Listening to Greek Heritage Language Teachers in Canada:
From Hellenic Relay in Action to Communities of Practice

by Themistoklis Aravossitas

Abstract

This article examines the professional development needs of Greek heritage language teachers working primarily in elementary and secondary community, supplementary, and day-school settings in Canada. It is based on an analysis of 25 post-workshop questionnaire responses collected after the Spring 2026 Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives in Toronto and Montreal. Situated within the broader Hellenic Relay community action research project, the study combines descriptive statistics from closed and multiple-selection survey items with thematic analysis of open-ended responses. The initiatives included public presentations, community discussions, school visits, and professional development workshops connected to the publication of Advancing Greek Heritage Language Education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A Community Action Study (2026). Findings show that participating educators evaluated the workshops positively while also identifying clear priorities for future support. Teachers valued practical classroom activities, digital tools, peer exchange, differentiated instruction, and the development of teaching materials. They also called for sustained professional development, ready-to-use lesson plans, support for bilingual and English-dominant learners, a practical teacher guide, online seminars, and stronger networks linking educators, schools, communities, and universities in Canada and Greece. The article argues that Greek heritage language education in Canada requires a shift from isolated professional development events toward durable communities of practice and coordinated professional learning infrastructures. By foregrounding teachers' perspectives, the article contributes to broader discussions of heritage language education, teacher learning, community-based action research, curriculum development, and the institutional supports required for minoritized and diasporic language programs.

Keywords: Greek heritage language education; professional development; teacher learning; communities of practice; differentiated instruction; translanguaging; Greek in Canada; community-based action research

Introduction

Greek heritage language education in Canada occupies a significant but often underexamined place within the broader landscape of multilingual, community-based, and diasporic education. For more than a century, Greek communities across Canada have developed community schools, programs, cultural initiatives, and religious-community institutions to support the intergenerational transmission of the Greek language. These efforts have been sustained by families, community organizations, churches, teachers, and volunteers who have understood language not only as a means of communication, but also as a carrier of cultural memory, identity, belonging, and participation in a transnational Greek world (Fishman 1991; Kagan et al. 2017; Valdés 2014; Aravossitas 2016, 2023; Aravossitas & Damanakis 2026; Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2020).

Yet the conditions under which Greek is taught and learned in Canada have changed substantially. Many learners in contemporary Greek heritage language classrooms are bilingual or multilingual children and adolescents whose dominant language is English or, in some Quebec contexts, French. Some students come from homes where Greek is still spoken regularly, whereas others have limited exposure to the language outside the classroom. Teachers often work with mixed-level groups, uneven literacy backgrounds, varying degrees of motivation, and limited instructional time, particularly in supplementary programs that may meet only once a week. These conditions require pedagogical approaches that differ from those associated with teaching Greek as a first language or as a school subject in Greece. They also require sustained professional support for teachers responding to increasingly diverse linguistic and educational realities (Carreira & Kagan 2018; Cummins 2021; García & Li Wei 2014; Oikonomakou et al. 2026).

This article examines these issues through the Spring 2026 Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives, a sequence of professional development and community-based educational activities held in Ontario and Quebec. The term Hellenic Relay in Action is used here to describe the movement from the research findings of the Hellenic Relay community action study toward public dissemination, school engagement, professional learning, and collaborative planning. These initiatives were connected to the publication of Advancing Greek Heritage Language Education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A Community Action Study, a collective volume emerging from a multi-year community action research project on Greek heritage language education in Canada (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026a, 2026b, 2026c). [In the references, 2026a designates the edited volume, while 2026b and 2026c designate chapters within that volume.] The volume was presented on April 14, 2026, at the Centre for European and Eurasian Studies at the University of Toronto. Subsequent activities included public community events, school visits, and teacher workshops in Toronto and Montreal.

The present article focuses specifically on the voices of teachers who participated in the professional development workshops. It asks three questions: What did Greek heritage language teachers identify as most useful in these professional development initiatives? What areas of future support did they prioritize? What do their responses suggest about the professional learning structures needed to strengthen Greek heritage language education in the Canadian diaspora? The bilingual post-workshop questionnaire included closed-ended, multiple-selection, and open-ended items, allowing participants both to select priorities and to provide narrative comments.

The survey responses indicate a highly positive evaluation of the workshops while also pointing to a clear agenda for future action. Participants valued practical classroom activities, digital tools, discussion and exchange of experiences, differentiated instruction, and the creation of teaching materials. At the same time, they called for sustained professional development, ready-to-use lesson plans, support for teaching bilingual and English-dominant learners, practical teacher guides, online seminars, and networks that would allow educators to continue exchanging ideas and resources beyond individual events. The article argues that these priorities call for a transition from isolated professional development events toward long-term communities of practice and professional learning infrastructures (Desimone 2009; Darling-Hammond et al. 2017; Kourtis-Kazoullis et al. 2026; Wenger 1998).

