{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03936269915651359, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037488284910965324, 'mean_word_length': 5.102857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urban vs. rural CLIL: an analysis of input-related variables, motivation and language attainment

ABSTRACT The present article carries out an in-depth analysis of the differences in motivation, input-related variables and linguistic attainment of the students at two content and language integrated learning (CLIL) schools operating within the same institutional and educational context, the Spanish region of Extremadura, and differing only in terms of the social milieu: rural vs. urban. The results show that the CLIL learners in the urban school (n = 27) had started earlier, had had greater formal support outside school (i.e. private English lessons) and had attained a higher level of English (grammar, passive and active vocabulary) than their rural colleagues (n = 21), while their motivation and extramural exposure (i.e. informal contact with English) were not found to be dissimilar. Of the variables considered, social milieu (urban vs. rural), used here as a proxy of socio-economic status, explained most of the variance in language attainment results.