學習者應該要接觸幾次新詞，才能學習會一個詞？

從過往的研究來看，研究者們認為能夠學會一個詞所需要的接觸次數在5次到16次之間(Nation, 1990) (Nation1990)。之所以存在5次到16次這麼大範圍的變異，Schmitt (2010) 認為和接觸時的方式以及學習者投入的程度有關。

如果第一語言閱讀的情況下，不經意地學習(incidental learning)，能夠在一次接觸的情況下，掌握新詞詞義的機會界於5%到16%(nagy1997)(Nagy, 1997) 。而第二語言的情況下，雖然能夠說有學習的發生，但是都不太穩固(Paribakht & Wesche, 1993; Horst & Meara, 1999; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006) 。

如果是刻意地學習(intentional learning)時，學習的成果都比不經意地學習更好。儘管如此，學習的成果還是隨著時間衰退。但是，如果學習者投入的程度高的時候，例如透過hulstijn1997的關鍵字方法的話，即使只有一次的接觸，都可以產生在詞彙裡形式和意義的連結。

Schmitt (2010) 認為，學習詞語的過程是一個階段、一個階段的(incremental)，所以在進行詞彙教學的時候，應該讓詞語循環地出現(recycling)。最簡單的方式是選擇依照循環原則出現詞語的教科書。然而，大多數的時候，老師是無法選擇教科書的，因此透過一些課堂活動，例如：詞彙遊戲、有意地回顧或把教過的字放在例句中，都是可以用來把重要的語言點標識出來的方式。

References

Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(2), 303-317.
Horst, M. & Meara, P. (1999). Test of a model for predicting second language lexical growth through reading. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 308-328.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning: Theoretical considerations and pedagogical implications. In (), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge University Press.
Nagy, W. E. (1997). The role of context in first-and second-language vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Ed.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Heinle ELT.
Paribakht, T. S. & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada journal, 11(1), 09-29.
Pigada, M. & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a foreign language, 18(1), 1.
Russell, P. (1979). The Brain Book. Rouledge and Kegan Pau.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University PRess.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Key issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. In (Ed.), Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 28-40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

我們如何理解雙語者的心理詞典？

人們的心理詞典(mental lexicon)是如何組織、如何運作的呢？我們馬上可以想出兩個可能的解釋因素：一、頻率。當我們進行詞彙聯想的時候，會從腦海裡跳出來的詞彙通常就會是我們常常遇到的詞彙。語料庫是最容易計算詞彙頻率的，但是語料庫卻無法預測人們詞彙聯想的結果。畢竟，詞彙聯想是相當個人的行為，不論對母語者或二語者來說都是如此。二、語言程度。如果說語言程度不會影響心理詞典那也很奇怪，程度低的可能連刺激詞彙都不認得，和程度好的相比，聯想的結果肯定會有差別。但是，我們在判斷二語者的語言程度時，是以一個典型的母語者的程度作為標準。當單一母語者產生的聯想詞彙是有別於一般母語者的話而如同二語者的話，那豈不是母語者的語言程度如同二語者了？過去也有研究指出，語言程度並不能作為解釋人們對於自由聯想產生變項的原因(例如：Den Dulk (1985) 和Kruse,Pankhurst and Smith (1987)  的研究)。

從上面這樣的理路來看，人們自由聯想的詞彙可能不受頻率或語言程度所決定。

Wolter (2001) 提出了個別詞語知識深度(depth of individual word knowledge, DIWK)模型試圖描繪第一語言和第二語言的心理詞典的樣貌。

探索DIWK模型時，我們必須先知道它的限制：一、在任何一個時間段，一個二語學習者的心理詞典總是會有別於大部分的母語者。即便是很熟練的二語者，其詞彙量仍是母語者少。此外，母語者的心理詞典也是不穩定的，有時候也會有某些詞語想不起來；二、過往對於心理詞典的分析都是全面地評估整體的自由聯想項目，所以得到的結論也都是試圖將個別的反應項目嵌入整體的心理詞典中。然而，自由聯想能夠得到的只是個別詞語和其相關詞語的聯想，並不適合用來說明全面的心理詞彙的結構；三、詞語在心理詞典中，並非總是處在一樣的狀態。詞語並不是懂或不懂這樣二分的概念：有些詞是非常了解，有些詞稍微了解，是了解程度上的差別。這也呼應人們接收的詞彙總是大於產出的詞彙。這個模型的核心也就是在提出對於個別詞彙理解的程度會影響它在心理詞典的連結。

