CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014)

The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes' intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study

“…On that account and given its potential, CLIL is nowadays a worldwide expanding phenomenon. During the last decade it has quickly spread especially throughout Europe and Asia, where it is often being established as a preferential educational approach (Coyle et al, ; Smit, ; Yang, ), while an intense debate has also been taking place in some of the main applied linguistic journals about the definition of the concept itself (Bruton, ; Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, ; Dalton‐Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, ; Hüttner & Smit, ; Lasagabaster & Sierra, ). Some authors state that there are differences between CLIL and immersion (Pérez‐Cañado, ), some authors consider that there are more similarities between CLIL and immersion programmes than between different immersion programmes (Llinares & Lyster, ), whereas other scholars (Cenoz, ) claim that content‐based instruction and CLIL share the same basic features and cannot be regarded as pedagogically different.…”

“…Last but not least, it has to be considered that the largely positive results obtained in CLIL research have been questioned due to both selective measures among CLIL participants and purportedly biased interpretations of the data (Bruton, ). In fact, some voices (see Breidbach & Viebrock, , or Rumlich, , among others) have warned that the positive outcomes of CLIL may be due to other variables that have little to do with the CLIL approach per se , such as student selection procedures or the fuzzy definition of some CLIL experiences.…”

From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy

“…It was initially heralded as the potential lynchpin to tackle the foreign language deficit on our continent and was embraced as "a lever for change and success in language learning" (Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla, 2015, p. 1), as "awesome innovation" (Tobin & Abello-Contesse, 2013, p. 224), or as "the ultimate opportunity to practice and improve a foreign language" (Pérez-Vidal, 2013, p. 59). However, after this period of unbridled enthusiasm, over the course of the past half a decade, a more critical attitude has emerged (Cabezas Cabello, 2010;Bruton, 2011aBruton, , 2011bBruton, , 2013Bruton, , 2015Pérez Cañado, 2011, 2012Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2013;Paran, 2013), calling into question some of the core underpinnings of CLIL and shaking CLIL advocates out of their complacency. As Paran (2013, p. 334) has put it, we have moved from a "celebratory rhetoric" which saw CLIL as a near panacea to dwelling almost exclusively "on the problematic issues of CLIL".…”

“…Contention has also repeatedly underpinned the discussion on the (lack of) However, this egalitarianism has again been called into question by another set of scholars, who have sounded a note of caution as regards the level of self-selection in CLIL strands, with its corollary inadequacy for attention to diversity (Lorenzo, Casal, & Moore, 2009;Hughes, 2010). Mehisto (2007, p. 63) warns that "CLIL can attract a disproportionally large number of academically bright students" and Bruton (2011aBruton ( , 2011bBruton ( , 2013Bruton ( , 2015 and Paran (2013) are particularly adamant on this score. The thrust of their argument is that CLIL branches normally comprise the more motivated, intelligent, and linguistically proficient students and that these differences are conducive to prejudice and discrimination against non-CLIL learners.…”

“…In the past few years, the pendulum has violently swerved to the opposite extreme, initiating a second phase in CLIL research which harbors a pessimistic outlook on its effects and feasibility (Cabezas Cabello, 2010;Bruton, 2011aBruton, , 2011bBruton, , 2013Bruton, , 2015Paran, 2013); questions the validity of the research conducted (Pérez Cañado, 2011, 2012Bruton, 2011aBruton, , 2011bBruton, , 2013Bruton, , 2015Paran, 2013;Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla, 2015); and warns against the wholesale adoption of CLIL and the dangers inherent in the rush to embrace it: "It is very possible that deficient FL teaching might become even more deficient, especially for the less academically able, the less linguistically proficient, or the less economically privileged" (Bruton, 2013, p. 595).…”