對於大部分的學生來說，閱讀科學文本是學習科學知識的主要方法與來源，然而學生在科學文本的閱讀理解表現各有不同，若能了解學生的先備知識對於閱讀歷程以及科學閱讀理解的影響，將有助於促進學生的科學學習成效。在本研究中，首先測驗40位高中受試者對施測文本相關概念的理解程度，並以眼球追蹤技術記錄受試者閱讀科學文本的歷程，最後使用理解測驗測試受試者對於文本的理解狀況，以了解先備知識、閱讀歷程和閱讀理解間的關係。在資料分析方面，研究者利用前測結果進行變異數同質性分析來區分受試者的先備知識程度，分為高、中、低三組，並且依據分組對眼球追蹤的數據與後測資料進行描述性統計、單因子變異數（one-way ANOVA）分析及平均值等式穩健測試，再以皮爾森相關係數檢定以了解閱讀理解與眼球追蹤數據的相關性。
　　研究結果發現，先備知識的差異與學生在科學文本上的閱讀理解有關，先備知識高比先備知識低的學生具有較佳的閱讀理解。眼球追蹤的數據顯示，先備知識與學生在閱讀「研究方法」的平均凝視時間、「根據資料而形成之科學推論與解釋」的回視次數、「預測模式圖」與「預測模式關鍵圖區」的平均凝視時間、「預測模式圖」的第一次閱讀凝視時間、「數據趨勢」文字描述的總閱讀時間與總凝視時間、第一次凝視時間等眼動形式有關。閱讀理解與眼球追蹤數據的相關分析發現，讀者的視覺注意力分配與閱讀理解具有相關性，整體、文本內容閱讀理解較佳且能應用文本概念於不同情境下進行推論與解釋之讀者針對文章中「數據趨勢」的文字描述具有較少的視覺注意力分配，並在「背景知識」文字描述、「根據資料而形成之科學推論與解釋」有較多的回視次數，在「背景知識圖」有較少的第一次閱讀凝視時間，顯示閱讀理解層次較高的學生會有較多的訊息整合以幫助閱讀理解。

There were three purposes of this study: one was to explore the relation between reader’s prior knowledge and science-text comprehension, another was to investigate the association between reader’s prior knowledge and reading process, the other was to explore the relation between reader’s reading process and science-text comprehension. Participants were forty senior-high students whose eye movements were recorded by the eye tracking system as they were reading a popular science article adopted from Scientific American. They were separated into three groups by the prior knowledge test. The article discussing the ocean acidulation contains text and graphic information. It was presented as 9 slides displayed on the computer screen. After reading the article, students were given a posttest for assessing their text comprehension. One-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation analysis were employed for data analysis. One-way ANOVA indicated that students with medium prior knowledge, compared to those with low prior knowledge, displayed higher visual attention to the text zone about research methods, trends of data, scientific inference and explanations based on data, and in prognostic chart. Those with high prior knowledge demonstrated less early information processing on the text zone about trend of data and prognostic chart. The correlation analyses demonstrated that students who showed higher science-text comprehension paid less visual attention to the text zone of the data trend, and displayed less early information processing on the graph of background knowledge. Meanwhile, they would show more later information processing including re-reading on the text zone about background knowledge, and scientific inference and explanations based on data. It was concluded that the students of higher text comprehension were more able to integrate relevant information.

中文部份
王又亭（2012）。以眼球追蹤方法初探高中生教科書之圖文閱讀歷程與概念理解。
國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
陳學志、賴惠德、邱發忠（2010）。眼球追蹤技術在學習與教育上的應用。科學教育研究，55（4），39-68。
蔡介立、顏妙璇、汪勁安（2005）。眼球移動測量及在中文閱讀研究之應用。應用心理研究，28，91-104。

西文部份
Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ importance assignment process. In J. A. Niles, & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), National reading conference yearbook. Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teacders and researchers, Vol.35 (pp. 30-40). Rochester, New York: National Reading Conference.
Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Marine, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376-386.
Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to Read in American Schools: Basal Readers and Content Texts (pp. 243-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking Study. Instructional Science, 39, 581-601.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Glenda, C. (2007). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Wiley InterScience. www.interscience.wiley.com.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories
and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating readind instruction for all children. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Prior knowledge and online inquiry-based science reading: Evidence from eye tracking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 525-554.
Hyona, J., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Education Psychology, 94, 44-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0633.94.44.
James, W. (1980). The principles of psyclwlogy. New York: Holt.
Jian, Y. C., & Wu, C. J. (2015). Using eye tracking to investigate semantic and spatial representations of scientific diagrams during text-diagram integration. J Sci Educ Technol, 24, 43-55.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixation to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaakinen, P., & Hyona, J. (2007). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239-257.
Kandel, E. R., James H. S., & Thomas M. J. (2000). Principles of neural science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kao, L. C. (1993). Word Knowledge and Prior Knowledge in Reading Comprehension. 北體學報, 2(8), 253-282.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychology Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univerisity Press.
Lai, M. L., Tsai M. J., Yang F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., Lee, M. H., Chiou, G. L., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking techonology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90-115.
Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4(1), 90-115.
Liversedge, S., Gilchrist, I., & Everling, S. (Eds.), (2011). The oxford handbook of eye movements. NY: Oxford University Press.
Macdonald, M. C., Perlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychology Review, 101, 676-703.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63.
Mason, L., Caterina, M. T., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders intergrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95-109.
O’keefe, P. A., Letourneau, S. M., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2014). Learning from mutiple representations: An examination of fixation patterns in a science simulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 234-242.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. London: Oxford University Press.
Prefetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language processing (pp. 167-208). London: Oxford University Press.
Prefetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189-214). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Radach, R., & Kennedy, A. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current issues, and an agenda for future research. In R. Radach, A. Kennedy, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Eye movements and information processing during reading (pp. 3-26). New York: Psychology Press.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eyemovements and in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletins, 124(3), 372-422.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eyemovements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension process in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 241-255.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An intergrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, S. A., Jacobson, M. G., Davis, C. E., & Davis, R. L. (1989). Prior Knowledge and Difficult Vocabulary in the Comprension of Unfamiliar Text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 27-43.
Shapiro, A. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Education Research Journal, 41, 159-189.
Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of readers’ prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 415-420.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological consideration. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
Verhoeven, L., & Peretti, C. (2008). Advances in Text Comprehension: Model, Process and Development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293-301.
Yang, F. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chien W. R., Chien, Y. T., & Tseng, Y. H. (2013). Tracking learners’ visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real classroom. Computer & Education, 62, 208-220.
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing and operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 29-36.
Zwaan, R. A., Kaup, B., Stanfield, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2001). Language comprehension as guided experience. http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documen