本研究採便利取樣（convenience sampling）之方式，選取台北市國中一年級學生258人為樣本，利用科學專有名詞定義測驗（Terminology definition test, TDT）及個別晤談方式，探討日常生活用語對學生學習科學專有名詞時造成的影響。
由研究結果顯示，學生解釋科學專有名詞時多將科學專有名詞分解個別的文字，再由個別文字的意義拚湊出該專有名詞的意義，因而呈現出文字個別意義優於詞語整體意義之情形。而學生用以詮釋科學專有名詞之字彙接觸模式包括：(1)橫貫事理推理(2)借用讀音相同文字之語意(3)直接使用日常生活中使用的語意加以說明。
於研究結果中亦顯示，在科學專有名詞之意譯詞部分，學生於學習後以字面意義解釋專有名詞之頻率較學習前為低，但仍有7~42%不等的學生以此方式說明意譯詞；而在倣譯詞部分，學生於學習後以字面意義解說科學專有名詞之百分比則有小幅增加的情形。由於倣譯詞之翻譯方式與學生用以解釋科學專有名詞的方式十分類似，故於學習後，此種以文字字面意義解說科學專有名詞的情形仍持續地使用，並不易產生學習前後概念矛盾之情形。相較之下，意譯詞較不易由文字之字面意義猜測其所代表的意義，故當學生企圖以相同方式的理解倣譯詞及意譯詞時，便可能對科學專有名詞產生不當概念。
藉由本研究紙筆測驗及晤談結果，可得知學生如何詮釋科學教科書中的科學專有名詞；而此部分資料可提供科學教師作為教學時之參考，於教學中留意日常生活中的語言對學生學習科學時產生的影響。

This study applied the convenience sampling method to recruit participants. The sample included two hundred fifty-eight grade 7 students in Taipei City. The participants were given the Terminology Definition Test (TDT) and individual interviews to examine the impact of daily language usage on the students’ learning of science terminology.
The results of this study showed that the students tended to break down specific science terminology into small components in order to be able to explain the whole meaning of the term. They usually tried to find the meanings for the smaller components and combine these meanings together to figure out the correct meaning for the science terminology. This phenomenon suggested that the meanings of the individual words and smaller components are better than the complete meaning of the terminology. Three methods were used by the students to guess the meaning of the science terminology: (1) transductive reasoning; (2) explaining the meanings through words with the same pronunciation; (3) applying the meanings of the words that were used in daily language to explain the science terminology.
In understanding how meaning-based translation influences students’ learning, the results of this study also indicated that, after learning the meanings of the science terminology, the students used the literal meaning to explain the terminology less frequently than before they learned the terms. However, there were still about 7 to 42% of the students using this method to explain the terminology. As to the word-for- word translation, after learning the meanings of the terminology, the percentages increased slightly among the students who used the literal meaning to explain the terminology. This result was probably due to the fact that using the word-for-word translation method to explain the terms is similar to how the students explain the terminology in general. This did not cause any conceptual confusion and conflict, therefore, they continued to use this method after learning the meaning of the terminology. In contrast, it is more difficult to guess the meaning of the terminology using the meaning-based translation method. Therefore, when students attempt to apply this method to understand the science terminology, it is more probable that they will understand these concepts incorrectly.
Through the written tests and individual interviews, this study examined how the students attempted to understand the science terminology in textbooks. The results of this study provided practical suggestions for science teachers in applying their teaching method and preparing teaching materials. It is recommended that they pay attention to how the students’ daily language usage impacts on their learning of science terminology.

王文科（民79）：教育研究法。台北市：五南圖書出版社。
王美芬、賴阿福（民82）：國小一、二、三年級學生「生物構造配合功能」的概念發展研究（1）。國科會研究計畫成果報告，（NSC-81-0111-S-133-5001-N）。
王瑋譯（民78）：人類發展學：人生過程整體探討。台北市：華杏出版社。
汪克仁、耿正屏（民82）:國中學生植物運輸概念的發展。科學教育4卷237~260。　
林清山譯（民80）：教育心理學：認知取向。台北市：遠流出版社。
吳明清（民80）：教育研究 : 基本觀念與方法之分析。台北市：五南圖書出版社。
舒光（民75）：維根斯坦哲學。台北市：水牛出版社。
陳淑敏（民83）：Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。屏東師院學報，第七期，119-144。
徐烈炯（民85）：語意學。台北市：五南圖書出版社。
國立編譯館（民87）：國民小學自然課本：第一冊至第十二冊。台北市：台灣書局。
國立編譯館（民87）：國民中學生物科教科書：上冊、下冊。台北市：台灣書局。
黃宣範（民72）：語言哲學：意義與指涉理論的研究。台北市：文鶴出版社。
黃瑞琴（民82）：幼兒的語文經驗。台北市：五南圖書出版社。
黃沛榮編（民83）：當前語文間題。台灣大學中文系。
張敬宜、熊召弟（民82）:國民小學環境教育概念研究：生態平衡（一）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
郭重吉、吳武雄（民78）：利用晤談方式探查國中學生對重要物理概念的另有架構之研究（Ⅰ）。彰化師範大學　科學教育研究所。
葉蜚聲、徐通鏘（民82）：語言學綱要。台北：書林出版社。
楊文金（民83）：生活世界與科學教育。科學教育月刊　167期，2～16。
鄭昭明（民82）：認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北市：桂冠出版社。
熊同鑫（民87）：語言在自然科教室內的意涵：一間後山教室內教學活動的記事。台東師院學報，九期，p.1-36。
薛靜瑩（民87）：國小、國中學生的遺傳先前概念。國立台灣師範大學　生物研究所碩士論文。
龔淑芳譯（民62）:語言遊戲。台北：遠流。
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Barnett, J. (1992). Language in the science classroom: some issues for teachers. The Australian 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.
Bell, B. F. (1981). When is an animal, not an animal? Journal of biological education, 15(3), 213-218.
Bell, B. F., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Language in the science classroom. In R. Osborne, & P. Freyberg (Ed.), Learning in science:implications of children’s science. Heinemann, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bell, B. F. (1987). The role of schools in providing a background knowledge of science. In E. David, & O'Connor, Maeve (Ed.), Communicating science to the public : Ciba Foundation conference
(pp.49-55). New York : Wiley.
Bishop, R. (1970). Big words bother me. Educational Research, 13(1), 75.
Cachapuz, A. F. C. (1987). Detecting changes with learning in the organization of knowledge: use of word association tests to follow the learning of collision theory. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 491-504.
Cazdenn, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.
Driver, R. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(1), 93-101.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Education Research, 23(7), 5-12.
Duit, R.（1991）. On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.
Duran, B. J. (1998). Language minority students in high school: the role of language in learning biology concepts. Science Education, 82(3), 311-331.
Evans, J.D. (1978). Putting names to concepts in biology. Journal of biological education, 12(4), 261-266.
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.
Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R., & Fensham, P.(1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
Gruber. H.E., & Voneche. J.(Ed)(1977). The essential Piaget.New York:Basic Books,Inc.
Halliday, M.A.K.(1990). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Series S,6, 13-37.
Halliday, M.A.K.(1991). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (ed), Registers of written English: situational factors and linguitic features. London: Pinter.
Kulkarni, V.G. (1988). Role of language in science education. In P.J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education. Lewes: Falmer Press. 150-168.
Lee, O. & Fradd, S.H. (1996). Literacy skills in science learning among linguistically diverse students. Science Education, 80(6), 651-671.
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: lnaguage, learing, and values. New Jersey:Ablex.
Lynch, P.P., et al.(1979). Scientific language and the high school pupil, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(4), 351-357.
Lynch, P.P., Chipman, H.H. & Pachaury, A.C. (1985). The language of science and the high school student: the recognition of concept definition: a comparison between Hindi speaking students in India and English speaking students in Australia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 675-686.
Marks, C.B., Doctorow, M.J., & Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Word frequency and reading comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 67(6), 259-262.
Marek, E.A. (1986a). Understandings and misunderstandings of biology concepts. The American Biology Teacher, 48:37-40, January.
Marek, E.A. (1986b). They misunderstanding, but they’ll pass. The science teacher, 59:32-35, December .
Munby, A.H.(1976). Some implication of language in science education. Science Education,60(1), 115-124.
Nussbaum, J.& Novak, J. D.(1976). Am assessment of children’s concepts of the earth utilizing structured interviews. Science Education, 60(4), 535-550.
Osborne, R.J. & Gilbert, J.K. (1980). A technique for exploring students’ views of the world. Physics Education, 15,376-379.
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.
O’toole, M.(1996). Science, schools, children and books: exploring the classroom interface between science and language. Studies in Science Education, 28, 1113-143.
Parker, L.(1992). Language in science education:implications for teachers. The Australian science teachers journal, 38(2), 26-32.
Reif, F. & Larkin, J.H.(1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in
Rollnick, M. & Rutherford, M. (1996). The use of mother tongue and English in the learning and expression of science concepts: a classroom-based study. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 91-103.
Schollum, B., & Osborne, R. (1985). Relating the new to the familiar. In R. Osborne, & P. Freyberg. (Eds), Learning inscience:implications of children’s science. Heinemann, Auckland, New Zealand.
Shepardson, D.P. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: first grader‘s ways of seeing and talking about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 873-889.
Solomon,J. (1983). Learning about energy: how pupils think in two domains. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 49-59.
Solomon,J. (1984). Prompts, cues and discrimination: the utilization of two separate knowledge system. European Journal of Science Education, 6(3), 277-284.
Solomon, J.(1993a). Four frames for a field. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas.(Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science.(pp.1-19). Routledge London.
Solomon, J.(1993b). The social construction of children’s scientific knowledge.In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas.(Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science.(pp.85-101). Routledge London.
Stinner, A.（1996）.Providing a contextual base and a theoretical structure to guide the teaching of science from early years to senior years. Science & Education 5:247-266, 1996.
Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, Science and Learning.Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sutton, C. R. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 1-18.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
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.　
Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J., & Arnaudin, M.W.(1989).Biology from the learner’s viewpoint:a content analysis of the research literature.School Science and Mathematics, 89(8),1989.
Zeidler,　D. L.　(1989). The　effect of teachers’ language of students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal　of　Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 771-783.