國際交流頻繁之際，多語與跨文化溝通人才需求倍增。90年代起，立基於社會文化互動之「生態語言教育觀」，且強調以「語言」作為建立社會關係「工具」，「用語言」學習「新知」的「內容與語言整合學習」(Content and Language Integrated Learning) 因應而生。「語言、內容、認知、文化」(簡稱4Cs) 並進的「課理優」(CLIL) 學習模式與重視社會文化互動之「生態語言教育觀」，為語言教育帶來新展望。
本研究以生態語言教育觀作為課程教學準則，搭配原有以華語聽說讀寫技能為主的課程，增添多元主題之「文化」題材作為延伸學習「內容」。課程將「華語」從「目標」轉化為學習「工具」，引導學生運用此「工具」學習知識並且進行溝通，透過不同「認知」層次的課堂活動培養詮釋、比較、分析、批判與創造性等思考能力。藉由學習者和有機與無機環境的多元互動活動，培養跨文化覺察、理解與包容力，並且在「情意」上感受到友善與安全的學習氛圍。
教學研究以剛進入臺灣學習環境，基礎級華語程度之外籍學生為研究對象。課程以「內容、語言、認知、文化」與「情意」(4Cs+A) 為並進目標，配合原定教科書《當代中文課程》第一冊的語言點與單元主題，導入「日常文化」作為「內容」體材，學習連結生活場域，以期體現「用語言建立關係」以及「用語言學習新知」的意義化學習。
研究方法採取行動研究模式。研究者即為教學者，在教學過程中觀察並記錄教與學挑戰。蒐集學習歷程中可見的學習證據，並透過問卷調查瞭解學習者反饋。最後，以生態語言教育觀點與4Cs+A「內容、語言、認知、文化、情意」，檢視立基於「生態語言教育觀」與「內容與語言整合學習」模式之基礎華語課程設計與實踐成效。
研究結果顯示：情意方面，課程具參與性，正向且支持性的學習氛圍，有效促進學習互動。語言部分，學習過程中能看到學習者對「關鍵語言」、「促進學習語言」的運用以及「學習中萌發語言」的產出。然而，在語言結構上，如：組織架構、銜接、轉折與觀點表達則較弱。文化方面，學習者能列舉、陳述並比較臺灣與母國文化產物。然而，抽象「文化觀念」例如：態度與價值觀方面則無涉略。認知方面，當學習者受限於華語能力或者在溝通表達時，過度著重於需滿足「全中文」要求時，間接地也影響對內容的分析、應用與創造等認知能力表現。
教學實踐研究過後，針對未來精進教學，提升學習成效建議如下：一、語言結構方面，提供段落或篇章式的結構鷹架，強化學習者之語言結構意識。二、認知學習方面，適度放寬全中文使用要求，允許學生使用熟悉的語言或者運用非語言訊息，如：圖像與圖表，以讓高認知的學習深度得以展現。三、文化學習方面，除了具體的文化產物和行為外，具體事物背後的深度文化價值觀，亦需加以設計，融入學習課程。
針對以「生態語言教育觀」為基礎的「課理優」實施與推動，整體建議如下：一、在課程面上，良效的課程實施，非來自教師一己之力，需校方、行政方、學習者、跨域教師以及場域協助與配合。二、在教學層面上，教師須認知到教學是一門設計學門。教師需能靈活運用生活場域資源，讓語言與內容，學中用，用中學。三、在學習鷹架上，教師必須意識到，針對外籍生的教學是一種有語言特殊輔導需求的特殊教育。設計學習任務時，需視學習者語言程度，提供多元學習輔助鷹架。四、在學習情意面，給予具挑戰性的任務之餘，亦需將學習安全感之情意感受納入考量。五、在學習層面，學習者必須調整學習模式，從被動的學習接受者，轉為主動的學習參與者與貢獻者。六、在學校行政層面，教學單位亦能鼓勵「課理優」教師發展教師社群，形成有後盾之教學互助團體。

In the era of global world, the demand for multilingual and cross-cultural communication has increased. Due to the cross-cultural and cross-discipline communication need, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and ecolinguistic view of language education started to draw language educators’ attention and brought the new inspiration to the language education.
This teaching research reversed the mainly language-form focus teaching by using the Content and Language Integrated Learning model in the novice to CEFR A1 Chinese level course. In this research, Content, Language, Cognition, Culture and Affective (4Cs+A) were set as the course learning goals. Daily culture topics were used as the extended learning elements and were integrated into to Chinese language learning. Hoped that by the implementation of ecolinguistic CLIL approach, the learners of Chinese as a second language not only obtain language skills, but also learned the intercultural competence, thinking ability and the learning affective.
After the research, the results showed that, the course was highly engaging, positive and supportive in the affective aspect. In the language level, learners were able to communicate linguistically according to task instructions. However, the language structures had more room to improve. In the culture level, learners can name and compare the cultural products of Taiwan and their home country. However, abstract cultural concepts such as attitudes and values were rarely covered. In the cognition level, due to the learners’ limited Chinese proficiency, the high cognition skills were rarely shown in students’ Chinese performance.
After the study of teaching practice, the suggestions to improve the learning effectiveness are as follows: First, in terms of language structure, provide paragraph structure frame to strengthen learners' awareness of language structure. Second, in terms of cognitive learning, allow students to use familiar languages or use non-verbal messages, such as images and charts to show the high cognition learning performance. Third, in addition to the cultural products and behaviors, the learning activities related to the cultural values are also needed to be designed and integrated into the learning curriculum.
The overall recommendations for the ecolinguistic CLIL curriculum are as follows: First, a successful learning curriculum require the support from school, teachers, students and the communities. Second, flexible in teaching and let learning connect to the daily life environment are needed. Third, understand learners’ difficulty, offer the necessary and suitable scaffolding to support learning. Fourth, in addition to the challenging tasks, the learning affective factors must be taken into account. Fifth, learners are active participants instead of passive recipients. Sixth, develop the teachers’ learning group and offer necessary teaching support.

