This paper discusses factors that determine school achievement in general, with special reference to school type, and the factors that make schools different, such as the students' economic and sociocultural level and family support. Then, it provides data about academic achievement in CLIL and non-CLIL programme groups and across three different types of schools: public (bilingual and non-bilingual), private (bilingual) and charter (non-bilingual), with a research design that matches students in terms of verbal intelligence and motivation. A total of 13 public (n = 551), one private (n = 42) and three charter (n = 127) schools at both the primary and secondary levels from the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga in Andalusia, Spain, participated in the study. Performance in L1 (Spanish), FL (English) and subjects taught in English in CLIL (or bilingual) schools (Natural, Social and Cultural Environment Education in primary education, Natural Science in compulsory secondary education) is compared. Results show differences in performance between the CLIL and the mainstream, non-CLIL programme and between school types-particularly at the secondary level. Additionally, results from discriminant analyses seem to provide evidence that factors such as motivation, verbal intelligence, extramural exposure to English and socioeconomic status cannot account for differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups.

No abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the academic performance of bilingual and non-bilingual students pursuing a primary school teaching degree and their level of satisfaction with the degree program. To this end, a sample of 1,057 students from the Faculty of Education at the University of Granada was used: 427 bilingual students (85 males and 342 females) and 630 non-bilinguals (202 males and 428 females), who followed the same curriculum and syllabuses (19 subjects in total). While the results obtained demonstrate no significant differences between the two groups in eight subjects, differences in favor of the non-bilingual group were present in two subjects: Mathematics and Learning disabilities. In the remaining nine subjects, four of which belonged to the students´ specialty of teaching English as a foreign language, the bilingual students outperformed the non-bilinguals despite the potential challenge of doing a degree in a foreign language. Satisfaction with the curriculum was slightly greater among the non-bilingual students (m=3.81) than the bilingual students (m=3.73), although these differences were not significant.

No abstract

No abstract