Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition
vol. 5 (2) 2019, pp. 95–113

10.31261/tapsla.7658

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students
from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual Schools

in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
A Comparative Study

A b s t r a c t

The teaching of foreign languages and the use of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) methodology is hugely popular in Spain nowadays. Many families are interested in
this type of academic training because they are convinced the academic results are positive,
but the question is whether it is in fact the case that foreign language level increases. The
aim of this study was to analyse the different level of English writing skills of 4th grade
students from both compulsory bilingual and non-bilingual secondary schools in Castilla-La
Mancha (Spain). From the results of the study, we were able to examine whether bilingual
programs help students improve their English writing skills as well as to compare the results
obtained by bilingual schools in Castilla-La Mancha with those developed in other Spanish,
or even European, regions.

Keywords: bilingual teaching, effectiveness, writing skill, compulsory secondary education

Introduction

Most bilingual programmes follow a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) methodology nowadays. The interest and credibility of this education-
al approach, well justified by Mohan in 1986, have increased over the last few
years due to its usefulness as a means of learning another language in a natural
way. The establishment of subjects taught in a foreign language through this
methodology, focused more on the subject content learning than on language
learning itself, is spreading increasingly throughout Spain. Several scientists

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5800-1765

http://doi.org10.31261/tapsla.7772
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero96

such as Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols (2008), Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010),
and Marsh (2013), highlight the innovative power of this approach, even though
its effectiveness varies depending on the context in which it is being developed.

There are numerous studies on the assessment of the use of CLIL methodol-
ogy in the acquisition of foreign language communicative competence. Most of
them show beneficial results (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Jiménez
Catalán & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2009; Villarreal & García Mayo, 2009; Gallardo del
Puerto et al. 2009; San Isidro, 2010; Hughes & Madrid, 2011). Also, they re-
vealed that bilingual programmes can help students raise their foreign language
knowledge level. Nevertheless, do 4th grade Compulsory Secondary Education
students who attend bilingual programme state schools in the Autonomous
Community of Castilla-La Mancha get better results in the assessment of their
English language writing skill than those who attend non-bilingual programme
state schools? Our research focused on answering this question.

Throughout this paper several ideas have been discussed, namely, the first
section introduces the origin of bilingual programmes in Castilla-La Mancha
and presents the nature of the research. It explains the type of students involved,
the tasks those students had to perform, and the place where these tasks were
performed. The second section presents and analyses the results obtained in the
test. The next section provides the comparison of the data with other Spanish
and European regions where similar research has been developed. Finally, con-
clusions of our study regarding students’ writing skills have been presented.

Theoretical Background

Bilingual teaching in Castilla-La Mancha started in 1996 with the intro-
duction of the British Council-MEC Project in seven Pre-school and Primary
Education Schools in addition to seven Secondary Education Schools. The
Autonomous Community established its own bilingual teaching programme
(Order 07/02/2005) with the creation of 36 “European sections” in 2005. This
initiative coincided with the beginning of other bilingual programmes in mono-
lingual Spanish regions, such as Madrid, Extremadura, and Andalucía, which
started to develop their own bilingual programmes the same year (Nieto Moreno
de Diezmas & Ruiz Cordero, 2018). The last of these regions, for example, intro-
duced a plurilingual development program through the Order BOJA 05/04/2005.

Afterwards, the regulation of bilingual teaching was modified in 2014
through the Order 16/06/2014. Subsequently, the “European sections” were called
“linguistic programmes.” This regulation, which still applies, establishes three
types of linguistic programmes: (1) Introduction programmes, in which the

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 97

content subject is taught completely in the foreign language; (2) Development
programmes, in which only two content subjects are taught in a foreign lan-
guage; (3) Excellence programmes, in which three content subjects are taught
in the foreign language and at least one of the teachers must show proof of
a C1 language level according to the European Framework. However, the new
Decree 47/2017 became effective in the school year 2018/2019. Its aim is the
implementation of a unique programme through which pre-schools and primary
schools can teach content subjects using the foreign language they determine.
The amount of time they have to do so is no less than 200 minutes in each of
the levels of pre-primary education grades, and between 25% and 50% of the
daily schedule in each of the primary education grades. The amount of time
devoted to this way of teaching in secondary school varies from 30% to 50%
of the daily schedule. Additionally, this law applies in high schools and in basic
professional training (medium and higher level grades), where the amount of
time allotted to learning content subjects in the chosen language of the school
varies from 20% to 50% of the total
daily schedule in each of the grades.

