This paper analyses the implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes in Spain focusing on the acquisition of key competences and non-linguistic contents by students of Primary Education. It follows on to the one presented last year at ECER 2016 in Dublin. Currently, the analyses of results are finished and we are able to report on the main findings on content acquisition in Spanish CLIL programmes. Bilingual education has been implemented more recently than in other European countries; however, CLIL programmes have undergone “a rapid development in the Spanish scenario” (Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010, p.9).

The paper relies on a previous project which explored the way bilingual programmes influence students’ motivation and academic performance. The results shown that there were not statistically significant differences between bilingual and non-bilingual students as regards motivation and performance, but suggested new research avenues on the subject, in particular when considering that content acquisition remains relatively unexplored in CLIL programmes.

The current paper goes a step further by analysing the impact and learning outcomes bilingual programmes have on the development of key competencies and contents according to the Spanish curriculum of Primary Education. In particular, the current research is intended to evaluate content acquisition in Science in the 6^th year of Primary Education.

This project focuses on public schools of the Principality of Asturias (Spain). Research is delimited to the two main language modalities: regular schools (with tuition only in Spanish) and educational establishments offering the so-called ‘bilingual programme’ of the Regional Ministry of Education of Asturias, with 5 hours of English language per week (compared to the 3 hours per week in regular schools), and providing one non-language subject through English (usually, Natural Science).

Within this general framework, we draw our attention to the possible effects CLIL programmes are having in the ​​development of the key competences included in the Spanish Organic Law on the Improvement of the Quality of Education (Ley Orgánica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa).

CLIL research has been traditionally devoted to language competence. Results show the benefits and good effects of CLIL in students’ gains in L1 and L2 and the transfer between the two languages (Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Ruiz de Zarobe and Jimenez Catalán, 2009; Ruiz de Zarobe et al., 2010). Prior studies also underline that the linguistic perspective has received more attention than the content dimension (Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). Pérez-Cañado (2012) claims that there is still a well-documented paucity of research in the area. In the same vein, Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010) expressed the clear benefits of CLIL regarding linguistic skills, but they also noted the need to further investigate on content-subjects taught through English.

•Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., and de Bot, K. (2006). “Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students' language proficiency in English”. Educational Research and Evaluation 12 (1): 75-93. •Bergroth, M. (2006). “Immersion students in the matriculation examination three years after immersion.” In Exploring dual-focussed education. Integrating language and content for individual and societal needs, S. Björklund, K. Mard-Miettinen, M. Bergström and M. Södergard (Eds.), http://www.uwasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_952-476-149-1.pdf. •Bisquerra, R. (2004). Metodología de la Investigación Educativa. Madrid: La Muralla. •Bruton, A. (2011). “Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010).” Applied Linguistics 32 (2): 236–241. •Cenoz, J., and 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): 1-7. •Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., and Gorter, D. (2014). “Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” Applied Linguistics 35 (3): 243-262. •Coyle, D., Hood, P., and Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. •Lasagabaster, D., and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. •Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa (LOMCE). (B.O.E. 295, 10/12/2013). •Lorenzo, F. (2008). Evaluación de competencias lingüísticas en centros bilingües. In Jornadas sobre Competencia en comunicación lingüística: El currículum integrado de lenguas: (27–28). •Mehisto, P. (2008). “CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL.” International CLIL Research Journal 1 (1): 93-119. •Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). “CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15 (3): 315–341. •Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). “CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16: 231–243. •Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M., and Gallardo del Puerto, F., (2010). “Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European Contexts.” Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang Linguistic Insights series. •Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., and Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (2009). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. •Serra, C. (2007). “Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5): 582-602.