Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119273


Title: 社群問答平台中科學專家的傳播效果之研究 —以知乎為例
Research on the Communication Effect of Scientific Experts’ Answers on Social Q&A Community: A Case Study of Zhihu
Authors: 錢佳玥
Qian, Jia-Yue
Contributors: 施琮仁
Shih, Tsung-Jen
錢佳玥
Qian, Jia-Yue
Keywords: 社群問答平台
科學傳播效果
科學涉入感
公眾理解科學
公眾資訊性參與科學
Social Q&A community
Science communication effect
Scientific involvement
Public understanding of science
Public engagement of science
Date: 2018
Issue Date: 2018-08-07 17:24:40 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 媒介的不斷發展,帶動科學傳播方式不斷革新。其中,社群媒體的出現,又讓「社群問答平台」順勢興起。這種新型問答平台結合知識分享社區和搜索引擎的功能,讓大眾可以自由地在平台上張貼、回覆及參與科學問題討論,既為科學傳播提供了新途徑,也符合科學傳播理論所強調的雙向、互動和共享的概念。

任何人都可參與問答,也導致社群問答平台開始出現答案質量良莠不齊和專業性降低的問題。為解決該問題,部分社群問答平台開始引入專家參與問答。但當專家的科學語言脫離媒體語言的轉譯,直接傳遞給一般大眾時,能否提升大眾對科學知識的理解程度,又能否引導大眾進一步參與討論、關注相關科學議題?科學專家的回答在社群問答平台的傳播效果成為本研究關心的問題。

因此,本研究以用戶身份認證體系相對成熟的知乎網為例,藉由量化的研究方法初探社群問答平台中,「回答者身份」和「回答文本特徵」對於「公眾理解科學」及「公眾資訊性參與科學」的影響,並將科學涉入感納入調節變項。本研究採用實驗法,以「奈米科技」為訊息主題,招募中國大陸浙江省某理工類大學的161名大學生參與實驗,實驗結果如下:

一、 與回答者身份相比,回答文本特徵才是影響公眾理解科學的主要變項。其中,非學術性回答文本比學術性回答文本能讓公眾獲得更高程度的事實性知識。

二、 回答者身份和回答文本特徵之間在感知性知識的獲得上存在交互作用。專家的非學術性回答比專家的學術性回答能讓公眾獲得更高程度的感知性知識。

三、 公眾對科學涉入感的高低,對自變項和依變項之間的關係有略微的調節作用。其中,回答者身份對於感知性知識的影響,對科學高涉入者較為強烈。但回答文本特徵對於感知性知識的影響,又對科學低涉入者較為強烈。
The development of the media has led to innovations in the pattern of science communication, social Q&A community is an emerging pattern in science communication. This new Q&A site which combines knowledge-sharing community with search engines, provides a free space for the public to post, respond to, and discuss science-related issues freely. The site not only provides a new pattern in science communication, but meets the science communication theory which emphasizes the concept of two-way interaction and sharing.

However, due to everyone can participate in the social Q&A community, it is difficult to ensure the quality and professionalism of answers. In order to solve this problem, some social Q&A communities introduce experts to answer questions. Is it helpful to improve the public’s understanding of science and promote them to join in science-related topics when expert's scientific statements convey to the public directly? This thesis aims to explore the effect of expert's answer on the social Q&A community.

