Multilingual Education

María Luisa Pérez Cañado   Editor

Content and
Language
Integrated Learning
in Monolingual
Settings
New Insights from the Spanish Context
Multilingual Education

Volume 38

Series Editors
Hintat Cheung, Department of Linguistics & Modern Language, Education
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong
Lixun Wang, Linguistics & Modern Language Studies, Education University of
Hong Kong, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong

Editorial Board
Kingsley Bolton, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Feng Anwei, The University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China
Ofelia Garcia, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, USA
Saran Kaur Gill, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Mingyue (Michelle) Gu, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong
Kong
Gu Yueguo, The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China
Hartmut Haberland, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
Andy Kirkpatrick, Department of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences,
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
David C.S Li, Department of Chinese & Biling Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Low Ee-Ling, National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore
Tony Liddicoat, Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Ricardo Nolasco, University of the Philippines at Diliman, Manila, Philippines
Merrill Swain, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada
Virginia Yip Choy Yin, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories,
Hong Kong
Li Wei, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK
The book series Multilingual Education publishes top quality monographs and
edited volumes containing empirical research on multilingual language acquisi-
tion, language contact and the respective roles of languages in contexts where the
languages are not cognate and where the scripts are often different, in order to be able
to better understand the processes and issues involved and to inform governments and
language policy makers. The volumes in this series are aimed primarily at researchers
in education, especially multilingual education and other related fields, and those
who are involved in the education of (language) teachers. Others who will be inter-
ested include key stakeholders and policy makers in the field of language policy and
education. The editors welcome proposals and ideas for books that fit the series. For
more information on how you can submit a proposal, please contact the Associate
Publishing Editor, Natalie Rieborn. E-mail: [email protected]

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8836

María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Editor

Content and Language

Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings
New Insights from the Spanish Context
Editor
María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Departamento de Filología Inglesa
Universidad de Jaén
Jaén, Spain

ISSN 2213-3208 ISSN 2213-3216 (electronic)

Multilingual Education
ISBN 978-3-030-68328-3 ISBN 978-3-030-68329-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices: An Andalusian
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Diego Rascón Moreno and Antonio Vicente Casas Pedrosa
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition of Digital
Competences? A Comparative Study in Primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Esther Nieto Moreno de Diezmas
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment:
Instrument Design and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Daniel Madrid Fernández, Antonio Bueno González, and Juan Ráez Padilla
CLIL and L1 Competence Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Elvira Barrios
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar and Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Macarena Navarro-Pablo
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning: A Longitudinal Study . . . . . . . . . . . 141
María del Mar Gálvez Gómez
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning: The Case
of Science in Primary and Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo
Advancing CLIL as Bilingual Pedagogy and Performance in Spain:
A Commentary from ‘el Otro Lado del Charco’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Cristian R. Aquino Sterling

v
Introduction

María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Abstract This introductory chapter sets the scene for the broader volume and has
a three-pronged objective. To begin with, it presents the rationale and justifies the
need for a monograph of this nature. It then frames the volume against the back-
drop of CLIL practice and policy in Spain. Finally, it introduces the ten chapters
and four blocks into which the book is structured and illustrates how they provide
updated insights into CLIL characterisation, implementation, and research from a
multifaceted perspective.

1 Rationale

This monograph seeks to focus on the innovations and challenges affecting a teaching
approach which has enjoyed a massive uptake over the past two decades in very
diverse educational settings: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The
latter has undergone a very interesting evolution since it first entered the European
scene in 1994. It was initially heralded as the potential lynchpin to tackle the foreign
language deficit on our continent and was embraced as a lever for change and success
in language learning. However, after this period of unbridled enthusiasm, over the
course of the past half a decade, a more critical attitude has emerged, calling into
question some of the core underpinnings of CLIL and shaking CLIL advocates out
of their complacency. As Paran (2013, p. 334) has put it, we have moved from a
‘celebratory rhetoric’ which saw CLIL as a near panacea to dwelling almost exclu-
sively ‘on the problematic issues of CLIL’. This so-called ‘pendulum effect’ (Swan,
1985, p. 86) which has characterised language teaching history has just made itself
conspicuous in the CLIL scenario, leading to CLIL controversy on different fronts
(cf. Pérez Cañado, 2016a, 2017). Great debate has been sparked off and contradic-
tory opinions have been harboured vis-à-vis pivotal aspects of CLIL characterisation,

M. L. Pérez Cañado (B)

University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_1
2 M. L. Pérez Cañado

implementation, and research, thereby creating the need to revisit some taken-for-
granted issues affecting this approach and constituting challenges to be addressed in
the present and very near future of CLIL theory and praxis.
It is precisely on these innovations and challenges that this monograph seeks to
focus. It will provide updated research evidence on CLIL characterisation, imple-
mentation, and research fundamentally stemming from two governmentally funded
research projects (R&D projects FFI2012-32221 and P12-HUM-2348, funded by
the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and the Junta de Andalucía,
respectively).1 Through them, a quantitative, longitudinal study has been conducted
into the effects of CLIL on the English language competence, Spanish language
competence, and content knowledge of those subjects taught through the foreign
language (FL) of Primary (6th grade) and Secondary (4th grade of Compulsory
Secondary Education) Education students in 12 different provinces of Spain, consid-
ered to be a representative microcosm of the multifaceted CLIL landscape. It has
matched the CLIL and non-CLIL students of 53 Primary and Secondary schools
in terms of verbal intelligence, motivation, and extramural exposure to English and
worked with a total of 2,245 students, 333 teachers, and 595 parents (3,173 subjects
in all). It has employed 11 different types of tests (verbal intelligence, motivation,
Spanish Language and Literature, two content tests corresponding to the subjects
taught through CLIL, and English grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing, listening,
and speaking tests) in order to investigate the impact of CLIL on different cognitive,
contextual, and affective variables: context (rural–urban), type of school (public,
private, charter), educational level (Primary, Secondary, Baccaulaurate), motivation,
verbal intelligence, extramural exposure to English, and socioeconomic status. It has
furthermore done so from a longitudinal perspective, as pre-, post-, and delayed
post-tests have been administered to Primary, Compulsory Secondary, and non-
compulsory Secondary Education students. Finally, factor and discriminant anal-
yses have been performed to determine the interaction among all these variables and
ascertain whether CLIL is truly responsible for the potential differences observed.
From a qualitative standpoint, it has probed students’, teachers’, and parents’
satisfaction with all the curricular and organisational aspects of CLIL schemes and
carried out a detailed SWOT analysis of the way in which they are functioning,
according to the key players involved in their grassroots implementation. Three types
of instruments have been designed and validated for the qualitative side of the study:
questionnaires, semi-structured individual and focus group interviews, and direct
behaviour observation. Multiple triangulation procedures have also been employed:
data, methodological, investigator, and location triangulation.
The study has thus superseded some of the main lacunae pinpointed for prior
investigations of this nature. It has, to begin with, guaranteed the homogeneity of the
experimental and control groups at the outset of the study (Langé, 2007; Lasagabaster,

1 In
addition, it also incorporates the findings of three additional research projects: 2018-1-ES01-
KA201-050356, RTI2018-093390-B-I00, and FFI2014-54179-C2-2-P, funded by the European
Union, the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, and the Ministerio de Economía,
Industria y Competitividad, respectively.
Introduction 3

2008; Lyster, 2007; Madrid Fernández, 2006; Pérez-Vidal, 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe,
2008; Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). It has also examined the impact of CLIL
not only on the foreign language (English), but also on L1 and content knowledge,
factoring in an important number of moderating variables (Cenoz et al., 2013; Dalton-
Puffer et al., 2014; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). It has equally determined
whether CLIL is truly responsible for the possible differences ascertained or whether
they can be ascribed to these other variables (Cenoz et al., 2013; Dalton-Puffer et al.,
2014; Pérez Cañado, 2011, 2012). Finally, it is longitudinal rather than cross-sectional
(Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010), in order to
determine whether the effects of CLIL pervade when this type of programme is
discontinued (cf. Pérez Cañado, 2017 for a detailed proposal of the research agenda
which needs to be carved out in order to address these niches).
This book presents the key findings of the study on both these quantitative and
qualitative fronts. Through them, it offers new empirically grounded insights into the
current state of CLIL characterisation (through an innovative proposal to link CLIL
to ELF), implementation (via the observation protocols employed and the SWOT
analyses conducted), and research (by examining the effects of CLIL on the L1,
FL, key competences, and content subjects taught through English). And it does
so by focussing on a country which is very conspicuous on the CLIL map (Spain)
and within it, on monolingual contexts, where there is a more notable ‘shortage of
research in CLIL’ (Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2019, p. 662).

2 Backdrop: CLIL in Spain

Indeed, Spain particularly stands out within the European landscape, since, as Coyle
(2010, p. viii) contends, ‘Spain is rapidly becoming one of the European leaders
in CLIL practice and research’. As is the case with the broader continental ambit,
this educational approach has blossomed particularly over the course of the past ten
years: ‘In the last decade CLIL … has undergone a rapid development in the Spanish
scenario’ (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010, p. ix).
This expansion of CLIL is often attributed to the deficient language profi-
ciency levels generally attained in Spain: ‘The dismal foreign language proficiency
usually obtained through its conventional teaching as a school subject has led many
primary, secondary and tertiary instituitions to put CLIL programmes into prac-
tice’ (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010, pp. 290–291). Indeed, the unsuccessful
foreign language learning experiences in the Spanish context have been documented
by a notable number of scholars: ‘dissatisfaction is the common denominator when
the proficiency in English of Spanish students is scrutinized, despite many having
spent quite a few years trying to learn the language’ (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009,
p. 7).
These lacunae in language learning can be traced to the lack of teaching tradition
and social concern for language education, which have been clearly reflected in
the official legislation guiding foreign language instruction. Indeed, for most of the
4 M. L. Pérez Cañado

twentieth century, the latter was restricted to Baccalaureate and mainly involved the
teaching of French, which was not taught following communicative principles. The
general tendency since the Ley General de Educación de 1970 was passed has been to
push foreign language teaching to increasingly earlier stages of the education ladder:
from the age of 11–12 with the aforementioned Law, to 6 with the 1990 Ley Orgánica
General del Sistema Educativo (LOGSE) and the 2002 Ley Orgánica de Calidad de
la Educación (LOCE), to the second cycle of Infant Education with the 2006 Ley
Orgánica de Educación (LOE). An optional second foreign language has also been
introduced since 2006 in the third cycle of Primary Education. Furthermore, under
the auspices of the 2006 LOE, which rewards instruction in the foreign language in
bilingual centres, an increasing number of CLIL projects and programmes fostering
innovative education methods have been incorporated across the country.
Indeed, all regional education authorities are now endorsing plurilingual policies.
The most outstanding official CLIL initiatives include:
The Spanish Ministry and British Council Project: It began in 1996–1997 with
a view to providing children from ages 3 to 16 with bilingual and bicultural educa-
tion. Aragón, Asturias, the Balearic Islands, Cantabria, Castilla y León, Castilla-La
Mancha, Ceuta, Extremadura, Madrid, Melilla, Murcia, and Navarra are all involved
in this initiative.
Programa de Inmersión Lingüística: Supported by the Spanish Ministry of
Education and Science, it offers summer courses for students in the last cycle of
Primary Education and the first grade of Compulsory Secondary Education.
PALE (Programa de Apoyo a la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje de Lenguas Extran-
jeras): It has involved 13 autonomous communities (Andalusia, Aragón, the Canary
Islands, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Extremadura, Galicia, Murcia, La Rioja,
Asturias, Castilla y León, Madrid, and Valencia) and is geared at aiding CLIL teachers
to improve their FL competence via 200 hours of training and a two-week study visit
abroad.
Aulas Europeas: These European classrooms are language and culture immersion
programmes in France and the UK aimed at Infant, Primary, and Secondary teachers
of any subject. They are based on an agreement between the Spanish MEC and the
French Embassy, in collaboration with the French Institute in Madrid, and affect the
entire Spanish territory.
PILC (Proyectos de Innovación Lingüísitica en Centros): These language inno-
vation projects started in La Rioja in 2004–2005 and target non-university teachers
of any subject willing to implement CLIL in their classrooms.
ETC(English Through Content): This initiative affects Navarre and was
launched in 2001 with 36 Infant and Primary schools. Since 2003, it has been applied
to all schools in this autonomous community. It involves the application of a CLIL
approach organised around a series of topics through 43 lesson units adapted to the
aforementioned educational levels.
Secciones Europeas / Secciones Bilingües: These sections entail CLIL instruc-
tion in Primary and Secondary schools of diverse monolingual communities (Aragón,
Andalusia, Asturias, Canarias, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura or
Madrid) and in certain bilingual ones (such as Galicia or the Balearic Islands).
Introduction 5

Proyecto Bilingüe: This is the official name which the bilingual project of the
community of Madrid receives. It was initially set up in 26 public Infant and Primary
schools in 2003–2004 and has since then been extended to 147. Here, the CLIL model
can be applied to any subject except Spanish and Mathematics and is taught through
English, French, or German. It includes its own specific teacher training programme.
Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo: This is the denomination of the ambitious
CLIL plan which has been set in motion in Andalusia since 2005. It is based on
five pillars and 74 official actions and has been updated by the Plan Estratégico de
Desarrollo de las Lenguas (PEDLA) in 2017.
As can be observed, these specific CLIL actions are geared at Primary and
Secondary level. At these stages, they seek to foster a more communicative, partic-
ipative, active, and motivating approach to the teaching of languages. Thus, the
foreign language teaching situation in Spain is currently under change and CLIL
is sparking increased interest and attention in our educational panorama. In our
country, this approach is distinctive on two counts. First, it encompasses a diversity
of models practically tantamount to the number of regions where it is applied, given
the decentralisation of our educational system, which transfers educational powers to
each autonomous community. Thus, in our context, the gap between EU policy and
CLIL grassroots action is bridged via regional rather than national educational initia-
tives and no single blueprint exists: ‘Spain is a mixture of heterogeneous language
situations that lead to different ways of understanding and managing L2 educa-
tion’ (Fernández Fontecha, 2009, p. 4). And second, dual-focussed education has
been developed in Spain with both second (co-official) and foreign (other European)
languages, and in both bilingual communities where English is the third language
taught through CLIL (The Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands,
Galicia) and in monolingual communities conspicuous for their lack of tradition in
foreign language teaching (e.g. Extremadura, Castilla-La Mancha, or Andalusia). For
these reasons, Spain could well serve as a model for the multiple possibilities offered
by the broader CLIL spectrum and thus for other countries seeking to implement it.

3 Structure

In offering new insights into CLIL characterisation, implementation, and research in

this multifaceted Spanish context,2 the present volume comprises ten chapters clas-
sified into four main blocks. It begins with a chapter by Diego Rascón Moreno and
Antonio Vicente Casas Pedrosa which describes the linguistic, methodological, and

2 Fora specific focus on contextual, cognitive, and affective variables in CLIL research (e.g. rural–
urban context, socioeconomic status, amount and type of exposure), please see the special issue
of Porta Linguarum (2018) also stemming from the two main research projects presented here.
However, this volume offers a completely different perspective by focussing on the current state of
CLIL characterisation, implementation, and research into the effects of CLIL on L1, L2, and content
learning, from a global (and not variable-based) outlook. In addition, the effects of CLIL on key
competences (such as digital competence) are also examined here, and a broader transcontinental
6 M. L. Pérez Cañado

organisational traits of CLIL in both FL and non-linguistic area subjects taught in

English with a CLIL methodology vis-à-vis the seven main fields of interest which
have been canvassed: EFL use in class, discursive functions, competence develop-
ment, methodology and types of groupings, materials and resources, coordination
and organisation, and evaluation. The results allow the authors to paint a clearer
picture of what CLIL looks like at the grassroots level and to thereby make headway
in characterising its implementation.
María Luisa Pérez Cañado then sets forth an innovative proposal to shed light on
the CLIL characterisation controversy by examining CLIL in connection to English
as a lingua franca (ELF), two acronyms which take centre-stage in the current ELT
literature. CLIL is described on a multiplicity of levels, fostering the connection to
ELF, unpacking ten main fronts on which both concepts conflate, and showcasing
the view that they are in fact compatible, parallel, and can be incorporated in the
language classroom concomitantly to the benefit of the stakeholders involved.
The remaining chapters go on to focus on the effects of CLIL research. Daniel
Madrid Fernández, Antonio Bueno González, and Juan Ráez Padilla walk the reader
through the double-fold pilot process which has been painstakingly followed to draw
up a batch of tests to measure the effects of CLIL on English language competence and
then provide the actual instruments3 for their application in further iterations of this
type of research. Esther Nieto Moreno de Diezmas empirically examines the impact
of CLIL on the acquisition of digital competence, while Elvira Barrios explores its
effects on L1 competence development and Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo centres on
how it impinges on subject matter learning (specifically, on Science in Primary and
Secondary Education). Macarena Navarro-Pablo and María del Mar Gálvez Gómez
finish by determining the effects of CLIL on FL competence, in terms of linguistic
components (grammar and vocabulary) and skills (reading, listening, and speaking),
respectively.
The book draws to a close with a wrap-up piece by Cristian Aquino-Sterling,
who, based on all these findings, expounds on future challenges and ways forward
for CLIL characterisation, implementation, and research. The ultimate aim is to
provide an updated picture of where we stand in the CLIL arena, to identify the chief
hurdles which need to be tackled in the very near future, and to signpost possible
ways of overcoming them in order to continue advancing smoothly into the next
decade of CLIL development.

perspective on CLIL is offered in the final chapter. In this sense, this monograph also incorpo-
rates the findings of three additional research projects: 2018-1-ES01-KA201-050356, RTI2018-
093390-B-I00, and FFI2014-54179-C2-2-P, funded by the European Union, the Ministerio de
Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, and the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad,
respectively.
3 For the remaining qualitative instruments designed, validated, and applied in the projects, please

see Pérez Cañado ( 2016a) (observation protocols), Pérez Cañado (2016b) (questionnaires) and
Pérez Cañado (2018) (interview protocols).
Introduction 7

References

Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking
forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011.
Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain:
Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. vii–viii). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). You can stand under my umbrella.
Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter (2013).
Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010.
Fernández Fontecha, A. (2009). Spanish CLIL: Research and official actions. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe &
R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research
in Europe (pp. 3–21). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’
content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–674.
Langé, G. (2007). Postscript to CLIL 2006 and future action. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse
contexts, converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 350–358). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses.
The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future
planning. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results
and teacher training (pp. 278–295). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes.
International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than
similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Madrid , D. (2006). Bilingual and plurilingual education in the European and Andalusian context.
International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 177–185.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2011). The effects of CLIL within the APPP: Lessons learned and ways
forward. In R. Crespo & M. A. García (Eds.), Studies in honour of Ángeles Linde López (pp. 13–
30). Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016a). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current
CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016b). Evaluating CLIL programmes: Instrument design and validation.
Pulso. Revista De Educación, 39, 79–112.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance
between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.
1515/applirev-2016-2001.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). The evolution of bilingual education in monolingual settings: An
Andalusian case study. In P. Romanowski & M. Jedynak (Eds.), Current research in bilingualism
and bilingual education (pp. 207–241). Amsterdam: Springer.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007). The need for focus on form (FoF) in content and language integrated
approaches: An exploratory study. RESLA Vol. Extra, 1, 39–54.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque
Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60–73.
8 M. L. Pérez Cañado

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lasagabaster, D. (2010). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque
autonomous community. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation,
results and teacher training (pp. 12–29). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal, 39(2), 76–87.
Characterising Representative CLIL
Practices: An Andalusian Case Study

Diego Rascón Moreno and Antonio Vicente Casas Pedrosa

Abstract The characterisation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

has recently come to the forefront and acquired a new significance. Both their concep-
tualisation and pedagogical implementation have of late started to be questioned and
are considered as excessively vague and ambiguous, since CLIL is held to encompass
too broad an array of possible programme alternatives, thus making its exact limits
very difficult to pin down. Thus, we need to characterise representative CLIL prac-
tices and to know exactly what it looks like in practice. This chapter reports on the
outcomes of two governmentally funded R&D projects (FFI2012-32221 and P12-
HUM-2348), within which an observation protocol has been designed, validated,
and applied in 53 public, private, and charter schools in 12 provinces belonging to
Andalusia, the Canary Islands, and Extremadura. English as a Foreign Language and
Non-Linguistic Area subjects taught in English with a CLIL methodology have been
observed and the linguistic, methodological, and organisational traits of CLIL are
here described with a representative sample in the provinces of Jaén and Granada vis-
à-vis the seven main fields of interest which have been canvassed: foreign language
use in class, discursive functions, competence development, methodology and types
of groupings, materials and resources, coordination and organisation, and evalua-
tion. The results allow us to paint a clearer picture of what CLIL looks like at the
grassroots level and to thereby make headway in characterising representative peda-
gogical CLIL practices which will hopefully contribute to honing and fine-tuning its
characterisation.

D. Rascón Moreno (B) · A. V. Casas Pedrosa

University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
A. V. Casas Pedrosa
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 9

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_2
10 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

1 Introduction

We stand in dire need of characterising representative Content and Language Inte-

grated Learning (CLIL) practices and of knowing exactly what this approach looks
like at the grassroots level. In the last few years, CLIL has been facing challenges
posed by controversies regarding its characterisation and implementation. These have
been identified by Pérez Cañado, who has also provided specific ways to redress them
(2016 and 2017).
On the one hand, its conceptualisation has been questioned. For example, it is
confused with its predecessors (Paran, 2013, p. 319): Canadian immersion, North
American bilingual education, and European international schools (Pérez Cañado,
2012, p. 316). In addition, it is considered to have an ‘ill-defined nature’ (Paran,
2013, p. 318). This has resulted in distilling the core features that make it a foreign
language teaching trend in itself, but these attempts to isolate CLIL from other
types of bilingual programmes have been criticised too (Cenoz, et al. 2013). Pérez
Cañado offers a way out of this terminological conundrum (2016, p. 18) and calls for
conducting ‘extensive classroom observation in diverse CLIL contexts’ to address
this controversy over characterisation.
On the other hand, the implementation of CLIL is considered to be vague and
ambiguous as well (Bruton, 2011a; Cenoz, et al. 2013), mainly due to its lack of
a unique pedagogy and the ‘plethora of models or variants which can be identified
within it’ (Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 14). The controversy here lies in the argument that
there should not be a ‘one-size-fits-all model’ (Smit, 2007 cited in Pérez Cañado,
2016, p. 15), and that there is a flexible combination of factors conducive to a broad
array of CLIL programmes, up to 216 according to Coyle (2007), which allows it to
accommodate the linguistic diversity in Europe. Here again, characterising pedagog-
ical practices that are representative is deemed necessary, ‘irrespective of the camp
with which one sides’ (Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 15).
This chapter stems from two research projects funded by the Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness and the Andalusian government. One of the various
lines of action stemming from them is the design, validation, and application of
observation protocols in 53 public, private, and charter schools in 12 provinces
belonging to the three monolingual communities in Spain with the least tradition
in bilingual education, in order to precisely counter the aforementioned conceptual
and pedagogical vagueness.
In particular, this chapter describes a representative sample of 44 observations
in the Andalusian provinces of Jaén and Granada as regards the following fields
of interest which have been canvassed: foreign language use in class, discursive
functions, competence development, methodology and types of groupings, materials
and resources, coordination and organisation, and evaluation. English as a Foreign
Language and Non-Linguistic Area subjects taught through English with a CLIL
methodology (Science to a greater extent, and Mathematics and Ethics to a lesser
extent) were observed in search of linguistic, methodological, and organisational
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 11

traits of CLIL which allow us to paint a clearer picture of what it looks like at
the grassroots level, and, ultimately, to hone and fine-tune its characterisation. The
English as a Foreign Language classes were also studied, as their teachers play
an essential role in the language teaching context and must coordinate with non-
linguistic area teachers and teaching assistants in the common interests of providing
a successful bilingual experience at school.

2 Prior Research

Doubts about the conceptualisation and implementation of Content and Language

Integrated Learning (CLIL) have of late begun to be raised as both features are consid-
ered to be excessively vague and ambiguous. With regard to the former, some authors
have criticised its ambiguity, vagueness, ill-defined nature, and lack of exact limits
or terminological clarity that cause it to be confused with Content-Based Instruction
(CBI) or Immersion Education (Cenoz, et al. 2013; Paran, 2013). Probably influ-
enced by this criticism, interest in highlighting the core features of this approach has
increased in the last few years. Authors like Dalton-Puffer et al. (2014), Lasagabaster
and Sierra (2009), Pérez Cañado (2012), and Pérez-Vidal (2013) (cited in Pérez
Cañado, 2016, p. 12) have distilled some traits of CLIL in relation to its language
of instruction, the languages taught through it, the methodology used, the language
level targeted, the linguistic command of teachers, the amount of exposure to the
second or foreign language, or the types of materials employed.
Nevertheless, this tendency to specify the features of CLIL to make it a foreign
language teaching approach in itself has in turn been called into question by authors
such as Cenoz (2015), Cenoz and Ruiz de Zarobe (2015), Cenoz, et al. (2013),
Hüttner and Smit (2014) and Somers and Surmont (2011) (cited in Pérez Cañado,
2016, p. 12) on the claim that there are more similarities than differences between
CLIL and immersion or CBI, and that a reductionist or isolationist view of this
approach is negative for teachers and researchers.
We fully agree with those experts who believe that the solution to this conceptual
crossroads is to adopt an integrative and encompassing view of CLIL, i.e. to regard
it as an umbrella term that can include various forms. As Cenoz, et al. (2013) put it,
‘rather than insisting on the uniqueness of CLIL, efforts might be better spent estab-
lishing a taxonomy of different common forms of CLIL/CBI so as to circumscribe
the diverse contexts in which CLIL is found’ (p. 258). For Pérez Cañado (2016),
‘the onus is now on recognising the diversity of formats which can be subsumed
within CLIL and on ensuring that the results and effects of all types of multilingual
programmes (be they CLIL, CBI, or immersion) are shared so that the pedagogical
and research community can benefit from them’ (p. 14).
In line with the foregoing, Pérez Cañado (2012) suggests several strategies to
make headway in this area: reflection, classroom observation, and communication.
To conduct the second, a protocol has been designed and validated (via the expert
12 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

ratings approach) as part of the actions derived from two governmentally funded
research projects in which the authors of this chapter participate.
As far as implementation is concerned, CLIL has been criticised for not being
unique pedagogically. The aforementioned conceptual ambiguity has reached ‘on-
the-ground practice’ (Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 14). A wide variety of models can be
subsumed within CLIL, dependent on many parameters such as the following: oper-
ating factors, scale of the CLIL programme, environmental parameters, population
segments, age groups, monolingual-multilingual settings, types of teachers involved,
learner assessment, type and amount of target language usage, language taught,
degree, and depth of content, first language (L1)/second language (L2) balance,
involvement of subject specialists, and the extent to which CLIL is present in the
curriculum (see Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 14).
This amount of possible variants is considered by many scholars to be detrimental
to a coherent evolution of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), peda-
gogically speaking. For Cenoz, et al. (2013), the diversity of learning contexts that
can be classified as CLIL, and which they mention are ‘ill-defined’, is an obstacle
to identify ‘the programmatic, instructional, and student-related properties that are
specific, and perhaps unique, to CLIL’ (p. 254), although in our view, they do not
need to be unique to it.
On this occasion, the swinging of the pendulum has to do with the positive opinion
that a different group of authors has about the nature of CLIL. For Lasagabaster (2008)
and Pérez Cañado (2017) not only does this flexibility not hamper its development but
it also helps to accommodate the diverse linguistic landscape in Europe. It stretches
‘to meet all needs’ according to Dickey (2004, p. 13), and avoids the ‘one-size-fits-all
model’ mentioned by Smit (2007) and considered a failure by Lorenzo, et al. (2011,
p. 454) (cited in Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 15).
Again here, it is important to describe the ‘representative pedagogical practices’
of CLIL that Bruton (2011b, p. 240) claimed for, regardless of the aforementioned
camp ‘with which one sides’ (see Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 15). It is essential to know
exactly what this approach looks like in practice since ‘its linguistic, methodological,
and organisational traits need to be further honed, sharpened, and fine-tuned in line
with the demands of the diverse contexts where it is being applied’ (Pérez Cañado,
2016, p. 15).
Some practices in the same Southern Spanish region of our sampled schools have
already been described, albeit not under the classroom observation conditions which
will be explained in Sect. 4. Ruiz Gómez (2015) expounds on a project carried out
by the Educational Administration of Andalusia at the beginning of this decade.
Among its objectives was ‘to agree on a full-fledged methodological model based on
the CLIL approach’ (Ruiz Gómez, 2015, p. 16). The results obtained from different
bilingual schools are highly heterogeneous due to their various interpretations of
CLIL, ‘some of which were clearly not effective’ (Ruiz Gómez, 2015, p. 16).
Ruiz Gómez (2015) reports on the existence of a diversity of approaches, which
he framed within two general groups. First, he describes situations in which language
exploration was not given special attention, but there were repetitive language
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 13

showers through which the second language (L2) acquisition took place. Thus, the
active use of the language to transmit the subject contents was the only way to fulfil
the L2 teaching objectives. For Ruiz Gómez, this teaching behaviour is very appro-
priate, especially when no extra time in the curriculum is given to the non-linguistic
areas despite the difficulty of covering them through the target language. With regard
to materials, we are informed that either authentic ones are borrowed from any of the
countries speaking English, German, or French, or the staff use Spanish ones that
they have translated ad hoc.
Within the second group, Ruiz Gómez (2015) includes those cases in which
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was regarded as an approach that
consciously integrates target language and subject content objectives. This interpre-
tation generated a plethora of versions depending on the management of language
and content in the teaching agenda. On the one hand, some versions were successful
due to the elaboration of an integrated curriculum including balanced language and
non-language objectives, as well as carefully selected content and materials, under
the consideration of effective second language acquisition processes. Practitioners
can also be given credit for good CLIL practices on the following grounds:
(1) ability to successfully blend language and non-language aims; (2) a medium-high mastery
of the L2 (usually B2 or higher) that let them manipulate the language with ease; (3) readiness
to accept new educational proposals; and (4) working in permanent cooperation with the L2
teacher. (Ruiz Gómez, 2015, p. 17)

Sadly, on the other hand, the project described by this author found bilin-
gual settings in Andalusia that presented clear flaws in the implementation of the
programme, mainly because of ‘the non-existence of a reliable theoretical refer-
ence model’ that could ease the integration of the two types of learning, which
consequently triggered ineffective methodological CLIL practices basically derived
from intuition. Ruiz Gómez (2015) cites some examples such as didactic proposals
with L2 objectives reduced to ‘the presentation of a group of new lexical items’,
the use of allegedly adapted materials that generally turned out to be very diffi-
cult for students, ‘an unsystematic and even neglected consideration of skills’, and
the exploitation of materials ‘which showed a deficient representation of discourse
models and functions’ (pp. 18–19).
The undertaking of empirically solid classroom observation like the one presented
below will enable us to identify cases of ineffective methodological practices of
the CLIL programme, such as those found by Ruiz Gómez (2015). Thanks to this
detection, it will be possible to develop remedial actions against practices deviating
from the challenging path of CLIL, a path which we cannot afford to not follow, in
light of its results and the many benefits it brings to students.
Pérez Cañado and Lancaster’s research (2017) should also be mentioned, as it
shows the outcomes of an intervention conducted in a school in the province of
Jaén. It is particularly worth mentioning here because it can guide CLIL pedagogical
practice vis-à-vis oral communication. The authors reveal the positive results of a
longitudinal case study in terms of all speaking skills in the medium term, and of oral
14 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

production skills also in the long term. This research is focused on oral comprehension
and production. It does not include the written skills.
With respect to the methodology of the CLIL classes, the authors mention that
the sessions of Physical Education and Ethics given to the experimental group were
essentially communicative, involving some research, discussions, and oral presenta-
tions on the part of students. As for the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) lessons,
the bilingual group received them in a classroom equipped with technology and with
access to a bilingual library, following again a communicative approach to learning,
where the time of exposure to English was as high as 80%, and student-centred,
independent, task-based, and collaborative learning prevailed.

3 Objectives

This chapter is aimed at characterising representative Content and Language

Integrated Learning (CLIL) practices in order to know what it looks like at the grass-
roots level, and at determining the existence of within-group differences according
to a series of variables. Linguistic, methodological, and organisational traits of the
approach are here described, with a sample in the Spanish provinces of Granada
and Jaén, through the application of a previously designed and validated observation
protocol.
This general objective can be divided into two key metaconcerns which prove
essential for this research project and consist of several component corollaries:
Metaconcern 1
(a) To describe traits of CLIL vis-à-vis foreign language use in class.
(b) To describe traits of CLIL in relation to discursive functions.
(c) To describe traits of CLIL as regards competence development.
(d) To describe traits of CLIL concerning methodology and types of groupings.
(e) To describe traits of CLIL relating to materials and resources.
(f) To describe traits of CLIL pertaining to coordination and organisation.
(g) To describe traits of CLIL regarding evaluation.
Metaconcern 2
In turn, the second main objective intends to shed light on the modulating (differen-
tial) effect exerted on the sessions observed—in terms of the abovementioned fields
of interest– by the intervening variables of school, province, level, subject, type
of teacher, bilingual coordination, age, gender, nationality, administrative situation,
overall teaching experience, and teaching experience in a bilingual school.
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 15

4 Method

4.1 Research Design

This study reports on the outcomes of two governmentally funded research and
development (R&D) projects (see Acknowledgements) aimed at evaluating CLIL
programmes in three of the monolingual communities in Spain with the least tradition
in bilingual education: Andalusia, the Canary Islands, and Extremadura. Although
the project has consisted of different stages focusing on several aspects of CLIL, this
chapter is related to the direct behaviour observation of both content subjects (the
ones taught through the foreign language) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
sessions taught to both Primary (6th grade) and Secondary (4th grade) Education
students in the Andalusian provinces of Granada and Jaén.
This investigation is an instance of primary research, and within it, of survey
research, as it includes questionnaires (Brown, 2001). According to this author,
survey research is characterised by being based on data, employing interviews and
questionnaires, and being mid-way between qualitative and statistical research since
it can use both types of techniques. More specifically, an observation protocol which
had been previously designed and validated has been applied.1
Another feature of this study is what Denzin (1970) calls ‘multiple triangulation’,
since the following types of triangulation have been employed:
• Data triangulation, given that, apart from the protocols themselves, after the direct
behaviour observation, brief interviews were held with the educators (and that
involves, within them, not only foreign language (FL) and non-linguistic area
(NLA) teachers, but also teacher assistants (TAs).
• Investigator triangulation, since, for each province, two members of the research
team have observed each of the lessons under analysis and have completed the
observation protocols.
• Location triangulation, due to the fact that data has been collected from both
Primary and Secondary schools in the provinces of Granada and Jaén.
This study is inserted within the qualitative side of the investigation. It seeks to
examine the teachers’ and students’ behaviour in both content and EFL sessions
through direct observation by members of the research team and to determine the
existence of within-group differences in their perceptions. This analysis will allow
us to clearly describe how CLIL is implemented at the grassroots level in terms of
the seven main fields of interest which have been canvassed.

1 The observation protocol can be obtained from Pérez Cañado (2016, pp. 27–31).
16 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

4.2 Sample

Although the two above-mentioned projects have involved 53 public, private,

and charter schools in the 12 provinces of Andalusia, the Canary Islands, and
Extremadura, this chapter focuses on the schools in the provinces of Granada (five)
and Jaén (six). Whereas four of these 11 schools are Primary, there are seven
Secondary schools (Fig. 1). More specifically, this chapter only focuses on the EFL
and content teachers whose sessions were observed by two members of the research
group in charge of the Andalusian provinces of Granada and Jaén. Thus the number
of teachers involved is 22.
Moreover, in terms of gender, nearly two-thirds are female teachers (64.9%)
whereas 35.1% are males (Fig. 2). All the educators are of Spanish nationality
(97.1%) except for an American TA (2.9%). With regard to their age, two-thirds
are 45 or younger (68%) and 32% are older than 45. Half the sessions observed

Fig. 1 Breakdown of the

overall sample in terms of
level

Fig. 2 Breakdown of the

overall sample in terms of
gender

35,1

64,9

Male Female
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 17

Fig. 3 Breakdown of the Type of teacher

overall sample in terms of
type of teacher
2,3

45,5 52,3

FL NLA TA

were taught by EFL teachers, whereas the rest were run by Science teachers (8), as
well as an Ethics teacher and a Mathematics teacher. Another session was run by an
FL teacher together with the TA (Fig. 3). Furthermore, nearly half of the educators
(48.4%) are bilingual coordinators (Fig. 4).
In terms of experience, nine teachers in our sample have one to ten years of
teaching experience, followed by eight teachers who have between 21 and 30 years
of teaching experience, four teachers who have been teaching for less than a year,
and two teachers who have more than 30 years of experience. In addition, the vast
majority have been involved in bilingual education for either between six and ten
years (seven teachers) or for more than 15 years (six teachers). They outnumber the
rest and this suggests that they have acquired a high level of experience with respect
to bilingualism, in which they have been involved from the outset of the Andalusian
Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (APPP) (Plan de fomento del plurilingüismo en
Andalucía, Junta de Andalucía, 2005), or, on some occasions, even before its official
implementation. The rest have done so for between 11 and 15 years (two teachers),

Fig. 4 Breakdown of the Bilingual Coordinator

overall sample in terms of
bilingual coordinator

No
48,4 51,6
Yes
18 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

Teaching experience in a bilingual school

8
7
7
6
6
5
4 4
4
3
2
2
1
0
< 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years > 15 years

Fig. 5 Breakdown of the overall sample in terms of their teaching experience in a bilingual school

between one and five years (four teachers), and for less than a year (four teachers)
(Fig. 5).
Most of these teachers are civil servants with a permanent destination (44.4%),
whereas 22.2% are interns. The rest (33.3%) consider themselves to be in a different
administrative situation from the above-mentioned ones.

4.3 Variables

A series of identification (subject) variables have been considered. They are specified
below:
• School
• Province
• Level (Primary/Secondary)
• Subject
• Type of teacher (NLA/FL/TA)
• Bilingual coordinator
• Age
• Gender
• Nationality
• Administrative situation (civil servant with permanent destination/civil servant
with provisional destination/intern/other)
• Overall teaching experience
• Teaching experience in a bilingual school.2

2 Althoughall these variables were included in the observation protocol, only some of them have
been considered for this study. The ones left aside are school, province, subject, nationality, and
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 19

4.4 Instrument

Since the study focuses on direct behaviour observation, it has employed an obser-
vation protocol. It was designed, validated, and applied not only in the schools in the
provinces of Granada and Jaén involved in this research, but also in the rest of schools
participating in the national projects within which it is subsumed. This protocol
first includes 11 demographic or background questions, in line with Patton’s (1987)
question types. These provide mainly biographical information from the teachers in
charge of the sessions, which has allowed us to control the identification variables
mentioned above.
Then the protocol is divided into the seven main fields of interest which have
been canvassed: foreign language use in class (1–8, eight items), discursive functions
(9–19, eleven items), competence development (20–30, eleven items), methodology
and types of groupings (31–48, eighteen items), materials and resources (49–57, nine
items), coordination and organisation (58–65, eight items), and evaluation (66–71,
six items). The number of items within each section has been included in brackets
and the tool includes some space at the end of each section for the researcher to
comment on any other aspects considered interesting for the project. This could be
done during the session itself and/or afterwards, in the brief interviews held between
the researchers and the educators.
The former type of questions are fill-in and short-answer ones (following Brown’s
[2001] classification) and the latter, Likert-scale ones from 1 to 4 in order to avoid
the central tendency error.

4.5 Statistical Methodology

The data collected has been statistically analysed by means of the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) programme, version 21.0. For Metaconcern 1 (objec-
tives a-g), descriptive statistics has been used. Therefore, both central tendency
(mean, median, and mode) and dispersion measures (range, low-high, and stan-
dard deviation) have been calculated. In turn, for Metaconcern 2 several statistical
tests have been employed, namely: the analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, and
the Mann-Whitney U test, with the aim of finding statistically significant differences
exerted on the sessions by the aforementioned identification variables. Grounded
Theory analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) has been used as the framework of refer-
ence for data coding, memoing, and drawing of conclusions, in order to categorise,
synthesise, and identify emerging patterns in the open-response data.

administrative situation. Thus, for example, since all educators were Spanish except for one, as
explained in Sect. 4.2, the nationality variable has not been taken into account.
20 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

Fig. 6 Breakdown of the

overall sample in terms of Teachers' CEFR level
the teachers’ CEFR level

18,4 18,4

63,2

B2 C1 C2

5 Results and Discussion

This section is aimed at analysing the results drawn from this project bearing in
mind the above-mentioned component corollaries into which the two metaconcerns
can be divided, as well as the differential effect produced by the twelve intervening
variables on the sessions observed. Regarding Metaconcern 1 (objectives a-g), this
study has allowed us to observe the teachers’ and students’ direct behaviour in the
classroom vis-á-vis the above-mentioned seven main fields of interest.
First of all, it should be mentioned that, bearing in mind the use of a 1–4 Likert
scale (1 meaning ‘Very much’, 2, ‘Considerably’, 3, ‘To some extent’, and 4, ‘Not
at all’), low results are positive, whereas high ones are negative. Since the average
marks in most cases are between 1 and 2, they are quite positive. Leaving the first
block aside, 24 out of 63 items (more than a third) show positive results, generally
speaking.3
With regard to the use of English in class at both Primary and Secondary Educa-
tion levels, the results show that more than half of the teachers have a C1 level
(63.2%) according to the Council of Europe’s (2001) Common European Frame-
work of Reference for Languages (CEFR), whereas nearly a fifth of them have at
least a B2 (18.4%) and the rest even a C2 (18.4%) (Fig. 6). Nearly three fourths
(71.4%) of teachers use English in class most of the time (between 75 and 100%)
(Fig. 7). In line with this idea, more than half of the teachers (56.1%) do not translate
from Spanish into English at all and nearly a fifth (19.5%) do so to some extent.

3 The reason why the protocol number of items mentioned here has been reduced from 71 to 63 is
because, contrary to what happens in the rest of blocks, in the first section ‘lower’ does not mean
‘more positive’, and ‘higher’ does not stand for ‘more negative’, but the other way round, except
for the fifth item: ‘The students’ linguistic competence is appropriate for the year they are studying’
(please, see Pérez Cañado, 2016, pp. 27–31).
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 21

Fig. 7 Breakdown of the

overall sample in terms of Teachers' use of English in class
the teachers’ use of English
in class 9,5 4,8
14,3

71,4

0%-25% 25%-50%
50%-75% 75%-100%

Very similar percentages (although slightly lower) can also be found concerning the
teachers’ use of code-switching (51.2 and 17.1%, respectively).
Thus, for instance, teachers may, in some cases, just summarise the main ideas in
Spanish from time to time or translate very difficult words into Spanish for the sake
of comprehension. On some occasions, interestingly, EFL sessions are not commu-
nicative and are rather based on drilling, repetition, or translation, and English is even
used to a lesser extent than in content classes. Thus, language teaching sometimes
seems not to be changing at the same pace as content teaching.
Moreover, the students’ level of English is mainly very much (43.9%) or consid-
erably (43.9%) adequate for their year (either 6th grade of Primary Education or 4th
grade of Compulsory Secondary Education). Another positive aspect is the fact that
students tend to use English in class between 75 and 100% (42.9%) or between 50
and 75% (28.6%) of the time. In any case, students tend to use both Spanish and
code-switching as well as to translate from Spanish into English more often than
teachers. It can be stated that some students use English for certain activities (e.g.
to read aloud, to correct activities when called on, to do role-plays, for question-
answer exchanges, for oral presentations, etc.), but speak Spanish for some others.
Most teachers encourage their students to use English all the time either explic-
itly (e.g. S: ‘Yo tengo un Kahoot’; T: ‘Sorry?’; S: ‘I have a Kahoot’) or implicitly.
Thus, for example, even though students might ask certain questions in Spanish,
teachers answer in English. In addition, for the sake of fluency, sometimes mistakes
are not corrected (e.g. *‘I am agree’) as long as they do not involve a communication
breakdown.
The students’ level of English is very heterogeneous in some groups. In those
cases this pitfall may be due to not having participated in the CLIL programme for
a similar amount of time. In fact, on some occasions different ability levels could be
detected. Thus, for instance, in the case of the above-mentioned oral presentations,
22 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

Fig. 8 L2 development in class: Discursive functions

low level students tend to use memorisation, whereas higher level ones tend to rely
more on improvisation and speak for much longer in English.
Vis-à-vis discursive functions (Fig. 8), the results are quite positive concerning
both teachers and students since all the items except for one (10 out of 11) have a
mean between 1 (‘Very much’) and 2 (‘Considerably’), the lowest item being 1.18
(item 10: ‘English is used in class to introduce the topic’), and the highest, 2.12 (item
17: ‘English is used in class to organise the different types of groupings’). Thus, it
can be concluded that English is very often used in class for all discursive functions.
Moreover, generally speaking, the impressions concerning competence develop-
ment in class are positive, although not as much as in the previous block. The compe-
tences which are more often favoured in class include oral comprehension (1.30), oral
expression (1.49), oral communicative interaction (listening and speaking) (1.54),
written comprehension (1.56), and learning autonomy (1.92).4 Quite on the contrary,
the item with the lowest average is critical capacity (2.62). As for the rest of the
competences, the very nature of some subjects makes it easier for teachers to include
certain sociocultural aspects (item 30) in the sessions (for example, History or Ethics
sessions versus Mathematics).
In addition, the methodology and types of groupings in these sessions are less posi-
tively valued than the previous two blocks and only one-third of the items (six out of
18 items) show an average between 1 and 2, including linguistic scaffolding (defi-
nitions, examples, paraphrases, repetitions, synonyms, antonyms, etc.), the lexical

4 Further information about the effects of CLIL on FL grammar and vocabulary as well as on FL
skills can be found in the seventh and eighth chapters in this volume (by Navarro-Pablo and Gálvez
Gómez, respectively).
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 23

Materials and resources

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I49 I50 I51 I52 I53 I54 I55 I56 I57

Very much Considerably To some extent Not at all

Fig. 9 Materials and resources

dimension, individual work, the audiolingual method, lockstep grouping, and task-
based learning. It was also observed that some teachers favour self-correction and
even induce students to correct themselves. Fortunately, it can also be added that the
item with the highest average is the use of the grammar-translation method in class
(3.49) and this means that it is no longer popular either in content classes or in EFL
sessions. With regard to groupings, in some sessions teachers use different types of
groupings and that does not necessarily involve moving the pieces of furniture in the
classroom.
Furthermore, none of the items in the materials and resources section is valued
between 1 and 2 (Fig. 9). In fact, the lowest item is 53 (‘Multimedia software is
used in class’) and the highest is 57 (‘Computer-mediated communication is used in
class’) with values of 2.49 and 3.97, respectively. Only one session was observed,
but teachers were given the chance to comment on any specific aspect after the
direct behaviour observation during the brief interviews held between observers and
educators. Thus, for example, it could be checked that some materials and resources
which were not introduced in the protocol are nonetheless employed. Such is the case
of the blackboard (mainly for the correction of exercises and grammar activities),
notebooks (which play a relevant role in some schools, especially in the case of
Science classes), and realia (e.g. actual rocks in Science sessions). Nowadays, other
gadgets are becoming increasingly popular in education and digital books, iPads,
24 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

laptops, and tablets are used in some classes since they allow both teachers and
students to get access to other resources such as Kahoot.5
It should also be mentioned that in some content sessions the textbook is in Spanish
and some NLA teachers highlight the fact that there are no textbooks in English that
can be used for their lessons. This, without a doubt, makes lesson planning more time-
consuming since they have to take activities from many different sources (e.g. the
British Council website) or even create their own teaching materials (e.g. a glossary
created by a group of Mathematics teachers).
With regard to coordination and organisation, similarly to the previous block, in
this section only 1 item (out of 8) shows a value between 1 and 2 (1.93), there-
fore being very positive: ‘Linguistic learning is supported in content classes’. The
item with the highest score (3.33) reads ‘The connection among L1, L2, and L3 is
underlined’.
Finally, as for evaluation, just a couple of items show values between 1 and
2 (‘Formative assessment is practiced’ and ‘Summative assessment is practiced’),
with the highest being ‘Assessment takes diversity into account’ (2.88). Sometimes
rubrics are employed to assess certain activities like oral presentations. Some of them
include up to ten aspects to be taken into account. Thus, in one of the schools the rubric
focused on presentation, voice, body language, memory, organisation and opinion,
interest and originality, use of English, fluency and pronunciation, questions, and
others. This is connected with the so-called ‘co-evaluation’ since on some occasions
teachers handed out rubrics for the students to assess their classmates’ presentations.
In the brief interviews, some teachers let observers know that certain sessions
were slightly different from usual for a number of reasons (e.g. the observation took
place before the final exam and some classes were review sessions for students to
ask about doubts or any other questions they had).
Turning now to Metaconcern 2, statistically significant differences can be detected
in terms of the above-mentioned identification variables. They have been found in
every single variable, but the one with the highest number is teaching experience in
bilingual schools (28 out of 71 items). Quite on the contrary, other variables such
as gender, level, type of teacher, bilingual coordinator, and age present statistically
significant differences in just 17 or fewer items (2, 8, 8, 16, and 17, respectively).
The different teachers have been classified into two groups according to their
experience in bilingual schools (five years or less and more than five years) and the
block with the highest number of differences is the one related to discursive functions
(Fig. 10). In this respect, they have been identified in seven out of the 11 items,
their development of L2 in class being closer only regarding giving instructions,
introducing the topic, correcting tasks, and organising the different types of groupings
(items 9, 10, 15, and 17, respectively). In the rest of cases, the statistically significant
differences in the seven items have to do with teachers with more than five years of
teaching experience in bilingual schools using English for the remaining discursive
functions more often than teachers with less experience. This could be due to the

5 Pleasecheck the fourth chapter in this volume (by Nieto Moreno de Diezmas) for more details
regarding the acquisition of digital competencies in CLIL settings.
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 25

L2 development in class: Discursive

funcƟons
4
3
2
1
0
P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19

<=5 years >5 years

Fig. 10 L2 development in class: Discursive functions according to teaching experience in bilingual

schools

fact that, after so many years of experience in the implementation of the APPP, they
have become aware of the fact that increasing the students’ exposure to the foreign
language will improve their proficiency in English.
In turn, the perceptions regarding materials and resources, as well as evaluation,
are quite similar, but such is not the case for the other blocks. Teachers with more
experience in bilingual schools tend to develop competences in class more often than
less experienced ones and they also use a wider range of methodologies and types of
groupings in class. With regard to coordination and organisation, it is the only block
(together with the two cases of this same section but in relation to the variables of
bilingual coordination and overall teaching experience) considering all the blocks
and all the variables (that is to say, three out of 49 options) in which a group of
teachers shows more positive values (or as positive in one case) than the other in
all the items (Figs. 11, 12, 13). In this case, according to the observers, teachers
with more experience in bilingual schools show a higher degree of coordination with
EFL teachers, TAs, and NLA teachers, include linguistic learning in content sessions
more often, and collaborate more on materials preparation and design.

CoordinaƟon and organisaƟon

4
3
2
1
0
P58 P59 P60 P61 P62 P63 P64 P65

<=5 years >5 years

Fig. 11 Coordination and organisation according to teaching experience in bilingual schools

26 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

4
3
2
1
0
P58 P59 P60 P61 P62 P63 P64 P65

No Yes

Fig. 12 Coordination and organisation according to bilingual coordinators and non-coordinators

Fig. 13 Coordination and organisation according to overall teaching experience

As far as the variable of bilingual coordination is concerned, within the block of

coordination and organisation, the fact that some of the teachers whose sessions have
been observed are also bilingual coordinators implies that they have more positive
values for the eight items (Fig. 12). The reason for this may be the very crucial role
they play in the successful implementation of the APPP in the different Andalusian
Primary and Secondary schools. Their very position makes them highlight the rele-
vance of coordination among all the stakeholders involved in these projects, which
will prove essential for their educational goals to be reached. However, there are
only statistically significant differences in three out of eight items, namely, P58,
P60, and P65 (‘Coordination among NLA teachers and TA can be verified’, ‘Coor-
dination among EFL teachers and TA can be verified’, and ‘There is collaboration
for material preparation and design’, respectively).
Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 27

To our surprise, the variable with the second-highest number of statistically signifi-
cant differences (in 20 out of 71 items) is also related to experience. More specifically,
in this case it is connected with the teachers’ overall teaching experience, according
to which they have been divided into the following two groups: on the one hand,
educators with ten or fewer years of experience and, on the other, teachers with more
than ten. The latter yield lower (i.e. more positive) averages than the former in more
than half of the items (41/63).
The first block (namely, foreign language use in class) is the section in which
experienced teachers obtain more positive averages and, together with coordination
and organisation, the block comprising the highest number of statistically significant
differences. Thus, both educators with more experience and the students attending
their sessions spend less time code-switching and translating from Spanish into
English in class. In addition, in the section focusing on coordination and organisation
(Fig. 13) the same conclusions drawn above according to the teaching experience in
bilingual schools variable apply.
Finally, in the rest of blocks it can be identified that more experienced teachers
yield a majority of items with favourable averages (blocks 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7), except
for the fourth section (methodology and types of groupings), in which there is a
balance since each cohort yields lower averages than the other in nine out of the 18
items.

6 Conclusion

We are of the opinion that the way out of the Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) conceptual and pedagogical conundrums evinced in the specialised
literature is describing representative practices. Thus, we agree with those authors
who have already encouraged this solution to the challenges of the approach posed
by the controversies on these two fronts (see Sect. 1). The case study presented
here answers the call for conducting extensive classroom observation in a variety of
contexts with a view to painting a clearer picture of CLIL. It shows what the approach
looks like at the grassroots level in some schools of the Andalusian provinces of Jaén
and Granada.
The following findings with regard to objectives a-g of our first metaconcern can
be summarised. Vis-á-vis foreign language use in class, the results are quite positive
in general, especially on the part of teachers. Students, too, have the adequate level
of English expected from them, although they tend to use Spanish more frequently
than their educators. Two negative points must be noted, however. First, sometimes
English is less used in EFL classes than in the content sessions. Second, the pupils’
level of the foreign language is very heterogeneous in a few cases because not all of
them have been participating in the CLIL programme for the same amount of time.
In connection with the two aspects that were next canvassed, discursive functions
and competence development, the outcomes also show a favourable implementation
of the approach.
28 D. Rascón Moreno and A. V. Casas Pedrosa

In relation to methodology and types of groupings, on the one hand, and materials
and resources, on the other hand, the insights gleaned are not as positive as in the
previous blocks. Nonetheless, they are not discouraging either. In a slight majority
of the classes observed, most of the pedagogical options examined are followed and
approximately half of the tools listed in the protocol are exploited. The room for
improvement here has to do with the teachers setting up project work and a wider
variety of interaction patterns, being able to count on appropriate NLA textbooks in
English that may reduce their burden of lesson planning, and employing materials
that take attention to diversity into account.
Pertaining to coordination and organisation, the CLIL contexts assessed again
yield mixed results. It can be argued that linguistic learning is supported in content
classes and that English as a foreign language (EFL) and non-linguistic area (NLA)
teachers get in contact with each other to plan their teaching, but this is not the
case between them and the teaching assistants (TAs). We did not find substantial
evidence either to assert that interdisciplinary work and connections between the first
language (L1) and the second language (L2) are common practices. Finally, CLIL
evaluation can be featured in general terms as summative, formative, including an
oral component, and giving priority to content over language. The only negative side
in this respect is the little attention paid to diversity (which tallies with its scarce
presence in materials, as mentioned above).
The main conclusion that can be drawn from the control of a series of variables
upon the overall perceptions gathered (metaconcern 2) is that experience is a plus for
a favourable implementation of CLIL. Not only do practitioners with more than ten
years of teaching experience in general develop the approach better, but also those
who have participated for over five years in a bilingual programme in particular.
In addition, being the person in charge of the programme contributes to a more
coordinated and organised model.
The amount of CLIL contexts depicted so far is still insufficient to satisfy the recent
surge of demand in the previous literature for recognising the different versions of the
approach that can lead to overcoming its vagueness and ambiguity, both conceptually
and pedagogically speaking. Thus, we strongly encourage readers to replicate this
study in empirically sound conditions and using the observation protocol we followed
(or a similar validated instrument). A large number of accounts of what CLIL looks
like in its many possible scenarios would ultimately contribute to honing and fine-
tuning the requested characterisation of this beneficial and cutting-edge language
learning approach.

Acknowledgements This chapter reports on some of the outcomes of the R&D projects FFI2012-
32221 and P12-HUM-2348, funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and the Junta
de Andalucía, respectively.6

6 Further information about these projects can be found at www.monclil.com.

Characterising Representative CLIL Practices … 29

References

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruton, A. (2011a). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research.
System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002.
Bruton, A. (2011b). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due
to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236–241.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking
forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Strasburg: Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda
for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5),
543–562. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., and Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my
umbrella”. Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee, and Gorter
(2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010.
Denzin, N. K. (Ed.). (1970). Sociological methods: A source book. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Junta de Andalucía. (2005). Plan de fomento del plurilingüismo en Andalucía. Sevilla: Junta de
Andalucía. http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/boja/boletines/2005/65/d/5.html. Accessed 26 Feb.
2021.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses.
The Open Applied Linguistics Journal,1, 31–42. http://laslab.org/david. Accessed 26 Feb. 2021.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. http://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. http://doi.org/10.1080/136
70050.2011.630064.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current
CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31.
http://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the ‘pendulum effect’ in CLIL research: Finding the balance
between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99. http://doi.org/10.1515/
applirev-2016-2001.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and
production: A longitudinal study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 300–316. http://doi.
org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1338717.
Ruiz Gómez, D. A. (2015). A practical approach to CLIL in L2 content-based courses: Method-
ological guidelines for the Andalusian bilingual classroom. In D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado, &
J. Ráez Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom (pp. 14–30). Newcastle upon
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes?

María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Abstract The characterisation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

as an approach to bilingual education has aroused great controversy, particularly in
monolingual contexts in Spain. The issue of whether CLIL is bilingual education,
of whether the schools where it is implemented are truly bilingual, and whether
students who attend them can be expected to attain a balanced bilingualism has
sparked off heated debate. This chapter seeks to shed light on this characterisation
controversy by setting forth an innovative proposal to examine CLIL in connection
to English as a lingua franca (ELF), two acronyms which take centre-stage in the
current ELT literature. While the former-CLIL-has burgeoned as a proactive attempt
to upgrade European language competence standards, the latter-ELF-favours more
realistic language teaching and is willing to forego instruction in certain features
which do not hinder intelligibility. However, despite their seemingly contradictory
nature, this chapter contends that both approaches are in fact compatible, parallel, and
can be taught in connection to each other. After defining CLIL and ELF, the chapter
expounds on the main commonalities which can be detected between them and
goes on to offer pedagogical implications for their joint incorporation into the ELT
classroom. The ultimate aim is to dispel some misconstrued perceptions regarding
the characterisation of both approaches and to attune English language teaching to
the future needs of current students.

1 Introduction

It is an uncontested fact that we are currently living times of profound change in

English language teaching. We are undergoing what Mehisto (2008) terms a period
of disjuncture, characterised by the tension between the previous order and a new
approach which changes the status quo. The demands posed by our increasingly
multilingual and multicultural society resonate directly through to the curriculum and

M. L. Pérez Cañado (B)

University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 31

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_3
32 M. L. Pérez Cañado

the need for what Aronin and Hufeisen (2009, p. 105) denominate ‘a new linguistic
dispensation’ arises. In response to this new global order, two acronyms have emerged
as timely solutions in harmony with the current needs of ELT: Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English as a lingua franca (ELF).
The former-CLIL-is ‘a dual-focussed education approach in which an additional
language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Marsh
and Langé, 2000, p. 2). It involves a ‘two for one’ approach (Lightbown and Spada
cited in Lyster, 2007, p. 2), where subject matter teaching is used at least some of
the time as a means of increased meaningful exposure to the target language. CLIL
has burgeoned since the mid-1990s in order to upgrade foreign language proficiency
in Europe and to achieve sustainable learning outcomes, in line with the European
Commission’s 1995 mandate for EU citizens to be proficient in three European
languages (the mother tongue + two objective).
In turn, the latter-ELF-has concomitantly been gathering momentum in the past
decade in response to the increased use and ownership of English by non-native
speakers. As Seidlhofer (2003, pp. 8–9) puts it, ELF occurs ‘wherever English is
chosen as the preferred option for cross-cultural communication’. It thus emerges
as a way to attune ELT (English language teaching) to an increasingly patent
reality, favouring ‘a more realistic approach’ (Siqueira, 2015, p. 242) to it, where
perfect communication through a native-like proficiency gives way to competent and
intelligible language use (Ur, 2011).
Thus, at first blush, it would seem that these two current trends in language
teaching are incompatible and therefore challenging—if not impossible—to recon-
cile: whereas CLIL is a bid to step up language teaching measures and increase the
linguistic proficiency of Europeans, ELF favours a more realistic model of linguistic
instruction, where the phonological, grammatical, lexical, and pragmatic features
which do not hinder intelligibility are downplayed. Whereas CLIL seeks to upgrade
language proficiency, ELF might be held to be conducive to downgrading it, in its
move away from the native speaker model.
However, while the overriding impression might be that CLIL and ELF pull ELT in
different directions, this chapter contends that, when we delve deeper into their nature
and pedagogical implications, the opposite holds true. It unpacks ten main fronts on
which both concepts conflate and showcases the view that they are in fact compatible,
parallel, and can be incorporated in the language classroom in connection to each
other for the benefit of the stakeholders involved. In doing so, it hopes to shed light on
the CLIL characterisation controversy (Pérez Cañado, 2016a), by distilling key traits
of this approach and debunking false myths which have proliferated around its core
features (Pérez Cañado, 2020), while concomitantly and innovatively connecting it
to ELF as a way to bridge the gap between the latter el EFL (English as a foreign
language).
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 33

2 Similarities Between CLIL and ELF

2.1 Their Pragmatic, Proactive, and Controversial Nature

A first commonality shared by CLIL and ELF is their strongly pragmatic orientation.
CLIL has flourished as a response to Europe’s desire to become the most competitive
knowledge-based economy in the world (Marsh, 2002). It helps prepare learners to
be flexible professionals who can adapt to the varied, unforeseeable, and complex
situations they will encounter throughout their personal, social, and professional
lives, thus forming successful citizens with a substantial contribution to make to
society. Dual-focussed education prepares students for internationalisation and EU
integration, for future studies and/or working life, and for lifelong learning. It results
in increased employability and better equips individuals for the linguistic and cultural
demands of an increasingly integrated and mobile Europe.
In turn, ELF is eminently practical in teaching only those features that are crucial
for international intelligibility (Seidlhofer, 2005). Those grammatical (e.g. third-
person singular -s), lexical (e.g. idioms and phrasal verbs), or phonological (e.g.
different ‘th’ sounds) aspects which are not conducive to misunderstanding are not
accorded attention in class, thereby freeing up valuable teaching time.
In this sense, both CLIL and ELF are crucial to develop a series of soft skills
or ‘habilidades para la vida’ (Moraleja Novillo, 2018, p. 5) which are absolutely
pivotal for students in what this same author terms the Fourth Industrial Revolu-
tion (cf. Chapter 4 for the impact of CLIL on one of these competencies). With the
advent of the latter, we are now faced with a society characterised by its volatility,
uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) (Moraleja Novillo, 2018) which
will require what Brende (2019, p. 1) terms ‘a reskilling revolution’. According to
The Future of Jobs Report (World Economic Forum, 2018), 75 million existing jobs
will be displaced by 2022 and 133 million new roles will be created. This will neces-
sitate the reskilling and upskilling of 54% of all employees in the next three years
(Brende, 2019). The teaching-learning process can thus no longer confine itself to
being transmissive and memoristic, but needs to place the onus on the development of
the afore-mentioned soft skills, which involve core competencies such as cooperative
work, conflict resolution, initiative and leadership, creativity, resilience, proactive-
ness, decision-making, critical thinking, and, ultimately, lifelong learning. They will
favour adaptability to change and to the unforeseen circumstances which gradu-
ates will inevitably face in their personal and professional lives and will promote
significant and lasting learning. By involving ‘a significant change towards language
learning for real life’ (Köhn, 2015, p. 52), both CLIL and ELF contribute to the devel-
opment of these pragmatic competencies or soft skills and help ‘prepare students for
authentic international/intercultural communication’ (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016,
p. 503).
Thus, they both constitute proactive responses coherent with the current linguistic
situation: CLIL attempts to redress the deficient foreign language competence levels
34 M. L. Pérez Cañado

in Europe by creating situations which reinforce the continent’s levels of multilin-

gualism, while ELF has been fuelled by the historically unique position of English in
the world, where non-native users outnumber native speakers (Seidlhofer, 2003).
Both approaches to language teaching are increasingly filtering down into the
specialised literature and on-the-ground classroom practice, and will undoubtedly
contribute to shape the near future of ELT.
Perhaps precisely due to these forward-thinking traits of both approaches, both
CLIL and ELF have aroused great controversy, a further trait which they share.
Indeed, on the one hand, the CLIL controversy hinges on three main fronts: char-
acterisation, implementation, and research (cf. Pérez Cañado, 2016a and Chapter 1
in this volume). In this sense, from the so-called 4 Cs (culture, communication,
content, cognition) coined by Coyle (2007), we have moved on to the new 4 Cs
(Pérez Cañado, 2018a) in the CLIL arena (craze, critique, conundrum, controversy).
Indeed, researchers initially underwent a period of CLIL craze, where research on
CLIL (e.g. Lorenzo, et al. 2009; Lorenzo, et al. 2009) only sung its praises and
shone an exclusively positive spotlight on its functioning. The problem with these
initial studies is that they presented some potentially very serious methodological
flaws which could invalidate their results (cf. Pérez Cañado, 2012). From there, the
metaphorical pendulum swung violently to the other extreme and researchers entered
a phase of intense CLIL critique, where publications dwelled almost exclusively on
the negative and pessimistic side of CLIL (cf. Bruton, 2013, 2015, 2019; Paran,
2013). The problem with this second batch of articles is that they were based on
unsubstantiated opinions or personal cases, thereby lacking scientific robustness,
representativeness, or generalisability. This situation has led to a CLIL conundrum,
where confusion as regards the effectiveness of CLIL has predominated, and has
caused researchers to be currently positioned within a CLIL controversy, which is
playing itself out in some of the major journals in the field, where articles are being
tossed back and forth between CLIL advocates and CLIL detractors. Intense debate
has been sparked off and contradictory opinions have been harboured vis-à-vis pivotal
aspects of CLIL, thereby creating the need to revisit some taken-for-granted issues
affecting this approach.
Similarly, ELF has been considered to be ‘probably the most radical and contro-
versial approach to emerge in recent years’ (Graddol, 2006, p. 87). Parallel to the 4 Cs
in CLIL, resistance to ELF can also be summarised with, in this case, a four-pronged
acronym: PESTS. It stands for ‘“Practicality” (not practical to teach different types
of English), “Efficiency” (just a waste of time), “Standards” (need to learn standard
native English), and “Simplicity” (don’t like to be confused, keep things simple)’
(Marlina, 2014, p. 9). Indeed, the instability, fluidity, and variability inherent in ELF
(Blair, 2020) have led to challenges and obstacles in its application. According to
Sifakis (2020), these hurdles are fundamentally two: the negative attitudes towards
ELF which teachers tend to harbour due to the strong convictions they normally
have about what is standard and appropriate in language teaching, and the lack of
a comprehensive instructional framework for ELF, which leads to ‘an uncertainty
about establishing, applying and evaluating appropriate ELF pedagogy’ (Sifakis,
2020, p. 108).
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 35

The controversy which surrounds both approaches attests to their exponential

uptake as burning issues on the current ELT agenda. While the debate it has spurred
on has been very healthy and has blown refreshingly new life into the field, we clearly
need to shed light on it in order to bring the metaphorical pendulum to a standstill
and ensure that only ‘factfulness’, as Rosling (2018, p. 1) terms it, that is, the habit
of only carrying opinions for which there are strong supporting facts, is our compass
for the future.

2.2 The Type of Language Taught

A second trait which CLIL and EIL have in common involves the type of language
taught. Both meaningful exposure and language-based focus on form are part
and parcel of both approaches. Indeed, on the one hand, both CLIL and ELF
target successful communication in uncontrived real-life situations, with a primacy
of fluency over accuracy. Recent research (cf. Lancaster, 2018) has evinced that
meaningful, communicative exposure to the foreign language through CLIL (with
no extra formal instruction) is a superior instructional option to exclusive EFL
teaching with extra formal instruction. Similarly, ELF veers towards ‘a more
communication-oriented and inclusive approach’ (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016,
p. 505).
However, on the other, a focus on form is also integral to both CLIL and ELF. Lyster
(2007) makes a strong case for the inclusion of instructional plans with language
objectives in CLIL programmes, involving noticing activities, increase in metalin-
guistic awareness, and opportunities for production practice. Exposure and authentic
communication, he maintains, are not sufficient to push interlanguage development
forward in CLIL scenarios. Much the same view is harboured by Ur (2011) for ELF:
grammatical accuracy, vocabulary breadth, and error correction all have a substan-
tial place within ELF and need to be provided to the student in order for him/her to
become a fully competent speaker of English. Thus, intelligibility and comprehen-
sibility are not all English learners need (Sung, 2013). This would be a reductive
approach, as ‘a restricted focus on features crucial to intelligibility might result in
an impoverished syllabus in ELT’ (Sung, 2013, p. 178).

2.3 The Language Level Targeted

Such a full competence, however, does not entail attaining a native-like level in the
target language: both CLIL and ELF aim for a functional as opposed to a (near)
native-like competence. Indeed, as regards CLIL, ‘the term “bilingual” in most parts
of Europe does not refer to the mastery of a second language at native-like proficiency,
but it describes a partial foreign language competence’ (Brüning and Purrmann, 2014,
p. 315). As Mearns (2012, p. 176) has put it, ‘Unlike the case of EFL approaches, the
36 M. L. Pérez Cañado

main goal of CLIL is to produce competent and confident target language users, while
at the same time teaching subject content’. Similarly, ‘The priority for students using
ELF (…) is to be as intelligible as possible to the people they are communicating
with. This does not necessarily mean sounding like a native speaker’ (Davies and
Patsko, 2013).
Thus, the competent speaker of English in CLIL and international settings may
or may not be originally a native speaker, which is why Ur (2011) suggests re-
defining Kachru’s (1992) circles of English users in terms of their level of competence
(limited—competent—fully competent), instead of considering where they live or
whether or not they are native speakers. Rampton (1996) also suggests replacing the
terms native speaker and non-native speaker with expert and novice, respectively,
with the intention of placing the onus on language expertise rather than nativeness
in conceptualising language competence. Similarly, Blair (2020) prefers the denom-
ination speakers of the target language to that of native speakers in order to focus on
intelligibility and ease of communication. In this sense, the new CEFR Companion
Volume (Council of Europe, 2018) reflects this all-important shift by updating existing
descriptors to include ‘speakers of the target language’ instead of ‘native speakers’.
This more attainable level of the foreign language inherent in both CLIL and
ELF involves departing from a standard English model as a convenient starting
point in the classroom, but having students develop their own variety as L2 speakers
(Sung, 2013). This model is seen as a point of reference (a sort of guide from which
variations or deviations are considered acceptable) rather than a target (the standard
which the teacher establishes as a goal for students) (Hewings, 2004). This is what
Köhn (2015, p. 59) refers to as the creation of ‘a pedagogical space for ELF in the
English classroom’. It requires a shift from a strong to a weak standard English
orientation, which is post-normative, social constructivist, and allows students to
develop EFL-specific creativity. In this sense, deviations are tolerated to a greater
extent, both in ELF and in CLIL: ‘CLIL classrooms clearly require, and indeed
practise, a greater tolerance for deviations’ (Köhn 2015, p. 54). Both approaches
also entail toning down and standardising native varieties (Siqueira, 2015), as fully
competent speakers can usually identify in an intuitive way which features of their
own speech are (not) internationally standard (Ur, 2011).

2.4 The Teacher and His/Her Training

The foregoing has important implications for the teacher. (S)he need no longer have
a native-like competence (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010). As Ur (2011) underscores,
the native—non-native distinction is becoming increasingly irrelevant. To take a
case in point, in southern Spain, non-linguistic area teachers participating in CLIL
programmes are only required to certify a CEFR B2 level of English, which distin-
guishes this type of programme from immersion ones, whose teaching staff normally
comprises a high percentage of native speakers (Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2010).
Instead of simply having a native-like mastery of the English language, CLIL teachers
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 37

now need to be well-versed in academic, disciplinary, or subject-related literacies,

together with EFL skills. These discipline-specific skills require the development of
cognitive discourse functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) such as describing, explaining,
defining, comparing, or evaluating, together with the development of facts, concepts,
procedures, and strategies. This is precisely what is promoted by the pluriliteracies
approach (Meyer, et al. 2015). This model makes the integration of content and
language more conspicuous and sees it as fundamental to learning. It favours the
conflation of BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills, Cummins, 1999) and
CALP (Cognitive academic Language Proficiency, Cummins 1999)1 and challenges
the division of both concepts, strengthening the relationship between the conceptual
and communicative continua.
In turn, in ELF teaching, the non-native fully competent speaker becomes
an achievable and adequate role model. The ‘omniscient’ native speaker model
(Alptekin, 2002; Rajagopalan, 2004) is now seen as ‘conveying a narrow and
unfaithful portrait of the multifaceted reality of English, as well as of its uses and
users’ (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016, p. 489). Thus, what is now important is the
instructor’s level of linguistic and intercultural competence and his/her teaching
ability, and not whether (s)he is a native speaker of the target language.
In line with the foregoing, in addition to language mastery at an attainable level,
the CLIL and ELF teachers now have to develop a new skillset that goes well
beyond merely linguistic aspects. Teacher education acquires a particularly sharp
relief in both cases, as further commonality which can be detected between the two
approaches. As Siqueira (2017, p. 391) puts it, ‘Concerning English specifically,
due to its spectacular spread around the planet, the quality of teacher professional
preparation has become a key issue’. The novelty, recency, and crucial implications
of CLIL and ELF call for a new teacher development paradigm which comprises
‘premises, practices, conceptions, strategies and tools very diverse from the ones
teacher educators have been utilising all these years’ (Siqueira, 2017, p. 402). This
paradigm requires a rethinking of teacher training in order to bridge the gap between
implication and application, ensuring such ongoing professional development truly
trickles down to on-the-ground practice. As Dewey and Patsko (2017, pp. 1–2) have
put it, ‘the way ELT has conventionally tended to conceive subject knowledge in
teacher education is no longer relevant or appropriate when we take into account the
global lingua franca role of English’.
In this sense, great headway has been made in determining the key competencies
which CLIL and EFL teachers need to master and in setting forth specific teacher
development programmes which sharpen and refine them and which are attuned to
actual realities and real teacher training needs. In CLIL, specific projects (e.g. the
NALTT2 Project) have tapped into the main needs which teachers have to step up

1 Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) refers to the everyday, here-and-now language
commonly used for social interaction in the classroom and Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP), to the more abstract, specialised language used for academic purposes.
2 Needs Analysis of Language Teacher Training: A European Perspective (EA2010-0087), funded

by the Ministry of Education (Spain).

38 M. L. Pérez Cañado

to the bilingual challenge (cf. Pérez Cañado, 2016b, c). Concrete teacher training
proposals (like the Máster Interuniversitario en Enseñanza Bilingüe y AICLE 3 ) have
then been set forth based on these context-specific and, hence, relevant studies (cf.
Pérez Cañado, 2015 for its structure and rationale). Similarly, in ELF, as Siqueira has
recently underscored (2020, p. 118), ‘research findings are slowly gaining ground
in regular ELT classrooms, especially due to the inclusion of ELF-related issues in
teacher education programmes, both at pre-service and in-service levels’. Indeed,
as Vettorel and Corrizzatto (2016) have also highlighted, ELF is now increasingly
present in Cambridge ESOL DELTA and pre-service teacher education initiatives.
Which are the teacher competencies which these programmes seek to hone and
which have been detected by recent research proposals? Vis-à-vis CLIL, over the past
half a decade, conspicuous efforts have been made to map out a clear-cut CLIL teacher
profile. Several proposals stand out in this sense: those put forward by Bertaux, et al.
(2010), Hansen-Pauly, et al. (2009), and Marsh, et al. (2010) in Europe and those
set forth by Lorenzo, et al. (2011), Madrid Manrique and Madrid Fernández (2014),
and Pérez Cañado (2018b) in Spain. Seven core CLIL teacher competences transpire
in all of them. An initial pivotal one is linguistic competence, which also encom-
passes intercultural aspects and centres on both BICS, CALP, and pluriliteracies
(Cummins, 1999; Meyer, et al. 2015). This dovetails with pedagogical competence,
whereby teachers need to be familiarised with a host of student-centred methodolo-
gies, more diversified learning environments and resources (where ICTs acquire a
particularly sharp relief), and a more transparent, holistic, and formative type of eval-
uation. Concomitantly, practitioners must have scientific knowledge, which involves
familiarity with the theoretical underpinnings of CLIL. This knowledge should be
compounded with organisational competence, as the vast gamut of groupings and
learning modalities that now burgeon within CLIL need to be successfully deployed
by teachers, together with classroom management and control strategies. Interper-
sonal and collaborative competencies are two further areas that are integral to the
CLIL teacher profile and that entail the capacity to create an adequate classroom
atmosphere where students receive personalised attention and feel safe and unthreat-
ened to participate and take risks, as well as the capacity to liaise with colleagues to a
greater extent, stepping up collaboration and teamwork. All these competencies are
fully commensurate with the final one—reflective and developmental competence—
, which points to the need for lifelong learning and for teachers to be constantly
up-to-speed with the latest information and research on CLIL developments.
Again evincing great parallelisms with CLIL, the ELF teacher profile is also
increasingly taking shape in recent proposals (Blair, 2020; Dewey and Patsko, 2017;
Köhn, 2015; Sifakis 2020; Siquiera, 2017; Sung, 2013; Vettorel and Corrizzatto,
2016). Teachers need to have what Sifakis (2020, p. 106) has termed ‘ELF aware-
ness’. As this author highlights, it is necessary to train ‘ELF-aware teachers as
informed practitioners and reflective and autonomous agents of change for their
teaching context’ (Sifakis, 2020, p. 113). This awareness hinges on several different

3 Cf. https://www.ujaen.es/estudios/oferta-academica/masteres/master-interuniversitario-en-ensena

nza-bilingue-y-aprendizaje-integrado-de-contenidos-y.
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 39

fronts. It is incumbent upon them to be aware of the varieties of English they need
to master and teach (Pedrazzini and Nava, 2010), of the sociolinguistic changes
engendered by the current pluralisation of English and by its lingua franca status
(Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016), and of ELF use in reality, including the notion
of language variation and change in ELF and the role of English in today’s world
(Sung, 2013). However, awareness-raising is at present simply regarded as an initial
impetus or jump-off point (Dewey and Patsko, 2017). Other issues are now acquiring
an increased salience on the ELF teacher competence agenda. The ELF teacher also
needs to be a fundamentally critical intercultural educator (Siqueira, 2017), who can
foster reflection on implications for pedagogical approaches (Vettorel and Corriz-
zatto 2016), on current thinking and practice (Dewey and Patsko, 2017), and on the
evaluation of existing materials (Siqueira, 2015). In Siqueira’s (2017, p. 400) words,
‘in order not to be considered some type of “illiterate of the twenty-first century”,
language teacher educators should make themselves willing to learn, unlearn and
relearn’. They equally need to be sensitive the ‘“pains” felt by future global language
learners’ (Siqueira, 2017, p. 403), to the potential of ELF in practice (Blair, 2020),
and to their own ‘glocal’ context, which should lead towards pedagogic choices that
can be locally tailored to the students’ (present and future) needs and contexts of use
for English (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016). A further trait which ELF practitioners
should exhibit, in harmony with CLIL teachers, is enhanced collaboration with their
colleagues ‘in order to fight for the updating of curricula, courses, programmes and
disciplines’ (Siqueira, 2017, p. 402). They should also have a language competence
which allows them to compare their students’ pronunciation with the requirements
of the Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000) and with different reference models.
Finally, they should develop a pedagogical competence which capacitates them to
devise ELF-aware activities, tasks, and lesson plans, adapting and suiting them to
each concrete learning and teaching context (Sifakis, 2020; Vettorel and Corrizzatto,
2016).

2.5 The Learner

For the learner, the implications of CLIL and ELF are no less significant. The securely
established position of ELF for the next 50 years, according to Seidlhofer (2003),
means that English will remain firmly entrenched in the educational system and
will increase its outreach to more diversified levels of society. ELF will increasingly
trickle down to classroom praxis and curricula, much in the same way as CLIL has
had an exponential uptake over the past two decades. Numerous authors testify to
this rapid and widespread adoption of CLIL in the European arena (Marsh, 2002),
assimilating it to a veritable explosion of interest (Coyle, 2007). It has furthermore
embedded itself in mainstream education from pre-school to vocational education
rather swiftly, no longer being the prerogative of the academic elite. In fact, several
authors go as far as to claim that traditional non-CLIL ‘drip-feed education’ (Vez,
2009, p. 8) involves moving on the slow track to language learning and that ‘CLIL is
40 M. L. Pérez Cañado

bilingual education at a time when teaching through one single language is seen as
second rate education’ (Lorenzo, 2007, p. 35). Thus, socially, both approaches afford
all students, regardless of social class and economic consideration, the opportunity to
learn additional languages in a meaningful way. They thus promote social inclusion
and egalitarianism, as the introduction of these programmes in mainstream education
provides a greater range of students with opportunities for linguistic development
which they were previously denied.
Indeed, the latest empirically robust research (Madrid and Barrios 2018; Pavón
Vázquez 2018; Pérez Cañado 2020; Rascón Moreno and Bretones Callejas, 2018; or
Shepherd and Ainsworth 2017) has focussed on the effects of CLIL on L1, L2, and
content learning, bearing in mind crucial contextual, cognitive, and affective variables
associated to egalitarianism in CLIL (cf. also Chapters 6, 7, and 8 in this volume). The
results are unequivocal and point to an increasingly strong emerging pattern: CLIL
programmes seem to be cancelling out differences in rural-urban setting, socioeco-
nomic status, and type of school, especially in the long term. Indeed, differences in
terms of these variables are particularly pronounced for non-bilingual learners, but
they phase out with CLIL groups, a very encouraging circumstance which shoots
down elitist claims for CLIL. Bilingual education programmes thus appear to be
causing differences ascribed to sociocultural and socioeconomic standing to be level-
ling out. And what is more, when research (Pérez Cañado, 2020) has examined the
potential of CLIL to work even in the most disenfranchised settings (in a public school
within a rural context, in a socioeconomically deprived area, with low sociocultural
level on the part of parents, and with a majority of students of gypsy ethnicity), it has
transpired that CLIL indeed has this potential, as statistically significant differences
emerge on absolutely all the linguistic aspects considered in favour of the CLIL group
and with extremely high confidence levels. Thus, the outcomes reveal that CLIL ‘has
the potential to work even in the most deprived settings’, where students would not
have previously had access to bilingual education had it not firmly embedded itself
in public contexts (Pérez Cañado, 2020, p. 11). Similarly, the English as a native
language model in the ELT classroom ‘is seen to be advantageous for only a very
small percentage of the total population of teachers and learners worldwide’ (Sung,
2013, p. 174). ELF, on the other hand, is tailored to learners’ realistic needs and wants
(Sifakis, 2020) and favours a more authentic intercultural communication (Vettorel
and Corrizzatto, 2016) which is more accessible for all types of students.

2.6 The Role of Intercultural Awareness

Further pedagogical implications which both ELF and CLIL have affect the role
of intercultural awareness. Both acknowledge the importance of developing inter-
cultural understanding and global citizenship issues in order to adapt and function
appropriately when interacting with people from other cultures. Blair (2020, p. 9)
terms it ‘metacultural competence’ for English language pedagogy and considers it
essential in preparing learners for ‘the sociolinguistic reality of the use of English in
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 41

today’s globalised world’. It entails following a different approach, which places the
emphasis on intelligibility, flexibility, and developing intercultural communication
skills instead of merely prioritising the acquisition of a prescribed native accent.
As Siquiera (2012, p. 201) has put it, ‘because of its de-nationalisation, English
has become a language which represents and provides access to several cultures,
including those from countries and territories practically unknown or strange to
many people’. Intercultural or metacultural competence thus acquires an increased
salience due to the fact that English is no longer linked to a single culture, but to
diverse languacultures. In ELF, English is used as a vehicle to raise awareness of
three types of culture: the home culture, the cultures of those who are able to speak
English, and the culture of English-speaking peoples (Ur, 2011). Siqueira (2012),
in turn, speaks of three different cultural sources: the source culture (where the
student’s native culture is represented), the target culture (involving the culture of
those countries where English is spoken as first language), and the international target
culture (which takes into account the cultures of those countries where English is
used, irrespective of whether it has an official status or not).
In turn, the merits of CLIL within the cultural dimension have also been frequently
voiced. It builds intercultural knowledge and understanding, develops intercultural
communication skills, and promotes intercultural communicative competence. It
equally raises awareness of cultures and the global citizenship agenda. In sum,
it offers powerful opportunities for intercultural learning which go beyond those
provided by traditional language learning settings. It is what Coyle (2007) refers to
as the 4 Cs framework: content (subject matter), communication (language learning
and using), cognition (learning and thinking processes), and culture (intercultural
understanding and global citizenship).
In both contexts, it is thus now pivotal that the teacher develop this intercultural
awareness. (S)he becomes ‘the catalyst for an ever-widening critical cultural compe-
tence’ (Kramsch, 1993, p. 10) and must be critical instead of subservient: ‘a critical
teacher makes all the difference. (…) a professional who is fully aware of his/her
convictions related to a cultural approach to FL teaching, anchored in an intercultural
perspective’ (Siqueira, 2012, p. 206).

2.7 Materials

The afore-mentioned intercultural awareness needs to be reflected in the materials

employed. This is a key pedagogical aspect related to CLIL and ELF which evinces
conspicuous lacunae. Indeed, for both approaches, there is a well-documented
scarcity of appropriate materials and instructional resources. Authentic materials
are no longer valid options for teaching content and language in an integrated way
or English as a lingua franca, and they consequently need to be originally designed
or adapted. In CLIL programmes, poor access to materials in English and ICT avail-
ability has been highlighted by Czura et al. (2009). Those which are available lack
quality, practicality, and feasibility (Ruiz Gómez and Nieto García, 2009), so that
42 M. L. Pérez Cañado

offering guidelines for adequate materials design becomes paramount in a CLIL

context. Although in recent investigations (cf. Pérez Cañado, 2018c), the materials
employed are considered communicative, interesting, and innovative, new technolo-
gies are still not prominently used. Interactive whiteboards, multimedia, and online
materials are incorporated to a greater extent, but blogs, wikis, webquests, and
computer-mediated communication are scarcely employed. It also transpires that
materials are primarily elaborated from scratch, collaboratively prepared, or adapted
by teachers, as authentic materials are considered very poor. Textbooks are now
consequently relegated to a secondary position in CLIL classrooms. Both the elabo-
ration and updating of materials are entailing considerable effort for the practitioners
involved. They complain about the time-consuming nature of this endeavour, which
is often not acknowledged, and about the scarcity of resources at their reach. Two
further deficiencies on this front affect lack of materials to cater to diversity and
absence of guidelines in Spanish for parents.
Much the same occurs for ELF: as Seidlhofer (2003, p. 12) stresses, ‘EIL is prac-
tically non-existent in language teaching curricula and materials …’. As Siqueira
(2012, p. 210) underscores, ‘The great majority of materials introduce culture as a
monolithic, static, and generalised element, with a prevalence, naturally, of cultural
references from hegemonic societies’. They do not develop pragmatic competence,
a very important aspect for ELF interactions (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016). Text-
books are ‘soulless’, according to Siqueira (2015, p. 243), with characters and
topics that have been ‘socially anesthesized and sanitised for commercial purposes’.
Through them, the classroom becomes an idealised space, a ‘plastic world’, a ‘fantasy
island’, a ‘pedagogical Disneyland’ (Siqueira, 2015, p. 244), instead of reflecting the
world which pulses outside. The latter is clearly under-represented in ELT materials
and the current global condition of English is demanding changes on this score. Mate-
rials should also accommodate the local, reflect local realities, insert local cultures,
develop students’ intercultural competence, and include topics which are part of the
real world so that that ‘plastic world of FL textbooks’ truly starts to melt (Siqueira,
2015, p. 246). Ur (2011) suggests they should be adapted in terms of content, culture,
situations, characters, texts, and language, with a greater inclusion in all cases of inter-
national and local sources and fewer inner-circle or authentic instances. And Dewey
and Patsko (Davies and Patsko, 2013) propose comparing, e.g. the pronunciation
exercises in the coursebook to the pronunciation features identified as important for
maintaining intelligibility with ELF, and then ensuring they are attuned to the needs
of our students. Existing materials thus need to be analysed, discussed, and updated
in more critical and systematic ways so that language pedagogy is realigned with
modern times, trends, and needs.

2.8 Methodology

Another pedagogical deficiency affecting ELF and CLIL is methodological: there is

currently a rift between the theory and practice of both approaches. While ELF has
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 43

been functionally and linguistically acknowledged and described, and there is aware-
ness of its role and salient features, pedagogically, it still remains largely unexplored
(Seidlhofer, 2003). Indeed, the special status of English ‘has had virtually no effect
(so far) on how the language is formulated as a subject in syllabuses and teaching
materials’ (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 9). Even though there is awareness of ELF, it is not
readily translated into classroom practices (Dewey and Patsko, 2017, p. 3). There is
not much sign yet of a movement from awareness to application in teaching (Blair,
2020). Sifakis (2020, p. 111) has in fact highlighted that ‘What ELF does not enjoy
is a specific way of teaching it that is comprehensively supported by courseware,
dictionaries, grammar books and teacher training practices’ and Sung (2013, p. 177)
even goes as far as to claim that it might be ‘inoperable as a pedagogical model’.
Similarly, CLIL is, methodologically speaking, a bid to bring innovation into
the classroom, realigning teaching with modern pedagogical practices. It repre-
sents an opportunity to move from declarative to procedural knowledge and to
minimise the transmission of knowledge model of education, in keeping with the
post-methodology era we are currently living. Task-based learning, collaborative
work, meaning- and form-focussed processing are all considered pivotal in fostering
this transformative pedagogy. However, this considerable pedagogical investment in
innovative pedagogical practices which CLIL brings with it may be largely unfamiliar
to teachers, not having experienced such practices first-hand as students. In this sense,
teacher training actions should be considerably stepped up on the methodological
front, as Cabezas Cabello (2010), among others, has underscored.
Thus, a new pedagogical model is called for in order to accommodate both
approaches (Sung, 2013). There is a clear need to challenge the pedagogical status
quo and re-conceptualise methodological aspects. Current pedagogic practice needs
to be rethought in the light of CLIL and ELF (Dewey and Patsko, 2017) and practi-
tioners ‘need to abandon their traditional practices and be ready to humbly rethink a
lot of what they have been doing over the years in order to indeed prepare intercul-
tural teachers to this more than ever intercultural world’ (Siqueira, 2017, p. 400), as
earlier orientations have been proven obsolete and outdated.
What should a critically reframed notion of language pedagogy look like in CLIL
and ELF? Its traits again run parallel to each other in both approaches. To begin with,
this updated methodology should be student-centered, eclectic, and plurilingual in
order to promote critical thinking (Dewey and Patsko, 2017; Sifakis, 2020). It should
thereby ‘empower learners to avoid turning into “teachees” (i.e. passive recipients
of what is taught) and grow into active participants in the learning process’ (Sifakis,
2020, pp. 111–112). It should equally expose students to a range of native and
non-native varieties and accents of English, rather than a single or restricted amount
(Sung 2013; Köhn, 2015). In order to go beyond static and monolithic representations
of the language, authentic materials, such as written texts, audioclips, videoclips,
charts, and literary texts can be used to encourage a more dynamic approach to
presenting differences in accents and lexical items (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016).
In addition to these language varieties, strategies now acquire a sharp relief within
both CLIL and ELF. Scaffolding, intelligibility, and communication strategies are
seen as key elements (Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016). Accommodation, interpersonal
44 M. L. Pérez Cañado

and pragmatic competence, and negotiated meaning-making practices (Sifakis, 2020;

Siqueira, 2020; Sung, 2013) also come to the fore as essential. These strategies need to
be connected to the local context of the learner. This is what Sung (2013, p. 184) terms
a ‘polycentric model perspective’, which ‘involves a respect for local variation and
a willingness to engage in the shared pursuit of intelligibility and comprehensibility,
so that it allows individual variations in ELF use and the expression of local identity,
while at the same time enabling the existence of a model or standard’. In this sense,
the on-size-fits-all model no longer fits the bill in either approach (Hüttner and
Smit, 2014). This entails tailoring language teaching to learners’ realistic needs
and wants (Sifakis, 2020) and attuning it to real-life use of English. Indeed, a shift
needs to be operated ‘towards language learning for real life’ (Köhn, 2015, p. 63).
Students should develop an understanding of ‘how English language is currently
used’ (Grazzi and Lopriore, 2020, p. 85) and experience it in real communicative
contexts which prepare them for authentic international/intercultural communication
(Vettorel and Corrizzatto, 2016) through updated English expressions (Pérez Cañado
and Borja-Ojeda, 2018).
Finally, assessment also needs to be considerably revamped (Vettorel and Corriz-
zatto, 2016). A more diversified, ongoing, and holistic evaluation should be set in
place and the transition needs to be made towards a more ingrated type of assessment
(Otto, 2018), where language-related issues are measured in relation to content objec-
tives. This entails a systemic-functional approach to evaluation, which considers not
only if a language form is grammatically correct, but whether it is used appropriately
to convey meaning in functional contexts, taking into account communicative intent
in terms of language functions rather than linguistic accuracy or grammatical correc-
tion. Thus, assessment now needs to consider not only the ability to use linguistic
forms correctly, but to use the appropriate form to express meaning in a partic-
ular academic context. Attention consequently needs to be paid to how successful
communication is achieved, as well as the range and appropriateness of language use,
rather than simply whether or not the language produced by the learners conforms
to a certain standard (Sung, 2013).

