學習語言的最大目的在於溝通，聆聽與口說乃其重要的語言能力。由國家教育政策一路以來的演變可以看出其對閩南語教學的指示也持續往此導向。而CBI教學法認為語言教學應該以有意義的學習内容為主，應用語言來教授內容知識，而非學習語言本身。因此本研究嘗試以CBI教學法應用於閩南語課中探討其實施成效。
本研究以新竹市東區某國小為實施場域，四年級選修閩南語之學生為實施對象，進行CBI教學研究。實施之課程以十二年國教素養課綱為教學設計依據、繪本為教材，在CBI之主題模式下，以Six T's Approach為教學設計指引、標準本位評量為成果測量標準，了解學生的學習過程及各教學活動之學習成效。
研究結果顯示，本次教學應用CBI於閩南語課中，繪本教材本身的故事性提供學習閩南語很好的特定情境，可以幫助內容知識和目標語的結合；新課綱也支持情境化的學習，因為情境可以產生真實且有意義的對話需求。繪本內故事情節產生之對話，提供了特定的語言框架，從這些特定對話框架轉移到日常生活之廣泛情境讓學生做自我表達陳述，能提高學生學習興趣；繪本之故事內容，也為主題（昆蟲）的內容知識搭建了認知層次。
最後，教學結果以標準本位評量做為學生學習成效之鑑定，的確能讓老師掌握學生之學習狀況。教師在整個教學過程中，不只記錄其評分等級，也了解學生的長處、進步過程及當下產生的每個反應、釋出的訊息，以求掌握學生的學習狀況，並在瞭解學習困難後，予以診斷評量，而學生最後大部份皆可達到各學習目標所設定之「B良好」合格標準，顯示本研究之教學實施能達到教學目標，學生的學習也能獲得預期的成效。

The main purpose of people learning language is to communicate; listening and speaking are essential language abilities. Referring to the National educational policy, the teaching of the Taiwan southern Min dialect is also encouraged to focus on enabling good communication which is based on listening and speaking abilities. The Content-Based Instruction (CBI) stated that people should apply the language as a tool to gain meaningful knowledge, instead of learning the language itself. In this thesis, the research of applying CBI teaching approach on Taiwan southern Min dialect language classes is studied.
In this research, the objective students are fourth grade in an elementary school located in Hsinchu City, Taiwan. The courses are designed based on the Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education, and the CBI Theme-based model is adopted in which the Six T’s approach is referred as for teaching design and the Standard-Based Assessment of Student Achievement (SBASA), to understand the language learning process and effectiveness of students.
In this research, the CBI teaching approach is applied in the Taiwan southern Min dialect class. Some findings are summarized as follow. The picture books build a good scenario for students making more comprehensive connection between the knowledge contents and the target language. The interesting scenario would raise the student’s learning motivation as there are some interesting topics (insects) or daily life experiences, which let students actively learn and communicate with using the target language.
The assessment of the student learning, based on SBASA, helps teachers not only to understand the student’s learning status, but also to each student’s advantages, specific reactions during learning process and difficulties or challenges. In the end of the experimental language class of applying CBI teaching approach, most students achieved the grade level of “B-Good” and qualified. The results show that applying CBI teaching approach on Taiwanese language class, it is helpful to students leaning and their language abilities could achieve an expected level.

