EditorialNew challenges for CLIL research: Identifying (in)equity issues
Abstract
Recent studies on CLIL have revealed contradictory results regarding its role in enhancing equal opportunities and social inclusion. This special issue draws on the theme of the CLIL ReN symposium at AILA 2021, “CLIL Pedagogy and Greater Fairness, Equity, and Inclusion”, and the papers in this volume address both opportunities and challenges of CLIL in contributing to equity and inclusion. The special issue seeks to question, explore, and understand how CLIL might have the potential or not to contribute to greater equity and access to quality educational provision, with attention to not only the learning of languages, but also of content. (In)equity in CLIL will be addressed through conceptual as well as empirical studies which focus on different contexts (Argentina, Australia, Japan, Spain, and The Netherlands) and different educational levels (primary, secondary, pre-vocational studies, and pre-service teacher education).
Introduction
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was born in Europe in the 1990s with the aim of improving and enhancing language learning competences of European citizens. Almost from the beginning, and with limited information on the actual effectiveness of CLIL implementation, CLIL was defended as pedagogically innovative, not only for foreign/second language learning but for education in general. In fact, Dalton-Puffer et al. (2010Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010) Charting promises premises and research on content and language integrated learning. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit. (Eds.) Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 1–19). John Benjamins. 
, p. 3) indicated how CLIL immediately acquired the characteristics of “a brand name, complete with the symbolic capital of positive description: innovative, modern, effective, efficient and forward-looking”. Some years later, in line with the growing implementation of CLIL programmes in different parts of the world, words of caution started to emerge and the need for research that could provide solid insights on the effect of CLIL implementation was highlighted. In Cenoz et al.’s (2014Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics,
35
(3), 243–262. , p. 258) words: “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. It is important that there not be just more research, but rather more critical research on CLIL”. In parallel to this dichotomy between celebratory and more critical views of CLIL in academia, popular beliefs both in favour or against CLIL programmes by different stakeholders (parents, teachers, and society in general) also began to grow in some CLIL contexts.
As a result, much of the research in the last ten years has turned its attention inward, to clarifying the mechanics of CLIL as an approach. This includes building a greater understanding of the role of language when integrated alongside new knowledge (e.g., Llinares et at., 2012Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.; Nikula et al., 2016Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2016) Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. ), the relationship between communicative functions and the cognitive demands when students engage with new content (Dalton-Puffer, 2013Dalton-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), 216–253. ; Morton, 2020Morton, T. (2020) Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education,
3
(1), 7–17. ), and to what extent pedagogical tools that originally emerged as meaningful for CLIL practitioners in European settings have the potential to carry into new educational settings in other parts of the world (e.g., Watanabe et al., 2011Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M., & Izumi, S. (2011) CLIL – New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University: Volume 1, principles and methodologies. Sophia University Press.; Lin, 2016Lin, A. M. (2016) Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. ; Cross, 2013Cross, 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 Training.). Emerging alongside this work, at a more fundamental level, has been a parallel focus on building greater definitional and conceptual clarity on “what CLIL is” in the context of many other similar yet different approaches to bilingual education including content-based language instruction, English medium instruction (EMI), dual-language education, and immersion schooling (Bower et al., 2020Bower, K., Coyle, D., Cross, R., & Chambers, G. N. (Eds.) (2020) Curriculum integrated language teaching. Cambridge University Press. ; Cenoz et al., 2014Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics,
35
(3), 243–262. ; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014Dalton-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, & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics,
35
(2), 213–218. ; Coyle, 2018Coyle, D. (2018) The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education. Theory Into Practice,
57
(3), 166–176. ; Coyle & Meyer, 2021Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021) Beyond CLIL. Cambridge University Press. ; Cross, 2015 (2015) Defining content and language integrated learning for languages education in Australia. Babel,
49
(2), 4–15.; Lasagabaster, 2022Lasagabaster, D. (2022) English-medium instruction in higher education. Cambridge University Press. ; Llinares, 2015Llinares, A. (2015) Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
28
(1), 58–73. ).
