108課綱以核心素養為課程主軸，其目的為實現著眼於情境化、脈絡化的學習，追求學習的意義和真正的理解，而PISA的國際評比也以閱讀、數學和科學為主軸。本研究運用數學文本閱讀引導學生探索重心概念在各個領域中的應用，並透過學生的回覆來了解八年級學生在不同領域中的概念轉化，如在日常生活的平衡感知、物理世界的物體平衡和數學中的圖形重心。在素養導向的課程結構下，學生將運用他們的閱讀理解來解決現實生活中的問題。透過文本閱讀，學生能否更深入的理解重心概念，並將其轉化為解決問題的能力。
為達研究目的，研究者採問卷調查法，問卷的設計依照台灣普遍教科書的編排脈絡分成生活、科學及數學三個部分，讓學生依序閱讀，並關注學生在轉換概念時可能出現的困難和障礙。透過分析學生第一次遇到重心概念時的思維模式和學習策略，並提供相應的支持和指導，這有助於教師更好的理解學生的學習需求。
研究結果發現，大都數學生，都能透過閱讀找出一些訊息，但僅有少數能夠把重心概念完整的連結。其中，在真實世界中，學生較難透過實物連結到數學的重心性質，反而都是從科學的角度思考，在科學文本中多數學生會會將中線誤認成其他性質的線段，學生大都相信自己看到的情況，無法理解其中的幾何概念；而在數學證明的過程中，學生就能清楚了解重心的概念。
建議教師在重心的教學時，可將教科書的排序調整，從數學證明和定義先著手，在引入真實情境中的脈絡，並留意學生可能產生認知錯誤及迷失概念的地方，針對性地調整教學方法和教材內容，從而提升學生的學習效果。

Taiwan's 108 Curriculum Guidelines focus on core competencies to encourage learning that is meaningful and based on real-life contexts, similar to how PISA emphasizes reading, math, and science. This study explores how eighth-grade students apply the concept of center of gravity in different fields such as daily life balance, physical balance, and geometric centroids, using mathematical texts. The goal is to see if students can use their reading skills to solve practical problems and deepen their understanding of the concept.
The researchers used a survey based on typical Taiwanese textbook content divided into life, science, and math sections. They analyzed how students first think about and learn the concept of center of gravity, aiming to help teachers understand students' needs better. The results showed that most students could pick up some information from the texts, but few could fully connect the concept of center of gravity. Students struggled to link real-world objects with mathematical concepts, often misunderstanding scientific and geometric terms. However, they understood the concept well when dealing with mathematical proofs.
Teachers are advised to start with mathematical definitions and proofs when teaching the center of gravity, before integrating real-world examples. They should also watch for common misunderstandings and adjust their teaching methods accordingly to improve learning outcomes.

第壹章、 緒論 1
第一節、 研究動機 1
第二節、 研究目的與問題 4
第三節、 名詞解釋 5
第四節、 研究範圍與限制 6
第貳章、 文獻探討 8
第一節、 閱讀理解相關理論 8
第二節、 重心在數學課程中的定位及延伸 19
第三節、 重心的教與學 24
第參章、 研究方法 30
第一節、 研究方法 30
第二節、 研究問卷設計 34
第三節、 研究工具 39
第四節、 研究架構 47
第五節、 研究流程 51
第肆章、 研究結果與討論 55
第一節、 不同文本的閱讀理解 55
第二節、 文本間的連結 68
第三節、 錯誤的數學概念 76
第伍章、 研究結論與建議 81
第一節、 研究發現與結論 81
第二節、 研究建議及教學實務上之建議 85
參考文獻 86
附錄 94
附錄一、幾何文本閱讀理解的學習單 94
附錄二、訪談大綱 98

左台益, 呂鳳琳, 曾世綺, 吳慧敏, 陳明璋, & 譚寧君. (2011). 以分段方式降低任務複雜度對專家與生手閱讀幾何證明的影響 [Impact of Reducing Task Complexity by Segmentation on Experts' and Comprehension of Novices' Reading Geometric Proof Problems]. 教育心理學報, 43(S), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.6251/bep.20110517
左台益, & 梁勇能. (2001). 國二學生空間能力與van Hiele幾何思考層次相關性研究 [The Study of Interrelationship between Spatial Abilities and Van Hiele Levels of Thinking in Geometry of Eighth-Grade Students]. 師大學報：科學教育類, 46(1&2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.6300/jntnu.2001.46.01
朱建正 (1997)。高斯。新竹：凡異出版社。
林雪鈴. (2020). 認知科學角度論「創意思考與解題」結合閱讀教學之效益與價值 [Benefits and Value of ＂Creative Thinking and Problem Solving＂ Combined with Teaching Reading from the Perspective of Cognitive Science]. 應華學報(23), 61-95. https://doi.org/10.6391/jac.202012_(23).0003
南一書局(2023)。高中物理選修II教師備課用書。台南市：南一書局。
馬秀蘭. (2008). 以van Hiele理論探討圖形樣式思考層次之研究 [A Study of the Thinking Levels of Pictorial Patterns from the Viewpoint of van Hiele's Theory]. 教育研究集刊(54:1), 49-85. https://doi.org/10.6910/ber.200803_(54-1).0003
翁敏傑（2016）。脈絡整合對三角形三心學習成效之研究。﹝碩士論文。國立交通大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/zjt46b。
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。國民中小學暨普通型高級中等
學校-數學領域。
陳英封. (2015). 國中數學三心問題思維 (Publication Number 2015年) 中原大學]. AiritiLibrary.
陳梅仙. (2014). 從操作實驗談幾何教學 [Teaching Geometry by Experimental Approaches]. 台灣數學教師電子期刊, 35(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.6610/etjmt.20140401.02
陳毅偉（2013）。Polya解題策略對九年級學生數學解題行為之影響─以三角形三心為例。﹝碩士論文。國立臺灣海洋大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/q9kf9e。
彭杰易. (2012). 整合數學寫作與心智繪圖為教學策略於國中數學三角形三心單元之研究 (Publication Number 2012年) 淡江大學]. AiritiLibrary.
楊凱琳, 林福來, & 王繹婷. (2008). The Effects of Proof Features and Question Probing on Understanding Geometry Proof [幾何政明的文本特徵與提問類型對學生閱讀理解表現的影響]. 當代教育研究季刊, 16(2), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.6151/cerq.2008.1602.03
鄧志浩. (2013). 國中數學之三心幾何圖形的探討.
翰林出版事業有限公司(2023)。國民中學數學第五冊教師備課用書。台南市：翰林出版事業有限公司。
謝甫佩, & 洪振方. (2003). 反思的學習策略對電磁概念學習遷移的成效. 師大學報: 科學教育類, 48(2), 141-164.
魏淑卿（2003）。概念圖教學對國中生數學合作學習成效研究-以三角形三心單元為例。﹝碩士論文。國立高雄師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/cqt539。
鐘世杰（2016）。動態幾何系統GeoGebra對數學學習成效與態度之研究─以
三角形三心為例。﹝碩士論文。高苑科技大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加
值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/z97f7b。
蘇意雯, 陳政宏, 王淑明, & 王美娟. (2015). 幾何文本閱讀理解的實作研究. 臺灣數學教育期刊, 2(2), 25-51.

Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment processes. National reading conference yearbook,
Anderson, R. C. (1970). Control of student mediating processes during verbal learning and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 349-369.
Board, O. G. (2018). PISA 2021 Mathematics Framework (first draft). In: Stokholm, Sweden.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and engineering teacher, 70(1), 30.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Dynamic assessment: One approach and some initial data. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 361.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. (No Title).
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.
Daneman, M., & Hannon, 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.
Durna, Y., & Arı, F. (2016). Development and Application of eye spot detection with polynomial functions. Journal of Defense Sciences, 15(2), 24-45.
Ernsbarger, S. C. (2002). Simple, affordable, and effective strategies for prompting reading behavior. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18(3), 279-284.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1993). Thoughts on teaching mechanics didactical phenomenology of the concept of force. In The legacy of hans freudenthal (pp. 71-87). Springer.
Gagne, E. D. (1985). Cognitive psychology of school learning. 学習指導と認知心理学.
Goodman, Y. M. (1996). Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher, 49(8), 600-609.
Gulikers, I., & Blom, K. (2001). A historical angle’, a survey of recent literature on the use and value of history in geometrical education. Educational studies in mathematics, 47, 223-258.
Habók, A., & Magyar, A. (2019). The effects of EFL reading comprehension and certain learning-related factors on EFL learners’ reading strategy use. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1616522.
Hanna, G., de Bruyn, Y., Sidoli, N., & Lomas, D. (2006). Teaching proof in the context of physics. ZDM, 36(3), 82-90.
Henley, I., Anderson, P., & Schick, D. (1999). The role of the instructor in teaching students to become reflective.
Hiele, P. M. v. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. (No Title).
Hillman, A. M. (2014). A literature review on disciplinary literacy: How do secondary teachers apprentice students into mathematical literacy? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 397-406.
Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. Second international handbook of mathematics education, 75-102.
Jablonski, S., & Ludwig, M. (2023). Teaching and Learning of Geometry—A Literature Review on Current Developments in Theory and Practice. Education Sciences, 13(7), 682. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/7/682
Jakavonyté-Staskuviené, D. (2012, Nov 19-21). THE MEANING OF REFLECTION (REFLECTION ON ACTION) WHILE DEVELOPING PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN'S COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE ON THE BASIS OF THE TEXT BEING READ. [5th international conference of education, research and innovation (iceri 2012)]. 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI), Madrid, SPAIN.
Johns, J. L., & Lenski, S. D. (1997). Improving reading: A handbook of strategies. ERIC.
Küçükoğlu, H. (2013). Improving reading skills through effective reading strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 709-714.
Kasperski, R., Shany, M., & Katzir, T. (2016). The role of RAN and reading rate in predicting reading self-concept. Reading and Writing, 29(1), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9582-z
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163.
Kovács, G. (2018). Reading Strategies, Reading Comprehension and Translation. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 10(2), 55-67.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from (Vol. 6). New York: Basic Books.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 111-136.
McGeown, S. P., Duncan, L. G., Griffiths, Y. M., & Stothard, S. E. (2015). Exploring the relationship between adolescent's reading skills, reading motivation and reading habits. Reading and Writing, 28(4), 545-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9537-9
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of learning and motivation, 51, 297-384.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". ERIC.
Montgomery, J. R. (1993). Reflection, A meta-model for Learning, and a proposal to improve the quality of university teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. Sage.
Nemirovsky, R., Borba, M., Dimattia, C., Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., Schnepp, M., Chazan, D., Rasmussen, C., Nemirovsky, R., & Olszewski, J. (2004). Introduction: PME Special Issue: Bodily Activity and Imagination in Mathematics Learning. Educational studies in mathematics, 303-321.
OECD (2012), OECD Internet Economy Outlook 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 draft mathematics framework. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Mathematics%20Framework%20.pdf.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
Park, H.-R., & Kim, D. (2011). Reading-strategy use by English as a second language learners in online reading tasks. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2156-2166.
Pearson, P. D., Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. (2014). Complicating the world of reading assessment: Toward better assessments for better teaching. Theory into practice, 53(3), 236-246.
Piaget, J. (2013). Child's Conception of Space: Selected Works vol 4 (Vol. 4). Routledge.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (2013). Child's conception of geometry (Vol. 81). Routledge.
Potocki, A., Ayroles, J., & Jean-François, R. (2023). A short teacher-led intervention using direct instruction enhances 5th graders' purposeful reading skills. Learning and Instruction, 86, Article 101781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101781
Rahim, P. R. M. A., Yusuf, F., & Dzulkafly, Z. (2017). Facilitating reading comprehension among ESL learners using graphic organizers. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 13(1).
Rahimi, M., & Sadeghi, N. (2015). Impact of reciprocal teaching on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 64-86.
Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener, C. (2012). Reading to learn in the content areas. Cengage Learning.
Salari, F., & Hosseini, S. M. H. (2019). Competitive team-based learning vs. reciprocal teaching of reading: a study in reading classes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 489-500.
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading research quarterly, 47(4), 427-463.
Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159-189.
Sowden, P. T., & Stevenson, J. (1994). BEGINNING READING STRATEGIES IN CHILDREN EXPERIENCING CONTRASTING TEACHING-METHODS. Reading and Writing, 6(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01026908
Spitler, E. (2011). From resistance to advocacy for math literacy: One teacher's literacy identity transformation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 306-315.
Steen, L. A., Turner, R., & Burkhardt, H. (2007). Developing mathematical literacy. In Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 285-294). Springer.
Valencia, S., & Pearson, P. D. (1987). Reading assessment: Time for a change. The Reading Teacher, 40(8), 726-732.
Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453-456.
Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14(3), 293-305.
Wallot, S., O'Brien, B. A., Haussmann, A., Kloos, H., & Lyby, M. S. (2014). The Role of Reading Time Complexity and Reading Speed in Text Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 40(6), 1745-1765. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000030
Westwood, P. (2007). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs. Routledge.
Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond Cognition: Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184
Woolley, G., & Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension. Springer.
Xiao, K., Bai, Y., & Wang, Z. (2022). Extracting prerequisite relations among concepts from the course descriptions. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 32(04), 503-523.