View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Academic Landscape for Russian Heritage Learning in U.S. Colleges: Understanding Institutional Practices and Identifying Opportunities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Academic Landscape for Russian Heritage Learning in U.S. Colleges: Understanding Institutional Practices and Identifying Opportunities
Language: English
Authors: Olesya Kisselev, Irina Dubinina, Dmitrii Pastushenkov (ORCID 0000-0001-6321-1647), Jason Merrill
Source: Foreign Language Annals. 2025 58(3):604-625.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Russian, Native Language Instruction, College Programs, Language Teachers, College Faculty, College Students, Educational Practices, School Policy
DOI: 10.1111/flan.70002
ISSN: 0015-718X
1944-9720
Abstract: Language classrooms in North America have changed significantly in the past decades. They no longer serve only mainstream second language learners whose primary exposure to the target language is in the classroom; instead, they now often include heritage language learners, whose exposure to the language began at home and who arrive at college-level language programs with varying degrees of general proficiency and variably developed literacy skills. Heritage speakers are a valuable resource in fostering national expertise in world languages and cultures (Rivers & Brecht, 2018) and may help boost dwindling university enrollment numbers. To better understand how institutional approaches and policies impact the success of heritage learners, this descriptive survey-based study examined responses from experienced Russian language instructors representing 43 Russian language programs across the United States. The online survey provided data for quantitative analysis, including raw numbers, percentages, descriptive statistics, and confidence intervals, as well as insights from open-ended responses. The results show that Russian heritage language learners often remain invisible to institutions and administrators. Institutionalized spaces for heritage students, such as specialized courses, appropriate placement tests, and customized pathways to the completion of a minor or major are not always available.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1484351
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGFr0EUHCbuSNjjTdG5-QlLAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAre8E_gt7mtoULh_QIBEICBmsBWvjdNnDhADoc6y-Lr6f9bPx7I80dkm20Qk7C9CoX2y-uJQYpZmDIC-Y0RO9iumj2e2PS4jW6fysgtsMXWhnHu8NMpZspXgsznDiD4ETczVBxi7qIe2o_actqC5_dnq7aNtbr-GuD4ETg8mNDkydkY2YZO_LaVHgX0MtkM_84qvz-fOsze6uZVO8W8dNQB1Aw-78NsB_l7T4M=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188175710;fla01sep.25;2025Sep26.05:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188175710-1">The academic landscape for Russian heritage learning in U.S. colleges: Understanding institutional practices and identifying opportunities </title> <p>Language classrooms in North America have changed significantly in the past decades. They no longer serve only mainstream second language learners whose primary exposure to the target language is in the classroom; instead, they now often include heritage language learners, whose exposure to the language began at home and who arrive at college‐level language programs with varying degrees of general proficiency and variably developed literacy skills. Heritage speakers are a valuable resource in fostering national expertise in world languages and cultures (Rivers & Brecht, 2018) and may help boost dwindling university enrollment numbers. To better understand how institutional approaches and policies impact the success of heritage learners, this descriptive survey‐based study examined responses from experienced Russian language instructors representing 43 Russian language programs across the United States. The online survey provided data for quantitative analysis, including raw numbers, percentages, descriptive statistics, and confidence intervals, as well as insights from open‐ended responses. The results show that Russian heritage language learners often remain invisible to institutions and administrators. Institutionalized spaces for heritage students, such as specialized courses, appropriate placement tests, and customized pathways to the completion of a minor or major are not always available.</p> <p>Keywords: access to language education; heritage language learners; language program administration; Russian language</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01sep25/flan70002-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan70002-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188175710-3">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Multilingual competency is widely recognized to be of significant importance to the U.S. government as well as in business, medical, and educational spheres (Brecht & Ingold, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]). Nevertheless, most <emph>monolingual</emph> Americans remain monolingual, and among them an ability to engage meaningfully in more than one language remains a rarity (Maxwell & Garrett, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref2">42</reflink>]). The state of U.S. world language education, both at the secondary and postsecondary levels, suggests that the situation will not improve any time soon. Universities are cutting language requirements (Pettit, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref3">46</reflink>]) and closing entire language and culture departments (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]). Only about 20% of U.S. high school students (compared to over 90% of their European peers) and a mere 7.5% of U.S. college students take world language courses (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]; Devlin, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]). In fact, undergraduate enrollments in U.S. world languages classes have been steadily declining since the late 1970s (Maxwell & Garrett, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref7">42</reflink>]). This process is accelerating: between fall 2016 and fall 2021, enrollments in languages other than English (LOTE) in higher education dropped by 16.6% (Lusin et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]), affecting both more commonly taught languages (e.g., Spanish and French) and less commonly taught languages (LCTL) such as Russian.</p> <p>Adding to the enrollment issue is the fact that students who study world languages in U.S. colleges often do so for only two to three semesters, not enough time "to acquire any usable level of competence" (Lusin et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref9">40</reflink>], p. 24). The majority of language enrollments are in Spanish, and fewer than 10% of language students study LCTLs such as Arabic, Portuguese, or Russian (Lusin et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>], p. 24). This state of affairs concerns many education researchers, businesses, and U.S. government officials, who agree that the U.S. workforce is poorly prepared for the globalized world (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Carreira & Kagan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Kraemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]). It also prompts many to echo the commonly held stereotype that the United States is the most devoutly monolingual populace in the world (cf. Lambert, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref15">37</reflink>]; Matsuda & Duran, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref16">41</reflink>]; Potowski, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>]). While monolingual Americans tend to remain monolingual, the number of people living in the United States who speak a LOTE is significant. This number has tripled over the past three decades and, as of 2022, represented 20% of our population (Dietrich & Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]). These American speakers of LOTEs did not learn these languages in traditional classrooms; 75% learned it at home (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>], p. 23).</p> <p>This demographic reality is also reflected in language classrooms. Today, most are likely to include not only traditional second language (L2) learners whose primary exposure to the target language happens in the classroom, but also heritage language (HL) learners, whose initial exposure to the language begins at home. Many HL arrive to high‐school and college‐level language programs with some degree of general functional ability in their home language. Current projections suggest that the bulk of U.S. population growth in the next 50 years will come from immigration, meaning that HL speakers will continue to have a significant presence in American society and classrooms (Beaudrie & Loza, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]; Carreira & Kagan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]; Fry et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2022, in the United States, 941,454 people aged five or above spoke Russian at home (Dietrich & Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]), which makes it the country's 12th most commonly spoken language. This number is likely larger, as a significant proportion of US immigrants who came from any of the post‐Soviet states speak Russian in addition to their ethnic language and often use Russian as a lingua franca in the diaspora. Russian speakers in the US tend to be well educated, with 92% holding a high school diploma and 51% a bachelor's degree. Sixty‐eight percent fall within the high‐earning bracket (Potowski, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref25">48</reflink>]), and most children of Russian‐speaking immigrants are likely to attend college. Recent geopolitical events are likely to lead to an increase in Russian speakers in the United States.</p> <p>In this article, we examine Russian language programs at the postsecondary level as a representative case of a smaller HL in the U.S. educational landscape. Russian offers a compelling example of how the learning needs of HL students are addressed in higher education, as Russian language instruction is increasingly rare in K‐12 settings. Given that many Russian HLs encounter formal instruction only at the university level, understanding the institutional and pedagogical conditions shaping those programs may have valuable implications for various smaller HLs. This study used a descriptive, survey‐based approach to identify the factors that support or hinder HL Russian instruction in higher education (e.g., enrollment, placement practices, differentiation). Findings contribute to the broader understanding of HL learning in U.S. higher education and offer insights that may benefit other LCTLs seeking greater visibility and sustainability on campus.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-4">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p>Since the turn of the century, there has been some recognition of HL speakers as a potentially valuable resource in fostering national expertise in world languages and cultures (Brecht & Ingold, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]; Peyton et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]; Rivers & Brecht, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref28">51</reflink>]), and in helping boost dwindling language enrollment numbers in colleges (see Modern Language Association, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]). At the same time, the unique challenge of educating HL learners has long been acknowledged. A growing community of HL language instructors and researchers has devoted time and effort to developing pedagogies that address the key challenges and needs of HL learners, such as vast variability in the degrees of general linguistic knowledge, oral proficiency, and literacy skills, as well as differences in motivations and attitudes toward language (re)learning and maintenance (see, e.g., Beaudrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]; Brinton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]; Fairclough & Beaudrie, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; Kagan & Carreira, & Chik, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]; Kisselev et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]; Trifonas & Aravossitas, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref35">55</reflink>]; Webb & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref36">58</reflink>]). Similarly, theoretical and experimental research on the linguistic systems of HLs has resulted in greater understanding of the structural, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and cognitive aspects of acquisition and maintenance in situations of unbalanced bilingualism (e.g., Benmamoun et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]), which makes it possible to fine‐tune the pedagogical approaches applied in HL classrooms (e.g., Kisselev et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref38">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast to the growing research devoted to HL pedagogy, less is known about the programmatic and administrative aspects of HL education, with only a handful of studies addressing this topic to date (see Beaudrie & Loza, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; Beaudrie & Marrero‐Rivera, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]; Beaudrie, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]; Carreira & Kagan, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]; Carreira, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>]; Gironzetti & Belpoliti, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]; Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>]). Most of these focus on Spanish, which is by far the most widely spoken, studied, and researched HL in the United States. All point to the fact that actual support at the postsecondary level seems to be insufficient even for more populous HL programs such as Spanish, despite the recognition of the importance of administrative commitment in HL education (cf. UCLA Steering Committee, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref47">56</reflink>]). For example, despite the large size of most Spanish language programs and the number of heritage speakers of Spanish among U.S. students, university Spanish HL programs typically are not considered a priority, paralleling the secondary status of Chicano Literature and Culture programs (Alvarez, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Analyzing the difficulties and successes of HL programs across various institutions, Beaudrie ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>]) identified four key programmatic markers of successful HL programs (defined as programs with an increase in enrollment over 5 years). They included having a dedicated HL program administrator, having instructors trained specifically for teaching the language as HL, providing ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers, and engaging in active recruitment and program promotion efforts. Unfortunately, as Beaudrie ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]) noted, these markers were decidedly not present in all or even most HL programs. Beaudrie and Marrero‐Rivera ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref51">8</reflink>]) reported that many programs remained small and faced persistent challenges, including a lack of institutional support, that limited their ability to serve HL learners effectively. Gironzetti and Belpoliti ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]) also found that the learning of Spanish as an HL in U.S. colleges was undermined by limited course offerings, the lack of a standardized HL‐centered curricular framework, and the reliance on mixed classes that did not necessarily meet specialized HL learning needs. Furthermore, Beaudrie and Loza ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]), in their exploration of programmatic challenges of Spanish HL programs in U.S. colleges, observed that creating a space for Spanish HL programs in institutions of higher education continues to be challenging for ideological, practical, and financial reasons at both the departmental and university levels. They wrote, "HL program directors are often tasked with negotiating the complexities of building an HL program from scratch or carving a space for a program that, unlike L2 programs, is not institutionalized" (p. 66). They concluded that faculty's work with HL students often was not viewed as valuable by the department or the institution.</p> <p>Similar obstacles may permeate college‐level HL Chinese instruction. Luo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>]) demonstrated that HL learners most often study alongside non‐heritage learners in mixed classrooms due to budgetary and enrollment constraints, and that courses focusing on HL Chinese are only offered at larger, financially stronger institutions. They argued for differentiated learning targets in heterogeneous HL classrooms and for more effective and context‐sensitive models of differentiated instruction, but recognized that this was a tall order without institutional support.</p> <p>Studies that look at multiple HL languages provide further evidence that college‐level language programs do not successfully tap the valuable resource represented by HL speakers to develop national language capacity or effectively address their learning needs. Carreira and Kagan's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]) comprehensive survey of HL learners of various languages in the U.S. (<emph>n</emph> = 1732) and their experiences learning their HLs in college found that 73% of the respondents attempted to take some class in the HL, but HL instruction was not "institutionalized" (p. 160; i.e., was not part of regular programmatic structures and often depended only on the will and efforts of individual instructors). Carreira's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]) further examination of over 300 programs for HL learners of various languages in postsecondary contexts showed the insufficiency or lack of institutionalized support that is characterized by limited course options for HL learners, lack of tenured faculty teaching in these programs, and lack of professional development for instructors. Other constraints included low student enrollment, which put specialized HL courses in a precarious position, and lack of appropriate HL‐focused teaching materials.</p> <p>Placement practices are another challenge facing the institutionalization of HL education. As Potowski et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref57">50</reflink>]) highlight, the broad variability in HL students' skills and proficiencies creates a unique challenge for language departments. At the same time, placement practices affect HL students' subsequent learning achievements in language programs (Bowles, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]; Ji, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]) and, therefore, are crucial to the success of HL programs. Despite the acknowledged crucial nature of placement, relatively little is known about the most appropriate and effective ways to determine the proper courses for HL students. Synthesizing available research on HL placement practices across various HLs in the U.S. college programsJi ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]) identified three main issues with placement of HL students: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) varied definitions of HL learners used in the studies; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) lack of specially‐tailored placement methods (e.g., biographical questionnaires, locally designed placement tests); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>) logistics, focusing on the necessity of involving multiple stakeholders (e.g., educators, advisors, students). All these foci require dedicated resources, which are limited, as practice and research demonstrate.</p> <p>It becomes clear from these prior studies that institutional support for HL education at US colleges leaves much to be desired. In fact, Carreira and Kagan's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref64">18</reflink>]) proposal for HL education explicitly named the institutionalization of HL education within language departments and specialized teacher training as the main objectives for the field in the next 50 years. They ultimately advocated for the development of sustainable programs that do not depend on individual champions whose enthusiasm may or may not be supported by appropriate linguistic and pedagogical knowledge and whose workloads often could take them away from HL teaching. Furthermore, while research on Spanish, as the largest HL program in the United States, provides us with the baseline against which we may compare other HL programs, we need to diversify research on programmatic issues into various HLs to uncover unique factors that affect languages with larger and smaller student populations coming from well‐established or newer immigrant communities. The current disparity in research across specific HLs with only Spanish having a more established body of literature may obscure the administrative, programmatic, and educational realities of other HLs that have smaller populations and even less institutional support. Even for Chinese, the second most well‐represented HL on U.S. campuses after Spanish, we were able to identify only one study on programmatic aspects (see Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref65">39</reflink>]). Yet, without better understanding of patterns and features of institutional practices, we stand little chance of developing practical suggestions on how to design, develop, and advance HL programs for less commonly taught HLs.</p> <p>In this article, we focus on Russian language programs at the postsecondary level as a representative case of a smaller HL. The primary goal of our descriptive survey‐based study is to identify institutional, programmatic, and pedagogical strategies that contribute to or hinder the success in teaching HL learners of Russian. The study focuses on the postsecondary context because Russian language programs are increasingly rare at the K‐12 level: In fact, only 83 U.S. high schools reported offering classes in Russian in 2024 (LLC Commons, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref66">38</reflink>]), which is a dramatic decrease from 2017, when the National K‐12 Foreign Language Enrollment Survey Report (The national K‐12 foreign language enrollment survey report, 2017) listed 147 high‐school programs in Russian. Thanks to a somewhat healthier number of college‐level programs, most HL speakers of Russian have the chance to formally engage with their HL only at the university level.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>]</p> <p>To begin to understand how institutions address the needs of HL learners of Russian in U.S. colleges, we conducted a nation‐wide online survey of Russian language instructors. We posed the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Do students with a Russian‐speaking background seek language instruction in their HL at universities and colleges?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What are the main characteristics of existing programmatic and institutional structures and resources available to Russian HL learners? Specifically, what institutional(ized) practices exist, includingavailability of specialized courses, course enrollment requirements, instruction and assessment differentiation, and placement procedures?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. In the existing language learning/teaching ecologies, how are instructors prepared, supported by programs and institutions, and able to address their HL students' unique learning needs, including teaching loads and access to communities of practice and professional development?</item> <p></p> <item> 4. How do instructors feel about the effectiveness of programs and their own efforts in supporting HL students?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188175710-5">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188175710-6">Survey</hd> <p>The development of the survey items, data analysis, and other steps in the project were informed by previous studies utilizing surveys of HL programs (e.g., Beaudrie & Loza, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref68">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref69">7</reflink>]; Beaudrie, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Carreira & Kagan, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]; Gironzetti & Belpoliti, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]; Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref73">39</reflink>]), literature on HL pedagogy (e.g., Fairclough & Beaudrie, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref74">24</reflink>]; Kisselev et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>]), previous survey‐based research in L2 education (e.g., Sato et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref76">52</reflink>]), and the authors' extensive experience teaching Russian, including work with Russian HL students. The final survey consisted of 68 items (survey used in this study is available through the IRIS database, Kisselev et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>]) distributed across five sections: I. Instructor and institution background (Q1–Q14); II. Student population and program structure (Q15–Q37); III. Professional preparedness and development for teaching HL (Q38–Q43); IV. Pedagogical strategies (Q44–Q63); and V. Program effectiveness evaluation (Q64–Q68). Items included multiple‐choice questions, often with "other" options for detailed responses, and Likert‐scale items. Skip logic was utilized in several items to ensure the content remained relevant. Respondents of the survey also had the opportunity to provide additional comments on topics such as placement, compensation, specialized courses, independent studies, and student motivation. Conducted online via Qualtrics, the survey required approximately 25 min to complete.</p> <p>Because this survey was the first to focus specifically on Russian HL learners, it was largely informed by the authors' own experiences and feedback from a pilot conducted before the main study. Two experienced Russian language instructors assessed the survey's content validity, providing critical feedback on specific items, such as clarifying institutional definitions of language requirements, offering options for multiple course types, and reordering questions. Regarding reliability, and consistent with Sato et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref78">52</reflink>]), piloting the survey for internal consistency reliability among a larger group of Russian language instructors was avoided to prevent potential participant loss.</p> <p>Most participants were recruited via an email list for scholars interested in Slavic and East European languages and cultures. Additionally, we individually emailed several instructors to expand our participant pool. For data cleaning, we followed procedures established in prior research on L2 education surveys (Sato et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]). Responses with completion rates below 85% were excluded. Responses from instructors outside the United States were also removed as they fell outside the study's scope. In cases where multiple responses were received from more than one instructor at the same university, we utilized the data from the respondent with the greatest amount of teaching experience. The goal of data cleaning was to ensure a balanced and representative sample, with one respondent representing each university and Russian language program in the United States.</p> <p> <emph>Data Analysis</emph>. Descriptive in nature, this survey aimed to use quantitative analysis of closed‐ended questions to provide a description of the current situation. The analysis involved calculating raw numbers, percentages, and descriptive statistics, including means (<emph>M</emph>), standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>), and standard errors (<emph>SE</emph>). Additionally, inferential statistics, expressed as 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated where applicable. Excerpts from open‐ended questions were incorporated to illustrate points made by respondents that did not align with the response options provided in the closed‐ended questions.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-7">Participants</hd> <p>The analysis included data from 43 individuals who taught Russian at various institutions across the United States (see Figure 1). They were affiliated with public colleges and universities (<emph>n</emph> = 23), private colleges and universities (<emph>n</emph> = 17), and 2‐year institutions and colleges (<emph>n</emph> = 3). Given that 324 higher education institutions in the United States offer Russian language courses (School of Russian and Asian Studies, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref80">53</reflink>]), the response rate was 13%.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01sep25/flan70002-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan70002-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Geographic spread of the respondents' institutions in the United States." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In terms of institution size, 47% of respondents worked at institutions with more than 15,000 students, and 33% at ones with more than 5000 but less than 15,000 students. Most respondents (86%) held a PhD in language‐related disciplines, specializing in areas such as Russian or comparative literature (28%), second language acquisition (22%), and Russian linguistics/philology (17%). The sample included predominantly native speakers of Russian (58%) and English (26%), along with self‐reported bilinguals, including three Russian‐English bilinguals, and multilinguals. On average, respondents had 23.40 years of teaching experience (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.44) and 12.30 years of experience (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.72) specifically with Russian HL students.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-9">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188175710-10">Presence of HL students in Russian language programs</hd> <p>All instructors who participated in the survey indicated that they frequently work with HL students in mainstream courses designed primarily for L2 learners (see Figure 2). Most respondents (63%) reported teaching HL learners every semester in such mainstream courses, while 26% did so every other semester. The remaining instructors (12%) taught HL learners every other year. A different trend was observed with regard to specialized HL courses: 56% of survey respondents had never taught courses specifically for HL (see Figure 3).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01sep25/flan70002-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan70002-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 HL students in mainstream Russian language courses. HL, heritage language." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01sep25/flan70002-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan70002-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 HL students in specialized Russian language courses. Note: The "other" option regarding specialized courses included teaching such courses only once, teaching them every few years, teaching them for a few semesters 20 years ago, and other similar cases. HL, heritage language." /> </p> <p></p> <p>HL learners represented a noticeable number of students in Russian language and culture courses. In a typical year, the reported average enrollment of HL students in mainstream Russian language courses in the respondents' institutions was less than five students (47% of survey respondents); 5–10 students (26%); 10–20 students (18%); 20–30 students (10%). Instructors reported an average of three HL students in every level of instruction (i.e., first, second, or third year) including content‐based courses.</p> <p>Most respondents (80%) reported that their institutions offered a major in Russian and/or related fields (e.g., Russian language and literature, Russian studies, Russian linguistics), and on average, these programs graduated six majors and six minors annually. HL students were represented among graduating majors and minors: 57% of survey respondents stated that, of the HL students who came through their programs in a typical year, up to 25% decided to major or minor in Russian, and 20% of instructors reported that 25%–50% of their HL students did so. Additionally, 71% of respondents reported that, on average, up to a quarter of all their graduating majors or minors were students with a heritage background.