Over the past decades content and language integrated learning (CLIL) research has predominantly focused on the language proficiency of CLIL learners. The results are very promising and show that working language skills in learners, especially reading and listening skills, can be improved through a CLIL programme. Studies focusing on subject learners are still few but they indicate that learners maintain or under certain conditions can improve their subject learning when compared to learners learning in L1. However, more recent studies have raised challenging questions concerning academic language competence which indicate that CLIL instruction may not be reaching its full potential. Unravelling the integrated approach and the inherent interrelationship of using language for progressing knowledge construction and meaning-making needs to be addressed, drawing together linguistic and pedagogic theoretical underpinnings. This article posits that CLIL can pragmatically address the growing educational malaise of functional illiteracy. We reason that progression along the knowledge pathway towards deeper subject understanding requires a greater command of secondary discourse, and mastery of subject-specific literacies. In traditional classrooms, content teachers do not usually focus on the quality of learners’ disciplinary literacy and discourse. In language classrooms, subject-specific literacies are considered irrelevant. We suggest that if ‘literacy’ were at the centre of the learning agenda, regardless of subject disciplines, a fundamental shift towards deeper learning would occur. Therefore, the article addresses two fundamental issues: (i) the role of subject-specific or disciplinary literacies in CLIL and (ii) the iteration of a model building on the existing 4Cs framework, which maps literacy and language progression in CLIL contexts and serves as a guide for evolving classroom practices.

Whilst CLIL research has flourished and showed some gains for CLIL learners, for example in motivation, there is little consensus about how it affects students from different social strata. The British Council ‘English Impact’ study (Shepherd and Ainsworth 2017, English Impact. An evaluation of English language capability. https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/british-council-english-impact-report-madrid-web-opt.pdf) has recently uncovered that CLIL contributes to the levelling of SES (socio-economic status) differences between students and leads to high levels of motivation in all students. In this study, we aim to follow up on these findings by exploring the factors that account for the curbed impact of SES in bilingual schools. To this end, 138 teachers from bilingual and non-bilingual schools filled in the TALIS questionnaire (OECD, 2013, Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 Teacher Questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2013-Teacher-questionnaire.pdf ) and 20 teachers were interviewed. Whereas questionnaire data reveals few perceived differences between students from the two types of schools, interviewees did point to differences in characteristics of students from bilingual and non-bilingual schools and the type of parental support they receive. The findings point towards the creation of a learning environment in CLIL programmes that satisfies the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness as reasons behind increased levels of motivation and the reduced impact of students’ SES on their performance.

It has long been known that children who grow up in situations of economic and social disadvantage tend to have more difficulties when they enter school, and that these are often perpetuated, leading to underachievement and disaffection. The role of the family and home environment in stimulating children’s language acquisition and pre-literacy competences during their earliest years is clearly important. It is possible that with appropriate exposure and encouragement before the age of 3, children from disadvantaged backgrounds could start school on an equal footing with their more privileged counterparts. We provide a conceptual overview of the factors in the home affecting language and subsequent literacy development in children aged 0–3, and a review of programs designed to enhance the home learning environment.

This article aims to contribute to the explanation of why bilingual education (CLIL) may reduce the differences in motivation and English proficiency commonly seen between students from different SES backgrounds (Shepherd and Ainsworth 2017 Shepherd, E. , and V. Ainsworth. 2017. English impact. An evaluation of English language capability.” https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/british-council-english-impact-report-madrid-web-opt.pdf. [Google Scholar] ). From a mixed-methods approach involving a questionnaire and focus group interviews, fourth year Secondary Education students in the Community of Madrid (Spain) were asked about their views on education, teachers, classroom practices, and their use of English outside the classroom. Results reveal significant differences in the way that students from bilingual schools and those from non-bilingual schools see their schooling experience (what they value in teachers and schools) as well as how often they speak English outside of school. This may be explained by the nature of students’ motivation in each case, which may, in turn, be influenced by the schools’ characteristics. Further research is needed as to whether bilingual schools are inherently more autonomy-supportive learning environments.