臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

With the increase in globalization, English has become a necessary language to learn in order for the nations of the world to compete in the global economy. This has caused the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan to revise its English-in-Education policy, aiming to implement a teaching approach known as Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) into the 12-year compulsory education. In order to ensure a successful implementation, the teachers' attitudes and beliefs at all levels of education and the perceived benefits and challenges towards CLIL should be surveyed. While some researchers have examined those held by Taiwanese primary school and middle school teachers, it is yet to be investigated from the perspectives of high school teachers. This study attempts to do so. With the use of questionnaire and interviews, the research collected data from two high school English teachers employed in Northern Taiwan who have implemented CLIL into their classrooms. Based on the perspectives of these two teachers, it was found that overall, although CLIL implementation in the English language classroom context is feasible, the MOE has provided limited support to teachers in the high school context implementing CLIL, and that it is crucial that teachers become more educated in the principles of CLIL before successful implementation can occur. It was also discovered that CLIL can provide a context to teach language, content, cultural concepts, and critical thinking effectively and that it has benefits on students' motivation. The results of this study are intended to serve as a reference for the Taiwanese government to further the process of implementation.

With the increase in globalization, English has become a necessary language to learn in order for the nations of the world to compete in the global economy. This has caused the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan to revise its English-in-Education policy, aiming to implement a teaching approach known as Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) into the 12-year compulsory education. In order to ensure a successful implementation, the teachers' attitudes and beliefs at all levels of education and the perceived benefits and challenges towards CLIL should be surveyed. While some researchers have examined those held by Taiwanese primary school and middle school teachers, it is yet to be investigated from the perspectives of high school teachers. This study attempts to do so. With the use of questionnaire and interviews, the research collected data from two high school English teachers employed in Northern Taiwan who have implemented CLIL into their classrooms. Based on the perspectives of these two teachers, it was found that overall, although CLIL implementation in the English language classroom context is feasible, the MOE has provided limited support to teachers in the high school context implementing CLIL, and that it is crucial that teachers become more educated in the principles of CLIL before successful implementation can occur. It was also discovered that CLIL can provide a context to teach language, content, cultural concepts, and critical thinking effectively and that it has benefits on students' motivation. The results of this study are intended to serve as a reference for the Taiwanese government to further the process of implementation.

Abstract 2
Chapter One: Introduction 6
1.1 Background of Study 6
1.2 Purpose of the Study 12
1.3 Research Questions 12
1.4 Significance of the Study 13
1.5 Structure of the Thesis 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 15
2.1 Language Planning and Policy - Theories and Frameworks 15
2.1.1. Goals and Process of Language Planning 19
2.1.2. The connection of LPP and education 23
2.1.3. Connection between LPP and Classroom Practitioners 26
2.2. Historical Development of EE Language Planning in Taiwan 27
2.3. Former and Current EE policy Comparison 31
2.3.1. Principle Philosophy 32
2.3.2. Curriculum Goals 32
2.3.3. Time Allocation 32
2.3.4. Core Accomplishments 33
2.3.5. Summary of Differences 34
2.4. Content Language Integrated Learning CLIL 35
2.4.1. Definition and Principles of CLIL 36
2.4.2. EMI vs CLIL 38
2.4.3. Soft CLIL vs. Hard CLIL 40
2.4.4. Advantages of CLIL 42