Greek Heritage Language Education in Canada and the Hellenic Relay in Action Context

The professional development workshops examined in this article formed part of a broader sequence of educational and community-based initiatives held in Ontario and Quebec in Spring 2026. These initiatives were organized around a shared concern: the future of Greek heritage language education in Canada and the need to strengthen the pedagogical, institutional, and community supports available to teachers, schools, families, and learners. They were held under the auspices of the Consulate General of Greece in Toronto, and with the support of educational, academic, and community organizations committed to the continuation and renewal of Greek language education in the Canadian diaspora.

The immediate point of departure was the publication and presentation of Advancing Greek Heritage Language Education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A Community Action Study (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026a). The volume emerged from a community action research project conducted between 2022 and 2026 with the participation of teachers, parents, students, administrators, and community stakeholders across Greek communities in Canada. Stakeholders contributed through surveys, interviews, consultations, and collaborative discussion and interpretation of the findings. The volume examines demographic and institutional conditions, school structures, teacher, parent, and student perspectives, curriculum and pedagogy, professional learning, and recommendations for future action. Rather than approaching Greek heritage language education only as a matter of curriculum or linguistic maintenance, the Hellenic Relay project framed it as a shared community responsibility requiring collaboration across schools, families, universities, cultural organizations, and public institutions (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026b, 2026c; Arkadianos & Aravossitas 2026).

The book was presented on April 14, 2026, at the Centre for European and Eurasian Studies at the University of Toronto. The event brought together scholars, educators, community leaders, and institutional partners to reflect on the findings of the research and their implications for the future of Greek language education in Canada. The editors of the volume, Themistoklis Aravossitas of the University of Toronto and York University, and Marianthi Oikonomakou of the Department of Primary Education at the University of the Aegean, presented the main findings of the study as members of a broader research team based in Canada and Greece. The event was introduced by Robert Austin, Director of the Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, and Jim Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Following the university presentation, the Hellenic Relay in Action sequence moved into community and school settings. In Toronto, a public event was held on April 18 at the Polymenakeion Cultural Centre, where participants discussed the study of Greek from a linguistic perspective and the teaching of Greek as a heritage language in Canada. The event was attended by representatives of the Greek diplomatic and community sectors, including Consul Ioannis Chatzantonakis and Betty Skoutakis, President of the Greek Community of Toronto. These presentations invited participants to respond to the study's findings and to raise questions and priorities for future action. They created a bridge between academic research and community-based educational practice, while the dataset analyzed in this article derives specifically from the separate post-workshop questionnaire completed by educators.

On April 19, a professional development workshop for teachers was held at the Metamorphosis Greek Orthodox School in Toronto. The workshop brought together educators from different Greek language education settings in Ontario, including community-based, church-affiliated, day-school, and supplementary school programs. The discussions focused on contemporary heritage language classrooms, where students often differ widely in their exposure to Greek, linguistic confidence, literacy development, and connection to Greek-speaking environments outside school. The workshop emphasized the need to connect Canadian and Greek educational contexts while also recognizing that teachers in Canada require pedagogical approaches specifically adapted to heritage learners rather than simply imported from first-language education in Greece (Oikonomakou et al. 2026; Aravossitas & Tisizi 2024).

In Montreal, the Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives continued through meetings, public presentations, school visits, and teacher professional development. The research team met with the Board of Directors of the Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal to explore possible initiatives for strengthening Greek language education. On April 24, a lecture and public discussion took place at the community's Mikri Vouli, focusing on the role of linguistics in the teaching of Greek and the dissemination of findings from the Hellenic Relay community action research project. The Montreal program also included visits to day school and supplementary Greek education settings, allowing the research team to observe and discuss the specific institutional conditions and pedagogical needs of Greek language programs in Quebec.

On April 26, a professional development workshop was held with educators in Montreal. This session focused on contemporary approaches to the teaching of Greek, including differentiated instruction, the use of digital tools, project-based learning, the development of oral communication, and the creation of teaching materials for learners with diverse linguistic profiles. As in Toronto, the workshop provided an opportunity for teachers to exchange experiences, discuss shared challenges, and identify priorities for future support. Across Toronto and Montreal, more than seventy educators participated in the professional development activities. Rather than presenting the events as an endpoint, the Spring 2026 sequence should be understood as an effort to activate the findings of the Hellenic Relay study through professional learning, community dialogue, and collaborative planning.

The initiatives were supported by a broad network of institutions and organizations, including the Hellenic Heritage Foundation, the Centre for European and Eurasian Studies, the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, the Office of Education of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada, the Cypriot Federation of Canada Inc., the Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal, the Hellenic Canadian Academic Association of Ontario, the Hellenic Language Teachers of Ontario, and the Greek Community of Toronto. Depending on the organization, this support included funding, institutional sponsorship, hosting and venue provision, outreach and convening, and educational collaboration. Their involvement points to the importance of cross-sector collaboration in heritage language education, especially in contexts where schools often operate with limited resources and rely on the commitment of community-based educators.

