本研究採用框架理論的觀點，以科學傳播的AEIOU功效作為編碼類別，以內容分析法探討教育性科學新聞產製團隊的三方成員：科學專家、科學育傳專家（Science Edu-Communicators）以及記者在新聞產製歷程發生之衝突的成因。結果顯示三方對於教育性科學新聞確實持有不同的AEIOU框架，而這些不同的框架引導他們有不同的詮釋、理解與期待，進而導致了他們的衝突。共有47個衝突在晤談原案被發現，其中8個衝突與覺知科學（Awareness）有關，包含對於鄰近性、新聞價值之觀點不同，以及是否使用誘人的風格呈現題目。3個衝突與享受科學（Enjoyment）有關，也就是對於新聞內容是否需具娛樂性之看法不同。本研究並未發現關於對科學的興趣（Interest）之衝突。2個衝突與形成科學觀點（Opinion formation）有關，亦即對於「是否應揭發偽科學產品來使民眾改觀」之觀點不同。最後共有34個衝突與理解科學（Understanding）有關，包含對於科學內容正確性之要求、對於科學原理、機制與價值的要求、以及對於科學內容的深度之要求不同。本研究將討論這些衝突背後的成因，並根據這些成因給予三方建議，以求日後更順暢的合作。

The current study, based on frame theory, aims to analyze what caused the conflicts among the Educational Science News production team（i.e. scientists, Science Edu-Communicators, and journalists） when they collaborated to produce science news in a AEIOU（five outcomes of the science communication） perspective. Data suggests that the team members hold divergent AEIOU frames toward Educational Science News, and these divergent frames lead to different interpretations, understandings and expectations which caused their conflicts. All 47 conflicts were identified in the interviewing protocol. Among them, 8 conflicts were about awareness. Three parties held different perspectives about proximity, attracting style of the introducing, and news values. 3 conflicts were about enjoyment. Three parties held different perspective about entertaining elements in the science news. None conflict that related to interest was found. 2 conflicts were about opinion formation. Three parties had divergent perspectives about to alternate public’s opinion or not. And 34 conflicts were about understanding. Three parties had divergent perspectives about the（1） degree of accuracy,（2） demand on reporting scientific principles, mechanism and values, and（3） demand on degree of depth. In the end of the study, the researcher discussed about why three parties had different frames, and provided some recommendations for their better future collaboration.

Alsop, S. (1999). Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity. Public understanding of science, 8(4), 267-284.
An, S.-K., & Gower, K. K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 107-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359
Balgopal, M. M., Wallace, A. M., & Dahlberg, S. (2017). Writing from different cultural contexts: How college students frame an environmental SSI through written arguments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 195-218. doi:10.1002/tea.21342
Baram‐Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135-144.
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public understanding of science, 16(1), 79-95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287
Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929-948.
Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public understanding of science, 12(2), 183-202.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123.
Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 221-239. doi:10.1177/1075547005281473
Craig, O. S., Daniel, L. D., & Rose, H. (2008). Beliefs About Science and News Frames in Audience Evaluations of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research. Science Communication, 30(4), 427-452. doi:10.1177/1075547008326931
Davis, P. R., & Russ, R. S. (2015). Dynamic framing in the communication of scientific research: Texts and interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 221-252.
Decisions, C. f. R. o. E. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. New York, NY: CRED.
Dirikx, A., & Gelders, D. (2010). To frame is to explain: A deductive frame-analysis of Dutch and French climate change coverage during the annual UN Conferences of the Parties. Public understanding of science, 19(6), 732-742. doi:10.1177/0963662509352044
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11.
Engesser, S., & Brüggemann, M. (2015). Mapping the minds of the mediators: The cognitive frames of climate journalists from five countries. Public understanding of science, 25(7), 825-841. doi:10.1177/0963662515583621
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for Science Education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1451-1469). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Feinstein, N. W. (2015). Education, communication, and science in the public sphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 145-163.
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64-90.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience: Harvard University Press.
Goodman, J. R., & Goodman, B. P. (2006). Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public understanding of science, 15(3), 359-375. doi:10.1177/0963662506062468
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86(1), 106-121.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens america's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
Hollander, E. P. (1976). Principles and methods of social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, C.-J. (2014). Double media distortions for science communication–an analysis of ‘compiled science news’ transforming in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 128-141.
Huang, C.-J. (2016). Public Communication of Science and Technology in Taiwan. In Science Education Research and Practices in Taiwan (pp. 279-297): Springer.
Jörg, M. (2009). What's in a Frame? A Content Analysis of Media Framing Studies in the World's Leading Communication Journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349-367. doi:10.1177/107769900908600206
Lewis, N., Broitman, D., & Sznitman, S. R. (2015). Medical Cannabis: A framing analysis of Israeli newspaper coverage. . Science Communication, 37(6), 675-702. doi:10.1177/1075547015608507
Lin, P.-L. (2017). Media Representations and Public Attitudes towards Nanotechnology in Taiwan. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Essex, Essex, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/22085
Liou, W. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2018, February). Virtual Reality Classroom Applied to Science Education. Paper presented at the 23rd International Scientific-Professional Information Technology Conference 2018 (IT 2018), Zabljak, Montenegro.
Listerman, T. (2010). Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: international comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public understanding of science, 19(1), 5-15. doi:10.1177/0963662505089539
Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163.
Logan, R. A., Zengjun, P., & Wilson, N. F. (2000). Prevailing Impressions in Science and Medical News: A Content Analysis of the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Science Communication, 22(1), 27-45. doi:10.1177/1075547000022001003
Lords, H. o. (2000). Science and Society, 3rd Report. London: HMSO.
Maillé, M.-È., Saint-Charles, J., & Lucotte, M. (2009). The gap between scientists and journalists: the case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public understanding of science, 19(1), 70-79. doi:10.1177/0963662509102690
Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., & Zakharova, L. (2007). Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public understanding of science, 16(2), 183-203. doi:10.1177/0963662506065054
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85-139): Academic Press.
McCall, R. B. (1988). Science and the press: Like oil and water? American Psychologist, 43(2), 87-94. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.87
McKeever, B. W. (2013). News Framing of Autism. Science Communication, 35(2), 213-240. doi:10.1177/1075547012450951
Miyake, S. (2017). Learning sciecne in informal contexts. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education (pp. 431–442). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science: how the press covers science and technology (rev. Ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Neuman, W. L. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches: Pearson education.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. doi:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70. doi:10.1177/1081180X02251047
Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing Science. Science, 316(5821), 56. doi:10.1126/science.1142030
Novak, J. D. (1977). An alternative to piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Science Education, 61(4), 453-477. doi:10.1002/sce.3730610403
OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 Draft Science framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55-75. doi:10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963
Peters, H. P. (1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society, 17(1), 31-48.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14102-14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110
Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller, T. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Rehbein, J. (1994). Rejective proposals: Semi-professional speech and clients’ varieties in intercultural doctor-patient communication. In Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication (Vol. 13, pp. 83).
Seakins, A., & Hobson, M. (2017). Public understanding of science. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education (pp. 443–452). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x
Shauli, S., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2018). The usefulness of science knowledge for parents of hearing-impaired children. Public understanding of science. doi:10.1177/0963662518772503
Shea, N. A. (2015). Examining the nexus of science communication and science education: A content analysis of genetics news articles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 397-409. doi:10.1002/tea.21193
Shrigley, R. L., Koballa, R. T., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Defining attitude for science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 659-678. doi:10.1002/tea.3660250805
Singer, E. (1990). A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40(4), 102-116.
Spinks, P. (2001). Science Journalism: The Inside Story. In S. M. Stocklmayer, M. M. Gore, & C. Bryant (Eds.), Science Communication in Theory and Practice (pp. 151-168). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168.
Tanner, A. H. (2004). Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television stations: A nationwide survey of local television health reporters. Science Communication, 25(4), 350-363.
Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? In M. Shortland (Ed.), Scientific literacy papers (pp. 1-14): Oxford Department for External Studies.
Valenti, J. M. (2000). Improving the Scientist/Journalist Conversation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(4), 543-548. doi:10.1007/BF03187603
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and instruction, 4(1), 45-69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating Science: A Review of the Literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002005
Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 363-372.
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. doi:10.1177/1075547015592068
Wu, P. H., Wu, L. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2016, August). Science Edu-communication: An exploration of the impact of science education initiated television news on learners’ perceived Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest, Opinion Formation, and Understanding (AEIOU). Paper presented at the the International Conference of East-Asian Association for Science Education (EASE 2016), Tokyo, Japan.
王筱璇、勤淑瑩（譯）（2005）。大眾傳播概論（原作者：DeFleur, M. L., & Everetee E, D.）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
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（碩士論文）。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3wq5d2
林筱芸、徐美苓（2015）。臺灣基因醫學新聞內容特色與品質分析（2001-2011年）。博物館學季刊，29(1)，65-75+77.
邱美虹（2000）。概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，8（1），1-34。
張俊彥、吳昱鋒（2016）。科學教育傳播新想法。科學研習月刊，55（11），57-62。
張郁敏（2013）。什麼樣的科學新聞內容會受新聞媒體青睞？報紙與電視科學新聞媒體顯著性之決定因素初探。新聞學研究(117), 47-88.
張道依（2018）。初探擴增實境解謎遊戲之建置與可行性−以高中自然科學領域為例（碩士論文）。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/sg35zq
陳映均、李松濤（2017）。社會性科學議題新聞的框架分析－以基因改造新聞為例。科學教育學刊，25(S)，439-462。doi:10.6173/cjse.2017.25s.02
陳憶寧（2011）。當科學家與記者相遇: 探討兩種專業對於科學新聞的看法差異。中華傳播學刊（19），147-187。
游美惠（2000）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究(8)，5-42。 doi:10.7014/tcyc.200008.0005
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。
黃惠萍（2003）。媒介框架之預設判準效應與閱聽人的政策評估－以核四案為例。新聞學研究（77），67-105。
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。doi:10.6173/cjse.2007.1506.02
臧國仁（1998）。新聞報導與真實建構：新聞框架理論的觀點。傳播研究集刊（3），1-102。doi:10.6334/crm.1998.3
劉宏文（1996）。建構主義的認識論觀點及其在科學教育上的意義。科學教育月刊（193），8-26。
鄭宇君（2003）。從社會脈絡解析科學新聞的產製一以基因新聞為例。新聞學研究（74），121-147。
鄭瑞洲，洪振方與黃台珠（2011）。情境興趣－制式與非正式課程科學學習的交會點。科學教育月刊（340），1-9。
韓尚平（1990）。台灣科技新聞報導的現況及問題。科學月刊，21（8），617-620。
簡郁璇（2017）。大眾對科學的回應：科學傳播量表之開發與效化。（碩士論文）。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/537fra
關尚仁（2014）。臺灣科學傳播的現況與挑戰。科學月刊，（531），186-193。