1. Alejo, R., & Piquer-Píriz, A. (2016). Urban vs. rural CLIL: An analysis of input-related variables, motivation and language attainment. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 245–262.
2. Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160.
3. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2002). The significance of CLIL/EMILE. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLILE/EMILE—The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 24–26). Jyväskylä: UniCOM Continuing Education Centre.
4. Bergroth, M. (2006). Immersion students in the matriculation examination: Three years after immersion. In S. Björklund, K. Mård-Miettinen, M. Bergström, & M. Södergård (Eds.), Exploring dual-focussed education: Integrating language and content for individual and societal needs (pp. 123–134). Vaasan: Vaasan Yliopiston Julkaisuja. https://www.uwasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_952-476-149-1.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2017.
5. Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant perspectives in CLIL research. International CLIL Research Journal, 4(1), 66–78. https://www.icrj.eu/14/article7.html. Accessed 30 June 2017.