For over two decades, bilingual approaches to language education have been embraced in Europe as the potential lynchpin to tackle the foreign language deficit on our continent. More specifically, the dual-focused approach of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been heralded as a lever for change and success in language learning and has had an exponential uptake in very diverse educational settings in Europe and, increasingly, in Latin America and in Asia. It is now considered ‘an unstoppable train’ whose progress can no longer be blocked (Macaro 2015: 7). Bilingual communities such as the Basque Autonomous Community and Catalonia in Spain, a country considered to be a representative microcosm of the multifaceted CLIL landscape, have a long and productive tradition in bilingual teaching and research and are prominently positioned within the CLIL scenario with their nearly 30 years of experience with this approach. They have produced a large body of research, with landmark studies being conducted by prominent figures (e.g. Cenoz, García Mayo, Lasagabaster, Ruiz de Zarobe, or Sierra). However, research and experience are less prevalent in monolingual communities, where the CLIL tradition is much more recent and thus not as firmly rooted as in the bilingual areas (Fernández Fontecha 2009; Fortanet-Gómez and Ruiz-Garrido 2009). This is perhaps due to the fact that attaining bilingualism in monolingual settings poses much more of a challenge, since there is little or no extramural exposure to the target language, which is ultimately confined to the CLIL classroom. There is also a lack of tradition in language teaching which has yielded inadequate levels of proficiency attained by students (Agustín Llach 2009) and a worrying lack of proficiency among teachers (Rubio Mostacero 2009). There is a well-documented paucity of outcome-oriented research into the effects of CLIL programmes in monolingual settings which warrants further investigation on this front (Fernández-Sanjurjo, Fernández-Costales and Arias Blanco 2017). Furthermore, the few studies which have thus far been conducted in monolingual contexts (e.g. Lorenzo, Casal and Moore 2009; Madrid and Hughes 2011) present a series of methodological shortcomings in terms of variables, cohort, research design, or statistical methodology (cf. Pérez Cañado 2012 for an overview of these lacunae) which could compromise the validity of the outcomes obtained. Perhaps precisely due to this shortage of robust empirical data in monolingual settings, a series of worrying false myths (Pérez Cañado in press for 2020), misapprehensions (Paradowski 2017), or misconceptions (Rosling 2018) are currently proliferating around bilingual education with a potentially dangerous ripple effect on participating stakeholders. Rosling (2018: 22) goes as far as to term them ‘mega-misconceptions’ due to their ‘enormous impact’. These misconstrued perceptions primarily focus on the effects of CLIL programmes on L2 proficiency, on L1 level, and content leaning, on the translation of CLIL policy into actual grassroots practice, along with issues of elitism in CLIL. They stem from unsubstantiated beliefs or biased opinions and not from solid empirical evidence, and could well derail that metaphorical train to which Macaro alludes, rather than ‘allow its passengers to reach their destination safely’ (Macaro 2015: 2). The remit of this issue is precisely to address the deleterious situation outlined above, and to provide empirically robust and methodologically sound research evidence into how CLIL is working in monolingual contexts in order to question critically assumptions relating to CLIL implementation and functioning. In order to do so, it reports on the results of a study conducted

中文翻译：

---

在单语环境下实施双语教育：经验教训和前进方向

在过去的二十多年中，欧洲一直采用双语教学作为解决欧洲大陆外语不足的潜在关键。更具体地说，内容和语言集成学习（CLIL）的双重关注方法被认为是语言学习变革和成功的杠杆，并且在欧洲乃至拉丁美洲越来越多样化的教育环境中呈指数增长在亚洲 现在，它被认为是“不可阻挡的火车”，其进展不再受阻（Macaro 2015：7）。双语社区，例如西班牙的巴斯克自治区和加泰罗尼亚，该国被认为是多面CLIL景观的代表缩影，在双语教学和研究方面拥有悠久而富有成效的传统，凭借其近30年的使用这种方法的经验，在CLIL方案中处于突出地位。他们进行了大量的研究，由著名人物（例如Cenoz，GarcíaMayo，Lasagabaster，Ruiz de Zarobe或Sierra）进行具有里程碑意义的研究。然而，研究和经验在单一语言社区中并不普遍，因为CLIL传统是最近才出现的，因此不像双语地区那样扎根（FernándezFontecha 2009；Fortanet-Gómez和Ruiz-Garrido 2009）。这可能是由于以下事实：在单语环境中实现双语会带来更大的挑战，因为很少或根本没有与目标语言的壁外接触，这最终仅限于CLIL课堂。语言教学也缺乏传统，这导致学生所掌握的水平不够（AgustínLlach，2009年），以及教师之间缺乏水平的担忧（Rubio Mostacero，2009年）。在单语种环境下，对CLIL计划的效果缺乏以结果为导向的研究的文献资料很少，因此有必要对此进行进一步研究（Fernández-Sanjurjo，Fernández-Costales和Arias Blanco 2017）。此外，迄今为止在少数语言环境下进行的研究很少（例如Lorenzo，Casal和Moore 2009; Madrid和Hughes 2011）在变量，队列，研究设计或统计方法学方面存在一系列方法学缺陷（参见佩雷斯·卡纳多（PérezCañado），2012年，这些缺陷的概述，这可能会损害所获得结果的有效性。可能恰恰是由于在单语环境下缺乏可靠的经验数据，一系列令人担忧的错误神话（佩雷斯·卡纳多在2020年出版），误解（Paradowski，2017年）或误解（Rosling，2018年）目前正在双语教育中激增，并且有可能对参与的利益相关者的危险连锁反应。Rosling（2018：22）因其``巨大影响''而称其为``巨大误解''。这些错误理解的观点主要集中在CLIL程序对L2级别的影响，L1级别上以及内容上的依赖，将CLIL政策转换为实际的基层实践以及CLIL中的精英问题。它们源于没有根据的信念或偏见，而不是来自可靠的经验证据，而且很可能会使Macaro所暗示的那趟隐喻火车出轨，而不是“让其乘客安全地到达目的地”（Macaro 2015：2）。这个问题的职责恰好是解决上面概述的有害情况，并提供经验丰富且在方法论上可靠的研究证据，以证明CLIL在单语种情况下的工作方式，以便对与CLIL实施和功能有关的批判性假设提出质疑。为此，它报告了一项研究的结果 并提供经验丰富的方法论上可靠的研究证据，说明CLIL在单语种情况下的工作方式，以便对与CLIL实施和功能有关的关键假设提出质疑。为此，它报告了一项研究的结果 并提供经验丰富的方法论上可靠的研究证据，说明CLIL在单语种情况下的工作方式，以便对与CLIL实施和功能有关的关键假设提出质疑。为此，它报告了一项研究的结果