雙語體育課的跨語言實踐：資深與新手教師的觀點

Abstract

「2030雙語政策」由台灣政府提出，旨在實踐學科內容與語言整合教學（Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL）的理念。近期研究顯示跨語言實踐（Translanguaging）常被運用在CLIL課堂中，且學生的第一語言和第二語言各有其角色與功能。承接先前研究之發現，本研究旨在探討CLIL教師的跨語言實踐如何在專業生涯中隨著時間演變。研究問題如下：（1）新手與資深雙語體育教師分別如何進行跨語言實踐？（2）新手與資深雙語體育教師之跨語言實踐的相似性和差異性？（3）新手與資深雙語體育教師之跨語言實踐差異性的原因為何？此質性研究招募六名任教於台灣北部之雙語體育教師作為研究對象，使用之研究方法為課堂觀察與半結構式訪談。課堂觀察所搜集之數據使用內容分析法（content analysis），而半結構式訪談數據則使用主題分析法（thematic analysis）。研究結果顯示：（1）新手和資深雙語體育教師之跨語言實踐的相似處包括：第一語言使用時機、第二語言使用時機和認知對話功能（cognitive discourse functions）。然而，他們的跨語言實踐的相異處包含：第一語言和第二語言使用的頻率、語碼轉換及預先規劃的跨語言實踐。（2）新手和資深雙語體育教師使用第一語言和第二語言的差異之原因包括：雙語體育教學年資、是否參與CLIL訓練課程、CLIL訓練課程之內容以及課堂觀察所教的學科內容難易度。（3）新手和資深雙語教師使用語碼轉換不一致之情形可能和教師是否參與政府授權開設之CLIL訓練課程有關。（4）雙語體育教學經驗並非影響預先規劃之跨語言實踐的唯一因素。最後，本研究根據研究結果與討論，針對CLIL課程授課用語、CLIL課程發展和CLIL教師訓練課程提出相關建議，並列出本研究之限制及未來研究之建議。“2030 Bilingual Project” proposed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan is implemented in the spirit of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Recent research has shown that translanguaging is often adopted in CLIL classrooms and endeavored to demonstrate that both learners’ L1 and L2 have their own roles in CLIL teaching contexts. In spite of the above insights, more systematic studies are warranted to shed light on how translingual practices conducted by CLIL practitioners evolve over time and over their professional trajectory. To this end, this exploratory study is set out to probe three interlocking issues using qualitative research method. The three issues at focus are: (1) How do experienced and novice CLIL PE teachers perform translanguaging, respectively? (2) What are the similarities and differences between the translingual practices? (3) What is the rationale behind the different translingual practices?In this study, six CLIL PE practitioners in northern Taiwan are recruited. Classroom observation data are analyzed with content analysis while semi-structured interviews are analyzed with thematic analysis. The findings of the current research are listed as follows. First, novice and experienced CLIL practitioners’ translingual practices are similar in terms of the timing of L1 and L2 use as well as cognitive discourse functions (CDFs). However, their translanguaging practices differ in frequency of L1 and L2 use, code-switching usage, and preplanned translanguaging. Second, the differences in the use of L1 and L2 between novice and experienced CLIL practitioners may result from the experience of teaching bilingual PE lessons, the presence or absence of CLIL training, the content covered in the training, and the difficulty levels of the observed lessons. Third, the inconsistent use of code-switching in class may stem from whether practitioners receive CLIL training programs authorized by the government. Last, CLIL teaching experience is not the sole factor contributing to the use of preplanned translanguaging. Future research is suggested to carry out thorough investigations.Based on the findings of the study, pedagogical implications (regarding classroom instructions in CLIL classes, curriculum development of CLIL lessons, and CLIL teacher training programs), limitations, and suggestions for further research are discussed and provided.