本研究將大學專業學科課程視為一個特定的言談社群(discourse community)，探討台灣學術英語學習者在此特殊語境中，如何閱讀原文(英文)教科書，習得專業學科知識。奠基於多模態理論(multimodality)和跨語言實踐(translanguaging)的理論框架，本研究探查在專業學科課程的場域中，意義是如何在不同模態交織下(如語言文字、數學符號、圖像表徵、希臘字母符號等)被建構，學習者的閱讀行為是如何隨之被形塑。

本研究採用混合研究法，研究場域為台灣某大學工程學院的一門課程，研究者藉由參與觀察法進行一個學期的資料蒐集，並搭配半結構式訪談及文件分析。研究結果顯示，工程領域的學術英語閱讀融合廣泛的模態資源，除運用語言文字模態外，也需超語言模態(extra-linguistic modes)，藉由多重模態組成共構，實現意義。然而本研究中的學習者在閱讀原文教科書時，相比於課文的說明闡釋，更偏重於超語言模態，仰賴如數學公式及工程領域的特殊符號。有鑑於此，本研究建議學術英語教學應採納跨模態及跨語言實踐方式，以協助學習者更全面地習得專業學科領域之英語能力。

This study investigates textbook reading practices of Taiwanese EAP (English for Academic Purposes) readers in their disciplinary context, examining the class as a discourse community where the textbook serves as one meaning-making resource among many for achieving students' academic goals within this specialized discourse. Building on the theoretical frameworks of multimodality and translanguaging, this research explores how meaning is constructed in a learning environment that blends linguistic, mathematical, visual, and symbolic representations, emphasizing how students' reading practices are shaped by course-specific purposes.

Employing a mixed-method approach, the study incorporates on-site observations, semistructured interviews, and analysis of collected artifacts, all collected during one semester of a university engineering course in Taiwan. Findings reveal that disciplinary learning in engineering requires the co-deployment of diverse multimodal resources. Notably, reading passages of English prose explanations in the textbook plays a surprisingly modest role in students' learning and success in this course. Instead, students rely on worked examples and prioritize extra-linguistic modes (graphics, diagrams, mathematical symbols) over textual
explanations.

The study concludes by discussing implications for EAP courses and engineering education, emphasizing the need for a more integrated approach that fosters cross-modal and translanguaging practices.

