跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.213.60.33) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/22 16:17
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:謝淑方
研究生(外文):HSIEH, SHU-FANG
論文名稱:國小五年級自然課內容與語言整合課程之個案研究
論文名稱(外文):Exploring A Content and Language Integrated Learning Curriculum Developed in the Fifth-grade Science Classroom in Taiwan: A Case Study
指導教授:王雅茵
指導教授(外文):WANG, AMBER YAYIN
口試委員:曾守得范莎惠
口試委員(外文):TSENG, SHOOU-DERFAN, SA-HUI
口試日期:2021-12-17
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺中教育大學
系所名稱:英語學系碩士班
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2022
畢業學年度:110
語文別:英文
論文頁數:155
中文關鍵詞:內容與語言整合學習課程發展課程實施課程評估自然國小臺灣
外文關鍵詞:CLILcurriculum developmentcurriculum implementationcurriculum evaluationscienceelementary schoolTaiwan
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:323
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:48
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
跨領域課程培養學生面對二十一世紀所需的能力。內容與語言整合學習(CLIL)課程實為跨領域的實踐,展現跨學科的特質。隨著臺灣雙語政策的推行,在臺灣發展CLIL課程有其必要。在英語為外語的臺灣,現階段探究CLIL課程發展的研究較少,但是現階段的師培生與國小老師都在學習發展CLIL課程。因此本研究旨在探討如何發展自然與英語整合的CLIL課程、課程實施的困難和解決方法,以及課程評估結果。本研究採用質性與量化研究,探討自然與英語整合課程的發展、實施以及評估。研究參與對象為中臺灣一所公立國小的校長、自然老師、英語老師、外籍老師和二十六名五年級學生。研究資料包含課程設計會議、共備會議、課室觀察、訪談和問卷。質性資料採用MAXQDA進行分析,量化資料則採用SPSS進行分析。根據以上的研究資料分析,本研究發現:(一)自然與英語整合的課程發展需要依照學校、教師和學生的狀況進行設計與規劃;(二)學生英語能力的落差可以運用多模態媒材和小組活動幫助學生理解課程內容並參與其中;(三)初步課程評估得到學校、教師和學生的正面評價。並提出以下結論:(一)自然與英語整合課程需要學科老師和英語老師根據真實情境進行設計與規劃;(二)自然與英語整合課程的實施應善用多模態媒材和小組活動;(三)鼓勵學校發展自然與英語整合課程。本研究主要著重在CLIL課程發展之過程,結論則提供了對未來實踐和研究的建議,以利未來發展內容與學科整合學習課程。
The interdisciplinary curriculum, with practices of content and language integrated learning (CLIL), helps students to acquire the competencies to solve real-life problems in the 21st century. With the current bilingual education policy, there is a need to develop the CLIL curriculum in Taiwan. However, there seem to be scarce studies related to CLIL curriculum development in Taiwan, an English as a foreign language (EFL) setting. This study explores the development of the CLIL curriculum in science classes, the difficulties of implementation and the possible solutions, as well as the evaluation of the CLIL curriculum. This study applied the methodology of mixed methods, including both qualitative and quantitative data. The participants included the principal, science teacher, English teacher, foreign teacher, and 26 fifth-grade students at an elementary school in an urban area in central Taiwan. The researcher used curriculum developing discussions, lesson planning discussions, classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, recordings, and field notes as the sources of the qualitative data. The students’ questionnaire was used as quantitative data. The qualitative data were analyzed by MAXQDA and the quantitative data were analyzed by SPSS. The findings of this study show that: (1) the CLIL science curriculum is developed based on the aspects of school, teachers and students; (2) multimodality and grouping help the students with different English abilities to understand and engage in class; (3) the evaluation of the CLIL science curriculum generally receives positive feedback. The results of this study emphasize that: (1) the CLIL science curriculum can be better developed in a real context; (2) multimodality and grouping are necessary to support the implementation in the CLIL science classroom; (3) schools are encouraged to implement the CLIL science curriculum. The suggestions for future practices and studies are provided to better develop the CLIL science curriculum.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
摘要 i
Abstract iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 5
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
1.5 Definition of Terms 6
1.5.1 CLIL Science Curriculum Development 6
1.5.2 CLIL Science Curriculum Implementation 7
1.5.3 CLIL Science Curriculum Evaluation 7
Chapter 2 Literature Review 9
2.1 CLIL 9
2.1.1 History of CLIL 9
2.1.2 Definition of CLIL 11
2.1.3 Theoretical Basis of CLIL 14
2.1.4 CLIL Curriculum Development 20
2.1.5 CLIL Curriculum Evaluation 23
2.1.6 Related Studies of CLIL Curriculum 25
2.2 Science Education 26
2.2.1 History of Science Education 27
2.2.2 Definition of Science Education 27
2.2.3 CIL Science Curriculum Development 29
2.2.4 CLIL Science Curriculum Evaluation 30
2.3 Related Studies on CLIL Science Curriculum 30
2.3.1 Concepts of CLIL Science Curriculum 31
2.3.2 Studies on CLIL Science Curriculum in Different Countries 32
2.3.3 Studies on CLIL Science Curriculum in Asia 33
