Cover not available
Article published In:
(In)equity Issues in CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Russell Cross
[AILA Review 35:2] 2022
► pp. 321–350

Inclusive CLIL

Pre-vocational pupils’ target language oral proficiency, fluency, and Willingness to Communicate

ORCID logo | Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences
| Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences
| Utrecht University

Bilingual education using a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach seems in many contexts to select or attract the more able and more academically-inclined pupils, or only be available to pupils in higher academic secondary streams. Positive effects of CLIL for target language proficiency development may therefore be due in part to this cognitive or academic selection effect. Can the target language skills of pupils with lower scholastic attainment – a group which, in several educational contexts, has less access to CLIL programs – also benefit from the CLIL approach?

This two-year longitudinal quasi-experimental research, part of a larger study, focused on the development of oral proficiency skills of three cohorts of 603 pre-vocational pupils in 25 classes in the Netherlands in both CLIL and non-CLIL programs. Despite the lack of explicit school-based selection procedures for pre-vocational pupils’ participation in CLIL, there were significant differences in favor of the CLIL groups in the initial levels of English oral proficiency, fluency, and Willingness to Communicate. Furthermore, the CLIL pupils showed significantly more growth than the non-CLIL control group in English oral proficiency, but not for fluency or Willingness to Communicate. This positive result for the CLIL group did not appear to be moderated by pupil background variables. Despite the small effect sizes found, these results indicate that the CLIL approach can have a positive effect on the foreign language proficiency of pupils in less academic educational streams.

Keywords: bilingual education, CLIL, content and language integrated learning, inclusion, pre-vocational secondary education, oral proficiency, speaking, willingness to communicate
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • CLIL selectivity
    • The present study
  • Method
    • Design
    • Procedure
    • Participants
    • Instruments
      • Biodata questionnaire
      • Speaking test: Oral proficiency and oral fluency
      • Willingness to Communicate
      • Speaking assessors
  • Analyses
    • Reliability
    • Regression analyses
  • Results
    • Speaking proficiency, z-scores
    • Speaking fluency: Number of English words
    • Willingness to Communicate: ‘London’ and ‘School’
  • Discussion and conclusion
    • Limitations and recommendations
    • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22020.den
References
ADiBE Project (Attention to Diversity in Bilingual Education
n.d.). Retrieved on 22 Febuary 2023 from [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albers, M. J.
(2017) Introduction to Quantitative Data Analysis in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. D.
(1990) Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20 1, 93–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A.
(2008) Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1): 36–49.Google Scholar
Baïdak, N., Balcon, M. P., & Motiejunaite, A.
(2017) Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. 2017 edition. Eurydice report. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission. Retrieved on 22 February from [URL]
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D.
(2000) The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language learning, 50 (2), 311–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergh, L. van den, Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & W. Holland, R. W.
(2010) The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 47 (2), 497–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bot, K. de, & Maljers, A.
(2009) De enige echte vernieuwing: Tweetalig onderwijs. In R. de Graaff & D. Tuin (Eds.), De toekomst van het talenonderwijs: Nodig? Anders? Beter? (pp. 131–146). IVLOS, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Boyson, B. A., Rhodes, N. C., & Thompson, L. E.
(2009) Administrator’s manual for CAL Foreign Language Assessments, Grades K-8. Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Breukelen, G. J. P. van
(2013) ANCOVA versus CHANGE from baseline in nonrandomized studies: The difference. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48 1, 895–922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broca, Á.
(2016) CLIL and non-CLIL: Differences from the outset. Elt Journal, 70 (3), 320–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A.
(2011a) 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39 (4), 523–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41 (3), 587–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge English key for schools: Teacher’s handbook
(2012) University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.Google Scholar
CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek)
(2016) VO; leerlingen, onderwijssoort, leerjaar, herkomstgroepering, generatie [data file]. Retrieved on 22 February from [URL]
CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment)
2001 Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg. Retrieved on 22 February from [URL]
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
(2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35 (3), 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D.
(2003) Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22 (2), 190–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collier, V. P.
(1989) How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL quarterly, 23 (3), 509–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Bower, K., Foley, Y., & Hancock, J.
(2021) Teachers as designers of learning in diverse, bilingual classrooms in England: An ADiBE case study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J.
(1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., & Hollm, J.
(2018) Selectivity of content and language integrated learning programmes in German secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (1), 93–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C.
(2016) The effect of content and language integrated learning on students’ English and history competences – Killing two birds with one stone? Learning and Instruction, 41 1, 23–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 1, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) CLIL in Practice: What does the research tell us? Available from [URL]
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindlegger, V., & Smit, U.
(2008) CLIL an Österreichischen HTLs. Project Report. University of Vienna/BMUKKGoogle Scholar
Denessen, E. J. P. G.
(2017) Dealing responsibly with differences: Socio-cultural backgrounds and differentiation in education. Inaugural Lecture, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Denman, J., van Schooten, E., & de Graaff, R.
(2018) Attitudinal factors and the intention to learn English in pre-vocational secondary bilingual and mainstream education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7 (2), 203–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escobar Urmeneta, C.
(2004) Content and language integrated learning: Do they learn content? Do they learn language? In J. D. Anderson, J. M. Oro, & J. Varela (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives from the classroom: Language teaching in a multicultural Europe (pp. 27–38). Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
(2019) An introduction to content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for teachers and teacher educators. CLIL. Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2 (1), 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feddermann, M., Möller, J. Y., & Baumert, J.
(2021) Effects of CLIL on second language learning: Disentangling selection, preparation, and CLIL-effects. Learning and Instruction, 74 1, 101459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia López, M., & Bruton, A.
(2013) Potential drawbacks and actual benefits of CLIL initiatives in public secondary schools. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience (pp. 256–274). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F.
(1987) Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House.Google Scholar
(2004) What do we know about bilingual education for majority-language students? In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Richie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 547–576). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F., & Fortune, T. W.
(2014) Bilingual education and at-risk students. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2 (2), 196–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gierlinger, E. W.
(2007) Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: Some insights from a research project in Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 79–118). Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L.
(2013) Effects of the content and language integrated learning approach to EFL teaching: A comparative study. Written Language & Literacy, 16 (2), 186–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47 (2), 246–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Determinants of EFL learning success in content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 50 (1), 103–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hox, J. J.
(2010) Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Quantitative methodology series (2nd ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juan, M.
2010 Oral fluency development in secondary education CLIL learners. Vienna English Working Papers (Views), 19 (3), 42–48.Google Scholar
Kang, S.
(2005) Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33 1, 227–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraay, A. P. de
(2016) Differentiation to improve the articulation between levels in the teaching of English in primary and secondary education in the Netherlands (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.
Küppers, A., & Trautmann, M.
(2013) It is not CLIL that is a success – CLIL students are! Some critical remarks on the current CLIL boom. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe: Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 285–296). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lahuerta, A.
(2020) Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gender. The Language Learning Journal 48 (2), 121–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D.
(2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1 (1), 30–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lialikhova, D.
(2018) Triggers and constraints of lower secondary students’ willingness to communicate orally in English in a CLIL setting in the Norwegian context. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6 (1), 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P.
(2010) 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Rico, N.
(2021) Equity in bilingual education: Socioeconomic status and content and language integrated learning in monolingual Southern Europe. Applied Linguistics, 42 (3), 393–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. R., Clément, R., & MacIntyre, P. D.
(2003) Willingness to communicate in a L2 in a bilingual context: A qualitative investigation of Anglophone and Francophone students (Unpublished manuscript). Cape Breton University. Available on 22 February 2023 from 10.1.1.585.2454&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S.
(2001) Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies on Second Language Acquisition, 23 1, 369–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A.
(2002) Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52 (3), 537–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A.
(1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (4), 545–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madrid, D., & Barrios, E.
(2018) A comparison of students’ educational achievement across programmes and school types with and without CLIL provision. Porta Linguarum, 29 1, 29–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D.
(2002) CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. UniCOM.Google Scholar
(2013) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A development trajectory. Universidad de Córdoba.Google Scholar
Mearns, T., de Graaff, R., & Coyle, D.
(2020) Motivation for or from bilingual education? A comparative study of learner views in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23 (6), 724–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menezes, E., & Juan-Garau, M.
(2015) English learners’ willingness to communicate and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 221–236). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D.
(2018) The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28 (1), 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mewald, C.
(2007) A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 139–178). Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E.
(2019) Second language learning theories (4th ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morinaj, J., Hadjar, A., & Hascher, T.
(2020) School alienation and academic achievement in Switzerland and Luxembourg: A longitudinal perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 23 1, 279–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naber, R., & Lowie, W.
(2012) Hoe vroeger, hoe beter? Een onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van vroeg vreemdetalenonderwijs. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 13 (4), 13–21.Google Scholar
Nederlands Jeugdinstituut
. Cijfers over jeugd met een migratieachtergrond 7 June 2021 Retrieved on 22 February 2023 from [URL]
Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E.
(2016) The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of L2 competences and skills in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16 (2), 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T.
(2017) CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second and foreign language education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paran, A.
(2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4 (2), 317–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L.
(2018) CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29 1, 51–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal, 48 (1), 4–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Vidal, C.
(2009) The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 3–16). Richmond.Google Scholar
Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Keßler, J. U.
(2016) CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth-grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44 1, 108–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (pp. 163–177. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rumlich, D.
(2017) CLIL theory and empirical reality – Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5 (1), 110–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Isidro, X.
(2010) An insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and results. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 55–78). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Schwab, G.
(2013) Bili für alle? Ergebnisse und Perspektiven eines Forschungsprojektes zur Einführung bilingualer Module in einer Hauptschule. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe: Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 297–314). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schwab, G., Keßler, J. U., & Hollm, J.
(2014) CLIL goes Hauptschule. Chancen und Herausforderungen bilingualen Unterrichts an einer Hauptschule. Zentrale Ergebnisse einer Longitudinalstudie. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 25 (1), 3–37.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Vanhees, C., Smits, T., & Van De Putte, K.
(2019) Remedying Foreign Language Anxiety through CLIL? A mixed-methods study with pupils, teachers and parents. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 14 1, 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smala, S.
(2023) Situated emergence of CLIL. E. Codó, E. (Ed.), Global CLIL: Critical, ethnographic and language policy perspectives (pp. 52–73). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smiskova, H., Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W.
(2012) Conventionalized ways of saying things (CWOSTs) and L2 development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Somers, T.
(2017) Content and language integrated learning and the inclusion of immigrant minority language students: A research review. International Review of Education, 63 (4), 495–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Standaard Tweetalig vmbo
n.d.). Nuffic: De Nederlandse organisatie voor internationalisering in onderwijs. Retrieved on 22 February 2020 from [URL]
Verspoor, de Bot, & van Rein
(2011) English as a foreign language. The role of out-of-school language input. In A. De Houwer & A. Wilton (Eds.) English in Europe today: Sociocultural and educational perspectives (pp. 147–166) John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Xu, X., & de Bot, C. J. L.
(2013) Verslag OTTO-2 aan Europees platform. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Universiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X.
(2015) The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3 (1), 4–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
(2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (3), 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westhoff, G.
(2005) Talenquest: beloften en valkuilen. Levende Talen Magazine, 92 (4), 12–14.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.
(1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. University of Hawaii at Manoa. DOI logoGoogle Scholar