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-13">Availability of specialized courses and enrollment requirements</hd> <p>Two‐thirds of respondents (67%) stated that their institution had not offered specialized Russian HL courses in the past 5 years (excluding independent studies). The primary reason for not receiving authorization to offer such courses was the institution's minimum enrollment requirement (reported by 56% of respondents), followed by a lack of sufficient faculty to teach these courses (24%). The official minimum enrollment required for an HL course varied, usually depending on the institution's size, and ranged from 1 student (reported by 6% of respondents, two programs) to 16 students (also 6%). The most commonly cited minimum enrollment requirements were 10 students (24%), 15 students (15%), and 5 students (12%).</p> <p>Despite independent studies being relatively common in the Russian‐teaching field, 47% of instructors reported that their institutions never offered this option for HL students (see Figure 4). Among the respondents who did offer independent studies (53%), some did so every semester (9%), every other semester (9%), or every other year (9%). Multiple instructors (26%) chose the "other" option, indicating irregularity in offering independent studies, with comments such as "very infrequently" or "every few years," and one instructor stating that their program no longer offers independent studies for HL students.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01sep25/flan70002-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan70002-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Frequency of independent study offerings for HL students. HL, heritage language." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188175710-15">Differentiation of instruction and assessment</hd> <p>Differentiated instruction involves recognizing learner differences and employing instructional approaches that target diverse needs differently (Carreira, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref81">16</reflink>]). We asked the survey participants about their approaches to differentiating syllabi and instruction in mixed and specialized classes. Responses varied (<emph>M</emph> = 5.97, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.72), ranging from never (5%) to always (19%), and the majority (78%) reported using a non‐differentiated syllabus in their mainstream classes and addressing the needs of HL students on an ad hoc basis. A small number (8%) indicated significant differentiation of their syllabi for HL and L2 students, dedicating a substantial part of their effort to creating specialized materials and activities that target the needs of different learner groups. In specialized courses with HL students, teachers also differentiated instruction, addressing unique challenges of each HL learner; they tended to differentiate more frequently (<emph>M</emph> = 6.94, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.09) in such courses, with responses ranging from never (13%) to always (38%). In discussing specific practices, instructors frequently emphasized the use of authentic materials for HL learners, including Instagram and news outlets like Voice of America, Svoboda, and bbcrussian.com.</p> <p>Respondents were also asked to rate the frequency of differentiating assessments on a 10‐point Likert scale. In mainstream classes, responses ranged from never (11%) to always (21%), with an average rating of 6.37 (i.e., somewhat closer to "always" than "never," <emph>SD</emph> = 2.76). Similarly, in specialized courses with HL students, responses ranged from never (12%) to always (29%), averaging 6.35 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.91).</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-16">Placement practices</hd> <p>Placement practices varied across the responding institutions. At the time of the survey, 83% of respondents indicated that their institutions had some form of language requirement. Among those with a requirement, 76% did not differentiate the requirements for HL and L2 students. In some institutions, the language requirement for HL students could be met by one (24%) or two (32%) specialized HL courses, assuming such courses were offered. HL students also had the option to test out of the requirement, as reported by 72% of respondents. Typically, HL students could test out by completing an in‐house exemption/placement test (86%), or by using a NEWL score (7%) or a Seal of Biliteracy (7%).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>] Testing out was common, with 40% of respondents reporting that up to 25% of their HL students tested out annually, and 18% indicating this number was between 25% and 50%.</p> <p>While the instructors we surveyed acknowledged the importance of placement for HL students, the practices reported were not generally tailored to the fact that each HL student has a unique background. Most respondents (51%) reported using the same placement test for HL and L2 learners; 26% had a separate test for HL students, and 23% did not use a placement test at all. Those respondents whose programs had a placement procedure relied on different types of tests and usually a combination of some of the following: oral interviews (reported by 65% of survey respondents), discrete grammatical item test (53%), reading comprehension test (53%), essay (44%), and listening comprehension test (21%). Overall, Russian language programs varied in their placement practices, ranging from no formal tests to specialized assessments for HL students encompassing multiple skills.</p> <p>Students' literacy levels were a concern when determining placement. As expected, instructors indicated that when HL learners joined their programs, they usually had better‐developed oral skills than literacy skills. Respondents reported that their HL learners could recognize Cyrillic letters (81%); could read and understand short, uncomplicated texts (67%); could write a few words in Russian (58%); and could write meaningful messages, albeit with errors (49%). Moreover, 74% of the respondents reported that a few of their Russian HL students acquired at least some literacy skills in Russian before enrolling in college‐level Russian courses, often through attending community‐based schools or private tutoring. However, this literacy issue sometimes made it impractical to conduct any placement tests beyond an oral interview. Several respondents reported that their program offered so few Russian language courses that a detailed placement procedure was rendered unnecessary.</p> <p>Respondents evaluated the effectiveness of their program's current placement test for HL students using a 10‐point Likert scale, generally giving positive ratings (<emph>M</emph> = 7.18, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.29), which were echoed in their responses to a follow‐up question. While respondents considered their placement practices "generally sufficient" and "mostly effective," they acknowledged potential limitations and proposed improvements. Many suggested that incorporating a standardized test could enhance placement effectiveness. Another respondent indicated a desire for their program to develop a specific test for HL students to differentiate them from L2 Russian learners. Consistent with these observations, one respondent noted a reliance on mainstream courses in their placement practices. In their program, HL students were placed into the third‐year Advanced Grammar course, which included about 30% HL learners, with the expectation that they would progress to fourth‐year content‐based courses.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-17">Instructors' teaching loads</hd> <p>Survey participants were asked whether teaching HL students (whether in specialized courses or independent studies) counted toward their overall teaching load: 33% stated that it counted toward their teaching load and they were compensated for it, while 26% reported that it did not count toward their teaching load, and they mostly taught HL students through independent studies or additional tutoring. Seventeen percent of the respondents reported that teaching HL students counted as part of their official teaching load, but they would not be compensated for any extra credits taught.</p> <p>Notably, 24% of the respondents selected the option "other" when answering the question about their teaching loads and availability of specialized HL courses. One respondent, for example, mentioned teaching HL students every summer in their STARTALK program,[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>] which was not part of the regular curriculum or workload and depended on external funding.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-18">Access to professional development and communities of practice</hd> <p>The importance of teacher professionalization in HL teaching was widely acknowledged by respondents. Many reported engaging in professional development on Russian HL acquisition and pedagogy in the past 5 years and indicated a number of areas in which they were interested in future professional development (see Tables 1 and 2). We asked how often they collaborated with colleagues teaching other HL languages to enhance their pedagogy. Most respondents (62%) engaged in such collaboration sometimes, while 31% never did. Only 5% regularly conducted research on Russian HL acquisition and pedagogy.</p> <p>1 TABLE Engagement in professional development on Russian HL acquisition and pedagogy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Reading research literature</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>Attending conferences</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Attending workshops or continuing education</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>Attending STARTALK programs</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>Participating in an email listserv or discussion group for Russian HL teachers</td><td>8%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 TABLE Desired professional development opportunities on Russian HL acquisition and pedagogy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Attending workshops or continuing education</td><td>70%</td></tr><tr><td>Мore opportunities for cooperation and collaboration with colleagues researching HL acquisition</td><td>60%</td></tr><tr><td>Reading journal or sections in existing journals on Russian HL teaching</td><td>53%</td></tr><tr><td>Мore guidance on advocacy for Russian HL students and teachers at various levels</td><td>51%</td></tr><tr><td>Мore collaboration with teachers of other HLs</td><td>49%</td></tr><tr><td>Participating in an email listserv or discussion group for Russian HL teachers</td><td>47%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Despite the respondents' willingness to engage in professional development, support for such opportunities varied greatly among their institutions. Twenty‐six percent of respondents received funding for conference participation, while an equal percentage received no institutional support. Additionally, 16% received funding for teaching innovation and/or new course development, and 12% received funding for workshops focused on HL pedagogy. Only 6% reported receiving in‐house funding for research or in‐house workshops/seminars.