Chapter 3 Methodology 35
3.1 Research Design 35
3.2 Research Site and Participants 35
3.3 Research Procedure 38
3.4 Lesson Schedule and Design 41
3.5 Data Collection 42
3.5.1 Qualitative Data Collection 43
3.5.1.1 Curriculum Developing Discussion 43
3.5.1.2 Lesson Planning Discussion 44
3.5.1.3 Classroom Observation 45
3.5.1.4 Semi-structured Interview 45
3.5.1.5 Tape and Video Recording 46
3.5.1.6 Field Note 46
3.5.2 Quantitative Data Collection 46
3.5.2.1 Questionnaire 46
3.6 Data Analysis 48
3.6.1 Qualitative Data Analysis 49
3.6.2 Quantitative Data Analysis 50
Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion 53
4.1 Development of the Science and English Integrated Curriculum 53
4.1.1 Process of Developing the Curriculum 53
4.1.1.1 First Stage: Needs Analysis 54
4.1.1.2 Second Stage: Curriculum Planning 56
4.1.1.3 Third Stage: Materials and Assessments 58
4.1.2 Difficulties and Solutions in Developing the Curriculum 61
4.2 Implementation of the Science and English Integrated Curriculum 66
4.2.1 Process of Implementing the Curriculum 66
4.1.2.1 Fourth Stage: Monitoring 67
4.2.2 Difficulties and Solutions in Implementing the Curriculum 69
4.3 Evaluation of the Science and English Integrated Curriculum 74
4.3.1 Process of Evaluating the Curriculum 74
4.3.1.1 Fifth Stage: Evaluating Students’ Learning Performances 75
4.3.1.2 Sixth Stage: Reflection and Inquiry of Teachers’ Attitudes 80
Chapter 5 Conclusion 83
5.1 Summary of the Findings 83
5.1.1 CLIL Curriculum Can Be Better Developed Cooperatively in a Real Context 83
5.1.2 Multimodality and Grouping Are Necessary to Support the Implementation 84
5.1.3 CLIL Science Curriculum Generally Receives Positive Feedback 85
5.2 Limitations of the Study 85
5.2.1 Research Site 86
5.2.2 Length of the Implementation 86
5.2.3 Online Learning during the Pandemic of COVID-19 87
5.3 Suggestions 88
5.3.1 Suggestions for Future CLIL Science Curriculum Developers 88
5.3.1.1 Developing the CLIL Curriculum Cooperatively in a Real Context 88
5.3.1.2 Using Multimodality and Grouping to Support Student Learning 89
5.3.1.3 Exploring New Possibilities of the CLIL Curriculum in Schools 89
5.3.2 Suggestions for Future CLIL Science Curriculum Research 90
5.3.2.1 Increasing the Research Site 90
5.3.2.2 Observing a Longer Period of Time 90
5.3.2.3 Preparing for Online Learning of CLIL Curriculum 91
References 93
Appendices 111
Appendix A: Consent Form 111
Appendix B: CLIL Unit Checklist 112
Appendix C: Teaching Content 114
Appendix D: Questionnaires 115
Appendix E: Worksheets 119



LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1 Summary of Related Studies on CLIL Science Curriculum Development in Asia 34
Table 3. 1 Students’ Background 37
Table 3. 2 Teachers’ Background 37
Table 3. 3 Six Stages for CLIL Curriculum Development 39
Table 3. 4 Brief Lesson Schedule and Design 42
Table 3. 5 Qualitative and Quantitative Instrument 42
Table 3. 6 Schedule of the Curriculum Developing Discussion 44
Table 3. 7 Schedule of the Lesson Planning Discussion 45
Table 3. 8 Questionnaire Content Validity 46
Table 3. 9 Reliability of the Questionnaire 48
Table 3. 10 Data Analysis for the Research Question 48
Table 3. 11 Code Book 49
Table 4. 1 Resources of Developing the Materials and Assessments 60
Table 4. 2 Difficulties and Solutions in Developing the Curriculum 61
Table 4. 3 Difficulties and Solutions in Implementing the Curriculum 69
Table 4. 4 Results on the Use of English 77
Table 4. 5 Results on the Attitude toward Using English in CLIL Class 77
Table 4. 6 Results on the Attitude toward Using English in English Class 78
Table 4. 7 Results of the Learning Performances 78
Table 4. 8 Comparison about the Use of English and Learning Performances 79


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1 4Cs Framework 16
Figure 2. 2 Language Triptych 17
Figure 2. 3 CLIL Matrix 19
Figure 2. 4 Process of Development, Implementation, and Evaluation 22
Figure 3. 1 Research Procedure 39
Figure 4. 1 Use of Venn Diagram 68
Figure 4. 2 Worksheet Made by Student A 80
Alzeebaree, Y., & Hasan, I. A. (2020). What makes an effective EFL teacher: High school students' perceptions. Asian ESP Journal, 16(2), 169-183.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Aramo-Immonen, H. (2013). Mixed methods research design. In M. D. Lytras, D. Ruan, R. D. Tennyson, P. O. De Pablos, F. J. Garcia Penalvo, & L. Rusu (Eds.), Information Systems, E-learning, and Knowledge Management Research (pp. 32-43). Springer.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL into practice: Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford University Press.
Banegas, D. L. (2015). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104-130. https://doi.org/10.5294 /laclil.2015.8.2.3
Barboráková, S. (2012). CLIL principles, skills and support strategies. Social and Economic Revue, 4, 7-12.
Barnes, J. A. (1961). Physical and social kinship. Philosophy of science, 28(3), 296-299.
Beardsmore, H. B. (1993). European models of bilingual education: Practice, theory and development. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 14(1-2), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1993.9994523
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press.
Bevilacqua, F., Giannetto, E., & Matthews, M. R. (2001). Science education and culture: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bevins, S., Price, G., & Booth, J. (2019). The I files, the truth is out there: Science teachers’ constructs of inquiry. International journal of science education, 41(4), 533-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1568605
Bibby, C. (1959). Huxley and the reception of the "origin". Victorian Studies, 3(1), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.2307/3825588
Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longmans.
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Eds.), Improving student learning (18) global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations (pp. 176-188). The Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development.
Bovill, C., & Woolmer, C. (2019). How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education, 78(3), 407-422.
Bower, K. (2019). Explaining motivation in language learning: A framework for evaluation and research. The Language Learning Journal, 47(5), 558-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1321035
Breidbach, S., & Medina-Suárez, J. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on CLIL and classroom innovation in a method based on drama games. Estudios Sobre Educación, 31, 97-116. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.31.97-116
Button, G., & Lee, J. R. (1987). Talk and social organisation. Multilingual Matters.
Casan-Pitarch, R. (2015). Project work in CLIL: A bibliographical review. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 212-236. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.7
Chang W. C. 張武昌 (2006). 臺灣的英語教育:現況與省思 [English language education in Taiwan: A comprehensive survey]. Educational Resources and Research, 69, 129-144.
Chen, A. H. (2013). An evaluation on primary English education in Taiwan: From the perspective of language Policy. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 158-165. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p158
Chong, J. S. Y., Han, S. H., Abdullah, N. A., Chong, M. S. F., Widjaja, W., & Shahrill, M. (2017). Utilizing lesson study in improving year 12 students’ learning and performance in mathematics. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 1, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.5899/2017/metr-00095
Cordero, A. (2001). Scientific culture and public education. Science & Education, 10(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008764626622
Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in CLIL contexts: Planning for effective classrooms. In J. Masih (Eds), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Coyle, D. (2011). Post-method pedagogies: Using a second or other language as a learning tool in CLIL settings. In Y. Zarobe, J. Sierra, F. Gallardo Del Puerto (Eds), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 49-74). Peter Lang.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Crandall, J. (1997). Collaborate and cooperate: Teacher education for integrating language and content instruction. A Journal for the Teacher of English Outside the United States, 35(2), 2-9.
Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
Curran, J. E., & Chern, C. L. (2017). Pre-service English teachers' attitudes towards English as a lingua franca. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.007
Czura, A., & Papaja, K. (2013). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 321-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777388
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities with CD-ROM: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy and L.Volkmann, (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139-157). Carl Winter.
