楊文金Wen Gin Yang陳世文Shih Wen Chen2019-09-052007-7-32019-09-052007http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0892450021%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/104728科學文本的功能不僅是說明概念的定義，同時也需要解釋概念之間的關係，而級位與分體就是兩種概念之間主要的語意關係，級位關係是指主類與次類間的類屬關係，分體關係則指整體與部分間的組成關係，為了體現級位與分體關係，科學文本會以不同的論述方式來描述，本文目的即在探討科學文本中描述級位分體關係的論述方式以及師生對級位分體論述的語意理解。本研究首先以STAR程式分析現行國中科學教科書物質組成與分類主題的內容，瞭解科學文本描述級位分體關係之論述方式。接著選取國中與高中學生各65與78位，以及科學教師7位，共150位師生作為研究對象，以「物質與原子」文本作為實驗文本，依其內容設計物質與原子語意論述問卷作為測驗工具，師生閱讀文本內容後填答問卷，最後以凱利方格技術（RGT）探討師生之語意理解及比較兩者之理解差異。 研究發現科學文本體現級位分體關係的論述方式相當多元。在語式方面，有解構、組合、確認、含攝、列舉、範疇以及符號等七種用於描述級位分體關係的語式類型，在詞彙層次方面，文本更可透過過程、關係元、修辭以及過程修辭等四種詞彙角色來描述，其中某些論述方式具有雙重語意關係的指涉性質，導致語意關係的體現較為模糊，這類論述稱為內隱論述，而「過程+修辭」的論述方式較能清楚體現語意關係，稱為外顯論述。 師生對於級位關係的理解較具共識，他們能夠明確地辨識出級位關係與分體關係的語意差異，同時也瞭解分體關係中具有混合分體的語意，但科學教師比國中學生更進一步分化出混合分體與鍵結分體，甚至是單一成分與多重成分的混合分體。此外，根據科學教師與學生對級位分體論述的語意理解，「是、一種」與「組成、構成」適合用於描述級位與分體關係，而「混合而成」與「化合成、結合成」適合用於描述混合分體與鍵結分體，同時也指出包含、含、有、分為、分成、一部分等論述方式所指涉的語意關係較為模糊，顯示它們並非體現級位分體關係理想的論述方式。 最後，根據研究結論與建議，促使科學教師與教科書編者思考在科學教學或是文本編輯上如何使用不同論述來清楚表達概念之間的級位分體關係，以增進學生的語意理解。The functions of science textbooks are not only to introduce the definitions of science concepts, but also to explain the relations between concepts for students. Hyponymy and meronymy(H-M) are two main semantic relations that usually embedded in the discourses of science textbooks. The purposes of this study were to explore the discourses semantics which embodied the H-M relations in science textbooks, and teachers and students’ comprehension of the H-M discourses semantically. The theme of “composition and category of matter” in secondary science textbooks was excerpted and analyzed by the STAR program to understand the discourses which described H-M relations. A total of 150 participants which included 65 8th and 78 11th grade students and 7 secondary school science teachers were asked to read the treatment text which excerpted from the topic of “matter and atom”. They were then asked to fill out a questionnaire which designed by the Repertory Grid Technique(RGT) for exploring their differentiations of H-M relations and the comprehension of H-M discourse semantically. The results showed that the H-M discourses in science textbooks were diverse. These discourses could be sorted into seven semantic modes: decomposition, composition, identification, subsumption, enumeration, categorization, and symbolization. They also could be represented into different lexicon roles: process, relator, modifier and process-modifier in SFL to embody H-M relations. Additionally, some discourses showed the H-M relations indefinitely were called “implicit discourse”, but some indicated the H-M relations clearly were called “explicit discourses”. Teachers and students had high consensus on hyponymy relation. They could definitely distinguish the semantic differences the differences of semantics between hyponymy and meronymy. They could also understand that the meronymy implied a blending meaning. Teachers, however, could classify meronymy into blend and bond meronymy, the mono-blend and multi-blend meronymy even better than students did. Furthermore, teachers and students argued that [is, is a kind of] and [composite, comprise] were proper to represent the H-M relations, and [mix] and [combine] were proper for blend and bond meronymy. They also suggested that some lexicons, such as [include, contain, have, divide into, divide as, is a part of], represented H-M relations ambiguously, which meant they were not the ideal discourses to indicate these two relations. Finally, these results could recommend that science teachers and science textbooks editors pay attention to the issue of H-M discourses in science textbooks, and to think how to deploy these discourses to definitely represent the H-M relations for facilitating students’ comprehension semantically.級位分體論述語意理解科學文本hyponymy-meronymy discoursesemantic comprehensionscience textbook