本研究目的在探討不同年齡層及不同閱讀理解能力的學生在閱讀科學文章時，其閱讀理解是否受到類比材料領域接近性的影響。
本研究透過三個實驗進行探討。實驗一以54位大學生為研究對象；實驗二以臺北縣土城市清水國小四年級、六年級以及清水中學七年級中等閱讀理解能力的學生各27名為研究對象；實驗三以清水國小六年級高閱讀能力、中閱讀能力、低閱讀能力學生各27名為研究對象。三個實驗都以類比領域接近性為受試者內變項，透過「科學文章閱讀理解實驗材料」了解實驗效果的立即效果及間隔一週後的持續效果，並採用多變項變異數分析進行統計考驗。研究結果顯示：
1.科學文章融入不同領域接近性類比不影響不同年齡組或不同閱讀理解能力組學生的閱讀理解表現，也不會因為組別的不同而有閱讀理解表現上的差異。
2.在本研究中，國中七年級中等閱讀能力與國小六年級中等閱讀能力學生閱讀科學文章的理解表現，在立即效果的選擇題方面顯著優於國小四年級中等閱讀能力學生。
3.國小六年級高閱讀能力學生在科學文章的閱讀理解表現上，於立即效果的依線索回憶題，顯著優於中閱讀能力及低閱讀能力學生；於持續效果的自由回憶及依線索回憶題，均顯著優於低閱讀能力學生。
4.國小六年級高閱讀能力組與閱讀能力相同的國中七年級中閱讀能力組在科學文章的閱讀理解表現上，立即效果方面無差異；但在持續效果的自由回憶及依線索回憶題方面，六年級高閱讀能力組顯著優於七年級中閱讀能力組。

This research aims to investigate the domain adjacency effect of the analogical materials on reading comprehension when students of diverse ages and of different levels of reading comprehension ability read science
texts.
This research includes three experiments. In experiment 1, the participants were 54 college students. In experiment 2, participants were 27 fourth and 27 sixth graders selected from an elementary school, and 27 seventh graders selected from a junior high school in Taipei County. All of the participants had average reading comprehension ability. In experiment 3, participants were sixth graders with high, average and low reading comprehension ability. All of the participants were from the same elementary school as that in experiment 2. In the three experiments, the within subjects variables were domain adjacency, and the Revised Reading Comprehension Test was used to explore the immediate and the one-week maintenance effects. The data obtained in this study were
analyzed by MANOVA. The findings were as follows.
1. Different domain adjacency analogies used in science texts did not affect the reading comprehension performance of students at different ages or students with different levels of reading comprehension ability,
and the performance did not differ with different groups either.
2. In this research, the reading performance in science texts of seventh and sixth graders were significantly better than fourth graders with average reading ability in multiple choice comprehension test in the
immediate measures.
3. Regarding the immediate measures, the reading performance in science texts of sixth graders with high reading ability were significantly better than those with average and low reading ability in cued recall comprehension test. As for the maintenance measures, the sixth graders with high reading ability were better than those with low reading ability
in free recall and cued recall test.
4. The reading comprehension performance in science texts between the sixth graders with high reading ability and the seventh graders with the same reading ability level were not different in the immediate measures. However, in the maintenance measures, the former was better
than the latter in free recall and cued recall test.

一、中文部分
王溢然、張耀久（民90）：類比。新竹市：凡異出版社。
吳庭瑜、黃麗分、洪瑞雲、黃永昌（民96）：類比與證偽思考技能之學習。教育心理學報，38（3），271-290。
林清山譯（民87）。教育心理學。台北：遠流。 Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology.
邱美虹（民82）：類比與科學概念的學習。教育研究資訊，1（6），79-90。
邱美虹、高淑芬（民88）：類比對應對學生建構原子結構心智表徵之影響。師大學報：科學教育類，44（1＆2），31-59。
邱皓政（民95）：量化研究與統計分析。台北：五南。
林靜雯（民88）：類比與國小自然科科學概念的學習。科學教育研究與發展，14，20-33。
洪蘭、曾志朗譯（民86）：心理學實驗研究法。台北：遠流。 Underwood, B. J. & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1975). Experimentation in psychology.
高淑芬、邱美虹（民87）：類比的檢索與對應。科學教育學刊，6（1），63-80。
郭人仲、徐順益、王國華（民84）：國中生物概念的類比學習之研究。科學教育，6，51-68。
屠名正譯（民85）：心智—認知科學導論。台北：五南。 Thagard, P. (1996). Mind: Introduction to cognitive science.
陳茹玲（民93）：類比故事的表面特徵與結構特徵在不同年齡層對故事回想表現之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
張春興（民86）。教育心理學。台北：東華。
張靜儀（民91）：以類比進行自然科統整教學。科學教育月刊，255，47-50。

黃幸美（民83）。兒童的類比推理思考與發展。教育與心理研究，17，477-506。
黃幸美（民84）。類比推理思考及其在教學上之應用。教育研究資訊，3（3），128-142。
黃幸美、林美珍、鄭晉昌（民86）。國小學童好與差解題者的類比推理解題表現之探討。教育與心理研究，20，111-140。
熊召弟、王美芬、段曉林、熊同鑫譯（民85）：科學學習心理學。台北：心理出版社。 Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). The psychology of learning science.
蘇宜芬（民80）：後設認知訓練課程對國小低閱讀能力學生的閱讀理解能力與後設認知能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。

二、英文部分
Andeson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implication. New
York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1991). Domain knowledge an analogic reasoning ability as predictors of expository text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 165-190.
Bean, T. W., Searles, D., Singer, H., & Cowen, S. (1990). Learning ccncepts from biology text through pictorial analogies and an analogical study guide. Journal of Educational Research, 83,
233-237.
Caplan, L. J., & Schooler, C. (2001). Age effects on analogy-based memory for text. Experimental Aging Research, 27, 151-165.
Donnelly, C. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). Use of analogy in learning scientific concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(4), 975-987.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for
analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107-113). Oxford :
Blackwell.
Gentner, D., & Holyoak K.. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction. The American Psychologist, 52(1), 32-4.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J., & Forbus, K.D.(1993).The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrieval from inferential
soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524-575.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., Marknan, A. & Kotovsky, L. (1995). Two forces in the development of relational similarity. In T. J. Simon & G. S. Hlford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence (pp.
263-313). Hillsdale, N. J.: L. Erlbaum.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J.(1980). Analogical problem solving.
Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
Giora, R. (1993). On the function of analogies in informative texts.
Discourse Processes, 16, 591-611.
Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10),
1129-1149.
Goswami, U. (1991). Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of
research and theory. Child Development, 62, 1-22.
Gswami, U. (1995). Transitive relational mappings in three- and four-year olds: The analogy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Child
Development, 66, 877-892.
Goswami, U. (1996). Analogical reasoning and cognitive development. In H. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior
(Vol. 26, pp.91-138). New York: Academic Press.

Goswami, U., & Brown, A. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical reasoning and causal relations. Cognition,
35, 69-95.
Goswami, U. (2001). Analogical reasoning in children. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind
(pp.437-469). London: MIT Press.
Halpern, D. F., Hansen, C., Riefer, D. (1990). Analogies as an Aid to Understanding and Memory. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(2), 298-305.
Hammadou, J. (2000). The impact of analogy and content knowledge on reading comprehension: What helps, what hurts. The Modern
Language Journal, 84(1), 38-50.
Hayes, D. A., & Henk, W. A. (1986). Understanding and remembering complex prose augmented by analogic and pictorial illustration.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(1), 63-78.
Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001).Instroduction: The place of analogy in cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind (pp.1-20). London: MIT
Press.
McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88(3), 508-519.
Paris, N. A., & Glynn, S. M. (2004). Elaborate analogies in science text: Tools for enhancing preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 230-247.
Rattermann, M. J., & Gentner, D. (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children's performance on a
causal-mapping task. Cognitive Development, 13, 453-478.
Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 13(1), 124-139.
Reed, S. K. (1987).Cognition. California: Brooks/ Cole Publishing
Company.
Reeves, L. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (1994). The role of content and abstract information in analogical transfer. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 381-400.
Simons, P. R. J. (1984). Instructing with analogies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(3), 513-527.
Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning.
Psychological Review, 84(4), 353-378.
Vosniadou, S., Schommer, M. (1988). Explanatory Analogies Can Help Children Acquire Information from Expository Text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(4), 524-536.
Yanowitz, K.L. (2001). Using analogies to improve elementary school students' inferential reasoning about scientific concepts. School
Science and Mathematics, 101(3),133-142.