System xxx (2017) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'

performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning

ndez Sanjurjo, Jose
Javier Ferna
Miguel Arias Blanco, Alberto Ferna

ndez-
*
Costales
University of Oviedo, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Aniceto Sela, SN, 33003, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the influence of social, cultural and economic background on
Received 20 January 2017 students' performance in content-subjects in the framework of CLIL programmes in Spain.
Received in revised form 28 August 2017 So far, CLIL investigation has focused primarily on language attainment in the L2 and the
Accepted 2 September 2017
L1, but students' socio-economic status (SES) has been largely ignored, and its influence on
Available online xxx
performance in content-subjects remains unexplored. Competence in Science in the L1
(Spanish) is analysed by comparing pupils enrolled in mainstream schools with students in
Keywords:
the so-called bilingual streams offering CLIL-based approaches. The paper analyses a
CLIL
Bilingual education
sample of 709 6th grade Primary Education students from diverse social backgrounds and
Socio-economic status (SES) enrolled in public schools in the Principality of Asturias (Spain). A test to assess students'
Language teaching knowledge in Science and a context questionnaire (measuring participants' social, eco-
Content acquisition nomic, and cultural background) were designed and validated. Inferential statistics were
Primary education applied with one-way ANOVAs and inter-subject analyses. The main finding is that stu-
Context analyses dents from less favoured socio-economic backgrounds obtain significant lower scores than
Spain those coming from more privileged settings. Results suggest students’ context influences
the teaching-learning process in bilingual education. The determining factors for these
findings are discussed in the paper together with prospective research lines.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The coming of age of globalization has led to major changes in society: among others, the promotion of international
mobility, and the increase of migration flows worldwide are two key features of the global era. As a result, the command of
foreign languages is today an essential element for international communication. In this context, the pervasiveness of English
as the world's lingua (Crystal, 1997; Phillipson, 2003), has invigorated many countries to implement bilingual programmes
where English is the tuition language together with students' mother tongue (Coleman, 2006; Ruiz de Zarobe & Jime
nez
Catal
an, 2009). In Europe, institutional efforts have been committed to foster societal multilingualism and individual plu-
rilingualism, aiming that citizens are able to communicate in two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue
(European Commission, 2008). However, more often than not, bilingual education is a synonym for English-language edu-
cation, a tendency that can be witnessed in other contexts: in Asia, for instance, many governments have implemented
English-taught programmes at Primary School to promote its command by young learners (Butler, 2014).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: uo186644@uniovi.es (J. Fern

andez Sanjurjo), arias@uniovi.es (J.M. Arias Blanco), fernandezcalberto@uniovi.es (A. Fern

andez-Costales).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001
0346-251X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ndez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
Please cite this article in press as: Ferna
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001
2
ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna

Within the overall strategy to encourage plurilingualism in Europe, the emergence of Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) has been of paramount importance, as CLIL has emerged as a “timely solution to European plurilingual ed-
ucation” (Pe
rez-Can~ ado, 2012).
CLIL, or teaching content-subjects through an additional language, is intended to promote the use of an L2 to learn non-
language contents at several educational stages. This is the case of Spain, where CLIL schools1 have flourished in the last two
decades based on the language, cultural, and cognitive profits reported by research (Cenoz, 2015; Lorenzo, Trujillo, & Vez,
2011; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). However, so far, research on CLIL has been focused predominantly on
language-related fields, and other (non-linguistic) areas have been neglected: social class, or the socio-economic status (SES)
has received scant attention in the investigation of bilingual education and CLIL programmes in Europe and in Spain (Alejo &
Piquer-Píriz, 2016).
Leaving aside the benefits of commanding English for international communication, it is central that the SES of young
learners is analysed to cater for possible divergences in the planning and implementation of bilingual programmes: spe-
cifically, there is a dearth of studies exploring whether social class might render significant differences in the performance of
young learners in bilingual provisions. If this research line is neglected, we might be contributing to create (or enlarge) a
divide between an elite of young plurilingual learners and those who could not access bilingual education (and/or those who
underperform at school because social context has not been considered in the implementation of bilingual programmes).
Moreover, research in bilingual education should examine whether all students have access to CLIL provisions, and if so, if
bilingual streams guarantee students’ integration and academic success irrespective of their SES. Research in Spain has re-
ported that SES may modulate access to CLIL in Secondary Education due to self-selection (Broca, 2016; Bruton, 2015)
although no empirical results have reported there are overt selection criteria to exclude students from bilingual sections in
the public system; in Primary Education, the access of students according to SES has been ignored so far.
This paper is intended to fill this gap by analysing the impact of the SES of young learners in CLIL and regular schools of
Primary Education in Spain. The investigation will analyse the possible differences in the performance of students of 6th grade
of Primary Education by examining the influence of their social class, and their school modality (CLIL, where they study
Science through English, and mainstream education, where they learn Science in Spanish).

2. Literature review

2.1. Content and Language Integrated Learning

CLIL has been a major trend in the last decades in Europe, where it has been effectively implemented in primary (Serra,
2007; Xanthou, 2011), secondary (Admiraal, Westhoff, & de Bot, 2006; Alonso, Grisalen ~ a, & Campo, 2008), and tertiary ed-
ucation (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013; Wilkinson, 2004).
CLIL has received considerable support from institutions, as it is believed that this approach is suitable to address the
specific characteristics of the European educational setting (Coyle, 2002; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016), where there is a strong
need for multilingual approaches (Cenoz, 2009). The acceptance of CLIL has also been endorsed by research conducted in
Europe, which has consistently reported on the gains in language competence in the L2, the transfer to the L1, and other
language-related issues such as code switching (Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Dalton-Puffer, 2008; Ianos, Huguet, Jane
s, &
Lapresta, 2016; Mun ~ oz, 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). As for the scope of this paper, academic results in CLIL have also been
analysed by investigating students' performance in content-subjects taught through an L2: pupils learning contents through
an additional language show enhanced subject-matter learning than their counterparts in monolingual groups (Admiraal

rez-Can
et al., 2006; Pe ~ ado, 2012). In fact, Serra’s (2007) longitudinal study reported on cognitive and academic benefits
for CLIL students learning Maths in public schools Switzerland. In a similar vein, Xanthou (2011) concludes that studying
through English was beneficial as regards content acquisition in Science students in Cyprus.
Despite the concurrence of positive results associated with CLIL, some scholars have anticipated that the “pendulum ef-
fect” of language teaching (Swan, 1985, p. 86) can very soon unveil some less favourable elements in the implementation of
this approach, such as the lack of conceptual clarity (Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2014), or the fact that the success of CLIL may
be related to “a world view which sees language proficiency as the main causal factor in economic success” (Paran, 2013, p.
335).
The provision of CLIL schools in Spain2 has mushroomed in the last decade: in fact, the country outnumbers most Eu-
ropean state members regarding the number of schools offering CLIL provisions (Eurydice, 2012, p. 155). The promotion of
CLIL has been partially caused by the poor results in foreign language command of young learners in Spain: official reports
(European Commission, 2012a; 2012b; Eurydice, 2006; 2012) place Spain consistently behind other European countries in the
command of foreign languages: in fact, Spain is among a group of 5 countries where citizens are less likely to be able to speak
a foreign language e only 18% of the population (European Commission, 2012a, p. 13).

1
L2 German and French CLIL sections can be found in Spain, although English CLIL provisions have become the standard since the implementation of this
approach in the country.
2
Although some diversity can be found, in most CLIL provisions in Spain, students are normally taught 5 h of English per week (instead of the 3 h of
regular groups) besides taking (at least) 2 subjects taught through English (Science, Mathematics, Arts, Physical Education, or Music).

Please cite this article in press as: Fern
andez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001

ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna 3

2.2. CLIL and SES

It can be argued that existing research has ignored non-language elements by focusing (only) on the possible benefits of
CLIL on students’ language competence (Alejo & Piquer-Píriz, 2016). However, scientific literature has revealed that external
factors are influential when learning a foreign language (Collentine & Freed, 2004) and, clearly, the learning context and the
socio-economic and cultural setting deserves further attention when addressing the outcomes of CLIL. Furthermore, the
influence of the social and cultural background of the parents also need to be in the research agenda to evaluate its possible
effect on the performance of students enrolled in bilingual models (Pe
rez-Can ~ ado, 2012). Up to date, there is a paucity of
research on the social milieu of bilingual programmes, and the lack of information on the influence of the SES in language
learning has become a growing concern (Butler, 2014).
The two main questions to be analysed when studying the relationship between CLIL and SES are if all students have access
to bilingual provisions, and if CLIL provides a suitable learning setting for students with different backgrounds (compared to
traditional monolingual learning approaches).
CLIL is intended to promote equal opportunities and access to multilingual education, irrespective of students’ social
background. David Marsh, one of the best-known advocates of CLIL, argues that CLIL contributes to open the doors on lan-
guage learning to all types of students and it has been envisaged to be an inclusive and egalitarian approach (Marsh, 2002). In
the same vain, Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) consider CLIL is appropriate for all kinds of learners, and dismiss the idea that
this approach could be linked to any social class (i.e. learners from the most privileged backgrounds). In fact, it could be
argued that CLIL has allowed learners from lower and middle social settings to access bilingual education through public
schools, since multilingual provisions were restricted to private establishments and European schools before the introduction
of CLIL (see Baetens Beardsmore and Swain, 1985). All in all, initial postulates supporting the egalitarian spirit of CLIL have
been recently called into question by other 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” (Pe
rez-Can ~ ado, 2016, p. 16).
In the international scenario, Reynolds (1992) anticipated the correlation between the SES of parents and the performance
of their children; this study emphasised that higher socio-economic standing has been related to stronger parental expec-
tations and commitment towards the education of their kids. SES has also been related to school performance and the
integration of immigrant students: Lutz (2007) examined the possible barriers to high-school completion in immigrant
Latinos in the USA concluding that immigrants from lower settings found more difficulties in finishing high school.
The study by Butler (2014) in the Chinese context confirms that parental SES does influence students' motivation and
performance when learning English. Parents of higher SES “tended to adjust their assistance according to their children's
changing needs, parents with lower SES tended to remain controlling and often failed to respond to their children's changing
needs” (Butler, 2014, p. 16). In addition, this study reported that parents from higher social backgrounds were able to support
their children more efficiently when bringing them better opportunities to develop their English outside school.
The recent study by Aro and Mikkila €-Erdmann (2015) investigated the Finnish context to examine the possible impact of
students' home environment on language attainment: 122 6th grade students enrolled in CLIL provisions were screened to
analyse the relationship between their language competence in English and school-external factors (i.e. parental expecta-
tions, home involvement, and parents’ educational background). This research indicates that “certain parental attitudes and
behaviours may predispose some pupils to achieve higher levels of English competence” (Aro & Mikkila €-Erdmann, 2015, p.
142), especially parental expectations towards education, which correlates with better language competence in English. The
study contradicts previous research in the Finnish context, since it underlines there is a selection process in Finland consisting
on “self-selection by the parents, who need to initiate the application, and selection by the school from among the applicants
(2015, p. 141).
If we draw our attention to the Spanish setting, Alonso et al. (2008) established that students in plurilingual education are
more motivated, more conscious about the benefits of learning languages, and clearly committed towards the learning
process, being aware that this type of programmes demands higher efforts from young learners. This study concludes that
students enrolled in bilingual provisions come from family environments where learning English is prioritized and parents
regard the command of foreign languages as an added value in the education of their children.
Bruton is one of the most reluctant scholars on the egalitarian nature of CLIL, and he cogitates that “there is an implicit
selection” in bilingual provisions in Spain (Bruton, 2011, p. 529) when he maintains that, although bilingual streams are open
to all ranges of students, those who enrol in CLIL “are the highly motivated ones whose parents are generally in the higher
socio-economic classes” (Bruton, 2011, p. 529). Furthermore, Bruton (2013, p. 596) considers that CLIL is discriminatory,
“especially for the less academically able, the less linguistically proficient, or the less economically privileged”. However, the
possible discriminatory nature of CLIL has been challenged by Hüttner and Smit (2014):
Generally, we fully agree with Anthony Bruton that educational discrimination is an important topic that would require a
lot more focused attention, political as well as academic. Given its pedagogical, societal and economic relevance, however,
applied linguistic and, for that matter, any other research needs to engage in focused investigations that recognise educational
discrimination as complex, dynamic and context-specific. General accusations launched against a highly diversified teaching
approach such as CLIL, lack the investigative rigour and applicability that a matter as serious as educational discrimination
actually requires (Hüttner & Smit, 2014, p. 162).

ndez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
Please cite this article in press as: Ferna
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001
4
ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna

Broca (2016) analyses the perception of CLIL students in Secondary Education in Andalusia; this study reports that a high
percentage of participants consider CLIL is selective (concurring with Bruton's vision); however, it has to be noticed that the
criteria for this selection are academic standards and not socio-economic settings, according to Broca's findings.
The studies by Bruton (2013 and 2015) and Broca (2016) claim that CLIL in Spain may be selective in Secondary Education;
however, it can be argued that these studies focus on academic standards, and students' and parents' perceptions, among
other elements which are not strictly related to A) students’ SES; and B) a selection process arranged by the Spanish education
system. Bruton (2015) and Broca (2016) conclude that SES may trigger a self-selection process in Secondary Education, since
families from higher status are more likely to enrol their children in bilingual streams; hence, it has to be underlined that this
self-selection is linked to the family environment, and is not driven by the education system.

rez-Can
Pe ~ ado (2016) has challenged Bruton's view that it is not possible to match bilingual and non-bilingual learners to
analyse the equity of CLIL and the impact of students' SES. By screening a non-probabilistic sample of 1500 CLIL and non-CLIL
students from 36 schools in urban and non-urban areas in Spain, Pe
rez-Can~ ado reports that CLIL and non-CLIL groups can be
regarded as homogeneous and no statistical differences are found according to SES.
So far, no empirical studies confirm that there is an overt selection system for CLIL provisions in Spain, which are officially
accessible to everyone: Spain does not have admission criteria for CLIL in public education, as in other countries which do
require students’ subject knowledge e e.g. the Czech Republic e, language competence in the L2 e e.g. France e, or both e e.g.
the Netherlands e (Eurydice, 2012, 42; Pe
rez-Can~ ado, 2012). In public education, all students have access to CLIL provided
that their school offers bilingual streams. There are no criteria to exclude students from bilingual streams in the Spanish
education system: in Secondary Education, students may choose to enter in a bilingual stream as long as their school offers
CLIL provisions; in Primary Education, students enrolled in schools offering CLIL have to enter the bilingual scheme, as they
have no other choice.3
Notwithstanding the fact that there are no official selection criteria to access CLIL provisions in Spain, it should be
acknowledged that one of the main hypothesis when questioning the egalitarian nature of CLIL is that language learning and
bilingual programmes usually appeal parents from higher social settings. This premise is confirmed by Lasagabaster (2008),
whose study examined a sample of 198 students of Secondary Education in the Basque Country and determined that 65% of
the parents had university degrees. The fact that CLIL may appeal students and families from higher backgrounds can also be
framed within Boudon's theory on primary and secondary effects of social background (1974, pp. 29e31), which states that
primary effects are cultural and genetic influences observed in the dissimilar academic performance of students from
different social backgrounds, and secondary effects are indirect modulators operating over and above academic performance
and affect the educational decision making process. Hence, it could be claimed that learners from more advantaged status
generally take up more ambitious educational options than students from less favored social settings. Therefore, secondary
effects could have a relevant influence on students' choices when accessing CLIL.
A second element stressed in scientific literature is that students from higher social settings attend private lessons more
frequently than their counterparts from lower contexts: this tendency has also been identified by Villarreal Olaizola and
García Mayo (2009), who report that students belonging to more favoured backgrounds take English classes outside
school, and have more support from their parents, a conclusion shared by Bruton (2015). The recent study by Alejo and
Piquer-Píriz (2016) examines the divergences in students’ motivation and language attainment in urban and rural CLIL
schools in Extremadura to find there are significant differences in favour of urban students: the authors cogitate that urban
learners attend private lessons more often than their rural counterparts, and they also start to learn the L2 earlier.
As for the scope of this paper, it is worth mentioning the Report on the Bilingual Programme of Public Schools in the
Principality of Asturias (Regional Ministry of Education, 2016), which provides significant information on the distribution of
bilingual provisions in the region: the data provided by this report reflect the number of CLIL provisions located in higher
socio-economic areas clearly outnumbers bilingual streams in less favoured neighbourhoods. Hence, public schools in areas
with middle-high SES regularly offer bilingual streams; in contrast, Primary schools located in districts where families come
from lower social backgrounds usually provide mainstream education in Spanish. This situation may stress the differences
according to students’ social class since, more often than not, families from higher social backgrounds are the ones that enrol
their children in bilingual provisions in Spain (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Lorenzo, 2008).
At this point, it can be summarized that research on CLIL and SES does not report on empirical data that evidence bilingual
education in Spain is selective (at least in public establishments); having said that, the hypothesis that CLIL appeals families
from higher backgrounds needs to be further investigated to analyse if there is a self-selection process. Moreover, Primary
Education needs to be scrutinized, since most research has focused on Secondary Education.

3. Research questions

The aim of the present study is to analyse possible differences of students’ SES in CLIL and non-CLIL provisions. So far, some
scholars (Bruton, 2011;, 2013; Broca, 2016) have suggested that CLIL is selective in Secondary Education, although this view

3
In Spain, it is not possible to choose attending a bilingual school in public Primary Education: the allocation of public schools is based on geographical
criteria, and educational establishments decide to offer bilingual streams (or not); hence, students can attend a bilingual school depending on where they
live.

Please cite this article in press as: Fern
andez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001

ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna 5

has been challenged by studies providing divergent results (Pe
rez-Can

~ ado, 2016). All in all, the access to CLIL in Spanish
Primary Education remains neglected; also, there are no studies analysing the possible impact of SES in student performance
in content acquisition in CLIL. In this sense, the present study may contribute to know if CLIL may provide a learning setting
that is suitable for learners with different backgrounds. Therefore, the following research questions will be addressed.

1) Do Spanish students in CLIL provisions achieve better competence in Science than non-CLIL students learning through
their L1?
2) Are there differences in students' achievement in Science according to their SES?

Students’ SES: participants will be categorized into groups (high, middle, or low SES) according to the results of the
research tool used in this investigation. The type of school of students (CLIL vs. non-CLIL); by CLIL schools we refer to a school
modality where pupils attend 2 additional hours of English (5 h per week) and they are offered at least 1 content-subject
taught through the L2 (in our research, Science). Non-CLIL schools are mainstream establishments where students receive
3 h of English per week and learn all non-language subjects in their L1 (Spanish).

4. Materials and methods

4.1. Methodology

The current research relies on quantitative methodology, as we found this was the most suitable approach due to the
nature of the study and the sample being scrutinized.
The paper will assess students' content acquisition in Science, as it is the most frequent subject delivered through English
in bilingual programmes in Spain. Participants' knowledge will be evaluated in their mother tongue (Spanish): the reason to
choose students’ L1 is to analyse if pupils command key concepts and terminology in their mother tongue, which is an
objective of bilingual education. In the event students command terminology in the L2 but they do not master the specific
vocabulary in the L1, CLIL would be failing to meet the objectives envisaged by the European Union and it could be
contributing to English monolingualism or subtractive bilingualism (Phillipson, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2004).

4.2. Participants and procedure

The research sample is composed of students of 6th year of Primary Education in public schools in Asturias. To guarantee a
representative sample, the official records of the Regional Ministry for Education, Culture and Sports were checked: in 2015,
the number of students enrolled in 6th grade of Primary Education in Asturias was 7,651, 70% in public schools. Data were
collected from 740 participants, although the final sample consisted of 709 (49.6% in CLIL schools and 50.4% in non-CLIL
establishments) after excluding students with special needs, and those participants who did not answer some of the ques-
tions of the surveys. Data coming all participants in the final sample were analysed.
The selection of the participating schools followed an intentional sampling process, aimed to guarantee quality and
balance: rural schools were discarded, as they are overly heterogeneous in Asturias and account for less than 20% of the school
population. Therefore, the sample includes schools located only in more urban areas, which comprises 80% of the population
(1,042,370 citizens in 2016).4 This sample includes most urban and semi-urban schools, and most of the infant population. All
CLIL schools had developed their bilingual programmes for more than 6 years, and participants have been in the CLIL pro-
gramme since they entered Primary Education.
Hence, the project includes 18 schools (9 CLIL and 9 non-CLIL) in urban and semi-urban areas, according to the population
under scrutiny (53% bilingual schools and 80% bilingual area). As a result, we present a balanced sample which includes a
similar percentage of CLIL (N ¼ 352) and non-CLIL students (N ¼ 357). Other relevant details of the sample: 48.1% were boys
while 50.9% were girls; 95.3% are Spanish citizens.
When considering the SES of the participants, the sample shows a balanced distribution, with similar frequencies of
students coming from low (CLIL ¼ 71; non-CLIL ¼ 64), middle (CLIL ¼ 153; non-CLIL ¼ 153), and high backgrounds (CLIL ¼ 92;
non-CLIL ¼ 99). The results indicate students are distributed in a balanced way in bilingual and mainstream schools. The
grouping of students by SES was done according to two-step cluster analysis; this method groups participants maximizing
intra-group homogeneity and inter-group heterogeneity using all kind of variables (qualitative and quantitative).

4.3. Instruments

As there were no validated tests to assess students' competence in Science in 6th grade of Primary Education in Spanish,
two research tools were developed for the current investigation:

4
Institute of Economic Development of Asturias. http://www.idepa.es/sites/web/idepaweb/productos/cifras/demografia/index.jsp?section¼3. Accessed
on January 10th 2017.

ndez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
Please cite this article in press as: Ferna
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001
6
ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna

Table 1
Summary of content and SES surveys.

Science content test

Initiation to The human Living beings Matter and energy Technology, objects Total Points
scientific activity being and health and machines
Number of close questions 1 4 10 5 4 30
Number of open questions 4 1 1 6 6
Competence levels. Not achieved (0e15)/Achieved (16e30)
Social context questionnaire
Personal dimension Gender, age, languages spoken at home.
Academic dimension Opinion about their school, attitudes and perceptions about learning
process and the subjects.
Socio-economic and cultural dimension Family material goods, personal goods, cultural goods at home,
favourite leisure activities, family cultural activities.

1) Student socio-economic (SES) survey: this tool was intended to collect participants' information on their social, cultural,
and economic background. The questionnaire included 12 open items related to participants' SES and material well-being,
the presence of cultural elements in the family background (e.g. number of books at home, participation in cultural ac-
tivities, attendance to cultural events, trips to other countries, etc.). The design of the tool was based on similar surveys
utilized in international evaluation reports, such as PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS. The information provided by this tool allowed
researchers to define participants' SES and classify them into three groups: high, middle, and low SES.
2) Science content-acquisition test: this tool was designed to evaluate students' knowledge of the curricular contents of
Natural Science for 6th year of Primary Education in Spain. The test was devised on the bases of the curricular contents
specified in the Spanish curriculum for Science in this educational stage,5 and included closed and open questions
enquiring about topics of the Science curriculum. The items of the test covered all the contents of the curriculum for this
educational stage: some questions enquired about concepts, while other items were linked to processes and/or to atti-
tudinal matters. The test was designed to be user friendly, clearly understandable, and attractive for young learners e
using illustrations to support instructions and explanations e. The tool was intended to pose a challenge for respondents,
as the test was presented as a quiz where students had to help a “mad scientist” by solving his problems and queries. The
test lasted 40 min. Table 1 summarizes the main elements of both surveys.

The research tools were validated by a group of experts that included teachers of Primary Education (teaching Natural
Science in the 6th year) and university lecturers (working in evaluation and research methods). Their suggestions were
included in the surveys, which were, once again, submitted for a second review; after the experts’ approval, a final validation
process was carried out through a pilot study with a group of students with similar characteristics to the research sample. The
results obtained were satisfactory and the tools were accepted as valid for the current research.
To assess the reliability of the Science test, Cronbach's Alpha (0.790) was estimated, showing a good level of homogeneity
in the items of the survey. The pilot stage was supported by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which suggests that the sample
presents a normal distribution.
The SES of the sample was defined based on the results of the context survey. Multi-variate analyses were performed, with
factor analyses of the items belonging to the cultural dimension of the SES questionnaire, followed by a cluster analysis (that
included the factor scores of those items determining the cultural dimension, the items related to the economic dimension,
and those enquiring about the family background). No continuous variable was created; instead, we aimed to work with
internally homogeneous groups which were different between them. A two-step cluster analysis was performed, as it allows
using continuous and categorical variables. The optimal solution was working with three groups with similar sizes.

5. Results

The most relevant findings of the study are presented in this section. First, the results in students' performance according
to the type of school (CLIL or non-CLIL) will be reported. Next, the differences found regarding students’ socio-economic
background will be shown.

5.1. Differences according to the type of school (CLIL vs. non-CLIL)

When analysing the performance of participants in Science, students enrolled in mainstream (non-CLIL) schools clearly
obtain better results than their partners in bilingual (CLIL) establishments. The one-way ANOVA confirms there are statis-
tically significant differences between the two groups being scrutinized (CLIL and non-CLIL), as can be seen in Table 2:

5
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the Principality of Asturias. Asturian curriculum: https://sede.asturias.es/bopa/2014/08/30/2014-14753.pdf.
Accessed on January 8th 2017.

Please cite this article in press as: Fern
andez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001

ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna 7

Table 2
Students’ performance in CLIL and non-CLIL schools.

Mean Standard error ANOVA Eta Square

df F Sig.
CLIL 14.9926 0.29319 1/707 37.185 0.000 0.50
Non-CLIL 17.4152 0.26842

According to the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that non-CLIL students openly outperform their counterparts
enrolled in bilingual provisions concerning their knowledge of Science contents of 6th grade of Primary Education in the L1
(Spanish).

5.2. Differences according to students’ SES

Statistically significant differences can be observed according to students’ social class (Table 3): students from middle and
higher backgrounds perform noticeably better than pupils from less favoured contexts. Actually, students from middle and
higher SES can be grouped under one layer which performs differently than students coming from lower settings.
When analysing the grouped socio-economic levels of the research sample (Table 4), the results confirm the trend
identified with the descriptive statistics, as students with high and middle SES are grouped together without significant
differences being observed between them; however, there are statistically significant differences between these two groups
and the one of students from lower SES.

5.3. Differences according to the type of school and students’ SES

Next, we present the results according to the two variables considered in our study: the SES of participants and the type of
school (CLIL vs. non-CLIL).
Table 5 shows that the effect of SES on students' knowledge of Science is lower than the impact of the type of school (CLIL
or non-CLIL) they attend. Furthermore, no interaction between both variables can be observed. The sample of the current
investigation shows a similar behaviour in the two types of school being screened: however, the differences in content-
acquisition of Science is higher in the group of students coming from the most favoured socio-economic setting (Graph 1).
Finally, it has to be noticed that students enrolled in bilingual provisions and coming from less ideal social settings are the
only ones in our sample which do not meet the academic standards of Primary Education in Science.

6. Discussion

The main finding of the current research is that statistically significant differences can be observed in students' perfor-
mance according to their SES. Our results show that students coming from high and middle social classes obtain better results
when studying through an additional language (English, in this case) than their counterparts from lower social backgrounds.
Although it could be anticipated that students’ performance increases progressively according to their social class, no dif-
ferences can be reported between middle and higher settings, which can be grouped under one single layer with identical

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of students’ performance according to their SES.

Mean Standard error ANOVA Eta square

df F Sig.
High 16.6479 0.37588 2/629 6.614 0.001 0.21
Middle 17.0202 0.28472
Low 15.0410 0.53104

Table 4
Grouped socio-economic levels of the sample.

SES N Alpha subset ¼ 0.05

1 2
HSD Tukey Low 135 15.0410
High 191 16.6479
Middle 306 17.0202
Sig. 1.000 0.775
Range Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Low 135 15.0410
High 191 16.6479
Middle 306 17.0202
Sig. 1.000 0.494

ndez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
Please cite this article in press as: Ferna
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001
8
ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna

Table 5
Differences according to the type of school and students' SES.

CLIL/Non-CLIL SES Mean Standard error

CLIL High 14.791 0.540
Middle 16.092 0.418
Low 14.042 0.614
Non-CLIL High 18.374 0.520
Middle 17.948 0.418
Low 16.149 0.647

DF F Sig Eta square

CLIL/Non-CLIL 1/626 33.34 0.000 0.051
SES 2/626 6.52 0.002 0.020
SES*CLIL/Non-CLIL 2/626 1.72 0.180 0.005

Graph 1. Relation between the type of school, student performance, and SES.

performance. A possible explanation is that students from more privileged backgrounds may receive additional support from
the family environment: besides living in wealthier environments, these students also enjoy more cultural opportunities,
have more support outside the school context, and usually show higher motivational levels in the learning process. This
conclusion concurs with prior studies in the Spanish context (Alonso et al., 2008; Bruton, 2011; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de
Zarobe, 2010), which linked higher SES with more favourable settings for young learners in bilingual contexts. In fact, in
the debate of the influence of SES on performance, private lessons have been linked with higher SES (Alejo & Piquer-Píriz,
2016; Bruton, 2013). Additionally, it has to be noted that participants from lower backgrounds may have less opportunities
outside the formal educational context: for instance, they may have more difficulties to attend (language or content) private
lessons (see Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo, 2009), and they travel less than their partners from higher settings (including
trips to English-speaking countries); also, the socio-economic level of the parents is relevant to cater for these differences:
parents from lower social layers can provide less support to their children (see Butler, 2014), as they are e generally speaking
e less fluent in foreign languages than their counterparts from more privileged backgrounds.
Therefore, it can be argued that the fact that students from lower backgrounds underperform in CLIL streams may not be
entirely surprising if we consider that, in Spain, differences in students’ language command in the L2 are largely motivated by
external (non-school related) elements: children from lower backgrounds rarely attend private English lessons or travel
abroad, while those from higher settings have more support out of the education system. Hence, the variance in L2 command
may influence their comprehension of contents delivered through an additional language in CLIL. This should not be taken as
an argument against CLIL, but rather as an undesired effect which should be known by researchers, practitioners, and schools.

Please cite this article in press as: Fern
andez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001

ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna 9

All in all, it has to be noted that our results show that CLIL students underperform their counterparts in non-CLIL es-
tablishments in all the SES groups. Although research in CLIL has consistently reported on the language gains in students
learning contents through an additional language (see, for instance, Admiraal et al., 2006; Serra, 2007; Xanthou, 2011), recent
studies suggest that CLIL may not be rendering the expected results in content acquisition (see Ferna
ndez-Sanjurjo,
Ferna
ndez-Costales, & Arias, 2017).
The most significant result derived from the present study is that, when analysing students’ performance in relation to
their SES and the type of school they are attending, the SES seems to be a determining factor which affects students results in a
negative way. In a nutshell: students attending CLIL schools from lower social backgrounds obtain worse results than their
partners in non-CLIL schools and with similar socio-economic conditions; in fact, students from disfavoured backgrounds
learning contents through an additional language are the only ones who do not meet the academic standards of the cur-
riculum of Primary Education in the research sample. The results of this study suggest that bilingual programmes (CLIL
provisions) in Spain may contribute to the measured differences in the performance of young learners. This conclusion does
not imply that students from lower socio-economic contexts should be deprived from the opportunity to study in bilingual
contexts in Primary Education. Quite the opposite, public Primary Education should guarantee that all students are awarded
the same opportunities and in similar conditions; therefore, our results suggest that, once bilingual programmes are
consolidated, they have to be streamlined aiming to optimise their effectiveness and their inclusive nature. This claim is in
line with Pe
rez-Can ~ ado (2016, p. 16) when she states “in order to address this second controversy affecting CLIL imple-
mentation, it becomes incumbent on practitioners to cater to diversity and to ensure CLIL enhances language and content
learning in over- and under-achievers alike”. Moreover, as pointed out by Dur
an-Martínez and Beltra
n-Llavador (2016) the
main challenge for bilingual education and CLIL provisions is to meet the demands of all types of students, including children
with special needs.

7. Conclusions

This paper evaluates the impact of the SES in the performance of students of Primary Education who learn Science through
an L2 (English) in public schools of Spain. The main objective of the current research is to provide new insights into the impact
of young learners' social background when learning content-subjects through an additional language. So far, learners' SES has
not received sufficient academic attention when evaluating CLIL programmes in Europe.
The most relevant finding is that the SES of young learners does influence the performance of students enrolled in CLIL:
pupils from lower social backgrounds attending CLIL provisions show less positive results than students from middle and
higher social environments, and those ones studying in mainstream schools through the L1. When analysing the two variables
(type of school and students' social class), the SES seems to be a modulating factor in students' performance, as it affects more
negatively students from lower backgrounds studying in CLIL schools.
The main conclusion to be derived from this research is that students’ social background should be considered when
planning and implementing CLIL provisions in public schools of Primary Education. CLIL, where students learn contents
through an additional language, has been effectively established in the European context aiming to promote young learners
command of foreign languages. Although the benefits of CLIL are obvious as regards the linguistic gains in young learners, we
need to face the possible divide between plurilingual citizens from middle and higher classes and monolingual (or less
qualified) individuals from less favoured contexts.
At this point we must note that CLIL is context-dependent and results cannot always be easily extrapolated from one
country to another (Lasagabaster, 2008; Pe
rez-Can~ ado, 2012). Therefore, the results of our study should be taken with caution,
since our findings may not be generalized to other settings; in addition, our research focuses on the impact of SES on CLIL in
Primary Education, so results may diverge in other educational stages. Also, it has to be underlined that that CLIL programmes
in public education in Spain do not specify entry requirements for students, as it happens in other countries in Europe, so
results may differ in other contexts. Another limitation to the current research needs to be considered: as it is not a longi-
tudinal study, we do not know what are the effects of CLIL in the long term with the three groups being analysed, so the
possible comparison between CLIL and non-CLIL students from lower backgrounds after several years remains unexplored.
In order to have a comprehensive vision of the impact of SES in CLIL, further studies are welcome, and the influence of
social class in bilingual education requires meta-analyses which can be conducted on the basis of studies like the present one.
In this vein, research on young learners' SES needs longitudinal studies to assess the modelling effect of social class across
several courses in Primary Education; students’ language competence (in the L1 and in the L2) should also be taken into
account, as this is a determining factor in their performance in CLIL provisions. Moreover, the difficulties of students with
special needs (understanding this concept in its broader sense) should also be examined, as multilingual education should be
accessible to all.

References

Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in The Netherlands: Students' language proficiency in English.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75e93.
Alejo, R., & Piquer-Píriz, A. (2016). Urban vs. rural CLIL: An analysis of input-related variables, motivation and language attainment. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 8318(March), 1e18. http://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2016.1154068.
~ a, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 36e49.
Alonso, E., Grisalen

ndez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
Please cite this article in press as: Ferna
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001
10
ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna

Aro, S., & Mikkila €-Erdmann. (2015). School-external factors in Finnish content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programs. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 59(2), 127e142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.894937.
Baetens Beardsmore, H., & Swain, M. (1985). Designing bilingual education: Aspects of immersion and European school models. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 6, 1e15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1985.9994181.
Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality. New York: Wiley.
Broca, A. (2016). CLIL and non-CLIL. Differences from the outset. ELT Journal, 70(3), 320e331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw011.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523e532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.
08.002.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why... And why not. System, 41, 587e597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System, 53, 119e128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2015.07.005.
Butler, Y. G. (2014). Current issues in English education for young learners in East Asia. English Teaching, 69(4), 3e25.
Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research in international perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture & Curriculum, 28(1),
8e24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243e262. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1093/applin/amt011.
Cenoz, J., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). Learning through a second or additional language: Content-based instruction and CLIL in the twenty-first century.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 1e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000921.
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1e14.
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26,
153e171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262015.
Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission's language learning objectives. CLIL/EMILE the European Dimension, 27e28.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. Future Perspectives for
English Language Teaching, (May), 139e157. http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/Dalton/SEW07/CLILresearch overview article.pdf.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dura
n-Martínez, R., & Beltra
n-Llavador, F. (2016). A regional assessment of bilingual programmes in primary and secondary schools: The teachers' views.
Porta Linguarum, 25, 79e92.
European Commission. (2008). Council resolution on a European strategy for multilingualism. Retrieved on January 13th 2017 from: http://www.consilium.
europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/104230.pdf.
European Commission. (2012a). Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometre 386. Retrieved on January 10th 2017 from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_
opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf.
European Commission. (2012b). First European survey on language competences: Final report, version 2.0. Retrieved on January 10th 2017 from: http://ec.
europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/language-survey-final-report_en.pdf.
Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
Eurydice. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Retrieved on January 10th 2017 from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/
documents/key_data_series/143EN_HI.pdf.
Fern
andez-Sanjurjo, J., Fern
andez-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analysing students' content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes:
Empirical evidence from Spain. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons
why … and why not. System, 41(2013), 587e597. System, 44, 160e167 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001.
Ianos, A., Huguet, A., Jane
s, J., & Lapresta, C. (2016). Can language attitudes be improved? A longitudinal study of immigrant students in Catalonia (Spain).
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 331e345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051508.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31e42. http://doi.
org/10.2174/1874913500801010030.
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students' perceptions of their language learning process: Delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional
preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1e2), 110e126. http://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1122019.
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain. Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Lorenzo, F. (2008). Evaluacio
n de competencias lingüísticas en centros bilingües: Datos de incidencia [assessment of language competence in bilingual
schools]. In Jornadas sobre competencia en comunicacio
n lingüística: El currículum integrado de lenguas [sessions on language competence: The integrated
language curriculum]. 27e28 november, 2008.
Lorenzo, F., Trujillo, T., & Vez, J. M. (2011). Educacio
n bilingüe: Integracio
n de contenidos y segundas lenguas [bilingual education: Integration of content and
second languages]. Madrid: Síntesis.
Lutz, A. (2007). Barriers to high school completion among immigrant and later-generation Latinos in the USA: Language, ethnicity and socioeconomic
status. Ethnicities, 7, 323e342.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-the European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Strasbourg: European Commission.
Mun ~ oz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Espan ~ ola de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 1, 17e26.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317e342. https://doi.org/10.
1515/applirev- 2013e0014.
Pe
rez-Can ~ ado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315e341.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064.
Pe
rez-Can ~ ado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching Language and
Literature, 9(1), 9e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London/New York: Routledge.
Regional Ministry of Education. (2016). Informe sobre el programa bilingüe de los centros docentes del Principado de Asturias [Report on the bilingual pro-
gramme of schools in the Principality of Asturias]. November 2016. Culture and Sports of the Principality of Asturias. Retrieved on January 14th 2017 from:
https://www.educastur.es/-/informe-sobre-el-programa-bilingue-de-los-centros-docentes-del-principado-de-asturias.
Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7,
441e462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(92)90031-S.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60e73.
http://www.icrj.eu/11/article5.html.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jime
nez Catal
an, R. M. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209e239.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582e602. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb461.0.

Please cite this article in press as: Fern
andez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001

ndez Sanjurjo et al. / System xxx (2017) 1e11
J. Ferna 11

Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal, 39(2), 76e87. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/39.2.76.
Villarreal Olaizola, I., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of Basque/Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-
CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R. M. Jime
nez Catala

n (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 152e175).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Wilkinson, R. (2004). Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching: Practique and Critique, 10(4), 116e126.

ndez Sanjurjo, J., et al., Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students'
Please cite this article in press as: Ferna
performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning, System (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001