(3.235.11.178) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/05 14:59
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:高宇亭
論文名稱:學科內容與語言整合學習應用在音樂教學對小五學生英聽、口說及音樂能力之影響
論文名稱(外文):The Effects of Content & Language Integrated Learning into Music Teaching on English Listening, Speaking, & Music Abilities for Fifth Graders
指導教授:陳姚真陳姚真引用關係
指導教授(外文):CHEN, YAU-JANE
口試委員:陳品華林麗菊
口試委員(外文):CHEN, PING-HUALIN, LI-CHU
口試日期:2020-06-24
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:教育學碩士在職專班
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2020
畢業學年度:108
語文別:中文
論文頁數:192
中文關鍵詞:學科內容與語言整合學習音樂與英語整合學習英語聽力與口說能力
外文關鍵詞:content & language integrated learningMusic & English integrated learningEnglish listening and speaking skills
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:84
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
學科內容與語言整合學習應用在音樂教學對小五學生英聽、口說及音樂能力之影響

摘 要

本研究探討學科內容與語言整合學習(CLIL)應用於音樂教學,對國小五年級學生英聽、口說及音樂能力之影響;並分析學生在音樂科一般教學及音樂與英語整合教學後的英聽、口說及音樂能力差異。主要以Coyle的內容、溝通、認知及文化(CLIL 4Cs)架構為理論基礎,採準實驗研究法,不等組前後測設計,研究對象為小學五年級三個班級,以其四年級下學期英語期末班級總平均為依據,按成績高低依序分為三組,分別實施音樂與全英語整合、音樂與中英對照整合及音樂科一般教學,並以共變數分析(ANCOVA)比較三組學生在教學後的音樂能力、英語聽力、英語口說之差異。

本研究結果如下:
一、三組學生分別在教學前後音樂能力達顯著差異,而全英、中英對照組之英聽及口說能力達顯著差異。

二、三組學生在教學後之音樂能力無顯著差異,且整體正確率接近8成,達到中上表現,顯示其在樂理概念、歌曲感知、節奏創作等三方面皆具一致良好水準。

三、全英及中英對照組教學後之英聽能力皆顯著優於一般組,且中英對照優於全英組,整體而言CLIL兩組達到中上之正確率,顯示其綜合理解力,包括聽關鍵單字、拼字、特定的訊息等方面,皆具良好表現。

四、全英及中英對照組教學後之口說能力皆顯著優於一般組,且全英優於中英對照組,整體而言CLIL兩組達到8成正確回答率,顯示其清楚表達自我意見能力,包括理解及跟隨口語引導、囗語回答、問題表達皆具良好表現。

關鍵字:學科內容與語言整合學習、音樂與英語整合學習、英語聽力與口說能力

The Effects of Content & Language Integrated Learning into Music Teaching on English Listening, Speaking, & Music Abilities for Fifth Graders

Abstract

This study explores the impact of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) into music teaching on the fifth-grade primary school students' music, English listening, and speaking skills. And it also analyzes the differences in music, English Listening, & Speaking abilities among students in three different ways of teaching at the end of the teaching. Mainly based on Coyle's Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture (CLIL 4Cs) framework as the theoretical basis, adopting quasi-experimental research method, unequal group pre- and post-test design. The research subjects are three classes in the fifth grade of a primary school. According to the final English scores in the second semester of the fourth grade, students are divided into three groups. Classes are given Integrating Music and English, Integrating Music and Chinese-English Mixed and Traditional Music respectively. And it analyzes the difference in musical ability, English listening, & English speaking of the three groups of students after co-variable analysis of ANCOVA.

The results of this study are as follows:

1. The three groups of students had significant differences in their musical abilities before and after teaching, while the English and Chinese-English mixed groups had significant differences in their listening and speaking abilities.

2. The three groups of students had no significant difference in their musical ability after teaching, and the overall accuracy rate was close to 80%, reaching the upper-middle performance, showing that they have consistent and good standards in music theory, song perception, and rhythm creation.

3. The listening ability of the English and Chinese-English mixed groups after teaching is significantly better than the Traditional Music group, and the Chinese-English mixed is better than the English group. Overall, the CLIL two groups reach the upper middle accuracy rate shows its comprehensive comprehension, including listening to keywords, spelling, specific messages, etc., all of which have performed well.

4. The speaking ability of the English and Chinese-English mixed groups are significantly better than the Traditional Music group, and the English is better than the Chinese-English mixed group. Overall, the CLIL group achieved a correct answer rate of 80%, showing their ability to clearly express their own opinions, including understanding and following oral guidance, verbal answers, and question expression.


Keywords: content & language integrated learning,
Music & English integrated learning,
English listening and speaking skills
目次
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與問題…………………………………………5
第三節 重要名詞釋義……………………………………………6
第四節 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………8
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 第二語言學習之理論與相關研究 …………………11
第二節 台灣小學英語及音樂教學之相關研究 ……………23
第三節 學科內容與語言整合教學法及相關研究 …………40
第四節 音樂與英語整合學習及相關研究 …………………52
第三章 研究設計與實施
第一節 研究架構、研究方法與實驗設計 …………………61
第二節 研究對象與實驗分派…………………………………64
第三節 研究假設……………………………………………..…65
第四節 課程設計與教學流程…………………………………66
第五節 研究工具之編制與信效度……………………………72
第六節 研究之實施步驟 ………………………………………83
第七節 說明資料之分析與處理 …………………..…………85
第四章 研究結果與結論
第一節 三組學生音樂、英聽及口說表現與前後差異……87
第二節 三組學生教學後之音樂能力差異分析 ..…………90
第三節 三組學生教學後之英語聽力差異分析..……………92  
第四節 三組學生教學後之英語口說差異分析..……………95
第五節 研究發現與討論…………………………………………98
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論 ………………………………………………103
第二節 研究建議 ………………………………………………105
參考文獻
中文部份 …………………………………………………………107
西文部份 …………………………………………………………111
附錄
附錄一 一般教學及音樂與英語整合教學教案 …………123
附錄二 音樂能力前測題本 ………………………….………140
附錄三 音樂能力後測題本 ………………………….………142
附錄四 英語聽力前測題目與試題本 ………………………144
附錄五 英語聽力後測題目與試題本 ………………………156
附錄六 英語口說前測題目 …………………………..………168
附錄七 英語口說後測題目 …………………………..………171
附錄八 音樂測驗評分表 ………………………………………174
附錄九 英語聽力評分表 ………………………………………175
附錄十 英語口說評分表 ………………………………………176

表次
表2-1 CLIL的實證研究 …………………………………..……59
表3-1 實驗設計 …………………………………………..…..…63
表3-2 研究對象 ………………………………………….………64
表3-3 音樂與英語整合學習目標字詞與目標句型…………67
表3-4 簡要教學教案………………………………………………68
表3-5 課程設計教案格式 ……………………………………70
表3-6 教學流程 …………………………………………..……71
表3-7 音樂前測試題素材 ……………………………………73
表3-8 音樂後測試題素材 ……………………………………73
表3-9 英語聽力前測試題單字 ………………………………76
表3-10英語聽力後測試題單字 ………………………………76
表3-11英語聽力前測試題句型 ………………………………77
表3-12英語聽力後測試題句型 ………………………………78
表3-13英語口說前測試題單字 ………………………………80
表3-14英語口說後測試題單字 ………………………………80
表3-15英語口說前測試題句型 ………………………………81
表3-16英語口說後測試題句型 ………………………………81
表4-1 三組學生音樂、英聽及口說表現與前後測差異 …87
表4-2 「音樂能力測驗」迴歸係數同質性考驗 …………90
表4-3 「音樂能力測驗」共變數分析摘要表………..……91
表4-4 「英語聽力測驗」迴歸係數同質性考驗 …………92
表4-5 「英語聽力測驗」共變數分析摘要表 ……………93
表4-6 「英語聽力測驗」事後比較…………………………94
表4-7 「英語口說測驗」迴歸係數同質性考驗…….……95
表4-8 「英語口說測驗」共變數分析摘要表 ……………97
表4-9「英語口說測驗」事後比較………………………..…97
表4-10 研究假設鑑定結果彙整表 …………………..……101


圖次
圖2-1 CLIL的4Cs架構…………………………………..……43
圖3-1研究架構圖………………………………………..………62
圖3-2研究步驟圖…………………………………………………84




參考文獻
中文部份
王毓雅(2001)。達克羅茲教學法簡介。師友,410,40-43。
王靖雯(2019)。故事創作引導成語學習:一個「課立優」的教學示例,18,53-84。
成大外語中心(2018)。臺南市試辦雙語教學計畫成效研究專案:
探討臺南市雙語教學計劃之學科領域及語言發展的實施成效。
2018年10月10日,取自https://englishresource.tainan.gov.tw/行政院研究發展考核委員會(2009)。提升國人英語力建設計畫。
2014年2月22日,取自:http://www.i-
taiwan.nat.gov.tw/ct/filemgr/rdec/20100601_1.pdf
全國教師會(2003)。國小英語教學現況大調查。2013年8月15
日,取自: http://www.nta.tp.edu.tw/index.htm
全教會、花旗集團(2003)。國小英語教學現況大調查。花旗集團與
全國教師會聯合新聞稿。取自ttp://222.nta.tp.edu.tw/index/htm李宗芹(2002)。非常愛跳舞:創造性舞蹈的新體驗。台北:心靈工
坊。
林永涵(2013)。英語字母拼讀法與互動式電子白板輔助教學應用在國小英語補救教學之研究。中正大學教學專業發展數位學習碩士在職專班學位論文。
林淑美(民88)。九年一貫英語將採溝通式教學。國語日報,民88年12月28日。
吳馥馨、陳熙文、吳珮旻(2018)。賴清德:落實方案「從小學開始
學英文」。聯合報,2018年8 月 27 日,頁 2。
施玉惠、朱惠美(1997)。國小英語課程之精神與特色。教育研究資
訊,7(2),1-5。
徐新逸(1998)。情境教學中異質小組合作學習之實證研究。教育資料與圖書館學,36(1),30。
都省瑞(2015,6月)。淺談第二語言學習理論。2015年6月1
日,取自https://rayduenglish.com/sltheories/
范信賢(2010)。芬蘭中小學課程內涵與取向研析。載於洪若烈,各
國近期中小學課程內涵與取向研析,139-170。臺北市:國家教
育研究院籌備處。
范信賢(2010)。特色學校的課程發展。教育研究月刊,198,55-62。
范儉民(1990)。《音樂教學法》。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
姜倩(2003)。關於Krashen第二語言習得理論的五個假設及相關思
考。外教學院學報2003卷1期,98-102。2003年3月25日。
張玉玲(2000)。動作回應法。教育大辭書。2000年12月,取自
http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1309157/
教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。臺北:作
者。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文領域(英語)。
臺北:作者。
教育部(2012)。十二年國教我們準備好了。十二年國民基本教育專
刊。2012年7月20日,取自http://www.tn.edu.tw/
梁彩玲(民88)。多元智能與國中英語教學。英語教學,24(1),74-85。
曹逢甫、吳又熙、謝燕隆(1994)。小學三年級英語教學追蹤輔導後
續實驗教學。教育研究資訊,2(3),111-222
黃子純(2019)。華語內容與語言整合學習課程設計與教材編寫:
「台灣社會議題」課程之個案探析。國立台灣師範大學華語文
教學系學位論文。
黃自來(1989)。年齡、動機與學習第二語言-兼談國小是否應教英
語。第六屆中華民國英語教學研討會論文集,37-51。臺北:文
鶴。
傑穎奧頓、林彤(2019)。內容語言整合中的遊戲設計:應用可見的
學習理論框架。台灣華語教學研究,18,105-121。2019年6
月。墨爾本大學教育學院,澳大利亞。
葉怡君(2008)。奧福教學之過去和未來。關渡音樂學刊,9,139-
150。
萬鵬杰(2004)。第二語言習得外語教學。華東理工大學學報(社
會科學版),19(2),117-120。2004年6月1日。
楊懿麗(1998)。童言無忌¬¬-從母語的習得談起。教育資料與研究,
24,1-7。
廖曉青(2006)。兒童英語教學。臺北:五南。
劉宗文(2012)。城郊地區國小英語教師教學品質之比較研究。國立
台南大學教育學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺南市。
蔣貴蘭(2013)。從國小級任老師的觀點探討國小一年級實施英語教
學之研究。國立南華大學碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
賴美鈴(2016)。走過一甲子的台灣音樂教育:課程標準/綱要和教科
書的演變。美育,211,32-42。
謝雅靖(2018)。小學生全英語數學課堂學習成效之研究。南臺科
技大學應用英語系學位論文。
鍾榮富(1998)。國小英語教學的基本觀念與方法。國教天地,
127,54-59。
羅家鸞(2007)。探討CLIL實施於小學英語教育的初階發展可行性
之行動研究。國立台北教育大學兒童英語教育學系學位論文。
Gordon, E. (2000) 幼兒音樂學習原理(莊惠君譯)。台北:心理。
(原著出版於1997)。
Pae Pica (2001)。幼兒音樂與肢體活動理論與實務著(許月貴等譯)
台北:心理出版社。

