Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research

By Anthony Bruton. 2011

286 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b97d746f26aeffaeced18a99b8a44f7ccc1808fe

How researchers see this paper

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

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Teacher professional development through collaborative action research: impact on foreign English-language teaching and learning (2013, background): “Nevertheless, practice shows that there are various CLIL models and therefore this dual focus is not always equal or beneficial (Bruton 2011).”
The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (2020, background): “There are several differences between these learner groups; for instance, CLIL students are often selected from high socioeconomic backgrounds, and share a common L1 with the teacher (Bruton 2011).”
Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI (2017, result): “Divergent and inconclusive results in CLIL research at primary and secondary levels, mainly arising from some methodological flaws, have been pointed out (Bruton 2011; Bonnet 2012), which means that some results should be compared and interpreted with caution (Pérez-Cañado 2012).”
Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme (2015, background): “In addition, the programme enrols mainly non-selective vocational school students who were assigned to the programme by the university entrance examination board and generally have relatively lower command of English and academic performance and a lower socio-economic family background compared to t”
CLIL students' perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences (2016, background): “some authors (Bruton, 2011; Paran, 2013) have argued that all the purported benefits of CLIL are mainly due to selection of students and that not all alleged advantages are sup-”
CLIL Teacher Development: Challenges and Experiences (2012, methodology): “Content and language integrated learning (CLIL), mostly implemented in English (DaltonPuffer, 2011), is regarded despite some reservations (Bruton, 2011) as an innovative or Banegas, D. L. (2012).”
Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical evidence from Spain (2019, background): “…positive effects of CLIL are widely accepted, opposing views are also found on the possible drawbacks and the need for more solid research designs (Bruton 2011, 2013, 2015), suggesting that the initial enthusiasm for CLIL should not neglect challenges of this approach (Paran 2013; Pérez-Cañado…”
Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting (2016, background): “8 is probably higher in both English and other subjects” (Bruton, 2011, p. 526).”
A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Affective Factors (2015, result): “CLIL has sometimes been accused of being an elitist approach (Bruton 2011), but our results indicate that, as far as affective factors are concerned, its effects are more positive in the case of non-elitist (non-selected) groups of students—in our case, the older group.”
Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward (2014, background): “In contrast to the notion that CLIL serves all students, some scholars point out that CLIL programs are not available for all students (Mehisto 2007; Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010; Bruton 2011).”
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.”