2.9 Research

Much the same needs to happen in the research arena. Perhaps the single most
widely consensual affirmation in the specialised literature on both approaches is that
research on CLIL and ELF is still at an embryonic stage and consequently needs
to be escalated. Seidlhofer (2003, p. 18) makes this point with respect to ELF: ‘…
it is early days yet and no reliable findings based on quantitative investigations can
be reported at this stage’. The same conclusion can be reached regarding European
CLIL: although the number of studies tapping into the implementation and effects of
CLIL has been growing steadily, very few are robust accounts of outcome-oriented
research where pertinent variables are factored in and controlled for. The final verdict,
thus, is not yet in (Marsh 2002, p. 185): ‘… there remains insufficient empirical
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 45

evidence of the impact of differing types of CLIL/EMILE across Europe’. Exploring

the many avenues which are still open to scrutiny in both areas will undoubtedly be
the remit of future research.
As in previous areas, parallel pathways for progression can be mapped out for
both approaches. To begin with, we stand in need of characterising representative
pedagogical practices of both approaches. They are both well-characterised from a
theoretical stance, but these traits have as yet had little practical take-up and what
they should look like in practice is still a major niche to be filled. In this sense,
as CLIL continues to develop over the next decade, its linguistic, methodological,
and organisational traits will also need to be honed, sharpened, and fine-tuned in
line with the demands of the contexts where it is being applied (Pérez Cañado,
2017). Reflection (e.g. through the Observatorio de Plurilingüismo which will be
set up in Andalusia), classroom observation (e.g. through specific protocols which
have been designed for that purpose—cf. Pérez Cañado, 2016a), and communication
(e.g. via job-shadowing or the sharing of good CLIL practices with others) will
increasingly characterise representative pedagogical CLIL practices and allow us to
make headway in this area. Similarly, in ELF, strides need to be taken in order to
determine ‘the ways in which it can be integrated into one’s classroom context’ in
order to fill the gap ‘that still exists (and that needs urgently to be closed) between ELF
research developments and everyday classroom practice’ (Siqueira, 2020, p. 138).
In line with the foregoing, replication of existing research on both approaches
needs to be carried out within specific contexts in order to base decisions on real needs
and ensure teacher preparation is driven by them. As was previously mentioned,
the one-size-fits-all model does not fit the bill in CLIL or ELF and we need to
maintain a ‘context-sensitive stance’ on it (Hüttner and Smit 2014, p. 164). To ensure
pedagogical decisions are aligned with reliable research outcomes, it thus behooves
teachers and practitioners to conduct research at the local level, as this local context
of the learner has proved paramount in both approaches.
A third area which should figure prominently on both the CLIL and EFL research
agendas is undoubtedly attention to diversity.4 As Siqueira (2017, p. 395) has
underscored, within ELF,
A denationalised language like English, which today has more non-native speakers than
native, brings to visibility several important characteristics such as high levels of hybridity,
great diversity of users, and, above all, it makes possible for speakers to engage in more and
more meaningful intercultural interactions, having as interlocutors individuals from any part
of the world, bearing the most diverse linguacultural backgrounds.

In CLIL, the need to cater for diverse types of learners is no less substantial. This
approach has steadily embedded itself in mainstream education and a new CLIL
scenario is firmly taking root across the continent, where the move is being made
from bilingual sections to fully bilingual schools. Thus, now all learners experience

4 Diversity is understood here as an inherently human trait, based on respect for individual differences

and learning styles (Gardner 1993); varying achievement levels, learning paces and intellectual
capacity; and diverse motivations and socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds which affect the
lives of students (Arnaiz, 2003; Arnaiz and de Haro, 1997; Julius and Madrid, 2017).
46 M. L. Pérez Cañado

foreign language learning both in language-driven and subject content classes and it
consequently becomes incumbent on practitioners to cater to diversity and to ensure
CLIL enhances language and content learning in over- and under-achievers alike. As
Durán-Martínez and Beltrán-Llavador (2016, p. 88) put it, we are now faced with
the ‘difficulty of catering for inclusive alternatives for SEN children and the need to
become fully confident and proficient in their use of English’.
Future research will thus need to address a substantial number of questions which
are crucial for the successful development of CLIL and ELF programmes: Do both
approaches truly work for all types of learners? Do verbal intelligence, motivation,
language level, and academic performance have a bearing on linguistic and content
gains? How do other intervening variables such as sociocultural status, type of school,
setting, community/country, or extramural exposure interact with the previous ones
and impact FL/content competence? What kinds of measures are being set in place
to cater to diversity in monolingual communities? How do these compare with those
being implemented in northern, central, and eastern Europe? Which measures are
working better and why? What can we learn from the best practices of others on
attention to diversity in CLIL and ELF in order to improve our own language learning
situation and educational system? Very exciting research avenues thus need to be
pursued, which largely run parallel to each other in both approaches.

2.10 Pedagogical Implications

Pedagogically speaking, it would also be greatly beneficial to examine CLIL and

ELF in connection to each other. In this sense, attaining the plurilingualism targeted
by CLIL would be made easier by embracing a realistic approximation to English
language teaching which is still accurate, but also pragmatic, and where the competent
speaker with a functional linguistic competence becomes the model to follow for both
teachers and learners. A change in the criteria for the selection of the language to be
taught should be operated, favouring BICS which are more neutral or standardised in
terms of language variety. Materials should be adapted in accordance with the criteria
of both CLIL and ELF, and intercultural awareness-raising should be worked into the
language classroom in response to the demands of both types of programmes. Finally,
teacher training actions and research could productively combine both approaches,
raising practitioners’ awareness of ELF in CLIL Masters and conducting investiga-
tions on the effects which CLIL is exerting in countries belonging to Kachru’s (1992)
expanding circle. In this sense, CLIL could well have the potential to save the divide
between ELF and EFL (Köhn, 2015), by following what this author terms a weak
native speaker orientation, by understanding language learning as a constructive
endonormative process, by targeting a functional competence of the target language,
and by accepting deviations if communication is successful in order to focus on
comprehensibility. CLIL and ELF can therefore comfortably meet to join forces in
their pedagogical endeavours to the benefit of the stakeholders involved.
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 47

3 Conclusion

This chapter has set forth an innovative proposal which expounds on the parallelisms
between two recent approaches to English language teaching which will undoubtedly
continue shaping the direction of this discipline in the future: CLIL and ELF. The
main thrust of the discussion has been that, although they might apparently seem
antithetical in their goals, both are in fact similar in their origin, nature, type of
language and target level, implications for the teacher and learner, methodology and
materials employed, and current research panorama. The chapter posits that these
commonalities can be fruitfully capitalised upon by incorporating the principles
of CLIL and ELF simultaneously into the ELT classroom. Thus, although they have
often been pitched against each other, a reconciliation of both approaches is of utmost
relevance and deserves the highest priority. As Köhn (2015, p. 65) has put it, ‘Hostile
brothers who keep a wary eye on each other’s views and preferences must shed their
suspicion and drop their misgivings to become brothers in arms’.
In doing so, it has characterised CLIL on a multiplicity of levels, fostering the
connection to EFL, as a possible way out of the so-called CLIL characterisation
controversy, while concomitantly adjusting expectations, teaching, and training to
real needs and situations. Taken thus, in conjunction, these seemingly contradictory
approaches may well become the lynchpin to boost language learning in EFL contexts
with limited extramural exposure while concomitantly making it more realistic and
attuned to the future needs of our current language students.

Acknowledgements This article is the result of an extensive review of the literature for the research
projects 2018-1-ES01-KA201-050356, funded by the European Union; RTI2018-093390-B-I00,
funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades; and 1263559 and P18-
RT-1513, funded by the Junta de Andalucía.

References

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1),
57–64.
Arnaiz, P. (2003). Educación inclusiva: Una escuela para todos. Málaga: Editorial Aljibe.
Arnaiz, P., & de Haro, R. (1997). Educación intercultural y atención a la diversidad. In F. Salinas
& E. Moreno (Eds.), Semejanzas, diferencias e intervención educativa (pp. 141–148). Madrid:
CSI-CSIF.
Aronin, L., & Hufeisen, B. (2009). Methods of research in multilingualism studies: Reaching a
comprehensive perspective. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The exploration of multilin-
gualism. Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition
(pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bertaux, P., Coonan, C. M., Frigols, M. J., & Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher’s competence
grid. Available at http://lendtrento.eu/convegno/files/mehisto.pdf.
Blair, A. (2020). Developing ‘ELF competence’ in language learners and teachers. Estudos
Linguísticos e Litérarios, 65, 5–29.
48 M. L. Pérez Cañado

Brende, B. (2019). We need a reskilling revolution. Here’s how to make it happen. Available at
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/skills-jobs-investing-in-people-inclusive-growth.
Brüning, C. I., & Purrmann, M. S. (2014). CLIL pedagogy in Europe: CLIL teacher education in
Germany. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, 27, 315–338.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41(3): 587–897. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and
U. Smit (2014). System, 53, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005.
Bruton, A. (2019). Questions about CLIL which are unfortunately still not outdated: A reply to
Pérez-Cañado. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 591–602.
Cabezas Cabello, J. M. (2010). A SWOT analysis of the Andalusian Plurilingualism Promotion
Plan (APPP). In Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA Convention, ed. M. L. Pérez Cañado, 83–91.
Jaén: Joxman.
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda
for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5),
543–562.
Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the distinction (Report No. ED438551).
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Czura, A., Papaja, K., & Urbaniak, M. (2009). Bilingual education and the emergence of CLIL
in Poland. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols-Martín, S.
Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 172–178). Jyväskylä:
University of Jyväskylä.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising
content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011.
Davies, K. S., & Patsko, L. (2013). How to teach English as a lingua franca (ELF). Available at
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/how-teach-english-lingua-franca-elf.
Dewey, M., & Patsko, L. (2017). ELF and teacher education. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.
Durán-Martínez, R., & Beltrán-Llavador, F. (2016). A regional assessment of bilingual programmes
in primary and secondary schools: The teachers’ views. Porta Linguarum, 25, 79–92.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of English as a foreign
language. London: British Council.
Grazzi, E., & Lopriore, L. (2020). ELF awareness for teacher education in Italy: Attitudes and
actions. Estudos Linguísticos e Litérarios, 65, 69–89.
Hansen-Pauly, M. A., Bentner, G., Jovanovic, V., Zerbato, D., Llinares, A., Dafouz, E., Erades,
C., García, M., Carreras, A., Favlli, F., Dale, L., Robinson, P., Hofmannova, M., & Novotna,
J. (2009). Teacher education for CLIL across contexts: From scaffolding framework to teacher
portfolio for content and language integrated learning. Available at http://clil.uni.lu/CLIL/Pro
ject_files/CLIL_Project_Final_Report.pdf.
Hewings, M. (2004). Pronunciation practice activities: A resource book for teaching English
pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger
picture. A response to A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System,
44(2), 160–167.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Julius, S., & Madrid, D. (2017). Diversity of students in bilingual university programs: A case study.
The International Journal of Diversity in Education, 17(2), 17–28.
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 49

Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue, English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Kohn, K. (2015). A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. In Y. Bayyurt & S. Akcan
(Eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca (pp. 51–67). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lancaster, N. K. (2018). Extramural exposure and language attainment: The examination of input-
related variables in CLIL programs. Porta Linguarum, 29, 91–114.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than
similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st
century Europe. RESLA Vol. Extra, 1, 27–38.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning
in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project.
Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., Moore, P., & Afonso, Y. M. (2009). Bilingüismo y educación. Situación de
la red de centros bilingües en Andalucía. Sevilla: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
Lorenzo, F., Trujillo, F., & Vez, J. M. (2011). Educación bilingüe: integración de contenidos y
segundas lenguas. Madrid: Síntesis.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Madrid, D., & Barrios, M. E. (2018). A comparison of students’ educational achievement across
programmes and school types with and without CLIL provision. Porta Linguarum, 29, 29–50.
Madrid Manrique, M., & Madrid Fernández, D. (2014). La formación inicial del profesorado para
la educación bilingüe. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Marlina, R. (2014). The pedagogy of English as an international language (EIL): More reflections
and dialogues. In R. Marlina & R. A. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international
language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers and students (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: Springer.
Marsh, D., & Langé, G. (Eds.). (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages.
Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension: Actions, trends, and foresight
potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2010). European framework for CLIL
teacher education. Graz: European Center for Modern Languages.
Mearns, T. L. (2012). Using CLIL to enhance pupils’ experience of learning and raise attainment
in German and health education: A teacher research project. The Language Learning Journal,
40(2), 175–192.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL.
International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93–119.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to
content and language integrated learning-mapping learner progressions in knowledge construc-
tion and meaning making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57.
Moraleja Novillo, S. (2018). Educar el talento: Guía para desarrollar nuevas habilidades en jóvenes
y niños. Barcelona: Amat Editorial.
Otto, A. (2018). Assessing language in CLIL: A review of the literature towards a functional model.
Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11(2), 308–325.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.
Pavón Vázquez, V. (2018). Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: A comparison of results
between urban and rural environments. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9–28.
Pedrazzini, L., & Nava, A. (2010). The ELF of English language teachers. In C. Gagliardi & A.
Maley (Eds.), EIL, ELF, global English: Teaching and learning issues (pp. 283–300). Bern: Peter
Lang.
50 M. L. Pérez Cañado

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2015). Training teachers for plurilingual education: A Spanish case study.
In D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado, & J. Ráez Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the
classroom (pp. 165–187). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016a). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current
CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016b). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher
perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016c). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 202–221.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance
between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018a). This issue. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 163–165.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018b). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into
Practice, 57(3), 1–10.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018c). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 369–390.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal,
48(1): 4–17.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Ojeda-Pinar, B. (2018). Communicative classroom language for bilingual
education. Teaching “real english” for CLIL. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concept of ‘world English’ and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal,
58(2), 111–117.
Rampton, B. (1996). Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. In T.
Hedge & N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 9–22). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rascón Moreno, D., & Bretones Callejas, C. (2018). Socioeconomic status and its impact on
language and content attainment in CLIL contexts. Porta Linguarum, 29, 115–136.
Rosling, H. (2018). Factfulness. Ten reasons we’re wrong about the world—And why things are
better than you think. London: Sceptre.
Ruiz Gómez, D. A., & Nieto García, J. M. (2009). Las secciones bilingües en Secundaria y
Bachillerato. Marco organizativo. Dificultades y propuestas. In A. Bueno González, J. M. Nieto
García, & D. Cobo López (Eds.), Atención a la diversidad en la enseñanza plurilingüe. I, II y III
Jornadas Regionales de Formación del Profesorado (CD-ROM). Jaén: Delegación Provincial de
Educación de Jaén y Universidad de Jaén.
Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of International English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to
‘realistic English’? Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SeidlhoferEN.pdf.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shepherd, E., & Ainsworth, V. (2017). English impact: An evaluation of English language capability.
Madrid: British Council.
Sifakis, N. C. (2020). Two obstacles to enabling change in ELF-aware teacher education and how
to overcome them. Estudos Linguísticos e Litérarios, 65, 104–117.
Siqueira, S. (2012). English language teaching and the place of culture: For a critical intercul-
tural approach. In D. C. de Lima (Ed.), Language and its cultural substrate: Perspectives for a
globalized world (pp. 193–216). Campinas: Editora Pontes.
Siqueira, S. (2015). English as a lingua franca and ELT materials: Is the “plastic world” really
melting? In Y. Bayyurt & S. Akcan (Eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a
lingua franca (pp. 239–258). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Siqueira, S. (2017). Intercultural language educators for an intercultural world: Action upon
reflection. Intercultural Education, 28(4), 390–407.
CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? 51

Siqueira, S. (2020). ELT materials for basic education in Brazil: Is there room for an ELFaware
practice? Estudos Linguísticos e Litérarios, 65, 118–146.
Sung, C. C. M. (2013). English as a lingua franca and its implications for English language teaching.
JALT Journal, 35(2), 173–190.
Ur, P. (2011, March 11–13). English as an International Language: What difference does it make?
Plenary talk given at the 34th TESOL Spain Convention. Madrid, Spain.
Vettorel, P., & Corrizzatto, S. (2016). Fostering awareness of the pedagogical implications of World
Englishes and ELF in teacher education in Italy. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6(3), 487–511.
Vez, J. M. (2009). Multilingual education in Europe: Policy developments. Porta Linguarum, 12,
7–24.
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report. Geneva: World Economic Forum. http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2019.
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive
to the Acquisition of Digital
Competences? A Comparative Study
in Primary Education

Esther Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

Abstract In contrast to most studies on Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL) focussed on language learning outcomes, this chapter is devoted to exploring
a different area: the impact of CLIL on the acquisition of digital competence, one
of the eight key competences for lifelong learning. In two consecutive years, CLIL
and non-CLIL 9-and 10-year olds took two tests in which the two dimensions of
digital competence described in the Recommendation of the European Parliament
and the Commission on Key Competences for lifelong learning were evaluated:
‘communicate and participate in collaborative networks’ and ‘search, collect and
process digital information’. The participants were 1,967 CLIL and 18,303 non-
CLIL students for the first test and 2,813 CLIL and 16,518 non-CLIL students for the
second one. Results showed that CLIL students scored significantly higher for both
dimensions of digital competence and in nine out of the sixteen learning standards
assessed. These findings suggest CLIL is more conducive to digital competence
acquisition and seem to indicate ICTs are more integrated in CLIL than in non-CLIL
settings, possibly as a way to compensate the added difficulty of conveying meaning
through a foreign language, and as a consequence of the teaching innovations CLIL
entails.

1 Introduction

In an educational panorama in which effective learning of foreign languages is

becoming a must to meet the requirements of a globalised knowledge-based society,
CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is gaining more and more
momentum and popularity (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017; Lasagabaster & López
Beloqui, 2015), since it is deemed to be both ‘a lever for change and success in
language learning’ (Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla, 2015, p. 1) and ‘an innovative
form of education’ (Cenoz et al., 2013, p. 16).

E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas (B)

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 53

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_4
54 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

In the last two decades, research on CLIL has mainly focussed on determining
the impact it has on language proficiency and, as Lasagabaster and López Beloqui
(2015) and Sierra et al. (2011) have highlighted, only to a much lesser extent have
other issues been explored, such as content acquisition, effects on the mother tongue,
and motivation, mainly.
However, lately, attention has been drawn to a field that has so far been over-
looked: the inclusion and acquisition of key competences in CLIL settings. This
line of research was put on the CLIL agenda in the policy workshop convened by
the British Council in March 2014 in Como (Italy) with the support of European
ministers of education and sector specialists, under the rubric ‘CLIL policy and prac-
tice: Competence-based Education for employability, mobility and growth’ (British
Council, 2014). As a result of this policy workshop, a document was published
promoting the active inclusion of a key-competence-based approach in CLIL to
further develop the integrated curriculum. This document was a milestone for the
integration of a competence-based approach in CLIL environments, since there is a
lack of methodological studies on how to implement the eight key competences in
CLIL settings, and in addition, more evidence is needed on the contribution of CLIL
to their acquisition.
This is not a minor issue, since one of the most important challenges in today’s
education is the implementation of competence-based approaches which enable the
acquisition of so-called twenty-first-century skills (cf. also Chapter 3 in this volume).
This new educational scenario implies a shift from a curricular design oriented to
the assimilation of content and memorisation to a curriculum based on the develop-
ment of competences. This turning point concerns CLIL too, which cannot remain
oblivious to these changes.
One of the eight key competences for lifelong learning is digital competence. This
competence is considered to be crucial, as it provides students with the necessary
tools to interact in an interconnected world and to achieve personal, social, academic
and professional fulfilment. However, the potential of combining CLIL and ICT
has hardly been studied; only some experiences have been described, and some
methodological guidelines to implement ICT in CLIL settings have been reported.
In fact, there is a gap in experimental studies on how CLIL methodology may impact
on the development of digital competence and, therefore, more research is needed
to further look into how the acquisition of digital competence is being carried out in
CLIL settings.
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 55

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 The Eight Key Competences and CLIL

It is commonly agreed that traditional approaches based on memorisation, in which

education is conceived as a process of transmission of knowledge and students are
deemed to be mere containers of information, are no longer satisfactory as they
cannot respond to the demands of a constantly evolving world, in which new discov-
eries call assumed knowledge into question and technological innovations modify
education priorities and affect the list of what has to be taught and learnt. In this new
context, education is expected to provide students with adaptable and transferable
skills for academic, social and personal success, and to equip them with the neces-
sary competences to mobilise their knowledge, skills and attitudes to act and solve
real-life situations and to learn throughout life.
Therefore, the Recommendation of 18 December 2006 of the European Parliament
and the Council on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (European Commission,
2006) was published with the main objective of providing a reference framework in
order to establish commonly agreed objectives for education; to identify and define
the eight key competences necessary for personal fulfilment, active citizenship, social
cohesion and employability in a knowledge society; and to recommend their inclusion
in the educational systems of all member countries, so that compulsory education
could guarantee all citizens are able to develop these key competences throughout
their lives.
The eight key competences acknowledged in the aforementioned documents as
basic acquisitions for all citizens were: communication in the mother tongue, commu-
nication in foreign languages, mathematical competence and basic competences
in science and technology, digital competence, learning to learn, social and civic
competences, sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness and
expression.
This competence-based approach is underpinned from a sociological, psycholog-
ical and epistemological perspective (Escamilla, 2008). From a sociological point
of view, changes in the demands of a knowledge society require that knowledge not
be restricted to the academic environment (Coll, 2007; Pérez Gómez, 2007), but,
rather, can be transferred to real situations in social, family and work life. From a
psychological point of view, key competencies collaborate for comprehensive devel-
opment of knowledge, skills and values, and from an epistemological point of view,
this approach breaks with the impenetrability inherent to disciplinary teaching in
order to create a dynamic knowledge space common to different subjects.
Therefore, the key competences are multifunctional, transferable, inclusive,
comprehensive, dynamic and cross-curricular. Key competences are multifunctional
because they represent know-how applicable to different contexts. They are also
transferable to different situations by means of generalisation, thus representing
adaptive knowledge (Pérez Gómez, 2007). They are inclusive, since they include
56 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

combinations of three different kinds of components: knowledge, skills and atti-

tudes. In other words, being competent means ‘the proven ability to use knowledge,
skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities’ (European Commission,
2011, p. 12). This implies that competences are not only solidly based on theoretical
knowledge, but are also inspired by principles and values, and are action-oriented
(Escamilla, 2008). Another feature of the key competences is their comprehensive
nature, since they ensure that all citizens can acquire them at the end of compulsory
education. Finally, key competences are cross-curricular, which means there is not a
univocal correspondence between competences and school subjects, but, rather, all
subjects, including CLIL subjects, should contribute to the development of all key
competences and each competence should be acquired by means of all subjects.
The second key competence acknowledged in the European Recommendation of
2006 is communication in foreign languages, the acquisition of which is one of the
main rationales behind the implementation of CLIL. Furthermore, in light of the
aforementioned European Recommendation, the goal of compulsory education and,
consequently, of any educational approach, including CLIL, should be the integrated
development of all eight key competences. This may clash with the commonly known
definition of CLIL as being ‘a dual-focussed educational approach’ (Mehisto et al.,
2008, p. 9), since CLIL has to focus on the integrated learning of not only language
and content, and not just on communication, content, cognition and culture, as in
the four C’s framework (Coyle, 1999), but, rather on all eight key competences,
including digital competence, learning to learn, social and civic competences, and
cultural awareness and expression, among others.
If integration of language, content, culture and cognition in CLIL classrooms is
a challenge already, then, the introduction of the eight key competences might seem
a requirement beyond the capabilities of a CLIL teacher. Including the key compe-
tences in teaching practice is a difficult task, and most teachers have not received
special training for developing cross-curricular competences. However, CLIL ‘is
cross-curricular in nature. It teaches some cross-cutting competences explicitly’
(Clegg, 2014, p. 84), so that CLIL settings seem to be able to provide a more suit-
able scenario for the implementation of a competence-based approach. Thus, CLIL
methodology is closer to competence-based approaches, as both ‘tend towards a more
process-oriented view of education, a more hands-on approach’ (Ball, 2014, p. 76).
Additionally, the tenets of a key competence-based education (i.e. personal fulfill-
ment, social inclusion, and employability) are ‘precisely at the heart of what we call
CLIL’ (Mittendorfer, 2014, p. 96) and, thus, compared to traditional methodologies,
‘CLIL is well-placed to develop many of them’ (Clegg, 2014, p. 83) and displays
‘a pedagogy which raises some competences to the surface of classroom discourse’
(Clegg, 2014, p. 84).
This suggests that CLIL methodology may potentially foster the development of
key competences, as has been evinced for the acquisition of emotional competence
(Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2012), learning to learn (Nieto Moreno de Diezmas,
2016), and ICT competence (Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2018). All these studies
were carried out in Secondary Education settings and conclude that CLIL method-
ology provides a significant advantage in the development of emotional, learning
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 57

to learn and ICT competences. It is time to explore the connection between CLIL
methodology and the acquisition of other key competences, particularly in Primary
Education, since there is a lack of information about their acquisition in CLIL settings
at this education level. The key competence targeted in this study is digital compe-
tence, because it is one of the most cross-curricular competences, it is considered
one the most important competences to succeed in the knowledge society, and it is
an instrument for the acquisition of the rest of key competences.

2.2 Digital Competence and CLIL

Digital competence is the fourth key competence acknowledged by the European

Recommendation on 18 December 2006. This Recommendation emphasises the role
of digital competence and puts it on a par with basic language skills, literacy and
numeracy as regards its contribution to learning, thus considering it as ‘an essential
foundation for learning’ (European Commission, 2006). Furthermore, digital compe-
tence is deemed to be essential to function in a knowledge society (Eshet-Alkalai,
2004), and enables full participation in life, by improving not only employability,
but also social and personal development.
The European Recommendation on 18 December 2006 defined two core dimen-
sions of digital competence: the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce,
present and exchange information (i.e. informational competence), and the use of
new technologies to communicate and participate in collaborative networks via the
Internet (i.e. communicative competence).
At present, most research that connects CLIL and ICT explores methodological
proposals (such as the Content and Language Processing Sequence—CLPS—by
Fernández Fontecha, 2012), or describes online platforms and resources for intro-
ducing new technologies into a CLIL classroom, and most studies in the field are set in
higher education. Gimeno Sanz (2009) and Gimeno et al. (2010) provide pedagogical
guidelines on how ICT can be integrated effectively into a CLIL study programme,
and present online resources and platforms such as INGENIO to be implemented in
CLIL settings, particularly in higher education. In the same vein, Fürstenberg and
Kletzenbauer (2013) examined how to use online resources effectively to enhance
learning in tertiary CLIL, and Gaballo (2010) showed different ICT-based activi-
ties aimed at acquiring both professional expertise and linguistic competence in an
introductory level journalism course at university. Some experiences about the imple-
mentation of virtual learning environments in CLIL settings have been also reported
(Paggiaro, 2013; Paliwoda-P˛ekosz & Stal, 2015).
The design of ICT materials connected to task-based learning projects has also
been studied (Fernández Yubero & Pareja Moreno, 2009; Opp-Beckman, 2002;
Reinhardt & Isbell, 2002), by means of webquests (Vlachos, 2009), CLILquests
(Fernández Fontecha, 2012) and other resources linked to the concept of gamifica-
tion, via programmes such as JClic and Atenex (Durán & Cruz, 2013), Hot Potatoes,
Scratch and What2Learn (Rodríguez et al., 2014).
58 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

Although most studies have been conducted in Tertiary Education, there have
also been European Projects promoting the use of web 2.0 tools in pre-Primary,
Primary and lower Secondary Education, to enhance language learning in CLIL
settings, such as the eCLIL4You project (Rampona, 2013). In addition, Gilleran
(2012) encouraged the implementation of Etwinning projects in CLIL environments,
and Prentza (2013) and Nieto Moreno de Diezmas and Ortiz Calero (2017) described
Etwinning experiences in Primary and pre-Primary CLIL, respectively.
Although this seems to show a mixed picture, research on new technologies and
CLIL is restricted to enunciations of methodological principles and descriptions of
specific experiences, programmes, platforms or digital resources. As a result, there
is no research that evaluates the contribution CLIL makes towards the acquisition
of digital competence. In an attempt to bridge this gap, the aim of this paper is to
study how CLIL affects the development of digital competence of 9-and 10-year-old
Primary School students.

3 Research Questions

This study aims to answer the following questions:

1. How does CLIL contribute towards the acquisition of digital competence in
Primary Education?
2. Are there differences between CLIL and non-CLIL students in the acquisition
of the dimensions that make up digital competence, i.e. ‘communicate and
participate in collaborative networks’, and ‘search, collect and process digital
information’?
3. Does CLIL influence the acquisition of particular learning standards of digital
competence?

4 Method

4.1 Setting

This research was carried out in Castilla-La Mancha, a monolingual autonomous

community located in the centre of Spain, where CLIL programmes were launched
in 2005 under the denomination of European Sections.
Additions of schools to the bilingual programme are managed by the local educa-
tional authority by means of official calls. To be included in the CLIL programme,
schools have to present a project approved by the teaching staff, showing they meet all
the requirements and, in particular, that they have enough teachers who can certify
they have a B2 CEFR foreign language level to implement the integrated curriculum.
At the time of this study, bilingual schools had to provide between 50 and 100% of
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 59

the lessons of at least two subjects in a foreign language. The most popular CLIL
subjects were Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Art, although schools were free
to choose their CLIL subjects depending on their availability of teachers with the
required level of foreign language.
One of the main principles of the bilingual programme is that it aims to be egali-
tarian, inclusive and non-selective, and therefore the access of students to bilingual
schools is organised by applying the annual general admission rules common to
all schools bilingual or not (proximity to family home, number of siblings already
enrolled in the school, or low income, among others). It must be stressed that any
selection based on academic or linguistic performance is explicitly forbidden.
The bilingual programme of Castilla-La Mancha specifically promotes the imple-
mentation of CLIL methodology in the classroom and the use of the foreign language
in the whole school establishment. It also encourages the organisation of comple-
mentary activities connected to the target language and the participation in European
programmes such as Erasmus + and exchange programmes. eTwinning projects,
which, precisely, are closely linked to online collaboration and communication, are
specifically fostered.

4.2 Participants

The data analysed in this study was collected during a Diagnostic Assessment of
the Educational System of Castilla-La Mancha. The study involved all schools in the
autonomous community and the census of students enrolled in the 4th year of Primary
Education (9–10-year olds). Two tests evaluating digital competence were conducted
over a two-year period. The control group (non-CLIL students) was made up of
18,303 students for the first test and 16,518 for the second one, and the experimental
group (CLIL students) was comprised of 1,967 for the first test, and 2,813 for the
second one.

4.3 Instruments

Following the aforementioned definition of digital competence provided

by the European Commission (2006), two dimensions were analysed. The first year
of the study, a test entitled ‘Virtual classroom’, was conducted to assess the dimension
‘communicate and participate in collaborative networks’, while the second year, the
dimension evaluated was ‘search, collect and process digital information’ by means
of the test ‘My school’.
Competences integrate knowledge, skills and attitudes, but as Ball (2014, p. 78)
points out, ‘a student might possess all three but still be “incompetent”. In order to
demonstrate competence, a student had to perform’, and to do so, ‘competence needs
a situation (as authentic as possible)’ (Ball, 2014, p. 78). In keeping with Ball’s ideas
60 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

Table 1 Assessed dimensions and learning standards for digital competence

Dimension 1. Communicate and participate in Dimension 2. Search, collect and process
collaborative networks. ‘Virtual classroom’ digital information.’My school’
Respect the rules of participation in virtual Use the Internet as a source of information
networks
Use Internet as a source of information Create a backup copy
Understand the risks of sharing personal data Print the document
Send e-mails Create folders and files
Handle network communication tools Edit with word processor
Manage files and folders Select information critically
Edit images
Manage folders
Copy the file to share

on competence assessment, the tests were made up of two main parts: a realistic
scenario, which provided an authentic situation for the mobilisation of knowledge,
skills and attitudes, and a system of tasks connected to a set of learning standards. The
‘Virtual classroom’ scenario was the use of a blog to organise a collaborative project
for the Social Sciences subject. During testing, students had to use communication
tools, make comments on the blog, send e-mails, use the Internet and manage files
and folders. In turn, the scenario of ‘My school’ was a work project in which students
had to research the name of their school, search the net, edit information and carry
out other actions, such as create a list of favourites, print a document and make a
backup copy. The completion of these tasks was awarded with a maximum of one,
two, or three points depending on the number of activities students had to carry out
to accomplish them. Regarding the two tests, they contained three one-point tasks,
eleven two-point tasks and two three-point tasks. Every task was connected to the
acquisition of one learning standard. In Table 1, the learning standards of every
dimension are shown.

4.4 Procedure

The tests were carried out in the computer lab of schools, where each computer came
equipped with a word processor, image editor, web browser, Internet and printer
connections. All information in the tests was written in Spanish, the mother tongue
of the students, who had 60 min to complete the tasks for each test.
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 61

4.5 Data Analysis

To analyse data, the Statistical Package for Social Science, SPSS, was used. Cronbach
alpha for the test ‘My school’ was 0.834, and for the ‘Virtual classroom’, 0.725,
which meant that the internal consistency and reliability of the tests were high.
The distribution was normal (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test), and t-tests (to compare
independent samples and determine if differences between CLIL and non-CLIL
students were significant) were run.

5 Results

5.1 Overall Results in Digital Competence

Results showed that CLIL students performed significantly higher in both dimen-
sions of digital competence: ‘communicate and participate in collaborative networks’
(dimension 1) and ‘search, collect and process digital information’ (dimension 2).
For both CLIL and non-CLIL groups, higher scores were recorded in communi-
cating and participating in collaborative networks than in searching, collecting and
processing digital information (Table 2).

5.2 Learning Standards of Dimension 1: Communicate

and Participate in Collaborative Networks

Regarding the first dimension assessed, ‘communicate and participate in collabora-

tive networks’, as shown in Table 3, CLIL students scored higher in all its learning
standards, and differences were statistically significant in ‘send e-mails’ (p = 0.000),
‘handle network communication tools’ (p = 0.001) and ‘manage files and folders’
(p = 0.000).

Table 2 Results of the dimensions of the digital competence

Dimension Group Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Dimension 1 CLIL .6987 .21174 .00495 .000
Digital NON-CLIL .6739 .22409 .00169 .000
information
Dimension 2 CLIL .6189 .22175 .00440 .000
Digital NON-CLIL .5980 .23333 .00191 .000
communication
62 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

Table 3 Results of the learning standards of the dimension ‘communicate and participate in
collaborative networks’
Learning standards Group Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Respect the rules of CLIL .96 .762 .017 .145
participation
in virtual networks NON-CLIL .93 .765 .006 .143
Use the Internet as a CLIL 1.67 .658 .015 .305
source of information
NON-CLIL 1.65 .677 .005 .294
Understand the risks CLIL 1.40 .823 .018 .477
of sharing personal
data
NON-CLIL 1.39 .837 .006 .471
Send e-mails CLIL 1.83 .445 .010 .000
NON-CLIL 1.79 .478 .003 .000
Handle network CLIL 1.62 1.120 .026 .001
communication tools
NON-CLIL 1.54 1.100 .008 .001
Manage files and CLIL 1.54 .675 .015 .000
folders
NON-CLIL 1.45 .706 .005 .000

5.3 Learning Standards of Dimension 2: Search, Collect

and Process Digital Information

As far as the second dimension of digital competence is concerned, ‘search, collect

and process digital information’, CLIL students outstripped their counterparts in
all its standards, except for two: ‘create a list of favourites’, a standard in which
mainstream students recorded higher scores than CLIL students, and the difference
was significant; and ‘copy a file to share’, in which the difference between the two
groups was not significant. In contrast, CLIL students significantly outperformed
their non-CLIL peers in six standards: ‘create a backup copy’ (p = 0.000), ‘print a
document’ (p = 0.003), ‘create folders and files’ (0.001), ‘edit with word processor’
(p = 0.000), ‘select information critically’ (p = 0.000) and ‘manage folders’ (p =
0.003), as shown in Table 4. CLIL students scored higher but the difference was not
significant in ‘use the Internet as a source of information’ (p = 0.171).
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 63

Table 4 Results of the learning standards of the dimension ‘search, collect and process digital
information’
Standard Group Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Use Internet as a CLIL 2.15 1.073 .020 .171
source
of information NON-CLIL 2.12 1.070 .008 .172
Create a backup CLIL .56 .537 .010 .000
copy
NON-CLIL .51 .538 .004 .000
Print a document CLIL 1.22 .747 .014 .003
NON-CLIL 1.18 .796 .006 .002
Create folders and CLIL 1.57 .678 .012 .001
files
NON-CLIL 1.53 .696 .005 .001
Edit with word CLIL 1.35 .807 .015 .000
processor
NON-CLIL 1.25 .827 .006 .000
Select information CLIL .71 .548 .010 .000
critically
NON-CLIL .66 .532 .004 .000
Edit images CLIL 1.17 .856 .016 .180
NON-CLIL 1.15 .833 .006 .188
Manage folders CLIL 1.58 .686 .013 .003
NON-CLIL 1.54 .704 .005 .003
Copy the file to CLIL .95 .901 .017 .315
share
NON-CLIL .97 .892 .007 .319
Create a list of CLIL .40 .491 .010 .000
favourites
NON-CLIL .45 .498 .004 .000

6 Discussion

The results of this study show the following main findings: first, CLIL significantly
contributes to the acquisition of digital competence; second, CLIL positively impacts
both dimensions of digital competence; and third, there are affected and unaffected
aspects regarding development of digital competence by CLIL methodology, as had
already been observed in the research on the acquisition of areas and skills in the
foreign language (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2011).
64 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

6.1 CLIL Significantly Contributes to the Acquisition

of Digital Competence

Results indicated CLIL methodology had a positive effect on the acquisition of digital
competence for 9–10-year olds enrolled in the 4th year of Primary School Education.
These outcomes bring out a new benefit CLIL has: its contribution to the development
of digital competence. They are also in keeping with the literature which claims
that ‘CLIL may indirectly help create favourable conditions for ICT integration’
(Fernández Fontecha, 2012, p. 320), for the implementation of a competence-based
approach (Ball, 2014; Clegg, 2014; Mittendorfer, 2014) and for the acquisition of
transferable cross-curricular competences (Ball, 2014; Clegg, 2014; Mittendorfer,
2014).
These findings can be explained, among other reasons, because the difficulty
CLIL teachers have to convey meaning when the means of instruction is a foreign
language, demands an extra effort which ‘inevitably leads to a widening of their
teaching repertoires, and to a heightening of their methodological awareness’ (Ball,
2014, p. 77). Thus, CLIL seems to act as a catalyst for educational change, due
to its potential for including more holistic perspectives, connected to competence-
based approaches, and particularly, to successful practice of implementation of new
technologies in the classroom.

6.2 CLIL Positively Impacts Both Dimensions of Digital

Competence

CLIL students significantly outstripped their non-CLIL counterparts in both

dimensions of digital competence: ‘communicate and participate in collaborative
networks’, and ‘search, collect and process digital information’. Scores for both
groups were higher in ‘communicating and participating in collaborative networks’
than in ‘searching, collecting and processing digital information’. This might have
been due not so much to the students using this information for academic purposes,
but rather, to the presence of new technologies for social communication in their
everyday lives, as suggested in previous studies that explored how 10-and11-year
olds used technology for communication purposes both at school and outside it (Nieto
Moreno de Diezmas & Dondarza Manzano, 2016).
Significantly higher scores of CLIL students in ‘communicate and participate
in collaborative networks’ were probably due to the fact that CLIL methodology
is based on active participation, and creates student-centred learning environments
in which communication, collaboration and cooperative learning play an essential
role (Ting, 2014, p. 105), and as a result, it may be concluded that CLIL provides a
setting more conducive to the introduction of digital tools to foster communication
and participation. In this vein, Gimeno Sanz (2009) underlines the potential CLIL has
for the implementation of new technologies, claiming that ‘technology in education
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 65

is better exploited when an environment favouring student participation is developed’

(Gimeno Sanz, 2009, p. 80).
In turn, the positive impact of CLIL on the dimension ‘search, collect and process
digital information’ seems to indicate that the use of new technologies as learning
tools to access and express knowledge is more generalised in CLIL than in non-
CLIL settings, and, in this sense, CLIL seems to help successfully integrate new
technologies in the learning process.

6.3 There are Affected and Unaffected Aspects of CLIL

Regarding Development of Digital Competence

Regarding particular digital skills, CLIL students scored higher in 14 of the 16

learning standards used to assess digital competence, and significant differences
favoured the CLIL group in 9 of them: ‘send e-mails’, ‘handle network communica-
tion tools’, ‘manage files and folders’, ‘create a backup copy’, ‘print a document’,
‘create folders and files’, ‘edit with word processor’, ‘select information critically’
and ‘manage folders’. Differences between the CLIL and non-CLIL groups were not
significant in ‘respect the rules of participation in virtual networks’, ‘use the Internet
as a source of information’, ‘understand the risks of sharing personal data’, ‘edit
images’ and ‘copy a file to share’. Although CLIL students scored higher in nearly
all the learning standards assessed and significantly higher in most of them, they
recorded significantly lower scores in ‘create a list of favourites’.
These results seem to indicate that CLIL positively affects the development of
particular digital skills, whereas there are other areas unaffected by the type of
methodology whether this be CLIL/non-CLIL. For example, CLIL students proved
to have significantly better skills for sending e-mails and handling network commu-
nication tools, which are abilities connected to communication and participation,
which, in turn, are key concepts in CLIL methodology. However, CLIL and non-
CLIL students had a similar understanding of the risks of sharing personal data,
possibly as a result of increasing social concern on Internet safety that could have
had implications for the students’ and teachers’ awareness of this issue, regardless
of the type of instruction.
As for the use of the Internet as a source of information, there were also not any
significant differences between the CLIL and non-CLIL students, and the results
in this learning standard were consistent in both stages of the study, since it was
evaluated twice: the first year as part of the dimension ‘communicate and partici-
pate in collaborative networks’, and the second year, as a component of the second
dimension of digital competence ‘search, collect and process digital information’.
In both cases, no significant differences were found. This indicates that both CLIL
and non-CLIL programmes made similar contributions in the acquisition of this
skill, maybe because students usually carry out this kind of activity outside school,
i.e. searching the net with different aims (academic, leisure…) and this may have
66 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

levelled differences between the groups. However, CLIL did significantly impact
the critical selection of online information, which meant that CLIL students showed
more awareness of the need to contrast online resources. This ability is deemed to
be a higher order thinking skill, since it entails critical evaluation of the reliability of
online sources, and one of the benefits typically purported of CLIL is precisely its
potential to promote critical thinking (Coyle et al., 2010; Quiroga, 2013). Accord-
ingly, the results of the CLIL students seem to confirm that these cognitive strategies
of evaluation and critical thinking can be applied to different contexts, including
digital environments.
Additionally, results showed CLIL students were more familiar than their coun-
terparts with fundamental computer applications, such as word processing, creating
and handling files and folders, print a document and create a backup copy, which
might suggest that the use of new technologies to process, manage and store infor-
mation is more integrated in the classroom routines in CLIL than in non-CLIL
settings. However, there were no significant differences between both groups in
editing images, which might have been due to recreational uses related to the image
editing that students carry out in other settings, so that both groups acquired similar
proficiency in this skill.
All in all, it can be concluded that CLIL students in the 4th year of Primary
School education showed better acquisition of digital competence than their non-
CLIL peers, and this fact cannot be explained by claiming that students were selected
to participate in CLIL programmes. In a couple of studies, Bruton (2011a, b) shed
doubt on the promising results recorded for CLIL students in research studies on
second language proficiency, mainly arguing that the admission of students to CLIL
programmes under research was selective. However, this was not the case for the
students enrolled in the CLIL programmes of Castilla-La Mancha, especially in
Primary School Education, since the local educational authority explicitly forbids
any entry exam or any selection based on academic or linguistic grounds. What is
more, all students in Primary Schools that are implementing CLIL participate in the
programme, which means there are not different classes for students that follow the
programme or not, as this CLIL programme is inclusive and encompasses all students
enrolled in a CLIL school, regardless of their academic or linguistic performance.

7 Conclusions

In this study, the digital competence of CLIL and non-CLIL 9- and 10-year olds
enrolled in the 4th year of Primary Education was assessed. CLIL students obtained
significantly higher scores in both dimensions of digital competence described by
the European Commission (2006): ‘communicate and participate in collaborative
networks’ and ‘search, collect and process digital information’. CLIL students scored
higher in all the learning standards for both dimensions except two, and differences
were significant in nine of the sixteen skills evaluated.
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 67

The results seem to support the hypothesis put forward by several authors (Ball,
2014; Ball & Kelly, 2014; Clegg, 2014, among others), according to which CLIL
provides learning environments more suitable for the integration not only of content
and language, but also of all key competences (cf. also Chapter 2 in this volume),
including digital competence. In this vein, the results of this study suggest CLIL
students had more practice with digital devices, in light of their significantly better
skills in the management of the main digital applications and operations, such as
creating and saving files and folders, creating a backup copy, printing a document
and editing with word processors, for example, which implies ICT is more integrated
in CLIL settings. Additionally, these outcomes may be due to the fact that some of
the features of CLIL methodology are conducive to the acquisition of skills that
are transferable to digital environments. Thus, CLIL focus on the development of
communication abilities, critical thinking, high order skills, participation and collab-
orative learning is related to some of the learning standards in which CLIL students
scored significantly higher, such as ‘send e-mails’, ‘handle network communication
tools’ and ‘select information critically’. However, there were some skills unaffected
by CLIL methodology, such as ‘use the Internet as a source of information’, ‘edit
images’ and ‘understand the risks of sharing personal data’, for example. Regarding
the first two skills mentioned, typical recreational uses of the Internet (for example,
to retrieve different kind of information and to edit images for fun) that all students,
regardless of their type of instruction, probably carried out outside school settings,
could have levelled differences between CLIL and non-CLIL students. The absence
of differences in ‘understand the risks of sharing personal data’ could be explained
by the increase of social concern on the issue of Internet safety.
As a final remark, the success of CLIL in developing this crucial competence
to interact in a knowledge society in the digital era can have an implication for
mainstream education. Some of the ingredients of CLIL methodology could be taken
as a model to improve the acquisition of digital skills in non-CLIL settings, so that
all students could benefit from a more active, participative, collaborative, student-
centred and competence-based approach in which ICTs are more integrated in the
teaching–learning process.

Acknowledgements This study is part of the research project ADiBE (Ref.: RTI2018-093390-B-
I00), funded by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (MINECO), 2019–2022.
I would also like to thank the Castilla-La Mancha Office of Evaluation for their invaluable help.

References

Ball, P. (2014). CLIL and competences: Assessment. In CLIL policy and practice: Competence-
based education for employability, mobility and growth (pp. 76–80). British Council.
Ball, P., & Kelly, K. (2014). Competence-based learning and skills for employability and mobility.
In CLIL policy and practice: Competence-based education for employability, mobility and growth
(pp. 81–82). British Council.
68 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

British Council. (2014). Regional policy dialogues 2013–2014. https://www.britishcouncil.org/

sites/default/files/bc_regionalpolicydialogues_baja.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2018.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-Evaluating Some of the Research.
System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002.
Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to
CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236–241. https://
doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking
forward. Applied Linguistics, 35, 243–262. Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.
1093/applin/amt011.
Clegg, J. (2014). The role of CLIL in developing language and cognitive skills in the Curriculum. In
CLIL policy and practice: Competence-based education for employability, mobility and growth
(pp. 83–94). British Council.
Coll, C. (2007). Las competencias en la educación escolar: Algo más que una moda y mucho menos
que un remedio. Aula De Innovación Educativa, 161, 34–39.
Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and
language integrated learning contexts. In J. Mash (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language
(pp. 46–62). London: CILT.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Management teams and teaching staff: Do they share the same
beliefs about obligatory CLIL programmes and the use of the L1? Language and Education, 31,
93–109. Informa UK Limited.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1290102
Durán, A., & Cruz, B. (2013). How to integrate stories and ICT in content-based units of work for
English learning. Porta Linguarum, 19, 219–237.
Escamilla, A. (2008). Las competencias básicas: Claves y propuestas para su desarrollo en los
centros. Barcelona: Graó.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy. A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital
era. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13, 93–106.
European Commission. (2006). Recommendation of 18 December 2006 of the European parliament
and the council on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union
L394.
European Commission. (2011). Languages for jobs report—Providing multilingual communica-
tion skills for the labour market report. https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/
languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/languages-for-jobs-report_en.pdf. Accessed 2
Feb 2016.
Fernández Fontecha, A. (2012). CLIL in the foreign language classroom: Proposal of a framework
for ICT materials designing language-oriented versions of Content and Language Integrated
Learning. Alicante Journal of English Studies, 25, 317–334.
Fernández Yubero, M. A., & Pareja Moreno, M. I. (2009). CLIL and ICT: Expanding our borders.
In E. Dafouz & M. C. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 45–58). Madrid:
Richmond Publishing.
Fürstenberg, U., & Kletzenbauer, P. (2013). CLIL: From online sources to learning resources.
In Proceedings of International Conference, ICT for Language Learning (5th ed.). Padova:
Libreriauniversitaria. it Edizioni.
Gaballo, V. (2010). Integrating content and language in specialized language teaching and learning
with the help of ICT. In Proceedings of International Conference, ICT for Language Learning
(3rd ed.). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria. it Edizioni.
Gilleran, A. (2012). eTwinning and CLIL. CLIL Magazine, 1, 9–10.
Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition … 69

Gimeno Sanz, A. (2009). How can CLIL benefit from the integration of information and commu-
nications technologies? In L. Carrió (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Cultural
diversity (pp. 77–102). Series: Linguistic Insights (Vol. 92). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Gimeno, A., Seiz, R., de Siquera, J. M., & Martıijnez, A. (2010). Content and language integrated
learning in higher technical education using inGenio online multimedia authoring tool. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3170–3174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.484.
Lasagabaster, D., & López Beloqui, R. (2015). The impact of type of approach (CLIL versus EFL)
and methodology (book-based versus project work) on motivation. Porta Linguarum, 23, 41–57.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL, content and language integrated
learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: MacMillan.
Mittendorfer, F. (2014). Competence matters: Signposting the road to learner empowerment. In
CLIL policy and practice: Competence-based education for employability, mobility and growth
(pp. 95–97). British Council.
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2012). CLIL and development of emotional competence. Miscelanea:
A Journal of English and American Studies, 45, 53-74.
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of the learning to learn
competence in secondary school education in the bilingual programmes of Castilla-La Mancha.
Porta Linguarum, 25, 21–34.
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2018). Exploring CLIL contribution towards the acquisition of
cross-curricular competences: A comparative study on digital competence development in CLIL.
Revista de lingüística y lengua aplicadas, 13, 75–85.
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E., & Dondarza Manzano, P. (2016). PleS in primary school: The
learners’ experience in the Piplep project. Digital Education Review, 29: 45–61.
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E., & Ortiz Calero, C. (2017). CLIL e interculturalidad en educación
infantil: Aprendiendo por proyectos. Multárea, Revista de Didáctica, 9.
Opp-Beckman, L. (2002). Africa online: A web—and content-based English language teaching
course. TESOL Journal, 11, 4–8.
Paggiaro, L. (2013). Planning, implementing and evaluating a CLIL online course. In Proceedings
of International Conference, ICT for Language Learning (6th ed.). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria.
it Edizioni.
Paliwoda-P˛ekosz, G., & Stal, J. (2015). ICT in supporting content and language integrated learning:
Experience from Poland. Information Technology for Development, 21, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02681102.2014.1003521.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341. Informa UK Limited. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Ráez Padilla, J. (2015). Introduction and overview. In D. Marsh, M. L.
Pérez Cañado, & J. Ráez Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom (pp. 1–12).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge.
Pérez Gómez, A. I. (2007). La naturaleza de las competencias básicas y sus aplicaciones
pedagógicas: Cuadernos de Educación 1. Santander: Consejería de Educación de Cantabria.
Prentza, A. (2013). CLIL & ICT in English foreign language learning: The eTwinning experience
of a primary school of intercultural education. In Proceedings of International Conference, ICT
for Language Learning (6th ed.). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria. it Edizioni.
Quiroga, M. A. (2013). The development of critical thinking through CLIL. Lap Lambert Academic
Publishing.
Rampona, S. (2013). eCLIL4You: A European foreign Comenius project to promote language
learning through Web 2.0 tools from pre-school to lower secondary education. In Proceedings of
International Conference, ICT for Language Learning (6th ed.). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria. it
Edizioni.
Reinhardt, J., & Isbell, K. (2002). The recycling research documentary: A technology-integrated
project. TESOL, 11, 41–48.
70 E. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas

Rodríguez, R., Blázquez, M., López, B., Castro, M., San Cristobal, E., & Martín, S. (2014). Educa-
tional games for improving the teaching-learning process of a CLIL subject: Physics and Chem-
istry in secondary education. In Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
(pp. 1–8).
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into
applied linguistic research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.),
Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 129–153). Bern: Peter Lang.
Sierra, J. M., Gallardo del Puerto, F., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Good practice and future actions
on CLIL: Learning and pedagogy. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.),
Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 317–338). Bern: Peter Lang.
Ting, Y. L. T. (2014). A concrete directive towards literacy. In CLIL policy and practice:
Competence-based education for employability, mobility and growth (pp. 105–113). British
Council.
Vlachos, K. (2009). The potential of information communication technologies (ICT) in content and
language integrated learning (CLIL): The case of English as a second/foreign language. In D.
Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, & G.
Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 189–198). University of Jyväskylä.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL
on Language Attainment: Instrument
Design and Validation

Daniel Madrid Fernández, Antonio Bueno González, and Juan Ráez Padilla

Abstract This chapter presents the English language tests which have been designed
and validated in a longitudinal quantitative study in order to determine the effects of
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on English language competence.
The sources used to formulate the tests, the steps followed for their design and
the procedures employed for their validation are all expounded on. The ways in
which their reliability, content, construct, and face validity have been guaranteed
are outlined. Moreover, the statistical operations performed to guarantee them are
showcased (Cronbach α, Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient or item difficulty
and discrimination). The actual tests are then presented in a format which can be
directly applied in any CLIL classroom in order to determine the effects of CLIL
on language competence. We are in dire need of empirically grounded data in this
area and it can only ensue from the employment of empirically valid and reliable
instruments such as those presented herein. The latter data will be crucial to fine-tune,
reengineer or revamp CLIL implementation in order to keep it on track.

1 Introduction

If we want to evaluate the linguistic and communicative competence of second

language learners, it is necessary to define what those competences entail and what
a learner’s proficiency involves in order to design adequate tests which provide suit-
able data. Once a clear-cut concept of proficiency is adopted, it is important to design
tests according to specific objectives, the characteristics of language learners and the

D. Madrid Fernández (B)

University of Granada, Granada, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Bueno González · J. Ráez Padilla
University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Ráez Padilla
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 71

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_5
72 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

type of data we want to obtain. As will be indicated below, tests must be designed so
that they fulfil certain qualities; they must be reliable and valid. Their criteria must
be authentic and their social impact should not be very high. In addition, test tasks
should be as authentic as possible and their difficulty and discrimination potential
should be adequate. All these characteristics will be defined and explained briefly in
the following sections.
One of the main problems education governing bodies face when adopting
different linguistic policies is the lack of empirical data that may sustain those deci-
sions. As for CLIL, in words by David Marsh, “there remains insufficient empirical
evidence of the impact of differing types of CLIL/EMILE across Europe” (2002,
p. 185). With this empirical drive in mind, we designed and validated two tests
(see Appendices 1 and 2) assessing use of English, vocabulary, reading, listening,
writing and speaking, corresponding to 6th grade of Primary Education and 4th
grade of Compulsory Secondary Education. The instruments encompass these six
aspects to assess linguistic competence, following the Common European Frame-
work of Reference for Languages (henceforth, CEFRL), the national Decrees and the
regional Orders which establish the official curriculum for these educational stages,
and which all present contents, descriptors and evaluation strategies focusing on
grammatical, lexical and skill-based aspects.
After the tests were designed following the aforementioned documents, they were
subjected to a doublefold pilot process for their validation. They were initially scru-
tinised by a minimum of five external experts, who critically assessed their length,
adequacy for each level, difficulty, variety of testing facets, types of inputs, clarity
of rubrics and layout. After introducing the recommended modifications, they were
applied to a representative sample of students from the same levels and of similar
characteristics as our target participants in order to determine the internal consistency
of their parts, their reliability, and the index of difficulty and discrimination index of
the items included within them. Again, necessary readjustments were incorporated
after this operational stage. In this phase, we also guaranteed that our instruments met
the main testing requirements acknowledged in the specialised literature (content,
construct, face and ecological validity, reliability and practicality). The procedures
used in this preliminary design phase, together with the ensuing statistical proce-
dures to validate the tests (see Sect. 6) both endeavour to fill the gap pointed out
by Marsh above when it comes to the design and validation of testing instruments
which may shed light, in the form of contrasted empirical data, upon the linguistic
competence of students taking part in CLIL programmes. This will ultimately offer
relevant objective data which may inform other processes and decisions concerning
CLIL implementation.
In line with the foregoing, the overall rationale of this chapter is to offer instru-
ments which provide empirically grounded data on the present state of CLIL. Only by
doing so will we be able to faithfully diagnose the present state of the art in bilingual
education. The results will hopefully help educational authorities base the decisions
which need to be made for such an ambitious and forward-thinking initiative on
empirical data obtained in objective, controlled conditions, such as those pervading
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 73

in the design and implementation of the tests below. The ultimate goal is to reinforce
the aspects which prove to be yielding positive results and take remedial action where
other possible weaknesses and threats are unveiled.

2 The Concept of Language Proficiency

Language proficiency is a term that refers to people’s competence or ability to use a

language for a specific purpose: the degree of skill with which they are able to compre-
hend and employ that language. Thus, our level of second language proficiency may
range from zero to native-like proficiency in oral and written communication.
Traditionally, the concept of proficiency has been associated with linguistic
competence. However, this concept has been severely criticised for its excessive
emphasis on formal aspects in the second language. Relatively recently, this concept
has been completed by incorporating sociolinguistic, pragmatic, cultural and strategic
competence (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Council of Europe, 2001, 2020) and has
been termed communicative competence.
In general, language speakers know intuitively the forms and rules governing
the language and have some knowledge of the linguistic, cognitive, affective and
sociocultural aspects which can be expressed with language forms. They have also
developed a competence that allows them to communicate and interact with other
people in a variety of contexts and situations. That is, they have a sociolinguistic
and pragmatic knowledge of the language that allows them to communicate a variety
of linguistic functions and use the language in a creative way. In addition, they
have developed an intuitive system that enables them to understand and/or produce a
considerable variety of messages thanks to the receptive and productive strategies and
procedures they have developed, together with their linguistic and communicative
competence. As will be seen, all these aspects are included in the concept of language
proficiency that will be briefly discussed in this chapter.
Several authors have dealt with language proficiency and have defined its scope
and the competences that characterise it (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996;
Davies, 1990; Harley et al., 1990; Oller, 1979). This construct can be analysed through
the language performance of individuals, such as when they listen, speak, read or
write the language and it can be explained in different ways, depending on the
approaches on which we base our analysis.
Firstly, proficiency has been defined as a linguistic or grammatical competence
(Canale, 1983; Council of Europe, 2001, 2020), which focuses on the knowledge
and use of phonological, lexical, grammatical, orthographic and orthoepic aspects of
language. This competence includes the knowledge and skills required to understand
and produce a variety of oral and written messages. Consequently, it is also associated
with the mastery of the four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing.
74 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

Secondly, proficiency has been defined as a set of intralingual and crosslingual

(mediating) skills. Within the first group, we can include the four skills: (a) audiolin-
gual receptive skills (aural reception, listening activities), (b) audiolingual productive
skills (speaking and interactive events), (c) graphic or visual receptive skills (reading
tasks) and (d) graphic productive skills (writing activities). In the second group, we
can include (a) audiolingual mediating skills (interpreting oral messages) and (b)
graphic mediating skills (translating messages) (Council of Europe, 2001, 2020).
Proficiency has also been explained as an integration of language skills and
linguistic components (Carroll, 1968). For this author, when analysing proficiency,
attention must be paid to oral communication skills (receptive skills: listening
and productive skills: speaking) and written communication skills (receptive skills:
reading and productive skills: writing). These productive and receptive skills involve
the mastery of several linguistic components: phonology, orthography, lexicon and
grammar (morphology and syntax).
For Oller (1979), the nature of second language proficiency is unitary and depends
on the learner’s pragmatic expectancy grammar. Communicative interaction is a
process in which the interlocutors anticipate part of the information; they then
compare the message received with the information expected and react according
to the feedback received. In fact, expectancy is the key concept for Oller’s unitary
proficiency theory. In order to evaluate the learner’s capacity to interpret, understand
and produce messages, he proposes the use of pragmatic or integrative texts, which
measure the learner’s pragmatic competence. The most common procedures are as
follows: dictations, combined cloze and dictation, oral cloze procedure, oral inter-
views, composition or essay writing, narrations and translation (Madrid & Pérez
Cañado, 2004).
Cummins (1979, 1984) proposes a binary system of basic interpersonal and
communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).
The former refers to the ability to maintain a simple conversation, for example in a
shop or in the street. This competence may be acquired in a relatively short space
of time and often occurs in informal and face-to-face situations. The latter refers to
the ability to cope with study programmes in academic contexts. It is developed at
school and in more formal contexts.
Another approach to the interpretation of language proficiency was developed by
the interlanguage theory (Selinker, 1972), which considered the learner’s language
level as a built-in syllabus that reflects their transitional competence. Error analysis
was considered essential to understand the degree of competence that learners had
developed (Corder, 1967).
The concept derives from a mentalist interpretation of L2, contemplated as a
creative process of construction of a system in which the subjects elaborate their
own hypotheses about the target language on the basis of different sources: the
target language itself, the mother tongue, the concept of language in general, its
communicative function, the conception of the world and of the human beings in it,
and the linguistic input we receive from others.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 75

Selinker (1969) introduced the term interlanguage, which is very close to that of
Nemser’s (1971) approximative system, and Corder’s (1973) idiosyncratic dialect. It
can be located in what Vygotsky (1978) called Zone of Proximal Development and,
likewise, can be associated to Krashen’s (1985) i + 1 concept.
This linguistic system is temporary and dynamic (a continuum) in the sense that
it increasingly acquires more difficulty and complexity. In this respect, it must be
considered as an essential part of the learning process, although it may be erroneous
if we compare it to the formal system of the target language. Being aware of this
concept is crucial to deal with errors, for the development of remedial strategies and
techniques and for curricular design so that the syllabus may be compatible with the
students’ stage of development.
In the seventies a new term was coined that was greatly influenced by soci-
olinguistic and pragmatic language theories. It was the communicative competence
concept, which proposed a broader notion of the concept by incorporating into it new
sociolinguistic and cultural elements, such as feasibility, contextual appropriateness
or communicative efficiency. Nonetheless, the most widely accepted paradigm of
communicative competence in Spain put forward by Canale (1983), possibly due to
the fact that it was officially adopted as a theoretical framework in the Spanish FL
curricular designs (MEC, 1990). Subsequently, other authors have suggested further
modifications in the terminology and conceptualisation of this construct (see also
Kohonen et al., 1985).
Canale (1983) includes several subcompetences in the communicative compe-
tence construct: grammatical competence (which includes: phonology, orthog-
raphy, vocabulary, word formation and sentence formation), sociolinguistic compe-
tence, discourse competence (cohesion, coherence) and strategic competence (which
includes strategies needed to resolve grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and
performance difficulties).
Later on, Bachman (1990), divided communicative competence into organiza-
tional and pragmatic competence. The former includes grammatical competence
(vocabulary, morphology, syntax, phonetics and graphology) and textual competence
(cohesion and rhetorical organisation). Pragmatic competence includes illocutionary
competence (ideational, manipulative, heuristic and imaginative functions) and soci-
olinguistic competence (sensitivity to dialects and variety, differences in register and
naturalness, cultural references and figures of speech).
A very widespread model of communicative language competence in Spain has
been proposed by the CEFRL (Council of Europe, 2001, 2020), which includes
linguistic competences (lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological, orthographic
and orthoepic competence), sociolinguistic competences (markers of social rela-
tions, politeness conventions, expressions of folk wisdom, register differences,
dialect and accent) and pragmatic competences (discourse competence and functional
competence) (Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2004).
76 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

More recently, language proficiency has been described as a set of proficiency

levels described by rating scales with specific rubrics and scales (Council of Europe,
2001, 2020). A very popular example is the common reference levels established
by the CEFRL: level A (basic user): divided into A1 and A2; B (independent user):
divided into B1 and B2; and C (proficient user): divided into C1 and C2. These
levels are presented in (1) a global scale in six levels (A1-C2), (2) a self-assessment
grid for learners to self-evaluate their proficiency level in listening comprehension,
reading, oral interaction, speech production and writing and (3) specific scales to
evaluate the learner’s proficiency level in aural reception (listening), oral produc-
tion (speaking), spoken interaction, visual reception (reading), written production
(writing) and mediation, by putting a great emphasis on the strategies involved in
each process.
In conclusion, given the complexity of language, we believe that a multidimen-
sional concept of proficiency that includes the learning of language content (knowing
about language) and procedures (skills), the development of strategies and attitudes,
and the learner’s intercultural competence can be adequate to design tests which
evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning processes.

3 Evaluating Proficiency Through Achievement Tests

Our purpose has been to evaluate the students’ final proficiency level of English
as a second language in grade 6 of Primary Education and grade 4 of Compul-
sory Secondary Education in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and CLIL
programmes. Therefore, our approach has centred on the students’ final learning
outcomes; that is, on the final product obtained at the end of these grades. We have
performed an external evaluation, which has been carried out by external personnel
not involved in the teaching process. However, the instruments used for testing,
which are based on Madrid and Hughes (2011), had been previously validated by
CLIL experts and the teachers involved in the teaching and learning process.
As will be seen below, the tests which have been designed and administered for
this study fulfil the basic requirements of reliability, validity, authenticity, interac-
tion, washback, practicality, difficulty and discrimination potential (Bachman, 1990;
Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Hughes, 1989; Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2004).
In our study, the tests proposed are specifically attuned to the levels of the two
groups, 6th grade of Primary Education and 4th grade of Secondary Education in
the Spanish Education system. Therefore, they are tailor-made tests, as opposed to
standardised tests, such as those provided by institutions such as the British Council
and Cambridge Examinations, which evaluate the same language components (use
of English and vocabulary) and communicative skills (listening, speaking, reading
and writing).
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 77

In the case of the British Council, information about different aspects of the tests
it offers (Aptis and IELTS) can be found at the electronic links provided:
General information: https://www.britishcouncil.org/exam;
IELTS scoring system: https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/ielts-scoring-
in-detail;
General information about IELTS design: https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/ens
uring-quality-and-fairness.
Aptis scoring system:
https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/aptis_scoring_system_layout_
final.pdf.
As for Cambridge Examinations, the following link provides useful input about
the different Cambridge tests, also including IELTS: https://www.cambridgeeng
lish.org/exams-and-tests/.

4 Stages of the Validation Process

The validation process of the language tests started with a revision of the liter-
ature about the effects of CLIL on the students’ language competences in Spain
(Lasagabaster, 2008; Lorenzo et al., 2009; Madrid & Hughes, 2011; Pérez Cañado,
2012; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010, 2011). Then, the language tests validated and used by
Madrid and Hughes (2011) were adapted and validated for the evaluation of the new
EFL and CLIL population.

4.1 Objectives

The general objective was to evaluate the effects of EFL and CLIL on the Primary
(6th grade) and Secondary (4th grade) students’ English language competence.
This objective involved the evaluation of the sample’s linguistic and communica-
tive competences at the end of these grades by using tests that cover the main areas
of language proficiency and that are designed according to the principles of language
testing as described in Sect. 4 [for the effects of CLIL on EFL competence, please see
Chapters “The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar and Vocabulary” and “The Effects
of CLIL on FL Learning: A Longitudinal Study”, where the instruments described
in the present chapter were applied].
78 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

4.2 Test Orientation and Structure

The instruments used to test the students’ language competence in the English
language in Primary and Secondary Education are presented in Appendices 1–2.
These tests were based on Madrid and Hughes (2011) and were revised and enhanced
by following Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) qualities of language tests: the charac-
teristics they propose for test tasks and the requirements of language ability. Subse-
quently, they were validated by experts on testing EFL and CLIL students and piloted
with Primary and Secondary EFL and CLIL students in their final year of study at each
level (Pérez Cañado, 2016). The resulting version of the tests, which was obtained as
a product of the piloting phase and an editing process that involved the expert ratings
approach, is presented in Appendices 1–2.

4.2.1 Primary English Test

This test (see Appendix 1) aimed at measuring the students’ linguistic and commu-
nicative competence through a total of 100 items. The first 25 items tested the
students’ competence with (a) the use of English. The following 15 items focused
on (b) the students’ lexical competence. Next, (c) their listening comprehension skill
was measured through 16 items. Afterwards, (d) the reading skill was evaluated with
15 items. Subsequently, (e) their writing skill was measured through 14 items, which
included two tasks: writing an e-mail to a friend (items 72–78) and writing some
habitual actions performed by their family at the weekend (items 79–85). Finally,
the speaking skill was tested by means of 15 items, ten of them inquiring into the
students’ personal life (items 86–95), and the other five asking students to describe
what is happening in a park (items 96–100). The tasks included in each of the test
components were the following:
Use of English (25 points):
A. Writing five questions for given answers (five items: 1–5).
B. Describing the location of several objects and people as illustrated in a picture
(five items: 6–10).
C. Matching basic communicative functions with their corresponding language
exponents (five items: 11–15).
D. Expressing possession by filling in gapped sentences with the corresponding
possessive forms (four items: 16–19).
E. Expressing actions with present and past forms by completing gapped sentences
with the corresponding verb forms (six items: 20–25).
Vocabulary (15 points):
F. Expressing habitual actions by completing gapped sentences with the given
verbs (four items: 26–29).
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 79

G. Writing some parts of the body with the help of the corresponding illustrations
(six items: 30–35).
H. Completing a brief gapped dialogue with the missing lexical items (five items:
36–40).
Listening comprehension (16 points):
I. Listening to a short dialogue about summer holidays and matching what each
child did with the corresponding illustration (six items: 41–46).
J. Listening to a short conversation about a party and completing a table with the
required information (five items: 47–51).
K. Listening to a short dialogue about Christmas presents and matching what each
child got with the corresponding illustration (five items: 52–56).
Reading (15 points):
L. Reading a short text (72 words) about pets, graded in terms of difficulty, and
answering four comprehension questions (four items: 57–60).
M. Identifying structures, morphological features of words and the vocabulary
studied in a written text about the weather in Britain (six items: 61–66).
N. Completing a brief text based on a nursery rhyme by using the missing elements
(five items: 67–71).
Writing (14 points):
O. Writing a brief e-mail message about holiday activities (seven items/points:
72–78).
P. Describing a member of the family by following a model (seven items/points:
79–85).
Speaking (15 points):
Q. Ten questions about the students’ personal life (ten items: 86–95).
R. Describing what is happening in a park (five items: 96–100).
Once all interviews were conducted, each question was scored by two researchers
on a scale from 0 to 1 by taking into account the use of grammar, lexical range, fluency
and interaction, pronunciation and task fulfilment. In the evaluation of written produc-
tion, assessment was based on grammatical, semantic, pragmatic and orthographic
accuracy and on elements of cohesion and coherence.

4.2.2 Secondary English Test

The Secondary English Test (see Appendix 2) was also based on Madrid and Hughes
(2011). It also included 100 items. The tasks included in each test component were
the following:
Use of English (26 points):
80 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

A. Rewriting questions by using the correct word order (four items: 1–4).
B. Changing sentences from the passive into the active voice (four items: 5–8).
C. Completing a brief gapped text (52 words) with verbs in the past tense (ten
items, 0.5 points each: 9–13).
D. Completing gapped sentences with the right form of given verbs and other
words (ten items, 0.5 points each: 14–18).
E. Expressing hypothetical situations (conditionals) by choosing the right verb
forms (eight items, 0.5 points each: 19–22).
F. Completing a brief gapped text (94 words) with the past or the present perfect
verb forms of the verbs given in brackets (eight items, 0.5 points each: 23–26).
Vocabulary (15 points):
G. Completing a brief gapped text (79 words) with the given words and expressions
(seven items: 27–33).
H. Matching illustrated symbols/icons with their corresponding meaning/text
(eight items: 34–41).
Listening comprehension (14 points):
I. Listening to the recording of two presenters and choosing the correct multiple
choice options as they correspond to specific data mentioned in the recording
(seven items, 2 points each: 42–55).
Reading (14 points):
J. Reading a text of 413 words that is divided into five paragraphs and choosing the
correct multiple choice option according to the text’s content (14 items/points:
56–69).
Writing (15 points):
K. Writing a brief e-mail reply to a message (15 items/points: 70–84).
Speaking (16 points):
L. Questions about the students’ personal life (eight items: 85–92).
M. Taking part in a two-way dialogue about one of the following three scenarios:
(1) an imaginary trip to New York (the things the interlocutors are going to
bring and what they are going to do), (2) organising a surprise birthday party
for a friend (the things they are going to buy and what they are going to do) or
(3) a school project on animals (the animals they are going to write about and
what they are going to do for the project) (four items: 93–96).
N. Taking part in a three-way dialogue about two topics: Block A: The importance
of English and the Internet or Block B: The importance of school and mobile
phones (four items: 97–100).
The criteria used to grade the students’ speaking and writing competence were
the same as the ones used in Primary Education.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 81

Table 1 Population used to validate the tests in Primary and Secondary Education
Primary Education (N = 828)
Provinces Cádiz: 14.5%, Córdoba: 3.6%, Badajoz: 14.4%, Cáceres: 5.2%,
Granada: 13%, Jaén: 11%, Málaga: 15%, Sevilla: 23%
Setting rural: 33.7%, urban: 66.3%
Type of school public: 84.7%, private: 3.5%, charter: 11.8%
Programme bilingual: 42.4%, non-bilingual: 57.5%
Gender males: 49.2%, females: 50.7%
Father/mother studies no studies: 8.5%, primary: 25%, secondary: 35%, university: 31.5%
Secondary Education (N = 1,196)
Provinces Almería: 9%, Cádiz: 34%, Córdoba: 2.3%, Badajoz: 9%, Cáceres: 4.2%,
Granada: 12%, Jaén: 11%, Málaga: 5.5%, Sevilla: 13%
Setting rural: 39.3%, urban: 60.7%
Type of school public: 69.1%, private: 6.4%, charter: 24.5%
Programme bilingual: 53%, non-bilingual: 47%
Gender males: 50.6%, females: 49.4%
Father/mother studies no studies: 8%, primary: 32.5%, secondary: 34.5%, university: 25%

5 Population Used for Validating the Tests

The characteristics of the population used for validating the texts in Primary and
Secondary Education are shown in Table 1.

6 Procedures Used to Validate the Tests

In the process of planning, designing and validating the achievement tests that were
used in this study, the following procedures were taken into account and applied:
Reliability. The tests that we designed and administered showed a consider-
able internal consistency of results, as proved by the Cronbach alpha calculations
(Table 2).
For the marking of open-end items in writing and speaking, rubrics designed and
validated following the CEFRL were used, together with CAF analysis (Complexity,
Accuracy, Fluency). Moreover, in the marking of speaking, inter-rater reliability was
fostered by specific instructions provided to markers in which it was stated that two
researchers-examiners were, if possible, to be present in the oral interview in pairs
(10 mins), one of them conducting it and the other one observing and taking notes.
Students’ answers were recorded with their consent, and it was recommended to have
a girl-boy pair in each interview, so that their answers could be easily differentiated in
the recording. For the same reason, researchers-examiners were also recommended
82 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

Table 2 Reliability of the language test in Primary and Secondary Education

Primary Education (N = 828) Secondary Education (N = 1116)
Components Cronbach alpha Items (N) Components Cronbach alpha Items (N)
Whole test .94 71 Whole test .96 69
Part 1: Use of .89 25 Part 1: Use of .94 26
English English
Part 2: .86 15 Part 2: .85 15
Vocabulary Vocabulary
Part 3: .80 16 Part 3: .62 14
Listening Listening
Part 4: .81 15 Part 4: .68 14
Reading Reading

to address students with certain frequency by their names so as to ease male–female

identification in the pair.
Content and construct validity. All the tests were designed so that they measured
what they were intended to measure. Their validity was put into effect in relation
to their content (content validity) and the linguistic and communicative constructs
defined previously (construct validity).
Authenticity. The test items in Primary Education are less authentic than in
Secondary Education, since many of them are pre-communicative, but the degree of
authenticity increases in Secondary Education, where most of the proposed activities
are more related to real-life tasks.
Interactive characteristics. The extent to which the students rely on their indi-
vidual characteristics to solve the questions is intensive since there is a solid repre-
sentation of male and female students with a variety of linguistic, communicative
and existential competences due to the variety of EFL and CLIL programmes that
they followed.
Social and educational impact. The social and educational impact on the task-
takers was minimal, since they were informed that the tests’ main purpose was to
measure the levels of English proficiency obtained at the end of the grade they were
studying but that the results would in no way influence their marks.
Practicality. Tests were designed in order to make their application viable and
feasible so that they could be completed in approximately one hour.
Item difficulty. The item difficulty index (DI) shows how easy or difficult items
have been in a test. It is obtained by calculating the percentage of correct answers
for each item. The criteria used to interpret the DI and the results obtained with the
tests in Appendices 1–2 are shown in Table 3 (Lafourcade, 1977; Madrid & Pérez
Cañado, 2004):
Item discrimination. The discrimination index shows the extent to which a test
item separates high achievers from low achievers. Good test items must be solved
successfully by good learners and unsuccessfully by those with less ability. If that
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 83

Table 3 Results of the English test items difficulty indexes (DI) in Primary and Secondary
Education with corresponding graphic representation
PRIMARY EDUCATION

30.5

24.5
Criteria and DI %

26
Very easy: ≥ 0.75 9
Easy: 0.55-0.74 30.5
Normal: 0.45-0.54 26

10
9
Difficult: 0.25-0.44 24.5
Very difficult: < 0.25 10

VE E N D VD

SECONDARY EDUCATION

36

29
Criteria and DI %
Very easy: ≥ 0.75 21

21
Easy: 0.55-0.74 36

14
Normal: 0.45-0.54 14
Difficult: 0.25-0.44 29
Very difficult: < 0.25 0

0
VE E N D VD

Table 4 Results of the English test items discrimination indexes in Primary and Secondary
Education with corresponding graphic representation
PRIMARY EDUCATION
80

Criteria and discrimination indexes %

High: ≥ 0,40 80.5

Good: 0,30-0,39 12.5
12.5

Little: 0,20-0,29 7
7

Very little: 0,10-0.19 0

0

No discrimination: < 0,10 0

H G L VL ND

SECONDARY EDUCATION
78

Criteria and discrimination indexes %

High: ≥ 0,40 78
Good: 0,30-0,39 12
Little: 0,20-0,29 10
12

10

Very little: 0,10-0.19 0

0

No discrimination: < 0,10 0

H G L VL ND

is not the case, the item cannot be said to “discriminate” among students correctly
(Heaton,1975; Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2004) (Table 4).
84 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

7 Conclusions

The language test characteristics and results presented in Sect. 6 allow us to conclude
that the sample tests presented in the appendices are reliable and valid to test the
students’ linguistic and communicative competence. Their item difficulty is adequate
and their discrimination potential is high (80.5% in Primary Education and 78% in
Secondary Education). This responds to the need of designing classroom tests bearing
in mind test requirements such us validity (content validity, construct validity and face
validity), reliability (internal and external), difficulty, practicality and discrimination,
and ensuring they are fulfilled by using statistical procedures. In this respect, piloting
them is also a pre-requisite.
We hope that the teachers involved in CLIL and non-CLIL programmes find these
empirically grounded tests useful to control the results obtained in both programmes
and to compare them in order to evaluate to what extent the introduction of CLIL
schemes in the education system is worthwhile. Likewise, we encourage reflective
practitioners to design their own tests (thus responding to their students’ needs and
wants) and to validate them both empirically (by using them in class) and statis-
tically (by applying the appropriate statistical measures). This will also contribute
to strengthen the image of the teacher as researcher, as a clear example of action
research.
The pedagogical implications derived from results will undoubtedly improve their
own teaching and testing practice and will be useful for other teachers and test
designers, and for students in both CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. We hope this
research study will provide some insights into test design and validation.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Compet-
itiveness [research grant number FFI2012-32221] and the Government of Andalusia [research
grant number HUM 2348] (Project: The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Communities: A Large-Scale Evaluation).
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 85

Appendix 1: English Test, Primary Education, 6th Grade

86 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 87
88 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 89
90 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 91
92 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 93

Appendix 2: English Test, Secondary Education, 4th Grade

94 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 95
96 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 97
98 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 99
100 D. Madrid Fernández et al.
Investigating the Effects of CLIL on Language Attainment … 101

References

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C.
Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.
Carroll, J. B. (1968). The psychology of language testing. In A. Davies (Ed.), Language testing
symposium: A psycholinguistic perspective (pp. 46–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
5(4), 161–170.
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual
children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic
achievement among bilingual students. In R. Charlene (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic
achievement (pp. 2–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment (Companion Volume). Council of Europe.
Davies, A. (1990). Principles of language testing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). Development of second language
proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heaton, J. B. (1975). Writing English language tests. London: Longman.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kohonen, V., von Essen, H., & Klein-Bradley, C. (Eds.). (1985). Language testing in school.
Tampere, Finland: Finnish Association for Applied Linguistics.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London and New York:
Longman.
Lafourcade, P. (1977). Evaluación de los aprendizajes. Madrid: Cincel.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses.
The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning
in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project.
Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.
Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight
potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
102 D. Madrid Fernández et al.

MEC. (1990). Diseño curricular base. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.

Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London: Longman.
Madrid, D., & Hughes, S. (Eds.). (2011). Studies in bilingual education. Bern: Peter Lang.
Madrid, D., & Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2004). Evaluation. In D. Madrid & N. McLaren (Eds.), TEFL
in Primary Education (pp. 442–480). Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 9, 115–125.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
70050.2011.630064.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current
CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T.
Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–209).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into
applied linguistic research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.),
Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning (pp. 129–153). Bern: Peter Lang.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9(2), 67–92.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CLIL and L1 Competence Development

Elvira Barrios

Abstract One of the major concerns regarding Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) education is the detrimental effect it may have on first language
development and achievement. In light of contradictory evidence, the present investi-
gation set out to investigate this controversial issue in a specific monolingual context
(Andalusia, Spain); additionally it attempted to fill some voids in the literature
concerning the impact of intervening variables (gender, setting (urban vs. rural),
parental education level, extramural exposure to the foreign language (English),
verbal intelligence and academic motivational factors) on L1 attainment. In order to
guarantee the homogeneity and, hence, the comparability of the groups, participants
were previously matched in terms of verbal intelligence and academic motivation.
The study sample consisted of 720 school students. Of these, 247 (34.3%) were 6th
Grade Primary school students aged 11–12 and 473 (65.7%), 4th Grade Compulsory
Secondary Education school students aged 15–16. Results indicate that the curricular
competence in Spanish (L1) of CLIL students was not negatively affected when L1
school grades are compared to those of their peers in regular classes. Additionally,
intervening variables such as setting, gender, parents’ education level, extramural
exposure to English seemed to have a dissimilar effect on the grades of CLIL and
non-CLIL groups. Furthermore, the effects of the variable verbal intelligence and the
four motivational factors considered by the study (desire to work and self-esteem,
exam anxiety, lack of interest in studying and realistic personal self-demand) on
school grades in Spanish were more pronounced in the Secondary Education CLIL
group.

1 Introduction

One of the major concerns associated with Content and Language Integrated Learning
(henceforth CLIL) programmes is that they might entail detrimental effects on first

E. Barrios (B)
University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 103

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_6
104 E. Barrios

language (L1) development and proficiency (Baetens Beardsmore, 2002; Halbach,

2009; Merisuo-Storm, 2006; Pladevall-Ballester, 2015; Wolff, 2005). Several studies
have compared the performance of CLIL and non-CLIL groups on different measures
of L1 competence (e.g. Merisuo-Storm, 2006, 2007; Merisuo-Storm & Soininen,
2014; Seikkula-Leino, 2007). Most of them conclude that the learners’ L1 develop-
ment is not hindered by CLIL instruction; however, some conflicting results are also
found in the literature (Hämäläinen, 1998; Koivumäki & Stara, 1994). These incon-
sistent findings call for more research attention into an issue—that of L1 attainment
of students participating in CLIL programmes—with potentially far-reaching conse-
quences. Additionally, although the study of the effects of CLIL programmes on the
mother tongue is one of the areas around which CLIL research has been conducted
(Wolff, 2005), there are still gaps in the literature which need to be addressed, such as
the effect of possible intervening variables on L1 achievement in CLIL—in compar-
ison with non-CLIL—programmes. Lastly, in order to draw firm(er) conclusions, the
relationship between CLIL instruction and L1 development and achievement across
a range of contexts (geographical, educational, etc.) should be explored.
In light of this analysis, this chapter is an attempt to contribute to fill this void in the
literature by investigating the effects of certain variables on L1 attainment in CLIL
and non-CLIL students of Primary and Secondary Education in two provinces in
the south of Andalusia (Spain). Specifically, this study tried to answer the following
research questions:
1. Is the curricular competence in Spanish (L1) of CLIL-educated students
negatively affected in comparison to that of their conventionally schooled peers?
2. What is the effect of intervening variables (gender, setting—urban vs. rural—,
parents’ educational level, extramural exposure to English, verbal intelligence
and motivational factors) on the level of attainment in Spanish of CLIL-educated
students, both in itself and compared to their conventionally schooled peers?
The study aimed to explore the effect of CLIL on L1 competence within the frame-
work of the two government-funded research projects referred to in the Introduction to
this book. It did so by addressing the methodological flaw in CLIL research discussed
in the literature concerning the comparability of CLIL and non-CLIL groups (e.g.
Lyster, 2007; Madrid Fernández, 2006; Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010).

2 Literature Review

As previously mentioned, although most research has attested to the beneficial effect
of CLIL instruction on L1 development and achievement, some contradictory results
are also found in the literature (Hämäläinen, 1998; Koivumäki & Stara, 1994). In
addition, methodological flaws in the study design that have been relatively common
in CLIL research may have been responsible for erroneous attributions of gains in
L1 observed in CLIL groups to CLIL education solely (e.g. Bonnet, 2012; Bruton,
2011a, b, 2013, 2015; Dallinger et al., 2016; Paran, 2013; Pérez-Cañado, 2012).
CLIL and L1 Competence Development 105

Finland stands out as the country in which research into the association between
CLIL instruction and L1 learning has been most extensively studied. Seikkula-Leino
(2007) refers to research conducted in this country (Hämäläinen, 1998; Koivumäki
& Stara, 1994; Merisuo-Storm, 2000, 2002; Rahman, 2001) that provides mixed
evidence as to the positive impact of CLIL on L1 development. In the first of
these studies, Koivumäki and Stara (1994) focused on the first and second grades of
comprehensive school and concluded that, although the CLIL group outperformed
the so-called normal group in the reading speed test, the reverse was the case with
mechanical writing skills, reading comprehension and vocabulary. Hämäläinen’s
(1998) outcomes confirmed these study results with reference to vocabulary skills
from the second to fifth grades. It must be noted that the test consisted mainly of
vocabulary items related to the fields of nature and the environment. However, results
obtained by Merisuo-Storm (2000, 2002) would seem to suggest otherwise; in her
first study (Merisuo-Storm, 2000), the development of pupils’ reading and writing
skills during the first school year between the learners taught in Finnish and those
taught in a foreign language (henceforth FL) were comparable. Similar results were
obtained in a further study (Merisuo-Storm, 2002) that confirmed that pupils partly
taught (20% of their teaching) in an FL in the first two years of school developed
better reading skills than those who were taught in Finnish. And, finally, Rahman’s
(2001) research also provides support to the claim that CLIL does not exert a nega-
tive effect on the pupils’ mother tongue. Furthermore, the learning of L1 reading
and writing skills of CLIL and non-CLIL classes from grades 5 and 6 did not differ
significantly in Seikkula-Leino’s (2007) study, which led the researcher to conclude
the following:
… this study shows that as regards Finnish as a mother tongue, the pupils’ learning results
were similar in both Finnish and CLIL classes. CLIL pupils overachieved even more strongly
than those in Finnish teaching, even though the difference was not remarkable … Hence, the
results of this study strongly support the idea that the mother tongue skills of pupils learning
in a foreign language were not weaker than the skills of those learning in their mother tongue.
(p. 336)

The long-term effects of participating in an immersion programme on L1 writing

were assessed by Bergroth (2006) in the context of the Finnish university entrance
examination. Participants were involved in an immersion programme that started
when they were 3–6 years old and ended by the end of elementary school (9th grade).
Results indicated that a) most immersion students demonstrate a level of competence
in written composition comparable to the average level in Finland among Finnish-
speaking students; and b) the fact that “There is a lower number of low results in
mother tongue texts amongst the immersion students than expected by the matricula-
tion board” (p. 128) could be indicative that the programme might support L1 acquisi-
tion among weaker students. Similarly, Merisuo-Storm (2006, 2007) found no nega-
tive effect of CLIL teaching—20% of the instruction was delivered in English—on
Primary learners in a longitudinal study in Finland, with the CLIL group performing
particularly well in reading comprehension skills. The researcher concludes: “The
results of the study support the view that when most of the teaching is carried out in the
pupils’ first language, CLIL does not affect the development of first language literacy
106 E. Barrios

skills negatively” (p. 233). This supports the analysis adopted by Wolff (2005) who,
while recognising language competence in the L1 as one of the controversial issues
concerning CLIL, argues that, provided only a limited number of subjects are taught
through the FL, “An impoverishment of first language competence can be regarded
as rather exceptional” (p. 18). More recently, another longitudinal study investigated
the effects of CLIL on the development of Primary students’ L1 literacy skills during
the first six school years (Merisuo-Storm & Soininen, 2014). The study concluded
that CLIL classes had a statistically significant advantage over regular classes in
terms of L1 reading and writing skills, and they also showed more positive ideas
towards reading, writing and FL learning.
In a Secondary school context in The Netherlands, no negative effect was found
on the school leaving exams for Dutch when a group of students receiving bilingual
education was compared with a regular Secondary group (Admiraal et al., 2006).
As pointed out by Pérez-Cañado (2012), the cohorts were not matched with respect
to baseline L1 scores; additionally, the authors also admit that results may be influ-
enced by the fact that bilingual schools were part of an experimental programme that
may have benefitted from the extra support allotted to them and the knowledge and
experience in bilingual education they had accrued over the years. Further evidence
that the L1 is not negatively affected by CLIL education was obtained by Gebauer
et al. (2012) in Germany. They compared the development of CLIL and traditionally
educated students’ L1 reading fluency and orthographic skills during elementary
school. Cognitive abilities and socio-economic background were used as covariates.
The study also detected that CLIL students’ reading fluency progressed faster.
It has even been suggested that the linguistic advantage of CLIL-educated students
may extend beyond their L1 development; the higher performance in mathematics
of a group of CLIL students in Belgium when compared with their conventionally
schooled peers led Surmont et al. (2016) to conjecture that the increased metalin-
guistic awareness found in bilingual students evidenced in a better understanding
of and insight into linguistic structures could also lie behind the better performance
in the understanding of the abstract language of maths shown by CLIL Secondary
students.
Studies conducted in Spain also seem to attest to the absence of detrimental
consequences of CLIL programmes on the students’ mother tongue. Egiguren (2006
cited in Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010) concluded that CLIL did not negatively
affect the acquisition of two co-official languages (Basque and Spanish) in Primary
school students. Several studies have also corroborated the positive effect of CLIL
on attitudes towards languages in general (e.g. Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009) and
towards trilingualism (Lasagabaster, 2009; Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010).
As Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster (2010) concluded from their study with a group
of 3rd and 4th year students of Compulsory Secondary Education, “CLIL can be
influential in producing more positive attitudes towards languages and the language
learning process” (p. 23).
In the Andalusian (monolingual) context, Ramos et al. (2011) researched the effect
of CLIL on L1 achievement in three school types (private bilingual, public bilingual
and monolingual and charter (semiprivate) monolingual), thus adding the type of
CLIL and L1 Competence Development 107

school as an intervening variable in CLIL impact research. Unlike the present study,
the authors constructed an ad-hoc Spanish (L1) test to gauge attainment of L1 knowl-
edge and skills. The test was aimed at evaluating the official curricular objectives and
competences at the time of the study. As a whole, CLIL groups achieved higher levels
of attainment than non-CLIL groups. The public school CLIL sample outperformed
the public school non-CLIL sample with statistical significance both in Primary and
in Secondary Education; additionally, the private school CLIL group obtained signif-
icantly higher scores than the public school non-CLIL sample in Primary Education,
although the difference between these two samples was small in Secondary Educa-
tion. The private school CLIL group also obtained significantly higher scores than
the charter school one in Secondary Education, whereas no significant difference
was found in Primary Education.
As previously mentioned, methodological weaknesses in CLIL research studies
compromise the validity of results concerning the attribution of the L1 attainment
advantage of CLIL over non-CLIL students to CLIL education. In order to address
methodological flaws found in other studies on CLIL impact on L1 learning, the
participants in the bilingual and the monolingual samples in Pérez-Cañado’s (2018)
study had previously been matched in terms of verbal intelligence and motivation so
as to guarantee the homogeneity of the treatment and comparison groups. They were
Primary and Secondary Education students from three monolingual communities in
Spain: Andalusia, Extremadura and the Canary Islands. Furthermore, she explored
the effect on the Spanish competence of the following intervening variables: type of
school (public, private, charter), setting (rural vs. urban) and socio-economic status.
The study concluded that the L1 (Spanish) academic competence was not negatively
affected by CLIL instruction; in fact, the CLIL sample outstripped the monolingual
one at the end of both educational levels. As to the effects caused by moderating vari-
ables, it was substantial for type of school and socio-economic status, but not for rural
vs. urban setting. Public and private bilingual school groups performed significantly
higher than the public non-bilingual school counterpart. Socio-economic status, on
the other hand, caused statistically significant differences for CLIL and non-CLIL
strands both in Primary and in Secondary Education.

3 The Study

3.1 Participants

The study sample consisted of 720 school students from 13 public (n = 551, 76.5%)
one private (n = 42, 5.8%), and three charter schools (n = 127, 17.6%). Of these, 247
(34.3%) were 6th Grade Primary Education students aged 11–12 and 473 (65.7%),
4th Grade Compulsory Secondary Education students aged 15–16. The schools
were located in the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga (southern Andalusia, Spain).
108 E. Barrios

Table 1 Information on the primary education sample

School type Programme Gender
Public Charter CLIL Non-CLIL Men Women
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
182 65 81 166 111 136
(73.7) (26.3) (67.2) (32.8) (44.9) (55.1)

Table 2 Information on the secondary education sample

School type Programme Gender
Public Charter Private CLIL Non-CLIL Men Women
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
369 62 42 275 198 253 220
(78.0) (13.1) (8.9) (58.1) (41.9) (53.5) (46.5)

The majority of students attended urban schools (n = 594, 82.5%) (see Tables 1 and
2 for further information on the sample).

3.2 Instruments and Measures

At a preliminary stage of the investigation, the CLIL and the non-CLIL groups
were matched for verbal intelligence through the subtest for verbal aptitude in the
EFAI (Evaluación factorial de las aptitudes intelectuales) (Santamaría et al. 2014).
The level 2 verbal aptitude subtest was used for Primary students and the level 4
subtest was employed for Secondary students. This subtest has acceptable levels of
difficulty and discrimination indices, and good internal reliability (coefficient α =
0.75 for Level 2 subtest and α = 0.70 for Level 4 subtest). The authors also report
adequate measures of validity for the overall test. The subtest for verbal aptitude in
the EFAI has a multiple-choice format, and each question has four possible answers.
The level 2 subtest contains 26 questions, and the level 2 subtest, 23.
In order to guarantee the homogeneity and, hence, the comparability of the groups
in terms of motivation, Pelechano’s (1994) MA test was used. This self-report
questionnaire consists of 36 statements, each of which has a dichotomous (yes/no)
response format and identifies four motivational factors: (i) desire to work and self-
esteem (10 items); (ii) exam anxiety (9 items); (iii) lack of interest in studying (with a
potential negative (inhibitory) effect (9 items); and (iv) realistic personal self-demand
(7 elements). The score in L1 (Spanish) was used as a measure of academic compe-
tence in Spanish (L1). Spain uses a 10-point grading scale for Primary and Secondary
Education divided into categories where 9.0–10 is “outstanding” (sobresaliente), 7–
8.9 “very good” (notable), 6–6.9 “good” (bien), 5–5.9, “sufficient” (suficiente), and
below that, “fail” (insuficiente).
CLIL and L1 Competence Development 109

A questionnaire based on an instrument developed by Sundqvist and Sylvén

(2014) was employed to obtain information on length of time of extramural expo-
sure to English. Extramural English is a term coined by Sundqvist (2009 cited in
Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014) to refer to “all types of English-related activities that
learners come in contact with or are engaged in outside the walls of the English
classroom, generally on a voluntary basis” (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014, p. 4). The
parents’ highest level of education together with demographic data was obtained
through an initial questionnaire administered to the student.
Tests and questionnaires were distributed in all the participating schools during
class time under the researchers’ supervision. The test for verbal aptitude and the
motivation questionnaires were administered in the same session in February–March
2015. The schools provided the researchers with the end-of-year scores in Spanish
in June 2015. Previous to the data gathering stage of the study, the prescriptive
permissions had been obtained from both the Education Administration and the
participating schools.

3.3 Data Analysis

For statistical data analyses, chi square tests were used in order to compare the CLIL
and the non-CLIL samples’ attainment in L1, and the effect of gender, setting (urban
vs. rural), parents’ educational level, and extramural exposure to English on the
CLIL sample’s L1 competence. The school grades “fail”, “sufficient” and “good”
were collapsed into one category, and those of “very good” and “outstanding” into
another. The education levels of the mother and of the father were distributed into
non-university and university level. As to the time spent on extramural activities in
English, two categories were used: up to 9 h and more than 9 h of weekly exposure
to extramural English.
ANOVA tests were conducted in order to detect the effect of verbal intelligence and
motivational factors (desire to work and self-esteem, exam anxiety, lack of interest
in studying and realistic personal self-demand) on the L1 competence. In this case,
three categories of grades were used: fail, the collapsed category of “sufficient” and
“good”, and that of “very good” and “outstanding”.

4 Results and Discussion

The chi square test results indicate that there are no statistically significant differences
in the school grades in Spanish (L1) between the CLIL and the non-CLIL sample
either at Primary (χ2 = 0.26, df = 1, p = 0.79, V = 0.05) or Secondary Education
(χ2 = 0.032, df = 1, p = 0.96, V = 0.012). This would lend support to previous
findings in that CLIL instruction does not have a damaging effect on the students’
110 E. Barrios

L1 competence (e.g. Gebauer et al., 2012; Merisuo-Storm, 2000, 2002, 2006,2007;

Merisuo-Storm & Soininen, 2014; Seikkula-Leino, 2007).
When Secondary urban and rural CLIL students are compared in terms of attain-
ment in Spanish, no statistically significant difference is found (χ2 = 0.26, df = 1,
p = 0.74, V = 0.05). This result is consistent with that obtained by Pérez-Cañado
(2018), also in connection with L1 performance. In the case of English as a FL,
however, Alejo and Piquer-Píriz (2016) found that urban CLIL students reached a
higher level of attainment than their urban counterparts. Contrarily, a statistically
significant difference is observed in the case of non-CLIL students (χ2 = 9.54, df
= 1, p = 0.004, V = 0.28). Rural non-CLIL students performed significantly lower
than their urban counterparts; whereas 22.22% of the former obtained grades between
“very good” and “outstanding” in Spanish, more than double (56.04%) of the latter
obtained such grades.
The variable gender only had a significant effect on the Spanish competence of
non-CLIL secondary students (χ2 = 5.68, df = 1, p = 0.03, V = 0.22). In this
group, 59.65% of the female students obtained grades between “very good” and
“outstanding” (this value was 52.54% in the CLIL sample), whereas 37.70% of the
male students achieved such grades (41.19% in the CLIL sample). This result seems to
corroborate Merisuo-Storm and Soininen’s (2014) findings that led them to conclude
that “especially the boys seemed to have benefited from bilingual education” (p. 72)
as, while the girls’ literacy skills were significantly better than the boy’ in regular
classes in their study, this was not the case in CLIL classes. Additionally, in light of
this result it can be conjectured that CLIL instruction may contribute to narrow the
gap between girls and boys in literacy performance, though this should be confirmed
in further studies. It should be noted that in PISA 2015 girls achieved better scores
than boys in reading in all OECD countries (OECD, 2016).
Studies have shown that parental level of education influences their children’s
academic performance as this level impacts on the beliefs and attitudes that promote
learning; besides, a strong connection has been found between mothers’ educational
level and children’s academic achievement and cognitive development (Davis-Kean,
2005; Sirin 2005). In our study, the mother’s education level seemed to have a consid-
erable impact on the participants’ school achievement in L1. Students in all groups
whose mothers have a higher educational level (that is, a university level) obtain
better grades in Spanish. This effect achieves a statistically significant level in the
case of the Primary non-CLIL sample (χ2 = 8.32, df = 1, p = 0.008, V = 0.32), the
Secondary CLIL sample (χ2 = 5.84, df = 1, p = 0.03, V = 0.22) and the Secondary
non-CLIL sample (χ2 = 10.48, df = 1, p = 0.003, V = 0.30). In contrast, the impact
of the father’s education level did not seem to be so evident as it only reached statis-
tical significance in the case of the Secondary CLIL sample (χ2 = 4.81, df = 1, p =
0.05, V = 0.20).
Quite unexpectedly, the chi square result indicates a relationship between the
extramural exposure to English and Secondary non-CLIL students’ level of attain-
ment in Spanish (χ2 = 6.69, df = 1, p = 0.03, V = 0.22). In this group, 40% of
those exposed to English up to 9 h a week obtained grades between “very good” and
“outstanding”; of the students exposed to English more than 9 h 62.79% achieved
CLIL and L1 Competence Development 111

those grades. It may be hypothesised that exposure to language—to any language—

may have an impact on the person’s development in other language(s) of his or her
repertoire; this hypothesis, however, needs confirmation.
The results from the descriptive statistics and the ANOVA tests aimed to detect the
effect of verbal intelligence and motivational factors (desire to work and self-esteem,
exam anxiety, lack of interest in studying and realistic personal self-demand) on L1
attainment are shown in Tables 3 (Primary Education) and 4 (Secondary Education).
As expected, the descriptive statistical results indicate that, overall, the higher the
performance in the verbal intelligence test, the higher the school grade in Spanish
L1. The ANOVA test revealed that, except in the case of the CLIL Primary group,
there are statistical significant differences in Spanish performance between all the
different attainment groups.
As to the motivational factors in Pelechano’s (1994) MA test, results were, on the
whole, not surprising either in CLIL or in non-CLIL groups. Without exception, the
higher the grades obtained in Spanish, the higher the values in the desire to work
and self-esteem factors. Differences between attainment groups achieved significant
levels only in Secondary Education. Exam anxiety exhibited a somewhat erratic
behaviour, though, and did not yield any significant difference between groups. When
it comes to the potentially debilitating lack of interest in studying factor, higher values
in it also corresponded to lower grades; additionally, differences between levels of
attainment in Spanish regarding this factor reached significant level at Secondary
Education both in the CLIL and the non-CLIL group, although the effect size in the
latter was considerably smaller. Finally, the relationship between self-demand and
the school grades in Spanish followed the expected trend as higher values in this
motivational factor corresponded to higher grades; however, the difference in this
factor between attainment groups in Spanish was statistically significant only in the
Primary non-CLIL group and in the Secondary CLIL group, where the eta partial
squared value indicated a large effect size.
In general, as Table 4 shows, the effects of the variable verbal intelligence and
the four motivational factors in the MA test on school grades in Spanish seem to
be more pronounced in the Secondary Education CLIL group, as both the p and the
effect values indicate. A different effect of enrolment in a CLIL class on L1, FL and
subject content learning outcomes was observed by Madrid and Barrios (2018).

5 Conclusion

It is reasonable to suppose that the L1 competence of students in CLIL programmes—

who are consequently exposed to fewer hours of instruction in Spanish—may be
negatively affected as a result of their participation in such a programme. In view
of this possibility, this study aimed at investigating whether CLIL instruction had
a detrimental effect on Spanish (L1) competence in a specific monolingual context
112 E. Barrios

Table 3 Mean, standard deviation and variation in verbal intelligence and motivational factors
according to school grade levels in Spanish (Primary Education)
Non-CLIL
Variable Scores
Insufficient (I) Sufficient + Very good +
(n=13) good outstanding
(SG) (VO)
(n=29) (n=54)
M M M F ηp2 Comments
(SD) (SD) (SD) (2, 93)
(p)
Verbal 8.69 12.83 15.00 26.73 .37 VO>SG>I**
intelligence (2.87) (2.70) (2.93) (< .001)
Desire to work 3.77 4.79 5.06 2.60 .053
and self-esteem (1.96) (1.98) (1.71) (.080)
Exam anxiety 7.08 6.28 6.30 1.46 .030
(1.115) (1.579) (1.609) (.24)
Lack of interest 4.08 3.55 2.74 4.04 .080
in studying (1.44) (1.76) (1.81) (.080)
Self-demand 1.23 1.55 2.41 3.65 .073 VO>I*
(1.42) (1.27) (2.02) (.030)
CLIL
Scores
Insufficient Sufficient + Very good +
(I) good outstanding
(n=1) (SG) (VO)
(n=9) (n=10)
M M M F ηp2 Comments
(SD) (SD) (SD) (2, 17)
(p)
Verbal 9.00 9.33 11.30 .68 .074 −
intelligence (3.32) (4.27) (.52)
Desire to work 3.00 3.22 5.70 8.40 .50 −
and self-esteem (1.20) (1.49) (.003)
Exam anxiety 6.00 6.33 5.90 .25 .028 −
(1.23) (1.45) (.78)
Lack of interest 2.00 2.89 2.40 .28 .032 −
in studying (2.03) (1.17) (.76)
Self-demand 2.00 1.89 3.10 1.71 .17 −
(1.05) (1.73) (.21)
* Note Significant at a level of p < 0.05

** Note Significant at a level of p < 0.001

CLIL and L1 Competence Development 113

Table 4 Mean, standard deviation and variation in verbal intelligence and motivational factors
according to school grade levels in Spanish (Secondary Education)
Non-CLIL
Variable Scores
Insufficient (I) Sufficient + Very good +
(n=23) good outstanding
(SG) (VO)
(n=38) (n=57)
M M M F ηp2 Comments
(SD) (SD) (SD) (2, 215)
(p)
Verbal 9.35 10.03 11.02 3.066 .051
intelligence (2.95) (3.27) (2.66) (.050)
Desire to work 3.43 4.05 4.72 3.985 .065 VO>I*
and self-esteem (1.70) (1.94) (1.98) (.021)
Exam anxiety 5.65 5.89 5.96 .213 .004
(2.10) (1.81) (1.96) (.808)
Lack of interest 5.26 4.97 4.18 3.950 .064 VO>I*
in studying (1.51) (2.11) (1.66) (.022)
Self-demand 1.04 1.37 1.74 2.091 .035
(1.15) (1.50) (1.49) (.128)
CLIL
Scores
Insufficient (I) Sufficient + Very good +
(n=15) good outstanding
(SG) (VO)
(n=50) (n=58)
M M M F ηp2 Comments
(SD) (SD) (SD) (2, 120)
(p)
Verbal 9.67 9.64 11.69 6.248 .094 VO>I*
intelligence (3.70) (3.32) (2.96) (.003)
Desire to work 3.87 3.90 4.90 3.901 .061 VO>SG*
and self-esteem (1.73) (1.91) (2.12) (.023) VO>I*
Exam anxiety 5.53 6.34 6.12 .956 .016
(2.48) (2.00) (1.84) .387)
Lack of interest 5.93 4.94 3.14 15.705 .207 VO>I**
in studying (2.40) (2.39) (1.70) (< .001) VO>SG**
Self-demand .67 1.08 1.98 12.191 .169 VO>I**
(.72) (.92) (1.40) (< .001) VO>SG**
* Note Significant at a level of p < 0.05

** Note Significant at a level of p < 0.001

114 E. Barrios

(Andalusia, Spain). Additionally, the study sought to determine the effect of moder-
ating variables (gender, setting (urban vs. rural), parental education level, extra-
mural exposure to the foreign language (English), verbal intelligence and academic
motivational factors) on level of Spanish competence attainment in Spanish.
Results indicate that the L1 competence is not jeopardised by participating in the
CLIL programme, thus supporting the view that a limited number of subjects taught
through the medium of the FL does not adversely impinge on the students’ compe-
tence in L1. Secondary urban and rural CLIL students do not significantly differ
in their school competence in Spanish. However, the attainment in Spanish (L1) in
the CLIL group seems to be affected differently by other variables depending on
the educational programme. In this sense, gender has a statistically significant effect
on the attainment of non-CLIL secondary students only. Also, while in Secondary
Education the mother’s education level significantly impacts on the Spanish compe-
tence in both the CLIL and the ordinary educational programmes, the father’s educa-
tion level only has a significant impact on the Spanish competence of the CLIL group.
Additionally, more than 9 h of weekly exposure to English has a significant impact
on L1 attainment only in the Secondary non-CLIL group. Concerning the effect of
verbal intelligence and the four academic motivational factors included in the study
on L1 competence, our study concludes that it is more pronounced in the Secondary
CLIL group.
These results must be taken with caution, though, as our study clearly has some
limitations. Firstly, given both the sample size and the distinctive implementation
of CLIL in Andalusia, results may not be transferable to other contexts in which
CLIL is being implemented. Secondly, only studies with a pretest–posttest design
which control for potentially confounding and intervening variables can determine
whether findings are attributable to the educational programme (although in our
study participants were matched for verbal intelligence and academic motivation, no
baseline data were available). Thirdly, since the end-of-year scores were used as a
proxy for attainment in Spanish there is no guarantee that such scores are reliable
indicators of the different levels of attainment in Spanish since there is the danger
that each school sets its own standards.
Further studies in this field are therefore required that use pretest–posttest design
with a control group. Additionally, standardised instruments are needed to measure
L1 attainment in different schools and programmes (e.g. Ramos et al., 2011). Finally,
although our findings are promising, they should be validated by a larger sample
size. Notwithstanding these limitations, this study provides further evidence as to
the learning impact of participating in a CLIL programme and explores a research
area—that of the effect of intervening variables on learning in this programme in
comparison with the regular educational programme—that has not been thoroughly
investigated so far.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Compet-
itiveness [research grant number FFI2012-32221] and the Government of Andalusia [research
grant number HUM 2348] (Project: The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Communities: A Large-Scale Evaluation).
CLIL and L1 Competence Development 115

References

Alejo, R., & Piquer-Píriz, A. (2016). Urban vs. rural CLIL: An analysis of input-related variables,
motivation and language attainment. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 245–262.
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the
Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2002). The significance of CLIL/EMILE. In D. Marsh (Ed.),
CLILE/EMILE—The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 24–26).
Jyväskylä: UniCOM Continuing Education Centre.
Bergroth, M. (2006). Immersion students in the matriculation examination: Three years after immer-
sion. In S. Björklund, K. Mård-Miettinen, M. Bergström, & M. Södergård (Eds.), Exploring dual-
focussed education: Integrating language and content for individual and societal needs (pp. 123–
134). Vaasan: Vaasan Yliopiston Julkaisuja. https://www.uwasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_952-476-
149-1.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2017.
Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantitative
as well as process, product and participant perspectives in CLIL research. International CLIL
Research Journal, 4(1), 66–78. https://www.icrj.eu/14/article7.html. Accessed 30 June 2017.
Bruton, A. (2011a). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-Evaluating Some of the Research.
System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002.
Bruton, A. (2011b). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due
to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236–241.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System, 41(3), 587–897. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture: More than a reply to J. Hüttner and
U. Smit (2014). System, 53, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005.
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K. & Hollm, J. (2016). Selectivity of content and language integrated
learning programmes in German secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1130015.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement:
The indirect role of parental expectation and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology,
19(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294.
Gebauer, S. K., Zaunbauer, A. C. M., & Möller, J. (2012). Erstsprachliche Leistungsentwick-
lung im Immersionsunterricht: Vorteile trotz Unterrichts in einer Fremdsprache? Zeitschrift Für
Pädagogische Psychologie, 3, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000071.
Halbach, A. (2009). The primary school teacher and the challenges of bilingual education. In E.
Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 19–26). London: Richmond.
Hämäläinen, M. (1998). Äidinkielen kehittyminen vieraskielisessä opetuksessa: Sanavarasto-
tutkimus. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of Turku, Teacher Training School, Turku.
Koivumäki, K., & Stara, P. (1994). Puolalan koulun kieliluokkien opetuksessa käytettävän englannin
kielen määrä ja tilanteet sekä oppilaiden äidinkielen taidot. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University
of Turku, Teacher Training School, Turku.
Lasagabaster, D. (2009). The implementation of CLIL and attitudes towards trilingualism. ITL,
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157, 23–45.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes.
International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 4–17.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Madrid Fernández, D. (2006). Bilingual and plurilingual education in the European and Andalusian
context. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 177–185.
Madrid, D., & Barrios, E. (2018). CLIL across diverse educational settings: Comparing programmes
and school types. Porta Linguarum, 29, 29–50.
116 E. Barrios

Merisuo-Storm, T. (2000). Ensiluokkalaisen ¨aidinkielen lukemisen ja kirjoittamisen taitojen kehit-

tyminen kielirikasteisella luokalla. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of Turku, Teacher
Training School, Turku.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2002). Oppilaan ¨aidinkielen lukemisen ja kirjoittamisen taitojen kehittyminen
kaksikielisess¨a alkuopetuksessa (Publication Series C: 185). Turku: Painosalama.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006). Development of boys’ and girls’ literacy skills and learning attitudes
in CLIL education. In S. Björklund, K. Mård-Miettinen, M. Bergström, & M. Södergård (Eds.),
Exploring dual-focussed education: Integrating language and content for individual and societal
needs (pp. 176–188). Vaasan: Vaasan Yliopiston Julkaisuja. https://www.uwasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/
isbn_952-476-149-1.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2017.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2007). Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign-language learning and the development
of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 226–235. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024.
Merisuo-Storm, T., & Soininen, M. (2014). Students’ first language skills after six years in bilingual
education. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.
2014.v5n22p72.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA,
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014.
Pelechano, V. (1994). Prueba MA. Análisis Y Modificación De La Conducta, 20, 71–72.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
70050.2011.630064.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2018). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical
evidence from monolingual contexts. Leaning and Instruction, 57, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002.
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students’,
teachers’ and parents’ opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.874972.
Rahman, H. (2001). Kaksikielisen (suomi-englanti) ja suomenkielisen kuudennen luokan äidinkielen
kirjoitelmien vertailua yhdyssanojen oikeinkirjoituksen osalta. Unpublished EdMa thesis, Univer-
sity of Helsinki, Teacher Training School, Helsinki.
Ramos García, A. M., Ortega Martín, J. L., & Madrid, D. (2011). Bilingualism and competence in the
mother tongue. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in bilingual education (pp. 135–155).
Bern: Peter Lang.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lasagabaster, D. (2010). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque
autonomous community. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain:
Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 12–29). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Santamaría, P., Arribas, D., Pereña, J., & Seisdedos, N. (2014). EFAI: Evaluación factorial de las
aptitudes intelectuales. Madrid: TEA.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and
Education, 21(4), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.2167/le635.0.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430750
03417.
Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2014). Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English
learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000232.
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on
mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.7.
CLIL and L1 Competence Development 117

Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In D. Marsh (Ed.), The CLIL quality matrix. Central work-
shop report 6/2005 (pp. 10–25). https://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.
pdf. Accessed June 30 2017.
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar
and Vocabulary

Macarena Navarro-Pablo

Abstract This chapter examines the impact of Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) on 351 Primary and Secondary Education students’ English
language attainment regarding grammar and vocabulary in seven bilingual public
schools and one non-bilingual charter school in the province of Seville. Intergroup
comparisons are carried out across the different schools and discriminant analyses
are performed with all the intervening variables of the study (setting, socio-economic
status, verbal intelligence, motivational variables and extramural exposition) in order
to determine whether CLIL is truly responsible for the differences ascertained or
whether other variables account for a greater proportion of the variance.

1 Introduction

CLIL is nowadays the methodological approach adopted by most European coun-

tries in order to meet the challenges posed by the European Union’s multilingualism
policy (European Union, 2008), which establishes that European citizens should be
able to communicate in two languages other than their mother tongue. The imple-
mentation of this measure implies the need for greater levels of foreign language
(FL) proficiency, which therefore calls for a revision and, probably in many coun-
tries, a thorough reform of the approaches to FL teaching and learning. Dalton-
Puffer (2014) points out that CLIL is a methodological revolution, not only in the
context of FL teaching, but also in the teaching of non-linguistic subjects. All over
Europe, CLIL is considered ‘a new learning and teaching environment’ (Coonan,
2007, p. 625). In the last few decades, interest in CLIL, defined as the ‘teaching and
learning through a foreign language’ (Marsh, 2002, p. 54), has gained momentum.
In many countries, this methodology has been adopted in and adapted to different
school settings. Pérez-Cañado (2012), who offers an overview of the literature on
CLIL since the term was coined in Finland in the 1990s, has pointed out that in

M. Navarro-Pablo (B)
University of Sevilla, Seville, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 119

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_7
120 M. Navarro-Pablo

recent years new studies on CLIL have started to emerge, offering sometimes contra-
dictory and conflicting views on this methodological approach. One controversial
issue pertains to the categorisation of CLIL. For example, not all researchers agree
that this is an altogether new methodological approach, but rather consider it as
having evolved from different communicative methodologies already in use in FL
teaching (Content-Based Language Teaching, Communicative Language Teaching
or the Natural Approach L+1 Hypothesis) (Cenoz et al., 2014).
However, CLIL was not originally intended as a definitive break from preceding
methodologies. Rather, as several researchers contend (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009;
Nikula, 2007), CLIL is used as an ‘an umbrella term covering a dozen or more
educational approaches’ (Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 12). Furthermore, a commonality
between CLIL and preceding methods for FL teaching, or the fact that CLIL may be
considered a continuation thereof, is not necessarily a negative aspect of CLIL. As
suggested by Dueñas (2004), CLIL is ‘a flexible operational framework for language
instruction’ and this is precisely what allows this approach to be adapted to a great
variety of contexts. In this line, Turner (2013, p. 397) indicates that ‘this broad defi-
nition of CLIL allows for programmes that existed in different European countries
to be redefined as CLIL programmes’. At the same time, there are also authors that
identify some distinguishing features in CLIL. For example, Mehisto et al. (2008,
p. 12) state that ‘What is new about CLIL is that it synthesizes and provides a
flexible way of applying the knowledge learnt from these various approaches’. In
this line, Coyle (2008, p. 97) establishes that the distinctiveness of CLIL lies in
its ‘integrated approach, where both language and content are conceptualised on a
continuum without an implied preference for either’. CLIL gives teachers the oppor-
tunity to introduce cross-curricular connections, meaningful interactions, cognitive
skills training and a variety of cultural contexts in the subject content classroom,
something that also goes beyond traditional non-linguistic content instruction. All
these aspects that make CLIL different from other types of instruction need to be
considered when analysing CLIL’s potential language benefits for learners.

2 Prior Research on CLIL

Research on CLIL began in different European countries in the first decade of

the twenty-first century and initially focused on comparative studies of CLIL and
non-CLIL learners. More recently, there has been an increasing number of studies
concerning the implementation and the effects of CLIL programmes. Research on
the assessment of language learning and teaching programmes in CLIL contexts
entails certain difficulties due to the variety of factors that influence final learning
outcomes, and to the different ways in which this methodology has been implemented
in different countries. According to Lasagabaster (2015, p. 19), ‘as CLIL syllabuses
are usually developed to meet local needs, there is huge variation in its implemen-
tation’. Also, Nikula (2007, p. 208) draws attention to the ‘great deal of variation
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 121

in CLIL’. In the Finnish context, Nikula (2007) show how forms of implementation
may vary in terms of both depth and breadth.
Table 1 sums up and classifies some of the literature produced on CLIL and allows
us to narrow down and select the most relevant sources for the present study. The
first section includes research focused on theoretical assumptions concerning CLIL
conceptualisation. These studies provide a conceptual framework for bilingual and
plurilingual education, bilingual programme design, policy issues from the different
countries where CLIL programmes are implemented, and the main challenges to
CLIL implementation (see Research type 1 in Table 1). From a more practical stand-
point, several studies gather data about the implementation of CLIL programmes

Table 1 Types of research

Research type Author/s, year of publication
Research type 1 (RT1): CLIL conceptualisation Marsh (2002)
Dueñas (2004)
Nikula (2007) and Nikula et al. (2016)
Coyle (2008)
Mehisto et al. (2008)
Turner (2013)
Cenoz et al. (2014)
Dalton-Puffer (2011, 2014)
Pérez-Cañado (2012)
Ruiz de Zarobe (2017)
Research type 2 (RT2): CLIL Implementation. Coonan (2007)
Stakeholders’ beliefs and opinions Dalton-Puffer (2011)
Pérez-Cañado (2014)
Research type 3 (RT3): CLIL and English Admiraal et al. (2006)
learning outcomes Ruiz de Zarobe (2008)
Agustín-Llach (2009)
Dalton-Puffer (2009)
Fernández Fontecha (2010)
Martínez and Juncal Gutiérrez (2009)
Moreno (2009)
Ojeda (2009)
Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez-Catalán (2009)
San Isidro (2010)
Villarreal and García (2009)
Navés and Victori (2010)
Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010)
Llinares and Dafouz (2010)
Breidbach and Viebrock (2012)
Agustín-Llach and Canga (2014)
Lasagabaster (2015)
Juan-Garau et al. (2015)
Roquet and Pérez-Vidal (2015)
Pérez-Vidal and Roquet (2015)
Rumlich (2016)
(continued)
122 M. Navarro-Pablo

Table 1 (continued)
Research type Author/s, year of publication
Research type 4 (RT4): Individual and Dalton-Puffer (2007)
Contextual variables Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009)
Lasagabaster (2011)
Llinares et al. (2012)
Martín del Pozo (2013, 2015)
Fernández and Canga (2014)
Dafouz and Hibler (2013)
Doiz et al. (2014)
Arribas (2016)
Pfenninger (2016)
Lorenzo (2017)
Navarro-Pablo and García-Jiménez (2018)
Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. (2019)
Madrid and Barrios (2018)
Rascón and Bretones (2018)
Alejo and Piquer (2016)
Pavón (2018)
Lancaster (2018)
Lorenzo et al. (2019)

in Europe and their strengths and weaknesses, either through participants’ opinions,
classroom observation or both (Research type 2). Most of these are qualitative studies
in which interviews, questionnaires or observation tools are used to analyse the effec-
tiveness of CLIL teaching performance or stakeholders’ beliefs and opinions on the
matter. Their findings usually provide positive views on language learning in CLIL
programmes. The third group is made up of studies that analyse students’ English
learning outcomes, making use of quantitative data from students’ results in language
tests (Research type 3). Finally, there is an increasing number of studies that focus on
individual and contextual variables that affect language learning, such as motivation
or extramural exposure (see Research type 4).
Research on CLIL characterisation (RT1) helps to understand the differences
between CLIL and non-CLIL instruction. Studies concerning CLIL teaching perfor-
mance and stakeholders’ beliefs and opinions (RT2) offer information about the way
these programmes are being implemented, and their effect on the participants. Studies
that analyse the implementation of CLIL programmes comparing the language results
of CLIL and non-CLIL groups (RT3) are especially relevant for this study as they
provide pertinent empirical evidence in the field. Finally, the present study also
considers the possible influence of different individual and contextual variables
(setting, socioeconomic status, verbal intelligence, motivational variables, extra-
mural exposure and language needed and produced in class) on students’ linguistic
performance. Agreeing with many researchers (RT4) on the importance of moder-
ating variables, this study includes a discriminant analysis in order to determine the
influence of these variables on linguistic outcomes.
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 123

In general, research provides positive results for CLIL strands, where CLIL
learners outperform non-CLIL ones. However, there are also some conflicting and
not fully comparable findings, for which some factors are accountable, namely:
• Context (country and region; monolingual or bilingual context) and languages
involved: it is necessary to study bilingual and monolingual regions independently,
since their experience with bilingual and immersion programmes is so different
that it can affect students’ results and hence research findings. In Spain, where
the present study takes place, it is necessary to bear in mind the local context, as
there are bilingual regions, such as the Basque Country or Catalonia, in which the
language introduced through CLIL (mostly English) is a third language, whereas
in monolingual regions, English tends to be the second language.
• Educational level: results vary depending on whether research takes place in
Primary, Secondary or Higher Education.
• Language tests and competence categorisation: when analysing and comparing
students’ results, the same types of tests need to be used in order to measure
the same linguistic aspects. This has not always been the case, and researchers
have measured students’ linguistic competence using different types of tests, thus
placing the focus on some linguistic aspects over others (for example, skills or
specific language components, such as grammar or vocabulary).
• Type of study (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal study): studies have tended to focus
on students’ results at a given point in time. More recently, longitudinal studies are
starting to gain ground. In this way, the effectiveness of CLIL programmes can be
measured throughout time, offering a wider perspective on CLIL (Dalton-Puffer,
2011).
• Language needed and produced in CLIL classrooms: when analysing students’
linguistic outcomes, teachers’ metalanguage and classroom discourse functions
are essential to the teaching and learning of content curricular subjects. The
BICS and CALP distinction made by Cummins (2008), the Language Triptych
(Language of Learning, Language through Learning and Language for Learning)
identified by Coyle et al. (2010) and the L4C model (General Language, Academic
Language, Subject/Domani Specific Language and Classroom Language) by Gier-
linger (2013) provided a theoretical framework for the analysis of the different
languages involved in CLIL classroom.
Bearing these factors in mind, this chapter presents the results of a study carried out
in a monolingual region (Andalusia) at both Primary and Secondary level. The present
analysis focuses on quantitative data obtained from a linguistic test administered
to 351 Primary and Secondary Education students (more information on the data
collection tools in the Methodology section below). More specifically, it focuses on
learners’ results regarding two specific linguistic aspects: grammar and vocabulary.
The last decade has seen a proliferation of research that disaggregates and
compares CLIL learners’ performance in specific skills and/or mastery of linguistic
124 M. Navarro-Pablo

components, rather than just drawing on their overall achievement levels. Most find-
ings indicate that when specific skills or linguistic aspects are analysed, or other vari-
ables (individual, motivational or contextual) are introduced, results are not consis-
tent (Ojeda, 2009; Roquet & Pérez-Vidal, 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). This may
be due to the fact that these studies measure aspects such as vocabulary or grammar,
which are generally emphasised in regular EFL courses, as opposed to the emphasis
placed on communication in CLIL. In spite of this, there is a general consensus in
the literature regarding CLIL programmes’ positive effects on learners’ language
development over those of regular EFL programmes.
The literature review that is offered in the following lines focuses on two different
types of studies: longitudinal and cross-sectional ones. Then, some studies dealing
specifically with vocabulary and grammar are considered.
Longitudinal studies on the long-term benefits of CLIL instruction are emerging
progressively (cf. also Chapter 8 in this volume). In this line, Pérez-Vidal and Roquet
(2015) provide empirical data from two studies where writing, reading and listening
skills, together with lexico-grammatical abilities, are examined. Their findings indi-
cate that ‘larger relative gains are obtained by the FI + CLIL programme, however
not in all domains and to the same degree’ (Pérez-Vidal & Roquet, 2015, p. 80). As
regards students’ lexico-grammatical abilities, CLIL learners show higher relative
gains, whereas results regarding only the writing skill indicate that ‘the superiority
of CLIL cannot be confirmed’, since ‘although improvement in the case of the FI
+ CLIL group is shown, results were only significant in the domain of accuracy’
(Pérez-Vidal & Roquet, 2015, p. 1). The findings of their quantitative data reveal
that CLIL learners’ progress in syntactic and lexical complexity as well as fluency is
better, although the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL strands are not statisti-
cally significant. The same results are found through the qualitative data they collect
for grammar and vocabulary. Similarly, Juan-Garau et al. (2015) also research the
impact of CLIL programmes by analysing CLIL learners’ development of lexico-
grammatical accuracy over a period of three years throughout Secondary Educa-
tion. They conclude that CLIL and non-CLIL learners ‘significantly improved their
overall longitudinal lexical and grammatical ability’ (2015, p. 189) and their results
also suggest that lexico-grammatical development is faster in CLIL learners.
Turning now to cross-sectional studies, Llinares and Dafouz (2010) describe the
UAM-CLIL project carried out at secondary school level in Madrid, where three
types of data were collected (whole class discussion, written composition and oral
interview) from a corpus of approximately 40,000 spoken and 25,000 written words.
Dealing with both lexical and grammatical competence, and comparing the same
students’ written and spoken performance, their study indicates that CLIL ‘students
use appropriate lexis to express content-specific ideas’ (2010, p. 106). Similarly, San
Isidro (2010) analyses language competence improvement in Secondary schools
considering three main variables: student type, gender and school type. It includes
specific sections measuring grammar and vocabulary development where ‘the exam-
iners assessed the ability to use vocabulary, structure and paraphrase strategies to
convey meaning’ (2010, p. 67). Findings reveal that CLIL learners ‘were able not
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 125

only to pass an objective skills-based test but also with much better results’ (2010,
p. 67).
Examples of both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies carried out in Primary
and Secondary Education are provided by Navés and Victori (2010). They present
two studies as part of the BAF project that aim at examining the effect of onset age in
the acquisition of English as a foreign language. The studies compare students’ marks
in two Primary and three Secondary schools in Catalonia. The first study focuses on
learners’ general language proficiency and includes students from Years 5, 7, 8 and
9 in CLIL and non-CLIL strands. Cross-sectional findings reveal that CLIL learners
outperform non-CLIL learners on all the tests administered: grammar, cloze, dicta-
tion and listening. Furthermore, for all the measures analysed, longitudinal results
indicate younger learners in CLIL strands obtain similar results to those of the older
EFL students (2010, p. 47). The second study analyses learners’ writing skills from
Years 5 to 12. Similarly, there were statistical significant differences for each of the
areas tested: fluency, accuracy and syntactic and lexical complexity. Again, CLIL
learners at lower levels performed better in writing than the older EFL students.
Likewise, Ruiz de Zarobe (2008) measures the oral competence of Secondary school
students. In order to do so, five categories are established: pronunciation, vocabulary,
grammar, fluency and content. On the one hand, the cross-sectional analysis reveals
that CLIL students perform significantly better in all the scales. On the other hand,
the longitudinal study reveals that, after one year, the CLIL group also outperforms
the non-CLIL one in all the categories. After two years, however, differences between
both groups are not statistically significant in the vocabulary category.
Finally, we focus on research dealing specifically with vocabulary and grammar.
Regarding vocabulary, some studies of this kind are described in Ruiz de Zarobe and
Jiménez-Catalán (2009). The sample in all of them is comprised of learners in Year 6
of Primary Education. As regards lexical competence, Jiménez-Catalán and Ruiz de
Zarobe aim at establishing connections between the type of instruction and its effect
on FL vocabulary acquisition, based on the hypothesis that ‘the type of language
instruction relates positively to vocabulary knowledge’ (2009, p. 82). The study
contrasts the results of CLIL and non-CLIL groups in two receptive vocabulary tests,
and concludes that, in both tests, CLIL learners outperform their non-CLIL counter-
parts. A further study is provided by Moreno (2009), who analyses the results of a free
word association task as a means to explore learners’ mental lexicon, assuming that
this type of data can ‘complement and corroborate findings that emerge from anal-
yses of other lexical data’ (2009, p. 93). One of the main purposes of this study is to
describe the characteristics of the productive lexical profile of EFL Spanish learners
in Primary Education, comparing both CLIL and non-CLIL instructional models.
Findings show that CLIL learners produce more tokens and types than non-CLIL
learners, which is indicative that they have a higher proficiency level. Findings also
reveal that CLIL learners exhibit ‘a slightly higher productive vocabulary size’ and
‘more lexical richness in the word association test [. . . ] by recalling a higher number
of infrequent words’ (2009, p. 100). Thus, the study shows that statistically signifi-
cant differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups apply to both vocabulary size
and vocabulary depth. However, the author also contends that CLIL learner results
126 M. Navarro-Pablo

‘are not so overwhelming if we compare the great difference of formal instruction

exposure between groups’ (2009, p. 106).
In a similar line, the role of the L1 (Spanish) in CLIL and non-CLIL learners’
FL vocabulary use is analysed by Agustín-Llach (2009). Taking into account vari-
ables such as students’ proficiency levels, amount of FL exposure and instructional
approach, the aim of the study is to reach conclusions regarding which group of
students (CLIL or non-CLIL) has more transfer episodes from Spanish to English.
In order to do so, three categories are established: borrowings, coinages and calques.
Findings reveal that non-CLIL learners transfer from their L1 more frequently than
their CLIL counterparts, showing a higher number of lexical errors for all categories
distinguished. In another study, Agustín-Llach and Canga (2014) perform a cross-
sectional and longitudinal analysis of Primary school learners’ FL receptive vocabu-
lary size and lexical growth. Whereas in the cross-sectional analysis, CLIL learners
have a slightly larger vocabulary size, the longitudinal study reveals that differences
between groups are not significant in the early years, and become progressively
significant in the later years. Therefore, the study points to growing differences in
favour of CLIL students as learners’ educational and proficiency levels increase.
Also, Ojeda (2009) provides an interesting study on vocabulary and themes,
drawing attention to the importance of considering the differences between the
CLIL methodology and regular FL approaches, with special emphasis on CLIL and
non-CLIL learners’ view of the target language. In this regard, learners following
an FL programme conceive the target language ‘as a single object for language
learning’ (2009, p. 130) where the language is organised around linguistic compo-
nents (grammar and vocabulary among others), whereas in CLIL language instruc-
tion is organised around non-linguistic topics and lessons, being the FL a vehicular
language used for communication and for conveying meaning. The study analyses
learners’ written compositions in order to compare ‘the vocabulary most frequently
implemented by the two samples of participants’ (2009, p. 132). The author draws
upon the similarities and differences found in a total of 60 comparable texts following
a lexical field theory where taxonomy serves to classify and organise the lexis found
in the corpus. Findings are mixed concerning the similarities and discrepancies of
both groups, depending on the lexical field analysed. In the interpretation of the
results, the author suggests that the ‘CLIL sample seems to have a slight tendency to
use a wider range of types including both colloquial and even sophisticated words’
(2009, p. 137) and refers to the ‘non-CLIL sample’s greater difficulties to express
abstract ideas that entail a higher degree of complexity’ (2009, p. 152). At the same
time, Ojeda points to the non-CLIL group’s ‘higher lexical reiteration’ (2009, p. 140)
and CLIL learners’ ‘higher lexical variation’ (2009, p. 153).
There are also some qualitative studies where stakeholders confirm the results
reported in quantitative research concerning vocabulary improvement in CLIL
programmes. The results in Pérez-Cañado (2014) are largely consistent with find-
ings reported in Juan-Garau et al. (2015). Pérez-Cañado analyses data gathered from
questionnaires for a European study in which in-service teachers across Europe
provide their perceptions on teacher training needs for bilingual education. One of
the thematic blocks considered in the study is related to participants’ current level of
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 127

linguistic and intercultural competence. Findings reveal that ‘all the items comprised
within linguistic and intercultural competence are invariably considered to be appro-
priately mastered’ and, more interestingly for our study, that ‘this is especially the
case for accurate pronunciation and knowledge of specialized academic vocabulary
(within linguistic competence)’ (2014, p. 11). Although studies carried out so far
generally provide quite positive results for CLIL learners’ gains, research also points
to the impossibility of ascertaining that findings are due to the type of instruction,
rather than, for example, to the increased number of hours that CLIL programmes
imply (Juan-Garau et al., 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017).
However, not all the studies show such satisfactory results. For instance, Admi-
raal et al. (2006), who carry out an evaluation of bilingual education at Secondary
school level in The Netherlands, administer a test that specifically measures recep-
tive vocabulary, where findings show that there are no significant differences between
bilingual and non-bilingual groups. Similarly, Fernández Fontecha (2010) provides
results from a lexical availability task administered to Year 6 Primary school learners
in which non-CLIL students outperform CLIL ones. The findings are interpreted as
due to factors such as ‘the type of test used, which requires that the learners produce
types in a limited amount of time not in a communicative interaction, which is more
typical of a CLIL environment [. . .] or the early stage of CLIL instruction at which
learners had been tested’ (2009, p. 87).
Turning now to research specifically focused on grammar development, Breid-
bach and Viebrock (2012) review recent CLIL research in Germany. Especially rele-
vant for the present study is Berenbröker, as described by Breidbach and Viebrock
(2012), where a comparative study between 195 CLIL and non-CLIL learners over
a period of two years shows that, whereas CLIL has a very positive influence on
FL competence in general, as regards grammar, differences are less accentuated.
According to the study, this is due to the fact that ‘regular foreign language teaching
is often more concerned with an explicit focus on grammar, whereas CLIL is more
concerned with implicit grammatical knowledge, which is acquired in the process of
exchanging subject-specific information’ (2000, p. 7). In turn, tense and agreement
morphology in Secondary Education is analysed through a collection of oral narra-
tions by Villarreal and García (2009). They compare affixal forms against suppletive
forms. They find that the omission rate is very high across both groups of learners
(CLIL and non-CLIL), which implies a parallel behaviour of the groups taken inde-
pendently. However, when their overall performance is contrasted, the CLIL group
outperforms the non-CLIL group in the production of affixal morphemes. Quite simi-
larly, Martinez and Gutiérrez (2009) study the acquisition of syntax, also through the
analysis of Secondary students’ oral narrations. In order to do so, they select several
morpho-syntactic features, null subjects, production of placeholders, negation and
production of null objects, and conclude, ‘CLIL learners significantly outperform
non-CLIL learners only in the use of placeholders’ (2009, p. 193).
As has been shown, findings regarding specific linguistic aspects are not clear-
cut. Indeed, Juan-Garau et al. (2015) state that ‘no conclusive results have so far
been obtained regarding the development of lexico-grammatical competence in CLIL
128 M. Navarro-Pablo

contexts’ (2015, p. 182). At the same time, Pérez-Vidal and Roquet (2015, p. 81)
contend that:
[G]eneral results [concerning the linguistic benefits of CLIL] seem to be by and large positive,
although there are aspects which are either unaffected by CLIL or for which research is
inexistent or inconclusive, namely syntax, productive vocabulary, written accuracy, discourse
skills and pragmatic efficiency (see Llinares et al. 2012), and pronunciation, that is, degree of
foreign accent. Such a positive impact has generally being attributed to higher quantity and
quality of exposure. However, methodological issues are still unresolved in CLIL research
and subject to debate.

