本研究旨在探討將跨語言實踐融入雙語教學的實踐歷程以及學生在課程中的 學習表現。研究目的包括：探討在雙語課堂中如何運用跨語言實踐策略，幫助學生學習學科學習目標和雙語學習目標；並探討學生在學習歷程中的學科和語言的學習成效；以及透過雙語教學的歷程所得到的經驗，反思在臺灣實施跨語言實踐的條件和挑戰。本研究採行動研究，對北部某所國中兩班七年級學生施行二個單元共11堂的雙語健康課，除了對教學實踐進行探討以及了解學生在雙語課堂中的學習經驗外，也反思在雙語課堂中實施跨語言實踐可以精進之處。

本研究之發現如下：一、就跨語言實踐策略的使用而言，多元語境線索融入基本人際溝通語言（BICS），有助於引起學習動機，促進師生互動；而依據學習內容和學生狀況調整認知學術語言（CALP），有助於學生對學科內容進行思考與學習。二、在學科學習成效方面，藉由多媒材和科技工具的融入能提高學生學習動機，並且透過即時問答和認知話語架構（CDFs）能檢驗學生對學科的理解程度和迷思之處。三、在語言學習成效方面，學生能夠理解基本人際溝通語言並能有所回應，不過對不同認知類別的學科語言表現則有所不同。過程中句型結構的提供能促進學生語言的產出，且使用語言的方式會受到受教學者的影響而產生模仿行為。四、針對跨語言實踐理論的回應，須先讓學生參與學科的學習，再運用跨語言實踐連結學科和語言；此外，也要先讓學生對於輸入的訊息產生理解，才有輸出的可能，並且在課堂中教師須從主導者慢慢轉成促進者的角色。最後，對於學科教師而言，學科詞彙和英文課詞彙的難度落差需有待運用跨語言實踐來克服。

The aim of this study is to explore the implementation of translanguaging approach in bilingual teaching and students' learning performance in the biligunal course. The research purposes of this study included : to delve into how teacher implements translanguaging in the bilingual course to help students achieve both academic and bilingual learning goals；to examine students' academic and linguistic learning outcomes in the learning process；and to reflect on the conditions and challenges of implementing translanguaging in Taiwan based on the bilingual teaching experience .Applying an action research approach, this study researcher investigated into two seventh-grade classes from a junior high school in Northern Taiwan, in each class eleven health education lessons (two units) in each class were conducted. In addition to exploring teaching practices and understanding students' learning experiences from the bilingual course, this study also critically reflected on improvements that can be made in implementing translanguaging in bilingual teaching.

Research findings of this study are as follow : (1) In the use of translanguaging strategies, the multilingual context clues embedded with Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) could increase students' learning motivation and teacher-student interactions, and the adjustment of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) based on the learning content and the students' learning performance would help students' thinking and learning about subject. (2) In terms of subject learning outcome, the integration of multimedia and technology tools helped enhancing motivation, and instant quizzes and CDFs could assess students' understanding and myths about subject. (3) In terms of linguistic learning outcomes, students could understand Basic Interpersonal Communication Language (BICS) and gave responses.However, academic language with different cognitive categories would lead to varied language performances. The provision of sentence structure could facilitate students’ language production, and the way they use language was influenced by the instructor, resulting in imitative behavior. (4) In response to the theory of translanguaging, teacher must engage students in subject learning first, and then use translanguaging to link subjects and languages. Besides, teacher should enable students to understand the input messages before they can have output it and use it, In addition, teacher must gradually shift from the role of leader to facilitator. Finally, for subject teachers, the difficulty gap between subject vocabulary and English vocabulary needs to be overcome through the proper implementation of translanguaging.

