1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. AILA Review
  4. Volume 35, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 35 Number 2
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

© 2022 AILA
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
2023-06-30
2024-09-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. A2 Key for schools
    A2 Key for schools. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved on21 February 2023 from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/key-for-schools/
  2. B1 Preliminary for schools
    B1 Preliminary for schools. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved on21 February 2023 from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/preliminary-for-schools/
  3. Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. E.
    (2008) Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door openers?InB. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp.456–468). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470694138.ch32
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch32 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, E. L.
    (2012) Mandated tests: Educational reform or quality indicator?InB. R. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture (pp.3–24). Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourdieu, P.
    (1991) Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bower, K.
    (2020) School leaders’ perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning in England. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(4), 351–367. 10.1080/07908318.2019.1667367
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1667367 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinkmann, S.
    (2020) Unstructured and semistructured interviews. InP. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.013.22
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.013.22 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D.
    (2007) Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. InD. Wolff & D. Marsh (Eds.), Diverse contexts converging goals. Content and language integrated learning in Europe (pp.91–102). Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2007) The stance triangle. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.139–182). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  12. European Commission
    European Commission (1995) Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. White Paper on Training and Education. Retrieved on21 February 2023 from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0a8aa7a-5311-4eee-904c-98fa541108d8/language-en
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, N.
    (1989) Language and power. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 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. 10.1080/15348458.2020.1795864
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1795864 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J.
    (1982) Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. InJ. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ireson, J., & Hallam, S.
    (1999) Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer?Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 343–358. 10.1080/030549899104026
     https://doi.org/10.1080/030549899104026 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C.
    (2009) Taking an elitist stance: Ideology and the discursive production of social distinction. InA. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp.195–226). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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, 191, 697–735. 10.1177/105268460901900604
     https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460901900604 [Google Scholar]
  20. Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya
    (2021) Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities?TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–397. 10.1002/tesq.607
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.607 [Google Scholar]
  21. Madrid, Comunidad Bilingüe
    (2016–17) Portal de transparencia, Comunidad de Madrid. Retrieved on21 Fecruary 2023 from: www.madrid.org/bvirtual/BVCM016362.pdf
  22. Martín Rojo, L., & Molina, C.
    (2017) Cosmopolitan stance negotiation in multicultural academic settings. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(5), 672–695. 10.1111/josl.12265
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12265 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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, 11, 36–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/134081/1/IEB19-01_Mediavilla%2bet.al.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mehisto, P.
    (2012) Excellence in bilingual education: A guide for school principals. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.17763/haer.66.4.36m328762x21610x
     https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.4.36m328762x21610x [Google Scholar]
  27. Pavón Vázquez, V., & Rubio, F.
    (2010) Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes, Porta Linguarum, 141, 45–58. 10.30827/Digibug.31943
     https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.31943 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ráez-Padilla, J.
    (2018) Parent perspectives on CLIL implementation: Which variables make a difference?Porta Linguarum, 291, 181–196. 10.30827/Digibug.54033
     https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54033 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Regional Education Government
    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 2023fromwww.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?nmnorma=9744#no-back-button
  31. San Isidro, X.
    (2018) Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 185–195. 10.1080/00405841.2018.1484038
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484038 [Google Scholar]
  32. Shohamy, E.
    (2001a) Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–392. 10.1177/026553220101800404
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800404 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2001b) The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2006) Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203387962
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962 [Google Scholar]
  35. Snell, J., & Lefstein, A.
    (2018) “Low ability,” participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 40–78. 10.3102/0002831217730010
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217730010 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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. 10.1080/13670050.2018.1517722
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1517722 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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. 10.5565/rev/clil.67
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.67 [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Leeuwen, T.
    (2008) Discourse and practice: New tools for discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
Loading
Language testing and the role of CLIL exposure in constructing student profiles
AILA Review 35, 250 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CLIL; language testing; stakeholders; streaming; student profiles

Most Cited

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