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-19">Program effectiveness</hd> <p>Finally, we asked respondents to evaluate their program's success in supporting Russian HL students (see Table 3). The responses tended toward more positive ratings on a 10‐point Likert scale (<emph>M</emph> = 6.77, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.72) although they did not indicate a high degree of satisfaction. Similarly, the respondents' views of the quality of support for HL learners were more positive than negative, although there was greater variation among respondents on this question (<emph>M</emph> = 6.37, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.16). They also perceived their personal HL teaching strategies as relatively successful (<emph>M</emph> = 6.81, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.73). However, there was a general consensus and strong agreement among respondents that more could be done to support HL students, both at the individual instructor level (<emph>M</emph> = 7.61, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.08) and at the program level (<emph>M</emph> = 8.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.04).</p> <p>3 TABLE Evaluation of program effectiveness (10‐point Likert scale).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th /><th /><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>My language program is successful in helping Russian HL students develop their language skills.</td><td>6.66</td><td>1.70</td><td>0.26</td><td>6.15</td><td>7.17</td></tr><tr><td>My language program provides adequate support for HL students.</td><td>6.24</td><td>2.14</td><td>0.33</td><td>5.61</td><td>6.88</td></tr><tr><td>My personal strategies working with HL students have been successful.</td><td>6.85</td><td>1.77</td><td>0.27</td><td>6.32</td><td>7.41</td></tr><tr><td>I could do more to support HL students in my program.</td><td>7.61</td><td>2.08</td><td>0.33</td><td>6.95</td><td>8.24</td></tr><tr><td>My institution/program could do more to support HL students.</td><td>8.39</td><td>2.04</td><td>0.33</td><td>7.68</td><td>8.97</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188175710-20">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188175710-21">(In)Visibility of Russian HL students in Russian programs</hd> <p>One of the most interesting findings of this survey is the fact that Russian HL learners comprise a significant percentage of students in Russian language programs, despite the fact that few institutions offer specialized HL courses or have dedicated HL programming. In a typical year, each Russian language course (including first through fourth semester mainstream courses and upper‐division content‐based courses) seats on average three HL students. Half of the Russian programs responding to the survey reported an average of five HL students, while a quarter of programs had 10 or more, meaning that, given the generally modest numbers of students in Russian language classes overall, HL students provide a considerable boost to language enrollments.</p> <p>These results align with and partially explain the data in MLA reports that show that while overall enrollments in Russian are down, the percentage of students studying the Russian language at the advanced level is consistently stronger than in most other languages (Kraemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). Specifically, the past three MLA enrollment reports (2013, 2016, 2021) indicate a sustained low ratio of enrollment numbers in Russian language introductory versus advanced courses (3:1). In other words, for every three Russian enrollments at the introductory levels, there is one enrollment at the advanced level. Equal to Portuguese and Chinese, these numbers are significantly better than those of Spanish or French (5:1), Hebrew or Arabic (6:1), or Italian (10:1) (Lusin et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref85">40</reflink>]). We hypothesize that HL learners of Russian, who often place at the advanced level or get to this level faster than traditional learners, could be contributing to the relatively strong enrollments at the upper level.</p> <p>The significant percentages of Russian HL learners as majors/minors clearly show the potential of this group of learners to not only contribute to diversification of the student body and enrichment of the cultural and linguistic experiences for L2 learners, but also to contribute to the health of our language programs. However, their presence in language programs is not immediately visible to administrators even at the departmental level. If a program does not offer specialized HL courses, it is easy to overlook the fact that almost every course has a few HL learners and that together they make up a significant proportion of students in our courses. Their visibility, perhaps, increases as departments count students receiving a major or a minor, but overall HL learners may remain underappreciated by college administrators who authorize course offerings and instructor hires.</p> <p>While any HL program, regardless of its size, has to engage in advocacy for their students (cf. Beaudrie, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>]; Gironzetti & Belpoliti, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]), Russian programs seem to face an additional challenge: promoting the cause of HL education for only a handful of students who are not visible at the level of department heads and deans is a tall order.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-22">Specialized HL curricula</hd> <p>In line with findings from studies of other HL contexts (cf. Beaudrie & Marrero‐Rivera, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref88">8</reflink>]; Beaudrie, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>]; Gironzetti & Belpoliti, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref90">26</reflink>], for Spanish; Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref91">39</reflink>], for Chinese), our research shows that institutionalized support for Russian HL students—such as specialized courses, variety of course offerings, and customized pathways toward minors or majors—is typically unavailable at US colleges and universities. Over a decade ago, Carreira and Kagan ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref92">17</reflink>]) identified the lack of institutionalization of the HL agenda as a major barrier to establishing successful HL programs. Unfortunately, this challenge remains and is particularly acute for instructors of Russian working with HL learners today.</p> <p>The main reason for the lack of specialized HL courses cited by our survey respondents is the minimum enrollment requirements: a quarter of our survey respondents reported that this minimum was 10 students, and another 15% worked at institutions that set this bar as high as 15 students per class. Such numbers are unrealistic for a "small" language like Russian and, in fact, are likely unrealistic for any newly developed academic initiative related to HL instruction. Enrollment restrictions are often related to budget constraints, which have been cited in prior studies as negative factors for program growth (Carreira & Kagan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref93">18</reflink>]; Gironzetti & Belpoliti, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref94">26</reflink>]; Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref95">39</reflink>]). Thus, specialized HL courses find themselves in a vicious circle: without the initial investment into smaller classes, it is impossible to build strong curricula, to grow the reputation for such courses, and to ensure a constant and growing flow of HL students. Without a commitment to this agenda from college administration, necessary programmatic and pedagogical innovation cannot happen.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-23">Placement practices</hd> <p>Programmatic culture of placement may also contribute to lower enrollment numbers in Russian HL courses. The survey indicated that testing out of the language requirement was common, with 40% of respondents reporting that up to 25% of their HL students tested out in a typical year, and 18% reporting that this number was between 25% and 50%. In most cases, HL students could fulfill the language requirement by completing an in‐house exemption/placement test (86%), or by using a NEWL score (7%) or a Seal of Biliteracy (7%) and not taking any Russian language courses.</p> <p>Granting exemptions from language requirements is a complex and controversial topic. On the one hand, there is an ideological position in the bilingualism movement that calls for the acknowledgment of and rewards for students' prior engagement with language learning (see Davin & Heineke, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref96">20</reflink>]). Hence, some instructors may feel that they are providing appropriate support for their students' bilingualism by granting them language credits or exemption from language requirements. On the other hand, if HL learners test out of the language requirement and do not take any language courses, programs lose a unique opportunity to further develop students' bilingual range (Beaudrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>]) and to open spaces for conversations about the intrinsic and extrinsic value of preserving a HL. Experience shows that many, if not most, HL students do not realize that their HL can be an academic pursuit or career path because they rarely encounter such views before enrolling at a university. Carreira and Kagan ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]) showed that Russian HL speakers were motivated to formally study Russian mostly by desire for better communication with family and friends in the United States and abroad and to enhance their cultural knowledge. Hence, even if HL learners attend community schools before coming to college, they may not understand the potential academic and professional value of advanced‐level Russian.</p> <p>Further complicating the emerging picture of Russian HL educational ecologies, our survey indicated that placement tests did not seem sophisticated enough to address the unique characteristics of Russian HL learners or their extreme intra‐group heterogeneity, something that was noted for other HLs as well (e.g., Potowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref99">50</reflink>]). Only 26% of respondents whose institutions had a testing‐out/placement procedure indicated that they had a separate test for HL learners, while 51% reported using the same test for both L2 and HL students. Considering the reported lack of availability of specialized HL courses, placement tests seemed to be used to make decisions about which mainstream course HL students could join or whether to exempt a student from the university's language requirement, rather than to diagnose HL learners' most pressing learning needs and to provide a more fine‐tuned placement. In this aspect, Russian, as a smaller HL, is not different from its larger cousin Spanish HL: there is no easy solution for designing a test that can account for the extreme variability of HL linguistic profiles (Potowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref100">50</reflink>]). But Russian programs could increase the effectiveness of their placements by drawing on previous research on effective placement practices that emphasizes an inclusion of biographical questionnaires and aligning the assessment of both receptive and productive language skills with specific linguistic and cultural characteristics of HL learners (Ji, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref101">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the lack of differentiated placement tests, the majority of respondents were satisfied with their placement procedure. One way to explain this finding is by considering the goals of placement procedures: When there are as few as two outcomes for placement (i.e., to differentiate between an HL learner with no literacy skills for placement in a beginner class from those who can enroll in an advanced mainstream course), even a coarse diagnostic method can be fairly accurate (Potowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref102">50</reflink>]; Sohn & Shin, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref103">54</reflink>]). Nevertheless, some participating instructors did note complexities and challenges with their existing placement tests, especially those that concerned HL learners' literacy skills.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-24">Differentiated instruction</hd> <p>One great instructional challenge in both mixed and specialized courses is Russian HL learners' well‐documented lack of literacy skills and knowledge of metalanguage required for the development of literacy (Kagan & Dillon, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref104">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref105">31</reflink>]; Kisselev et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]). In our survey, only half of the instructors reported that their HL students could write meaningful messages in Russian, albeit with some errors. Thus, their literacy skills overall were viewed as an important pedagogical focus in placement and instruction. Since many HL speakers generally have at least intermediate‐level oral skills, even those with no prior literacy skills end up in upper‐level courses. A pedagogical solution to the conundrum in combining traditional and HL learners of vastly different language abilities is differentiation. Much of the HL pedagogy literature points to the importance of differentiated syllabi—curricula, pedagogical materials, and instructional approaches tailored to the specific needs, abilities, and motivations of HL learners—as key to student success (e.g., Beaudrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref107">5</reflink>]; Carreira, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref108">16</reflink>]). Yet, as our survey showed, differentiation remains out of reach for most Russian HL instructors and students. Firstly, language programs rarely offer specialized Russian HL courses (67% of programs do not in our survey) and mix HL and L2 speakers even in beginning language courses, when the skills of the L2 and the HL learners are most mismatched and differentiation is most needed, yet also most difficult to implement (Campanaro, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref109">14</reflink>]; Carreira, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref110">15</reflink>]). Secondly, in these mixed classes, most instructors in our survey did not employ differentiated syllabi or practice differentiating instruction (78% of respondents), despite their genuine concern for HL learners. Developing differentiated syllabi, tasks, and assessments for mixed classes, especially considering that in Russian language classes there is a great mismatch in proficiency levels of the two groups of learners, requires a significant investment of time on the part of the teacher as well as appropriate training. Without institutional support, when instructors are afforded time and space to learn, develop, and incorporate specialized curricula and materials for HL learners, differentiation remains a tall order for most teachers.</p> <p>Furthermore, previous studies of HL learners in mixed Spanish classes indicated that proficiency levels of L2 learners play a role in the success of a mixed class for HL students (Campanaro, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref111">14</reflink>]). Additionally, the composition of mixed classes affects how much benefit each group of learners derives: if there is an approximately equal number of both types of learners or if there is a majority of HLs in the group, and if tasks are carefully designed, then differentiated instruction tends to be more successful because the contexts of acquisition for L2 and HL learners confer complementary strengths and weaknesses (Carreira, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref112">15</reflink>]). In classes where there is a significant difference in the proficiency levels of the two groups, as is normally the case in beginning and intermediate, and even advanced, mainstream Russian language classes, the effectiveness of mixed group instruction may be undermined, despite even the most carefully designed tasks. As prior research on Spanish HL shows, learning opportunities may be unbalanced and tend to favor L2 learners in mixed classes with a big difference in proficiency levels (Bowles et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref113">11</reflink>]; Montrul & Bowles, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref114">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-25">Professional preparedness</hd> <p>Institutional investment in supporting HL learners should also attend to the professional development of faculty, who, despite general enthusiasm and dedication to their learners, normally are not adequately prepared to work with HL learners (cf. Beaudrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref115">5</reflink>]; Carreira, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref116">19</reflink>]). The question of instructor preparedness has been prominently raised in Carreira and Kagan's proposal for HL education (2018), where they note low enrollments and lack of appropriate teacher training among the greatest programmatic challenges for HL teaching. Indeed, as our survey suggests, Russian HL instructors need training on how to differentiate placement, instruction, and assessment in mixed classes as well as in specialized HL courses.</p> <p>It should go without saying that even if the instructors are supported through professional development, they need to be properly compensated for the additional work they do to support different types of language learners. Our study highlighted the fact that the efforts of the instructors go under‐appreciated: 26% of survey respondents reported that teaching HL students did not count toward their teaching load and they were not compensated for doing independent studies or additional tutoring, and another 17% of the respondents reported that although their work with HL students counted on their teaching record, they were not compensated for it (cf. similar problems for Spanish HL programs in Beaudrie & Loza, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref117">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-26">IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188175710-27">Institutional visibility and targeted outreach</hd> <p>The findings indicate that Russian HL learners largely remain invisible to college administrators and that institutionalized practices addressing their specific learning needs remain rare. To effectively support Russian HL learners, institutions should prioritize targeted outreach strategies. As previous research emphasizes the critical role of first impressions and individualized faculty attention in influencing students' commitment to language study (Morgan & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref118">45</reflink>]), Russian programs must intentionally design promotional materials and orientation activities that explicitly welcome HL learners. Including detailed information about specialized tracks, placement options, and potential career and academic trajectories in recruitment and orientation communications can greatly enhance visibility and effectively communicate institutional commitment to heritage learners.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-28">Optimizing course placement practices</hd> <p>The results from our study underscore the inadequacy of current placement mechanisms for appropriate and most effective support of Russian HL learners. Effective placement significantly impacts students' academic experiences and decisions regarding continuation or specialization in language studies. Consequently, Russian programs should invest in developing or refining placement practices tailored for various levels of oral and written proficiency for HL learners, as was suggested in Ji ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref119">28</reflink>]). Whether or not programs offer specialized HL courses and/or a wide selection of courses in the program, more precise placement procedures would benefit the instructors by providing them with useful information for more effective differentiation of instruction and assessment of HL learners in mainstream classes (e.g., Bowles, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref120">10</reflink>]). Drawing from validated methodologies in other HL contexts, such as biographical questionnaires and proficiency assessments that account for the linguistic competencies unique to heritage learners, could significantly improve course placements (Beaudrie & Marrero‐Rivera, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another important lesson which should be derived from the current study is the importance of finding creative ways to engage with HL students who come to Russian/Slavic programs. For example, colleges may consider giving credits toward graduation for a successful exemption test or Seal of Biliteracy if a student enrolls in at least one Russian language course, referred to as retroactive credit (Davin, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref122">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-29">Curricular and pedagogical development</hd> <p>The lack of dedicated curricular and instructional paths identified in this study suggests an urgent need for curricular innovation within Russian HL education. Specialized curricular paths, including distinct courses for HL learners, have demonstrated success in other linguistic contexts (Carreira & Kagan, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref123">17</reflink>]; Uebel et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref124">57</reflink>]). Thus, Russian programs should advocate for institutional resources to support the development of dedicated HL curricula and pedagogical training specific to HL instruction. Encouraging and incentivizing such curricular and pedagogical innovations will help to systematically address the unique linguistic, cognitive, and cultural needs of HL learners.