LINGUISTIC PROGRAMME IN CASTILLA-LA-MANCHA: A STUDY OF TEACHERS´, PARENTS´, AND STUDENTS´ ATTITUDES TOWARDS BILINGUALISM IN SECUNDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

LOS PROGRAMAS LINGÜÍSTICOS EN CASTILLA-LA-MANCHA: UN ESTUDIO DE LAS ACTITUDES DEL PROFESORADO, FAMILIAS Y ALUMNADO HACIA EL BIBLINGUISMO EN INSTITUTOS DE EDUCACIÓN SECUNDARIA

Ana Sevilla Nieto, IES. Francisco García Pavón, Spain
sevillanieto@yahoo.es

Jelena Bobkina, Technical University of Madrid, Spain
jelenabobkina@hotmail.com

File PDF

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in bilingual education in Europe in general, and particularly in Spain. Thus, in barely fifteen years, the number of bilingual centers in public and private education has increased dramatically throughout the country. Numerous bilingual programmes have been implemented in different autonomous communities in Spain, being the most referential those one articulated in Madrid, Andalusia and the Basque country.

Not surprisingly, bilingual education that is characterized by teaching of different curricular areas through a foreign language has become a popular issue throughout the Europe (Nieto Moreno de Diezma, 2016; Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & García, 2013; Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán, 2009). Many European Union institutions have adopted CLIL as an educational model to ensure students´ language proficiency in several languages. Being the most common form of bilingual education in Spain, CLIL has also has attracted a special interest of a great number of researchers in this country (Lasagabaster & López Beloqui, 2015).

Nevertheless, most of the research done in bilingual education has focused on the students’ linguistic competence; that is, the effectiveness of different bilingual programmes (Admiraal, Westhoff, & de Bot, 2006; Dalton-Puffer, 2008). But less study has been done on non-linguistic outcomes of bilingualism, such as attitudes, cultural values, self-concept and beliefs (Coady, 2001; Gerena & Ramirez Verdugo, 2014). Besides, most investigation is centered on those regions that have been among the first ones to pilot bilingual projects, such as Madrid or Andalusia (Alonso, Grisaleña, & Campo, 2008; Casal & Moore, 2009), leaving far behind other communities as it might be the case of Castilla-La Mancha o Castilla-Leon.

To give response to this demand, the present research aims at analyzing students´ attitudes towards bilingualism and foreign language learning in Castilla-La Mancha, that is betting hard for implementation of bilingual education. In particular, the study seeks to determine the relationship between bilingual education and students´ self-concept as well as their motivation towards language learning. Besides, teachers´ and parents´ attitudes towards linguistic programmes and their effect on students´ motivation are analyzed.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. A brief background to bilingual education in Castilla la Mancha

In Spain, the implementation of bilingual programmes could be traced back to 1996, when the Spanish Ministry of Education (MEC) signed an agreement with the British Council and the French government to introduce an integrated Spanish/English curriculum in 42 state schools (Dobson, Pérez Murillo, & Johnstone, 2010). Traditionally, Madrid, Andalusia and the Basque Country have occupied strategic positions in the development of bilingual policies, and have been used as a benchmark by other autonomous communities (Alonso et al., 2008; Casal & Moore, 2009).

The region of Castilla-La Mancha enrolled in the project in 1996 with 7 schools that initially participated in the programme. In 2002, Spanish/French bilingual sections were created in some primary schools. The programme of the integrated curriculum covered from the preschool level to the end of the secondary education and aimed at providing a model of bilingual education based on the curricular integration of two languages and their cultures.

In 2005, the responsibility for bilingual education was transferred from the central government to the autonomous governments throughout the country. In Castilla-La Mancha bilingualism has spread in form of European Sections, which were created by means of the Order 7/02/2005 (DOCM, of 7-02-2005) with the aim of providing a greater number of schools to take part in bilingual programmes.

The Order 13/03/2008 enhanced the development of European sections in public high schools in Castilla-La Mancha, which later were transformed into Bilingual sections according to the law of 7/2010 of 20th of July. The programme enhanced bilingualism through the teaching of at least two content subjects in a foreign language (English or French).

Initially, the programme was implemented on the pre-primary, primary and secondary levels, though later high school and vocational education students were included. Besides, two more languages – German and Italian –were introduced into the project.

In 2014, a new legislation regulating bilingual programmes in Castilla-La Mancha was enacted (Decree 7/2014, Order 16/06/2014) in order to create a global plan for plurilingualism. Linguistic programmes started to be classified into three categories according to the number of content subjects taught through a foreign language:

- Initiation programmes with one content subject taught through a foreign language at each of the four years of secondary education.

- Development programmes with at least two content subjects through a foreign language at each of the four years of secondary education.

- Excellence programmes with three content subjects through a foreign language at each of the four years of secondary education.          

Students’ participation in linguistic programmes in secondary education is voluntary and depends entirely on their own decision regardless the fact whether they have been enrolled previously in bilingual programmes or not. Teachers may also recommend students to enroll or to quit the linguistic programme according to their academic results.

Teachers involved in the programme should have at least a B2 language certificate as established by the European Common Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), although those schools with a linguistic excellence programme must have at least one teacher with C1 language certificate.

A foreign language is established as the only means of instruction during the classes taught through a foreign language; however, the use of L1 is allowed to clarify concepts that may not be clear for students. Besides, it is stated that the content subject vocabulary and basic notions should be acquired in both languages, as recommended by recent methodologies and approaches for bilingual education. The total amount of school time that must be taught through the additional language is not clearly specified.

2.2.  
2.2 Attitude towards bilingualism

The issue of students´ attitude towards bilingualism and bilingual education is not a new question in applied linguistics. Thus, one of the first tests -the Attitude/Motivation Battery- was developed by Gardner already in 1985 in order to measure the attitudes of English-speaking students toward the learning of French as a second language. The topics to be tested include such items as attitudes toward the L2 community, interest in foreign languages, attitudes toward a specific L2, integrative orientation, parental encouragement, instrumental orientation, L2 class anxiety, and motivational intensity and L2 teacher evaluation.

Immersion and dual-education programmes and their effect on students´ motivation have been studied extensively in the North-American context. Thus, Craig (1996) examined the attitudes toward bilingualism of English and Latino parents in the USA whose children were involved in Spanish-English immersion programmes. The study revealed that parents considered two-way immersion programmes to be highly positive in terms of pluriculturalism, cultural enrichment and educational excellence. 

Similar results were described by Cazabon, Lambert, and Hall (1993) who analyzed a two-way bilingual programme developed in the USA which combines bilingual education for limited-English-proficient students and language immersion for native English speakers. The results confirmed students´ and parents´ satisfaction with the programme from both academic and social point of view.

The influence of social and demographic variables on students´ attitude towards bilingualism was examined by Galvis (2010) who analyzed the attitude of high school students in California toward English-Spanish bilingual programme. The research demonstrated that the English speaking majority showed a less positive attitude than the Spanish speaking minority.

In case of bilingual educational programmes in Spain, most of the studies state that in spite of general positive attitude towards bilingual education, there is considerable concern amongst the members of the education community regarding its implementation.

To give an example, Fernández, Pena, García, and Halbach (2004), who analyzed teachers’ attitudes toward bilingual programmes in Madrid, place special emphasis on the lack of specific training and tools for successful development of bilingual projects.

Similar concerns were identified by Gerena and Ramirez Verdugo (2014) in their recent study dealing with teachers’, students’ and language assistants’ attitudes toward bilingual educational programmes in Madrid. In particular, teachers expressed their concerns on the lack of time to plan and coordinate their work with teachers and language assistants involved into the bilingual programme.

