本研究旨在探討融入學科內容與語言整合教學策略（Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL）應用於國小英語學習扶助課程後，學生在英語字彙辨識、閱讀理解、閱讀應用及閱讀態度等面向所呈現之變化，並了解學生對 CLIL 英語閱讀課程之學習反應。本研究以臺中市某國民小學五名五年級英語學習扶助學生為研究對象，採單組前後測設計，並輔以質性資料進行分析。
本研究課程以英語繪本Once Upon a Small Rhinoceros為主要教材，依據CLIL之 Content、Communication、Cognition與Culture四項構面進行教學設計，並結合預測、比較、圖像輔助、情境討論、地圖閱讀與夢想表達等活動。研究資料包括英語閱讀前後測、閱讀態度資料、課前與課後訪談、學生學習單、課堂觀察及教師省思札記。量化資料以描述性統計呈現學生前後測表現之變化；質性資料則透過訪談內容、學習單表現、課堂觀察與教師省思札記進行整理與分析，以補充量化結果未能呈現之學習歷程。
研究結果顯示，五名學生在英語字彙辨識、閱讀理解與閱讀應用等前後測表現上未呈現一致提升，且個別學生之變化有所差異。由於本研究樣本數較少，且前後測使用不同年度之學習扶助篩選測驗，故不宜據此推論CLIL策略與學生測驗表現變化之因果關係。然而，質性資料顯示，部分學生在課程實施後對英語閱讀之抗拒感有所降低，課堂參與與回應意願較課程實施前提高，並能在圖片、圖表、教師提問與情境脈絡等鷹架支持下，嘗試進行預測、比較、資訊整理與文本理解。研究亦發現，跨領域內容與生活情境之融入，可能有助於引發學生之學習興趣，使其在閱讀活動中展現較正向之學習反應。
綜合而言，本研究未能由前後測分數確認學生英語閱讀表現具有明顯提升，但質性資料顯示CLIL策略融入英語學習扶助課程後，學生在閱讀態度、課堂參與、理解歷程與學習反應等面向呈現一定程度之正向變化。研究結果可作為國小英語學習扶助課程設計之參考，惟其適切性與實施價值仍有待未來研究以較長期、較多樣本及更嚴謹之研究設計進一步探討。

This study aimed to examine the changes in elementary school students’ English vocabulary recognition, reading comprehension, reading application, and reading attitudes after the implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) strategies in an English learning assistance course. It also explored students’ learning responses to the CLIL-based English reading course. The participants were five fifth-grade students receiving English learning assistance at an elementary school in Taichung City. A one-group pretest-posttest design was adopted, supplemented by qualitative data analysis.
The course used the English picture book Once Upon a Small Rhinoceros as the main teaching material. The instructional design was developed based on the four dimensions of CLIL: Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture. Learning activities included prediction, comparison, visual scaffolding, contextual discussion, map reading, and dream expression. The data sources included English reading pretests and posttests, reading attitude data, pre- and post-course interviews, student worksheets, classroom observations, and teacher reflection notes. Quantitative data were presented through descriptive statistics to show changes in students’ pretest and posttest performance. Qualitative data were analyzed through interviews, worksheets, classroom observations, and teacher reflection notes to supplement the learning processes that could not be fully captured by quantitative results.
The results showed that the five students did not demonstrate consistent improvement in English vocabulary recognition, reading comprehension, and reading application, and individual differences were observed in their performance changes. Due to the small sample size and the use of learning assistance screening tests from different academic years for the pretest and posttest, causal relationships between the CLIL strategies and students’ changes in test performance should not be inferred. However, the qualitative data indicated that some students showed reduced resistance toward English reading after the course. Their willingness to participate in class and respond to teacher questions also increased compared with the pre-course stage. With scaffolding support such as pictures, charts, teacher questioning, and contextual clues, students attempted to make predictions, compare information, organize ideas, and understand texts. The study also found that the integration of interdisciplinary content and real-life contexts may help stimulate students’ learning interest and encourage more positive learning responses in reading activities.
Overall, this study did not confirm clear improvement in students’ English reading performance based on pretest and posttest scores. Nevertheless, the qualitative data suggested that after integrating CLIL strategies into the English learning assistance course, students showed some positive changes in reading attitudes, classroom participation, comprehension processes, and learning responses. The findings may serve as a reference for designing English learning assistance courses in elementary schools. However, the appropriateness and practical value of CLIL implementation require further investigation through longer-term studies, larger samples, and more rigorous research designs.

英文部分
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011
Cho, K. S., Park, E. J., & Krashen, S. (2008). Reading in English by children in Korea: Frequency, effectiveness and barriers. Indonesian JELT, 4(1), 18–25.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Coyle, D., Van Deusen-Scholl, N., & Hornberger, N. H. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1200–1214). Springer-Verlag.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
Gan, J., & Wang, W. (2019). In-air handwritten English word recognition using attention recurrent translator. Neural Computing and Applications, 1–18.
Grabe, W. (2008). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Belyaeva, I. G., Samorodova, E. A., Voron, O. V., & Zakirova, E. S. (2019). Analysis of innovative methods’ effectiveness in teaching foreign languages for special purposes used for the formation of future specialists’ professional competencies. Education Sciences, 9(3), 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030171
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082
Li, L.-Y., Tseng, S.-T., & Chen, G.-D. (2015). Effect of hypertext highlighting on browsing, reading, and navigational performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.012
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. In [PIRLS 2016 reading framework, 2nd Edition] (pp. 11–29) TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
Nawrot-Lis, B. (2019). The challenges of content acquisition in a CLIL course: A CLIL-based chemistry course at the lower secondary school level. Springer.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
Rumlich, D. (2014). Prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students’ interest in English (classes): A quasi-experimental study on German sixth-graders. In Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL (pp. 73–95). Brill Rodopi.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–341.
 
中文部分
Tsou, W.-L., & Kao, S.-M. (2018). CLIL 教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學。臺北市：書林。
劉欣旻、鄭涵予（2019）。探究學科內容與語言整合教學能力：CLIL教師專業能力分析。學校行政，122，141–153。https://doi.org/10.6423/hhhc.201907_(122).0008
教育部國民及學前教育署（2020）。補助辦理學習扶助作業要點。
教育部綜合規劃司（2018）。全面啟動教育體系的雙語活化、培養臺灣走向世界的雙語人才。教育部全球資訊網即時新聞。https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=B7D34EA3ED606429
教育部駐日本代表處教育組（2015年7月30日）。日本「CLIL」成趨勢 師資是大問題。讀賣新聞。https://epaper.edu.tw/windows.aspx?windows_sn=17172
王聰（2019）。基於PIRLS 2016的香港小學生閱讀素養分析與啟示。教育理論與實踐學刊，39，1–20。
行政院（2018）。2030雙語國家政策發展藍圖。 https://bilingual.ndc.gov.tw/sites/bl3/files/news_event_docs/2030雙語國家政策發展藍圖.pdf
洪儷瑜（2011，12月19日）。全民教育-補救教學的基本概念與實施。100年度師資培育之大學主管聯席會議會議簡報。未出版。
許家齊（2020）。全台300+公立國中小掀雙語課熱潮。親子天下，111，71。
郭蕙瑜（2015）。《英語科學繪本閱讀理解策略教學對國小六年級學童英語閱讀能力之影響》（碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學教師專業碩士學位學程。
陳昭珍、李央晴、曾品方（2010）。發展適用於我國兒童之閱讀知能指標與評量之研究。研考雙月刊，34（1），48–61。https://doi.org/10.6978/yksyk.201002.0048
陳昭珍（2011）。閱讀知能與閱讀推動方案：圖書教師手冊。教育部。
黃子純（2019）。《華語內容與語言整合學習課程設計與教材編寫：「臺灣社會議題」課程之個案探析》（碩士論文）。臺灣師範大學華語文教學系。
王梅玲、曾湘怡（2013）。兒童閱讀教學活動成效評估。國家圖書館館刊（102 年第 2 期），83–110。