The number of bilingual schools
has increased since the commence-
ment of bilingual programmes. Cur-
rently, the goal of the above-men-
tioned new rule is to incorporate bi-
lingual teaching in all non-university
grades in Castilla-La Mancha. In
fact, Castilla-La Mancha had 599
linguistic programmes established in
520 primary and secondary schools
in the school year 2017/2018. These
linguistic programmes are distributed
among the five regions that make up
the Autonomous Community and are
as follows: Toledo, with the highest
number of linguistic programmes,
followed by Ciudad Real, Albacete,
Cuenca, and Guadalajara.

The foreign language most fre-
quently used in the bilingual teaching
programmes in Castilla-La Mancha
is English. Out of the 599 linguis-
tic programmes in the school year 2017/2018, 562 programmes were conducted
in English, 34 programmes in French, one programme in Italian, and two pro-
grammes in German (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percentage of Linguistic Pro-
gramme Languages in Castilla-La
Mancha in the 2017/2018 school year.
Source: author’s own elaboration.

English 93.8 %;
562; 94%

French 5.6%; 34; 6%

German
0.3%; 2; 0%

Italian 0.1%;
1; 0%

English 93.8 % French 5.6%
German 0.3% Italian 0.1%

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero98

Study

Methodology

The present study intended to test and compare the level of English writing
skills of 4th grade students of compulsory secondary education state schools
(hereafter as CSE) with and without linguistic programmes in Castilla-La
Mancha (Spain). Once the main objective of this paper was defined, the fol-
lowing research questions were addressed:
1. Is the level of English writing skills of compulsory bilingual secondary

schools students higher than the one of those attending non-bilingual sec-
ondary schools in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)?

2. Do the bilingual programs help students improve their English writing skills?
3. Are the results obtained in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) similar to those de-

veloped in other Spanish and European regions?
To carry out the study a few interesting methodology ideas have been ex-

plained. First of all, the characteristics of the participants taking part in this
study have been outlined. Secondly, we focus on the way in which the schools
these students attend have been chosen. Next, a description of the instrument
(the writing test the students in 4th grade CSE take, from both bilingual and
non-bilingual schools, as well as the assessment criteria adopted to reach these
results) has been provided. With the information obtained from this analysis,
we were able to answer the research questions.

Participants

Two hundred and one 4th grade CSE 15- and 16-year-old students took part
in this test. Seventy-three of them receive bilingual tuition in secondary edu-
cation schools, whereas 128 attend non-bilingual secondary education schools.
The students’ cultural and socioeconomic levels vary, regardless of the fact
whether they come from rural or urban areas.

The students were asked to complete a writing test (see section Instruments).
They belong to eight different secondary education state schools in the Auto-
nomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha. Four of the secondary schools
have bilingual linguistic programmes and the remaining four do not. Bearing
in mind that the students attend schools that offer different linguistic pro-
grammes, we were able to test the different foreign language writing skill
levels of the two groups of students. All the participants were tested anony-
mously, as they provided their class number only, and, what is more, they were
unaware that the tests would be used for research. They thought it was just

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 99

to know their English level. As a result, the test was completed in a relaxed,
non-pressurised manner.

As far as the tested students’ previously acquired English language knowl-
edge is concerned, it must be highlighted that all the students attending bilin-
gual programme secondary education schools come from primary education
schools with bilingual systems operating from, at least, 3rd grade primary edu-
cation. Therefore, these students are considered “bilingual” as for eight years
their language of instruction was English and, in fact, they had three times
more English than their counterparts in non-bilingual programme schools.
This implies that, apart from the subject of English Language, the bilingual
programme school students have attended, at least, two other content subjects
where English is the medium of instruction through a CLIL methodology.
According to some of the students’ teachers, many of these students also attend
private English lessons outside school. In contrast, such private English tuition
after school for those students attending non-bilingual schools is minimal, even
though it is important to mention that most students have access to resources at
home, such as the internet, allowing them constant contact with English. These
data were supplied by teachers from the schools partaking in this research.

Secondary Schools

Some students from eight high schools were chosen randomly to be tested
on English language writing skills in Castilla-La Mancha. The schools’ partici-
pation in this project has been voluntary. Therefore, it is a randomized sample
in which four bilingual schools decided to participate in the study. The four
high schools concerned were matched to other non-bilingual high schools with
similar features (depending on the type of students, sociocultural level, rural
or non-rural area, size and proximity to the schools).

Instruments

The instrument used has been a writing test. The writing test was designed
to test the level of the writing skill of a few students in 4th grade CSE from
Castilla-La Mancha. The level of the assignment was that of PET (Preliminary
English Test), which is equivalent to an intermediate level of English language.
The test, which can be seen in Annex I, is consistent with the B1 level of the
CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) as shown in Table 1.

We asked for help with the “English Language Assessment” for the comple-
tion of this test in the school year 2017/2018 with the aim of making the data
collection as objective as possible. This is the linguistic assessment supplier

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero100
Ta

bl
e

1
C

am
br

id
ge

L
an

gu
ag

e
A

ss
es

sm
en

t
Te

st
s

an
d

th
ei

r
co

rr
es

po
nd

in
g

C
E

F
R

l
ev

el
s

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 101

that relies on the biggest research team exclusively devoted to the development
and control of the quality of their tests. In Table 1, which is seen as follows,
both the tests developed by this institution and their level according to the
CEFR can be seen.
The test the students took included three activities:
– The first activity (Annex 1: writing. Part 1). The student has to rewrite

a sentence using the word provided.
– The second activity (Annex 1: writing. Part 2). Students are asked to write

a postcard to their friend Sam, with whom they have just spent a few days,
telling him how the trip back home was, what they enjoyed the most from
their time together and inviting him to visit them. The length of words can
be between 35 and 45 words.

The third activity (Annex 1: writing. Part 3). The students must choose one of
the two topics. These topics were: answering a friend’s letter you have received
in which he or she asks you for help writing about a special day people celebrate
in your country, and/or writing a story in the past tense starting with “Jo looked
at the map and decided to go left.” The length of words must be around 100.
The examinees had an hour to complete the three activities, and they could
get up to five points for each one. Therefore, the maximum score they could
get in this writing category was a total of 15 points. Next, the criteria used to
assess the writing activities have been listed in Table 2.

Table 2
Assessment criteria used to grade the writing activities

Assessment criteria (each activity)

Criteria Mark

Relevant content 5 points maximum

Communicative 5 points maximum

Organization and use of linking
words

5 points maximum

Language: correct use of vocabu-
lary and grammar

5 points maximum

The total mark for each of the writing activities adds up to 20 points.
These 20 points are reduced to their equivalent to a maximum of 5
points for each writing activity.

It could be argued that this Cambridge Assessment test does not show the
writing skill knowledge level of either bilingual or non-bilingual school stu-
dents, either because they have not been trained to complete it or because the
test has not been designed according to the CLIL methodology. Nevertheless,
this statement is not applicable in either of the students’ groups because all
the learners are required to improve their writing skill through writing activi-

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero102

ties in Compulsory Secondary Education as is stated in their foreign language
learning study programme, no matter whether they attend bilingual or non-
bilingual schools. This means that all the students should be trained for this
type of writing test.

Results

Once the 201 tests with each of their three writing activities (see Annex I)
were finished and checked according the assessment criteria mentioned above,
the English language writing skills results for the bilingual and non-bilingual
school students in Castilla-La Mancha were determined. The number of writ-
ing activities that meet the established criteria and, at the same time, the aver-
age mark of students who exceed these criteria in bilingual and non-bilingual
schools are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3
Writing activity assessment criteria results

WRITING ACTIVITY RESULTS

Type of school /
Writing criteria

Relevant
contents Communicative

Organization
and use

of linking words

Language:
Vocabulary

and grammar

BILINGUAL 1
23 students

9 10 5 6

BILINGUAL 2
23 students

22 22 15 12

BILINGUAL 3
17 students

4 5 3 2

BILINGUAL 4
10 students

6 7 2 2

AVERAGE 56.16% 60.27% 34.24% 30.13%

NON-BILINGUAL 1
41 students

6 12 5 5

NON-BILINGUAL 2
28 students

6 8 4 4

NON-BILINGUAL 3
37 students

5 6 4 4

NON-BILINGUAL 4
22 students

16 19 7 7

AVERAGE 25.78% 35.15% 15.62% 15.62%

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 103

Looking at Table 3 carefully, it is clear that there was a higher number of
writing activities done by students who come from bilingual schools. These
English language writing activities showed more relevant content, higher com-
municative achievement, better organization, more correct usage of linking
words and more varied and accurate vocabulary and English grammar. This can
be seen, for example, in the bilingual students’ use of the passive voice and con-
ditional sentences. Accordingly, 56.16% of bilingual school students were able to
create English language writing activities with relevant content versus 25.78%
among non-bilingual school students. As far as communicative achievement is
concerned, it is evident that the results obtained are high among both bilingual
and non-bilingual students. However, the results are higher in the bilingual
school students’ activities (60.27% bilingual school students versus 35.15% non-
bilingual school students). With reference to organization and the use of link-
ing words and language, that is, English vocabulary and grammar criteria, the
results obtained are low in both types of schools. Notwithstanding, the bilingual
school students English language writing activities were better organized and
had a greater command of English vocabulary and grammar than those done by
non-bilingual school students. The most remarkable difference, according to the
criteria related to organization and use of English, was that a very low number
of non-bilingual school students used linking words correctly. Moreover, most
non-bilingual school students’ organization was poor, as a substantial number of
them (73%) wrote only a few sentences without any connections. The different
results can be seen in Figure 2, which also helps confirm that the bilingual school
students’ writing activity levels in Castilla-La Mancha surpass those of non-bi-
lingual school students’ levels from the same region in all the assessed criteria.

’

Relevant contents Communicativeness Organisation and
linking words

Vocabulary and
grammar

Bilingual school students Non-bilingual school students

Figure 2. Bilingual and non-bilingual school students’ writing activity com-
parison.

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero104

Once the results were assessed and bearing in mind the assessment cri-
teria used, we were able to ascertain the final mark of the English language
writing activity each of the assessed schools obtained. Students in a bilingual
school got an average mark of 51.7 points out of 100 points, whereas non-
bilingual school students’ average mark was 37.4 points out of 100, as can be
seen in Table 4. Even though the bilingual school students’ mark is not very
high (51.7 out of 100 points), it can be seen that the difference between them
is 14.3 points. This information is very important since it implies a substan-
tial difference between bilingual and non-bilingual school students. This is
explained later.

Table 4
Writing activities final marks

TYPE OF SCHOOL WRITING SKILL

BILINGUAL 1 47.5

BILINGUAL 2 74.5

BILINGUAL 3 36.2

BILINGUAL 4 48.6

TOTAL 51.7

NON-BILINGUAL 1 35.3

NON-BILINGUAL 2 24.4

NON-BILINGUAL 3 24.3

NON-BILINGUAL 4 65.9

TOTAL 37.4

As the results obtained by the bilingual school students were not very
high (51.7 points out of 100 points), we decided to make a comparison of the
average marks and the median (the value representing the central position of
an organized list of data). To do so, we need to calculate the standard devia-
tion (SD) which is shown in Table 5. As we can see, both results are similar
(2.73011 and 2.77870), which indicates that the results are equally distributed
among the average marks.

After analysing average and medians, and with the goal of checking whether
our study obtained data are significant or not, we went on to study the results
the students achieved through the SPSS statistical test in order to compare all
the average marks of all groups, bilingual or otherwise. The tool used to carry
out this study was the independent sample T-Student with the average marks
which the bilingual and non-bilingual school students achieved in their English

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 105

Table 5
Average, medians and standard deviation table (N is the number of bilingual
and non-bilingual school students)
TYPE OF SCHOOL WRITING

