Cover not available
Article published In:
(In)equity Issues in CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Russell Cross
[AILA Review 35:2] 2022
► pp. 250–274

Language testing and the role of CLIL exposure in constructing student profiles

Stakeholders’ views on streaming in the transition from primary to secondary education

ORCID logo | Universidad Complutense de Madrid
This study examines stakeholders’ views on the streaming of students into one of two strands of differing CLIL exposure (High versus Low) in the transition from primary to secondary in the context of Madrid’s Bilingual Education Program. To this end, three groups of stakeholders – primary school leaders, parents and secondary school teachers – were interviewed so as to gather their perspectives on streaming as pertains to: (1) a high-stakes English language test that determines access to the High- and Low-Exposure strands; and (2) the profiles of students participating in these strands. Findings indicate that school leaders prioritise students’ ongoing language learning progress over the high-stakes context of the test, whilst they acknowledge families’ favourable views of the test. Parents’ affective stances reveal that some students experience a certain degree of anxiety in preparation for the test. In addition, participating in the High- or Low-Exposure strands seems to influence teachers’ perceptions of these students as either high or low achievers. These findings are further discussed in terms of the potential implications of streaming and student selection for (in)equity in CLIL programs.
Keywords: CLIL, streaming, stakeholders, language testing, student profiles
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Streaming in Madrid’s BEP
  • 3.Streaming in CLIL
  • 4.The study
  • 5.Research context and participants
  • 6.Research procedure
  • 7.Data analysis
    • 7.1Counterposing views on the KET/PET
    • 7.2Parents’ affective stances on the KET/PET
    • 7.3Representations of the HE and LE students
  • 8.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
References (38)
References
A2 Key for schools. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from [URL]
B1 Preliminary for schools. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from [URL]
Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. E. (2008). Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door openers? In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 456–468). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, E. L. (2012). Mandated tests: Educational reform or quality indicator? In B. R. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture (pp. 3–24). Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bower, K. (2020). School leaders’ perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning in England. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33 (4), 351–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, S. (2020). Unstructured and semistructured interviews. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cross, R. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood.Google Scholar
Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In D. Wolff & D. Marsh (Eds.), Diverse contexts converging goals. Content and language integrated learning in Europe (pp. 91–102). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2), 17–26.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (1995). Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. White Paper on Training and Education. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from [URL]
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.Google Scholar
Fernández-Agüero, M., & Hidalgo-McCabe, E. (2020). CLIL students’ affectivity in the transition between education levels: The effect of streaming at the beginning of secondary education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 21(6), 363–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3), 343–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (2009). Taking an elitist stance: Ideology and the discursive production of social distinction. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 195–226). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kensler, L. A. W., Caskie, G. I. L., Barber, M. E., & White, G. P. (2009). The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19 1, 697–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya. (2021). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55 (2), 366–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madrid, Comunidad Bilingüe. (2016–17). Portal de transparencia, Comunidad de Madrid. Retrieved on 21 Fecruary 2023 from: [URL]
Martín Rojo, L., & Molina, C. (2017). Cosmopolitan stance negotiation in multicultural academic settings. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21 (5), 672–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massler, U. (2012). Primary CLIL and its stakeholders: What children, parents and teachers think of the potential merits and pitfalls of CLIL modules in Primary teaching. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 1, 36–46.Google Scholar
Mediavilla, M., Mancebón, M. J., Gómez- Sancho, J. M., & Pires, L. (2019). Bilingual education and school choice: A case study of public secondary schools in the Spanish Region of Madrid. IEB Working. [URL]
Mehisto, P. (2012). Excellence in bilingual education: A guide for school principals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F., Light, R., & Sacher, A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (4), 797–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Rubio, F. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes, Porta Linguarum, 14 1, 45–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ráez-Padilla, J. (2018). Parent perspectives on CLIL implementation: Which variables make a difference? Porta Linguarum, 29 1, 181–196. DOI logoGoogle 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
Regional Education Government (2017). Orden 972/2017, de 7 de abril, de la Consejería de Educación, Juventud y Deporte, por la que se regulan los institutos bilingües español-inglés de la Comunidad de Madrid. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from [URL]
San Isidro, X. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory into Practice, 57 (3), 185–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001a). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18 (4), 373–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001b). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2018). “Low ability,” participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55 (1), 40–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Somers, T., & Llinares, A. (2021). Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24 (6), 839–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, F. L. (2022). Socioeconomic status, English exposure and CLIL motivation in high and low exposure CLIL groups. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 5 (1), 41–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar