Guest editorial

References

• Alejo, R., and A. Piquer-Píriz. 2016. “Urban vs. Rural CLIL: An Analysis of Input-related Variables, Motivation and Language Attainment.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 29 (3): 245–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anghel, B., A. Cabrales, and J. M. Carro. 2016. “Evaluating a Bilingual Education Program in Spain: The Impact Beyond Foreign Language Learning.” Economic Inquiry 54 (2): 1202–1223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton, A. 2011a. “Are the Differences Between CLIL and Non-CLIL Groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A Reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010).” Applied Linguistics 2011: 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Bruton, A. 2011b. “Is CLIL So Beneficial, or Just Selective? Re-evaluating Some of the Research.” System 39: 523–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton, A. 2013. “CLIL: Some of the Reasons Why … and Why Not.” System 41: 587–597.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton, A. 2019. “Questions About CLIL Which Are Unfortunately Still Not Outdated: A Reply to Pérez-Cañado.” Applied Linguistics Review 10 (4): 591–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cable, C., I. Eyres, and J. Collins. 2006. “Bilingualism and Inclusion: More Than Just Rhetoric?” Support for Learning 21 (3): 129–134.
   Google Scholar
• Cioè-Peña, M. 2017. “The Intersectional Gap: How Bilingual Students in the United States Are Excluded from Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (9): 906–919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., A. Fernández-Costales, and J. M. Arias Blanco. 2019. “Analysing Students’ Content-learning in Science in CLIL vs. Non-CLIL Programmes: Empirical Evidence from Spain.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22 (6): 661–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández, R., and A. Halbach. 2011. “Analysing the Situation of Teachers in the Madrid Autonomous Community Bilingual Project.” In Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, edited by Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, and F. Gallardo del Puerto, 103–127. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Julius, S., and D. Madrid. 2017. “Diversity of Students in Bilingual University Programs: A Case Study.” The International Journal of Diversity in Education 17 (2): 17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Liasidou, A. 2013. “Bilingual and Special Educational Needs in Inclusive Classrooms: Some Critical and Pedagogical Considerations.” Support for Learning 28 (1): 11–16.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzo, F., S. Casal, and P. Moore. 2010. “The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European Education: Key Findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project.” Applied Linguistics 31 (3): 418–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrid, D., and E. Barrios. 2018. “CLIL Across Diverse Educational Settings: Comparing Programmes and School Types.” Porta Linguarum 29: 29–50.
   Google Scholar
• Madrid, D., and M. L. Pérez Cañado. 2018. “Innovations and Challenges in Attending to Diversity Through CLIL.” Theory Into Practice 57 (3): 241–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, D. 2002. CLIL/EMILE. The European Dimension. Actions, Trends, and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Pastor, E., and R. Durán-Martínez. 2019. “La inclusión educativa en los programas bilingües de educación primaria: Un análisis documental.” Revista Complutense de Educación 30 (2): 589–604.
   Google Scholar
• Mehisto, P., and H. Asser. 2007. “Stakeholder Perspectives: CLIL Programme Management in Estonia.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5): 683–701.
   Google Scholar
• Paran, A. 2013. “Content and Language Integrated Learning: Panacea or Policy Borrowing Myth?” Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2): 317–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavón Vázquez, V. 2018. “Learning Outcomes in CLIL Programmes: a Comparison of Results Between Urban and Rural Environments.” Porta Linguarum 29: 9–28.
   Google Scholar
• Pena Díaz, C., and M. D. Porto Requejo. 2008. “Teacher Beliefs in a CLIL Education Project.” Porta Linguarum 10: 151–161.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2016a. “Teacher Training Needs for Bilingual Education: In-service Teacher Perceptions.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19 (3): 266–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2016b. “Are Teachers Ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European Study.” European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (2): 202–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018. “The Effects of CLIL on L1 and Content Learning: Updated Empirical Evidence from Monolingual Contexts.” Learning and Instruction 57: 18–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2020. “CLIL and Elitism: Myth or Reality?” The Language Learning Journal 48 (1): 4–17.
   Google Scholar
• Rascón, D. J., and C. M. Bretones. 2018. “Socioeconomic Status and Its Impact on Language and Content Attainment in CLIL Contexts.” Porta Linguarum 29: 115–135.
   Google Scholar
• Roiha, A. S. 2014. “Teachers’ Views on Differentiation in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Perceptions, Practices and Challenges.” Language and Education 28 (1): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd, E., and V. Ainsworth. 2017. English Impact: An Evaluation of English Language Capability. Madrid: British Council.
   Google Scholar