中文參考文獻
王秋絨（2003）。語言政策的意識形態與弔詭的文化認同。社教雙月刊，42。
王盈中（2020）。學思達教學法應用於國小五年級社會領域之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學教育學院社會與區域發展學系。
王斌華（2009）。雙語教育、雙語教學的中外比較-雙語教育論壇的講演節選。中國雙語教育網http://www.china-bilingual.com/yan_jiu/zhong_wai_bi_jiao.html
孔繁妤（2020）。內容導向教學法應用於《論語》課程設計之行動研究—以「仁」 為主題。國立臺灣師範大學國際與社會科學學院華語文教學系。
何福田（2005）。《鄉土語言實施與教學》序。《鄉土語言實施與教學》，1-4。國立教育研究院。
林明慧（2013）。國民小學閩南語教學現況研究-以台中市龍峰國小中高年級為例。清華大學臺灣研究教師在職進修碩士學位班語言學組。
林延霞（2014）。新北市國民小學本土語言教學實施現況及其問題之研究。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士在職專班。
林律君（2018）。CLIL在繪本教學的運用。CLIL教學資源書-探索學科內容與語言整合教學，87-104。書林書版社。
林瑞榮（2012）。我國鄉土教育沿革與發展趨勢。教育資料與研究，第105期，161-184。
周婉窈（1995）。臺灣人第一次的「國語」經驗-析論日治末期的日語運動及其問題。新學史六卷二期，113-160。
金樹人（1988）。情意領域的教學方法與策略－角色扮演。載於黃光雄主編（1988），教學原理。台北：師大書苑。
洪惟仁（2013）。台灣閩南語的源流與演變。洪惟仁治言齋。取自https://mhi.moe.edu.tw/infoList.jsp?ID=2&ID2=152
夏林清等譯，Altrichter 等著（1997）。行動研究方法導論。台北：遠流出版社。
涂淑貞（2010）。繪本在多元文化教育的應用。網路社會學通訊期刊，85。ISSN：1609-2503
莊旭瑋（2002）。資訊融入校園植物教學之行動研究-以國小五年級學生為例。 國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所。
張 燕（2009）。幼兒園英語浸入式實驗初期教師課堂用語研究。外語藝術教育研究，第2期，69-73。
張淑美（1993）。大家一起來，學的快又好。國立編譯館通訊，4（5），43∼45。
張學謙（2020）。母語優先的臺灣本土語言復振教育規劃。教育科學研究期刊
第六十五卷第一期，65（1），175-200。doi:10.6209/JORIES.202003_65(1).0007
陳洋洋（2014）。借助角色扮演，成就精彩課堂—淺談角色扮演在小學英語課堂教學中的運用。校園英語 / 基礎教育，p115。
陳俊光（2007）。對比分析與教學應用。臺北市：文鶴出版社。
陳美如（2009）。台灣語言教育政策之回顧與展望。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
陳蓉倩、楊錦心、蘇照雅（2007）。角色扮演教學法在網路同步教學環境下實施之探究。生活科技教育月刊，四十卷第五期，3-13。
陳淑嬌（2007）。台灣語言活力硏究。《語言政策的多元思考》，19-39。台北：中央硏究院語言學硏究所。
國家教育研究院（2011）。臺灣地區國民中小學本土語言教學現況之整合型研究。
國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心（2017a）。國民中學學生學習成就標準本位評量（試行版）：語文學習領域（英語）。取自
https://www.sbasa.ntnu.edu.tw/SBASA/Subject/SubjectEnglish_3.aspx
鄭縈（2019）。閩南語沉浸式教學的現況與發展。十二年國教新課綱本土語文教學多元策略實踐研討會論文集，1-6。
鄭縈、張惠貞、范姜淑雲（2020）。臺灣國民中小學閩南語沉浸式教學成效探 究。第十三屆台灣語言及其教學國際學術研討(ISTLT-13)。國立清華大學。
鄭縈（2021）。閩南語沉浸式教學理念與實務。國民中小學閩南語沉浸式教學計畫。國立臺南大學本土語文課程與教學推廣中心。
鄭皓尹（2019）。沉浸式中文課程之文化教學現況與建議－以美國明尼蘇達州某小學為例。國立政治大學華語文教學碩博士學位學程。
蔡清田（2003）。透過行動研究，進行課程改革。質性研究方法與資料分析， 127-142 。嘉義：南華教社所。
蔡菁菁（2009）。一位國小教師的數學課教室言談之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育學系。
劉仁增（2004）。口語交際雙向互動的課堂操作。《小學語文教師》2004年，第10期。
錡寶香（2015）。以繪本為媒材–發展特殊教育需求幼童的語言、前讀寫技能。特殊教育發展期刊第59期，15-34。
謝國平（2007）。語言的流失與RSL在台灣。《語言政策的多元文化思考》，7-18。中央研究院語言學研究所。
鍾鎮城、許秀娟（2020）。客華雙語教學之數學教室言談分析與教學挑戰。臺灣語文研究第15卷第1期。DOI: 10.6710/JTLL.202004_15(1).0004
英文參考文獻
Baker, C. J.(1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. New York: Multilingual Matters.
Baker,C.(2006).Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Borelli, M.T., Anguita, J. M, Pérez F. J. S., (2020). The EMAS and Its Role in the ESL Instruction to Immigrants in England.
Brinton, D. M., M. A. Snow and M. B. Wesche.(1989). Content-based Second Language Instruction.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Channa,L.A.(2015).Content-Based Instruction: A Novel Second/Foreign Language Curricular Approach. NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry Vol 13 (I), June, 2015 ISSN 2222-5706
Chaput, Patricia P.(1993). “Revitalizing the Traditional Program.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Chick, J. K.(1996). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In: H. Coleman Ed., Society and the language classroom, 21–39.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary school language development in promoting educational success for minority language students. In Schooling and Linguistic Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework ,3-49. Los Angeles: California State University, Center for Assessment, Dissemination and Evaluation.
Cummins, J., & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.).( 2008).Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition,Volume 5: Bilingual Education. New York: SpringerScience + Business Media LLC.
Crandall, Jodi and Richard Tucker,G. (1990). “Content-Based Instruction in Second and Foreign Languages.” In: Amado Padilla, Hatford H. Fairchild and Concepcion Valadez (eds.) Foreign Language Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Domke, L. (2015).Integrating Language and Content Instruction in Immersion Classrooms: Literature Review. MSU Working Papers in SLS , Vol. 6.49-62.
Dueñas, M. (2004). The Whats, Whys, Hows and Whos of Content-Based Instructionin Second/Foreign Language Education. /JES, vol. 4 (1), 73-96
Fortune, T. W. and Tedick, D. J.(2008). “One-way, two-way, and indigenous immersion: A call for cross-fertilization.” In Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education,ed. by T. W. Fortune and D. J. Tedick, 3–21.Clevedon,England: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, F.(1985). Second language learning through immersion: A review of U.S. programs.Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 541–561. doi:10.3102/00346543055004541
Genesee, F.(1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Genesee, Fred.(1994). Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersion.Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Grabe. W. & Stoller. F.L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In Snow, M.A. & D. Brinton (eds.) The content-based classroom: Perspectivas on integrating language and content, 5-21. White Plains. NY: Addison Wesley-Longman.
Gracia, E.P.(2015). Bilingual Education in Canada, North America and Europe.International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 2015(1), 13-18.
Johnson, R. K. & Swain, M.(1997). Immersion education: international
perspectives.Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1977). "Some issues relating to the monitor model". In Brown, H; Yorio, Carlos; Crymes, Ruth. Teaching and learning English as a Second Language. DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Larsen-Freeman, D.(2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Leaver, B.L. & Stryker, S. B. (1989). Content-based instruction for foreign languageclassrooms. Foreiw1 Lw1J{uuge Annuls- 22:3, 269-275.
Lo Bianco, J. (2011). What “saving” languages might tell us about “teaching” them.Babel, 45(2/3),41-50.
Lorenz, E. B., & Met, M. (1990). Teaching mathematics and science in the immersion classroom:Teacher’s activity manual. Rockville, MD: Office of Instruction and Program Development (Montgomery County Public Schools).
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/?id=ED356664
Lyman, F. (1987). Think-pair-share: An expanding teaching technique. MAACIE Cooperative News, 1, 1-2. Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/tpshare.html
Lyster, R.(2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Makiya, H. & Rogers, M. (1992). Design and technology in the primary school: case studiesfor teachers. Routledge.
Met, M. (1998). Chapter 3: Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J.Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Met, M.(1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington, DC:The National Foreign Language Center. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html
Pendergrass, M. (2014). Differentiation: It Starts with Pre-Assessment, Educational Leadership, 71(4), online content.
Rodgers, T.(2001 ). Language teacliiiiginetliodology. ERIC Digest. Retrieved Septeinber 5,2003 frointlie World Wide Web: hup://www.cal.org.:fericc11/digest/rodgers .html.
Rogers, P. L.(2009). Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd ed.). New York : Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8
Slavin,R. E.(1985).Cooperative learning：Applying contact theory in desegregated schools.Joural of Social Issues,43-62.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning. (2ed.) Bosotn, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Snow, C. E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationship between language and literacy in development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6 (1),5-10.
Snow, M.A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.) , Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 303-318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: From theory to practice. In S. B. Stryker & B. L. Leaver (Eds.), Content- based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods (pp. 4-28). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Swain, M. and K. E. Johnson.(1997). “Immersion education: A category within bilingual education.” In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, ed. by K. E. Johnson and M. Swain, 1–16. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139524667.003
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R.(2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Walmsley, S. A. (1996). 10 ways to improve your theme teaching. Instructor,106(1), 54-60.
Weinreich, U.(1979). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Walter de Gruyter.doi:10.1515/9783110802177
Yu, W.(2001). Direct method. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning,176-178. New York: Routledge.