Danilov, A., Salekhova, L., & Yakaeva, T. (2018). Designing a dual focused CLIL-module: The focus on content and foreign language. In INTED 2018 proceedings 12th international technology education and development conference (pp. 1972-1978). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Darn, S. (2015). CLIL: A lesson framework, BBC and British Council BBC. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/clil-a-lesson-framework
Dastrup, R. A. (2019). Introduction to human geography. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Deswila, N., Kustati, M., Besral, B., & Sukandi, S. S. (2020). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach across curriculum in science classrooms: Are the English language use and learning reveal?. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 1(1), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v1i1.4
Deyrich, M., & Stunnel, K. (2014). Language teacher education models: New issues and challenges. In English as a foreign language teacher education (pp. 83-84). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401210485_007
Dobson, A. (2020). Context is everything: Reflections on CLIL in the UK. The Language Learning Journal, 48(5), 508-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1804104
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889508
Eilks, I., & Hofstein, A. (2017). Curriculum development in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan(Eds.), Science Education: An International Course Companion (pp. 167-181). Brill Sense.
Erdoes, G., Vuylsteke, A., Schreiber, J. U., Alston, R. P., Howell, S. J., Wouters, P. F., Guarracino, F., Unic-Stojanovic, D., Martinez, A. H., Vives, M., Gaudard, P., Burtin, P., Bettex, D., Granell, M., Szekely, A., van der Maaten, J., Antoniou, T., Jiménez, M. J., Szegedi, L., Seeberger, M., … (2020). European association of cardiothoracic anesthesiology (EACTA) cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia fellowship curriculum: First edition. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia, 34(5), 1132–1141. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.12.014
Farrell, C. (2002). Lesson planning. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya, (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching. An anthology of current practice (pp. 30-38). Cambridge University Press.
Flores, C. (2020). Conceptualising effective CLIL teaching practice: The ECTP observation tool. In N. I. Larrañaga, A. I. Agirre, B. Pedrosa, & E. Garro (Eds.), Teachers’ perspectives, practices and challenges in multilingual education: studies in honor of Pilar Sagasta (pp. 111-142). Peter Lang.
Gabillon, Z., & Ailincai, R. (2015, July). Content and language integrated learning: In search of a coherent conceptual framework. The European Conference on Language Learning (ECLL) 2015. Brighton, United Kingdom.
Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development?. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 563-581. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb460.0
Gajo, L., & Serra, C. (2002). Bilingual teaching: Connecting language and concepts in mathematics. In D. W.C. So & G. M. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (pp. 75-95). VUB Press.
Gödek, Y. (2004). The development of science education in developing countries. Gazi University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 5(1), 1-11.
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1275034
Grandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, Y. T. (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education–even in a sub-optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 354-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777390
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. Technology, 39, 521-540.
Guerrini, M. (2009). CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, 1, 74-84.
Hair, J. F., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2019). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203374
Hanesová, D. (2014). Development of critical and creative thinking skills in CLIL. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2), 33-51.
Hapsari, A. (2016). English bilingual education: The challenge of communication and cognition aspects of content language integrated learning (CLIL) in Indonesia. Journal of English and Education, 6(2), 12-20.
Heilbron, J. L. (2019). History of science or history of learning. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 42(2-3), 200-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.201900016
Herranen, J., & Aksela, M. (2019). Student-question-based inquiry in science education. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658059
Huang, Y. C. (2020). The effects of elementary students' science learning in CLIL. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n2p1
Hurajová, Ľ. (2015). Tertiary CLIL. In S. Pokrivčáková (Eds.), CLIL in Foreign Language Education (pp. 85). Constantine the Philosopher University. https://doi.org/10.17846/CLIL.2015.85
Ikeda, M. (2012). Principles and methodologies of CLIL. CLIL (Content and language integrated learning)–New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University, 2, 1-15.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. Cyprus Pedagogical Institute.
Ito, Y. (2018). CLIL in practice in Japanese elementary classrooms: An analysis of the effectiveness of a CLIL lesson in Japanese traditional crafts. English Language Teaching, 11(9), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n9p59
Jagersma, J. (2010). Empowering students as active participants in curriculum design and implementation. Empowering Students in Curriculum Decisions. 1-13.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Keeslar, O. (1945). The elements of scientific method. Science Education, 29(5), 273-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730290512
Kiely, R. (2011). Understanding CLIL as an innovation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.1.9
Klimova, B. F. (2012). CLIL and the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 572-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.698
Küppers, A., & Trautmann, M. (2013). It is not CLIL that is a success-CLIL students are! Some critical remarks on the current CLIL boom. In A. Küppers & M. Trautmann (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice (pp. 285-296). Peter Lang.
Lahoz, C. M. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence and language switches in L4 oral production. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 73-94.
Lara, M. D. M., & Pedrosa, A. V. C. (2018). Teacher perspectives on CLIL implementation: A within-group comparison of key variables. Porta Linguarum, 29, 159-180.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030
Lazarević, N. (2019). CLIL teachers’ reflections and attitudes: Surviving at the deep end. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703897
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lewin, K. M. (1992). Science education in developing countries: Issues and perspectives for planners. International Institute for Educational Planning.
Li, L., Huang, F., Chen, S., Pan, L., Zeng, W., & Wu, X. (2020). Exploring the curriculum development in content and language integrated learning: A systematic review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(4), 1102-1113. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20705
Linares-Cardoso, C. (2016). CLIL in science classrooms: A case study in 1st and 2nd course of secondary education in Asturias. Master's thesis, International University of La Rioja.
Livio, M. (2017). Why?: What makes us curious. Simon and Schuster.
Luanganggoon, N. (2020). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teaching practices in Thailand higher education. The Asian ESP Journal, 16(4), 233-258.
Ludlow, P. (2018). The European Commission. In R. O. Keohane & S. Hoffmann (Eds.), The New European Community (pp. 85-132). Routledge.
Luprichová, J., & Hurajová, L. (2017). CLIL–potential way of enhancing internationalization of higher education in diverse context. In Pixel (Eds.), ICT for Language Learning Conference Proceedings (pp. 22). Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.
Maienschein, J., Burger, I., Enshaie, R., Glitz, M., Kevern, K., Maddin, B., Rivera, M., Rutowski, D., Shindell, M., Unger, A., Burough, D., Kesh, A., Martinez, J., Tapia, P., & Williams, S. (1998). Scientific literacy. Science, 281(5379). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5379.917
Mariño, C. M. (2014). Towards implementing CLIL (content and language integrated learning) at CBS (Tunja, Colombia). Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.2.a02.
Márquez, M. C., & Porras, A. M. (2020). Science communication in multiple languages is critical to its effectiveness. Frontiers in Communication, 5(31), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00031.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., & Langé, G. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., & Rasanen, A. (1994). Framework and Implementation of the Jyvaskyla TCE/TCFL Programmes. University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Coyle, D., Kitanova, S., Maljers, A., Wolff, D., & Zielonka, B. (2005). Project D3–CLIL matrix. The CLIL quality matrix. European Centre for Modern Languages.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2012). European framework for CLIL teacher education. Council of Europe.
Martín del Pozo, M. (2014, March 27-28). A framework for the analysis of CLIL lecturers’ discourse from a genre perspective. Higher Education Perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning. Vic, Spain. http://mon.uvi.cat/hepcili
Martín del Pozo, M. Á. (2016). An approach to CLIL teacher language awareness using the language triptych. Pulso, 39, 141-157.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2%3C161::AID-TEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-Q
McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 24(7), 827-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9775-5
McComas, W. F. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum and in teacher education programs in the United States. In M. Matthews (Eds.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1993-2023). Springer.
McDougald, J. S. (2018). CLIL across the curriculum, benefits that go beyond the classroom. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 9-18.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education.
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33, 11-29.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning–mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Millar, R., Osborne, J., & Nott, M. (1998). Science education for the future. School Science Review, 80(291), 19-24.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2014, November). Curriculum guidelines of 12- year basic education general guidelines. Curriculum & Instruction Resources Network. https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=9900
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2018, April). English curriculum guidelines of 12- year basic education. Curriculum & Instruction Resources Network. https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=5867
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2021). Implementation project of bilingual instruction in some domains of primary and junior high school education. Curriculum & Instruction Resources Network. http://immersion.ntue.edu.tw/
Mohan, B. A. (1979). Relating language teaching and content teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586208
National Development Council. (2018). Bilingual Nation 2030. Curriculum & Instruction Resources Network. https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=A3CE11B3737BA9EB
Nelson, C. E., Scharmann, L. C., Beard, J., & Flammer, L. I. (2019). The nature of science as a foundation for fostering a better understanding of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 12(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0100-7
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science education, 87(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14(10), 25-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1293366
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Pearson.
Özüdoğru, F. (2018). Analysis of curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language education: 2005-2016. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 113-134.
Pandey, M., & Pandey, P. (2014). Better English for better employment opportunities. International journal of multidisciplinary approach and studies, 1(4), 93-100.
Papert, S. (1999, August). Vision for education: The caperton-papert platform. Missouri, United States. https://dailypapert.com/vision-for-education-the-caperton-papert-platform/
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality?. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1645872
Pérez, M. L., & Malagón, C. G. (2017). Creating materials with ICT for CLIL lessons: A didactic proposal. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 633-637.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Languages for all in education: CLIL and ICLHE at the crossroads of multilingualism, mobility and internationalisation. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 31-50). Springer.
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
Perneczky, R., Pohl, C., Sorg, C., Hartmann, J., Komossa, K., Alexopoulos, P., Wagenpfeil, S., & Kurz, A. (2006). Complex activities of daily living in mild cognitive impairment: Conceptual and diagnostic issues. Age and ageing, 35(3), 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afj054
Peyró, M. C. R., Herrero, E. C., & Llamas, E. (2020). Thinking skills in primary education: An analysis of CLIL textbooks in Spain. Porta Linguarum, 33, 183-200.
Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102
Piacentini, V., Simões, A. R., & Vieira, R. M. (2019). Teachers’ view of language (s) in (CLIL) science education: A case study in Portugal. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 77(5), 636. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/19.77.636
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. Psychology Press.
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2019). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 765-786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765877
Pokrivčáková, S. (2013). CLIL research in Slovakia. Gaudeamus.
Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum approaches in language teaching. Routledge.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
Robinson, D. K., Huang, L., Guo, Y., & Porter, A. L. (2013). Forecasting innovation pathways (FIP) for new and emerging science and technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.06.004
Roehrig, G., Campbell, K., Dalbotten, D., & Varma, K. (2012). CYCLES: A culturally-relevant approach to climate change education in native communities. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 73-89.
Rutakumwa, R., Mugisha, J. O., Bernays, S., Kabunga, E., Tumwekwase, G., Mbonye, M., & Seeley, J. (2020). Conducting in-depth interviews with and without voice recorders: A comparative analysis. Qualitative Research, 20(5), 565-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119884806
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327
Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of education policy, 22(2), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930601158919
Saido, G. M., Siraj, S., Nordin, A. B. B., & Al-Amedy, O. S. (2018). Higher order thinking skills among secondary school students in science learning. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(3), 13-20.
San Isidro, X. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484038
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.
Schmidt, R. J. (2008). In the beginning, all the world was America: American exceptionalism in new contexts. In J. S. Dryzek, B, Honig, & A, Phillips (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of political theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548439.003.0015
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Sharp, P. R. (1983). The political economy of science examinations in Victorian Britain, Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 136-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Smala, S. (2013). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) pedagogies in Queensland. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8(3), 194-205. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.3.194
Smokotin, V. M., Alekseyenko, A. S., & Petrova, G. I. (2014). The phenomenon of linguistic globalization: English as the global lingua Franca (EGLF). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 509-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.177
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042
Tsou, W. L., & Kao, S. M. 鄒文莉, & 高實玫. (2018). CLIL教學資源書:探索學科內容與語言整合教學 [Exploring CLIL: A Resource Book]. Shulin.
Urmeneta, C. E. (2019). An introduction to content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for teachers and teacher educators. CLIL. Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 7-19.
Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.) Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 90-102). Authentik.
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 de Craen, P., & Surmont, J. (2017). Innovative education and CLIL. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 22-33.
Vázquez, V. P., & Alcalá, F. D. R. (2010). Teachersīconcerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional de Didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 14, 45-58.
Vithanapathirana, M. V., & Nettikumara, L. (2020). Improving secondary science instruction through content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Sri Lanka. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(1). 141-148.
Vives, I. P., & Galés, N. L. (2015). Reflecting on CLIL innovation. An interview with Do Coyle and Elisabet Pladevall. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 8(1), 86-93.
Vraciu, A., & Tomàs, Y. C. (2019). Focus on form in content-based instruction: In primary school arts and crafts CLIL. e-TEALS, 9(1), 41-56.
Walbesser, H. H. (1966). Science curriculum evaluation: Observations on a position. The Science Teacher, 33(2), 34-39.
Whitesides, G. M. (2018). Curiosity and science. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 57(16), 4126-4129.
Wiriyachitra, A. (2002). English language teaching and learning in Thailand in this decade. Thai TESOL focus, 15(1), 4-9.
Yang, W. (2016). 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. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.4
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.808168
Zen, E. A. (1990). Science literacy and why it is important. Journal of Geological Education, 38(5), 463-464.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