A Comparison of Students’ Educational Achievement across Programmes and School Types with and without CLIL Provision

  1. Daniel Madrid 1
  2. Elvira Barrios 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

  2. 2 Universidad de Málaga
    info

    Universidad de Málaga

    Málaga, España

    ROR https://ror.org/036b2ww28

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Any de publicació: 2018

Número: 29

Pàgines: 29-50

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.54021 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible

Resum

This paper discusses factors that determine school achievement in general, with special reference to school type, and the factors that make schools different, such as the students’ economic and sociocultural level and family support. Then, it provides data about academic achievement in CLIL and non-CLIL programme groups and across three different types of schools: public (bilingual and non-bilingual), private (bilingual) and charter (non-bilingual), with a research design that matches students in terms of verbal intelligence and motivation. A total of 13 public (n = 551), one private (n = 42) and three charter (n = 127) schools at both the primary and secondary levels from the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga in Andalusia, Spain, participated in the study. Performance in L1 (Spanish), FL (English) and subjects taught in English in CLIL (or bilingual) schools (Natural, Social and Cultural Environment Education in primary education, Natural Science in compulsory secondary education) is compared. Results show differences in performance between the CLIL and the mainstream, non-CLIL programme and between school types–particularly at the secondary level. Additionally, results from discriminant analyses seem to provide evidence that factors such as motivation, verbal intelligence, extramural exposure to English and socioeconomic status cannot account for differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups

€ Mostra el finançament

Informació de finançament

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, under Grant FFI2012-32221, and by the Junta de Andalucía, under Grant P12-HUM-23480.

Finançadors

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Alejo, R. and Piquer-Píriz, A. (2016). “Urban vs. rural CLIL: an analysis of input-related variables, motivation and language attainment”, in Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29, 3: 245-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2016.1154068.
  • Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J. and Campo, A. (2008). “Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results”, in International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 1: 36-49, available from: http://www.icrj.eu/11/article3.html, accessed 1 May, 2017.
  • Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. and de Bot, K. (2006). “Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English”, in Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 1: 75-93. http://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160.
  • Bonnet, A. (2012). “Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant perspectives in CLIL research”, International CLIL Research Journal, 4, 1: 66-78, available from: http://www.icrj.eu/14/ article7.htmlhttp://www.icrj.eu/11/article3.html, accessed 4 May, 2017.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). “Cultural reproduction and social reproduction”, in J. Karabel and E. H. Halsey (eds.). Power and ideology in education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 487-511.
  • Bourdieu, P. and C. Passeron (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.
  • Bruton, A. (2011a). “Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research”, in System”, 39, 4: 523-32.
  • Bruton, A. (2011b). “Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010)”, in Applied Linguistics, 32, 2: 236-241.
  • Bruton, A. (2013). “CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not”, in System, 41, 3: 587-897.
  • Bruton, A. (2015). “CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014)”, in System, 53: 119-128.
  • Calero, J. and Escardíbul, J. O. (2007). “Evaluación de servicios educativos: El rendimiento enlos centros públicos y privados medido en PISA-2003”, in Hacienda Pública Española/ Revista de Economía Pública, 183, 4: 33-66.
  • Carabaña, J. (1988). “En primero de enseñanzas medias el nivel sociocultural no explica el rendimiento académico”, in Revista de Educación, 287: 71-95.
  • Choi, A. and Calero, J. (2012). “Rendimiento académico y titularidad de centro en España”, in Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 16, 3: 31-57.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.
  • Coleman, J. S. (1997). “The design of schools as output-driven organizations”, in R. Shapira and P. W. Cookson (eds.), Autonomy and choice in context: An international perspective. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 249–270.
  • Collier, V. P. (1989). “How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second language”, in TESOL Quarterly, 23: 509-531.
  • Córdoba, L. G., García Preciado, V., Luengo, L. M., Vizuete, M. and Feu, S. (2011). “Determinantes socioculturales: Su relación con el rendimiento académico en alumnos de Enseñanza Secundaria Obligatoria”, in Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29, 1: 83-96.
  • Cordero, J. M., Crespo, E. and Pedraja, F. (2013). “Rendimiento educativo y determinantes según PISA: Una revisión de la literatura en España”, in Revista de Educación, 362: 273-297.
  • Cummins, J. (1980). “Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children”, in Review of Educational Research, 49: 222-251.
  • Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority-language children. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
  • Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K. and Hollm, J. (2016). “Selectivity of content and language integrated learning programmes in German secondary schools”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-12. : http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1130015.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • De la Orden, A. and González, C. (2005). “Variables que discriminan entre alumnos de bajo y medio-alto rendimiento académico”, in Revista de Investigación Educativa, 23, 2: 573-599.
  • Edel, R. (2003). “Factores asociados al rendimiento académico”, in Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 1, 20: 1-20.
  • Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A. and Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). “Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-14. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142.
  • Garbanzo Vargas, G. M. (2007). “Factores asociados al rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios, una reflexión desde la calidad de la educación superior pública”, in Revista Educación 31, 1: 43-63.
  • Gebauer, S. K., Zaunbauer, A. C. M. and Möller, J. (2012). “Erstsprachliche Leistungsentwicklung im Immersionsunterricht: Vorteile trotz Unterrichts in einer Fremdsprache?”, in Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 3: 183-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000071.
  • González Barbera, C. (2003). Factores determinantes del bajo rendimiento académico en Educación Secundaria (Tesis Doctoral). Madrid: Universidad Complutense.
  • Gutiérrez, M. (2009). Factores determinantes del rendimiento educativo: el caso de Cataluña. Documentos de Economía “la Caixa”, 15.
  • Jehangir, K., Glas, C. A. W. and van den Berg, S. (2015). “Exploring the relation between socio-economic status and reading achievement in PISA 2009 through an intercepts-andslopesas-outcomes paradigm”, in International Journal of Educational Research 71: 1-15.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2010). “The effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project”, in Applied Linguistics, 31, 3: 418-42.
  • Madrid, D. (1999). La investigación de los factores motivacionales en el aula de idiomas. Granada: Grupo Editorial Universitario.
  • Madrid, D. (2005). “Bilingual and plurilingual education in the European and Andalusian context”, in International Journal of Learning, 12, 4: 177-186.
  • Madrid, D. (2010). “El contexto social del alumnado y su relación con el rendimiento en lengua extranjera”, in M. Falces, E. Hidalgo, J. Santana and S. Valera (eds.), Para, por y sobre Luis Quereda. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada, 519-533.
  • Madrid, D. (2011). “Monolingual and bilingual students’ competence in social sciences”, in D. Madrid and S. Hughes (eds.), Studies in bilingual education. Bern: Peter Lang, 195-221.