On the other side, Ramos (2007) examined the attitudes of a group of students enrolled in the Andalusian bilingual programme. In general terms, students reported satisfaction with bilingual programmes´ implementation, although their opinions regarding intellectual and cognitive benefits of learning a foreign language were mostly negative.

The effect of Content and Language Learning (CLIL) on secondary school students’ attitudes toward language learning (English, Basque and Spanish) in the Basque country was studied by Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009). According to the authors, CLIL programmes foster positive attitudes toward language learning, as students are more exposed to the language and they can use it in meaningful contexts and authentic situations.

When analyzing the results of the studies done in this area, we can see that most of the researchers agree on positive attitudes towards bilingual education among students (Cazabon, Lambert, & Hall, 1993; Galvis, 2010; Gerena & Ramirez Verdugo, 2014; Ordóñez, 2011; Ramos, 2007), parents (Cazabon et al., 1993; Craig, 1996), and teachers (Fernández, Pena, García, & Halbach, 2004; Gerena & Ramirez Verdugo, 2014; Ordóñez, 2011).

Thus, students believe bilingual education contributes to their cultural and social enrichment as well as to their educational excellence. On the other side, parents´ attitude is conditioned by the fact that foreign languages prepare students for living and working in a multicultural society, meanwhile teachers consider bilingualism an important tool that enhances the quality of education.

3.  Method

In order to unveil students´, teachers´ and parents´ attitude towards bilingual programmes recently introduced in Castilla-La Mancha, three different questionnaires have been designed and administered to students, parents and teachers. All questionnaires included a combination of closed and open questions.

The first part of the questionnaires based on 1 to 5 Likert scale aimed at evaluating respondents´ attitude towards English language, linguistic programmes, instrumental orientation, parental encouragement, multiculturalism and integrative orientation. Additionally, teachers were asked to evaluate the availability of teacher training programmes on bilingual education, as well as the teaching materials for bilingual schools.

Moreover, the second part of the questionnaires, consisting of a set of open questions, allowed participants to express their opinion regarding positive/negative aspects of the linguistic programme.

Results have first been analyzed quantitatively to be later on presented and discussed in the Results section of the present study. The conclusions and the pedagogical implications derived from the discussion of results can be found in the final section of the paper.

3.1. Participants

Two secondary education schools located in the south of Castilla-La Mancha have taken part in the study. Students’ questionnaires were delivered to 62 students from the 3^rd and the 4^th grades of the secondary education. Similarly, the same number of questionnaires was administered to the parents of those students who took part in the research.

Teachers’ questionnaires were delivered to 15 content subject teachers involved in the schools´ linguistic programmes. The subjects covered include Maths, Technology, Information Technology, Physics and Chemistry and Biology and Geology.

3.2.   Instruments

The first questionnaire organized into 4 main sections was designed to collect the data related to the students’ opinions. The first 3 sections were aimed to collect quantitative data regarding the students’ opinions towards aspects like attitude towards English, attitude towards linguistic programme, and parental encouragement. The items included in each of the sections were the following: (1) Attitude towards English: 1.1. I like studying English, 1.5. I use English outside the school, 1.11. I get nervous when speaking English, 1.12. I would like to continue studying English when I finish my secondary school studies, 1.13. I like learning English as it helps me to communicate with people from other countries, 1.14. I am interested in learning about the culture of English-speaking countries, 1.16. English will help me to get a good job in the future. (2) Attitude towards linguistic programme: 2.2. I like learning content subjects in English, 2.3. The contents that I learn through English will be helpful for my future, 2.4. I think that studying content subjects through English is difficult, 2.6. I would like more subjects to be included into the bilingual programme, 2.9. The use of English in bilingual subjects does not affect my grades, 2.10. I consider my level of English has improved thanks to the bilingual programme, 2.15. Students of bilingual programmes have advantages over those of monolingual programmes, 2.17. I would like more languages to be included into the bilingual programme. (3) Parental encouragement: 3.7. My family considers English to be an important issue. 3.8. My family encourages me to study English. There was a total of 17 items scored on a five-point Likert Scale (from 1 = Totally to disagree 5 = Completely agree). The fourth section consisted of a set of 2 open questions: 4.1. Comment the most positive aspect of the bilingual programme. 4.2 Comment the most negative aspect of the bilingual programme.

The second questionnaire designed to collect the data related to the teachers´ opinions was organized in a similar way. In addition to those sections included in students´ questionnaire, teachers were asked to evaluate the methodology used in bilingual programmes, the availability of teacher training programmes on bilingual education, as well as the teaching materials for bilingual schools. The items included in each of the sections were the following: (1) Attitude towards English: 1.6. I find difficult to motivate my students to study non-linguistic subjects in English. 1.7. My students show positive attitudes towards the use of English in the classroom. 1.8. My students feel anxious when they are asked to speak in English. (2) Attitude towards linguistic programme: 2.1. The bilingual programme contributes improving the general quality of education. 2.2. The bilingual programme contributes improving the level of English of the students. (3) Parental encouragement: 3.5. Parents´ involvement in the bilingual programme is of outmost importance. (4) Methodology, teacher training and materials: 4.3. Teaching a non-linguistic subject in English requires an important change of methodology. 4.4. The teacher training programmes on bilingual methodology available for teachers are adequate. 4.9. The materials available for teachers of non-linguistic subjects in English are adequate. There was a total of 9 items scored on a five-point Likert Scale (from 1 = Totally disagree to 5 = Completely agree). The last section consisted of a set of 2 open questions dealing with positive and negative aspects of the bilingual programme.

The third questionnaire designed to collect the data related to parents´ opinions included 3 sections. The first two sections were aimed to evaluate parents´ opinion towards English and linguistic programme. The items included in each of the sections were the following: (1) Attitude towards English: 1.1. I encourage my child to use English in his/her free time. 1.2. It is important to study English. 1.6. The knowledge of English will be helpful for my child´s future work. 1.7. It is important for my child to continue studying English after the secondary school. 1.9. It is important for my child to know the culture of the English-speaking countries, (2) Attitude towards linguistic programme: 2.3. I consider that the bilingual programme has contributed positively to the level of English of my child. 2.4. When my child started the bilingual programme I was worried that it would affect negatively his/her grades. 2.5. The bilingual programme motivates students to study English. 2.8. Students of bilingual programmes have an advantage over those studying in monolingual programme. 2.10. The bilingual programme has improved my child ´s attitude towards English. There was a total of 10 items scored on a five-point Likert Scale (from 1 = Totally disagree to 5 = Completely agree). The last section consisted of a set of 2 open questions dealing with positive and negative aspects of the bilingual programme.

3.3.1.1. Questionnaire. Likert Scale items

Regarding the first section of the questionnaire, the students expressed highly positive attitude towards English language (see Graphs 1 and 2). Thus, about 79% of respondents showed a great interest in studying English in general. The same percentage of students agreed on the necessity of having a good level of English to get a better job in the future. In fact, 75% of students stated that they would like to continue studying English after finishing their secondary school studies.

Additionally, about 72% consider English to be an excellent tool of communication. Thus, around 68% of students reported that they use English outside the classroom. What´s more, about 50% of the respondents do not get nervous when speaking English.

Nevertheless, these positive results come to be shadowed by the fact that relatively low percentage of the respondents (less than 50%) showed their interest towards the culture of the English-speaking countries.

  Graphs 1 and 2. Students´ assessment of self-attitude toward English.

As far as the students´ attitude towards linguistic programme concerns, it is worth noticing that students´ general assessment was mostly positive (see Graphs 3 and 4). Thus, 72% of the participants affirmed that they liked studying content subjects in English. What´s more, 79% of them considered the contents studied in English to be useful in their future. This is quite related to the fact that 68% of the students enrolled in the linguistic programme consider themselves to be in a more advantageous position if compared to students of monolingual schools.

Quite surprisingly, most of the respondents (72%) do not consider studying content subjects in English to be difficult for them. What´s more, around 62% of the students reported that the use of English as a vehicular language has not affected their grades. Equally revealing is the fact that a high number of students expressed their desire to have more subjects (59%) and more languages (65%) to be included into the linguistic programme.

Parents are external agents who play an essential role in encouraging their children to learn English and transmit positive attitudes and opinions toward the foreign language and the culture which it represents. As seen from the table below, students´ answers clearly indicate that their families consider that learning English is important and, therefore, encourage them to study English.

Table 1.
Students´ assessment of self-attitude toward parental encouragement

3.3.1.1. Questionnaire. Open questions

As regards the final section of the questionnaire, the data obtained was analysed qualitatively. When dealing with the most positive aspects of the linguistic programme, the students remarked such aspects as the improvement of their level of English, the possibility to communicate with people from other countries, as well as the chance to find out more about different cultures.

On the negative side, some students pointed to the fact that studying non-linguistic subjects in English was more difficult for them and required some extra time for preparation.

3.3.2. Analysis of teachers´ questionnaires results

3.3.2.1.  Questionnaire. Likert Scale Items

Regarding the teachers´ assessment of students´ attitude toward English, it is worth noticing that 100% of the respondents affirmed that they did not find difficult to motivate their students in studying content subjects in English (see Graph 5).

Surprisingly, only 50% of the participants agreed with the statement that their students showed positive attitude toward the use of English during the classes, while 33% of them disagreed. This fact contrasts with the data received from the analysis of students´ questionnaires, where 72% of the respondents declared that they liked studying content subjects in English.

Finally, about 50% of the teachers declared that they found their students insecure when speaking English. These results coincide with the data obtained from the students´ responses, where 47% of the participants recognized that they got nervous when speaking English.

Results obtained in the present section of the questionnaire reveal the fact that 100% of the responders consider the linguistic programme to be the one contributing positively to the general quality of education (see Graph 6). In fact, 100% of the teachers polled reported that the linguistic programme improved the students´ level of English. Surprisingly, this data contradicts the information obtained from the students´ questionnaire according to which only 56% of the respondents consider the linguistic programme has improved their level of English.

Graph 6. Teachers´assessment of students´attitudes toward the linguistic programme

As it can be seen from the table below, 83% of the teachers consider parental encouragement essential for their students´ success.

Table 2.

Regarding the methodology used for teaching non-linguistic subjects through English, teachers´ responses were rather contradictory (see Table 3). 33% of the teachers reported that a change of methodology was necessary when teaching content subjects through English, meanwhile 17% declared that no change was necessary.

In the same vein, teachers´ responses on questions 4 and 9, dealing with teacher training courses and adequate teaching materials, differ a lot. Only 16% of the participants declared to have had adequate teacher training courses, meanwhile the vast majority of teachers (67%) pointed to the lack of training.

3.3.2.2.  Questionnaire. Open questions

When answering the question dealing with the positive aspects of the linguistic programme, the most frequently mentioned items include the improvement of the students´ level of English, the possibility to use English in a natural way, and the major exposition of students toward English.

Among the major drawbacks of the linguistic programme, most of the teachers mentioned the lack of coordination with a language assistant due to the heavy workload. Additionally, some teachers declared that the use of English as a vehicular language led to the development of learning difficulties in case of some students. The lack of common assessment criteria regarding the use of English in non-linguistic subjects was the other aspect mentioned by teachers. 

3.3.3.3. Analysis of parents´ questionnaires results

3.3.3.1 Questionnaire. Likert Scale Items

Parents are key agents in linguistic programmes as they are the ones who take the decision of enrolling their children in the linguistic programme. The results of the research clearly indicate that most of the parents have a highly positive attitude toward English (see Graph 7). Thus, 100% of the respondents find English to be an important subject and consider that the knowledge of English is essential for their children’s future jobs. In fact, 60% of the parents actively encourage their children in studying English. Not surprisingly, all of the participants indicate that they would like their children to continue studying English in the future.

Graph 7. Assessment of parents´ attitudes toward English.

Regarding the parents´ attitudes towards the linguistic programme, as shown in the graph below, the parents´ responses were mostly positive. This comes supported by the fact that 100% of the respondents consider that the linguistic programme has contributed to the improvement of their children level of English. What´s more, 88% of the parents have noticed the increase of motivation toward the English language among their children, the fact that most of the respondents (78%) relate to their children involvement into linguistic programme. It is important to notice as well that 76% of the parents expressed their concern about the fact that the use of English as a vehicle language would affect negatively their children´s grade. Even though, 80% of the respondents declared that those students enrolled in the linguistic programmes are in a more advantageous situation compared to the rest of the students.

3.3.3.2.   Questionnaire. Open questions

As regards the positive aspects of the linguistic programme, the most frequent items mentioned by parents include the possibility to reach a high level of a foreign language, to acquire a specific vocabulary of non-linguistic subjects, to communicate with people from different countries, and to learn English in a more natural way.

When commenting on the negative aspects of the linguistic programme, the most frequent comment dealt with the fact that the use of English as a vehicular language may affect negatively the students´ grades. Some parents expressed their preoccupation on the quality of specific contents taught through English and the lack of language assistants to support the programme.

4. Conclusions and pedagogical implications

To conclude, the overall results obtained from the research are rather satisfactory as they reveal quite positive global outcomes. Most of the students have reported to have a positive attitude towards English. This fact is of outmost importance as the positive attitude enhances the successful development of the teaching learning process within the linguistic programme. This positive attitude of students toward English also explains the fact that teachers do not find difficulties in motivating students to learn content subjects through English.

In spite of the general positive attitude toward English, most of the teachers recognize that some students feel rather reluctant to use English during the lessons. Students’ attitudes toward the use of the foreign language during the lessons may vary depending on the content subject and, even within the same subject, depending on the specific topic of the lesson. We should bear in mind that, regardless of students’ attitudes toward language or content, teachers have to use strategies, activities and tasks aimed at motivating students to learn language and/or content.

Both students and parents have recognized the importance of studying English after finishing secondary school studies. In this sense, the availability of the linguistic programmes on both upper-secondary and vocational levels may contribute positively to students´ motivation.

Not only do parents recognize the importance of English, but they also encourage children in their studies of a foreign language. This parental encouragement is also confirmed by students’ and teachers´ responses. However, the study has revealed that more emphasis should be put on enhancing students to use English outside the classroom.

The instrumental motivation toward learning English is clearly expressed by both students and parents. Both groups recognize the importance of studying English as a chance to improve future employability.

Both students and parents were asked about the integrative and multicultural orientation for learning English. Students stated that they like learning English because it allows them to communicate with people from different countries. However, when both groups were asked about the importance of learning about the culture of English-speaking countries, neither of them seem to consider culture as an important aspect of language learning.

As regards the students´ attitude toward the linguistic programme, the fact that students are motivated to learn content subjects through English is of paramount importance. The majority of respondents reported that they like studying content subjects through English and do not find it difficult.

All three groups were asked on the effect of the linguistic programme on students´ level of English. It is interesting to notice that the most positive appreciations were given by teachers and parents, who declared that the programme is undoubtedly helpful in this aspect, whereas students´ answers were not so straightforward.

Not surprisingly, all respondents stated that bilingual students have advantages over non-bilingual students. Apart from the clear benefits related to the language acquisition, the linguistic programme contributes positively to the general quality of the education.

Among the main concerns expressed by parents is the one related to the fact that the use of English as a vehicle language may have a negative effect on students’ grades. Contrary to this expectation, most of the students affirmed that the use of English in content subjects has not had any negative effect on their academic results.

One of the important aspects of the linguistic programme that has been highly criticized by teachers deals with availability of adequate teacher training courses and teaching materials designed for teaching non-linguistic subjects through English.

5. References
 

Admiraal, W., G. Westhoff, & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English, Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75-93.

Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (1), 36-49. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/11/article3.html

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Burgess, T.F. (2001). Guide to the design of questionnaires. A general introduction to the design of questionnaires for survey research. Information Systems Services: University of Leeds.

Casal, S., Moore, P. (2009). The Andalusian bilingual sections scheme: Evaluation and consultancy. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2), 36-46. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/12/article4.html

Cazabon, M., Lambert, W. E., & Hall, G. (1993). Two-way bilingual education: A progress report on the Amigos programme. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Coady, M. (2001). Attitudes toward bilingualism in Ireland. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 25 (1-2), 39-58.

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe (2006). European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.eurydice.org

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CUP.

Craig, B.A. (1996). Parental attitudes toward bilingualism in a local Two-way immersion programme. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20 (3/4), 383-410.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp.139-157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Decreto 7/2014. Por el que se regula el plurilingüismo en la enseñanza no universitaria en Castilla-La Mancha. Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes de Castilla-La Mancha, 2014.

Dobson, A., Pérez Murillo, M.D., & Johnstone, R. (2010). Bilingual Education Project Spain. Evaluation report. Findings of the independent evaluation of the Bilingual Education Project. Madrid: Ministry of Education of Spain and British Council.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-135. 

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in Language learning: Advances in theory, research and applications. Language Learning, 53 (1), 3-32. 

Fernández Fernández, R., Pena Díaz, C., García Gómez, A., & Halbach, A. (2005). La implantación de proyectos educativos bilingües en la Comunidad de Madrid: las expectativas del profesorado antes de iniciar el proyecto. Porta Linguarum, 3, 161-173.

Galvis, C. (2010). Actitud hacia el bilingüismo inglés-español en estudiantes de secundaria norteamericanos. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada, 8 (4), 3-16.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). The attitude/motivation test battery. Technical report. Canada: University of Western Ontario.

Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation: Past, present and future. Temple University Japan, Distinguished Lecturer Series, Tokyo, February 17, 2001; Osaka, February 24, 2001. Retrieved from http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/ GardnerPublicLecture1.pdf.

Gardner, R. C. (2004). Attitude/Motivation test battery. International AMTB research project. Canada: University of Western Ontario.

Gerena, L., Ramírez Verdugo, M. D. (2014). Analyzing bilingual teaching and learning in Madrid. A Fulbright scholar collaborative research project. Education and Learning Research Journal, 8, 118-136.

Guía del auxiliar. Programa de auxiliares de conversación en España 2015/16. (2015). Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gobierno de España.

Guía del tutor. Programa de auxiliares de conversación en España 2015/16. (2015). Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Gobierno de España.

Guía del auxiliar de conversación de la Comunidad de Madrid 2015-2016. (2015). Dirección General de Mejora de la Calidad de la Enseñanza. Consejería de Educación, Juventud y Deporte. Comunidad de Madrid.

Guía informativa para centros de enseñanza bilingüe. (2013). Dirección General de Innovación Educativa y Formación del Profesorado. Consejería de Educación. Junta de Andalucía.

Hernández, P. (2014, January 24). La Junta prepara un ambicioso plan de formación para implantar el bilingüismo. ABC.es Edición Toledo. Retrieved from http://www.abc.es/toledo/20140123/abcp-junta-prepara-ambicioso-plan-20140123.html

Instrucciones relativas al funcionamiento de los programas lingüísticos en lenguas extranjeras en centros plurilingües sostenidos con fondos públicos de Castilla-La Mancha para el curso 2015/2016. (2015). Dirección General de Recursos Humanos y Programación Educativa. Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes de Castilla-La Mancha.