The following conclusions may be extracted from this literature review:

• More research is needed in order to shed light on findings that are apparently
contradictory or inconclusive. Any teaching approach needs time and fine-tuned
research so that its theoretical bases can feed the results of research and produce
better learning outcomes.
• CLIL is an approach that seeks contextualised learning based on meaning
construction through the use of the target language. It is also a methodology that
is eminently grounded on interaction and communication. Therefore, research
instruments that measure learners’ mastery of specific linguistic systems (typi-
cally trained in regular EFL courses) are likely to yield less positive results in CLIL
groups. In view of this, specific instruments measuring learners’ communicative
competence and contextualised learning should be used.
• In order to design accurate research tools, it is also necessary to take into account
the characteristic tasks of each instructional approach. In this sense, CLIL learners’
vocabulary seems to be best measured by means of integrative vocabulary tests
and word association tests than by discrete decontextualised receptive vocabulary
tests.
• Different personal and contextual factors must be considered in any assessment
of CLIL, as these have an effect on and may help explain learners’ results.

3 The Study

Research Questions The aims of the present study are: (1) to examine the impact of
CLIL on the English grammar and vocabulary of 351 Primary and Secondary school
students and (2) to investigate the relationship between individual difference and
contextual variables in order to determine which of them has a stronger influence on
students’ linguistic outcomes. The effects of the following intervening variables are
analysed: setting, socioeconomic status, verbal intelligence, motivational variables
and extramural exposition. Considering these aims, this study seeks to answer the
following research questions:
• RQ1. Are there statistically significant differences between the achievement levels
of CLIL and non-CLIL learners concerning grammar and vocabulary? If so, what
is the effect size?
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 129

• RQ 2. Are there statistically significant differences between the achievement levels

of CLIL and non-CLIL learners concerning individual differences and contextual
variables? If so, which variable has a stronger influence on students’ linguistic
outcomes?
Scope In order to guarantee the homogeneity of the sample, three actions were
undertaken: first, the researchers contacted the provincial coordinator of bilingual
programmes in order to request a list of the state schools with English bilingual
programmes. The schools selected for the sample have both CLIL and non-CLIL (or
regular EFL) groups, which acted as experimental and control groups, respectively.
Thus, participants in this study are streamed into two different instruction types:
students enrolled in CLIL programmes and students who follow an EFL approach.
Secondly, verbal intelligence and motivation tests were applied to each group. Finally,
information regarding students’ socioeconomic status, their English grades and their
extramural exposure to English were also collected. The results of these actions
allowed us to match students and ensure that these factors did not interfere with the
results of the study. At the same time, this also allowed us to determine whether
the differences in language attainment could be ascribed to the programme imple-
mentation rather than to any other factor related to the students’ initial capacities,
motivation or any other contextual variables. A total of eight schools participated
in the study (four Primary schools and four Secondary schools), of which seven are
state schools, and one is a charter school. From the overall total of 351 students, 193
are in Year 6 of Primary Education (in the age range of 11–12) and 158 are in the
final year of Compulsory Secondary Education.
Instruments A total of four instruments were administered to the students: three
tests (English, verbal intelligence and motivation tests) and a questionnaire. The
language tests were designed following the Common European Framework of Refer-
ence for Languages (CEFR), the national Decrees and the regional Orders which
establish the official curriculum for the educational stages assessed. The sections
of the tests measuring learners’ grammatical competence, both at Primary and
Secondary level, combine traditional formal activities with exercises that require
understanding meaning within a context. Similarly, the tests designed to measure
students’ lexical competence combine activities focused on form with exercises
based on texts in which meaning has to be reconstructed from the context. Thus,
in both instances, tests are suitable to assess lexico-grammatical competences in
methodological approaches, CLIL and regular EFL courses. Verbal intelligence was
measured by means of two different adapted versions (one for Primary students and
one for Secondary students) of the EFAI (Evaluación Factorial de las Aptitudes
Intelectuales) test (Santamaría, 2018). Both versions include analogies, antonyms
and odd-one-out questions, of which students have to answer as many as possible in
five minutes. In order to measure motivation, Pelechano’s (1994) MA test was used.
This test is composed of 35 items that isolate four motivational factors related to
achievement and anxiety: (1) desire to work and self-esteem (comprising 10 items);
(2) anxiety in the face of exams (composed of 9 items); (3) lack of interest in
studying (made up of 9 elements); and (4) realistic personal self-demand (comprising
130 M. Navarro-Pablo

7 elements). An initial questionnaire provided personal data and information on

students’ socioeconomic status and extramural exposure to English.
Data analysis The data collected have been statistically analysed using SPSS 24.0.
In order to answer RQ1, the t-test was used to identify significant differences between
the two groups under study. Also, the effect size was calculated through Cohen’s d
coefficient. Finally, a discriminant analysis has been applied in order to address RQ2,
as it can be considered a powerful technique for examining differences between the
two groups with respect to several variables simultaneously. The grouping variable
selected for the data analysis is the type of instructional programme followed by
the students (CLIL vs. non-CLIL). The dependent variable is the students’ results
in both the grammar and vocabulary tests. The independent variables are setting,
socioeconomic status, verbal intelligence, motivational variables and extramural
exposure.

4 Results

Regarding the first research question, Table 2 presents the means scores, standard
deviations and Cohen’s d coefficient with the effect size for the grammar and vocab-
ulary variables. Findings show that there are significant differences between CLIL
and non-CLIL groups, both at Primary and Secondary level, in favour of CLIL
groups. In Primary Education, the effect size is small (Cohen’s d = 0.336) for
grammar and medium (Cohen’s d = 0.504) for vocabulary. Cohen’s d sizes indi-
cate that there are standard deviations of 0.336 and 0.504 between CLIL and non-
CLIL groups, respectively. Both are considerably higher in Secondary Education,
where both grammar and vocabulary differences show a large effect size (Cohen’s
d = 1.150 and 0.858), with standard deviations of 1.150 and 0.588 for CLIL and
non-CLIL groups, respectively.
If we now take a closer look at the exercise type students were asked to answer,
the t-test was used in order to determine whether learners’ results vary depending
on the task they had to carry out. In Primary Education (see Table 3), CLIL learners

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, Cohen’s d coefficient and effect size

Educational Independent Non-CLIL CLIL
Level variables Mean SD Mean SD Cohen’s d Effect size
Year 6 Grammar 9.084 5.600 10.900 5.208 0.336 0.166
Primary Vocabulary 5.930 3.309 7.567 3.180 0.504 0.245
Education
Year 4 Grammar 16.857 10.587 28.712 10.0104 1.150 0.499
Secondary Vocabulary 6.825 3.420 9.661 3.187 0.858 0.394
Education
SD standard deviation
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 131

Table 3 T-test exercise type. Primary Education

Exercises Group N Mean Sig. (bilateral)
A. Write questions for these answers CLIL 35 2.89 .045a
Non-CLIL 59 2.19
B. Look at the picture on the right. Read and CLIL 59 2.44 .024a
complete. Use: ON, IN, BY, WITH, UNDER Non-CLIL 115 1.90
C. Match the numbers with the letters CLIL 61 3.00 .175
Non-CLIL 121 2.61
D. Complete using: MY, ITS, HIS, THEIR CLIL 58 2.55 .006a
Non-CLIL 120 1.89
E. Complete using: DO, DOES, DID, AREN’T, CLIL 56 3.27 .007a
ISN’T, IS Non-CLIL 117 2.45
F. Complete using: FEEDS, CHASES, DRIVES, CLIL 49 2.96 .046a
GETS UP Non-CLIL 116 2.50
G. Write the parts of the body CLIL 34 4.62 .099
Non-CLIL 26 3.96
H. Read and complete. Use: A GIRL, RIGHT, CLIL 53 3.96 .002a
HERE, LOVELY, NAME Non-CLIL 102 3.10
(a p = 0.05)

outperform their peers on all exercises. From the eight exercises testing lexical and
grammatical competence, there are six in which statistically significant differences
are found, and only two where differences are not statistically significant. Inter-
estingly, neither of these involves the use of contextualised vocabulary within a
meaningful text.
In Secondary Education, our results for grammar are consistent with those
obtained at Primary level, as CLIL learners also show better results, with statisti-
cally significant differences on all the activities (see Table 4). However, regarding
vocabulary, although CLIL learners also outperform non-CLIL learners, differences
between both groups are not statistically significant.
Turning now to research question 2, Table 5 shows the results of the test of equality
of CLIL and non-CLIL group means in Primary Education. It allows us to examine
whether significant differences exist between the groups, in terms of predictor vari-
ables. Wilks’ lambda reveals that the discriminant function is statistically significant
only for three variables: setting (F = 10.897 and p-value = 0.001), vocabulary (F =
5.279 and p-value = 0.024) and verbal intelligence (F = 4.069 and p-value = 0.046).
In the case of these variables, the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value < 0.05). The
setting and verbal intelligence variables show higher means for non-CLIL groups;
however, the results for grammar and vocabulary are better for CLIL groups. There
are no statistically significant differences for the rest of the variables. Results from
Box’s test of Equality of Covariance Matrices (F = 1.398, p-value = 0.012 < 0.05)
132 M. Navarro-Pablo

Table 4 T-test exercise type. Secondary Education

Exercises Group N Mean Sig. (bilateral)
A. Rewrite these questions using the correct word CLIL 61 2.1311 .001a
order Non-CLIL 81 1.3951
B. Change these sentences into the active. Example: CLIL 51 2.2353 .044a
Pictures are transmitted by television. Television Non-CLIL 57 1.6491
transmits picture
C. Complete the text with the verbs in the past tense CLIL 54 8.1296 .003a
Non-CLIL 66 6.7879
D. Complete these sentences with: CLIL 51 6.4706 .000a
anything/something; tell/say (in the right form); Non-CLIL 56 4.2321
bring/take (in the right form)
E. Underline the right words in brackets CLIL 64 6.3438 .001a
Non-CLIL 89 5.3034
F. Complete this text with the correct forms—the CLIL 46 5.2391 .026a
PAST (for example, went) or the PRESENT Non-CLIL 61 4.3115
PERFECT (for example, has gone)—of the verbs
in brackets
G. Complete this text using one of the following CLIL 46 3.3261 .086
words and expressions: ON YOUR OWN, Non-CLIL 50 2.6200
OVERCOME, QUIT, CUT DOWN, IMPROVE,
HEALTH, WILL POWER, HARM
H. Match symbol and text CLIL 61 7.3279 .000a
Non-CLIL 80 6.3250
(a p = 0.05)

Table 5 Tests of equality of group means. Primary Education

Variables Wilks’ Lambda F Df1 Df2 Sig.
Setting .901 10.897 1 99 .001a
Socioeconomic status .999 .141 1 99 .709
Verbal intelligence .961 4.069 1 99 .046a
Motivation Desire to work and .990 .980 1 99 .325
self-esteem
Anxiety .996 .411 1 99 .523
Lack of interest .978 2.254 1 99 .136
Self-demand .995 .457 1 99 .501
Extramural exposition .988 1.237 1 99 .269
Language test Grammar .977 2.308 1 99 .132
Vocabulary .949 5.279 1 99 .024a
Listening .998 .246 1 99 .621
Reading .997 .299 1 99 .586
Total .983 1.693 1 99 .196
(a p = 0.05)
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 133

Table 6 Classification
Group Predicted group Total
results. Year 6 Primary
Education Non-CLIL CLIL Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL 55 16 71
CLIL 9 21 30
Non-CLIL 77.5 22.5 100.0
CLIL 30.0 70.0 100.0

established that equal matrices of variances are rejected; therefore, the groups do not
have the same variance matrix.
The discriminant analysis shows a canonical correlation of 0.507 with an eigen-
value of 0.346 and a statistical Wilks’ lambda of 0.743, with 12 degrees and p-value
= 0.006 (< 0.05), which leads us to reject the null hypothesis of equality of means and
indicates the existence of a discriminant function that separates CLIL and non-CLIL
groups significantly and accounts for 25% of the variance observed in their scores.
The standardised coefficients indicate that vocabulary is the best discriminating
variable (−0.928), followed by the variable ‘setting’ (0.567).
The analyses also evaluate the accuracy of the classification. Table 6 shows that
measures resulted in a fairly positive classification for students belonging to their
corresponding groups. 75.2% of original grouped cases are correctly classified.
As regards Secondary Education, Table 7 shows the results of discriminant func-
tion analyses where Wilks’ lambda reveals that the discriminant function is statis-
tically significant to classify results obtained regarding the following six variables:

Table 7 Tests of equality of group means. Secondary Education

Variables Wilk’s Lambda F Df1 Df2 Sig.
Setting .997 .403 1 120 .527
Socioeconomic status .983 2.055 1 120 .154
Verbal intelligence .957 5.358 1 120 .022a
Motivation Desire to work and .978 2.674 1 120 .105
self-esteem
Anxiety .999 .075 1 120 .785
Lack of interest .957 5.350 1 120 .022a
Self-demand .988 1.441 1 120 .232
Extramural exposition .992 .994 1 120 .321
Language test Grammar .749 40.261 1 120 .000a
Vocabulary .843 22.367 1 120 .000a
Listening .881 16.276 1 120 .000a
Reading .868 18.259 1 120 .000a
Total .746 40.923 1 120 .000a
(a p = 0.05)
134 M. Navarro-Pablo

Table 8 Classification
Group Predicted group Total
results. Year 4 Secondary
Education Non-CLIL CLIL Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL 48 15 63
CLIL 18 41 59
Non-grouped cases 1 0 1
Non-CLIL 76.2 23.8 100.0
CLIL 30.5 69.5 100.0
Non-grouped cases 100.0 .0 100.0

verbal intelligence (F = 5.358 and p-value = 0.022); lack of interest (F = 5.350

and p-value = 0.022); grammar (F = 40.261 and p-value = 0.000); vocabulary (F
= 22.367 and p-value = 0.000); listening (F = 16.276 and p-value = 0.000); and
reading (F = 18.259 and p-value = 0.000). Results from Box’s test of Equality of
Covariance Matrices (F = 0.987, p-value = 0.510) indicate that the null hypothesis
is accepted; therefore, equal matrices of variances are assumed. There is a canonical
correlation of 0.521 with an eigenvalue of 0.373 and a statistical Wilks’ lambda (=
0.728) with 12 degrees of freedom of Chi-square and a critical significance level
of 0.000 (< 0.05). This allows us to reject the null hypothesis and accept that at
least one discriminant axis is significant. In this case, the standardised coefficients of
the canonical discriminant functions indicate that the variable that has the greatest
influence on the calculation of the function is grammar (0.787).
Finally, in the same way as with Primary Education, Table 8 shows a positive
classification, as 73% of the original grouped cases are correctly classified.

5 Discussion

Positive results for Primary Education in favour of CLIL learners are in line with
those presented in Navés and Victori (2010), where there are statistically significant
differences between both groups on all the tests performed. In Secondary Education,
our results coincide with Ruiz de Zarobe (2017), in which positive findings report
greater lexical and syntactic complexity in CLIL learners. However, those results
only coincide partially with Pérez-Vidal and Roquet (2015), in which CLIL learners
outperform non-CLIL learners but without showing statically significant differences.
With respect to the differences found between Primary and Secondary Education,
our results are consistent with Agustín-Llach and Canga (2014), Garau et al. (2015)
and Navés and Victori (2010). Their longitudinal studies show that, over time, CLIL
learners improve their competence, giving rise to progressively larger differences
between both groups. Although our study is not longitudinal, the fact that the effect
size increases from Primary to Secondary Education can be related to the results
presented in these longitudinal studies.
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 135

With respect to the differences found regarding the type of exercise included in
the tests, in Primary Education our results are consistent with Jiménez-Catalán and
Ruiz de Zarobe (2009), where CLIL learners also perform better than non-CLIL
learners. However, in their study, there are statistically significant differences on all
the tests performed, whereas in our study there are two exercises for which differences
between both groups are not statistically significant. This may be due to the fact
that these are exercises that do not require the use of lexico-grammatical elements
within a meaningful context. The main implication of these results is that the type
of instruction plays a role in the results. It is necessary to bear in mind that Jiménez-
Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe’s study only focuses on receptive vocabulary and that
their tests are different from ours, which may also account for the discrepancies in
the results. There are also parallelisms between our study and Moreno’s one (2009),
in which there are statistically significant differences between CLIL and non-CLIL
groups which apply not only to vocabulary size but also to vocabulary depth, pointing
to the type of instruction as responsible for qualitative (and not only quantitative,
as previous studies contend) differences in lexical competence. Also, our results
may be related to the ones provided in Agustín-Llach (2009), where CLIL learners
transfer from their L1 less frequently than their non-CLIL counterparts, showing a
lower number of lexical errors for all the categories analysed. Agustín-Llach explains
these differences alluding to the role of the target language and the way learners
perceive it. Thus, the instructional programme is responsible for the differences
insofar as it makes learners perceive the target language as a means of communication
(CLIL instruction) or as merely a school subject (non-CLIL instruction): for CLIL
students, ‘the text becomes an exercise of communication rather than a language task’
(124). In this sense, Ojeda (2009) also suggests the importance of the instructional
programme in relation to how it makes students perceive their learning. Finally,
our results confirm those in Admiraal, Westhoff and de Bot (2006), where the type
of test administered is presented as accountable for CLIL’s negative results: we
agree with Admiraal, Westhoff and de Bot that the exercises used in tests should
be adapted to both the instructional approach and the activities that are used in the
classroom. Regarding Secondary Education, this study coincides with Ruiz de Zarobe
(2008), where CLIL learners outperform non-CLIL learners in all scales measured.
However, our results regarding vocabulary are not as satisfactory, due to the fact
that differences between both groups are not statistically significant in any of the
exercises. Again, regarding vocabulary, these results contradict those found in San
Isidro (2010), where CLIL students show more strategies to convey meaning, and are
more consistent with Ruiz de Zarobe (2008), where vocabulary is the only category
in which Secondary students do not improve over time, and the only category for
which differences between groups are not statistically significant. On the other hand,
regarding grammar, our results do not coincide with Breidbach and Viebrock (2012),
in which grammatical differences are less pronounced. Both groups of CLIL learners
show a better grammatical competence with significant differences in both the global
findings.
136 M. Navarro-Pablo

6 Conclusions

This study offers new empirically grounded insights into the current state of CLIL
implementation and the effects of CLIL on students’ language attainment. As regards
RQ1, the results obtained complement previous research by offering CLIL outcomes
regarding the impact of CLIL on the English grammar and vocabulary of 351 Primary
and Secondary school students. In this respect, this study has shown that both at
Primary and Secondary levels, there are statistically significant differences between
CLIL and non-CLIL learners, in favour of the CLIL groups. Results on vocabu-
lary and grammar show different effect sizes in Primary Education, being small for
grammatical competence and medium for vocabulary. These differences in effect
size increase in Secondary Education, which is indicative of students’ improvement
over time.
The results reported in this chapter also indicate that the difference between both
groups of informants lies not only in language proficiency as reported by better
overall results regarding lexical and grammatical competence, but also in the type of
instruction as indicated by the comparison of results obtained in each exercise of the
tests. Thus, this chapter has drawn attention to the central importance of considering
the type of test administered in connection with the type of instruction implemented.
As far as RQ2 is concerned, this study has also investigated second-order inter-
actions of individual difference variables and linguistic and contextual variables.
The discriminant analyses evince different discriminant functions depending on the
educational level under analysis. Therefore, it seems that, in general, it is important
to contextualise findings, since individual and contextual variables do not have the
same influence in Primary and Secondary Education.
On the one hand, in Primary Education, setting, verbal intelligence and vocabu-
lary are the variables that display the greatest significance in the test of equality of
group means. Vocabulary is the variable that best explains the statistically significant
differences found between the groups. On the other hand, in Secondary Education,
results show that, as it happens at Primary level, verbal intelligence carries a signif-
icant weight in explaining the differences between the groups. However, there are
other variables that display significance in the test of equality of group means: lack of
interest, vocabulary, grammar, listening and reading. At Secondary level, grammar
is the variable that best explains the differences between the groups.
Taken together, these results suggest that, over the rest of the variables considered
in this study, vocabulary and grammar are the variables that have the greatest influence
on the calculation of the discriminant function. One of the most significant findings
of this study is the fact that it confirms the effectiveness of the CLIL approach
as far as students’ language outcomes are concerned, providing better results even
for the development of vocabulary and grammar, in spite of the importance that is
traditionally given to them in FL instructional programmes.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Compet-
itiveness [research grant number FFI2012-32221] and the Government of Andalusia [research
grant number HUM 2348] (Project: The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Communities: A Large-Scale Evaluation).
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 137

References

Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual Secondary Education in the
Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12(1), 75–93.
Agustín-Llach, M. P. (2009). The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary use of CLIL and non-
CLIL EFL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez-Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language
Integrated Learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 112–129). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Agustín-Llach, M. P., & Canga, A. (2014). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL
learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 26(2), 211–227.
Alejo, R., & Piquer, A. (2016). Urban vs. rural CLIL: An analysis of input-related variables,
motivation and language attainment. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 245–262.
Arribas, M. (2016). Analysing a whole CLIL school: Students’ attitudes, motivation, and receptive
vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning,
9(2), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.5294/la-clil.2016.9.2.2.
Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B. (2012). CLIL in Germany—Results from recent research in a
contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 5–16.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking
forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Coonan, C. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-introspection.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625–646.
Coyle, D. (2008). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda
for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5),
543–562.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B.
Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 71–83). New
York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A. (2013). ‘Zip your lips’ or ‘keep quiet’: Main teachers’ and language
assistants’ classroom discourse in CLIL settings. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 655–669.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2009). Communicative competence and the CLIL lesson. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe &
R. Jiménez-Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from research
in Europe (pp. 197–214). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and Language Integrated Learning: From practice to princi-
ples? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02671905
11000092.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual
education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee, and Gorter. 2013. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual
and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42, 209–224.
Dueñas, M. (2004). The whats, whys, hows and whos of content-based instruction in second/foreign
language education. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 73–96.
European Union. (2008). Council conclusions of 22 May 2008 on multilingualism. EUR_Lex Offi-
cial Journal of the European Union, 2008/C 140/10. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.
html. Accessed 22 November 2020.
Fernández, A., & Canga, A. (2014). A preliminary study on motivation and gender in CLIL and
non-CLIL tupes of instruction. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 21–36.
138 M. Navarro-Pablo

Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’
content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–674. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142.
Fontecha, A. F. (2010). First steps of CLIL in Spanish monolingual community: The case of La
Rioja. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Spain: Implementation, results and teacher
training (pp. 79–94). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Gierlinger, E. (2013). The languages for CLIL model. http://clilingmesoftly.wordpress.com/clil-tea
chers-tl-competence/. Accessed 22 November 2020.
Jiménez-Catalán, R., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two
instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez-
Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from research in Europe
(pp. 81–92). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Juan-Garau, M., Prieto-Arranz, J., & Salazar, J. (2015). Lexico-grammatical development in
secondary education CLIL learners. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar (Eds.), Content-based
language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 179–195). Educational Linguis-
tics. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-
5_11.
Lancaster, N. (2018). Extramural exposure and language attainment: The examination of input-
related variables in CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum, 29, 91–114.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–18.
Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Different educational approaches to bi-or multilingualism and their
effect on language attitudes. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar (Eds.), Content-based language
learning in multilingual educational environments. Educational Linguistics. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_2.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes.
International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and
teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Llinares, A., & Dafouz, E. (2010). Content and language integrated programmes in the Madrid
region: Overview and research findings. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Spain:
Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 95–114). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge
University Press.
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL
history narratives. Linguistic and Education, 37, 32–41.
Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Ávila, I. (2019). The development of cognitive academic language
proficiency in multilingual education: Evidence of a longitudinal study on the language of history.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.010.
Madrid, D., & Barrios, E. (2018). A comparison of students’ educational achievemnet across
programmes and school types with and without CLIL provision. Porta Linguarum, 29, 29–50.
Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension: Actions, trends, and foresight
potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Martín del Pozo, M. A. (2013). Formación lingüística del profesorado universitario para la docencia
en inglés. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. REDU, 11(3), 197–218.
Martín del Pozo, M. A. (2015). Signposts for comprehensive knowledge of CLIL contexts.
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 99–105.
Martínez, M., & Juncal Gutiérrez, M. (2009). The acquisition of English syntax by CLIL learners in
the Basque Country. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez-Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language
Integrated Learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 176–196). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar … 139

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated
Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Moreno, S. (2009). Young learners’ L2 word association responses in two different learning contexts.
In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez-Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning:
Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 93–111). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Navarro-Pablo, M., & García-Jiménez, E. (2018). Are CLIL students more motivated? An analysis
of affective factor and their relation to language attainment. Porta Linguarum, 29, 71–90.
Navés, T., & Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in Catalonia: An overview of research studies. In D.
Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training
(pp. 31–54). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classroom. World Englishes, 26(2),
206–223.
Nikula, T., Daufouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and
Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ojeda, A. (2009). Themes and vocabulary in CLIL and non-CLIL instruction. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe &
R. Jiménez-Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from research
in Europe (pp. 130–156). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pavón, V. (2018). Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: A comparison of results between urban
and rural enviroments. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9–28.
Pelechano, V. (1994). Prueba MA. Análisis y Modificación de la Conducta, 20, 71–72.
Pérez-Cañado, M. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.
2011.630064.
Pérez-Cañado, M. (2014). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher percep-
tions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778.
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An
analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90.
Pfenninger, S. (2016). All good things come in threes: Early English learning, CLIL and motivation
in Switzerland. Cahiers de I´ILSL, 48, 119–147.
Rascón, D., & Bretones, C. M. (2018). Socioeconomic status and its impact on language and content
attainment in CLIL contexts. Porta Linguarum, 29, 115–135.
Roquet, H., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Do productive skills improve in Content and Language
Integrated Learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 489–511. https://
doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv050.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque
Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 61–72.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2017). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.),
Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 1–11). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-02325-0_13-2.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jiménez-Catalán, R. (2009). Content and Language Integrated Learning:
Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating Bilingual Education in Germany: CLIL students’ general
proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Berlin: Peter Lang.
San Isidro, X. (2010). An insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and results. In D. Lasagabaster
& Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 55–78).
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Santamaría, P. (2018). EFAI: Evaluación Factorial de las Aptitudes Intelectuales. Tea.
Turner, M. (2013). CLIL in Australia: The importance of context. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.691086.
140 M. Navarro-Pablo

Villarreal, I., & García, M. del P. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage
of Basque/Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez-
Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from research in Europe
(pp. 157–175). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning:
A Longitudinal Study

María del Mar Gálvez Gómez

Abstract This article reports on a longitudinal study conducted with Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
students in seven public and private schools situated in the Spanish monolingual
community of Andalusia, more concretely in the province of Jaén. This research
aims at evaluating the impact of CLIL on the development of 223 students’ English
linguistic competence by assessing their attainment in grammar, vocabulary, reading,
listening and speaking. To this end, the bilingual and the non-bilingual strands were
matched on a pre-test in terms of English level, verbal intelligence and motivation and
they were then administered post- and delayed post-tests to trace their progress from
Primary Education to Compulsory Secondary Education to Baccalaureate. Within-
cohort and across-cohort comparisons are carried out in order to determine the evolu-
tion of both CLIL and non-CLIL students in the different educational levels in terms
of the linguistic components and skills. Discriminant analyses are finally carried out
taking into account all the intervening variables considered in the study, with the
objective of determining if CLIL is actually responsible for the differences detected
or if, on the contrary, other variables account for a greater proportion of the variance.

1 Introduction

After almost two decades since the appearance of Content and Language Integrated
Learning in Europe, this ‘major trend’ (Fernández Sanjurjo et al., 2019, p. 661)
has been implemented in all educational settings throughout the continent (Hüttner
& Smit, 2014, p. 160), with the objective of pushing plurilingualism forward and
meeting the so-called ‘mother tongue + 2 objective’ (Pérez Cañado, 2018, p. 52), by
means of which all citizens should become proficient in their mother tongue and in
two foreign languages at least (European Comission, 1995). Hence, with the support
of many European Union Institutions, CLIL has been embraced enthusiastically by

M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez (B)

University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 141

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_8
142 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

all the stakeholders (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016, p. 1) ‘as a lever for change and
success in language learning’ (Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla, 2015, p. 1), becoming
‘a well-established part of education systems across Europe’ (Surmont et al., 2016,
p. 320).
As a consequence of this widespread implementation of CLIL, the research into
the effects of this methodology on students and their skills has also increased.
As Jäppinen (2005, p. 149) underscores, CLIL has become ‘an extremely prolific
phenomenon’, making foreign language learning more naturalistic (Nieto Moreno de
Diezmas, 2016, p. 81) and demonstrating that nowadays ‘multilingualism is the norm
while monolingualism is the exception’ (Ouazizi, 2016, p. 113). However, despite
the great amount of publications on the effects of CLIL, some of the already existing
studies present a series of methodological shortcomings which might endanger the
validity of the results (Bruton, 2011, 2013, 2015; Paran, 2013; Pérez Cañado, 2011,
2012). These lacunae, classified by Pérez Cañado and Ráez Padilla (2015) in terms
of variables, research design and statistical methodology, make us recognise that
‘we simply do not have enough evidence’ (Paran, 2013, p. 331) and that there is still
‘a need for unbiased, unskewed and methodologically sound research to continue
driving the CLIL agenda forward’ (Pérez Cañado & Lancaster, 2017, p. 2). In this
respect, according to many scholars (Bruton, 2011; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe,
2010; Pérez Cañado, 2017a, 2018; Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla, 2015; Ruiz de
Zarobe, 2011), more importance should be given to longitudinal investigations which
can examine the effects of CLIL across the different educational levels.
This is exactly the starting point of the present investigation, which will report
on the results of a longitudinal study on the effects of CLIL on foreign language
(FL) outcomes across educational levels (Primary, Compulsory Secondary and non-
compulsory Secondary Education). As Vez (2009, p. 18) claims, ‘There is not yet
empirical evidence from EU countries on which to base definitive claims about the
educational (or other) advantages of multilingual education’. Moreover, ‘longitudinal
studies with pre-, post-, and follow-up assessments are still rare’ (Piesche et al.,
2016, p. 109). Therefore, this investigation seeks to offer a rigorous monitoring of
CLIL implementation, which is ‘key for a better understanding of the processes and
outcomes of these courses’ (Coyle et al., 2010 cited in Pascual Bajo, 2018, p. 222).
After framing the topic against the backdrop of prior investigations, the research
design of the study will be described, reporting on the results obtained within and
across cohorts in terms of English as a foreign language competence. The evolution
of the bilingual and non-bilingual groups, which were previously matched on a
pre-test phase in terms of English level, verbal intelligence and motivation, from
Primary Education to Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE) to Baccalaureate, is
depicted through the administration of post- and delayed post-tests. Within-cohort
comparisons in relation to the intervening variables considered are also presented,
together with the discriminant analyses carried out to find out if the independent
variable (CLIL) is actually responsible for the differences detected.
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 143

2 A Critical Reading of Prior Research

CLIL practice has spread rapidly in the past ten years, currently spanning the conti-
nent from north to south, and from east to west (Pérez Cañado, 2012, p. 319).
However, this interest in CLIL has not always been accompanied by the same amount
of publications on the issue, especially when regarding research projects with a longi-
tudinal focus. The existing longitudinal investigations tend to focus on the four fields
around which Wolff (2005) considers CLIL investigations should be articulated: the
effects of CLIL on FL, L1 and subject content competence and motivational aspects.
Some of these investigations have focused on Primary or Secondary Education and
those evaluating FL learning have considered both receptive and productive skills,
although they generally have not done it simultaneously.
Among these longitudinal studies analysing FL competence, the investigation by
Admiraal et al. (2006) in The Netherlands is worthy of mention. After measuring the
vocabulary knowledge, the reading comprehension level and the oral proficiency of
1,305 Secondary students who had received four years of CLIL education through
English in five Dutch schools, the results revealed higher scores for the oral and
reading parts of the investigation, whereas no differences appeared when dealing
with vocabulary. No negative effects were found either for subject matter learning or
the L1. Nevertheless, the study lacks statistical analyses that confirm the outcomes
can be attributed to CLIL (Admiraal et al., 2006, p. 91).
One year later, this time in Switzerland, Serra (2007) conducted a longitudinal
study to evaluate German-speaking Primary Education students’ FL competence,
focusing on their oral and written comprehension in Italian or Romansch as a second
language. Similar results were obtained for the experimental and the control groups,
suggesting then that both cohorts performed equally well on these skills.
Turning now to the Spanish scenario, special attention should be paid to the inves-
tigation by Ruiz de Zarobe (2008), who compared the oral and written competence
of 89 students in their 3rd and 4th year of CSE and at the post-compulsory level. The
results were extremely positive since CLIL students obtained better outcomes than
the non-CLIL counterparts. Further evidence on the differences between skills and
abilities in favour of CLIL was provided, coinciding with previous research (Jiménez
Catalán et al., 2006; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán, 2009
cited in Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010, p. 17).
In 2015, Rallo Fabra and Jacob carried out another longitudinal research in
Secondary Education to evaluate the effects of CLIL on pupils’ oral skills at the
onset of the programme and two years after its implementation. They worked with
43 students from state-run Secondary schools in the Balearic Islands, who were
divided into the experimental CLIL group and the control non-CLIL cohort. Special
attention was paid to students’ fluency and the number of vowel errors in English.
Outcomes revealed pupils’ pronunciation of English vowels was unaffected by CLIL
and there was no significant improvement over the two years considered. Moreover,
CLIL students’ pronunciation was not better than their EFL peers’ and no significant
differences were detected in fluency either (Rallo Fabra & Jacob, 2015).
144 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Similarly, in the study by Pladevall-Ballester and Vallbona (2016), the superiority

of CLIL is not proved. The project, which was developed over the course of two
academic years, focused on analysing students’ receptive skills in a minimal CLIL
input context at Primary school level. 287 pupils from four different state-funded
private schools participated in the investigation, whose results showed an important
progress regarding the achievement and development of reading and listening skills
in both CLIL and non-CLIL cohorts between the first and the last test. However,
the EFL group outperformed the CLIL cohort in relation to listening skills. As for
reading, no significant differences were detected.
More recently, Pascual Bajo (2018) developed an investigation aimed at evalu-
ating CLIL from a qualitative and a quantitative point of view within the context of
two educational institutions: a public school with CLIL and non-CLIL streams, and
a semi-private school with no CLIL provision in the province of Valencia. 63 pupils
constituted the sample of the longitudinal quantitative study. Outcomes confirmed
the superior English language competence of CLIL pupils. The CLIL cohort outper-
formed the non-CLIL stream on all the skills and aspects considered, with particu-
larly significant differences in the use of English, vocabulary and reading (Pascual
Bajo, 2018, p. 382). Six months after the end of the CLIL programme, in the delayed
post-test phase, the outcomes improved for all skills studied, except for that of writing.
To finish, moving on to the Andalusian community, where our study has also been
carried out, two longitudinal investigations must be foregrounded: Pérez Cañado
and Lancaster’s (2017) and Pérez Cañado’s (2018). The former is a longitudinal,
quantitative, quasi-experimental case study on oral comprehension and production
in Andalusia. Their research aimed at determining whether CLIL students acquired
greater oral comprehension and production skills in comparison to non-CLIL pupils.
Moreover, it tried to find out if the possible differential effects of CLIL continued
after the CSE CLIL programme finished. 24 secondary students participated in the
investigation and sat two FL competence tests to assess their oral comprehension and
production skills. An initial pre-test was used to guarantee the homogeneity of the
cohorts in terms of English language proficiency. Outcomes evinced CLIL students
had a higher level in English oral comprehension and production when compared
to those obtained by the EFL group. It was also found that the effects of CLIL
pervaded six months after the programme was discontinued, but only in the case of
oral production.
The latter (Pérez Cañado, 2018) focused on the effects of CLIL on L2 learning.
This investigation is especially interesting in the context of our study because of its
similarities with our study in terms of research questions, instruments and variables.
A total of 1,033 students enrolled in a CLIL programme and 991 EFL pupils took part
in the project. These learners, who were completing 6th grade of Primary Education
or finishing the 4th grade of CSE, came from different public, semi-public and private
schools situated in three Spanish monolingual communities: Andalusia, The Canary
Islands and Extremadura. Participants were firstly matched in terms of FL proficiency,
motivation and verbal intelligence to guarantee the homogeneity of the cohorts.
The outcomes revealed the CLIL group at both Primary and Secondary levels had
a higher linguistic competence (on grammar, vocabulary, listening, speaking and
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 145

reading). The linguistic competence differential was especially marked at Secondary

Education, where the CLIL group clearly outperformed its non-CLIL counterpart on
all aspects considered. As for the durability of the effects of CLIL, it was shown that
outcomes pervaded six months after the programmes were discontinued. However,
no statistically significant differences were detected between the EFL semi-private
stream and the CLIL groups (public and private) in 1st year of non-compulsory
Secondary Education. The delayed post-test phase results coincide, to some extent,
with Pladevall-Ballester and Vallbona’s findings (2016), according to which CLIL
had more positive effects on the productive skills than on the receptive skills. To finish,
the discriminant analysis carried out to study the competence differential between
the treatment and comparison groups allowed Pérez Cañado (2018) to confirm CLIL
is truly responsible for the differences found.
After this brief summary of the most important longitudinal studies developed
hitherto in Europe and more concretely in Spain (cf. also Chapter 7 in this volume),
let us now turn to our investigation, which strives to provide updated empirical
evidence on CLIL practice by overcoming the main shortcomings presented by prior
investigations.

3 The Study

The present investigation is framed within a broader research project which has devel-
oped a large-scale evaluation of CLIL programmes in one of the Spanish monolingual
communities with the least tradition in bilingual education: Andalusia. With a mixed-
research design, the study examines the effects of CLIL from quantitative and qual-
itative perspectives. The impact of CLIL on FL learning, content learning (Natural
Sciences) and L1 learning of Primary (6th grade) and Secondary (4th grade) Educa-
tion Students is analysed in the quantitative part of the project, in which participants
in the experimental CLIL group are assessed in comparison to a control non-CLIL
cohort, in order to find out whether they develop superior language and content skills
to those promoted by a traditional EFL programme. Moreover, the study aims to deter-
mine if the possible effects exerted by CLIL pervade six months after the programme
is discontinued, when the same CSE students are in the first grade of Baccalaureate, or
if they gradually disappear. This quantitative part is then completed from a qualitative
point of view by means of a SWOT analysis on the satisfaction generated by CLIL
programmes among all the agents involved. Stakeholders’ perspectives (teachers,
students and parents) are collected via questionnaires, and personal and focus-group
interviews are carried out with teachers and students. The present study is inserted
within the quantitative side of the project and focuses specifically on the effects of
CLIL on English as an FL learning through the following research questions.
146 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

3.1 Research Questions

RQ1. Do CLIL programmes implemented with Primary and Secondary school

students (experimental group) develop superior linguistic competence (in grammar,
vocabulary, receptive skills and oral production) to that promoted by EFL
programmes with students from the same level (control group)? More simply, is
there a linguistic competence differential between CLIL and EFL groups at Primary
and Secondary school level in the province of Jaén?
RQ2. What is the modulating (differential) effect exerted on the Primary
and Secondary students’ English language competence by the following inter-
vening variables: type of school (public and private), setting (rural–urban), gender,
socioeconomic status (SES), motivation, verbal intelligence and English level?
RQ3. Do the possible differential effects exerted by CLIL programmes on English
language competence pervade six months after the CLIL programme is discontinued
or do they gradually disappear?
RQ4. If there is a competence differential between the treatment and compar-
ison groups, is it truly ascribable to language learning based on academic content
processing?

3.2 Research Design

The quantitative side of the broader study is an example of applied, primary, quasi-
experimental research, with a pre-test/post-test control group design, to which a
delayed post-test has also been added. Thus, as Rossell and Baker (1996), together
with Cummins (1979 cited in Lancaster, 2015, p. 137) specified, four benchmarks
are necessary for studies to be methodologically sound, and this study meets them:
1. Studies must compare students in a bilingual programme to a control group of
similar students.
2. The design must ensure that initial differences between treatment and control
groups are controlled statistically.
3. Results must be based on standardised test scores.
4. Differences between the scores of treatment and control groups must be
determined by means of appropriate statistical tests.

3.3 Sample

The final sample that took part in the quantitative part of the investigation was made
up of 223 students from public and private centres in the Andalusian province of Jaén,
situated in the north-eastern part of the autonomous community, in the south of Spain.
Most of the participants are studying the fourth grade of Compulsory Secondary
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 147

Education (60.1%), being the rest Primary Education students (39.9%). In the same
vein, the majority of the cohort belong to a public school (76.2%) where CLIL
and EFL branches co-exist, while 23.8% are enrolled in a bilingual private school
(23.8%). 76.2% of these schools are located in urban settings, while the remaining
23.8% are placed in rural areas. Regarding gender, practically equal percentages
are found, with a slightly higher number of female participants (50.7%). Finally, a
significantly higher percentage of CLIL pupils have participated in the study (81.3%),
with the rest of pupils being enrolled in the traditional EFL programme (18.7%).
The homogeneity of the sample, both in the experimental and the control group,
has been guaranteed from the beginning of the research. In fact, the first year was
entirely devoted to matching students within schools in terms of verbal intelligence,
motivation and English level. Pupils were administered initial motivation and verbal
intelligence tests that would allow us to select the really comparable groups. More-
over, the English grades of these students were collected to compare the results
obtained by CLIL and non-CLIL pupils. Those schools whose outcomes evinced the
greatest homogeneity comprise the final sample of the investigation.

3.4 Variables

Three different types of variables have been incorporated in the study: dependent,
independent and moderating.
• The dependent variable is the students’ English language (FL) competence
(grammar, vocabulary, receptive skills and oral productive skill).
• The independent variable corresponds to the CLIL programme implemented in
the different types of schools (public and private).
• Finally, the moderating variables are the following:
• Verbal intelligence
• Motivation
• Socioeconomic status (SES)
• Gender
• Type of School
• Setting

3.5 Instruments

For the collection of data, four different instruments were used, depending on
the stage of the investigation. An initial questionnaire was firstly administered to
students. It comprised personal information and data on their parents’ age and educa-
tional level, which was taken as a proxy for SES. Moreover, verbal intelligence
and motivation tests were employed in this initial phase, together with the English
148 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

language tests. All of these were already existing and validated instruments which
belong to language teaching and psychology research areas.
The verbal intelligence test, which was part of the Evaluación Factorial de las
Aptitudes Intelectuales (EFAI), designed by Santamaría et al. (2016), and the moti-
vation test (Pelechano Barberá, 1994) were applied in each of the schools over the
course of an hour almost at the end of the academic year 2014–2015, after exactly ten
years of CLIL implementation in the community. Two different versions of the verbal
intelligence tests were applied, adapted to the sixth grade of Primary Education and
fourth grade of Compulsory Secondary Education. The former version comprises 26
items, while the latter is reduced to 23. In both cases, pupils had to choose from four
multiple-choice options involving analogies, antonyms and odd-one-out and they
had five minutes to complete as many items as they could. In turn, Pelechano’s MA
test (1994) comprises a total of 35 items aimed at measuring students’ motivation,
and it isolates four motivational factors of achievement and anxiety: (i) vain desire to
work and self-esteem (10 items); (ii) anxiety when facing exams (9 items); (iii) lack
of interest in studying (9 items); and (iv) realistic personal self-demand (7 items).
Finally, the English competence tests applied were originally devised for the
project (Madrid et al., 2018) and incorporated three different batteries of six tests each
(grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing,1 listening and speaking) which corresponded
to the levels at which our study has been developed, namely, 6th grade of PE, 4th grade
of CSE and 1st grade of Baccalaureate. A rubric was also designed and validated
for the assessment of oral production, following five main criteria: grammatical
accuracy, lexical range, fluency and interaction, pronunciation and task fulfilment
(Pérez Cañado & Lancaster, 2017).

