Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research
Bruton A · 2011
grade Dcritiqueindependentunclear
Sample
re-evaluation of published CLIL studies
Population
European secondary students in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes, chiefly Spain
Design
A methodological critique rather than new data. The argument is that the published CLIL research compares self-selected CLIL students - higher prior attainment, higher motivation, more supportive families, and frequently more total hours of language contact - against mainstream students, and then attributes the resulting difference to the CLIL method.
Key findings
CLIL's reported advantages are substantially attributable to selection and to extra exposure rather than to the integration of content and language as such. Studies rarely control for initial proficiency and rarely equalise hours. Recorded here because CLIL is the European version of the immersion promise and its evidence base is weaker than the American one, not stronger: there is no CLIL lottery.
Genetic confound
High for the literature being criticised - that is the criticism.
Replication notes
The selection critique has been repeated by other authors and has not been answered with a randomised or lottery-based CLIL evaluation.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attributable effect of CLIL after accounting for selection and exposure | critical re-evaluation | much or all of the reported advantage attributable to selection and extra hours rather than to the method | mixed | secondary school | unclear | unclear | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Does dual-language immersion work, and is the gain in the second language or in English?moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low