This article presents cases of three young people who represent the “New Mainstream” of the 21st-century classroom as they engaged in a year-long research and writing project. Focal students were classmates who represented the linguistic and cultural diversity of today’s New Mainstream: a transnational Mexican-origin bilingual female, an immigrant Mexican-origin bilingual female, and a Caucasian English-speaking male. Cases focus on the young people’s language and literacy histories and key patterns related to their language use in school as examples of the complexity of students who represent the New Mainstream. Findings suggest the need for a reframing of the notion of “mainstream” and expanded definitions of academic language to better address the realities of New Mainstream classrooms.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
2.
AbediJ. (2008). Measuring students’ level of English proficiency: Educational significance and assessment requirements. Educational Assessment, 13(2-3), 193–214.
3.
AlbrightJ.LukeA. (2008). Renewing the cultural politics of literacy education. In AlbrightJ.LukeA. (Eds.), Pierre Bourdieu and literacy education (pp. 3–10). New York: Routledge.
4.
BartlettL. (2007). Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education, 18, 215–231.
5.
BartoloméL. I. (1998). The misteaching of academic discourses. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6.
BartonD. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
7.
BiberD.ConradS.ReppenR.ByrdP.HeltM. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9–48.
8.
BourdieuP. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.
9.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BunchG. C. (2006). “Academic English” in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens, expanding access. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 284–301.
11.
BunchG. C. (2009). “Going up there”: Challenges and opportunities for language minority students during a mainstream classroom speech event. Linguistics and Education, 20, 81–108.
12.
CanagarajahA. S. (2003). Practicing multiliteracies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 156–164.
13.
CeciS. J.KonstantopoulosS. (2009). It’s not all about class size. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55, 1.
14.
ChristieF. (1986). Writing in schools: Generic structures as ways of meaning. In CoutureB. (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: research perspectives (pp. 221–239). London: Frances Pinter.
15.
ColombiC.SchleppegrellM. (2002). Theory and practice in the development of advanced literacy. In SchleppegrellM.ColombiC. (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second language: Meaning with power (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
CreswellJ. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
CumminsJ. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In RiveraC. (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 2–19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
18.
CumminsJ. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
19.
DuffP. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322.
20.
DysonA. H.GenishiC. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
EmigJ. (1997). Writing as a mode of learning. In VillanuevaV. (Ed.), Cross-talk in composition theory (pp. 122–128). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
22.
FerdmanB. M. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 181–204.
23.
FillmoreL. W.SnowC. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
24.
FitzgeraldJ. (2003). Multilingual reading theory. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 118–122.
25.
GallegoM. A.HollingsworthS. (2000). Introduction: The idea of multiple literacies. In GallegoM. A.HollingsworthS. (Eds.), What counts as literacy: challenging the school standard (pp. 1–26). New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
GeeJ. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
27.
GeeJ. P. (2004a). New times and new literacies: Themes for a changing world. In BallA. F.FreedmanS. W. (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 279–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
GeeJ. P. (2004b). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.
29.
GeneseeF.GevaE. (2006). Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological processes, and oral language. In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 175–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
GravesM. F.FitzgeraldJ. (2006). Effective vocabulary instruction for English-language learners. In BlockC. C.MangieriJ. N. (Eds.), The vocabulary-enriched classroom: Practices for improving the reading performance of all students in Grades 3 and up (pp. 118–137). New York: Scholastic.
31.
GuthrieJ. T.DavisM. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 59–85.
32.
GutiérrezK. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164.
33.
GutiérrezK. D.Baquedano-LópezP.TejedaC. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286–303.
34.
HammondJ. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 251–253.
35.
HarklauL. (2001). From high school to college: Student perspectives on literacy practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 33–70.
36.
HarklauL. (2002). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. In ZamelV.SpackR. (Eds.), Enriching ESOL pedagogy: Readings and activities for engagement, reflection, and inquiry (pp. 127–158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
HarklauL. (2003). Representational practices and multi-modal communication in U.S. high schools: Implications for adolescent immigrants. In BayleyR.SchecterS. R. (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 83–97). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
38.
HarklauL.LoseyK. M.SiegalM. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
HatchE. (1992). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41.
HeathS. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In SchieffelinB. B.OchsE. (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Vol. 3, pp. 97–124). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
HeathS. B. (1998). Working through language. In HoyleS.AdgerC. (Eds.), Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 217–240). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
HeathS. B.StreetB. V.MillsM. (2008). On ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
KamilM. L.HiebertE. (2005). Vocabulary: Making the connections in research. In HiebertE.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
KrashenS.BrownC. L. (2007). What is academic language proficiency?STETS Language and Communication Review, 6(1), 1–4.
46.
LeeO.LuykxA. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (2nd ed., pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
LukeA. (2003). Literacy and the other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 132–141.
48.
LukeA. (2004). Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitan. Teachers College Record, 106, 1422–1443.
49.
MaybinJ. (2000). The new literacy studies, context, intertextuality and discourse. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvanicR. (Eds.), Situated literacies (pp. 199–209). London: Routledge.
50.
MerriamS. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MojeE. B.CiechanowskiK. M.KramerK.EllisL.CarrilloR.CollazoT. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70.
53.
NewmanM. (2006). Definitions of literacy and their consequences. In LuriaH.SeymourD.M.SmokeT. (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: Readings and applications for teachers (pp. 243–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
PearsonP. D.HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 282–296.
55.
PopeD. C. (2001). “Doing school”: How we are creating a generation of stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56.
President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. (2003). From risk to opportunity: Fulfilling the educational needs of Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
57.
ScarcellaR. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
58.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
ShaughnessyM. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
SnowC. E. (2006). What counts as literacy in early childhood? In McCartneyK.PhillipsD. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp.274–296). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
61.
SnowC. E.JuelC. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In SnowlingM.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading (pp.501–520). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
62.
StraussA. L. (1987). Codes and coding. In Qualitative analysis for social scientists (pp. 55–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
63.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics (NCES 2003-008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
64.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
65.
ValdésG. (2004). The teaching of academic language to minority second language learners. In BallA. F.FreedmanS. W. (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 66–98). New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
ValdésG.BunchG.SnowC. E.LeeC.MatosL. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ language(s). In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126–168). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
67.
VarenneH.McDermottR. (1999). Successful failure: The school America builds. Boulder, CO: Westview.
68.
VillalvaK. E. (2006a). Hidden literacies and inquiry approaches of bilingual high school writers. Written Communication, 23, 91–129.
69.
VillalvaK. E. (2006b). Reforming high school writing: Opportunities and constraints for Generation 1.5 writers. In MatsudaP. K.Ortmeier-HooperC.YouX. (Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 57–68). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
70.
WainerA. (2004). The New Latino South and the challenge to public education: Strategies for educators and policymakers in emerging immigrant communities. Los Angeles: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, University of Southern California.
71.
WarrinerD. S. (2007). Introduction. Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning and identity. Linguistics and Education, 18, 201–214.
72.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
ZentellaA. C. (2005). Introduction: Perspectives on language and literacy in Latino families and communities. In ZentellaA. C. (Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 1–12). New York: Teachers College Press.
