本研究旨在探討以CLIL（Content and Language Intergrated Learning, CLIL）教學法融入Edpuzzle對國小五年級學生英語聽力理解成效之影響。本實驗採準實驗設計，研究對象為新竹縣某國小五年級的兩個班級。參與實驗學生共計57人，兩班級隨機分為實驗組與對照組兩組。
實驗中的自變項是教學方法的使用，依變項為英語聽力理解成效、英語學習歷程偏好；其中，實驗組採CLIL教學法融入Edpuzzle，對照組則採CLIL教學法但未融入Edpuzzle之教學方法。所有研究對象在進行實驗前均接受「英語聽力理解成效前測」及「英語學習歷程偏好前測」施測，並在實驗後接受「英語聽力理解成效後測」及「英語學習歷程偏好後測」施測。
本研究根據測驗結果進行統計分析，且輔以質性訪談之資料，根據實驗結果與發現，得到以下結論：
一、 CLIL教學法融入Edpuzzle與否對國小五年級學生英語聽力理解成效具有顯著差異，實驗組學生之英語聽力理解成效明顯有所提升。
二、 CLIL教學法融入Edpuzzle與否對國小五年級學生英語學習動機與策略具有顯著影響，實驗組學生之英語學習動機與策略有所提升。

This purpose of this study is to explore the impact of the integration of CLIL(Content and Language Integrated Learning) into Edpuzzle on the effect of English listening comprehension for the fifth graders in an elementary school. This study adopts a quasi-experimental method, and the research participants were two classes of the fifth graders in an elementary school in Hsinchu County. 57 students in two classes participated in this experiment, and the two classes were randomly assigned to be the experimental group and the control group.
The self-variation in the experiment is the teaching method. The variables are the effect of English listening comprehension and the preference of the process in English learning. The experimental group adopted the teaching of CLIL integrated with Edpuzzle, but the control group didn’t. Before the experiment, all subjects were tested the “English listening comprehension pre-test” and the “Preference of the process in English learning pre-test”. All subjects were tested the “English listening comprehension post-test” and the “Preference of the process in English learning post-test” after the experiment.
The study conducted statistical analysis based on the test results, and supplemented by qualitative interviews. Based on the experimental results, the findings are as follows:
1. With the integration of CLIL into Edpuzzle or not makes the significant differences between two groups. Students in the experimental group have the significant improvement in the learning outcome of English listening comprehension.
2. With the integration of CLIL into Edpuzzle or not makes the significant influence between two groups. Students in the experimental group have the improvement in English learning motivation and learning strategy.

壹、中文部分
吳竺軒（2017）。應用VoiceTube《看影片學英文》的英語影片於國二學生的英語聽力理解教學之行動研究。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
邱韻如（2007）。科技始終來自人性：從人性和科技看互動教學的實踐。發表於第二屆科技社會中的課程與教學變革學術研討會。暨南國際大學，南投縣。
張玉玲（1994）。錄音帶在英語教學上之應用與遠景。第三屆中華民
國英語文教學國際研討會論文集。台北：中華民國英語文教學學會。
教育部（2002）。挑戰2008：國家發展重點計畫。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2018）。國民中小學十二年國民基本教育課程綱要語文學習領域
（英語文）。臺北：教育部。
國家發展委員會（2018）。2030雙語國家政策發展藍圖。臺灣：臺北。
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，臺北市。
黃正謙（2014）。線上互動式教學影片系統之設計與實作。國立中山大學，高雄市。
楊迎華（2016）。CLIL教學法的歷史背景及其原理。安順學院學報，18(04)，頁61-63。
楊迎華（2016）。CLIL教學法的特色及其在歐亞各國的應用。興義民族師範學院學報，02，頁79-82。
鄒文莉、高實玫（2018）。CLIL教學資源書-探索學科內容與語言整合教學。臺北市：書林。
廖曉青(2012)。兒童英語教學。臺北：五南。
鄭博真（2016）。技職大專生學習取向及其相關因素之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，12(04)，頁57-86。
簡雅臻（2019）。培養學生以英語學習學科的CLIL。師德會訊，113，頁3-5。
羅家鸞（2007）。探討CLIL實施於小學英語教育的初階發展可行性之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。

