For over four decades now, fields like applied linguistics and world-language education, have investigated heritage languages, the “nonsocietal or nonmajority languages” (Valdés, 2005, p. 411) typically used in the homes and communities of immigrants and their descendants. While still growing and diversifying, heritage language (HL) research has often focused on how users of these languages—also known as heritage language learners (HLLs)—are different from other language learners, and how teachers can best adapt their instruction to their needs.

With so much literature focusing on either HLLs as learners or their teachers, this study aims to bring together these topics in a novel way. Specifically, this multiple-case study centers around three adult HLLs who currently work as teachers of language-related subjects, and it aims to explore whether there is a relationship between their life experiences with HL maintenance and their pedagogical content knowledge. The research questions explored in this study are:

1. How do the focal HLL-turned-language-teachers in this study describe their experiences with HL maintenance and development?2. What kinds of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) are evident in the practice of these HLLs-turned-language-teachers?
2. How do these HLL-turned-language-teachers’ experiences with HL maintenance and development relate to their PCK as L2 teachers?

Data collection included teaching observations, interviews with the focal teachers and some of their colleagues who know their teaching directly, and the gathering of relevant teaching artifacts and documents. Data analysis, meanwhile, occurred in a two-tiered approach: within-case and cross-case. That is, each focal case was analyzed individually first, and then patterns were sought across cases during the second phase of data analysis.

Findings from this study support the idea that the HL maintenance experiences of HLLs-turned-language-teachers affect their PCK. Moreover, there is remarkable consistency across cases; for not only did they all report the influence of similar factors in their HL maintenance (e.g., supportive families and communities, constant exposure to their HLs through written and spoken media), but they also embraced similar pedagogical techniques and behaviors as part of their PCKs (e.g., translanguaging and native-language supports, building strong bonds with their students). Furthermore, in rationalizing many of these moves by alluding to learning experiences they did not have growing up, or to their own struggles with HL grammar rules, these teachers also show consistency in the potential connections between their life experiences as HLLs and their pedagogy and PCK.

Implications from this study, then, are pertinent to heritage-language studies as well as language teacher education, and they include calls to expand the notion of PCK to account for the influence of experiences with language maintenance and loss. Regarding practitioners, this study underscores the relevance of biographical reflection to pedagogical decision-making, and it encourages teachers who wish to make the most of this sort of reflection to expand their notion of “pedagogy” to include student-teacher relationship-building—if it does not do so already.