The study takes “Zhihu” as an example, and then explores the impact of different respondents and characteristics of answer text on the public understanding of science and public engagement of science. At the same time, the scientific involvement is introduced as a moderating variable. The experiment survey with Nanotechnology themed was conducted at the university in Ningbo China. There’re 161 students participated in the experiment. Results of the experiment indicate:1) On the social Q&A community, the characteristics of the answer text is the main variable which has an effect on the public's factual knowledge. 2) There is an interaction between the different respondents and characteristics of answer texts in the public's perceived knowledge. 3) The scientific involvement has a marginal effect on the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables.
Reference: 中文文獻:
中國人民大學中國調查與數據中心(2016)。世界價值觀調查:中國人信任水準高出世界平均水準一倍。取自中國經濟網,http://big5.ce.cn/gate/big5/www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/201603/28/t20160328_9860472.shtml。
王文宏(2006)。 網絡文化對權威意識的挑戰。北京郵電大學學報: 社會科學版,8(2),5-8。
王秀麗(2014)。 網絡社區意見領袖影響機制研究——以社會化問答社區 「知乎」 為例。國際新聞界,36(9),47-57。
王怡琄(2008)。大學生對科學新聞報導之理解與詮釋。國立政治大學廣播電視學研究所學位論文,台北市。
古佳馨(2011)。使用者判斷開放性知識分享平台資訊品質之研究─ 以 Yahoo! 奇摩知識+ 為例。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所學位論文,台北市。
左美雲、姜熙(2010)。中文知識問答分享平台激勵機制比較分析——以百度知道、騰訊搜搜問問、新浪愛問知識人為例。中國信息界(11),25-30。 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3370.2010.11.004
余肇傑、周兆良(2004)。廣告代言人對廣告效果影響之研究。數位媒體的發展與再造學術研討會。桃園市:銘傳大學桃園校區。
李世忠、徐瑜璘(2004)。網路教學互動討論方法之介面設計與發展。教育資料與圖書館學,41(3),389-404。
李迪明(2008)。高中生學習需要的探索。教育科學論壇(6),67-68。
杜鵬、曹一雄 (2012)。 公眾在納米技術創新的角色與納米技術傳播。科普研究,7(5),77-81。
林東泰(2008)。大眾傳播理論(增訂第三版)。臺北市:師大書苑。
林郁芬(2011)。空間能力, 先備知識與表徵順序對七年級概念理解之影響: 以人體呼吸運動單元為例。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文,台北市。
林媛、鄧勝利 (2014)。 社交問答網站的信息可信度研究。數字圖書館論壇, 9,008。
林嘉琪(2017)。知覺風險, 資訊不足性, 產品類型與資訊搜尋意圖之關聯探討-以基因改造食品為例。國立交通大學經營管理研究所學位論文,新竹市。
邱皓政(2006)。量化研究與統計分析-SPSS 中文視窗版資料分析範例解析 (附光碟)。台北市:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
侯小杏、陳麗亞(2011)。非正式環境下學習的研究。開放教育研究,17(2),39-48。 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-2179.2011.02.006
施琮仁(2016)。 社交網站與公眾參與:「Pansci泛科學臉書專頁」使用者研究。傳播研究與實踐,6(2),209-241。
施琮仁、林宜平、鄭尊仁 (2015)。 奈米科技發展與政策之常民認知。中華傳播學刊。1-37。
柯籙晏 (2003)。從故事敘事看科普敘事: 科學普及之敘事研究初探(未出版博碩士論文)。淡江大學大眾傳播學系碩士論文,台北市。
洪月女、靳知勤 (2008)。科學寫作理論與教學之探討。課程與教學,11(2),173-191。
洪綾襄(2005)。科普文本中語言使用機制的探討:專家與生手的比較。淡江大學大眾傳播學系碩士班學位論文,台北市。
韋勇嬌(2014)。認知盈餘背景下, 網絡問答社區的知識傳播模式探析——以 「知乎」 為例。廣西職業技術學院學報,7(1),30-34。
孫雪梅(2012)。 納米科普傳播新平台—微博。科学与艺术·数字时代的科学与文化传播—2012 科学与艺术研讨会论文集。
孫曉寧、趙宇翔、朱慶華 (2015)。基於SQA系統的社會化搜索答案質量評價指標構建。中國圖書館學報(4),65-82。doi: 10.13530/j.cnki.jlis.150021。
翁育誠(2003)。以蘊含序列與詞彙密度兩種結構探討科學課文結構與閱讀理解的關係-以溫度與熱為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文,台北市。
袁貴仁(2013)。價值觀的理論與實踐:價值觀若干問題的思考。北京市:北京師範大學出版社。
高偉珍(2008)。問答網站專家尋找機制之研究。國立交通大學資訊管理研究所,新竹市。
張正嚴(2007)。科學教育中的科學家形象塑造。現代中小學教育(6),33-35。
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。
張卿卿(2012)。科學新聞資訊呈現形式及其對閱聽眾資訊接收的影響—以科學知識觀點與認知基模理論來探討。科學教育學刊,20(3),193-216。
張榮玲(2017)。知乎意見領袖的形成機制及影響探析。今傳媒(7),69-70。
張錦華(1990)。傳播效果理論批判。新聞學研究(42),103-121。
章凱(2002)。成就目標與科學文本理解中的興趣效應。教育研究與實驗(4),50-55。
許文怡、梁朝雲 (2007)。訊息來源可信度, 情感認同與涉入程度對大學生採信消費性網路謠言之影響。教育資料與圖書館學, 45(1),99-120。
陳月茹(2002)。論成人的學習需要。中國成人教育(4),49-50。
陳世文、楊文金(2006)。以系統功能語言學探討學生對不同科學文本的閱讀理解。師大學報:科學教育類, 51(1),107-124。 doi: 10.6300/JNTNU.2006.51.05。
陳安福、張洪泰(1993)。中學心理學。北京市:高等教育出版社。
陳姵如(2014)。臉書引言框架對科學新聞理解之影響。國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位學程碩士論文,台北市。[Framing Effect: The Influence of Facebook on Science News Comprehension,台北市]。
陳春豔(2015)。「網眾」傳播:自媒體時代科學傳播的範式。北方論叢(6),64-67。
陳盈良(2010)。在問答社群網站中利用知識隔閡分析找出困難問題之研究。國立成功大學資訊工程學系學位論文,台北市。
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。
陳曉宇、盧興威、鄧勝利(2015)。社交問答網站答案質量與答案採納對比研究——以百度知道和知乎為例。數字圖書館論壇(6),24-30。
陳曉開(1997)。新聞編輯的解題表現—專家與生手的表現。新聞學研究(54),237-268。
曾五一、黃炳藝 (2005)。調查問卷的可信度和有效度分析。統計與信息論壇,20(6),11-15。
舒華(2015)。心理與教育研究中的多因素實驗設計(第2版)。北京市:北京師範大學出版社。
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。doi: 10.6173/CJSE.2008.1604.05
黃建勳 (2011)。信任對知識使用意願之影響—以奇摩知識+為例。國立臺灣大學商學研究所學位論文,台北市。
黃夢婷、張鵬翼(2015)。社會化問答社區的協作方式與效果研究:以知乎為例。圖書情報工作(12),85-92。
黃銘章、孫詩蘋(2008)。產品知識涉入程度對處方藥藥商廣告效果之影響。行銷評論,5(1),81-103。
塗陽軍、何旭明 (2013)。 學習興趣測量研究述評。大學教育科學,1(1),52-58。
塗陽軍、陳建文(2009)。 先前背景知識、興趣與閱讀理解之關係研究。心理研究,2(3),84-89。
楊敏(2015)。人格特質對在線問答社區用戶持續使用意願的影響研究。重慶市:西南大學。
楊喆(2016)。 新媒體在科學傳播領域的實踐——以知乎網為例的分析。中国科普理论与实践探索——第二十三届全国科普理论研讨会。南京市:中國科普研究所。
楊意菁、徐美苓 (2012)。環境風險的認知與溝通:以全球暖化議題的情境公眾為例。中華傳播學刊(22),169-209。doi: 10.6195/cjcr.2012.22.07
萬鴻龍、洪新原(2011)。探討知識搜尋者在虛擬社群中搜尋知識之影響因素。第十七屆資訊管理暨實務研討會。台南市:嘉南藥理科技大學。
賈佳、宋恩梅、蘇環(2013)。社會化問答平台的答案質量評估—以 「知乎」、「百度知道」為例。信息資源管理學報,3(2),19-28。
翟傑全(2008)。 科技公共傳播:知識普及、科學理解、公眾參與。北京理工大學學報(社會科學版),10(6),頁 29-32。
趙又慈 (2011)。科普訊息的接收與理解──以大學生接收奈米資訊為例。政治大學傳播學院碩士在職專班學位論文,台北市。
趙呈領、閆莎莎、楊婷婷(2013)。非正式網絡學習共同體深度互動影響因素分析。現代遠程教育研究(1),101-107。doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2013.01.015。
趙蘭蘭、汪玲(2006)。學習興趣研究綜述。首都師範大學學報(社會科學版), 2006(6),107-112。
劉佩、林如鵬(2015)。網絡問答社區「知乎」的知識分享與傳播行為研究。圖書情報知識(6),109-119。
劉桂秋(2007)。論如何滿足學生的基礎學習需要。遼寧教育行政學院學報,24(11),81-84。
歐美伶(2011)。國中生科普讀物閱讀行為之研究。國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所學位論文,台北市。
蔡至欣、賴玲玲 (2011)。虛擬社群的資訊分享行為。圖書資訊學刊,9(1),頁 161-196。
蔣楠、王鵬程(2012)。社會化問答服務中用戶需求與信息內容的相關性評價研究—以「百度知道」為例。信息資源管理學報,2(3),頁35-45。
鄧發雲(2009)。信息可信度測量的內容與途徑。管理觀察(3),頁176-177。
鄭宇君(2003)。從科學到新聞-由基因新聞看科學與新聞的差距。新聞學研究,74,121-147。
鄭瑞洲、洪振方、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(340),2-10。
賴慧敏、陳姿君、黃靜萱、葉蘆瑩 (2010)。影響專業虛擬社群使用者的知識搜尋因素之研究。

