大學雙語課程的學生學習經驗—以國立中山大學為例

STUDENTS' LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN BILINGUAL COURSES: THE CASE OF NATIONAL SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY

10.6151/CERQ.202409_32(3).0002

林靜慧(Ching-Hui Lin)；林怡慧(I-Hui Lin)；林思吟(Szu-Yin Lin)；鄭正豐(Cheng-Feng Cheng)

雙語教學 ； 高等教育 ； 模糊集合質性比較分析法 ； 學生學習成效 ； 校務研究 ； EMI ； higher education ； fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis ； student learning outcomes ； institutional research

當代教育研究季刊

32卷3期（2024 / 09 / 30）

35 - 39+41-70

繁體中文;英文

研究目的：配合國家雙語政策的發展，教育部於2021年推動大專校院學生雙語化學習計畫，「以強化學生英語力，推動全英語授課（English as a Medium of Instruction, EMI），整體提升高教國際競爭力」，希望能提升大專校院教師英語教學能力及學生英語能力，企盼在全英語教學課程環境中，可以拓展學生國際觀及跨文化整合力。本研究旨在探究雙語教育課程之學生學習成效，同時串接校務系統的學生學籍背景資料，檢視哪些條件組合能夠使學生達到良好或高度的學習成效，以提供相關行政主管機關及各大學在EMI政策推動之參考。研究設計／方法／取徑：本研究之資料來源為國立中山大學110學年度雙語課程學生學習經驗問卷，共回收1159份有效問卷，並且將填答結果串接個案學校校務系統中的學籍資料，利用模糊集合質性比較分析法（Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, fsQCA）進行分析。研究發現或結論：教師具備教學特色、學生課程參與度及滿意度高、以及教師在課堂有好的教學表現時，是提升學生學習力的前因，更發現到課程參與度及滿意度與英語授課的接受程度存在替代效果（Substitution effect）。此外，參與EMI的學生在選課時，首先對EMI有高接受度，且對自身英語能力有一定程度的把握，才會選擇修課，而學生是否會取得高GPA，則取決於教師的課程設計、如何引導並增加學生的參與度及滿意度。研究原創性／價值：鑑於以事證為本作為校務推動決策參考的重要性，本研究運用fsQCA檢視可確保創造學生高度學習成效的可行方案且探究面臨短期無法有效改善狀態下的補救方案，以提供創造因材施教的精準教學。有別於傳統的迴歸分析模型聚焦於確認變數間的影響淨效果，該研究方法運用集合概念進行分析，為社會科學議題分析帶來管理新思維。教育政策建議或實務意涵：建議授課教師需要能提供明確且系統性的學科知識課程規劃及核心專業能力，並對應學科領域差異做彈性調整（例如跨領域教學、或實地參訪等等）。此外，大學行政端及系所端要能提供充分的英語授課教師增能工作坊及學生學習角落等增能與輔導措施，以利雙語課程之推動。

Purpose: In line with the development of Taiwan's policy of achieving nationwide Mandarin/English bilingualism, in 2021 the Ministry of Education launched the Bilingual Education Program for Students in Higher Education, with the goals of strengthening students' English proficiency, promoting English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), and enhancing the overall international competitiveness of Taiwanese higher education. The aims of this program are to enhance teachers' English teaching skills and to develop students' English proficiency, international perspectives, and cross-cultural integration in a full-English teaching environment. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of bilingual education programs on student's learning outcomes using student academic records to assess the conditions under which students achieve satisfactory or superior learning outcomes. The findings provide guidance for governmental authorities and university administrators in implementing EMI policies.. Design/methodology/approach: Data for this study were responses to a learning experience questionnaire by students at National Sun Yat-sen University who took EMI courses during the institution's 110th academic year (2021.08-2022.07). A total of 1,159 valid questionnaires were collected. The responses were integrated with the students' university academic records from the case school's administrative system. Analysis of the data was conducted using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis method (fsQCA). Findings/results: Findings revealed that teachers' instructional characteristics, their teaching practices, students' active participation in and satisfaction with the class served as the precursors of students' learning improvement. A substitution effect was found between students' levels of participation and their satisfaction with the class and acceptance of EMI teaching. Furthermore, it was found that before they decide to take EMI courses students should have a high degree of acceptance of EMI and a certain level of confidence in their English proficiency. Factors that determined whether students achieved a high GPA included teachers' curriculum design, how they guided students' engagement, and measures they took to enhance satisfaction with their classes. Originality/value: In view of the importance of evidence-based input as a reference for policymaking, in this study fsQCA method was used to examine feasible strategies to ensure students' learning outcomes, and explores remedial solutions for short-term improvements in order to recommend appropriate teaching practices. Different from the traditional regression analysis, this method uses the concept of aggregation in the analysis to offer a new perspective on higher education administration in social science fields. Implications for policy/practice: It is suggested that teachers should be able to apply core professional competencies to curriculum planning and provision of clear and systematic subject content knowledge as well as to make flexible adjustments in response to differences across disciplines (in such contexts as interdisciplinary teaching or fields visits). Furthermore, to facilitate the implementation of EMI policies, university administrations and departments should provide sufficient professional development opportunities for EMI teachers.

