跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.221.66.130) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/21 00:55
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:呂佩蓉
研究生(外文):LU, PEI-JUNG
論文名稱:以CLIL提升國小二年級學生跨領域學習成效之行動研究
論文名稱(外文):A STUDY ON LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF SECOND GRADE STUDENTS USING CLIL
指導教授:林偉人林偉人引用關係
指導教授(外文):LIN, WEI- REN
口試委員:丁一顧許籐繼
口試日期:2021-03-31
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:輔仁大學
系所名稱:教育領導與發展研究所碩士在職專班
學門:教育學門
學類:教育行政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:中文
論文頁數:173
中文關鍵詞:CLIL跨領域雙語學習成效學習態度
外文關鍵詞:CLILinterdisciplinary curriculumbilingualinterdisciplinary learning effectivenesslearning attitude
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:16
  • 點閱點閱:821
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:220
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
臺灣英語教育行之有年,學習方式與時俱進。本研究旨在探討運用學科內涵與語言融合學習(Content and Language Integrated Learning,簡稱CLIL)對國小二年級學生的學習成效及瞭解學習態度。
本研究經由文獻探討與集結學科教師及英語教師,發展英語跨生活、英語跨數學兩套課程,實施兩個循環,研究對象為新北市某國小二年級某班學生,在教學歷程中向觀課老師、教學者及學習者蒐集三方資料,檢視面向包括CLIL對「跨領域的學習成效」、「英語的學習成效」、「學生的學習態度」及「課程與CLIL核心理論對應情形」。
本研究主要結果如下:
一、CLIL對跨領域的學習成效有精進。
二、CLIL對英語的學習成效方面,學生能理解課室英語,並提升字彙及句型的答對率,但在世界文化與進階單字,學生難以全用英語理解。
三、學生對CLIL跨領域英語授課的學習態度上,發現學生認為對英語跨領域的認知覺得很重要、能完成課堂各式學習任務、對於學習過程大多抱持著喜歡的感覺。
四、課程與CLIL相關理論對應情形,發現研究結果能達到各項4Cs架構,也能呼應語言的三個需求面。
本研究根據研究結果分別針對教育主管機關、欲實施CLIL的學校、教學活動者及未來研究者提出建議,做為臺灣施行學科內涵與語言融合學習之參考。
English education has been in operation for many years in Taiwan. Learning methods have been advancing with time. The purposes of this study were exploring learning effectiveness and understanding of learning attitudes using Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for second grade students.
Through reviewing literature and preparing lessons with subject and English teachers, this research developed two sets of interdisciplinary curriculum. The research subject was a second-grade class of an elementary school in New Taipei City. The data was collected from teachers who conducted classes, teachers who observed classes, and students in the class. The research results have four dimensions: “Interdisciplinary Learning Effectiveness”, “English Learning Effectiveness”, “Students’ Learning Attitude” and “the Comparison of Research Results to Core Features of CLIL Methodology” using CLIL.
The major findings are:
1. In the interdisciplinary learning effectiveness aspect, students got improvement.
2. In the English learning effectiveness aspect, students could understand classroom English and have improved in vocabulary and sentence patterns. However, students had difficulty understanding other cultures and advanced vocabulary using all English.
3. In students’ learning attitude aspect, students believed that English interdisciplinary curriculum is important, they could complete various learning tasks and most of them had positive outlook towards learning process.
4. When comparing research results to CLIL methodology, the research results could fulfill 4Cs framework and the language triptych.
This study provides suggestions for education administration authority, teachers and schools that attempt to implement CLIL, and future researchers. It can be used as a reference for the implementation of bilingual education in Taiwan.
謝詞 v
摘要 vii
目次 xi
表次 xiv
圖次 xv
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 7
第三節 名詞釋義 7
第四節 研究範圍與限制 9
第二章 文獻探討 13
第一節 CLIL的定義與發展脈絡 13
第二節 CLIL的內涵與其學習成效 22
第三節 CLIL的分類方法與教學設計步驟 31
第四節 跨領域的定義與內涵 37
第五節 CLIL追求平衡的特性與挑戰 41
第三章 研究設計與實施 43
第一節 研究流程 43
第二節 研究對象與相關參與教師 47
第三節 研究實施與活動設計 50
第四節 研究工具 60
第五節 資料蒐集、編碼與分析 64
第六節 研究倫理 67
第四章 研究結果與討論 69
第一節 CLIL教學對跨領域學科的學習成效 69
第二節 CLIL教學對英語的學習成效 85
第三節 學生對CLIL跨領域英語授課的學習態度 93
第四節 課程與CLIL理論對應情形 102
第五章 結論與建議 107
第一節 結論 107
第二節 建議 112
參考文獻 117
中文部分 117
外文部分 119
附錄 125

中文部分
中華民國課程與教學學會(2000)。課程統整與教學。臺北市:揚智。
向郁芬(2019)。CLIL教學對不同英語能力的小五學童的健康學科知識學習成就和英語字彙能力之影響。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文,臺北市。
吳映儒(2019)。台灣國小學科內容與語言整合課程的教師實踐。國立成功大學外國語文學系碩士論文,台南市。
周珮儀(2003)。課程統整。高雄:復文。
周淑卿、王郁雯(2019)。從課程統整到跨領域課程:台灣二十年的論述與問題。教育學報,47(2),41-59。
國家教育研究院(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校語文領域-英語文。2018年4月。
張春興(1994)。教育心理學─三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市:臺灣東華。
張春興、汪榮才(1976)。洛氏教育心理學。臺北:大聖。
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校數學領域。2017年6月。
教育部全球資訊網(2018)。教育部公布「國民中學及國民小學實施跨領域或跨科目協同教學參考原則」2018年1月9日。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=1A3C3F7BC29B1BD1
教育部全球資訊網(2019)。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。2019年9月5日。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&sms=169B8E91BB75571F&s=B7D34EA3ED606429
陳日興(2018)。規劃及分析國小階段學科內容與語言整合課程設計。國立成功大學外國語文學系碩士論文,臺南市。
陳振宇(2019)。以語言學習的生態學習理論建構「內容語言整合學習」的理論基礎。臺灣華語教學研究,18,5-17。
單文經、林佩璇、陳美如、周佩儀、蔡清田、游進年、游家政、王秀玲等譯(2000)。課程統整(原作者:James A. Beane)。臺北市:學富。(原著出版年1997)。
曾玉玲(1993)。臺北市高智商低成就國中學生學習信念與相關因素之探討。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,臺北市。
游家政(2000)。學校課程的統整及其教學。課程與教學,3(1),19-38。
黃于寧(2019)。內容與語言綜合學習提升高中生英語學習動機、批判思考情意及跨文化覺知效益。國立中山大學教育研究所博士論文,高雄市。
黃鈺雯(2018)。CLIL協同教學課程設計與實施個案研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文,臺北市。
新北市政府教育局(2018)。新北市107-109學年度國民小學雙語實驗課程實施計畫。2018年3月5日。取自https://englishcenter.ntpc.edu.tw/uploads/1579577939327JQO4Tz6p.pdf
鄒文莉、高實玫(主編)(2018)。CLIL教學資源書:探索學科內容與語言整合教學。臺南市:臺南市政府。
臺北市政府教育局(2018)。教育局新聞稿1070829積極推動學校辦理雙語及資訊教育,提升國際競爭力。2018年8月29日。
蔡余欣(2019)。CLIL應用於一年級音樂課之行動研究。國立臺北科技大學應用英文系碩士論文,臺北市。
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。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文,臺北市。
蘇滿莉(2003)。職業取向學生及學院取向學生之英語學習態度、動機及策略之比較。國立高雄師範大學英語學系碩士論文,高雄市。

外文部分
Agustin-Llach, M. P., & Alonso, A. C. (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.
Barbero, T. (2009). Assessment tools and practices in CLIL. In Quartapelle, F. (Eds.), Assessment and evaluation in CLIL (pp. 38-56). Itally: Education and Culture DG of Lifelong learning programme.
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 635-675.
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1-14.
Coonan, C. M. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-introspection. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 625-646.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL planning tools for teachers: Planning and monitoring CLIL presenting 3 tools for teachers. Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham.
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. (2015). Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimal age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bitinguatism, 19, 197-205.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88. DOI: 10.1177/1558689812437186
Dolcos, F., Wang, L., & Mather, M. (2014). Current research and emerging directions in emotion-cognition interactions. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 8(83). DOI: 10.3389/fnint.2014.00083
Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. European Unit. Brussels, European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf
Fernandez, C. A. (2019). The new English-in-education policy in Taiwan: High school English teachers’ perspectives towards CLIL。國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系碩士論文,臺北市。
Genesee, F., & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Effects of the content and language integrated learning approach to EFL teaching: A comparative study. Written Language & Literacy, 16(2), 186–207.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (Ed.). (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. Cyprus: Pedagogical Institute.
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.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kewara, P. (2018). CLIL teacher professional development for content teachers in Thailand. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 93-108.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009a). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009b). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 63(4), 367-375.
Marsh, C. J. (1997). Planning, management and ideology: Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.
Marsh, D. (2006). English as medium of instruction in the new global linguistic order: Global characteristics, local consequences. Finland: UNICOM, Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., & Martín, M. J. F. (2012). Content and language integrated learning [Abstract]. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0190
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential.Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A-K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Martin, M. (2010). European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education. Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML). Retrieved from https://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/european_framework_for_clil_teacher_education.pdf.
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
Ohmori, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of CLIL in English language teaching in Japanese universities: An innovation for the development of effective teaching and global awareness, The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 32, 39–51. Retrieved from Secondary Source, Ikeda, M. (2012). CLIL no genri to shidouhou [Principles and methodologies of CLIL]. 1-15. In Izumi, Shinichi, Makoto Ikeda, and Yoshinori Watanabe. (Eds.). (2012). CLIL (Content and language integrated learning)–New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University –Volume 2: Practices and applications. Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9, 148-158.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Harper Collins.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187-195.
Quartapelle, F. (2012). Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. Belgium: Education and Culture DG.
Ruiz-Garrido, M. & Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2015). Needs analysis in a CLIL context: a transfer from ESP. In Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Aliaga, R., Asikainen, T., Frigols-Martin, M.J., Hughes, S., & Langé, G. (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 179-188). Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Sasajima, S., Ikeda, M., Hemmi, C., & Reilly, T. (2011). Current practice and future perspectives of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Japan. The JACET 50th (2011) Commemorative International Convention Proceedings. Tokyo: JACET.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582-602.
Short, D. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4). 627-656.
Wewer, T. (2014). Assessment of young learners’ English proficiency in bilingual content instruction CLIL. Turku: University of Turku.
Wilhelmer, N. (2008). Content and language integrated learning: Teaching mathematics in English. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG.
Wolff, D. (2002). On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential (pp. 47-48). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