However, beyond this focus on CLIL itself as the primary object of research, there has been growing awareness of the impact of CLIL on the settings within which it is has been introduced, including its impact on schools and education systems, teachers, and, most importantly, learners. One issue that has generated concern both in the research and teaching communities is whether CLIL enhances or diminishes equal opportunities for learners, not only in terms of language development but in their academic development in general.
Research insights on CLIL equity issues: Opportunities and words of caution
In a seminal paper on the role of second language acquisition in a multilingual world, the Douglas Fir group (2016Douglas Fir Group (2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal,
100
(S1), 19–47. , p. 32) refer to how expectations about learners are influenced by discourse communities and institutions and how “these expectations, in turn, shape learners’ investments in particular linguistic practices”. For understanding the multifaceted nature of language and teaching, the Douglas Fir group highlights the importance of recognising how micro, meso, and macro levels are interconnected and to what extent one impacts the other. The micro level refers to the specific context of language use and interaction, such as the types of classroom activities that learners are engaged in. At the meso level, these activities are situated within particular institutions, with specific sociocultural conditions that either provide or restrict access to particular types of social experiences. For example, the socioeconomic area within which schools are located will impact on teaching practices and, ultimately, on learning. Finally, at the macro level there are large-scale, ideological structures that shape language policies which have flow-on effects to institutions and, ultimately, classroom practices.
In the case of CLIL, due to the variety of programmes and approaches, the Douglas Fir group’s (2016)Douglas Fir Group (2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal,
100
(S1), 19–47. framework can be a useful lens for understanding the complexity of CLIL and to what extent CLIL programmes enhance equal opportunities for learners. In the next sections we will first address opportunities and then risks through the lens of these three levels of interdependence.
CLIL as window of opportunities for equity in education
Ideological macrostructures clearly shape the types of programmes implemented in schools as well as the types of activities carried out in the classroom. For example, the choice of the language of instruction is an effect of policies that go beyond educational institutions. Despite the enhancement of multilingualism and European citizens’ mastery of different European languages being a key motivation for supporting CLIL by European authorities, the reality is that globalization and internationalisation has meant that English has very often been the language of instruction in CLIL, leading Dalton-Puffer et al. (2010) (2010) Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 279–291). John Benjamins. to use CEIL, or ‘Content and English Integrated Learning’, as an alternative to CLIL. In fact, the prominent role of English in CLIL is one feature shared by CLIL programmes which differ in many other aspects (see, for example, Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2019Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (2019) Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave. on CLIL in Spain and Japan). This position of English as a ‘new’ language for both mainstream children and migrant children in CLIL programmes has been considered an opportunity to foster equity in education. According to Somers (2017Somers, 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. , p. 495), CLIL can represent a window of opportunities for immigrant children: “CLIL programmes are found to offer immigrant minority language students educational opportunities and effective pedagogical support which existing mainstream monolingual and minority bilingual education programmes may not always be able to provide”. In other words, the pervasive presence of English in CLIL may have its positive counterpart in terms of levelling the language challenges that learners from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds meet in understanding and expressing academic content.
At a meso level, the democratization of bilingual/multilingual education with the growing implementation of CLIL programmes in state schools and in different socioeconomic areas (rather than elite private schools alone) has meant greater opportunities for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to learn additional languages, a symbolic capital that was often only accessible to children from high socioeconomic and income families. As argued by Smala et al. (2013Smala, S., Paz, J. B., & Lingard, B. (2013) Languages, cultural capital, and school choice: Distinction and second-language immersion programmes. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
34
(3), 373–391. , pp. 386–387) in reference to bilingual educational provision in Australia, “the fact that immersion programmes in Queensland are almost exclusively offered in state schools is redefining the perspective that access to such capital is usually reserved for elite social classes with more economic capital and related access to resources of multiple kinds”. In some countries like Spain, this democratization in access to bilingual education already took place in the 1990s with the implementation of the British Council/Ministry of Education bilingual programme which enabled opportunities for children attending primary and secondary state schools in diverse socioeconomic areas in different parts of Spain (Reilly & Medrano, 2009Reilly, T. & Medrano, P. (2009) MEC/British Council Bilingual Project. Twelve years of education and a smooth transition into secondary. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels London (pp. 59–70). Richmond.).
Recent studies have even shown the positive role of CLIL in not only expanding learners’ opportunities to learn additional languages but also in reducing the effects of social disadvantage at school in general. Lorenzo et al. (2021)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. , for example, show that CLIL is particularly beneficial for supporting the academic performance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, while, in contrast, a positive correlation was found between students’ socioeconomic status and school performance in monolingual (non-CLIL) schools in Andalucía (i.e., reinforcing existing problematic patterns of advantage and disadvantage). Similarly, Fielding and Harbon (2022)Fielding, R., & Harbon, L. (2022) Dispelling the monolingual myth: Exploring literacy outcomes in Australian bilingual programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
25
(3), 997–1020. have shown how four bilingual schools drawing on CLIL strategies in Australian settings led to more positive overall literacy and numeracy outcomes compared to monolingual students, irrespective of contextual factors, including socioeconomic status.
Words of caution
As pointed out above, although CLIL was born as a European endeavour with the purpose of enhancing European citizens’ mastery of two languages plus their L1, along with the idea of promoting the learning of different European languages, the reality is that English is the language of instruction in most CLIL programmes in non-Anglophone contexts. This predominance of English is also not just a European issue, having become even more evident as CLIL has spread to Asian countries. Language policies in countries like Taiwan or Vietnam clearly position English as the language of CLIL. As Hüttner (2017Hüttner, J. (2017) ELF and Content and Language Integrated Learning. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W. & Dewey, M. (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 481–493). Routledge. , pp. 489–490) points out, “CLIL can be seen as a set of localised educational responses to the rise of English as a global lingua franca, acknowledged in stakeholder beliefs, even if official EU policies continue to negate any unique status of English”.
This Anglicization of bilingual/multilingual education has been the focus of much recent scholarship, some of which has drawn attention to the dangers of discrimination against programmes involving less prestigious languages. In reference to bilingual education programmes in Madrid (Spain), for example, Martin Rojo (2010)Martín Rojo, L. (2010) Educating in multilingual and multicultural schools in Madrid. In L. Martín Rojo (Ed.), Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms (pp. 15–50). Mouton de Gruyter. highlights issues of inequality that emerge in the prestige and support afforded to CLIL programmes with English as the target language, compared to corresponding programmes being offered by regional educational authorities that involve languages of the community as a result of immigration (e.g., Arabic). So, interestingly, and contradictorily enough, although some CLIL programmes were born with the purpose of offering exposure to English and other (foreign) languages to students of all social classes, in contrast to bilingual and immersion programmes only offered to the elite in private schools, distinctions and potential discrimination can still arise between students in CLIL and other state bilingual programmes (Martín Rojo, 2010Martín Rojo, L. (2010) Educating in multilingual and multicultural schools in Madrid. In L. Martín Rojo (Ed.), Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms (pp. 15–50). Mouton de Gruyter. ), as well as between CLIL and non-CLIL schools/strands in the same school (e.g., Broca, 2016Broca, A. (2016) CLIL and non-CLIL: Differences from the outset. ELT Journal,
70
(
3
), 320–331. ).
Still at a macro level, and again related to ideologies, the risk for inequity also arises not only between CLIL and other types of bilingual programmes, or even between CLIL and non-CLIL schools or strands in schools, but also within CLIL programmes themselves. This is the case of the CLIL/bilingual education programme in Madrid, Spain, where students attending bilingual secondary schools are divided into two CLIL strands according to the general competence in English (high-exposure and low-exposure). Several studies have shown the potential inequity that can be generated with this streaming process. At the meso level, Hidalgo-McCabe’s (2020)Hidalgo-McCabe, E. (2020) Streaming in CLIL and its effects on students’ socialisation in school. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. UAM Repository. https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/692813/hidalgo_mccabe_elisa.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y empirical analysis of the impact of CLIL-based streaming on school communities alerts us to its potentially negative, and significant, consequences on students, parents, and schools – results that can detrimentally affect learners’ future aspirations well beyond the CLIL programme itself. In a similar vein, Tompkins (2022)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. shows that students from the lowest socioeconomic background tend to be concentrated within low-exposure tracks. At a more micro level, drawing on teacher-student interactional practices, Llinares and Evnitskaya (2021)Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N. (2021) Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly,
55
(2), 366–397. also identify different interactional patterns by the same teachers teaching the same lesson to high-exposure and low-exposure groups.
We recognise social inequity has been a general problem within education for some time and, thus, is not limited to CLIL. Since the 1970s, seminal studies such as Jencks et al. (1972)Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972) Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. Basic Books. and Bowles and Gintis (1976Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Routledge & Kegan Paul., 2002 (2002) Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited. Sociology of Education,
75
(1), 1–18. ) have empirically evidenced how modern advanced economies create structural socioeconomic inequalities through schools and education systems. This has led to further research on how inequalities are perpetuated, through the workings of education policy, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment (Bernstein, 1971 (1971) Class, codes, and control. Routledge & Kegan Paul., 1990Bernstein, B. B. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge.; Allan & Artiles, 2016Allan, J., & Artiles, A. J. (Eds.) (2016) World yearbook of education 2017: Assessment inequalities. Routledge. ; Apple, 1979 (1979) Ideology and curriculum. Routledge & Kegan Paul. , 1982Apple, M. W. (1982) Education and power. Routledge & Kegan Paul.; Apple & Weis, 1985Apple, M. W., & Weis, L. (1985) Ideology and schooling: The relationship between class and culture. Education and Society,
3
(1), 45–63.; Darling-Hammond, 1994Darling-Hammond, L. (1994) Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review,
64
(1), 5–31. ). What we now know, for example, is that the achievement gap between a 15-year-old student in Australia from the most socially disadvantaged background compared to most socially advantaged background is the equivalent to almost 3 years of learning (Lamb, Jackson, Walstab, & Ho, 2015Lamb, S., Jackson, J., Walstab, A., & Huo, S. (2015) Educational opportunity in Australia 2015: Who succeeds and who misses out. Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University, for the Mitchell Institute.). Even more troubling, despite nearly 50 years of research into this problem, in many countries social inequalities within the context of schooling not only persist, but the achievement gap is continuing to widen (OECD, 2019OECD (2019) PISA 2018 results (Vol. II). OECD Publishing.; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2009) The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane.).
However, as illustrated earlier and through the contributions in this Special Issue that follow, there are also aspects of equity which are specifically related to CLIL, such as the language of instruction or streaming according to language competence levels. As we point out above, the picture provided by the existing research with respect to CLIL and social equity is complex. As much we must remain mindful of the caveats Smala et al. (2013)Smala, S., Paz, J. B., & Lingard, B. (2013) Languages, cultural capital, and school choice: Distinction and second-language immersion programmes. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
34
(3), 373–391. , Fernández-Agüero & Hidalgo-McCabe (2020)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. , and others have put forward, new lines of research are also showing the promise of CLIL as a highly-effective, robust solution to counter the challenges of social inequity and disadvantage. There is a need for more research that engages with the expanding range of contexts within which CLIL programmes are taking place, and the array of different intervening factors at macro, meso, and micro levels which ultimately shape CLIL practice and outcomes. New research will help to not only better understand the potential risk of CLIL contributing to further inequity, but also what possibilities exist for new tools and solutions to address this seemingly intractable problem – particularly in ways that might be more culturally and linguistically sensitive, inclusive, and responsive to enable learners to succeed across the curriculum. The papers we introduce below that comprise this Special Issue have these goals as their focus.
This issue
The studies in this issue address equity in CLIL from macro (policies and ideologies on language choice), meso (the specific school contexts), and micro (the classroom) perspectives. As argued in other recent special issues on CLIL (see Llinares & McCabe, 2020Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2020) Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–6. ), the complexity and variety of CLIL implementation requires attention to different contexts.
At a macro level, the studies presented in this issue are contextualized in Argentina, Australia, and Europe (Spain and the Netherlands). Further, despite the predominance of CLIL programmes with English as the medium of instruction, this issue has sought to include studies with other languages in focus. Banegas’s study illustrates the key role of CLIL in the incorporation of indigenous languages, Mapudungun in this case, showing teachers’ understanding of CLIL as inclusive and equitable. Cross explores issues of equity using illustrative examples that include Japanese as the medium of instruction in Anglophone contexts. Also at the macro level but with a different focus, Granados and Lorenzo examine CLIL implementation in Spain in two very different regions with respect to political governance and ideology. Documenting how these contrasting macro influences shaped the introduction and development of CLIL in each context, Granados and Lorenzo review the outcomes in each region to suggest sociolinguistic principles that might frame understandings of bilingual competence in the context of wider debates on inequality.
Also in Spain but at the meso level, Hidalgo-McCabe’s study illustrates the effect of the Madrid Bilingual Programme described by Granados and Lorenzo, by examining its implementation in four schools in different socioeconomic areas of Madrid. The study explores stakeholders’ views (school leaders, teachers, and families) on the transition from primary to secondary education and the streaming of students in high-exposure and low-exposure groups according to their language competence measured in an external test. The findings also provide insights at the macro level, on how the division of students into different groups, as well as the location of schools in different socioeconomic areas, can impact policies on language and bilingual education. This time comparing the outcomes of CLIL and non-CLIL students’ English competence in pre-vocational secondary education programmes, Denman et al. also focus on CLIL at the institutional meso level to show how CLIL enhances the language competence of students from less academic educational contexts.
Finally, two studies can be framed at the micro level. Evnitskaya and Llinares focus on the same CLIL context investigated by Granados and Lorenzo at the macro level, and by Hidalgo- McCabe at the meso level, but this time focusing on the actual classroom to explore potential unequal opportunities for students’ content and language learning in interactional practices across strands with higher or lower exposure to CLIL. Ahern and Smith explore CLIL student-teachers’ perceptions of the applications of the Reading to Learn pedagogy as a way of reducing inequity in CLIL. Although focused on micro level practices and interventions, results from both studies carry implications at the macro level that include the identification of the potential risks of streaming in CLIL programmes and its effect on classroom practices within the same school (Evnitskaya & Llinares), as well as recommendations for teacher development programmes (Ahern & Smith).
All in all, then, this issue addresses (in)equity in CLIL at conceptual (Cross), policy (Granados & Lorenzo), and empirical levels in different contexts. This last level includes different stakeholders’ perspectives: teachers and school leaders (Hidalgo-McCabe, Banegas), families (Hidalgo-McCabe), student teachers (Ahern & Smith); students’ performance (Denman et al.); and classroom practices (Cross; Evnitskaya & Llinares). The issue also addresses different educational levels: primary and secondary (Banegas, Cross, Evnitskaya & Llinares, Granados & Lorenzo, Hidalgo-McCabe), secondary vocational (Denman et al.), and university (Ahern & Smith). Taken together, the breadth of these papers demonstrate the complexity of social equity as a challenge in educational contexts, but also the potential of CLIL as a way of addressing these challenges, with awareness of both opportunities and risks.
References