2.4.5. Difficulties of CLIL 45
Chapter Three: Methodology 50
3.1 Research Design 50
3.2 Participants 51
3.3 Instruments 53
3.4 Procedures 56
3.5 Data Analysis 57
Chapter Four: Findings 60
4.1 Jake’s Questionnaire Responses 60
4.2 Kate’s Questionnaire Responses 62
4.3 Jake’s Interview Responses 64
4.3.1. Attitude Towards CLIL Implementation 65
4.3.1.1. Voluntary Implementation of CLIL 65
4.3.1.2. Feasibility of CLIL Implementation 66
4.3.1.3. Use of CLIL 66
4.3.1.4. Soft CLIL versus Hard CLIL 68
4.3.1.5. Principles of CLIL 70
4.3.2. CLIL Support and Training 72
4.3.2.1. Limited Support Offered for CLIL Implementation 72
4.3.2.2. Lack of Awareness of CLIL 73
4.3.2.3. Jake’s Training 73
4.3.3. Teacher Collaboration 75
4.3.4. CLIL Teaching Materials 76
4.3.5. L1 versus L2 Usage 78
4.3.5.1. Jake’s L1/L2 usage 78
4.3.5.2. Students’ L1/L2 Usage 78
4.3.6. Strengths and Challenges of CLIL 79
4.3.6.1. Strengths of CLIL 80
4.3.6.2. Weaknesses and Challenges of CLIL 81
4.3.6.3. Transition from Middle to High School 83
4.3.6.4. No Challenges Faced by Students 83
4.3.6.5. Positive Student Response 84
4.3.6.6. Negative Student Response 85
4.4 Kate’s Interview Responses 85
4.4.1. Attitude Towards CLIL Implementation 86
4.4.1.1. Voluntary Implementation of CLIL 86
4.4.1.2. Feasibility of CLIL Implementation 87
4.4.1.3. Use of CLIL 87
4.4.1.4. Use of Technology 89
4.4.1.5 Principles of CLIL 90
4.4.1.6. Leveled Classes 90
4.4.2. CLIL Support and Training 92
4.4.2.1. Limited Support Offered for Implementation 92
4.4.2.2. Kate’s Training 93
4.4.3. Teacher Collaboration 93
4.4.4. CLIL Teaching Materials 95
4.4.5. L1 versus L2 Usage 97
4.4.5.1. Kate’s L1/L2 Usage 97
4.4.5.2. Students’ L1/L2 Usage 98
4.4.6. Strengths and Challenges of CLIL 99
4.4.6.1. Strengths of CLIL 99
4.4.6.2. Professional Development 100
4.4.6.3. Weaknesses and Challenges of CLIL 101
4.4.6.4. Using CLIL to Overcome Mixed Proficiencies 102
4.4.6.5. Transition from Middle to High School 102
4.4.6.6. Positive Student Response 103
4.4.6.7. Negative Student Response 104
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 105
5.1 Attitude Towards CLIL Implementation 105
5.2 CLIL Support and Training 108
5.3 Teacher Collaboration 109
5.4 CLIL Teaching Materials 110
5.5 L1 versus L2 Usage 111
5.6 CLIL Strengths, Weaknesses, and Challenges 112
5.7 Conclusion 115
References 119
Appendix A 125
Appendix B 127
Appendix C 131
Appendix D 133

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso.
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 27, 9-32.
Auerbach, E. (1994). Participatory action research. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives
in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 673-703.
Auerbach, E. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in
pedagogical choices. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work?, in D. Hill & P. Alan (eds.), The best of both worlds?:
International Perspectives on CLIL. (p.32-43). Norwich Institute for Language
Education, Norwich.
Banegas, D. L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American
Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1): 46-56. doi:10.5294/laclil.2012.5.1.4
Bernabé, M.M., & Mateos, L.M.F. (2013). The Effects of CLIL from the Perspective of
In-service Teachers in Salamanca (Castilla y León, Spain). Exedra: Revista Científica,
(8), pp.200-217
Bigelow, M. (2010). Learning to plan for a focus on form in CBI: The role of teacher knowledge
and teaching context. In J. F. Davis (Ed.), World language teacher education: Transitions
and challenges in the twenty-first century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Blackmore, J. (1999). Localization/globalization and the Midwife State: Strategic dilemmas for
state feminism in education? Journal of Education Policy, 14(1): 33–55.
Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The
classification of educational goals. New York: Longman.
Bright, W. (Ed.) (1992). International encyclopedia of linguistics. Vols. 1-4. New York: Oxford
University Press
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In
Clements, P., Krause, A., & Brown, H. (Eds.), Transformation in Language Education
(pp. 328-334). Tokyo: JALT.
Chang, W. (2007). A brief sketch of Taiwan’s English education at primary level. Primary
Innovations REgional Seminar: A collection of papers, 67-73. British Council.
Chang, Y. Y. (2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education:
Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal,
2(1), 53–82. doi: 10.6706/TIESPJ.2010.2.1.3
Chen, A. (2013). An Evaluation on Primary English Education in Taiwan: From the
Perspective of Language Policy. English Language Teaching, 6(10).
doi:10.5539/elt.v6n10p158
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. doi:10.6294/EaGLE.2017.0202.04
Chen, S. (2003). The Spread of English in Taiwan: Changing uses and shifting attitudes. Taipei,
Taiwan: Crane Publishing.
Chen, S. (2006). Simultaneous promotion of indigenisation and internationalisation: New
language-in-education policy in Taiwan. Language and Education, 20(4), 322-337.
doi:10.2167/le632.0
Chen, S. (2010). Multilingualism in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language,2010(205). doi:10.1515/ijsl.2010.040
Chern, C. (2011). An Overview of English Language Education at Primary Level in
Taiwan.
Cinganotto, L. (2016). CLIL in Italy: A general overview. Latin American Journal of Content
and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 374-400. doi:10.5294/laclil.2016.9.2.6
Clegg, J. (2007). Providing language support in CLIL. Webpage.
http://ateneu.xtec.cat/wikiform/wikiexport/_media/cmd/lle/clpi/modul_2/language_supp
rt_cl egg.pdf.
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European Higher Education. Language
Teaching, 39, 1–14.
Cooper, R. L. (1987). Planning language acquisition. In P.H. Lowenberge (Ed.), Language
spread and language policy: Issues, implications, and case studies (pp. 140-151).
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cooper, R. L., & Fishman, J. A. (1974). The study of language attitudes. International Journal of
theSociology of Language, 3, 5-19
Coyle, D. (2009). Promoting Cultural Diversity through Intercultural Understanding: A Case
Study of CLIL Teacher Professional Development at In-service and Pre-service Levels.
In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Cultural
Diversity (Vol. 92, pp. 105–124). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles: Bilingual Education Services.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities: A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language Use and Language Learning
in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing.
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe.
European Unit. Brussels, European Commission.Webpage.
http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Floris, F. D. (2014). Learning subject matter through English as the medium of instruction:
Students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Asian Englishes, 16(1), 47-59.
doi:10.1080/13488678.2014.884879
Freeman, R. D. (1996). Dual‐language planning at oyster bilingual school: “It’s much more than
language”. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 557-582. doi:doi.org/10.2307/358769
Ferguson, C. A. (1968). Language development. In J. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson, & J. Das Gupta
(Eds.), Language problems of developing nations. New York Wiley
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
González, J. Á, & Andrés, J. B. (2018). From EMI to CLIL. EduLingua, 4(1), 51-66.
doi:10.14232/edulingua.2018.1.5
Green, A. (1999). Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia: Convergent and
divergent trends. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1): 55–71.
Graddol, D. (1998). The future of the English language. The British Council,
1–66. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000754
Grillo, R. (1989). Dominant Languages: Language and hierarchy in Britain and France.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In J.
Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (Eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haarmann, H. (1986). Language in ethnicity: A view of basic ecological relations. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heigham, J. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education,
8, 75-86.
Hornberger, N. H., & McKay, S. L. (1996). Sociolinguistics and language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Huang, W. (1995). Taiwan Jiaoyu De Zhongjian [Reconstruction of education in Taiwan].
Taipei: Yuanliu Publication Company.
Hubbs, E. (2013). Taiwan language-in-education policy: Social, cultural, and practical
implications. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 20, 76-95
Hughes, R. (2008). Internationalisation of higher education and language policy. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 20, 1–1
Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? Potential for the
‘Weak’ version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31-43.
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. doi: 10.1080/09500780508668671
Kaplan, R. B. (1990). Introduction: Language planning in theory and practice. In
R. B. Baldauf & A. Luke (Eds.), Language planning and education in Australasia and
the South Pacific. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the
Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ke, I. (2010). Globalization and global english: Panacea or poison for ELT in Taiwan? Taiwan
Journal of TESOL, 7(1), 1-27.
Kewara, P. (2018). CLIL teacher professional development for content teachers in Thailand.
Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 93-108.
Klaassen, R. G., & De Graaff, E. (2001). Facing innovation: Preparing lecturers for
English medium instruction in a non-native context. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 26, 281–289.
Kloss, H. (1968). Notes concerning a language-nation typology. In J. A. Fishman,
C. A. Fergusonj & J. Das Gupta (Eds.), Language problems of developing nations. New York: Wiley.
Kloss, H. (1969) Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International
Center for Research on Bilingualism
Kong, S. (2009). Content-Based Instruction: What can we learn from content-trained
teachers’ and language-trained teachers’ pedagogies? Canadian Modern Language
Review, 66(2), 233-267. doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.2.233
Kung, F. (2018). “English-only or Nothing”: Practitioners’ perspective on the policy and
implementation of CLIL in higher education. Education Journal, 46(1), 93-115
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL
and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
5(1), 3–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
Law, W. (2004). Translating globalization and democratization into local policy: Educational
reform in Hong Kong and Taiwan. International Review of Education, 50(5), 6th ser.,
497-524.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926
Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A. (2013). CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities
and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 81-92. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.01’
Méndez García, M. C. (2013) The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of
CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: A case study of Andalusian primary
and secondary schools. Language Learning Journal, 41(3), 268-283. doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.836345
Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: Emerging politics of education. Journal of Education
Policy, 14(1): 19–31.
Marsh, D. (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Finland,
University of Jyva¨skyla¨.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction
(English vs. Chinese) in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and
nonlanguage subjects. Harvard Educational Review, 70, 302–346.
McDougald, J.S. (2016). Is CLIL becoming a hub connecting research, policy, and practice?,
Laclil, 9(1), 7-16. doi:10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.1
McKay, S. L., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of Education Republic of China (MOE). (2017). The English Language Curriculum
Handbook Language [4th edition]. Retrieved from
https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/img/67/329238991.pdf
Nahir, M. (1984). Language planning goals: A classification. Language Problems and Language
Planning 8.
Neustupny, J. V. (1974). Basic types of treatment of language problems. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.),
Advances in language planning. The Hague: Mouton.
Pan, Y. (2009). Test impact: English certification requirements in Taiwan. Teaching of English
as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN), 20(2), 119-134.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and
Policy and the ELT Professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401. doi:10.2307/3587691
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15-34
Sasajima, S., Ikeda, M., Hemmi, C., & Reilly, T. (2011). Current practice
and future perspectives of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Japan.
Paper presented at the JACET 50th Commemorative International Convention, Tokyo, Japan.
Scott, D., & Beadle, S. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of language learning: CLIL and
computer assisted language learning. ICF International.
Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An
introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across
Europe. AILA Review, 25, 1–12. doi: 10.1075/aila.25.01smi
Stewart, W. (1968). A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism.
In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton.
Švecová, L. (2011). CLIL in Very Young Learners: Diploma Thesis. Brno: Masaryk.
Talbert, R. (2017). Flipped learning: A guide for higher education faculty. Sterling, Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D.
A. Grouws (Ed.). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New
York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Tollefson, J. W. (1981). The role of language planning in second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 31(2), 337-348. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01388.x
Tsao, F. F. (2000). The language planning situation in Taiwan. In R. B. Baldauf & R. B. Kaplan
(Eds.). Language planning in Nepal, Taiwan, and Sweden (pp. 60-106). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Tse, J. K. P. (1987). Language planning and English as a foreign language in middle school
education in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Tse, J. K. P. (2000). Language and a rising new identity in Taiwan. International Journal of
Society and Language, 143, 151-16.
Vasquez, V.P., & Rubio, F. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction
of CLIL programmes. Porta linguarum, 14: 45-58.
Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology enhanced language learning: Connecting theory
and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinstein, G. (1980). Language planning in Francophone Africa. Language problems and
language planning, 4 (1): 56.
Weinstein, G. (1984) Literacy and second language acquisition: Issues and perspectives. TESOL
Quarterly, 18(3), 471–485.
Wiley, T. G. (1996). Language planning and policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103-147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press
Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In D. Marsh & D.
Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL in Europe.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Wu, M. (2009). Language planning and policy in Taiwan: Past, present, and future.
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (WPEL), 24(2).
Wu, M. H. (2011). Language planning and policy in Taiwan: Past, present, and future. Language
Problems and Language Planning, 35(1), 15-34.
Xanthou, M. (2008) Learning subject matter through the medium of a foreign language (CLIL):
On its effects on primary school learners’ L2 vocabulary development and content
knowledge.
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, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.808168