||Designing and Analyzing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Lesson Plans for Primary Education
||Department of Foreign Languages & Literature
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
the 4Cs framework
lesson plan design
本篇研究旨在規劃及分析國小階段學科內容與語言整合（簡稱CLIL）課程設計， 並針對4Cs架構給予特定的細節討論。事實上，現階段的研究成果，學者普遍將興趣集中在CLIL對學習成效影響的探討，而其中面向，以語言能力 （例：Agustín‐Llach & Canga Alonso, 2016），學科能力（例：Jäppinen, 2005），學習態度（Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009），和參與者觀感 （例：Pladevall-Ballester, 2015）的關注為多。然而，探究到底，CLIL課程的相關設計和引導卻相當受限 （Meyer, 2010）。有鑒於此，為協助執教者對於CLIL教學法有更深入的理解，特以成功大學為工作平台，針對特定細節給予指導、提倡與回饋。而一共57位參與者，為來自臺南市的小學教師，混合了23位學科專長與34位英語專長，以各自領域組成10組教學團隊，而每隊介於4到6人不等。為了延攬適才教案，參與成大工作坊的老師必須先行熟稔示範表格，以期了解CLIL的基礎架構與精神內涵，並於會後提供教案及PPT以供收集，作為後續研究分析使用。
The present study aims to design and analyze CLIL lessons in the context of Taiwan, giving specific details and discussions grounded on the 4Cs framework. As a matter of fact, by far, there are considerable strides taken into the visual of CLIL, however, most of which target its potential effects on the acquisition of language competence (e.g., Agustín‐Llach & Canga Alonso, 2016), subject competence (e.g., Jäppinen, 2005), students’ attitude toward English as a foreign language (e.g., Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009), and stakeholders’ perceptions of CLIL experiences (e.g., Pladevall-Ballester, 2015). Methodological resources and guidelines for designing CLIL seem to be pretty limited (Meyer, 2010). Therefore, to help conceptualize a deeper insight into CLIL teaching and learning, a platform working to promote and highlight specific aims was held at NCKU for its practical purposes. The contributors were 57 primary school teachers from Tainan city, in a mixture of 23 content teachers and 34 English teachers, 57 for all, comprising a total number of 10 groups by specific content areas (e.g., math), ranging in number from 4 to 6 of team work. Teachers exemplified with a sample framework in advance have contributed to their own choices of CLIL lesson plans, PPT slides, for data collection and analysis, respectively, 10 in total.
The findings of the research has demonstrated some tendency as follows:
1.Teachers might be aware of the arrangement between content and language matters, but somehow neglected the role of culture in the 4Cs framework
2.Teachers normally approached to the areas that potentially connected with students’ real life experiences (e.g. attractions), aiming at a truly authentic learning environment
3.Teachers tended to possess the lower level of skills in either the pursuit of cognitive events (e.g., recall) or the activation of verbal performances (e.g., report)
4.Despite transparent team work specifying the learning of key sentences in respective lesson, teachers embraced a higher tendency to focus more on the key word rather than a sentence pattern from PPT design.
5.Teachers commonly pursuit the use of visual aids (e.g., picture), the connection of background knowledge, the arrangement of group work discussion, as well as the role of translanguaging in featuring scaffolding.
The current study provides a more structured table with all loads of details by literature reviews, outlining a range of skills for future ease of reference, as well as giving examples of CLIL designs to represent the case in Taiwan. In doing so, all the simplicities of theories may enable future educators to retrieve all the necessary details grounded in CLIL systems without being much confused.
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background of the Present Study 1
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 6
Significance of Contributions 6
Outline of the Thesis 7
Explanation of the Terms 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
A CLIL Rationale: the 4Cs Framework 11
Potential Role of L1 in CLIL Classrooms 34
Defining and Demonstrating Translanguaging 40
CLIL in Primary Education 43
CLIL Lesson Plans 45
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
The Setting 49
The Contributors 50
Instrument of the Sample Framework 51
Data Collection and Analysis 56
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Topics and Content Areas 57
Corresponding Thinking Skill Development 58
Corresponding Communication Development 61
Corresponding Cultural Awareness Development 63
Corresponding Design of Scaffolding Strategies 65
Topics and Content Areas 69
Corresponding Thinking Skill Development 71
Corresponding Communication Development 72
Corresponding Cultural Awareness Development 76
Corresponding Design of Scaffolding Strategies 77
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION
Overview of the Present Study 79
Summary of the Findings 80
Pedagogical Implications 82
Limitations of the research 85
Appendix A The Consent Form 101
Appendix B-1 Group 1’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 102
Appendix B-2 Group 2’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 104
Appendix B-3 Group 3’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis
Appendix B-4 Group 4’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 108
Appendix B-5 Group 5’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 110
Appendix B-6 Group 6’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 112
Appendix B-7 Group 7’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 114
Appendix B-8 Group 8’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 116
Appendix B-9 Group 9’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 118
Appendix B-10 Group 10’s Lesson Plan and its Analysis 120
Agustín‐Llach, M. P., & Canga Alonso, A. (2016). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 211-227.
