為了因應國際競爭環境的挑戰，教育部鼓勵大學建立以學位為本的雙語教育或語言及內容整合學習(CLIL)，以提高學生的英語能力和吸引更多的國際學生。要達成此的目標，教師須了解新的課程。因此，教師對雙語教學的看法值得被探討。
本研究的目的是了解30位職前教師對雙語教學(語言及內容整合學習)的看法，探討的層面包含CLIL的教學方法和教師角色。在此研究中，職前教師分別透過兩種方式描述他們對教學和教師角色的想法：(a) 依據CLIL教學方式設計的問卷問題，以及 (b) 依據CLIL 教師角色所使用的暗喻提詞「雙語教師是…因為…，而語言/學科教師的角色是…因為…」。此外，一對一訪談也用於了解職前教師對於暗喻選用的考量。本研究採取質和量結合的分析方法。
研究結果顯示，職前教師較重視內容的教學。然而，在CLIL教學中，他們傾向將重點放在口說，而不是語言和寫作等其他技巧上。此外，職前教師認為學科老師的角色是「一位課程的引導者和知識的提供者」，而語言老師則是「一位語言的支持者」。最後，本研究建議要建構一個有效的雙語/CLIL的課堂，CLIL課堂的兩位老師都應了解CLIL教學的概念和他們在課堂中扮演的角色。

According to Taiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE), in response to the challenges of the international competitive environment, the MOE is encouraging universities to establish degree-based bilingual education or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes with the purpose of improving students' English proficiency and attracting more international students. In order to achieve improvements in students' English proficiency or to implement CLIL, teachers are among the group of individuals who must be aware of the new curriculum. The perspective of the teachers with regard to bilingual teaching needs to be considered.
The purpose of this study was to examine the perception of pre-service teachers about bilingual teaching (CLIL), including CLIL instruction and CLIL teachers' roles, created by 30 pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers were asked to describe how they represented their perception regarding (a) CLIL instruction through questionnaire questions derived from CLIL instruction and (b) CLIL teachers' roles through metaphors derived from CLIL teachers' roles using a metaphor prompt "bilingual teacher is…because… and a language/content teacher's role is .... because...". Additionally, data were collected through interviews to provide additional details regarding the rationale behind the metaphor. Therefore, this study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis.
The result showed that pre-service teachers tend to be more concerned and focused more on content subject teaching. However, they tended to be concerned about speaking skills in CLIL instruction rather than other parts such as the focus on language and writing. Moreover, pre-service teachers perceived the role of a content teacher as “an instructional guide and a knowledge provider” and perceived the role of a language teacher as “a language supporter”. Lastly, this study suggests that both teachers in CLIL classrooms should comprehend the concept of CLIL instruction and their role in CLIL classrooms in order to construct an effective bilingual/CLIL class

References

Banegas, D. L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content& Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46-56.
Bonnet, A., & Breidbach, S. (2017). CLIL teachers’ professionalization. Between explicit knowledge and professional identity. Applied Linguistic Perspectives on CLIL, 269(18), 270-285.
Cañado, M (2014). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: in-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Cañado, M (2018) Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Teacher Training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 212-221.
Charunsri, K. (2019). The Challenges of Implementing Content Language Integrated Learning in Tertiary Education in Thailand: A Review and Implication of Materials. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(4), 125-129.
Chern, C. L., & Curran, J. E. (2019). Moving toward content-integrated English literacy instruction in Taiwan: Perspectives from stakeholders. In B. Reynolds & M. Teng (Eds.), English literacy instruction for Chinese speakers. Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore.
Choudhury, S. (2005). Interaction in second language classroom. BRAC University Journal, 2(1), 77-82.
Clark, C.M & Yinger. (1979). “Teachers thinking”. In Peterson, P. and Walberg, H. J. Research on teaching concepts findings, and implications. Berkeley: Mc Cutchan Publishing Corporation.
Coonan, M. C. (2008). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-introspection. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
Cerit, Y. (2008). Students, teachers, and administrators’ views on metaphors with respect to the concept of the teacher. Türk eğitim bilimleri dergisi, 6(4), 693-712.
Cristina, U. (2013) Learning to become a CLIL teacher: teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334-353,
Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: an investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–266.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2004). Content and language integrated learning in Austrian classrooms: applied linguistics. http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views/ 02_1&2/CDP.PDF.
Doiz A., Lasagabaster D., Sierra J.M. (2011). Internationalization, multilingualism, and English-medium instruction. World Englishes, 30, 345–359.
Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2020). Coteaching in CLIL in Catalonia. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education. 3(2), 37-55.
Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Eurydice Unit, Eurydice.
García , Ofelia, and Camila, L. (2014). "Theorizing and Enacting Translanguaging for Social Justice." in Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy, edited by Angela Creese ad Adrian Blackledge. New York and London: Springer.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gok, B. & Erdogant, T. (2010). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ perception about concept of technology through metaphor analysis. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 145-160.
Goris, J., Denessen, E. & Verhoeven, L. (2019) The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246-256.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57-70.
Kalra, Mani B. & Baveja, B. (2012).Teacher Thinking about Knowledge, Learning, and Learners: A Metaphor Analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 317-326,
Kewara, P & Prabjandee, D. (2018). CLIL Teacher Professional Development for Content Teachers in Thailand. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 6, 93-108.
Kewara, P. (2017). Phrasebook: a way out for clil teachers in Thailand. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 10(1), 49-73.
Kim, H.K., Lee, S. (2020). Multiple Roles of Language Teachers in Supporting CLIL . English Teaching & Learning, 44, 109–126
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
José Goris, Eddie Denessen & Ludo Verhoeven (2019) The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence, The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246-256
Luo, W. H. (2017). Teacher perceptions of teaching and learning English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: A study of Taiwan: What are the challenges that teachers might face when integrating ELF instruction into English classes? English Today, 33(1), 2-11.
Nikitina, L& Furuoka, F. (2008). “A Language Teacher is Like...”: Examining Malaysian Students’ Perceptions of Language Teachers through Metaphor Analysis. Electronic Jornal of foreign language teaching. 5(2), 192-205.
Nowak, S. (2011). The need for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) development. Paper presented at the 4th International ALTE Conference: Impact of Language Frameworks on Assessment, Learning and Teaching: Policies, Procedures and Challenges, 8(2), 237-254.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL Research in Europe: Past, Present and Future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.
Tachaiyaohun, N& Sukying, A. (2017). EFL Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of CLIL. Asian Education Studies, 2(4), 44-56.
Vidal, C & Roquet, H. (2015). CLIL in Context: Profiling Language Abilities. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_14.
Wan, W, Graham, D & Miao, L. (2011). From students’ and teachers’ perspectives: Metaphor analysis of beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles. System, 39(3), 403-415.
World Bank. (1995). Priorities and Strategies for Education. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Yang, W (2014). Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361-382
Yang, W & Gosling, M. (2014). What makes a Taiwan CLIL program highly recommended or not recommended? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 394-409, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.808168
Yang, W. (2016). An investigation of learning efficacy, Management difficulties, and Improvement in Tertiary CLIL (content and language integrated learning) Programs in Taiwan: A survey of stakeholder perspective. LACLIL, 9(1) 64-109.
Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes. ESP Today, 4(1), 43–68.
Yuen, L (2017). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(7), 818-832.
Yolanda, Z. (2013). CLIL implementation: from policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231-243.