荷蘭以其優秀的外語能力和對多元文化開放友好的態度著稱，這歸功於荷蘭政府所推行的外語教育政策，並將語言和文化視為珍貴資源與國際合作之必要工具。然而，現今針對荷蘭華語文教學之研究大多僅著眼於高等教育機構，該國之華語文教學實已向下紮根，於初、中等教育機構萌芽、茁壯。故本研究計劃以政策為主軸，聚焦於分析該國華語文教育政策於中等教育機構之發展與執行。本研究設有以下研究目的：探討荷蘭華語文教育政策之起源與變遷、分析影響該政策發展之因素，以及檢視該國華語文教學執行現況與其所面臨之挑戰。

本研究採取文獻分析法和訪談法作為主要研究方法。筆者透過回顧文獻，發現荷蘭身為歐盟成員國，受歐盟多語和跨文化教育政策影響，除強調文化之於語言教育的重要性外，亦重視語言教育規劃與評量在國際間之可對比性，故荷蘭選擇以歐洲語言共同參考架構（CEFR）作為所有外語科目之評量標準，並採用歐盟政策文件之「課綱蜘蛛網」（curricular spider web）理論作為語言教育之規劃架構。本研究即依此架構設計訪談大綱，邀請具荷蘭中等教育機構華語文教學經驗之教師參與訪談，以深入了解華語教育之各個層面，包括：學習展望、學習目標、學習內容、學習活動、教材與資源、學習團體、學習環境、學習時間、評量、教師角色、教師合作、教師職能。

研究結果顯示，荷蘭華語文教學因政策未臻成熟，以及教學資源和教師進修量能不足而面臨許多挑戰。建議荷蘭政府可修訂政策文件以提供更清晰的課程規劃評量之標準與階段性目標，並統一舉辦結業考試、鼓勵華語和其他科目融合。而臺灣教育部和華語文教學推廣相關單位則可協助媒合專業團隊設計荷蘭國別化華語文教材、接待荷蘭學生團和華師團來臺遊學與研習、選送華語教學人員等。盼臺灣能透過共享華語文教學資源與經驗，紓解荷蘭於華語文教育所面臨之困境，進而增加兩國在教育方面之合作交流。

The Netherlands is renowned for its citizens’ excellent foreign language proficiency and open, friendly attitude towards diverse cultures. This is attributed to the foreign language education policies implemented by the Dutch government, which considers languages and cultures as valuable resources and essential tools for international collaboration. However, current research on Chinese language education in the Netherlands mainly focuses on its practice and development in Dutch higher education institutions, while it has already taken root and flourished in primary and secondary educational institutions. Therefore, this research revolves around policy, aiming to analyze the development and implementation of Chinese language education policy in Dutch secondary education institutions. This study has the following objectives: to explore the origins and evolution of Dutch Chinese language education policy, to analyze the factors influencing the shaping of the policy, and to examine the current state of Chinese language education in the Netherlands and the obstacles it faces.

Qualitative methods are adopted in this research, including documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. Through literature review, the author discovered that as a member of the EU, the Netherlands is influenced by the multilingual and intercultural education policies of EU. As a result, the Dutch goverment values the importance of culture in language education and emphasizes the international comparability of language education planning and assessment. Consequently, the Dutch government chose the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as the assessment criteria for all foreign language subjects and applied the "curricular spider web" theory from EU policy documents as the framework for curriculum planning. Based on this framework, the author designed questions and invited teachers who has taught Chinese in Dutch secondary education institutions to participate in interviews to gain an in-depth understanding of various aspects of Chinese education, including rationale, aims and objectives, content, learning activities, materials and resources, grouping, environment, time, assessment, teacher roles, collaboration between teachers, and teacher competencies.

The main findings of this research show that Chinese language education in the Netherlands faces many challenges due to the immaturity of policies, a lack of teaching and learning materials, and insufficient teacher training opportunities. It is suggested that the Dutch government revise policy documents to provide clearer curriculum planning guidelines, assessment criteria, and goals for learners of different stages, organize nationwide graduation exams, and promote the integration of Chinese with other subjects. Additionally, the Ministry of Education and Chinese language education associations of Taiwan could help by seeking professional teams to design Chinese language teaching materials tailored for Dutch learners, hosting Dutch student and teacher groups for short-term study tours and training programs in Taiwan, and appointing Chinese language teachers and teaching assistants in the Netherlands. In hopes that Taiwan can alleviate the difficulties in Chinese language education in the Netherlands through sharing Chinese language educational resources and experiences, thereby promoting educational collaboration between the two countries.

一、中文部分
王文科（2001）。教育研究法。五南出版社。
王文科、王智弘（2010）。質的研究的信度和效度。彰化師大教育學報（17）， 29-50。https://doi.org/10.6769/JENCUE.201006.0029
王筱蕓（2011）。荷蘭萊頓大學漢學研究群體綜述——以20世紀80至90年代為中心。國際漢學（01），276-299。
白樂桑（2018）。法國和與教育研究。北京語言大學出版社。
伊維德（1993）。荷蘭漢學：過去、現在和未來（上）（馬清槐、唐蕪譯）。傳統文化與現代化（01），79-86。
伊維德（1993）。荷蘭漢學：過去、現在和未來（上）（馬清槐、唐蕪譯）。傳統文化與現代化（02），89-91。
吉娃詩‧叭萬（2006）。從紐西蘭毛利族的語言巢看臺灣的原住民母語教學。台灣國際研究季刊，1（2），163-184。
李泉（2006）。對外漢語教材研究。商務印書館。
杜栩涵、陳美華（2022）。荷蘭外語教育政策：價值取向、演進與啟示。中國語言戰略（2），51-61。
周曉梅（2012）。歐盟語言政策評析。雲南財經大學學報，27（5），138-142。
林本炫（2007）。不同質性研究方法的資料分析比較。在周平、楊弘任（主編），質性研究方法的眾聲喧嘩（頁127-150）。高雄復文。
林妙樺（2018）。從漢學的研究範疇觀點探討漢學研究資源之分類體系。圖書資訊學研究，13（1），125-168。
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花（2005）。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊，3（2），122-136。https://doi.org/10.30072/JDR.200506.0005
林淑馨（2010）。質性研究：理論與實務（第一版）。巨流圖書股份有限公司。
邱馨慧（2013）。從近代初期季風亞洲的荷蘭語學習看臺灣荷蘭時代的殖民地語言現象與遺緒。臺灣史研究，20（1），1-46。
胡幼慧、姚美華（1996）。質性方法的信度與效度。在胡幼慧（主編），質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例（頁141-158）。巨流圖書股份有限公司。
張學謙（2014）。從外國字到國語字─民族主義、現代化與越南羅馬字政策。台灣國際研究季刊，10（1）， 1-28。
梁福鎮（2009）。當前歐盟教育政策之探究。教育科學期刊，8（2），37-53。https://doi.org/10.6388/JES.200912.0037
許舜雯（2011）。歐盟語言教育政策對會員國之影響—以荷蘭為例［未出版之碩士論文］。淡江大學歐洲研究所。http://dx.doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2011.00587
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。
舒兆民（2016）。華語文教學。新學林出版股份有限公司。
葉宗文。（2007）。蘇格拉底計書（第二階段）之實施及其對教育文化交流之啟示。學校行政（52），143-162。https://doi.org/10.6423%2fHHHC.200711.0143
劉艷琴、楊慰萱、黃道主（2018）。分流與交流：荷蘭學制及對我國職教設計的啟示。武漢職業技術學院學報（02），67-71。
潘淑滿（2022）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理出版社股份有限公司。
蔡雅薰（2009）。華語文教材分級研製原理之建構。正中書局股份有限公司。
賴文恩、季瑋珠、丁志音（2005）。以微軟EXCEL套裝軟體處理質性研究田野資料。台灣醫學，9（5），696-702。https://doi.org/10.6320/FJM.2005.9(5).16
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2008)。質性資料的分析︰方法與實踐（張芬芬；初版）。重慶大學出版社。

二、外文部分
Auer, P. (2020). Language contact. In Y. M. Evangelia Adamou (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact (pp. 147-167). Routledge.
Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2010). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Council of Europe Publishing.
Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2016). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/16806ae621
Beeker, A., Canton, J., & Fasoglio, D. (2008). Chinees op School: voorstel voor een leerplan Chinese taal en cultuur ten behoeve van het vwo. SLO.
Beeker, A., Corda, A., Fasoglio, D., & Nieuwenhoven, E. van. (2008). Vroege Vogels. Europees Taalportfolio en ERK: praktijkervaringen van pioniers. Expertisecentrum MVT/SLO.
Beeker, A., Corda, A., Fasoglio, D., Jianghui-Baardman, E., Lin, S., Liu-Chau, X. H., Smulders, C. & Vuong, N. (2013). Vaardigheidstoetsen Chinees A2. Enschede: SLO.
Blussé, L. (2013). Of Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water: Leiden University’s Early Sinologists (1854–1911). In W. Idema (Ed.), Chinese Studies in the Netherlands Past, Present and Future. Brill.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Christ, H. (1997). Language Attitudes and Educational Policy. In R. Wodak & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (pp. 1-11). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4538-1_1
Chua, C. S. K. (2018). Introduction Issues in language planning and policy: From global to local. In C. C. Phyllis Chew Ghim Lian, Kerry Taylor-Leech & Colin Williams (Ed.), Un(intended) language planning in a globalising world: Mutliple levels of players at work (pp. 1-13). De Gruyter.
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452-460.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge University Press.
Corbalan, G., Tigelaar, D., & Folmer, E. (2012). Curriculumevaluatie Chinese taal en culture. SLO.
Dewi, A. (2012). English As an International Language: An Overview. Journal of English and Education (JEE), 6(2). https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.v6i2.4423
Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. www.coe.int/lang-cefr
Fasoglio, D., & Beeker, A. (2013). Chinees op school: van pilot naar invoering: advies invoering Chinese taal en cultuur in het vwo. SLO.
Fasoglio, D., & Smulders, C. (2015). Handbook school exam Chinese Language and Culture VWO - Variant long. SLO.
Fasoglio, D., & Smulders, C. (2015). Handreiking schoolexamen Chinese Taal en Cultuur vwo - Variant elementair. SLO.
Fasoglio, D., & Tammenga, M. (2021). Startnotitie Moderne Vreemde Talen. SLO.
Folmer, E., Tigelaar, D., & Sluijsmans, L. (2013). Curriculumevaluatie Chinese taal en cultuur: eindrapportage. SLO.
Folmer, E. (2016). Monitoring invoering Chinese taal en cultuur: eerste inventarisatie onder schoolleiders en docenten. SLO.
Freeman, R. (2004). Building on Community Bilingualism. Caslon.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1261892
Green, L., & Trimbos, B. (2023). Exploration of CEFR levels. SLO.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (pp. 24-41). Blackwell Pub.
Hornberger, N. H. (2009). Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous experience). Language Teaching, 42(2), 197-211.
Hult, F. M. (2014). How Does Policy Influence Language in Education? Language in Education. In R.E. Silver & S.M. Lwin (Ed.), Language in education: Social implications (pp. 159-175). Continuum.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Multilingual Matters.
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kuiken, F., & van der Linden, E. (2013). Language policy and language education in the Netherlands and Romania. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 205-223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.2.2.06kui
Kuiper, K. (2017). The Early Dutch Sinologists, 1854-1900: Training in Holland and China, Functions in the Netherlands Indies. Brill.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (3rd ed.). Sage.
McCarty, T. L., & May, S. (2017). Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02344-1_1
Michel, M., Vidon, C., Graaff, R. & Lowie, W. (2021). Language Learning beyond English in the Netherlands: A fragile future? European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 159-182.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). The Roots of Language Contact. In C. Myers-Scotton (Ed.), Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes (pp. 30-52). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.003.0002
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th ed.). Pearson.
O'Sullivan, B. (2020). The Comprehensive Learning System [PowerPoint slides]. British Council Perspectives on English Language Policy and Education.
OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en
Poon, A. (2004). Language policy of Hong Kong: Its impact on language education and language use in post-handover Hong Kong. Journal of Taiwan Normal University, Humanities and Social Sciences, 49(1), 53-74.
Reezigt, G., Creemers, B., & Jong, R. (2003). Teacher Evaluation in The Netherlands and its Relationship to Educational Effectiveness Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17, 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025079013714
Robert B. Kaplan, R. B. B. (2005). Language-in-Education Policy and Planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 1013-1034). Routledge.
Rohmah, Z. (2005). English as a global language: Its historical past and its future. Jurnal Bahasa & Seni, 33(1), 106-117.
Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in Language Planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464
Slof, B. (2023). Evaluatie programma's schoolvak Chinees. SLO.
Spolsky, B. (2003). Language Policy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511615245.005
Thomas, G. (1991). Linguistic Purism. Longman.
Tollefson, J. W. (2011). Language planning and language policy. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 357-376). Cambridge University Press.
van den Akker, J. (2006). Curriculum development re-invented: evolving challenges for SLO. In J. Letschert (Ed.), Curriculum development re-invented (pp. 16-31). SLO.
Wilhelm, F. (2018). Foreign language teaching and learning in the Netherlands 1500–2000: an overview. The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 17-27.