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for leaning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Anderson, L. (2006). Revised Bloom's taxonomy. Paper presented at North Carolina Career and Technical Education Curriculum Development Training, Raleigh, NC.
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136. DOI: 10.1177/1362168813505381
Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2003). An Evidentiary Framework for Operationalizing Academic Language for Broad Application to K-12 Education: A Design Document. (CSE Tech. Rep. No.611). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Students Testing
Baker, C. (2003). Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh National Curriculum. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 71–90). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol: Multingual Matters.
Bamgbose, A. (2001). World Englishes and globalization. World Englishes, 20, 357-363.
Banegas, D. L. (2015). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104-130. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.3
Beacco, J. C. (2010). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling necessary for learning/teaching history (end of obligatory education): An approach with reference points. Language and school subjects: Linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school curricula, (1).
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Cognitive Domain. London, England: Longman.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1985). Teacher behavior and students achievement. In M, C, Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching. New York : Macmillan.
Brown, J. L. (1995). Observing dimensions of learning in classrooms and schools. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401-417.
Catalán, R. M. J., & De Zarobe, Y. R. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction. Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, 81-92.
Celic, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Strategies for the classroom 〔PowerPoint slides〕. Retrieved from http://www.nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/03/Translanguaging- PPT-Christina-Celic.pdf
Chien, C. W. (2017). CLIL Lesson Planning and Material Development in an English Wonderland. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(2), 45-82. DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.201712_3(2).0003
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London, England: Continuum.
Churches, A. (2009). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Educational Origami, 1-44.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 196-230.
Coffin, C. (2000). Defending and challenging interpretations of the past: the role of argument in school history. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 40, 135-153.
Coffin, C. (2009). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning Through a Foreign Language. London, England: CILT.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL: Planning tools for teachers. Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham.
Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1-18.
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., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum–CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. London, England: The Languages Company.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, England: 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.
Crandall, J. (1998). The expanding role of the elementary ESL teacher: Doing more than teaching language. ESL Magazine, 1(4), 10-14.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?. The modern language journal, 94(1), 103-115.
Cummins, J. (1976). The Influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1-43.
Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. Current issues in bilingual education, 81-103.
Cummins, J. (1981a). Bilingualism and Minority-Language Children. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Cummins, J. (1981b). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles, CA: California State Department of Education.
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy and French immersion. Canadian Journal of Education, 8(2), 117-138.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
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. DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.201712_3(2).0001
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of content and language integrated learning on students' English and history competences–Killing two birds with one stone?. Learning and Instruction, 41, 23-31.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam, Dutch: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education, 29-54.
De Diezmas, E. N. M. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of L2 competences and skills in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16(2), 81-101.
Dillon, J. T. (1982). Cognitive correspondence between question/statement and response. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 540-551.
European Commission. (1996). White Paper on Education and Training: Teaching and Learning towards the learning society (42nd ed.). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41, 47.
Fung, D., & Yip, V. (2014). The effects of the medium of instruction in certificate‐level physics on achievement and motivation to learn. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1219-1245.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
García, A. L. (2017). Classroom Interaction in CLIL Primary School Classrooms: Research Insights to Inform Successful Pedagogy. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(1), 39-62. DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.2017.0301.03
Giglioni, C., & Catenaccio, P. (2016). CLIL Teaching at Primary School Level and the Academia/Practice Interface: Some Preliminary Considerations. LMC LINGUE CULTURE MEDIAZIONI LANGUAGES CULTURES MEDIATION, 191-210. DOI: 10.7359/791-2016-cate
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (62nd ed.). London: British council.
Griva, E., Chostelidou, D., & Panteli, P. (2014). Insider Views of CLIL in Primary Education. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 2(8), 31-53.
