本研究旨在從漢文中關聯詞語衍生的因果類複句角度，為七年級自然科教科書作文本分析，並從分析過程中歸納因果句閱讀理解能力，探測學生的閱讀理解情形。
教科書雖為學生學科知識的基本來源，但經由文本分析後發現教科書編撰者皆用科學語言方式做文本敘述，尤其是在因果類複句上的表現。生物教科書中因果類的關聯詞語在因果複句的使用上有相當的複雜度，並且文本句中還有型式（1.果因型，2.多因一果，3.一因多果4.交錯因果5.遞進因果）與層次（一重、二重因果句與三重因果複句）之分，加深了學生在學習上的障礙。
根據研究者在文本分析過程，對照閱讀理解理論中的能力，發展出研究工具，測得學生在因果複句閱讀理解中1.因果句判斷力，2.關聯詞語圈選力，3.因果句對應力，4因果句型式判別力與5.因果句層次判別力的表現，此五項因果句能力用學科能力迴歸考驗，發現國文能力都具有顯著的解釋度與影響力，數學能力僅對後三項能力有顯著情形；而後再引用閱讀理解理論將此五項因果句能力中分成識字解碼與語言理解兩類，檢覈「閱讀簡單觀點模式」中所建議之閱讀理解方程式，發現相加方程式具有最顯著的解釋度與影響力，顯示中學自然學科閱讀理解中識字解碼與語言理解已漸漸獨立並有累加的情形；而後再用多元迴歸以及階層迴歸分析方法，發現兩類五項因果句能力對閱讀理解程度的解釋度與影響力已偏重在語言理解部分；最後，根據本研究所得結果、討論與結論，對未來研究，教學現場的教師以及教科書編撰者提出建議。

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the content of the science text book for 7th-grade students. The analysis was conducted on the basis of the casual compound sentences which are derived from the Chinese conjunction. This study also explored student's reading comprehension (R) of the casual sentences while analyzing sentences.
Text books are the primary source for students to acquire knowledge. However, this study discovers two things: 1) Science jargon/ scientific terminology are used in the sentences of the text book, especially in the causal compound sentences. In the biology text book, Chinese conjunctions with casual relationship used in the causal compound sentences are written in a very complex way. Furthermore, there are five different sentence patterns and three different levels of complexity: i) effect-cause pattern, ii) many causes with one effect, iii) one cause with many effects, iv) interlaced causes and effects and v) causes and effects appeared successively, i.e. one effect will be another cause leading to another effect; one-fold, twofold and threefold causal compound sentences). 2) Student's learning is hindered by the above-mentioned.
The questionnaires were designed by referring to the analyzed text and the “reading comprehension theory”, and employed to test the reading comprehension skills regarding the causal compound sentences.
Five performances were revealed by the reading comprehension test: 1. ability to determine the causal sentences, 2. ability to choose the Chinese conjunction, 3. ability to deal with the casual sentences, 4. ability to differentiate those sentence patterns, and 5. ability to differentiate the different levels of the causal sentences. In addition, the five performances were examined by using regression analysis of academic subjects.
The following are the findings of this study: 1. Chinese ability brought significant impact on all the five performances, while Math ability had certain level of influence on the 3rd, 4th and 5th performances. 2. The five performances were classified into two types, D (decoding) and L (language comprehension) by using “reading comprehension theory”. 3. Sum formula (R=D+L) showed its remarkable effect on understanding students’ reading comprehension by referring to the R (reading comprehension) formulae proposed by the Simple View of Reading. 4. It was found that D is more independent of L for junior high school students, however, R=D+L remained the best in explaining R. 5. The two types of comprehension and five performances have laid more stress on language comprehension with regard to reading comprehension by further utilizing the multiple regression and hierarchical regression analysis. At last, according to the findings, discussion and conclusion, recommendations to further research, classroom teachers and writers and editors of the text book were made.

一、中文
王玉麒（2005）：科學紮根—光合作用實驗活動的開發研究。（國科會專案報告，計畫編號： NSC 93-2515-S-003-005）
史家瑩主編（2007）：國中自然與生活科技教科書 第一、二冊。翰林文教事業出版社。
邢福義（2002）：漢語複句研究。北京：商務印書館，
邢福義（2004）：現代漢語。北京：高等教育出版社，
李錫津（1994）：教科書的重要性和影響性。職教園地，5，8-9
何永清（民94）：現代漢語語法新探。台北：台灣商務印書館
宋稚靑, 林如豪（民54）：邏輯與科學方法。台北市：大中國
邱上真(1997)：國語文低成就學生閱讀表現之追蹤研究(II)----國民小學國語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究(II)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。(編號：NSC 86-2413-H-017-002-F5)
林弘庭、許良榮（2006）：國內「大專物理教科書」之內容分析。科學教育研究與發展季刊，42，1-16。
林清山譯（1997）：教育心理學－認知取向。台北：遠流。
林綠芬（2004）：國小國語文複句中關聯詞語的教學：以九年一貫課程第一階段教材為例。國立新竹師範學院台灣語言與語文教育研究所碩士論文
吳怡潔（2006）：「閱讀的簡單觀點模式」在中文一般及閱讀理解困難學童之驗證研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文
洪慎杏（2007）：現代漢語複句分類與關聯詞語教學--以「而」為例。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文
洪文東（1997）：科學文章的閱讀理解。屏師科學教育，5，14-25
柯華葳（1999）：閱讀理解困難篩選測驗施測說明。行政院國家科學委員會。台北市：特殊教育工作小組。
柯華葳（1991）：台灣地區閱讀研究文獻回顧。曾志朗編，中國語文心理學研究第一年度結案報告，國立中正大學認知科學研教中心，31-76
秦麗花（2003）：數學文本閱讀理解模式之建立及其驗證之研究---以角度單元為例 。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文。
秦麗花、邱上真（2004）：數學文本閱讀理解相關因素探討及其模式建立之研究～以角度單元為例。國立台南大學特殊教育與復健 學報，12，99-121。
翁育誠（2004）：以蘊含序列與詞彙密度兩種結構探討科學課文結構與閱讀理解的關係－以溫度與熱為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張玉成（2000）：思考啟發性閱讀指導技巧 http://s4.ntptc.edu.tw
陳美慧（2006）：國小三年級學童國語文關聯詞語知識結構之探究。台中教育大學教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文
許世瑛（1988）：中國文法講話。台北：台灣開明書局
許良榮（2003）：國內大專用書「自然科學概論」內容之潛在問題分析。科學教育，262，2-12。
許佩玲（2003）：從系統功能語言學觀點探討不同圖文整合方式之科學課文對閱讀理解的影響–以月相單元為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
許慶堂（2006）：科學課文中零代詞對學生閱讀理解的影響。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文
莊嘉坤（2001）：中小學學生植物相關概念研究（Ⅰ）---子計畫三：中小學學生植物光合作用概念研究（Ⅰ）。（國科會專案報告，計畫編號：NSC 89-2511-S-153-019）
黃達三（2000）：學生光合作用概念學習的研究（Ⅰ）。（國科會專案報告，計畫編號： 88-2511-S-003-071）
廖彩良（2006）：運用4MAT系統於國中光合作用單元的成效。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
董美津（2005）：光合作用科學史融入國中生物教學對學生學習成效影響之研究。國立高雄師範大學生物科學研究所碩士論文
劉天翔，林原宏（2008）：一般學童與原住民學童的數學閱讀能力階層結構的分析。2008年原住民學生數理教育研討會
劉月華，潘文娛，故韡（2006）：實用現代漢語語法（台灣版）。台北：師大書苑
劉昭宏（1996），臺灣地區編輯教科書的選擇與設計。載於兩岸圖書出版合作研討會專輯（三），頁109-118。台北：出版人。
鄭昭明（2004）。認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
蔡瓊如（2008）不同文本編排調整方式對國小不同閱讀能力學生閱讀表現之研究。國立台南大學特殊教育學系碩士論文
藍順德（2004）：二十年來國內博碩士論文教科書研究之分析。國立編輯館館刊，186,32（4），2-25。
藍慧君（1991）：學習障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱讀理解與理解策略之比較。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
二、西文
Barak, F., Sheva, B. ＆ Gorodetsky, M. (1999). As ‘process’ as it can get：Students’ understanding of biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12), 1281-1292.
Barnett, J. (1992). Language in the science classroom: some issues for teachers. TheAustralian Science Teachers Journal, 38(4), 8-13.
Barrass, R. (1979). Vocabulary for introductory courses in biology: necessary, unnecessary and misleading terms. Journal of biological education, 13(3), 179-191
Braine, M. (1978). On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic interpret conditional sentences: A developmental study. Rsychol Rew, 85, 1-21.
Bruning, R.H, Schraw, G.J.& Ronning,R.R.(1999). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction.(3rd ed.)N.J. :Printice Hall.
Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the Role of Representations and Expressed Models in Building Mental Models. In J. K. Gilbert and C.J. Boulter (eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp.119-135.) Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.
Bunge M(1979). Causality and modern science, 3rd revised edn.Dover, New york Carver, R. P. (1993). Merging the simple view of reading with rauding theory. Journal of Reading Behavior, Vol. 25 (4), 439-455.
Chall, J. (1987). Reading and early childhood education: The critical issues. Principal, 66(5), 6-6.
Chen, R.,&Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & Leeuw, N.D. (1994). From things to processes: a theory for conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Cook, L. and Mayer, R. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text,Journal of Educational Psychology ,80(4), 448-456.
Ehri, LC (1982). Learning to read and spell. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, Washington, D.C.
Fisher, K.M., Wandersee, F.H., & Moody, D.E. (2000). Mapping biology knowledge. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pulisher
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Gillies, L. A. (1983). Children’s flexible use of strategies during reading. In M.Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 133-156). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown
Gardner P.L.( 1976). Logical connectives in science:a preliminary report,Research in Science Education, Volume 6, Number 1 /1976,12
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A.K., Sood, S., & Gabriell, S. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210-225.
Gilbert,J.K.(2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models.International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369-1386.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer,W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Halford, G. S. (1982). The development of thought, Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Halliday, M. A. K. ＆ Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and Discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Harms, H. & Yager, R.E.(1981). What Research Says to the Science Teacher (Vol.3), Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, Stock#471-14776.
Hoover,W. A.,&Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.
Kintsch, W. (1979). On comprehension stories. In M.A. Just & Carpenter (Eds.),Cognitive Processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Kuhn TS(1977). The essential tension：selected studies in scientific tradition and change.Univ Chicago Press,Chicago
Lynch, P. P., Benjamin, P., Chapman, T.,Holmes, R., Mccammon, R., Smith, A., & Symmons, R. (1979). Scientific language and the high school pupil, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(4), 351-357.
Maskill(1988). Logical language,natural strategies and the teaching of science. International Journal of Science Education, Volume 10, Issue 5 October 1988 , pages 485 - 495
Mayr, E. (1997). This is Biology: The science of the living world. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
McCardle, P., Scarborough, HS, & Catts. HW (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 230-23
Meyerson, M., Ford, M., Jones, W., & Ward, M. (1991). Science vocabulary knowledge of third and fifth grade students. Science Education, 75(4). 419-428.
Mohr H(1977). Lectures on structure and significance of science. Springer,berlin Heidelberg New York
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
Osborne, R.J.& Bell, B.F.(1983). Science teaching and children’s views of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1-14.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.
Pickersgill, S., & Lock, R. (1991). Student understanding of selected non-technical words in science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 9(1), 71-79.
Reif, F., & Larkin, J. H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), pp.733-760.
Rober,karlin.(1971). Teaching Elemenary Reading:Principles and Strategies. New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich
Rolf S. (1986). Biophilosophy: analytic and holistic perspectives. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Roth, W., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368-440.
Rubin，Dorothy(1980) The Teacher` Handbook of Reading/Thinking Exercises. NY：Hott，Rinehart and Winston.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004), The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Woodruff, S.K., Hock, M.F., Bulgren, J.A., & Lenz, B.K. (2006). Reading strategy interventions: Can literacy outcomes be enhanced for at-risk adolescents? Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 64-68.
Shortland, M. (1988). Advocating science: Literacy and public understanding. Impact of Science on society, 38, 305-316.
Smith, F. (1975). The role of prediction in reading. Elementary English, 52, pp.305-311.
Solomon, Joan (1993). The social construction of children’s scientific knowledge. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children’s in formal ideas in science. New York: Routledge. pp.85-101.
Sternberg R.J. (1979). Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology ,1979 , 28 , 469-498
Strevens, P.(1972). Technical,technological and scientific English.(Paper presented to the conference of the International Association of Teacher of English as a Foreign Language),London
Sutman, F. X. (1996). Scientific literacy: A functional definition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 459-460.
Sutton, C. R. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 1-18.
Varela FJ(1976). On observing natural systems. Francisco Varela in conversation with Donna Johnson. Co-Evol Quart 10:26-31
Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J., Scanlon, D.M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry, 45, 2-40.
Warner, J. & Wallace, J. (1994). Creative writing and students’ science learning in a science and technology context. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40(4), 71-75.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Wuketits FM(1978) Wissenschaftstheoretische Probleme dermodernen Biologie. Duncker and Humblot,Berlin
Yore, Larry D & Denning, David(1989) Implementing Change in Secondary Science Reading and Textbook Useage: A Desired Image, a Current Profile, and a Plan for Change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (62nd, San Francisco, CA, March 30-April 1, 1989).
Yore, L.D, ＆ Shymansky J.A.(1991). Reading in science : Developing and aperational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2) ,29-36