Which pupils have access to CLIL? Investigating the schools’ choice for English-based CLIL programmes in Belgium

References

• Agentschap Voor Onderwijsdiensten. 2019. Cijfermateriaal leerlingenkenmerken. https://www.agodi.be/cijfermateriaal-leerlingenkenmerken.
   Google Scholar
• Agentschap Voor Onderwijsdiensten. n.d. Veelgestelde vragen over leerlingenkenmerken. https://dataonderwijs.vlaanderen.be/documenten/bestanden/FAQ_Leerlingkenmerken.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bakken J, Brevik LM. 2022. Challenging the Notion of CLIL Elitism: A Study of Secondary School Students’ Motivation for Choosing CLIL in Norway. TESOL Quart. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banegas DL. 2022. Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Lang Teach. 55(3):379–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broca A. 2016. CLIL and non-CLIL: differences from the outset. ELTJJ. 70(3):320–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton A. 2011. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System. 39(4):523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton A. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System. 41(3):587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton A. 2015. CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System. 53:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulté B, Surmont J, Martens L. 2022. The impact of CLIL on the L2 French and L1 Dutch proficiency of Flemish secondary school pupils. Int J Bilingual Educ Bilingualism. 25(9):3151–3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.2018400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler YG. 2014. Current issues in English education for young learners in East Asia. English Teach. 69(4):3–25. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.4.201412.3
   Google Scholar
• Butler YG, Le V. 2018. A longitudinal investigation of parental social-economic status (SES) and young students’ learning of English as a foreign language. System. 73:4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle D, Hood P, Marsh D. 2010. CLIL: content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dallinger S, Jonkmann K, Hollm J. 2018. Selectivity of content and language integrated learning programmes in German secondary schools. Int J Bilingual Educ Bilingualism. 21(1):93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1130015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer C, Huettner J, Schindelegger V, Smit U. 2009. Technology-geeks speak out: what students think about vocational CLIL. Int CLIL Res J. 1(2):17–26.
   Google Scholar
• DeWiele CEB, Edgerton JD. 2021. Opportunity or inequality? The paradox of French immersion education in Canada. J Multilingual Multicultural Dev. :1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1865988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurydice. 2006. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/756ebdaa-f694-44e4-8409-21eef02c9b9b.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice. 2023. Key features of the Belgian education system. [acessed 2003 May 10]. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/belgium-flemish-community/overview.
   Google Scholar
• Franck E, Nicaise I. 2018. Ongelijkheden in het Vlaamse onderwijssysteem: verbetering in zicht?. Een vergelijking tussen PISA 2003 en 2015. Leuven, Gent: HIVA, SONO.
   Google Scholar
• Goris J, Denessen E, Verhoeven L. 2019. Effects of content and language integrated learning in Europe: a systematic review of longitudinal experimental studies. Eur Educ Res J. 18(6):675–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119872426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham KM, Choi Y, Davoodi A, Razmeh S, Dixon LQ. 2018. Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: a systematic review. laclil. 11(1):19–38. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hüttner J, Smit U. 2014. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: some of the reasons why … and why not. System 41 (2013): 587–597. System. 44:160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs D, Rea A, Hanquinet L. 2007. Prestaties van de leerlingen van buitenlandse herkomst in België volgens de PISA-studie. Brussels: Koning Boudewijn-stichting.
   Google Scholar
• Landau J, Paraná RA, Siqueira S. 2021. Sistemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL developments in Brazil: from promises to prospects.In: Hemmi C, Banegas DL. editors. International Perspectives on CLIL. International Perspectives on English Language Teaching. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; p. 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70095-9_13
   Google Scholar
• Lasagabaster D. 2019. Motivation in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) research. In: Lamb M, Csizér K, Henry A, Ryan S, editors. The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_17
   Google Scholar
• Lasagabaster D, Sierra JM. 2010. Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT J. 64(4):367–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Appl Linguist. 31(3):418–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzo FC, Granados A, Rico N. 2021. Equity in bilingual education: socioeconomic status and content and language integrated learning in monolingual Southern Europe. Appl Linguist. 42(3):393–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh D, editor. 2002. CLIL/EMILE the European dimension. Jyväskylä (Finland): University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Mearns T, De Graaff R, Coyle D. 2020. Motivation for or from bilingual education? A comparative study of learner views in the Netherlands. Int J Bilingual Educ Bilingualism. 23(6):724–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1405906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehisto P. 2007. What a school needs to consider before launching a CLIL program: the Estonian experience. In: Marsh D, Wolff D, editors. Diverse contexts-converging goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang; p. 61–77.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolay AC, Poncelet M. 2013. Cognitive advantage in children enrolled in a second-language immersion elementary school program for three years. Bilingualism. 16(3):597–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez Cañado ML. 2016. From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra J Teach Learn Lang Literature. 9(1):9–31. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667
   Google Scholar
• Plonsky L, Oswald FL. 2014. How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Lang Learn. 64(4):878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San Isidro X. 2010. An insight into Galician CLIL: provision and results. In: Lasagabaster D, Ruiz de Zarobe Y, editors. CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; p. 55–78.
   Google Scholar
• Sirin S. 2005. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Rev Educ Res. 75(3):417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surmont J, Caira T, Struys E, Meuleman E. 2022. CLIL (materials) for all?. In: Huertas-Abril CA, Fernandez-Ahumada E, Adamuz-Povedano N, editors. Handbook of research on international approaches and practices for gamifying mathematics. Hershey (Pennsylvania, USA): IGI Global; p. 46–66.
   Google Scholar
• Van Mensel L, Bulon A, Hendrikx I, Meunier F, van Goethem K. 2020. Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch. JICB. 8(2):173–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18034.van
   Google Scholar
• Van Mensel L, Hiligsmann P, Mettewie L, Galand B. 2020. CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. Lang Culture Curriculum. 33(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlaanderen O. 2014. wet: Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot bepaling van de kwaliteitsstandaard voor Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in het … secundair onderwijs en de leertijd en aanwijzing van de bevoegde dienst voor de goedkeuring van de CLIL-plannen. https://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14721.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff D. 2002. On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union. In: Marsh D, editor. CLIL/EMILE the European dimension. Jyväskylä (Finland): University of Jyväskylä; p. 47–8.
   Google Scholar
• Woumans E, Surmont J, Struys E, Duyck W. 2016. The longitudinal effect of bilingual immersion schooling on cognitive control and intelligence. Lang Learn. 66(S2):76–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12171
   Google Scholar