3.6 Data Analysis

The data obtained from all the tests has been analysed statistically with the aid of the
SPSS program, in its 23.0 version. To guarantee the homogeneity and comparability
of the sample, participants have been matched for verbal intelligence, motivation and
English level through the ANOVA and the T-test. Moreover, in order to determine
the existence of any statistically significant differences within and across groups in
terms of the different identification variables considered, the ANOVA, the T-test, the
Mann–Whitney U test and Tukey’s HSD test have been employed. To calculate effect
sizes, Cohen’s d and eta squared have been used. Lastly, to address RQ4, successive
discriminant analyses have been carried out to establish which variable(s) are truly
responsible for the differences detected.

1 Theresults corresponding to the writing skill are not included in this article since they are still
under analysis.
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 149

4 Results and Discussion

Taking into consideration the research questions set out at the beginning of the
investigation, a detailed examination of the FL level attained by both CLIL and non-
CLIL students will be offered in this section, with a special focus on productive and
receptive skills, the effects of the different intervening variables considered on the
students’ FL proficiency, and lastly, the durability or medium-term effects of the
CLIL and EFL programmes on FL competence.

4.1 Across-Cohort Comparison

After the initial overall comparison was carried out, statistically significant differ-
ences were detected in favour of the experimental group (p = < 0.001). High confi-
dence levels were then found on most of the aspects analysed, with listening being
the only skill for which no differences between the CLIL and the non-CLIL group
were observed, coinciding with Serra (2007). However, CLIL students clearly outper-
formed their non-CLIL counterparts since the means obtained were 7.99 and 6.56,
respectively (cf. Table 1).
Focusing on speaking, statistically significant differences in favour of the CLIL
group were detected (p = .0240). Moreover, more differences emerged when
attending to the five subaspects mentioned above. Thus, CLIL students outperformed
their non-CLIL counterparts in their knowledge and use of grammar (p = .0330) and
in their pronunciation in the FL (p = .0050). Nevertheless, no statistically significant
differences appeared when analysing students’ lexical range, their fluency in English
and their adaptability to the task provided (p = .0840, .0580 and .0590, respectively).
However, the means obtained by the CLIL group in each one of these subaspects were

Table 1 Foreign language competence: Across-cohort comparison

Educational Skills Group Mean Standard Cohen’s d p-value
Level Deviation
General Use of English Non-CLIL 13.34 8.323 −0.995 <0.001
CLIL 23.23 10.263
Vocabulary Non-CLIL 7.98 4.150 −0.807 <0.001
CLIL 10.75 3.250
Listening Non-CLIL 6.56 4.707 −0.301 0.084
CLIL 7.99 4.761
Reading Non-CLIL 3.15 2.963 −0.730 <0.001
CLIL 5.83 3.810
Total Non-CLIL 31.02 15.244 −1.231 <0.001
CLIL 47.79 13.223
150 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Table 2 Foreign language competence. General speaking analysis

Group Mean Standard Deviation Rosenthal’s R p-value
Speaking_Total Non-CLIL 5.806 2.3772 .7577 .0240
CLIL 7.296 1.7279
Grammatical Non-CLIL 1.028 .5278 .6799 .0330
CLIL 1.370 .4722
Lexical_Range Non-CLIL 1.194 .5461 .4465 .0840
CLIL 1.426 .3008
Fluency_Interaction Non-CLIL 1.111 .6077 .5377 .0580
CLIL 1.444 .4237
Pronunciation Non-CLIL 1.222 .3919 1.1575 .0050
CLIL 1.556 .3203
Task_Fulfilment Non-CLIL 1.250 .4926 .5295 .0590
CLIL 1.500 .3669

always higher than the non-CLIL group. These results corroborate Pérez Cañado and
Lancaster’s outcomes (2017), according to which CLIL students outperformed their
EFL counterparts in oral production (cf. Table 2).
When analysing the data from Primary and Secondary students separately,
the superior linguistic competence of CLIL pupils was again confirmed. When
comparing 4th year CSE EFL students with CLIL learners at the same educational
level, it is proved that the latter outperformed the former on all the skills and aspects
sampled. On the contrary, when dealing with 6th year Primary Education students,
no differences appeared in terms of speaking, in contrast to the tendency found in
previous research at Primary Education level (Madrid & Barrios, 2018; Nieto Moreno
de Diezmas, 2016; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008), according to which the CLIL group was
significantly superior in terms of oral production. However, Primary school students
belonging to CLIL are found to be superior on all skills analysed (p = 0.931) (cf.
Table 3).

4.2 Differential Effect of Intervening Variables on FL

Competence

To fully understand the effects of CLIL and EFL programmes on English proficiency,
an analysis of the data in terms of the different intervening variables considered will
now be included, addressing our RQ2.
Taking into account the gender of the participants, in the initial overall analysis,
no statistically significant differences were detected between female and male partic-
ipants in any of the skills evaluated, coinciding with the results obtained by Heras and
Lasagabaster (2015) and Pascual Bajo (2018). However, in a deeper analysis carried
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 151

Table 3 FL competence comparison per group (T-test)

Educational Skill Group Mean Standard Cohen’s d p-value
level Deviation
Primary Use of English Non-CLIL 10.94 7.197 −0.777 0.006
Education CLIL 15.99 6.339
Vocabulary Non-CLIL 11.13 2.964 −0.575 0.040
CLIL 12.75 2.803
Listening Non-CLIL 11.88 2.247 −0.665 0.018
CLIL 13.29 2.098
Reading Non-CLIL 5.25 3.357 −1.072 <0.001
CLIL 9.14 3.679
Speaking Non-CLIL 6.083 2.354 −0.077* 0.931
CLIL 5.800 2.049
Total Non-CLIL 39.19 14.520 −0.901 0.002
CLIL 51.16 13.015
Compulsory Use of English Non-CLIL 14.88 8.76 −1.438 <0.001
Secondary CLIL 28.27 9.43
Education
Vocabulary Non-CLIL 5.96 3.52 −1.156 <0.001
CLIL 9.35 2.78
Listening Non-CLIL 3.16 1.70 −0.761 0.004
CLIL 4.30 1.46
Speaking CLIL 5.667 2.480 0.434* 0.011
Non-CLIL 7.636 1.497
Reading Non-CLIL 1.80 1.66 −1.118 <0.001
CLIL 3.52 1.51
Total Non-CLIL 25.80 13.52 −1.508 <0.001
CLIL 45.45 12.91
*The analyses for speaking are done by means of Rosenthal’s R

out within each separate cohort, the T-test evinced women in the CLIL group have
a higher level of vocabulary in the FL and generally outperform their male peers.
Regarding the non-CLIL group, no statistical confirmation of clear differences could
be reported between girls and boys (cf. Table 4).
Following with the variable of setting, our first evaluation detected statistically
significant differences in favour of those students belonging to an urban centre, both
generally and in their level of use of English, although pupils in the rural schools
outperformed their counterparts on the oral receptive skill. Similar results appeared
when analysing each cohort separately, as differences were also found in favour of
the urban school pupils within the CLIL group. However, the rural school students
outperformed their counterparts on all skills tested except for use of English within
the non-CLIL group (cf. Table 5).
152 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Table 4 Comparison per gender (T-test)

Group Skills Gender Mean Standard Deviation Cohen’s d p-value
General Use of English Male 20.68 10.75 −0.111 0.408
Female 21.86 10.45
Vocabulary Male 9.68 3.89 −0.257 0.056
Female 10.61 3.32
Listening Male 7.63 4.70 −0.002 0.988
Female 7.64 4.87
Reading Male 4.88 3.68 −0.197 0.144
Female 5.63 3.90
Total Male 42.87 15.26 −0.189 0.160
Female 45.73 15.02
Non-CLIL Use of English Male 15.25 9.94 0.454 0.161
Female 11.52 6.13
Vocabulary Male 8.10 4.71 0.058 0.854
Female 7.86 3.65
Listening Male 7.10 4.54 0.222 0.481
Female 6.05 4.91
Reading Male 3.40 3.45 0.166 0.599
Female 2.90 2.47
Speaking Male 6.250 2.699 .1683* 0.515
Female 5.450 2.166
Total Male 33.85 17.59 0.363 0.252
Female 28.33 12.46
CLIL Use of English Male 22.15 10.64 −0.207 0.170
Female 24.26 9.83
Vocabulary Male 10.21 3.49 −0.329 0.030
Female 11.26 2.92
Listening Male 7.92 4.74 −0.028 0.850
Female 8.05 4.81
Reading Male 5.34 3.65 −0.248 0.100
Female 6.29 3.92
Speaking Male 7.036 1.759 .1742* 0.375
Female 7.577 1.718
Total Male 45.62 13.65 −0.325 0.032
Female 49.87 12.53
*The analyses for speaking are done by means of Rosenthal’s R
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 153

Table 5 Cohort comparison regarding setting

Group Skills Setting Mean Standard Deviation Cohen’s d p-value
General Use of English Rural 15.32 8.57 −0.776 <0.001
Urban 23.14 10.49
Vocabulary Rural 10.13 3.73 −0.007 0.963
Urban 10.16 3.62
Listening Rural 9.23 4.06 0.444 0.002
Urban 7.14 4.89
Reading Rural 5.26 3.61 0.001 0.99
Urban 5.26 3.88
Total Rural 39.94 14.18 −0.383 0.016
Urban 45.69 15.25
Non-CLIL Use of English Rural 12.50 8.71 −0.179 0.573
Urban 14.00 8.14
Vocabulary Rural 10.67 3.16 1.402 <0.001
Urban 5.87 3.61
Listening Rural 11.11 3.08 3.401 <0.001
Urban 3.00 1.65
Reading Rural 5.17 3.17 1.516 <0.001
Urban 1.57 1.50
Total Rural 39.44 14.32 1.119 0.001
Urban 24.43 12.68
CLIL Use of English Rural 16.77 8.25 −0.822 <0.001
Urban 24.81 10.11
Vocabulary Rural 9.86 4.01 −0.343 0.133
Urban 10.97 3.01
Listening Rural 8.26 4.19 0.070 0.711
Urban 7.92 4.90
Reading Rural 5.31 3.86 −0.167 0.377
Urban 5.95 3.80
Total Rural 40.20 14.32 −0.743 <0.001
Urban 49.65 12.30

Socioeconomic status (SES) was also incorporated in our investigation taking into
account the educational level of parents. Hence, three different groups were estab-
lished according to their educational attainment: high (Tertiary Education), medium
(vocational training or Secondary) and low (school qualifications or no studies). As
a result, after applying the ANOVA test, statistically significant differences were
detected on all skills analysed in favour of those students having a high socioeco-
nomic status, except for use of English (cf. Table 6). These results coincide with
154 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Table 6 Comparison among cohorts regarding SES

Group Skills SES Mean Standard Deviation Eta Squared p-value
General Use of English Low 21.13 10.25 0.001 0.872
Medium 21.81 11.13
High 21.00 10.18
Vocabulary Low 8.28 3.26 0.150 0.000
Medium 9.54 3.48
High 11.71 3.22
Listening Low 5.19 3.18 0.236 0.000
Medium 5.97 3.77
High 10.32 4.90
Reading Low 3.23 1.97 0.197 0.000
Medium 4.23 2.99
High 7.18 4.24
Total Low 37.83 13.04 0.120 0.000
Medium 41.56 14.51
High 50.20 14.19

Anghel et al. (2016) and Fernández Sanjurjo et al. (2019) outcomes, according to
which CLIL programmes tend to have a negative effect on students from a low
socioeconomic background. However, recent investigations have proved that CLIL
has cancelled out differences among social classes (Lorenzo, 2019; Pavón Vázquez,
2018; Pérez Cañado, 2017b; Rascón Moreno & Bretones Callejas, 2018). No statis-
tically significant differences appeared among non-CLIL learners in any of the skills
evaluated, except for their knowledge of vocabulary.
When analysing the cohorts separately, the same tendency was repeated among
CLIL students, where those pupils with a high socioeconomic level are revealed to
also have the highest level in all skills tested but use of English. In the case of non-
CLIL students, statistically significant differences in favour of those having a high
socioeconomic level exist only when dealing with their knowledge of vocabulary
(cf. Table 7).
Valuable results were also obtained when taking into consideration type of school.
In general terms, statistically significant differences were found for all skills consid-
ered in favour of those students belonging to a private bilingual school, with the
exception of use of English, for which pupils from public bilingual schools were
revealed to obtain better outcomes (cf. Table 8).
Different results are obtained within cohorts. In the case of Primary Education
students, the same pattern is repeated, showing that private bilingual school students
obtain higher results in vocabulary, use of English, listening and reading. However,
when dealing with Secondary Compulsory Education pupils, results vary, as no
private bilingual schools were considered in our study. Thus, statistically significant
differences were found on all skills analysed in favour of public bilingual school
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 155

Table 7 Comparison within cohorts in terms of SES (ANOVA)

Group Skills SES Mean Standard Deviation Eta Squared p-value
Non-CLIL Use of English Low 14.82 7.26 0.021 0.684
Medium 12.70 7.15
High 12.00 9.43
Vocabulary Low 6.00 3.32 0.177 0.030
Medium 8.25 4.15
High 10.88 3.27
Listening Low 5.45 4.32 0.098 0.157
Medium 6.35 4.66
High 9.50 4.78
Reading Low 2.18 1.54 0.046 0.427
Medium 3.50 3.59
High 3.75 2.76
Speaking Low 3.333 1.6073 0.235 0.102
Medium 6.182 2.3798
High 6.625 1.9738
Total Low 28.45 8.69 0.036 0.518
Medium 30.80 15.99
High 36.13 16.52
CLIL Use of English Low 23.06 10.33 0.021 0.161
Medium 25.28 10.48
High 21.93 9.98
Vocabulary Low 8.97 2.95 0.143 0.000
Medium 10.05 3.17
High 11.96 2.96
Listening Low 5.11 2.82 0.275 0.000
Medium 5.95 3.47
High 10.58 4.82
Reading Low 3.56 1.99 0.214 0.000
Medium 4.58 2.72
High 7.62 4.18
Speaking Low 6.692 1.5075 0.125 0.141
Medium 7.688 1.6677
High 8.083 2.0595
Total Low 40.69 12.87 0.116 0.000
Medium 45.86 11.65
High 52.09 12.89
156 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Table 8 Comparison across cohorts in terms of type of school (ANOVA)

Group Skills Type of school Mean Standard Cohen’s d p-value
Deviation
General Use of English Public school 13.34 8.32 0.252 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 25.88 10.62
CLIL
Private school 16.98 5.72
CLIL
Vocabulary Public school 7.98 4.15 0.271 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 9.65 3.06
CLIL
Private school 13.34 1.98
CLIL
Listening Public school 6.56 4.71 0.556 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 5.46 3.08
CLIL
Private school 13.96 1.66
CLIL
Reading Public school 3.15 2.96 0.455 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 4.14 2.50
CLIL
Private school 9.81 3.39
CLIL
Total Public school 31.02 15.24 0.249 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 45.12 13.41
CLIL
Private school 54.09 10.41
CLIL

students, in line with previous investigations which attest to the superiority of CLIL
over EFL programmes (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Lasagabaster, 2009;
Pascual Bajo, 2018) (cf. Table 9).
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 157

Table 9 Comparison in terms of type of school (ANOVA)

Group Skills Type of school Mean Standard Cohen’s d p-value
Deviation
Primary Use of English Public school 10.94 7.20 0.131 0.002
Education non-CLIL
Public school 13.35 7.26
CLIL
Private school 16.98 5.72
CLIL
Vocabulary Public school 11.13 2.96 0.138 0.002
non-CLIL
Public school 11.20 3.94
CLIL
Private school 13.34 1.98
CLIL
Listening Public school 11.88 2.25 0.273 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 11.50 2.12
CLIL
Private school 13.96 1.66
CLIL
Reading Public school 5.25 3.36 0.213 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 7.35 3.90
CLIL
Private school 9.81 3.39
CLIL
Total Public school 39.19 14.52 0.206 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 43.40 16.06
CLIL
Private school 54.09 10.41
CLIL
Compulsory Use of English Public school 14.88 8.762 0.246 0.000
Secondary non-CLIL
Education Public school 28.27 9.434
CLIL
Private school
CLIL
Vocabulary Public school 5.96 3.518 0.174 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 9.35 2.784
CLIL
(continued)
158 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Table 9 (continued)
Group Skills Type of school Mean Standard Cohen’s d p-value
Deviation
Private school
CLIL
Listening Public school 3.16 1.700 0.084 0.001
non-CLIL
Public school 4.30 1.455
CLIL
Private school
CLIL
Reading Public school 1.80 1.658 0.165 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 3.52 1.513
CLIL
Private school
CLIL
Total Public school 25.80 13.515 0.264 0.000
non-CLIL
Public school 45.45 12.915
CLIL
Private school
CLIL

4.3 Durability of Effects of the CLIL Programme on FL

Competence

The across- and within-group comparisons presented above are also complemented
with general and group-focused analyses in order to confirm if the effects of CLIL
remained once the programme was discontinued or if, on the contrary, they gradually
disappeared. Hence, vis-à-vis RQ3, a comparison between the results obtained in the
post-test phase and the outcomes of the delayed post-tests sat by the same students
six months later was carried out.
Starting with the analysis of the CLIL group, our findings indicate that students
obtained slightly better results on most skills tested, although no statistically signif-
icant differences were detected except for listening (p = < 0.001). Slightly worse
results were found for use of English in the delayed post-test phase, although still
not significant (cf. Table 10).
Turning now to the analysis of the non-CLIL students, no statistically significant
differences were detected between the two phases except for the reading skill (p
= 0.007). Moreover, slightly worse results were detected in the delayed post-tests
for use of English and listening, something which clearly differs from the results
obtained in the experimental group. Non-CLIL pupils were also found to have a
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 159

Table 10 Post- to delayed post-test comparison of CLIL cohort’s skills

Group Skills Post/Delayed Mean Standard Deviation Cohen’s d p-value
CLIL Use of English Post 33,51 9,456 0.031 0.687
Delayed 33,22 8,792
Vocabulary Post 10,43 3,373 −0.216 0.097
Delayed 11,08 2,637
Listening Post 4,71 1,683 −0.393 <0.001
Delayed 5,35 1,535
Reading Post 4,20 1,472 −0.208 0.213
Delayed 4,51 1,474
Total Post 52,86 13,519 −0.100 0.106
Delayed 54,16 12,686

greater knowledge of vocabulary, although no statistically significant differences

were ascertained for this skill (cf. Table 11).
After having expounded on the results obtained in the post-test phase by both
CLIL and non-CLIL students, let us now analyse if statistically significant differ-
ences emerge across the cohorts. Clear-cut tendencies were discerned, pointing to
the supremacy of the bilingual programme, as statistically significant differences
emerged on all skills considered in favour of CLIL pupils.
As can be observed in the table below, CLIL students outperformed their non-
CLIL peers on use of English (p = < 0.001) and on their knowledge of vocabulary
(p = < 0.001) in the FL. In the same vein, the means obtained for both listening and
reading skills were significantly higher for CLIL students (5.35 and 4.51, respec-
tively), coinciding with previous studies by Pladevall-Ballester and Vallbona (2016)
and Pascual Bajo (2018). However, these results must be interpreted with caution,
since the large effect sizes shown by Cohen’s d have to be taken into consideration
in our assessment (cf. Table 12).

Table 11 Post- to delayed post-test comparison of non-CLIL cohort’s skills

Group Skills Post/Delayed Mean Standard Cohen’s d p-value
Deviation
Non-CLIL Use of English Post 15.58 5.551 0.031 0.899
Delayed 15.42 5.248
Vocabulary Post 5.33 2.348 −0.682 0.056
Delayed 6.83 2.038
Listening Post 3.00 1.348 0.306 0.422
Delayed 2.58 1.379
Reading Post 1.33 1.303 −1.201 0.007
Delayed 2.83 1.193
Total Post 25.25 7.124 −0.334 0.281
160 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Table 12 Comparison per group (T-test)

Group Skills Group Mean Standard Deviation Cohen’s d p-value
General Use of English Non-CLIL 15.42 5.25 −2.159 <0.001
CLIL 33.22 8.79
Vocabulary Non-CLIL 6.83 2.04 −1.675 <0.001
CLIL 11.08 2.64
Listening Non-CLIL 2.58 1.38 −1.834 <0.001
CLIL 5.35 1.54
Reading Non-CLIL 2.83 1.19 −1.176 <0.001
CLIL 4.51 1.47
Total Non-CLIL 27.67 7.36 −2.231 <0.001
CLIL 54.16 12.69

4.4 Language Competence Differential: Discriminant

Analyses

Finally, the effect of the different intervening variables considered is quantified.

Successive discriminant analyses have helped us determine which variables are the
most significant in explaining the differences detected between the CLIL and non-
CLIL strands.
As for the differences found between the experimental and the control group in
English, it can be clearly seen that the independent variable (Group—CLIL) together
with the moderating variables of socioeconomic status (SES) and verbal intelligence
are the ones which display the greatest significance (p = 0.000). Accordingly, these
variables were later used in a discriminant function, which proved that all of them
were significant, as the p-value obtained was 0,000. Thus, we can confirm that the
CLIL programme has the greatest weight in explaining the language competence
differential between the experimental and control groups, mirroring Pascual Bajo’s
(2018) and Pérez Cañado’s (2018) outcomes (cf. Tables 13 and 14).

5 Conclusion

This study has addressed one of the most important current areas of interest in Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) research: the analysis of how CLIL is playing out in
a Spanish monolingual region which lacks a firm tradition for foreign language
learning. More concretely, the investigation has been developed in the province of
Jaén, an area where little research on the topic has been published so far. In order
to overcome the main lacunae presented by previous investigations into the topic
in terms of homogeneity, variables or statistical analyses, the project has worked
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 161

Table 13 Test of equality group means

Wilks’ Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.
Exposure to English .991 2.013 1 214 .157
SES .854 36.672 1 214 .000
Verbal Intelligence .837 41.827 1 214 .000
Goodwill .999 .138 1 214 .711
Anxiety .992 1.660 1 214 .199
Lack of interest .954 10.400 1 214 .001
Selfcommitment .986 3.050 1 214 .082
Type .864 33.604 1 214 .000
Group .940 13.670 1 214 .000
Gender .998 .425 1 214 .515

Table 14 Canonical discriminant functions

Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
1 .362a 100.0 100.0 .515
Test of Functions Wilks’ Lambda Chi-square Df Sig.
1 .734 65.586 3 .000

with students from three different educational levels (Primary Education, Compul-
sory Secondary Education and Baccalaureate), divided into two different cohorts
according to the educational programme they are following (experimental CLIL
group and control non-CLIL group) and taking into account different moderating
variables.
Regarding RQ1, our outcomes have allowed us to confirm the superior linguistic
competence in English of those learners following the CLIL programme. As detailed
in Sect. 1 in Chapter “Are CLIL Settings More Conducive to the Acquisition of Digital
Competences? A Comparative Study in Primary Education”, the CLIL cohort outper-
formed the non-CLIL stream on all skills analysed, being listening the only skill
for which no statistically significant differences were detected. The oral production
of CLIL and non-CLIL students was also analysed, taking into account their use
of English (grammar and vocabulary), their pronunciation and fluency and their
adequacy to the task. The outcomes obtained attest to the superiority of CLIL
students, especially in their knowledge and use of grammar and in their pronuncia-
tion in the FL (Madrid & Barrios, 2018; Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2016; Pascual
Bajo, 2018; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). However, no statistically significant differences
appeared when analysing learners’ lexical range, fluency or their adaptability to the
task presented.
A total confirmation of these results was provided when evaluating students sepa-
rately according to their educational stage. Thus, when comparing 4th year of CSE
students following a traditional EFL programme with their CLIL peers, it was proved
162 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

that the latter outperformed the former on all the skills and aspects considered. On
the contrary, slightly more negative results were obtained regarding the oral produc-
tion of 6th year Primary Education students, since no differences appeared between
cohorts.
In line with RQ2, the data obtained by means of the English tests was also anal-
ysed taking into consideration the different intervening variables considered. Valu-
able conclusions can be drawn in this respect, as numerous differences arose across
and within cohorts. From a global perspective, no differences were detected in terms
of gender, while the variable of setting offered statistically significant differences in
favour of students studying in an urban context. However, students from rural centres
obtained better results when analysing their receptive skills. Regarding socioeco-
nomic status, statistically significant differences arose in favour of students with
a high socioeconomic status on all skills considered, except for use of English,
corroborating Anghel, Cabrales and Carro’s (2016) and Fernández Sanjurjo et al.
(2019) outcomes, according to which bilingual programmes affected negatively
those students whose socioeconomic status was lower. No statistically significant
differences appeared among non-CLIL learners in any of the skills evaluated, except
for their knowledge of vocabulary. Our outcomes thus run counter to the tendency
detected by some of the most recent research (Lorenzo, 2019; Pavón Vázquez, 2018;
Pérez Cañado, 2017b; Rascón Moreno & Bretones Callejas, 2018), where CLIL has
cancelled out differences among social classes.
In the overall comparisons, the type of school variable yielded differences on all
skills considered in favour of those students belonging to a private bilingual school,
except for use of English, in which learners from public bilingual schools obtained
better outcomes. The same tendency was repeated when analysing the results from
Primary schools, since students from private centres obtained better results in vocab-
ulary, use of English, listening and reading. In Secondary Education, the situation
changed, as no private bilingual schools were considered in our research. Conse-
quently, statistically significant differences were found on all skills tested in favour of
the CLIL group from public centres, corroborating Pérez Cañado’s (2018) outcomes.
Vis-à-vis RQ3, the results obtained in the post-test phase were compared with the
outcomes of the delayed post-test phase. No statistically significant differences were
found for the CLIL group for any of the skills tested, except for listening. That is,
although CLIL students obtained slightly better results in the delayed post-tests on all
the skills considered, the differences were only significant for their oral receptive skill.
In the case of non-CLIL students, no statistically significant differences appeared
between the two phases, with the exception of reading. Differences in means were
also detected for vocabulary, in favour of the delayed post-tests, although they did
not reach statistical significance. However, slightly worse results were obtained in
the delayed-post phase for use of English and listening, something which clearly
differs from CLIL group’s results.
In the across-cohort comparisons, the results obtained attest to the supremacy of
the bilingual programme, since significant differences arose for all skills considered
in favour of CLIL pupils. Coinciding with the results of previous studies (Lorenzo,
2019; Pascual Bajo, 2018; Pladevall-Ballester & Vallbona, 2016), CLIL students
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 163

outperform their EFL counterparts on the receptive skills as well as in use of English
and knowledge of vocabulary.
Finally, regarding the last RQ, the successive discriminant analyses performed
have confirmed that CLIL programmes, together with motivation and SES, are the
variables which best explain the differences detected.
As a conclusion, we can affirm our data point to the general improvement of skills
in the FL. Hence, our results support the continuity of CLIL programmes in post-
Secondary stages, something which would help to consolidate their positive effects
among students. In line with Pérez Cañado (2018), our results indicate that, although
many of the effects of bilingual education remain, these can gradually disappear if the
programmes are discontinued. That is why it is highly recommendable to promote
their continued implementation.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Compet-
itiveness [research grant number FFI2012-32221] and the Government of Andalusia [research
grant number HUM 2348] (Project: The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Communities: A Large-Scale Evaluation).

References

Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in
the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency. English Educational Research and Evaluation,
12(1), 75–93.
Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J. M. (2016). Evaluating a bilingual education programme in
Spain: The impact beyond foreign language learning. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1202–1223.
Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to
CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236–241. https://
doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41(3), 587–897. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture: More than a reply to J. Hüttner and
U. Smit (2014). System, 53, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005.
European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training: Teaching and learning:
Towards the learning society. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_
en.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2017.
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’
content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–674. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142.
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary
learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881454
1736.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger
picture: A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why…and why not. System,
44, 160–167.
164 M. d. M. Gálvez Gómez

Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of Mathematics and Science as cognitional
development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign
language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168.
Jiménez Catalán, R. M., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2006). Vocabulary profiles of English
foreign language learners in English as a subject and as a vehicular language. VIEWZ (Vienna
English Working Papers), 15(3), 23–27.
Lancaster, N. K. (2015). The effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning on the oral skills
of Compulsory Secondary Education students: A longitudinal study. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.
Lasagabaster, D. (2009). The implementation of CLIL and attitudes towards trilingualism. ITL,
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 159, 23–45.
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process:
Delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1122019.
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future
planning. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results
and teacher training (pp. 278–295). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lorenzo, F. (2019). Educación Bilingüe en Andalucía: Informe de Gestión, Competencias y
Organización. Junta de Andalucía: Consejería de Educación.
Madrid, D., & Barrios, E. (2018). A comparison of students’ educational achievement across
programmes and school types with and without CLIL provision. Porta Linguarum, 29, 29–50.
Madrid, D., Bueno, A., & Ráez, J. (2018). Investigating the effects of CLIL on language attainment:
Instrument design and validation. In M. L. Pérez Cañado (Eds.), Content and Language lntegrated
Learning in monolingual settings: New insights from the Spanish context. Amsterdam: Springer.
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of language compe-
tences and skills in L2 in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16(2),
81–101.
Ouazizi, K. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (mathematics) and the target
language (English). Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1),
110–137. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.5.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/pplirev-2013-0014.
Pascual Bajo, C. (2018). The impact of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on Valen-
cian Secondary Education students’ English language acquisition and academic achievement: A
case study. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
Pavón Vázquez, V. (2018). Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: A comparison of results
between urban and rural environments. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9–28.
Pelechano Barberá, V. (1994). Prueba MA. Análisis y Modificación de la Conducta, 20, 71–72.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2011). The effects of CLIL within the APPP: Lessons learned and ways
forward. In R. Crespo & M. A. García de Sola (Eds.), Studies in honour of Ángeles Linde López
(pp. 389–406). Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
70050.2011.630064.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017a). Stopping the ‘pendulum effect’ in CLIL research: Finding the balance
between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1): 79–99. doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1515/applirev-2016-2001.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017b). The evolution of bilingual education in monolingual settings: An
Andalusian case study. In M. Jedynack & P. Romanowski (Eds.), The many faces of bilingualism-
living with two languages (pp. 207–241). Amsterdam: Springer.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of
CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29, 51–70.
The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning … 165

Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension
and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 300–316.
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1338717.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Ráez Padilla, J. (2015). Introduction and overview. In D. Marsh, M. L.
Pérez Cañado, & J. Ráez Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom (pp. 1–12).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Kebler, J. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomized controlled
field experiment with sixth-grade students on the effects of content and language integrated
science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–116.
Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal
study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–48.
Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation
errors by Spanish-Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.),
Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments, 63–177. Berlin:
Springer.
Rascón Moreno, D., & Bretones Callejas, C. M. (2018). Socioeconomic status and its impact on
language and content attainment in CLIL contexts. Porta Linguarum, 29, 115–136.
Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in
the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7–74.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2007). CLIL in a bilingual community: Similarities and differences with the
learning of English as a foreign language. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 47–53.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque
Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60–73.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into
applied linguistic research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.),
Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 129–153). Berne: Peter Lang.
Santamaría, P., Arribas, D., Pereña, J., & Seisdedos, N. ( 2016). EFAI: Evaluación Factorial de las
Aptitudes Intelectuales. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582–602.
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on
mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6(2), 319–337.
Vez, J. M. (2009). Multilingual education in Europe: Policy developments. Porta Linguarum, 12,
7–24.
Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In D. Marsh (Eds.), The CLIL quality matrix: Central
workshop report, coord (pp. 10–26). http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_
6.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2017.
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter
Learning: The Case of Science
in Primary and Secondary Education

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Abstract This chapter focuses on an under-researched topic in relation to Content

and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): the effects of bilingual programmes on
content learning. It was carried out with a total of ten schools (in Primary and
Secondary Education) and 318 students in public bilingual and charter non-bilingual
schools in the autonomous community of Extremadura. Students’ performance in
the subjects of Science in Primary Education and Natural Science in Compulsory
Secondary Education is compared across schools in order to provide data on the
important issue of whether CLIL programmes are watering down subject matter
learning or promoting it as successfully as in monolingual streams. Factor and
discriminant analyses are performed with the type of school and educational level
variables in order to determine whether CLIL is truly responsible for the differ-
ences ascertained or whether other variables account for a greater proportion of the
variance. The statistical analysis confirms the positive effects of CLIL on content
subject learning, showing that bilingually educated students outperform monolin-
gually educated ones at both educational stages, although this difference is clearly
significant when finishing their Secondary Education studies. The results also provide
some clear-cut differences in terms of type of school and educational level, as public
bilingual schools only outperform charter non-bilingual schools only at the end of
Compulsory Secondary Education, which suggests the long-term effects of CLIL on
subject matter learning.

1 Introduction

Based on the pioneering immersion programmes in Canada and bilingual

programmes in the USA which have led to the progressive introduction of bilin-
gual education worldwide, there has been an explosion of interest and debate in the

J. d. D. Martínez Agudo (B)

Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 167

M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_9
168 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

last two decades about the potential of the European approach to bilingual educa-
tion—CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)—, not only in Europe but
also around the world. CLIL has been conceived as an alternative to the Commu-
nicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach (Coyle et al., 2010), an extension of it
(Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010) or just a new paradigm of educa-
tion (Ouazizi, 2016). While Coyle et al. (2010) do not view CLIL as ‘simply another
step in language teaching or a new development in content-subject methodology’
(p. ix) but rather as ‘a major rethink of how we teach what we teach’ (pp. ix–x),
Dalton-Puffer (2011, p. 195) is cautious and warns that, contrary to most expecta-
tions, CLIL is not a panacea, as evidenced by the fact that some downsides have
been recently reported by CLIL research as well as the fact that there is a wide gap
between what is provided in CLIL teaching and what comes out in terms of CLIL
learning. Due to the idiosyncrasies of the European context and the unceasing search
for improved language teaching methods aimed at increasing L2 competence at a
time when European integration is idealised, what becomes clear is that CLIL has
emerged as a ‘timely solution to European plurilingual education’ (Pérez Cañado,
2012, p. 315) in an increasingly globalised world where ‘(bi)multilingualism is the
norm whereas monolingualism is the exception’ (Ouazizi, 2016, p. 113).
Regarding the different conceptualisations of CLIL viewed as an umbrella
construct which lacks conceptual precision as well as the fact that its scope is still not
clear-cut, Cenoz et al. (2014) recognise that the varied interpretations of the CLIL
approach suggest that CLIL is understood in different ways, which makes it difficult
to pin down its uniqueness. For example, the language and content balance as well
as the intensity of the exposure to the foreign language, among other CLIL core
characteristics, are understood in different ways, as Cenoz et al. (2014) point out.
Based on the succinct definition by Coyle et al. (2010, p. 1), ‘Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an addi-
tional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’,
what becomes clear is that the core feature of CLIL is, no doubt, its dual-focused
nature, as this ‘two for one’ approach strives to promote the integration of both L2
learning and content learning. Such a duality is certainly seen as the main strength
of this educational approach, as both foreign language and subject matter content
should be learnt and taught in an integrated way. Needless to say, such integration,
in turn, involves the major challenge facing CLIL teachers and learners; as Ruiz de
Zarobe (2013, p. 235) claims, ‘the challenge remains of how to enable learners to
make best use of both areas in the classroom’. In the same vein, Cenoz et al. (2014,
p. 244) also make it clear that
The dual role of language and content has been understood in different ways. According to
Ting (2010: 3), ‘CLIL advocates a 50:50/Content: Language CLIL-equilibrium’. However,
research conducted in actual CLIL classrooms shows that it is difficult to achieve a strict
balance of language and content (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Mehisto, 2008; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-
Garau, 2010).

Besides its dual nature, another essential feature of CLIL pedagogy is precisely its
diversity (Cenoz, 2015; Coyle, 2010). This diversity of models or formats is a visible
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 169

trend in the European context. Coyle (2007, p. 49) considers that there is no model
‘which suits all CLIL contexts’. Certainly, CLIL comprises many different variants
as it has been implemented in a variety of forms since the 1990s (Cenoz et al., 2014).
In relation to this diversity, Coyle (2008, p. 101) also makes it clear that ‘there is a
lack of cohesion around CLIL pedagogies. There is neither one CLIL approach nor
one theory of CLIL’. In the same vein, Mehisto et al. (2008, p. 12) claim that CLIL
implementation takes different forms as ‘CLIL is an umbrella term covering a dozen
or more educational approaches (e.g. immersion, bilingual education, multilingual
education, language showers and enriched language programmes)’. Similarly, Ruiz
de Zarobe (2013, p. 233) states that almost all EU states implement some form
of CLIL with varying degrees of success, responding in different ways (Eurydice,
2006): ‘Under the acronym CLIL we recognize a wide range of models, which show
divergences as regards the age of implementation of the model or the intensity of the
exposure to the foreign language (…), to name but a few differences’. According to
Cenoz (2015, p. 21), ‘There is great diversity in the implementation of CBI/CLIL
programmes and these programmes are dynamic and change because they have to
keep up with new challenges in society’. To be more specific, such diversity can
be seen in the differences observed in teaching methodology, as some programmes
are more content-oriented than others (Cenoz, 2015). In this respect, Kerstin (2013)
also concludes that discrepancies in results obtained across CLIL contexts in Europe
may be due to nation-specific contextual factors such as policy framework, teacher
education, age of implementation and extramural exposure to English. Lastly, Cenoz
et al. (2014, p. 258) also suggest that ‘Rather than insisting on the uniqueness of
CLIL, efforts might be better spent establishing a taxonomy of different common
forms of CLIL/CBI so as to circumscribe the diverse contexts in which CLIL is
found’. Needless to say, this diversity of CLIL programme formats also involves
great challenges when carrying out research on CLIL, as Cenoz et al. (2014) rightly
point out.
Much of what we currently know about CLIL approach comes from Applied
Linguistics research (Marsh & Frigols, 2013). Specifically, Second Language Acqui-
sition (SLA) research studies provide, as Lasagabaster and López (2015, p. 43)
remind us, ‘some arguments in favour of CLIL programmes on the grounds that
they create conditions for naturalistic language learning, increase the time of expo-
sure to the foreign language and provide an aim for language use in the classroom
(Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007)’. While several theoretical arguments propose that
CLIL promotes content learning, other theories, in contrast, suggest negative effects.
Based on information processing theories, Piesche et al. (2016, p. 109) argue that
bilingual education in general and CLIL contexts in particular are assumed to lead
to ‘a greater cognitive control and selective attention which prevents the working
memory from being overloaded and thus leads to more effective cognitive processes’.
Additionally, it is also made clear that bilingual students are expected ‘to process
information more deeply because they have to invest more mental effort’ (Piesche
et al., 2016, p. 109). On the contrary, the perspective of cognitive load theory (Sweller
et al., 2011) sustains that students’ working memory is overloaded by simultaneously
processing new content and the foreign language.
170 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

The potential of CLIL in terms of linguistic and cognitive benefits has been fully
discussed and documented within the international research literature over the last
two decades (Casal & Moore, 2009; Cenoz, 2015; Coyle, 2002; Coyle et al., 2010;
Dalton-Puffer, 2008; Halbach, 2008; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Muñoz,
2002; Madrid & Hughes, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2016, 2017, 2018; cf. also Chapters
‘CLIL and L1 Competence Development’, ‘The Impact of CLIL on FL Grammar and
Vocabulary’, and ‘The Effects of CLIL on FL Learning: A Longitudinal Study’ in this
volume). However, recent studies seem to move beyond the impact of CLIL in terms
of linguistic benefits and, consequently, address its effects on the development of
content subject knowledge, which has been a neglected research area so far. In relation
to this, Nikula (2016) makes it clear that there seems to be a shift in emphasis in CLIL
research from studies focusing exclusively on the potential of CLIL in terms of L2
learning outcomes to studies that point towards the need to adopt a truly integrated
view on language and content, thus exploring the effects of CLIL on the development
of content subject learning. Very little is known for certain about the effects of CLIL
on the development of subject matter knowledge (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). Such effects
still remain unclear, as Nikula and Mard-Miettinen (2014, p. 14) rightly state: ‘the
overall image to date remains rather inconclusive, suggesting that this is an area where
more research is needed’. By comparing different models of bilingual education,
Cenoz et al. (2014, p. 10) also recognise that ‘there is a greater focus on language
than on academic achievement in Canadian immersion research, the same can be said
of research on CLIL where research on content is extremely limited’. This argument
is also supported by Pérez Cañado (2012, p. 315) who claims that ‘there is still a
well-documented paucity of research in this area’. Such lack of research into content
outcomes may be due to the fact that ‘CLIL research is conducted by language
educators rather than subject specialists, and therefore focuses almost exclusively
on language, with content knowledge rarely examined or measured’ (Paran, 2013,
p. 323). In the same vein, Cenoz et al. (2014, p. 257) argue that ‘Specifically, much,
if not most, research on CLIL has been conducted by ESL/EFL scholars who have
compared CLIL and non-CLIL groups of learners and reported higher achievement
in English for CLIL learners’. Similarly, Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. (2017, p. 1) argue
that ‘So far, CLIL research has focused primarily on language attainment in the L2
and the L1, but students’ achievements as regards content subjects have been largely
ignored’. Accordingly, as Dallinger et al. (2016, p. 25) conclude, ‘the effects of CLIL
on content learning remain an open question’. What becomes clear is future CLIL
research agenda needs to address this under-researched strand in depth (Cenoz et al.,
2014; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Paran, 2013; Pérez Cañado, 2016,
2017) because ‘we simply do not have enough evidence’ (Paran, 2013, p. 331).
The few existing research studies focusing on CLIL-effects on academic content
learning to date are in fact contradictory and present mixed results, as Piesche et al.
(2016, p. 109) remind us. In the European CLIL context, while most of the studies
conducted so far report positive outcomes for academic content learning, other studies
have recently found no differences between bilingual and non-bilingual students in
terms of content knowledge and some studies have even revealed negative effects on
content subject competence, as will be described below in further detail. Accordingly,
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 171

as will be examined below, CLIL research offers contradictory results which vary
across European contexts.
Overall, CLIL research has provided empirical evidence on the benefits of CLIL
education on content learning, concluding that bilingual learners assimilate the
content of the academic subjects at the same pace or even better than their non-
bilingual counterparts (Jäppinen, 2005; Murray, 2010; Madrid & Hughes, 2011;
Mattheoudakis et al., 2014; Ouazizi, 2016; Pérez Cañado, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018;
Serra, 2007; Surmont et al., 2016; Ullmann, 1999; Wode, 1999; Xanthou, 2011).
The study by Ullmann (1999) in the United Kingdom reveals that CLIL Secondary
Education students assimilating subject-contents (in History and Geography) show
enhanced subject matter learning. In Germany, Wode (1999) also reports that CLIL
Secondary Education students perform better in Geography and History than their
monolingual peers. The longitudinal study by Jäppinen (2005) conducted in Finland
concludes that content subject learning, Maths and Science particularly, might be
promoted by CLIL as a result of the stimulation of cognition/thinking processes
which seem to have positive repercussions on subject matter learning. Similarly, the
longitudinal study by Serra (2007) in Switzerland reveals that CLIL Primary Educa-
tion students obtain higher scores in Mathematics than their non-CLIL counterparts.
The cross-sectional study performed in Spain by Madrid (2011) reports that CLIL
students learning History and Geography perform better than their non-CLIL peers.
Identical results are also reported by Xanthou (2011), whose study with CLIL Primary
Education students in Cyprus shows that assimilating academic contents (Science,
specifically) through English is beneficial. In the same vein, the study by Madrid and
Hughes (2011) in Spain also provides positive results for CLIL in terms of academic
content learning (Science in Primary Education and Social Science in Secondary
Education) by factoring in type of school as an intervening variable, as in the present
study. The study by Mattheoudakis et al. (2014) in Greece, where CLIL was intro-
duced as a pilot project in 2010, also reveals both language and content gains for CLIL
students learning Geography in the context of Primary Education. Ouazizi (2016) also
reports positive findings with CLIL Secondary Education students learning Math-
ematics in Belgium, concluding that CLIL exerts a positive influence on content
knowledge due to the cognitive benefits of CLIL which seems to stimulate cognitive
flexibility (Coyle et al., 2010) and/or cognitive development. Lastly, Surmont et al.’s
(2016) study carried out in Belgium also reports that CLIL appears to have a positive
impact on the mathematical knowledge of Secondary Education students, even after
a very short period of time (three months). As shown by all these studies conducted
in various European countries, subject matter knowledge is positively affected by
the CLIL approach. Contrary to what might be expected, Van de Craen et al. (2007)
hold that subject matter knowledge is not of less quality in CLIL than in traditional
education.
A neutral position is also visible in the present discussion as different studies have
reported no differences between monolingually and bilingually educated students
concerning their content subject knowledge. For example, Bergroth (2006) argues
that CLIL students learning Mathematics in Finland do not obtain lower results
than their non-CLIL counterparts when finishing their Secondary Education studies,
172 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

and indeed perform just as well as their non-CLIL peers. In the same vein, the
longitudinal study conducted in the Netherlands by Admiraal et al. (2006) also reports
that no negative impact was found in CLIL Secondary Education students’ content
knowledge in History and Geography. Similar results are also reported by Stehler
(2006) in Switzerland, who concludes that CLIL has neither a positive nor a negative
influence on academic content knowledge. The quantitative and qualitative research
study carried out by Alonso et al. (2008) in the Basque autonomous community in
Spain relating to the effectiveness of plurilingual education through CLIL approach
in Secondary schools concludes that the assimilation of academic contents taught
in English is similar, if not superior, to those relating to non-CLIL students. All in
all, these studies reveal that academic content knowledge is not threatened by CLIL
in view of a lack of differences observed between both student cohorts (CLIL/non-
CLIL).
At the opposite end of the debate are those recent studies which report the nega-
tive effects of CLIL on content subject knowledge (Anghel et al., 2016; Dallinger
et al., 2016; Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2017; Piesche et al., 2016; Sotoca, 2014). For
example, the study by Sotoca (2014) conducted in bilingual and non-bilingual public
Primary Education schools in Madrid (Spain) reports statistically significant differ-
ences in favour of non-bilingual schools in Science, which may be due, according to
the author, to a greater level of exigency for academic subjects in bilingual schools.
The study carried out in Spain by Anghel et al. (2016) factored in parents’ educa-
tional level and also reveals significantly negative effects in Natural Science knowl-
edge for those CLIL Primary Education students of less educated parents. Another
research study also conducted in Spain is that of Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. (2017),
who conclude that monolingual students learning Science achieve better results than
their bilingual peers. Similarly, the study performed in Germany by Piesche et al.
(2016) shows that monolingually educated students outperform bilingually educated
ones in learning Science, although it is also made clear that the negative effects of
CLIL on students’ content learning are small. In the same vein, Dallinger et al. (2016)
in Germany also report a negative CLIL-effect on content learning, concluding that
CLIL students progress more slowly and need to receive more input to achieve the
same results in terms of content learning. In short, all these studies report a detri-
mental effect of CLIL education on academic achievement. Additionally, several
research studies also point towards students’ difficulties in expressing subject knowl-
edge through the foreign language (Jäppinen, 2005; Piesche et al., 2016). Perhaps
one convincing reason for this CLIL negative effect might be, as Marsh et al. (2000)
identified, the high linguistic demands of the content areas.
Once the initial euphoria of this innovative educational approach has passed since
its emergence on the European scene in 1994, a more critical attitude has recently
emerged in response to the need to address some ‘problematic issues of CLIL’ (Paran,
2013, p. 334), calling into question certain controversial aspects or challenges. In
relation to the present CLIL research scenario, Pérez Cañado (2018, p. 20) argues
that
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 173

the so-called ‘pendulum effect’ (Pérez Cañado, 2016, p. 1) can be seen at work within the
CLIL research scenario, as we have moved from an initial period of unbridled enthusiasm
and ‘celebratory rhetoric’ (Paran, 2013, p. 334) on the effects of CLIL to a more critical
moment (…) a much more pessimistic outlook on CLIL implementation.

