本研究的主要目的在瞭解高中學生對科學閱讀及科學文章的想法，並探討高中學生在科學閱讀歷程中閱讀策略與理解監控的運作，以供教師設計教學活動之參考，期能藉由瞭解高中生的科學閱讀歷程，進而促進高中學生的科學閱讀理解。
本研究採取方便取樣（convenience sampling），選取台北市高中一年級與二年級學生60人為研究對象，採取半結構性晤談，並輔以現場閱讀情形的觀察，蒐集高中學生閱讀策略與其相關的理解監控等資料，深入探究學生對科學閱讀的想法以及閱讀策略的使用。訪談結果獲有效樣本60份，經過資料的分析與處理後，本研究主要結論如下。
高中學生認為閱讀科學文章與閱讀其他學科的文章，在閱讀的理解程度、記憶文章的程度與閱讀的重點會有差異；而閱讀科學文章的目的主要是理解科學文章的內容，同時也關心科學文章的應用性與科學知識的形成。在閱讀科學文章的過程中，會採用許多不同的記憶策略記憶科學知識，或者利用重複讀寫、歸納整理或背誦的方式來幫助記憶文章的內容。另外高中學生會因為考試的題型不同而採用不同的閱讀方式。
高中學生認為閱讀科學的困難主要來自於科學名詞、科學符號、公式、圖形及計算式、科學文章文字敘述的方式，另外沒有足夠的先存知識及考試的因素也會造成閱讀科學文章的困難。科學文章主要可以區分成文字的部分與符號圖形的部分，高中學生閱讀科學文章時，可能會被文字系統的標題、特別標示的文字、題目或結論給吸引，同時也可能會先注意科學文章的圖形部分。關於科學文章的真實性的看法，大部分的高中學生認為科學文章的內容未必是真的，學生會利用先存知識、個人經驗、文字敘述邏輯來判斷科學文章的內容，或者查閱相關資料或詢問他人來幫助判斷科學文章的真實性。
研究發現高中學生採用的閱讀策略，可以分為29種不同的類型，且在不同的閱讀理解階段，學生使用的閱讀策略種類也不盡相同。另外，學生對於不同閱讀策略的使用比例也會不同，學生最常使用的閱讀策略包括「重複閱讀」、「利用文章中的視覺表徵理解文意」、「做記號」、「瀏覽全文、主題句、標題或關鍵字以發展整體概念」與「以自己的方式表達文意」。
男、女學生在閱讀策略使用的種類及平均使用的閱讀策略數都沒有明顯的差異，但是女學生對於「做記號」的使用率顯著的高於男學生。另外，女學生在文意理解及推論理解兩個閱讀歷程中偏好使用的閱讀策略較男學生在這兩個閱讀歷程中習慣使用的策略具有較多元的功能。而高一、高二學生在閱讀策略使用的種類與平均使用的閱讀策略數目沒有明顯地差異，在單一閱讀策略的使用上也沒有明顯的不同。但是高一學生在文字理解的歷程，傾向以詢問他人的方式幫助瞭解字詞的意義，而高二學生則傾向查閱相關資料來解決字詞的問題。高一學生在文意理解及推論理解階段習慣使用的閱讀策略比高二學生使用的策略具有較多元廣泛的功能。
高中學生具有許多關於閱讀策略使用的理解監控的想法，通常使用率較高的閱讀策略，學生存有的自我覺知想法也較多。學生的自我覺知想法可以作為「評鑑」、「計畫」與「調整」的自我管理的依據，幫助學生增進閱讀理解。不過高中學生對於不同閱讀策略的自我覺知想法未必全然適切，同時較缺乏屬於「計畫」自我管理的自我覺知想法。

The purposes of this study were to investigate senior high schools students’ ideas about science reading and science text and to explore students’ reading strategies and comprehension monitoring during science reading process.
This study was conducted at a senior high school in Taipei City. The samples were composed of 30 10th grade students and 30 11th grade students. Semi-structural interview was used to explore students’ ideas of science reading and the usage of reading strategies. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analyzing.
Results of this study can be divided into three main parts that are “students’ ideas about science reading and science text,” “students’ usage of science reading strategies,” and “students’ comprehension monitoring.” About the ideas of science reading, students think that reading science text is different from reading other kinds of text. The main purpose of science reading is to understand the content of science text. In addition, students also concern about the applications of science text and the formations of scientific knowledge.
Students have many different conceptions of science text. Students think that the difficulties of science reading derived from scientific terms, scientific symbols, scientific formulas, diagrams, graphs, and the statements of scientific text. In addition, preconceptions and examinations will also affect students’ science reading. With regard to the truthfulness of science text, the great parts of students think that the contents of a science text are not necessarily true. Students could use different criteria such as their preconceptions, experiences, or the logic of statements of the text to judge the truthfulness of scientific text.
Students in this study could use 29 different kinds of reading strategies to help them understand scientific text. In different reading processes, students will use different kinds of reading strategies. In addition, the percentages of each reading strategy that students use are different.
Female students have significant higher percentages of the usage of the strategy, which is marking some signs during science reading, than male students do. The reading strategies that female students prefer to use during literal comprehension and inferential comprehension process have more diverse functions than male students do. In addition, 10th grade students prefer to use the strategies that asking others to help understand the meanings of science text during the word comprehension process. However, 11th grade student prefer to use the strategies that checking related references to facilitate understanding. This study also revealed that the reading strategies that 10th grade students prefer to use during literal comprehension and inferential comprehension process have more diverse functions than 11th graders do.
Students involved in this study have many different comprehension monitoring conceptions about the use of reading strategies. The higher percentages of reading strategies that students use, the more self-awareness students have. Students’ self-awareness conceptions could be the bases to help students carry out three different kinds of self-management, which are “evaluating,” “planning,” and “regulating.” However, students usually lack the self-awareness ideas about planning self-management.

中文部分
李新鄉、黃秀文和黃瓊儀 (1997)：相互教學法對國小六年級學童閱讀理解能力、後設認知能力與閱讀態度之影響。嘉義師院學報, 11, 89-118。
汪榮才 (1999)：國民小學自然科後設認知閱讀策略教學成效之研究。國民教育研究集刊, 5, 59-62。
林玟慧 (1995)：閱讀理解策略教學對國中閱讀障礙學生閱讀效果之研究。特殊教育研究學刊, 12, 235-259。
林清山 (1991)：教育心理學―認知取向。台北市：遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
林蕙蓉 (1995)：國小學童後設認知策略教學對國語科閱讀理解效能之研究。台南師院學報, 28, 271-312。
俞曉貞 (2001)：英文閱讀教學評量研究：以國防大學中正理工學院九十一年班為例。復興崗學報, 72, 65-97。
許淑玫和遊自達 (2000)：交互教學歷程中學生發問類型及教師鷹架之探討。課程與教學, 3(4), 1-30。
郭靜姿 (1994)：不同閱讀能力學生成敗歸因方式、策略運用與後設認知能力之差異比較。師大學報, 39, 284-325。
陳密桃 (1992)：從認知心理學的觀點談閱讀理解。教育文粹, 21, 10-19。
黃明月 (1993)：我國空中大學學生閱讀策略之研究。國立台灣師範大學社會教育系社會教育學刊, 22, 149-180。
黃明月 (1993)：從認知心理學的角度探討成人閱讀策略與印刷教材設計。中等教育, 44(1), 40-45。
賴育民 (1995)：如何精進閱讀理解能力―後設認知的取向。研習資訊, 12(3), 29-31。
謝良足 (1996)：專科生閱讀英文報紙之興趣選項與閱讀技巧。英語教學, 21(1), 41-52。
藍慧君 (1992)：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的比較研究。特殊教育研究學刊, 8, 175-202。

英文部分
Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: a synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 895-911.
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313-337.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1989). Teaching text structure to improve reading and writing. Reading Teacher, 43(2), 130-137.
Barnett, J. (1992). Language in the science classroom: some issues for teacher. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(4), 8-13.
Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 24-48.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching reading about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 610-619.
Craig, M. T., & Yore, L. D. (1995). Middle school students' metacognitive knowledge about science reading and science text: An interview study. Reading Psychology, 16(2), 169-213.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
DiGisi, L. L., & Willett, J. B. (1995). What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 123-142.
Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215-251.
Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? differences in good and poor writers' self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26(6), 473-488.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills.New York: Academic Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gagn, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). Reading. In The cognitive psychology of school learning (2 ed., pp. 267-312). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Garaway, G. B. (1994). Language, culture, and attitude in mathematics and science learning: a review of the literature. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(2), 102-111.
Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 643-659.
Gayford, C. (1993). Discussion-based group work relate to environmental issues in science classes with 15-year-old pupils in England. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 521-529.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057-1073.
Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1129-1149.
Goetz, E. T., & Palmer, D. J. (1991). The role of students' perceptions of study strategy and personal attributes in strategy use. Reading Psychology, 12(3), 199-217.
Guthrie, J. T., Meter, P. V., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261-278.
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues of definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Koch, A., & Ecks, S. G. (1995). Skills needed for reading comprehension of physics texts and their relation to problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(6), 613-628.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Liss, J. M., & Hanson, S. D. (1993). Writing-to-learn in science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22(6), 342-345.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., d'Ailly, H., Smith, M., & Cake, H. (1989). A methodological analysis of experimental studies of comprehension strategy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 458-470.
Mallow, S. V. (1991). Reading science. Journal of Reading, 34(5), 324-338.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Model for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effect of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23-37.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports science. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947-967.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Toole, M. (1996). Science, schools, children and books: exploring the classroom interface between science and language. Studies in Science Education, 28, 113-143.
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: a generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 480-508.
Pressley-Forrest, 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.N Y.: Springer-Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy. Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 301-342.
Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., & Marek, E. A. (1990). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of four physics concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 35-54.
Ritchie, S. M., & Tobin, K. (2001). Actions and discourses for transformative understanding in a middle school science class. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 283-299.
Rivard, L., & Yore, L. D. (1992). Review of reading comprehension instruction: 1985-1991.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354144).
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
Rodrigues, S., & Thompson, I. (2001). Cohension in science lesson discourse: clarity, relevance and sufficient information. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 929-940.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences and learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation.San Diego: Academic Press Inc.
Scott, J. (1993). Introduction. In J. Scott (Ed.), Science and language links.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shymansky, J. A. (1978). Assessing teacher performance in the classroom: pattern analysis applied to interaction data. Studies in Education Evaluation, 4(2), 99-106.
Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teachers' beliefs about and perception of elementary school science, science reading, science textbooks, and supportive instructional factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 437-454.
Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students' metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15-30.
Spiegel, D. L., & Wright, J. D. (1984). Biology teachers' preference in textbook characteristics. Journal of Reading, 27(7), 624-628.
Spiegel, G. F. J., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1994). The effects of a combination of text structure awareness and graphic postorganizers on recall and retention of science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 913-932.
Steinberg, I., Bohning, G., & Chowning, F. (1991). Comprehension monitoring strategies of nonproficient college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(3), 63-75.
Stewart-Dore, N. (1993). Ways of reading science. In J. Scott (Ed.), Science and language links (pp. 55-65). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sutherland, D., & Dennick, R. (2002). Exploring culture, language and the perception of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 1-25.
Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 145-166.
Wandersee, J. H. (1988). Ways students read texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(1), 69-84.
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.Buckingham: Open University Press.
Williams, R. L., & Yore, L. D. (1985). Content, format, gender, and grade level differences in elementary students' ability to read science material as measured by the Cloze procedure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 81-88.
Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. C. (1983). A mate-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 419-435.
Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbook. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72.
Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy:25 years of language art and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of Science Reading Awareness: an interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4-8 result. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 27-51.
Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Mauire, T. O. (1993). Middle school students' metacognitive awareness of science reading, science text and science reading strategies: model verification. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED362385).
Yore, L. D., & Denning, D. (1989). Implementing change in secondary science reading and textbook usage: a desired image, a current profile, and a plan for change.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED305270).
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science model of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369.
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1985). Reading, understanding, remembering and using information in written science materials. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED285825).
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: developing and operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1(2), 29-36.