More favorable affective profiles were found in CLIL in terms of motivation, language attitudes and emotions, yet not for both target languages (English, Dutch) in the politically and linguistically polarized context of Belgium. Comparative results highlight that the socio-affective (and linguistic) outcomes of CLIL also depend on the socio-political macro-context.
Regarding CLIL, there seems to be a widespread belief that this specific context may enhance motivation, foster positive attitudes and reduce anxiety (Lasagabaster, 2009). However, few large-scale and/or longitudinal studies exist on socio-affective variables in CLIL and consequently, few extensive results are available. Therefore, a large-scale, multidisciplinary research project on English- and Dutch-medium CLIL in French-speaking Belgium investigated these aspects. Our data confirmed more favorable affective profiles in CLIL compared to non-CLIL in terms of motivation (significantly higher expectancy for success, perceived task value, ideal L2 self and lower cost), language attitudes (target language perceived as easier in CLIL than in non-CLIL) and emotional engagement (significantly less anxiety in CLIL). Yet, our results also revealed significant differences according to the target language (English vs. Dutch). Hence, this raises the question whether in a specific socio-political context, the CLIL approach would be more beneficial to English, the popular and highly valued international language, or to Dutch, the other national language, often perceived as difficult and less attractive? In order to answer this question, we will systematically compare the results for both target languages based on data, collected in 2015 and 2017 from more than 800 learners of English or Dutch (in CLIL and non-CLIL settings, both at primary and secondary level), using an extensive self-report questionnaire measuring emotions, motivational processes, perceived attractiveness and easiness of the target language as well as perceived intergroup conflict, in addition to control and background variables. We hypothesize that, within the politically tense and linguistically polarized context of Belgium, the CLIL approach might have a larger impact on Dutch, as the engaging dynamics of CLIL might compensate (partly) for an unfavorable perception and low outcomes in Dutch non-CLILclassrooms. This would imply that the socio-affective (and linguistic) outcomes of CLIL are also dependent on the socio-political macro-context.