 
貳、英文部分
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Teaching English with video. New York: Longman.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revise two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Education Psychology, 71, 133-149.
Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Bloom, B.S. (1956) . Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook: The
Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.
Boyle, J. P. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT
Journal, 18(1), 34-38.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th
ed.).
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles : An Interactive Approach
Practices. San Fransisco: Longman.
Brownell, J. (2006). Listening: attitudes, principles, and skills. (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Buck, G. (1995). How to be a good listening teacher. In: Mendelsohn, D. and
Rubin, J. Editors, 1995. A Guide for the Teaching of Second Language Listening Dominie Press, San Diego CA, 59-73.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 25(1), 153-161.
Christiane D.P., and Tarja N. (2006). Pragmatics of Content-based Instruction: Teacher and Student Directives in Finnish and Austrian Classrooms. Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 27/2, 241-267.
Cinganotto, L. (2013). CLIL(Content and Language Integrated Learning):
linguistic and interactional aspects. Universita Degli Studi Roma Tre.
Coakley, C., & Wolin, A. (1986). Listening in the native language. In B.
H. Wing(Ed.), Listening, reading, and writing: Analysis and application (pp. 11-42). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second
Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL Planning tools fot teachers: Planning and Monitoring CLIL Presenting 3 Tools for Teachers. Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham.
Coyle, D., B. Holmes, and L. King. (2009). Towards an integrated
curriculum. CLIL national statements and guidelines. London: The Language Company.
Coyle, D., Hood, and D. Marsh. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language
Integrated Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cenoz, J., Genesee F., & Gorter D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking
stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 1-21.
Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools, 1–125.
Cross, R. (2013). Research and Evaluation of the Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) Approach to Teaching and Learning Languages in Victorian Schools. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
Dale, Liz; Tanner, Rosie (2012). CLIL Activities: a Resource for Subject and
Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Discourse in content and language intergrated (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Dongsong Z., Lina Z., Robert O.B. and Jay F.N. (2016). Instructional
Video in E-learning: Assessing the Impact of Interactive Video on Learning Effectiveness. Information and Management Journal, 43, 15-27.
Entwistle, N. (2005). Learning outcomes and ways of thinking across
contrastingdisciplines and settings in higher education. The Curriculum
Journal,16(1), 67 -82. doi: 10.1080/0958517042000336818
European Commission. (1995). Teaching and Learning: Towards the
learning society. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications in European Contries
Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning(CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1986). The role comprehension in second-
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 257-283.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)：
Limitations and Possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57-70.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S. , Pavlos P.(2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in
Primary and Pre-Premary Education. Cyprus: Pedagogical Institute.
Jill S., Esli S., and Thomas S. (2015). Creating a Framework for a Large-scale
Implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning. European Journal of Language Policy, 7.1, Liverpool University Press, 29-42.
Lehti, L., Järvinen, H.-M., & Suomela-Salmi, E. (2006). Kartoitus
vieraskielisen opetuksen tarjonnasta peruskouluissa ja lukioissa 〔A survey of foreign-language instruction in Finnish comprehensive schools and high schools〕. In P. Pietilä, P. Lintunen, & H.-M. Järvinen (Eds.), Kielenoppija tänään- Language learners of today (pp. 293-313). Jyväskylä, Finland: AfinLA.
Marsh, D.(1994). Bilingual Education and Content and Language
Integrated Learning. Paris, France: International Association for Cross-cultural Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua), University of Sorbonne.
Marsh, D. (2002): CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends
and Foresight Potential, Bruxelles, The European Union.
Marsh, D., Järvinen, H.-M., & Haataja, K. (2007). Perspectives form Finland.
In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL: content and language intergrated learning in the European spotlight (pp. 63-83). Alkmaar, he Netherlands: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Martin, M.J.F. (2018). CLIL implementation in Spain: an approach to
different models. In Coonan, C.M. (Ed.), CLIL el’apprendimiento delle lingue. Le sfide del nuovo ambiente di apprendimiento, 221-232. Venezia: Librería Editrice Cafoscarina.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning II:
Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115-127.
Mehisto, P., Frigols, M. J., & Marsh, D.(2008). Uncovering CLIL. MacMillan.
M. Ikeda (2013). Does CLIL Work for Japanese Secondary School Students?
Potential for the ‘Weak’ Version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal 2(1), 32.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science
classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Murphy, S. J. (1999). Learning math through stories. School Library Journal,
45(3), 122-123.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Strategies used by second language
learners. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 137-175). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Otwinowska, A. (2014). Does Multilingualism Influence Plurilingual
Awareness of Polish Teachers of English?” International Journal of Multilingualism 11 (1): 97–119.
Otwinowska, A. (2015). CLIL teaching in Poland and Finland- reflections
from the study visit. Poland, University of Warsaw.
Papaja, K. (2010). A Qualitative Evaluation of Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Secondary Education. Unpublished PhD thesis. Katowice: Institute of English, University of Silesia.
Pavesi, M. Bertoccchi, D. Hofamannova M. & Kaziaka, M. (2001). CLIL
Guildelines for Teachers, TIE CLIL, Milan.
Rivers, W. M. & Temperley, M. S. (1978). A practical guide to the teaching of
English as a second or foreign language. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rost, M. (2002). Listening in language learning. New York: Longman Inc.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension
research. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 199-217.
Sandra, A.M., Lindsay W., Maria T., and Kleoniki C. (2014). The CLIL
Guidebook. Location: Lifelong Learning Programme.
Sophia, A., and Mirjamaija, M.E. (2015). School-external Factors in Finnish Content and Language Integrated Learning(CLIL) Programs. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 2, pp.127-142.
Stoller, F. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N.H. Hornberger, ed.,
Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 4: Second and Foreign Language Education. New York: Springer, 59-70.
Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. New York: Longman Inc.
Vandergrift, L. (2003a). From prediction through reflection: Guiding
students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 425-440.
Vuorinen, P. (2009). Profiles of second language learners in bilingual
education: A comparative study of the characteristics of Finnish and
American students. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
White, G. (1998). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional
video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15-27.