| 研究生: |
江旻娟 Chiang, Min-Chuan |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱: |
探索雙語綜合活動課程之教學實務報告:以新北市六年級CLIL課程為例 Exploring Bilingual Integrative Activities Curriculum with Sixth-Grade Students: A Practice Report on CLIL Classroom in New Taipei City |
| 指導教授: |
黃怡萍
Huang, Yi-Ping |
| 口試委員: |
黃怡萍
Huang, Yi-Ping 簡靜雯 Chien, Chin-Wen 陳劍涵 Chen, Chien-Han |
| 學位類別: |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱: |
外國語文學院 - 英語教學碩士在職專班 The Master of Arts in English Teaching |
| 論文出版年: | 2026 |
| 畢業學年度: | 114 |
| 語文別: | 英文 |
| 論文頁數: | 109 |
| 中文關鍵詞: | 雙語教育 、綜合活動 、課程設計 |
| 外文關鍵詞: | Bilingual Education, Integrative Activities, CLIL, 4C2++ |
| 相關次數: | 點閱:15 下載:0 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本實務報告以臺灣新北市一所公立國小六年級的綜合活動課為研究主題,旨在探討在雙語2030政策的背景下,英語教師如何設計並實施內容與語言整合學習(Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL)雙語課程。問題聚焦於:這一系列雙語綜合活動課程是如何設計與實施,以及在過程中遇到了哪些挑戰?
本次雙語課程為期10週,共進行10堂雙語課程,課程內容涵蓋「各國文化的美感賞析」與「環境保護」兩個主要單元。課程以黃怡萍、鄒文莉(2023)的4C2++架構為核心設計理念,並結合黃翊忠(2022)的MRT教學模式。資料來源為課堂錄影、教案、與教師省思日誌。結果記錄了教師在設計與修改課程面臨的挑戰,包括CLIL教師的身分認同、教師專業準備度與信心不足、學生作品產出受限。針對這些問題,教師根據課堂觀察與省思日誌持續進行滾動式調整,逐步修改教學模式、語言鷹架設計、任務難度與調控時間分配,使雙語課程更貼近學生的語言能力以及學習需求,最終根據教師自身教學經驗提出結合4C2++, PPP以及MRT的Teaching-Task Cycle,期望能為正在探索雙語教育與CLIL教學的英語教師提供能具體參考的課程設計與實作經驗分享。
This practice report investigated a bilingual curriculum designed for an integrative activities course focusing on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for sixth graders in New Taipei City, Taiwan, within the context of the Bilingual 2030 Policy. The report addressed the guiding research question: How was the design of the bilingual integrative activity lessons carried out, and what challenges emerged during the process?
The pedagogical intervention spanned 10 weeks within a single semester across ten classes. The bilingual curriculum comprised two instructional units centered on cultural perceptions of beauty and environmental protection. Lesson designs were grounded in Huang & Tsou (2023) 4C2++ framework and utilized the MRT model (Huang, 2022). Data sources included classroom observation videos, lesson plans, and teacher reflective journals.
The results showed that the curriculum was designed and revised through three phases: the MRT model in Phase 1, the PPP framework in Phase 2, and the Teaching–Task cycle in Phase 3. Across these phases, several major challenges emerged, including (1) the influence of English teacher identity on decision-making in CLIL, (2) the impact of subject expertise on teaching readiness and confidence, and (3) the output problem. In response to these challenges, the lesson plans were iteratively revised based on classroom observations and the teacher’s reflective journals to better align the content, language demands, task difficulty, and scaffolding with students’ learning needs. This report documented examples of CLIL curriculum design for integrative activities within Taiwanese elementary education. More importantly, it provides practical pedagogical implications, including the recommendations for implementing a 4C-integrated teaching and task cycle, strategically using translanguaging and multimodal scaffolding, as well as emphasizing the importance of contextualized and authentic assessment and familiarity in CLIL curriculum design for practitioners navigating bilingual education in Taiwan.
Acknowledgement iv
中文摘要 v
Abstract vii
Table of Contents 1
List of Figures 3
List of Tables 4
Chapter 1 Introduction 5
Motivation and Background 5
Investigation Purposes and Guiding Question 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7
Definition of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 7
Frameworks of CLIL Course Design 8
Research on CLIL Teaching Challenges 13
Challenges in Teaching Primary CLIL in Taiwan 15
Principles for Designing CLIL Lessons 17
Chapter 3 Methodology 19
Context 19
Participants 21
CLIL Course Design: 2 Integrative Units 21
Data Collection Methods 22
Data Analysis 24
Chapter 4 Key Findings: Three Phases of CLIL Implementation 25
Phase 1: The Implementation of the MRT Model and the Challenges 25
Phase 2: The Implementation of the PPP Lesson Cycle and the Teaching Challenges 32
The Challenges Encountered in Phase 2 48
Phase 3: Adopting the Teaching–Task Lesson Cycle 50
The Challenges Encountered in Phase 3 67
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion 69
Discussion of the Guiding Question 69
Pedagogical Suggestions 72
Conclusion 75
References 77
Appendix 80
Appendix A: Parents’ Consent Form 80
Appendix B: CLIL Unit Design for Integrative Activities 83
Appendix C: Teaching Procedure Lesson Plan 91
Appendix D: Example of Teacher’s Reflective Journal 106
Appendix E: AI Declaration Statement 109
Chien, C.-W. (2024a). Taiwanese elementary school teachers’ mindset of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) instruction. Journal of English Learner Education, 16(2), 1–28.
Chien, C.-W. (2024b). Three Taiwanese elementary school English teachers’ pedagogical and collaborative practice of glocalization in CLIL lessons. Pedagogies. 19(4), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2023.2286656
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Gabillon, Z. (2020). Revisiting CLIL: Background, pedagogy, and theoretical underpinnings. Contextes et Didactiques, 15, 88–116.
Huang, Y.-C. (2022). MRT 教學模式在雙語課堂上的運用 [The application of the MRT teaching model in bilingual classrooms]. In W.-L. Tsou & Y.-P. Huang (Eds.), A resource book for bilingual education in Taiwan: A glocalized design and practice (pp. 323–331). Bookman Books.
Huang, Y.-P. (2024). Curriculum and teaching in primary CLIL in Taiwan: Exploring teacher agency. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-9677-9
Huang, Y.-P., & Tsou, W.-L. (2023). CLIL development in bilingual education in Taiwan: Past, present, and future. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 26(1), 1–26.
Hsu, Y.-H. (2021). 綜合活動雙語課程設計與評量 [Bilingual curriculum design and assessment for integrative activities]. In T.-L. Lu, H.-C. Chen, & W.-L. Tsou (Eds.), 成功的跨領域學科雙語教育:西門實小教學卓越典範 [CLIL disciplinary subject learning] (pp. 121–138). Bookman.
Lin, L.-C., Hsu, Y.-C., Huang, Y.-C., & Tsou, W.-L. (Eds.). (2024). AI/digital Enhanced Bilingual Education: 4C3+ Framework. Smarten
Lu, C.-L., Chen, H.-C., & Tsou, W.-L. (Eds.). (2021). CLIL disciplinary subject learning. Bookman.
Luo, W.-H., & Chen, Y.-C. (2022). Constructing a teaching capability maturity model for content and language integrated learning teachers in Taiwan. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00928-1
Adrián, M. M., & Mangado, M. J. G. (2015). Li Use, Lexical Richness, Accuracy and Syntactic Complexity in the Oral Production of CLIL and NON-CLIL Learners of English. Atlantis, 37(2), 175–197.
Ministry of Education. (2014). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: General guidelines.
National Development Council. (2018). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030.
Tsou, W.-L., & Huang, Y.-P. (Eds.). (2022). A resource book for bilingual education in Taiwan: A glocalized design and practice. Bookman.
Valdés-Sánchez, L., & Espinet, M. (2020). Coteaching in a science-CLIL classroom: Changes in discursive interaction as evidence of an English teacher's science-CLIL professional identity development. International Journal of Science Education, 42(14), 2426–2452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1710873
Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2020). Do we all share the same goals for content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(8), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332
Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A. (2023). Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798869
Yang, Y.-S., & Hsu, Y.-H. (2021). 生活與自然雙語課程設計與評量 [Bilingual curriculum design and assessment for life curriculum and natural science]. In T.-L. Lu, H.-C. Chen, & W.-L. Tsou (Eds.), 成功的跨領域學科雙語教育:西門實小教學卓越典範 [CLIL disciplinary subject learning] (pp. 30–52). Bookman.
此全文未授權公開