第六章 結論與建議
第三節 未來研究方向與建議
二、教學地點受限
語言輔助課教室為小型演講廳，桌椅皆固定，無法移動，以致教學活動進 行不易，除了教師容易忽略坐在旁邊的學習者之外，學習者進行小組討論中也 較為困難。
三、觀課者樣本
由於修習CLIL 教學法課程的學生不多，使得觀課者樣本數量較少，影響了 本研究之資料計量分析上的效度，但本研究以訪談彌補此計量上之不足。
第三節 未來研究方向與建議
根據研究發現，仍然有許多值得探討的地方，因此列出以下幾點為未來 研究方向與建議：
一、CLIL 於華語教學之應用
經由研究發現，CLIL 亦適用於華語教學上，並能夠引起學習者學習，增加 他們的學習興趣。因此建議未來可將CLIL 廣泛應用於華語教學中，以增加華語 教學之多元性。
二、教學實驗次數不足
由於授課教師在實驗進行時為第一次接觸語言輔助課程的教學，若未來能 讓教師在教學實施前多觀摩相關課程，先進行試教，再進行修正，進而應用至 正式教學。
三、CLIL 教材編寫
從研究結果得知，CLIL 適用於在各程度的學生，並具有學習成效，因此在 未來的研究方面，可針對不同程度之學生進行相應的課程編寫及教材設計，以 利學習。
四、CLIL 適用之課程類型
本次研究以語言輔助課為研究之課程類型，由此可見，CLIL 雖然適合各個 程度之學習者，但是需要大家的語文水平都在相同的水平之上，加上需要進行 各種認知活動，未來可在分級類型課程進行更多研究，以探究CLIL 教學法的應 用。
五、師資培訓
由於CLIL 教師需兼顧語言及內容，搭配認知活動進行學習，還需融入文 化，以致教師準備課程繁重，耗時長，工作量增加，因此建議若學校需要進行 CLIL 教學，能建立相關工作坊，進行教師培訓，共同備課，建立課程資料，以 減輕教師負擔，以達至事半功倍的效果。
參考文獻
英文
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., ... &
Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2002). The significance of CLIL/EMILE. In David, M. (Ed), CLIL/EMILE-the European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential (pp20-26).
Finland: University of Jyväskylä
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. New York:
Multilingual matters.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Oxford handbooks for language teachers: Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT Course CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objective.: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-based second language instruction.
United States of America: University of Michigan Press.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39 (4), 523-532.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41 (3), 587-597.
Cambridge Assessment International Education (2019). Bilingual Education. Retrieved from
https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmes-and-qualifications/bilingual-education/
Cambridge Assessment International Education (2019). Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Assessment_International_Education
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning:
The same or different?. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 8-24.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35 (3), 243-262.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL: Planning tools for teachers. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
---. (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.
---. (2008a). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Hornberger (Ed). Encyclopedia of language and education (pp.1200-1214). Switzerland: Springer ---. (2008b). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. 1
June 2019 from http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf.
---. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning:
Language policy and pedagogical practice (pp. 14-36). London: Routledge.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities: A Resource for subject and language teachers.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. Applied Linguistics, 35 (2), 213-218.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57-70
Huang, J. (2003). Chinese as a foreign language in Canada: A content-based programme for elementary school. Language Culture and Curriculum, 16 (1), 70-89.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41 (3), 587–597.
International Baccalaureate Organization (2019). IB education for a better world. Retrieved fr from https://www.ibo.org/digital-toolkit/country-specific-materials/
Klimova, B. (2012). CLIL and the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 572-576.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5 (1), 3-18.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009a). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT journal, 64 (4), 367-375.
---. (2009b). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2), 4-17.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Lynch, G. (2015). Introducing Content and Language Integrated Learning in study abroad programs. Journal of Kanazawa Seiryo University, 48 (2), 69-73.
Marsh, D. (2002). Introduction. In Marsh, D (Ed), CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension:
actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 15-17). Strasbourg: European Commission.
Mattheoudakis, M., Alexiou, T., & Laskaridou, C. (2014). To CLIL or not to CLIL? The case of the 3rd experimental primary school in Evosmos. Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 3, 215-234.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Multiculturalism (2019). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism Muñoz, C. (2002). Relevance & potential of CLIL. In Marsh, D (Ed), CLIL/EMILE – The
European dimension: actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 33-36). Strasbourg:
European Commission.
Orton, J., & Cui, X. (2016). Principles and innovation design: CLIL units in Chinese. In R.
Moloney, H.L. Xu (Eds), Exploring innovative pedagogy in the teaching and learning of Chinese as a foreign language (pp. 39-60). Singapore: Springer.
Paschalidou, G. (2019). Investigating the impact of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on EFL oral production: a preliminary research on fluency and quantity. Research Papers in Language Teaching & Learning, 10 (1) .355-371.
Pérez-Cañado, M. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (3), 315-341.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). In E. Milne & M. Guerrini. CLIL across educational levels (pp.3-16).Madrid: Richmond-Santillana.
Pluriculturalism (2019). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluriculturalism
Rumlich, D. (2014). Prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students’ interest in English (classes): A quasi-experimental study on German sixth-graders. In R. Breeze, C. Saíz, C. & Pasamar, C.
Integration of theory and practice in CLIL (pp. 73-95). Netherlands: Brill Rodopi.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21 (4), 328-341.
The Council of The European Union (2008). Journal of the European Union Council Resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism. Retrieved from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0001:0003:EN:PDF
Ting, Y. L. T. (2010). CLIL appeals to how the brain likes its information: examples from CLIL- (neuro) science. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (3), 1-18.
Ting, Y. T. (2011). CLIL… not only not immersion but also more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal, 65 (3), 314-317.
中文
王文科和王智弘（2016）。教育研究法（修訂版）。台灣： 五南
何德華（2009）。 華語教學研究方法與論文寫作。台灣：正中書局
李宇明（2011）。 當代中國：漢語國際教育必須重視的事體。載於北京語言大學對外
漢語研究中心 （主編） 。國際漢語教學理念與模式創新：第七屆對外漢語國際學術
研討會論文集 （頁 1-9） 。北京：外語教學與研究。
李泉（1996）。 對外漢語課堂教學的理論思考。中國人民大學學報， 5，87-93。
李堯（2011）。語言習得與語言學得。載於李堯、張怡春等 （主編）。第二語言習得
理論與實踐研究 （頁 60-77）。北京：外語教學與研究。
竺靜華（1996）。 華語教學實務概論。台北市：文史哲。
馬箭飛（2009） 對外漢語教學的教學設計和大綱。載於趙金銘、徐慧如（主編） 。對
外漢語教學概論（頁100-107） 。台灣：新學林。
陳 振 宇 （2013) 。 Plurilingualism vs Multilingualism. 2019 年 5 月 20 日 ， 取 自 http://ntnuslaforum.blogspot.com/2013/06/plurilingualism-vs-multilingualism.html
陳雅文（1995）。內容分析法。圖書感學與資訊科學大辭典。2019 年 6 月 4 日，取自
http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1683205/
楊殿義 （2018）。華語為第二外語的國小學童運用沉浸式學習之探究-以印尼泗水臺灣
學校華裔學生為例。 台北市：國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文 （未出版） 。