Cansu Doğlu is an English teacher based in North Cyprus. She completed her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in English Language Teaching, graduating with top honors. She has experience teaching at Girne American College and currently works full-time at Özgür Ortadoğulular Education Center. Her research focuses on heritage, identity, and their impact on teaching practices. She is building a publications portfolio and has participated in academic events.

Prof. Dr Carol Griffiths has been a teacher, manager and teacher trainer of ELT for many years. She has taught in many places around the world, including New Zealand, Indonesia, Japan, China, North Korea, Turkey, UK and North Cyprus. She has presented at numerous conferences and published widely. Learner issues,  learning strategies, language intake, teacher education and support, and using literature to teach language are her major areas of research interest. Email: carolgriffith5@gmail.com, website: www.carol-lorac.com, webpage: www.carolgriffiths.net

 

Abstract

Although the heritage concept was introduced to the language field in the 1970s, it has attracted little interest until relatively recently. But heritage is a human factor which has the potential to significantly influence teacher identity and teaching practice, and the study reported in this article aimed to investigate this issue. The participants included a group of teachers, born abroad, but who had returned to their heritage environment to teach English. They were asked to complete a questionnaire, followed up by interviews. When compared, results indicated that, although some problem areas were noted, the teachers were generally positive about their heritage background, especially since it enabled them to use code switching to clarify meaning and that they could approach their students’ difficulties on a human level with empathy based on their own experience. Implications of these findings are suggested, for both the immediate and wider contexts, as well as directions for further research into this important but neglected topic.

 

Introduction and review of literature

The importance of language learner identity is now well-established, with Norton’s (1997) seminal work stimulating decades of subsequent research by numerous scholars (e.g., Hajar, 2017). In contrast, interest in teacher identity has emerged more slowly. Although Connelly and Clandinin’s (1999) influential edited volume on teacher identity was published only two years after Norton’s work, the field did not gain comparable momentum until much later (e.g., Barkhuizen, 2017: Barkhuizen & Mendieta, 2020).

Teacher identity is now recognized as a multifaceted and dynamic construct that encompasses how teachers perceive themselves and are perceived by others (e.g. Tajeddin & Yazan, 2024). It is not a fixed characteristic, but an evolving trait influenced by pre-service education, in-service teaching experiences, and broader sociocultural influences. Teachers actively negotiate their roles and self-concepts in response to geographical location, institutional requirements, cultural expectations, and pedagogical demands. This negotiation often involves tensions between personal beliefs and professional obligations, especially in multilingual or multicultural settings. In other words, teacher identity is both “context-sensitive and agency-driven” (Lord, 2023, p.120).

One dimension of teacher identity that remains under-researched is the development of identity among teachers with heritage backgrounds. The human factor of heritage (introduced in Canada in 1977 through the Ontario Heritage Languages Program) initially attracted limited scholarly attention. When it did begin to attract interest, research focused primarily on learners, examining how heritage languages and cultures influence language acquisition, motivation, and identity formation (e.g., Gavriilidou et al., 2024). Only recently has the field begun to explore how heritage shapes teacher identity and, in turn, influences pedagogical practice (e.g., Doğlu & Griffiths, 2025).

Heritage encompasses more than just language; it includes cultural practices, values, and traditions such as food preferences, family structures, behavioural norms, and ceremonial customs such as weddings and funerals (e.g. Fatima & Nadeem, 2025). These human elements of heritage are deeply embedded in personal identity and can significantly influence a teacher’s worldview, classroom interactions, and pedagogical choices. Teachers with heritage backgrounds may experience a dual positioning, and this duality can foster empathy and intercultural competence (e.g., Gubar, 2023).

Edwards and Edwards (2016) underscore the importance of reflective practice in navigating these complexities. They argue that teachers must critically examine how their heritage informs their evolving professional selves in order to promote inclusive and culturally appropriate pedagogy. Understanding the interplay between heritage and identity is crucial for supporting effective teaching practice.

 

The study

The study reported in this article aimed to investigate the question of how heritage background affects teacher identity and teaching practice. In order to gather data on this question, six teachers with a heritage background who were currently teaching English in North Cyprus (where Turkish is the dominant language) were purposively selected. All the participants had Turkish Cypriot heritage, were born in English-speaking environments (UK or Australia), and they all considered their heritage language to be Turkish. Biographical details (using pseudonyms) are as follows:

1. Mehmet was a 25-year-old male, born in UK, with 2 years teaching experience
2. Hüseyin was a 34-year-old male, born in UK, with 13 years teaching experience
3. Yonca was a 23-year-old female, born in UK, with 1.5. years teaching experience
4. Mustafa was a 32-year-old male, born  in  Australia, 10 years teaching experience
5. Melek was a 50-year-old female, born in UK, with 25 years teaching experience
6. Ebru was a 36-year-old female, born in UK, more than 10 years teaching experience

As can be seen from the above, participants were varied in terms of gender, age and teaching experience. It was hoped that this variety would enable the collection of representative data from different perspectives.

Participants were first sent an open-ended questionnaire by email. They were asked to write answers to the questions about themselves, their background and the effect on their teacher identity and practice with as much detail as they could and then re-send the completed questionnaire to the researchers. This was analysed thematically and several additional questions which arose from the analysis were added for the purpose of the semi-structured interview, which was recorded and transcribed. The interview data were also analysed thematically, and participants’ responses compared.

 

Findings and discussion

Heritage background

In biographical terms, the participants ranged from 23 to 50, and there were 3 who identified as male and 3 who identified as female. They were all born in the UK with the exception of Mustafa (who was born in Australia), all had a Turkish Cypriot heritage and were able to speak Turkish as well as English. Teaching experience varied from one and a half to twenty-five years. We might say, therefore, that this relatively small sample nevertheless represented a reasonable cross-section of the target population (teachers who have a heritage language and culture).

When asked what they considered their first language (the one spoken in the home) to be, many of the participants found this a difficult question to answer, since in all cases, both English and Turkish were spoken in the home, making a decision about which was the “first” difficult, and answers given were often inconsistent. For instance, Mehmet considered his first language to be Turkish, whereas for Hüseyin and Ebru it was English, and Yonca, Mustafa and Melek answered both Turkish and English. In other words, we might say that half of the participants found it impossible to nominate a single “first” language, a difficulty also noted by Diaz (2014).

All the participants stated that their heritage language was Turkish with varying levels of self-reported proficiency. Hüseyin, Yonca, and Melek reported high proficiency levels in both Turkish and English, using phrases such as “very fluent”, “strongly proficient” and “perfectly proficient”. Other than these participants, Mustafa stated that he believed he was proficient in his heritage language, but his grammar and vocabulary were sometimes faulty, and he believed he was much more proficient in English, as he had lived most of his life surrounded by English in Australia. Ebru believed she was equal in speaking and listening in both languages, but she thought she was better in reading and writing in English, since she had learned these in school. Mehmet sometimes found himself having difficulties with grammar both in English and in Turkish. Also, due to his shy and perfectionist personality, he sometimes felt stuck when speaking spontaneously, which he was trying to overcome by practising and speaking without fear of making mistakes. Variable proficiency levels among heritage speakers are also noted by Gavriilidou et al. (2024).

Although not always accorded high priority in language learning, the importance of pragmatics has recently been attracting more attention (e.g. Tajeddin & Alemi, 2020). Mehmet, Hüseyin, Yonca, Melek and Ebru believed they had equal pragmatic competence in both languages, whereas Mustafa felt he had pragmatic competence in English, but he did not have it that much in Turkish because he had lived most of his life in Australia, where the Turkish community is not large. This suggests that exposure and usage play an important role when it comes to using the language in social and communicative contexts. Mustafa heard his heritage language at home from his parents, but he did not have enough input in Australia. Therefore, we can see that even though he believed himself to be proficient in his heritage language, he was much more proficient in English, which was the dominant language of the country he was living in and to which he was exposed.

Participants’ family backgrounds were similar but not entirely the same. For five of them, both their parents were Turkish Cypriot, but Hüseyin’s mother was Turkish Cypriot and his father was English. They were all born into families which adhered to greater or lesser extents to Turkish language and culture. Although some of the participants do not give an exact time, Yonca was only 1.5 years old when her family decided to return to North Cyprus and Ebru was 12. Reasons for the move vary from jobs, to parents’ divorce, to just “wanted to”. We can see, then, that although the participants share a common Turkish Cypriot heritage, in other ways there were variations, an issue also discussed by Pavlou et al. (2024).

The participants had varied experiences adapting to the Turkish Cypriot environment, largely influenced by their backgrounds. Mehmet and Yonca, having relocated at a very young age, had no difficulty with integration. Similarly, Hüseyin’s adaptation was smooth due to his mother’s Turkish Cypriot heritage and support, while Melek’s upbringing in a home with two cultures helped her navigate the transition with ease. In contrast, Mustafa faced challenges, as his expectations about adaptation were challenged by the diverse populations he encountered in North Cyprus when he had expected a more homogeneous environment. Ebru also struggled, finding North Cyprus very different from the UK, and also experiencing difficulties with settling into her father’s family after her parent’s divorce. Despite this, most participants (4 of the 6 or 66% ) reported few if any difficulties, primarily due to their early exposure to Turkish Cypriot language and culture or existing family connections. However, for others, the process proved more complex, highlighting how personal background shapes acculturation experiences, as noted by Anderson (1994).

 

Teacher identity

Participants indicated that there were several points of their background which affected their identity as a teacher. According to Mehmet, being born in London and raised in an English-speaking environment had earned him the benefit of having a clearer pronunciation, the advantages of which have long been recognised in terms of intelligibility (e.g. Jenkins, 2007). When compared to other teachers, Mehmet felt his good pronunciation was an advantage in terms of his own self-confidence and employability. Yonca and Ebru also mentioned the importance of good pronunciation, especially when trying to find a job, when native-like English is often preferred. Hüseyin thought similarly: his bilingual background and knowledge of the language gave him an obvious advantage in terms of English teacher identity.

Most of the participants thought that having a heritage language and/or culture could only be an advantage. They said that knowing two languages and cultures, and being able to establish good relationships with their Turkish students were all advantages, and it contributed positively to their identity as teachers in a Turkish-speaking environment.

Only Ebru said that although she believed there were many advantages, there were also some disadvantages. These included the expectations of institutions, which tended to expect more from bilingual teachers, perhaps in terms of providing translation or editing services, which could be time-consuming, usually unpaid, and often taken for granted and unappreciated. Also problematic could be attitudes of other teachers, who sometimes thought that their bilingual colleagues had not worked as hard for their teaching position because their language came fluently and naturally and because there was often a bias in favour of teachers who could be seen as native speakers of the target language.

 

Teaching practice

Two main issues arose in response to the question of teaching practice. These were language choice and empathy.

The participants varied in terms of language choice when teaching, another issue which has been much debated over the years. One perspective was that code switching or translanguaging (e.g. Treffers-Daller, 2024) was fine when teaching because it could help students to better understand the subject being taught. Mehmet was one of the participants who had this perspective. Although the institution where he was working had an English-only policy, he found he had to switch to the students’ L1 (Turkish) sometimes because he had students who could not understand English. Yonca agreed: she used English most of the time because of school policy, but sometimes she switched to Turkish for her Turkish students, and she believed giving students the direct translation helped them to better understand English and ease frustrations. Mustafa and Melek had similar thoughts. Their choice was to speak mainly English in class, but they were flexible in code switching from time to time in order to help their students understand material with which they struggled if it was only presented in a language with which they were still not fully familiar. Ebru also said she code switches and used translations with her older students, but she preferred not to do that with her younger ones since they had the ability to pick up the language naturally without needing code switching or translations.

The second perspective was that code switching or translanguaging was not a good practice, especially in a foreign language environment, as it took away what was often the only opportunity for students to hear and use the target language. Hüseyin had this perspective: he believed code switching was not a good thing. His language preference during class time was English only, partly because it was the number one rule of the institute where he worked, and also the school environment was the only time the students were able to speak in English, since when they left the classroom they spoke Turkish again. Therefore, in order not to lose that opportunity, he avoided code switching.

Another problem mentioned with code switching between English and Turkish was that it disadvantages those students who do not speak either language as an L1. In the case of the environment of the present study, by far the majority of the students spoke Turkish, but there were also a few others (e.g. Russian, Iranian, Kazak, Malian, etc.). In their cases, switching from English to Turkish was no help, indeed it may just have compounded their problems. This situation needed to be treated with care and sensitivity by the teacher.

Several of the participants also mentioned the issue of empathy, long recognised as an important feature of successful learning (e.g. Guiora et al., 1972; Kariman, 2022), which their background had helped them to develop since they were able to exactly understand their students. Yonca believed that she became more tolerant of other cultures and different languages because of her own experience, and this made her a more understanding and empathetic teacher because she had experienced two different cultures and languages herself from a young age. Mustafa also could relate to different cultures, as he was used to two cultures, and because of this, he was able to better understand not only his Turkish students but also his foreign students and share his knowledge with them more effectively. Melek likewise pointed out the emotional benefit of her background; she said being raised in two cultures had earned her the benefits of having wider understanding of multi-cultural students and appreciating their mind-sets, mannerisms, behaviour, religion, and also the topics they were interested in, thereby contributing positively to her teaching practice.

 

Implications

According to the results of this study, teachers with a heritage background are generally positive about the effect of their heritage on their teacher identity. They find that it provides confidence in their language ability in both languages (especially with regard to pronunciation), and this, in turn is advantageous in terms of gaining employment. Being fluent in most of their students’ first language enables them to communicate easily. In addition, their experience of acquiring two languages enables them to be empathetic towards the stresses their students are experiencing since they have been through the same difficulties themselves.

A number of implications can be drawn from these results, both for the immediate environment of the current study and also for language teaching contexts more broadly. These include the idea that teachers who have a heritage background should be encouraged to value this background in terms of its potential to support students. It is also valuable in terms of bilingual teachers’ potential to act as inspirational role models of successful bilingual learners, and to provide empathy in a way which is only possible because of their shared cultural and linguistic background and experience.

Clear implications of practices such as code switching and translanguaging are difficult to draw, given the conflicting views on the subject. Clearly, however, most of the teachers in this study do use such practices to a greater or lesser extent. Although it is not possible to give a clear right or wrong answer to this question, perhaps we can say that teachers should be made aware of the issues so that they can make informed decisions according to their own students and contexts.

The results of the study suggest that institutional and collegial expectations of bilingual teachers should be adjusted to provide a fair and realistic working environment for all teachers. Merely because bilinguals speak more than one language does not mean that their teacher education courses were any less arduous, nor does it mean that their services as translators or editors should be taken for granted.

The issues noted above (and, perhaps others) need to be dealt with at both pre-service and in-service education levels. They are needed at pre-service level to help establish a proactive mindset so that when new teachers encounter these issues in the “real” classroom, they are already prepared and therefore in a better position to make appropriate decisions. They are needed at in-service level, firstly to refresh teachers’ knowledge of the issues, and also to keep teachers up-to-date with new theories and research findings which are constantly evolving.  

 

Suggestions for ongoing research

As noted above, the question of heritage background and how it affects teacher identity and practice is very under-researched, so almost any studies on the subject have the potential to add useful information to the limited current knowledge on the topic. In particular, perhaps, researchers might care to investigate the following:

1. The current study was conducted among English language teachers with a heritage background in North Cyprus where Turkish is the dominant language and culture. But the issue also exists in many other contexts. Are results obtained in these other contexts similar or different?
2. Because there were very few teachers who fulfilled the criteria for the study (Turkish Cypriot heritage teachers born in an English-speaking environment and teaching English in North Cyprus), participants were limited. More generalizable results could be obtained with a larger participant pool
3. Implications are drawn above for pre-service and in-service education. But how, precisely, should such education be conducted? What, exactly, would be included? How would it be delivered?
4. The study reported here was essentially qualitative and employed an open-ended questionnaire followed by interviews. Other methodologies such as Likert-scale questionnaires, think alouds, mixed methods, etc. might add interesting new perspectives.
5. And, of course, at this point in history, we cannot avoid considering the effect of artificial intelligence. Intuitively, there seems to be no particular reason to believe that AI affects bilingual teachers any more than other teachers, but is this the case? Bilinguals have, after all, already had a greater cognitive load to shoulder than monolinguals, and it is possible that they might therefore struggle more with AI than their monolingual colleagues, who possibly have more memory space still available. AI is currently so new that there are multiple questions waiting to be answered, and the relationship of AI to bilingualism could be an interesting direction to pursue.

 

Conclusion

This study aimed to investigate the human factor of heritage and how it affects teacher identity and teaching practice. Results indicated that although participants were similar in terms of their heritage, in other ways they were different from each other. They had varied family backgrounds, differing language proficiency levels in both languages, differing levels of pragmatic competence, and diverse experiences of adaptation to their heritage environment.

Most of the participants thought that their heritage exerted a positive influence in terms of their teacher identity, especially with respect to their pronunciation, employability and relationships with students. Only one participant, although generally positive, mentioned institutional demands and collegial attitudes as potential negatives.

As for teaching practice, the main issues raised were regarding empathy and code switching or translanguaging. In the interests of comprehensibility, most of the participants said they used code switching at times, even though most teaching institutions preferred their teachers to use English only. Only one participant said he avoided code switching and preferred a target language only policy since it maximised exposure to the TL in a non-TL environment. Mention was also made of the fact that using the local language disadvantaged foreign students who do not speak the local language.

The article concludes by outlining the implications of heritage for both teaching practice and teacher education, both in the immediate context of the study and beyond. Recommendations are also made for future research. At the time of writing, the intersection of the human factor of heritage background with teacher identity and pedagogical practice remains insufficiently explored. It is hoped that forthcoming studies will take up this important and so far relatively neglected area of inquiry.

 

References

Anderson, L.E. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 293–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90035-3

Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.) (2017). Reflections on language teacher identity research. Routledge

Barkhuizen, G., & Mendieta Aguilar, J. (2020). Identity and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths, & Z. Tajeddin (Eds), Lessons from good language teachers (pp.3-15). Cambridge University Press.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a Professional Identity: Stories of Educational Practice. Althouse Press.

Diaz, D. (2014). Bilingualism as a first language and its effects on cultural identity formation. Master’s thesis, California State University

Doğlu, C., & Griffiths, C. (2025). Heritage and identity and the effect on teaching practice. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–13, advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2025.2534457

Edwards, F. C. E., & Edwards, R. J. (2016). A story of culture and teaching: The complexity of teacher identity formation. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1232200

Gavriilidou, Z., Mitits, L., & Chanagkian, K. (2024). Strategy repertoire of heritage language speakers in narration and conversation. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 41, 148-168. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.41.11

Fatima, S., & Nadeem, M. U. (2025). Family language policy and heritage language transmission in Pakistan—the intersection of family dynamics, ethnic identity and cultural practices on language proficiency and maintenance. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1560755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1560755

Gubar, D. (2023). Language teachers, cultural content and intercultural competence. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 11(1), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7669769

Guiora, A., Brannon, R., & Dull, C. (1972). Empathy and second language learning, Language Learning, 22(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00077.x

Hajar, A. (2017). Identity, investment and language learning strategies of two Syrian students in Syria and Britain. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1317266

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.

Karimian, M. (2022). The effect of empathy-enhancing techniques on EFL learners’ empathy, language proficiency, and perception of classroom activities. Journal of Contemporary Language Research, 1(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.58803/jclr.v1i1.66

Lord, J. (2023). Exploring teacher professional identity and agency in local, national and global policy contexts. In: D. Mifsud, & S. Day (Eds). Teacher Education as an Ongoing Professional Trajectory: Teacher Education, Learning Innovation and Accountability (pp.119-141). Springerz. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28620-9_6

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587831

Pavlou, N., Fotiou, C., & Grohmann , K. (2024). Introducing heritage languages and variation. Edizioni

Tajeddin, Z. & Yazan, B. (2024). Language teacher identity tensions: Nexus of agency, emotion and investment. Routledge.

Treffers-Daller, J. (2024). ELT Journal, 78(1), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccad059

 

Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2026 at Pilgrims website.