本研究旨在研發「科學傳播量表」（Scale of Science Communication, SSC），由科學傳播中「回應」角度為出發點，檢視大眾接觸科學時的個人回應感受。SSC量表根據Burns等人（2003）對科學傳播的定義進行問卷的編製，包含五個面向：「覺知（awareness, A）」、「享受（enjoyment, E）」、「興趣（interest, I）」、「看法形成（opinion-formation, O）」，以及「理解（understanding, U）」。
研究設計採問卷調查法，共蒐集340份大眾所填寫之問卷，藉由本次的試驗性研究，進行問卷工具精緻化及初探結果分析。問卷工具使用信度與效度作為可靠度考驗，並針對大眾表現結果與基本資料間的關係作初步探討，分組進行t-test及變異數分析（ANOVA）。
研究結果顯示：（一）SSC共分作五個面向，共20題，具有良好之信度，整份問卷信度之Cronbach’s α值為0.95，AEIOU各面向信度區間在0.84-0.93之間；效度表現也具良好的考驗程度，可供後續教學或研究使用。（二）台灣大眾普遍在SSC問卷上，對科學自我回應表現良好，平均值分數達5.73（滿分為7分）。然而，興趣（E）及看法形成（O）兩面向相對表現較差，分別為5.35和5.23分。（三）12-18歲之族群在SSC量表表現相較於其他年齡組別有顯著較低的現象。（四）女生在SSC量表的表現上，除了對科學的覺知（A）外，其餘的面向均顯著低於男生表現。（五）教育程度為國中階段者，在SSC量表表現較差。（六）職業領域與科學關係越緊密，SSC表現越好。（七）不同接觸科學議題管道對SSC量表中各面向有不同的影響。
以上的研究結果對於大眾接觸科學學習時的回應感受，與將來欲達成培育之科學素養具有一定的啟示，利於後續教師教學或其他非制式科學教育、科普活動使用，對後續之研究有相當的助益。

The purpose of this study is to develop a scale (SSC: Scale of Science Communication) to measure five aspects of people’s response to science communication, namely, “awareness(A)”, “enjoyment(E)”, “interest(I)”, “Opinion-formation (O)” ,and “understanding (U)”.
340 participants’s data where collected through online-based and paper-based questionnaires. Factor analysis was applied to refined the items and the preliminary results were analyzed. Furthermore, t-test and ANOVA were applied to compare the SSC results between groups of various background according to their demographic data.
The results show that:
1.SSC has a good reliability. The Cronbach's alpha value of the entire questionnaire reliability is 0.95, and each factor of SSC has the reliability between 0.84-0.93. The scale also has a good result of validity. It’s a good tool for follow-up teaching or research.
2.Participants generally responded highly in SSC questionnaire with a mean score of 5.73 (total 7). However, “enjoyment” (5.35) and “opinion-formation” (5.23) were relatively lower.
3.The 12-18-year-olds responded significantly lower than other age groups in SSC.
4.Female responded lower in SSC than male significantly, except for factor A(awareness).
5.Junior high schoolers responded lowest in SSC.
6.Those with science-related major or career responded higher than those in the opposite group.
7.Various paths of communication (museum, newspaper, Television-programs, etc.) could generated different responses of the AEIOU: “awareness(A)”, “enjoyment(E)”, “interest(I)”, “Opinion-formation (O)” ,and “understanding (U)”.
The result of the current study may support as a good tool for follow-up teaching, informal science education and science popularization’s activities, and brought potential benefits for futher future research in science communication.

中文部分

DeVellis, R. F. (1999)。量表的發展：理論與應用。台北：弘智文化事業有限公司。

王文中 、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧 （2004）。 教育測驗與評量-教室學習觀點。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。

朱效民（2010）。從 “被科普” 到 “要科普”。科學對社會的影響。3，59-60+。

吳明隆 & 涂金堂（2014）。 SPSS 與統計應用分析。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。

吳明隆 & 張毓仁（2014）。SPSS (PASW) 與統計應用分析 Ⅰ (Vol. 1)。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。

吳品萱（2016）。科學傳播與教育的結合：科學教育理念下的電視科學新聞對學習者的科學-覺知、享受、興趣、觀點形成、與理解（AEIOU）之影響。台北：國立台灣師範大學科學教育所碩士論文。

李文旗，張俊彥（2005）。中學生應達到的地球科學素養?─ 中學地科老師的觀點。師大學報：科學教育類，50(2)，1-27。

李坤崇（1991）。多元化教學評量。台北：心理出版社。

李賢哲，樊琳，張蘭友（2005）。國小學童 [電池] 概念之診斷-以兩段式選擇題為例。科學教育學刊，13(3)，263-288。

周天賜（1982）。國民中學國文科情意教學評量之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所集刊。

林清山（1992）。心理與教育統計學。台北市：東華書局。

林照真（2010）。台灣科學社群40年風雲—―紀錄六、七○年代理工知識份子與《科學月刊》。新竹：國立交通大學出版社。
陳文典（1997）。 STS 理念下之教學策略。物理教育，1(2)，85-95。

陳妙華（2009）。李克特量表量尺奇數刻度轉換研究。台北：輔仁大學應用統計學研究所碩士論文。

陳柏熹（2011）。心理與教育測驗: 測驗編製理論與實務。台北市：精策教育。

黃幸美（1995）。數理與科學教育的性別差異之探討。婦女與兩性學刊，(6)，95-135。

黃俊儒（2015）。你讀到什麼科學?── 科學新聞閱讀回憶診斷工具發展與評析。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，139-166。

黃俊儒（2016）。新時代判讀力：教你一眼看穿科學新聞的真偽。台北市：方寸文創。

黃俊儒，簡妙如（2006）。科學新聞文本的論述層次及結構分佈: 構思另個科學傳播的起點。新聞學研究，86，135-170。

黃俊儒，簡妙如（2008）。 “科學家發明了什麼?!”-解析學生對於科學新聞中的科技產物意象。科學教育學刊，16(4)，415-438。

黃俊儒、簡妙如（2010）。在科學與媒體的接壤中所開展之科學傳播研究: 從科技社會公民的角色及需求出發。新聞學研究，105，127-166。

黃淑苓（2001）。[學生為中心] 的學習評量。科學教育期刊，1(2)，3-24。

靳知勤（2002）。效化 [基本科學素養] 問卷。科學教育期刊，10(3)，287-308。

靳知勤（2007）。科學教育應如何提升學生的科學素養—台灣學術精英的看法。科學教育學刊，15(6)，627-646。

靳知勤（2015）。生物科技的風險, 利益與信任: 高中學生 [生物科技覺知量表] 的發展研究。Chinese Journal of Science Education，23(3)，241-264。

劉碧如（2009）。國小六年級學生科學興趣之調查研究。新竹: 國立新竹教育大學人資處應用科學系教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版。

歐滄和（2002）。教育測驗與評量。台北市：心理。

鄭湧涇（2005）。我國科學教育改革的回顧與展望。科學教育月刊，2-22。

蕭建華、張俊彥（2012）。介入自我效能對不同性別學生 [自我學習評估] 與 [學習成效] 之影響-以高一地球科學為例。科學教育，352，28-34。

謝祥宏、段曉林（2001）。教學與評量--一種互為鏡像 (mirror image) 關係。科學教育，241，2-13。

鍾聖校（2015）。情意溝通教學理論: 從建構到實踐。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。

簡晉龍，任宗浩（2011）。邁向科學之路？臺灣中學生性別對科學生涯選擇意向之影響。 Chinese Journal of Science Education，19(5)，461-481。

關尚仁（2011）。科學傳播發展源流。2011科學傳播研討會。台北市：政治大學廣播電視學系。

關尚仁（2014）。臺灣科學傳播的現況與挑戰。科學月刊，531。取自：http://scimonth.blogspot.tw/2014/03/blog-post_3695.html。

英文部分

Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoyment. International handbook of emotions in education, 205-227.

Alsop, S. (1999). Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 267-284.

Baram‐Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135-144.

Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347-367.

Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1984). Bloom taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright (c) by Pearson Education.< http://www. coun. uvic. ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom. html.>

Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public understanding of science, 12(2), 183-202.

Chacoma, A., & Zanette, D. H. (2015). Opinion formation by social influence: from experiments to modeling. PloS one, 10(10), e0140406.

Chen, F., Shi, Y., & Xu, F. (2009). An analysis of the Public Scientific Literacy study in China. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 607-616.

DeWaters, J., & Powers, S. (2013). Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 38-55.

Esler, W. K., Esler, M. K. (1996). Teaching Elementary science. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—A “hopeless” issue? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 497-514.
Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 127-146.

Hampden-Thompson, G., & Bennett, J. (2013). Science teaching and learning activities and students' engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1325-1343.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.

Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2007). Developing Scientific Literacy: Using News Media In The Classroom: Using News Media in the Classroom. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science education, 84(2), 180-192.

Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.

Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International journal of science education, 33(1), 27-50.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.

Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). Construction of a paper-and-pencil test of basic scientific literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331-359.

Lewis, J. R. (1993). Multipoint scales: Mean and median differences and observed significance levels. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 5(4), 383--392.

Lin, H. S., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S. F., & Hong, Z. R. (2013). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941-954.

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (Vol. 29). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 29-48.

Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public understanding of science, 7(3), 203-223.

Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273-294

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: Author.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International journal of science education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

Osseweijer, P. (2006). A new model for science communication that takes ethical considerations into account. Science and engineering ethics, 12(4), 591-593.

Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas. Written Communication, 21(1), 32-68.

Priest, S. (2013). Critical science literacy: What citizens and journalists need to know to make sense of science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(5-6), 138-145.

Rundgren, C. J., Rundgren, S. N. C., Tseng, Y. H., Lin, P. L., & Chang, C. Y. (2012). Are you SLiM? Developing an instrument for civic scientific literacy measurement (SLiM) based on media coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 21(6), 759-773.
Strauss, J., Shope III, R. E., & Terebey, S. (2005). Science communication versus science education: the graduate student scientist as a K-12 classroom resource.

Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public understanding of science, 13(1), 55-74.

Takahashi, B., Tandoc, E. C., & Carmichael, C. (2015). Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: An analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 392-398.

Thoman, D. B., & Sansone, C. (2016). Gender bias triggers diverging science interests between women and men: The role of activity interest appraisals. Motivation and Emotion, 40(3), 464-477.

Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119-135). Springer Netherlands.

Van Der Sanden, M. C., & Meijman, F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89-103.

Webster’s(1958).New collegiate dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.

Wu, L. Y., Chang, C. Y., Liu, H. H., Wu, P. H., Lei, Y. C., & Lu, H. Y. (2015). Piloting a Collaboration Between Education and Broadcast Journalism in Taiwan. Science Communication, 37(4), 542-548.

Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 99-105.