本研究旨在以系統功能語言為理論工具，探討不同表徵結構的神經系統圖形對學生讀圖理解之影響。

研究設計主要分為問卷調查、準實驗研究和晤談研究三部分。首先選取30位國一學生，閱讀並填寫「傳統神經系統圖形診斷問卷」，以便診斷康軒版七上自然與生活科技教科書的神經系統圖形，對於學生的閱讀時是否會造成困難。準實驗設計將學生隨機分為實驗組和對照組。實驗組學生閱讀由系統功能語言理論所設計成的「SFL神經系統圖形問卷」；對照組學生則閱讀「傳統神經系統圖形問卷」。準實驗研究之研究對象為國中已學習過神經系統的學生共140位，同時進行閱讀並填寫「SFL / 傳統神經系統圖形問卷」中的問題；晤談對象則依問卷的作答表現以階層式隨機抽取16位學生，進行深入晤談以瞭解學生對圖形的理解情形和觀感。

圖形診斷問卷的分析結果發現，學生在閱讀傳統神經系統圖形時，出現了許多的困難點。準實驗研究結果發現，閱讀SFL圖形顯著比閱讀傳統圖形更能增進學生的讀圖理解，並可減少另有概念的產生。此外，由晤談結果亦顯示，學生閱讀傳統圖形後產生許多另有概念，而閱讀SFL圖形則較少另有概念產生。最後本研究對SFL圖形提出更進一步的修正，並對未來研究方向提出建議。

Drawn upon the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), this study aimed at exploring the effect of science image on pupils’ image reading comprehension.
Two “nervous system” images were compared – the traditional images excerpted from current science text book, and the SFL images counterparts which were modified version of the traditional ones by the guideline of SFL.These two sets of image contain the same science concepts with differenct “Representational Structure”, “Modality” and “Compositional Meaning”.

“Traditional nervous system images test” and “SFL nervous system images test” of understanding of nervous system was developed to probe pupils’ understanding on reading the images, a quasi-experimental design and semi-structured interview was deployed in this study. One hundred and forty junior high school students were randomly assigned to read one of the two sets of image, where sixteen pupils with high and low performance of both grops were selected as the subjects of interview.

Major findings were as followings: (a) Students who read the SFL images performed significantly better than who read the Traditional images. (b) Students who read the traditional images generated lots of alternative conceptions of nervous system and had difficulties in making sense of images. (c) Pupils who read the SFL images produced relatively few alternative conceptions. Eventually, implications of the findings were discussed and the topics for further studies were suggested.

一、中文文獻

李秀娟（1998）：不同教學策略對國中生學習生物的影響。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李美滿（2002）：探討高二學生對生物課本圖片詮釋之相關因素。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所教學碩士班論文。
李秀娟、張永達和黃達三（1998）：概念圖應用於國中生物教材之分析與評論—以神經系統為例。科學教育月刊, 213, 14-26。
沈鴻明（1994）：國中學生神經系統之概念發展。彰化市：國立彰化師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。
沈鴻明、蔡長添（1996）：國中學生神經系統之概念發展。科學教育, 7, 1-20。
胡壯麟（1990）：語言系統與功能。北京大學出版社。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德錄（1987）：系統功能語法概論。湖南教育出版社。
奎斯、范李文（2000）。解讀影像：視覺傳達設計的基本原理（桑尼譯）台北市：亞太圖書出版社。（原著出版：1996年）。
涂志銘、張賴妙理和鄭湧涇（2001）：運用診斷測驗探究國一學生對神經系統之另有概念。中華民國第十七屆科教年會論文彙編。
許良榮（1996）：圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊，4，121-131頁。
許佩玲（2004）：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。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
國民中學生物教科書上冊（1999）。台北市：國立編譯館。
國中生物教科書教師手冊上冊（1999）。台北市：國立編譯館。
國中自然與生活科技教科書八上（2004）。台北縣：育成書局出版
國中自然與生活科技教科書七上（2006）。台南市：翰林出版。
國中自然與生活科技教科書七上（2006）。台北縣：康軒文教事業出版
國中自然與生活科技教科書七上（2006）。台南市：南一書局出版。
國中自然與生活科技地球科學篇（2006）。台南市：南一書局出版。
張欣怡（1997）：地球科學不同課文表徵教材對學習表現之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張玉枝（2002）：探討國二學生詮釋地球科學課本附圖的相關因素。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
葉季昀（2005）：圖像組織架構教學策略對國中生學習神經系統概念的影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
黃佩瑩主編（2006）。國中自然生物圖表通鑑。台南市：南一書局出版。
楊冠政主編（2006）。高中生命科學(上)。台北縣：龍騰文化事業公司。
藍嘉淑（2000）：圖片在國中生物科教學的角色及其對學生圖片理解的影響。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
藍雅齡（1998）：讀圖訓練對國二學生理解地球科學圖形之影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。

二、英文文獻

Alessi & Stephen M.(1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 15(2). 40-47.

Burmark, L. (2002). Visual literacy: Learn to see, see to learn.

Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.

Bernard, R. M. (1990). Effects of processing instructions on the usefulness of a graphic organizer and structural cueing in text. Instructional Science, 19, 207-217.

Crisp, V., & Sweiry, E. (2006). Can a picture ruin a thousand words? The effects of visual resources in exam questions. educational research, 139-154.

Flannery, M.C. (2005). Many ways to picture a cell. American Biology Teacher. 67(6) , 363.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd Ed, London: Edward Arnold.

Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1989). Understanding machines from text and diagrams. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin(Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and picture. New York:North Holland. 171-194.

Hibbing, A.N. & Rankin-Erickson, J.L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 56(8), 758-70.

Holliday., William, G. & Others(1997). Differential cognitive and affective responses to flow diagrams in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 129-138.

Knauff, M. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Visual imagery can impede reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 363-371.

Kearsey, J., & Turner, S. (1999). How useful are the figures in school biology textbooks? Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 87-94.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London; New York: Routledge.

Levin, J. R. (1981). On the functions of pictures in prose. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neurophysiological and cognitive processes in reading. New York: Academic Press.

Levin, J.R. (1982). Picture as prose-learning devices. In A. Flemmer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing. NY: North Holland, 412-444.

Levin,J. R. (1989). A transfer-appropriate-processing perspective of pictures in prose. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin(Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and picture. 83-100. New York:North Holland.

Levie , W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations : A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 195-232.

Martin, G.L. (2004). Encoder: A connectionist model of how learning to visually encode fixated text images improves reading fluency. Psychological Review, 111(3) , 617-639.

Mayer, R. E. (1993). Commentary comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview. Learning and Instruction, 3, 239-245.

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.

Mayer, R. E., & Sim, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extension of a Dual-Coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Piro, J.M. (2002). The picture of reading: Deriving meaning in literacy through image. Reading Teacher, 56(2), 126-34.

Reid, D.J. (1990a). The role of pictures in learning Biology: part 2, Picture-text processing. Journal of Biological Education, 24(4), 251-258.

Reid, D.J. (1990b). The role of pictures in learning Biology: part 1, Perception and Observation. Journal of Biological Education, 24(3), 161-172.

Reid, D. J., & Miller, G. J. (1980). Pupil's perception of biological pictures and its implications for readability studies of biology textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 14(1), 59-69.

Reid, D. J., & Broadbridge, J. (1988). The influence of depth of field and colour identification on children’s perceptions of danger points in a picture. British Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 321-331.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Open University Press..

Unsworth, L. & Wheeler, J. (2002). Re-valuing the role of images in reviewing picture books. Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(2) , 68-74.

Unsworth, L.,Thomas, A., & Bush, R. (2004). The role of images and image-text relations in group 'Basic Skills Tests' of literacy for children in the primary school years. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 27(1), 46-66

Winn, W. (1989). The design and use of instructional graphics. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. New York: North Holland, 125-144.

Winn, W. (1993b). An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 162-185.