內容與語言整合學習模式之古典文學教學示例：以《詩經．子衿》為例

A Content and Language Integrated Learning Approach to the Design of Lessons for Classical Chinese Literature: The Case of Zijin of the Book of Songs

10.29748/TJCSL.201906_(18).0006

林素菁(Su-Jing Lin)

內容導向教學（CBI） ； 內容語言整合學習（CLIL） ； 華語教學 ； 教材設計 ； 《詩經》教學 ； Content-Based Instruction ； Content and Language Integrated Learning ； teaching Chinese as a second/foreign language ； teaching material design ； literature teaching

臺灣華語教學研究

18期（2019 / 06 / 01）

85 - 104

繁體中文

隨著全球化時代的來臨，使用外語進行專業活動成為提高國際競爭力的重要能力。80年代後，北美的內容導向教學（Content-Based Instruction，CBI）以及歐洲的內容與語言整合學習（Content and Language Integrated Learning，CLIL）應時代需求而生，外語教學趨勢也由早期「語言」為主的模式，往「內容」與「語言」並重的學習模式推進。CBI與CLIL產生於不同的歷史背景，但其精神內涵一致，皆視「語言」與「內容」為雙重目標，將二語做為獲取知識與發展認知的工具，讓學習者在學習內容的過程中，同時發展該領域的語言能力與認知思考能力。CBI與CLIL模式為外語教學領域帶來新思維，在歐美與世界各地受到廣泛的討論與應用。然而，此模式在華語文教學領域仍屬新興概念，相關的實證研究與實務教學應用也少。本研究嘗試打破古典文學課程為高級學習者專利的迷思，以中國文學《詩經》為例，並以Coyle（1999）所提出的4Cs（即「內容」、「認知」、「溝通」、「文化」）框架，針對A2到B1學習者設計貼近現代生活、促進文化反思、提升溝通能力，以及啟動認知發展的古典文學課程。

With the coming of globalization, the use of foreign languages for professional activities has become an important ability. After the 1980s, Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in North America and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe were born in response to the needs of the times. CBI and CLIL appeared in different historical backgrounds, but share the similar idea about language education. They both regard language and content as the dual goals and the target language is used as a tool for learning. The CBI and CLIL models bring new thinking to the field of foreign language learning and teaching. They have become increasingly popular around the world, especially in North America and Europe. However, this model is still a new concept to the field of teaching Chinese as a second/foreign language, and there is little discussion and empirical research related to it. In this paper, the author will use a classical Chinese lesson ＂Book of Songs＂ as an example to demonstrate how teaching material can be designed based on the CLIL 4Cs (content, cognition, communication, culture) framework (Coyle 1999) and how to help connect literature to learners' lives.

1. 陳友冰(2008)。英國漢學的階段性特徵及成因探析─以中國古典文學研究為中心。漢學研究通訊，27(3)，34-47。
   連結：
2. 陳振宇(2013)。學語言是學到了什麼？從語言的多面向樣貌探討語言教學的新路徑。臺灣華語教學研究，7，1-12。
   連結：
3. Anderson, Lorin W.,Krathwohl, David R.(2001).A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.New York:Longman.
4. Ball, Phil,Kelly, Keith,Clegg, John(2015).Putting CLIL into Practice.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
5. Brinton, Donna M.,Snow, Marguerite Ann,Wesche, Marjorie Bingham(1989).Content-Based Second Language Instruction.New York:Newbury House.
6. Cenoz, Jasone(2015).Content based instruction and content and language integrated learning the same or different.Language, Culture and Curriculum,28(1),8-24.
7. Coyle, Do,Hood, Philip,Marsh, David(2010).Content and Language Integrated Learning.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
8. Cummins, Jim(1984).Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy.Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.
9. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane,Llinares, Ana,Lorenzo, Francisco,Nikula, Tarja(2014).You can stand under my umbrella: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter.Applied Linguistics,35,213-218.
10. Eisenmann, Maria(ed.),Summer, Theresa(ed.)(2013).Basic Issues in EFL Teaching and Learning.Heidelberg:Universitätsverlag Winter.
11. Ellis, Rod(2008).The Study of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
12. Fontecha, Fernández A.(2009).Spanish CLIL: Research and official actions.Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe,Clevedon, England:
13. Gass, Susan M.(1997).Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Halliday, Michael Alexander K.(1978).Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning.London:Edward Arnold.
15. Krashen, Stephen D.(1985).The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.London:Longman.
16. Long, Michael H.(1999).Task-Based Language Teaching.Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
17. Masih, John (ed.)(1999).Learning Through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes.London:Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT).
18. Mehisto, Peeter,Marsh, David,Frigols, María Jesús(2008).Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education.London:Macmillan Education.
19. Muñoz-Luna, Rosa(2014).From drills to CLIL: The paradigmatic and methodological evolution towards the integration of content and foreign language.PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development,16(1),167-180.
20. Orton, Jane,Zhang, Yin,Cui, Xia(2017).Foundation for content learning in Chinese: Beyond the European base.Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research,New York:
21. Richards, Jack C.,Rodgers, Theodore S.(2001).Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
22. Skehan, Peter(1998).A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
23. Stryker, Stephen,Leaver, Betty Lou(1997).Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education.Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
24. Swain, Merrill(1985).Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in second language learning.Input in Second Language Acquisition,Rowley, MA:
25. van Lier, Leo(2004).The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective.Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic Press.
26. Wiesemes, Rolf(2009).Developing theories of practices in CLIL: CLIL as post-method pedagogies?.Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe,Bristol, UK:
27. 謝州恩(2013)。鷹架理論的發展、類型、模式與對科學教學的啟示。科學教育月刊，364，2-16。