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W.（2015）。如何理解研究：使用者指南（蘇文賢譯）。學富文化。（原著出版年:2009）
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
江文慈（2007）。超越測量-評量典範轉移的探索與啟示。教育實踐與研究，20 （1），173–200。https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6776/JEPR.200703.0173
行政院（2018）。2030雙語國家政策發展藍圖。https://reurl.cc/bV0daM
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，(10)，8-13。https://doi.org/10.6335/CRN.2008.54 (7)
林子斌（2021a）。建構臺灣「沃土」雙語模式:中等教育階段的現狀與未來發展。中等教育，72（1），6-17。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202103_72(1).0001
林子斌（2021b）。雙語教育－破除考科思維的20堂雙語課。親子天下。
林子斌（2021c）。臺灣本土雙語教育的推動: 國中小可以怎麼做?。師友雙月刊，(626)，58-63。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20190807001-202103-202103230023-202103230023-58-63
林子斌（2022）。跨文化溝通的基礎：臺灣雙語教育的實踐與挑戰。課程研究，17（1），1-13。https://doi.org /10.53106/181653382022031701001
林佑真（2021）。英語融入健康教育之雙語教學。載於陳錦芬（主編），雙語教學理論與實務（頁131-156）。五南。
林沛穎、林昱成（2014）。從三環評量理論探討融合教育之學習評量。特殊教育與輔助科技，45395，52-58。
周中天（2021）。雙語教育：兩全其美，還是兩頭落空。載於財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會（主編）。臺灣的雙語教育：挑戰與對策（頁97-120）。財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會。
吳俊憲（2020）。素養導向學習評量理念與標準本位評量設計示例。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（9），143-148。
卓家意（2013）。多元評量在健康教育的教學應用─淺談評量基準與規準的訂定。國教新知，60（2），35-37。https://doi.org/10.6701/TEEJ.201306_60(2).0005
施宥廷（2016）。英語學習動機與學習困擾:理論的觀點。臺灣教育評論月刊，5 （7），111-128。10.6814/NCCU202200448
侯雅文、林政逸（2021）。我國中小學實施CLIL教學模式現況、問題與解決策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（6），118-124。
胡潔芳（2021）。論雙語教育中的英語定位。載於財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會（主編）。臺灣的雙語教育：挑戰與對策（頁197-219）。財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會。
高郁婷（2018）。運用跨語言實踐營造課室互動。載於鄒文莉、高實玫（主編），CLIL 教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學（頁55-65）。書林。
高實玫（2018）。CLIL在健康與體育領域的應用。載於鄒文莉、高實玫（主編）。CLIL 教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學（頁169-180）。書林。
張秀娟、陳易芬（2020）。跨語言實踐在國小雙語教學實施的可能性探討。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（12），69-75。
張武昌（2014）。臺灣英語教育的變與不變:面對挑戰，提升英語力。中等教育，65（3），6-17。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.2014.65.3.01
教育部（2020）。2030雙語國家政策（110至113年）。https://www.ey.gov.tw/File/2B6104944B834BE1
教育部國民及學前教育署（2022）。國民中小學部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebFile/index.aspx?sid=1192&mid=14711
戚居清（2018）。Make it Possible：國小全英語授課之SOP，臺灣教育評論月 刊，7（2），112-118。
陳超明（2021）。雙語教育如何前進？。師友雙月刊，（626），28-33。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20190807001-202103-202103230023-202103230023-28-33
陳超明、馬可珍（2022）。雙語教育完整手冊:一本教育主管、教學者、家長、學生必備的手冊。文鶴。
張學謙（2016）。從單語到雙語教學：語碼轉換在語言教育的運用。臺灣語文究，11（1），1-25。https://doi.org/10.6710/JTLL.201604_11(1).0001
陳慧琴（2018）。搭起課室中的學習鷹架。載於鄒文莉、高實玫（主編），CLIL 教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學（頁39-54）。書林。
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。
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。
黃琇屏（2021）。公立中小學雙語教育實施現況與挑戰。臺灣教育評論月刊，10 （12），6-11。
鄒文莉、高實玫（2021）。雙語教育部不等於英語教育:建立臺灣模式的雙語教育。載於財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會（主編），臺灣的雙語教育：挑戰與對策（頁253-276）。財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會。
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。載於鄒文莉、高實玫（主編）。CLIL 教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學（頁9-20）。書林。
楊文賢（2021）。2030 年實現雙語台灣：CLIL 帶來的在地省思。載於財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會（主編）。臺灣的雙語教育：挑戰與對策（頁177-196）。財團法人黃昆輝教授教育基金會。
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。
蒲逸悧、吳國誠（2020）。學科內容及語言整合學習在健康與體育領域應用研究。教育研究與實踐學刊，67（1），65-86。https://doi.org/10.6701/JEPR.202006_67(1).0003
劉欣旻、鄭涵予（2019）。探究學科內容與語言整合教學能力: CLIL 教師專業能力分析。學校行政，（122），141-153。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.201907_(122).0008
盧星蓉（2021）。健體雙語課程設計與評量。載於呂翠鈴、陳慧琴、鄒文莉(主編)。成功的跨領域學科雙語教育：西門實小教育卓越典範（頁79-98）。書林。
龔心怡（2016）。因應差異化教學的評量方式：多元評量停、看、聽。臺灣教育評論月刊，5（1），211-215。

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual matters.
Bartlett, L., & García, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times. Dominican immigrant youth in the Heights. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-012-9246-7
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education. Tokyo.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401-417.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.
Chen,F.,& Tsou,W.(2021).Empowering local bilingual teachers through extending the pedagogy of multiliteracies in Taiwan’s primary education.OLBI Journal,11,79-103. https://doi.org/10.18192/olbij.v11i1.6177
Coyle,D.,Hood,P.,& Marsh,D.(2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press and Assessment.
Creese,A.,& Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?. The modern language journal, 94 (1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (Vol. 7). Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the Distinction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED438551.pdf
Cummins,J.(2000). Language,power,and pedagogy:Bilingual children in the crossfire (Vol. 23). Multilingual matters.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In Hornberger, N.H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and educationa (pp.487-499), Springer.
Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. Bilingual and multilingual education, 3, 103-115.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_8
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P. & Smit, U (Eds.),
Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.29-54).
Multilingual Matters.
Darmi, R. (2014). The Effects of the Application of Cummins‟ Model on Learners‟ Language Use. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.15282/ijleal.v1.235
Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action research: rethinking Lewin. Management learning, 30 (2), 127-140.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International journal of applied linguistics, 19 (3), 221-246.
Freeman, R. (1998). Bilingual education and social change.Multilingual Matters.
García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals. NY: Campaign for Educational Equity. https://ofeliagarciadotorg.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ell-to-eb.pdf
García,O.(2009).Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective.John Wiley & Sons.
García,O.,& Wei,L.(2014). In Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765
García, O. (2017). Bilingual education. In Coulmas, F.(Ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, (pp.405-420). Blackwell.
Goodman, B., & Tastanbek, S. (2021). Making the shift from a codeswitching to a translanguaging lens in English language teacher education. TESOL quarterly, 55(1), 29-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.571
Grapin,S.(2019). Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for English learners. Tesol Quarterly, 53(1), 30-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.443
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
Hatch,J.A.(2002).Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings.State University of New York Press. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780791487945_A40634693/preview-9780791487945_A40634693.pdf
Hesson, S., Seltzer, K., & Woodley, H. H. (2014). Translanguaging in curriculum and instruction: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. CUNY-NYSIEB.
Hornberger, N. H. (1991). Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. Bilingual education: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 1, 215-234. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.18.1.11lam
Jaspers,J.(2018). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication, 58, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.12.001
Kress,G.(2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge.
Kusters, A. (2019). Deaf and hearing signers’ multimodal and translingual practices. Applied linguistics review, 10(1), 1-8.　
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0086
Lemke, J. (2015). Feeling and meaning: a unified framework. University of California at San Diego. https://manoftheword.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/feeling_and_meaning_extended_version.pdf
Lemke, J. L., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2022). Translanguaging and flows: towards an alternative conceptual model. Educational Linguistics, 1(1), 134-151. https://doi.org/10.1515/eduling-2022-0001
Lin, A. M.Y. (2012). Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogical approaches to L2 English content classrooms. In Leung, C. & Street, B(Eds.), English–A changing medium for education (pp.79-103). Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697721-007
Lin, A.M.Y.,and Yanming (Amy) Wu. (2015). “May I Speak Cantonese? –Co-constructing a Scientific Proof in an EFL Junior Secondary Science Classroom.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,18 (3), 289–305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.988113
Lin,A.M.Y. (2019). Theories of trans/languaging and trans-semiotizing: Implications for content-based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1515175
Lin,T.Y.,Shih,W.H.,& Lee,M.S.(2019). The effectiveness of tailor-made content and language integrated learning materials for Taiwanese primary school students’literacy development. In Reynolds, B. L., & Teng, M. F. (Eds.), English Literacy Instruction for Chinese Speakers (pp.75-93). Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6653-6_5
Liu, Y. (2020). Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing as planned systematic scaffolding: Examining feeling-meaning in CLIL classrooms. English Teaching & Learning, 44 (2), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00057-z
Lopez, A. A., Turkan, S., & Guzman‐Orth, D. (2017). Conceptualizing the use of translanguaging in initial content assessments for newly arrived emergent bilingual students. ETS Research Report Series, 2017(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12140
Lotherington, H., & Ronda, N. S. (2012). Multimodal literacies and assessment: Uncharted challenges in the English classroom. In Leung, C. & Street, B(Eds.), English–A changing medium for education (pp.104-128). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697721-008
Makulloluwa, E. (2013). Code switching by teachers in the second language classroom. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 6(3), 581. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i8/10555
Massler, U. (2011). Assessment in CLIL learning. In Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P.(Eds,), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp.114-136).
May, S. (2010). Curriculum and the education of cultural and linguistic minorities. In Peterson, P., Baker, E., & McGaw, B(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp.293-298).Elsevier Science.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00055-5
May, S. (2017). Bilingual education: What the research tells us. In García, O., Lin, A., May, S. (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp.81-100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_4
McKay,P.(2006).Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733093
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies.Pulso: revista de educación, (33), 11-29. https://doi.org/10.58265/pulso.5002
Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Pearson.
Močinić, A. (2011). Bilingual education. Methodological Horizons,6 (13), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.32728/mo.06.3.2011.11
Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33
Mozayan, M. R. (2015). BICS & CALP revisited: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(9), 103-111. http://www.ijeionline.com/attachments/article/46/IJEI.Vol.2.No.9.09.pdf
O’Brien, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. In R. Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research (pp.1-18). Brazil.
Park, M. S. (2013). Code-switching and translanguaging: Potential functions in multilingual classrooms. Teachers College, Columbia University,13 (2),50-52
https://doi.org/10.7916/D8HH6JPQ
Pokrivčáková, S. (2013). Applied linguistics research of bilingualism and its incentives for foreign language pedagogy. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 1(1), 51-62.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of immersion and content-based Language education, 1(1), 101-129. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa
Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 210-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2011.591274
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1998). Two languages are better than one. Educational leadership, 55, 23-27. https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el199712_thomas.pdf
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement.Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475048.pdf
Tran, T. T. H. (2009). Why is action research suitable for education?. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 25(2). https://js.vnu.edu.vn/FS/article/view/2240
Tseng, C. T., (2017). Teaching “cross-cultural communication” through content based instruction: Curriculum design and learning outcome from EFL learners’ perspectives. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 22-34.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n4p22
Ullman, M. T., & Lovelett, J. T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second language research, 34(1), 39-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583166751
Unesco. (2003). Education in a multilingual world: UNESCO education position paper. Unesco.
Walqui,A.(2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
Wei, L. (2011a). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of pragmatics, 43(5), 1222-1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035
Wei,L (2011b) Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code‐and modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (3), 370-384.
Wei,L.(2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 39(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01209.x
Woolard, K. A. (2004). Codeswitching. In A.Duranti (Ed.) A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp.73-94). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996522.ch4
Wright, W. E., & Baker, C. (2017). Key concepts in bilingual education. In O.García,
S. May & Lin, A.M.Y (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (3rd ed, pp.65-79.) Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_2
Wu, Y., & Lin, A. M. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: Whole-body sense-making in the flow of knowledge co-making. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1629322