臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

全球化和國際化強化了英語在教育中的重要性，促使台灣採行了 12 年國教 課程綱要和 2030 雙語政策。這些政策旨在提升學生在真實生活情境中的英語溝 通能力和核心競爭力。CLIL(內容與語言整合學習)方法結合了語言和內容學 習，廣泛應用於台灣的小學教育。然而，由於 CLIL 仍在發展中，面臨了若干 挑戰，特別是 CEFR B2 英語要求，這使得現有教師在推進雙語教育方面感到困 難。儘管如此，強調靈活語言使用的跨語言現象提供了一種潛在的解決方案。
本研究通過質性問卷和課堂觀察，了解一位國小三年級體育教師在實施 CLIL 課程的觀點以及教師和學生的跨語言使用情況。問卷結果顯示，該教師對 自己在描述詞彙、管理課堂、提供反饋和給予指示時的英語使用持積極態度。 這些結果與課堂觀察一致，即教師主要在這些情境中使用英語，表明教師根據 語言重複性和學生的英語水平來使用英語。相反地，該教師在建立與學生的關 係和幫助困惑學生時對自己使用英語的看法較為負面，這可能是由於教師或學 生的語言水平所致。此外，課堂觀察發現，該教師使用了多種肢體語言手勢和 高重複性詞彙。國小三年級的學生仍處於學習英語的初期階段，儘管課程中可 能受限於學生的英語能力或該教師自我的英語能力，但本研究中的兩位觀課專 家均給予正面評價(總分 75 分中平均超過 60 分)，表明語言水平並不是雙語 教育的決定性障礙。研究最後提出了增強雙語教學策略的未來研究建議。

Globalization and internationalization have emphasized the importance of English in education, leading Taiwan to adopt the 12-Year Basic Curriculum and the Bilingual 2030 policy. These policies aim to enhance students’ English communication skills and core competencies in real-life situations. The CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach, which combines language and content learning, is widely applied in Taiwan's primary education. However, as CLIL is still developing, several challenges have arisen, particularly the CEFR B2 English requirement, which poses difficulties for current teachers in advancing bilingual education. Nevertheless, the concept of translanguaging, which emphasizes flexible language use, offers a potential solution.
This study investigates a third-grade primary school physical education teacher’s perspectives on implementing CLIL and the use of translanguaging by both the teacher and students through qualitative questionnaires and classroom observations. The questionnaire results show that the teacher holds a positive attitude towards using English for vocabulary description, classroom management, providing feedback, and giving directions. These findings align with classroom observations, indicating that the teacher primarily uses English in these contexts, suggesting that language use is influenced by repetition and students’ English proficiency. Conversely, the teacher has a negative view of using English for building rapport with students and assisting confused students, likely due to the language proficiency of both the teacher and students. Additionally, classroom observations reveal that the teacher employs various body language gestures and high-repetition vocabulary. Although the third-grade students are still in the early stages of learning English, and despite potential limitations due to the students' or the teacher's English proficiency, both experts
ii
observing the class gave positive evaluations (scoring an average of over 60 out of 75), indicating that language proficiency is not a decisive barrier to bilingual education. The study concludes with recommendations for future research to enhance bilingual teaching strategies.

Table of Content
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Content ........................................................................................................... v
Chapter One Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the research .............................................................................. 1
1.2 Research purpose ............................................................................................... 6
1.3 Research questions ............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Significance of the study .................................................................................... 6
1.5 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 7
1.6 The structure of study ....................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two Litereature Review ............................................................................... 9
2.1 An introduction of CLIL ................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 The development of CLIL ............................................................................ 9
2.1.2 The 4Cs framework ..................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 CLIL related studies in Taiwan ................................................................... 14
2.2 A Taiwan-tailored framework ........................................................................ 16
2.2.1 Fertile .......................................................................................................... 17
2.2.2 The 4C 2++ framework ............................................................................... 17
2.3 Translanguaging .............................................................................................. 19
2.3.1 Types of Translanguaging ........................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Related studies of translanguaging ............................................................. 23
Chapter Three Methodology ..................................................................................... 33
3.1 The rationale of the Study ............................................................................... 33
3.2 The setting of the case ...................................................................................... 34
3.3 Participant ........................................................................................................ 35
The teacher ........................................................................................................... 36
3.4 Data collection .................................................................................................. 38
3.4.1 Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 38
3.4.2 Class observation ........................................................................................ 40
3.5 Data collection procedure ................................................................................ 41
vi
3.6 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 43
3.6.1 The observer ................................................................................................ 43
3.6.2 The experts .................................................................................................. 45
Chapter Four Results and Discussion ...................................................................... 47
4.1 The teacher’s perspectives of translanguaging: pre-test and post-test ....... 47
4.2 Class observation results ................................................................................. 61
4.2.1 The first class I can dribble ......................................................................... 63
4.2.2The second class Eagle Catch Chick ........................................................... 69
4.2.3 The third lesson I am the Ace ..................................................................... 72
4.2.4 The fourth lesson I am the Ace ................................................................ 76
4.2.5 Summary of the results and discussion ....................................................... 81
Chapter Five Conclusion ........................................................................................... 91
5.1What are the teacher’s perspectives on translanguaging? ............................ 92
5.2 How does the teacher use translanguaging in the class? ............................... 93
5.2.1 Body language and gestures ........................................................................ 93
5.2.2 Using students’ familiar words and phrases ............................................... 94
5.2.3 High repetition of language use .................................................................. 95
5.3 Limitation of the study .................................................................................... 96
5.4 Suggestions for future studies ......................................................................... 97
References ................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 113
Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 116
Appendix C ............................................................................................................... 119

Appvl, R. & MuyskvU, Pivtver. 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.
Baker, C. (2003). Language Planning and the Welsh. Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings, 41, 71.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual matters.
Beres, A. M. (2015). An overview of translanguaging: 20 years of ‘giving voice to those who do not speak’. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 1(1), 103-118.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied linguistics review, 2(1), 11-37
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 243-262.
Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school contexts: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 193-198.
Cenoz, J., & Santos, A. (2020). Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools. System, 92, 102273.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.
Creese, A., Blackledge, A., & Hu, R. (2018). Translanguaging and translation: The construction of social difference across city spaces. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(7), 841-852.
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., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum–CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. The Languages Company.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning (Vol. 9, pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Ablex Publishing.
Esquinca, A., Araujo, B., & De la Piedra, M. T. (2014). Meaning making and translanguaging in a two-way dual-language program on the US-Mexico border. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(2), 164-181.
Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA review, 16(1), 38-51.
Graham, K. M. (2024). Interrogating the general English proficiency requirements for prospective Taiwanese bilingual teachers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–13. https://doi- org.wenzao.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2306171
Graham, K. M., W. Y. Pan, and Z. R. Eslami. 2021. “A Critique of Taiwan's Bilingual Education Policy Through a ROAD-MAPPING of Teacher Experiences.” Current Issues in Language Planning 22 (5): 516–534. https://doi- org.wenzao.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1884434
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
García, S. (2013). Three frameworks for developing CLIL materials in infant and primary education. Encuentro, 22, 49-53.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 46-62). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy, 199-216.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education, 223-240.
García, O., & Lin, A. M. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and multilingual education, 117-130.
García, O., Johnson, S. I., Seltzer, K., & Valdés, G. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2020). Translanguaging and literacies. Reading research quarterly, 55(4), 553-571.
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging theory in education. Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments, 9- 33.
Goodier, T. (2014). Working with CEFR can-do statements: An investigation of UK English language teacher beliefs and published materials. Unpublished MA dissertation. King’s College.
Guillamón Suesta, F., & Renau Renau, M. L. (2015). A critical vision of the CLIL approach in secondary education: A study in the Valencian Community in Spain.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American political science review, 98(2), 341-354.
Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D. L. (2021). CLIL: An overview. International perspectives on CLIL, 1-20.
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70-88.
Hua, Z., Wei, L., & Lyons, A. (2017). Polish shop (ping) as translanguaging space. Social Semiotics, 27(4), 411-433.
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a case study? Evidence-based nursing, 21(1), 7-8.
Krulatz, A., & Iversen, J. (2020). Building inclusive language classroom spaces through multilingual writing practices for newly-arrived students in
Norway. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 64(3), 372-388.
Karabassova, L., & San Isidro, X. (2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-20.
Karlsson, A., Nygård Larsson, P., & Jakobsson, A. (2019). Multilingual students’ use of translanguaging in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2049-2069.
Kao, Y. T. (2023). Exploring translanguaging in Taiwanese CLIL classes: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and practices. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 36(1), 100-121.
Kotkov, G. (2021) Multilingual Montessori. What is the sandwich method? Retrieved from https://multilingualmontessori.org/what-is-the-sandwich-technique/
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual section evaluation project. Applied linguistics, 31(3), 418-442.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655-670.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2013). 100 bilingual lessons: Distributing two languages in classrooms. Bilingualism in a school setting, 107-135.
Marsh, D. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A Development Trajectory.
Martín del Pozo, M. Á. (2016). An approach to CLIL teacher language awareness using the Language Triptychh. Pulso.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D. y Frigols-Martin, M. (2010) The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education, Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML)
Maseko, K., & Mkhize, D. N. (2021). Translanguaging mediating reading in a multilingual South African township primary classroom. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(3), 455-474.
Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-pyramid: Key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. Basic issues in EFL-teaching and learning, 11- 29.
Meyer, C. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field methods, 13(4), 329- 352.
Meyerhoff, M. (2019). Introducing sociolinguistics. London: Routlege, Tayler & Francis Group.
Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL
classrooms. Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education, 211- 234.
National Development Council (2018b). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030. Retrieved from https://bilingual.ndc.gov.tw/sites/bl4/files/news_event_docs/2030%E9%9B% 99%E8%AA%9E%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96 %E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E8%97%8D%E5%9C%96.pdf
Nambisan, K. (2014). Teachers' attitudes towards and uses of translanguaging in English language classrooms in Iowa (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University).
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, 22-40.
Nygård Larsson, P., & Jakobsson, A. (2020). Meaning-making in science from the perspective of students’ hybrid language use. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 811-830.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307.
Oliver, R., Wigglesworth, G., Angelo, D., & Steele, C. (2021). Translating translanguaging into our classrooms: Possibilities and challenges. Language teaching research, 25(1), 134-150.
Pun, J. K., & Tai, K. W. (2021). Doing science through translanguaging: A study of translanguaging practices in secondary English as a medium of instruction science laboratory sessions. International Journal of Science Education, 43(7), 1112-1139.
Renau, M., & Pesudo, M. (2016). Analysis of the implementation of a WebQuest for learning English in a secondary school in Spain. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 12(2).
Ryu, M. (2019). Mixing languages for science learning and participation: an examination of Korean-English bilingual learners in an after-school science-learning programme. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1303-1323.
Rao, P. S. (2019). The role of English as a global language. Research Journal of English, 4(1), 65-79.
Rajendram, S. (2023). Translanguaging as an agentive pedagogy for multilingual learners: affordances and constraints. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20(2), 595-622.
Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021). Translanguaging or code-switching? Re-examining the functions of language in EMI classrooms. In B. Di Sabato & B. Hughes (Eds.). Multilingual Perspectives from Europe and Beyond on Language Policy and Practice (pp. 348-356). Abingdon: Routledge.
Tenny, S., Brannan, J. M., & Brannan, G. D. (2017). Qualitative study.
Taipei City Department of Education. 2023. 臺北市 112 學年度公立國民中小學 雙語教師 代理專班 甄選 [2023 Taipei City Public Elementary and Junior High School Contract Bilingual Teacher Special Class Selection Notice]. https://www- ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/342/relfile/10173/8994202/f8729b0e-5723-4f25-9045- 55f1980fb572.pdf.
Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging.
Wang, D. (2019). Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: Students and teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 138-149.
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language teaching research, 15(3), 343-362.
Wei, L., & Ho, W. Y. J. (2018). Language learning sans frontiers: A translanguaging view. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 33-59.
Woolard, K. A. (2004). Codeswitching. A companion to linguistic anthropology, 73- 94.
Williams, C. (2002). Ennill iaith: Astudiaeth o sefyllfa drochi yn 11–16 oed [A language gained: A study of language immersion at 11–16 years of age]. Bangor, UK: School of Education.
Xie, C.H. (2020) A Study of Elementary Teachers ’Perceptions toward CLIL Teaching in Tainan. Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Yasar Yuzlu, M., & Dikilitas, K. (2022). Translanguaging in the development of EFL learners’ foreign language skills in Turkish context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 176-190.
Zelenková, A. (2014). New Trends in the Teaching of Specific English in Tourism Studies. Folia Turistica No, 4.
Zirker, K. A. H. (2007). Intrasentential vs. intersentential code switching in early and late bilinguals. Brigham Young University.
鍾羽雯(2022)。CLIL 教學運用在國小四年級數學領域的行動研究。臺灣博碩 士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/55j755。
江潔(2022)。CLIL 童軍雙語教學對國中生童軍學習表現、學習動機及創造力 之影響。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7k3he9。
陳欣怡(2022)。國中教師執行 CLIL 課程之質性研究。臺灣博碩士論文知識 加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/asxj7m。
陳淑華、楊雪櫻、黎瓊麗(2012)。英語教學的社會文化觀之探討。美和學 報， 31(2)，83-96。
徐珮芩(2022)。CLIL 樂趣化體適能教學對國小學童英語學習動機與體適能影 響之行動研究。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/babsv8。
許家菁(2020)。CLIL 取向雙語實驗課程發展與實施歷程之行動研究。臺灣博 碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/253gj4。
黃蕙心(2022)。臺中市公立國民小學實施雙語教學之初探:以 CLIL 課程為 例。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/38829x。
洪月女、陳敬容(2022)。全球在地化臺灣雙語教學知能與培育。載於鄒文 莉、黃怡萍主編，臺灣雙語教學資源書--全球在地化課程設計與教學實踐(頁 15- 31)。臺北:書林出版社。
林詠瑄(2022)。CLIL 應用於國小三年級情緒教育之研究。臺灣博碩士論文知 識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/s3fvsv。
林怡伶(2023)。運用 CLIL 雙語教學模式於國小一年級生活課程之行動研究 -以生活中的水單元為例。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/t79vcq。
林子斌(2020)。臺灣雙語教育的未來: 本土模式之建構. 臺灣教育評論月刊， 9(10)，8-13。
林子斌(2021)。建構臺灣 [沃土] 雙語模式:中等教育階段的現狀與未來發 展。中等教育，72(1)，6-17。
蔡佳伶(2023)。臺南市快樂國小 CLIL 雙語教學實施現況個案研究。臺灣博 碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kx5mdv。
吳孟茹(2022)。以 CLIL 雙語教育模式實施國小四年級數學領域教學之探 究。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/78e5xf。
蔡佳伶(2023)。臺南市快樂國小 CLIL 雙語教學實施現況個案研究。臺灣博 碩士論文知識加值系統 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kx5mdv。
凃宜汝(2023)。CLIL 教學模式應用於國小五年級數學領域之行動研究。臺灣 博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/m36x3v。
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 學校語文領域-英語文。
張秀娟、陳易芬(2020)。跨語言實踐在國小雙語教學實施的可能性探討。臺 灣教育評論月刊，9(12), 69-75。
張學謙(2016)。從單語到雙語教學:語碼轉換在語言教育的運用。臺灣語文研 究，11(1)，1-25。
黃怡萍、鄒文莉(2023)。CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future. 課程與教學, 26(1)，1-26。
鄒文莉(2021)。臺灣雙語教育之全球在地化思維: 學術面與實踐面的反思與 啟示。Journal of Education Research(321)，17-29
黃怡萍、鄒文莉(2022)。台灣雙語教學資源說明書: 全球在地化課程設計與 教學實踐。臺北:書林出版社
廖偉民(2020)。2020 年臺灣公立國小推展雙語教育之探討。臺灣教育評論月 刊，9(9)，90-96。
劉家鎮(2022)。雙語體育教學現況與師資培育之挑戰。臺灣教育評論月刊， 2022，11(8)，38-41。
羅文杏(2022)。臺灣雙語教師知能及增能課程規劃。臺灣教育評論月刊， 11(8)，12-15。
劉益嘉、閔柏惠(2022)。讓現職教師成為雙語教師—談現職教師的雙語師 培。臺灣教育評論月刊，11(8)，54-60。
呂佩蓉(2021)。以 CLIL 提升國小二年級學生跨領域學習成效之行動研究。 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/h843uh。
翁郁雅(2021)。國小 CLIL 之跨語言實踐功能與策略個案研究。臺灣博碩士 論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/fnz522。