No abstract

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL), an educational approach in which subject matter and a foreign language – predominantly English – are taught and learnt side by side, has developed into a very popular educational innovation in most European countries. A host of research studies have shown its benefits, and discuss favourable effects especially with respect to L2 gains. However, critical voices have underscored the fact that CLIL attracts or selects mainly high-achieving learners. Hence, the question arises whether it is justified to attribute improved L2 performance mainly to the CLIL intervention, or to favourable learner characteristics. Several reviews of literature were published in the past, but due to a lack of longitudinal findings no conclusive evidence about the added value of CLIL in the process of L2 learning could be produced. The present review aims to fill this void and has undertaken a search of two decades of longitudinal studies into the effects of CLIL on various linguistic skills in the field of English as a foreign language. The findings indicate that robust studies were undertaken in only a limited number of European countries, and that only a few of them were large scale. Yet, the conclusions provide clear indications regarding the contexts in which CLIL leads to significantly better L2 results.

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has become increasingly popular all over Europe. As the target language is invariably English, many see CLIL as a way of helping learners develop an optimal command of English as a foreign language (EFL). The focus of many research studies has been on gains in language proficiency but the aims of CLIL reach well beyond this. The present study concentrates on whether CLIL also contributes to building pupils' confidence as EFL users, well-prepared for life in an internationalised world. Specifically, it looks at the impact on two constructs: 'EFL confidence' and 'international orientation'. The study was undertaken with 11 groups of 12-15-year-olds at 'grammar' schools (i.e. preparing for university) in the Netherlands, Germany and Italy and involved 231 pupils: 123 pupils following CLIL streams and 108 mainstream pupils. The results indicate that all pupils, both CLIL and mainstream, showed a positive development on our two variables during their first two years at grammar school. The CLIL intervention seemed to produce only a small added value. This was only a small-scale study but it highlights the need for further investigation of the impact of CLIL with a wider range of learners.

In order to find out whether an interval appendectomy is necessary after a appendicitis with a palpable mass, we retrospectively studied the reports of 50 patients who underwent an interval appendectomy. Out of the 50 patients 5 (10%) developed complications of the appendiceal mass. Intraoperative findings of the interval appendectomy: 32 (64%) had adhesions; 2 (4%) appendices were resorbed; 2 (4%) had an abscess; 42 (84%) still had signs of inflammation. Seven (12%) patients had diseases other than appendicitis. Four patients (8%) had diseases which needed further treatment. Eight percent of the patients had perioperative complications. We conclude that an interval appendectomy should only be performed on special indications.

No abstract