本研究旨在探討「科學語言遊戲」融入教學前、後，高一學生對物理文本的語意理解及語法應用能力的差異。針對高一基礎物理「生活中的力」單元，發展了將「取代」、「命名」、「打包」、「拆解」四種科學語言遊戲融入物理教學的策略、「生活中的力」文本語意理解問卷與語法應用研究工具，針對台北縣某公立高中一個班、共計39名學生實施教學、前後測及測後晤談。
研究結果發現：
一、科學語言遊戲「命名」活動融入教學後，全體學生對名詞組語意正確理解的比率上升且達到顯著的差異。顯示針對名詞組的科學語言教學，確能有效促進學生對名詞組隱含之分類架構的理解。
二、在過程詞隱含之事件關係的語意理解方面，針對隱含因果關係的過程詞，在科學語言遊戲「拆解」活動融入教學後，高、中學習成就組對於具有因果關係的二事件之間，其事件發生的時序應先後發生而非同時發生，有較好的語意理解；所有組別的學生對於二事件具有因果關係時，其事件發生的時序應有先後的語意理解，也都可以獲得改善。
三、在學生的語法應用能力方面，經過「科學語言遊戲」融入教學後，整體學生對實驗觀察所構作的結論更為精簡，且所構作的名詞組更趨於精緻（對科學事件的描述更為精確）。教學後學生構作事件時所使用之語法上的問題能獲得解決，且所有組別對科學事件的描述都傾向於更能描述實驗變因之間的關係。
最後對以上的研究結果，提出相關的研究建議。

The aim of this study was to investigate the difference of semantic understanding and reporting force concepts of applying the "science language games" into physics instruction for the first graders of senior high school. On the basis of the unit "Force", the researcher developed the strategies of applying four science language games — replacing, naming, packing, and unpacking-- into physics instruction, the questionnaires concerning the semantic understanding of the unit "Force" and the research tools for reporting force concepts. Thirty-nine first-grade students of public senior high school in Taipei County participated in the study.
From the instruction, the comparison and analysis of the pre-instructional questionnaires and post-instructional questionnaires, and post-instructional interviews, the major findings of this thesis are as below:
First, after the instruction of science language game "naming", the percentage of all students who correctly understood the semantics of nominal group rose observably, indicating that the instruction of science language on nominal group could effectively improve students' understanding of the implicit taxonomic structure of nominal group.
Second, in terms of the transitions implicit in the semantic understanding of the event relationship, particularly in the cause-effect relationship, after the instruction of science language game "unpacking", the groups of high and middle learning achievement acquired better semantic understanding in the cause-effect relationship between two events which happened successively instead of simultaneously. Moreover, all groups showed a great improvement on the semantic understanding of two events which had the cause-effect relationship and happened successively.
Third, with respect to students' abilities in reporting, after the integration of the " science language games " into instruction, the conclusions all students made through their experimental observations became much more precise and the nominal group were inclined to be more accurate (in the description of scientific events). After the instruction, the grammatical problems the students encountered while constructing events could be solved. Furthermore, all of the groups tended to be more capable of depicting the relationship between experimental variants in scientific events.
Finally, according to the findings, some suggestions for future study were proposed.

中文部分

王寅 （1989）：語意、交際與語言教學。1989年北京系統功能語法研討會論文集。北京：北京大學出版社。
余佳穎（2005）：以凱利方格技術探討大學教師對科學研究的看法。東海大學教育研究所碩士論文。
李哲迪（2006）：高中物理教科書與學生關於力的話語與合法化的語言策略。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
李瓊慧（2002）：以凱利方格法探究國三學生電化學迷思概念。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
胡壯麟、朱永生與張德錄（1989）：系統功能語法概論。長沙：湖南教育出版社。
林俊智（2003）：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—以溫度與熱為例，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林陳湧、楊榮祥（1998）：利用凱利方格晤談法探討教師對科學本質的觀點-個案研究。科學教育月刊，6（2），113-128。
林明瑞等編（2006）：高級中學物理下冊（第二版）。台南市：南一書局。
翁育誠（2004）：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，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
許佩玲（2004）：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，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳志良（1997）：西洋哲學三百題。台北：建宏。
陳雅芬（2001）：以凱利方格法探討學生對於氣體的概念理解。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳可恭（2005）：從系統典範探討板塊構造學說多重類比教學-「凱利方格法」（RGT）之系統性應用。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
程琪龍（1994）：系統功能語法導論。汕頭：汕頭大學出版社。
楊文金（2000）：以凱利方格法探討個體理解教師教學與社群互動之效應：中學生對於能量與力量概念理解分析。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫書，NSC89-2511-S-003-147。
楊文金（2006）：多元素養之3C統整科學課程設計與實踐研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫書，NSC95-2522-S-003-017-MY3。
楊巽斐（2004）：合作式行動研究對國中自然與生活科技教師教學信念的影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張桂權（2002）：玻姆自然哲學導論。台北：洪葉文化。
鄭昭明（2004）：認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北：桂冠。
鄭美紅、孫愛玲（2003）：漢字結構與科學學習的關係。亞太科學教育論壇，4(2)，4。2006年5月18日，取自http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v4_issue2/cindex.htm
賴廷倫、楊文金（2006）：名詞組所蘊含的分類架構之探究以國中翰林版「光合作用」單元為例。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會論文。
翰林出版社（2006）：普通高級中學基礎物理全冊。台北：翰林出版社。
藍偉瑩（2002）：小組互動與概念改變機制之探討-以物質狀態與氣體性質概念為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
Quinton, A. (1999）： 休謨（時國銘譯）。台北市：麥田。

英文部分

Colburn, A., & Echevarria, J. (1999). Meaningful lessons: All students benefit from integrating English with science. In Science learning for all: Celebrating cultural diversity (pp. 58-61). Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional liguistics. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. New York, Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). The Analysis of Scientific Texts in English and Chinese. In M.A.K. Halliday& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp 124-132). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993b). On the Language of Physical Sciece. In M.A.K. Halliday& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp 54-68). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993c). The Construction of Knowledge and Value in the Grammar of Scientific Discourse: Charles Darwin’s The Oringin of the Species. In M.A.K. Halliday& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp 86-105). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993d). Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English. In M.A.K. Halliday& J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp 69-85). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2 ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). Language and the reshaping of human experience. Paper presented at The Fourth International Symposium on Critical Discourse Analysis, Athens.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998a). Language and knowledge: The ‘unpacking’ of text. In D. Allison, L. Wee, B. Zhiming, & S. A. Abraham (Eds.), Text in education and society (pp. 157-178). Singapore: Singapore University Press and World Scientific.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998b). Things and relations: Regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science. New York: Routledge
Halliday, M. A. K & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Learning, Language, and Values. New York: Ablex Publishing.
Lyle, K. S., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). Talking About Science. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(1), 18-20.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadephia: John Benjamins Pub.
Shaw, M.L.G., Ed. (1981). Recent Advances in Personal Construct Technology. London:Academic Press.
Shaw, M., and B. Gaines (1989). Comparing conceptual structures: consensus, conflict, correspondence and contrast. Knowledge Acquisition, 1, 341-363.
Unsworth, L. (1997). Explaining explanations: Enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(1), p34.
Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(7), 508-521.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workspace and school (pp. 161-195). London: Cassell.