Griva, E., & Kasvikis, K. (2015). CLIL in Primary Education: Possibilities and challenges for developing L2/FL skills, history understanding and cultural awareness. In Ν. Bakić-Mirić & D. Erkinovich Gaipov (Eds.), Current trends and issues in education: an international dialogue (pp. 125-140). England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gunnarsson, T. (2014). Translanguaging: A review of flexible language use students’ learning of additional languages〔PowerPoint slides〕. Retrieved from http://www.spraklararna.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TinaGunnarsson.pdf
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean--explorations in the development of language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
He, P., Lai, H., & Lin, A. (2017). Translanguaging in a Multimodal Mathematics Presentation. In C. M. Mazak & K. S. Carroll (Eds.), Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 91-120). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Heine, L. (2010). Problem solving in a foreign language. A study in CLIL. Berlin, German: Gruyter.
Houser, K. (2018). 8 Strategies for Scaffolding Instruction. Retrieved from https://www.mshouser.com/teaching-tips/8-strategies-for-scaffolding-instruction
Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., & Lastrucci, E. (2009). The effects of CLIL from the perspective of experienced teachers. CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, 156-163.
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. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 926-936.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. Cyprus: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute.
Kong, S. (2015). Designing Content‐Language Integrated Learning materials for late immersion students. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 302-331.
Kröss, L. M. (2014). Cognitive discourse functions in upper secondary CLIL Physics lessons. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna). Retrieved from http://othes.univie.ac.at/33460/
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1).
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.
Laupenmühlen, J. (2012). Making the most of L1 in CL (1+ 2) IL. Quality interfaces: Examining evidence & exploring solution in CLIL, 237-251.
Law, J. L. (2007). The Implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Elementary School English Teaching: An Action Research Study (Master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22095NTPTC694025%22.&searchmode=basic
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Leisen, J. (2005). Wechsel der Darstellungsformen. Ein Unterrichtsprinzip für alle Fächer. Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch, 78, 9-11.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, MA: Ablex.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641-654.
Lin, A. (2012). Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogical approaches to L2 English content classrooms. English–A Changing Medium for Education, 79-103.
Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. Tesol Quarterly, 47(3), 521-545.
Lin, A. M., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as Dynamic Activity Flows in CLIL Classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228-244.
Lin, A. M., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Trans/languaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26-45.
Lin, L. C. (2017). Using Information Picture Books to Integrate English Learning and Curricular Content: CLIL Pedagogical Framework and Activities for EFL Primary Schools. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(2), 25-44.
Li, C. C. (2017). Primary School English-Language Education Through CLIL: An International Perspective. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(1), 1-14. DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.2017.0301.01
Lo, Y. Y. (2015). How much L1 is too much? Teachers' language use in response to students’ abilities and classroom interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 270-288.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418-442.
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32-41.
Marsh, D., Järvinen, H. M., & Haataja, K. (2007). Perspectives from Finland. In A. Maljers (Ed.), Windows on CLIL–Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight (pp. 63-83). Alkmaar, Dutch: European Platform.
Martin, J. R. (2002). Writing history: Construing time and value in discourses of the past. Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power, 87-118.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10-21.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Marzano, R. J. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., Arredondo, D. E., Blackburn, G. J., Brandt, R. S., & Moffett, C. A. (1992). Dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., Arredondo, D. E., Blackburn, G. J., Brandt, R. S., Moffett, C. A., Paynter, D. E., Pollock, J. E., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). Dimensions of Learning Trainer’s Manual. Aurora, CO: McREL.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual education and multilingual education. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-pyramid: key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. Basic Issues in EFL-Teaching and Learning, 265-285.
Meyer, O. (2015). A Pluriliteracies Approach to Teaching for Learning: Putting a pluriliteracies approach into practice. Retrieved from https:// pluriliteracies. ecml.at/
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning–mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41-57.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines – Language Arts Learning Areas (English). Retrieved from https:// www. k12ea.gov.tw/ap/sid17_ law.aspx
National Academy for Education Research. (2016). Grade 1-12 Curriculum Guidelines – Language Arts Learning Areas (English). Retrieved from https:// www. naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-10472,c1174-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More Than Content and Language: The Complexity of Integration in CLIL and Bilingual Education. Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education, 101, 1.
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2016). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-13.