Wolter (2001) 的DIWK模型將詞語知識以同心圓的方式，由內而外分成五個程度：非常熟識的詞語、熟識的詞語、中等熟識的詞語、稍微熟識的詞語，以及圓外不認識的詞語。

References

Brown, R. & Berko, J. (1960). Word association and the acquisition of grammar. Child Development, , 1-14.
Den Dulk, J. (1985). Productive vocabulary and the word association test (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from
Entwisle, D. R. (1966). Word associations of young children.. Johns Hopkins Press.
Ervin, S. M. (1961). Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word-association. The American journal of psychology, 74(3), 361-372.
Kruse, H., Pankhurst, J. & Smith, M. S. (1987). A multiple word association probe in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(2), 141-154.
Palermo, D. S. (1971). Characteristics of word association responses obtained from children in grades one through four.. Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 118.
Piper, T. H. & Leicester, P. (1980). Word Association Behavior as an Indicator of English Language Proficiency.. , , .
Postman, L. (1970). The California norms: Association as a function of word frequency. In L. Postman & G. G. Keppel (Eds.), Norms of word association. Academic Press New York.
Söderman, T. (1993). Word associations of foreign language learners and native speakers: The phenomenon of a shift in response type and its relevance for lexical development. In (), Near-native proficiency in English. Abo Akademi Abo.
Stolz, W. S. & Tiffany, J. (1972). The production of “child-like” word associations by adults to unfamiliar adjectives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(1), 38-46.
Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(1), 41-69.

詞語自由聯想測驗在母語者和二語學習者身上有什麼樣的異同 ？

對於受試者因應詞語聯想(word association)測驗的反應，研究者將它們分成三種類別：聚合類(paradigmatic)、組合類(syntagmatic)以及和詞語意義本身較沒有關係的類別(phonological, clang)。反應被歸在聚合類通常和刺激詞彙屬於同一個詞類，在給定的句子下，有相同的句法功能。聚合類的反應大概可以再分成四類：同級別(coordinates)、上屬級(superordinates)、下屬級(subordinates)以及同義級(synonyms)。以「狗」為刺激詞語為例，反應為「貓」，則是同級別；反應為「動物」，則是上屬級；反應為「柴犬」，則是下屬級；反應為「犬」，則是同義級。組合類則會是和刺激詞語常常共同出現的關係，同樣以「狗」為例，反應若為「吠」或「咬」，這樣的詞語，則是組合類。而因為聲音而聯想出來的反應，刺激詞語為「狗」，而反應出來的為「夠」那就會被視為是第三類。
由母語者參加詞語聯想測驗，比較不同年紀學童的反應類別數量，發現學童的年紀越大，產生聚合類別的反應比例越高，而第三類的反應也會隨著年紀增長而減少(Brown & Berko, 1960; Ervin, 1961; Entwisle, 1966; Palermo, 1971)。從組合類轉變成聚合類(syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift)被認為是詞彙或認知發展的一個里程碑。這樣的轉變被認為會發生在每個人身上，也會發生在每個詞語上(Wolter, 2001)。

詞語自由聯想的反應分類，在二語學習者身上的表現又是怎麼樣的呢？
Piper and Leicester (1980) 比較初階、進階的英語學習者和母語者的反應，發現在動詞和形容詞為刺激詞語時，母語者比二語學習者有更高比例的組合類反應。然而，在名詞為刺激詞語時，三組人員並沒有差異。
Söderman (1993) 進行了兩個研究。第一個研究比較四組不同熟練程度的英語二語學習者，同樣發現組合類的比例會隨著熟練程度更提高。第二個研究則同時以高頻詞語和低頻詞語對母語者和二語學習者進行測驗，結果發現在高頻詞語的反應中，第三類也就是無法歸類於聚合類或組合類的反應，母語者和二語學習者是沒有差別。

一語學習者使用低頻詞作為刺激詞語的情況為何？
Stolz and Tiffany (1972) 發現，當要求大學生母語者對低頻詞進行詞語聯想時，其反應的類別也開始有無法歸類於聚合類和組合類的反應。
Postman (1970) 比較高頻和低頻的刺激詞語，發現越屬於低頻的詞語的，反應則越無法歸類，同時反應的種類也就越多元、分散。

References

Brown, R. & Berko, J. (1960). Word association and the acquisition of grammar. Child Development, , 1-14.
Den Dulk, J. (1985). Productive vocabulary and the word association test (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from
Entwisle, D. R. (1966). Word associations of young children.. Johns Hopkins Press.
Ervin, S. M. (1961). Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word-association. The American journal of psychology, 74(3), 361-372.
Kruse, H., Pankhurst, J. & Smith, M. S. (1987). A multiple word association probe in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(2), 141-154.
Palermo, D. S. (1971). Characteristics of word association responses obtained from children in grades one through four.. Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 118.
Piper, T. H. & Leicester, P. (1980). Word Association Behavior as an Indicator of English Language Proficiency.. , , .
Postman, L. (1970). The California norms: Association as a function of word frequency. In L. Postman & G. G. Keppel (Eds.), Norms of word association. Academic Press New York.
Söderman, T. (1993). Word associations of foreign language learners and native speakers: The phenomenon of a shift in response type and its relevance for lexical development. In (), Near-native proficiency in English. Abo Akademi Abo.
Stolz, W. S. & Tiffany, J. (1972). The production of “child-like” word associations by adults to unfamiliar adjectives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(1), 38-46.
Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(1), 41-69.

我們如何描述二語學習者的詞語知識？

如何知道一個人的詞語知識規模(Vocabulary Knowledge Scale)，Nagy,Herman and Anderson (1985) 透過訪談的方式，Wesche and Paribakht (1996) 將訪談的方式改為紙筆測驗，如此可以大規模施測。在給定目標詞語言，學習者回答：

一、我從沒看過這個詞。
二、我看過這個詞，但我不知道是什麼意思。
三、我看過這個詞，我認為它的意思是…
四、我知道這個詞，這個詞的意思就是…
五、我可以用這個詞造一個句子。

這分別對應於：

一、完全不熟悉。
二、熟悉，但不知道意思。
三、可以給出同義詞或翻譯。
四、能夠把詞語在合適的語義使用於句子。
五、能夠把詞語在合適的語義使用於句子，且合於語法規範。

我們可以看到這兩組人把認識一個詞語以辨別它的形態(form)、知識它的意思(meaning)，然後可以使用於句子(in sentence)當成是一個進程。然而，可以使用於句子時，也未並可以完全知道一個詞的意思。

Waring (2002) 認為，詞語知識規模的問題在於其把詞語知識視為一翻兩瞪眼(incremental)的分類，其認為詞語的知識應該是具有累積性(accretive)的，也就是我們應該知道詞語的知識是和其所在的脈絡有關，而這個是自外於考試之外，因為功能而存在的。

References

Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language learning, 54(3), 399-436.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A. & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading research quarterly, , 233-253.
Nation, I. (2013). Testing vocabulary knowledge and use. In (), Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
Nist, S. L. & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and dictionary definitions on varying levels of word knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, , 172-193.
Paul, P. V., Stallman, A. C. & Rourke, J. P. (1990). Using three test formats to assess good and poor reader’s word knowledge. , , .
Waring, R. (2002). Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment. , 24, 2004.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth Versus Breadth.. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.

不同的詞語知識測驗間，是否可以互相參照？

雖然都是測量詞語的知識，但是不同測驗間還是會些許的差別，Paul,Stallman and Rourke (1990) 比較二語學習者的選擇題、面試以及自評是否知道這個詞(Yes/No)三種測驗，發現三者的相關係數介於.66到.81之間。但是Nist and Olejnik (1995) 的研究，對於母語者在同樣的詞彙下進行造句、完成句子、意義與範例的四種測驗，則發現彼此的相關通通低於.7。Laufer and Goldstein (2004) 也在他們研究中的四種測驗發現測驗間的相關不高。

References

Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language learning, 54(3), 399-436.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A. & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading research quarterly, , 233-253.
Nation, I. (2013). Testing vocabulary knowledge and use. In (), Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
Nist, S. L. & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and dictionary definitions on varying levels of word knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, , 172-193.
Paul, P. V., Stallman, A. C. & Rourke, J. P. (1990). Using three test formats to assess good and poor reader’s word knowledge. , , .
Waring, R. (2002). Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment. , 24, 2004.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth Versus Breadth.. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.

測量二語學習者的詞語知識時，我們是想知道什麼？

測量人們的詞語知識時，我們會關心兩個事情：一、某個特定的字是否為學習者所熟悉；二、對於詞語背後系統性的規律是否有意識(Nation, 2013) 。舉例來說，要求學習者去拼出agree、balloon和practice的時候，我們可能關心學習者是否能拼出這三個詞語；但是我們也可能測試學習者swimming、occurrence或spinner，這時候可能想知道的是學習者是否知道兩個子音可以接連出現的規律。若要知道隱藏在詞語背後的規律，則必須對於材料有很好的控制。對於詞語背後的規律的測驗是非常缺乏的。

References

Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language learning, 54(3), 399-436.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A. & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading research quarterly, , 233-253.
Nation, I. (2013). Testing vocabulary knowledge and use. In (), Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
Nist, S. L. & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and dictionary definitions on varying levels of word knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, , 172-193.
Paul, P. V., Stallman, A. C. & Rourke, J. P. (1990). Using three test formats to assess good and poor reader’s word knowledge. , , .
Waring, R. (2002). Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment. , 24, 2004.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth Versus Breadth.. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.

CLIL下的教材和活動任務如何評估？

理想中的CLIL學程可以從教材設計或活動任務設計中看出端倪，因此教材和活動任務也是很重要的證據之一。一個好的CLIL學程對於是由老師引導(teacher-directed)或學生為中心(student-centred)並沒有任何一定要遵循的要求。提供鷹架式地支持(scaffolding)是CLIL很重要的一環，特別是學習者的語言尚末全面發展前。

Westhoff (2004) 和De Graaff,Jan Koopman,Anikina and Westhoff (2007) 認為可以利用連結主義(connectionism)作為檢視CLIL的教材和活動任務的原則。如果某個CLIL的學程，使用符合連結主義幫助學習的活動，例如：網路探究(WebQuest，亦作Internet Quest)(Coyle,Hood & Marsh, 2010c) ，此學程就能使學習者受益。

以連結主義作為分析教材或活動的框架是能夠有結構式地去探索課程教材和活動。

References

Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 26-35.
Campo, A., Grisaleña, J. & Alonso, E. (2007). Trilingual Students in Secondary School: A New Reality. Bilbao: Basque Institute of Educational Evaluation and Research, , .
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010c). Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classroom. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010a). Evaluating the impact of CLIL programmes. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010b). The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, U. & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-Geeks Speak Out: What Students Think About Vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 18-25.
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267.
De Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624.
Hood, P. (2006). Unpublished data from CLIL research interviews with students at Tile Hill Wood Language College. , , .
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), .
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Marsh, D. et al. (2008). Profile Report: Bilingual Education (English) in Poland. Warszawa: The National Centre for Teacher Training and Development (CODN) & British Council Poland, , .
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333-346.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.
Westhoff, G. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 58-62.
Woodfield, J. & Neofitou, A. (2006). Immersion Project Research Findings. , , .

CLIL下的學習過程如何評估？

「學習」如何在CLIL的學程下發生？我們需要從學習過程(process)的證據來評估。在課堂中，小組活動時的會話如果能夠轉寫成逐字稿，這對於不了解CLIL的人來說，就有一個認識CLIL的視窗。或者，利用Coyle,Hood and Marsh (2010b) 建議的LOCIT(Lesson Observation and Critical Incident Technique)的方式，將課堂上學習發生的時刻剪輯成不到15分鐘的影片，和學生、和同儕一起分析、探討，也是可以評估學程能夠對於學習過程產生的影響。

目前，評估CLIL學習過程的研究多集中於語言方面(Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2006) 。而(Airey, 2009) 嘗試將以內容為基礎的前提下和語言表現連結，他測量學習者在科學領域的演講速度和句子長度。

在評估學程中學習過程的影響時，可以從語言的角度來評估，這時焦點可能是語言的功能、句法或語法能力；也可以從使用語言在處理概念或者是否其是否展現理解來看；更甚者，從小組中，彼此協商的過程，語義和文本如何被建構，也是一個評估的角度。

References

Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 26-35.
Campo, A., Grisaleña, J. & Alonso, E. (2007). Trilingual Students in Secondary School: A New Reality. Bilbao: Basque Institute of Educational Evaluation and Research, , .
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010c). Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classroom. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010a). Evaluating the impact of CLIL programmes. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010b). The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, U. & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-Geeks Speak Out: What Students Think About Vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 18-25.
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267.
De Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624.
Hood, P. (2006). Unpublished data from CLIL research interviews with students at Tile Hill Wood Language College. , , .
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), .
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Marsh, D. et al. (2008). Profile Report: Bilingual Education (English) in Poland. Warszawa: The National Centre for Teacher Training and Development (CODN) & British Council Poland, , .
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333-346.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.
Westhoff, G. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 58-62.
Woodfield, J. & Neofitou, A. (2006). Immersion Project Research Findings. , , .

CLIL對於學習者和老師的動機有什麼影響？

有較高的動機，就可以使學習者有更深入、專注的學習，當然，最重要的是確保其在目標語言的學習感就。因此，提供情感方面的證據，也是CLIL讓自己可以被社會接收的方式。透過大規模的問卷或焦點團體訪談都可以得到這樣的證據。

Hood (2006) 訪談第一年和第二年參加CLIL學程的學生，結論第一年參加學程的學生抗拒者有之、期待者有之、懷疑者也有之，第二年參加學程的學生則多是正面的評價。Marsh et al. (2008) 的研究中則顯示，CLIL下學習的學生存在工具性動機(instrumental motivation)，這讓學習者更願意去國外進行交換且認為拓展了視野。Campo,Grisaleña and Alonso (2007) 發現，在CLIL學程下的學生，女性比男性有更高的動機。Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009) 也發現，有CLIL經驗的女性比起男性，也對其它語言更感興趣。

Dalton-Puffer,Hüttner,Schindelegger and Smit (2009) 評估在職業學校下CLIL的動機證據，問卷結果發現在曾經參加過CLIL的學生中表示：在外語的環境下工作，可能在內容的深度上會被犧牲。但是，學生都認為自己的語言能力比起非CLIL學習的學習者好。值得一提的是，當CLIL下的學科老師的語言能力沒那麼完全的時候，學習者會投入更多努力以確保最終可以完成工作。

然而，yassin2009在馬來西亞的脈絡下也發現，英語能力比較差的學生在看CLIL的時候，就有較負面的觀點。

另外，Woodfield and Neofitou (2006) 也從教室的氣氛(classroom climate)和選課人數來評估CLIL學程對學習者情感的影響。

除了學習者的以外，教師也會受到CLIL的影響。在CLIL下，一個老師不是語言專業的老師(語言老師)，就是內容專業的老師(學科老師)，很少老師能夠同時擁有語言和內容專業。因此，在CLIL的場閾下，老師會帶著焦慮去提升教學實踐(不論主動或被動)(Moate, 2011) 。例如上課時，教師應該提出什麼樣的問題就會很有挑戰。

References

Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 26-35.
Campo, A., Grisaleña, J. & Alonso, E. (2007). Trilingual Students in Secondary School: A New Reality. Bilbao: Basque Institute of Educational Evaluation and Research, , .
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010c). Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classroom. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010a). Evaluating the impact of CLIL programmes. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010b). The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, U. & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-Geeks Speak Out: What Students Think About Vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 18-25.
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267.
De Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624.
Hood, P. (2006). Unpublished data from CLIL research interviews with students at Tile Hill Wood Language College. , , .
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), .
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Marsh, D. et al. (2008). Profile Report: Bilingual Education (English) in Poland. Warszawa: The National Centre for Teacher Training and Development (CODN) & British Council Poland, , .
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333-346.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.
Westhoff, G. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 58-62.
Woodfield, J. & Neofitou, A. (2006). Immersion Project Research Findings. , , .

CLIL產生對於語言學習有什麼樣的影響？它只適合程度較好的學生嗎？

大多數評估CLIL學程中，學習者的表現仍多集中在語言的表現。Lasagabaster (2008) 比較了雙語者(在CLIL下學習)和非雙語者(在非CLIL下學習)在標準化測驗下(Cambridge ESOL)下的表現。雙語者本來就有天份和動機，在語言表現(接收技能和產出技能)上比較好是不證自明，但是Lasagabaster (2008) 的研究發現，在非CLIL下的學習者，其學習表現會因為性別和社經地位產生差異；但在CLIL下的學習者，則沒有這樣子的差異。這似乎說明，CLIL是可以跨越性別和社經地位，一體適用的教育取徑。 Ruiz de Zarobe (2008) 比較產出的種類和數量的比例(type/tokens ratio)也是CLIL組的表現較好。

Woodfield and Neofitou (2006) 未出版的學程評估中，則對於語言和內容的表現都進行了評估。同樣透過標準化測驗，在同一個世代中，原本被認為外語學習成是較差的女孩中，有200個女孩比預期的時間更早就達到應有的外語水平；其對於學科內容(地理)的掌握也跟著進步。

由這些證據顯示，CLIL似乎是個可以一體適用的教育取徑。

References

Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 26-35.
Campo, A., Grisaleña, J. & Alonso, E. (2007). Trilingual Students in Secondary School: A New Reality. Bilbao: Basque Institute of Educational Evaluation and Research, , .
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010c). Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classroom. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010a). Evaluating the impact of CLIL programmes. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010b). The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice. In (), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, U. & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-Geeks Speak Out: What Students Think About Vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 18-25.
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267.
De Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624.
Hood, P. (2006). Unpublished data from CLIL research interviews with students at Tile Hill Wood Language College. , , .
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), .
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Marsh, D. et al. (2008). Profile Report: Bilingual Education (English) in Poland. Warszawa: The National Centre for Teacher Training and Development (CODN) & British Council Poland, , .
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333-346.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.
Westhoff, G. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 58-62.
Woodfield, J. & Neofitou, A. (2006). Immersion Project Research Findings. , , .