Within this broader context, the post-workshop questionnaire responses analyzed in this article offer valuable insights into teachers' perspectives. While the Spring 2026 events provided platforms for dialogue, the survey responses allow for a more systematic examination of what teachers found useful, what they felt was missing, and what kinds of support they considered most important for the future. The Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives can therefore be understood not simply as a series of events, but as a transitional moment connecting research, community action, teacher professional development, and institutional collaboration (Aravossitas et al. 2026; Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026b; Kourtis-Kazoullis et al. 2026).

Conceptual Framework

This article is situated at the intersection of heritage language education, teacher professional development, and community-based educational action. Greek language learners in Canadian community, supplementary, day-school, and postsecondary contexts are understood here as heritage language learners: students who may have varying degrees of proficiency in Greek, but who maintain a familial, cultural, historical, or community connection to the language. This understanding distinguishes them from both first-language learners in Greece and generic foreign-language learners with no inherited or community-based connection to Greek (Fishman 1991; Valdés 2014; Kagan et al. 2017; Carreira & Kagan 2018).

The analysis also draws on community action research and communities-of-practice perspectives. From this view, teacher learning is not simply the transmission of expert knowledge from presenter to participant, but a social and collaborative process through which educators share concerns, exchange strategies, and develop professional knowledge through sustained interaction. This framework is especially relevant to Greek heritage language education in Canada, where many teachers work in dispersed community-based settings and often lack regular opportunities for professional exchange (Kemmis et al. 2014; Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998; Kourtis-Kazoullis et al. 2026). The Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives can also be understood as community-engaged public scholarship that connects university-based research with community dialogue, professional learning, and collaborative educational planning.

Finally, the article is informed by scholarship on effective teacher professional development, differentiated instruction, and translanguaging pedagogy. Differentiated instruction refers here to adapting content, process, support, or expected outcomes in response to learners' differing readiness, language profiles, and learning needs. Translanguaging pedagogy recognizes and strategically draws on learners' full linguistic repertoires rather than treating their languages as completely separate systems. These perspectives are useful for interpreting teachers' responses because participants repeatedly emphasized the need for practical classroom activities, ready-to-use materials, differentiated approaches for mixed-level groups, and support for bilingual and English-dominant learners. In Quebec, similar considerations may also apply to French-dominant learners, although this was not a separate survey category. Together, these frameworks support the article's central argument: Greek heritage language education in Canada requires a shift from isolated professional development events toward sustained, practice-oriented communities of professional learning (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2018; Chatzidaki 2020; Desimone 2009; Darling-Hammond et al. 2017; Tomlinson 2014; García & Li Wei 2014; Cummins 2021; García et al. 2021).

Methodology

This article draws on questionnaire responses collected from educators who participated in the Spring 2026 professional development workshops for Greek heritage language education in Toronto and Montreal. The questionnaire was administered after the workshops and was designed to capture participants' immediate evaluations of the sessions, their perceptions of what was most useful, and their priorities for future professional development. A total of 25 responses were collected.

The questionnaire was bilingual and included both English and Greek prompts. It included closed-ended, multiple-selection, and open-ended items. Participants were asked to evaluate the workshop, briefly explain their evaluation, identify up to three aspects they found most useful, select areas they would like to see addressed in future workshops, and indicate which initiatives they would consider most useful moving forward. They were also invited to provide open-ended suggestions on how to strengthen collective efforts in Greek language education.

The analysis followed a mixed descriptive and thematic approach. First, responses to closed-ended and multiple-selection questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency counts and percentages. Because participants could select more than one option in several survey items, totals for multiple-selection questions exceed the number of respondents. Second, open-ended responses were analyzed thematically. Comments were reviewed inductively and grouped into recurring themes related to practical classroom application, differentiated instruction, material development, professional exchange, sustained support, teacher recognition, and Canada-Greece connections (Braun & Clarke 2006).

The purpose of the analysis was not to produce generalizable claims about all Greek heritage language teachers in Canada. Rather, it was to foreground the perspectives of educators who participated in these specific workshops and to identify issues that can inform future planning, research, and professional development initiatives. The feedback form did not collect a standardized inventory of respondents' qualifications, employment status, or years of experience; consequently, the article does not attempt to classify participants systematically by professional profile. This orientation is consistent with the practice-oriented and community-engaged character of the broader Hellenic Relay initiative (Arkadianos & Aravossitas 2026; Kemmis et al. 2014).

Ethics, Consent, and Researcher Positionality

The questionnaire was administered as a voluntary post-workshop feedback instrument. Responses were analyzed in aggregate form, and no identifying information is reported in this article. The excerpts included in the findings are anonymous and are used only to illustrate recurring themes in the dataset.

Because members of the research team were involved in the broader Hellenic Relay initiative and in the organization or facilitation of the professional development activities, the analysis is presented as a practice-oriented and reflective study rather than as an external evaluation. This positionality is acknowledged as both a strength and a limitation. It enabled close engagement with community needs and direct access to teachers' concerns, but it also required caution in interpretation and avoidance of overgeneralization.

Findings

The questionnaire responses provide a focused view of how participating educators experienced the Spring 2026 professional development workshops and what they identified as priorities for future support. Although the sample was limited to 25 respondents, the data reveal consistent patterns across both closed-ended and open-ended responses. Four major areas emerged from the analysis: overall evaluation of the workshops, the aspects teachers found most useful, priorities for future professional development, and suggested initiatives for strengthening Greek heritage language education in Canada.

Table 1
Selected Survey Response Frequencies (N = 25)

Note: Percentages indicate the proportion of respondents who selected each item. Totals for multiple-selection items exceed 100% because participants could select more than one response.

Overall Evaluation of the Workshops

The overall evaluation of the workshops was strongly positive. Out of 25 respondents, 16 evaluated the workshop as "Very satisfactory" (64%), while 7 selected "Satisfactory" (28%). One respondent selected "Moderate" (4%), and one response was left blank (4%). Taken together, 23 out of 25 respondents, or 92%, provided a positive evaluation of the workshops.

The open-ended explanations help clarify the meaning of this positive response. Participants valued the opportunity to meet colleagues, engage with researchers and facilitators, and discuss the realities of Greek language education in Canada. Several comments emphasized the importance of bringing educators together across schools and communities. Teachers described the workshops as useful not only because of the content presented, but also because they created a space for recognition, exchange, and collective reflection. For many participants, the workshops appear to have addressed a long-standing need for professional dialogue among Greek language educators who often work in relatively isolated institutional settings.

At the same time, the evaluations were not uncritical. Some participants suggested that future workshops should include more time for hands-on activities, more practical examples, and deeper engagement with classroom challenges. This tension is important: the workshops were positively received, but teachers clearly signaled that future professional development should move further toward practice-based learning, modeling of strategies, and direct classroom application.

What Teachers Found Most Useful

When asked to identify what they found most useful, participants most frequently selected "Practical classroom activities" (16 responses; 64%), followed by "Digital tools / ICT" (14 responses; 56%), "Discussion and exchange of ideas" (11 responses; 44%), and "Differentiated instruction" (10 responses; 40%). These selections suggest that teachers valued professional development most when it connected directly to classroom practice and when it provided tools, strategies, and opportunities for peer learning.

The prominence of practical classroom activities is especially significant. It indicates that teachers are seeking approaches that can be adapted immediately to their own instructional contexts. In heritage language classrooms, where students often differ widely in oral proficiency, literacy skills, motivation, and exposure to Greek outside school, teachers need flexible and accessible activities rather than abstract recommendations. The strong interest in digital tools also reflects the changing realities of language teaching, including the need for multimodal resources, online materials, and technologies that can support engagement, differentiation, and communication.

The high value placed on discussion and exchange of ideas points to another important dimension of professional development: teachers want to learn not only from experts, but also from one another. The workshops appear to have functioned as spaces where educators could share experiences, compare challenges, and recognize that many of their classroom concerns are shared across different schools and communities. This finding supports the broader argument that professional development in Greek heritage language education should be structured around communities of practice rather than one-directional transmission of information.

Priorities for Future Workshops

Participants were also asked which areas they would like to see addressed in future workshops. The most frequently selected area was "Differentiated instruction" (12 responses; 48%), followed by "Creating learning material" (11 responses; 44%) and "Teaching Greek to bilingual / English-dominant learners" (11 responses; 44%). "Speaking skills development" was also selected frequently (8 responses; 32%).

These priorities reflect the specific pedagogical realities of Greek heritage language education in Canada. Differentiated instruction emerged as the leading need because many teachers work with mixed-level classrooms in which students may have very different relationships to Greek. Some students may understand Greek but hesitate to speak; others may speak informally but have limited literacy; others may come from families where Greek is no longer used regularly. In such contexts, a single-level textbook or uniform lesson plan is often insufficient.

The strong interest in creating learning materials also points to a perceived gap in available resources. Teachers appear to be asking not only for more materials, but for materials designed specifically for the Canadian heritage language context. Such materials would need to reflect the linguistic profiles, cultural experiences, and classroom conditions of Greek learners in Canada. This includes students who are bilingual or multilingual, students whose dominant language is English or French, and students whose connection to Greek identity may be cultural or familial rather than linguistically strong.

