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 and their 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.

References
Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI, or CLIL?. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.), Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes. (pp. 71–83). Routledge.
Ali, N. L., Hamid, M. O., & Moni, K. (2011). English in primary education in Malaysia: Policies, outcomes and stakeholders’ lived experiences. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 147–166.
Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo. A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 36–49.
Auerbach, E. (1994). Participatory action research. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 693–697.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work?. In D. Hill, & P. Alan (Eds.), The best of both worlds?: International perspectives on CLIL. (pp. 32–43). Norwich Institute for Language Education.
Ball, P. (2016). Using language(s) to develop subject competences in CLIL-based practice. Pulso. Revista de educación, 39, 15-34.
Blair, A., Haneda, M., & Bose, F. N. (2018). Reimagining English-Medium Instructional Settings as Sites of Multilingual and Multimodal Meaning Making. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 516–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.449
Briggs, J. G., Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction: Comparing teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 673–696. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.7.
Brinton, D., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Newbury House.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in English education. (pp. 328–334). JALT.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal 95(3). 401–417.
Cenoz, J. (2012). Bilingual and multilingual education: Overview. In C. A Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0780
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 8–24.
Chan, S. (2015). Linguistic challenges in the mathematical register for EFL learners: Linguistic and multimodal strategies to help learners tackle mathematics word problems. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 306–318.
Chua, S. K. C., & Baldauf, R. B. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). Routledge.
Coyle, D. (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. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Czura, A., Papaja, K., & Urbaniak, M. (2009). Bilingual education and the emergence of CLIL in Poland. CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. 172–178.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2011), 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Dearden, J. (2016). English as a medium of instruction—A growing global phenomenon. British Council. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12079.94888
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan Company.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.12.001
Flores, N., & Beardsmore, H. B. (2015). Programs and structures in bilingual and multilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education. (pp. 205–222). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118533406
Franzosi, R. (2004). Content analysis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. (pp. 186–189). SAGE.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley‐Blackwell.
García, O., & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Genesee, F. (2008). Dual language in the global village. In T. W. Fortune, & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education. (pp. 22–45). Multilingual Matters.
Giroux, H. A. (1985). Teachers as transformatory intellectuals. Social Education, 49(5), 376–379.
Grapin, S. (2018). Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 30–55.
Hoare, P., & S. Kong. (2008). Late immersion in Hong Kong: Still stressed or making progress? In T. W. Fortune, & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education. (pp. 242–263). Multilingual Matters.
Hu, G. W. (2007). The juggernaut of Chinese-English bilingual education. In A.W. Feng (Ed.), Bilingual education in China: Practices, policies and concepts. (pp. 94–126). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599934-009
Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., & Lastrucci, E. (2009). The effects of CLIL from the perspective of experienced teachers. CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. 156–163.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, R.B. Jr. (1997) Language planning: From practice to theory. Multilingual Matters.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). The languages of higher education in East and Southeast Asia: Will EMI lead to Englishisation? In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy. (pp. 21–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_2
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–560.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Newbury House.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899–916.
Li, J. (2005). Mind or virtue: Western and Chinese beliefs about learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00362.x
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2_6
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, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y. (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.
Lo, Y. Y. (2015). How much L1 is too much? – Teachers’ language use in response to students’ abilities and classroom interaction in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 270–288.
Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2014). Designing assessment tasks with language awareness: Balancing cognitive and linguistic demands. Assessment and Learning, 3, 97–119.
Lotherington, H. (2004). Bilingual education. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics. (pp. 695–718). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins.
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching 2018, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
Marsh, D. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages: An introduction to content and language integrated learning for parents and young people. TIE-CLIL, University of Jyväskylä.
May, S. (2017). Bilingual education: What the research tells us. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education. (pp. 81–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_4-1
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education.
Menken, K., & Sánchez, M. (2019). Translanguaging in English‐only schools: From pedagogy to stance in the disruption of monolingual policies and practices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3). 741–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.513
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz, & F Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. (pp. 35–63). Multilingual Matters.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
MOE (Ministry of Education, Taiwan). (2014). Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education: General Guidelines. https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=9900
MOE (Ministry of Education, Taiwan). (2017, August 22). 教育部國民及學前教育署補助直轄市縣(市)政府協助公立國民中小學引進外籍英語教師暨設立英語教學資源中心要點 [Guidelines: K-12 Education Administration, MOE grants city governments to assist public junior high and elementary schools in recruiting foreign English teachers and establishing English teaching resource centers]. https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Common/Downloader/431E84FE-DF56-4A94-BAC8-0CA5C753E288
MOE (Ministry of Education, Taiwan). (2018, November 21). 教育部啟動全英語教學師資培育計畫，培育學科英語教學專業師資 [MOE initiates the teacher education plan for teaching subjects all in English]. https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2600/News_Content.aspx?n=E491D1720010EE05&s=BE94948F0D339502
MOE (Ministry of Education, Taiwan). (2020). 國民中小學沉浸式英語教學特色學校試辦計畫 [The immersion English education project for primary and secondary schools in Taiwan]. http://immersion.ntue.edu.tw/main/News/detail?id=29
Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Slater, T. (2010). Assessing language and content: A functional perspective. In A. Paran, & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the untestable in language education. (pp. 217–240). Multilingual Matters.
Moliner, M. (2013). The effects of CLIL from the perspective of in-service teachers in Salamanca (Castilla y León, Spain). EDUCAÇÃO E FORMAÇÃO, 8. 200–217.
NDC (National Development Council, the Executive Yuan, Taiwan). (2018a). 2030雙語國家政策發展藍圖 [Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030]. https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=FB2F95FF15B21D4A
NDC (National Development Council, the Executive Yuan, Taiwan). (2018b). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030 (English-translated version). https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/Content_List.aspx?n=D933E5569A87A91C&upn=9633B537E92778BB
New Taipei City Government, Education Bureau (2018, March 5). 新北市 107–109 學年度國民小學雙語實驗課程實施計畫 [Implementation plan of experimental bilingual education courses in elementary schools in the 107–109 academic years]. https://englishcenter.ntpc.edu.tw/uploads/1579577939327JQO4Tz6p.pdf
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Pérez Cañado, M. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education 2016. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104
Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, C. A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding. The Bilingual Research Journal 1995, 19(3-4), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1995.10162679
Rogers, R., & Wetzel, M. M. (2013). Studying agency in literacy teacher education: A layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(1), 62–92.
Rubin, J. (1986). City planning and language planning. In E. Annamalai, B. H. Jernudd, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Language planning: Proceedings of an institute. (pp. 105–122). East-West Centre.
Ruiz De Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque country. International Journal of CLIL Research 1. 60–73.
Snow, M. A. (2014). Content-based and immersion models of second/foreign language teaching. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. National Geographic Learning.
Spolsky, B. (2017). Language policy in education: Practices, ideology, and management. In T. McCarty, & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 3–16). Springer.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24(1). 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000108
Stoller, F. L., & Fitzsimmons-Doolan S. (2017). Content-based instruction. In N. Hornberger, & N. Van Deusen-Scholl (Eds.), Second and foreign language education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 71-84). Springer.
Stritikus, T. T. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English-only. LFB.
Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context and learning: The case of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 1(2). 29–52.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Multilingual Matters.
Tainan City Government. (2018, March 30). 上課說英語，台南贏在起跑點 Tainan takes the lead in promoting CLIL [Speaking English in class. Tainan takes the lead]. https://oeasol.tainan.gov.tw/index.php?inter=achievements&id=1&did=5&itid=50
Taipei City Government, Education Bureau. (2019, May 10). 臺北市雙語大教室―各領域CLIL教給你看！ [Bilingual classes in Taipei City—Teaching all CLIL courses in every field to you]. https://www.doe.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=0F560782595DACFC&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=0AAF462783829118
Taipei City Government, Education Bureau. (2020, October 13). 臺北市109學年度雙語教育論壇〜雙語教育展開新扉頁：師資、教材及評量 [Taipei City bilingual education forum of the 109-academic-year: Teachers, materials, and assessment]. https://www.doe.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=0F560782595DACFC&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=370E3BC7E75406B2
Tan, M., & Lan, O. S. (2010). Teaching mathematics and science in English in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom practices and student learning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 5–18.
Tavares, N. J. (2015). How strategic use of L1 in an L2-medium mathematics classroom facilitates L2 interaction and comprehension. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 319–335.
Tedick, D. J. (2017). Teacher development for content-based instruction. In S. Madya, F. Hamied, W. A. Renandya, C. Coombe, & Y. Basthomi (Eds.), ELT in Asia in the digital era: global citizenship and identity: Proceedings of the 15th Asia TEFL and 64th TEFLIN international conference on English language teaching, July 13–15, 2017, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Routledge.
Tollefson, J. W. (2017). Language planning in education. In T. McCarty, & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 17–29). Springer.
Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. (2004). Contexts of medium-of-instruction policy. In J. W. Tollefson, & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 283–294). Routledge.
Tsou, W., & Kao, S.-M. (2017). Overview of EMI development. In W. Tsou, & S.-M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan. (pp. 3–18). Springer.
Valdez, E. O. (2001). Winning the battle, losing the war: Bilingual teachers and post-Proposition 227. The Urban Review, 33, 237–253.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.