1887
Volume 35 Number 2
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22020.den
2023-06-30
2025-02-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ADiBE Project (Attention to Diversity in Bilingual Education
    ADiBE Project (Attention to Diversity in Bilingual Education, n.d.). Retrieved on22 Febuary 2023 from https://adibeproject.com
  2. 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. 10.1080/13803610500392160
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albers, M. J.
    (2017) Introduction to Quantitative Data Analysis in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119290384
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119290384 [Google Scholar]
  4. Allison, P. D.
    (1990) Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 201, 93–114. 10.2307/271083
    https://doi.org/10.2307/271083 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A.
    (2008) Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal1(1): 36–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 on22 February from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/73ac5ebd-473e-11e7-aea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF
  7. 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. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00119
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00119 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. 10.3102/0002831209353594
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353594 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bot, K. de, & Maljers, A.
    (2009) De enige echte vernieuwing: Tweetalig onderwijs. InR. de Graaff & D. Tuin (Eds.), De toekomst van het talenonderwijs: Nodig? Anders? Beter? (pp.131–146). IVLOS, Universiteit Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Breukelen, G. J. P. van
    (2013) ANCOVA versus CHANGE from baseline in nonrandomized studies: The difference. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 481, 895–922. 10.1080/00273171.2013.831743
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.831743 [Google Scholar]
  12. Broca, Á.
    (2016) CLIL and non-CLIL: Differences from the outset. Elt Journal, 70(3), 320–331. 10.1093/elt/ccw011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw011 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. 10.1093/applin/amr007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011b) Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–532. 10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597. 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cambridge English key for schools: Teacher’s handbook
    Cambridge English key for schools: Teacher’s handbook (2012) University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.
  17. CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek)
    CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) (2016) VO; leerlingen, onderwijssoort, leerjaar, herkomstgroepering, generatie [data file]. Retrieved on22 February from https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/80043NED/table
  18. CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment)
    CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment) 2001 Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg. Retrieved on22 February from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
  19. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1177/0261927X03022002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X03022002003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Collier, V. P.
    (1989) How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL quarterly, 23(3), 509–531. 10.2307/3586923
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586923 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. 10.1080/13670050.2021.1989373
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1989373 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cummins, J.
    (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. 10.3138/cmlr.42.1.137
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.42.1.137 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. 10.1080/13670050.2015.1130015
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1130015 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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, 411, 23–31. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. 10.1017/S0267190511000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2017) CLIL in Practice: What does the research tell us?Available from https://www.goethe.de/en/spr/unt/kum/clg/20984546.html
  28. Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindlegger, V., & Smit, U.
    (2008) CLIL an Österreichischen HTLs. Project Report. University of Vienna/BMUKK
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Denessen, E. J. P. G.
    (2017) Dealing responsibly with differences: Socio-cultural backgrounds and differentiation in education. Inaugural Lecture, Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. 10.1075/dujal.18005.den
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18005.den [Google Scholar]
  31. Escobar Urmeneta, C.
    (2004) Content and language integrated learning: Do they learn content? Do they learn language?InJ. 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]
  32. (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. 10.5565/rev/clil.21
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.21 [Google Scholar]
  33. Feddermann, M., Möller, J. Y., & Baumert, J.
    (2021) Effects of CLIL on second language learning: Disentangling selection, preparation, and CLIL-effects. Learning and Instruction, 741, 101459. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101459
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101459 [Google Scholar]
  34. Garcia López, M., & Bruton, A.
    (2013) Potential drawbacks and actual benefits of CLIL initiatives in public secondary schools. InC. 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. 10.21832/9781783090716‑016
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090716-016 [Google Scholar]
  35. Genesee, F.
    (1987) Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) What do we know about bilingual education for majority-language students?InT. K. Bhatia & W. C. Richie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp.547–576). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756997.ch21
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756997.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  37. Genesee, F., & Fortune, T. W.
    (2014) Bilingual education and at-risk students. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 196–209. 10.1075/jicb.2.2.03gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.2.2.03gen [Google Scholar]
  38. Gierlinger, E. W.
    (2007) Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: Some insights from a research project in Austria. InC. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp.79–118). Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑01829‑5/5
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01829-5/5 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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. 10.1075/wll.16.2.03gor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.16.2.03gor [Google Scholar]
  40. (2017) The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–256. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1275034
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1275034 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2020) Determinants of EFL learning success in content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 103–118. 10.1080/09571736.2019.1709886
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1709886 [Google Scholar]
  42. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1–20). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  43. Hox, J. J.
    (2010) Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Quantitative methodology series (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203852279
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279 [Google Scholar]
  44. Juan, M.
    2010 Oral fluency development in secondary education CLIL learners. Vienna English Working Papers (Views), 19(3), 42–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kang, S.
    (2005) Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 331, 227–292. 10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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.
  47. Küppers, A., & Trautmann, M.
    (2013) It is not CLIL that is a success – CLIL students are! Some critical remarks on the current CLIL boom. InS. 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]
  48. 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 Journal48(2), 121–132. 10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lasagabaster, D.
    (2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30–41. 10.2174/1874913500801010030
    https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. 10.1075/jicb.16013.lia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.16013.lia [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.1093/applin/amp041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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. 10.1093/applin/amaa037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa037 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 on22 February 2023 from 10.1.1.585.2454&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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, 231, 369–388. 10.1017/S0272263101003035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101003035 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00194
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00194 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb05543.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Madrid, D., & Barrios, E.
    (2018) A comparison of students’ educational achievement across programmes and school types with and without CLIL provision. Porta Linguarum, 291, 29–50. 10.30827/Digibug.54021
    https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54021 [Google Scholar]
  58. Marsh, D.
    (2002) CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. UniCOM.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (2013) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A development trajectory. Universidad de Córdoba.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 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. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1405906
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1405906 [Google Scholar]
  61. Menezes, E., & Juan-Garau, M.
    (2015) English learners’ willingness to communicate and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. InM. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp.221–236). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑11496‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5 [Google Scholar]
  62. 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. 10.1111/ijal.12177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12177 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mewald, C.
    (2007) A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. InC. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp.139–178). Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑01829‑5/7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01829-5/7 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E.
    (2019) Second language learning theories (4th ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315617046
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617046 [Google Scholar]
  66. Morinaj, J., Hadjar, A., & Hascher, T.
    (2020) School alienation and academic achievement in Switzerland and Luxembourg: A longitudinal perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 231, 279–314. 10.1007/s11218‑019‑09540‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09540-3 [Google Scholar]
  67. 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]
  68. Nederlands Jeugdinstituut
    Nederlands Jeugdinstituut. Cijfers over jeugd met een migratieachtergrond. 7June 2021 Retrieved on22 February 2023 from https://www.nji.nl/cijfers/jeugd-met-een-migratieachtergrond
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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. 10.6018/ijes/2016/2/239611
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2016/2/239611 [Google Scholar]
  70. Nikula, T.
    (2017) CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. InN. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second and foreign language education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑02246‑8_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02246-8_10 [Google Scholar]
  71. Paran, A.
    (2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. 10.1515/applirev‑2013‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  72. Pérez Cañado, M. L.
    (2018) CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 291, 51–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2020) CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality?The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 4–17. 10.1080/09571736.2019.1645872
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1645872 [Google Scholar]
  74. Pérez Vidal, C.
    (2009) The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). InE. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp.3–16). Richmond.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 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, 441, 108–116. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  76. Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K.
    (2015) Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-Catalan learners of English. InM. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp.163–177. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑11496‑5_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_10 [Google Scholar]
  77. 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]
  78. 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. 10.1075/jicb.5.1.05rum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.1.05rum [Google Scholar]
  79. San Isidro, X.
    (2010) An insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and results. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp.55–78). Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Schwab, G.
    (2013) Bili für alle? Ergebnisse und Perspektiven eines Forschungsprojektes zur Einführung bilingualer Module in einer Hauptschule. InS. 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]
  81. 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]
  82. 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, 141, 153–172. 10.4995/rlyla.2019.10527
    https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2019.10527 [Google Scholar]
  83. Smala, S.
    (2023) Situated emergence of CLIL. E. Codó, E. (Ed.), Global CLIL: Critical, ethnographic and language policy perspectives (pp.52–73). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003147374‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003147374-4 [Google Scholar]
  84. 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. 10.1075/dujal.1.1.09smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.1.1.09smi [Google Scholar]
  85. 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. 10.1007/s11159‑017‑9651‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9651-4 [Google Scholar]
  86. Standaard Tweetalig vmbo
    Standaard Tweetalig vmbo (n.d.). Nuffic: De Nederlandse organisatie voor internationalisering in onderwijs. Retrieved on22 February 2020 from https://www.nuffic.nl/onderwerpen/tweetalig-onderwijs/standaard-voor-t-vmbo
  87. Verspoor, de Bot, & van Rein
    (2011) English as a foreign language. The role of out-of-school language input. InA. De Houwer & A. Wilton (Eds.) English in Europe today: Sociocultural and educational perspectives (pp.147–166) John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.8.10ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.8.10ver [Google Scholar]
  88. Verspoor, M., Xu, X., & de Bot, C. J. L.
    (2013) Verslag OTTO-2 aan Europees platform. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Universiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 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. 10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver [Google Scholar]
  90. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  91. Westhoff, G.
    (2005) Talenquest: beloften en valkuilen. Levende Talen Magazine, 92(4), 12–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. University of Hawaii at Manoa. 10.1017/S0272263101263050
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101263050 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22020.den
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22020.den
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error