  • Madrid, D. and Hughes, S. (eds.) (2011). Studies in bilingual education. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Madrid, D. and Alcalde, J. A. (1989). “Motivación de los alumnos de EGB en la clase de inglés”, in Actas de las IV Jornadas de GRETA. Granada: GRETA, 8899.
  • Madrid-Fernández, D., Bueno González, A. and Ráez Padilla, J. (in press). “Investigating the effects of CLIL on language attainment: Instrument design and validation”, in M. L. Pérez Cañado (ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning in monolingual settings: New insights from the Spanish context. Amsterdam: Springer.
  • Mancebón-Torrubia, M. J., Calero, J., Choi, A. and Pérez Ximénez-de-Embún, D. (2012). “The efficiency of public and publicly-subsidized high schools in Spain. Evidence from PISA2006”, in Journal of the Operational Research Society. DOI:10.1057/jors.2011.156.
  • Marsh, H., Hau, K. T. and Kong, C. K. (2000). “Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects”, in Harvard Educational Review, 70: 302-346.
  • McLaren, N. and Madrid, D. (eds.) (1996). A handbook for TEFL. Alicante: Marfil.
  • Mehan, H. (1991). “Sociological foundations supporting the study of cultural diversity”, available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xb777zn.pdf, accessed 8 May 2017.
  • M.E.C. (2006) “PISA 2006. Informe español”, available from: http://www.mec.es/ multimedia/ 00005713.pdf, accessed 15 March 2017.
  • Mehisto, P. and Asser, H. (2007). “Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme management in Estonia”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5: 693-701.
  • Merisuo-Storm, T. (2007). “Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign-language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education”, in Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 2: 226-235.
  • Merisuo-Storm, T. and Soininen, M. (2014). “Students’ first language skills after six years in bilingual education”, in Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 22: 72-81.
  • Navés, T. and Victori, M. (2010). “CLIL in Catalonia: An overview of research studies”, in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 30-54.
  • OCDE (2011). Pisa in Focus 7. Centros privados: ¿A quién benefician? Available from: http://www. mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/pisa-in-focus/pif7-esp.pdf?documentId= 0901e72b81328738, accessed 9 May 2017.
  • OCDE (2016). Pisa 2015: Resultados clave. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ pisa-2015results-in-focus-ESP.pdf, accessed 5 May 2017.
  • Paran, A. (2013). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?”, in Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 2: 317-42.
  • Pelechano, V. (1994). “Prueba MA”, in Análisis y Modificación de la Conducta, 20: 71-72.
  • Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). “CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 3: 315-41.
  • Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2018). “CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes and content mastery”, in Porta Linguarum, 29: 51-70.
  • Pérez Serrano, G. (1981). Origen social y rendimiento escolar. Madrid: Centro de investigaciones sociológicas.
  • Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., and 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”, in Learning and Instruction, 44: 108-116.
  • Ramos García, A. M., Ortega Martín, J. L. and Madrid, D. (2011). “Bilingualism and competence in the mother tongue”, in D. Madrid, D. and S. Hughes (eds.), Studies in bilingual education. Bern: Peter Lang, 135-155.
  • Ruiz de Miguel, C. (2009). “The effective schools: A multielvel study of explanatory factors of the school performance in the area of mathematics”, in Revista de Educación, 348: 355-376.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2007). “CLIL in a bilingual community: Similarities and differences with the learning of English as a Foreign Language”, in View[z], 16, 3: 47-52.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). “CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country”, in International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 1: 60-73.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Lasagabaster, D. (2010). “CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque Autonomous Community”, in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 12-29.
  • Ruíz Herrero, J. (2011). “Rendimiento académico y ambiente social”, in Política y Sociedad, 48: 155-174
  • Rumlich, D. (2013). “Students’ general English proficiency prior to CLIL”, in S. Breidbach and B. Viebrock (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research perspectives on policy and practice. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 181-202.
  • Rumlich, D. (2017). “CLIL theory and empirical reality – two sides of the same coin?”, in Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5, 1: 110-134.
  • Sánchez Herrero, S. (1990). Diferencias individuales en el rendimiento de una lengua extranjera en la enseñanza obligatoria (Tesis Doctoral). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  • San Isidro, X. (2010). “An insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and results”, in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 55-78.
  • Santamaría, P., Arribas, D., Pereña, J. and Seisdedos, N. (2014). EFAI. Evaluación factorial de las aptitudes intelectuales. Madrid: TEA.
  • Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). “CLIL Learning: Achievement levels and affective factors”, in Language and Education, 21, 4: 328-341.
  • Sundqvist, P. (2009). Extramural English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact on Swedish ninth graders’ oral proficiency and vocabulary. PhD. Karlstad: Karlstad University.
  • Sundqvist, P. and Sylvén, L. K. (2014). “Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden”, in ReCALL, 26, 1: 3-20.
  • Tejedor, F. J. and Caride, J. A. (1998). “Influencia de las Variables contextuales en el rendimiento académico”, in Revista de Educación, 287: 113-146.
  • Villoria, J., Hughes, S. and Madrid, D. (2011). “Learning English and learning through English”, in D. Madrid and S. Hughes (eds.), Studies in bilingual education. Bern: Peter Lang, 157-193.
  • Zydatiß, W. (2012). “Linguistic thresholds in the CLIL classroom? The threshold hypothesis revisited”, in International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 4: 17-28.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet