The effects of CLIL on L1 competence development in monolingual contexts

The e ec s o CLIL on L1 compe ence de elopmen in monolingual con ex s Ve y li le esea ch has been conduc ed on he e ec s o CLIL on L1 compe ence de elopmen . This a icle compa es CLIL and non-CLIL lea ne s' le els o a ainmen in Spanish Language and Li e a u e in se en public schools in he Sou h o Spain. Lea ne s' e bal in elligence and mo i a ion we e p e iously ma ched in o de o homogenise he sample. This s udy ocuses on a o al o se en public schools (n=271) in he p o ince o Se ille, a bo h p ima y and seconda y le el. S uden s’ pe o mance in L1 (Spanish) was compa ed o check di e ences be ween CLIL and non-CLIL s ands. The esul s sugges ha s uden s in CLIL p og ammes do be e in hei end-o -yea Spanish Language and Li e a u e assessmen , compa ed wi h s uden s in non-CLIL s ands. The e is also some e idence o sugges ha in schools wi h ea ly CLIL p og ammes CLIL s uden s do be e in he Spanish Language and Li e a u e assessmen han s uden s in schools wi h la e CLIL p og ammes. Teache s and s uden s su eyed gene ally belie e ha CLIL has a posi i e impac in his a ea, pa icula ly on s uden s’ unde s anding o how language wo ks. Keywo ds: CLIL; communica ion skills in he L1; language lea ning; Spanish In oduc ion CLIL (Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning) is de ined as ‘an educa ional app oach in which a ious language-suppo i e me hodologies a e used which lead o a dual- ocused o m o ins uc ion whe e a en ion is gi en bo h o he language and he con en ’ (Coyle, Hood and Ma sh 2010: 3). I has i s o igins in he 1990s, when he e m CLIL was coined o e e o a se ies o eaching me hodologies ha b ough oge he p inciples om exis ing educa ional app oaches such as Con en -Based Ins uc ion (CBI), language imme sion and bilingual educa ion. The e is now a subs an ial li e a u e seeking o de ine CLIL and o unde s and commonali ies and di e ences wi h ea lie app oaches (Dal on-Pu e 2011; Ruiz de Za obe, Sie a, and Galla do 2011; Fe nández- Sanju jo, Fe nández-Cos ales and A ias 2017). Pé ez-Cañado (2012) has sugges ed ha CLIL should be seen as he Eu opean coun e pa o he Ame ican-based CBI. I is ce ainly ue ha CLIL has de eloped mos ly in Eu ope, and mos no ably in Spain, whe e i has been seen as pa icula ly app op ia e o achie ing he Eu opean Union’s mul ilingual policy (Eu opean Commission 2004). This is he con ex o he esea ch epo ed in his pape . In he yea s ollowing i s appea ance, CLIL a ac ed conside able c i ical a en ion. Ea ly esea ch a emp ed o de ine he me hod and ou line i s main ea u es (Coyle 2008; Coyle, Hood and Ma sh 2010; Dal on-Pu e 2011; Pé ez-Cañado 2012). In his pe iod, CLIL was concep ualised in e y b oad e ms as an educa ional app oach ha could encompass a a ie y o eaching me hods al eady in use in bilingual, mul ilingual and imme sion p og ammes in Eu ope (Ruiz de Za obe, Sie a and Galla do 2011). Indeed, CLIL was said o be an ‘umb ella e m’ (Mehis o, Ma sh and F igols 2008: 12) co e ing a ious eaching me hodologies. This allowed di e en Eu opean coun ies and ins i u ions o adap i o hei pa icula con ex s and educa ional amewo ks, and o ailo i o hei own speci ic linguis ic needs. Comen ado [E1]: This equi es cla i ica ion Comen ado [H2R1]: Done. As CLIL s a ed o be implemen ed and de eloped in se e al Eu opean coun ies (Coyle, Hood and Ma sh 2010), esea ch in e es shi ed om de ini ion and cha ac e isa ion o he e alua ion o i s implemen a ion. S udies began o ocus on lea ning ou comes and o assess s uden s' o e all compe ence de elopmen in he o eign language (FL), compa ing bo h CLIL and non-CLIL s ands (Admi aal, Wes hoo and de Bo 2006; Dal on-Pu e 2011; Lasagabas e 2008). In hese s udies, esea ch ypically showed posi i e esul s o CLIL p og ammes, wi h CLIL s uden s ou pe o ming non-CLIL s uden s (Dal on-Pu e 2013; Lo enzo, Casal and Moo e 2009; Pé ez-Cañado 2012). Since hen, di e en lines o esea ch ha e been de eloped. One o hem ocuses on assessing no jus he impac on gene al FL p o iciency bu on speci ic aspec s o lea ne s' FL compe ence such as speci ic communica i e language skills o ocabula y o g amma (Lasagabas e 2008; Nie o 2016a, 2016b). Ruiz de Za obe and Jiménez (2009: 135) p o ide a comple e o e iew o esea ch on language skills de elopmen in CLIL con ex s, concluding ha ‘unde he CLIL app oach, some ecep i e and p oduc i e skills seem o bene i mo e han o he s: eading, speaking and some w i ing compe encies such as luency, lexical a ie y and lexical and syn ac ic complexi y.’ While esea ch gene ally shows ha CLIL lea ne s end o achie e be e esul s in FL lea ning han non-CLIL lea ne s, his is no always he case, no is i always clea why CLIL s uden s ou pe o m non-CLIL s uden s. As Dal on-Pu e (2011: 186) sugges s: ‘ he ques ion o how much and in wha espec CLIL s uden s a e be e emains o in e es , as does he ques ion o why.’ Thus ano he impo an line o esea ch conside s di e en a iables ha may a ec he FL lea ning ou comes o s uden s in CLIL p og ammes, such as con ex ual ac o s, indi idual lea ne cha ac e is ics and mo i a ion (Lasagabas e 2011; Fe nández and Canga 2014; Doiz and Lasagabas e 2014; Syl én and Thomson 2015; Alejo and Pique 2016; A ibas 2016; O winowska and Fo yś 2015; P enninge 2016). So a , indings in his a ea ha e no been conclusi e, indica ing ha u he esea ch is needed o unde s and he in luence o ac o s such as age, gende , se ing (e.g. u al s. u ban), socio-economic s a us and mo i a ion on he de elopmen o CLIL lea ne s’ FL compe ence. As Nikula e al. (2016: 1) no e: ‘CLIL esea ch o da e has been mainly cha ac e ised by language lea ning pe spec i es on lea ne s’ gene al language skills [in he FL]’ while li le is known abou he possible e ec s o CLIL on lea ne s' pe o mance in o he a eas o he cu iculum. CLIL is a e all abou he in eg a ion o bo h con en and language. The impac o CLIL on con en subjec lea ning is add essed in ano he a icle in he p esen issue o The Language Lea ning Jou nal (see Mad id and Hughes); he e, we in es iga e whe he CLIL impac s on he de elopmen o lea ne s’ knowledge and skills in he a ea o he i s language (L1). The ole o he i s and he o eign language in CLIL The impac o CLIL on lea ne s' L1 de elopmen has been sys ema ically neglec ed in he li e a u e (Lasagabas e and Sie a 2010; Dal on-Pu e 2012; Me ino and Lasagabas e 2015, Lasagabas e 2017). This is no doub due o he assump ion ha CLIL is a me hodology ha is p ima ily aimed a imp o ing s uden s' compe ence in he FL, a he han an educa ional app oach in which he in e ac ion be ween he languages used s imula es he lea ning o o he cu icula con en oo. Lo enzo, Casal and Moo e Comen ado [E3]: A e hey e e ing o L2? Comen ado [H4R3]: Done. Comen ado [E5]: I’m sugges ing dele ing his as i doesn’ eally ell us any hing bu jus epea s he same idea. Comen ado [H6R5]: Done. (2009: 435) ce ainly ound ha his was he dominan iew among L1 eache s su eyed in Andalusia in 2007-2008 and hey concluded ha : L1 eache s appea eluc an o pa icipa e in in eg a ion; some e en conside ed CLIL a compe i o o L1 lea ning, in he belie —nou ished by a pedes ian iew o bilingualism— ha di e en languages ep esen opposing o ces, g owing a each o he ’s expense. Howe e , well-es ablished heo ies o bilingualism main ain esea ches done in CLIL show ha he lea ning o a second language has posi i e e ec s on lea ne s’ pe o mance in hei L1 due, o example, o he de elopmen o language awa eness (Cenoz 2015; Dal on-Pu e 2007; Ruiz de Za obe and Cenoz 2015). Likewise, CLIL heo is s ag ee ha CLIL is no only conce ned wi h de eloping lea ne ’s FL compe ence, bu wi h he de elopmen o gene al communica i e compe ences (Eu opean Council 2001: 13-14), bo h in he FL and he L1 . As Coyle (2002: 28) explains, d awing on he dis inc ions made by Cummins (1999), CLIL helps s uden s de elop basic in e pe sonal communica ion skills (BICS) and cogni i e-academic language p o iciency (CALP) in bo h he FL and he L1. Bilingual p og ammes ha e a long and es ablished adi ion in Spain (Cenoz 2013; Cenoz 2015; Lasagabas e and Ruiz de Za obe 2010; Pé ez-Cañado 2012) so i is pe haps su p ising ha , ela i e o o he g oups o in e na ional and Eu opean lea ne s, Spanish lea ne s pe o m compa a i ely less well bo h in he i s and he o eign language (PIRLS 2011; Eu opean Commission 2012; Eu ydice 2012; ECCL 2012). Could i be ha eaching cu icula subjec s in a o eign language impac s nega i ely on L1 skills and knowledge de elopmen ? I is o his eason ha esea ch was unde aken as pa o a na ionwide esea ch p ojec o look a he impac o CLIL on L1 skills and knowledge. The e has been li le esea ch on his issue since Ma sh (2002: 24) asked he ques ion i een yea s ago: ‘Will he i s language de elop no mally despi e a signi ican amoun o ins uc ion ime being conduc ed in ano he language?’ A numbe o a gumen s and conside a ions unde pin he iew ha L1 and FL compe ences can de elop in pa allel, and indeed, should bene i each o he ; hese o m he heo e ical ounda ion o CLIL. We e iew i e key poin s below: Cogni i e de elopmen Acco ding o he li e a u e (S occo e al. 2014; Olusola e al., 2010 and Le Pichon Vo s man e al. 2009 ), lea ning mo e han one language should ha e cogni i e bene i s o lea ne s. This idea is cen al o CLIL; Coyle (2002: 28) o example makes i one o he ou key ea u es o CLIL in he ‘4C's model’ along wi h con en , cul u e and communica ion: CLIL should cogni i ely challenge lea ne s - wha e e hei abili y. [ . . . ] Resea ch sugges s ha hese challenges encou age hinking o ake place in di e en languages and a a deepe le el o in e -cul u al unde s anding in ol ing bo h sa oi ai e and sa oi ê e. Comen ado [E7]: Jus on speaking pe o mance???? Please e iew his ph asing and cla i y wha exac ly is being e e ed o. Comen ado [H8R7]: Done. Comen ado [E9]: Wha a e hese? Please can we ha e a de ini ion o a he e y leas a e e ence. ???? Comen ado [H10R9]: Done. Comen ado [E11]: The Cummins e e ence is Cummins, J. 1999. BICS and CALP: cla i ying he dis inc ion. ERIC ED438551. h ps://e ic.ed.go /?id=ED438551 You will need o add his o you e e ences. Comen ado [H12R11]: Done. Comen ado [E13]: Please s a e a wha le el – a e we alking seconda y lea ne s, p ima y, adul ???? Comen ado [MNP14]: PIRLS ( ou h g ade s uden s: PIRLS 2016 consis s o h ee sepa a e assessmen s o eading comp ehension: PIRLS, PIRLS Li e acy, and ePIRLS. PIRLS is a comp ehensi e assessmen o ou h g ade s uden s’ eading li e acy achie emen . Conduc ed on a egula i e- yea cycle. Eu ydice: all educa ion le els. Comen ado [MNP15]: No encuen o dónde hace e e encia a que en e los pocos escu udios en algunos se señala que CLIL no a ec a al desa ollo de la L1: Admi al e al, 2006 Coyle, Hood and Ma sh, 2011 Dal on-Pu e , 2011 Pé ez- Cañado, 2012 E isencias de que mejo a: Lo enzo, Casal and Moo e 2009 Fe nández-Sanju jo 2017 Comen ado [E16]: Re e ences please Comen ado [MNP17R16]: done Comen ado [MNP18]: Coyle 2008 ambién hace e e encia al desa ollo cogni i o: •De elop isk- aking and p oblem-sol ing skills in he lea ne s; •De elop s udy skills, concen a ion—lea ning how o lea n h ough he o eign language is undamen al o CLIL; In his iew, he cogni i e bene i s o CLIL should impac bo h on FL and L1 lea ning. Thus, eaching con en subjec s in he FL should no impede, bu a he os e , he de elopmen o lea ne s’ L1 skills and knowledge. Skills ans e be ween languages Na és (2009: 28) poin s o e idence sugges ing success ul lea ning o a second language builds on e ec i e L1 de elopmen : ‘ he lack o con inuing i s -language de elopmen has been ound, in some cases, o inhibi he le els o second language p o iciency and cogni i e academic g ow h’. Na és e e s o K ashen's e iew o bilingual educa ion (1997: 1) whe e he la e a gues ha : …when schools p o ide child en quali y educa ion in hei p ima y language, hey gi e hem wo hings: knowledge and li e acy. Li e acy de elopmen in he p ima y language ans e s o he second language. In he same ein, Cummins (2000: 25) con ends ha ‘ he i s language mus no be abandoned be o e i is ully de eloped, whe he he second language is in oduced simul aneously o successi ely, ea ly o la e, in ha p ocess’. In he con ex o CLIL, Agus ín (2009: 112) also acknowledges he in luence o he L1 in he p ocess o lea ning a second o o eign language. Thus, cu en hinking sugges s ha a he han compe ing wi h FL lea ning, he de elopmen o compe ence in he L1 po en ially s eng hens i . The amoun , na u e and ype o inpu in he L1 and he FL / na u e o inpu Rega ding inpu , mos a gumen s used in CLIL de i e om esea ch in he ield o second language acquisi ion (Na és 2009) in pa icula K ashen's inpu hypo hesis (1985), acco ding o which L2 acquisi ion can only ake place when lea ne s a e exposed o su icien comp ehensible inpu . The e a e se e al s udies o CLIL in which he amoun o FL inpu is one o he a iables conside ed (Lo enzo, Casal and Moo e 2009; Ojeda, 2009; Dal on-Pu e , 2011; Me ino and Lasagabes e , 2017 and Nie o, 2016) bu all o hese ocus exclusi ely on he impac on FL, a he han L1, de elopmen . Ce ainly, one o he ad an ages o CLIL lies p ecisely in he inc eased FL inpu ha s uden s ecei e du ing ins uc ion compa ed o egula English as a o eign language (EFL) classes in non- CLIL con ex s. A he same ime, CLIL may also o e mo e oppo uni ies o lea ne s o communica e in he FL; in o he wo ds, g ea e ‘ou pu ’ and ‘in e ac ion’, bo h o which a e conside ed impo an in success ul second language acquisi ion acco ding, espec i ely, o Swain (1985) and o Long (1996). Indeed, esea ch on CLIL sugges s ha he success o he me hodology is di ec ly ela ed o he numbe o hou s ha s uden s a e exposed o and, he e o e, able o use, wo k and in e ac in he FL (Lasagabas e 2010, 2015, 2017; Lo enzo, Casal and Moo e 2009). Howe e , a co olla y o his is ha a balance mus be sough in he amoun o inpu ha CLIL lea ne s ecei e in each language, so ha exposu e o one language is no a he expense o he o he . In Andalusia, whe e he p esen s udy akes place, he Plan Es a égico de Desa ollo de las Lenguas en Andalucía (2016) (S a egic Plan o he De elopmen o Languages in Andalucia) s a es ha a minimum o 50% o cu iculum ime should be deli e ed in he Comen ado [E19]: Please check his e ision. No mally, ‘language ans e ’ e e s o he ans e o linguis ic elemen s om one language o ano he . I hink you’ e e e ing o some hing a he di e en he e. Comen ado [H20R19]: Done. Comen ado [E21]: The e’s a dissonance be ween ‘ equi es’ he e and Na es’ a he mo e nuanced commen ‘in some cases …’ Hence my ew i e. Comen ado [H22R21]: OK. Comen ado [E23]: This e e ence does no e e o K ashen’s ‘ heo y o L2 acquisi ion’ bu a he o K ashen’s e iew o e idence o suppo bilingual p og ammes: hence my ew i e. Comen ado [H24R23]: OK. Con o ma o: Resal a Comen ado [E25]: You need o gi e he e e ence. I hink i ’s 1985 bu please check. Comen ado [H26R25]: Done. Comen ado [E27]: In L1? In L2????? A e you alking jus abou CLIL s udies? Comen ado [H28R27]: Done. Comen ado [E29]: You alk abou ‘se e al’ bu e e ence only one s udy. Please check his and p o ide u he e e ences i necessa y. Comen ado [MNP30R29]: done Comen ado [E31]: Which? We eally do need he e e ences. Comen ado [MNP32R31]: done Comen ado [E33]: The e e ences a e as ollows. Swain, M. 1985. Communica i e compe ence: some oles o comp ehensible inpu and comp ehensible ou pu in i s de elopmen . In Inpu in Second Language Acquisi ion, ed. S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden, 235-256. Long, M.1996. The ole o he linguis ic en i onmen in second language acquisi ion. In Handbook o Second Language Acquisi ion, ed. W. Ri chie and T. Bha ia, 413-468. Comen ado [H34R33]: Done. Comen ado [MNP35R33]: FL i a school is o be accep ed wi hin he Bilingual/CLIL Scheme. Beyond his, i is he schools' esponsibili y o decide he exac numbe o hou s ha he FL will be used and how hese will be dis ibu ed ac oss cu icula subjec s. Because no maximums a e se , exposu e o he L1 may be signi ican ly educed depending on he school and he con ex , which could po en ially ha e an e ec on lea ne s’ L1 de elopmen . Thus, moni o ing he FL-L1 balance is impo an . O o aspec o impo an e en elación al inpu que se p opo ciona en el aula CLIL es á elacionado con la na u aleza del inpu y el consiguien e ou pu que se ob iene (O winowska and Fo ys, 2015). En es e sen ido, es impo an e ene en cuen a que el obje i o p incipal del en oque CLIL es que se mejo e la compe encia del alumnado pa a comunica se en la o eign language. Así Galla do e al. (2009) conside an que es necesa io que el alumnado sea expues o a au hen ic inpu y que la lengua se use de con communica i e pu puses. De ahí que como indica Dal on Pu e (2011) una de la eo ías de e e encia sea el K ashen’s (1985) moni o model señalando la impo ancia que se concede en el mismo a la necesidad de que exis a un comp ehensi e inpu . De la misma o ma, Na és (2009:25) hace e e encia a la necesidad de que el con ex o de ap endizaje de la segunda lengua enga una condiciones simila es al de la p ime a lengua en an o en cuan o el oco de la enseñanza debe es a en el signi icado más que en la o ma y el inpu que se p opo ciona debe ajus a se al ni el de compe encia del alumnado. Siguiendo es a misma idea, Nie o (2016:82) señala la comunicación como obje i o cen al en la me odología CLIL y la consecuen e necesidad de p opo ciona un ico y a iado inpu que incluye “di e en language unc ions, di e en gen es, academic language, class oom language…” como medio pa a consegui os e “s uden ´s in ol emen and p oduc ion o comp ehensi e ou pu ”. Tene en cuen a las unciones comunica i as de la lengua y combina lo con el ap endizaje an o de in e pe sonal communica ion skills (BICS) and cogni i e-academic language p o iciency (CALP) implica la con eniencia de analiza el inpu que el p o eso ado p opo ciona en el aula no solo en cuan o a la dis ibución y p opo ción del mismo, sino ambién en cuan o a los momen os en los que se u iliza en el aula y los obje i os pa a los que se emplea. Va ious s udies ha e ocused on he ype o con en , discu si e unc ions and ac i i ies o which he L1 and he FL a e used in con en subjec s in CLIL p og ammes. Fo example, Ma sh (2002: 97) concluded ha ’ he hou s augh in he L1 will be de o ed o knowledge-in ensi e eaching, whe eas he CLIL [. . . ] hou s will ocus on ac i i ies pe mi ing he use o he L2/L3: consolida ing knowledge, and using i in a ious communica i e ac i i ies.’ In a simila ein, Lo enzo, Casal and Moo e (2009: 230) iden i ied di e en s ages in CLIL eaching o which each language is used. Thei indings show ha FL use a ies depending on he discu si e unc ion employed. Flexibili y Flexibili y is a key conside a ion in CLIL implemen a ion, e lec ing he needs o s uden s in hei pa icula lea ning con ex and enabling he de elopmen bo h o he L1 and he FL. Bae ens (2002: 25) e e s o a a ie y o ways o o ganising CLIL: CLIL allows o a g ea lexibili y in cu icula design and ime- able o ganiza ion, anging om ea ly o al, ea ly pa ial, la e imme sion ype p og ammes, o modula Comen ado [MNP36]: Language- ela ed a iables embedded in he CLIL lea ning en i onmen , which pe ain o he na u e o inpu , in e ac ion and ou pu in he class oom, An impo an ac o ha di e en ia es CLIL classes om language classes is he ole o language used in he inpu , in e ac ions and ou pu ” Comen ado [MNP37]: (a) by being exposed o au hen ic inpu in he second language and (b) by needing o use he second language o eal, communica i e pu poses’ Comen ado [MNP38]: Una idea pa ecida na se si segui an adiendo aque pe o e dejo la ci a (Jiménez Ca alán and Ruiz de Za obe (2009: 81): T adi ionally, wo ypes o language lea ning con ex s ha e been dis inguished: na u al con ex s and class oom con ex s. Na u al lea ning con ex s a e cha ac e ized by he use o language o communica ion as well as by exposu e o a g ea deal o a ied inpu p o ided by na i e speake s. As Ellis (1995: 17) poin s ou , his kind o esea ch aims a he cla i ica ion o heo e ical issues bu abo e all aims a he imp o emen o language eaching by means o de eloping eache s’ awa eness o he na u e o he inpu ha lea ne s a e exposed o. Comen ado [MNP39]: Wha is a he cen e o s akeholde s is he unde s anding ha CLIL class ooms a e an en i onmen o na u alis ic language lea ning, implying ha he bes kind o language lea ning p oceeds painlessly, wi hou o mal ins uc ion. These implici baseline assump ions a e in line wi h K ashen’s (1985) moni o model, which con inues o be he mos p ominen ecep ion-based heo y o language acquisi ion ou side academic esea ch ci cles. As is well known, he basic idea ... Comen ado [MNP40]: Na és (2009:25): We can b ie ly e iew he a ionale o in eg a ing con en and language. K ashen (1982), Ligh bown and Spada (2006), Long (1990) and Swain (2000), among o he s, sugges ... Comen ado [MNP41]: Thus, CLIL me hodology is based on communica ion, p o iding a ich and a ied inpu (di e en language unc ions, di e en gen es, academic language, class oom language...) and os e ing s uden s’ ... Comen ado [MNP42]: Hay que conec a es e pá a o con el an e io o undi lo Comen ado [E43]: Wha is his? Comen ado [H44R43]: Done. Comen ado [E45]: The signi icance o his lis is no clea : why is i ci ed? Wouldn’ i be mo e use ul o indica e which unc ions L, C and Moo e 2009 ound we e ypically in he FL o he L1? Comen ado [MNP46R45]: Explicación del a ículo. Resumimos o ci amos los esul ados ¿? The esul s show ha con en eache s a e mo e likely o employ he L2 in explici ly con en -cen ed eaching: du ing ac i i ies, consolida ion and e i- sion and o a ... subjec -de e mined slo s in Ge many (Mäsch, 1993) and he Uni ed Kingdom (Coyle, 2002). The modula app oach allows o subjec s o be handled in di e en combina ions o languages, he eby esponding o he desi e o sa egua d L1 capaci ies, imp o ing L2 capaci ies and in oducing L3 o a a ie y o languages, acco ding o pe cei ed local con ingencies. Flexibili y also allows o a wide ange o abili ies o bene i om pa ial educa ion h ough a di e en language. As Ma sh (2002: 95) poin s ou , his so o lexibili y is al eady p esen in p og ammes wi h di e en and a ied o ms o CLIL deli e y. In coun ies like Spain and F ance, s a e and egional go e nmen s allow schools a ce ain deg ee o au onomy in deciding which subjec s a e augh in he FL and how many hou s o language exposu e o bo h he L1 and he FL a e app op ia e, depending on con ex . Thus, lexibili y in CLIL p og amme design con ibu es o achie ing he igh balance be ween L1 and FL in eaching con en subjec s o enable knowledge and skills o de elop in bo h he FL and he L1. A s udy on he impac o CLIL on L1 compe ence de elopmen was ca ied ou in Spain by Me ino and Lasagabas e (2015). He concluded ha he e we e no s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween CLIL and non-CLIL s ands in s uden s’ de elopmen o L1 skills and knowledge. Howe e , Lasagabas e 's esea ch ook place in a bilingual con ex in Spain whe e he FL was in ac he lea ne s' L3. To da e, he e a e no ew s udies (Pe ez-Cañado, 2018) on he e ec s o CLIL on lea ne s' L1 compe ence de elopmen in monolingual con ex s. The p esen s udy add esses ha gap, ocusing on CLIL schools in Andalusia whe e he languages o ins uc ion a e Spanish ( he lea ne s’ only L1) and English ( he lea ne s’ FL). Aim and esea ch ques ions This a icle p esen s he esul s o assessmen s and a su ey ca ied ou in se en public schools in he p o ince o Se ille in o de o compa e ou comes in L1 (Spanish) lea ning be ween CLIL and non-CLIL s ands. The aim was o see i CLIL had any signi ican e ec on s uden s' L1 esul s, and o pinpoin any possible easons o di e ences, based on a iables ela ing o he pa icula i ies o he schools in ol ed, hei se ing (u ban s. u al) o he balance o L1/FL inpu and ype o inpu (i.e. discu si e unc ions o which L1/FL was used). The esea ch ques ions guiding he s udy we e as ollows: RQ1. A e he e s a is ically signican di e ences in Spanish Language and Li e a u e esul s be ween CLIL and non-CLIL s uden s? I so, o wha ex en a e hese de e mined by he se ing ( u al/u ban) and/o he pa icula i ies o he school and i s CLIL p og amme? RQ2. A e he e a ia ions ega ding he p opo ion o L1 and FL and he ype o inpu in each language ha CLIL s uden s ecei e in hei con en classes? RQ2. A e he amoun , na u e and ype o inpu p o ided in CLIL class ooms playing a ole on he lea ning o bo h languages? RQ3. Wha a e eache s’ and s uden s’ pe cep ions on whe he pa icipa ion in a CLIL p og amme has an impac on s uden s’ L1 skills and knowledge de elopmen ? The s udy and esea ch me hods Comen ado [E47]: And isn’ his he case also in Spain? You ph asing he e seems o sugges F ance is di e en om Spain. Comen ado [H48R47]: Done. Comen ado [E49]: How we e hese es ed? Comen ado [MNP50R49]: Two es ounds we e conduc ed in a longi udinal s udy spanning one yea and in which 285 seconda y educa ion s uden s ook pa . In he case o Basque and Spanish, eading comp ehension was assessed h ough s anda dised es s. These es s we e based on hose p e iously used by he ISEI-IVEI (Basque Ins i u e o Resea ch and E alua ion in Educa ion) (ISEI-IVEI 2012a, 2012b). The es s consis ed o one o wo ex s ollowed by comp ehension ques ions o se e al kinds wi h di e en alues acco ding o hei complexi y, ha is, mul iple choice, ue o alse, o hose which equi ed a sho w i en answe . W i en p oduc ion in Basque and Spanish was assessed by means o an essay abou a gi en opic ha pa icipan s had o de elop. The ‘p o ile’ echnique (Jacobs e al. 1981) was applied o e alua e he w i en es s, which consis s o i e scales e e ing o he di e en aspec s unde conside a ion: Con en , O ganiza ion, Vocabula y, Language Use and Mechanics. Wi hin each o hese scales he e a e ou bandings (‘excellen o e y good’, ‘good o a e age’, ‘ ai o poo ’, and ‘ e y poo ’) which gi e he pe son ma king a se ies o key wo ds on which o base he speci ic e alua ion c i e ia. The o e all w i en sco e is a i ed a by adding he sco es o each o he scales, which a ies om a minimum o 34 poin s o a maximum o 100. The s uden s’ w i ings we e assessed by wo independen e alua o s, he co ela ion coe icien s be ween bo h being highe han .70 in all he i e scales bo h a T1 and T2. Bo h e alua o s we e bilingual in Spanish and Basque, had comple ed hei English S udies deg ee, and had p e iously been ad ised and guided on he p ocedu e o assess he w i ings. Comen ado [E51]: Why should hese wo con ex s be di e en ? You don’ explain speci ically, and hus we emain wi hou a clea a ionale o you s udy. Please add a sen ence o so eminding us why i should be so signi ican o examine a monolingual con ex . Comen ado [MNP52R51]: En un con ex o monolingue el alumnado no ha enido la expe iencia de ap endizaje bilingüe que se a a de pone en p ác ica con es a me odología y que implica po ejemplo un desa ollo cogni i o de e en e. En con ex os que ya son bilingües odos esos p ocesos ya han ocu ido con la p ime a y segunda lengua. Comen ado [MNP53]: Es o no es aba así pe o es que ya no es e dad po uqe Ma isa ya ha publicado un a ículo sob e es o, es que lle amos ya más de un año y así no se puede ene la bibliog a ía ac ualizada!!!Lo ponemos ¿? Con o ma o: Resal a The p esen s udy belongs o a la ge p ojec on CLIL implemen a ion and esul s in monolingual con ex s in Spain. Fo his speci ic s udy, bo h quan i a i e and quali a i e da a ha e been ga he ed. The sample o schools was selec ed in collabo a ion wi h he p o incial coo dina o o bilingual p og ammes. I is composed o se en s a e schools in bo h u al (Schools 1, 3 and 6) and u ban (Schools 2, 4, 5 and 7) se ings. The e we e h ee p ima y schools (1, 2 and 3) and ou seconda y schools (4, 5, 6 and 7). Two seconda y schools (Schools 4 and 7) ook s uden s om ea ly CLIL p og ammes (i.e. s uden s had been ecei ing bilingual ins uc ion since he beginning o p ima y educa ion) while he o he wo (Schools 5 and 6) had s uden s in la e CLIL p og ammes (i.e. s a ing bilingual ins uc ion a he beginning o seconda y educa ion). A p ima y le el, all CLIL s uden s had ecei ed bilingual ins uc ion om he onse o p ima y educa ion. In all he schools CLIL and non-CLIL s ands an alongside each o he . S uden s in he non-CLIL s ands had egula EFL classes. The s udy in ol ed a o al o 271 s uden s: 134 CLIL and 137 non-CLIL, 151 p ima y school lea ne s (Yea 6, age 11) and 120 seconda y school s uden s (Yea 10, age 15). A g oup o 38 eache s, including FL eache s, con en eache s and language assis an s, also ook pa in his s udy. In o de o c ea e a homogenous sample o s uden s allowing o compa isons, CLIL and non-CLIL g oups we e ma ched o e bal in elligence, mo i a ion and ou -o - class exposu e o English using, espec i ely, he EFAI (E aluación Fac o ial de las Ap i udes In elec uales) sub es o e bal ap i ude was used in p ima y and seconda y e sions (San ama ía, A ibas, Pe eña and Seisdedos 2014); Pelechano’s (1994) MA mo i a ion ques ionnai e; and a ques ionnai e based on he language dia y c ea ed by Sundq is and Syl én (2014) o asce ain he ype o ac i i ies in which s uden s engaged in English ou side school and he amoun o ime spen on hese ac i i ies. In o de o answe RQ1, CLIL and non-CLIL s uden s’ end-o -yea esul s in Spanish Language and Li e a u e we e collec ed. These comp ised a summa i e assessmen ma ked on a scale o 0 o 10 (wi h 5 as he pass ma k) assessing p og ess o e he school yea in he i e main cu icula a eas: o al communica ion (speaking and lis ening); w i en communica ion ( eading); w i en communica ion (w i ing); knowledge o he language as a sys em; and li e a y educa ion. In o de o answe RQ2, we used esponses o ques ions su eying eache s’ and s uden s’ pe cep ions conce ning he p opo ion o FL inpu in CLIL con en classes. Rega ding he ype o inpu ha s uden s ecei ed in he L1 and he FL in con en classes, semi-s uc u ed in e iews we e ca ied ou wi h bo h eache s and s uden s. In his s udy, he ype o inpu ecei ed by he s uden s was analysed in ela ion o he discu si e unc ions o which each language is used in class. The p o ocols included a lis o hese discu si e unc ions, which was used o he ca ego isa ion in he analysis. RQ3 used da a om ano he selec ion o i ems om he longe ques ionnai e (Pé ez-Cañado 2015). The i ems (I ems 4 and 6 om Sec ion 1 o bo h he Teache e sion and he S uden e sion) used a 4-poin Like scale and ocused on gauging s uden s’ and hei eache s’ le el o ag eemen on whe he hei L1 knowledge and skills and hei language awa eness had imp o ed due o pa icipa ing in bilingual educa ion. The s a is ical so wa e SPSS Ve sion 24.0 was used o he analysis and p ocessing o quan i a i e da a. In he case o RQ1, bo h cen al endency (mean) and dispe sion measu e (s anda d de ia ion) we e calcula ed. S uden -Fishe - es s o Comen ado [MNP54]: Quizás es á más cla o si se pone p ime o los de p ima ia y secunda ia y despue´s los que co esponden a u ales y u banos y elimina oda la pa e de ea ly y la e. Con eso no es necesa io hace la abla Comen ado [E55]: Wha abou he p ima y schools? Did hey all s a CLIL om he beginning? Comen ado [H56R55]: Done. Comen ado [E57]: I hink i would be eally help ul o ha e a Table indica ing all he di e en cha ac e is ics o he schools. This becomes an impo an issue la e . Comen ado [E58]: Can you explain wha you mean? A e you saying o a CLIL s uden wi h X yea s’ exposu e o English and an in elligence sco e o X, you we e able o ind a co esponding s uden wi h he same yea s o exposu e and he same in elligence sco e???? Comen ado [MNP59R58]: En odos los a ículos apa ece así. C eo que el p oceso de qué signi ica ma ching hay que explicá selo a ella. Se selecciona on alumnos de odos los ni eles pa a que odos los cen os u ieses una can idad ap oximada de alumnado con odos los ni eles an o de in eligencia, mo i ación…. Comen ado [E60]: We need much g ea e p ecision on wha was in ol ed: wha kind o es s/assessmen s we e in ol ed, how he ma king was unde aken (acco ding o wha c i e ia). In pa icula , he eade has NO idea o wha ‘li e a y educa ion’ migh mean. Comen ado [MNP61R60]: De es o no enemos ealmen e in o mación. Solo se puede deci que la asigna u a es de lengua y li e a u a y cogimos las cali icaciones de lengua que as una e aluación con inua había hecho los p o eso es. Comen ado [E62]: None o his is eally ele an . Comen ado [H63R62]: OK. Comen ado [E64]: How on ea h did his gi e you a clea empi ical pic u e o ype o inpu !? Comen ado [E65]: I’ e dele ed his as i gi es no p ecise in o ma ion. Please explain speci ically how he in o ma ion abou p opo ion and ype o L1/FL inpu was ob ained. I’m a aid i ’s no clea om you w i e-up he e. Comen ado [MNP66R65]: Pa a las en e is as se enía una guia de p egun as que se les iban haciendo. Las p egun as que se hicie on: ¿En qué po cen aje di ía que u iliza us ed el inglés en clase? ¿Pa a qué unciones discu si as u iliza el inglés en clase: p opo cionando un lis ado: In oduci el ema T ansmi i con enidos Realiza ac i idades Acla a dudas y explica di icul ades Fo mula p egun as Co egi a eas Consolida y epasa conocimien os O ganiza la clase con dis in os ipos de ag upamien o In e ac ua con el alumnado/p o eso ado Suminis a eedback sob e las ac uaciones de clase independen g oups and analysis o a iance (ANOVA) we e employed in o de o es o s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween CLIL and non-CLIL g oups wi hin and ac oss schools. Le ene’s es was used o check he equali y o a iances in he CLIL-and non-CLIL g oups. Rega ding RQ2, s uden s’ and eache s’ epo ed pe cen age o usage o he L1 and he FL in class was compa ed. This quan i a i e analysis is complemen ed wi h quali a i e da a ob ained in he in e iews, and analysed ollowing he ca ego ies es ablished in he in e iew p o ocols. Resul s Table 1 shows he mean sco e and s anda d de ia ions o he L1 assessmen sco es o he whole sample (bo h p ima y and seconda y s uden s), and he esul s o he S uden -Fishe - es , checking he signi icance o any di e ences. As can be seen, a s a is ically signi ican di e ence (p = .001) was ound be ween CLIL and non-CLIL g oups in a ou o CLIL s ands, sugges ing ha s uden s in CLIL g oups ob ained signi ican ly highe sco es in Spanish Language and Li e a u e. Table 1. Compa ison o esul s in L1 Spanish Language and Li e a u e be ween CLIL and non-CLIL g oups. G oup n M SD p- alue Non-CLIL 137 6.35 1.793 .001 CLIL 134 7.04 1.692 Fu he mo e, when p ima y and seconda y educa ion da a we e disagg ega ed, simila esul s we e ound. The e we e signi ican di e ences be ween CLIL and non-CLIL g oups, again in a ou o CLIL s ands, a p ima y (p = .002) and a seconda y le el (p = .003). This sugges s, a he e y leas , ha CLIL educa ion did no impac nega i ely on s uden s’ L1 a ainmen and indeed appea s o be associa ed wi h a posi i e e ec on L1 a ainmen . Fu he analyses we e hen pe o med in o de o explo e he in luence o o he ac o s. Fi s , using a - es , signi ican di e ences in Spanish Language and Li e a u e sco es be ween schools in u ban and schools in u al a eas we e checked; an ANOVA es was pe o med o iden i y any di e ences be ween schools on L1 a ainmen esul s o CLIL s. non-CLIL s ands. Table 2 shows ha no s a is ically signi ican di e ences we e ound be ween u al and u ban schools (p = .069). This indica es ha he se ing was no a ac o a ec ing he esul s ob ained when CLIL and non-CLIL g oups a e con as ed. Table 2. Compa ison o esul s in Spanish Language and Li e a u e be ween u al s. u ban schools G oup n M SD p- alue Ru al 124 6.90 1.750 .069 U ban 147 6.51 1.780 Comen ado [E67]: I’m no su e I’d emphasise he quan i a i e na u e – ge ing pa icipan s o assess % is a ai ly loose – and he e o e inexac - way o calcula ing % o use o L1/TL (as opposed o, o example, basing he calcula ion on analysis o eco dings o e en class obse a ion no es). Comen ado [MNP68R67]: Lo que ella no en iende es que además de las en e is as se ealiza on unos cues iona ios complemen aios con una escala Like que es de dónde salen los da os cuan i a i os. Es o es á dicho en el pá a o an e io . Comen ado [E69]: We ha e no idea wha hese we e, so i ’s a bi poin less o men ion hem. See abo e e. need o g ea e cla i y and p ecision in epo ing esea ch ins umen s. Comen ado [MNP70R69]: In o mación sob e los p o ocolos pa a las en e is as. Ejemplos de las p egun as? Re e encia los ins umen os con el a ículo de Ma isa: E alua ing CLIL p og ammes: Ins umen Design and Valida ion, 2016 Con o ma o: Resal a Table 3 shows he e ec o he independen a iable 1 (CLIL/non-CLIL s and) and he independen a iable 2 (school) on he dependen a iable (L1 esul s). Bo h hese independen a iables we e ound o ha e a s a is ically signi ican e ec wi h high e ec sizes: o CLIL s. non-CLIL (pa ial E a2 = .193) and o school (pa ial E a2 = .169). The es ima ed ma ginal mean in he CLIL g oup was highe (3.524) han in he non-CLIL g oup (2.825). Howe e , when bo h independen a iables we e conside ed oge he , no s a is ically signi ican di e ences we e ound (p = .150) and he e ec size was lowe (pa ial E a2 = .036). This sugges s ha ‘school’ was a c ucial a iable ac ing on he esul s. Table 3. In e -subjec analysis O igin Type III Sum o squa es Gl. RMS F. Sig. E a2 Co ec ed model 113.837a 13 8.757 6.233 .000 .240 In e cep 2222.622 1 2222.622 1582.095 .000 .860 CLIL/non-CLIL s and 26.944 1 26.944 19,179 .000 .069 School 86.223 6 14.370 10,229 .000 .193 CLIL/non-CLIL x School 13.426 6 2.238 1.593 .150 .036 Fu he analysis was ca ied ou conside ing he s ands (CLIL- non-CLIL) and he schools. In his analysis, means we e con as ed and pos -hoc es s pe o med o bo h p ima y and seconda y schools. Table 4 shows he desc ip i e s a is ics o s uden s in p ima y educa ion, acco ding o he school a ended. En odos los casos las secciones CLIL de cada cen o ob ienen mejo es esul ados que las secciones non-CLIL. The e a e di e ences be ween he means o he schools: he highes mean co esponds o School 2 and he lowes one o School 3, bo h o CLIL and non-CLIL g oups. Table 4. Desc ip i e s a is ics o indi idual p ima y schools Sec ion School M SD Non CLIL School 1 3.23 1.055 School 2 3.68 1.090 School 3 3.03 1.449 To al 3.30 1.231 CLIL School 1 3.88 1.116 School 2 4.33 0.970 School 3 3.63 1.300 To al 3.93 1.153 Table 5 shows he esul s o he pos -hoc analysis wi h mul iple compa isons be ween schools. The e a e s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween School 2 and School 3 (p = .016). In e es ingly, School 2 is he school ha has been implemen ing a CLIL p og amme longe . implemen s an ea ly CLIL p og amme s a ing a 2005, whe eas School 3 has a la e one. These da a sugges ha he leng hyea s o implemen a ion o he CLIL p og amme may be an impo an ac o a ec ing s uden s' esul s bo h in CLIL Con o ma o: New pa ag aph, No conse a con el siguien e Con o ma o: New pa ag aph Con o ma o: New pa ag aph Con o ma o: New pa ag aph Con o ma o: New pa ag aph Con o ma o: New pa ag aph Con o ma o: Sang ía: P ime a línea: 0 cm Con o ma o: Español (España) Con o ma o: Tachado Con o ma o: Fuen e: Sin Neg i a Con o ma o: Fuen e: Sin Neg i a Comen ado [MNP71]: Pa a P ima ia sí podemos deci que el que iene mejo es esul ados lle a más iempo con el p og ama, sé que es el que lle aba más iempo y con la coo dinado a con más expe iencia. Empezó en el 2005 pe o no consigo encon a los da os de cuándo empeza on los demás. Quizás pone simplemen e que el p og amma es más an iguo y ya. Comen ado [E72]: Be ca e ul no o o e in e p e – i ’s only based on one school ou o 7 Comen ado [H73R72]: Done. Re e ences Adesope, Olusola O; La in, T acy; Thompson, Te i; Unge leide , Cha les. 2010. “A Sys ema ic Re iew and Me a-Analysis o he Cogni i e Co ela es o Bilingualism.” Re iew o Educa ional Resea ch 80 (2): 207, doi: h ps://doi.o g/10.3102/0034654310368803 Admi aal, W., G. Wes ho , and K. de Bo . 2006. “E alua ion o Bilingual Seconda y Educa ion in he Ne he lands: S uden s’ Language P o iciency in English.” Educa ional Resea ch and E alua ion 12 (1): 75–93. Alejo, R., and A. Pique . 2016. “U ban s. u al CLIL: an analysis o inpu - ela ed a iables, mo i a ion and language a ainmen .” Cul u e and Cu iculum 29 (3): 245-262. Agus ín Llach, M.P. 2009. “The Role o Spanish L1 in he Vocabula y Use o CLIL and non- CLIL EFL Lea ne s.” In Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning. E idence om Resea ch in Eu ope, edi ed by Y. Ruiz de Za obe and R. Jiménez, 112-129. Canada: Mul ilingual Ma e s. A ibas, M. 2016. “Analysing a whole CLIL school: S uden s’ a i udes, mo i a ion, and ecep i e ocabula y ou comes.” La in Ame ican Jou nal o Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning 9 (2): 267-292. doi:10.5294/la-clil.2016.9.2.2 Bae ens, H. 2002. “The Signi icance o CLIL/EMILE.” In CLIL/EMILE. The Eu opean dimension. Ac ions, ends, and o esigh po en ial, edi ed by D. Ma sh, 20-26. Jy a skyla : Uni e si y o Jy a skyla . Casal, S., and P. Moo e. 2009. “The Andalusian Bilingual Sec ions Scheme: E alua ion and consul ancy.” In e na ional CLIL Resea ch Jou nal 1: 36-46. Cenoz, J. 2013. “Discussion: owa ds an educa ional pe spec i e in CLIL language policy and pedagogical p ac ice.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism 16(3):389-394. Doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777392 Cenoz, J. 2015. “Con en -based ins uc ion and con en and language in eg a ed lea ning: he same o di e en ?” Language, Cul u e and Cu iculum 28(1):8-24. Doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 Coyle, D. 2002. “Rele ance o CLIL o he Eu opean Commission’s Language.” In CLIL/EMILE. The Eu opean dimension. Ac ions, ends, and o esigh po en ial, edi ed by D. Ma sh, 27-29. Jy a skyla : Uni e si y o Jy a skyla . Coyle, D. 2008. “Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning: owa ds a connec ed esea ch agen- da o CLIL pedagogies.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism 10(5): 543-562. Coyle, Do, Pe e Hood, and Da id Ma sh. 2010. CLIL: Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Cummins, J. 1999. BICS and CALP: cla i ying he dis inc ion. ERIC ED438551. Accessed 12 Sep embe 2016. h ps://e ic.ed.go /?id=ED438551 Cummnis, J. 2000. Language, Powe and Pedagogy: Bilingual Child en Caugh in he C oss-Fi e. Cle edon: Mul ilingual Ma e s. Dal on-Pu e , C. 2007. Discou se in Con en and Language in eg a ed Lea ning (CLIL) Class ooms. Language Tea ning & Language Teaching 20. Ams e dam: John Benjamins Publiching Company. Dal on-Pu e , C. 2011. “Con en -and-Language In eg a ed Lea ning: F om p ac ice o p inciples?” Annual Re iew o Applied Linguis ics 31: 182–204. Dal on-Pu e , C., and U. Smi . 2013a. “Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning: A esea ch agenda.” Language Teaching 46: 545-559. doi:10.1017/s0261444813000256 Dal on-Pu e , C., and U. Smi . 2013b. “The powe o belie s: Lay heo ies and hei in luence on he implemen a ion o CLIL p og ammes.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism 16 (3): 267-284, doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 Doiz, A., D. Lasagabas e , and J. M. Sie a. 2014. “CLIL and mo i a ion: The e ec o Indi idual and con ex ual a iables.” The Language Lea ning Jou nal 42: 209-24. Eu opean Commision. 2004. P omo ing language lea ning and linguis ic di e si y: An ac ion plan 2004-06. Luxembou g: Eu opean Commision. Eu opean Council. 2001. Common Eu opean amewo k o e e ence o languages: lea ning, eaching, assessmen . S asbou g: Council o Eu ope. Eu opean Commision. 2012. “Eu opeans and hei Languages. Special Eu oba ome e 386.” Accessed 12 Sep embe 2016. h p://ec.eu opa.eu/publi_opinion/a chi es/ebs/ebs_386_en.pd . Eu ydice. 2012. “Key Da a on Teaching Languages a School in Eu ope.” Accessed 12 Sep embe 2016. h p://eacea.eceu opa.eu/educa ion/eu ydice/documen s/key_da a_se ies/14 3EN_HI.pd . Fe nández, A., and A. Canga. 2014. “A p elimina y s udy on mo i a ion and gende in CLIL and non-CLIL ypes o ins uc ion.” In e na ional Jou nal o English S udies 4 (1): 21-36. Fe nández-Sanju jo, J., A. Fe nández-Cos ales and J. A ias. 2017. “Analysing s uden s lea ning in science in CLIL s. Non-CLIL p og ammes: Empi ical e idence om Spain.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism, doi: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 G aa , R., and G. Wes ho . 2007. “An obse a ion ool o e ec i e L2 pedagogy in Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning (CLIL).” The In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism 10 (5): 603-624. Jun a de Andalucía. 2016. “Plan Es a égico de desa ollo de las Lenguas en Andalucía.” Accessed 12 Sep embe 2016. h p://www.jun adeandalucia.es/educacion/po als/abaco- po le /con en /462 16e3-c047-479 -a753-1030b 16 822 K ashen, S. 1985. The Inpu Hypo hesis. London: Longman. K ashen, S. 1997. Why bilingual educa ion. ERIC Diges . Cha les on, WV: ERIC/CRESS. Lasagabas e , D. 2008. “Fo eign Language Compe ence in Con en and Language In eg a ed Cou ses.” The Open Applied Linguis ics Jou nal 1: 30–41. Lasagabas e , D., and J.M. Sie a. 2009. “Language a i udes in CLIL and adi ional EFL classes.” In e na ional CLIL Resea ch Jou nal 1 (2): 4-17. Lasagabas e , D., and J. M. Sie a. 2010. “Imme sion and CLIL in English: Mo e Di e ences Than Simila i ies.” ELT Jou nal 64: 367–375. Lasagabas e , D. and Y. Ruiz de Za obe, eds. 2010. CLIL in Spain: Implemen a ion, Resul s and Teache T aining. Newcas le: Camb idge Schola s. Lasagabas e , D. 2011. “English achie emen and s uden mo i a ion in CLIL and EFL se ings.” Inno a ion in Language Lea ning and Teaching 5 (1): 3-18. Lasagabas e , D., and A. Doiz. 2015. “A Longi udinal S udy on he Impac o CLIL A ec i e Fac o s.” Applied Linguis ics 24: 1-26. Lasagabas e , D. 2017. “Language lea ning Mo i a ion and Language A idu es in Mul ilingual Spain F om an In e na ional Pe spec i e.” Mode n Language Jou nal 101:583-596. Long, M.1996. The ole o he linguis ic en i onmen in second language acquisi ion. In Handbook o Second Language Acquisi ion, ed. W. Ri chie and T. Bha ia, 413-468. Lo enzo, F., S. Casal, and P. Moo e. 2009. “The E ec s o Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning in Eu opean Educa ion: Key Findings om he Andalusian Bilingual Sec ions E alua ion P ojec .” Applied Linguis ics 31 (3): 418–442. Me ino, J.A., and D. Lasagabas e . 