本研究探討國中音樂課程由「多學科」到「融入雙語」的教學歷程,採行動研究法,兩個循環教學(第一循環「多學科」/第二循環「融入雙語」)依據艾略特(David J. Elliott)的「音樂課程設計:四階段觀」進行調整。參與者包含八年級五個班級、協同教師兩位及研究者本人。結果發現:1)課程取向:無論「多學科」或「融入雙語」皆應顧及「音樂為核心」的理念;2)準備與計畫:「多學科」宜善用共通的美感形式與美感經驗;「融入雙語」可採CLIL設計課程,以「跨語言實踐」與「多模態」搭建學習鷹架;3)實際行動教與學:「多學科」能符合學生多元學習需求;「融入雙語」應留意學生英語程度的雙峰現象與自信心;4)評鑑:「多學科」有助提升學習動機與成效;「融入雙語」可擴展國際文化視野,實作活動宜增加英文比例,音樂史相關概念減少英文比例。
This action research investigates the pedagogical practice of integrating multidisciplinary and bilingual approaches into junior high school music education. Guided by David J. Elliott’s “Music making: A four stage view,” the research was conducted over two instructional cycles. The first focused on a multidisciplinary approach, and the second integrated a bilingual component. Participants included five eighth-grade classes, two co-teachers, and the researcher. The findings are as follows: 1) Orientation: It is critical to maintain a primary focus on music when incorporating multidisciplinary and bilingual elements. 2) Preparation and Planning: For a multidisciplinary approach, content based on shared aesthetic experiences and forms is recommended. For the bilingual approach, CLIL provides the pedagogical foundation for incorporating “translanguaging” and “multi-modality” in the curriculum design. 3) Situated Action: Teaching and Learning: The multidisciplinary approach was observed to effectively engage students’ diverse interests. However, the bilingual strategy requires careful consideration of students’ varying levels of English proficiency, particularly the observed bimodal distribution phenomenon. 4) Evaluation: The multidisciplinary elements effectively stimulated student learning motivation and improved outcomes, while the bilingual approach broadened students’ international cultural perspectives. The study suggests that more English can be used in activity-based learning, while less English may be more effective for the instruction of musical history.
多學科; 雙語教學; 音樂課程; 蕭邦前奏曲; 行動研究
multidisciplinary; bilingual teaching; music curriculum; Chopin Preludes; action research