What’s hot and what’s not on the current CLIL research agenda: Weeding out the non-issues from the real issues. A response to Bruton (2019)

This article aims to provide an updated, empirically solid overview of what’s hot and what’s not on the current CLIL research agenda in order to weed out the non-issues which we should no longer figure on the CLIL agenda from the real issues which will continue to shape the future of the field. This objective will hopefully be attained while concomitantly answering Bruton (2019), as, unfortunately, his most recent arguments are still not rooted in any research he himself has conducted, are not grounded on the latest empirical evidence, and limit themselves to re-interpreting studies conducted over a decade ago or which present a lack of empirical robustness. Only stalwart empirical evidence from the last few years is used here to provide a recent, research-driven overview of where we stand and where we need to go in the CLIL research arena, dismantling the assumptions put forward by Bruton (2019) as regards egalitarianism, the CLIL-EFL divide, and research into the effects of CLIL, and mapping out future pathways for progression which affect attention to diversity in bilingual education, incorporating a pluriliteracies approach, and replicating, extending, and meta-analyzing existing research.