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-30">Fostering community and institutional networks</hd> <p>Our findings highlight complex educational ecologies that significantly influence Russian HL learners' experiences. Programs must work actively to cultivate a sense of community and facilitate robust institutional networks to better support these learners. Establishing mentorship programs, peer tutoring networks, and dedicated spaces for HL students can substantially enhance their academic experiences and foster stronger institutional attachment (Van Gorp et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref125">27</reflink>]). Moreover, building cross‐departmental collaborations and networks with offices such as student affairs, advising, and admissions can strengthen institutional understanding and support for HL education initiatives. Strategic partnerships can also broaden visibility, secure financial and administrative backing, and foster a more integrated and supportive institutional climate for Russian HL learners.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-31">Limitations</hd> <p>Given the study's limited sample, no additional reliability statistics were calculated. This limitation underscores the need for further research with larger samples—as well as other methodologies—to evaluate our survey's reliability more comprehensively, potentially using methods such as factor analysis. Because of the study's limited sample size, no further inferential statistics were calculated. This limitation underscores the need for future research to utilize larger samples, enabling more robust statistical analyses and deeper insights into this underexplored population.</p> <hd id="AN0188175710-32">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>The United States is home to one of the world's largest Russian‐speaking diasporic communities (after Israel and Germany), both due to arrivals from the Soviet Union before its dissolution in 1991 and a subsequent continuous flow of immigrants from Russia and other newly independent post‐Soviet states. To achieve the ambitious goal of "building an education system that is responsive to heritage communities and national language needs and capable of producing a broad cadre of citizens able to function professionally in both English and another language" (Brecht & Ingold, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref126">12</reflink>], p. 5), U.S. language programs must attend to the unique needs of HL learners by designing programs and curricula attuned to their needs. The results of our study aligned with the findings of prior research that highlighted many institutional, ideological, and practical challenges in maintaining HL education in language programs, something that holds true even for the largest and fastest‐growing populations of bilingual students in the United States. Ultimately, attending to the unique learning needs of HL learners will not only enhance their educational experience but will also strengthen and sustain language programs, ensuring their continued relevance and vitality in a US higher education.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supporting information.</p> <ref id="AN0188175710-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref48" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Access to world languages other than Spanish, French and, perhaps, German at American schools is extremely limited. As Maxwell and Garrett ([42]) point out, the United States "is virtually the only developed country in the world that places the real burden of language learning on the postsecondary system" (p. 24).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> A NEWL score is a standardized test result from the National Examinations in World Languages, which assesses proficiency in LCTLs. A Seal of Biliteracy is a recognition given by a school or state to students who have achieved a certain proficiency level in two or more languages by the time of high school graduation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref63" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> STARTALK is a national grant program funded by the National Security Agency with the goal to develop language capacity of Americans in languages deemed as having security importance for the U.S. Russian is one of these "critical languages" (https://<ulink href="http://www.startalk.info/">www.startalk.info/</ulink>).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0188175710-34"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alvarez, S. M. (2013). Evaluating the role of the Spanish department in the education of US Latin@ students: Un testimonio. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12 (2), 131 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2017). America's languages: Investing in language education for the 21st century. Commission on Language Learning. https://<ulink href="http://www.amacad.org/publication/americas-languages">www.amacad.org/publication/americas-languages</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beaudrie, S. (2012). Research on university‐based Spanish heritage language programs in the United States. In S. Beaudrie, & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 203 – 222). Georgetown University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref42" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beaudrie, S. M. (2020). Towards growth for Spanish heritage programs in the United States: Key markers of success. Foreign Language Annals, 53 (3), 416 – 437. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Beaudrie, S. M., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref20" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beaudrie, S. M., & Loza, S. (2021). Insights into SHL program direction: Student and program advocacy challenges in the face of ideological inequity. Language Awareness, 32 (1), 39 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1949333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beaudrie, S. M., & Loza, S. (2023). Heritage language program direction: Research into practice. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref41" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beaudrie, S. M., & Marrero‐Rivera, A. (2023). Research on university‐based Spanish heritage language programs in the United States: The state of affairs In 2022. Foreign Language Annals, 57 (1), 10 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39 (3–4), 129 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowles, M. A. (2022). Using instructor judgment, learner corpora, and DIF to develop a placement test for Spanish L2 and heritage learners. Language Testing, 39 (3), 355 – 376. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221076030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowles, M. A., Adams, R. J., & Toth, P. D. (2014). A comparison of L2–L2 and L2–heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 98 (2), 497 – 517. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brecht, R., & Ingold, C. (2002). Tapping a national resource: Heritage languages in the United States (ERIC Digest EDO‐FL‐02‐02). Center for Applied Linguistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464515.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brinton, D. M., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (Eds.) (2017). Heritage language education: A new field emerging. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campanaro, T. G. (2013). Spanish heritage speakers and second language learners in mixed classrooms: Perceptions of students and instructors (Publication No. MS25108) [Master's thesis, University of Alberta]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1503137674">www.proquest.com/docview/1503137674</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carreira, M. (2017). Guiding principles and practical strategies for teaching mixed classes. Webinar, American Council of Teachers of Russian. Accessed April 1 3, 2025. https://actr.org/Webinar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carreira, M. (2016). A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 159 – 176). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.49.09car</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01118.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2018). Heritage language education: A proposal for the next 50 years. Foreign Language Annals, 51 (1), 152 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12331</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carreira, M. (2014). Teaching heritage language learners: A study of program profiles, practices, and needs. In P. Trifonas, & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Rethinking heritage language education (pp. 20 – 44). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davin, K. J., & Heineke, A. J. (2025). The Seal of Biliteracy in higher education: Harnessing students' cultural and linguistic strengths at colleges and universities. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davin, K. J. (2025). Origins and purposes of the Seal of Biliteracy. In K. Davin, & A. Heineke (Eds.), Harnessing students' cultural and linguistic strengths at colleges and universities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032667249-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devlin, K. (2018). Most European students are learning a foreign language in school, while Americans lag. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/06/most-european-students-are-learning-a-foreign-language-in-school-while-americans-lag/">www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/06/most-european-students-are-learning-a-foreign-language-in-school-while-americans-lag/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dietrich, S., & Hernandez, E. (2019). Language use in the United States: 2019. American Community Survey Reports.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fairclough, M., & Beaudrie, S. M. (Eds.) (2016). Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom. Georgetown University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fry, R., Lopez, M. H., Cohn, D. 'V., Passell, J. S., & Brown, A. (2015). Modern immigration wave brings 59 million to U.S., driving population growth and change through 2065. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/">www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gironzetti, E., & Belpoliti, F. (2021). The other side of heritage language education: Understanding Spanish heritage language teachers in the United States. Foreign Language Annals, 54 (4), 1189 – 1213. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Gorp, K., Uebel, E. H., Kronenberg, F. A., & Murphy, D. (2024). How important is studying languages for undergraduate students and why (not) study languages? Foreign Language Annals, 57 (4), 900 – 920. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ji, J. (2021). College‐level placement for heritage language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 54 (3), 690 – 713. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, S. (2019). Colleges lose a 'stunning' 651 foreign‐language programs in 3 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22. https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/colleges-lose-a-stunning-651-foreign-language-programs-in-3-years/">www.chronicle.com/article/colleges-lose-a-stunning-651-foreign-language-programs-in-3-years/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kagan, O., Carreira, M., & Chik, C. H. (Eds.) (2017). The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2018). Heritage language education: Development of the field in the United States. Language Teaching, 51 (4), 485 – 503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2017). Issues in heritage language learning in the United States. In N. Van Deusen‐Scholl, & S. May (Eds.), Second and foreign language education: Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1 – 16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02246-8_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kisselev, O., Dubinina, I., Pastushenkov, D., & Merrill, J. (2025). Questionnaire from "The academic landscape for Russian heritage learning in U.S. colleges: Understanding institutional practices and identifying opportunities" [Text/Materials]. IRIS Database. https://doi.org/10.48316/Bse66-tDSlV</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kisselev, O., Laleko, O., & Dubinina, I. (2024). Russian as a heritage language in the 21st century: Bridging research in linguistics and pedagogy. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraemer, A., Merrill, J., & Prestel, D. (2020). Russian programs in the 21st‐century university. In E. Dengub, I. Dubinina, & J. Merrill (Eds.), The art of teaching Russian (pp. 49 – 72). Georgetown University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert, R. (1988). The national foreign language system. CALICO Journal, 6 (4), 7 – 22. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24147509">www.jstor.org/stable/24147509</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert, R. D. (2001). Updating the foreign language agenda. The Modern Language Journal, 85 (3), 347 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LLC Commons. (2024). University of Arizona. https://llccommons.arizona.edu/map/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, H., Li, Y., & Li, M. Y. (2019). Heritage language education in the United States: A national survey of college‐level Chinese language programs. Foreign Language Annals, 52 (1), 101 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12378</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lusin, N., Peterson, T., Sulewski, C., & Zafer, R. (2023). Enrollments in languages other than English in US institutions of higher education, Fall 2021. Modern Language Association of America.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsuda, A., & Duran, C. S. (2013). Problematizing the construction of US Americans as monolingual English speakers. In V. Ramanathan (Ed.), Language policies and (dis)citizenship: Rights, access, pedagogies (pp. 35 – 51). Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, D., & Garrett, N. (2002). Meeting national needs: The challenge to language learning in higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34 (3), 22 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380209601851</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Modern Language Association. (2007). Ad Hoc Committee on foreign languages. Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2017). Instructed heritage language acquisition. In Sh, Loewen, & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 488 – 502). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, W. J., & Thompson, A. S. (2023). "My friend travis says": A look at enrollment trends in language classes in the United States. Foreign Language Annals, 56 (2), 259 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12683</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettit, E. (2023). Scholars see dangerous precedent in West Virginia U. 's plan to cut foreign languages. Chronicle of Higher Education, https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/scholars-see-dangerous-precedent-in-west-virginia-u-s-plan-to-cut-foreign-languages">www.chronicle.com/article/scholars-see-dangerous-precedent-in-west-virginia-u-s-plan-to-cut-foreign-languages</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peyton, J., Carreira, M., Wang, S., & Wiley, T. (2008). Heritage language education in the United States. In K. King, N. Schilling‐Estes, L. Fogle, J. J. Lou, & B. Soukup (Eds.), Sustaining linguistic diversity: Endangered and minority languages and language varieties (pp. 173 – 186). Georgetown University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potowski, K. Ed. (2010). Language Diversity in the USA. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potowski, K. (2020). No child left monolingual: How and why to promote multilingualism in US schools. In D. Cohn, & H. Kahn (Eds.), International education at the crossroads (pp. 156 – 173). Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ghv48c.21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potowski, K., Parada, M., & Morgan‐Short, K. (2012). Developing an online placement exam for Spanish heritage speakers and L2 students. Heritage Language Journal, 9 (1), 51 – 76. https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.1.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivers, W. P., & Brecht, R. D. (2018). America's languages: The future of language advocacy. Foreign Language Annals, 51 (1), 24 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sato, M., Loewen, S., & Pastushenkov, D. (2021). Who is my research for?': Researcher perceptions of the research‐practice relationship. Applied Linguistics, 43 (4), 625 – 652. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> School of Russian and Asian Studies. (2024). Survey of Enrollments in Russian Language Classes, 2024. Accessed April 13, 2025. https://sras.org/educators/survey/2024-college-survey-of-enrollments-in-russian-language-classes</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sohn, S. O., & Shin, S. K. (2007). True beginners, false beginners, and fake beginners: Placement strategies for Korean heritage speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 40 (3), 407 – 418.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trifonas, P. P., & Aravossitas, T. (Eds.) (2018). Rethinking heritage language education. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UCLA Steering Committee. (2000). Heritage language research priorities conference report. Bilingual Research Journal, 24 (4), 475 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2000.10162779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uebel, E. H., Kronenberg, F. A., & Sterling, S. (Eds.) (2023). Language program vitality in the United States: From surviving to thriving in higher education (63). Springer Nature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, J. B., & Miller, B. L. (2000). Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the classroom. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Olesya Kisselev; Irina Dubinina; Dmitrii Pastushenkov and Jason Merrill</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref125"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1484351
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Academic Landscape for Russian Heritage Learning in U.S. Colleges: Understanding Institutional Practices and Identifying Opportunities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Olesya+Kisselev%22">Olesya Kisselev</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Irina+Dubinina%22">Irina Dubinina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dmitrii+Pastushenkov%22">Dmitrii Pastushenkov</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6321-1647">0000-0001-6321-1647</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jason+Merrill%22">Jason Merrill</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Foreign+Language+Annals%22"><i>Foreign Language Annals</i></searchLink>. 2025 58(3):604-625.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Russian%22">Russian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Language+Instruction%22">Native Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Programs%22">College Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Teachers%22">Language Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Policy%22">School Policy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/flan.70002
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0015-718X<br />1944-9720
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Language classrooms in North America have changed significantly in the past decades. They no longer serve only mainstream second language learners whose primary exposure to the target language is in the classroom; instead, they now often include heritage language learners, whose exposure to the language began at home and who arrive at college-level language programs with varying degrees of general proficiency and variably developed literacy skills. Heritage speakers are a valuable resource in fostering national expertise in world languages and cultures (Rivers & Brecht, 2018) and may help boost dwindling university enrollment numbers. To better understand how institutional approaches and policies impact the success of heritage learners, this descriptive survey-based study examined responses from experienced Russian language instructors representing 43 Russian language programs across the United States. The online survey provided data for quantitative analysis, including raw numbers, percentages, descriptive statistics, and confidence intervals, as well as insights from open-ended responses. The results show that Russian heritage language learners often remain invisible to institutions and administrators. Institutionalized spaces for heritage students, such as specialized courses, appropriate placement tests, and customized pathways to the completion of a minor or major are not always available.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1484351
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1484351
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/flan.70002
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 604
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Russian
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Native Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Policy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Academic Landscape for Russian Heritage Learning in U.S. Colleges: Understanding Institutional Practices and Identifying Opportunities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Olesya Kisselev
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Irina Dubinina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dmitrii Pastushenkov
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jason Merrill
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0015-718X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1944-9720
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Foreign Language Annals
              Type: main
ResultId 1