013).
Based on the Russian language instructor’s (RLI) role in the classroom as the language authority,
the linguistic capital (Bourdieu 1977, 1991) that she places on the Russian HLLs’ dialect could
determine their willingness to choose to self-identify (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) as a hybrid of
two to three cultures (Bhabha, 1994).
Translanguaging in the Educational Third Space
One of the pedagogical methods to support students with hybrid identities is the creation
of a classroom space, or a Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004), where hybrid
language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) such as translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015;
García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) can take place to allow the free
expression of discursive identities (Gee, 2000). Although Bhabha (1994) discussed the Third
Space as a location for the post-colonial identity, it has been adapted to education by several
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 44

researchers (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004). As stated in chapter one, the Third Space
is a hybrid space and practice as it combines multiple discourses (Gutiérrez et al., 1999). In
addition, the Third Space presents itself as a location where the Russian language instructor
(RLI) could authenticate the Russian HLLs’ hybrid language practices (Bourdieu, 1977;
Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) and interactively position them as they choose to be
positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990); thus, the RLI would support the Russian HLLs’ choice to
positively self-identify (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) with their hybridity (Bhabha, 1994).
Translanguaging. A pedagogical tool that could be used in the Third Space (Gutiérrez
et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) is translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014). The definition of translanguaging has expanded
from a pedagogical tool to aid bilinguals in using all of their linguistic (and other) resources to
make sense of their world to becoming a part of what García (2009) calls dynamic bilingualism,
or the multiple ways in which languages interact. This research views translanguaging as a
hybrid language practice as it involves Russian HLLs employing all of their linguistic resources
to make meaning (García, 2009) and construct their discursive hybrid cultural identities (Bhabha,
1994; Gee, 2001; Hall, 1996). Although translanguaging has yet to be concretely defined as a set
of pedagogical practices, an example from this research might be that the Russian heritage
language learners (HLL) read a text in Russian and discuss it in English. Another example of
translanguaging in the classroom might be what García (2009) calls “responsible code
switching” (p. 298), or when the RLI utilizes both Russian and English to scaffold the HLLs’
understanding of a grammatical concept in Russian. Thus, translanguaging is a process of
organized input and output (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017) that takes place in a pedagogical Third Space
created and organized by the RLI to foster a HLL’s discursive identity (Gee, 2000).
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 45

Researchers in translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger &
Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) have highlighted its ability to encourage hybridity (Makalela,
2014; Palmer et al., 2014), express one’s culture (Creese & Blackledge, 2015) and develop
biliteracy (Hornberger & Link, 2012). They have also emphasized some of its drawbacks
(Canagarajah, 2012; Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012), which is also
addressed in this section. On the positive side, Makalela (2015) and Palmer et al. (2014)
examined how translanguaging could constructively impact teachers and students alike in
multilingual settings. Makalela (2015) conducted research on sixty pre-service teachers in South
Africa who spoke different Nguni languages (predominantly IsiZulu), but were learning another
Nguni language, Sepedi. In her research the teachers were divided evenly into a control group
(N = 30), who received traditional language instruction, and an experimental group (N = 30),
who were allowed to translanguage. According to Makalela (2015), the translanguaging utilized
by the experimental group was known as (a) contrastive elaboration, or using any language at
their disposal to establish meaning, (b) brainstorming in any language, and finally (c) reading in
one language, but reporting back in the target language, Sepedi. Based on her results, the
experimental group outperformed the control group in oral reading proficiency and vocabulary.
Importantly, Makalela (2015) highlighted that translanguaging brought the teachers’ multilingual
identities into focus. In similar research, Palmer et al. (2014) observed two teachers in a
bilingual elementary Spanish and English class and found that when the teachers positioned the
students as competent bilingual speakers and scaffolded the languages to support learning. They
not only increased their students’ biliteracy, but also carved out a space for the children to
express their identities
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 46

In a more student-centered context, Creese and Blackledge (2015) discovered that
translanguaging supported Panjabi HLLs in Birmingham, England. In their research, the
students used translanguaging to express discourse that could relate to not only the classroom in
which they were located, but also to the traditional and cultural values of their heritage.
Hornberger and Link (2012) offered similar findings in their research in two educational
establishments where translanguaging strategies supported the students’ biliteracy development
because translangauging allowed for the students to access all of their linguistic skills to improve
their communication in writing.
Despite all the benefits of translanguaging, the practice is not without its faults. For
example, Lewis et al. (2012) and Cenoz and Gorter (2017) used a Bourdieusian lens to
investigate the possible negative effects of translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Creese &
Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Lewis et al., 2012; Palmer et al.,
2014) on minority languages. Lewis et al. (2012) stated that the importance of balance in the
classroom plays an important role in translanguaging as the majority language could be utilized
as the informal default language of the students if the instructor is not vigilant. Concomitantly,
Cenoz and Gorter (2017) investigated the case of Basque and Spanish in the Basque autonomous
region of Spain and found that despite the translanguaging of the languages at school, the
minority language, Basque, did not have the strength of Spanish and could disappear. The
authors presented data that showed that by secondary school, only a minority of students were
primarily speaking Basque, leading the authors to conclude that stronger languages, such as
English, or Spanish, might be sustained, but that minority languages could be in danger. As a
solution, Cenoz and Gorter (2017) suggested creating “breathing spaces” (p. 9) for only the
minority language. Although the authors did not state it explicitly, they implicitly referenced
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 47

Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991) concept of linguistic capital as in their situation Spanish had more
linguistic capital than Basque.
Another issue negatively associated with translanguaging is its imprecise pedagogical
definition. Canagarajah (2012) presented the case for translanguaging as an undefined skill that
teachers and researchers alike have “romanticized” (p. 402) and thus, might not attempt to
develop in their students for lack of a concrete strategy. As a result, Canagarajah (2012)
investigated the multilingual strategies of one Saudi student and found that through a
collaborative and dialogic approach, he was able to unpack some of the strategies that she was
using to write in the three languages that she spoke. Moreover, Canagarajah (2012) claimed that
this knowledge helped him to scaffold her learning so as to aid her in becoming metacognitive of
her own multilingual writing strategies. It was emphasized that multilingual teachers and
students alike might all have different methods of translanguaging; thus, one way should not be
viewed as superior to another. Furthermore, teachers were encouraged to create a space in the
classroom for their multilingual students to engage in this personal and self-affirming process.
Canagarajah’s (2012) call for the creation of classroom spaces to permit translanguaging was
supported by Martínez and Palmer (2013). In a large literature review of research into the study
of bilingual education, the authors ascertained that bilingual spaces needed to be created in order
to foster language growth. The authors suggested that bilingual teachers should think beyond
language and see it as a vehicle in the social relations of power. Moreover, understanding these
relations of power would help avert a dominant English narrative and help create healthy
bilingual identities. Martínez and Palmer (2013) also found that teachers are uniquely situated to
make powerful changes in the classroom through the acceptance of hybridity and hybrid
language practices as the norm in bilingual education.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 48

This research supports the views of Martínez and Palmer (2013) and views the creation of
a pedagogical Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) where translanguaging
(Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) can
occur in the Russian HL classroom as an affirmation of the RLI’s support for the Russian HLLs’
hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). However, the RLI’s use of translanguaging
should allow for an adequate balance of Russian and English depending on the context (FL or
HL) and not inadvertently favor the dominant language, English (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Lewis
et al., 2012).
The above studies illustrated some pedagogical spaces the RLI could create to positively
support the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development in
the classroom. Another way that the RLI might support her HLLs reconnection with their roots
is through her use of curricular materials. These topics align with the Bourdieu’s (1977, 1991)
ideas of symbolic capital as well as the work of Bourdieu and Passeron (1977), who wrote about
pedagogic authority and its ability to reproduce culture. The use of textbooks and other
curricular materials as well as their ability to reinforce culture and identity constructs through the
teacher’s authority is examined in the next section.
The HL/FL Teacher and Curricular Choices
It might assist the Russian language instructor (RLI) in developing her heritage language
learners’ (HLL) hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) to be aware of how she
controls student access to Russian culture. The RLI can do this not only through her
legitimization of her students’ language through social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990), the
creation of a pedagogical Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004), and the use of
translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger &
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 49

Link, 2012; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), but also through her choice of
classroom materials. For example, Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) believed that the teacher is an
authoritarian symbol of the dominant discourse that inhabits a pedagogic space; and that the
curricular materials that she chooses, namely textbooks, are representations of this “legitimate
culture” (p. 108) that the teacher is inculcating. Therefore, in order for the RLI to support the
HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity in a manner that strengthens their hybridity, this research views
her choice, critique, and interpretation of her curricular materials as significant.
Textbooks
Textbooks are some of the most important curricular materials in a heritage language
(HL) or foreign language (FL) teacher’s cache. In short, textbooks provide heritage language
learners (HLL) with representations of the culture that they intend to interact with (Azimova &
Johnson, 2012). In light of this connection, what this section focuses on is how texts might be
used to represent “legitimate culture” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977, p. 108) and its possible effect
on the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development of the HLLs. Therefore,
this research investigated a) the role that curricular materials and textbooks can play in
representing and reproducing stereotypical cultural identities (Azimova & Johnson, 2012;
Beaudrie et al., 2009; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004), (b) the textbooks’ embedded cultural
messages (Leeman & Martinez, 2007) and (c) their ability to increase or decrease HLL
motivation to learn the HL (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; Helmer, 2013; Tse, 2000). Again, this
section utilizes not only the field of HL learning, but also the peripheral field of FL learning as
many Russian HLLs learn Russian in FL classrooms at university (Carreira & Kagan, 2011) and
their presence in these classrooms can be a source of stress among many FL teachers due to a
lack of adequate HL materials (Li & Duff, 2008).
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 50

To begin, Shardakova and Pavlenko (2004), and Azimova and Johnston (2012) analyzed
a variety of Russian FL textbooks for reasons such as (a) how Russians and Americans were
portrayed, as well as the socioeconomic status of the characters presented in the dialogues and
scenes, and (b) how the textbooks editors referenced other cultures in which Russian was a
second language. For example, Shardakova and Pavlenko (2004) discovered that Russian Stage
I: Live from Moscow (Davidson, Gore & Lekic, 1997) and Nachalo (Lubensky, Jarvis & Ervin,
1996) were primarily written for a heterosexual, American White middle-class student body
While Azimova and Johnston (2012) confirmed Shardakova and Pavlenko’s (2004) findings
about the White middle-class, heterosexual male audience for Russian textbooks, their main
argument was that the textbook editors chose to abstain from referencing other cultures in which
Russian was a second language. For example, the authors emphasized that the ownership of
Russian was only White, Orthodox Christians, whereas many different cultures and ethnicities
employ Russian on a daily basis (Azimova & Johnston, 2012).
In contrast to the said views of Russian FL and HL texts, in their assessment of a Spanish
as a heritage language (SHL) program, Beaudrie et al. (2009) found that many Spanish HLLs
were happy with how their SHL textbooks explained and legitimized their culture. The SHL
learners’ main complaint was the fact that some of the SHL texts emphasized grammar more
than culture. As a result, the authors suggested that teachers should make sure that the text that
they choose has a cultural base as the study of a HL is the study of culture (Beaudrie et al.,
2009). On the other hand, Leeman and Martínez (2007) uncovered that many SHL texts have
legitimized Spanish in an instrumental fashion. That is, the authors discovered that modern SHL
textbooks portray the Spanish language as a global commodity to be exchanged as opposed to a
cultural reconnector. Despite this apparent positive view of Spanish, Leeman and Martínez
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 51

(2007) highlighted that teachers of SHL should be critical towards the embedded messages in
SHL textbooks so as not to reproduce cultural inequities, or linguistic inequities, such as one
linguistic variant being more standard than another.
Having established that curricular materials and textbooks can mediate language and
culture as well as present certain views with more symbolic capital than others (Bourdieu, 1977;
Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998), this research now turns to how the HL teacher utilizes
these materials and the possible effects that this utilization might have on the HLLs’
reconnection with their ethnic language and culture. In one of the earlier studies on identity and
its relation to learning the HL, Tse (2000) investigated the narratives of thirty-nine adult and
university HLLs and hypothesized that positive learning experiences correlated to a strong desire
to learn the HL. Tse’s (2000) original conjecture has been correlated through recent research by
Berardi-Wiltshire (2012) and Helmer (2013). For instance, Berardi-Wiltshire (2012) examined
Italian HLLs’ motivation to study Italian and discovered that the manner in which the HL teacher
approached the lesson as well as how she used materials had a significant impact on her students’
motivation. Similarly, Helmer (2013) found that one SHL teacher’s use of curricular materials
engendered resistance from her Spanish HLLs as the teacher utilized pedagogical materials that
the students found culturally inappropriate. As a result, Helmer (2013) stated that the Spanish
HLLs did not participate in classroom activities and refused to speak in Spanish with the teacher.
As it relates to the Russian HL/FL textbooks, there is a clear need for the Russian language
instructor (RLI) to mediate the materials as it relates to Russian gender, ethnic, and cultural
stereotypes since many of the texts do not present the totality of Russian ethnic and cultural
heritage (Azimova & Johnston, 2012; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004). This lack of
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 52

representation in the texts may have a profound impact on a Russian HLL’s engagement as
explained in the concomitant research of Berardi-Wiltshire (2013) and Helmer (2013).
To summarize, a HL teacher’s choice of textbooks is a profound statement on how that
teacher and school comprehend their students’ HL and hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996). Indeed, each of the aforementioned studies presented the symbolic power
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) of HL curricular materials and the
manner in which they are interpreted and represented by the HL teacher as exemplifications of
culture and ethnicity (Azimova & Johnston, 2012. As I have explicated, many Russian HLLs
might use the Russian FL classroom at university to re-connect with their roots ((Carreira &
Kagan, 2011; Geisherik, 2004) situating the Russian HL/FL textbooks in a primary position to
transmit Russian cultural images and knowledge that the Russian HLLs could internalize as truth
or as “legitimate culture” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977, p. 108) even if the represented culture is
inaccurate. The critical interpretation of the materials rests with the Russian language
instructor’s (RLI) awareness of any inaccuracies and her ability to problematize the idea of
“legitimate culture” so as to justify hybridity (Bhabha, 1994) and her HLLs’ hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). One of the ways that the RLI might be more conscious of
how her students perceive the HL materials and her role as language facilitator and authenticator
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) is through the use of reflective
practice; in particular, a critically reflective practice.
The Role of Reflection in Teacher Education
A complete history of the role of reflection in teacher education is beyond the scope of
this research. Therefore, the purpose of this section is to (a) provide a brief history of the role of
reflection in teacher education and explicate the evolution of reflection in teacher education, (b)
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 53

establish the difference between reflection and critical reflection, and (c), analyze the current
state of critical reflection in the field of heritage language teacher education. Finally, I present
the value of critical reflection for this research.
A Brief History of the Role of Reflection in Teacher Education
Most educational researchers understand the idea of reflection today through the works of
John Dewey (1933) and Donald Schön (1987, 1992). Thus, for a more complete understanding
of reflection in teacher education, it is important to provide some of the historical background of
Dewey’s (1938) contribution to educational theory, which includes one of the original ideas of
reflection. To begin, Dewey (1938) aimed to establish a coherent theory of education based on
the school as an organization that was experiential and empiricist. As such, Dewey (1938)
wanted to redefine and reconstruct traditional education into the notion of an educational
experience, which he considered essential for learning to occur. Dewey (1938) argued that
democratic principles supported better experiences and that all experience was basically social;
therefore, a learning experience was considered a good experience if it created curiosity, desire,
and established initiative on the part of the student.
Dewey (1938) contrasted his progressive educational format with traditional education,
which he understood as an imposition from the outside and with learning that occurred in the
classroom as more material-based as opposed to experience-based and co-constructed by the
teacher and the students; in short, Dewey (1938) believed that students should have more
freedom in learning. Based on his ideas of learning co-construction, Dewey (1938) believed that
the educator’s (i.e. teacher’s) job was to understand the differences in the experiences that the
student was having and to help the students distinguish the logical from the random, which
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 54

Dewey (1933) justified could be accomplished through the scientific method, or an inquiry-based
approach to everyday phenomena; this method involved the idea of reflection.
Dewey (1933) provided one of the earliest definitions of reflection for teaching, writing
that it is the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it
tends, constitutes reflective thought” (p. 6). Hence, reflection was a tool that educators could
utilize in order to separate the random from the logical (Dewey, 1933) in the classroom, much as
they would instruct their students to do so in the classroom. This idea of an inquiry-based
approach to solve problems by the teacher was further developed by Schön (1987, 1992), who
introduced two main types of reflection: reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.
Schön (1987) approached the idea of reflection with the aim of disrupting the manner in
which research universities consider professional knowledge and its application to professional
practice, which he called technical rationality. Schön (1987) stated that most research
universities favored scientific knowledge, which he believed did not account for professional
knowledge that came from experience. As such, Schön (1987) developed the term knowing-in-
action as an example of how professionals presented their observable knowledge, such as how to
ride a bike (p. 25) without actually explaining it or making it explicit. To alleviate this
discrepancy, Schön (1987) developed the ideas of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.
Schön (1987, 1992) described reflection-in-action as the way a professional cogitates
over those times when there might be a rupture in our knowledge-in-action. These ruminations
occur in the moment about a problem or situation that has occurred. Schön (1987) contrasted
reflection-in-action with reflection-on-action, which is when a professional considers what he did
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 55

or was doing to solve a current problem; however, in both cases, reflection-on-action did not
connect to the present.
If we take the bicycle metaphor (Schön, 1987) as our example, we can state that our
knowledge-in-action is our understanding of how to ride a bike, knowledge that can be seen as
we are doing it. Let us then assume that one of the wheels on our bike begins to lose air. We
begin to reflect-in-action as we continue to ride the bike as to how this loss of air could have
happened; we may ask ourselves: did I ride over a nail? Glass? Or was it something else
entirely? Moreover, what will we do now that we have a flat tire? How might we fix it? In short,
we are trying to understand how and why our bike tire has lost air and how to possibly fix it as
we continue to ride. Finally, we stop the bike and reflect-on-action, or look back at our actions
when we first began to ride the bike, where the puncture might have occurred, and to how we
might cover the hole and stop the air from escaping. Next, we inspect the tire and find the
puncture where the air is coming from. We realize that we must have run over a small, sharp
object as there is a small hole in the tire. Now, we stop and try to discover a way to cover the
hole. These are examples of knowing-in-action, reflection-in-action, and reflection-on-action,
which permeate teacher education to this day.
Dewey (1933, 1938) and Schön (1987, 1992) contributed to the idea of reflection in
teacher education as it was a break with routinized thought. Thus, Dewey (1933) and Schön
(1987, 1992) presented reflection not only as a way for teachers to solve everyday problems in
the classroom, but also as a method to understand the how and why of their routinized thought in
the classroom. Despite the ubiquity of these views of reflection in contemporary teacher
education, some researchers believed that neither presented a holistic view of reflection.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 56

Criticisms of Dewey and Schön. Although Schön (1987, 1992) and Dewey (1910) are
widely used as sources for why reflection is important in teacher education, some researchers
have criticized them for their lack of specificity as to how to actually reflect (Clarà, 2015;
Erlandson & Beach, 2008; Noffke & Brennan, 2005; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). For
example, Erlandson and Beach (2008) and Tannenbaum, Hall, and Deaton (2013) argued that
Schön (1987) provided no concrete method for reflection or how experienced practitioners
solved problems. Tannenbaum, Hall, and Deaton (2013) elaborated on these discrepancies and
underscored that (a) Schön was an architect and therefore his context for reflection was different
from that of 21st century educators, (b) he assumed that reflection was an innate process without
considering that it should be formally taught, and (c) the novice and expert distinction was
problematized as teachers might learn from each other or students. Noffke and Brennan (2005)
concurred to some degree, emphasizing that Schön (1987) presented reflection-in-action as a
skill and at the same time, innate, creating an insurmountable dichotomy. Finally, Clará (2015)
investigated Dewey and Schön from the perspective that they weren’t prescribing ways to reflect,
but describing ways to reflect. From this perspective, he argued that neither author presented
reflection as a decision-making process, a sequenced series of actions, or a link between theory
and practice as Schon (1992) had hoped.
Although these criticisms of reflection were well-founded, Farrell (2012) discussed the
fact that reflection, according to Dewey (1933) and Schön (1987), encouraged teachers to avoid
routine-oriented methods and engage in an evidenced-based practice to solve classroom
problems and come to understandings about the socioeconomic and sociocultural dimensions of
their practice. In other words, Farrell (2012) stated that Dewey (1933) and Schön (1987) wanted
teachers to reflect in order to mature and develop in their profession. Thus, reflection would lead
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 57

to a change in practice. However, how would this change occur? What would the process be?
These issues led several researchers to establish methods for reflection as a catalyst for change in
how a teacher approaches her practice (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Larrivee, 2008; Rodgers, 2002a;
Rodgers, 2002b; Valli, 1997).
The reification of reflection in teacher education. The reification of reflective practice
in teacher education has come in many forms. It has come in the form of typologies (Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Valli, 1997), cycles of inquiry (Rodgers 2002a), and the development of an
instrument (Larrivee, 2008) to aid in the reflective process. In this section, a short explanation of
these methods is provided, discussing several of the more well-known methods for engaging in
reflection as a process for creating change in teacher thought, action, and behavior.
One of the earlier works on ways for teachers to reflect came from Valli’s (1997)
typology, which she developed from the works of Dewey and Schön. Valli (1997) offered five
processes for pre-service teachers to reflect-in and reflect-on action: (a) action research, done in
the teacher’s classroom (b) journals or writing assignments, (c) case studies, and (d) classroom
discussions with other teachers. The idea behind each of these was that the pre-service teacher
would use one or more of the aforesaid tools to reflect-on-action and the choices that she made in
her practice. Valli (1997) added to the understandings of reflection by developing deliberative
and personalistic reflection. Deliberative reflection involved a teacher making a decision about a
classroom issue or situation based on a variety of sources, some of which I have listed above,
and personalistic reflection was when a teacher thought about the reasons why she wanted to
become a teacher and compared her personal and professional life (Valli, 1997). Jay and
Johnson (2002) advanced Valli’s (1997) ideas by creating a typology that consisted of a
hierarchical series of questions, each designed to take the pre-service teacher through three
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 58

domains of reflection. These domains went from describing and comparing what happened in
the classroom to being reflective about the ethical and moral consequences of a teacher’s action
as it relates to a democratic society (Jay & Johnson, 2002).
These typologies (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Valli, 1997) allowed for the development of
more concrete methods of reflection to create a change in a teacher’s actions and behavior. One
of the more well-known methods is Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle, which she developed from
the works of Dewey in order for teachers to be better learners in their classrooms and understand
that good teaching is adapting to student learning (Rodgers, 2002). Thus, the reflective cycle is a
method for attaining results in the classroom as a consequence of intelligent action (Dewey,
1938; Rodgers, 2002).
Rodgers (2002) described the reflective cycle as four phases that would culminate in
some sort of action being taken by the teacher. The first phase was when a teacher was present,
or in-the-moment and attending to students’ learning. The second phase was when the teacher
should describe what was happening in the classroom without making judgements; the teacher
could best do this, according to Rodgers (2002), with structured feedback from her students. The
third phase was when the teacher was analytical, determined what might have happened in the
class and came up with several hypotheses for solving the issue(s). This aspect of the reflective
cycle also meant avoiding false assumptions and delving beneath the surface of what things
appeared to be. Rodgers (2002) provided an example of this as interpreting what school rules,
such as “don’t run in the hallways” (p. 245), meant. This deeper understanding involved asking
questions such as: who does this rule apply to? Teachers? Students? Both? Under what
conditions does this rule apply? The final phase of the reflective cycle was when teachers were
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 59

experimental and tested their hypotheses (Rodgers, 2002). Therefore, the end result was when
the teacher took some form of intelligent action (Dewey, 1938; Rodgers, 2002).
The more concretized reflective cycle (Rodgers, 2002) might have been the impetus for
the questionnaire instrument for reflection created by Larrivee (2008) in order for teacher-
trainers to aid their novices reach deeper levels of reflection. Similar to Rodgers (2002),
Larrivee (2008) highlighted four levels of reflection that she assumed novice teachers would pass
through to reach the deeper levels of reflection. The first level was pre-reflection, which is a
reaction-based response by a teacher. The second phase is surface reflection, or when a teacher
focuses on the pragmatics of teaching but not the value of teaching. The third phase is
pedagogical reflection, which is the application of research in education to the classroom. The
final phase is critical reflection, which involves the teacher reflecting on how her practice
conforms to the ideals of democracy, equity and social justice. Finally, Larrivee (2008)
suggested the questionnaire be completed by a mentor and novice separately before collaborating
to discover the best way for the mentee to achieve higher levels of self-reflection.
The aforementioned researchers provided a scaffold for the reflective process that was
lacking in Dewey (1933) and Schön (1987, 1992). This reflective scaffold is valuable to this
research as it presents a guide for asking questions to understand how the Russian language
instructor (RLI) considers the way she socially positions (Davies & Harré, 1990) her heritage
language learners (HLL), determines legitimate culture (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) in the
classroom, consciously employs translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) as a discursive hybrid identity affirming
pedagogical tool, and interprets her curricular materials. In other words, is the RLI reflecting on
her actions (Schön, 1987) in class as they concern language and curricular materials? If yes, is
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 60

she taking intelligent action (Dewey, 1938; Rodgers, 2002) to repair any possible collateral
damage of her actions? Is the RLI aware of how her Russian HLLs reflexively view their own
identity (Davies & Harré, 1990) association with Russia? With Russians? With America? With
Americans? How do the Russian HLLs’ discursive identities (Gee, 2000) affect the manner in
which the RLI applies the curricular materials, or how she uses Russian in class? These
structures provide a guide to understanding if the RLI is critically reflecting (Howard, 2003) on
her use of language, curricular materials, and the sociocultural implications of teaching Russian
HLLs as the aforesaid questions indicate.
Although I defined how I view critical reflection in the introduction, it is appropriate to
revisit this topic now and differentiate critical reflection from reflection for the purposes of this
research. Finally, I will discuss how researchers in heritage languages (HL) discuss critical
reflection and present a gap in the research, which is the basis of this study.
Differentiating critical reflection from reflection. I define critical reflection as when
the Russian language instructor (RLI) takes the moral, ethical, and sociocultural aspects of
teaching the heritage language (HL) into consideration (Howard, 2003). This concept of critical
reflection derives from a Habermassian and Freirian perspective; that is to say, critical reflection
is a process of emancipation. For example, Habermas (1968) defined self-reflection as
“…intuition and emancipation, comprehension and liberation from dogmatic dependence” (p.
208). Therefore, for Habermas (1968), self-reflection was an act of deliverance from a reliance
on dogma, which placed his view of self-reflection next to Dewey’s (1933) understanding of
reflection. In short, Dewey (1933) comprehended reflection as way to disrupt the routine and
move toward intelligent action and Habermas (1968) comprehended self-reflection as liberation
from doctrine. These ideas invoke the work of the great Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire. Freire
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 61

(1990) believed that humans comprehended their reality through the process of reflection, which
he believed would lead to a critical consciousness, or conscientização. Freire (1990) recognized
the need to utilize conscientização to inquire into the actual reasons behind problems as opposed
to our presuppositions. He wrote:
The critically transitive consciousness is characterized by depth in the
interpretation of problems; by the substitution of causal principles for magical
explanations; by the testing of one’s “findings” and by openness to revision; by
the attempt to avoid distortion when perceiving problems and to avoid
preconceived notions when analyzing them
In this explanation, Freire (1990) reminds one of Dewey’s (1933) call for an inquiry-
based process into classroom problem-solving. However, critical reflection continues to proceed
into deeper levels of consciousness that go beyond the classroom and into the moral, ethical, and
sociocultural aspects of teaching (Howard, 2003).
This movement of teacher reflection beyond the classroom brings this research to the
work of Van Manen (1977), who saw the curriculum as a commodity that was sold to teachers.
Van Manen (1977) feared that teachers might be victims of a simplification of the curriculum
and forego a deeper interpretation of it unless the teacher reconfigured the curriculum to meet
her needs and those of her students. In order to facilitate this interpretation, Van Manen (1977)
suggested that critical reflection by the teacher about the curriculum, society, the students, and
the worth of knowledge would lead to equity in the educational process and elevate the practical
or curricular knowledge used in the classroom to what he called social wisdom.
Indeed, Van Manen’s (1977) view of the curriculum as a commodity relates directly to
my research as I have shown how many Russian texts might present the RLI with a variety of
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 62

biases (Azimova & Johnston, 2012; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004) that she will need to
critically reflect on, interpret, and possibly change if they contradict her Russian HLLs image of
their hybrid cultural identity. Therefore, I plan to employ a critically reflective lens to pose
questions to the RLI to understand if she is critically aware of her use of language and curricular
materials and how they relate to her Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity formation.
Summary
Critical reflection and the use of a critically reflective practice is a fairly new idea to the
field of heritage language learning (Kagan & Dillon, 2009). In the earlier studies of Russian
HLLs, Kagan and Dillon (2009) cited the work of Geyer (2008), who suggested the use of
reflection through video analysis and written reflection for foreign language (FL) teachers as a
basis for heritage language (HL) teachers to begin from. More recently, Correa (2011)
emphasized the need for HL instructors to be critically reflective about how they handled the
combination of foreign language learners (FLL) in the same classroom with heritage language
learners (HLL). Specifically, critically reflective practices in HL education were stated as a tool
to aid the HL instructor in focusing more on the sociolinguistic realities of Spanish HLLs that
were outside of the classroom as opposed to focusing only on pedagogic objectives inside the
classroom. However, there was no overt focus on a HLL’s hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996), its formation in discourse (Gee, 2000), nor how the HL instructor might
support this identity through the creation of discursive pedagogical spaces (Gutiérrez et al., 1999;
Moje et al., 2004) in the classroom where more bilingual identity practices like translanguaging
(Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) can
take place. Likewise, there was no specific mention of the hybrid cultural identity development
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 63

of Russian HLLs nor how a critically reflective Russian language instructor (RLI) might sustain
or negatively affect it.
The fact that critical reflection has not made strong inroads into the field of HL learning
represents a gap in the research of HL learning. This gap becomes wider when considering the
fact that little HL research in critical reflection is geared towards Russian HLLs. This gap is
important as HL learning is intimately linked to identity (Abdi, 2006; Cho, 2014; Coles-Ritchie
& Lugo, 2010; Kondo Brown, 2005; Leeman et al., 2011; Leeman, 2015; Li & Duff, 2008;
Martínez & Palmer, 2013; Menard-Warwick, 2008; Showstack, 2015) as identity is created and
negotiated through discourse (Gee, 2000; Gee, 2001; Leeman, 2015) that may present itself in
the form of translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Wang,
2012; Palmer et al., 2014). This discourse is not neutral and carries with it much symbolic
capital depending on a person’s position and place in society (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991;
Grenfell & James, 1998). Therefore, the fact that the teacher is in an authoritative position
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) in the HL classroom as it relates to
the authentication and de-legitimization of the curriculum, language, culture and identity,
suggests that it might aid her practice to be aware of her use of language and curricular materials.
If the RLI were not aware, the aforementioned research indicated that the consequences
could result in HLL resistance (Helmer, 2013), de-motivation (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012) or a
devaluation of the HLL’s worth (Abdi, 2006; Menard-Warwick, 2008), or home language
(Coles-Ritchie & Lugo, 2010; Showstack, 2015; Stroud & Wee, 2007). Based on these realities
of the HL classroom, this research supports the use of critical reflection (Howard, 2003) as being
a valuable tool for the RLI to be cognizant of the language and curricular materials that she uses
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 64

in the classroom and their effect on her Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) development.
Conclusion
To conclude, in this chapter the literature was surveyed from heritage language (HL) and
foreign language (FL) contexts to better comprehend the role of the HL teacher in socially
positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) her students and their emergent identities (García, 2009).
This research demonstrated that the teacher plays a profound role in legitimizing the language,
culture and discursive identity (Gee, 2000) formation of her students through her acceptance of
the students’ language and identities (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998).
Moreover, the role of social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) was presented as important in
understanding how language is used in classroom interactions to establish positions of power and
to validate language and identity (Abdi, 2006; Menard-Warwick, 2008). This means that a
critically aware (Howard, 2003) HL teacher, who wants an equitable HL classroom, should focus
on her language and its role in positioning the students.
This review presented research that justified the importance of the creation of
pedagogical third spaces (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) in the classroom where the
Russian language instructor (RLI) could employ hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al.,
1999), such as translanguging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Wang,
2012; Palmer et al., 2014), to support her HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996) development through the use of discourse. Next, this research analyzed how language
textbooks can reinforce cultural biases if the Russian language instructor (RLI) is not critically
aware of their contents (Azimova & Johnston, 2012; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004), which led
to the justification for employing critical reflection (Howard, 2003) as a tool for the RLI to be
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 65

cognizant of language, positioning, curricular materials and their possible effects on Russian
HLL hybrid cultural identity development.
A critically reflective practice is important for the RLI to consider as her Russian HLLs
arrive in the university classroom attempting to regain their identity through language study
(Carreira & Kagan, 2011). In addition, a critically reflective practice is a tool that the RLI might
employ for emancipation (Dewey, 1933; Freire, 1990; Habermas, 1968) from routine teaching
habits and routine understandings of Russian HLL identity formation (Gee, 2000). This practice
is also a way to inquire into the sociocultural, ethical, and moral aspects (Howard, 2003) of
teaching Russian HLLs that the RLI might need to consider in order to better facilitate student
learning. Finally, I established a gap in the research of HL education. The gap is that there is
little research in the field about the levels of critical awareness of how RLIs’ classroom language
use and choice of curricular materials might impact the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) development of their Russian HLLs.
Chapter Three
The study of heritage language (HL) learning lies at the intersection of language and
identity (Beaudrie et al., 2009; He, 2010; He, 2004; Leeman, 2015; Leeman et al., 2011; Lo
Philip, 2010; Montrul, 2010). In fact, Leeman et al. (2011) stated that the study of HL learning
is the study of identity. This connection places the university foreign language (FL) classroom
as the location where heritage language learners (HLL) may begin to discover what Gee (2000)
called their discourse-identity, or any identity that is constructed through discourse and verified
by rational individuals of their own accord, and their affinity-identity, which is understood as any
identity associated with a connection to specific group. The sensitivity of this time period in the
HLLs’ lives highlights the importance of the Russian language instructor (RLI) as the principal
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 66

language and hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) broker in the classroom. Thus
her authoritative role in the classroom (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James,
1998) places her in a position to discursively value or devalue a HLL’s language and identity
(Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; He, 2010; Li & Duff, 2008) through her employment of social
positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990), hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999), and
interpretation of how she reproduces culture in the classroom (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
This relationship between language, culture, and identity is of prime importance to
university Russian HLLs, who confirmed in a recent survey that they wanted to attend university
language classes to reconnect with their ethnic and linguistic roots (Carreira & Kagan, 2011;
Geisherik, 2004). Based on this recent information and in light of Gee’s (2000) categorization of
discursive identity affiliations, the RLI might want to be critically aware of how she uses her
language and curricular materials so as not to devalue the Russian HLL’s language and identity
(Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; He, 2010; Li & Duff, 2008). Any devaluation of the Russian HLL’s
language could result in language shyness (Krashen, 1998), self-identifying negatively with their
hybrid identity (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) or the abandonment of the class and eventual HL
loss (Cho & Krashen, 1998; Cummins, 2005; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Kit Fong-Au, 2008; Lo
Philip, 2010; Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
This sociolinguistic connection explains the twofold purpose of this research, which is to
(a) understand how the university Russian language teacher (RLI) explains her use of curricular
materials and language in the FL/HL classroom and how the Russian HLLs interpret the use of
the RLI’s materials and language on their hybrid cultural identity development and (b) to
discover how critical reflection might assist the RLI in facilitating a classroom that encourages
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 67

the free expression of hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). As such, the
following research questions guide this research:
1. How do Russian Language Teachers (RLI) in higher education describe their use of
language and curricular materials in the HL/FL classroom?
2. How might critical reflection enrich the RLIs understanding of the effect of her linguistic
and curricular choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development?
3. How do the Russian HLLs grasp the impact of the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic choices
on their hybrid cultural identity formation?
Methods
The complexity of understanding how a Russian language instructor (RLI) understands
the relationship between heritage language learner (HLL) identity development and language
requires an insider perspective of the context. As such, I ascertained how the RLI
conceptualized, or as Maxwell (2013) states, “constructs” (p. 30), her beliefs about her classroom
language and curricular choices. Next, I attempted to discover the effect of these linguistic and
pedagogical choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
construction. My goal of understanding the RLI’s meaning behind these choices, the context in
which these decisions were made, and the effect of these decisions on the hybrid cultural identity
formation of the Russian HLLs lent itself to qualitative research (Maxwell, 2013). Three more
important factors in choosing qualitative methodology were that this process would be inductive
as my research assistant and I were the data collecting instruments and all of the information was
obtained in the natural setting (Merriam, 2009).
The reasons why I chose qualitative methodology are as follows. First, I did inductive
research because I was concerned with understanding the RLIs’ rationale for choosing certain
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 68

curricular materials over others and comprehending why they made specific pedagogical and
linguistic choices in the classroom as opposed to alternatives with their Russian HLLs. Second, I
examined the effects of the RLIs’ classroom choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural
identity development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996); I could not obtain this information through a
survey or other types of quantitative methodology. Third, the information that I required
necessitated that I was present in the RLIs’ classrooms to observe their verbal and non-verbal
interactions with their Russian HLLs. Through these interactions I was able to collect the data to
comprehend how the RLI socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) her Russian HLLs, created
third spaces (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge,
2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), encouraged the discursive
identity (Gee, 2000) construction of her HLLs, and positioned herself as an authority on Russian
language and culture (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998). In contrast, I
was able to comprehend how these pedagogical choices affected the Russian HLL’s hybrid
cultural identity development. Third, understanding why the RLIs might have made language or
curricular choices at specific times during their lesson required that I interview the RLIs to
ascertain their beliefs. Likewise, to determine the internal effects of the RLIs’ choices on the
Russian HLL’s hybrid cultural identity development, I needed to interview the Russian HLLs.
These were the main reasons why I chose qualitative methodology.
Sample & Site Selection
Site and Access. The sites were primarily chosen based on whether or not they had a
Russian heritage language (HL) class, which was the most preferable choice, or a four year
Russian major. It was assumed that the four-year institutions would have experienced Russian
language instructors (RLI) and some Russian HLLs in their foreign language (FL) or heritage
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 69

language (HL) classes. The sites were also chosen based on whether they were located in
Southern California for reasons of convenience. Due to access limitations, the criteria changed
to include two-year institutions that had Russian FL classes with Russian HLLs in them, which is
why Coastal Community College (CCC) was included in this study. Based on these limitations,
I will explain how I gained access to the university and college. .
I found two Russian programs in Southern California other than the University of
Southern California that offered a four-year Russian major; and I found one community college
that offered Russian FL classes that had Russian HLLs. In order to gain access to these
institutions, I contacted the Director of the Russian Language Program or foreign language
program at CCC and informed her of my study and requested access to the university, the RLIs,
and the Russian HLLs. After I was granted access, I contacted the RLIs at each location and sent
them a survey which inquired about their teaching experience, level of Russian, and Russian
HLL population. After reviewing their responses to my preliminary survey (appendix A), I then
began my interviews and observations of their classes at their convenience.
Preliminary survey and participants. The preliminary survey (appendix A) was
designed to find Russian language instructors (RLI) that equated to the “typicality” of the
population (Maxwell, 2013, p. 98). The reason for the survey was to find pedagogically
proficient teachers of Russian that had experience instructing Russian heritage language learners
(HLL). Another reason for the preliminary survey was to ascertain if the RLIs had Russian
HLLs that met my criteria (see Chapter One) in their classes. As I was concerned with how a
RLI interpreted her linguistic and curricular choices, I assumed that a more experienced teacher
would have more pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987), or understanding of second
language teaching approaches and Russian syntax, phonology, and culture, than teaching
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 70

assistants or inservice teachers, who may or may not have the requisite pedagogical content
knowledge that can permit a seasoned teacher to attend to the students’ needs, the content, and
the environment in a critically reflective manner. Based on this criteria, I found an RLI sample
that (a) was a fluent or native speaker of Russian, (b) had at least three years of teaching Russian
as a foreign language experience, and (c) had a contingent of Russian HLLs in her Russian
language class.
Data Collection. Coastal Community Colege (CCC), San Gabriel College (SGC), and
Topanga State University (TSU) were the three data collection sites. As these sites involved
multiple participants, I enlisted the support of a research assistant to aid me in the process and as
a fellow research professional to aid me in Russian translation, interviews, observations, and in
the interpretation and organization of data. My assistant met all of the necessary qualifications to
interview participants as determined by the University of Southern California (USC). In
addition, she had a Master’s degree in teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL), a
doctorate in Slavic Languages and Literatures from (USC), and is a native Russian and English
bilingual.
The data was collected from the Russian language instructors (RLI) through interviews,
classroom observations, and an analysis of their curricular materials. In addition, data came
from Russian HLLs through classroom observations, interviews, and a focus group of two HLLs
who had provided informed consent. One reason that I employed multiple means of data
collection was that I wanted to triangulate the data so as to reduce the risk of favoring one set of
conclusions (Maxwell, 2013). Another reason was that I wanted to understand the context from
multiple different points of view. In light of this approach, I utilized interviews for
understanding the RLIs’ cognitive processes about language and curricular choices. Likewise, I
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 71

utilized the Russian HLLs’ interviews and focus group to discover their interpretations of the
effect of the RLIs’ use of language and curricular materials on their hybrid cultural identity
development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Next, I used observations for describing the classroom
context and for viewing Russian HLLs’ reactions to the RLIs language use. Finally, I employed
curricular analysis to understand if the texts and classroom materials contained biases with
regards to gender, Russian socioeconomic status, and Russian sociocultural status (Azimova &
Johnston, 2012; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004) as these might have had an effect on Russian
HLLs hybrid cultural identity development.
Interviews. Although I had intended to conduct three semi-structured interviews with
each participant in the research, time and access affected my original plans. As a result, I
conducted interviews in the following order and for the specified time. I had three interviews
with the Russian language instructor (RLI) at Coastal Community College (CCC), two with the
RLI at San Gabriel College (SGC), and my research assistant conducted one phone interview
with the heritage language RLI at Topanga State University (TSU). As it concerned the Russian
heritage language learners (HLL), three HLLs at CCC were interviewed individually and then
there was one focus group of two HLLs. At SGC, one HLL was interviewed once through
Skype due to the participant’s time and access limitations. The HLLs were interviewed in the
exact order that they were presented. Likewise, for many of the same reasons as at SGC, one
Russian HLL at TSU was interviewed once through Skype. Each interview lasted about thirty to
forty minutes; during each interview, semi-structured interview protocols were employed
because they allowed for certain issues to be specifically investigated while also permitting the
interviewer and the respondent to unpack nascent themes (Merriam, 2009). Thus, there were
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 72

pre-written questions to ask (see appendix B), but much leeway was given to all participants so
as to relate certain questions directly to the classroom observations.
The purpose of the RLIs’ interview questions was to understand how they described their
linguistic and curricular choices and their knowledge of the effect of those choices on their
Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). In contrast, the Russian
HLLs’ interview and focus group questions were designed to comprehend their interpretation of
the RLIs’ choices on their hybrid cultural identity development as well as their relationship to
Russia and Russian culture. Additionally, as I wanted to encourage speculation and critical
reflection on the part of the RLIs, we specifically created and asked two devil’s advocate
questions and two hypothetical questions (Merriam, 2009) related to classroom situations that
might have arisen in a Russian Foreign language /HLL class that concerned instances of where
language and identity might interact (appendix B).
Observations. The Russian language instructors (RLI) and Russian heritage language
learners (HLL) were observed at each of the locales in the following order: Coastal Community
College (CCC), San Gabriel College (SGC), and Topanga State University (TSU). CCC and
TSU classes were observed three times respectively, and classes at SGC were observed two
times. Each class was observed for at least one hour and usually more if it were possible. The
reason that I wanted to observe the RLIs three times was to understand what a typical class was
and how they employed Russian, used their pedagogical space and authority, and interpreted
their curricular materials on a regular basis. The fact that each class was observed more than
once also aided in reducing what Maxwell (2013) calls “reactivity” (p. 124) from the RLIs and
the Russian HLLs. For example, the RLIs and the Russian HLLs behaved differently during the
first observation, but they were more accustomed to me being in the class by the second and third
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 73

observations. I believe that this comfort on the part of the RLI and Russian HLLs allowed me to
observe the Russian HLLs’ more common behavior juxtaposed with the RLIs’ normal
instruction. Therefore, in addition to the aforementioned observation goals, during each
observation the focus was on accurately describing several of the facets that Patton (1987)
suggests are important: the classroom context and activities, the RLIs’ language use as it related
to social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1999) any RLI and Russian HLL verbal and non-verbal
interactions or Russian HLL to Russian HLL verbal and non-verbal interactions.
Artifacts. I collected the assigned textbook or chosen curricular choices such as,
handouts, videos, or films as artifacts for analysis at every location except for Topanga State
University (TSU). TSU did not have a textbook for us to analyze and did not have any handouts
or other artifacts that could be investigated. However, the artifacts and textbook proved valuable
to this research. Indeed, the examination of the artifacts and text focused on many of the themes
raised by Azimova and Johnson (2012) and Shardakova and Pavlenko (2004). That is, I
investigated how the characters, situations, or Russo-American relationships in the Russian texts
or curricular materials were presented and interpreted (Van Manen, 1977) by the Russian
language instructor (RLI) as legitimate Russian culture (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) in the
classroom.
Data Analysis. My preliminary sources of data came from the observations and
interviews. During observations, copious field notes were taken, following Chiseri-Strater and
Sunstein’s (2012) list of information that field notes should contain: (a) date, time, and place of
observation, (b) specific facts, numbers, details of what happens at the site, (c) sensory
impressions, such as sights, sounds, and textures, (d) personal responses to the recorded
fieldnotes e.g. our personal memos, (e) specific words, phrases, summaries of conversations, and
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 74

insider language, (f) questions about people or behaviors at the site for future investigation, and
(g) page numbers to help keep observations in order (p. 83). This type of thick and rich
description should allow any reader to correlate their context with the one that I described
(Merriam, 2009). In order to achieve these descriptions, I utilized an observation protocol
(appendix C) to follow. In addition, each interview and focus group was audiotaped when
permitted; in addition, I employed an interview log. Thus, I listened to each interview and focus
group in five minute increments and summarized them; then, I reviewed the summaries and note
salient sections that provided information on my research questions; re-listened, and transcribed
those sections.
There has been little research that has investigated how Russian language instructors
(RLI) describe their understanding of the curricular and linguistic choices in the classroom as it
relates to their Russian Heritage language learners’ (HLL) hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996) formation and how the Russian HLLs reacted to those choices. Due to this
absence of research, my goal was to start with open coding (Merriam, 2009). The data was
organized from the interviews and observations into categories that seemed to be closely related
to my research goal (Maxwell, 2013). Then, I followed Harding’s (2013) suggestion of selecting
the data codes that continued to emerge regularly and re-organized these data into substantive, or
descriptive categories and theoretical, or more abstract categories (Maxwell, 2013).
The substantive categories derived from the observations of what happened in the
classroom and the information gathered from the interviews and focus groups, or the RLIs’ and
Russian HLLs’ interpretations of what happened in the classroom (Maxwell, 2013). The
theoretical categories were generated from the interviews and observations as well. However,
these categories were based on the established theoretical lenses of this research and recount my
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 75

interpretations of how the RLIs (a) socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1999) their Russian
HLLs verbally and non-verbally, (b) created a Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al.,
2004) in the classroom that supported hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
development, (c) were aware of their more powerful role in the classroom as it related to
linguistic exchanges (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998), and (c) were
critically reflective (Howard, 2003) about their authoritative role (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu,
1991; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) in the heritage language (HL) or foreign language (FL)
classroom as it related to the Russian HLLs hybrid cultural identity development. Likewise, I
compared my interpretations with the data that I gathered from the Russian HLLs. Once I had
the substantive and theoretical categories, I compared them to see the congruence or
incongruence of relationships between the information that I gathered (Harding, 2013).
Positionality
To begin, it is important to state that I have a higher degree in teaching English as a
Second Language (TESOL) as well as over ten years of teaching experience in the field.
Therefore, during my training, I developed an awareness of critical reflection (Howard, 2003)
and the unequal power structure of the traditional second language classroom and the linguistic
exchanges that occur therein (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998). Thus, I
admit that I believe that there are certain teaching approaches a second language teacher should
utilize to instruct her students effectively and respectfully.
To account for this researcher bias, I employed three techniques (Merriam, 2009). First, I
wrote thick descriptions of the context that would allow any educator to compare my context
with their own (Merriam, 2009). Second, I was critically reflective of my position and that of
my research assistant as researchers and primary data collecting instruments. Because of this
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 76

situation, I wrote what Maxwell (2013) calls “researcher identity memos” (p. 46) to unpack my
own assumptions and biases as stated above. Third, I utilized triangulation (Merriam, 2009). The
triangulation came from the observation field notes, the interview transcripts, my observer
comments and my research assistant’s comments. These resources of information provided a
clear picture from which to understand the context. Finally, I used member checks (Merriam,
2009). In other words, when I had doubts as to what I understood from my interviews or
observations, I contacted the Russian language instructor (RLI) and asked her if she agreed with
my assessments.
Chapter Four
The first three chapters of this dissertation provided an introduction to the possible
negative effect of the classroom based practices of the Russian language instructor (RLI) on her
Russian Heritage Language Learners (HLL)’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
development. The first chapter provided an introduction to the aforementioned problem and
provided the theoretical lens through which the dissertation would locate its information. The
second chapter further established the theory and reviewed the relevant literature, while the third
chapter presented the methodology for data collection. The first three chapters determined that
little research in heritage languages (HL) has been dedicated to the RLIs’ role in facilitating a
positive hybrid cultural identity in the university or college foreign language (FL) or heritage
language (HL) classroom. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to understand how the
RLI described her linguistic and curricular choices in the classroom and how those choices
affected the hybrid cultural identity development of her Russian HLLs. Furthermore, a main
question was if the RLI employed critical reflection (Howard, 2003) in her practice to aid her in
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 77

choosing language and curricula that would encourage the development of a healthy hybrid
identity (Bhabha, 1994) on the part of her HLLs.
The second chapter reviewed the relevant literature from the peripherally connected
fields of English as a Second Language (ESL), Bilingual Education (BE), and HL education.
The literature review’s predominant findings were that a Russian HLL’s identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) was hybrid in nature, as she was located in several cultural spaces (Bhabha. 1994;
Hall, 1996). Furthermore, identity and HL learning were shown to be thoroughly linked (Abdi,
2006; Cho, 2014; Coles-Ritchie & Lugo, 2010; He, 2006; He, 2010; Kondo Brown, 2005;
Leeman, et al., 2011; Leeman, 2015; Li & Duff, 2008; Lo Philip, 2010; Martínez & Palmer,
2013; Menard-Warwick, 2008; Showstack, 2015) and developed in discourse (Creese &
Blackledge, 2015; Gee, 2001; Leeman, 2015). Finally, discourse was shown to be imbued with
symbolic meaning and linguistic capital based on one’s societal position (Bourdieu, 1977;
Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998).
The RLI was given as an example of one who holds strong linguistic capital as she was in
the dominant position in the classroom and the one capable of reproducing a specific classroom
culture (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Grenfell & James, 1998)
that could delegitimize an emerging hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Based
on the RLI’s authoritative position, it was found that the teacher might engender the
development of a positive Russian HLL hybrid cultural identity in the classroom by creating a
Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) to help scaffold the Russian HLLs’
emerging identity by encouraging translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), a tool that might legitimize a culturally hybrid
identity. Finally, the literature review confirmed that critical reflection (Howard, 2003) was in
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 78

its nascent stages in HL education (Correa, 2011; Kagan & Dillon, 2009), but would serve as a
valuable tool for the RLI to be aware of: (a) the possible need to create a separate, or third space
(Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2012) for HL learners in a FL environment,
(b) her linguistic and symbolic capital in a HL class (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell
& James, 1998) and her use of that capital to socially position (Davies & Harré, 1990) her HLLs,
and (c) the recondite meanings hidden in curricula (Leeman & Martínez, 2007; Van Manen,
1977).
Chapter three explicated the qualitative methodology that was used in gathering data and
how that data would be organized and assessed. The data were gathered through classroom
observations, teacher and student interviews, and a review of curricular materials from the three
university, college, and community college sites. At each location, pseudonyms were employed
for all HLL and RLI participants as well as the sites visited in the study in order to protect their
privacy. The findings helped to answer the following research questions:
1. How do RLIs in higher education describe their use of classroom language and
materials as they relate to the hybrid cultural identity formation of their heritage
students?
2. How might critical reflection aid the RLIs in understanding the effect of these linguistic
and curricular choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development?
3. How do Russian HLLs comprehend the impact of the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic
choices on their hybrid cultural identity formation?
This chapter presents the findings of the study and depicts the participants and the three
sites where they were located. The collected data were organized into themes allied to the three
research questions and analyzed through the use of triangulation (Merriam, 2009) from
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 79

observation field notes, the interview transcripts and analytic memos, my observer comments,
my research assistant’s comments and notes, and our discussions about the topic. Each of the
major themes was related to one of the three research questions.
Research question one asked how Russian language instructors (RLI) in higher education
settings described their use of classroom language and materials as they related to the hybrid
cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) formation of their Russian heritage language
learners (HLL). Data revealed several themes from the research. The first theme was the RLI
and her use or non-use of the classroom’s physical and discursive space in cultivating Russian
HLL hybrid cultural identity development through social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990).
This theme was juxtaposed with the second theme, which discussed the challenges for the RLI in
having Russian HLLs in the same classroom space with Russian foreign language learners
(FLLs) as it relates to the formation of a discursive Russian hybrid cultural identity.
Concomitant with this theme was the effect of a Russian HLL’s oral and written proficiency in
Russian and how that level affected the RLI’s engagement with her hybrid cultural identity
development. This theme produced the role of the RLI in providing her Russian HLLs with a
learning environment where possible translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) practices by the RLI and the Russian HLLs could
take place. The final theme for this question unpacked how outdated textbooks and curricula for
Russian HLLs affected the potential hybrid cultural identity-based classroom practices of the
RLIs.
The next section outlines the university, college, and community college sites in Southern
California as well as the participants in the study. The observed sites in the order they were
visited included: one beginning Russian class at Coastal Community College, one advanced
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 80

Russian culture class at San Gabriel College, and one Russian HL class at Topanga State
University. One teacher at each location participated in the study as well as four Russian HLLs
at Coastal Community College, one at San Gabriel College, and one at Topanga State University.
Sites and Participants
The three sites were quite disparate in appearance and location, economic funding,
educational status, student population, student engagement, and use of curricular materials.
These disparities provided a conspicuous contrast between Russian language instructor (RLI)’
teaching styles, their use of curricula, and the Russian heritage language learners (HLL)’
participation in the class and awareness of their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996). On the other hand, the disparities offered discernable similarities, such as the RLIs’ grasp
of the differences between Russian HLLs and Russian foreign language (FL) learners and their
concerns about attending to the Russian HLLs’ linguistic needs.
The first location, Coastal Community College (CCC), a two-year institution offered only
one Russian language course offered per semester and was home to Professor Kusna. The
second location was San Gabriel College (SGC), a four-year college that provided a Russian
major and where Dr. Rosanova was interviewed and observed. The third location, which housed
a Russian HLL class that Professor Alan taught, was Topanga State University (TSU). In
addition, Dr. Galo was interviewed to provide background information into HL classroom theory
and practice and their relation to Russian HLL hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996).
Coastal Community College
Coastal Community College (CCC) was the home to the first Russian heritage language
learner (HLL) classroom that was observed, the first Russian language instructor (RLI)
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 81

interviewed, and the first group of Russian HLLs that were interviewed. CCC is a large and
multicultural community college located in a middle-class neighborhood in Southern California.
The first attribute to garner attention was the size of the student population, which numbered
over thirty-thousand students. The size of the student body was acquired quickly by making
one’s way across campus. The second attribute was the diversity of the student body, which was
impressive, as it was possible to hear multiple different languages being spoken by walking
across campus. For example, the student demographics at the time of the observations were
around 28% White, 38% Hispanic, 16% Asian/Pacific Islander and 9% Black (Student
Background and Demographic Data, 2017). This point was bolstered by the surprising amount
of foreign languages listed in the course catalog, which numbered over ten. In addition, the
central part of the campus housed an impressive set of modern buildings, highlighted by the
reconstructed library, which was modernized in 2003 (CO Architects, 2017). Despite this
striking first glance, CCC showed a different façade when it came to the foreign language (FL)
classrooms.
The FL classroom that accommodated the Russian I class was dated. The class was held
in a make-shift building that resembled an aluminum trailer. The inside of the classroom was
filled with non-pliable desks arranged in single file. The ratio of desks to available space
prevented any type of lateral movement by the students or the RLI. Therefore, any type of
student pairing or grouping was affected by the desks and the lack of space. The classroom did
have a whiteboard, a television and stand, one overhead projector that had internet access, and
various pictures of the ocean and surfers decorating the walls. However, there were no overt
indications or markers that this was a classroom for studying Russian. It was in this environment
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 82

that Professor Kusna taught her Russian I FL class to Felicia, Kalista, Steven, and Arkady, the
four Russian HLLs who participated in this study from CCC.
Professor Kusna. Professor Kusna was trained to teach Russian at Topanga State
University (TSU) by well-known Heritage Language (HL) researcher Dr. Galo, who also
participated in this study and whose profile and comments will be explained further on in the
study. Professor Kusna has a Master’s degree in Slavic Languages and Literatures from TSU
and began teaching Russian at Coastal Community College (CCC) in late 1999. She had studied
one semester in Russia and had a strong command of the Russian language as well as a high
interest in Soviet culture because she started to learn Russian during the Cold War. Professor
Kusna’s class was were four Russian HLLs that participated in this study were found; they are
profiled in the following sections.
Felicia. Felicia grew up in Southern California and currently lives in Calabasas in an
area that is primarily composed of Russian Jewish families. She has lived there for fourteen years
and stated that it was a nice place to live. Although Felicia’s father’s side is Dutch, her Mother’s
side is Russian, specifically from Odessa, Ukraine, which is a predominantly Russian-speaking
town in Southern Ukraine. Her Mother’s family left Ukraine in 1979, when her mother was only
a teenager. The reason the family left Odessa was that her mother was Jewish and was not
allowed to acknowledge that she was Jewish in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR). Felicia indicated that her Mother told her that the former USSR was anti-semitic, or
that her Mother had experienced anti-semitism, which was the impetus for the move to the
United States. Based on this antagonistic relationship, her Mother has never been back to Russia
and currently does not like to admit that she is Russian.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 83