中文參考文獻
王柔樺 (2020) 。在EFL情境中嵌入CLIL教學之語言表現、學科知識及情意因素。臺北市立大學英語教學系碩士論文，臺北市。
王俊成 (2021) 。體育雙語實施現況之探討－以參與沉浸式計畫國民小學為例。國立臺中教育大學體育學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，臺中市。
王為國 (2006) 。多元智能教育理論與實務。臺北：心理出版社。
王淑儀 (2005) 。英語教學新選擇──文體教學法 (一) 理論介紹篇。敦煌英語教學電子雜誌。2021 年6月02日，取自https://reurl.cc/nElx08。
王蓓菁 (2020) 。以CLIL雙語教育模式實施國小低年級數學領域教學之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
王靖雯 (2019) 。故事創作引導成語學習: 一個 「課理優」的教學示例。臺灣華語教學研究， (18) ，53-84。
王贊育 (2019) 。 以內容和語言整合學習觀點組構的大學華語聽力課程。 臺灣華語教學研究， (19) ， 1-19。
尹廉榮 (1996) 。建構開放教育的情意教學。載於鄧運林 (主編) 。開放教育情意教學 (頁63-76) 。高雄復文圖書出版社。
朱仲謀 譯 (2006) 。Johnson, A. P. 著。行動研究導論。五南圖書出版公司。
江朝利 (1996) 。開放教育與情意教學。載於鄧運林 (主編) 。開放教育情意教學 (頁115-126) 。高雄復文圖書出版社。
向郁芬 (2019) 。CLIL教學對不同英語能力的小五學童的健康學科知識學習成就和英語字彙能力之影響。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文，臺北市。
李茂琪 (2021) 。國小英語教師實施雙語教育歷程之個案研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文，臺北市。
李振清 (2007) 。學習英語的友善壓力。評鑑雙月刊， 6，19-22。
李振清 (2018) 。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。書林出版有限公司。
李雪菱 (2020) 。跨越邊界：成為高等教育文化回應教師的歷程。教育研究集刊， 66 (4) ， 119-161。
李彩連 (2019) 。 內容語言整合學習的商務華語課程設計: 以 [讀財報買股票] 為例。臺灣華語教學研究， (18) ，37-51。
李榮善 (1996) 。開放教育落實情意教學的認知與原則策略。載於鄧運林 (主編) 。開放教育情意教學 (頁51-61) 。高雄復文圖書出版社。
杜昭玫 (2011) 。 商務漢語教材之內容分析與建議。華語文教學研究，8 (2) ，81-98。
余民寧 (2003) 。多元智力理論教學評量的省思。 教育研究月刊， 110，57-67。
邢素鎮 (2021) 。「内容和語言整合學習」之瑜珈華語課程研究設計。國立臺灣大學華語教學碩士學位學程碩士論文，臺北市。
林宛君 (2021) 。中等學校師培生在 CLIL 教學法跨領域合作之個案研究-以生物實驗課程設計為例。國立彰化師範大學英語學系碩士論文，彰化縣。
林汝軒 (2012) 。鷹架教學理論在身心障礙學生語言教學上的應用。國小特殊教育，53，55-66。
林素菁 (2018) 。六藝華語系列：以內容為導向之〈中醫五行〉教案設計。語象，103，22-27。
林素菁 (2018) 。魚與熊掌如何兼得?內容整合語言學習模式探究。第四屆全球華語文教育論壇。臺中，9月15日。 (研討會論文)
林素菁、王贊育 (2018) 。以C-CLIL為基礎的反向課程設計 (Backward design of a C-CLIL lesson) 。華語內容與語言整合學習國際研討會 ( C-CLIL International Symposium) 。臺北，10月18日至19日。 (研討會工作坊)
林素菁 (2019) 。內容與語言整合學習模式之古典文學教學示例：以《詩經．子衿》為例。臺灣華語文教學研究，18，85-104。
林素菁 (2020) 。六藝華語系列：〈華人傳統建築密碼〉教案設計。語象，106，23-29。
林素菁 (2021) 。課立優取向的「當代中文」華語課程設計。C-CLIL華語課立優教學工作坊。臺師大，4月17日。
林佳穎 (2021) 。實施內容和語言的整合學習之職前教師們的態度及困難— 以臺灣一所中學為例。國立彰化師範大學英語學系碩士論文，彰化縣。
林禹臻 (2020) 。CLIL教學法應用於國小三年級數學領域之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
林進材 (2008) 。文化回應教學的意涵、策略及其在教學上的應用。教育學誌，20，201-230。
姚志文 (1996) 。回歸教育本質，活現開放精神-情意教育推廣的理念與策略。載於鄧運林 (主編) 。開放教育情意教學 (頁3-38) 。高雄復文圖書出版社。
周宛青 (2019) 。由境外生在臺面對問題反思高等教育國際化策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，28 (11) ，7-15。
施春美 (1996) 。開放教育情意教學策略。載於鄧運林 (主編) 。載於開放教育情意教學 (頁232-340) 。高雄復文圖書出版社。
吳佳芳 (2021) 。外籍教師在高雄市雙語特色國小實施「山」主題CLIL教學之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文，高雄市。
高宇亭 (2020) 。學科內容與語言整合學習應用在音樂教學對小五學生英聽、口說及音樂能力之影響。國立中正大學教育學碩士在職專班碩士論文，嘉義縣。
孫郁晴 (2021) 。臺灣國中教師於英語與學科整合教學的挑戰與策略之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學英語學系碩士論文，彰化縣。
庫瑪 (Kumaravadivelu, B. ) (2003) 。超越教學法：語言教學的宏觀策略。北京大學出版社。
許妙如 (2019) 。英語融入健康學科教學對國小三年級學生健康知識和英語認字能力之影響。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文，臺北市。
許家菁 (2020) 。CLIL取向雙語實驗課程發展與實施歷程之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
許善榛 (2020) 。國民小學教師與家長對於政府推行2030雙語國家政策之態度調查。文藻外語大學外語文教事業發展研究所碩士論文，高雄市。
夏翊軒 (2021) 。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。國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文，臺北市。
陳日興 (2018) 。規畫及分析國小階段學科內容與語言整合課程設計。國立成功大學外國語文學系碩士論文，臺南市。
陳郁欣 (2020) 。英文加數學:語言與學科內容整合式教學法對於低成就九年級學生學習成效與學習投入之影響。國立宜蘭大學外國語文學系碩士論文，宜蘭縣。
陳儀靜 (2020) 。CLIL學齡孩童理解新訊息之能力評估。臺北市立大學英語教學系碩士論文，臺北市。
陳穎萱 (2022) 。CLIL應用在小學低年級健康教學： 一位英語教師的雙語教學旅程。國立中正大學教學專業發展數位學習碩士在職專班碩士論文，嘉義縣。
陳伯璋 (1990) 。教育研究方法的新取向-質的研究方法。南宏圖書公司。
陳振宇 (2013) 。學語言是學到了什麼？從語言的多面向樣貌探討語言教學的新路徑。臺灣華語教學研究，7：1-12。
陳振宇 (2019a) 。特約主編序：內容語言整合學習。臺灣華語文教學研究，18，1-4。
陳振宇 (2019b) 。 以語言學習的生態學習理論建構 「內容語言整合學習」的理論基礎。臺灣華語教學研究， (18) ， 5-17。
陳振宇 (2019c) 。華語教學對文化發展宜有的因應。第五屆全球華語文教育論壇。臺中，9月6日。 (研討會演講)
陳振宇 (2021) 。內容與語言整合學習模式課程設計。靜宜大學教師成長社群演講摘要。臺中，7月15日。
陳斐卿、林盈秀和蕭述三 (2013) 。教師合作設計課程的困難—活動理論觀點。教育實踐與研究，26 (1 ) ，63-94。
陳菁惠 (2000) 。情境學習。國家教育研究院教育大辭書。2021 年12月20日，取自https://reurl.cc/MbMya4
張春興 (1990) 。從情緒發展理論的演變論情意教育。臺灣師大教育心理學報，23，1-12。
張信務 (1996) 。開放的策略與情意的校園。載於鄧運林 (主編) 。載於開放教育情意教學 (頁127-138) 。高雄復文圖書出版社。
張盈堃 (2008) 。教育的文化/文化的教育。師大書苑。
張齡心 (2021) 。英語繪本運用於CLIL教學對國小二年級學生學習成就之影響。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文，臺北市。
梁雲霞 (2012) 。多元智能。國家教育研究院 教育大辭書。2021 年10月18日，取自https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1453804/?index=3 。
教育部統計處 (2019) 。2021 年9月20日，取自https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/。
國家發展委員會 (2021) 。2030 雙語政策整體推動方案。2022 年4月13日，取自https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=A3CE11B3737BA9EB
黃子純 (2019) 。華語內容與語言整合學習課程設計與教材編寫：「臺灣社會議題」課程之個案探析。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文，臺北市。
黃文定 (2015) 。小學生國際交流 跨文化能力指標之建構。教育研究與發展期刊，11 (1) ，135-164。
黃兪華 (2020) 。小學教師在學科內容與語言整合課程情境中之認知性言談功能的使用。國立成功大學外國語文學系碩士論文，臺南市。
黃淑真 (2007) 。外語學習動機理論的發展與教學研究的回顧。英語教學期刊，31 (3) ，101-124。
黃鈺雯 (2018) 。CLIL協同教學課程設計與實施個案研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士班碩士論文，臺北市。
黃雅英 (2014) 。華語文教學之跨文化溝通能力指標研究-以《歐洲共同語言參考架構為基礎》。國立政治大學華語文教學博士學位學程博士論文，臺北市。
黃綉雯 (2010) 。歐盟多語政策之研究：以保護區域與少數語言為例。國立政治大學歐洲語文學程碩士在職專班 (MPES) 碩士論文，臺北市。
黃夢寧 (2021) 。內容與語言整合學習之中文姓名教學教案設計。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系海外華語師資數位碩士在職專班碩士論文，臺北市。
黃靜子 (2019) 。系統功能語言學指導下的內容與語言融合的外語教學。臺灣華語文教學研究，18，19-36。
舒兆民 (2016) 。華語文教學。新學林出版社。
詹孟儒 (2019) 。臺灣高等教育輸出之境外生發展與招生策略。評鑑雙月刊，8。
傑穎奧頓和林彤 (2019) 。內容語言整合中的遊戲設計: 應用 「可見的學習」理論框架。臺灣華語教學研究， (18) ，105-121。
歸皮爾 (2020) 。料理漫畫運用於華語教學之研究。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文，臺北市。
趙敏如 (2020) 。CLIL內容語言整合學習在華語讀寫教學之運用探究。中國文化大學華語文教學碩士學位學程碩士論文，臺北市。
趙子嘉 (2017) 。大學英語學習者跨文化溝通能力的評量。載於黃淑真 (主編) 。教英文，跨文化：大學英文課程裡的多元文化教學。政大出版社。
潘怡均 (2021) 。應用CLIL核心精神設計水循環的英語多媒體教材之效益研究─以國小六年級學生為例。國立清華大學課程與教學碩士在職專班碩士論文，新竹市。
歐秀慧 (2006) 。情意感受之喚醒─以家長回函與詩歌欣賞之情意活動設計為例。員林。大葉大學。
歐秀慧 (2018) 。以生命回應生命< 重耳出亡記> 情意教學活動。 語文教育學報，4，1-20。
蔡余欣 (2019) 。CLIL應用於一年級音樂課之行動研究。國立臺北科技大學應用英文系碩士論文，臺北市。
蔡佩臻 (2021) 。國中家政雙語教學之行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系教育管理與課程教學領導碩士在職專班碩士論文，臺北市。
蔡雅薰 (2012) 。故宮數位典藏文物融入華語文化教材之創新開發-以清院本清明上河圖為例。中原華語文學報， (9) ， 23-45。
盧乃桂和何碧愉 (2009) 。能動者行動的意義—探析學校發展能量的提升歷程。教育學報，30 (1) ：1-31。
鄒文莉和高實玫 (2018) 。CLIL教學資源書-探索學科內容與語言整合教學。書林出版有限公司。
劉美慧 (2001) 。文化回應教學：理論、研究與實踐。課程與教學季刊，4 (4) ，143-151。
謝州恩 (2013) 。鷹架理論的發展、類型、模式與對科學教學的啟示。科學教育月刊，364 ，2-16。
謝承翰 (2020) 。國小教師對CLIL的觀點研究。南臺科技大學應用英語系碩士論文，臺南市。
謝秀萍 (2021) 。專題式雙語服務學習之課程設計、實施與評估。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄市。
簡妤婷 (2021) 。內容與語言整合學習 (CLIL) 融合任務型語言教學法 (TBLT) 之華語文教學設計發展研究。中原大學應用華語文研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
戴金惠 (2015) 。授之以漁：生態、生活與教學-淺談生態語言教育觀賦予語言教育與師資培訓的新契機。華語文教學研究，12 (4) , 111-132。
蘇元貞 (2017) 。以環境議題融入國小英語繪本課程之行動研究。國立高雄師範大學英語學系碩士論文，高雄市。

外文參考文獻
Adrián, M. M., & Mangado, M. J. G. (2015) . Is CLIL instruction beneficial in terms of general proficiency and specific areas of grammar?. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3 (1) , 51-76.

Alexander, R. (2010) . Dialogic teaching essentials. Retrieved from
Retrieved from https://robinalexander.org.uk/dialogic-teaching/
Allen‚ T.F.H. & Hoekstra‚ T.W. (1992) . Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) . (2013) . World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages.
Airey, J. (2018) . EMI, CLIL, EAP: What’s the difference? In Study Abroad, EMI, and Formal Instruction.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001) . A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing： A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives： Complete Edition. New York：Longman.
Apsel, C. (2012) . Coping With CLIL: Dropouts in CLIL Streams in Germany. International CLIL Research Journal. 1 (4) , 47–56.
Arndt‚ H. & Janney‚ R. W. (1983) . The duck-rabbit phenomenon: Notes on the disambiguation of ambiguous utterances. In W. Enninger & L. M. Haynes (Eds.) ‚ Studies in language ecology (pp. 94-115) . Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Baddeley, A. (2004) . Your Memory: A User’s Guide. London: Carlton Books.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015) . Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ball, P. (2018) . Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Materials Design. Theory into Practice, 57 (3) , 222-231.
Banegas, D. L. (2012) . Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,2 (1) , 111-136.
Banegas, D.L. (2013) . An investigation into CLIL-related sections of EFL coursebooks： Issues of CLIL inclusion in the publishing market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17 (3) , 345–359.
Banegas, D. L. (2017) . Teacher developed materials for CLIL: Frameworks, sources, and activities. Asian EFL Journal, 19 (3) ,31-48.
Barkhuizen, G. 2004. Social influences on language learning. In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, A. Davies & C. Elder (eds) , 552-557. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bates‚ E. & Goodman‚ J. C. (1999) . On the emergence of grammar from the lexicon. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.) ‚ The emergence of language (pp. 29-80) . Mahwah‚ NJ: Erlbaum.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002) . Bringing words to life. New York, NY:The Guilford Press.
Bentley, K. (2012) . The TKT Course CLIL Module. Cambridge University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) . Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi delta kappan, 92 (1) , 81-90.
Bless, H., & Fiedler, K. (2006) . Mood and the regulation of information processing and behavior. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.) , Hearts and minds: Affective influences on social cognition and behaviour (pp. 65–84) . New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bowers‚ C. A. (1993) . Critical essays on education‚ modernity‚ and the recovery of the ecological imperative. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bonnet, A., & Siemund, P. (2018) . Multilingualism and foreign language education. A synthesis of linguistic and educational findings. Foreign language education in multilingual classrooms, 1-29.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989) . Content-based second language instruction. New York： Newbury House.
Bronfenbrenner‚ U. (1979) . The ecology of human development. Cambridge‚ MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983) . Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. & Bradford, A. (2017) . EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing Approaches and Goals. Transformation in English Education, Publisher： JALT, Tokyo, Editors： P. Clements, A. Krause, H. Brown, pp.328-334.
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.
Byram, M. (1989) . Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual matters.
Byram, M. (1997) . Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Channel View Publications Ltd.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980) . Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches of Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics,1.
Capra‚ F. (1996) . The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2013) . Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics. 1-21. Oxford University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2015) . Content based instruction and content and language integrated learning the same or different. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1) , 8-24.
Chansri, C., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2016) . Implementing CLIL in Higher Education in Thailand: The Extent to Which CLIL Improves Agricultural Students' Writing Ability, Agricultural Content, and Cultural Knowledge. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 51, 15-38.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., Hamayan, E. (2000) Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for Enriched Education. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Coyle, D. (1999) . Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts: Planning for effective classrooms. In Learning through a foreign language (pp. 46-62) . CILT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research) .
Coyle, D. (2005) . CLIL planning tools for teachers. Retrieved from https：//www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01- 2014/coyle_clil_planningtool_kit.pdf
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010) . Content and language integrated learning. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Cross, R. (2015) . Defining content and language integrated learning for languages education in Australia. Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Language: English, 49, 2, 4-15.
Cummins, J. (1984) . Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2000) . Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2007) . Language Interactions in the Classroom： From Coercive to Collaborative Relations of Power. In O. García, C. Baker (eds) Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) . Discourse in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013) . Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46 (4) , 545-559.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014) . You can stand under my umbrella: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter. Applied Linguistics, 35, 213–218.
Damasio, A. (1994) . Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Avon,
Damasio‚ A. (2003) . Looking for Spinoza: Joy‚ sorrow and the feeling brain. Orlando‚ FL: Harcourt.
Darvin, R. & Norton, B. (2015) . Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35: 36-56.
Davison, C. (2006) . Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9 (4) , 454-475.
Dearden, J. (2014) . English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon. British Council.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006) . Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of studies in international education, 10 (3) , 241-266.
Díaz, C. P., & Requejo, M. D. P. (2008) . Teacher beliefs in a CLIL education project. Porta Linguarum.151-161.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994) . Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001) . Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education.
Dueñas, M. (2004) . The whats, whys, hows and whos of content-based instruction in second/foreign language education, IJES 4 (1) . 73–96.
Earl, L. M. (2013) . Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning. Corwin Press.
Ely, C. M. (1986) . Language learning motivation: A descriptive and causal analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 28-34.
Eurydice. (2006) . Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurydice. (2017) . Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe - 2017 Edition. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fantini, A. (2007) . Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence. CSD Research Report.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972) . Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Gardner, H. (1983) . Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, R. C. (1985) . Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, U.K.: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.
Gardner, H. (1989) . To Open Minds: Chinese Clues to the Dilemma of American Education. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993) . Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10 anniversary ed.) New York, NY: Basic Books.
Genesee, F. (2004) . What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students. Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism, 547, 576.
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013) . Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-based language Education, 1 (1) , 3-33.
Gibbons, P. (2002) . Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gierlinger, E. (2015) . ‘You can speak German, sir’: on the complexity of teachers' L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29 (4) , 347-368.
Goddard, C. (2005) . The lexical semantics of culture. Language sciences, 27 (1) , 51-73.
Goldsmith‚ E. (1998) . The way: An ecological world view (second edition) . Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Gondová, D. (2015) . 12 Selecting, adapting and creating CLIL materials. CLIL, 153.
Graddol, D., (2005) . Debate. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.guardian.co.uk.
Guerrini, M. (2009) . CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, 1, 74-84.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000) . How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Policy Report 2000-1. Santa Barbara, CA: The University of California Language Minority Research Institute.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) . Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Hodder Education.
Halliday‚ M.A.K. (1993) . Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education‚ 5‚ 93-116.
Hattie, J. (2012) . Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Heritage, M. (2007) . Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and Do. Phi Delta Kappa International 89 (2) , 140-145.
Huang, K. M. (2011) . Motivating lessons: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of content-based instruction on EFL young learners’ motivated behaviours and classroom verbal interaction. System, 39 (2) , 186-201.
Huang, Y. P. (2011) . English-Medium Instruction (Emi) Content-Area Teachers' (Cats') Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Scaffoldings: A Vygotskian Perspective. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 8 (1) , 35-66.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. R. (2007) . We feel, therefore we learn: the relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education 1 (1) , 3- 10.
Jiang, X. and Grabe, W. (2007) . Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19 (1) .
Krashen, S. (1982) . Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1991) . The Input Hypothesis： An Update. In James E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.： Georgetown University Press, 409-431.
Lara, M. D. M. & Pedrosa, A. V. C. (2018) . Teacher perspectives on CLIL implementation: A within-group comparison of key variables. Porta Linguarum 29, 159-180.
Larsen-Freeman‚ D. (1997) . Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics‚ 18‚ 141-165.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009) . Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2) , 4-17.
Lasagabaster, D. (2017) . Integrating content and foreign language learning： What do CLIL students believe? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5 (1) , 4 - 29.
Lave‚ J. & Wenger‚ E. (1991) . Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lialikhova, D. (2018) . Triggers and constraints of lower secondary students’ willingness to communicate orally in English in a CLIL setting in the Norwegian context. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6 (1) , 27-56.
Lin, A. M. (2015) . Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1) , 74-89.
Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2009) . Integrating reading and writing into the context of CLIL classroom: Some practical solutions. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2) , 47-53.
Lorenzo, F. (2007) . The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 20 (1) , 27-38.
Lundin, C., & Persson, L. (2015) . Advantages and Challenges with CLIL-a study examining teachers' thoughts on learner engagement and confidence within content and language integrated learning.
Massler, U., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Steiert, C. (2011) . Effective CLIL teaching techniques. Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education, 66.
Massler, U. (2012) . Primary CLIL and Its Stakeholders： What Children, Parents and Teachers Think of the Potential Merits and Pitfalls of CLIL Modules in Primary Teaching. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (4) , 36-46.
Mattheoudakis, M., Alexiou, T., & Laskaridou, C. (2014) . To CLIL or not to CLIL? The case of the 3rd Experimental Primary School in Evosmos. In Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 3 (pp. 215-234) . De Gruyter Open Poland.
Md Yasin, S., Ong, E. T., Alimon, H., Baharom, S., & Lai, Y. Y. (2010) . Teaching science through English: Engaging pupils cognitively. International CLIL Research Journal.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008) . Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Mehisto, P. (2012) . Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15-33. Retrieved from https:// www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/21- 01-2014/mehisto_criteria_for_producing_clil_learn ing_material.pdf
Met. M. (1999) . Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
Meyer, O. (2013) . Introducing the CLIL-Pyramid: Key Strategies and Principles for quality CLIL Planning and Teaching. Basic Issues in EFL Teaching, 2nd Edition. Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg, 295-313.
Mohan, B. A. (1986) . Language and content (Vol. 5288) . Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Morilla-García, C. (2017) . The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Bilingual Education: A Study on The Improvement of The Oral Language Skill. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 7 (1) , 27-52.
Muñoz-Luna, R. (2014) . From drills to CLIL: the paradigmatic and methodological evolution towards the integration of content and foreign language. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 16 (1) , 167-180.
Naess‚ A. (1989) . Ecology‚ community and lifestyle. Translated and edited by D. Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2003) . The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia‐Pacific Region. TESOL quarterly, 37 (4) , 589-613.
Oxford, R. (1990) . Language learning strategiesWhat every teacher should know. Heinle & heinle Publishers.
Padilla, R. J. (2018) . Parent perspectives on CLIL implementation: Which variables make a difference? Porta Linguarum, 29, 181-196.
Pawan, F. (2008) . Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and teacher education, 24 (6) , 1450-1462.
Pennycook‚ A. (2001) . Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah‚ NJ: Erlbaum.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K. (2017) . The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30 (3) , 300-316.
Reed‚ E. S. (1996) . Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roiha, A. (2019) . Investigating former pupils’ experiences and perceptions of CLIL in Finland: A retrospective analysis. Nordic journal of studies in educational policy, 5 (2) , 92-103.
Smala, S. (2014) . Sole Fighter Mentality: Stakeholder Agency in CLIL Programmes in Queensland. Language Learning Journal, 42 (2) , 195-208.
Smit, U. (2010) . CLIL in an English as a lingua franca (ELF) classroom. Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms, 259-277.
Stern, H. H. (1992) . Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Allen, P. & Harley, B. (Eds.) .
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.) . (1997) . Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Georgetown University Press.
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.
van Lier, L. (1996) . Interaction in the Language Curriculum： Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London： Longman.
van Lier, L. (Ed.) . (2004) . The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
van Lier, L. (2014) . Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Routledge.
Várkuti, A. (2010) . Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (3) , 67-79.
Vidal, C. P. (2007) . The need for focus on form (FoF) in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, (1) , 39-54.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978) . Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Wannagat, U. (2007) . Learning through L2–Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and English as medium of instruction (EMI) . International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (5) , 663-682.
Wenger‚ E. (1998) . Communities of practice: Learning‚ meaning‚ and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wegner, A. (2012) . Seeing the bigger picture: What students and teachers think about CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (4) , 29-35.
Wiggins, G., Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005) . Understanding by design. Ascd.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997) . Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach (Vol. 5) . Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Wolfson, N. (1989) . Perspectives: sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House Publishers.
Zydatiß, W. (2012) . Linguistic thresholds in the CLIL classroom? The threshold hypothesis revisited. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (4) , 17-28.