教育心理學和閱讀理解研究，都顯示教科書的知識結構和順序組織會影響學生的學習。我國教育部開放民間出版國民教育教科書，無論在編寫方式或是知識順序的安排，呈現多元化的面貌，這對於學生閱讀理解的影響，是值得加以研究的。本研究分析各版本國中教科書「生殖」與「遺傳」相關內容的知識結構和編排順序。分析結果發現，各版本在知識結構有相當的差異性，知識編排順序依生物組成層級的串連方式，可分為兩類：相鄰層級串連、各層級分別串連。以此結果為基礎，並依相關研究建議新增集中串連方式，進一步進行準實驗研究，設計三種不同知識編排順序的文本，利用所開發的學習成就測驗，探討不同知識組織的文本對學生理解的影響。測驗結果發現，相鄰生物組成層級串連的知識編排順序，學生有較優的知識理解，並且較能形成接續性的知識連結。學生知識理解的差異主要是在細胞有絲分裂與減數分裂主題知識，以及區辨範圍知識。建議規劃國中生物學域課程、編寫教科書或教學計畫時，應考量知識的編排順序和知識範圍的連結。

The research of educational psychology and reading comprehensive stress the influence of the knowledge structures and sequences of textbooks on students’ learning. The Ministry of Education opened textbooks of compulsory education up to be compiled by private publishers. It is an important issue that how the diverse forms of textbooks influence on students’ reading comprehension. This study explored the knowledge structure and sequence in the “reproduction” and the “genetics” units of different textbooks, and found that there were two kinds of knowledge sequences for the biology organizational levels: adjacent or separated. Based on these results and the sequences proposed by some researchers, three kinds of texts (adjacent, separated, or condensed) were compiled. This study conducted the quasi-experimental research with an achievement assessment instrument to address the effects of knowledge sequences of texts on students’ learning. The analysis results of the assessment revealed that students who read the knowledge sequence of text with adjacent biology organizational levels had better comprehension and finer knowledge structures. The difference of knowledge comprehension was mainly in the knowledge of mitotic and meiotic models, and the knowledge in the discriminated scope. The results suggested that the knowledge sequences and the connections within concept scopes should be considered during biology curriculum design, textbook compiling or teaching planning.

一、中文文獻
王振世、何秀珠、曾文志、彭文松編譯（2009）。教育測驗與評量（R. L. Linn 和 M. D. Miller原著，2005年出版）。臺北市：臺灣培生教育出版。
石曉芳（2005）。科學推理結合雙重情境學習模式課程對國中生遺傳概念重建與推理能力提昇之影響。新竹市：國立交通大學理學院網路學習碩士在職專班論文（未出版）。
何秋萱（2005）。Flash融入五階段概念改變教學策略對國中生遺傳概念改變的影響。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學生物學系碩士論文（未出版）。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習：概念構圖之研究。臺北市：商鼎文化出版社。
余民寧、陳嘉成、潘雅芳（1996）。概念構圖法在測驗教學上的應用。測驗年刊，43，195-212。
林陳涌（2006）。應用科學歷史事件概念圖促進學生認識與概念的了解(2/3)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中報告（報告編號：NSC94-2511-S-003-008）。
林寶貴、錡寶香（2000）。中文閱讀理解測驗之編製。特殊教育研究學刊，19，79-104。
施良方（1996）。學習理論。高雄市：麗文。
施惠（1996）。國小學生對動物生殖類型概念建構之研究教學活動設計。新竹師院學報，9，191-228。
胡永崇（2008）。閱讀理解的教學評量方式。屏師特殊教育，16，1-9。
唐小媛（2003）。國中生「動物生殖」另有概念及其成因分析與概念改變教學研究。新竹市：國立交通大學網路學習學程碩士班論文（未出版）。
教育部（2008a）。九年一貫課程自然與生活科技領域課程綱要。教育部。
教育部（2008b）。九年一貫課程自然與生活科技領域內容細目。教育部。
許良榮（1997）。科學課文結構對於科學學習的影響。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
連佩雯、程台生、蔡孜怡（2005）。不同課程標準的南臺灣國一生遺傳學習之研究。當代教育研究季刊，13(1)，103-134。
郭生玉（2004）。教育測驗與評量。臺北市：精華書局。
陳新轉（2003）。課程統整理論與設計解說。臺北市：商鼎。
陳瑞麟（2012）。認知與評價：科學理論與實驗的動力學（上）、（下）。臺北市：國立臺灣大學出版中心。
陳藍萍（2004）。高一學生生物演化概念之研究。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
湯清二（1990）。迷思概念與科學教學改進研究(I)「以遺傳學為例」。彰化師範大學學報，1，367-397。
湯清二（1991）。我國學生自然科概念發展與診斷教學之研究：生物細胞概念發展（一）。彰化師範大學學報，2，489-515。
湯清二（1993）。我國學生生物細胞概念發展研究－迷思概念之晤談與概念圖。彰化師範大學學報，4，141-169。
湯清二（2000）。我國非主修生物大學生對DNA認知的瞭解與改善學習的策略探討。科學教育學刊，8(1)，101-121。
黃台珠（1990）。中學生遺傳相關概念錯誤類型的探討。科學教育月刊，133，34-53。
黃台珠（1993）。中學生遺傳學習的現況及問題。高雄師大學報，4，269-300。
黃光雄、楊龍立（2004）。課程發展與設計：理念與實作。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃光雄、蔡清田（1999）。課程設計--理論與實際。臺北市：五南。
楊坤原（1989）。中學生認知能力與遺傳學概念學習之相關研究。臺北市：國立臺灣教育學院科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
楊坤原、張賴妙理（2004a）。遺傳學迷思概念之文獻探討及其在教學上的啟示。科學教育學刊，12(3)，365-398。
楊坤原、張賴妙理（2004b）。發展和應用二段式診斷工具來偵測國中一年級學生之遺傳學另有概念。科學教育學刊，12(1)，107-131。
楊宜聆（2003）。國中學生「動物生殖」概念之研究。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學生物學系碩士論文（未出版）。
楊龍立、潘麗珠（2005）。課程組織：理論與實務。臺北市：高等教育。
董宜俐（2003）。國小六年級學童中文閱讀理解測驗編製研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所，臺中市。
熊召弟、陳業勇、林益興、楊婷喬（2001）。國小學生的「動物生殖」觀。國立臺北師範學院學報，14，573-614。
劉玉玲（2005）。課程發展與設計。臺北縣：新文京開發。
劉誠宗（2003）。學生對物種起源的解釋架構一貫性之探析。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
鄭昭明（2010）。認知心理學：理論與實踐。臺北市：學富。
鄭麗玉（2006）。認知心理學—理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
薛靜瑩（1998）。國小、國中學生的遺傳先前概念。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學生物學系碩士論文（未出版）。
謝進昌（2015）。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內實驗研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊，60，33-77。

二、外文文獻
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2005). AAAS Project 2061 Textbook Evaluation: High school biology textbooks: A benchamarks-Based evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/hsbio/report/default.htm
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2001). Atlas of science literacy, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (255-291). New York: Longman.
Anderson, W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s educational objectives. NY: Longamn.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313-351.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., & Greenfield, P. M. (1966). Studies in cognitive growth : a collaboration at the Center for Cognitive Studies. New York : Wiley.
Best, J. B. (1999). Cognitive psychology. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Wadsworth.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students' understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 625-656.
Chi, M. (1988). Children’s lack of access and knowledge reorganization: An example from the concept of animism. In F. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 160-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. (1991). Conceptual change within and across categories: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive Models of Science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 15. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Chinnici, J. P., Neth, S. Z., & Sherman, L. R. (2006). Using "chromosomal socks" to demonstrate ploidy in mitosis & meiosis. American Biology Teacher, 68, 106-109.
Cho, H. H., Kahle, J. B., & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high-school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69, 707-719.
Dougherty, M. J., Pleasants, C., Solow, L., Wong, A., & Zhang, H. (2011). A comprehensive analysis of high school genetics standards: Are states keeping pace with modern genetics? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10, 318-327.
Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students' understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 938-959.
Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students' understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655-674.
Duncan, R. G., & Tseng, K. A. (2011). Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics. Science Education, 95, 21-56.
Engel Clough, E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). Children’s understanding of inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 304-310.
Fisher, K. M. (2000a). Overview of knowledge mapping. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 5-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fisher, K. M. (2000b). SemNet? Semantic Networking. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 143-166). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gagńe, R. M. (1975). Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press.
Gagńe, E. D., Yekovich, E. D., & Yekovich, F. R. 1993. The cognitive psychology of school learning. Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students' understanding of genetics. Science & Education, 16, 849-881.
Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010). Conceptual variation in the depiction of gene function in upper secondary school textbooks. Science & Education, 19, 963–994.
Gericke, N. M., Hagberg, M., & Jorde, D. (2013). Upper secondary students’ understanding of the use of multiple models in biology textbooks - The importance of conceptual variation and incommensurability. Research in Science Education, 43, 755–780.
Gericke, N. M., Hagberg, M., Santos, V. C., Joaquim, L. M., & El-Hani, C. N. (2014). Conceptual variation or incoherence? Textbook discourse on genes in six countries. Science & Education, 23, 381-416.
Goodman, K. S. (1982). The reading process: Theory and practice. In F. V. Gollasch (ed.), Language and literacy, Vol. 1 (pp. 33-43). Boston, MA: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. New York ; London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.
Olson, M. H., & Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An introduction to theories of learning. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Kılıç¸ D., & Sağlam, N. (2014). Students’ understanding of genetics concepts: the effect of reasoning ability and learning approaches. Journal of Biological Education, 48, 63-70.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychology Review, 95, 163-182.
Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: re-visiting students' understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 195-206.
Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance - do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177-195.
Majidi, S., & Mantyla, T. (2011). Knowledge organization in physics textbooks: A case study of magnetostatics. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10, 285-299.
Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students' cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 200-205.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organisation of prose and its effect on memory. North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton, & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Meyer, L. A. (1991). Are science textbooks considerate? In C. M. Santa, & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science Learning: Processes and Application (pp. 28-37). Newark: International Reading Association.
National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]. (2006). Science assessment and item specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2005). Systems for state science assessments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and dee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67, 625-645.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117-153.
Oliva, P. F. (2001). Developing the curriculum (5th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Pavlova, I. V., & Kreher, S. A. (2013). Missing links in genes to traits: toward teaching for an integrated framework of genetics. American Biology Teacher, 75, 641-649.
Perfetti, C. A. (1989). There are generalized abilities and one of them is reading. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction (pp. 307-335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Quinn, F., Pegg, J., & Panizzon, D. (2009). First-year biology students’ understandings of meiosis: An investigation using a structural theoretical framework. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1279-1305.
Reynolds, R. E., & Baker, D. R. (1987). The utility of graphical representations in text: Some theoretical and empirical issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 161-173.
Roseman, J., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L.A. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., & Koppal, M. (2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 47-70.
Shaw, K. R. M., Van Horne, K., Zhang, H., & Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178, 1157-1168.
Singer, H., & Donlan D. (1980). Reading and learning from text. Boston: Little, Brown.
Stepans, J. I., Beiswenger, R. E., & Dyche, S. (1986). Misconceptions die hard. Science Teacher, 53, 63-69.
Stewart, J., Cartier, J.L., & Passmore, C.M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In How students learn: Science in the classroom. (pp. 515-565). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl, & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press.
Thörne, K., Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2013). Linguistic challenges in mendelian genetics: Teachers’ talk in action. Science Education, 97, 695-722.
Tolman, R. R. (1982). Difficulties in genetics problem solving. American Biology Teacher, 44, 525-527.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Open University Press.
van den Broek, P., & Lorch, J. R. F. (1993). Network representation of causal relation in memory for narrative texts: Evidence from primed recognition. Discourse Processes, 16, 75-98.
Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2007). Developing Year 2 students' theory of biology with concepts of the gene and DNA. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1111-1131.
Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children's understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89, 614-633.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Reviews of Educational Research, 57, 51-67.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1990) Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. University of Illinois.
Williams, M., DeBarger, A. H., Montgomery, B. L., Zhou, X. C., & Tate, E. (2012). Exploring middle school students' conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division. Science Education, 96, 78-103.
Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading on science: Developing and operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2, 29-36.