Krashen, S. (1996). Surveys of opinions on bilingual education: Some current issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 20 (3-4), 411-431.

Lasagabaster, D. & López Beloqui, R. (2015). The Impact of type of approach (CLIL versus EFL) and methodology (Book-based versus Project work) on motivation. Porta Linguarum, 23, 41-57.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2). Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/12/article1.html

Ley 7/2010, de 20 de julio, de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha. Presidencia de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha.

Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa (LOMCE). Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Gobierno de España.

Lorenzo, F., Trujillo, F., & Vez, J.M. (2011). Educación bilingüe: Integración de contenidos y segundas lenguas. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.

Los Programas de Educación Bilingüe en la Comunidad de Madrid. Un estudio comparado. (2010). Consejo Escolar. Madrid: Publicaciones Consejería de Educación Madrid.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in a second language: Individual decision making in a social context. Barcelona (March, 2007).

Madrid, a Bilingual Community 2014-2015. (2015). Consejería de Educación, Juventud y Deporte. Dirección General de Innovación, Becas y Ayudas a la Educación. Comunidad de Madrid.

Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of the learning to learn competence in secondary school education in the bilingual programmes of Castilla-La Mancha. Porta Linguarum, 25, 21-34.

Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & García, A. L. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70-100.

Orden 07/02/2005. Por la que se crea el Programa de Secciones Europeas en los centros públicos de Educación Infantil, Primaria y Secundaria de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla- La Mancha. Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de Castilla-La Mancha.

Orden 13/03/2008. Por la que se regula el desarrollo de Secciones Europeas en los centros públicos de Educación Infantil, Primaria y Secundaria de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla- La Mancha. Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de Castilla-La Mancha.

Orden 16/06/2014. Por la que se regulan los programas lingüísticos de los centros de Educación Infantil y Primaria, Secundaria, Bachillerato y Formación Profesional sostenidos con fondos públicos de Castilla- La Mancha. Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes de Castilla-La Mancha.  

Ordóñez, C.L. (2011). Education for bilingualism: Connecting Spanish and English from the curriculum, into the classroom and beyond. Profile, 13, 147-161.

Plan de Plurilingüismo de Castilla-La Mancha. (2010). Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes de Castilla-La Mancha. 

Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, 24.07.2003 COM (2003) 449 final.

Ramos, F. (2007). Opinions of students enrolled in an Andalusian bilingual programme, on bilingualism and the programme itself. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 9 (2). Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/vol9no2/contents-ramos2.html

Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman (Pearson Education).

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (Vol. 41). Multilingual Matters.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Schumman, J.H. (1997). The neurobiology of affect in language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548-573.

Wechem, M. van, Halbach, A. (2015). Don’t worry mum and dad… I will speak English! La guía del bilingüismo del British Council School. Macmillan Education: Universidad de Alcalá.

ATTACHMENTS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS

We are carrying out a research on students, parents and teachers´attitudes towards English and bilingual programmes in secondary education. Please, tick the most appropriate digit according to the level of your agreement with the item described. The survey is confidential and the responses will be used only for research purposes.

Please, answer the following questions briefly.

Comment the most positive aspects of the bilingual programme.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Comment the most negative aspects of the bilingual programme.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

We are carrying out a research on students, parents and teachers´ attitudes towards English and bilingual programmes in secondary education. Please, tick the most appropriate digit according to the level of your agreement with the item described. The survey is confidential and the responses will be used only for research purposes.

Please, answer the following questions briefly.

Comment the most positive aspects of the bilingual programme.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Comment the most negative aspects of the bilingual programme.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS

We are carrying out a research on students, parents and teachers´ attitudes towards English and bilingual programmes in secondary education. Please, tick the most appropriate digit according to the level of your agreement with the item described. The survey is confidential and the responses will be used only for research purposes.

Please, answer the following questions briefly.

Comment the most positive aspects of the bilingual programme.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Comment the most negative aspects of the bilingual programme.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………