Despite the widely recognised benefits attributed to CLIL approach, certain critical
voices have recently warned about the possible drawbacks of this approach (Bruton,
2011, 2013, 2015), thus making it clear that the initial enthusiasm for CLIL should
not neglect the real challenges of this new educational approach (Fernández-Sanjurjo
et al., 2017; Paran, 2013; Pérez Cañado, 2016, 2017). By exclusively insisting on
the uniqueness and potential of CLIL (often without substantial empirical evidence),
what is true is that CLIL shortcomings have not been addressed in detail. Hence,
Cenoz et al. (2014, p. 256) recognise that ‘There is a need for more balanced reflec-
tion on both the strengths and shortcomings or gaps in our understanding of CLIL
and its effectiveness in diverse contexts’. Given the ambiguity of CLIL, researchers
like Cenoz (2013) and Cenoz et al. (2014) demand more critical research beyond
exclusively analysing CLIL language gains. While it is true that research results have
confirmed the benefits of CLIL in terms of L2 competence, the effects of CLIL on
content knowledge, in contrast, still remain an open research question, an unexplored
research terrain, as little is known for certain about its real effects on the develop-
ment of the subject content knowledge (Cenoz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster & Ruiz
de Zarobe, 2010). In relation to this under-researched topic, Pérez Cañado (2018,
p. 20) concludes that ‘the research carried out thus far presents potentially serious
flaws which could compromise the validity of its outcomes’. Since CLIL research
has recently pointed out the neglect of influential intervening variables which need
to be examined in detail, Pérez Cañado (2012, p. 330) argues that there is a ‘need of
solid empirical research which builds in rigorous assessment of the variables under
scrutiny (…) to determine whether the gains observed are truly ascribable to CLIL
practice’. Further investigation is also needed on the way language and content are
integrated into CLIL classrooms. In view of such empirical gaps in our understanding
of CLIL effectiveness, Cenoz et al. (2014, pp. 256–257) point out that ‘Without
empirical evidence concerning these issues, we simply do not know (…) there is
a need to examine more carefully if content is acquired to the same extent when
taught through the medium of the L2 in comparison with students’ native language’.
Additionally, Cenoz et al. (2014, p. 257) also clarify that ‘Although these results
provide general support for CLIL (although see Bruton, 2011 for an opposing view),
they do not establish a clear causal link between integrated language and content
teaching and learner outcomes’. Before leaving this discussion, it is undeniable that
the development of CLIL pedagogy in the European context presents both strengths
and weaknesses, hence the need for a more critical classroom-based research on
CLIL, as Cenoz et al. (2014, pp. 258–259) suggest,
We believe that it is time for CLIL scholars to move from celebration to a critical empirical
examination of CLIL in its diverse forms to better identify its strengths and weaknesses
in different learning contexts (…) In other words, research is needed that goes beyond
examining simply whether teaching content in an L2 or a foreign language promotes L2
competence to examining how teaching content in an L2 works and how it can be improved.
174 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

Classroom-based research on how best to integrate language and content is necessary if we

are to enhance teacher effectiveness in CLIL settings (…) However, there are many aspects of
the integration of language and content instruction that require careful theoretical, empirical,
and pedagogical attention.

2 Research Questions

Given the scarcity of research studies addressing the effects of CLIL approach on
content subject learning in monolingual contexts in Spain (Anghel et al., 2016;
Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2017; Madrid & Hughes, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2018;
Sotoca, 2014), this chapter aims to shed some light on this still under-researched
topic, assessing whether CLIL programmes water down content subject knowledge
or rather promote it as successfully as in monolingual streams. Bearing in mind the
literature reviewed so far on the effects of CLIL on content subject knowledge, this
chapter aims to address the following research questions:
RQ1: Does CLIL education positively or negatively affect subject content knowl-
edge?
RQ2: Does CLIL education lead to equal or better subject matter knowledge than
traditional education?
RQ3: When do positive CLIL-effects become visible, in the short or long term?
RQ4: What is the differential effect exerted on the Primary and Secondary CLIL
students’ Science learning outcomes by the following two intervening vari-
ables: type of school (public and charter) and educational stage (Primary
and Secondary Education)?

3 Method

This study forms part of a broader research project focusing on a three-year longi-
tudinal large-scale evaluation of CLIL programmes carried out in those Spanish
monolingual communities with the least tradition in bilingual education (Andalusia,
Extremadura and the Canary Islands). In view of the scarce research literature avail-
able so far on the effects of CLIL on subject matter learning which presents contra-
dictory empirical evidence, the main emphasis of this quantitative study is on the
impact of CLIL education on students’ Science subject knowledge at the end of
Primary (6th grade) and Secondary (4th grade) Education.
Efforts have been made to ensure the homogeneity of the experimental (CLIL) and
control (non-CLIL) groups in terms of motivation, verbal intelligence and English
level. Pre-, post- and delayed post-tests were administered to Primary and Secondary
Education students. In view of the very limited number of research studies focused
on controlling the differential effect of particular intervening variables, factor and
discriminant analyses were consequently conducted to ascertain the relationship or
interaction between CLIL education and the intervening variables under control in
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 175

this study (type of school—public and charter—and educational stage—Primary and

Secondary Education—) which may account for the differences detected between
both student cohorts. To be more specific, dependent (content subject learning
results), independent (CLIL programmes) and intervening (type of school and educa-
tional level) variables have been taken into consideration in the present study so
as to determine whether CLIL is truly responsible for the potential differences
observed or whether the aforementioned intervening variables can account for a
greater proportion of the variance. Lastly, Cohen’s d was employed to measure effect
sizes.

3.1 Context and Participants

The context of the present study is the monolingual autonomous community of

Extremadura, which is situated in the south-west of Spain, on the border with
Portugal, and which has very little tradition in bilingual education (from 2004
onwards). At the present time there are 274 CLIL schools in Extremadura at Primary
and Secondary Education stages.
The sample under control comprises 318 students from 10 schools (public and
charter). The control group (non-CLIL) consists of 162 learners, while the remaining
156 learners form the experimental group (CLIL). Accordingly, the achievement
results of both student cohorts on the subjects of Science in Primary Education and
Natural Science in Secondary Education are compared across schools, examining the
impact of CLIL on the intervening contextual variables (type of school and educa-
tional level). It is noteworthy that no private school participated in the present study,
so the comparison with this type of school has not been possible in Extremadura.
Table 1 provides an outline of the participating sample.

3.2 Instrument

The data were gathered through an initial questionnaire aimed at collecting personal
data on the participants such as age and educational stage. Science subject knowledge
was measured by CLIL students’ final grades provided by the participating schools
out of a total score of 10, which is the highest grade in the Spanish educational
system.

4 Results and Discussion

RQ1 investigates whether subject matter knowledge is positively or negatively

affected by CLIL education. As can be observed in Table 2, the results of our
176 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

Table 1 The research sample

N Mean (%)
Student cohorts
CLIL 156 49.1
Non-CLIL 162 50.9
Gender
Male 174 54.7
Female 144 45.3
Educational stages
Primary Education (6th grade) 162 50.9
Compulsory Secondary Education (4th grade) 156 49.1
Type of school
Public 252 79.2
Charter 66 20.8
Setting
Urban 113 35.5
Rural 205 64.5

Table 2 Mean difference scores of the experimental (CLIL) and control (non-CLIL) groups on the
subject matter achievement results at both educational stages
Educational level Group Mean Standard deviation Cohen’s d p value
Primary Education Non-CLIL 6.98 1.694 −0.110 .528
CLIL 7.16 1.587
Secondary Education Non-CLIL 6.21 1.817 −0.497 .002
CLIL 7.03 1.443

analysis confirm the positive effects of CLIL programmes on the development of

content subject knowledge by comparing the resulting data of both student cohorts
(CLIL/non-CLIL) (Martínez, 2020). This result is backed up by numerous research
studies which indicate the positive effects of CLIL education on content subject
learning (Jäppinen, 2005; Madrid & Hughes, 2011; Mattheoudakis et al., 2014;
Murray, 2010; Ouazizi, 2016; Pérez Cañado, 2012, 2018; Serra, 2007; Surmont
et al., 2016; Ullmann, 1999; Wode, 1999; Xanthou, 2011).
Once this positive effect has been reported, RQ2 analyses whether CLIL educa-
tion leads to equal or better subject matter knowledge than traditional educational
approaches, particularly whether bilingually educated students learning Science in
Primary Education and Natural Science in Secondary Education perform equally well
or outperform their monolingually educated peers. Unlike Fernández-Sanjurjo et al.
(2017) and Piesche et al.’s (2016) studies, which show that monolingually educated
students perform slightly better than bilingually educated ones when learning subject
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 177

matter knowledge, the results of the present study confirm the opposite view, as
CLIL students’ learning gains are higher than their non-CLIL counterparts’ at both
educational stages, but especially at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education.
According to the results of the present study, bilingual learners assimilate the subject
matter content at more or less the same pace in Primary Education, but clearly outper-
form their non-bilingual peers at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education. This
is in line with several research studies which show comparable or even better results
between both student cohorts (CLIL/non-CLIL) regarding content subject knowl-
edge. For example, Mattheoudakis et al. (2014) confirm that content knowledge is
clearly not negatively affected by CLIL education, reporting that CLIL Greek learners
score higher than their non-CLIL counterparts in Geography tests. In the same vein,
Ouazizi (2016) also concludes that CLIL education leads to better subject matter
knowledge than traditional learning approaches, as Belgian CLIL students obtain
better scores than monolinguals in Mathematics knowledge. Such a difference in
global performance between both student cohorts may be due, among other aspects,
both to the prior careful selection and to the high motivation and interest on the part
of the families and students involved in such bilingual programmes, as suggested
by Alonso et al. (2008). As can be seen in Table 2, while no statistically significant
differences emerge between the experimental (CLIL) and control (non-CLIL) groups
at the end of Primary Education as Cohen’s d is quite low, the differences between
both cohorts are, in contrast, statistically significant when finishing their Secondary
Education studies, with a higher Cohen’s d.
Given that RQ3 addresses whether the impact of CLIL education on content
learning becomes visible in the short or long term, the results of this study confirm
that the differences in academic achievement results between the experimental group
(CLIL) and the control group (non-CLIL) are higher or become more visible in
the long term, particularly when finishing their Secondary Education studies, in
line with other studies in the Spanish context (Alonso et al., 2008; Madrid &
Hughes, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2018). While CLIL students obtain similar scores
or slightly outperform their non-CLIL peers concerning Science knowledge at the
end of Primary Education, bilingually educated students clearly outstrip their mono-
lingually educated counterparts when finishing their Secondary Education studies.
This difference in achievement results seems to become more visible as time goes
by. Perhaps this may be due to the influence of accumulated experience in bilingual
education. In relation to the impact of such experience, the study by Piesche et al.
(2016) reminds us of the possible negative effects of CLIL education on content
learning for students without CLIL experience. In short, this study reveals that the
positive effects of CLIL education require a longer period of time, after which they
will become more visible. However, this finding is not congruent with those obtained
by Van de Craen et al. (2007), who reported that subject matter learning through
CLIL education seems to be boosted more significantly in Primary Education than in
Secondary Education. This result is not congruent either with the longitudinal study
by Surmont et al. (2016), who conclude, in contrast to their expectations, that CLIL
education’s positive effects become visible even after a very short period of time
(three months).
178 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

Our last research question inquires into the differential effect which the inter-
vening contextual variables under control in this study (type of school and educa-
tional stage) exert on the Primary and Secondary CLIL students’ Science learning
outcomes. Consequently, public bilingual and monolingual schools, as well as charter
monolingual ones, were compared in this study.
Considering only public bilingual schools, bilingual students achieve better results
in Science than their non-bilingual counterparts at the end of both educational stages,
which corroborates the benefits of CLIL in terms of content subject learning. Such
results corroborate Madrid and Hughes’s (2011) and Pérez Cañado’s (2018) find-
ings, relating to the fact that bilingual strands outstrip monolingual ones at the end
of Primary and Secondary Education in public schools. While no substantial differ-
ences were observed between both student cohorts at the end of Primary Education,
statistically significant differences were, in contrast, found in favour of CLIL learners
when finishing their Secondary Education studies, in this case, with a higher Cohen’s
d, as can be seen in Table 3.
By comparing both public bilingual schools and charter non-bilingual schools,
the resulting data surprisingly reveal that charter monolingual schools obtain slightly
better results in Science than public bilingual schools only at the end of Primary
Education. In this respect, unsubstantial differences were detected in view of the low
Cohen’s d. However, statistically significant differences between public bilingual
branches and charter non-bilingual ones were found in favour of the former at the
end of Compulsory Secondary Education, with a higher Cohen’s d. In other words,
the results of this study suggest that public bilingual schools outstrip charter non-
bilingual schools only at the end of Secondary Education, which confirms once
again that the positive effects of CLIL on content learning are mainly witnessed or
verified in the long term. However, this finding completely differs from Madrid and
Hughes’s (2011) study, in which charter monolingual schools obtained significantly
better results at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education, thus outperforming
public bilingual ones even in the long term.
Lastly, it is noted that charter non-bilingual schools outperform public non-
bilingual ones at the end of Primary Education, although the differences cannot be
considered statistically significant, with a relatively low Cohen’s d. However, similar
results are obtained by both cohorts in both types of schools at the end of Secondary
Education, with an extremely low Cohen’s d. Consequently, such a finding is not
congruent with that obtained by Madrid and Hughes (2011), who reported that the
public monolingual strands lagged behind the rest of the groups at both educational
stages.
Based on the discriminant analyses performed, statistically significant differences
in fact emerge between the experimental (CLIL) and control (non-CLIL) groups in
terms of the different intervening variables in this study (type of school and educa-
tional level). As can be seen in the tests of equality of group means, the discriminating
potential of such variables becomes visible. To be more specific, Wilks’ Lambda test
reports that there are differences between the mean scores of both student cohorts
on the content subject results, particularly at the end of Compulsory Secondary
Education. In short, such differences between the experimental (CLIL) and control
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 179

Table 3 Subject content results according to educational level and type of school
Educational level Type of Mean Standard deviation Cohen’s d p value
school/Group
Primary Education Public 6.72 1.508 −0.281 .178
school/Non-CLIL
Public 7.16 1.587
school/CLIL
Charter 7.35 1.898 0.114 .638
school/Non-CLIL
Public 7.16 1.587
school/CLIL
Public 6.72 1.508 −0.375 .177
school/Non-CLIL
Charter 7.35 1.898
school/Non-CLIL
Educational level Type of Mean Standard deviation Cohen’s d p value
school/Group
Secondary Education Public 6.22 1.821 −0.497 .005
school/Non-CLIL
Public 7.03 1.443
school/CLIL
Charter 6.17 1.855 −0.562
school/Non-CLIL
Public 7.03 1.443 .035
school/CLIL
Public 6.22 1.821 0.027
school/Non-CLIL
Charter 6.17 1.855 .915
school/Non-CLIL

(non-CLIL) groups cannot be exclusively ascribed to the impact of CLIL education,

as the type of school and educational level contextual variables also have a significant
influence in explaining the differences found between both cohorts, as can be seen
in Tables 4 and 5.
All in all, statistical analysis allows us to conclude that CLIL education does not
negatively affect subject content knowledge but rather the opposite. Additionally, the

Table 4 Test of equality of group means

Primary Education Wilk’s Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.
Type of school .568 121.481 1 160 .000
Secondary Education Wilk’s Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.
Type of school .882 20.546 1 154 .000
Subject content results .941 9.596 1 154 .002
180 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

Table 5 Summary of canonical discriminant functions

Primary education
Function Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative % Canonical correlation
1 .759 100.0 100.0 .657
Test of function Wilks’ Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 .568 90.100 1 .000
Secondary education
Function Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative % Canonical correlation
1 .194 100.0 100.0 .403
Test of function Wilks’ Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 .838 27.129 2 .000

results also reveal that the effects of CLIL education (as an independent variable)
are substantial on the content subject learning results (as the dependent variable),
especially at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education; that is, positive CLIL-
effects are particularly felt in the long term, which corroborates Pérez Cañado’s
(2018) findings. The discriminating potential of type of school and educational level
(as intervening contextual variables) may also account for the differences detected
between the experimental (CLIL) and control (non-CLIL) groups.

5 Conclusion

After reviewing what the research literature has revealed so far, the present study aims
to shed some light on this unexplored research topic, providing updated empirical
evidence on the positive effects of CLIL education on the development of subject
matter knowledge in Primary and Secondary Education when compared to traditional
educational approaches in a monolingual Spanish region with very little bilingual
education tradition.
In response to RQ1, the results of the present study confirm that subject matter
knowledge is not diminished or detrimentally affected by the impact of CLIL educa-
tion, but quite the opposite. Turning now to RQ2 and in view of the data obtained, it
can be concluded that CLIL education strands lead to better subject matter knowledge
than traditional mainstream school programmes. While no substantial differences
are found at the end of Primary Education, statistically significant differences are,
in contrast, detected when finishing their Secondary Education studies. In relation
to RQ3, the results suggest that positive CLIL-effects are clearly observable in the
experimental group (CLIL students) at the end of Compulsory Secondary Educa-
tion, which indicates that positive CLIL-effects become more noticeable in the long
term. As regards the last RQ, the results allow us to state that the two intervening
contextual variables (type of school and educational level) have a discriminating
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 181

potential, as bilingually educated students obtain better results than monolingually

educated students at both educational stages in public schools only. However, when
comparing both public bilingual and charter non-bilingual schools, the results surpris-
ingly reveal that there are clear-cut differences in the learning achievement results of
both student cohorts depending on type of school and educational stage: while charter
non-bilingual strands outperform public bilingual schools at the end of Primary
Education (unsubstantial differences), the bilingually educated students’ learning
gains, in contrast, are higher than the monolingually educated ones when finishing
their Secondary Education studies (statistically significant differences). Perhaps a
possible convincing reason for the higher scores of bilingually educated students in
Natural Science at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education lies precisely in the
value of the accumulated experience in bilingual education. To a lesser extent, the
discriminating potential of the intervening variables is also observed when comparing
both non-bilingual charter schools and non-bilingual public ones, since while the
former outperform the latter at the end of Primary Education, similar achievement
results are surprisingly found at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education in both
types of schools. It must be added that no statistically significant differences are in
fact detected at both educational stages in both types of schools. All in all, the results
of the present study confirm the differential effect of the two intervening contextual
variables of this study, which may account for the differences ascertained between
both student cohorts.
In short, the findings of this study confirm the educational value and effectiveness
of CLIL education in comparison with traditional educational approaches as the
experimental group (CLIL) obtains better results in subject matter knowledge than
the control group (non-CLIL), especially in the long term. In this chapter, two factors
have been targeted as influential for explaining variation in content subject learning
results: type of school and educational stage.
Since the current state of CLIL research is somewhat sparse, methodologically
limited and contradictory (Cenoz et al., 2014; Dallinger et al., 2016), further longi-
tudinal research studies are certainly needed in this direction to investigate the real
impact of CLIL education on the development of subject matter knowledge. Partic-
ularly, Mattheoudakis et al. (2014) advocate the need for further investigations into
the strategies CLIL learners use in order to comprehend the concepts presented in
the foreign language. Future research studies need to address the impact of CLIL
on subject matter knowledge, over shorter and longer periods of time, but also in
different learning contexts and with different age groups, as suggested by Surmont
et al. (2016). Lastly, the emotional impact of CLIL education on subject matter
learning, which remains an unexplored research area to date, calls for further inves-
tigation in the future so as to be able to understand how and under what affective and
contextual conditions content subject learning actually develops.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competi-
tiveness [research grant number FFI2012-32221] and the Government of Andalusia [research grant
number P12-HUM-2348] (Project: The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in
Monolingual Communities: A Large-Scale Evaluation).
182 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

References

Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual Secondary Education in the
Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12(1), 75–93.
Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in Secondary schools:
Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 36–49.
Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J. M. (2016). Evaluating a bilingual education program in Spain:
The impact beyond foreign language learning. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1202–1223.
Bergroth, M. (2006). Immersion students in the matriculation examination three years after immer-
sion. In S. Björklund, K. Mard-Miettinen, M. Bergström, & M. Södergard (Eds.), Exploring
dual-focussed education: Integrating language and content for individual and societal needs
(pp. 123–134). Vaasa: University of Vaasa, Centre for Immersion and Multilingualism.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating Some of the Research.
System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41, 587–597. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and
U. Smit (2014). System, 53, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005.
Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The Andalusian bilingual sections scheme: Evaluation and
consultancy. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 36–46.
Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and
pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 389–
394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777392.
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and Content and Language Integrated Learning: The
same or different? Language, Culture & Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/079
08318.2014.1000922.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking
forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011.
Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives.
In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL / EMILE—The European dimension: Actions, trends, and foresight
potential (pp. 27–28). DG Education & Culture, European Commision, University of Jyväskylä.
Coyle, D. (2007). The CLIL quality change. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts-
converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 47–58). Bern: Peter Lang.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In M. Van Dusen-
Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 97–111). New
York: Springer.
Coyle, D. (2010). Preface. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain:
Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fieg, C. (2016). The effects of Content and Language
Integrated Learning on students’ English and history competences—Killing two birds with one
stone? Learning and Instruction, 41, 23–31.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classrooms.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future Perspectives
for English Language Teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles?
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
The Effects of CLIL on Subject Matter Learning … 183

Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels:
Eurydice.
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias, J. M. (2017). Analysing students’
content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 1–14.
Halbach, A. (2008). Bilingual methodology in Primary schools. Revista de Educación, 346, 455–
466.
Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of Mathematics and Science as cognitional
development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign
language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168.
Kerstin, L. (2013). CLIL in Spain—Why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across
contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–
320.
Lasagabaster, D., & López, R. (2015). The impact of type of approach (CLIL versus EFL) and
methodology (book-based versus project work) on motivation. Porta Linguarum, 23, 41–57.
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain. Implementation, results and
teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than
similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 376–395.
Madrid, D. (2011). Monolingual and bilingual students’ competence in social sciences. In D. Madrid
& S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in bilingual education (pp. 195–222). Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang.
Madrid, D., & Hughes, S. (2011). Introduction to bilingual education. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes
(Eds.), Studies in bilingual education (pp. 17–50). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning. In C. Chapelle
(Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 911–920). Oxford: Blackwell.
Marsh, H., Hau, K.-T., & Kong, C.-K. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction in
Hong Kong High Schools: Achievement growth in language and nonlanguage subjects. Harvard
Educational Review, 70, 302–347.
Martínez, J. d. D. (2020). To what extent does parental educational background affect CLIL
learners’ content subject learning? Evidence from research in Spain. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
70050.2020.1715916.
Mattheoudakis, M., Alexiou, T., & Laskaridou, C. (2014). To CLIL or not to CLIL? The case of the
3rd experimental Primary school in Evosmos. In N. Lavidas, T. Alexiou, & A. M. Sougari (Eds.),
Major trends in theoretical and applied linguistics: Selected papers from the 20th international
symposium from theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 215–233). London: DeGruyter Versitas
Publications.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL, Content and Language Integrated
Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
Muñoz, C. (2002). Relevance & potential of CLIL. In D. Marsh (Ed.), The European dimension:
Actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 33–36). Strasbourg, European Commission.
Murray, D. R. (2010). Irish-medium language immersion programs’ effect on mathematics
education. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 1, 28–32.
Nikula, T. (2016). CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl &
S. May (Eds.), Second and foreign language education (pp. 1–14). New York: Springer.
Nikula, T., & K. Mard-Miettinen. (2014). Language learning in immersion and CLIL classrooms.
In J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–26). John Benjamins
Publishing Group.
Ouazizi, K. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (Mathematics) and the
target language (English). Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning,
9(1), 110–137.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014.
184 J. d. D. Martínez Agudo

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
70050.2011.630064.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current
CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching Language and Literature, 9(1), 9–31. https://
doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance
between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.
1515/applirev-2016-2001.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical
evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002.
Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & KeBler, J.-U. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled
field experiment with sixthgrade students on the effects of content and language integrated science
learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–116.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231–243.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at Primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582–602. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb461.0.
Sotoca, E. (2014). La repercusión del bilingüismo en el rendimiento académico en alumnos de
colegios públicos de la Comunidad de Madrid. Revista Complutense de Educación, 25(2), 481–
500.
Stehler, U. (2006). The acquisition of knowledge in bilingual learning: An empirical study on the
role of language in content learning. Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3): 41–46.
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on
mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6(2), 319–337.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Berlin: Springer.
Ullmann, M. (1999). History and geography through French: CLIL in a UK Secondary school. In J.
Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 96–105).
London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., & Mondt, K. (2007). Cognitive development and bilingualism in
Primary schools: Teaching Maths in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse
contexts-converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 185–200). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Wode, H. (1999). Language learning in European immersion classes. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning
through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 16–25). London: Centre for
Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge.
English Teaching: Practique and Critique, 10(4), 116–126.
Advancing CLIL as Bilingual Pedagogy
and Performance in Spain:
A Commentary from ‘el Otro Lado del
Charco’

Cristian R. Aquino Sterling

—A Rodolfo, un tesoro

Abstract Being mindful of his positionality as a scholar working in the United States
of America, del otro lado del charco, the author suggests future challenges and ways
forward for CLIL characteriszation, implementation, and research in light of the state-
of-the-art work presented in this timely edited volume. In asserting how this work
advances CLIL as bilingual pedagogy and performance, Aquino-Sterling outlines
how Pérez-Cañado and colleagues, by virtue of their sound and comprehensive study,
render CLIL as an evidence-based approach to bilingual education; one that, when
implemented in contextually and pedagogically informed ways, has the potential
to yield positive impactful results. Furthermore, this commentary suggests ways in
which CLIL could continue to serve as a powerful pedagogical force for advancing
diversity, equity, and inclusion within Spain’s culturally and linguistically diverse
classroom contexts. Drawing on the critical multilingual tradition in Spain, the author
frames CLIL within its continued potential to serve as a humanising and socially
engaged bilingual pedagogy for all.

At the beginning of the fall 2018 semester, I arrived in the great—alucinante—City

of Madrid to carry out a pilot research study aimed at understanding approaches for
preparing bilingual and foreign language teachers.1 The study was part of a greater
comparative research proposal seeking to identify areas of theoretical, methodolog-
ical, and pedagogical convergence and/or divergence relative to how the work of
bilingual and foreign language teacher education is conceptualised and conducted

1 I am grateful to Dr. Luisa Martín Rojo—Professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)

and Principal Investigator of the Multilingualism, Social Identities, Intercultural Relations, and
Communication Research Group (https://www.mircouam.com/en/)—for her expert guidance and
kind invitation to serve as a MIRCo visiting researcher for the Fall 2018 semester.

C. R. Aquino Sterling (B)

San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 185
M. L. Pérez Cañado (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning
in Monolingual Settings, Multilingual Education 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_10
186 C. R. Aquino-Sterling

in the United States (specifically in the State of California), Spain (specifically in

the Community of Madrid), and Brazil (specifically in Rio de Janeiro).2 Although I
am well aware these countries—and even particular regions within them—have had
unique histories in the conceptualisation, implementation, research, and develop-
ment of “bilingual education,” I felt—and still feel strongly—that obtaining compar-
ative and evidence-based understandings on the state of the art of the field across
national contexts could serve as a way to continue to establish sustained scholarly
collaborations for advancing bi-multi-lingual education at regional, national, and
cross-national level (Aquino-Sterling et al., 2021). Given these experiences, as I
prepared to write this brief commentary, I felt compelled to review my ‘2018 Pre-
sabbatical Research Notes’. In those pages, I came across a set of research questions
that continue to spark my intellectual curiosity. As a way to contextualise the obser-
vations I have the honour to provide in these pages, and since I am still ‘living the
questions’ (Rilke, 1934), I find it fitting to list them below:
1. What is the state of the art in the field of bilingual and foreign language teacher
education in relation to research, theory, and practice in la Comunidad de Madrid
and Rio de Janeiro?3
2. What innovations characterise the field in relation to research, theory, and
pedagogical-instructional practices?
3. What opportunities and challenges pervade the field?
4. What is the vision (or are the visions) for advancing the field?
5. How do these understandings (questions 1–4) compare-contrast with U.S.
realities?
6. Could a comparative analysis help us develop a healthy critical eye in regards to
‘making the familiar strange’ in our respective regional and national contexts?
7. What can we possibly learn from each other’s experiences?
Drawing on some of the critical and essential questions characterising research
in the field of bilingual/dual language education in the United States—as well as
on some of the works emerging out of Spain’s robust critical multilingual education
studies tradition (see, for example, Martín Rojo, 2003, 2010)—I decided to add four
more questions to my ‘2018 Pre-sabbatical Research Notes’. Although not related to
bilingual and foreign language teacher education proper, I consider these questions to
be fundamental for advancing our understandings of bilingual and foreign language
education from diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice standpoints. I remember

2 I am grateful to Dr. Ralph Bannell (Departamento de Educação), Dr. Alexandre Montaury Baptista

Coutinho (Departamento de Letras), Dr. Inés Miller (Departamento de Letras), Dr. Adriana Nobrega
(Departamento de Letras), and Dr. Liliana Cabral Bastos (Departamento de Letras) at Pontificia
Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro for their expert guidance and kind invitation to serve as a
visiting scholar for the Spring 2019 semester.
3 Although in Spain (as well as in Brazil) these fields are closely related, in the United States we

understand bilingual (teacher) education and foreign language or world language (teacher) education
to be separate academic fields of research and practice. These do converge in foundational theoretical
and methodological-instructional aspects, but in the academic imaginary these are two actual and
separate fields.
Advancing CLIL as Bilingual Pedagogy and Performance … 187

thinking of these questions as non-negotiable topics for inquiry once I had addressed
questions 1–7 above:
1. How effective is (public) bilingual/foreign language education from the perspec-
tives of (a) bilingual and/or foreign language teacher educators; (b) K-12 pre-
service and in-service teachers; (c) K-12 students; (d) K-12 parents/guardians,
and (e) the general public?
2. How is this effectiveness perceived in relation to student diversity or ‘super-
diversity’ (i.e. immigrant/migrant status, socio-economic status (SES), race,
ethnicity, cultural background[s], home language[s]; language varieties)?
3. How do these students fair (quantitatively and qualitatively) in terms of
linguistic, academic, and personal and social achievement?
4. How do these understandings (questions 1–3) compare and/or contrast with U.S.
realities?
Although my aim in this commentary is not to discuss the results of the actual4
pilot study I was able to conduct in la Comunidad de Madrid, it is refreshing to read
and comment on this timely and innovative edited volume that, in seeking to illumine
critical aspects of the current Spanish-European Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) controversy, to a degree addresses questions relevant to the ones
posed above in conceptually and methodologically sound, rigorous, and substantive
ways.
While I recognise that I am an ‘outsider’ to the European-Spanish bilingual
and foreign language education tradition, what I’ve learned through my relatively
short, yet eye-opening research experiences in Madrid‚ allows me to read Content
and Language Integrated Learning in Monolingual Settings: New Insights from the
Spanish Context with a complementary set of informed and critical lenses. My end
goal, however, is to suggest future challenges and ways forward for CLIL charac-
terisation, implementation, and research in light of the current CLIL debate and the
quantitative and qualitative evidence signalling CLIL’s positive impact and effective-
ness in a variety of school contexts serving diverse student populations, as well as
specific areas for improvement in the scholarly quest and commitment to continue
to advance CLIL as an effective bilingual pedagogy and performance.
In so doing, however, I am deeply aware of my particular academic position-
ality and the fact that these insights are offered from el otro lado del charco,
and particularly from a place where bilingual dual language education—or the use
of two languages in the instruction and assessment of learners (García, 2009)—
is conducted within relatively distinct political, cultural, linguistic, historical, and
educational landscapes that have given rise to varying programmatic approaches for
educating diverse bilingual learners. It is important to note that although the CLIL
European-Spanish orientation to bilingual education—preceded by North Amer-
ican immersion and bilingual education programmes, as well as European interna-
tional schools (Pérez-Cañado, 2012)—is perhaps closest to U.S. Sheltered Content
Area Instruction—grade-level content area instruction that is provided in English

4 The final pilot study did not address all the preliminary questions formulated and here included.
188 C. R. Aquino-Sterling

but in ways that makes it comprehensible to ELLs while promoting their English
language development—and Structured English Immersion—self-contained grade-
level classrooms with teachers trained to provide language and content instruction
for English Language Learners—(see Wright, 2019), it is clear that U.S. bilingual
programme labels and categorisations are insufficient for grasping or characterising
the complex nature of the CLIL European-Spanish bilingual tradition.
Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010, p. 1) define CLIL as: ‘[…] a dual-focused
educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and
teaching of both content and language’ (cited in Cenoz, 2015, p. 11) and, there-
fore, in trying to understand the CLIL bilingual tradition in relation to U.S. reali-
ties, rather than comparing CLIL to U.S. programmatic models, it might be most
useful to focus on the pedagogical or instructional orientations that serve as foci
for implementing the so-called ‘dual-focused educational approach’ in language
and content education in Spain, namely: Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) and Content-Based Instruction (CBI). In addtition, it is important to note
that although Cenoz (2015) has found that ‘[…] there are no differences between
CBI and CLIL regarding their essential properties’ (p. 21), within a U.S. context,
CBI is usually employed within foreign language (not bilingual/dual language)
programmes (i.e. Foreign Language in Elementary School or ‘FLES’) where students
are not necessarily engaged in learning a foreign or world language through the
content areas or through disciplinary knowledge and standards-based educational
approaches (Tedick & Wesley, 2015). Within U.S. elementary and secondary foreign
language programmes where CBI serves as the organising orientation to content and
language teaching and learning, teachers are not required to scaffold language and
learning (Gibbons, 2015) in order to make sure bilingual learners are provided access
to the school grade-level curriculum. Even though CLIL and CBI teacher knowledge
and competencies have much in common, the performance and implementation of
these language and content pedagogies could and at times do serve different educa-
tional purposes. These comparisons could also be relevant to the CLIL-English as a
Lingua Franca (EFL) commonalities Pérez Cañado indicates in this volume. CLIL
and EFL could most certainly serve complementary educational purposes; yet it is
the differences in instructional purposes that create the real distinction between these
teaching modalities. CLIL’s raison d’être goes beyond the teaching and learning of
English through the disciplines. CLIL’s sphere expands to greater personal, academic,
and social purposes for the thousands of students who are learning through this
medium. For example, it is through CLIL as a language and content pedagogy (and
not through an EFL pedagogy) that students are able to develop disciplinary literacies
or shared ways of reading, writing, thinking, and reasoning within academic fields
(Moje, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008):
Each discipline has unique ways of asking questions and solving problems. Similarly, each
discipline has unique expectations for the types of claims that are made and the way those
claims are supported. These differences play out in the ways that texts are written and
in the demands those texts place on the readers. For these reasons, we can say that each
discipline has its own discourse community, a shared way of using language and constructing
knowledge. (Rainer & Moje, 2012, p. 73)
Advancing CLIL as Bilingual Pedagogy and Performance … 189

1 Advancing CLIL as Bilingual Pedagogy and Performance

With the previous in mind, and alluding to the distinction between linguistic compe-
tence (knowledge of language) and linguistic performance (the way we put that
knowledge to use in real situations) (see Chomsky 1965), the work documented in
this edited volume reflects cierta postura in advancing CLIL both as a sound bilin-
gual pedagogy and as performance. This distinction could assist scholars, educational
stakeholders, and the greater public in reframing the current CLIL debate-controversy
in ways that characterise CLIL as an evidence-based and conceptually and pedagogi-
cally sound approach to bilingual education in Spain (a knowledge and a competence)
that when displayed (or performed) in optimal ways, yields positive and impactful
results. However, when certain conditions are not met, the way CLIL as a bilingual
pedagogy is performed in real situations can yield undesirable effects that if/when
properly addressed will, most definitely, serve to advance the Spanish CLIL bilin-
gual tradition to new heights. Such is the evidence we find in this opportune edited
volume.
In its aim ‘to provide an updated picture of where [Spain] stands in the CLIL
arena’ (Pérez Cañado, this volume), Content and Language Integrated Learning in
Monolingual Settings: New Insights from the Spanish Context helps us to understand
the pedagogical, educational, and social value of CLIL as seen across the 53 schools
and 12 Spanish regions studied. On the other hand, courageously and ethically, the
book does not shy away from identifying areas where the CLIL performance needs
to be augmented. Yet, what are some ways in which, despite the CLIL innovations,
advancements, and hurdles evidenced in this work, CLIL characterisation, imple-
mentation, and research could continue to move forward? I offer, desde el otro lado
del charco, some very brief suggestions below.

2 Future Challenges and Ways Forward

2.1 CLIL Characterisation

In the quest to design a CLIL prototype (a fixed or demarcated form of bilingual

pedagogy and performance), as suggested in the Andalusian case study included
in this volume (Rascón Moreno & Casas Pedrosa), I am reminded of the so-called
‘SIOP Model’ (Echevarría et al., 2012), a comprehensive, coherent, and structured
model for implementing Sheltered English Instruction published in the United States
(https://www.cal.org/siop/lesson-plans/index.html). Given the level of variability in
CLIL performance across Spanish contexts, the value of identifying and documenting
effective practices that are representative or reflective of the goals sought, cannot
be underestimated. This could certainly assist in making sure CLIL teachers are
properly prepared, and that the methodology is faithful and effectively implemented.
One must recognise, however, that this technicist, instrumentalist, and potentionally
190 C. R. Aquino-Sterling

reductionistic approach at (re)configuring and automatising a bilingual pedagogy

could also serve in the deskilling of teachers and the macdonalisation of bilingual
education (Ritzer, 2019). One must avoid the pitfalls of a behaviourist approach
to bilingual teaching and learning (Crawford & Adelman Reyes, 2015) while also
making sure the classroom (and the lives of children) are not negatively impacted
by an ‘anything goes’ instructional approach. It is ultimately this delicate balance
that will prove fruitful in advancing CLIL as bilingual pedagogy and performance
in Spain and the rest of Europe.
Moreover, characterising CLIL as a bilingual pedagogy aimed at just devel-
oping ‘standard’ English competencies will not be sufficient in twenty-first-century
language education. How can CLIL as a bilingual pedagogy plus engage the teaching
and learning of language and content from a multiliteracies (Kalantzis et al., 2010;
The New London Group, 1996) approach? How can CLIL be reconceptualised to
espouse the theorising of language acquisition as multimodal, multisensory, multilat-
eral, and, therefore, multidimensional (Canagarajah, 2007), as referenced by Parra-
Velasco (2020)? In the same way, could CLIL serve an explicit agenda for linguistic
democracy and social change, especially during these challenging times where the
Covid-19 pandemic and social and racial challenges continue to pervade our world? I
believe framing CLIL as a humanising and socially engaged bilingual pedagogy has
the potential to advance CLIL beyond the content area and linguistic needs of the crit-
ical world citizens the world needs (Aquino-Sterling, 2020). If bilingual education
is to serve a greater purpose in our world societies, it must begin to reenvision and
broaden its curriculum and reductionist focus on language. Within a U.S. reality, for
example, bilingual education must begin to pay systemnatic, sustained, and substan-
tive attention to issues of racial justice and anti-Black racism, global warming, social
violence and extremism, and other pressing issues (Aquino-Sterling, C., Gort, M., &
Flores, B.B., Forthcoming). We can no longer afford to reducing the field to issues of
“translanguaging,” a topic that has dominated the conversation for the past decades.

2.2 CLIL Implementation

Reimagining the future of CLIL implementation requires the design and use of
valid assessment and evaluation instruments that measure both student language
and content attainment (Madrid Fernández, Bueno González & Ráez Padilla, this
volume). However, how can the role of formative assessments be expanded to inform
both micro (classroom) and macro (local, regional, national) processes of CLIL
implementation? Even if/when a CLIL prototype is developed, the performance of
CLIL, or the way it is implemented within particular contexts given the knowledge
and competencies of CLIL teachers and other factors, cannot and will not always be
uniform across contexts (just as the local implementation of macro-level educational
policies also varies across contexts). How can the development of valid assessment
instruments be employed in conjunction with formative assessments to obtain a more
Advancing CLIL as Bilingual Pedagogy and Performance … 191

succinct and realistic picture of student linguistic and content achievement and perfor-
mance? Could the design and implementation of valid formative language and content
assessments be explicitly addressed in the CLIL teacher education curriculum?

2.3 CLIL Research

This volume attests to the fact that the present and future of CLIL research in Spain
look bright. In my understanding, this is the very first study characterised by such
comprehensibility and rigour in CLIL effectiveness research in Spain. I would like to
encourage the field, desde este lado del charco, to continue to address questions on
the effectiveness of CLIL—such as the ones that guided this mixed-method study—
while also placing emphasis on identifying how CLIL meets standards of diversity,
equity, inclusion, and social justice for low SES and immigrant student populations
who attend CLIL programmes in Spain. These complementary questions have the
potential to establish CLIL as a distinctly democratic and culturally and linguistically
relevant and sustaining bilingual pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2017) aimed at continuing
to advance human development and freedoms for all.

References

Aquino-Sterling, C. (2020). Humanizing bilingual education: The value of lifelong learning

pedagogies. Virtual Presentation at the São Paulo Open Centre (June 27), São Paulo, Brasil.
Aquino-Sterling, C., Faltis, C., Feng, A., Hamel, R.E., Pereira Siqueira, I.C., Truscott de Mejía,
A.M., Pérez Cañado, M.L., Machado Casas, M. (April 2021). Bilingual Education Around the
World: Cross-National Dialogues on the State of the Art. International Round Table, Diálogos
Virtuales, College of Education, San Diego State University: https://education.sdsu.edu/about/
dei-ia/diversity/dialogos.
Aquino-Sterling, C., Gort, M., Flores, B.B. (forthcoming). Innovative curricular and pedagogical
designs in bilingual teacher education: Bridging the distance with P-12 contexts. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishers.
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisi-
tion. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 923–939.
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same
or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects on the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Crawford, J., & Adelman Reyes, S. (2015). The trouble with SIOP®: How a behaviorist framework,
flawed research, and clever marketing have come to define—and diminish—Sheltered Instruction.
Portland, OR: Institute for Language & Education Policy.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners:
The SIOP Model (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden and Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
192 C. R. Aquino-Sterling

Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Cooland, A. (2010). A multiliteracies perspective on the new literacies. In
E. A. Baker (Ed.), The New literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 61–87).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Martín Rojo, L. (Ed.). (2003). ¿Asimilar o integrar? dilemas ante el multilingüismo en las aulas.
Madrid: Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte.
Martín Rojo, L. (2010). Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms. Berlin, Germany: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature
on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice
in a changing world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Parra-Velasco, M. L. (2020). La enseñanza del español en México: Caleidoscopio de retos y posi-
bilidades para los profesores del siglo XXI. Virtual Lecture at Universidad Autónoma de Baja
California.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341.
Rainer, E., & Moje, E. B. (2012). Building insider knowledge: Teaching students to read, write, and
think within ELA and across the disciplines. English Education, 45(1), 71–90.
Rilke, R. M. (1934). Letters to a young poet. London: Norton & Company.
Ritzer, G. (2019). The Macdonalization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content area literacy. Harvard Education Review, 78, 40–59.
Tedick, D., & Wesley, P. (2015). A review of research on content-based foreign/second language
education in US K-12 contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 25–40.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Wright, W. (2019). Foundations for teaching English language learners (3rd ed.). Philadelphia:
Caslon.