客語沈浸教學對提昇幼兒客語聽說能力之影響

Influences of Hakka Immersion Programs on Promoting Children's Hakka Language Listening and Speaking Abilities

10.6251/BEP.20081120

陳雅鈴(Ya-Ling Chen)；陳仁富(Ren-Fu Chen)；蔡典龍(Tien-Lung Tsai)

幼兒教育 ； 母語教學 ； 客語教學 ； 客語沈浸教學計劃 ； early childhood education ； heritage language teaching ； Hakka language teaching ； Hakka language immersion program

教育心理學報

41卷2期（2009 / 12 / 01）

345 - 359

繁體中文

有鑑於客語流失的危機，屏東縣客家事務處發起一實驗性的幼稚園客語沈浸教學計劃，希望藉由客語沈浸計劃的推行，加強幼兒客語能力以及對客家文化保存的意識。本研究主要目的即在探究此客語沈浸計劃對幼兒客語聽說能力表現之影響。本研究主要的研究問題爲：(1)參與客語沈浸計劃之幼兒，其客籍背景及家庭客語使用情形爲何？(2)客語沈浸式計劃對提昇幼兒客語聽說能力的影響爲何?幼兒客語聽說能力是否有顯著增長？共有三所私立幼稚園：一個大班、一個中班、一個小班參與此客語沈浸計劃。研究人員主要採用家長問卷來調查幼兒家庭客籍背景及家庭客語使用情形。客語畢保德圖畫詞彙測驗甲式及教師自行設計之客語訪談評量表則做爲評量幼兒客語能力之主要研究工具。資料分析主要採用描述統計及共變數分析法，分析客語沈浸幼兒的客籍背景、家中客語使用情形、以及沈浸計劃實施前後幼兒客語聽說能力的轉變情形。研究結果顯示，客語沈浸班級的幼兒雖然八成以上爲客籍人士，但幼兒家庭成員與幼兒使用客語溝通比例卻不及30%。在客語能力方面，研究顯示在相同前測能力之下，客語沈浸幼兒後測的客語聽說能力較對照組高。教師及家長針對幼兒主題客語及日常客語聽說能力的評量也接近良好。文末針對客語沈浸計劃實施中所遇到的困難以及未來研究及相關政策提出建議。

To prevent Hakka language from extinction, administration of Hakka Affair in Pingtung County organized a Hakka language kindergarten immersion project to strengthened young children’s Hakka language abilities. This experimental project was conducted in three private early childhood settings in Pingtung County. The main research questions were: what were Hakka backgrounds of immersion children? What were the frequencies of Hakka language used at home? How did Hakka language immersion programs influence children's Hakka language listening and speaking abilities? Participants were five classes of children from three different kindergartens. Three Hakka immersion classes participated in this study. Family background questionnaire was used to collect children's Hakka backgrounds and Hakka language usages at home. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised Peabody (Hakka version) and teachers' self-designed interviewing protocols were used to collect children's Hakka language listening and speaking performances. Collected data were then analyzed by statistics methods, including descriptive statistics and analysis of variance. Research results showed that above 80% of Hakka immersion children were Hakka people, but less than 30% of family members used Hakka language to interact with children. Also, finding showed that, at the same pre-test score levels, Hakka immersion children's Hakka language ability scores were significantly higher than those of comparison groups. In teachers' and parents' evaluations of children's Hakka language performance, children's performance was rated approximately as good. In the final part, researchers provided some related suggestions on Hakka immersion program implementation and future research.

1. Belfield, C. R.,Nores, M.,Barnett, S. W.,Schweinhart, C.(2006).The high/scope perry preschool program: Cost-benefit analysis: Using data from the age-40 follow up.Journal of Human Resources,41(1),162-190.
2. Chamorro-Premuzic, T.,Furnham, A.(2003).Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples.Journal of Research in Personality,37(4),319-338.
3. Crystal, D.(2000).Language death.NY:Cambridge University Press.
4. Fishman, J. A.(1991).Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
5. Genesee, F.(1994).Educating second language children: the whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community.NY:Cambridge Press.
6. Grenoble, L. A.,Whaley, L. J.(2006).Saving Languages: An introduction to language revitalization.NY:Cambridge University Press.
7. Hinton, L.,Hale, K.(2001).The green book of language revitalization in practice.San Diego:Academic Press.
8. Holm, A.,Holm, W.(1995).Navajo language education: Retrospect and prospects.Bilingual Research Journal,19(1),141-167.
9. Howard, E. R.,Sugarman, J.,Christian, D.(2003).Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research.Baltimore:CRESPAR/Johns Hopkins University.
10. Johnson, R. K.,Swain, M.(1997).Immersion education: International perspectives.NY:Cambridge University Press.
11. Kamana, K.,Wilson, W. H.,G. Cantoni (Ed.)(1996).Stabilizing indigenous languages.Flagstaff, AZ:Northern Arizona University.
12. King, K. A.(2001).Language revitalization processes and prospects.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
13. Krauss, M.(1998).The condition of Native North American languages: the need for realistic assessment and action.International journal of the sociology of language,132,9-21.
14. Lambert, W. E.,Tucker, G. R.(1972).Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert Experiment Rowley.MA:Newbury House.
15. Lindholm, K. J.,Aclan, Z.(1991).Bilingual proficiency as a bridge to academic achievement: Results from bilingual/immersion programs.Journal of Education,173(2),99-113.
16. Lindholm-Leary, K.,Howard, E. R.,T. W. T. Fortune (Eds.),Ted, D. J. (Eds.)(2008).Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
17. May, S.,Hill, R.(2005).Ma-ori-medium education: Current issues and challenges.The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,8(5),377-403.
18. McCarty, T. L.(1998).The cultural transformation of a native American family and its tribe: 1763-1995, a basket of apples.Anthropology & Education Quarterly,29(4),505-507.
19. McCarty, T. L.(2003).Revitalising indigenous languages in homogenising times.Comparative Education,39(2),147-163.
20. Sims, C. P.(2006).Language planning in American Indian Pueblo communities: Contemporary challenges and issues.Current Issues in Language Planning,7,1-23.
21. Swain, M.,Lapkin, S.(1982).Evaluating bilingual education: A canadian case study.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
22. Warner, S. L. N.,L. Hinton (Eds.),K. Hale (Eds.)(2001).The green book of language revitalization in practice.San Diego:Academic Press.
23. 臺北市行政院客家委員會網站
24. 行政院客家委員會(2003)。九十二年度台灣客家民眾客語使用狀況調查研究。台北:臺北市行政院客家委員會。
25. 臺北市行政院客家委員會網站
26. 李瑞蘭(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中央大學客家政治經濟與政策研究所在職碩士專班。
27. 張淑美(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中央大學客家政治經濟與政策研究所。
28. 張學謙(1996)。語言景觀與語言保存計畫。台東師院學報，10，155-172。
29. 張學謙、黃文樹主編(2008)。幼兒母語教學：理論與實務。台北:秀威。
30. 張麗君(2004)。行政院客家委員會獎助客家學術研究計劃行政院客家委員會獎助客家學術研究計劃,未出版
31. 張麗君、郭珍妦(2005)。美濃客家地區家長語言能力與幼兒在家語言使用現況之調查研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，36(2)，141-163。
32. 梁世武(2004)。93年度台灣客家民眾客語使用狀況。台北:臺北市行政院客家委員會。
33. 黃文樹(2008)。幼兒母語教學理論與實務。台北:秀威。
34. 黃雅榆(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立新竹師範學院臺灣語言與語文教育研究所。

1. 陳雅鈴(2012)。客籍組成比例對客語沉浸幼兒客語口語敘說表現之影響。屏東教育大學學報，38(教育)，1-20。
2. 張學謙,張學謙(2020)。母語優先的臺灣本土語言復振教育規劃。教育科學研究期刊，65(1)，175-200。
3. 鍾鳳嬌、宋文琳、王國川(2014)。一所全客語沉浸式教學幼兒園的探究。人文社會科學研究，8(1)，27-56。
4. 周梅雀(2015)。沈浸式排灣族語教學幼兒園實驗班之初探。台灣原住民族研究季刊，8(3)，1-39。
5. (2011)。客語沉浸教學對幼兒中文聽覺詞彙及數概念之影響。臺東大學教育學報，22(1)，25-54。
6. (2013)。文化差異的課程看見：臺灣原住民族幼兒語言文化教育政策與需求之對話。教育研究月刊，229，114-128。
7. (2017)。原住民族語傳家計畫之幼兒族語表現成效探討。臺東大學教育學報，28(1)，29-51。
8. (2024)。社區公共家園推行客家語言巢之方式與成效。臺灣語文研究，19(2)，187-217。