Language testing and the role of CLIL exposure in constructing
student profiles: Stakeholders’ views on streaming in the transition from primary to
secondary education
ElisaHidalgo-McCabe
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Abstract
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.
From the 1990s onwards, CLIL gained wide popularity across Europe due to
the support received on behalf of national and supranational policies (e.g., the
European Union) seeking to enhance L2 language learning as well as
bi/multilingualism. The promotion of CLIL can be traced back to the context of the
European Commission’s white paper
(1995), in which a stated goal was for EU citizens to communicate in two
foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue. From the onset, CLIL has been
seen as an innovative approach in areas traditionally reserved for L1 instruction,
as it establishes a new scenario for teaching subjects through a
foreign language. Research in the area of CLIL pedagogy has addressed its potential
to integrate elements of best practice in bilingual education by means of setting
“high expectations for students and teachers” (Mehisto, 2012, p. 48). In this scenario, the gradual integration of CLIL
into compulsory school curricula responds to efforts to make this approach
accessible to all types of learners. In fact, one major ‘problem’ behind the implementation
of CLIL is that it has “a long way to go to become mainstream” (San Isidro, 2018, p. 188). If CLIL is
voluntary, it “still relies excessively on students’ self-selection” (ibid.), meaning that it
tends to attract students with a higher level of EFL proficiency and “more
favourable (affective-motivational) learning dispositions” (Rumlich, 2017, p. 115) compared to unselected and
unprepared groups (e.g., non- CLIL).
(2008) Language
assessments: Gate-keepers or door
openers? In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The
handbook of educational
linguistics (pp. 456–468). Blackwell.
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.
Bourdieu, P.
(1991) Language
and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Polity
Press.
Bower, K.
(2020) School
leaders’ perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning in
England. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 33(4), 351–367.
Brinkmann, S.
(2020) Unstructured
and semistructured
interviews. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Oxford University
Press.
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.
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.
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.
Du
Bois, J. W.
(2007) The
stance
triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking
in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation,
interaction (pp. 139–182). John
Benjamins.
(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.
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms
of talk. Basil
Blackwell.
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.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S.
(1999) Raising
standards: Is ability grouping the
answer?Oxford Review of
Education, 25(3), 343–358.
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.
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, 697–735.
Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya
(2021) Classroom
interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering
inequalities?TESOL
Quarterly, 55(2), 366–397.
(2017) Cosmopolitan
stance negotiation in multicultural academic
settings. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 21(5), 672–695.
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, 36–46.
Mediavilla, M., Mancebón, M. J., Gómez-
Sancho, J. M., & Pires, L.
(2018) Innovations
and challenges in CLIL implementation in
Europe. Theory into
Practice, 57(3), 185–195.
Shohamy, E.
(2001a) Democratic
assessment as an alternative. Language
Testing, 18(4), 373–392.
Shohamy, E.
(2001b) The
power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language
tests. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Shohamy, E.
(2006) Language
policy: Hidden agendas and new
approaches. Routledge.
Snell, J., & Lefstein, A.
(2018) “Low
ability,” participation, and identity in dialogic
pedagogy. American Educational Research
Journal, 55(1), 40–78.
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.
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.
Van
Leeuwen, T.
(2008) Discourse
and practice: New tools for discourse
analysis. Oxford University
Press.