The priority given to teaching Greek to bilingual and English-dominant learners further confirms that teachers are aware of the need for pedagogical approaches distinct from first-language instruction in Greece. Heritage learners often require instruction that builds on partial knowledge, receptive skills, translanguaging practices, family language experiences, and identity-based motivation. The findings therefore suggest that future workshops should focus explicitly on the pedagogy of Greek as a heritage language, rather than treating Greek language teaching as a uniform field (Valdés 2014; García & Li Wei 2014; Cummins 2021; Golegos & Marinis 2024).

Suggested Initiatives Moving Forward

Participants were also asked which initiatives they would find most useful moving forward. The most frequently selected option was the "Development of a practical teacher guide" (13 responses; 52%), followed by "Ongoing professional development, such as online seminars" (11 responses; 44%). Other selected initiatives included "School twinning initiatives between Canada and Greece" (7 responses; 28%), "Ready-to-use lesson plans" (6 responses; 24%), and "Summer training programs in Greece" (6 responses; 24%).

The strong interest in a practical teacher guide is one of the clearest findings of the questionnaire. Teachers appear to be asking for a concrete, accessible resource that would help them plan lessons, adapt activities, address mixed-level classrooms, and respond to the needs of bilingual and English-dominant learners. Such a guide could also support newer teachers, volunteers, and community-based educators who may not have specialized training in heritage language pedagogy.

The interest in ongoing professional development indicates that teachers do not see one-time workshops as sufficient. Instead, they are calling for continuity: regular seminars, online meetings, opportunities for follow-up, and structures that allow them to keep learning and sharing after a single event has ended. The interest in school twinning initiatives between Canada and Greece suggests a desire to create more meaningful connections between diaspora learners and Greek-speaking educational environments. Participants saw value in exchanges, partnerships, and shared projects that could help students experience Greek as a living language connected to real people, places, and purposes.

Open-Ended Suggestions and Emerging Themes

The open-ended responses reinforced the quantitative patterns. Teachers repeatedly emphasized the need for more frequent seminars, more practical teaching tools, modeling of best practices, strategies for differentiated instruction, and opportunities to collaborate. Several participants called for more attention to the challenges of teaching Greek to students who do not have Greek as a first language, as well as to learners with different levels of language exposure and learning needs.

Table 2
Representative Anonymous Excerpts From Open-Ended Responses

Note: Excerpts are anonymous. Some Greek-language comments have been translated into English and lightly edited for readability while preserving their meaning.

A recurring theme was the need to reduce the gap between theory and practice. Participants appreciated the research-based orientation of the workshops, but several comments suggested that future sessions should allocate more time to hands-on activities, examples, case studies, and classroom problem-solving. This does not imply a rejection of theory; rather, it suggests that teachers want theory to be translated into usable pedagogical strategies.

Another theme was the importance of recognition and support. Some responses pointed to the demanding work of Greek language teachers, many of whom teach part-time, in community-based settings, and with limited resources. Finally, the responses revealed a desire for stronger connections: among teachers, among schools, between Canada and Greece, and between community institutions and universities. Participants proposed networks, online platforms, school twinning, summer programs, and continued professional development as ways to sustain the momentum created by the Spring 2026 Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives.

Overall, the findings show that teachers responded positively to the workshops, but they also articulated a clear agenda for future work. Their priorities point toward a model of professional development grounded in practical relevance, differentiated pedagogy, resource creation, peer exchange, and sustained communities of practice. These findings suggest that strengthening Greek heritage language education in Canada will require not only additional workshops, but a coordinated professional learning infrastructure capable of supporting teachers across diverse community and institutional contexts.

Discussion

The findings indicate that the Spring 2026 workshops addressed a real need among participating Greek heritage language teachers. Educators valued opportunities to engage with research, exchange experiences, and reflect collectively, but their responses also made clear that a single workshop cannot meet the continuing demands of mixed-level heritage language classrooms. The central implication is therefore not simply the need for more events, but for sustained, practical, and collaborative professional learning structures.

Teachers' priorities converge around practice-based professional learning: adaptable classroom activities, digital tools, differentiated materials, modeling of strategies, and opportunities to address authentic classroom problems. In settings with limited instructional time and wide variation in age, proficiency, literacy, motivation, and exposure to Greek, professional development must connect research-based principles directly to usable teaching practices (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017; Desimone 2009; Oikonomakou et al. 2026).

The findings also confirm the need for differentiated and translanguaging-informed pedagogy. Heritage learners may possess uneven oral and literacy abilities, differing degrees of home-language exposure, and cultural or familial connections that are not matched by active language use. Effective instruction must therefore recognize partial competencies, mixed linguistic repertoires, identity-based motivation, and varied pathways into Greek (Tomlinson 2014; Cummins 2021; García et al. 2021).

Finally, sustainable renewal requires communities of practice and institutional coordination. Teachers' interest in peer exchange, ongoing seminars, networks, and Canada-Greece connections positions professional learning as a collective process in which educators are knowledge producers rather than merely recipients of expert advice (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998; Kourtis-Kazoullis et al. 2026).

The Hellenic Relay in Action sequence offers a useful framework for thinking about this transition. The broader Hellenic Relay study began by documenting the experiences, challenges, and aspirations of stakeholders involved in Greek language education across Canada (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026a). The Spring 2026 initiatives represented a further step: moving from research findings to community dialogue, teacher professional development, and the identification of concrete priorities for action. The questionnaire responses show that this movement from research to action is both necessary and welcomed by educators. However, they also suggest that the next phase must involve sustained implementation: the development of practical resources, teacher networks, follow-up seminars, and collaborative projects that can support long-term educational renewal (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026b, 2026c; Aravossitas et al. 2026).

The findings should also be read in relation to recognition. Greek heritage language teachers support evolving forms of cultural connection, community belonging, identity formation, and intergenerational engagement, often while working part-time and with limited resources. These meanings are negotiated within classrooms and communities rather than predetermined by institutions. Professional development should therefore function not only as skill-building, but also as professional validation and as recognition of teachers' judgment and knowledge.

Overall, the teachers' responses are not only evaluations of past workshops; they are a roadmap for future action. They point toward a model of Greek heritage language education that is collaborative, research-informed, practice-oriented, and grounded in the lived realities of diaspora communities. If acted upon, these priorities could help transform professional development from a series of occasional events into an ongoing process of collective learning and community-based educational change (Carreira & Kagan 2018; Loza & Beaudrie 2021).

Implications for Professional Learning Infrastructure

• Toward a practical resource infrastructure: The most immediate implication concerns the development of a practical resource infrastructure. Teachers' interest in a practical guide, ready-to-use lesson plans, and differentiated materials suggests that Greek heritage language education in Canada requires resources designed specifically for the Canadian diaspora context. Such resources should not simply adapt materials intended for first-language learners in Greece or for generic foreign-language instruction. They should respond to the profiles of bilingual and multilingual heritage learners, including students with uneven proficiency, varying exposure to Greek, and different forms of cultural or familial attachment to the language (Gavriilidou et al. 2023; Oikonomakou et al. 2026; Koutsogiannis et al. 2024).

A practical teacher guide could include sample lesson plans, differentiated activities, project-based learning ideas, oral communication tasks, assessment suggestions, and strategies for mixed-level classrooms. Materials should be modular and adaptable, offering variations for beginner, intermediate, and more advanced learners within the same classroom. Their development should involve teachers, university researchers, curriculum specialists, and community organizations so that resources are both pedagogically grounded and classroom-tested. This would position teachers as contributors to the renewal of Greek heritage language education rather than as passive users of externally produced materials.

• Toward sustained professional learning: A second implication concerns the need for sustained professional learning. Teachers' interest in ongoing seminars and professional networks indicates that one-time events are not enough. Regular online seminars could allow educators to revisit key topics, deepen their understanding, and receive continued support throughout the school year. Possible topics include differentiated instruction, oral communication, mixed-level teaching, digital tools, assessment in heritage language classrooms, and support for students with diverse learning needs (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017; Desimone 2009).

A teacher network or community of practice could provide a structure for regular communication, resource sharing, mentoring, and collaborative problem-solving among Greek language educators across Canada. Such a network could begin through an online platform, mailing list, or shared digital workspace and develop over time into a more formal professional community connecting educators from Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces. Its purpose would not only be to distribute materials, but also to create a space where teachers can ask questions, share classroom experiences, discuss challenges, and build a shared professional identity (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998; Kourtis-Kazoullis et al. 2026).

• Toward transnational pedagogical connections: A third implication concerns the development of transnational pedagogical connections. Participants' interest in Canada-Greece school twinning and summer training programs indicates a desire to connect diaspora classrooms with Greek-speaking educational and cultural contexts. School twinning could involve exchanges of short videos, letters, digital projects, oral histories, or presentations on local culture. Such projects could help students experience Greek as a living language used for real communication rather than only as a subject studied in a supplementary school context.

Summer training programs in Greece could offer teachers deeper engagement with contemporary Greek language, culture, pedagogy, and educational research. Such programs would be especially valuable if designed collaboratively by institutions in Greece and Canada and if they recognized the distinct pedagogical needs of diaspora education rather than assuming that educational models from Greece can be transferred unchanged to Canadian classrooms. Equitable funding and access arrangements would be essential, especially for part-time community educators who might otherwise be excluded from travel-based opportunities. For participating teachers, a structured program in Greece could provide professional validation, deepen connections to contemporary Greek educational contexts, and strengthen confidence as educators.

Toward institutional recognition and planning Finally, the needs identified by teachers require coordinated planning across institutions. They cannot be addressed by individual educators alone. Collaboration is needed among community schools, Greek communities, universities, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada, cultural foundations, professional associations, consular authorities, and educational institutions in Greece (Cummins & Danesi 1990; Dagenais 2013; Cummins 2014, 2021). Such coordination should preserve teacher professional judgment, community participation, and curricular plurality rather than centralizing control over what counts as legitimate language or cultural content.

The Spring 2026 Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives demonstrated that such collaboration is possible. The next step is to transform this momentum into a sustainable structure that includes a teacher network, practical guide, online seminars, a shared repository of lesson plans, pilot school twinning projects, and summer training opportunities. The implications of this work extend beyond the Greek case. Many heritage language communities face similar challenges: limited instructional time, mixed-proficiency classrooms, uneven access to materials, teacher isolation, and the need to connect language learning with identity and community life (Kagan et al. 2017; Cruickshank et al. 2024; Loza & Beaudrie 2021).

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, the dataset consists of 25 voluntary post-workshop responses and should not be understood as representative of all Greek heritage language teachers in Canada. Second, the questionnaire captured immediate reflections following professional development events and did not examine long-term changes in teacher practice or student learning. Third, the analysis is situated within a broader community action initiative in which members of the research team were also involved as organizers, researchers, or facilitators. While this insider positioning enabled close engagement with community needs, it also requires caution in interpreting the findings.

Future research should include follow-up interviews, classroom-based observation, and longitudinal examination of how professional development initiatives influence teaching practices over time. It would also be useful to examine how teachers adapt professional learning resources in different community settings, how students experience resulting pedagogical changes, how educators and communities negotiate curricular and cultural content, and how transnational partnerships between Canada and Greece can support heritage learners without imposing inappropriate first-language norms. Comparative research could further examine whether similar university-community partnerships operate in other diaspora contexts, including the United States, and which policy, funding, and institutional conditions enable or constrain them.

Conclusion

The Spring 2026 Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives in Toronto and Montreal marked an important moment in the ongoing effort to strengthen Greek heritage language education in Canada. Emerging from the broader Hellenic Relay community action study, these initiatives created opportunities for researchers, teachers, community representatives, and institutional partners to come together around a shared concern: how to sustain and renew Greek language education for new generations of learners in the Canadian diaspora.

The questionnaire responses analyzed in this article show that teachers welcomed these opportunities. They valued the workshops, the exchange of ideas, the practical classroom activities, the attention to digital tools, and the focus on differentiated instruction. At the same time, their responses made clear that the future of Greek heritage language education cannot depend on isolated and sporadic events alone. Teachers are asking for continuity, practical support, professional recognition, and structures that allow them to collaborate beyond the limits of a single workshop or local school community.

In this sense, the Hellenic Relay should be understood not only as a research project, but also as a platform for educational action and community-engaged public scholarship. Its significance lies in its ability to document the experiences of Greek language education stakeholders while creating conditions for dialogue, reflection, and collective planning. The Spring 2026 workshops represented a movement from research findings toward professional learning and community engagement. The next step is to transform this momentum into a sustainable ecosystem of support for teachers (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026a, 2026b).

Such an ecosystem would include practical teacher guides, ready-to-use lesson plans, differentiated materials, ongoing online seminars, teacher networks, Canada-Greece school twinning initiatives, and summer training programs. More importantly, it would recognize teachers as central agents in the renewal of Greek heritage language education. Their classroom experiences, challenges, adaptations, and aspirations are essential sources of knowledge for the field.

The findings of this study therefore point toward a broader reimagining of professional development. Greek heritage language teachers in Canada need more than occasional training; they need sustained communities of practice that connect educators across schools, cities, provinces, and national borders. They need resources designed for bilingual, multilingual, English-dominant and, where relevant, French-dominant learners. They need institutional partnerships that bring together communities, universities, cultural organizations, and educational authorities in Canada and Greece (Wenger 1998; García et al. 2021; Cummins 2021; Karpava et al. 2025).

By foregrounding teachers' voices, this article argues that the future of Greek heritage language education in Canada depends on collaborative, practice-oriented, and research-informed structures of support. The Hellenic Relay in Action case illustrates the potential of a sustained university-community partnership built through cross-sector collaboration, while questions concerning the enabling roles of Canadian multicultural policy, university recognition structures, and philanthropic support require further comparative investigation. The challenge ahead is to move from relay as metaphor to relay as infrastructure: a shared and ongoing passing forward of knowledge, responsibility, resources, and pedagogical care. If sustained, the Hellenic Relay in Action model can become not only a record of community action, but a living framework for collective educational renewal (Aravossitas & Oikonomakou 2026b).

August 01, 2026

Themis Aravossitas teaches Modern Greek at the University of Toronto and York University. His research focuses on heritage language education, community-based action research, teacher professional development, and Greek language education in Canada. He is co-editor of Advancing Greek Heritage Language Education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A Community Action Study (Springer 2026).

Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding: The broader Hellenic Relay community action study was supported by the Hellenic Heritage Foundation. The Spring 2026 Hellenic Relay in Action initiatives were supported by educational, academic, and community partners identified in the article.

Data Availability Statement: The de-identified questionnaire data are not publicly available because the dataset consists of a small group of educators in a community-based context. Aggregate findings and anonymized representative excerpts are reported in the article.

Works Cited

Aravossitas, T. (2016). The hidden schools: Mapping Greek heritage language education in Canada (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto). https://hdl.handle.net/1807/71722

Aravossitas, T. (2023). Heritage language education and ethnolinguistic vitality: Community initiatives to support Greek learners in Canada. In G. P. Georgiou, A. Giannakou, & C. Savvidou (Eds.), Advances in second/foreign language acquisition, 191–212. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38522-6_11

Aravossitas, T., & Damanakis, M. (2026). Greeks and Greek language education in Canada. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 81–104. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_5

Aravossitas, T., & Oikonomakou, M. (2018). Professional development of heritage language instructors: Profiles, needs, and course evaluation. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education, 263–84. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44694-3_2

Aravossitas, T., & Oikonomakou, M. (2020). New directions for Greek education in the diaspora: Teaching heritage language learners in Canada. In E. Skourtou, V. Kourtis-Kazoullis, T. Aravossitas, & P. P. Trifonas (Eds.), Language diversity in Greece: Local challenges with international implications, 235–53. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28396-4_18

Aravossitas, T., & Oikonomakou, M. (Eds.). (2026a). Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2

Aravossitas, T., & Oikonomakou, M. (2026b). From research to action: Building a sustainable future for Greek and heritage language education. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 365–402. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_13

Aravossitas, T., & Oikonomakou, M. (2026c). Introduction: Community action research on Greek language education in Canada. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 1–12. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_1

Aravossitas, T., Oikonomakou, M., & Damanakis, M. (2026). Rethinking Greek language education in Canada: Critical analysis and discussion. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 313–64. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_12

Aravossitas, T., & Tisizi, E. (2024). Greek heritage language education in Toronto in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. In M. Mattheoudakis & C. Maligkoudi (Eds.), Exploring Modern Greek as a second, foreign, and heritage language: In Greece and beyond, 89–105. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003319306-8

Arkadianos, D., & Aravossitas, T. (2026). Designing a community-based mixed-methods study on Greek heritage language education. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 105–42. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_6

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2018). Heritage language education: A proposal for the next 50 years. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 152–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12331

Chatzidaki, A. (2020). Διδάσκοντας δίγλωσσα παιδιά: Θεωρητικά ζητήματα και εκπαιδευτικές προσεγγίσεις [Teaching bilingual children: Theoretical issues and educational approaches]. Pedio.

Cruickshank, K., Lo Bianco, J., & Wahlin, M. (Eds.). (2024). Community and heritage languages schools transforming education: Research, challenges, and teaching practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003302704

Cummins, J. (2014). To what extent are Canadian second language policies evidence-based? Reflections on the intersections of research and policy. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 358. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00358

Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800413597

Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada's linguistic resources. Our Schools/Our Selves.

Dagenais, D. (2013). Multilingualism in Canada: Policy and education in applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190513000056

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–99. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.

García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2021). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning (2nd ed.). Caslon.

García, O., & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765

Gavriilidou, Z., Mitsiaki, M., & Mitits, L. (2023). Strengthening heritage Greek vitality in the United States through a community-based curriculum. Heritage Language Journal, 20(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/15507076-bja10021

Golegos, A., & Marinis, T. (2024). Greek as a heritage language in Germany. Languages, 9(12), Article 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9120370

Kagan, O. E., Carreira, M. M., & Hitchens Chik, C. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315727974

Karpava, S., Ringblom, N., & Zabrodskaja, A. (2025). Translanguaging as a dynamic strategy for heritage language transmission. Languages,10(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10020019

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2

Kourtis-Kazoullis, V., Chatzidaki, A., Aravossitas, T., & Makrogianni, T. (2026). Communities of learning in heritage language education. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 285–312. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_11

Koutsogiannis, D., Rothoni, A., Antonopoulou, S., Konstantinidis, A., & Gogonas, N. (2024). Διδασκαλία της ελληνικής γλώσσας στη διασπορά: Μια ολιστική προσέγγιση [Teaching Greek in the diaspora: A holistic approach]. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Loza, S., & Beaudrie, S. M. (Eds.). (2021). Heritage language teaching: Critical language awareness perspectives for research and pedagogy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003148227

Oikonomakou, M., Tisizi, E., & Aravossitas, T. (2026). Greek language education in Canada: Teachers' perspectives. In T. Aravossitas & M. Oikonomakou (Eds.), Advancing Greek heritage language education in Canada: The Hellenic Relay: A community action study, 183–226. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13318-2_8

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Valdés, G. (2014). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and Native American languages in the United States: Research, policy, and educational practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122419

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.