西文部份
Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 183– 197.
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horowitz, Horowitz, & Cope’s
construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students in
Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 78, 155-168.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence, The psychology of learning and motivation:II. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2009). Second language acquisition:
Research and application in the information age. In W.C. Ritchie,
& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 545-565). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Bryant, P., McLean, M., Bradley, L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme
and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read.
Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 429-438.
Cham, A. U. & O'Malley, M. (1987). The cognitive academic language
learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quaderly
21, 227-249.
Christ, H. (2000). "Look twice - learn history bilingual". In Bredella, L. & F.J. Meissner (eds.). How can external understanding be taught and learned? Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 43-83.
Cinganotto, L. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning:
linguistic and interactional aspects. Roma Tre University.
Cook, V.J. (1969). 'The analogy between first and second language learning', International Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 207-216.
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. London:
Macmillan.
Coyle, D. (2005a). CLIL planning tools for teachers: Planning and
monitoring CLIL Presenting 3 tools for teachers. Nottingham,
England: University of Nottingham.
Coyle, D. (2005b). CLIL planning tools for teachers. Retrieved from
https://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/
20-012014/coyle_clil_planningtool_kit.pdf
Coyle, D. (1999). Students in content and language integrated contexts:
Planning for effective classrooms. In, J. Masih (Ed.), Learning
through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes.
London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and
Research (CILT).
Coyle, D. P., Hood, & D. Marsh (2010). CLIL: Content and language
integrated learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cross, R. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning
languages in Victorian schools. Melbourne: Melbourne Graduate
School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Rationale (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles, CA: California State University.
Czura, A. (2017). Translation is not Enough-the Need for Pedagogical
Adaptation in CLIL Textbook Development. Porta Linguarum:
Revista Internacional de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras,
27, 35-46.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated
(CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and
language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Wolkmann (Eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U. (eds) (2007) Critical Perspectives in
CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Degé, F., Kubicek, C., & Schwarzer, G. (2011). Music lessons and
intelligence: A relation mediated by executive functions. Music
Perception, 29(2), 195–201.
Dunlop, I. (1975). The Teaching of English in Swedish Schools-Studies
in Methods of Instruction and Outcomes. Almqvist & Wiksell
international Publishers.
Engh, D. (2013). Why use music in english language learning? A
survey of the literature.English Language Teaching, 2013,
Vol.6(2), p.113
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open
choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.
Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at
School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit.
Fathman, A. (1975). The relationship between age and second language
productive ability. Language learning, 25(2), 245-253.
François, C., Chobert, J. & Schön, D. (2012). Music training for the
development of speech segmentation. Cerebral Cortex,5, 45-67.
Genesee, F. (1978). A longitudinal evaluation of an early immersion school programme. Canadian Journal of Education 3(4), 31-50.
Gordon, E. (1990). A Music Learning Theory for Newborn and Young
Children. Chicago, IL:GIA.
Graham, C(1992). Singing, Chanting, Telling Tales: Arts in
theLanguage Classroom. Harcourt Brace & Company, 6277 Sea
Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-677 (Eric Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 398762).
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition, an Introductory Course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guglielmino, L.M. (1986) "The Affective Edge: Using songs and music
in foreign language instruction." Adult literacy and basic
education, 10(1), 19-26.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL):
Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57-70.
Howle, M. (1989). Twinkle, twinkle little star: It’s more than just a
nursery song. Children Today, 18(4), 18-22.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlos P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL
implementation in Primary and Pre-Primary Education. Cyprus:
Pedagogical Institute.
Juan-Garau, M., Prieto-Arranz, J. I., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Lexico-grammatical development in secondary education CLIL learners. In M. Juan-Garau, & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 179-195). Dordrecht: Springer.
Koelsch, S. (2011). Toward a neural basis of music perception: A
review and updatedmodel. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 110-119.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1983). The din in the head, input, and the second language
acquisition device. Foreign Language Annals, 16, 41-44.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.
Kraus, N., Strait, D. L. & Parbery-Clark, A. (2012). Cognitive factors
shape brainnetworks for auditory skills: Spotlight on auditory
working memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1252(1), 100-107.
Krause, E. (1990). Zoltan Kodaly's legacy to music education. In P.
Carder (Ed.), The eclectic curriculum in American music
education: Contributions of Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff (2nd ed.,
pp.79-92).
Reston. VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000b). Sociocultural theory and second language
learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in
English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4),
367-375.
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages Are Learned (2nd
revised edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Llinares Garcia, A. (2017). Classroom interaction in CLIL primary
school classrooms: Research insight to inform successful
pedagogy. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE)
Journal, 3(1), 39-61.
Loewy, J.V.(1995). The musical stages of speech: A developmental
model of pre-verbal sound making. Music Therapy, 13(1), 47-73.
Long, MH. (1990) Maturational constraints on language development.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 251–285.
Lowe, A. S. (1995). The effect of the incorporation of music learning
into the secondlanguage classroom on the mutual reinforcement of
music and language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Ludovico, L. & Zambelli, C. (2016). Towards a music-based framework
for contentand language integrated learning in preschool. In
Proceedings of the 8thInternational Conference on Computer
Supported Education (CSEDU 2016),1, 75-84.
Marsh, D. (2002). Content and Language Integrated Learning: The
European Dimension-Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential.
Retrieved from:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/index.html
Marsh, D. and Langé, G. (eds) (2000) Using Languages to Learn and
Learning to Use Languages. Finland: UniCOM, University of
Jyväskylä on behalf of TIE-CLIL.
Marsh, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2012). Content and language
integrated learning. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics.
Boston, Blackwell Publishing.
Marsh, D., Vázquez, V. & Frigols Martin, M. (2013) The Higher
Education Languages Landscape: Ensuring Quality in English
Language Degree Programmes. Valencia: VIU.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teachers. London: MacMillan.
McMullen, E., Saffran, J. R. (2004). Music and language: A
developmentalcomparison. Music Percept, 21, 289-311.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., and Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL.
China: Macmillan Publishers Limited.
Mulyani, P.K. (2019). Innatist and Interactionist Learning
Approaches of Elementary School Students’ Language Acquisition,
31(1),14-20.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1994). The CALLA handbook:
Implementing thecognitive academic language learning approach.
Boston: Addison–Wesley Publishing Company.
Otwinowska, A. (2015). CLIL teaching in Poland and Finland
reflections from the study visit. Retrieved September 10, 2016,
from https://clil.pedagog.uw.edu.pl/
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as
participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.155-
177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in
language teaching: A description and analysis: A description and
analysis. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Papaja, K. (2010). A qualitative evaluation of content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) in secondary education. Unpublished
PhD thesis. Katowice: Institute of English, University of Silesia.
Patel, A. D. (2008) (Pa). Music, language, and the brain. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re) construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press, pp. 155-177.
Richards, R.G. (1993). Music and rhythm in the classroom. In Learn:
Playful techniques to accelerated learning, 109-113. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED379071)
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (p. 204). New York: Cambridge University Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.021
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human
infants and adults. Cognition, 70(1), 27-52.
Saussure, F. D. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.
Schön, D., Gordon, R., Campagne, A., Magne, C., Astésano, C., Anton,
J.L., & Besson, M. (2010). Similiar cerebral networks in language,
music and songperception. NeuroImage, 51(1), 450-461.
Slevc, L.R. & Miyake, A. (2006). Individual differences in
second-language proficiency: Does musical ability matter?
Psychological Science, 17(8), 675-681.
Sloboda, J.A. (1985). The musical mind: The Cognitive Psychology of
Music. Oxford: Oxford Science Press.
Swain, J. (1986). The need for limits in hierarchical theories of music.
Music Perception, 4, 121-148.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1982) Evaluating Bilingual Education: A
Canadian Cool Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent
contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics. 20,199-212.
Tallal, P., Gaab, N. (2006). Dynamic auditory processing, musical
experience and language development. Trends Neurosci.29, 382-
39010.
Tucker, G.R. (1999). A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and
Bilingual Education.ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC. (ERIC
1-800-LET-ERIC ED435168).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., Brown, S., & Jackson, M. (2000). The
‘musilanguage’ model of music evolution. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (2004). Deepculture: The epistemological boundaries ofmulticultural education. In G. Goodman & K.Carey (Eds.), Critical multicultural instructions: Aguide to strategies that enhance the performance of allstudents (pp. 235–256). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Wiesemes, R. (2002). Developing my theory of practice as a teacher-researcher through a case study of CLIL classroom interaction. PfD, School of Education, University of Nottingham.
Wilhelmer, N. (2008). Content and language integrated learning
(CLIL). Teaching mathematics in English. Saarbrücken: VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller.
Williams, C. (2014). The future of ESP studies: building on success,
exploring new paths, avoiding pitfalls. ASp(la revue du GERAS),
(66), 137-150.
Willis, J. (2013). English through music: Designing CLIL materials for
younglearners. Padres Y. Maestro, 345, 29-32. Retrieved from
https://revistas.upcomillas.es/index.php/padresymaestros/article/v
ewFile/29-32/808
Wolff, D. (2002). On the importance of CLIL in the context of the
debate on plurilin- gual education in the European Union. In D.
Marsh (ed.) CLIL / EMILE- The European Dimension: Actions,
Trends and Foresight Potential (pp. 47-48). DG EAC, European
Comission. University of Jyvaskyla.
Xanthou, M. (2011). The Impact of CLIL on L2 Vocabulary Development and Content Knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 116-126.
Yang, W. (2016b). An Investigation of Learning Efficacy, Management
Difficulties and Improvements in Tertiary CLIL (Content and
Language Integrated Learning) Programmes in Taiwan: A Survey of
Stakeholder Perspectives. Latin American Journal of Content and
Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 64-109.
Yang, W. (2015a). 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.


電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20250708)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