CLIL, an elitist language learning approach?:A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes are increasingly popular throughout Europe, but are sometimes accused of inducing a selection bias in the pupil population, both through selection mechanisms of the schools themselves and self- selection of the pupils (and/or their parents). As a result, the outcomes of the CLIL approach may be artificially promoted, and, at the same time, such a selection bias can contribute to an elitist education model, which arguably runs counter to the aims of the approach. This paper looks into a number of background variables of both English and Dutch CLIL learners in Francophone Belgium and compares them to their non-CLIL counterparts. Results from a logistic regression indicate that there is indeed evidence of selection: the socio-economic status of the pupils appears as the main predictor of whether a pupil is in a CLIL or a non-CLIL track, whereas other, more personal, variables such as non-verbal intelligence play a minor (or additional) role. Moreover, Dutch CLIL programmes appear to be more selective than English CLIL programmes in this context. We conclude that CLIL (and particularly Dutch CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium, although a priori open to anyone, is particularly attractive to a socially privileged public

Classroom anxiety and enjoyment in CLIL and non-CLIL: Does the target language matter?

This study investigates pupils’ anxiety and enjoyment in the classroom when learning a second or foreign language. The particularity of this study lies in the comparison of two target languages (English and Dutch) in two educational contexts (CLIL and non-CLIL) at different instruction levels (primary and secondary education). While most research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) focuses on English as a target language, the Belgian context calls for a comparison with the language of the “other” community, in this case Dutch. Data were collected from 896 pupils in French-speaking Belgium through a self-report questionnaire measuring pupils’ anxiety and enjoyment in the classroom, along with background characteristics. Results indicate that while CLIL pupils experience significantly less anxiety than their non-CLIL counterparts, English learners report significantly less anxiety and more enjoyment than Dutch learners. This suggests an important role of the target language for emotional engagement in the classroom and calls for further investigation into the role of target language perceptions. Finally, the interactions with instruction level reveal that while primary school pupils report stronger emotions, the effects of CLIL and English are much larger at secondary level

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Misoprostol and Sulprostone to End Pregnancy after Fetal Death

Objective. To compare effectiveness, side effects, and patients' perception of vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous sulprostone for ending pregnancy after fetal death between 14 and 42 weeks gestation. Method. Multicenter randomized controlled trial, using block randomization, central allocation, and prior power analysis. Outcome measures. Induction-delivery interval, gastrointestinal side effects, use of analgesia, pain perception, pyrexia, placental retention, hemorrhage, and women's opinions. Results. Of 176 women aimed for, 143 were randomized over 7 years, of whom 4 were excluded. There was no difference in delivery within 24 and 36 hours: 91.4% and 97.1% with misoprostol (n = 70) versus 85.5% and 92.8% with sulprostone (n = 69). There was no difference in either gastrointestinal side effects, as reported by the women and their caregivers, use of analgesia, women's pain perception, blood loss or placental retention. Hyperthermia ≥38°C was more common with misoprostol (24.3%) than with sulprostone (11.6%; difference: +12.7%; 95% CI: +1.2% to +25.3%) and related to the total dose used. Acceptability of both induction methods was similar except for freedom of movement, which was substantially in favor of misoprostol (lack of freedom reported with misoprostol in 34.3% versus 63.8% with sulprostone; difference: −29.5%; 95% CI: −13.6% to −45.4%). Conclusions. Misoprostol and sulprostone are similarly effective with little difference in side effects except for hyperthermia, related to the dose of misoprostol used, and women's reported lack of mobility with intravenous sulprostone. Effectiveness of both methods increased with gestational age