Park, M. S. (2013). Code-switching and translanguaging: potential functions in multilingual classrooms. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 50-52.
Pavón Vázquez, V., Ávila López, J., Gallego Segador, A., & Espejo Mohedano, R. (2015). Strategic and organisational considerations in planning content and language integrated learning: A study on the coordination between content and language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 409-425. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.909774
Pickard, M. J. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview for family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25(1), 45-55.
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.
Pladevall‐Ballester, E. (2016). CLIL subject selection and young learners’ listening and reading comprehension skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 52-74.
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2017). CLIL in Low Proficiency Primary School Settings: The Role of L1 Use and Focus on Form. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(1), 15-38. DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.2017.0301.02
Polias, J. (2015). Apprenticing Students Into Science: Doing, Talking & Writing Scientifically. Melbourne, Australia: Lexis Education.
Prochazkova, L. T. (2013). Mathematics for language, language for mathematics. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 23-28.
Reppen R (2010). Using Corpora in the Language Classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33. DOI: 10. 1177/ 00336882 124 73293
Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.
Shoebottom, P. (2007). Second language acquisition-essential information. Retrieved from http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/cummin.htm
Stohler, U. (2006). The Acquisition of Knowledge in Bilingual Learning: An Emprical Study on the Role of Language in Content Learning. VIEWS-Vienna English working papers, 15(3), 41-46.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582-602.
Su, W. M., Osisek, P. J., & Starnes, B. (2004). Applying the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy to a medical-surgical nursing lesson. Nurse Educator, 29(3), 116-120.
Su, M., Osisek, P. J., & Starnes, B. (2005). Using the revised bloom's taxonomy in the clinical laboratory: thinking skills involved in diagnostic reasoning. Nurse Educator, 30(3), 117-122.
Surmont, J., Craen, P., Struys, E., & Somers, T. (2014). Evaluating a CLIL-student: Where to find the CLIL advantage. In R. Breeze, C. Pasamar, C. Saíz, & C. Sala (Eds.), Integration of theory and practice in CLIL (pp. 55-72). Amsterdam, Dutch: Rodopi.
Tainan City Government. (2015). Office of English as the Second Official Language – The Policy. Retrieved from http://oeasol.tainan.gov.tw/index.php?inter=intro&id=8
Tavares, N. J. (2015). How strategic use of L1 in an L2-medium mathematics classroom facilitates L2 interaction and comprehension. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 319-335.
The Graz Group. (2015). 〔Table illustration the combination of CDF construct and knowledge domain October 14, 2017〕. A pluriliteracies approach to teaching for learning. Retrieved from http:// pluriliteracies.ecml.at /Principles/ LanguagingForUnderstanding/tabid/4275/language/en-GB/Default.aspx
The Graz Group. (2016). 〔Graph illustration the Pluriliteracies Wheel December 26, 2017〕. A pluriliteracies approach to teaching for learning. Retrieved from http://pluriliteracies.ecml.at/Principles/LanguagingForUnderstanding/tabid/4275/language/en-GB/Default.aspx
Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L., Hu, M., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy for CS assessment. Proceedings of the tenth conference on Australasian computing education, 78, 155-161.
Tragant, E., Marsol, A., Serrano, R., & Llanes, À. (2016). Vocabulary learning at primary school: a comparison of EFL and CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(5), 579-591.
Trimble, Louis. (1985). English for science and technology: a discourse approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585-609.
UW Teaching Academy Short-Course. (2003). Exam question types & student competencies: How to measure learning accurately: Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://teachingacademic.wisc.edu/archive/Assistance/course/ blooms htm
Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L., & Mraz, M. E. (2014). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 161-195.
Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing Tasks for Content and Language Integrated Learning and Assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based Language Learning and Teaching Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 227-290). Frankfurt, German: Peter Lang,.
Vollmer, H. J. (2010). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling necessary for learning/teaching sciences (end of compulsory education): an approach with reference points. France: Council of Europe.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Reading and thinking in English: Discovering Discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wilhelmer, N. (2008). Content and language integrated leaning (CLIL): Teaching mathematics in English. Saarbrücken, German: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Yamano, Y. (2013). CLIL in a Japanese primary school: Exploring the potential of CLIL in a Japanese context. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 19-30.
Yang, W. (2015). Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361-382.
Yeo, J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Constructing a Scientific Explanation—A Narrative Account. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (11), 1902-1935.