Due to the fact that Felicia’s home language is English, Felicia specified that she was
taking Professor Kusna’s Russian I class to improve her speaking, reading and writing of
Russian. She remarked that listening skills in Russian were her strength, but that she was unable
to read in Russian. Despite this issue in reading Russian, she claimed that she wanted to improve
her Russian to connect with her mom as she was closer to her dad than her mom; and because no
one on her mom’s side “got off her back” about it (improving her Russian to communicate with
her Mother’s side of the family). Another reason she wanted to learn Russian was for
instrumental reasons: Felicia stated that bilingualism could help her with obtaining a job and
mentioned that she wanted to work for the Los Angeles Kings, a professional hockey team, and
work in Public Relations for the team as hockey is a known sport with several players from
Russia.
Kalista. Whereas it might be possible to argue that Felicia was a typical Russian HLL,
Kalista could be viewed as an atypical Russian HLL. Kalista was born in Russia, but her mother
died when she was five years old because Kalista’s father had abused her. Kalista’s father was a
drug dealer and a drug user. Because of her father’s occupation, he was killed when she was
nine and she was placed in an orphanage. She was adopted in 2008 when she was eight years old
by an American family. Her adopted American parents did not speak Russian at the time of the
study and had what might best be described as a pragmatic approach to Kalista’s Russian roots.
That is, they did not want to prevent her from visiting Russia but acknowledged that Russian
American relations were tense at the time of the study.
Kalista self-identified as Russian American, but mostly Russian. She was taking Russian
because she had forgotten some Russian and wanted to go back to Russia because her biological
brother, with whom she had maintained close contact, was still living there. Another reason she
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 84

was in Russian I was to go into the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and join the Human
Trafficking division. Her current level of Russian is what she described as Third-Grade Russian.
Her strongest skill in Russian was listening and that in reading and writing, she could understand
the gist of the story but could not understand every single word. As a result of her situation, she
was now more comfortable in English because she knew it better and spoke it better.
Steven. Steven was born in Los Angeles and considered his heritage to be Russian and
Ukrainian. However, he self-identified as Russian American. His mother was born in Odessa,
Ukraine and his father was born in Moscow, Russia. His family left for the United States
because of their economic situation and arrived in the United States in 1993. Currently, both of
his parents are fluent in Russian and English. In fact, Steven mentioned that discussions at home
took place in both languages simultaneously. Despite this source of Russian linguistic input,
Steven decided to take Professor Kusna’s Russian I class because he wanted to improve his
writing skills and because he had difficulties with Russian word stress and grammatical case
endings. Another reason that he took the class was to be able to communicate more fluidly with
his grandparents on his Mother’s side.
His grandparents currently live in West Hollywood, which is a known location of many
Russians who live in Los Angeles. They have lived in West Hollywood since before Steven was
born and have adjusted to the culture, but they did not speak English well enough at the time of
the study to communicate with Steven in English. Due to this communicative break, Steven said
that he acted as “tech support” and a cultural guide for them as they would occasionally ask how
things “were done” in the United States. In addition, Steven said that he taught his grandparents
how to type in Russian on the computer. They utilized this new skill to send him Russian
paragraphs about their history and had him read the writings and send them back to practice his
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 85

reading comprehension. Eventually, he wanted to be able to write well enough to send them
something about himself. His grandparents told him that they wanted him to continue learning
Russian so that he did not forget it.
Arkady. Arkady was not interviewed separately, but participated in a small focus group
with Steven. Arkady self-identified as Russian American even though his parents were from
Gomel, Belarus and he was born there. His family moved to the United States in 1994 to give
Arkady a better life and keep him out of the military. Arkady’s parents were in his words “OK at
English” and due to this fact their home language was always Russian. However, this situation
not only occurred because of his parent’s supposed lack of English skill. Arkady explained that
once his parents tried to speak to him in English, but that he got them “back on track” by not
responding in English, but in Russian. He claimed that it was more important for him to keep the
language and pass it on to his children.
Arkady was in Professor Kusna’s Russian I class because it was the easiest language
(language requirement for all students) for him to take and because he wanted to improve his
reading and writing. Aligned with this pragmatic view of learning the language, Arkady also
said that improving his Russian would enable him to get more help from his parents than if he
had learnt another foreign language. His parents were very supportive of his linguistic endeavor.
San Gabriel College
San Gabriel College (SGC) is a small four-year liberal arts college that is part of a
compendium of colleges in Southern California. SGC is highly respected for its academics and
has garnered much academic prestige from various magazines and organizations. One of the
most striking characteristics about SGC was its physical appearance. SGC was located amongst
four other colleges in an upper to middle class neighborhood in Southern California. For a
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 86

relatively small student population, SGC was quite expansive. One walk across the
predominantly tree-lined sidewalks of the campus yielded the observer with views of several
buildings varying from older to more modern architectural styles, fountains, and small parks.
Although the student body maintained similar demographical numbers to those of Coastal
Community College (CCC), SGC did not have the size of the student population at CCC. In fact,
SGC had an 8:1 student to faculty ratio for the approximately 1600 undergraduate students (Fast
Facts, 2017) at the time of the study. The observations occurred in a four-story building that
housed its own foreign language library with many famous Russian books written in Russian and
English. The classrooms were also very different from the classrooms at CCC. For example, the
classroom that was observed had technological connections for iPhones, laptops, and other
devices. In addition to the technological connections, the classroom had a large circular table in
the middle that sat up to five students. Behind this table were several chaises, a couch, a
fireplace, and another small library of Russian texts. Finally, there were several framed pictures
of cities in Russia that adorned the walls. This classroom was the site for observations of the
Russian Culture class that had two participants who took part in this research: Dr. Rosanova and
her Russian HLL, Dasha.
Dr. Rosanova. Dr. Rosanova was born in Russia and received her undergraduate degree
in English from a university in south-central Russia. She was accepted to do her graduate work
in the United States and obtained her master’s and doctorate in Slavic Languages and Literatures
from a major university in the northwestern United States. Although she had little formal
training in teaching Russian as a foreign or second language, she benefitted from being a
graduate teaching assistant during her doctoral studies as the instructor of the class had a specific
plan of action for every class; this structure helped her to organize her own Russian classes.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 87

Dr. Rosanova’s teaching philosophy was to provide her students with reasonable skills so
that they might read primary sources in Russian. She preferred to have a student-centered
classroom and not lecture and facilitate discussion in Russian and English, as the class was
taught in both languages. In fact, the observed classes involved several student presentations on
topics ranging from the interpretation of Russian art to discussions about Russian literature.
Although the class was taught in both languages, Dr. Rosanova encouraged her students to
communicate in Russian as much as possible. This structure enabled her to utilize her Russian
heritage language learners (HLL) as teaching assistants for the foreign language learners in the
class, which was another important part of her teaching approach. The only Russian HLL that
she had in this small class of four students was Dasha.
Dasha. Dasha was twenty-one years old and had grown up in the United States since she
was four years old. As such, she self-identified as Russian American, but claimed to be more
American than Russian. Her Mother was born in Moscow and her biological Father was Russian
as well. However, her Step-Father was American. It was due to the influence of her Step-Father
that she changed her last name to his when she turned eighteen; she emphasized that her name
change was an identity change. At home, she mostly spoke English with her Mother and Step-
Father, but she watched Russian television and obtained bits and pieces of Russian culture
through watching the Russian shows as well as through talks about culture and history with her
Mother.
Dasha indicated that she used to be more comfortable with English and only used to
speak English with her mom, but now only speaks Russian. Dasha acknowledged that she was a
fluent speaker of Russian and could read at a high level of proficiency, but that she continued to
make mistakes in grammar. Her increase in her proficiency coincided with an increase in her
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 88

ethnic pride. She said that when people used to ask her about her background, she was
embarrassed because she knew nothing about the history of Russia. As a consequence, she
started to take an interest in her country and wanted to learn more about it. This is what brought
her to SGC and helped her to take a double major in Russian and Economics, which she hopes
will translate into a career in International Business.
Topanga State University
Topanga State University (TSU) is a large, public university in Southern California that is
nestled among several hills in Los Angeles. TSU’s campus benefits from an impressive center of
baroque buildings that were constructed in the Italian Romanesque style to give the campus a
Mediterranean feel (Ben Shachar, 2017). These buildings surround a well-tended grassy
quadrant, which has footpaths leading students over the hills to other more modern buildings as
well as a sculpture garden, fountains, and multiple coffee shops and delis. The student body that
inhabit this campus share somewhat similar demographics with Coastal Community College
(CCC) and San Gabriel College (SGC). At the time of this study, the new freshmen were
composed of 3% African-Americans, 30% Asians, 21% Hispanics, 27% Whites, and roughly 7%
other/Pacific Islander (Undergraduate Profile, 2017). One of the ethnically diverse student
groups that populated TSU was the Russian heritage language learners (HLL).
The classroom for the Russian HLLs was located on the ground floor of the of the
Foreign Languages (FL) building. The modern classroom was spacious and equipped with a
media outlet for laptop connection, a whiteboard, and a projector. The students were seated in a
horseshoe configuration, allowing for much eye to eye contact and conversational opportunities
between the students themselves and the instructor. The fact that the classroom was in the
basement of the building and that there was not much natural light coming through the ground-
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 89

level windows did not seem to affect the students in any way that was observed. Another
important fact was that the classroom was devoid of Russian paraphernalia, much like the
classroom at CCC.
Dr. Alan. Dr. Alan’s participation was different than that of Dr. Rosanova and Professor
Kusna due to her time constraints outside of the classroom. Due to these limitations, Dr. Alan
agreed to allow me and my assistant to observe her Russian heritage language (HL) classes three
times and was interviewed once by my research assistant over the phone. We did not receive a
copy of her classroom text from her, but were able to take notes regarding some of her curricular
materials that she used in class. Concerning her background, Dr. Alan was born in Ukraine and
moved to the United States when she was six years old. As she was also a Russian heritage
language learner (HLL), she was in a unique position to understand the different situations that
her Russian HLLs might have faced before arriving in her classroom. Although Dr. Alan was a
specialist in Russian Literature, she had multiple years of experience teaching Russian as a
second language at TSU. Despite her wealth of experience, this was the first Russian HLL class
that she had taught.
Anastasia. Anastasia was born in Sacramento and was one of seven siblings. Four of
her siblings, like her parents, were born in Eastern Europe. Her father was from Belarus and her
Mother was from Ukraine. Her family moved to Sacramento in 1991 and lived in a large
Russian community that revolved around the Russian church. As many émigrés in the
community were not only from Russian, but like Anastasia’s father and mother, from Eastern
European countries with their own languages, the lingua franca of the community became
Russian as it was the language of the church. It was this connection and the fact that several
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 90

members of her family did not speak English that encouraged Anastasia to take the Russian
heritage language (HL) course at Topanga State University (TSU) and study Russian.
Anastasia said that she was strong in reading, writing, and comprehension of Russian, but
that speaking was an issue, due to all of the languages spoken in her community. She self -
identified as American-Russian as this marker was easier for people to understand than her
multicultural heritage. She liked the Russian HL class and claimed that she had learned much
from it. She liked that the class specifically targeted the Russian HL community. This special
class at TSU was started by the next participant in the study, Dr. Galo.
Dr. Galo. Dr. Galo was interviewed for this study based on her respected position
among researchers of heritage language learners (HLL) and as one of the only authors of texts
for Russian HLLs. In fact, two of her texts were employed at Coastal Community College
(CCC) and at Topanga State University (TSU). Dr. Galo graduated with a Ph.D from a well-
respected university in Russia with a background in language teaching. When she moved to the
United States, she started teaching Russian and began to develop textbooks for learners of
Russian. Through this experience, she became involved with HLLs and made them her primary
research focus after arriving at TSU in the early 1990s. She claimed that it became clear from
her experience that HLLs could not be taught the same as everyone else. It was this point of
view led her to establish a HL department and multiple resources for HLLs at TSU.
Having discussed the participants in this study, it is possible to share how each
contributed to the findings of this research. Accordingly, the next several sections explore these
findings and clarify the common themes that arose from the research. The themes follow the
three research questions that guided this study and are presented in sequential order.

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 91

Findings for Research Question One
Research question one asked how Russian language instructors (RLI) in higher education
settings described their use of classroom language and materials as they related to the hybrid
cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) formation of their Russian heritage language
learners (HLL). Data revealed several themes from the research. The first theme was the RLI
and her use or non-use of the classroom’s physical and discursive space to encourage or
discourage HLL hybrid cultural identity development through socially positioning (Davies &
Harré, 1990) the HLLs as bilinguals by allowing translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015;
García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014). The second theme regarded how
the RLI’s social positioning of her HLLs was affected by having them in the same classroom
space with Russian foreign language learners (FLL). Concomitant with this theme was the effect
of a Russian HLL’s oral and written proficiency in Russian and how that level affected the RLI’s
engagement with her hybrid cultural identity development. The final theme for this question
unpacked how outdated curricula and textbooks for Russian HLLs affected the potential hybrid
cultural identity-based classroom practices of the RLIs.
The RLI’s Use of Physical and Discursive Space
The first topic for analysis is the one that Russian heritage language (HL) researchers
have investigated at length. The topic is that of Russian heritage language learners (HLL)
sharing classroom space with Russian foreign language learners (FLL) and its advantages and
disadvantages in the classroom (Friedman & Kagan, 2008; Kagan, 2005; Swender et al, 2014).
The research data of observations and interviews suggested that Coastal Community College
(CCC) was the most challenging location for the establishment of hybrid discursive space
(Gutiérrez et al, 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for the Russian HLLs to explore their hybrid cultural
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 92

identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). San Gabriel College (SGC) was the second most
challenging location as Dasha was the only Russian HLL in a class of four Russian FLLs of
varying degrees of fluency in Russian. Topanga State University’s (TSU) Russian HL class did
not require Dr. Alan to create a third space for the Russian HLLs; however, the disparity in their
Russian proficiency levels was an obstacle for Dr. Alan.
This section examines how the RLIs’ described their use of language and curricular
materials as they correspond to the hybrid cultural identity development of their Russian HLLs.
To recount from chapter two, this research utilized Hall’s (1996) second definition of cultural
identity, which comprehended it as fluid and subject to the interplay of history. This definition
of identity was placed in a more educational context and comprehended as being developed at
the intersection of multiple, coalescing discourses, such as home, school, and community (Gee,
2001; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004). Based on this definition, one of the major
themes that surfaced during the analyzation of observation notes and interview transcripts was
how the RLI utilized the physical and discursive spaces in the classroom and how that use might
have impacted the Russian HLLs hybrid cultural identity. For this research, the physical space
of the classroom includes not only the physical objects and their arrangement in the classroom,
but also the students in the classroom.
Physical space. Data showed that the physical arrangement of the classrooms as well as
the inclusion of Russian foreign language learners (FLL) or less proficient heritage language
learners (HLL) at Topanga State University (TSU), for example, affected how each of the
Russian language instructors (RLI) managed the physical and discursive space of their classes.
Professor Kusna at Coastal Community College (CCC) had the largest class of the three RLIs.
To explicate, for the Fall 2016 semester Professor Kusna had thirty-five students enrolled in her
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 93

Russian I class, eight to ten of which were Russian HLLs. This physical majority of Russian
FLLs created multiple challenges in the class for Professor Kusna. For example, when asked
how she handled this situation and if she utilized specific pairing techniques to accommodate the
more advanced Russian HLLs, Professor Kusna responded in an interview that she had had
trouble in pairing the students, stating: “I just say pair up…my class is too big and I can’t handle
it.” In lieu of this decision, the students sat where they wanted producing a recurring
phenomenon: the majority of the Russian HLLs sat together in the center of the class, roughly
two rows back from the front. This core of Russian HLLs was surrounded by Russian FLLs with
some intermittent merging of the two groups. This central group of Russian HLLs was primarily
composed of Arkady, Felicia, Kalista, and Steven and some of the other HLLs, who sat adjacent
to them. The rest of the HLLs sat at the edges of the classroom and did not interact much with
the central group, but more with one or two of the Russian FLLs who sat near them. The
physical space at CCC also influenced student movement and discourse.
The desks dominated the classroom as every available space had a desk in it. Moreover,
the desks were beset by their weight, making them difficult to move or turn to face classmates
who were sitting in the back. As a result, many of the students could not see each other and
worked only with those classmates who sat in their specific area during pair work. Likewise, the
large number of FLLs appeared to engender much English use by the students. The majority of
the students would use English to communicate with each other or another language if that was
their home language. It was observed that the Russian HLLs mainly utilized English to talk with
each other, switching into Russian on occasion for several words, but not extended code
switching. This trend was also observed when Professor Kusna instructed or talked freely with
the students and is discussed in more detail in the next section.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 94

In contrast to the spatial arrangement of students at CCC, there were no nuclei of Russian
HLLs surrounded by Russian FLLs observed at San Gabriel College (SGC) in the Russian
culture class. The SGC classroom had a total of six students at each observation with Dasha
being the only Russian HLL in the class. The small class size of students and the choice of an
oval table physically placed all of the students at the center of the classroom and by default, at
the center of Dr. Rosanova’s attention. The limited number of students and the use of an oval
table allowed everyone in the class to physically see each other and easily interact with one
another. However, the number of Russian FLLs did influence the use of language in the class,
which is investigated in more detail in the next section. In like manner, the layout of the
classroom and the student population at TSU also played a role in how the HLLs and Dr. Alan
interacted.
The horseshoe configuration of desks in the Russian HLL class at TSU provided all
fifteen of the HLLs with the ability to see and talk to one another. Thus, during observations it
was observed that before class started, HLLs on one end of the horseshoe would talk to HLLs at
the other end and with their classmates sitting in the middle. At every observation, the HLLs
would sit where they wished; much like Professor Kusna, Dr. Alan never attempted to pair or
group students for any particular pedagogical purpose that was observed. Likewise, from one
observation to the next, students were observed sitting in different positions and working with
different classmates from one class to the next. The fluidity of movement by the HLLs also
translated to their use of language in the class. Indeed, the multiple language practices employed
by the HLLs and Dr. Alan were observed on multiple occasions as the physical constitution of
the class and their level of Russian and English engendered more translanguaging practices
(Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) in the
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 95

classroom. However, these practices were not observed to be structured (García, 2009) to
develop the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) by Dr. Alan, but
more as a method of highlighting grammatical differences between Russian and English, as is
explained later in this chapter.
At each location, the physical space had an effect on the Russian HLLs’ access to each
other physically and discursively. Indeed, the student population affected the use of language by
the RLI at each location and how the HLLs communicated with each other. For example, it was
noted that if the class had a majority Russian FLL population, this physical majority affected the
RLIs’ use of Russian and English as the RLI would generally use more English to accommodate
the FLLs. In addition, the RLIs did not attempt to manipulate the physical space of the
classroom. Instead, they allowed the Russian HLLs and FLLs the freedom to choose with whom
and where they wanted to sit, which also shaped their language use. This freedom allowed the
Russian HLLs’ to sit together at CCC, which this research determined was a desire on their part
to create a physical space to express their affinity identity (Gee, 2000) as Russian HLLs.
Similarly, the fact that the Russian HLLs at TSU combined movement and codeswitching
between Russian and English was also determined by this research as an expression of an affinity
identity construction. This use and non-use of physical space by the RLIs and its effect on the
use of discursive space is analyzed in more detail the next section.
Discursive space. The effect of the physical space on the discursive space was integral
at all three locations. At Coastal Community College (CCC), the inclusion of the Russian
foreign language learners (FLL) affected Professor Kusna’s use of discursive space as she
utilized much of her class time explaining Russian grammatical points to them in English or
socially positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) the Russian heritage language learners (HLL) as
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 96

teaching assistants. At San Gabriel College (SGC), the physical layout of the class permitted
everyone to interact and see one another. However, most of the class discussions took place in
English; this occurrence was observed as a consequence of the majority Russian FLLs in the
class. At TSU, there was no physical concentration of Russian HLLs in one place nor was there
a majority of Russian FLLs. This lack of FLLs and the fact that the HLLs level of Russian was
equal to or more advanced than the students at SGC might have permitted more use of oral
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014) practices in the class.
Coastal Community College. Observations showed that Professor Kusna would begin
all of her classes with Russian music or Russian news playing in the background. Next, she
would greet all of the students to class and do roll call in Russian. After these administrative
duties were finished, she would then outline the class in English and proceed into the primary
linguistic tasks for the class. During these tasks, it was observed that she concentrated the
majority of her discourse towards the center of classroom where the Russian heritage language
learners (HLL) were located and socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) them, primarily
Arkady and Steven, as linguistic confidants throughout the lesson. For example, at several times
during the observations, Professor Kusna would pose a grammatical or phonetical question to the
whole class and use the group of Russian HLLs in the center of the class as a sounding board.
One example of this was when Professor Kusna stated: “for most of us, it’s hard to
pronounce Russian; not for Steven or Arkady.” Then, she turned towards the center section of
Russian HLLs and asked: “What problems can there be for Russian speakers [HLLs]? Да,
Стивен? Да, Аркадий? (yes, Steven? yes, Arkady?)” When Steven started to answer her she
jokingly responded: “Steven, don’t answer every question!” Another example of this
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 97

phenomenon transpired when Professor Kusna was explaining the morphology of a Russian
verb. After adding several prefixes onto the verb, she told the class: “some of you already know
it [the morphological changes to the verb], you don’t even have to think, да?” To the whole
class, she continued: “If you are like Steven or Arkady or Kalista or other people in here [HLLs]
- у вас интуиция [you have intuition] or look it up [speaking to the FLLs].” Despite the fact that
Professor Kusna interactively positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) Arkady and Steven as
proficient speakers of Russian, they rarely spoke in Russian in class. This observation led this
research to speculate that they – along with the other HLLs – might have been language shy
(Krashen, 1998), that Professor Kusna did not give them ample time and space to produce the
Russian, or that Professor Kusna had misinterpreted their true level of proficiency in Russian.
During another observation, Professor Kusna was discussing the uses of the verb “жить”
in Russian, with a brief cloze exercise on the overhead projector illustrated below:
A. Где ты __________? (where do you_________)
B. Я живу в__________ (I live in_______)
The goal of the exercise was to have the students conjugate the verb “to live” in Russian
and state the place where they lived, using the preposition “в”, or “in/into” and the prepositional
case in Russian. Professor Kusna continued, questioning the students, “what happens with ‘в’?
You add an ‘е.’ [For example,] ‘Oксана живёт в москве’ (Oksana lives in Moscow) it should be
automatic.” Another example was with the verb “учиться” (to study). Professor Kusna had the
students choral the verb to practice pronunciation and then stated, “it means ‘study’ in general; в
университете – в школе (at university, at school). These verbs (учиться and жить), you have
to know how to say them, spell them. Talk to me if you don’t understand.” On another occasion,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 98

she was discussing exercises in the text and told the students, “страница 40, глава 3 (page 40,
chapter 3), what do we do with the interview? Listen and read; combine skills.”
It was observed that Professor Kusna consistently utilized this type of meta-discourse in
class to teach the students how to study Russian and to what they were to attend in and out of
class. Data showed that the majority of exchanges between Professor Kusna and the class were
in English or reduced to one to two Russian phrases followed by an English explanation. For
instance, the following examples occurred when Professor Kusna was helping the students with
the Russian alphabet and explaining the context of some Russian vocabulary words. In the first
example, Professor Kusna had given the students cards with two columns containing Russian
letters. She asked the students: “Что мы будем делать? (What are we going to do?). When I
call the letter, hold it [the card] up. Let’s spell a little bit!” After the students had shown her the
letters that she requested, she told the students: “Do it in pairs. One does one column [and]
another [does] another column.”
On another occasion when she was explaining the context of Russian verbs, it was noted
that she created the space for the students to speak more Russian. She inquired, “Больница.
Какой контекст?” (What is the context [of this word]) and one Russian HLL responded: “Врач
работает в больнице” (A doctor works in a hospital). After several more like exchanges,
Professor Kusna switched to English to offer the students advice on how to practice Russian:
“This is what you can do to practice at home. Write it [the word] a bunch of times. When we
have a quiz, don’t miss it!”
The Russian HLLs at Coastal Community College (CCC) appeared to follow Professor
Kusna’s discursive model. It was observed that the Russian HLLs in the center of the class
utilized Russian between each other for brief periods of time, such as one phrase or less, or to
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 99

help the FLLs in the class with an in-class assignment if they were able. However, the majority
of the time, the Russian HLLs were observed mainly conversing in English. The use of English
by the RLI, the Russian HLLs, and the Russian FLLs was also prevalent at San Gabriel College
(SGC).
San Gabriel College. Whereas Professor Kusna’s Russian I class was principally
focused on the basics of Russian, Dr. Rosanova’s class at San Gabriel College (SGC) was more
focused on content. The class was called Topics in Russian and Eastern European Studies and
was for more advanced students of Russian. In fact, all of the students in the class had to have
completed four semesters of Russian before taking the class. In addition, the purpose of the class
was for the students to develop critical reading and writing skills in English and Russian through
the use of research. Thus, the students had to read articles about selected cultural topics in
Russian and English and then give two presentations in class as well as write one research papers
out of class. Therefore, based on the class description, it could be argued that the class was
theoretically designed for hybrid language classroom practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999).
It was observed that Dr. Rosanova liked to set the agenda for the class in Russian and
then move to English. In the following example, the class was preparing to give presentations on
Russian cultural topics and Dr. Rosanova set the agenda for the class: “Русское искуство –
oбзор. [У всех статьи] - каждый делает презентацию по одному периоду, потом поговорим
об акционизме, Pussy Riot и петербургском исскустве девяностых годов.” (Russian art – a
survey. [You all had] articles. Each [student] will give a presentation for one period [of art].
Then, we will talk about Actionism, Pussy Riot, and 90s art from St. Petersburg). After this
introduction, one of the Russian foreign language learners (FLL), Samantha, presented on the
Russian artist Kazimir Malevich and the liberation of art. During the presentation, Samantha
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 100

referenced the French style of art as a basis for this liberation. After the presentation there was a
question and answer session in English in which Dr. Rosanova asked Samantha, “what do you
mean by French style?”
This trend of English presentations on Russian cultural topics followed by question and
answer sessions in English also occurred during Dasha’s presentation. Dasha presented on one
of Ivan Shishkin’s paintings of Russia and how the painting symbolized Russian identity through
its use of the pastoral. Even though Dasha was considered by Dr. Rosanova to be fluent in
Russian, Dasha gave the presentation in English with only key arcane or untranslatable terms
expressed in Russian. For instance, during the presentation, several words arose that Dr.
Rosanova would write on the board, such as “передвижники”, or those realist artists in 19
th

century Russia that traveled around the country and exhibited their art. Another example was the
term, “in the grove”, or “в роще” as it is in Russian. These data revealed that although
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014) was present in form in the class, Dr. Rosanova did not strategically utilize
translanguaging to support Dasha’s hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) at the
time of the observations. For example, Dr. Rosanova did not employ “responsible code
switching” (García, 2009, p. 298) with Dasha to improve her bilingual ability in Russian and
English. After the presentation, Dr. Rosanova commented on the symbolic undertones of the
painting in English, stressing “that fence [in the painting] through [the] water is falling apart;
shoddy.” In similar fashion to the other presentations, the question and answer session was also
in English, with Dr. Rosanova opening the questions by asking Dasha, “how is this landscape
[Ivan Shishkin’s] Russian?”
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 101

In conclusion, the physical layout of the classroom at SGC was conducive to discourse as
all of the students and Dr. Rosanova were able to interact with each other without any physical
impairment. The class was also favorable for discourse because it had a small student body,
whose goal was to read articles in Russian and discuss them in English and Russian. This goal
made the course a place for translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) and Dasha and the FLLs were at proficiency
levels of Russian for them to use both languages. However, the presentations and the
discussions about the presentations were predominantly in English, which did not create an
educational Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for Dasha, the lone Russian
HLL in the class, to explore her discursive or affinity identities (Gee, 2000) as a Russian HLL.
Moreover, data indicated that much like the Russian HLLs at CCC, Dasha might have been
language shy (Krashen, 1998) as she did not choose to speak in Russian with the Russian FLLs
or with Dr. Rosanova during the class. In addition, Dr. Rosanova inquired during Dasha’s
presentation about why Ivan Shishkin’s Russian landscape was, in fact, Russian. In other words,
the painting was an exploration of Russian identity and could have been utilized by Dr.
Rosanova as a chance to create an educational Third Space in the class to discuss hybrid
identities (Bhabha, 1994) in Russian and English. In light of this fact, it was observed that Dr.
Rosanova did not socially position (Davies & Harré, 1990) Dasha as a linguistic confidant, much
like Professor Kusna did with Arkady and Steven at Coastal Community College (CCC). On the
contrary, she positioned Dasha as linguistically equal to the Russian FLLs. However, in both
cases, the Russian HLLs rarely employed Russian to communicate and data indicated that the
RLIs at each location might not have provided them with the scaffolding or discursive space to
do so with confidence. The themes of physical and discursive space as well as positioning
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 102

occurred in the Russian heritage language (HL) class at Topanga State University (TSU) as well,
but the focus was more on meaning with language as its vehicle.
Topanga State University. The Russian heritage language learners (HLL) at Topanga
State University (TSU) sat in a horseshoe configuration that allowed them to easily see each
other and talk to each other without interference. Moreover, the Russian HLLs routinely moved
position and sat next to different classmates, which might have indicated a higher level of
comfort among the students. It was also observed that Dr. Alan would habitually call on
different HLLs, or would allow any HLL to respond to a question. When she was not leading the
class, she would encourage the HLLs to communicate with each other by using the word
“popcorn” to signal to the students that they should call on each other. Likewise, Dr. Alan did
not concentrate her discourse on or physically occupy one specific section of the classroom like
Professor Kusna, nor did she primarily use one language to do so, much like Dr. Rosanova.
On the contrary, Dr. Alan spent the majority of her time seated at the center of the class
leading the students in discussion about a theme from the text or explaining grammatical points,
sometimes codeswitching between Russian and English. During one observation, Dr. Alan was
explaining the difference between Russian masculine and feminine nouns, she asked the
students, “[h]ow do you know [the noun] is masculine? Kакие буквы согласныe? Мы не
пишем, как слышим [which letters are the consonants? We don’t write like we hear]. This
intermixing of language was observed often in the heritage language (HL) class at TSU by Dr.
Alan and by the Russian HLLs; however, it was not observed to have been done as part of a plan
to explore the HLLs hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Instead, it was observed
that translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012;
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 103

Palmer et al., 2014), in codeswitching form, was primarily utilized by Dr. Alan as a grammatical
highlighting tool to show the differences between Russian and English.
The atmosphere of the class and the model of codeswitching English and Russian utilized
by Dr. Alan combined with the advanced level of the students helped to create a classroom space
for translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012;
Palmer et al., 2014). The following example was observed when the students were introducing
each other in pairs and narrating their partner’s history, which Kagan and Dillon (2006)
highlighted was a skill that might aid HLLs in exploring the Russian that they lost as a result of
living in an English-dominant society. Although the majority of the speech was intended to be in
Russian, it was observed that both languages were intermixed when meaning was essential or a
suitable translation was not readily apparent.
As an example, one of the students stated that he was bullied in school. Dr. Alan
responded, “Я слышала, что в американской школе тоже bullying?” (I heard that in American
schools there is also bullying?). Dr. Alan appeared surprised that the Russian HLLs had been
bullied and her question fomented a lengthy discussion among her and the HLLs in English
about their experiences arriving in the United States as immigrants. Whereas one Russian HLL
stated that he was bullied, many others came forward to share how they were routinely called
fresh off the boat or FOB. This research found that this episode was a strong example of the
Russian HLLs sharing a common background and thus, developing their affinity identities as
Russian HLLs (Gee, 2000). However, this situation was somewhat of an anomaly, as the
majority of the translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link,
2012; Palmer et al., 2014).in the class was linked to grammar.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 104

In the following example, Dr. Alan wanted to ascertain if the students knew how to tell
the difference between masculine, feminine and neuter nouns in Russian. She asked, “how do
you know it is masculine? Какие буквы [indicate that the ending is masculine, feminine, or
neuter]. Это, ends in ‘o,’ море [has a] soft vowel, окно [has a] hard vowel” (What letters? This,
sea, and window). The next examples provide a brief compendium of the intermixing of the
languages during grammatical explanations. First, while Dr. Alan examined prepositions and the
case that was associated with them, she inquired, “потому что это по дому, какой падеж? По
[is a] trigger word. У вас есть comprehension?” (why is this ‘po’ with home. What case is it? Po
is a trigger word. Do you [have comprehension] understand?). The second example illustrates
another instance when Dr. Alan aimed to highlight the differences between singular and plural in
Russian. She questioned, “мягкий знак в единственном числе, what happens in plural?” (there
is a soft sign in the singular, what happens in plural?). Based on these examples, Dr. Alan
utilized translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012;
Palmer et al., 2014) to avoid any misunderstanding of why specific grammatical constructions
existed in Russian but not in English. She also employed it when a word in English was more
expedient, such as “bullying.” However, data revealed that it was the HLLs who used the class
time to create a space for exploring their discursive and affinity identities (Gee, 2000), as shown
in their presentations.
Another observed tendency of Dr. Alan’s was to utilize the recasting of words to aid the
students in comprehending literal Russian to English translation. For instance, she raised student
awareness to case ending differences in the following statement: ‘не в прошлое летом, а
прошлым летом’ (not in the last summer, but last summer).” Another case was when one
student said “мама шла в медицинскую школу” which was a direct transliteration of English to
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 105

Russian of ‘mom went to medical school.’ Upon hearing this, Dr. Alan emphasized, “языковая
интерференция, in Russian, it is училась” (language interference, in Russian it is ‘she studied’
[at medical school]). The last example of this trend was when Dr. Alan wanted to explain the
difference between three Russian verbs. She said, “speak Russian, or [we say] говорит по-
русски versus знать [русский] versus читала книгу на русском языке” (speak Russian or
speak Russian versus to know [Russian] versus I read a book in Russian). Again, Dr. Alan’s use
of English in the class was to highlight the different grammatical differences between Russian
and English.
Summary
Each Russian language instructor (RLI) used the discursive space of their classroom for
different purposes involving the heritage language learners (HLL). Whereas Professor Kusna
socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) several of the Russian HLLs as informed about
Russian grammar, data showed that she did not position the HLLs as bilinguals capable of
translanguaging, (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer
et al., 2014), which data revealed might have been due the Russian HLLs’ language shyness
(Krashen, 1998). Instead, she focused the class on teaching the basics of Russian grammar in
English as many of her Russian foreign language learners (FLL) were beginners and unable, at
the time of the observation, of having a discussion in Russian.
In contrast, San Gabriel College’s (SGC) Russian culture class was designed for hybrid
language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) such as translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015;
García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), and a third discursive space
(Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) as the students read articles in Russian and English and
were expected to discuss the articles in either language. Although the class did utilize Russian
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 106

texts and had some Russian discourse, it was observed that the Russian content was more of the
catalyst for the actual discussion about the articles in English, which prevented the creation of a
third discursive space. In addition, Dr. Rosanova did not socially position (Davies & Harré,
1990) Dasha as a linguistic confidant nor utilize her as a facilitator of Russian and English.
Indeed, Dasha was positioned as an equal to her Russian FLL counterparts and may have been
language shy (Krashen, 1998).
The Russian heritage language (HL) class at Topanga State University (TSU) was
focused on exploring the differences between Russian and English grammar with minimal
culture added during the observations. However, at TSU, it was observed that more oral and
written hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999), such as translanguaging (Creese &
Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), were occurring
with Dr. Alan spending much time raising HLL awareness to the differences between the
grammatical differences of the languages. Indeed, the RLI and the HLLs discussed the
grammars in both languages, with the ratio of language use sometimes falling in favor of
English, but mainly in Russian.
As it concerned the social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) of her students, it was
observed that Dr. Alan reflexively positioned herself as bilingual and interactively positioned her
HLLs (Davies & Harré 1990) as bilingual speakers and learners through her modeling of
codeswitching and use of translanguaging in English and Russian to make meaning. However,
despite Dr. Alan’s example of codeswitching as a bilingual skill, it was not observed that she
created a classroom space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) to explore the HLLs’
discursive or affinity identities (Gee, 2000). On the contrary, it was the Russian HLLs who
utilized the space to explore their emerging identities as referenced by their common experiences
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 107

as Russian immigrants arriving to the United States. The next section builds on the themes of
hybrid discursive spaces and the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity by investigating how the
students’ proficiency levels affected the RLI’s ability to engage the students in hybrid language
practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999).
Russian Proficiency and Hybrid Cultural Identity Development

The proficiency of Russian heritage language learners (HLL) has been a major topic for
researchers in the field of Russian HLLs ((Kagan, 2005; Kagan & Dillon, 2006; Swender et al.,
2014) due to the special nature of the HLLs’ situation. For example, Kagan and Dillon (2006)
emphasized that HLLs had an “interrupted childhood experience” (p. 93) and could achieve high
levels of fluency if Russian Language Instructors (RLI) were able to tap into their “dormant” (p.
93) linguistic knowledge. Data from this research revealed that proficiency in Russian and the
mixed placement of Russian foreign language learners (FLLs) also played a role in HLL hybrid
cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development as their level of Russian impacted the
HLLs’ engagement with the class in Russian and concomitantly, the RLIs engagement with the
HLLs in Russian. In addition, this section analyzes the RLIs’ pedagogical moves to combat the
lack of a separate Russian HLL space or when the HLLs were at different proficiency levels.
A mixed space. The combination of Russian heritage language learners (HLL) and
foreign language learners (FLL) at Coastal Community College (CCC) and San Gabriel College
(SGC) placed the Russian language instructors (RLI) in a challenging situation. At CCC, the
Russian proficiency level of the FLLs was beginner, whereas the proficiency levels of the HLLs
varied from conversational to native. At SGC, the FLLs were intermediate to advanced; Dasha,
the lone Russian HLL, was a fluent Russian speaker. Topanga State University (TSU) did not
have a mixed class of FLLs and HLLs, but data indicated that the class had other proficiency-
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 108

based issues that Dr. Alan found problematic. In addition to the mixture of different learners,
there was also the issue of the mixed linguistic space in which English and Russian were shared
and the RLIs’ management of which language to privilege (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991;
Grenfell & James, 1998) in the class due to the inclusion of FLLs. The data indicated that these
mixtures affected how the RLIs at CCC and SGC employed Russian in class, which the next
section investigates.
San Gabriel College and Coastal Community College. San Gabriel College (SGC) and
Coastal Community College (CCC) presented themselves as polar opposites in terms of
classroom resources, the Russian proficiency level of the students, and the content of the class.
As stated before and based on the class syllabi, the Topics in Russian and Eastern European
Studies class at SGC was putatively structured for hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et
al.,1999) due to intermediate to advanced level of Russian of the students and the utilization of
Russian and English in reading and speaking, respectively. On the other hand, CCC’s Russian I
class was designed as a foreign language (FL) class for beginners of Russian, which placed more
advanced heritage language learners (HLL) in a class with beginner foreign language learners
(FLL). Indeed, Professor Kusna explained in an interview that there was no other class for the
HLLs, declaring, “regardless of if they [HLLs] are native speakers or not, they are in Russian I.”
Dr. Rosanova agreed with Professor Kusna that the situation with the HLLs was problematic,
stating, “there should be classes only for HLLs.”
Despite these differences in class foci and Russian proficiency levels of the students, data
underlined the fact that the Russian language instructors (RLI) in both classes utilized more
English than Russian in class, which became a talking point during interviews with the RLIs.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 109

For example, during an interview, Professor Kusna was asked about her use of English in the
class and its relation to the FLLs in the class. She responded:
To be frank, I don't know the proportion but [I] use a lot more English than I
should; but it also fluctuates depending on what we're talking about. The
challenges of using only Russian are that, 1) even if you speak Russian, they
respond in English, and 2) most of the class doesn't understand what you're
talking about; 3) If you're talking about rules of behavior, etc., you need to make
sure to get it across to everyone. Today, for example, I'm going to have to remind
students based on recent behavior that if they miss a quiz without telling me in
advance [that] they get points off and quizzes are announced both in class and on
the homework assignment sheets.
Professor Kusna’s response to the aforementioned questions was echoed by Dr. Rosanova
at SGC, who stated:
I try to conduct this class predominantly in English. Unfortunately, the group you
saw was linguistically weak, and we spoke a lot of English. However, we always
focused on Russian texts and cultural materials. Since I have students of different
linguistic backgrounds in this class, the biggest challenge is to make the
discussion as inclusive as possible and make sure that everybody’s linguistic
needs are met.
While the RLIs at CCC and SGC had to cope with the mixed space of Russian HLLs and
FLLs and employed more English to mitigate the discrepancy in student proficiency levels, the
HLL class at Topanga State University (TSU) did not have this challenge. Yet, the Dr. Alan
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 110

experienced other pedagogical challenges associated with HLLs that affected how she managed
the class, which is examined in the next section.
Topanga State University. At the time of observations and interviews, it was revealed
that this was Dr. Alan’s first semester teaching Russian heritage language learners (HLL). Based
on data from the interviews, Dr. Alan experienced much frustration with teaching the HLLs. In
fact she explained that she would prefer to teach Russian foreign language learners (FLL),
stating that “Russian FLLs are very motivated as it is linked to their career path.” In addition to
the motivational determination of the FLLs, Dr. Alan said, “it is easier to teach the Russian FLLs
since they know that don’t know anything and then they learn; they memorize the grammar
[from scratch].” Dr. Alan further explained her reasoning thusly:
I prefer Americans...[with] HLLs [there are] many barriers; to be an effective
teacher, you need to know the path; a clear idea of where you are taking them.
With L2 [Russian FLL] you know the results: [for example] in two weeks [the
Russian FLLs] need to know the prepositional case versus the accusative case. I
don’t know where I am taking them [Russian HLLs] or why they are in the class.
Based on her response, a follow up question was asked as to why she believed the
Russian HLLs were in the class. She responded at first, saying that, “They [Russian HLL] take
the class for “nostalgic” or emotional reasons [such as] parents [or] home or to get an easy “A.”
Then she added that:
They [Russian HLLs] are taking the class to fulfill a language requirement. For
them [the Russian HLLs], it’s an easy “A” whereas the Russian L2 [Russian
FLLs] don’t go to a Russian class to get an easy “A.” They will take a Spanish
class for that.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 111

Dr. Alan added that she wanted the Russian HLLs to see the beauty of the language and
to get them to think outside of getting an easy “A.” For her, it was important for the Russian
HLLs “to know that they need to learn the [Russian case] endings; concrete rules [as] we don’t
write [in Russian] what we hear.” Based on these reasons, she finally concluded that “they
[Russian HLLs] already know the grammar, so they are less likely to memorize the endings. It is
frustrating. In the future, “I will decline teaching HLLs. What is the goal? Is it to just talk?”
Dr. Alan’s responses to the above-stated questions about teaching HLLs correlate to the
observations of her classes. In those classes, she predominantly focused on Russian grammar
and used English to explain the differences between the two languages in detail. Based on her
interviews, it was apparent that she believed that the Russian HLLs should be grammatically
competent at Russian and that the goal of the class should not be to “just talk” as she stated.
Based on the data presented above, the physical combination of Russian foreign
language learners (FLL) and heritage language learners (HLL) at San Gabriel College (SGC) and
Coastal Community College (CCC) combined with the pedagogical challenges of teaching HLLs
at Topanga State University (TSU) affected how the Russian language instructors (RLI)
managed the use of Russian in the class. However, some of the RLIs utilized what are referred
to in this research as “teacher moves,” or extracurricular tasks for the HLLs in and out of class.
This section explores these pedagogical moves and their relationship to hybrid language
practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) for the purposes of developing the hybrid cultural identity
(Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) of the Russian HLLs in and out of the classroom.
Teacher moves. Each Russian language instructor (RLI) used different teacher moves
to accommodate their Russian heritage language learners (HLL). Some of these moves involved
extracurricular tasks out of class, whereas other moves were curricular modifications in the class
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 112

that were primarily designed for HLLs but also given to foreign language learners (FLL).
Another move was how the RLIs socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) their HLLs. To
begin, Professor Kusna indicated in an interview that she tried to make the class as rich as
possible, but that it was a Russian I class and that she could not develop the cultural aspect of
the Russian I class as much because the FLLs and HLLs were still learning case endings. She
said that she gave the HLLs a HL text, but remonstrated that she could not take the HLLs
through a whole curriculum due to the limitations of her class. She added, “[i]t is not what
supposed to be done.”
She further explained that she gave the more advanced Russian HLLs extracurricular
writing assignments to improve their literacy skills. However, she emphasized that she could not
give the HLLs a different assignment from the FLLs and test the HLLs on that assignment as the
Russian HLLs could complain about this adjustment to the administration. To contend with this
situation, Professor Kusna made curricular modifications that were more designed for the
Russian HLLs due to their level of language complexity.
One example that involved translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) due to the utilization of Russian and English for
the purposes of comprehension and discussion was observed in class. This in-class assignment
was a short text about the first Russian sputnik that was launched into space on October 4
th
,
1957. The text was composed of two paragraphs in Russian and had questions in English at the
end. Based on the fact that the Sputnik text came from Wikipedia and was not a graded text with
vocabulary for the FLLs, it was determined that this assignment was more for the HLLs due to
its complicated grammatical structures. To aid in the comprehension of the text, Professor
Kusna requested that the HLLs translate parts of the text for the whole class, which created
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 113

problems for the HLLs as the much of the text was also above their level of Russian at the time
of the observation. This fact suggested that Professor Kusna did not strategically use the text as
a scaffold for oral translanguaging, but that English might have been provided to ensure that
every student in the class understood the material.
Another example that involved translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García,
2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) for the same reasons explicated above was
from a Russian online site called Last Address (“www.poslednyadres.ru”, 2017). This website
was established to memorialize those people who suffered from political oppression and died
during the Soviet Union by placing metal plaques on the previous addresses of those who died or
suffered. Professor Kusna declared that she thought this project was “good for both groups”
[HLLs and FLLs] and that the project was “redemptive.” This task was similar to the Sputnik
task in its pedagogical goal and structure. Thus, the HLLs and FLLs read one paper in Russian
about the Last Address foundation and were asked questions about it in English. In addition,
Professor Kusna showed the students a PowerPoint slide which is illustrated below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: PowerPoint slide of Last Address Project
Translated from the top right:
Here lived Boris Ivanovich Izvekov,
a geophysicist. Born in 1891.
Arrested February 4, 1942. Died
June 22, 1942 in prison in
Leningrad. Rehabilitated in 1954.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 114

The slide above shows one of the metal plaques placed outside the final addresses of the
person who died during the Soviet Union. As can be seen on the slide, Professor Kusna provided
much of the information in text that was on the plaque. However, despite the use of
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014) in definition, it was not observed or explicated that Professor Kusna used these two
classroom exercises to lead the HLLs in “responsible code switching” (García, 2009, p. 298) as a
way to improve their bilingualism or to allow them to explore their discursive identities (Gee,
2000) in class.
Dr. Rosanova acknowledged that she employed some of the same tasks as Professor
Kusna to cope with the combination of HLLs and FLLs. In an interview, she stated that she
“uses the HLLs as TAs [teaching assistants]” and that the HLLs liked this role as they could
“show their roots.” In addition, she would give extra assignments to HLLs in her language
classes such as presentations on popular Russian cultural or political figures. She added that
many of the extra assignments that she gave the HLLs were about characters from the HLLs
“детство” or childhood, and thus, familiar to the HLLs. While there was not access to Dr.
Rosanova’s language classes to confirm her statement, data showed that the class did provide
access to Russian cultural and political topics that could be discussed in class, such as the
presentations on Russian art provided above. However, data also confirmed that Dasha was not
socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) as a teaching assistant in the Topics in Russian and
Eastern European Studies class, but as an equal to her FLL counterparts.
The situation at TSU was demanding because of the uniqueness of Russian HLLs as a
student body. In addition to Dr. Alan’s aforementioned statements about her difficulties in
teaching HLLs, observations showed that the different student proficiency levels was also an
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 115

issue. Indeed, it was observed that the more advanced Russian HLLs spoke more in class than
the less proficient Russian HLLs. Due to these two situations, data showed that Dr. Alan
handled them through translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger &
Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) in Russian and English to raise the HLLs’ awareness to the
grammatical differences between Russian and English, which Dr. Alan herself had had issues
with as a Russian HLL. One example of this was when Dr. Alan was explaining how Russians
utilize the pronoun “we” in Russian after one HLL did a direct translation between Russian and
English. Dr. Alan said, “[It’s} мы с; it was strange for me, too” (we with). Another student
responded, “now that you mentioned that it sounds weird, I think so, too; but before I didn’t.”
This example shows how Dr. Alan employed translanguaging as pedagogical device and as a
method to reflexively position (Harré & Langenhove, 1991) herself as a former HLL for her
students.
In addition to the translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger
& Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), such as allowing the students to utilize English for the
purposes of meaning as well as frequent codeswitching, Dr. Alan also employed cultural
assignments, such as Soviet era films and Russian texts, ranging from 19th century writers such
as Lev Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Ivan Turgenev to 20th century Soviet poets, such as
Vladimir Mayakovsky. The HLLs were allowed to choose the text that they felt best suited their
level of Russian to read. Therefore, the more advanced HLLs could choose a longer text, while
the less advanced could choose short stories or poems to read. Notwithstanding the use of
translanguaging in the class, data could not confirm that the practice was purposefully used in
Dr. Alan’s class to explore the Russian HLLs’ discursive or affinity identities (Gee, 2000). On
the contrary, data indicated that translanguaging was employed as a pedagogical device to
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 116

highlight grammatical differences and sometimes as a method for Dr. Alan to reflexively
position herself (Davies & Harré, 1990) as a former HLL.
Summary
At Coastal Community College (CCC) and San Gabriel College (SGC), the Russian
language instructors (RLI) teaching approach to the class was affected by the mixed space of
Russian heritage language learners (HLL) and foreign language learners (FLL) and their
proficiency in Russian. Data from the interview transcripts confirmed that Professor Kusna and
Dr. Rosanova were acutely aware of the FLLs in their class and wanted their classes to be
inclusive of all of the participants. Data showed that this inclusion centered on the predominance
of English as the lingua franca of the class for the pedagogical benefit of the FLLs. Data did
establish that both RLIs utilized translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) as part of their teacher moves by having the HLLs
and FLLs read texts in Russian and discuss them in English. However, it was not observed that
the use of translanguaging was a strategic method on the part of the RLIs to create a Third Space
(Gutiérrez et al., 1998; Moje et al., 2004) for the purposes of exploring the HLLs hybrid cultural
identities (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Furthermore, data indicated that while Professor Kusna
socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) her HLLs as knowledgeable about Russian, she did
not attempt to extricate their “dormant” (Kagan & Dillon, 2006, p. 93) linguistic knowledge in
class by encouraging them to speak more Russian in class or scaffolding assignments for them to
overcome what might have been language shyness (Krashen, 1998). Likewise, data did not
suggest that Dr. Rosanova socially positioned Dasha as a bilingual Russian and English speaker
in the class as Dasha was only observed speaking English, with the exception of one to two
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 117

Russian terms from her presentation. Likewise, data indicated that Dasha might have also been
language shy in this class.
As previously stated, Dr. Alan was not in the same classroom situation as Dr. Rosanova
and Professor Kusna. As such, Dr. Alan reflexively positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) herself
as a bilingual and interactively positioned her HLLs as bilingual. In addition, she employed
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et
al., 2014) to handle the differences in proficiency levels of her HLLs by explaining the
complexities of Russian grammar in English and allowing the HLLs to utilize English; although
data showed that she did encourage Russian more. Some of those moves described above were
the use of films that were then discussed in class and the choice of reading a Russian text that
best suited the student’s needs. However, data did not confirm that Dr. Alan’s use of
translanguaging was related to the development of her HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity
development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). The next section builds on the curricular moves of the
RLIs by investigating the textbooks and curricular materials that were used in each class and
how they affected the hybrid cultural identity of the HLLs in the class.
Outdated Textbooks for Russian HLL
Textbooks were examined in this research in bilingual, heritage, and second language
learning contexts for their effect on student engagement (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; Helmer, 2013;
Tse, 2000), concealing occult cultural messages (Leeman & Martinez, 2007), and for duplicating
stereotypes of culture (Azimova & Johnson, 2012; Beaudrie et al., 2009; Shardakova &
Pavlenko, 2004) and gender (Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004). In relation to these topics, this
research found that heritage language (HL) texts were scarce (Li & Duff, 2008). Based on the
aforementioned findings, this section develops these themes and investigates how the Russian
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 118

language instructors (RLI) described and interpreted their textbooks. This section also examines
the textbooks for their content and how it relates to the Russian heritage language learners’
(HLL) hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Although Dr. Rosanova did not
employ a text in her Russian culture class, she was still consulted about her views on the topic of
Russian HL texts due to her experience teaching Russian language classes with HLLs. Likewise,
Dr. Alan’s text at Topanga State University (TSU) was not provided to be examined. However,
she was asked about her views on her text and her use of cultural materials as tools to enhance
her students’ hybrid cultural identity.
The lack of an adequate textbook for Russian heritage language learners (HLL) was a
frequent topic of discussion during interviews with the RLIs. For example, Dr. Galo, who
authored the texts that were being utilized by the Russian I class at Coastal Community College
(CCC) and by the Russian heritage language learner (HLL) class at Topanga State University
(TSU), said during an interview that her textbooks and the language therein were “dated.” This
statement was interesting because Dr. Galo’s most recent publications for a Russian foreign
language (FL) textbook was the fall 2014, whereas for Russian HLLs, the last publication was
2011 at the time of this writing. In addition, the date for the textbook reviewed for this class was
2010. One reason for the idea that her texts were dated might be due to her language use in the
texts. For example, she added that her [Russian] language was “so correct that maybe it is too
correct,” emphasizing that her textbook language might not be good for everyone.
Professor Kusna utilized the text Beginners Russian (Kudyma, Kagan, & Miller, 2010),
and said in an interview that it was “devoid of culture.” When she was asked why this was the
case, she responded, “because it was written by [TSU] faculty and they wanted to bring in the
culture on their own.” By bringing in “the culture on their own,” she clarified that she meant
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 119

other curricular materials. She further stated that “once you write something in a textbook, it sort
of dies.” Because of this assessment, she said that she agreed with the [TSU] faculty
[questioning] should I cover it [the textbook material], should I not? Being devoid of culture
makes it easier [to teach].” Whereas Professor Kusna’s desire was for teacher agency, Dr.
Rosanova supported Dr. Galo’s statements about the Russian HL texts.
Dr. Rosanova specified in an interview that she would like to use a text for HLLs like the
ones written by Dr. Galo because they were “methodologically strong.” However, she affirmed
that many of Dr. Galo’s texts were “dated.” When asked what she would change, Dr. Rosanova
said that the texts should be more “sexy,” be in the digital age, and have more information about
current topics, such as the controversial Russian punk rock group, Pussy Riot. She emphasized
that these [HL] texts did not relate to the “consumer.”
Dr. Alan’s view on the texts was similar to Professor Kusna’s as she used two textbooks
and brought in cultural materials on her own. For instance, Dr. Alan said that “together these
textbooks are good, separately not.” She added that she needed to “to cut and paste.” Likewise,
she stated that the textbooks did not offer culture, so she had to bring it in. Due to her situation,
she was asked what materials should be put into the book in terms of culture to which she
responded: “we have different ideas of what culture is.” Due to the cryptic nature of this answer,
she was then asked what she would include in her textbook. She answered: “for example, if the
topic is my first job, I would use the movie “Sluzhebnyi Roman.” [It helps to discuss] the sacred
nature of work for the Soviet person, what this work meant in the Soviet Union, and why [it is
portrayed this way].
As it related to other cultural materials, she explained that she had the freedom to choose
whatever materials that she wanted. She said, “you can choose whatever culture you want. I
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 120

choose movies [such as] Soviet-era movies [from the] 1970s and 1980s that formed my identity.”
She also mentioned that she did close readings with the Russian HLLs, which she stated was
close to “literary analysis,” utilizing famous Russian authors such as Anton Chekhov. When
asked how she chose these Russian texts, she answered that she chose texts that “have shaped my
love for Russian literature.”
In light of these statements by Professor Kusna, Dr. Rosanova, and Dr. Alan about the
lack of adequate contemporary Russian curricular materials and how each RLI chose materials
that were to her liking and representative of her view of Russian culture (Bourdieu & Passeron,
1977), this research reviewed the book Beginners Russian (Kudyma, Miller, & Kagan, 2010)
and evaluated if its contents and language were dated and to see if it contained recondite cultural
messages and reinforced cultural and gender-based stereotypes.
Beginner’s Russian. Beginners Russian (Kudyma, Miller, & Kagan, 2010) is divided
into twenty-four chapters and an online workbook. In addition, there is a large Russian-English
dictionary in the back. The chapters have several foci: vocabulary and themes, phonetics,
grammar, communicative situations, texts, and culture. The content in each chapter covers
topics such as holidays, celebrations, biographies, texts about famous places in Russia, and
famous cultural figures. The communicative style of the text and its concise grammatical
explanation were praised in a book review by the Slavic Journal (Tabulda, 2011). This study’s
examination of the book concurred with Tabulda (2011) on many of these points. For example,
based on the research from chapter two, many Russian texts were outdated and reinforced
cultural stereotypes. However, Beginner’s Russian (Kudyma, Miller, & Kagan, 2010) was
written with more up-to-date Russian cultural topics and did not present cultural or
socioeconomic stereotypes related to Americans and Russian (Azimova &Johnston, 2012;
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 121

Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004). On the other hand, the text did stereotype Russia as a mono-
cultural White nation, as opposed to a multicultural nation. In addition, the text avoided any
mention of the Soviet Union, which covered almost eighty years of Russian history. Finally, the
text was primarily focused on grammar and only contained vignettes about famous Russian
personalities or locales as opposed to more culturally significant texts that quarried below the
surface of Russian culture. This was important as Professor Kusna was not critical of the text or
its shortcomings in light of the fact that Beaudrie et al. (2009) recommended that teachers should
choose a text that has a cultural base as the study of a HL is the study of culture.
Summary of Research Question One
The findings from research question one discovered that each Russian language instructor
(RLI) was affected by the physical space of their classrooms. This physical space included not
only the layout of the classrooms, but also the inclusion of Russian foreign language learners
(FLLs). The FLLs’ inclusion in the physical space affected the RLIs’ management of the
discursive space of the classrooms at Coastal Community College (CCC) and San Gabriel
College (SGC). Professor Kusna and Dr. Rosanova expressed their desire to be inclusive of all
students in the class; this inclusion manifested itself as an emphasis on using English as opposed
to Russian as the lingua franca in the classes due to the different Russian proficiency levels in the
classes. However, the Russian HLLs at CCC and
At CCC and SGC, the RLIs socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) their Russian
heritage language learners (HLL) in different ways. Professor Kusna positioned her Russian
HLLs as linguistic confidants who were in-the-know about Russian. However, observations
showed that the Russian HLLs did not communicate much in Russian in the class even when
they were conversing with each other. Data suggested that this might have been because of their
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 122

language shyness (Krashen, 1998). Moreover, Professor Kusna did not engage the Russian
HLLs in conversations in Russian that were scaffolded to encourage them to speak at length, but
rather asked them short yes and no answer questions or rhetorical questions. In contrast, Dr.
Rosanova did not socially position Dasha as a linguistic confidant and Dasha was not observed
speaking Russian in class, except to state some arcane Russian terms in relation to her
presentation. This situation occurred despite the fact that Dr. Rosanova and Dasha both
confirmed that she was a fluent Russian speaker, leading to the conclusion that she might have
been language shy. Moreover, Professor Kusna and Dr. Rosanova did not attempt to create a
hybrid linguistic space for their HLLs in the class at the time of the observations (Gutiérrez et al.,
1998; Moje et al., 2004), although Professor Kusna’s HLLs all sat next to each other, suggesting
that they might have been attempting to explore their affinity identities (Gee, 2000) as Russian
HLLs.
Both RLIs employed translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009;
Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) practices as a pedagogical tool by having readings
in Russian with class discussions about them in English. Whereas Dr. Rosanova’s class had the
readings in Russian and the discussions in English as a goal of the syllabus and not as an addition
for Dasha’s benefit, Professor Kusna supplemented the text with her own material to
theoretically aid the Russian HLLs in her class. Although both of these exercises were aligned
with the concept of translanguaging, data did not confirm that these assignments were
specifically designed to develop hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) and a hybrid
cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994) due to the predominance of English-use in the classrooms and
the lack of language scaffolding for the Russian HLLs.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 123

Although the inclusion of FLLs at Topanga State University (TSU) was not an issue, the
mixed proficiency levels of the Russian HLLs was an obstacle as discussion was usually created
by the more proficient Russian HLLs. One way that Dr. Alan mediated this discrepancy was
with out of class assignments. For example, Dr. Alan would allow the HLLs to choose a text to
read that best suited their interests and their proficiency level. To counteract the difference in
Russian proficiency levels, Dr. Alan socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) her HLLs and
herself as bilinguals and frequently employed translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015;
García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) practices for the purposes of
explaining difficult grammatical concepts. As such, data showed that the classes were rife with
codeswitching between Russian and English and the use of either language to make meaning.
Whereas previous research found that many Russian texts for HLLs and FLLs were
lacking in many areas, Beginner’s Russian (Kudyma, Miller, & Kagan, 2010) did contain
updated cultural materials and plenty of communicative exercises for learners to advance their
Russian proficiency. The main issues were that the book presented Russia as a mono-cultural
White society, omitted any mention of the Soviet Union, and avoided discussing much Russian
culture. Moreover, Professor Kusna did not interpret the text from a critical perspective (Van
Manen, 1977) to ascertain why the text presented Russia in such a fashion, or present material to
her HLLs that would allow them to view the diversity of Russian culture. This lack of critical
interpretation might have prevented her HLLs of viewing Russia through a holistic lens.
Findings for Research Question Two
Question two was concerned with how critical reflection (Howard, 2003) could aid the
Russian language instructors (RLI) in understanding the effect of their linguistic and curricular
choices on the Russian heritage language learners’ (HLL) hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 124

Hall, 1996) development. Data uncovered several themes connected to this question that are
explored in this section. The first theme was the lack of structured critical reflection (Jay &
Johnson, 2002) in the RLIs’ practice. This lack of a critically reflective base provided the
foundation for understanding the RLIs’ perceived role in their HLLs hybrid cultural identity
development and their choice of curricula to instruct the HLLs and language to describe their
HLLs.
The Lack of Structured Critical Reflection
Chapter two detailed the fact that critical reflection in the field of heritage language (HL)
research and instructor practice was in an emergent stage (Kagan & Dillon, 2009). For example,
of the research found peripherally related to reflection in HL research, Kagan and Dillon (2009)
cited Geyer (2008), who focused on reflective practices for foreign language (FL) teachers as a
means of observing one’s practice. More specific to critical reflection, Correa (2011)
underscored the need for critical reflection in HL teaching as a means of addressing the differing
needs of foreign language learners (FLL) and heritage language learners (HLL) in the same
classroom in addition to the demand for HL instructors to take all of the sociolinguistic realities
of the HLL into account through critical reflection. Although the RLIs were aware of the
linguistic realities of the HLLs as opposed to the FLLs at the observation sites, the link between
a HL instructor’s critical reflection and its effect on the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) development of the HLLs was not a primary focus of the aforementioned
researchers.
This research defined critical reflection as when the HL instructor takes the sociocultural
and socioeconomic realities of her HLLs into account along with the moral and ethical
obligations that accompany these realities (Howard, 2003). These realities and obligations were
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 125

firmly rooted in the Habermassian, Deweyan, and Freirian understanding of critical reflection as
a process of emancipation. This emancipation of the teacher took its form in a release from
dogma (Habermas, 1968), daily routine (Dewey, 1933), and a raising of critical consciousness
(Freire, 1990) to the fact that the Russian HLLs were hybrids (Bhabha, 1994) living in a society
that valued the symbolic capital of English more than Russian (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991;
Grenfell & James, 1998). This critically reflective base was also applied to how an HL instructor
approached her curriculum and interpreted it. This base was engrained in the research of Van
Manen (1977), who advocated for teachers to fit the curriculum to the students.
Having the definition of a critically reflective practice as a base, the next section presents
the data related to how the RLIs’ perceived their role in their HLLs hybrid cultural identity
formation (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996).
The RLI’s Role in the Russian HLL’s Hybrid Cultural Identity Development
Data obtained from interviews with the Russian Language Instructors (RLI) discovered
that the RLIs at Coastal Community College (CCC), San Gabriel College (SGC), and Topanga
State University (TSU) did not fully comprehend critical reflection as it was defined in this
research. What the data indicated was that the RLIs were present in their HLLs learning, which
Rodgers (2002) indicated was the first stage of teacher reflection, and they were aware of the
pedagogical realities of the differences between the Russian HLLs and the Russian FLLs as well
as the syntactic differences between the languages. Therefore, the RLIs were in the third level of
reflection according to Larrivee (2008), where they knew the research about HLLs and FLLs as
well as the issues associated with mixing these two learners. However, they were not aware of
their classroom as a hybrid language space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) with
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 126

competing social discourses (Gee, 2001) that are imbued with symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977;
Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998).
Data revealed that they did not mention in interviews that they engaged in structured
critical reflection, such as the utilization of a typology like Jay and Johnson’s (2002) to aid them
in handling the challenges of having foreign language learners (FLL) and heritage language
learners (HLL) in one class, nor to account for the classroom as a place for competing discourses
(Gee, 2001) or as a place for Russian HLL hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
development. For example, Professor Kusna responded to a question about whether she used
critical reflection to inform her practice based on the hybrid cultural nature (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996) of her Russian HLLs in her practice by answering:
I haven't done that but I'm hoping to give more holistic and reflective writing
assignments [to the students in Russian I] going forward. It's hard to make a class
like mine work -- it's only partially successful -- and every semester I seem to
figure out a new piece of the puzzle or find a piece that needs to be eliminated.
Dr. Rosanova responded to the same question thusly:
I’m not quite sure what you mean by critical reflections, but if you mean if I teach
students how to compare Russian and American cultures, then “yes.” For
example, we read Yurii Lotman’s essay, ““The Poetics of Everyday Behavior in
Eighteenth-Century Russia,” that discusses how young Russian noblemen
developed their Westernized identity through changing their vestimentary code
and behavior. We always discuss what cultural “otherness” means and how one
can understand and accept it. Sometimes I give examples from my own
adjustment, but for the most part, we stick to the cultural materials
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 127

When Dr. Alan was asked if she felt that her class was a space to develop her Russian
HLLs’ hybrid cultural identities (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996), she responded that she saw the
connection between language, cultural, and ethnic identity. Indeed, she added, “language links to
cultural and ethnic identities.” However, she further stated that “identity issues are complicated
as many of the HLLs have dual and even triple identities; “triple-hyphen”, such as the Armenians
or the Uzbeks [Uzbek, Russian, and English speakers]. Despite this awareness of the link
between language, identity and culture, she concluded, “at the university or academic level, the
goal is not [the] psychological development of their identity. You want them not to have group
therapy.”
The data suggested that Professor Kusna, Dr. Rosanova and Dr. Alan were not aware of
critical reflection as a pedagogical practice. However, previous data showed that they were
reflective about their pedagogical situation, which data linked to their being present in their
HLLs’ learning (Rodgers, 2002) and their understanding of the pedagogical implications of the
research associated with teaching HLLs and FLLs, or the third stage of Larrivee’s (2008)
reflection. In addition, data revealed that none of the RLIs might have been aware of their
classrooms as spaces for the development of a hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996) nor the heritage language research (HL) that discusses it as essential. For example, only
Dr. Alan discussed the Russian HLL identity issues in depth. However, her conclusion was that
it was not her job to support their hybrid cultural identity development. Therefore, data
confirmed earlier HL research that found reflective practices, and especially critically reflective
practices, were in their embryonic stages in HL teacher training (Correa, 2011; Kagan & Dillon,
2009) as well as the fact that some HL teachers may not view identity development as a part of
their job description (Lee & Oxelson, 2006).
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 128

This finding did not indicate that the RLIs were not aware of their classroom as an
intersection of language, culture, and identity, however. Based on this awareness, themes
developed in the data underscored how the RLIs defined culture and identity, how they described
their Russian HLLs and how they defined their relationship to Russia.
Defining Russian culture and HLL identity. Whereas data revealed that Professor
Kusna defined Russian culture in a similar way as Dr. Alan, they differed significantly in how
they understood their heritage language learners (HLL) identity. Although Dr. Rosanova
focused her definition of culture and identity by default on unseen cultural codes and norms, she
agreed with Dr. Alan that culture was linked to language. To begin, Professor Kusna said that
“Russian culture is things that Russians think about and read; music, literature, [and] history.”
When she discussed identity, she stated that her Russian HLLs were more Americanized,
proclaiming:
I have actually been very surprised in the last number of years as my students
seem mostly to be quite Americanized in the sense of being like, not homophobic;
you know, very sort of pro-western in a lot of ways.
Data below will show that the above statement about homophobia from Professor
Kusna was rooted in her dislike of the current Russian government, which she strongly opposed
based on the interview data. However, as the question related to the Russian HLLs, Professor
Kusna was later asked if she felt that this Americanization of the Russian HLLs affected their
relationship to Russia. In response to this question, she said that she did not know, asking
rhetorically, “are they looking for something they [the Russian HLLs] don’t have?” A similar
response to the question about Russian culture was given by Dr. Alan.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 129

Dr. Alan’s stated that Russian culture was, “songs, literature, movies…” She added that
“[culture] is not divorced from language.” Although Dr. Alan did not define Russian identity
specifically, based on her earlier statements, this research determined that she believed her
HLLs’ identity was connected to their home as she mentioned their “nostalgia” and “home” as
some of the reason for their decision to take the class. Moreover, she referenced the fact that
many of her HLLs were “triple-hyphens” or persons with a triple identity, such as Uzbek,
Russian, and American. However, Dr. Rosanova viewed Russian identity and cultural as more
related to innate knowledge and language.
Dr. Rosanova stated that identity was, “self-identification with cultural codes, traditions
and family roots,” and that culture is, “a compilation of these codes, a textbook that we have to
learn.” Moreover, Dr. Rosanova declared that “language and identity are combined in that they
are ways of thinking connected to cultural codes as language can reflect the attitudes, [and]
emotional states of being.” Based on these definitions, Dr. Rosanova saw her role in her HLLs’
identity development as a provider of culture: “I just try to expand their horizons and make them
“open-minded” through giving as much cultural material as possible.”
The aforementioned data suggested that Professor Kusna’s understanding of Russian
culture was focused on what Russians think and do without a specific indication of what makes
someone Russian as opposed to another culture. Her comprehension of Russian identity was
connected to her HLLs and placed directly in an American context as opposed to a hybrid
context (Bhabha, 1994). This finding could suggest that Professor Kusna might have privileged
the symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) of the HLLs’
American identity as opposed to their hybrid identity. On the contrary, Dr. Alan was very much
aware of her HLLs hybridity and their connection to multiple discourses (Gee, 2001) such as
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 130

home and school. In addition, she stated that culture and language were connected. Finally, Dr
Rosanova aligned her views of culture and identity more with Gee’s (2001) understanding of
ingrained cultural models and language as situated in social realities.
These definitions of culture and identity led to the second theme that surfaced as part of
this research: how the RLIs described their Russian HLLs
Describing the Russian HLLs. The manner in which the Russian language instructors
(RLI) portrayed their Russian heritage language learners (HLL) was illustrated by how the RLIs
socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) their HLLs in the classroom and if they viewed them
as hybrid cultural identities (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Data divulged that the RLIs assessed
that their HLLs were in their classes for a variety of reasons, ranging from more instrumental
reasons at Coastal Community College (CCC) to more cultural and instrumental reasons at San
Gabriel College (SGC) and Topanga State University (TSU). As such, the RLIs described their
HLLs in a multitude of ways that is explored in the subsequent paragraphs.
Professor Kusna confirmed that the average Russian HLL in her class was in his early
mid-twenties and had Russian HL grammar issues such as confusion with case endings and
spelling. Despite these grammatical issues, Professor Kusna stated that many of her HLLs just
wanted to learn to communicate, saying “family members” as a possible reason. For example,
Professor Kusna revealed that Steven “set up his grandparents on the internet so that they could
write little vignettes about their life,” which Steven would read. When it was asked what role the
Russian HLLs’ parents played in their learning of Russian, Professor Kusna conjectured that the
“students speak at home but are illiterate because [their] parents are busy [and] have no patience.
Non-systematic learning on parents’ part.” This statement would not be surprising to Russian
HLL researchers Dubinina and Polinsky (2012), who highlighted the fact that many Russian
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 131

HLLs did not attend Russian schools or were raised watching Russian television programs; in
fact, the authors found that many Russian HLLs only used Russian with their peers 12% of the
time. Thus, this lack of a base might support why Kagan and Friedman (2008) found that
university level Russian HLLs did not produce the same type of writing as their native speaking
equivalents.
Data also revealed that Professor Kusna thought that the HLLs used the class as a social
occasion to talk with other HLLs. This statement was confirmed by observations of the class,
which revealed that many of the HLLs sat together in the class. This was viewed as an attempt
on their part to establish their affinity identity as Russian HLLs (Gee, 2000). Professor Kusna
also believed that the Russian HLLs could be in the class because they “might not wanna do
anything.” When asked to elaborate on this statement, she referenced Arkady, and said “he’s
bored.” When asked why he was bored, she responded that many of the Russian HLLs worked
really hard outside of class, which was why they were taking Russian I at night. Based on the
fact that they worked hard during the day, Professor Kusna believed that the HLLs wanted to
take an easy class, which she added was “breathing room” for the HLLs. She added, “many of
the HLLs – I think – don’t want to have much expected of them, and they just want to sink into
the shadows [and] help someone.” This statement was confirmed by observations as data
revealed that many of the Russian HLLs did not participate much in the classes at the time of the
observations. This research determined that this might have been due to language shyness
(Krashen, 1998) and Professor Kusna’s above-mentioned statement might confirm this.
She later augmented this statement by declaring, “I think that most of the heritage
speakers want to transfer [to a University of California institution] and they want a good grade
[in the Russian language class.]” As it related to their language use and their identity, data from
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 132

interviews disclosed that Professor Kusna thought that some of the Russian HLLs were more
comfortable in English than in Russian. Professor Kusna singled out Arkady again, saying that
she thought it was “easier for Arkady to joke in English.” This statement was noteworthy as
previous data showed that Professor Kusna employed English much of the time in her class to
accommodate the Russian FLLs. Based on this data, the fact that the common language of the
RLI and the students was English would suggest Arkady’s use of English in most contexts to be
expected. In addition, these data suggest that Professor Kusna might not have been aware of the
idea of language shyness (Krashen, 1998) or that her HLLs might have suffered from it.
Data indicated that the Russian HLLs at SGC shared much in common with their fellow
students at SGC according to Dr. Rosanova. For example, Dr. Rosanova highlighted that many
of her HLLs were illiterate in Russian. She added that those HLLs with low speaking skills were
not as committed as those with high speaking skills and that the fluent HLLs generally take
Russian classes for their parents. Furthermore, Dr. Rosanova stated that parents who encouraged
their HLLs generally saw that HLL remain in the program, whereas “others might drop out.”
Dasha’s high level of Russian placed her in the category of committed to her Russian studies
according to Dr. Rosanova’s aforementioned criteria. Despite her high level of Russian, data
revealed that she shared some of the same grammar issues as Russian HLLs at CCC and that she
acted differently in class than the HLLs at CCC.
Dr. Rosanova declared that Dasha’s main grammatical issues were “syntax,” or what she
termed “basic HL issues,” which was a euphemism for misusing Russian case endings upon
clarification. In contrast to the Russian HLLs at CCC, Dr. Rosanova stated that Dasha was very
talkative in class and that she felt “culturally superior” to the other students due to her
background as a Russian HLL. However, Dr. Rosanova stated that Dasha was “not as
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 133

domineering in language classes” because she was still learning [the grammar]. However, this
belief contradicted what was observed in the classes, as data revealed that Dasha might have
been language shy (Krashen, 1998) due to the fact that we did not hear her speak any Russian in
class or during our interview. Concerning Dasha’s hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996), Dr. Rosanova said Dasha “identifies more as Russian now.” Dr. Rosanova’s statement
about Dasha correlates to heritage language (HL) research that found that when several
university-level Spanish HLLs were allowed to teach Spanish at a local high school as a service
learning project, that they began to self-identify as experts in their language, which empowered
them (Leeman et al., 2011). Data indicated that Dr. Rosanova believed that a similar occurrence
was taking place with Dasha.
During her interview, Dr. Alan stated that she believed her Russian HLLs were taking her
class for nostalgic reasons related to home as well as for instrumental reasons related to an easy
“A.” Likewise, much of her expressed frustration with the Russian HLLs was because of her
lack of knowledge about the purpose of the class. Indeed, she wondered aloud if the Russian
HLLs were in the class just to “talk,” which placed her concerns about the class as a HLL social
club as similar to Professor Kusna’s views. Despite this confusion and concern, Dr. Alan was the
only RLI to define her HLLs as cultural hybrids. This research determined that this was because
Dr. Alan herself, was a HLL.
Data revealed that the RLIs had similar views in how they described their HLLs. Data
also revealed that they might not have been aware of the possible issue of language shyness
(Krashen, 1998) on the part of several of the HLLs. In addition, Dr. Alan was the only RLI to
reference the HLLs as hybrids of two and possibly three cultures.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 134

The RLI’s relationship to Russia. The descriptions of the how the Russian language
instructor (RLI) defined culture, identity, and their Russian HLLs led to questions about how the
RLIs related to Russia. Data revealed that each RLI had a different relationship to Russia and
that these different attitudes affected their choice of curricula for the Russian heritage language
learners (HLL) and how they used language to describe and present Russia in class.
Professor Kusna. Professor Kusna’s relationship with Russia started during the Cold
War and was grounded in her appreciation of the structure of the language. As it concerned
Russian culture, she stated that she “went through an intense period where she watched Soviet
movies on a regular basis and really enjoyed them.” She also appreciated Soviet cartoons as they
were a frequent topic in interviews and in her class as she had the students in her Russian I class
watch the cartoon, Ёжик в тумане (Hedgehog in the Fog). She further stated that among the
HLLs, “there seems to be kind of competition over who knows the most cartoons.” When she
was asked why these cartoons were important to the HLLs, she answered that “their knowledge
of these cartoons is connected to their parents and when they left the USSR [The Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics]. It is what their parents took with them from Russia.” Based on
observations, it was clear that Soviet culture had an influence on her curricular materials as many
of her handouts were connected to the Soviet period, such as the Sputnik handout and the Last
Address website and handouts, which were examined in the previous section.
Grounded in a Soviet foundation, Professor Kusna acknowledged that her current
relationship to Russia was “virtual” and “kind of phony.” She clarified this statement by
mentioning the current economic sanctions placed on Russia by the United States’ government
as punishment for the annexation of Crimea by the Russian government had “encouraged her not
to go [to visit Russia], but that it [going to visit Russia] should not be a problem for her.” She
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 135

later stated that “the problem is that there are so many political issues with Russia and I have
some views. I am not a big fan of the Russian government. I don’t wanna have any tangles with
my students.” When asked if she raised these issues with her Russian HLLs or engaged them in
discussion about the situation in Ukraine, she added, you know, I don’t ask them that because it
is not my place and I don’t wanna politicize things; although I think I have probably made [her
views] clear, however unintentionally; sometimes I’ll say something like ‘back when there was
hope…’
Data revealed that Professor Kusna’s current relationship with Russia was more virtual
than actual. Data also showed that this relationship affected her choice of materials for the class
as her appreciation for Soviet films, cartoons, and the era itself influenced her curricular choices
in class. Similarly, data showed that Dr. Rosanova’s relationship to Russian influenced her
choice of curricula and how she described Russia. For example, data revealed that the class had
speakers from political science discuss current topics with the students and Dr. Rosanova would
link the students’ presentations on older topics to current ones.
Dr. Rosanova. Data revealed that Dr. Rosanova’s association with Russia was more
proximate and current due to the fact that she was born in Russia and received her undergraduate
degree in English from a Russian university. Based on this contiguous association, data revealed
that Dr. Rosanova viewed herself as a mediator between Russia and the United States for her
Russian FLLs and HLLs. For example, as part of the Topics in Russian and Eastern European
Studies class curriculum, speakers from other fields at SGC often gave presentations on topics
related to Russia. Dr. Rosanova explained that many of the Russian HLLs at SGC were political
science majors and that they would often “present Russia in a negative light” during these
presentations. Due to these antagonistic presentations about Russia, she emphasized that she
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 136

tried to “minimize hostilities and focus on culture” by presenting articles that had opposing
viewpoints to the political science majors.
Observations and artifacts collected from the Topics in Russian and Eastern European
Studies class revealed that the class curriculum was culturally driven. The student presentations
were about Russian art and one of the class’ foci was a discussion of a poem by the famous
Russian author, Alexander Pushkin. During interviews, Dr. Rosanova stated that she wanted to
have more current as opposed to “dated” materials in class. As such, observations and
interviews showed that the class discussed and referenced the contemporary, but controversial
Russian punk rock band, Pussy Riot, on more than one occasion in addition to discussing cultural
topics ranging from the 20th to the twenty-first century.
Dr. Alan. Dr. Alan was born in Ukraine and moved to the United States when she was
six years old. However, interviews revealed that her cultural upbringing was tied to the Soviet
Union. As a result of this American upbringing, her relationship to Russian was deemed distant
by this research. For example, she stated in her interview that she liked to use curricular
materials that aided her in forming her identity or that helped her to develop her love of Russian
literature. However, she added that her Russian HLLs “love contemporary Russian culture, but
not the history.” In particular, she stated that the Russian HLLs loved “contemporary slang and
movies.” Yet, the curricular materials that she used, such as films, were from the Soviet and not
contemporary era. Based on her choices, Dr. Alan presented her Russian HLLs with a specific
lens through which they viewed contemporary Russia; one that was tied to her identity and not to
theirs. This suggested that she might have been inadvertently been acting as a cultural authority
(Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Grenfell & James, 1998).

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 137

Summary of Research Question Two
Data revealed that none of the Russian language instructors (RLI) comprehended critical
reflection as it was defined by this research (Howard, 2003). Although each of the RLIs were
aware of the pedagogical research associated with Russian heritage language learners (HLL) and
their differences as compared to foreign language learners (FLL) (Larrivee, 2008), the RLIs did
not purposefully use their classrooms as Third Spaces (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez et al., 1999;
Moje et al., 2004) for bilingual and hybrid identity affirming practices, such as “responsible code
switching’ (García, 2009, p. 298), which is a component of translanguaging (Creese &
Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014). Likewise, no
RLI utilized structured critical reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) as examined in this research to
raise their critical consciousness (Freire, 1990) in understanding their classrooms as a confluence
of language and hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). The
aforementioned information is important as data showed that some of the Russian HLLs at each
locale might have been language shy (Krashen, 1998) and in need of scaffolding to improve their
discursive identity (Gee, 2000). Moreover, data revealed that many of the Russian HLLs may
have been using the class as a social club to develop their affinity identities (Gee, 2000) as
Russian HLLs.
As it concerned their understanding of Russia and Russian culture and identity, Professor
Kusna and Dr. Alan viewed Russian culture and identity as being personified in what Russians
liked in the arts. However, Dr. Alan did acknowledge the hybridity of her HLLs. On the other
hand, Dr. Rosanova defined Russian culture and identity as being connected to Russian ethos.
These views of Russian culture and identity led to different descriptions of their HLLs. For
example, Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan suggested that some of their HLLs were only in class for
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 138

an easy grade or as a social occasion; Professor Kusna also implied that some of the HLLs were
not engaged, stating that Arkady was “bored.” Importantly, Professor Kusna was surprised at the
“Americanization” of her HLLs and questioned whether the HLLs needed a connection to Russia
as she stated “are they looking for something they don’t have?” Despite Professor Kusna’s
stated American-identity favoritism, she and Dr. Alan had a fondness for Soviet culture. As
such, they translated their affection for Soviet culture and the Russian language to their
classroom as they primarily used Soviet era cultural materials to supplement the Russian
grammar handouts that they gave to students. On the contrary, Dr. Rosanova’s curricular
materials were student driven, but observations confirmed that she inserted herself into the
discourse by connecting contemporary Russian culture to the students’ presentations of Russian
art, by referencing the modern Russian punk rock group, Pussy Riot, and by inviting speakers
from the political science department to speak about current topics in Russia.
Data indicated that The RLIs relationship to Russia was determined by their proximity to
Russia. For example, Professor Kusna had what she described as a “phony” and “virtual”
relationship to Russia as she had not visited there since during the Cold War. Likewise, Dr. Alan
had not been back to Ukraine or Russia since she was six years old. On the other hand, Dr.
Rosanova had a more current relationship to Russia based on the fact that she was born there and
went to university there. Data showed that these relationships to Russia were important
concerning the current political climate between Russia and the United States. For instance,
Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan avoided discussing the current political issues between Russia and
the United States. Professor Kusna stated “I don’t want to be a Russia-basher because it is not
professional and could turn-off the heritage language learners.” Interestingly, their curricular
materials were from a time and era that they were both familiar with and privileged. In contrast,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 139

Dr. Rosanova viewed her role as an intermediary between two warring factions and tried to
“focus on the culture” as a means of creating a positive atmosphere regarding Russia.
Having ascertained the RLIs’ understanding of critical reflection (Howard, 2003) and its
relationship to the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic choices, the final research question examines
how those choices affected the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development
of their Russian HLLs.
Findings for Research Question Three
Research question three investigated the effect of the Russian language instructors’ (RLI)
curricular and linguistic choices on the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
formation of their Russian heritage language learners (HLL). Data from observations of and
interviews with six Russian heritage language learners (HLL) at each of the three sites disclosed
several themes that connected these HLLs. The first theme was their desire to study Russian
and how that desire affected their relationship to Russia and the class; especially to the Russian
foreign language learners (FLL). This theme produced information that described Russian as a
family language as well as a situational code language for friends and family for some HLLs as
opposed to it as a tool for work and life communication. Likewise, this theme related to how the
RLIs fostered or hindered that motivation through the use of cultural curricular materials. The
second theme was the Russian HLLs’ awareness of their hybrid identity (Bhabha, 1994) and its
relationship to their Russian studies. The last theme was how the HLLs described culture and
language as separate phenomena. Therefore, for many Russian HLLs, they believed that their
hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) was established at home whereas the Russian
heritage (HL) or foreign language (FL) classroom was for the development of their language
skills at Russian.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 140

Russian HLL Engagement
Data from interviews with the Russian HLLs at all three sites revealed that their desire to
study Russian was correlated to more intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic influences, such as the
Russian language instructor (RLI). Thus, this section examines and presents the data obtained
from all six HLLs at Coastal Community College (CCC), San Gabriel College (SGC), and
Topanga State University (TSU) in the order that they were visited. The first site was CCC and
the four Russian HLLs that participated in this study were Felicia, Kalista, Steven, and Arkady.
Whereas Felicia, Kalista, and Steven were interviewed separately, Arkady was part of a focus
group with Steven.
Coastal Community College. Felicia described her ability at Russian as understanding
Russian fluently, but not being able to converse. This situation motivated her to study Russian
because of her relationship to her mother. For instance, Felicia stated “I wanna have something
in common with my mom” as data revealed that she was closer to her dad than her mom. She
further emphasized that Russian was important if her mother “wants to tell me something that
she doesn’t want my friends to know.” Felicia’s mother was very supportive of her taking the
class, but did not like to self-identify as Russian, which data showed affected Felicia’s self-
identification as well and will be discussed in the next section.
As it concerned the effect of having Russian foreign language learners (FLL) in the class
on her motivation, she stated, “I don’t have a problem with it at all” because she underscored that
she had a Russian background but did not really speak the language. In addition to not minding
the Russian FLLs, Felicia also described her relationship to Professor Kusna, with whom she was
currently building a relationship, as positive. She stated that Professor Kusna was meeting with
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 141

her outside of class and helping her with her Russian writing. Her positive view of Professor
Kusna translated to the text, Beginner’s Russian (Kudyma, Kagan, & Miller, 2010). Felicia liked
the book although she admitted that “I haven’t really looked at it, though.” She claimed that this
was because she was a “lazy student.” She stated that the book had little culture in it besides a
map of Russia, but said that it had “a wonderful Russian/English dictionary” in the back.
When asked about the other cultural materials used by Professor Kusna, she said “we
actually do watch the Russian news, which happens to be more about American news” and added
that the class would be helpful if there were “more discussions about our backgrounds… but not
at the expense of grammar.” Data revealed that other Russian heritage language learners (HLL)
had similar views to Felicia’s concerning the cultural materials employed by Professor Kusna.
Felicia’s opinion can be linked broadly to sociocultural learning theory. Concerning the hybrid
aspect of the connection, even though Felicia did not want the class to focus directly on her
hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) her statement indicated that she wanted it to
be a part of the curriculum. In light of this desire, the research of Smagorinsky (2013) could be
helpful. For example, he discussed the need for teachers to create hybrid spaces in the classroom
encourage more input from all of the students. One of the examples of a hybrid activity that he
offered from his research was that of encouraging students to explore their identity through the
creation of “life maps” (p. 197), in which these students read self-portraits of famous artists and
authors as models to create their own text, or map.
One student who was very interested in sharing her background was Kalista. As
described before, Kalista was an atypical Russian HLL due to her home situation in Russia
before arriving in the United States and due to her motivation for studying Russian. However,
she enrolled in the class for many of the same reasons as Felicia, Steven and Arkady; that is, to
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 142

speak better and understand better. In Kalista’s situation though, her adopted American parents
did not speak Russian at home and she had forgotten much of it. Moreover, she wanted to
improve her Russian to join the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to stop human trafficking
and because her biological brother was still living in Russian and she talked to him every
Sunday.
“I like her” was how she described Professor Kusna, who had given her a book to read
and helped her with information about obtaining a Russian passport. She said that she was
comfortable in the class, even though she stated that “it’s kind of easy.” Much like Felicia, the
addition of Russian FLLs did not bother her as she stated, “I can’t speak it [Russian] that well.”
However, she acknowledged that she got frustrated with her “friend” who asks her grammatical
and phonological questions. She stated that joining a Russian HLL class would be convenient “if
the class were lower level” as then, she emphasized: “I would be comfortable.” She claimed that
“the textbook is easy – it explains a lot” although she added that “I don’t think it explains the
Russian culture, but more of the grammar and how to use the language.” She hypothesized: “if I
could write the book, I would have it explain more of how people act there [Russia].” She said
that her brother told her that in Russia:
You can come up to a total stranger and tell them about your entire problems…
you can’t do that here [in America]. Here it is so different – if you got a bad text
[message] and wanted to talk to a stranger about it here, they would look at you
and might say ‘go check yourself into a hospital’
Kalista’s comment on the disconnect between the text’s portrayal of Russia and Russians
as compared with what her brother told her, situates itself in Bhahba’s (1994) realm of
stereotype, or a fixed and possible false form of representation, (p. 75). What might be gleaned
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 143

from this statement is that the text offered a more Westernized presentation of Russia that was
digestible for Americans as opposed to what Russians believed about themselves.
Data from the focus group with Steven and Arkady showed that they differed slightly in
their desire to be in the class as their motivation was connected to their family. Arkady
described his relationship to Professor Kusna as “student to teacher” whereas Steven said that
Professor Kusna “knows I speak Russian and jokes with me.” Concerning what knowledge they
had gleaned from the class, Steven declared, “I haven’t learned anything about speaking and
reading – [my] main issue is writing.” On the other hand, Arkady stated, “I’m enjoying it [the
class]” and that he had learned “so much.” When asked what he had learned, he answered, “all of
the things that I thought were right that turned out to be the opposite; especially with grammar.”
Steven and Arkady both liked the textbook and curricular materials to a degree.
Concerning the text, Steven said, “I like the textbook.” However, when asked about the cultural
aspects of the text he enjoyed, he added, “I haven’t seen any culture in the text” although it
“might have a tidbit in the corner [of every page].” Arkady responded that “the textbook is
helpful,” but that the book had “enough” culture. As it related to the curricular materials
provided by Professor Kusna, Steven answered that Professor Kusna’s cultural videos were
“better than the music” that she would play at the beginning of every class, which was observed
to be Russian rock groups from the 1980s and 1990s.
Arkady did not comment on being in a class with FLLs, but Steven said that he was
“comfortable in the class; they [FLLs] ask me for help” whereas he stated “we just joke around”
to describe his relationship to the other Russian HLLs. Likewise, Arkady did not answer when
both were asked if they would like to be in a class specifically for Russian HLLs. Instead,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 144

Steven said that in a Russian HLL class, “I would be on the low end with other HLLs and it
would require more work on my part.”
These data revealed that many of the Russian HLLs at Coastal Community College
(CCC) were in the heritage language (HL) class to reconnect with their family roots or for
familial ties as well as for social reasons, which this research deemed was exploring their affinity
identities (Gee, 2000) as Russian HLLs. Importantly, many of the HLLs at CCC stated that they
enjoyed having the FLLs in the class and were concerned about being in a class with more
proficient speakers. This finding suggested that many of the HLLs were language shy with
Russian (Krashen, 1998) and did not want to be placed in an uncomfortable position. This
reason might have contributed to their desire to have the class focus on grammar and not Russian
culture.
The Russian HLLs at SGC and TSU, Dasha and Anastasia, respectively, were also
encouraged to study Russian because of their family ties, albeit, peripherally and not directly as
data revealed with Felicia and Kalista. Nevertheless, data revealed that their connection to
learning Russian was more profound than the HLLs at CCC. This fact is more apparent with
Dasha, as she was a Russian double major at SGC.
San Gabriel College. Data showed that Dasha had strong family ties to Russia and that
these ties influenced her to study Russian. For example, data revealed that she had returned to
Russia when she was “seven or eight” and when she was thirteen. Furthermore, Dasha
emphasized that she wanted to return this summer to “see Moscow again…and see her
grandparents.” Due to her improved knowledge of Russian as a result of the classes at San
Gabriel College (SGC), Dasha stated that her Russian grandparents were “overwhelmed with
joy” that she could speak Russian with them on the phone. Despite the influence of her
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 145

grandparents, data showed that Dasha’s mom played an important role in her educational
decisions. For example, Dasha said, “my mom had the largest influence on me, growing up”
because “academics is number one” and that “in Russia academics is number one.” However, in
relation to taking Russian at SGC, Dasha claimed: “mom didn’t really have a say in it,” but that
her mom still supported her and aided her with her grammar. As a result, data revealed that she
developed a more profound knowledge of Russian history due to her taking Russian classes.
Data indicated that Dasha enjoyed her relationship with Dr. Rosanova as she highlighted:
“we have a great relationship” and “I’ve had her all four years [at SGC].” Dasha revealed that
Dr. Rosanova was aware of her personal life and met her grandfather, who came to visit [her in
the United States]. As it concerned the class, Dasha said that she appreciated “having to talk
about topics that I would not normally talk about in everyday conversation” as well as her
relationship with the foreign language learners (FLL) in the class. For instance, data showed that
she was in a class with International Relations majors and due to their knowledge about Russian
that she had learned “a lot” about the history of Russia from her connection to these students.
Data also showed that Dasha believed that the FLLs “pick up grammar much faster than me.”
This statement might have been an indication as to why Dasha spoke only English during class
when we observed her, leading to the suggestion that she might have suffered from language
shyness (Krashen, 1998) around FLLs.
Although the class had no text, there were articles for the students to read. Data showed
that Dr. Rosanova sent the students articles which have been chosen by everyone in the class.
Dasha said that the articles were academic and mentioned “JSTOR.” Data showed that Dasha
appreciated this part of the class as the addition of choice enabled her to focus on the situation of
women in Russia and how the culture in Russia had an effect on her mom, which for Dasha was
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 146

“personal.” Dasha said that she wanted to know what it was like for “my mom.” Data also
showed that Dasha used her ability to choose articles on Russia to focus on the economy and
history of Russia. She stated that she used her research on the economy to counteract what she
had learned in her history class about Russia. She added that she had learned through “American
propaganda” that Russia was this “horrible wasteland” and that America “doesn’t like Russia”
but since she can understand the Russian news, she can comprehend the “truth between the
countries”
While data divulged that Dasha’s relationship to her family and Dr. Rosanova were
motivating factors in her decision to study and maintain Russian, data gathered from interviews
with Anastasia at TSU showed that in addition to family and her relationship with Dr. Alan,
religion played an important role in her choice to attend the Russian heritage language (HL)
class.
Topanga State University. Data showed that Anastasia was motivated to learn Russian
because of her family and the fact that the primary language of her family church in Sacramento
was Russian: She stated: “we primarily speak Russian at home. It’s not like a чистый [clean]
Russian, it’s like a mix.” As a result of using Russian as a lingua franca, Anastasia declared: “I
wanted to learn better Russian because my dad doesn’t speak any English and my grandma also
doesn’t speak any English.” She also revealed that Russian was important for her future, as she
stated, “I want my kids to be able to understand Russian and be able to speak it.”
Data revealed that Anastasia liked the class and her relationship with Dr. Alan. She
claimed that this class helped her improve her comprehension, speaking and writing. For
instance, she said, “I was not able to write correctly when I came to this class, but now I can.”
Data showed that a class for Russian heritage language learners (HLL) only was an advantage,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 147

although it was challenging due to the different proficiency levels of the Russian HLLs. For
example, she said, “many students [in the Russian heritage language (HL) class] did not go to
school in Russia whereas others did go to school in Russian or Armenia, so there is a large
difference in abilities with Russian.” However, data showed that this fact did not change her
positive opinion of the class or Dr. Alan.
Anastasia acknowledged that their previous Russian heritage language (HL) teacher was
a native Russian. This fact was a problem because she would speak “a thousand miles a minute”
whereas she stated that Dr. Alan “is a heritage learner and can relate to us better.” Anastasia
added: “it feels like – because she [Dr. Alan] is so young that it is a mentorship.” Moreover, Dr.
Alan had a similar relationship to Russia as Anastasia. For example, Anastasia said, “Dr. Alan’s
relationship to Russia is the same as me; no personal attachment to Russia, more to our Slavic
culture.”
Despite her positive feelings about the class and Dr. Alan, data showed that Anastasia
was critical of the class text, Writing in Russian for Russian Heritage Speakers. For instance,
she stated, “I think the text portrays the Russian who is from Russia very well – however, since I
am Eastern European, I do not see a lot about Belarus and Ukraine and that is what I know.” She
added, “and if you look at our class, the majority are either Eastern European or from another
part of Europe.” She followed this statement with the declaration:
it is important to talk about all of the countries of Eastern Europe, because the
USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics], we’re all a product of it. All of the
students in the class, we feel, bound together through a common thread, and it’s
not necessarily Russia, but our Slavic heritage
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 148

This statement by Anastasia was understood by this research as a desire for the HL class
to acknowledge that the Russian HLLs were hybrid identities (Bhabha, 1994). Moreover,
Anastasia wanted this fact to be symbolically confirmed in writing in the text. Whereas data
revealed that the majority of Russian HLLs were motivated by their family and social ties to
enroll in the Russian foreign language (FL) or heritage language (HL) class and that each
Russian language instructor (RLI) had had a positive effect on their Russian learning experience,
data showed that no Russian FL class or RLI made the students overtly aware of their Russian
American hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). In contrast, the Russian HL class
at TSU peripherally touched upon the subject of a hybrid-identity, but did not utilize it as
significant discussion topic at the time of observations.
Russian HLL Awareness of a Hybrid Identity
Data showed that the heritage language learners (HLL) at Coastal Community College
(CCC) had more distant relationships with Russia for a variety of reasons and that this distance
affected their self-identification. For example, Felicia stated that she self-identified as Jewish
but that “if people ask, then I will say that I’m Russian.” This conflicting statement was further
complicated by one of the stories that she told. She said that once when one cashier told her that
she looked more Russian than her mom; Felicia said that she did not “see it.” This statement
supported her earlier claim of self-identifying as Jewish, and not Russian. Furthermore, data
revealed that Felicia’s relationship to Russia might have been influenced by her family’s
relationship to Russia. For example, Felicia declared that she had never been to Russia, but
would like to go. However, she stated that her “mom’s not much of a fan” because her mom
“escaped from Russia.” As earlier data confirmed that Felicia’s mom was actually from Odessa,
Ukraine, it was not understood as to why she referenced Russia, leading speculation that she
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 149

meant the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR). When asked why her mom escaped from
Ukraine, she said, “it was anti-Semitic there.” Felicia later said that her grandmother was
arrested because she was a “bad ass bitch who went against the law,” but was unable to state
with accuracy for what her grandmother was arrested. Data revealed that this history deeply
affected her mom as she highlighted that her family recently had gotten a new Torah and said her
mother had cried because she “never got to enjoy this when she was little.” Some of the
statements made by Felicia were interpreted by this research as Felicia negatively self-
identifying (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) as a Russian, in other words, what she is not. At the
minimum, her statements indicated that she was very conflicted about her identity as a Russian
Jewish American. It appeared that she preferred to self-identify as Jewish and that Russian was
more of an instrument to connect to her mother.
Data showed that although Kalista’s personal history with Russia was turbulent due to the
death of her father and mother, she did not have as strained a relationship with Russia or her
identity as a Russian American. Data revealed that Kalista self-identified as “Russian American
– mostly Russian.” What asked what she meant by declaring herself to be mostly Russian, she
answered, “in the sense of strength; you keep it serious [and] open up to people; trust people like
Russians do. American is the way I dress and the way I….my personality is like Russian more.”
This revelation came despite warnings from her adopted parents, who told her not to say that she
was from Russia.
Kalista’s dad had told her at the time of the interview, “right now we’re in the middle of
going to war with Russia” and that she should not say she is from Russia because he was afraid
she could get hurt. However, she told him that she would continue to say that she is from Russia.
She said that she did not care “if America was in [a] war with Russia, I’m still Russian.” When
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 150

asked to expand on this statement, she answered, “that’s my whole past; that’s where I’m
from…that’s where I consider my home.” This statement presented an interesting contrast
between birthplace and self-identification. Indeed, data showed that the two participants in this
research who were born in Russia, Dr. Rosanova and Kalista, viewed Russia as their home,
whereas the other participants saw the United States as their home. These views had a
significant impact on their self-identification and proximity to Russia and Russian culture.
Data showed that Steven and Arkady related more to Felicia than Kalista in their
relationship to Russia and Belarus. Although they both self-identified as Russian Americans,
their relationship to Russia and Belarus remained distant despite the fact that Steven had been to
Russia several times as stated earlier in the chapter. For example, Arkady said that Belarus was
“just dreams and memories that just come by” whereas Steven claimed his relation to Russia as
“passive” or “passive-neutral.” Despite these views, Arkady stated that “Russians there [in
Russia] have a different view of Russian than Russians here.” When asked why these different
opinions existed, Arkady responded that it was due to “propaganda.” He further stated that “a lot
of history changed on the back of the Russians.” Concerning the difficulties of self-identifying
as Russian American, data revealed that neither saw any major issues with it. For example, data
showed that when they were asked if they had encountered problems due to the political tensions
between Russia and America, Arkady said, “naw” with strong intonation, and Steven responded
“not at all.” They did admit that they dealt with the usual joking from their friends about
[Russian] politics, but nothing out of the ordinary. Based on these data, this research determined
that Steven and Arkady did not positively or negatively self-identify as Russian-Americans
(Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017). However, as observations showed, they did appear to use the
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 151

Russian foreign language (FL) class as an attempt to establish their affinity identity (Gee, 2000)
as Russian heritage language learners (HLL).
Dasha’s self-identification as a Russian American was more problematic than that of
Arkady and Steven. For example, Dasha said, “it has been very difficult for me to say that I am
Russian because of the issues that are happening in Russia.” In fact, Dasha’s mother encouraged
her to take the family name of her step-father as opposed to her original Russian family name
due to the situation between Russia and America. Her mother’s advice affected her as she stated
that now, “when people ask me, I like to say that I am Russian, but it depends on the context –
when I meet new people that I don’t know, I say that I was born in Russia but raised here.”
Despite these obstacles, Dasha said, “I want to go back [to Russia] because I lost my heritage;
I’m one-hundred percent Russian, but growing up here I identify as American as well.”
However, Dasha later added, “I don’t know if Russia is my country. I don’t think so, because I
have never lived there. I am definitely more American.” Whereas Dasha had a more challenging
time in self-identifying as Russian American, data revealed that Anastasia’s self-identification
was not as complicated.
Anastasia stated that she was, “American-Russian – even though that is not entirely
accurate,” which she meant as a reference to her Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarussian heritage.
Data indicated that she self-identified as American-Russian because “it was easier to explain as
many people did not know that Belarus existed as a country.” Data also showed that Anastasia
had difficulties with the multicultural nature of her upbringing. For example, she stated,
“sometimes it was hard growing up to merge the culture,” because “I had to balance the cultural
differences between my parents and my culture.” Anastasia would like to reconnect with her
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 152

multicultural background as she had never been to Russia, Ukraine, or Belarus. For example,
she declared, “I would like to visit my parents’ birthplaces.”
Data indicated that Dasha and Anastasia both positively self-identified (Bucholtz, 1999;
Seals, 2017) as Russian-Americans, but the caveats stated above. Whereas data showed
differences in how the Russian HLLs at Coastal Community College (CCC), San Gabriel
College (SGC) and Topanga State University (TSU) self-identified and related to Russia, data
also showed discrepancies in how more and less proficient Russian HLLs associated language
with culture in the classroom.
The Language and Culture Division
Data from interviews with the Russian heritage language learners (HLL) at Coastal
Community College (CCC), San Gabriel College (SGC), and Topanga State University (TSU),
showed that most of the Russian HLLs did not view their Russian heritage language (HL)
classroom as a place for their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development.
Data showed that this phenomenon was more ingrained at CCC than at SGC, and TSU; yet, the
idea was prevalent at all three locales, which are examined in the sections below.
Coastal Community College. The Russian heritage language learners (HLL) at Coastal
Community College (CCC), Felicia, Kalista, Steven, and Arkady, did not view their Russian I
classroom as an intersection of their language and hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996). Data showed that they comprehended culture as based in the home and the Russian I
classroom as a place for learning a language. Likewise, data also confirmed that most of the
Russian HLLs at CCC understood learning a language as separate from learning a culture. As it
regarded their connection to contemporary Russian culture, data revealed that most of the
Russian HLLs, except for Kalista, had little knowledge of contemporary Russia.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 153

Data showed that Felicia, Kalista, Steven, and Arkady defined Russian culture in similar
ways that were associated with traditions, food, and drink. For example, Felicia stated that
Russian culture was “food and Russian grandmothers purposely wanting to get their grandkids
fat.” Kalista described Russian culture as “old style” and “not moving forward” in addition to
describing Russians as “ballet people.” Steven and Arkady defined Russian culture as “lifestyle,
day to day activities, food, drinking culture, historical aspects” and Steven associated Russian
culture with “the Tsars.” These anachronistic definitions of Russian culture led to discussions
about how the Russian HLLs understood the class as a place for culture.
Data revealed that three of the HLLs did not comprehend the Russia I class as a place for
culture. For example, when Felicia was asked about becoming more involved with Russian
culture and how the class helped her to do this, she discussed how she talks Russian with another
Russian HLL, Luba. Moreover, Felicia stated, “I took a French class and it was all about culture
and I didn’t like that because I wanted to learn more about how to speak rather than the culture
behind it.” However, Felicia did assert “to talk about our backgrounds more [in class] would be
helpful but not at the expense of grammar.” In contrast, data indicated that Kalista understood
the class as a place for the discussion of culture. For example, she expressed her desire to have
the class text explain more about how Russians behave. She said that her brother told her that in
Russia “you can come up to a total stranger and tell them about your entire problems” but that
“you can’t do that here.” In contrast, data revealed that Steven and Arkady did not associate the
Russian I class as a place for Russian culture.
Steven and Arkady both stated that they wanted language and culture separated because
the Russian I class would be longer. For instance, Steven stated that the Russian I class did not
add to his cultural knowledge of Russia. He added, “I’ve seen Russia with my own eyes and
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 154

experienced the culture at home. If there is something that I don’t know, then my grandparents
will tell me about it.” Arkady supported this opinion as he said, “if I wanted more culture, I
would take a culture class.”
Based on these responses, Arkady and Steven were asked what they would like in a
Russian culture class if one were to exist. Arkady responded, “having not ever lived there
[Russia], it’s hard to think about it.” Subsequently, data revealed that the culture that they were
exposed to came from home or community and not as strongly from the Russian I class. For
example, Arkady stated that his family had Russian “music cassettes” and that he had more of a
taste for what his parents liked more than the modern Russian music. Steven commented, “I
experience [Russian culture] it at home all of the time” and said that he visited his uncle’s house
in Malibu every Saturday or Sunday to go to the Russian banya. Data showed that when Steven
and Arkady were asked about their knowledge of contemporary Russian culture, Steven
commented that he knew the famous Ukrainian comedian and singer Verka Serdiuchka (real
name Andrei Danilko), who is very popular in Russia. As this statement was about a recent
Russian cultural phenomenon, he was asked how he came into contact with this information, to
which he responded, “through my parents.”
These data presented Steven and Arkady’s understanding of Russia as being understood
through the lens of their parents’ knowledge and connection to Russia as opposed to any strong
engagement with the country or culture on their own. Even though Steven had visited Russia, he
connected Russian culture to a trip to the banya in Malibu as opposed to any insight that he could
have discussed after having visited Russia. Moreover, Arkady highlighted that he had no real
concept of what Russian culture was and that he preferred his parents’ taste in Russian music as
opposed to his own taste. These data suggested that the limited contact with Russia might have
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 155

prevented Steven and Arkady from developing their own opinions of Russian culture and
identity.
Whereas the Russian I class at CCC was predominantly viewed through the Russian
HLLs’ lens as a place for language, but not culture, the Russian classes at SGC and TSU were
more culturally oriented. Data showed that this was due to the nature of the classes themselves
and to the fact that Dasha’s and Anastasia’s proficiency levels of Russian were higher. Based on
the increase in proficiency, data confirmed that Dr. Rosanova and Dr. Alan were able to use
more contemporary cultural materials with them and engage their HLLs in more cultural topics.
San Gabriel College and Topanga State University. Dasha at San Gabriel College
(SGC) and Anastasia at Topanga State University (TSU) were not in typical Russian language
classes like Felicia, Kalista, Steven, and Arkady at Coastal Community College (CCC).
However, their definitions of Russian culture were somewhat similar to those at CCC. For
example, Dasha said Russian culture was “what happens everyday; celebrations; even the way
we take photos,” which she indicated was a reference to the belief that Russians do not smile in
photos. Anastasia gave a broader definition of culture as a whole, stating that culture was,
“leisure time, arts, humanities, literature, [and] fashion.”
Data showed that Dasha did understand her class as a place for engagement with Russian
culture, whereas Anastasia did not. For example, although Anastasia shared that Dr. Alan
brought in Soviet films for the HLLs to watch such as, Завтра была война [Tomorrow was the
War], she added, “I didn’t expect it [the class] to teach me about culture, but we’ve become
exposed to the culture through the reading.” Furthermore, Anastasia stated that the class
watched a Russian movie the previous semester about a group of Russian students who had been
Americanized and had adopted American culture whereas another group was against this
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 156

adoption and wanted to preserve their Soviet culture. Data also revealed that Anastasia believed
the classroom as a place for culture. For instance, she stated, “I think it should definitely involve
some culture.” She added that culture was also important because she wanted to go back to visit
because she shared some of that history and knowing the culture would help her.
Earlier data revealed that Dasha’s Russian class was about historical and contemporary
Russian culture. To reiterate, Dr. Rosanova had the students choose and read cultural articles as
well as invite speakers to come and discuss contemporary topics in class. As such, data revealed
that many of Dasha’s statements about Russian culture revolved around Russian and American
politics. For example, Dasha explained that she used some of the articles in her Russian culture
class to do research on the Russian economy in order to counteract what she had learned in her
history class about Russia. In addition, data showed that the culture class aided her in a re-
analyzation of her mother’s Soviet background. For example, she stated, “I came from a very
successful background” as she described her grandfather as being “well connected.” As a result
of this, Dasha stated that “all of this suffering [In Russia during the USSR] was news to me
because my mom had a great time growing up in Russia.”
Summary of Research Question Three
Research question three discussed how the Russian heritage language learners (HLL) at
Coastal Community College (CCC), San Gabriel College (SGC), and Topanga State University
(TSU) comprehended the impact of their Russian language instructors (RLI) on their hybrid
cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development. This data was developed into three
themes that reoccurred throughout the research: Russian HLL engagement, their awareness of
their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996), and their understanding of the
relationship between language and culture. Data indicated that at CCC, the Russian HLLs did not
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 157

associate the Russian I classroom as place for hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
development, but as a place for grammatical development.
Whereas each HLL at CCC stated that they liked the class, the textbook, and Professor
Kusna, their motivation for studying and maintaining Russian derived from their relationship to
their family and their proximity to Russia. For example, data showed that because Kalista was
born in Russia and had immediate family there, that her self-identification as Russian American
was stronger than Arkady’s, Steven’s, and Felicia’s, as they were not born in Russia and
maintained a more distant relationship with the country. Likewise, data showed that much of the
Russian culture that the HLLs at CCC encountered was provided to them by their parents and
came to them through the lens of their parents as opposed to their own personal relationship to
Russia. The Russian HLLs’ subdued attachment to Russian might have also been due to their
view that English had more linguistic and symbolic capital than Russian (Bourdieu, 1977;
Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998). This determination was made based on the fact that
none of the Russian HLLs at CCC stated that they would continue to study Russian after CCC
with the exception of Kalista. Moreover, many of the Russian HLLs at CCC indicated that they
were in the class for an easy grade and for social reasons.
On the other hand, Dasha at SGC and Anastasia at TSU did comprehend their Russian
class as a place for language and culture and referenced the cultural material that was shared with
them by their RLI. Data revealed that their higher proficiency in Russian might have encouraged
their RLIs to provide more contemporary cultural materials, which allowed them to engage with
Russian culture in a more profound manner. For example, Dasha utilized her Russian culture
class to resist the Russian cultural stereotypes that she heard from fellow students at SGC. Data
showed that this stronger class engagement with culture could have influenced Dasha to be more
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 158

self-aware of her hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) and Anastasia to be more
aware of her pan-Slavic identity.
Similar to the HLLs at CCC, Dasha’s and Anastasia’s motivation to learn Russian was
connected to their family. Both Dasha and Anastasia explained the role of their families in their
decision to learn and maintain their Russian. Likewise, data showed that both HLLs expressed a
desire to return to Russia and Eastern Europe, respectively, in order to discover more about their
ethnic roots and how their families lived.
Summary of Chapter Four
Chapter four provided results from the interviews and observations related to the three
research questions that guided this study. Data revealed that several themes arose from the
observations and interviews. For the first research question, data showed that the Russian
language instructors (RLI)’ use of the physical and discursive space affected their engagement
with their Russian heritage language learners (HLL)’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) development. This engagement was viewed through the lens of how the RLIs
socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) their Russian HLLs as bilinguals or as monolinguals.
Data also showed that the RLIs’ engagement with their Russian HLLs was affected by the HLLs’
oral and written proficiency in Russian. In other words, data revealed that the more proficient
the RLIs perceived the HLLs to be, the more the RLIs positioned the HLLs as bilinguals, capable
of translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012) and
making meaning in Russian.
The final theme investigated how the curricular materials and textbook choices affected
the potential hybrid cultural identity-based classroom practices of the RLIs. Data revealed that
the textbook Beginner’s Russian (Kagan, Kudyma, & Miller, 2010) did have more substantial
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 159

materials related to Russian culture and was an improvement over many of the texts examined in
chapter two, however, the text lacked a holistic view of Russia as a multicultural society and it
avoided any discussion of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the curricular materials
employed by Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan were firmly rooted in sharing what they found
appealing about the Soviet Union, which correlated to their experience with Russia as opposed to
a more contemporary approach. On the contrary, Dr. Rosanova presented Russia as a more
contemporary country by allowing her students to listen to current presentations on Russian
politics or by connecting the students’ presentations on eighteenth and 19
th
century art to current
Russian art and artists, like the punk rock band, Pussy Riot.
Data revealed that the RLIs were not aware of moral, social, and ethical uses of critical
reflection (Howard, 2003) as a pedagogical tool that could assist them in comprehending their
classrooms as hybrid cultural spaces (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) where a hybrid
cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) is developed. Moreover, data showed that each RLI
positioned English as a lingua franca, which allowed many of the less proficient Russian HLLs
to use English to make meaning when their Russian was not enough. Thus, data showed
Professor Kusna and Dr. Rosanova might not have created enough Russian linguistic space for
translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012) to occur
in their classrooms as a tool to reduce what data indicated might have been Russian HLL
language shyness (Krashen, 1998). In addition, although Dr. Alan did employ more
translanguaging in her Russian heritage language (HL) class, she mainly employed it as a
grammatical highlighter and not as a tool for developing a hybrid cultural identity. Data revealed
that this was possibly due to the different proficiency levels of HLLs in the class and because Dr.
Alan did not see it as her job to develop their hybrid identity. Finally, data uncovered that while
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 160

the more proficient Russian HLLs comprehended their Russian heritage language (HL) or
foreign language (FL) classroom as a location to discuss culture, most of the less proficient
HLLs at Coastal Community College (CCC) wanted their class to be for Russian language study
only. Data revealed that these HLLs understood culture and identity as established at home or in
a community and not in a language class.
Chapter Five
The study of heritage languages (HL) and identity development are recurrent topics of
focus in HL research (Beaudrie et al., 2009; He, 2010; He, 2004; Leeman, 2015; Leeman et al.,
2011; Lo Philip, 2010; Montrul, 2010). This study found the reason for this focus to be the
hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) of the heritage language learner (HLL), who
is located in multiple spaces, or as Gee (2001) stated, in multiple discourses, where learners use
multimodal approaches to construct a socially situated identity (p. 719). This study defined this
socially situated identity from a postcolonial perspective as an identity that is fluid (Hall, 1996)
and at the intersection of multiple discourses. Based on this foundation, this research found that
few studies had investigated the role of the Russian language instructor (RLI) in the development
of their Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996).
The Russian language instructors’ (RLI) role was discovered to be important as the
Russian foreign language (FL) and heritage language (HL) classes at university were found to be
places where the Russian HLLs could attempt to rejoin their cultural, ancestral, and linguistic
roots (Geisherik, 2004; Kagan, 2010). Likewise, the RLI was found to be in an essential position
to aid the Russian HLLs in affirming their self-identity due to her responsibility as an
authenticator of classroom language and distributor of classroom materials and curricula
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998). How the RLI interpreted her
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 161

curricular materials (Van Manen, 1977) was discovered to have a profound effect on HLL
motivation (Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012; Helmer, 2013; Tse, 2000) as her interpretation or materials
could reproduce cultural stereotypes (Azimova & Johnson, 2012; Beaudrie et al., 2009;
Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004) that could influence how the Russian HLLs related to their re-
integration with Russian.
It was anticipated that if the RLI were not morally and ethically critically reflective
(Howard, 2003) of her significant position, then the Russian HLLs might become less engaged
(Berardi-Wiltshire, 2012), expunge their Russian-American hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996) in favor of a more American-Russian identity (Leeman et al., 2011), or
abandon their Russian HL studies (Cho & Krashen, 1998; Cummins, 2005; Kit Fong-Au, 2008;
Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
In light of these issues, this qualitative study was guided by a post-colonial understanding
of identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1994), an emancipatory recognition of critical reflection
(Dewey, 1933; Freire, 1990; Habermas, 1968; Howard, 2003), and a comprehension of identity
as constructed and negotiated in discourse (Gee, 2000; Gee, 2001; Leeman, 2015). Data were
collected through interviews, observations, and curricular artifacts at three higher education
institutions and intended to answer the following three research questions:
1. How do RLIs in higher education describe their use of classroom language and materials
as they relate to the hybrid cultural identity formation of their heritage students?
2. How might critical reflection aid the RLIs in understanding the effect of these linguistic
and curricular choices on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development?
3. How do Russian HLLs comprehend the impact of the RLIs’ curricular and linguistic
choices on their hybrid cultural identity formation?
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 162

Summary of Findings
Several major themes emerged from the data related to the role of the Russian language
instructor (RLI) and the development of Russian heritage language learner (HLL) identity in
higher education Russian foreign language (FL) and heritage language (HL) classes. The first
theme was predicated on how the RLI employed the physical and discursive space of her
classroom to establish a Third Space (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for
HLL hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development. Congruently, the second
theme investigated how the RLI created this HL third space in the Russian FL classroom. The
third theme described how the Russian HLLs’ oral and written proficiency affected the RLIs’
discursive engagement with the HLLs, while the fourth theme examined how the RLIs’ use of
outdated curricular materials and textbooks affected her classroom practices as they related to
her Russian HLL’s hybrid cultural identity development. The final two themes investigated how
a lack of structured critical reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) influenced the RLIs’ perceived role
in her HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development by analyzing the Russian HLLs’ engagement
in the classroom, their understanding of their hybrid cultural identity, and their comprehension of
the relationship between language and culture.
The first three interrelated themes discovered that Professor Kusna at Coastal Community
College (CCC), Dr. Rosanova at San Gabriel College (SGC), and Dr. Alan at Topanga State
University (TSU) employed the discursive space of their classrooms in similar ways. The main
similarity coalesced around the use of English as the symbolically dominant language (Bourdieu,
1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998), as it was utilized for difficult grammar
explanations and general discussion at CCC, presentations and discussion at SGC, and the
clarification of difficult Russian grammatical concepts at TSU. The main differences between
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 163

the three RLIs emerged in the volume of English use and its overall purpose. It was discovered
that the amount of English use corresponded to the amount of foreign language learners (FLL) in
the class. Thus, the Russian I class at CCC and the Russian culture class at SGC had a majority
of FLLs, and therefore, English was utilized more as the functional language. Likewise, this
discovery was corroborated in the HL class at TSU as well, even though the class had only
HLLs; this situation occurred because of the different proficiency levels of the HLLs, with the
less proficient HLLs utilizing more English than the more proficient.
Correspondingly, the proficiency level of the HLLs influenced how the RLIs engaged
and socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) them in Russian. For example, Professor Kusna
used English with the Russian HLLs even though she socially positioned the Russian HLLs as
“experts” in the language at the same time. Likewise, Dr. Rosanova mainly employed English to
share information with her class and was not observed engaging Dasha in Russian, even though
Dasha was a bilingual Russian and English speaker. However, in contrast to Professor Kusna,
Dr. Rosanova did not socially position Dasha as an expert in Russian. On the contrary, she
positioned Dasha as an equal to her FLL classmates. These two situations were viewed through
a language shyness (Krashen, 1998) lens on the part of the Russian HLLs, or as the RLIs not
creating the hybrid language space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for the HLLs to
speak Russian. This situation was not as commonplace in the HL class at TSU. Dr. Alan
employed Russian and English throughout the class and allowed the Russian HLLs to do so as
well, even though it was observed that she encouraged more Russian use for the purposes of
grammatical accuracy. It was also observed that she socially positioned all of the Russian HLLs
as bilingual Russian and English speakers.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 164

When the RLIs created a Third Space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for the
Russian HLLs to interact in Russian, they employed translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge,
2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) to do so. For example, in the
classes at SGC and TSU, Russian and English were codeswitched (García, 2009) to allow the
HLLs to express themselves in either language. Likewise, some of the curricular materials were
in Russian, yet discussion of them took place in both languages. However, the translanguaging
practices at SGC and TSU were not observed to be scaffolded and planned pedagogical
practices, such as “responsible code switching” (García, 2009, p. 298), neither were they
employed by the RLIs for the purposes of increasing the HLLs’ knowledge of their discursive
identities (Gee, 2000) through the use of Russian and English. In like manner, translanguaging
at CCC occurred much less due to the proficiency levels of the HLLs and this observation
correlated with the aforementioned fact that Professor Kusna socially positioned (Davies &
Harré, 1990) the Russian HLLs as bilinguals capable of translanguaging in name only, but not in
practice.
These findings were important because Kagan and Dillon (2006) emphasized the need for
heritage language (HL) teachers to probe their HLLs’ “dormant” (p. 93) linguistic knowledge to
help them achieve higher levels of fluency. In parallel, Ortega (2009) summarized from her
extensive research on the topic of second language acquisition (SLA) that in order for SLA to
occur, the classroom environment needed to have “accultured attitudes, comprehensible input,
negotiated interaction, pushed output, and a capacity, natural or cultivated, to attend to the
language code, not just the message” (p. 79). Chambless (2012) narrowed and supported that
finding by stating that for student achievement in a foreign language (FL) class to occur, the
teacher should provide (a) comprehensible input, or meaningful phrases in the target language,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 165

and (b) comprehensible output, or opportunities for the students to make meaning with the target
language. Although this information supported Tse’s (1998) findings about learning the HL and
comprehensible input, data from this research showed that the use of English in both FL contexts
and to some degree in the HL context was used for a significant amount of time and that the
HLLs in both FL contexts used Russian sparingly. In the HL context at TSU, Russian was used
significantly more, but English was still employed for difficult sociolinguistic concepts. Thus, in
the HL class, English was utilized when meaning was essential for understanding.
The RLI’s provision of comprehensible input and output is significant because this
research found that identity was determined in discourse (Gee, 2000; Gee, 2001; Leeman, 2015).
and that the HL/FL classroom was a location where this identity could be developed through the
use of hybrid language practices and the creation of a Third Space (Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Moje et
al., 2004). Although research in SLA explicitly supports the use of both languages in the
classroom for affective and self-identification purposes, it also emphasizes that learners of
foreign languages require practice and contact with the target language (Hall & Cook, 2012).
Based on these criteria, the HLLs’ use of Russian at CCC, SGC, and TSU was instrumental in
developing their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) as Russian-Americans.
These findings related directly to the fourth theme, which covered the RLIs’ use of curricular
materials and how they supported meaningful comprehensible input, output, and Russian hybrid
cultural identity development.
The fourth theme showed that the RLIs provided curricular materials to their HLLs that
employed both languages, which was comprehended by this research as a hybrid language
practice (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) and as vehicles for translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015;
García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014). For example, Professor Kusna and
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 166

Dr. Alan frequently utilized Soviet films, cartoons, and Soviet-based projects as mediums
through which to engage the Russian HLLs in learning Russian. These sources were usually
accompanied by a handout with a specific English and Russian dictionary of terms. Although
not focused solely on Soviet materials, Dr. Rosanova employed the same tactic with Russian
articles for the students to read while the discussions of them were mainly in English. In
addition, Dr. Rosanova invited speakers from the political science department to give
presentations on current Russian politics. The only text that was examined by this research was
Russian for Beginners (Kagan, Kudyma, & Miller, 2010), which was used in Professor Kusna’s
Russian I class. The examination of the text showed that while it was a significant improvement
over the Russian texts discussed in chapter two, it avoided any discussion of the Soviet Union,
lacked much cultural texts, and presented Russia as a mono-cultural White society as opposed to
a multicultural society, which might not have allowed for a clear understanding of Russia as it is
today on the part of the Russian HLLs.
This use of materials by the three RLIs was understood as a direct reflection of what the
RLIs either appreciated about Russia or their experience with and interpretation of Russia. Thus,
each curricular choice the RLIs made established a lens through which the Russian HLLs would
view Russia and their ancestral roots, placing the RLIs in a pedagogical position of power
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Grenfell & James, 1998) and a
possible influence on the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996). Furthermore, it was noted that the RLIs’ social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990)
of Russia in the classroom was important considering the current hostile political climate that
exists between Russia and the United States; a climate that was discussed with participants in
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 167

this research and had affected several of them, especially Kalista and Dasha, participants who
expressed a stronger than average HL connection to Russia.
This positioning of Russia in the classroom was important because recent research in
political science found that seventy-two percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of Russia
in 2014, whereas seventy-one percent of Russians had an unfavorable view of American
(Ziegler, 2014). The unfavorable view of Russia continues today as a February 2017 Gallup poll
found that seventy percent of Americans had a mostly unfavorable to very unfavorable view of
Russia (Gallup, 2017). Moreover, Tsygankov (2017) found that the American media
consistently portrayed Russia as an “autocratic, abusive, and revisionist power” (p. 31),
correlating Russia’s image to that of the former Soviet Union, even though contemporary Russia
shares little semblance to that image (Ziegler, 2014). This fact is significant to this study as
many of the curricular materials employed by Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan did not showcase
Russia as a contemporary society, but the former Soviet Union. For example, Professor Kusna’s
Last Address plaque shown in class was about victims of the Stalinist purges and a project that
she called “redemptive.” Although this choice might not have been to consciously socially
position (Davies & Harré, 1990) Russia as the Soviet Union, it nevertheless maintained the link
that the American media engenders. From a critically conscious (Freire, 1990) perspective, the
Last Address project could be equated to Japanese Heritage Learners studying Japanese by
learning about Japan’s atrocities committed against much of the populace of Manchuria and
Southeast Asia during the Second World War. While a significant and terrible part of Japanese
history, it is not the only part of Japanese history. Therefore, from a critically reflective
perspective, this link could have negatively influenced the Russian HLLs’ understanding of
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 168

contemporary Russia and their re-connection to their Russian roots, which is what many
participants in this research claimed that they were doing.
The Russian HLLs who participated in this study were susceptible to such influence due
to their acknowledged lack of proximity to Russia or their neutral attitude to contemporary
Russia, with the exception of Kalista and Dasha. Thus, Professor Kusna’s and Dr. Alan’s
presentation of Russia as the former Soviet Union could be construed as what Bhabha (1994)
referred to as a stereotype, or when a person or thing is in a state of false representation. This
postcolonial understanding of a stereotype could have deleterious consequences for the Russian
HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development as they could choose to
favor their American identity, or negate their Russian identity (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) as
American cultural and linguistic capital would be viewed as stronger (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu,
1991; Grenfell & James, 1998). Indeed, this situation was discovered in Felicia’s case and to
some degree, Dasha’s, as she initially claimed to be Russian-American, but by the end of the
interview, stated that she was American-Russian. Based on this situation, the role of critical
reflection was deemed to be important for the RLIs, which was the focus of the next theme.
Professor Kusna, Dr. Rosanova, and Dr. Alan were reflective of their practice. However,
Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan were more reflective of the pedagogical and pragmatic aspects of
their practice (Larrivee, 2008) as opposed to the more moral, ethical, and sociocultural aspects
(Howard, 2003), which encompassed hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996). Indeed, both Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan did not view it as their responsibility to
develop their HLLs hybrid cultural identity. On the other hand, Dr. Rosanova was more aware
of the classroom as a space for not only language, but cultural identity development, as she
supported Dasha’s reconnection to her Russian roots, which moved her closer to the definition of
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 169

being critically reflective as defined in this research (Howard, 2003). However, no RLI utilized
structured critical reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) to aid them in understanding their classrooms
as a confluence of language and hybrid cultural identity development or as a hybrid cultural
space (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004).
In class, each RLI positioned English as having more linguistic and symbolic capital
(Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) than Russian. This was determined
by the consistent use of English by the RLIs for pedagogical and non-pedagogical purposes
related to meaning. Therefore, Professor Kusna and Dr. Rosanova did not create enough Russian
linguistic space for more translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Hornberger
& Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) to occur in their classrooms. Although Dr. Alan employed
more translanguaging in her Russian HL class, English was still used as the language of
grammatical understanding, which might have been due to the different proficiency levels of
HLLs. In positioning English as such, it could have reinforced the linguistic capital of English as
opposed to Russian.
The fact that the RLIs did not have a structured critically reflective (Jay & Johnson,
2002) base towards the HLLs and the curriculum (Van Manen, 1977) could have impacted the
Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development because data
gleaned from observations showed that many of the HLLs at all three locales were attempting to
develop what Gee (2000) called a discourse-identity or an affinity-identity. For example, some
of the Russian HLLs at CCC appreciated their discourse identity as in-the-know about Russian,
and most of the HLLs in this study represented an affinity identity, as they wanted to be
connected to Russia in some fashion through taking the class and possibly self-identify as a
Russian HLL. However, the use of English as a lingua franca in all three classes and the use of
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 170

non-contemporary curricular materials at CCC and TSU could have affected the Russian HLLs’
understanding of contemporary Russia as a “cool” place and a “cool” language, and thereby
privileged more of the American side of their identity and negated more of their Russian identity
(Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) roots for a more balanced and bilingual hybrid cultural identity.
The last theme focused on the Russian HLLs’ understanding of the relationship between
language and culture that was found in the classrooms. It was discovered that while the more
proficient Russian HLLs at SGC and TSU comprehended their Russian heritage language (HL)
or foreign language (FL) classroom as a location to discuss culture, most of the less proficient
HLLs at CCC wanted their class to be for Russian language study only and were observed to be
less engaged in that regard than the HLLs at SGC and TSU. Data revealed that these HLLs
understood culture and identity as established at home or in their community and not represented
in the Russian language class. However, it was also revealed that the HLLs at CCC enjoyed
their discourse and affinity identities (Gee, 2000) that they co-constructed with Professor Kusna
as in-the-know HLLs in the Russian FL class.
Discussion
This section discusses some of the more important findings from the research and offers
some pedagogical alternatives supported through research in second language acquisition (SLA)
and heritage languages (HL) for future Russian instructors who might have Russian heritage
language learners in their classrooms.
Comprehensible Input and Output
In his research into optimal Russian use in a beginning Russian classroom, Comer (2013)
referenced the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
recommendations that foreign language (FL) teachers should use the target language 90% of the
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 171

time in a foreign language classroom. Due to the lack of cognates, writing system, and syntactic
complexity of Russian, Comer (2013) suggested that the 90% would be hard to attain.
Furthermore, these recommendations did not take into account that many researchers in bilingual
education advocated for a more balanced approach to teaching a second language that involved
hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999), like translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge,
2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) in order to allow the students
to construct and build a new linguistic repertoire and identity with both languages as opposed to
favoring one over the other. With these two ideas in mind, Christian (2008) supported the idea
for utilizing two-way immersion bilingual programs for heritage language learners (HLL).
Under this hypothetical model for Russian, the ratio of heritage language (HL) use and English
would move slowly through several grades from a 90:10 ratio of Russian to English to a 50:50
ratio of both languages. This idea was presented with a caveat, however, as Christian (2008) was
discussing languages that had a significant amount of cognates and a similar writing system,
such as Spanish and English. Therefore, for Russian adults as opposed to children, this model
would need to be amended. A possible amendment is provided below.
The ACTFL and two-way immersion guidelines offer a Russian to English ratio model
for the Russian language instructors (RLI) to follow. For example, Professor Kusna’s mixed
class of beginner Russian foreign language learners (FLL) and beginner to intermediate HLLs
would need more comprehensible Russian input than Dr. Alan’s or Dr. Rosanova’s more
advanced Russian classes. Therefore, a possible ratio would be 70:30, with the goal of moving
toward a possible 60:40 ratio as the students increase their Russian communication skills. On the
other hand, Dr. Rosanova and Dr. Alan should employ a 50:50 ratio due to the level of their
HLLs and FLLs (for Dr. Rosanova). Some of the possibilities for supporting the HLLs hybrid
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 172

cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development might be for each RLI to manage the
classroom activities and curricular materials differently than what was observed in their classes.
These possibilities are presented below.
Professor Kusna. Professor Kusna utilized much of the class time to do grammar
specific activities that required little extended communication in Russian from the students.
Much of this was due to the fact that the class had beginning foreign language learners (FLL)
and beginner to low-intermediate Russian heritage language learners (HLL). Because of this,
Professor Kusna socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) the Russian HLLs in the class as
bilinguals, however, there were few opportunities in class for them to express their bilingualism,
and thus, their cultural hybrid identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). This data determined that the
lack of scaffolded opportunities to speak Russian contributed to their perceived language shyness
(Krashen, 1998). In addition, Professor Kusna often presented antiquated materials from the
Soviet Union along with out-of-date vocabulary. One of the possibilities might be to incorporate
more contemporary cultural content in the class, such as cloze exercises with the lyrics of the
Russian rock music that Professor Kusna would listen to at the beginning of class. In addition to
supporting Russian listening skills, the lyrics of the songs could be employed to teach Russian
case endings and as discussion primers to examine how these lyrics present contemporary
Russian culture. To develop the Russian HLLs’ cultural hybrid identity, Professor Kusna might
have created discursive spaces in the classroom in the form of discussion groups. In these
groups, Professor Kusna could have positioned her Russian HLLs as Russian-English bilinguals
and placed them as “experts” to lead the discussions. This positioning was enjoyed by most of
the Russian HLLs who participated in this study, and this method was already attempted by
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 173

Leeman et al. (2011) with Spanish HLLs and was found to be effective at raising the HLLs
awareness not only of their linguistic skills, but also of their bilingual identity.
Dr. Rosanova. Although Dr. Rosanova’s class was primarily taught in English, the fact
that the foreign language learners (FLL) were more advanced and that Dasha was considered to
be bilingual in both languages designated it for a 50:50 ratio of Russian to English. As this was
the only class that focused on Russian culture as opposed to language, the main implication was
how Dr. Rosanova socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) Dasha and how she utilized the
curricular materials in class. Research showed that Dr. Rosanova did not socially position Dasha
as an expert in Russian nor engage her in Russian during the class, even though it would have
supported her self-identification as a Russian-American by reinforcing the linguistic capital of
Russian (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998). Indeed, Dasha might have
been language shy (Krashen, 1998); and she was one of the participants who had had difficulties
with her hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) in the past. Thus, it would have
benefitted Dasha to have had more opportunities to express herself in Russian as opposed to
English.
The curricular materials that Dr. Rosanova used allowed for a more contemporary
understanding of Russia. She related political and cultural events, protests, such as censorship,
from the 19th and 20th centuries in Russia, to more contemporary protests, such as those by the
punk rock band, Pussy Riot. In addition, Dr. Rosanova stated, and Dasha confirmed, that she
permitted multiple viewpoints of contemporary Russia and attempted to provide balance when
the views were either too negative or positive. This choice to provide balance aided Dasha in
being more positively aware of her hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) as a
Russian-American. Even though Dasha vacillated on her self-identification as a Russian-
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 174

American towards the end of her interview, Dasha claimed to have a strong affinity for her
Russian roots and understanding of Russia as a contemporary society.
Dr. Alan. Dr. Alan was a heritage language learners (HLL) herself and this fact enabled
her to socially position (Davies & Harré, 1990) herself as what Anastasia referred to her as: a
mentor. However, Dr. Alan’s in-class persona as a mentor did not match her personal beliefs
about her role as a mentor to the Russian HLLs. For example, she explained that she was not
responsible for her students’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development
and claimed that she preferred to teach Russian foreign language learners (FLL). She stated that
she did not know the curricular goals of the class or why many of the Russian HLLs were in the
class, other than for an easy “A.” Despite this admission, Dr. Alan’s HLL class came closer than
Professor Kusna’s and Dr. Rosanova’s classes to attaining the 50:50 ratio of Russian to English
by employing bilingual teaching methodology designed to develop a bilingual and hybrid
identity; namely translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link,
2012; Palmer et al., 2014). Translanguaging appeared in the oral form of codeswitching in class
and watching films in Russian outside of class while discussing them in class in either language.
Due to these facts, Dr. Alan socially positioned her HLLs as bilinguals. However, the class did
have some issues that affected the students’ hybrid cultural identity development, such as: (a)
the different levels of HLLs in one class and the subsequent use of more English by the lower
level HLLs, and (b) the lack of contemporary materials that presented Russia as it is today and
not as it was during the Soviet Union.
Dr. Alan admitted that having HLLs with different levels of proficiency was a problem
for her in terms of classroom management and the use of English. Paradoxically, Anastasia
stated that having more advanced Russian HLLs in the class was not a problem for her because
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 175

she said that she could improve her Russian due to contact with them. However, this
discrepancy in levels probably led to the less proficient HLLs utilizing more English than the
more advanced HLLs as they likely suffered from language shyness (Krashen, 1998) as well.
This created an unbalanced ratio of English to Russian in the class for those Russian HLLs.
What Dr. Alan could have done to balance the ratio, would have been to purposefully pair
students with a more advanced level with those from a lower level and provide the space and
activities for them to communicate and generate more comprehensible input and output
(Chambless, 2012; Hall & Cook, 2012; Ortega, 2009).
Another issue was Dr. Alan’s lack of contemporary curricular materials for teaching
Russian. Indeed, when asked about her inclusion of contemporary materials, she referenced her
use of Soviet films which she stated helped to create her identity, suggesting that her concept of
Russian culture was Soviet culture and that her choice of curricular materials was driven by her
experiences. As such, her approach to the curricula of the class resembled Professor Kusna’s.
As Hall (1996) stated that a cultural identity was fluid and would constantly change, it is logical
to conclude that Russia’s culture has also been in constant change and that the Russia of 2017 is
not the former Soviet Union of the early 1990s or before. Thus, Dr. Alan should have
incorporated more contemporary Russian novelists, poets, and films into the curriculum in order
to allow the Russian HLLs to establish a hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) that
is cognizant of modern Russian culture and language. As this research has shown, many of the
aforementioned issues related to the Russian language instructors’ lack of a critically reflective
practice about their role in the Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development.
Critical Reflection. Each Russian language instructor (RLI) was reflective about their
pedagogical practices, with each RLI attaining Larrivee’s (2008) second and third phases of
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 176

reflection, which dealt with the pragmatic and pedagogical aspects of teaching based on the data.
However, there was little evidence to show that they were critically reflective about their role in
their Russian heritage language learners (HLL)’ hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996) or the connection between hybrid cultural identity construction and heritage
language (HL) learning (Beaudrie et al., 2009; He, 2010; Leeman, 2015; Leeman et al., 2011;
Montrul, 2010). This research determined that one method of being critically conscious
(Freire,1990) of the HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity would have been to have created a Third
Space (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) in the class for the explicit
purpose of exploring the HLLs’ discursive and affinity identities (Gee, 2000).
Based on the importance of the Third Space (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje
et al., 2004) in hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development, it is important
to revisit exactly what this Third Space would resemble in the Russian heritage language (HL) or
foreign language (FL) classroom. To begin, Gutiérrez et al.’s (1999) description of the Third
Space is primarily linguistic and paralinguistic. That is, the authors stated that this space is
created when the students and the teacher deviate from the regular curriculum and engage in
discussion about other topics that arise in the classroom. For instance, the authors offered the
example of a classroom discussion about sperm, which started when a student asked what it was.
The ensuing discussion was considered to be in the Third Space as it was not tied to the
curriculum. This space was also considered paralinguistic as it entailed any non-verbal behavior
on the part of the students, such as giggling and smiling.
For this research, the Third Space (Bhabha, 1994; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al.,
2004) is understood as the space actively created by the Russian language instructor (RLI).
What this means is that the RLI should place the Russian heritage language learners (HLL) in
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 177

discussion groups and engage them in Russian discussions about their identity, culture, and
language. Therefore, these discussions may be instructor-led or student-led and do not have to
occur randomly as recent news events or asking HLLs how they spent their weekend can be used
to discuss identity, culture, and language. This research strongly supports this approach in an HL
setting as it views discussions about their identity, language, and culture as paramount to positive
self-identification as Russian-Americans. This space would also be beneficial in a FL context as
well because these discussions about Russian culture and identity would help the Russian foreign
language learners (FLL) gain a deeper understanding of Russia, Russians, and Russian-
Americans than is offered in a traditional classroom or text. This research found that the creation
of this space could have enhanced the effectiveness of Professor Kusna, Dr.Rosanova, and Dr.
Alan due to the fact that they did not view their role as emancipatory (Dewey, 1933; Freire,
1990; Habermas, 1968) as it related to the curriculum, or the classroom as a place to
problematize and question the status quo as it related to Russian-American hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development.
Further support for this assertion was found in the fact that no RLI comprehended critical
reflection as a tool that related to their practice. For example, Professor Kusna related critical
reflection to student reflective writing assignments when responding to a question about her use
of critical reflection. On the other hand, Dr. Rosanova was more aware of the relationship
between culture and identity from a postcolonial perspective, as she stated that she discussed
Edward Said’s concept of “otherness” with the students. However, she did not overtly state that
she related this understanding of “otherness” to her Russian HLL, Dasha, in order to support her
hybrid cultural identity development (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Finally, Dr. Alan stated that
her Russian HLL class was not a therapy session, reinforcing her belief that her role was to teach
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 178

language and not to support her HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity growth as Russian-Americans
bilinguals. Thus, there was a clear delineation between language, culture and identity on the part
of the RLIs and their role in establishing a classroom that combined all three at the time of data
collection.
This finding was reflected in the sometimes contradictory student responses to their
understanding of the relationship between language, culture, and identity. For example, the
majority of Professor Kusna’s students asserted that they did not want culture added to the class
and stated that culture and identity were developed at home and not in the classroom. However,
many of the Russian HLLs in the class used the class to express their affinity identities (Gee,
2000), as they: (a) used the class to connect with other Russian HLLs as they always sat together,
suggesting the use of the class by the Russian HLLs as a place to share common experiences and
(b) appreciated their discourse identity (Gee, 2000) in class as in-the-know Russian experts
socially positioned (Davies & Harré, 1990) by Professor Kusna.
The Russian HLLs’ beliefs about the relationship between identity and language at
Coastal Community College (CCC) was not echoed by Dasha at San Gabriel College (SGC),
who shared the most information of any participant concerning the relationship between
language, culture and identity. However, observations of Dasha’s class showed little
conspicuous evidence of the melding of language and identity as parts of a unified whole. Due
to the use of English as the medium of communication, Dr. Rosanova did not socially position
(Davies & Harré, 1990) Dasha as a bilingual Russian-American. This situation occurred despite
Dasha’s conflicted understanding of her Russian-American identity as discussed in chapter four.
At Topanga State University (TSU), Dr. Alan stated that she believed many of the
Russian HLLs were using the class a social club or as an easy “A.” Nevertheless, Dr. Alan
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 179

viewed her role as helping the Russian HLLs master Russian grammar. In line with Dr. Alan’s
more linguistic focus on the class, Anastasia said that culture and identity were peripherally
connected to her Russian HLL class, but not a consistent focus. However, when asked
specifically about the class and culture, Anastasia likewise said that she would have liked the
class to have presented a more pan-Slavic view of Russia and Eastern Europe as many of the
Russian HLLs in Dr. Alan’s class were Armenian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Russian, and Tadzhik.
What this information presents is a viable need for critical reflection as a pedagogical tool
of the RLIs. Many of the Russian HLLs expressed a conspicuous or inconspicuous desire to
have their specific course engage more of the sociolinguistic aspects of Russian HLLs, such as
the classroom as a locus for the HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996)
construction. For example, a conspicuous desire would be Dasha’s developing Russian-
American identity that was confirmed in data by Dasha and Dr. Rosanova, where as an
inconspicuous desire would be the Russian HLLs at CCC and TSU using the class as a social
gathering place to share their experiences as hybrid cultural identities, or affinity identities (Gee,
2000) as Russian HLLs.
Critical reflection would support the RLIs’ understanding of the relationship between
language, culture and identity in several ways. The first way would be for the RLIs to
understand how they constructed their own cultural identity (Hall, 1996) as it relates to Russia.
Further support for this suggestion is found in the study by Au (1998), who emphasized the need
for teachers to be aware of their own cultural identities in order to comprehend their students’.
The second way would be for the RLIs to understand the possible impact of their cultural identity
construction on their curricular choices and the impact of these choices on the hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) development of their Russian HLLs. The third way would
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 180

be for the RLIs to recognize their classroom as an amalgamation of Russian culture, identity, and
language and not just one or two of these aspects.
The RLIs who participated in this study were classified as having as proximal or distant
relationship to Russia based on the collected data. For instance, Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan
had distant relationships with Russia as Dr. Alan had not returned to Russia since arriving in the
United States as a six-year old child, whereas Professor Kusna had not returned to Russia since
she was a college exchange student there in the 1980s. Therefore, these RLIs constructed an
identity as distant from Russia, with Professor Kusna stating that her relationship to Russia today
was superficial. On the other hand, Dr. Rosanova had a proximal connection to Russia as she
was born and raised in Russia and regularly went back. Thus, Dr. Rosanova constructed an
identity as close to Russia. These relationships to Russia determined how each RLI presented
Russia in class through the use of her curricular materials. In Dr. Alan’s and Professor Kusna’s
case, the curricular materials were mainly from the Soviet era and could have conflated Russia
and the Soviet Union in the Russian HLLs’ eyes, whereas Dr. Rosanova’s curricular materials
were more contemporary.
The use of these Soviet materials by Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan was another indicator
of the need for critical reflection (Howard, 2003) on the part of the RLIs, if one considers the
current toxic political relationship between the United States and Russia (Tsygankov, 2017;
Ziegler, 2014) and understands its possible implications on the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1994; Hall, 1996) development of the Russian HLLs. However, with the exception of Dr.
Rosanova’s class, there was no attempt on the part of Professor Kusna or Dr. Alan to overtly
engage with the students about this topic from any perspective and comprehend its potential
impact on the way the Russian HLLs related it to their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 181

Hall, 1996) development or if it had affected their desire to positively self-identify (Bucholtz,
1999; Seals, 2017) as Russian-Americans.
The omission of this topic at the time of data collection occurred despite many Russian
HLLs stating that they had: (a) an unfavorable view of Russia, such as Felicia, (b) a neutral view
of Russia, such as Steven, (c) a desire to have a pan-Slavic view of Russia, such as Anastasia, or
(d) a conflicted view of her Russian-American identity, such as Dasha. These situations raised
the possibility that the current political impasse between Russia and the United States could
reduce the linguistic and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James,
1998) of Russian and reinforce negative identity practices (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017), or
when the Russian HLL defines herself as not being Russian in favor of her American identity,
which could lead her to lose her Russian. Based on the current situation and many of the
Russian HLLs’ self-proclaimed distant relationship to Russia, emancipatory critical reflection
(Dewey, 1933; Freire, 1990; Habermas, 1968) through the use of a typology (Jay & Johnson,
2003) instead of routine teaching of grammar or employing Soviet materials as the only cultural
materials would have been a powerful tool to aid the RLIs in engaging the students to support
positive identity practices of their Russian-American hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996).
Implications for Practice
In an interview with Dr. Galo, the discussion centered on the Russian heritage language
learner (HLL) and the idea of hybridity. Dr. Galo stated, “students come to us with hybrid
identities.” When she was later asked which identity she believed was stronger for Russian
HLLs, the American identity or the Russian identity, she answered that for the majority of
HLLS, that their “American identity is stronger.” Although Dr. Galo qualified this statement and
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 182

stated that many of the Armenians and Jewish Russians had a very strong sense of being
Armenian or Jewish, it is important to state that the dominant cultural narrative in the United
States favors the use of English and an American identity and can negatively affect HLLs
identity development (Leeman et al., 2011) or their appreciation of the cultural and linguistic
capital of Russian (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998).
In the current hostile political climate between Russia and the United States, a Russian
heritage language learner (HLL) who is developing a hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) could favor the American identity as opposed to establishing a balanced hybrid
cultural identity. This was found to be the case with participants in this study, such as Felicia,
who did not like to acknowledge that she was from Russian ancestry, or with Dasha, who
changed her last name to avoid any negative publicity associated with having a Russian-
sounding last name. Taking into account that the foreign language (FL) or heritage language
(HL) classroom was found to be where many Russian HLLs were re-connecting with their
ancestral roots (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Geisherik, 2004), the Russian language instructor (RLI)
and the HL or FL classroom that she directed could serve as a linguistic support structure for a
balanced hybrid cultural identity.
Based on these findings, two main implications for practice can be drawn from this
research and can be drawn and applied to Russian FL or HL teaching practice. The first
implication is connected to the RLIs’ use of comprehensible and meaningful Russian input
combined with providing opportunities for comprehensible output (Chambless, 2012; Hall &
Cook, 2012; Ortega, 2009). These RLI-provided opportunities for comprehensible output could
help to create a Third Space (Bhahba, 1994; Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Moje, et al., 2004) where
hybrid language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999) such as translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge,
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 183

2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) could occur to aid the HLLs in
the development of their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Moreover, in these
discursive spaces, the RLI could provide the structure to present Russian and English as having
the same linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James) through the use
of a more balanced ratio of Russian and English use in the classroom or the translanguaging of
both. The Third Space in the classroom would be important to hybrid cultural identity
construction as research in HL found a strong link between language and identity construction
(Beaudrie et al., 2009; He, 2010; He, 2004; Leeman, 2015; Leeman et al., 2011; Lo Philip, 2010;
Montrul, 2010). By defining the Third Space as an instructor or student-led discussion of
Russian culture, identity and language, which was somewhat different from the traditional
definition (Bhahba, 1994; Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Moje, et al., 2004), this research aimed to probe
what translanguaging would look like in the Russian heritage language (HL) or foreign language
(FL) classroom for the purposes of positive Russian-American identity construction.
To this point, we, as researchers have failed to provide practitioners with a clear and
concise example of how translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger
& Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014) physically appears in the classroom. As such, the closest that
we have come is to view it as codeswitching or reading or writing in one language while
discussing it in another. In a recent definition of translanguaging, some of the concept’s
founding proponents stated that it was “the use of one’s idiolect or linguistic repertoire without
regard for the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages” (Otheguy, García,
& Reid, 2015, p. 303). Thus, the authors have named translanguaging as an idiolect, or one’s
personal language, or “mental grammar” (p. 289) that the student has developed through
interactions with others. What this means is that the authors do not view translanguaging as
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 184

simply codeswitching because codeswitching only involves grammar without including the
individual features of speakers. While this clearer definition is instructive in a theoretical sense,
it still places translanguaging in an ambiguous place in the classroom. Therefore, a
pedagogically appropriate definition of translanguaging is necessary so that Russian instructors
may employ it and allow their students to do so as well.
For this research, translanguaging is viewed as reading, writing, and speaking in different
languages to make meaning. For example, the Russian language instructor (RLI) would allow
bilingual or multilingual students to read texts in one language and discuss them in another as an
expression of their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). This process would also
entail codeswitching, but codeswitching that is employed by the RLI to raise student awareness
of the similarities or dissimilarities in grammar or vocabulary between Russian and English for
the purpose of increasing the student’s proficiency in Russian.
While translanguaging on its own represents a structured practice for the purpose of
increasing Russian proficiency and expressing a hybrid cultural identity, the Third Space
(Bhahba, 1994; Gutiérrez et al. 1999; Moje, et al., 2004) provides an opportunity for the
unstructured and more personal translanguaging. Thus, this research defined the Third Space as
instructor or student-led discussions about Russian culture, identity, and language. In this space,
the RLI would not focus on the linguistic aspects of Russian, but would allow the free flow of
ideas so as to allow the students to express themselves and reduce any language shyness
(Krashen, 1998) that they might have. The creation of this space and the use of translanguaging
requires that the RLIs use structured critical reflection, which is the second implication of this
research.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 185

This implication supports structured critical reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) as a tool to
aid the RLIs in focusing on their own cultural identities in order to comprehend how the HLLs
(a) might be constructing theirs (Au, 1998) and (b) how their language and curricular choices
might present Russia and Russian, or affect their HLLs’ interpretation of their hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996). Critical reflection would also aid the RLIs in providing
their HLLs with hybrid language reaffirming tasks and support and well as the structure to help
them to utilize the classroom as a place of co-construction and problematization of Russian
language, culture, and identity.
Future Research
The findings in this research could be expanded to produce more generalizable results
given further study. A longitudinal study that encompasses more higher education institutions
with Russian foreign language (FL) classes with heritage language learners (HLL) or Russian
heritage language (HL) classes could provide more insight into the effects of the Russian
language instructors (RLI) use of language and curricular materials on the hybrid cultural
identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) formation of their Russian HLLs. Data provided from
interviews and observations with more Russian HLLs and RLIs could be separated into groups of
those RLIs that provided more comprehensible Russian input and discursive spaces in class
(Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004) for comprehensible output that included hybrid
language practices (Gutiérrez et al., 1999), like translanguaging (Creese & Blackledge, 2015;
García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014), and those that did not. These
results would be examined to understand the strength of the connection between such practices
and the positive or negative (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) hybrid cultural identity development
of Russian-Americans. Next, a larger pool of RLIs could provide valuable information into the
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 186

role that critical reflection plays in their classroom practices and in their powerful role as
language authenticators (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1991; Grenfell & James, 1998) and
supporters of Russian HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity development. If the results from the
longitudinal research find that critical reflection does not play an active role in their pedagogical
practices, then research that seeks to intervene and advocate for critical reflection would be a
strong possibility.
Conclusion
This study investigated how Russian language instructors (RLI) in higher education
described their use of curricula and materials to support the hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha,
1996; Hall, 1996) formation of their Russian heritage language learners (HLL); in addition, this
research ascertained how critical reflection might have aided them in making those in-class
choices. Furthermore, this study juxtaposed the findings from the RLIs with the impact of their
curricular and linguistic decisions on the Russian HLLs. Data showed that the RLIs were
reflective of the pedagogical decisions that they made in class (Larrivee, 2008) concerning the
Russian HLLs, but that they did not see it as their responsibility to support or develop their
HLLs’ hybrid cultural identity and were not critically reflective in a structured (Jay & Johnson,
2002) or emancipatory (Dewey, 1933; Freire, 1990; Habermas, 1968) manner toward that part of
their practice. Indeed, data revealed that many of the Russian HLLs in this study might have
suffered from language shyness (Krashen, 1998) and needed scaffolded opportunities in class to
speak Russian.
Another factor that surfaced during this study related to critical reflection and the HLLs’
hybrid cultural identity development was the RLIs’ cultural and emotional proximity to Russia
and its effect on their teaching of Russian. It was discovered that Professor Kusna and Dr. Alan
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 187

had a more distant relationship to Russia and that this connection influenced their choice of
pedagogical materials and how they presented Russia on the Soviet experience they remembered.
This situation was reversed for Dr. Rosanova, who maintained a strong cultural relationship with
Russia and subsequently employed more contemporary Russian materials.
RLIs who had with Russian foreign language learners (FLL) in class saw it as their
responsibility to teach all of the students and not focus solely on the HLLs as a separate group or
purposely create a hybrid discursive classroom space (Gutiérrez et al, 1999; Moje et al., 2004)
for them to interact through identity-affirming practices such as translanguaging (Creese &
Blackledge, 2015; García, 2009; Horberger & Link, 2012; Palmer et al., 2014). This decision by
the RLIs usually resulted in the use of English outweighing that of Russian due to either the
format of the class or the level of Russian of the FLLs, limiting the comprehensible Russian
input by the RLIs and the comprehensible output of the Russian HLLs (Chambless, 2012;
Ortega, 2009). In like manner, the Russian heritage language (HL) class had Russian HLLs of
different proficiency in class, but data showed that this was not understood as a problem from
one Russian HLL’s point of view; however, it was seen as a problem from the RLI’s perspective,
as Dr. Alan claimed to not understand if her role in the class was to teach the Russian HLLs
grammar or to allow them to just talk. Because of this confusion, the class was replete with
translanguaging, but it was not observed or explained as a cognizant pedagogical decision on the
part of the RLI. Furthermore, the RLI seemed to have no clear pairing or grouping strategy on
to account for the different Russian HLLs’ proficiency levels in the class. Finally, although the
ratio of Russian to English was higher in the Russian HL class due to the higher proficiency
levels of the HLLs, data showed that English was still the language of choice when meaning was
essential.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 188

While interviews showed that the Russian HLLs from Coastal Community College
(CCC) did not want to have much culture attached to the class, observations showed that they
were aware of their hybrid cultural identities (Bhabha, 1994; Hall, 1996) and used the class as a
way to culturally connect with other Russian HLLs, or show their affinity identities (Gee, 2000).
Moreover, they enjoyed their social positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990) in the class as in-the-
know about Russian. Dasha and Anastasia at San Gabriel College (SGC) and Topanga State
University (TSU), respectively, were also aware of their hybrid cultural identity, however they
appeared to better comprehend and accept the classroom as a place where language, culture, and
identity came together.
To conclude, this study supported previous research in HL that found teacher reflection,
and especially critical reflection, to be in its nascent stages in Russian HL research (Correa,
2011; Kagan & Dillon, 2009). This study suggested that RLIs might not be aware or not view it
as their responsibility to account for their classrooms as hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994;
Hall, 1996) affirming locales for their Russian HLLs. Moreover, this study also indicated that
RLIs might not know about hybrid discursive spaces (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje et al., 2004)
and the role that they played in a student’s hybrid cultural identity development. As the political
and social divide between Russia and the United States continues to widen, the role of the RLI in
creating a space for Russian HLLs to develop their hybrid cultural identity (Bhabha, 1994; Hall,
1996) in a positive (Bucholtz, 1999; Seals, 2017) way becomes more important than ever as
these HLLs may serve as a bridge between the two countries in the future.

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 189

References
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of
identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102-117.
Abdi, K. (2011). 'She Really Only Speaks English': Positioning, language ideology, and heritage
language learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(2), 161-190.
Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. H. Hornberger and S. L. McKay (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 205-231). Tonawanda, NY. Multilingual
Matters.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse
backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297-319.
Azimova, N., & Johnston, B. (2012). Invisibility and ownership of language: Problems of
representation in Russian language textbooks. The Modern Language Journal, 96(3),
337-349.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press.
Barthes, R., & Sontag, S. (1982). A Barthes reader. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Relaño-Pastor, A. M. (2009). Curricular perspectives in the heritage
language context: Assessing culture and identity. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
22(2), 157-174.
Ben Shachar, R. (2017, February 15). As UCLA campus grows, architecture recalls style of
original four buildings. The Daily Bruin. Retrieved from:
http://dailybruin.com/2010/01/12/ucla-campus-grows-architecture-recalls-style-origi/
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 190

Berardi-Wiltshire, A. (2012). Reframing the foreign language classroom to accommodate the
heritage language learner: A study of heritage identity and language learning motivation.
New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 21.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6),
645-668.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (1990th
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American
Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153-224.
Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A
theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779-
802.
Bucholtz, M. (1999). “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of
nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203-223.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of
translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401-417.
CO Architects. (2017, February 15). Retrieved from: http://coarchitects.com/project/library-
expansion-renovation/
Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey:
Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign
Language Annals, 44(1), 40-64.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 191

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or
opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-12. Doi:
10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Chambless, K. S. (2012). Teachers’ oral proficiency in the target language: Research on its role
in language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 141-162.
Cho, G., & Krashen, S. D. (1998). The negative consequences of heritage language loss and why
we should care. In S. D. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan, (Eds.), Heritage language
development. (pp. 31-39). Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.
Cho, H. (2014). ‘It's very complicated’ exploring heritage language identity with heritage
language teachers in a teacher preparation program. Language & Education: An
International Journal, 28(2), 181-195. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.804835
Clarà, M. (2015). What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of
Teacher Education, 66(3), 261-271.
Coles‐Ritchie, M., & Lugo, J. (2010). Implementing a Spanish for heritage speakers course in an
English ‐only state: A collaborative critical teacher action research study. Educational
Action Research, 18(2), 197-212.
Comer, W. J. (2013). Thinking through teacher talk: Increasing target language use in the
beginning Russian classroom. Russian Language Journal, 63, 91-112.
Correa, M. (2011). Advocating for critical pedagogical approaches to teaching Spanish as a
heritage language: Some considerations. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 308-320.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20-35.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 192

Christian, D. (2008). School-based programs for heritage language learners: Two-way
immersion. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education:
A new field emerging (pp. 257-268). London, England: Routledge.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language
competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language
Journal, 89(4), 585-592.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state
policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. Retrieved from:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Washington, D.C: Heath & Co.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Dubinina, I., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Russian in the U.S. In M. Moser & M. Polinsky (Eds.),
Slavic languages in migration (pp.1-27). Retrieved from: http://www.mariapolinsky.com
Erlandson, P., & Beach, D. (2008). The ambivalence of reflection - rereading Schön. Reflective
Practice, 9(4), 409-421. doi:10.1080/14623940802475843
Farrell, T. S. C. (2012). Reflecting on reflective practice: (Re)visiting Dewey and Schön. TESOL
Journal, 3(1), 7-16.
Fast Facts. (2017, February 15). Retrieved from:
https://www.pomona.edu/administration/institutional-research/summary-statistics/fast-
facts
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 193

Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(3), 323-346.
Фонд последний адрес. (2017, March 14). Retrieved from: https://www.poslednyadres.ru/
Freire, P. (1990). Education for critical consciousness (1st American ed.). New York, NY:
Continuum Publishing.
Friedman, D. & Kagan, O. (2008). Academic writing proficiency of Russian heritage speakers: A
comparative study. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language
education: A new field emerging (pp. 181-198). London, England: Routledge.
Gallup. (2017, April 20). Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1642/russia.aspx
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. West Sussex,
United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 99-125.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.
Geisherik, A. (2004). The role of motivation among heritage and non-heritage learners of
Russian. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 46(1-2), 9-22.
Geyer, N. (2008). Reflective practices in foreign language teacher education: a view through
micro and macro windows. Foreign Language Annals, 41(4), 627-638.
Grant, L. W., Stronge, J. H., & Ward, T. J. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-
case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 194

Grenfell, M. & James, D. (1998). Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory. Bristol, PA:
Falmer Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano ‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and
hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303.
Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language
Teaching, 45(3), 271-308.
Hall, S. (1996). Hybrid cultural identity and diaspora. In P. Mongia, (Ed.), Contemporary
postcolonial theory: A reader. (pp. 110-121). New York, NY: Arnold.
Hammond, S. P. (2016). Complex perceptions of identity: the experiences of student combat
veterans in community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
40(2), 146-159.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
He, A. W. (2004). Identity construction in Chinese heritage language classes. Pragmatics,
14(2/3), 199-216.
He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity theory of the development of Chinese as a heritage
language. Heritage Language Journal, 4(1), 1-28.
He, A. W. (2010). The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage language learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 66-82.
Helmer, K. A. (2013). A twice-told tale: Voices of resistance in a borderlands Spanish heritage
language class. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 44, 269–285.
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging in today's classrooms: A biliteracy lens.
Theory into Practice, 51(4), 239-247.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 195

Hornberger, N., & Wang, S. (2008). Who are our heritage language learners? In D. Brinton, O.
Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 3-
35). London, England: Routledge.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.
Kagan, O. (2005). In support of a proficiency-based definition of heritage language learners: The
case of Russian. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2-3),
213-221.
Kagan, O. (2010). Russian heritage language speakers in the US: A profile. Russian Language
Journal, 60(60), 215.
Kagan, O. (2012). Intercultural competence of heritage learners: Motivation, identity, language
attitudes and the curriculum. In Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference
September (Vol. 2, pp. 72-84). REDO
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2006). Russian heritage learners: So what happens now? The Slavic
and East European Journal, 50(1), 83-96.
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2009). The professional development of teachers of heritage language
learners: A matrix. Bridging contexts, making connections, 155-175.
Kagan, O., & Kudyma, A. (2011). Writing in Russian for Russian Heritage Speakers. St.
Petersburg, Russia: Zlatoust Publishers.
Kim, J. I. (2015). Issues of motivation and identity positioning: two teachers’ motivational
practices for engaging immigrant children in learning heritage languages. International
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 196

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-14. doi:
10.1080/13670050.2015.1066754
Kit-Fong Au, T. (2008). Salvaging heritage languages. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus
(Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 337-351). London,
England: Routledge.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups
and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 563-581.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2010). Curriculum development for advancing heritage language
competence: Recent research, current practices, and a future agenda. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 30, 24-41.
Krashen, S. D. (1998). Language shyness and heritage language development. In S. D. Krashen,
L. Tse, & J. McQuillan, (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 41-49). Culver City,
CA: Language Education Associates.
Kudyma, A., Miller, F., & Kagan, O. (2010). Beginner’s Russian. New York, NY: Hypocrene
Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It's not my job”: K–12 teacher attitudes toward students'
heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477.
Leeman, J. (2015). Heritage language education and identity in the United States. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 35, 100-119.
Leeman, J., & Martinez, G. (2007). From identity to commodity: Ideologies of Spanish in
heritage language textbooks. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(1), 35-65.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 197

Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Román-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language
education. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 481-495.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and
contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655-670.
Li, D., & Duff, P. (2008). Issues in Chinese heritage language education and research at the
postsecondary level. In A. W. He and Y. Xiao (Eds), Chinese as a heritage language:
Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 13-36). Honolulu, HI. University of Hawai’i Press.
Lo-Philip, S. W. Y. (2010). Towards a theoretical framework of heritage language literacy and
identity processes. Linguistics and Education, 21(4), 282-297.
Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for
multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200-217. DOI:
10.1080/09500782.2014.994524
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2008). 'Because she made beds. Every day'. Social positioning, classroom
discourse, and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 267-289.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.).
San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds
of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 30, 3-23.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 198

Noffke, S., & Brennan, M. (2005). The dimensions of reflection: A conceptual and contextual
analysis. International Journal of Progressive Education, 1(3), 44-63
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing
named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-
307.
Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at
preparing teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in
Education, 37(1), 269-297.
Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on
language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757-772.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. London, England. Sage.
Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 33(2), 305-328.
Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the wild and in the classroom.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368-395. doi:10.1111/j.1749-
818X.2007.00022.x
Reeves, J. (2009). Teacher investment in learner identity. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25(1), 34-41.
Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in
mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131-143.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 199

Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey's legacy to education. Curriculum inquiry,
22(2), 119-139.
Seals, C. A. (2017). Positive and negative identity practices in heritage language education.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-20. Doi: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1306065
Shardakova, M., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 25-46.
Showstack, R. E. (2015). Institutional representations of ‘Spanish’ and ‘Spanglish’: Managing
competing discourses in heritage language instruction. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 15(3), 341-361.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st century language arts teacher?
Language Arts, 90(3), 192-204.
Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2007). A pedagogical application of liminalities in social positioning:
Identity and literacy in Singapore. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 33–54.
Student Background and Demographic Data. (2017, February 15). Retrieved from:
http://www.smc.edu/EnrollmentDevelopment/InstitutionalResearch/Pages/Stu-
Background-Demo.aspx
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 200

Sunstein, B. S., & Chiseri-Strater, E. (2012). Fieldworking: Reading and writing research. New
York, NY: Bedford. St. Mary’s.
Swender, E., Martin, C. L., Rivera ‐Martinez, M., & Kagan, O. E. (2014). Exploring oral
proficiency profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Foreign Language
Annals, 47(3), 423-446.
Tabulda, G. (2011). Beginner’s Russian: Meaning-based, input-driven, learner-centered. The
Slavic and East European Journal, 55(3), 461-464. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/23349219
Tannebaum, R. P., Hall, A. H., & Deaton, C. M. (2013). The development of reflective practice
in American education. American Educational History Journal, 40(2), 241-259.
Tse, L. (2000). The effects of hybrid cultural identity formation on bilingual maintenance and
development: An analysis of Asian American narratives. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 185-200.
Tse, L. (1998). Ethnic identity formation and its implications for heritage language development.
In S. D. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.). Heritage language development. (pp.
51-72). Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates
Tsygankov, A. P. (2017). The dark double: The American media perception of Russia as a neo-
Soviet autocracy, 2008–2014. Politics, 37(1), 19-35.
Undergraduate Profile. (2017, February 15). Retrieved from:
http://www.aim.ucla.edu/UGprofile.aspx
Valdés, 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, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems, Inc.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 201

Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities
lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 410–426.
Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and
pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(3), 211-230.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum
Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228.
Wiley, T. G. (2008). Chinese “dialect” speakers as heritage language learners. In D. Brinton, O.
Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 91-
105). London, England: Routledge.
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the
positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522.
Zabrodskaja, A. (2015). 'What is my country to me?' identity construction by Russian-speakers
in the Baltic countries. Sociolinguistic Studies, 9(2), 217-241.
Ziegler, C. E. (2014). Russian–American relations: From Tsarism to Putin. International
Politics, 51(6), 671-692.

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 202

Appendix A
Survey for Possible RLI Participants in Russian Heritage Language Study
I am a native Russian Speaker, or am
fluent in Russian
(Y/N)
I have a higher degree in Teaching
and/or Pedagogy
(Y/N)

Please specify
degree____________________

I have the following number of years
of teaching Russian as a foreign language at
university:
(1-3) (3-5) (5-7) (7-10) (10 +)
I regularly have the following number
of Russian Heritage Learners in my Russian
language classes
(1-3) (3-5) (5-7) (7-10) (10 +)
This semester/quarter, I have the
following number of Russian heritage
learners in my language classroom
(1-3) (3-5) (5-7) (7-10) (10 +)

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 203

Appendix B
Interview Protocol for Russian Language Instructors and Russian Heritage
Language Learners
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer some of my questions. The interview should last about thirty to forty minutes,
does that work for you?
I am observing several Russian heritage/foreign language classrooms at two sites in
Southern California and am talking to teachers at both sites to learn more about how Russian
instructors describe their use of language and curricula as it relates to Russian heritage learner
hybrid cultural identity development. Likewise, I am researching how the Russian heritage
learners comprehend the effect of those choices on their hybrid cultural identity development.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions (and observations) are not evaluative. I will not be
making any judgments on how you are performing as a professor. None of the data I collect will
be shared with other teachers or the director of the Russian language program.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my dissertation if you are interested. Might
you have any questions about the study before we get started? …. If you don’t have any (more)
questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. I have brought a recorder
with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. May I also have your
permission to record our conversation?

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 204

Introductory RLI Interview Questions
1. Please tell me about yourself. How did you get into teaching? What is your background
Follow up: where are you from? Where did you study to teach Russian?
2. How would you describe your philosophy to teaching Russian as a Second Language?
3. How do you feel that this approach benefits Russian HLLs?
4. I am wondering about a typical day in your classroom, could you please walk me through
how you structure your daily lessons?
5. How many Russian HLLs are in your class now?
a. What is their overall level of Russian in your opinion?
b. What criterion are you basing this level on?
c. What are their strengths and weaknesses?
6. Why do you think that they enrolled in the class?
a. Did they tell you?
b. If they did not tell you, can you infer as to their reasons?
7. Are there any challenges of having Russian HLLs with Russian FL learners in the same
class?
a. Are there any benefits?
8. How do you handle the challenges?
9. How do you profit from the benefits?
10. What texts and curricular materials do you employ in the class?
a. What do you like or dislike about the texts? Curricular materials? Why?

Thank you very much for your time.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 205

Introductory Russian HLL Interview Questions
1. Please tell me about yourselves. Follow up: where are you from? How old are you?
Were you born in the U.S.? In Russia? Where are your parents from in Russia?
2. On average, what is the ratio of Russian to English that you speak in a day?
3. What language do you speak at home?
a. What language are you more comfortable with?
b. Why do you think that you are more comfortable with English/Russian?
c. Did you parents encourage you to take this class? Why? Why not?
d. Have you ever been (back) to Russia? If yes, how did you feel there?
4. Why did you decide to enroll in the class?
a. How do you feel about being in a class with Russian FL learners?
b. What do you see as your strengths and weaknesses with Russian?
c. Do you think that you have improved your Russian reading, writing, and speaking
skills? Why? Why not?
5. How do you feel in the class?
a. Are you comfortable? Uncomfortable? Why?
6. How would you describe your relationship with the professor (RLI)?
7. How do you feel about the text(s)?
8. How do you feel about the curricular materials?
9. How would you describe the professor’s relationship to Russia?
10. How do you feel the text(s) or curricular materials portray Russia?

Thank you very much for your time.
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 206

Subsequent Interview Questions for RLIs and Russian HLLs
Please note: all of my subsequent interview questions will be based off of my
observations in the classroom. Possible examples of the questions are as follows:
Subsequent Interview Questions for RLIs
1. During your interaction with Student A, you stated X; why did you choose to say that?
2. If Student A had answered thusly, how might you have responded?
3. I noticed that the text chapter discussed X, How did you feel about that description of
Russia/Gender relations/American/Russian relations?
4. How would you describe your relationship to Russia?
5. Did you feel that Chapter X accurately portrayed Russian people/students/interactions?
6. If you were able to create a Russian textbook for HLLs, what aspects of Russian culture
and language would you include?
a. What aspects would you leave out? Why?
Subsequent Interview Questions for Russian HLLs
1. When the RLI responded to you…when you said…. how did you feel?
2. When the RLI assisted you with your pronunciation/grammar, how did you feel?
3. How did you feel that this section of the text portrayed Russian
people/students/interactions/Russia?
a. Would you agree with that portrayal? Why? Why not?

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 207

Focus Group Protocol and Questions
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group. I appreciate the time that you
have set aside to answer some of my questions. The focus group should last about thirty minutes,
does that work for all of you?
I am observing several Russian heritage/foreign language classrooms at two sites in
Southern California and am talking to instructors and Russian heritage learners at both sites to
learn more about how Russian instructors describe their use of language and curricula as it
relates to Russian heritage learner hybrid cultural identity development. Likewise, I am
researching how the Russian heritage learners comprehend the effect of those choices on their
hybrid cultural identity development.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions (and observations) are not evaluative. I will not be
making any judgments on how you are performing as a student. None of the data I collect will be
shared with your teacher or the director of the Russian language program.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my dissertation if you are interested. Might
you have any questions about the study before we get started? …. If you don’t have any (more)
questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. I have brought a recorder
with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. May I also have your
permission to record our conversation?
For those of you that I do not know, my name is Matthew Dame Let me tell you a little
about myself….

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 208

Focus Group Questions
1. Why don’t we go around the group and start by you telling me your names and where
you are from.
2. Where are your parents from? Which city?
3. On average, what is the ratio of Russian to English that you all speak in a day?
4. What language do you speak at home?
5. What language are you more comfortable with? Why?
6. Have you ever been (back) to Russia? If yes, how did you feel there?
7. Why did you decide to enroll in the class?
8. How would you describe the learning environment in the Russian class?
9. Could you explain how this class has affected your Russian?
10. How would you describe your relationship with professor…?
11. How do you feel about the text(s)?
12. How do you feel about the curricular materials?
13. How would you describe the professor’s relationship to Russia?
14. How do you feel the text(s) or curricular materials portray Russia?
15. What are your future plans as they relate to classes here and to the Russian language in
general?

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 209

Appendix C
Observation Protocol
Name of Observer Date Time

Location Study

Brief Summary of Observation

Students/Teacher
How many
students are in the
class?
How many
HLLs?

Demographical
information:
 Racial
 Ethnic
 Gender

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 210

Physical layout
of classroom

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 211

Descriptions of
teacher/student
interactions

Student/student
interactions

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 212

Sequence of Events
Beginning
Middle
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 213

End

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 214

Observer Role
How did my interaction/presence affect
the observation participants?

Reflection(s)/Memos/Comments

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 215

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Puncturing Discourse: Russian Heritage Learner Language and Identity in Higher
Education

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Matthew Dame and Dr. Paula M.
Carbone at the University of Southern California, because you meet the necessary criteria for a
university Russian language instructor and/or university Russian heritage learner. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be
given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study has two main goals. First, the purpose of this study is to understand how university
Russian heritage instructors describe their use of classroom language and materials as they relate
to the cultural identity formation of their Russian heritage students. The second purpose is to
understand how Russian heritage learners comprehend the impact of the instructor’s curricular and
linguistic choices on their ethnic identity formation.

STUDY PROCEDURES

Russian Language Instructor
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to allow me and/or my research
assistant to observe your _________________three times and conduct three follow-up interviews
about your use of language and texts or handouts in the class. During the interviews, you will
be asked to allow me/or my research assistant to audio record our session or take notes of what
you say. If you choose not to allow me or my research assistant to audio record our session, then
you may still participate in the interview. Each interview should last about thirty to forty-five
minutes.

Russian Heritage Learner
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to allow me and/or my research
assistant to observe you in your ____________ heritage/Russian foreign language class and
conduct at least one interview with you about how you relate to the heritage class, to Russia and
to the Russian language in general. During the interview(s), you will be asked to allow me or my
research assistant to audio record our session or take notes of what you say. Each interview
should last about thirty to forty-five minutes. If you choose not to allow me to audio record our
session, then you may still participate in the interview. In addition, I may ask you to participate
in a focus group of up to twelve of your heritage language classmates in which my research
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 216

assistant and I ask you and your classmates about the heritage language class, the teacher, and
your relationship to Russia.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS: RUSSIAN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR
During the interviews, I or my research assistant will ask questions about your pedagogy and your
use of classroom texts and language. I will also ask you questions about your students and your
relationship to Russia. Although I do not foresee this being a problem, it might make you
uncomfortable to talk about all or some of these things as your relationship to your students and
Russia is a personal thing.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS: RUSSIAN HERITAGE LEARNER
During the interviews, I or my research assistant will ask questions about your relationship with
your teacher and her use of classroom texts and language. I will also ask you questions about your
personal relationship to Russia and the Russian language. Although I do not foresee this being a
problem, it might make you uncomfortable to talk about all or some of these things as your
relationship to Russia is a personal thing.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
As this is a research study, the benefits are contingent upon the results. I can state only that benefits
are anticipated, not that they will occur. The potential benefits to the Russian heritage learner
participant is a clearer understanding of the role that Russian plays in your ethnic identity
development and why it plays that role. For the Russian language instructor, the benefit might be
a clearer understanding of the relationship between your pedagogy, your use of language, and your
heritage learners’ ethnic identity development.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on an audio recording and transcripts. You will have the right to review/edit
the audio/video-recordings or transcripts. I will have access to the material as will my colleague
and faculty advisor. As the audio recordings will be used for educational purposes, your personal
identities will be disguised. In addition, the audio-recordings will be erased after three years.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 217

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Matthew Dame: Principal Investigator mdame@usc.edu
USC International Academy
University of Southern California
Davidson Conference Center (DCC)
3415 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90089-0875
Tel: +1-213-740-0080

Natalia Dame, Ph.D: Co-Investigator dame@usc.edu
Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures
University of Southern California
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Taper Hall 255
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4353
(213) 740-2735

Paula Carbone, Ph.D: Faculty Advisor paula.carbone@usc.rossier.edu
Rossier School of Education, USC
1150 S. Olive Street, #2100
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-740-0152

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS
□ I agree to be audio-recorded

□ I do not want to be audio-recorded

Name of Participant

PUNCTURING DISCOURSE 218

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study utilizes a post-colonial framework to describe how the linguistic and curricular choices of university Russian language instructors impact the hybrid cultural identity development of Russian heritage language learners. The purpose of this research is to advocate for the use of critical reflection as a pedagogical practice of instructors who have Russian heritage language learners in a foreign or heritage language setting. The research questions encompass how Russian language instructors express their employment of language and curricular materials in the classroom and their subsequent effect on the heritage language learners’ hybrid cultural identity. This study also examines if the instructors use critical reflection to handle student identity issues. This qualitative research used a purposeful sample from three higher education institutions. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations from three Russian language instructors and five Russian heritage language learners. Findings from this study show that the instructors were aware of the pedagogical differences between Russian heritage and foreign language learners, but that they did not see their heritage language learners’ hybrid cultural identity development as their responsibility. Likewise, the instructors were not critically reflective of their heritage learners’ attempts to self-identify as Russian-American. Therefore, this study underlines the need for Russian instructors to be cognizant of not only the pedagogical, but also the affective implications of their classroom choices. Findings imply that structured critical reflection would enhance a Russian instructor’s ability to support her heritage learner’s hybrid cultural identity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices

PDF

Exploring the reflective practices of secondary, in-service teachers of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

Teaching critical thinking in secondary foreign language classrooms

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

The effects of being a voluntarily childless female educator

PDF

The role of teachers in academic discussion

PDF

Reflective journeys: African American community college STEM students' perceptions on equity and access

PDF

Fostering and cultivating culturally empathetic early childhood educators: A curriculum for pre-service educators

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

College readiness: terms and conditions may apply

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

PDF

Reflective practice and the Master of Public Administration degree

PDF

Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment

PDF

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Dame, Matthew Stephen (author)

Core Title Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/17/2019

Defense Date 06/12/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag critical reflection,cultural identity,hybridity,linguistic capital,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-colonial theory,Russian heritage learners,Russian instructors,translanguaging

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair), Anya, Uju (committee member), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member)

Creator Email mdame@usc.edu,sdame2673@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-406006

Unique identifier UC11264064

Identifier etd-DameMatthe-5557.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-406006 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DameMatthe-5557.pdf

Dmrecord 406006

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dame, Matthew Stephen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA