臺北市一所國中行政人員與教師對校內實施雙語教育的看法

Abstract

臺灣於2018年頒布雙語教育政策，許多學校逐漸推動雙語教學與雙語課程。在中、英文版本的官方政策文件中，雙語教學法以不同方式所呈現。原始中文版的官方政策書中並未指定任何雙語教學法，但在英文版的官方翻譯文件中，「英文以全英語教學 (Teaching English in English)」與「學科內容與語言整合學習法 (Content and Language Integrated Learning)」則列為雙語教學法。兩份政策書並未提及使用這些教學詞彙的背後原理。教學詞彙的詮釋易衍生混淆與誤解，進而可能導致教學推動與政策目標間落差。對於政府頒訂的政策，各學校有不同的解讀與推動方式。校方行政人員與教師如何闡釋、推動雙語教育政策值得深入探討。本研究探討臺北市一所國中推動雙語教育的方式，研究對象包括該學校內兩位行政人員、兩位學科教師、三位英文教師、以及一位英語為母語的外籍教師。本研究立基於Ricento 及Hornberger (1996) 所提出的語言政策規劃理論，探討政策推動下的學校「機構層級 (institutional level)」，並以Spolsky (2017) 所提出「信念∕意識形態 (beliefs/ideologies)」、「實踐 (practices)」、「管理 (management)」三大理論概念支持研究論點。本研究採用質性研究法，探討上述研究對象 (1) 對於雙語教育政策理解與詮釋、(2) 校內雙語教育的推動與政策實踐、採用的雙語教育模式與教學法、(3) 對於推動雙語教育的態度與觀點。研究以訪談及課室觀察方式蒐集資料。研究結果顯示，學校行政人員與教師相信雙語教育能帶給學生國際視野與雙語能力，學校採用五種課程規劃與教學模式推動雙語教育政策。教師於雙語課程中設計讓學生親自操作的學習任務，並運用多模態資源，促進學生學科內容知識及英語學習。這些行政人員與教師亦組成專業學習社群，運用自身教師能動、協助彼此克服諸多政策與實務限制。研究對象的個人信念、雙語團隊協同合作、以及學生的參與激勵他們於校內實踐政策。研究對象亦呼籲政府提供有效的配套措施及雙語師資培育，以解決雙語政策上的本質問題。研究結果亦依照兩大面向深入分析、討論：(1) 臺灣在地化的雙語教育實踐、(2) 政策推動下學校機構層級之間的互動模式。根據研究結果分析，本研究對於「在本地情境中發展學校本位雙語教學法與建造學校雙語生態」以及「國家政策規劃與本土政策實踐之連結」兩大面向提出具體理論與教學相關建議。本研究也對於未來政策、教育實踐、師資培育等面向提出實質建議。

In Taiwan, many schools are implementing bilingual courses in response to the government's bilingual education policies launched in 2018. The pedagogical terms from the policies are adopted differently in official documents in Chinese and English versions. In fact, in the original Chinese version, it does not specify approaches to bilingual education (NDC, 2018a), whereas in the English-translated version, TEIE (i.e., Teaching English in English) and CLIL (i.e., Content and Language Integrated Learning) are specifically documented (NDC, 2018b). However, the rationales of adopting these terms as teaching approaches are not mentioned. Some confusion and misconception may thus occur and lead to probable mismatches between policy goals and practitioners' praxis. Different interpretations of government policy and implementation plans at schools have emerged. It is worthwhile to investigate how school practitioners and administrators perceive the policies and transform policy into their actual implementation. This study explored the implementation of bilingual education of a junior high school in Taipei, Taiwan. The participants included two school administrators, two subject teachers, three English teachers, and one native English-speaking teacher in the school. Firmly grounded in the multi-level processes of language policy planning (Ricento& Hornberger, 1996), this study explored the implementation of bilingual education at the institutional level. Underpinned by Spolsky's (2017) constructs, it focused on the beliefs/ideologies, practices, and management of these participants. Qualitative research methods were adopted to examine these participants' (a) understandings and interpretations of the bilingual education policies; (b) their exact practices of bilingual education in school, including the model and pedagogy they adopted andtheir beliefs about their roles in policy implementation; and (c) their attitudes and perceptions towards the outcomes of their policy implementation.The findings showed that most of the participants believed in global vision and bilingual competence brought by bilingual education. In terms of the school's bilingual instructional practices and pedagogy, five modes of bilingual lesson planning and teaching were identified. Engaging learning tasks accompanied with multimodal resources were adopted in the bilingual teachers' classes to address students' cognitive and linguistic demands. These participants formed a professional learning community, deployed agency in their practices, and assisted one another to tackle constraints from policies and practices. Their personal beliefs, the synergy of the bilingual education team, and their students' engagement in learning motivated them to transform the policy goals into their practices. These participants also called for effective support mechanisms and bilingual teacher preparation and anticipated that the government could address inherent problems as a result of implementing the bilingual policies. The interview and classroom observation data revealed the localized bilingual education practices of the school and interactions of policy implementation at the institutional level. Findings of this study provided theoretical and pedagogical implications with regard to (a) developing a school-based transformative bilingual pedagogy and school ecology in local contexts and (b) linking macro policy planning with micro practices through locally-responsive support. Some suggestions for policy, practices, and teacher education are further offered to shed light on future policy planning and practices.