Alyousef, H. S. (2016). A multimodal discourse analysis of international postgraduate
business students’ finance texts: an investigation of theme and information value. Social
Semiotics, 26(5), 486-504.
Atai, M. R., & Nazari, O. (2011). Exploring reading comprehension needs of Iranian EAP
students of health information management (HIM): A triangulated approach. System,
39(1), 30-43.
Basturkmen, H. (2021). Is ESP a materials and teaching-led movement? Language Teaching,
54(4), 491-501.
Benson, H. (2008). University physics. John Wiley & Sons.
Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written
Registers (Vol. 23). John Benjamins Publishing.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university
teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn't no slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language, identity,
and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96-
126.
Che, B. (Ed.). (2013). Sanmin English reader for senior high schools (Vols. 5-6). San Min
Book Co., Ltd.
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.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. SAGE Publications.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238.
Dang, T. N. Y., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2017). The academic spoken word list: The
academic spoken word list. Language Learning, 67(4), 959–997.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Cheng, D. (2011). Language and the multisemiotic nature of
mathematics. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(3).
Dhieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for
reading research articles in an ESP context. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 387-
417.
Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2015). Conceptual problem solving
in high school physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research,
11(2), 020106.
Doran, Y. J. (2015). Knowledge in physics through mathematics, image and language.
[Doctoral dissertation, The University of Sydney]. Sydney Digital Theses. Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/15173
Doran, Y. J. (2017). The role of mathematics in physics: Building knowledge and describing
the empirical world. Onomázein, 209-226.
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices
to perform expertlike problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 307-331.
Durfee, W. K., Adams, B., Appelsies, A. J., & Flash, P. (Eds.) (2011). A writing program for
mechanical engineering. Proceedings of 2011 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/17407.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International
Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491-520.
Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders,
32(1), 19-34.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas:
Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587-597.
Fenwick, L., Humphrey, S., Quinn, M., & Endicott, M. (2014). Developing deep
understanding about language in undergraduate pre-service teacher education programs.
The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 1-39.
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied
Linguistics, 35(3), 305-327.
Gebhard, M., Chen, I-A., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to
mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing,
22(20), 107-124.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217-223.
Hakuta, K., Santos, M., & Fang, Z. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for language
learning in the context of the CCSS and the NGSS. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 56(6), 451-454.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of
language and meaning. Hodder Education.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, CMIM. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar.
Hodder Arnold.
Hibbeler, R. C. (2017). Mechanics of materials (Tenth edition). Pearson.
Hohmann, S., & Pielsticker, F. (2022). Comparison: Equations in mathematics and physics
education. In F. Dilling & S. F. Kraus (Eds.), Comparison of mathematics and physics
education II (pp. 97-116). Springer Spektrum.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hsu, W. (2011). The vocabulary thresholds of business textbooks and business research
articles for EFL learners. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 247-257.
Hsu, W. (2014). Measuring the vocabulary load of engineering textbooks for EFL
undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 54-65.
Huang, H., & Wible, D. (2024). Situating EAP learners in their disciplinary classroom: How
Taiwanese engineering majors ‘read’ their textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 74,
85-102.
Huang, Y., & Tsou, W. (2013). Textbook vocabulary knowledge amongst engineering majors
in Taiwan. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 16(2), 201-232.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin &
K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). Routledge
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing
(Michigan classics ed). University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K.
Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-45). Peter
Lang.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). A bibliometric study of EAP research: Who is doing what,
where and when? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100929.
Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of English for academic
purposes. Routledge.
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication. In J. J. Gumperz
and D. Hymes (Eds.), The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 1–34). Special Issue,
American Anthropologist 66(6), part 2.
Hymes, D. (1974). The foundations of sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistic ethnography.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy, learning: A multimodal approach. Routledge.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O'Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual,
actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science
classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5-18.
Koch, A., & Eckstein, S. G. (1995). Skills needed for reading comprehension of physics texts
and their relation to problem‐solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
32(6), 613-628.
Kortemeyer, G. (2016). The losing battle against plug-and-chug. The Physics Teacher, 54(1),
14-17.
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly,
34(2), 337.
Kress, G. (2012) Multimodal discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford, (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 35-50). Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of
contemporary communication. Arnold Publishers.
Kress, Gunther. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope, M.
Kalantzis, & New London Group (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153–161). Routledge.
Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent
literacy. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing
Adolescent Literacy. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Lemke, J. (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). Routledge.
Lin, A. (2012). Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogical approaches
to L2 English content classrooms. In C. Leung & B. Street (Ed.), English - A Changing
Medium for Education (pp. 79-103). Multilingual Matters.
Liu, J. Y., Chang, Y. J., Yang, F. Y., & Sun, Y. C. (2011). Is what I need what I want?
Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and
specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271-280.
Martinec, R. (2000). Construction of identity in Michael Jackson's Jam. Social
Semiotics, 10(3), 313-329.
Mauranen, A. (2006). Speaking the discipline: discourse and socialisation in ELF and L1
English. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.
271-294). Peter Lang.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, & I. Steinke
(Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266–269). Sage Publications.
Molle, D., & Prior, P. (2008). Multimodal genre systems in EAP writing pedagogy:
Reflecting on a needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 541-566.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) reading assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=12
O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images.
A&C Black.
O'Halloran, K. L. (1998). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis.
Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359-388.
O'Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. Routledge.
Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Malmström, H., & Irvine, A. (2011). English textbooks in parallellanguage
tertiary education. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 313–333.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P., & Brown, R. (1992). Skilled and not-so-skilled reading: Good
information processing and not-so-good information processing. In M. Pressley, K.
Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp.
91–127). Academic Press.
Quero, B., & Coxhead, A. (2018). Using a corpus-based approach to select medical
vocabulary for an ESP course: The case for high-frequency vocabulary. In Y. Kirkgoz &
K. Dikilitas (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education
(pp.51-75). Springer.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and
pedagogy in the Sydney school. Equinox.
Royce, T. (1998). Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in pagebased
multimodal text. JASFL Occasional papers, 1(1), 25-49.
Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual‐verbal
synergy. TESOL quarterly, 36(2), 191-205.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and
education, 12(4), 431-459.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three
disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4),
393-429.
Shank, G. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skill approach. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Siebert, D., & Draper, R. (2008). Why content-area literacy messages do not speak to
mathematics teachers: A critical content analysis. Literacy Research and Instruction,
47(4), 229-245.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. Sage.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in
phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
Smith, B. L., Holliday, W. G., & Austin, H. W. (2010). Students' comprehension of science
textbooks using a question‐based reading strategy. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 363-379.
Snow, C., & P. Ucelli. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. Olson & N.
Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–33). Cambridge
University Press.
Stoller, F. L. (2016). EAP materials and tasks. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 577-591). Routledge.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 71(3),
687-698.
Thompson, P. (2006). A corpus perspective on the lexis of lectures, with a focus on
economics lectures. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across
disciplines (pp. 253-270). Peter Lang.
Trevelyan, J. (2014). The making of an expert engineer. CRC Press.
Unsworth, L. (Ed.). (2008). Multimodal semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of
education. Bloomsbury Publishing.
van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1989). The discourse of geography: Ordering and
explaining the experiential world. Linguistics and Education, 1(4), 359-391.
Wolfson, R. (2019). Essential university physics (Vols. 1-2). Pearson Education.
Woloshyn, V., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation
and representational imagery facilitate adult learning of facts presented in paragraphs.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 513–524.
Zittoun, T., & Brinkmann, S. (2012). Learning as meaning making. In Norbert M. Seel (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer.