研究者發現雙語教學在臺灣目前多以國小端為主，國中端雖陸續有科目嘗試進行此教學模式，但因科目間差異性大，難一體適用，以「學科內容與語言整合教學」（Content Language Integrated Learning，簡稱CLIL模式）進行之國中家政科亦尚無相關研究。本研究旨在透過紀錄研究者如何以共備、資料收集等方式累積素材，將英語融入學科進行課程設計的歷程，研究在發展國中家政科的雙語課程的過程中，是否有教學設計通則，適用於英語融入的課程轉化。本研究以台北市某國中七年級一個班的學生為發展課程的實施對象，並採用行動研究方式，研究者即教學者，透過教師觀察、課堂錄影及學生回饋、訪談等資料，進行分析與反思。
根據研究結果，本研究結論發現，藉由以下8點設計原則，將有助初嘗試家政課程轉化為雙語教學之教師有較具體可遵行的課程設計調整方向：(1)考量課程內容，須做適切分組；(2)活動的呈現方式，須考量教學效能；(3)與英文教師共備討論更聚焦，須備好確切課程目標、教學內容和架構；(4)要讓學生勇於嘗試說英語，須營造正向學習氛圍；(5)搭建教學鷹架，須注意課程前後之關聯和呼應；(6)擬定課程知識延伸，須進行英文難度之取捨；(7)文化知識的延伸補充，須進行個人／各國比較；(8)善用4F提問法，可檢視學生所學成效。
本次研究帶給研究者在專業發展上深刻的啟示，除了更加認同「夥伴教師就是最好的教學資源」外，也藉由研究實施的過程再次檢核自己課程設計的核心理念，同時增加課程多元視角的廣度。透過累積實施課程的班級數量及雙語教學資歷，踏踏實實的做好每一次課程的設計和教學反思，並不斷進行滾動式調整，有助教師提升雙語教學流暢性和教學成效。
最後提出兩點建議，給欲以CLIL模式進行雙語課程教學的教師參考：(1)落實與專家教師的共備、議課(2)設計英文融入活動時，需反向思考其與課程內涵的連結性。

Researcher found that bilingual teaching in Taiwan was currently dominated by elementary schools. Although some subjects tried to implement this teaching mode in junior high school, the large differences between subjects were difficult to apply all in one, and "Content Language Integrated Learning" in Taiwan did not relate research in home economics subject of junior high school . The purpose of this research was to record how researcher integrate English into the subject for curriculum design by accumulating course information through co-preparation, data collection, etc., and to study whether there were general principles of instructional design in the process of developing bilingual courses for home economics in junior high schools for the curriculum to convert for the integration of English. This research took students in a class of grade 7 in a junior high school in Taipei City as the object of implementation of the development curriculum. And the method of this study were action research. The researcher was the teacher. The researcher analyzed and reflected through teacher observation, classroom video and student feedback, interviews and other materials .
According to the research results, the conclusions of this research found that the following eight design principles would help teachers who are initially trying to convert home economics courses into bilingual teaching have more specific and feasible course design adjustment directions: (1) Considering the content of the course, it must be done appropriate grouping. (2) The presentation of activities must take into account the teaching effectiveness. (3) The discussion with the English teacher must be more focused, and the exact course objectives, teaching content and structure must be prepared. (4) Creating a positive learning atmosphere will make students brave enough to speak English. (5) To build a teaching scaffold, pay attention to the correlation and echo before and after the course. (6) To draw up the extension of the curriculum knowledge, it’s necessary to choose the difficulty of English. (7) Individual/country comparisons can extend and supplement cultural knowledge. (8) Making good use of the 4F questioning method can check the effectiveness of what students have learned.
This research brought profound enlightenment to researcher in professional development. In addition to more agreeing that "partner teachers are the best teaching resources", the core concepts of their own curriculum design were reviewed through the process of research and implementation, and courses multiple perspectives were added at the same time. Through accumulating the number of classes and bilingual teaching qualifications in the implementation of the course, we would steadily do a good job in the design and teaching reflection of each course, and continue to make rolling adjustments, which would help teachers improve the fluency and effectiveness of bilingual teaching.
Finally, two suggestions were put forward for teachers who want to conduct bilingual curriculum teaching in the CLIL mode: (1) Implement the sharing and discussion with peer teachers. (2) When designing English integration activities, it is necessary to think backwards about the content of the curriculum connectivity.

中文文獻
王韻齡（2012）。十二年國教 國中生怎接招。親子天下，38。https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5043128
何慧敏（1999）。新加坡中學家政教育之研究。家政教育學報，2，45-65。
余曉雯（2018）。德國移民背景學生雙語教育之沿革與實踐。課程與教學，21（4），11-12。
吳明玨，張雅淳，黃迺毓（2013）。澳洲與新加坡的家庭政策發展與家庭教育策略─經驗與啟示。人類發展與家庭學報，15，1-24。
吳明清（1992）。教育研究。五南圖書。
呂妍慧，袁媛（2020）。數學領域雙語教育之教學模式初探。臺灣數學教育期刊，7（1），1-26。
呂美慧（2012）。雙語教育。教育大辭書。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1453900/
林青肯（2013）。數位影片融入國中家政教學之成效研究---以基本手縫教學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。吳鳳科技大學應用數位媒體研究所。
洪久賢（1999）。家政融入中小學一貫領域課程之澳洲實例。家政教育學報，2，1-28。
徐育婷（2018）。教師面對共備與觀課之困境。臺灣教育評論月刊，7（7），59-62。
康自立（2000）。家政教育。教育大辭書。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1308171/
教育部（2012）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校──綜合活動領域。
許美瑞（1985）。家政教育研究的歷史沿革。家政教育，9（5），1-9。
許美瑞（2003）。澳洲昆士蘭的高中家政課程探討。家政教育學報，5，23-40。
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（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所。
許喬斯（2017）。創造力思考教學融入國中家政烹飪課程之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣海洋大學教育研究所。
連玲玲（2013）。家政與近代中國的形塑。近代中國婦女史研究，21，171-181。
陳怡妏（2016）。以合作學習法探討國中家政與美感教育融合之成效（未出版之碩士論文）。明道大學資訊傳播學系。
陳桂芬（2013）。高中家政課程發展之行動研究—以「高中生親子溝通」課程為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學 人類發展與家庭學系
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（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系。
詹雅茹（2010）。多元文化教育融入高中家政課程之實驗研究-以新移民族群為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學輔導與諮商學系研究所。
鄒文莉，高實玫主編（2018）。CLIL教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學。臺南市政府。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理。
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。五南圖書。
蘇佳慧（2013）。家政教育生活管理課程對國中生提升自我效能成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學輔導與諮商學系研究所。

外文文獻
Anthony, B. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597.
Ball, P. , Kelly, K.,& Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.
Barrios-Espinosa, E.,& Acosta-Manzano, I. (2020). Primary students’ satisfaction with CLIL and perceived CLIL linguistic difficulty. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Routledge.
Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Eds.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 46-62). CILT.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL: Planning tools for teachers. University of Nottingham.
Coyle, D. (2008). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf.
Coyle, D., Philip, H.,＆Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL : content and language integrated learning.Cambridge University Press.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House.
Hanesova, D. (2015). History of CLIL. In S. Pokrivcakova et al. (Eds.), CLIL in foreignlLanguage education: e-textbook for foreign language teachers (pp. 7-16). Constantine the Philosopher University
Hanesova, D. (2014). Development of critical and creative thinking skills in CLIL. Journal of language and cultural education.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en
Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal,.& Berry, A. (2020). Do we all share the same goals for content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Routledge.
Kay, B. (2009). Primary curriculum box : CLIL lessons and activities for young learners.Cambridge University Press.
Klimova, B. (2012). CLIL and the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 572-576.
Liz, D.,＆Rosie ,T. (2012). CLIL activities : a resource for subject and
language teachers.Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D.,& Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education.
OECD (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
Peeter, M.,＆Teresa,T. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers . Cambridge University Press.
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). Richmond-Santillana.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Bilingualism or not: The education of minorities. Multilingual Matters.
Ting, Y. T. (2011). CLIL not only not immersion but also more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal, 65 (3), 314-317.
Yukiko, I. (2019). The Effectiveness of a CLIL Basketball Lesson: A Case Study of Japanese Junior High School CLIL. English Language Teaching, 12(11), 42.