本研究探討理工學院學生的科學溝通能力，招募師資生與非師資生兩組受試者參與實驗，分析34位理工學院學生在接收「科學溝通框架指引」後的科學溝通表現。研究中使用科學溝通前測問卷，先行了解受試者的科學溝通能力，接下來進行科學溝通框架的要點介紹與練習，之後進行「微波爐加熱原理」主題的文本閱讀與科學溝通發表。本研究在正式任務中設定了兩個假想的溝通對象，分別為「準備科展的小六學生」與「準備安全宣導講座的社區幹事」，欲了解受試者在進行科學溝通時，會如何依照不同對象的背景與需求，將困難的文本轉換成簡單的資訊進行科學溝通，並評測受試者的科學溝通表現是否符合科學溝通框架中的項目。在任務進行完畢後對受試者進行訪談，了解受試者在進行科學溝通前的構思方式與在使用科學溝通框架時的認知。
本研究的主要結果為：(1) 在科學溝通的表現上，師資生比非師資生更會將科學專有名詞轉換成日常用語；(2) 在適性的程度上，師資生比非師資生更會針對不同的溝通對象改變解釋；(3) 根據訪談內容，許多受試者認為使用日常用語及適性最為困難，確認先備知識及適性最為重要，雖然師資生與非師資生在此部分認知的人數相當，但科學溝通表現仍有不同。

The goal of the study is to investigate the science communication ability of students in the College of Science and Technology. The subjects are divided into two groups (teacher student group and non-teacher student group), and the science communication performance of 34 students in the College of Science and Technology after receiving the "Science Communication Framework Guide" will be analyzed to know the differences depending on whether studying the teacher training course. In the study, the scientific communication pre-test questionnaire was used to understand the students' scientific communication skills first, and then to guide the science communication skills, and to conduct text reading and science communication publication on the topic of "Microwave Heating Principle". In this study, two imaginary addressees were set up in the task, which are "Primary students preparing for science exhibition" and "Community organizer preparing for safety propaganda". This study wants to understand how the students will convert difficult texts into everyday language for scientific communication in adaption to the background and needs of different addressees when explaining, and then evaluates whether their communications conform the framework of scientific communication when they are publishing the task. After the task is completed, the students will be interviewed to understand the reasons for how to use the scientific communication framework to conceive their explanation.
The main results of the paper are (1) the teacher student group outperformed the non-teacher student group in converting difficult texts into everyday language for scientific communication, (2) the teacher student group performed better than the non-teacher student group in adapting to the background and needs of different addressees when explaining, (3) according to the interview, many students thought that using everyday language and adaption were the two most difficult points of the Science Communication Framework Guide while communicating. Besides, checking prior knowledge and adaption were the two most important points. Though the perception of the use of the guide were similar between the teacher student group and non-teacher student group, the science communication performances were different between two groups.

教育部(2017)，十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning PCK in Teachers' Professional Knowledge for Teaching Science. Singapore: Springer.
Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56–85.
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Yuan, S. (2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708–730.
Braaten M. & Windschitl, L. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639-669.
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D.J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202.
Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated.
Geelan, D. (2013). Teacher explanation of physics concepts: A video study. Research in Science Education 43, 1751–1762.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
Horikoshi, S., Schiffmann, R. F., Fukushima, J. & Serpone, N. (2017) Microwave Chemical and Materials Processing: A Tutorial. Japan: Springer.
Kinach, B. M. (2002). A cognitive strategy for developing pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary mathematics methods course: toward a model of effective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(1), 51–71.
KMK (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland). (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Luchterhand.
Kulgemeyer, C. (2010). Science Communication Competence Test. Test Booklet and solutions. Berlin, Germany: University of Bremen.
Kulgemeyer, C. (2018). Impact of secondary students’ content knowledge on their communication skills in science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 89-108.
Kulgemeyer, C. (2018). Students explaining science—A framework of effective science explanation videos informed by criteria for instructional explanations. Research in Science Education, (Fist online), 1-22.
Kulgemeyer, C. (2019). Towards a framework for effective instructional explanations in science teaching. Studies in Science Education, 54, 109-139.
Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2009). Physics communication competence: on the development of a domain-specific concept of communication. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 131–153.
Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2013). Students explaining science—assessment of science communication competence. Research in Science Education, 43, 2235-2256.
Kulgemeyer, C., Borowski, A., Buschhüter, D., Enkrott, P., Kempin, M., Reinhold, P., Riese, J., Schecker, H., Schröder, J., & Vogelsang, C. (2020). Professional knowledge affects action-related skills: The development of preservice physics teachers’ explaining skills during a field experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(10), 1554–1582.
Mayhew, L. M., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Learning To Communicate About Science In Everyday Language Through Informal Science Education. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179(1), 205-208.
MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs) (2005). National assessment: Program, science, year 6, 2003: Technical report. MCEETYA.
Mercer-Mapstone, L. & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core Skills for Effective Science Communication: A Teaching Resource for Undergraduate Science Education. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 7(4), 181-201.
Merten, K. (1995). Konstruktivismus als Theorie für die Kommunikationswissenschaft. MedienJournal, 4, 3–21.
Nathan, M. & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905-928.
Rusch, G. (1999). Eine Kommunikationstheorie für kognitive Systeme. In G. Rusch & S. Schmidt (Eds.), Konstruktivismus in der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Scherz Z., Eylon, B., & Bialer, L. (2008). Professional development in learning skills for science (LSS): The use of evidence-based framework. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 30, 643-668.
Scherz, Z., Spektor-Levy, O., & Eylon, B. (2005). ‘‘Scientific communication’’: An instructional program for high-order learning skills and its impact on students’ performance’’. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de-Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 231-243). Netherlands: Springer.
Sevian, H., & Gonsalves, L. (2008). The construction of a reasoned explanation of a health phenomenon: An analysis of competencies mobilized. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1441-1467.
Shivni, R., Cline, C., Newport, M., Yuan, S., & Bergan-Roller, H. E. (2021). Establishing a baseline of science communication skills in an undergraduate environmental science course. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00304-0.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 875-903.
Wack, J., Jaeger, C. P., Yuan, S., & Bergan-Roller, H. E. (2021). A framework and lesson to engage biology students in communicating science with nonexperts. The American Biology Teacher, 83(1), 17–25.
Wittwer, J. & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49-64.