BILINGUAL Average 5.3741

N 73

SD 2.73011

Median 5.5000

NON-BILINGUAL Average 3.5266

N 128

SD 2.77870

Median 3.2500

writing skills activities. Table 6 shows that the comparison of the average marks
obtained reveals that bilingual school students get results 1.8 points higher than
the average marks achieved by the non-bilingual school students, whose p = 0.05.
The significance, or level of certainty we show in our statement, is provided
by the p-value. In fact, this figure reveals the difference between 1 and the p-
value. As this test was done with a p-value of 0.05, the results we obtained show
that the certainty we state for the average comparison is that of 0.95 or 95%.1

Table 6
Independent simple T-test of the average marks obtained by the bilingual and
non-bilingual school students

T-test of the
average marks

Leven’s
test for the
equality of
variances

Test T for the equality of average

F Sig. t gl Sig
(bilateral)

Average
difference

Difference
standard

error

99%
confidence

interval

Lower Higher

Writing Similar
variances
have been
accepted

.274 .601 4.562 199 .000 1.84755 .40498 .79429 2.90080

Similar
variances
have not
been
accepted

4.584 152.106 .000 1.84755 .40302 .79626 2.89884

1 Bear in mind that it can never be 100% true as that would be a universal truth, which
does not exist in probability.

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero106

Thus, it can be said that the difference found between the English language
writing skill of bilingual and non-bilingual school students comes to 1.8 out
of 10 points, which is equal to 18%.

These results support the fact that the difference between English language
writing skills of bilingual and non-bilingual school students in the Community
of Castilla-La Mancha are statistically significant. Nonetheless, we consider
that the bilingual school students’ mark is low (51.7 out of 100 points) if we
bear in mind the considerably high number of hours they are exposed to
English language through English and content subjects included in the CLIL
methodology. In addition to this, the mark is also low if we compare it to the
results obtained by students in other Autonomous Communities different from
Castilla-La Mancha.

Comparison of the Results Obtained
in the Autonomous Community of

Castilla-La Mancha to Other Spanish and European Regions

Once the English language writing skill results in Castilla-La Mancha were
analysed, we then compared them to similar studies carried out in other regions
of Spain and other Europen countries.

On the one hand, with reference to studies carried out in Spain, San Isidro
(2009) accomplished a study in Galicia similar to ours in which he focused
on secondary school students. San Isidro found a difference between bilingual
and non-bilingual school students who achieved a writing skill level of 21.3%.
This difference is similar to the one we found in our research. Jiménez Catalán
& Ojeda Alba (2008) tested the English language vocabulary production of
86 6th grade primary education students belonging to CLIL and non-CLIL
state-financed private schools in Logroño, La Rioja. The students from bilin-
gual schools achieved an average mark of 4.54 out of eight points, compared
with those from non-bilingual schools with an average mark of 3.63 out of
eight points. Once again and consistent with our findings, the bilingual school
students got higher marks than non-bilingual school students. In terms of mor-
phosyntax, research by Villareal et al. (2009) must be taken into consideration.
This study also confirms the results of the CLIL students’ marks in relation
to non-CLIL students’ marks as far as tense and agreement are concerned, but
not in all the assessed morphological signs.

On the other hand, there are some analyses such as that by Lorenzo et al.
(2009) in Andalucía who studied 1320 primary and secondary education students,
754 of whom attended bilingual programme schools and 448, non-bilingual

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 107

programme schools. These studies highlight the positive impact on the level
of competence for both the bilingual school students’ command of their
mother tongue and the foreign language. In fact, the mark they got in the for-
eign language test was an average 24% higher than the non-bilingual school
group’s mark (Travé, 2013, p. 382). However, in terms of English language
writing skills, this study is surprising because bilingual school students from
Andalucía had a lower command in written skills, especially those attending
primary schools. Additionally, we consider that these results are consistent with
Whittaker’s (2010) findings in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. This
study confirmed that bilingual school students’ writing can improve, but over
time. In the same way, a number of studies that verify that English language
writing skills are not developed in a meaningful way in CLIL contexts have
led researchers, such as Dalton-Puffer (2011, p. 187), to hypothesize about the
existence of a general writing competence which depends more on students’
maturity than on the type of education institution in which students learn a for-
eign language. We can state that the 4th grade CSE bilingual students’ writing
skills have not improved a great deal in Castilla-La Mancha (even though they
already have a certain cognitive maturity), because they scored only 51.7 out
of 100 points on the assessment we made based on the Cambridge model.

País Vasco is another Spanish autonomous community that has been the
focus of a number of research studies on bilingual and non-bilingual students’
different English language levels. Lasagabaster (2008) and Ruiz de Zarobe
(2010), for example, carried out a few studies whose results demonstrated that
bilingual school students get higher marks in productive skill tasks such as
writing. This is in contrast to Dalton-Puffer’s theory, which states that a CLIL
methodology enhances receptive skill tasks.

Navés & Victori’s studies (2010) in Cataluña demonstrate that the language
level of students who learn through a CLIL methodology in their 8th grade ex-
ceed the language level of students who do not learn through such methodology
in a higher grade (9th grade), including in writing skills (Sylvén, 2013, p. 301).

At the European level, it is important to mention Loranc-Paszylk’s research
(2009) in Poland. The level of competence among students studying the subject
of European Integration History in the International Relations degree was ana-
lysed through CLIL methodology, as the course was done in English. Academic
writing and reading were studied within integrated learning contexts for two
semesters. The sample included 17 CLIL students and 35 students who learnt
through their mother tongue, Polish. Once again, the benefits of integrating
the foreign language and content in a determined subject were made clear
after the English language writing skill test, which matches the results of our
investigation.

Similarly, a report by Nikula (2005) in Finland showed that CLIL students
exceed non-CLIL students’ foreign language command. Despite the fact that the

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero108

study does not break the communicative skills down, the former student group
felt more confident than the latter when using the foreign language concerned.
In Germany, Klippel (2003) and Zydatiss (2007) also asserted that, linguistically
speaking, CLIL methodology is highly beneficial. However, a couple of stud-
ies do not share these findings and have not found this type of methodology
so advantageous. In fact, Christiane Dalton-Puffer’s studies in Austria (2007)
demonstrated poorer results in writing skill level. Similarly, in Sweden, Sylvén
(2004) concluded that what is really important in the foreign language learning
process is the amount of exposure to that language outside the school context
instead of learning through a CLIL methodology. Furthermore, Lim Falk (2008)
supported this study and purported that students’ interaction in CLIL lessons
is more limited than in non-CLIL lessons (Sylvén, 2013, pp. 301–320).

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to examine whether CSE 4th grade students at-
tending bilingual programmes in state schools in Castilla-La Mancha obtained
better results in English language writing skills than students attending non-
bilingual schools. Moreover, we also wanted to make a comparison between
these results and those of students from other Spanish, and even European,
regions in similar studies. As a result, following analysis of the data and
comparisons made between the regions of Galicia (S. Isidro, 2009), La Rioja
(Jiménez Catalán & Ojeda Alba, 2008), Andalucía (Lorenzo et al. 2009), Madrid
(Whittaker, 2010), País Vasco (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010), Cataluña
(Navés & Victori, 2010), Poland (Loranc-Paszylk, 2008), and Finland (Nikula,
2005), it can be said that students who attend bilingual schools achieve better
results in writing skills activities than those who do not.

Statistically, even though the bilingual school students’ results in Castilla-
La Mancha are not very high—57.1 out of 100 points—they are 18% higher
than the non-bilingual school students’ results. The reasons why these results
are different are various. First of all, students in secondary education attend
bilingual programme schools voluntarily (Bruton, 2011). Normally, they get
higher marks than their counterparts in English language activities (Grisaleña,
Campo, & Alonso, 2009), which is clearly an advantage. Secondly, it must be
kept in mind that this study was carried out among students in their last grade
of secondary education. Thus, we cannot forget that, as Dalton-Puffer (2011,
p. 187) explains, writing skill competence is acquired on a long-term basis
and is more dependent on the learner’s maturity than on the type of foreign
language instruction received. Next, there is no doubt about the fact that CLIL

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 109

methodology (Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010;
Marsh, 2013) and the frequent exposure to English language help students im-
prove their communicative competence in this language. Therefore, according
to this information, the bilingual school students’ grades are higher than the
non-bilingual school students’ grades.

To conclude, even though we have made clear that the English language
writing skill levels of bilingual school students are indeed higher than those of
non-bilingual school students’, it is necessary to highlight the need for improve-
ments in the implementation of bilingual education programmes in Castilla-La
Mancha (Nieto Moreno de Diezmas & Ruiz Cordero, 2018). It should be the case
that students who attend this type of foreign language programme get better
results, given that they have been studying English language through a CLIL
methodology for over eight years, thus, their exposure to the English language
has been three times higher than that of their counterparts in non-bilingual
school programmes (Moya Guijarro & Ruiz Cordero, 2017).

While it is recognized that in spite of the fact that the development of bi-
lingual programmes is not an easy task (Goodman, 2007), Castilla-La Mancha
must now reconsider how bilingual programmes in schools can be improved
in order to maximize their efficacy.

References

Barrios, M. E. (2011). Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenido y Lengua Extranjera. Retrieved from:
http://ieselpalobilingual.wikispaces.com/file/view/AICLE_Elvira_Barrios-courseonline.pdf

BOJA de 22 de marzo de 2005, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se aprueba el Plan de
Fomento del Plurilingüismo en Andalucía. Retrieved from: https://www.juntadeandalucia.
es/boja/2005/65/5

Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to
CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore. Applied Linguistics, 32, 236–241.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).
Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

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 per-
spectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010). Charting policies. Premises and research on
Content and Language Integrated Learning. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit
(Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principle?
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (pp. 182–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero110

Decreto 7/2014, de 22/01/2014, por el que se regula el plurilingüismo en la enseñanza no uni-
versitaria en Castilla-La Mancha.

Decreto 47/2017, de 25/07/2017, por el que se regula el plan integral de enseñanza de lenguas
extranjeras de la comunidad autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha para etapas educativas no
universitarias.

Grisaleña, J., Campo, A., & Alonso, E. (2009). Enseñanza plurilingüe en centros de educación
secundaria: análisis de resultados. Revista lberoamericana de Educación, 49(1), 1–12.

Harrop, E. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibili-
ties. Revista Encuentro, 21, 57–70.

Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Ojeda Alba, J. (2010). Disponibilidad léxica en inglés como lengua
extranjera. Lenguaje y Textos, 30, 167–176.

Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). The Receptive Vocabulary of EFL
Learners in Two Instructional Contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL Instruction. In Y. Ruiz
de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 81–92). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated learn-
ing. Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.

Lasagabaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). CLIL in Spain. Implementations, results and
teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Lim Falk, M. (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö. Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gym-
nasieklasser. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.

Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2009). Integrating reading and writing into the context of CLIL classroom:
Some practical solutions. International CLIL Research Journal 1(2), 46–53.

Lorenzo, F. (2010). CLIL in Andalusia. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL
in Spain: implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 2–11). Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishers.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The Effects of Content and Language Integrated
Learning in European Education: Key Findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections
Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language
Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.

Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Morales Osorio, J. F. (2017). Evaluación de la aplicabilidad del modelo AICLE en las escuelas

bilingües colombianas (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Granada, España.
Moya Guijarro, A., & Ruiz Cordero, M. B. (2018). Un estudio sobre la diferencia de nivel de

competencia lingüística entre alumnos pertenecientes a centros bilingües y no bilingües en
la comunidad autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (España). Revista de Estudios Filológicos,
269–288.

Navés, T. (2011). How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL
writing and overall EFL Proficiency? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del
Puerto (Eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning (pp. 103–128). Bern:
Peter Lang.

Navés, T., & Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in Catalonia: An overview of research studies. In Y. Ruiz
de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher
training (pp. 30–54). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E., & Ruiz Cordero, B. (2018). Evaluación de los programas AICLE en
Castilla-La Mancha. In J. L. Ortega-Martín, S. P. Hughes, & D. Madrid (coords.), Influencia
de la política educativa de centro en la enseñanza bilingüe en España. Madrid: MECD-
British Council, Secretaría General Técnica, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 111

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

Orden de 16/06/2014, de la Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes, 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.

Ortega-Martín, J. L., Hughes, S. P., & Madrid, D. (coords.) (2018). Influencia de la política
educativa de centro en la enseñanza bilingüe en España. Madrid: MECD-British Council,
Secretaría General Técnica, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

Restrepo, A. P. M. (2012). Metodologías para la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Hacia una
perspectiva crítica. Revista Universidad EAFIT, 46(159), 71–85.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In C. Dalton-
Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL
Classrooms (pp. 191–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into
applied linguistic research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.),
Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning, (pp. 129–153). Berne: Peter Lang.

San Isidro, X. (2009). Galicia: Clil Success in a Bilingual Community. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto,
D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.),
CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field (pp. 4–13). Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä: University
of Jyväskylä.

San Isidro, X. (2010). An Insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and Results. In D. Lasagabaster
& Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training
(pp. 55–78). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden––Why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL
across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
16(3), 301–320. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777387

Travé González, G. (2013). Un estudio sobre las representaciones del profesorado en Educación
Primaria acerca de la enseñanza bilingüe. Revista de Educación, 361, 379–402.

Villareal, O., & García Mayo M. P. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the inter-
language of Basque/Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe &
R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from
research in Europe (pp. 157–189). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A. (2009). CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and
written productions. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and
Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero112

A n n e x 1

WRITING TEST
• Writing Part 1

1. Last year, Niko was shown how to play basketball by his older brother.
Niko’s older brother……………………..him how to play basketball last year.

2. Niko joined a basketball team three years ago.
Niko has been in a basketball team ………………………3 years.

3. Niko practises at a stadium quite near his house.
Niko’s house is not very………………….from the stadium where he practises.

• Writing Part 2
You have just returned from a week’s holiday staying at the home of your
British friend, Sam.
Write a card to your friend. In your card, you should:
– tell Sam about the journey back to your home
– say what you enjoyed more about your stay
– ask Sam to visit you

Write 35–45 words on your answer sheet.

• Writing Part 3
Write an answer to one of the questions in this part.
Write your answer in about 100 words on your answer sheet.
– Question 7:

This is a part of a letter you receive from an English friend.

For my homework project I have to write about a special day that people
celebrate in your country. Which special day should I write about? What
information should I include?

Now write a letter to your friend.
Write your letter on your answer sheet.

– Question 8:
Your English teacher has asked you to write a story.
Your story must begin with this sentence:

Jo looked at a map and decided to go left.

Write your story on your answer sheet.

Assessing English Writing Skills of Students from Bilingual and Non-Bilingual… 113

María Begoña Ruiz Cordero

Bewertung der Schreibfertigkeit im Englischen
bei den Lernenden der zweisprachigen und nicht zweisprachigen Schulen

in der Region Kastilien-La Mancha, Spanien
Eine Vergleichsstudie

Z u s a m m e n f a s s u n g

Fremdsprachenlernen und CLIL-Methoden (Content and Language Integrated Learning)
sind derzeit in Spanien sehr beliebt. Viele Familien interessieren sich für diese Art der Bildung,
weil sie von ihrer Wirksamkeit und Effizienz überzeugt sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist zu
überprüfen, ob das Lernen, das auf der gleichzeitigen Vermittlung von Inhalten im Bereich
der unterrichteten Fächer und der Elemente einer Fremdsprache beruht, das Niveau der Fremd-
sprachenkenntnisse von denjenigen erhöht, die daran teilnehmen. Ziel dieser Studie ist es,
das unterschiedliche Niveau der Schreibfertigkeit im Englischen bei den Schülern der vierten
Klasse der Oberschule zu analysieren, die das sowohl zweisprachige als auch nicht zweispra-
chige Pf lichtprogramm für die Oberschulen in der Region Kastilien-La Mancha (Spanien)
realisieren. Die Forschungsergebnisse lassen feststellen, ob zweisprachige Programme den
Lernenden helfen, ihre Fertigkeit des Schreibens (der Textkomposition) im Englischen zu
entwickeln, sowie die Ergebnisse, die durch zweisprachige Schulen aus der Region Kastilien-
La Mancha erzielt wurden, mit denen anderer Schulen in Spanien oder anderen europäischen
Gebieten zu vergleichen.

Schlüsselwörter: zweisprachiger Unterricht, Effizienz, Schreibfertigkeit, obligatorische Schul-
bildung in der Oberschule