本研究旨在研究學生觀察示範實驗之科學寫作與其智力及學科學習成就間的關係。研究中，要求學生觀察一段由研究者設計的大氣壓力示範實驗影片，回答一份含確認實驗器材、描述實驗步驟及發現，以及解釋實驗結果問卷。並以系統功能語言學中詞彙深二度的分析，探討學生寫作的特性。五十九位九年級學生參與本研究，除上述之寫作資料外，還收集學生的智力及其他學科學習成就等相關資料，以相關統計分析學生科學寫作的情形。
主要發現如下：（1）學生對於實驗藥品、實驗器材與實驗步驟的確認與國文成績、數學成績、自然成績、智力測驗成績及基本學力測驗自然科成績均呈正相關。（2）學生進行合理或正確的推論事件總數與數學成績、自然成績及國中基本學力測驗自然成績呈正相關。（3）學生所書寫的深二度科學詞彙總數與國文成績、數學成績、自然成績及國中基本學力測驗自然成績呈正相關。最後本研究對未來可行的研究方向提出建議。

The aim of this study was to investigate junior high school students’ science writing and the relations between science writing and intelligence and learning achievement. Students were asked to watch a film about an experiment of atmospheric pressure and then to complete a series of tasks, including recognizing the apparatus, describing the procedures and phenomenon and explaining the results of the demonstration. Drawn upon systematic function linguistics perspective, students’ writing was analyzed in terms of the second degree in depth of phrase. Fifty-nine ninth grade students participated in the study. In addition to the written text, information about students’ intelligence and learning achievement were also collected. The data was statistically analyzed to reveal the relations with students’ science writing.

The main findings is as follows:
(1) Significant positive correlations were found between students’ recognition of experimental chemicals, apparatus and procedures and their Chinese, mathematics, science learning achievements. In case of intelligence and the Basic Competency Test of science, the same result was found.
(2) Students who produced more plausible or correct inferences in their science writing, they also tended to be better in academic performance.
(3) Students who deployed moderate complexity clauses in their science writing, they also outperformed in all areas of academic subjects.
Finally, according to the findings, some suggestions for future study were proposed.

參考文獻
一、 中文部分
朱怡霖（民91）：中文斷詞及專有名詞辨識之研究。國立台灣大學資訊工程學研究所碩士論文。
江宣縈（民90）：中等學校專家與生手體育教師教導方式差異之研究。國立台灣體育學院體育研究所碩士論文。
呂慧娟譯（R.Hoffmann著）（民87）：迴盪化學兩極間。臺北：天下遠見出版公司。
李大忠（民85）：連字句。外國人學漢語語法偏誤分析。北京：北京語言文化學出版社。
李世文、陳秋梅(民82)：中文口語與書寫語的比較研究。教學與研究，p.63～96。
李暉（民89）：科學話語與科學概念的學習：以國中生理化課學習為例。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
宋玉柱（民76）：論“連…也…”結構。現代漢語語法論集。天津：天津出版社。
宋曜廷(民88)︰先前知識文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
何俊亨（民86）：設計思考中的搜尋策略模型－專家與生手的差異瞭解專家與生手在結構良好設計問題的解決過程中，搜尋策略運用方式的異同。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文。
林芬遠（民86）：國中生物課教室口語之探究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林俊智（民92）：以系統功能語言學觀點探討不同課文結構對科學文章的理解-以溫度與熱。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
邱妙津（民88）：稱代詞「人家」的語義及語用研究。國立臺灣大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
洪文東(民86)︰科學文章的閱讀理解。屏師科學教育，p.14-25。
施建新（民88）：網路資訊與學習系統之中文全文探勘工具。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德彔(民78)：系統功能語法概論。湖南：湖南教育出版社。
胡瑞萍與林陳涌（民91）：寫作與科學學習。科學教育月刊，第253期，P2-18
范翠菁（民85）：專家與生手對工件群聚分類之策略研究。國立交通大學工業工程與管理學系碩士論文。
馬真（民71）：說“也”。中國語文第四期。
高橋彌守彥（民77）：關於“連…也/都…”格式的一些問題。第二屆國際漢語教學討論會論文選。北京：北京語言學院出版社。
翁育誠（民93）：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。
崔永華（民73）：“連…也/都”句式試析。語言教學與研究第四期。
崔希亮（民79）：試論關聯形式“連…也/都”的多重語言信息。世界漢語教學第三期。
崔希亮（民82）：漢語連字句的語用分析。中國語文第二期。
許良榮(民86)︰科學課文結構對於科學學習的影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
許佩玲（民93）：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。
許原嘉(民91)：以科學寫作方式探究國小學童科學迷失概念之研究－以空氣概念為例。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究研究所碩士論文。
梁玉芳（民79）：新聞基模之研究─專家與生手知識結構差異之探討。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
國民中學自然與生活科技第四冊（民93）：第四章第一節－氧化作用。南一書局。
國民中學國文教科書第四冊（民90）：語文常識（上）語法上篇。國立編譯館。
陳慧娟（民87）：科學寫作有效促進概念改變的教學策略。中等教育, 49(6), 123-131。
陳慧娟（民88）：寫作活動對國小學生科學概念的理解、科學態度、科學創意及概念改變歷程之影響。研究計畫。
陳禮文（民86）：問題解決為導向的設計思考過程－專家與生手的比較。淡江大學建築學系研究所碩士論文。
陳聖智（民89）：專家與生手設計者使用電腦媒材的認知差異：一般性思考到創造性思考的歷程。國立交通大學應用藝術所碩士論文。
程琪龍（民83）：系統功能語法導論。汕頭大學出版社。
劉丹青、徐烈炯（民87）：焦點與背景、話題及漢語“連”字句。人國語文第四期。
劉宏文(民90)︰從中文教科書的書寫特質探討科學語言語科學學習之間的關係。論文發表於中華民國第十六屆科學教育學術研討會。高雄︰高師大。(http︰//www.nknu.edu.tw/~gise/17years/E14.doc)
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，頁1-36。
謝世達（民92）：國小高年級科學教室中爭議性科技議題討論的師生對話分析研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
蕭登峰（民92）：探討啟發式科學寫作融入教學對學童科學概念學習與改變之研究－以氧化概念學習為例。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
蘇靜芳（民93）：以科學寫作融入自然與生活科技教學提升國小學童批判思考能力。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。

二、 英文部分
Bereiter & Scardamalia（1987）. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R.R. (Ed.). (2000). How expert differ
from novices. How People Learn : Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, 31-33.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition & Communication, 28, 122-128.
Britton, B.K.,& Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,329-345.
Britton, B.K., Gulgoz, S.,& Glynn, S.M. (1993). Impact of good and poor writing on learners: Research and theory. In B.K. Britton, M. Binkley,& A. Woodward (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54, 513-520.
Etkina, E. (2000). Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool. Science Education, 84, 594-605.
Fairclough, N.（1992）.Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England:Polity Press.
Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985-1001.
Flower, L., & Hays, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Foucault, Michel.(1972).　The Archaeology of Knowledge.　Trans.　Alan Sheridan.　London: Tavistock.
Gaskins, I. W., & Guthrie, J. T. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1039-1056.
Halliday , M.A.K. & Martin , J.R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
Keys, C. W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Education, 31(9), 1003-1022.
Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.
Kintsch, W.(1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning.　American Psychologist, 49,292-303.
Klaassen,C.W.J.M. & Lijnse,P.L.（1996）.Interpreting students’ and teachers’ discourse in science classroom: an underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33（2）,115-134
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images：The Grammar of Visual Design.
Langer, J.A.（1986）. Children Reading and Writing: Structures and Strategies. Norwood, N.J: Ablex.
Lemke,J.L.（1990）Talking science:Language,Learning,and values.Norwood,NJ:Ablex
Lemke,J.L.（1991）Science,semantics,and social change. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association（Chicago,IL,1991）.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 334 828）
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good text always better? Interactions of text coherence , background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
Moje,E.B.（1997）.Exploring discourse,subjectivity,and knowledge in Chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction,32（2）,35-44.
Mueller,A.（1997）.Discourse of scientific inquiry in the elementary classroom. Journal of Elementary Science Education,9（1）,15-33
Nuthall, G.（1997）.Understanding student thinking and learning in the classroom. In B.J.Biddle et al（eds.）, International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching, pp.681-768.Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
O’Loughlin,M.（1992）.Rethinking science education:Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29（8）,781-820.
Prain, V. & Hand, B.（1996）. Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.
Richmond,G.& Striley,J（1996）.Making meaning in classroom: social process In small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33（8）,839-858.
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.
Santa, C.M. & Havens, L.T. （1991）. Learning through writing. In Santa, C.M. & Alvermann, D.E.（Ed.）, Science Learning: Processes and Applications. Newark, International Reading Association.
Searleman, A. & Herrmann, D. (1994). Memory from a Broader Perspective, 295-321.
Summerlin, Lee R. and Ealy, Jr., James L., Chemical Demonstrations: a Sourcebook for Teachers, 2nd Ed., 1988, Volume 2, p 23, Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society.
Summerlin, Lee R. And Ealy, Jr., James L., Chemical Demonstrations: a sourcebook for Teachers, 2nd Ed., 1988, Volume 2, p 35, Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285
Unsworth, L. (2000). Researching language in schools and communities : functional linguistic perspectives. London and Washington [D.C.] : Cassell.
Unsworth , L. (2001)︰Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum︰Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Open University Press.
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.
van Dijk, T.A.（1997）.Discourse as structure and process. London:SAGE.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean－scientifically speaking. Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in secondary school. In F.Christie & J.R. Martin(eds.),Genres and institutions︰social process in the workplace and school.London︰Cassell.
Veel, R. (1998). The greening of school science：Ecogenesis in secondary classrooms.In Martin, J.R. & Veel, R.,Reading science：Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science.London and New York：Routledge.