1. 王俞蓓、林子斌（2021）。雙語教育的推行模式：從新加坡、加拿大的經驗反思臺灣雙語政策。中等教育，72（1），18-31。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202103_72(1).0002
   連結：
2. 吳國誠、劉述懿（2021）。雙語教育：在地文化觀點與全球視野。教育研究與實踐學刊，68（1），III-VI。https://doi.org/10.6701/JEPR.202106_68(1).0001
   連結：
3. 李敏瑜、鄒文莉（2022）。中小學國際教育雙語課程規劃之探究。教育研究學刊，338，48-66。https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602022060338004
   連結：
4. 沈芷嫣、謝傳崇（2022）。雙語教育研究的發展：文獻計量的回顧分析。學校行政雙月刊，139，55-71。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.202205_(139).0003
   連結：
5. 周宛青（2018）。高等教育全英語課堂教學個案研究。教學實踐與創新，1（1），155-191。https://doi.org/10.3966/261654492018030101004
   連結：
6. 陳玉蒼、楊政郎（2021）。專業課程全英語授課導入 CLIL 的實踐與成效。當代商管論叢，6（1），89-107。https://doi.org/10.6852/JCBM.202112_6(1).05
   連結：
7. 黃怡萍（2014）。以英語授課：一個探討臺灣的大學教師教學情況之質性個案研究。外國語文研究，20，27-62。https://doi.org/10.30404/FLS.201406_(20).0002
   連結：
8. 黃家凱（2021）。邁向2030 雙語國家之路：政策社會學之觀點分析。中等教育，72（1），32-47。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202103_72(1).0003
   連結：
9. 鍾智林、羅美蘭（2021）。英語授課一定會降低大學課程的教學評量嗎？一個縱貫性個案研究。教育研究與發展期刊，17（3），41-70。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202109_17(3).0002
   連結：
10. Aizawa, I., Rose, H., McKinlsy, J., & Thompson, G. (2023). A comparison of content learning outcomes between Japanese and English medium instruction. Language and Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2238688
    連結：
11. Bukve, T. (2020). Students’ perspectives on English medium instruction within higher education: Exploring gender differences in Norway and Finland. Apples Journal of Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202002272211
    連結：
12. Chang, Y. Y. (2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education: Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2(1), 53-82. https://doi.org/10.6706/TIESPJ.2010.2.1.3
    連結：
13. Chen, F. (2017). Instructional language use in environmental science classroom. In Tsou, W. & Kao, S. (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education (pp.57-78). English Language Education vol. 8. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4645-2_4
    連結：
14. Choi, B. K., & Rhee, B. S. (2014). The influences of student engagement, institutional mission, and cooperative learning climate on the generic competency development of Korean undergraduate students. Higher Education, 67(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9637-5
    連結：
15. 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. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0
    連結：
16. Curle, S., Yuksel, D., Soruç, A., & Altay, M. (2020). Predictors of English medium instruction academic success: English proficiency versus first language medium. System, 95, 102378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102378
    連結：
17. Dafouz, E., & Camacho-Miñano, M. M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.06.001
    連結：
18. ELDaou, B. & Abdallah, A. (2019). The impact of CLIL implementation on Lebanese students’ attitudes and performance. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjflt.v9i1.4068
    連結：
19. Evans, S. & Morrison, B. (2011). The student experience of English-medium higher education in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 25(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.553287
    連結：
20. Huang, Y. P. (2012). Design and implementation of English-medium courses in higher education in Taiwan: A qualitative case study. English Teaching & Learning, 36(1)，1-51。https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2012.36.1.01
    連結：
21. Huang, D. F. (2015). Exploring and assessing effectiveness of English medium instruction courses: The students’ perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.033
    連結：
22. Kao, Y., & Tsou, W. (2017). EMI course assessment: A survey study of the issues. In Tsou, W. & Kao, S. (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education (pp.183-206). English Language Education, vol. 8. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4645-2_11
    連結：
23. Macaro, E., & Akincioglu, M. (2018). Turkish university students’ perceptions about English medium instruction: Exploring year group, gender and university type as variables. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(3), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1367398
    連結：
24. Muttaqin, S., & Chuang, H. (2022). Variables affecting English-medium instruction students’ achievement: Results of a multiple regression analysis. International Journal of Education Research Open, 3, 100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100152
    連結：
25. Park, H. (2007). English-medium instruction and content learning. English Language and Linguistics, 23(2), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9298-3
    連結：
26. Sert, N. (2008). The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System, 36, 156-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.006
    連結：
27. Turnbull, B. (2020). Towards new standards in foreign language assessment: Learning from bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 488-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1375891
    連結：
28. Yang, W. (2015). 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.904840
    連結：
29. Yeh, C. C. (2012). Instructors’ perspectives on English-medium instruction in Taiwanese universities. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 16(1), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201301_16(1).0009
    連結：
30. 行政院國家發展委員會（2021）。2030 雙語國家政策發展藍圖。https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/b7a931c4-c902-4992-a00c-7d1b87f46cea
31. 何希慧、彭耀平（2016）。台灣與中國大陸深圳地區大學生學習動機與學習成效關係發展之比較：以學習模式為中介變項。教育實踐與研究，29（1），139-172。
32. 林子斌、黃家凱（2020）。反思雙語教育：從新加坡的雙語經驗看臺灣的政策與作法。台灣教育，721，1-12。
33. 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。
34. 林曉雲（2018a）。台師大調查小六英文能力逾半文法句型未達標。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/2439593
35. 林曉雲（2018b）。台師大檢測 部分未達小四程度。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/2440522
36. 周宛青(2017)。高等教育國際化下台灣本籍生整體學習經驗質性研究。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（4），228-254。
37. 祝若穎、許雅勛、林世昌（2022）。「全」比較好嗎？「全」英語授課的英語比例對教學品質與學習成效之分析―以清華大學為例。在周景揚、鄭保志（主編），以數據驅動的校務策略規劃（頁95-120）。臺灣校務研究專業協會。
38. 翁福元（2022）。台灣學校實施2030 國家雙語政策探析：雙語或雙語教育。台灣教育，733，31-38。
39. 郭彥廷（2021）。雙語教育的現場觀察與期待。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（11），195-196。
40. 陳玟樺（2022）。芬蘭2016 課綱雙語教育政策評析。台灣教育研究期刊，3（1），293-312。
41. 教育部統計處（2023）。高等教育淨在學率。https://eds.moe.gov.tw/edust/webMain.aspx?sys=100&funid=eduout&funid2=B060400&cycle=4&outkind=1&outmode=8&defmk=1&outkind=1&fldlst=111111111&codlst0=111&codlst1=1&dfknd=1212
42. 張玉芳（2020）。淺談2030 雙語國家政策。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（10），19-21。
43. 黃旭磊（2019）。雙語教學 教育界要求能力分班。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/1261890
44. 黃彥文（2021）。體現「在地全球化」精神：論中小學「國際教育2.0」與「雙語課程」接軌的問題與展望。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（2），5-11。
45. 鄒文莉、高實玫、陳慧琴（2018）。學科內容與語言整合教學的核心精神。在鄒文莉、高實玫（主編），CLIL 教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合。書林。
46. 葉若蘭、翁福元（2021）。雙語教育推動的挑戰與配套措施建議。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（12），19-26。
47. 楊怡婷（2022）。學校推動雙語教學之挑戰與因應。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（1），81-86。
48. 臺北市政府教育局（2021）。臺北市雙語教育中長程實施計畫。https://www.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=D0042A87C2F0270A&s=60677784EAEEB3CC
49. 羅美蘭、鍾智林（2013 年12 月5 日）。運輸課程採英語授課之困境與突破—以商管學生修習英語運輸工程為例［論文發表］。2013 年中華民國運輸年會暨學術論文研討會，宜蘭，臺灣。
50. Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2014). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.) Transformation in English Education (pp. 328-334). JALT, Tokyo.
51. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction−A growing global phenomenon. British Council.
52. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
53. Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
54. Huang, Y. P. (2009, May 02). Effectiveness of English-only instruction in postsecondary education in Taiwan: Voices from students [Paper presentation]. The International Conference on English Learning and Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan.
55. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL). A Development Trajectory. University of Cordoba.
56. Morizumi, F. (2002). Does gender matter in language learning? International Christian University Educational Studies, 44, 223-235.
57. Ragin, C. C. (2017). User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. University of California, Irvine. http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/download/fsQCAManual.pdf
58. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens Medien GmbH.
59. Wright, W. E., Boun, S., & García, O. (2015). Introduction: Key concepts and issues in bilingual and multilingual education. In The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 1-16). Wiley.