Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010)

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Listening to learners: an investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts (2013, methodology): “An indepth analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data can be found elsewhere (Coyle 2011a).”
Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme (2015, background): “However, Bruton (2011) commented on Marsh, Hau, and Kong’s (2000) study, saying that CLIL may only favour those who already have higher levels of English, while prejudicing the academically bright with initially low-level English ability.”
Language and Content Outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Bruton (2011) outlines many of these issues. For one, the CBI programs in most of the research reviewed were elective programs that may naturally attract students with higher aptitudes or motivation toward foreign language learning. Second, in many of the studies reviewed, CBI courses were reported ”
Is English-medium instruction effective in improving Chinese undergraduate students' English competence? (2014, background): “Bruton (2011b), for example, drew attention to problems with research design (e.g., lack of pretests) and possible misinterpretations of findings in several studies.”