2015. “CLIL as a way o mul ilingualism, In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism, doi: 10.1080/13670050.2015.1128386 Me ino, J.A., and D. Lasagabas e . 2017. “The e ec o con en and language in eg a ed lea ning p og ammes´s in ensi y on English p o iciency: A longi udinal s udy.” In e na ional Jou nal o Applied Linguisi ics 28 (1):1-13, h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/ijal.12177 Milla, M.D. and A.V. Casas. 2018. “Teache Pe spec i es on CLIL Implemen a ion: A Wi hin-G oup Compa ison o Key Va iables.” Po a Lingua um 29:159-180. Ma sh, D., ed. 2002. CLIL/EMILE. The Eu opean Dimension. Ac ions, T ends, and Fo esigh Po en ial. Jy a skyla : Uni e si y o Jy a skyla . Mehis o, P., D. Ma sh, M. J. y F igols. 2008. Unco e ing CLIL: Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning in Bilingual and Mul ilingual Educa ion. Ox o d: Macmillan Educa ion. Minis e io de Educación, Cul u a y Depo e. 2012. Es udio Eu opeo de Compe encia Lingüís ica EECL. In o me Español. Vol. I. Mad id: Sec e a ía Gene al Técnica. Minis e io de Educación, Cul u a y Depo e. 2011. Es udio In e nacional de P og eso en Comp ensión Lec o a, Ma emá icas y Ciencias. PIRLS-TIMS. In o me Español. Vol. I. Mad id: Ins i u o Nacional de E aluación Educa i a. Na és, T. 2009. “E ec i e Con en and Language in eg a ed Lea ning (CLIL) P og ammes.” In Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning. E idence om Resea ch in Eu ope, edi ed by Y. Ruiz de Za obe and R. Jiménez, 22-40. Canada: Mul ilingual Ma e s. Nie o, E. 2016a. “The impac o CLIL on he Acquisi ion o he lea ning o lea n Compe ence in Seconda y School Educa ion in he Bilingual P og ammes o Cas illa-La Mancha.” Po a Lingua um 2: 21-34. Nie o, E. 2016b. “The impac o CLIL on he Acquisi ion o L2 Compe ences Skills in P ima y Educa ion.” In e na ional Jou nal o English S udies 16 (2): 81-101. Nikula, T., C. Dal on-Pu e , A. Llina es., and F. Lo enzo. 2016. “Mo e han con en and language: he complexi y o in eg a ion in CLIL and mul ilingual educa ion.” In Concep ualising in eg a ion in CLIL and mul ilingual educa ion, edi ed by T. Nikula, E. Da ouz, P. Moo e, and U. Smi , 1-28. B is ol: Mul ilingual Ma e s. O winowska, A., and M. Fo yś. 2015. “They lea n he CLIL way, bu do hey like i ? A ec i i y and cogni ion in uppe -p ima y CLIL classes.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism, doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1051944. P enninge , S. 2016. “All good hings come in h ees: ea ly English lea ning, CLIL and mo i a ion in Swi ze land.” Cahie s de l ILSL 48: 119-147. Pa ón. V. 2018. “Lea ning Ou comes in CLIL p og ammes: a Compa ison o Resul s Be ween U ban and Ru al En i omen s.” Po a Lingua um 29:9-28. Pelechano, V. (1994). “P ueba MA.” Análisis y Modi icación de la Conduc a, 20: 71-72. Pé ez-Cañado, M. 2012. “CLIL esea ch in Eu ope: pas , p esen and u u e.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism 15(3): 315-341, doi: 10.1080/13670050.2011.630064 Pé ez-Cañado, M. 2014. “Teache aining needs o bilingual educa ion: in-se ice eache pe cep ions.” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingual Educa ion and Bilingualism 19 (3): 1-30, doi: 10.1080/13670050.2014.980778 Pé ez-Cañado, M. 2016. “A e eache s eady o CLIL? E idence om a Eu opean s udy.” Eu opean Jou nal o Teache Educa ion 39 (2): 79-112, doi: 10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104 Pé ez-Cañado, M. 2018. “The e ec s od CLIL on L1 and con en lea ning: Upda e emi ical e idence om monolingual con ex s.” Lea ning and Ins uc ion 57: 18-33, h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.lea nins uc.2017.12.002 Ruiz de Za obe, Y. and J. Cenoz, 2015. “Way o wa d in he wen y- i s cen u y in con en -based ins uc ion: mo ing owa ds in eg a ion.” Language, Cul u e and Cu iculum 28(1): 90-96, doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000927 Ruiz de Za obe, Y. and R. Jimenez. 2009. Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning. E idence om Resea ch in Eu ope. Canada: Mul ilingual Ma e s. Ruiz de Za obe, Y., J. Sie a and F. Galla do 2011. Con en and Fo eign Language In eg a ed Lea ning. Con ibu ions o Mul ilinguals in Eu opean Con ex s. Be n: Pe e Lang. San ama ia, P., A ibas, D., Pe eña, J. and Seisdedos, N. (2014). EFAI. E aluación Fac o ial de las Ap i udes In elec uales. Mad id: TEA. Seikkula-Leino, J. 2007. “CLIL Lea ning: Achie emen le els and a ec i e ac o s.” Language and Educa ion 21(4): 328-341, doi: 10.2167/le635.0 S occo, A., Yamasaki, B., Na alenko, R. and P a , C. 2014. “Bilingual b ain aining: A neu obiological amewo k o how bilingual expe ience imp o es execu i e unc ion” In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingualism 18 (1):67-92, doi: h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1367006912456617 Sundq is , P. and Syl én, L.K. (2014). “Language- ela ed compu e use: Focus on young L2 English lea ne s in Sweden.” ReCALL 26(1):3-20. Swain, M. 1985. Communica i e compe ence: some oles o comp ehensible inpu and comp ehensible ou pu in i s de elopmen . In Inpu in Second Language Acquisi ion, ed. S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden, 235-256. Syl én, L. and A. Thompson. 2015. “Language Lea ning mo i a ion and CLIL. Is he e a connec ion?” Jou nal o Imme sion and Con en -Based Language Educa ion 3 (1): 28-50. Emmanuelle Le Pichon Vo s man; Hen ie e De Swa , Vik o ija Ceginskas & Huub Van Den Be gh. 2009. “Language lea ning expe ience in school con ex and me acogni i e awa eness o mul ilingual child en.” In e na ional Jou nal o Mul ilingualism 6(3): 258-280, doi: 10.1080/14790710902878692 Comen ado [MNP94]: Así pone pa a ci a lo en la e is a pe o no engo muy cla o en odos cúal es el nomb e y el apellido pa a adap a lo al o ma o de las e e encias!!!