Implementing bilingual education in monolingual contexts: lessons learned and ways forward

For over two decades, bilingual approaches to language education have been embraced in Europe as the potential lynchpin to tackle the foreign language deficit on our continent. More specifically, the dual-focused approach of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been heralded as a lever for change and success in language learning and has had an exponential uptake in very diverse educational settings in Europe and, increasingly, in Latin America and in Asia. It is now considered ‘an unstoppable train’ whose progress can no longer be blocked (Macaro 2015: 7).

Bilingual communities such as the Basque Autonomous Community and Catalonia in Spain, a country considered to be a representative microcosm of the multifaceted CLIL landscape, have a long and productive tradition in bilingual teaching and research and are prominently positioned within the CLIL scenario with their nearly 30 years of experience with this approach. They have produced a large body of research, with landmark studies being conducted by prominent figures (e.g. Cenoz, García Mayo, Lasagabaster, Ruiz de Zarobe, or Sierra).

However, research and experience are less prevalent in monolingual communities, where the CLIL tradition is much more recent and thus not as firmly rooted as in the bilingual areas (Fernández Fontecha 2009; Fortanet-Gómez and Ruiz-Garrido 2009). This is perhaps due to the fact that attaining bilingualism in monolingual settings poses much more of a challenge, since there is little or no extramural exposure to the target language, which is ultimately confined to the CLIL classroom. There is also a lack of tradition in language teaching which has yielded inadequate levels of proficiency attained by students (Agustín Llach 2009) and a worrying lack of proficiency among teachers (Rubio Mostacero 2009). There is a well-documented paucity of outcome-oriented research into the effects of CLIL programmes in monolingual settings which warrants further investigation on this front (Fernández-Sanjurjo, Fernández-Costales and Arias Blanco 2017). Furthermore, the few studies which have thus far been conducted in monolingual contexts (e.g. Lorenzo, Casal and Moore 2009; Madrid and Hughes 2011) present a series of methodological shortcomings in terms of variables, cohort, research design, or statistical methodology (cf. Pérez Cañado 2012 for an overview of these lacunae) which could compromise the validity of the outcomes obtained.

Perhaps precisely due to this shortage of robust empirical data in monolingual settings, a series of worrying false myths (Pérez Cañado in press for 2020), misapprehensions (Paradowski 2017), or misconceptions (Rosling 2018) are currently proliferating around bilingual education with a potentially dangerous ripple effect on participating stakeholders. Rosling (2018: 22) goes as far as to term them ‘mega-misconceptions’ due to their ‘enormous impact’. These misconstrued perceptions primarily focus on the effects of CLIL programmes on L2 proficiency, on L1 level, and content leaning, on the translation of CLIL policy into actual grassroots practice, along with issues of elitism in CLIL. They stem from unsubstantiated beliefs or biased opinions and not from solid empirical evidence, and could well derail that metaphorical train to which Macaro alludes, rather than ‘allow its passengers to reach their destination safely’ (Macaro 2015: 2).

The remit of this issue is precisely to address the deleterious situation outlined above, and to provide empirically robust and methodologically sound research evidence into how CLIL is working in monolingual contexts in order to question critically assumptions relating to CLIL implementation and functioning. In order to do so, it reports on the results of a study conducted via two government-funded research projects (cf. Funding) which has sought to address some of the main lacunae identified in prior investigations of this nature. To begin with, it has been designed to achieve homogeneity in the experimental and control groups at the outset of the study, thereby ensuring comparability. It has also examined the impact of CLIL not only on the L2, but also on L1 and content knowledge, factoring in an important number of moderating variables and using multiple triangulation (data, methodological, investigator, and location triangulation). It has equally set out to determine, through successive discriminant analyses, whether CLIL is truly responsible for the possible differences ascertained or whether they can be ascribed to these other variables. Finally, it is longitudinal rather than cross-sectional, in order to determine whether the effects of CLIL are maintained when students move on from CLIL programmes.

This special issue presents the key findings of the study from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. Through them, it offers updated empirically-grounded insights into the effects of CLIL on L1 level (Navarro-Pablo and López Gándara), L2 proficiency (Martínez Agudo), and content learning (Hughes and Madrid) in monolingual contexts. It also explores whether the issue of elitism in CLIL is still a hard-and-fast fact or a myth which needs to be dispelled (Pérez Cañado). From a qualitative standpoint, it then identifies key challenges in CLIL implementation in terms of the linguistic and intercultural aspects of foreign language learning in monolingual contexts (Oxbrow); materials, methodology, and evaluation (Barrios and Milla Lara); and coordination, training, and mobility (Pavón Vázquez, Lancaster and Callejas Bretones). These specific studies are furthermore framed within the broader context of European research on bilingual education (Rumlich). All the articles showcase the main lessons learned from empirically reliable research and signpost ways forward for the CLIL agenda to continue advancing smoothly in those monolingual contexts which seek to implement bi- or plurilingual models of language education.

The data reported in this issue will thus hopefully empower readers to ‘hunt, capture, and replace misconceptions’ (Rosling 2018: 45). It should encourage them to work within an ‘up-to-date, fact-based framework’ (Rosling 2018: 247) and allow them to weed out the non-issues which should no longer generate discussion in the CLIL arena from the real issues which will largely continue to shape the future CLIL agenda.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [grant number FFI2012-32221] and the Junta de Andalucía [grant number P12-HUM-23480].