Building Equitable Futures for Immigrant-Origin Multilingual Youth: Conclusions and Implications of Longitudinal Interactional Histories

  • Amanda K. Kibler


This final chapter presents a brief overview of ways that policies and institutions changed during the study and in the years since its conclusion before turning to updates on youth themselves. A synthesis of youth’s cases is then presented to provide insights into the nature of language and literacy development over time for Mexican and other linguistically minoritized immigrant-origin youth. Relationships among macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors influencing these processes are analyzed, as are the roles played by bilingual and biliterate practices both inside and outside of formal educational settings. The chapter closes with a description of the limitations of this study and an exploration of its implications for supporting the creation of more equitable instructional practices, policies, and research for immigrant-origin multilingual youth.


Immigration Mexican Bilingual Biliterate Longitudinal language and literacy development Writing Postsecondary transitions Linguistically minoritized youth Longitudinal interactional histories approach 


  1. Banks, J. A., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (Eds.). (2016). Global migration, diversity, and civic education: Improving policy and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N., Berninger, V. W., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Matsuda, P. K., Murphy, S., Rowe, D. W., & Schleppegrell, M. (2017). Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 351–360.Google Scholar
  3. Bunch, G. C., Kibler, A. K., & Pimentel, S. (2014). Shared responsibility: Realizing opportunities for English learners in the common core English language arts and disciplinary literacy standards. In L. Minaya-Rowe (Ed.), Effective educational programs, practices, and policies for English learners (pp. 1–28). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Compton-Lilly, C. (2014). The development of writing habitus: A ten-year case study of a young writer. Written Communication, 31(4), 371–403. Scholar
  6. Compton-Lilly, C., Papoi, K., Venegas, P., Hamman, L., & Schwabenbauer, B. (2017). Intersectional identity negotiation: The case of young immigrant children. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 115–140. Scholar
  7. Enright, K. A., & Gilliland, B. (2011). Multilingual writing in an age of accountability: From policy to practice in U.S. high school classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(3), 182–195. Scholar
  8. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. Scholar
  9. Fu, D. (1995). My trouble is my English: Asian students and the American dream. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  10. Gonzales, R. G. (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal contexts in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 76(4), 602–619. Scholar
  11. Gonzales, R. G. (2016). Lives in limbo: Undocumented and coming of age in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Scholar
  13. Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 3–34). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  14. Hoyle, S. M., & Adger, C. T. (1998). Introduction. In S. M. Hoyle & C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 3–22). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kibler, A. K. (2010). Writing through two languages: First language expertise in a language minority classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 121–142. Scholar
  16. Kibler, A. K. (2016). Promises and limitations of literacy sponsors in resident multilingual youths’ transitions to postsecondary schooling. In C. Ortmeier-Hooper & T. Ruecker (Eds.), Linguistically diverse immigrant and resident writers: Transitions from high school to college (pp. 99–116). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Kibler, A. K., & Valdés, G. (2016). Conceptualizing language learners: Socio-institutional mechanisms and their consequences. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 96–116. Scholar
  18. Kibler, A., Karam, F., Futch Ehrlich, V., Bergey, R., Wang, C., & Molloy Elreda, L. (in press). Who are long-term English learners? Deconstructing a manufactured learner label. Applied Linguistics.
  19. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Migration Policy Institute. (2018). Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) data tools. Retrieved from:
  22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Scholar
  23. Orellana, M. F., & D’warte, J. (2010). Recognizing different kinds of “head starts”. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 295–300. Scholar
  24. Palmer, D. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: “Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now…”. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 177–202. Scholar
  25. Prior, P. (2017). Setting a research agenda for lifespan writing development: The long view from where? Research in the Teaching of English, 52(2), 211–219.Google Scholar
  26. Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. Scholar
  27. Ruecker, T. (2015). Transiciones: Pathways of Latinas and Latinos writing in high school and college. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  29. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 301–311. Scholar
  30. Valdés, G. (1997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391–429. Scholar
  31. Valdés, G. (2015). Latin@s and the intergenerational continuity of Spanish: The challenges of curricularizing language. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(4), 253–273. Scholar
  32. Valdés, G., Kibler, A. K., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.Google Scholar
  33. Valdez, V. E., Friere, J. A., & Delavan, M. G. (2016). The gentrification of dual language education. The Urban Review, 48(4), 601–627. Scholar
  34. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–260). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. van Lier, L. (2010). The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 2–6. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda K. Kibler
    • 1
  1. 1.College of EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations