一、中文部分

王文科、王智弘（2006）。教育研究法。臺中市：五南。
王俊財（2002）。大桃園地區國小六年級學童生態概念形成的研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北市立師範學院，臺北市。
羊憶蓉、成露茜（1997）。邁向二十一世紀新新教育從澳洲關鍵能力教育計劃試探台灣的教改前景。社會教育，78，13-16。
吳訓生（2002）。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104。
林玉雯、黃台珠、劉嘉茹（2010）。探討圖形表徵與視知覺學習偏好對生物辨識學習之影響。科學教育學刊，18，521-546。
林英智、李清勝、黃能堂、張永達、蔡尚芳（主編）（2010）。國民中學自然與生活科技（第二冊）。新北市：康軒。
林清江（1998）。國民教育九年一貫課程規劃專案報告。台北市：教育部。
孫曉崗（2009）。佛教藝術與中國繪畫。美與時代，4，33-36。
國立臺灣師範大學科學教育中心（2007）。TIMSS 2007 國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查。取自：http://www.dorise.info/DER/01_timss_2007_html/index.html
許佩玲（2003）。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（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
郭重吉（主編）（2010）。國民中學自然與生活科技（第二冊）。臺南市：南一。
陳世煌、方崇雄、姚珩、許貫中、李通藝（2010）。國民中學自然與生活科技（第二冊）。臺南市：翰林。
曾千虹、耿正屏（1993）。國小、國中及高中學生之細胞概念發展。科學教育，7，157-182。
程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥（譯）（1994）。科學革命的結構（原作者：Kuhn, T. S.）。台北市：遠流。（原著出版年：1972）
黃台珠、Aldridge, J. M.、 Fraser, B.（1998）。台灣和西澳科學教室環境的跨國環境：結合質性與量的研究方法。科學教育學刊，6，343-362。
楊文金（2007）。學生對「類屬-組成」論述的語意理解—以「血液」文本為例。科學教育學刊，15，195-214。
楊宗榮（2010）。臺灣與新加坡國小自然科教科書生命科學相關概念與插圖比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
楊榮祥、Fraser, B.（1998）。臺灣和西澳科學教室環境的合作研究-研究方法、架構及對臺灣科學教育的省思。科學教育學刊，6，325-342。
葛梅芳、張文華（2002）。國一學生動物分類之另有概念及電腦簡易施測之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
蓋允萍（2010）。四類漢語連詞對國小自然與生活科技教科書閱讀理解的影響。教育部國民中小學科學教育計畫報告（編號：69），未出版。
蓋允萍（2014）。「多元素養教學」與「文本改寫」對閱讀理解的影響~以國小五年級「動物的生活」單元為例。教育部國民及學前教育署中小學科學教育計畫報告（編號：105），未出版。
蓋允萍、鍾昌宏、王國華、張惠博、Unsworth, L.（2014）。以視覺設計文法比較臺澳科學教科書圖像－以七年級生物分類單元為例。科學教育學刊，22，109-134。
劉嘉茹、侯依伶（2011）。以眼動追蹤技術探討先備知識對科學圖形理解的影響。教育心理學報，43，227-250。
蔡維真（2006）。我國現行自然與生活科技教科書之概念分析—以「生態系之物質與能量循流」為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
盧秀琴（2003）。台灣北部地區中小學學生的顯微鏡操作技能與相關概念之發展。國立台北師範學院學報，16，161-186。
盧秀琴（2005）。探討教科書與中小學學生學習細胞相關概念的關係。科學教育學刊，13，367-386。

二、英文部分
Adachi, K., Brierley, M., &; Niimura, M. (2012). Development of the online self-placement test engine that interactively selects texts for an extensive reading test. In T. W. e. al. (Ed.), Intelligent Interactive Multimedia: Systems &; Services (pp. 213-222). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
Andreassen, R., &; Bra°ten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(3), 263-283.
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barthe, R. (1967). Elements of semiology. London: Cape.
Beck, C. R. (1984). Visual cueing strategies: Pictorial, textual, and combinational effects. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32, 207-216.
Bernard, R. M. (1990). Effects of processing instructions on the usefulness of a graphic organizer and structural cueing in text. Instructional Science, 19, 207-217.
Beverton, S. (1986). Going into secondary reading. In B. Gillhan (Ed.), The language of school subjects. London: Heinemann.
Board of Studies in New South Wales (2009). Science year 7-10 syllabus. Retrieved from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/
Blystone, R. V., &; Dettling, B. C. (1990). Visual literacy in science textbooks. In N. S. T. Association (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher-the process of knowing (Vol. 6, pp.19-40). Washington, DC: Natioanl Science Teachers Association.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Casteleyn, J., &; Mottartb, A. (2012). Presenting material via graphic organizers in science classes in secondary education. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 458-466.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education:The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073-1091.
Daly, A., &; Unsworth, L. (2011). Analysis and comprehension of multimodal texts. Australia Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 61-80.
Daneman, M., &; Harmon, B. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 208-223.
Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., &; Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research of Science Education, 33, 189-216.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentations: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
Fleming, M. L. (1987). Designing pictorial/verbal instruction: Some speculative extensions from research to practice. In D. A. Houghton and E. M. Willows (Eds.), The psychology of illustration volume 2-instructional issues (pp. 136-157). New York, NY: Spring-Verlag.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., &; Yekovich, F. R. (1986). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Ge, Y. -P, Chung, C. -H, Unsworth, L., Chang, H. -P, &; Wang, K. -H. (2012). The comparison of image-text relations in nigh school biology textbooks between Australia and Taiwan. Paper presented at the annual conference of NARST 2012, Indianapolis, USA.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Griffin, C. C., &; Malone, L. D. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98-107.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Han, J., &; Roth, W. -M. (2005). Chemical inscriptions in korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro- and microworld. Science Education, 90, 173-201.
Hatzinikita, V., Dimopoulos, K., &; Christidou, V. ( 2008). PISA test items and school textbooks related to science: A textual comparison. Science Education, 92, 664 - 687.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., &; Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal &; P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). NY: Longma
Hegarty, M., &; Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 446-474.
Heiser, J., &; Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science, 30, 581-592.
Hsu, P. L., &; Yang, W. G. (2007). Print and image integration of science texts and reading comprehension: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 639-659.
Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 81-97.
Jennings, T., &; Dwyer, F. (1985). The instructional effect of differential cueing strategies in facilitating student achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 12, 8-20.
Kahveci, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of reform: A complementary perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1495-1519.
Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G. J., Blackburn, A. B., &; Harris, F. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1, 122-127.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W., &; Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris &; S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading: Comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Korfiatis, K. J. (2004). Images of nature in greek primary school textbooks. Science Education, 88, 72-89.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of mutiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kress, G. (2000). “You’ve just got to learn how to see”: Curriculum subjects, young people and schooled engagement with the world. Linguistics and Education, 11(4), 401-415.
Kress, G., &; van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leach, J., Driver, E., Scott, P., &; Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology 1: Theoretical background, design and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 721-732.
Lee, V. R. (2010). How different variants of orbit diagrams influence student explanations of the seasons. Science Education, 94, 985 - 1007.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin &; R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
Lemoni, R., Lefkaditou, A., Stamou, A. G., Schizas, D., &; Stamou, G. P. (2013). Views of nature and the human-nature relations: An analysis of the visual syntax of pictures about the environment in Greek primary school textbooks-diachronic considerations. Research of Science Education, 43(1), 117-140.
Levie, W. H. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the literature. In D. M. Willows &; H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration (Vol. I, pp.1-50). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Littlefair, A. (1991). Reading all types of writing. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Liu, Y., &; O' Halloran, K. L. (2009). Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367-388.
Liu, Y., &; Treagust, D. F. (2013). Content analysis of diagrams in secondary school science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science: Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 287-300). The Netherlands: Springer.
Martinec, R., &; Salway, A.(2005). A system for image-text relations. Visual Communication, 4(3 ), 337-371.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
Nardelli, D. (2005). Science Alive 1 for Victorian Essential Learning Standard. Milton, Australia: Wiley.
Nardelli, D., &; Stubbs, A. (2008). Big Ideas: Science 1. Sydney, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Nesbit, J. C., &; Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448.
Novick, L. R., &; Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 197-223.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, &; Winston.Park, H. -R., &; Helsel, C. (2008). Differences between reading electronic and book-based text: Suggestions and implications for literacy teachers and literacy teacher educators. Journal of Reading Education, 33(3), 28-32.
Patrick, M. D., Carter, G., &; Wiebe, E. N. (2005). Visual representations of DNA replication: Middle grades students’ perceptions and interpretations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 353-365.
Pingel, F. (2009). UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision (2nd ed.). Braunschweig, Germany: UNESCO.
Pinto´, R., &; Ametller, J. (2002). Students’ difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups. International Jounal of Science Education, 24(3), 333-341.
Polly, D. (2006). An analysis of the use of graphical representation in participants’ solutions. The Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 22-34.
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., &; Roth, W. -M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89, 219- 241.
Pozzer, L. L., &; Roth, W. -M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of phtographs in high school biology textbooks. Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089-1114.
Rickard, G., Burger, N., Clarke, W., Geelan, D., Loveday, D., Monckton, s., Phillips, G., Roberson, P., Spirou, C., &; Whalley, K. (2010). Science Focus 1. Sydney, Australia: Pearson.
Roth, W. -M., Bowen, G. M., &; McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977-1019.
Roth, W. M., &; Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86, 368-385.
Royce, D. T. (1998). Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in page-based multimodal text. Japan Association Systemic Functional Linguistics Occasional Papers, 1(1), 25-50.
Schnotz, W., &; Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
Slykhuis, D. A., Wiebe, E. N., &; Annetta, L. A. (2005). Eye-Tracking students’ attention to powerpoint photographs in a science education setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 509-520.
Smith, R. L., &; Smith, T. M. (2000). Elements of ecology (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Addison Wesley Longman.
Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., &; Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15-30.
Starr, C., &; Taggart, R. (1998). Biology: The unity and diversity of life (8th ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth.
Sullivan, J. P. (2008). The use of photographs to portray urban ecosystems in six introductory environmental science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1003-1020.
Unsworth, L. (1997). Explaining explanations: Enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(1), 34-49.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum-changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Unsworth, L., &; Cléirigh, C. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-text interaction. London: Routledge.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wu, H -K, &; Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492.
Winn, W. D. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In D. A. Houghton &; E. M. Willows (Eds.), The psychology of illustration volume 1-Basic research (pp. 152-198). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.