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 U0026-1202201913591600
論文名稱(中文) 台灣國小學科內容與語言整合課程的教師實踐
論文名稱(英文) Primary Teachers’ Practices of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Taiwan
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 107
學期 1
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 吳映儒
研究生(英文) Ying-Ru Wu
學號 K26041162
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 149頁
口試委員 指導教授-鄒文莉
口試委員-陳慧琴
口試委員-張瓊文
中文關鍵字 學科內容和語言綜合學習課程  英語作為第二語言教學  課程觀察  小學 
英文關鍵字 CLIL  TESOL  class observation  primary school 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本論文旨探討教師在學科內容和語言綜合學習(CLIL)課程裡的教學實踐狀況並針對 4Cs 架構的相關細節進行討論。透過文獻回顧,可以了解教師們會針對不同的教學重心,實施不同的教學活動。若教學實施者對CLIL教學重心並不夠徹底了解,在課程設計上較可能遇到更多的困難。本研究藉由課室觀察,檢視教師們在4Cs 架構下的教學實踐內容,並呈現CLIL教學特點。此外,本研究也進行教師面談,藉以檢視課室觀察所收集之資料。
本研究在三個不同科目的實際教學現場執行為期八周的課室觀察並與教師進行面談。本研究結果顯示:
1.Coyle在2007提出的4C架構,但是CLIL教師卻對此架構並不熟悉,因此在教學過程中會遇到實行上的困難。
2.語言課程偏重語言的細節卻忽略口語溝通的重要性,然而練習口語表達的課程還是顯著的多於傳統課程。
3.因為學科內容和語言綜合學習課程是用語言去學課程,因此有效的課程實施將仰賴於活動設計。特別是,課程若能融合跨領域的學科知識及課室英文將會有助於提升實行成效。
此篇研究呈現教師實際的教學實施內容。本文將會提供實踐的難處及解決方法讓教學者可以當作教學實施的參考指標,期望能提供相關的背景知識,讓此領域的教學研究者們能夠更了解CLIL。
英文摘要 The purpose of the present study aims to explore teachers’ actual practices of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and provide detailed discussions on the 4C (cognition, culture, content, communication, culture) framework. Through literature review, researchers have shown that different emphasis in teaching result from different teacher aims. Since there are still many researchers and practitioners who are not sure what CLIL is or how it could be included in their curricula. It will be difficult for CLIL teachers to implement CLIL lessons if their understanding of CLIL is limited. This study aims to collect and demonstrate possible features of CLIL implementation based on a thorough examination under the rationale of 4C framework. Moreover, interviews were employed to examine the collected data.

To achieve the purpose, three classes of different disciplines in the CLIL program of a primary school were observed for eight weeks. Moreover, interviews were employed to examine the collected data. The major findings of the study are listed as follows.
1)CLIL teachers are not familiar with the 4Cs framework (Coyle, 2007); therefore, they encountered some difficulties in implementing CLIL.
2)Teachers still focus a lot on linguistic features than communicative competence in language teaching. Nevertheless, interactive activities are much more than in traditional classrooms.
3)As CLIL’s aim is to use English to teach content, an effective way to make students learn content and language relied on the activity design. Especially, involving classroom English and transdisciplinary knowledge are a satisfactory idea.

The paper presents teachers’ focus on language and content learning and its implementation in real teaching condition. Moreover, the study provides difficulties in curriculum design and teaching condition for reference. It also provides relevant background knowledge for future teachers and researchers to better comprehend CLIL implementation.
論文目次 中文摘要 I
Abstract II
Acknowledgement IV
Table of Contents V
List of Figures VIII
List of Tables IX
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Present Study 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Research Questions 3
1.4 Significance of the Study 4
1.5 Definitions of CLIL Terms 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 CLIL Curriculum 9
2.1.1 4C Framework 10
2.1.2 Integration of Content and Language 14
2.1.3 Curriculum of Hard and Soft-Driven Class 15
2.2 Pedagogy in CLIL 15
2.2.1 Implementation of Soft and Hard-Driven CLIL 16
2.2.2 Summary of the Focus in CLIL Teaching from Previous Studies 17
2.3 Reviews about CLIL Evaluation 29
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 32
3.1 Participants 34
3.1.1 Courses 35
3.1.2 Teachers’ Backgrounds 35
3.2 Research Instruments 36
3.2.1 Class Observation 36
3.2.2 Interviews 38
3.3 Data Collection 38
3.3.1 Observation Form 39
3.3.2 Interviews 40
CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS 41
4.1 Findings from Classroom Observations 41
4.1.1 Instruction Strategies 41
4.1.2 Activities or Exercises 47
4.1.3 4C Conditions 55
4.2 Findings from Interviews 58
4.2.1 Difficulties in Designing Lessons and Implementation 58
4.2.2 Assessment in CLIL 59
4.2.3 Percentage of Language and Content in Class 60
4.3 Summary of the Results 62
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSIONS 63
5.1 Summary of the Findings 63
5.2 Discussions 64
5.2.1 Discussion for Research Questions 1 65
5.2.2 Discussion for Research Questions 2 70
5.2.3 Discussion for Research Questions 3 71
5.3 Conclusions 73
5.4 Limitations 73
5.5 Pedagogical Implications 74
REFERENCES 76
APPENDIX I Interview with Teacher 1 85
APPENDIX II Interview with Teacher 2 91
APPENDIX III Interview with Teacher 3 97
APPENDIX IV 104
參考文獻 Bailey, N. (2015). Attaining content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in the primary school classroom. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 418-426.
Bamgbose, A. (2001). World Englishes and globalization. World Englishes, 20, 357-363.
Barwell, R. (2005). Integrating language and content: Issues from the mathematics classroom. Linguistics and education, 16(2), 205-218.
Barwell, R. (2005). Critical issues for language and content in mainstream classrooms: Introduction. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 143-150.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Boston, MA Pearson Education. Google Scholar.
Byram, M., & Grundy, P. (Eds.). (2003). Context and cultures in language teaching and learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 243-262.
Chan, J. Y. (2016). Contextualising a pedagogical model for English‐language education in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 35(3), 372-395.
Chen, F. (2017). English Teachers. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 2(2), 91-118.
Cheng, L., Li, M., Kirby, J. R., Qiang, H., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2010). English language immersion and students' academic achievement in English, Chinese and mathematics. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(3), 151-169.
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”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl and Nelleke Hornberger, 97-111. New York: Springer.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Creese, (2000) The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: in search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21 (6), pp. 451–470
Creese, (2003) Language, ethnicity and the mediation of allegations of racism: negotiating diversity and sameness in multilingual school discourses. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6 (3&4), pp. 221–236
Creese, (2004) Bilingual teachers in mainstream secondary school classrooms: using Turkish for curriculum learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (2&3), pp. 189–203
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire (Vol. 23). Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2004) Using IT to create a zone of proximal development for academic language learning: A critical perspective on trends and possibilities. In C. Davison (ed.) Information Technology and Innovation in Language Education (pp. 105126). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Curran, J. E., & Chern, C. L. (2017). Incorporating English into a Science Camp: Perspectives from English Teachers. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(2), 1-23.
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction-a growing global phenomenon. British Council.
Dewey, M. (2007). English as a lingua franca and globalization: an interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17 (3).
Dudley-Evans, A.; & St. John, A. M. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students in mainstream courses. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 103-132.
Ekefre, E. N., & Okon, C. E. (2008). Monitoring student learning in the classroom.
Elder, C., & Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 282-304.
Fan-Wei, K. U. N. G. (2018). “English-only or Nothing”: Practitioners’ Perspective on the Policy and Implementation of CLIL in Higher Education. Education Journal, 46(1), 93-115.
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of child language, 16(1), 161-179.
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 3–33.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Giorgis, P. (2013). Mind the Gap EFL/ELF: What lies in between what teachers teach and what students use, and its pedagogical implications. BOĞAZİÇİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ EĞİTİM DERGİSİ, 30(1).
Griva, E., & Kasvikis, K. (2015). CLIL in Primary Education: Possibilities and challenges for developing L2/FL skills, history understanding and cultural awareness. Current trends and issues in education: an international dialogue, 125-140.
Hanesová, D. (2015). History of CLIL. CLIL, 7.
Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American Journal of Content &Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
Hite, C. E., & Evans, L. S. (2006). Mainstream first-grade teachers' understanding of strategies for accommodating the needs of English language learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 89-110.
Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147-168.
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an International Language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103.
Jenkins, P. (2011). The next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity. OUP USA.
Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT journal, 66(4), 486-494.
J.J. Stowitschek, T.C. Lovitt, J.A. Rodriguez (2001) Patterns of collaboration in secondary education for youth with special needs. Urban Education, 36 (1), pp. 93–128
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 47(1), 61-79.
Kohn, K. (2015). A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca, 51-67.
Krashen, S.D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman
Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lin, A. M. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74-89.
Lowenberg, P. H. (2002). Assessing English proficiency in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 21(3), 431-435.
Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 1, 27-38.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279-288.
Malarz, L. (1998). Bilingual education: Effective programming for language-minority students. Curriculum Handbook, 1-23.
Marsh, D., Marshland, B., & Stenberg, K. (2001). CLIL compendium. Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, David. (1994). Bilingual Education & Content and Language Integrated Learning. Paris: International Association for Cross-cultural Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua), University of Sorbonne.
Mart, C. T. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: why and how? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 124.
Mary Coonan, C. (2007). Insider Views of the CLIL Class Through Teacher Self-Observation–Introspection. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers' attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25-41.
McGuiness, C. (1999) From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms: A Review and Evaluation of Approaches for Developing Pupils’ Thinking. Research Report 115, DfEE: HMSO.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. London: Macmillan Education.
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J.
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies.
Nuthida, T., & Apisak, S. (2017) EFL Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of CLIL. July Press. 44-56.
Ordoñez, M. D. C. R., & Vázquez, V. P. (2015). Developing Cooperative Learning through Tasks in Content and Language Integrated Learning. REMIE Multidisciplinary. Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 136.
Ohmori, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of CLIL in English language teaching in Japanese Universities: An innovation for the development of effective teaching and global awareness. The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 32, 39-51.
Pawan, F., & Ortloff, J. H. (2011). Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-language, and content-area teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 463-471.
Peréz-Vidal, C. (2005). Lectures and Talks given on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Fundamental principles. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) from a European perspective: Teaching materials for the EFL classroom. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Pica, T. (2001) Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal 85, 1-19.
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.
Roiha, A. S. (2014). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(1), 1-18.
Sandel, T. L. (2003). Linguistic capital in Taiwan: The KMT’s Mandarin language policy and its perceived impact on language practices of bilingual Mandarin and Tai-Gi speakers. Language in Society, 32(4), 523-551.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). 10. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 23(2), 201-217.
Spies, K. (2012). Intercultural studies within a CLIL approach. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 33-45.
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319-337.
Stoller, F. L. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 4: Second and foreign language education (pp. 59–70). New York: Springer.
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (2011). The future of immersion education: An invitation to ‘dwell in possibility’. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 1–12).
Tsou, W., & Kao, S. M. (2017) English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education. English Language Education, 8, 8-9.
Verplaetse, L. S., & Migliacci, N. A. O. M. I. (2008). Inclusive pedagogy: An introduction. Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners: A handbook of research-informed practices, 3-13.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wehman, P. (1992) Transition of young people with disabilities: challenges for the 1990’s. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27.p. 112–118
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2023-12-31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