進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0802202018423000
論文名稱(中文) 小學教師在學科內容與語言整合課程情境中之認知性言談功能的使用
論文名稱(英文) Teachers’ Uses of Cognitive Discourse Functions in Elementary-level CLIL Classrooms
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 外國語文學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Foreign Languages & Literature
學年度 108
學期 1
出版年 109
研究生(中文) 黃兪華
研究生(英文) Yu-Hua Huang
學號 K26021112
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 94頁
口試委員 指導教授-高實玫
口試委員-鄒文莉
口試委員-陳慧琴
中文關鍵字 言談分析  學科內容與語言整合課程  雙語教育  認知性言談功能 
英文關鍵字 discourse analysis  Content and Language Integrated Learning  bilingual education  cognitive discourse functions 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在近年來全球化的影響下,英語成為國際共通語言 (ELF),非母語的英語使用者人數也已經大幅超越以英語為母語者的人數,證明了英語並非母語者所擁有(Graddol, 2006)。Kramsch (2014) 指出現今英語文的教學法也在全球化的影響下互動性更加強烈,以溝通為教學目標的立基點也十分顯著。臺南市政府教育局在2017年開始,於八所市內小學試辦學科內容與語言整合課程 (Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL),目標為自小學階段就建立真實的語言使用情境,幫助國小學童習慣在英語環境下學習學科知識,也同時練習使用英語作為溝通工具,期許英語成為臺南市第二官方語言。然而,學科內容與語言整合課程的相關研究多半在其起源地歐洲執行,且偏重於討論學生學習成果、課程設計以及教師對CLIL課程之實踐等主題,少有研究著墨於學科知識與語言教學的匯集,也很少聚焦於亞洲教育環境。本研究利用Dalton-Puffer (2013)所建構之認知性言談功能 (Cognitive Discourse Functions) 檢視三位參與本研究之CLIL教師於學科領域課堂中使用認知性言談功能進行課程的情形,旨在顯示出CLIL課程中學科知識與語言教學的匯集。研究結果指出,探索(EXPLORE)與描述(DESCRIBE)同時為三位教師最頻繁使用之認知性言談功能。另外,因為學科本質的差異,教師選用多種形式的教材以及設計多樣學生學習表現任務,教師對其餘五種認知性言談功能的使用頻率各有不同。
英文摘要 Due to the impacts of globalization, English has become the world’s lingua franca (ELF). Non-native English users have outnumbered native English speakers in the world, which implies the ownership of English is no longer limited to native speakers (Graddol, 2006). As Kramsch (2014) pointed out, English pedagogies have become more communicative and interactive to meet the needs of using English as a lingua franca in many aspects of life nowadays. To prepare her citizens to meet the global requirements, Tainan City Government began an experiment of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) teaching approach on providing primary subject matter education in English to young students in 2017. The project sought chances to create authentic language-using environment for young students while learning content knowledge and to achieve the goal to make English her second official language. Previous literature mostly focuses on students’ learning outcomes, designing of lesson plans and teachers’ perspectives toward CLIL in European contexts. Very little effort has been put into the understanding of how content and language can be integrated through pedagogical discourse. This study takes advantage of Dalton-Puffer’s (2013, 2015) construct of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) to investigate CLIL teachers’ discourse with young students in Tainan City to understand the convergence of content knowledge and language uses in Asian contexts.
Findings of the study indicate that all of the three participating teachers used a great amount of EXPLORE and DESCRIBE among the 7 types of CDF in their teaching. Besides, the three teachers had high frequencies in using different CDFs, which could be due to three factors: (1) the nature of the academic subjects, (2) the selected teaching materials and (3) the designed learning tasks.
論文目次 ABSTRACT (English) ……………………………………………………………. i
ABSTRACT (Chinese) …………………………………………………………… iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………… vi
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………….. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………… ix

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION …………………………………………… 1
Background and Motivation …………………………………………………………. 1
Research Questions …………………………………………………………………. 4
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………………… 5
Contribution of the Study …………………………………………………………………. 6
Limitation of the Study ……………………………………………………………… 6
Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………. 7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………….. 9
English Education in Taiwan ………………………………………………………… 9
English as a Medium of Instruction and CLIL in Taiwan ……………………………… 12
Coyle’s 4Cs Framework of CLIL ……………………………………………………. 15
Dalton-Puffer’s Construct of Cognitive Discourse Function (CDFs) ……………………. 20
Studies on CDFs ……………………………………………………………………… 27
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ……………………………………….. 31
Participants and General Contexts …………………………………………………… 31
Procedures of Data Analysis ………………………………………………………… 33
Stage 1: Data Transcription and Units Segmentation ………………………………… 33
Stage 2: Data Coding ……………………………………………………………. 34
Stage 3: Overall Analysis ………………………………………………………… 35
Coding Systems …………………………………………………………………….. 37
Criteria for Segmenting Speech Units ……………………………………………… 37
Rationale for Coding CDFs ……………………………………………………….. 39
Criteria for Determining CDFs ……………………………………………………. 40
Modification for Determining CDFs ………………………………………………… 40
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………. 47
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 47
Summaries of the Analyzed Classes ………………………………………………….. 47
Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………. 50
Result for RQ1: Distribution of the overall uses of CDFs across the nine lessons………… 51
Result for RQ2: Distribution of the individual uses of CDFs among the three teachers …… 54
Discussion for RQ1 and RQ2 ………………………………………………………………… 56
Result for RQ3: Possible factors influencing the uses of CDFs ………………………… 60
Discussion of Factor 1: Natures of the subjects ………………………………………………. 63
Discussion of Factor 2: Selected teaching materials …………………………………………... 68
Discussion of Factor 3: Designed learning tasks ………………………………………………. 71
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION ……………………………………………… 76
Summary of findings ………………………………………………………………… 76
Pedagogical implications …………………………………………………………….. 78
Suggestion for future research ………………………………………………………... 79
REFERENCE ……………………………………………………………………… 81
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………….. 88
參考文獻 Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2003). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K-12 education: A design document. Retrieved from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R611.pdf
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2018). Integration of content and language pedagogies: cognitive discourse functions in the CLIL history classroom. CELT Matters, 2, 19-28.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality in higher education (4th ed), Maidenhead: McGraw Hill and Open University Press.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2014). EMI, CLIL & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In Clements, P., Krause, A., & Brown, H. (Eds.), Transformation in language education. Tokyo: JALT. 328-334.
Brückl, K. (2016). The use of cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL economics lessons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna).
Classify [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classify.
Chen, A. H. (2013). An evaluation on primary English education in Taiwan: From the perspective of language policy. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(10), 158-165.
Chen, C. L. (2017). Primary school English-language education through CLIL: An international perspective. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(1). 1-14.
Chen, F. (2017). English teachers' perspectives on implementing English-taught programs in Tainan City, Taiwan. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 2(2). 91-118.
Chen, S., & Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004-2009). Language Teaching, 45(2), 180-201.
Chern, C. L. (2002). English language teaching in Taiwan today. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 97-105.
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1-14.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 97-111). New York: Springer.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244-266.
Coyle, D. (2015). Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84-103.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L.Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139-157). Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2009). Communicative competence and the CLIL lesson. In Y. R. Zabore & R. M. Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: evidence from research in Europe (pp. 197-214). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 17-26.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Discourse analysis and CLIL in Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 167-181). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Define [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/define.
Describe [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/describe.
de Zarobe, Y. R., & Catalán, R. M. J. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning: evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Explain [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain.
Explore [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explore.
Evaluate [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evaluate.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O., & Li Wei. (2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). London: British Council. Retrieved from https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/books-english-next.pdf.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro 21, 57-70.
Hamayan, E. V., & Tucker, G. R. (1980). Language input in the bilingual classroom and its relationship to second language achievement. Tesol Quarterly, 14(4), 453-468.
Hofmann, V., & Hopf, J. (2015). An analysis of cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL biology lessons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna).
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010-1038.
Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296-311.
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2009). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Kröss, L. M. (2014). Cognitive discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL Physics lessons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna).
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453-484.
Lin, A. M., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228-244.
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, M. (1991) Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nomlomo, V. (2010). Classroom interaction: Turn-taking as a pedagogical strategy. Journal of Language Learning. 26(2), 50-66, University of West Cape.
Report [Def. 1 & 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/report.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of English for specific purposes. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students’, teachers’ and parents’ opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45–59.
Sharaby, Leah R., (2018). Examining the use of EMI in primary and secondary English classes in Taiwan: Reflections on participation in the WWU/NTNU cloud project. WWU Honors Program Senior Projects. 72.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Tsou, W., & Kao, S. M. (2017). Overview of EMI development. In English as a medium of instruction in higher education (pp. 3-18). Springer, Singapore.
Yang, W., & Gosling, M. (2014). What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 394-409.
Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes. ESP Today, 4(1), 43-68.
Yeh, C. C. (2014). Taiwanese students’ experiences and attitudes towards English-medium courses in tertiary education. RELC Journal, 45(3), 305-319.
教育部 (2014):《十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱》。臺北:教育部。[Ministry of Education (2014). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education, general guidelines. Taipei: Ministry of Education.]
國家教育研究院 (2017):《十二年國教總綱中英文摺頁簡介》。臺北:教育部。[National Academy for Educational Research (2017). Introduction to Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. Taipei: Ministry of Education.]
教育部 (2018):《十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校語文領域─英語文》。臺北:教育部。[Ministry of Education (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education, language domain, English learning curriculum. Taipei: Ministry of Education.]
鄒文莉、高實玫、陳慧琴 (2018)。學科內容與語言整合教學的核心精神。載於鄒文莉、高實玫 (主編),CLIL教學資源書:探索學科內容與語言整合教學 (9-20頁)。臺北市:書林。[Tsou, W., Kao, S. M., & Chen, F. (2018). Core principles of content and language integrated learning. In CLIL resources book: exploring content and language integrated learning (pp. 9-20). Taipei: Bookman.]
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2023-02-01起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2023-02-01起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw