「或」這個連結詞是體現邏輯推理的重要語言成分之一，不僅在科學教科書中常使用「或」來表達科學詞彙之間的關係，更廣泛使用於科學教與學的脈絡之中。前人的研究指出「或」至少具有7種語義：「等同或（E）」、「兼有或（A）」、「所有或（W）」、「排斥或（X）」、「兼容或（I）」、「舉例或（S）」、以及「近似或（T）」。
本研究分析僑生生物教科書中「或」的使用情形，再挑選帶有「或」的句子做成「填空題」，請作者A、教師B和學生填答後，以此作為訪談事例來訪談他們。從訪談整理來了解作者對於「或」的理解以及教科書中「或」的語義指涉。其次，比較教師對於「或」的語義判斷和作者對於「或」的語義指涉之異同；以及學生對於「或」的語義判斷和作者對於「或」的語義指涉之異同，並探討影響學生語義判斷之因素。最後，將教師和學生對於「或」的語義判斷做成回饋意見式的訪談事例，再次訪談作者對於回饋意見的回應、會否改寫以及改寫法。
本研究有以下7點發現：1. 生物教科書中總共出現了8種「或」的語義，除了上述7種，新增「錯綜或（synthesizing- or）」。2. 作者A在其所寫的章節中使用了（指涉了）7種「或」的語義，獨缺「所有或」。3. 對於「或」，教師B的語義判斷與作者A的語意指涉有84.6%相同。4. 對於「或」，學生的語義判斷與作者A的語意指涉有61.5%相同。5. 影響學生對於「或」語義判斷的因素：科學詞彙、科學詞彙的同質性、詞彙密度、科學概念、修辭法、語法、語用。6. 學生在後測時，依然沒有信心在句子中使用「或」，儘管他們已經學過科學內容知識。7. 得到回饋意見之後，作者A決定少部分改寫，大部分維持原本的寫法，他認為教科書還是要「精簡一點」。
顯然，會使用「或」來進行對話的必須是對科學語言非常熟悉的人，例如：科學家、科學教師、作者等。因此，想要促進學生的閱讀理解和邏輯推理，除需教科書作者和讀者共同關注科學文本中出現的邏輯連接詞外，還需要對於科學語言的使用多加練習。

The conjunction ‘or’ is one of the most important linguistic components of understanding the logical reasoning. The conjunction ‘or’ is not only usually used for expressing the relationship connecting the scientific terms but more broadly deployed in the context of teaching and learning science. According to the previous studies, we have found that there are at least 7 meanings of the conjunction “or”, such as “Equal-or”, “And-or”, “Whether-or”, “eXclusive-or”, “Inclusive-or”, “Such as-or”, and “To-or”.
In this study, the use of “or” in the biology textbook for overseas Chinese was analyzed. First, we select sentences with ‘or’ in them to make a “Gap-filling task”. After author A, teacher B and the students complete the “Gap-filling task”, we interview them with their answers. From the interviews, we can understand the author's understanding of “or” and the referred meaning of “or” in textbooks. Second, we compare teacher B’s semantic judgment of “or” with author A's referred meaning of “or”, and compare students’ semantic judgment of “or” with author A's referred meaning of “or”, explore the factors affecting students' semantic judgment. Finally, the teacher B's and students' semantic judgments of “or” are made into feedback-style questions to interview author A to explore his response, his will to paraphrase and how to paraphrase.
This study revealed the following 7 findings. 1. There are 8 meanings of the conjunction “or” in the biology textbook. In addition to the above 7 types, there are also “Synthesizing- or”. 2. Author A used（referred） 7 meanings of “or” in chapters he wrote, only “Whether-or” not included. 3. Teacher B's semantic judgment of “or” is 84.6% similar to author A's referred meaning of “or”. 4. Students’ semantic judgment of “or” is 61.5% similar to author A's referred meaning of “or”. 5. Factors that affect students' semantic judgment of "or": scientific terms, homogeneity of scientific terms, lexical density, scientific concepts, rhetoric, grammar, and pragmatics. 6. In posttest, students are not confident in using ‘or’ to complete sentences, although they have learned scientific content knowledge. 7. After receiving feedback, author A decided to paraphrase a small part, and maintain most of the original writing. He believes that the textbook should be "simplified".
Obviously, those who can use “or” to conduct dialogue must be people who are very familiar with scientific language, such as scientists, science teachers, authors, etc. Therefore, to promote students' semantic understanding and logical reasoning, not only textbook authors and readers should pay attention to the logical conjunctions in scientific texts, but more practice is needed in the use of scientific language.

何永清（2005）。 現代漢語語法新探。臺灣商務印書館。
李櫻（2003）。語意與語用的互動。 臺灣語文研究（慶祝曹逢甫教授華誕專號），1，169-183。
林文杰（2006）。[科學語言遊戲] 融入教學對物理文本的語意理解與語法應用之探討—以 [生活中的力] 單元為例。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班學位論文，1-159。
林宗宏（2005）。漢語詞組結構之 [左緣蔓生] 現象及其起源。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC93-2411-H-007-034）。新竹市：國立清華大學語言學研究所。科學教育類，51，107-124。
陳波（2004）。邏輯學。台北市：五南。
陳瑞麟（2003）。科學概念的指稱與投射。歐美研究，33（1），125-192。
黃瑞琴（1991）。質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。
黃慶萱（2017）。修辭學（增訂三版）。台北市：三民書局出版社。
黃仲義、楊文金（2013）。科學文本中的邏輯語義分析與僑生的閱讀理解。「第29屆科學教育國際研討會」發表之論文，彰化縣彰化市國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
葉佳承、楊文金、廖斌吟、賴廷倫、林芯聿（2009）。光合作用文本對學生概念學習的影響。科學教育學刊，17（4），343-365。
蔣佳玲、楊文金、廖斌吟、史偉郁（2014）。國小科學文本[或]的邏輯語義分析。教科書研究，7（1），1-30。
蔣佳玲（2016）。科學文本中英語「or」與漢語「或」的語義類型之比較-以《觀念物理》為例。教育實踐與研究，29（2），33-64。
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers (Vol. 99). Cambridge university press.
Braine, M. D., & Rumain, B. (1981). Development of comprehension of “or”: Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of experimental child psychology, 31(1), 46-70.
Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 283.
Corrigan, R. (1975). A scalogram analysis of the development of the use and comprehension of" because" in children. Child Development, 195-201.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International journal of science education, 28(5), 491-520.
Fisher, D., Grant, M., & Frey, N. (2009). Science literacy is> strategies. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(4), 183-186.
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. Approaches to discourse particles, 1, 189-204.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Logical connectives in science: A preliminary report. Research in Science Education, 5(1), 161-175.
Gardner, P. L., Schafe, L., Thein, U. M., & Watterson, R. (1976). Logical connectives in science: Some preliminary findings. Research in Science Education, 6(1), 97-108.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Brill.
Gunning, T. G. (2003). The role of readability in today's classrooms. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3), 175-189.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum.
Hertwig, R., Benz, B., & Krauss, S. (2008). The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition, 108(3), 740-753.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp. 90-115). Cambridge University Press.
McTigue, E. M., & Slough, S. W. (2010). Student-accessible science texts: Elements of design. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 213-227.
Neimark, E. D., & Slotnick, N. S. (1970). Development of the understanding of logical connectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(6p1), 451.
Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-218.
Pitler, E., & Nenkova, A. (2008, October). Revisiting readability: A unified framework for predicting text quality. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 186-195).
Roman, D. X., Briceño, A., Rohde, H., & Hironaka, S. (2016). Linguistic cohesion in middle-school texts: A comparison of logical connectives usage in science and social studies textbooks. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 20(6).
Snow, C.E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450-452.
Strannegård, C., Ulfsbäcker, S., Hedqvist, D., & Gärling, T. (2010). Reasoning processes in propositional logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 19(3), 283-314.
Suppes, P., & Feldman, S. (1969). Young Children's Comprehension of Logical Connectives.
Tidman, P. & Kahane, H. (2003). Logic and philosophy: A modern introduction (9th).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Winer, G. A. (1990). Variations in use of the term “or”. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 19(1), 1-20.
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 347-352.
Zwiers, J. (2006). Integrating academic language, thinking, and content: Learning scaffolds for non-native speakers in the middle grades. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 317-332.