英文文獻:
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior Action control (pp. 11-39): Springer.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
Ankney, R. N., Heilman, P., & Kolff, J. (1996). Newspaper Coverage of the Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Report. Science Communication, 18(2), 153-164. doi:10.1177/1075547096018002004
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments-the future of eLearning? Elearning Papers, 2(1), 1-8.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public (Vol. 10, pp. 99-113).
Bereiter, C. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public opinion quarterly, 33(4), 563-576.
Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. 11(4), e1001535. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
Blooma, M. J., Chua, A. Y.-K., & Goh, D. H.-L. (2010). Selection of the Best Answer in CQA Services. Paper presented at the 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations.
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online Submission.
Bradley, J. H., Paul, R., & Seeman, E. (2006). Analyzing the structure of expert knowledge. Information & management, 43(1), 77-91.
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., . . . Hyde-Lay, R. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature biotechnology, 27(6), 514.
Bucchi, M. (1996). When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375-394.
Bucchi, M. (2016). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science.
Burns, T. W., Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition (Vol. 12, pp. 183-202).
Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 81-94.
Carolan, M. S. (2006). Sustainable agriculture, science and the co- production of ‘ expert’ knowledge: The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment, 11(4), 421-431. doi:10.1080/13549830600785571
Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., & Shi, S. (2008). Introduction: Science communication-A multidisciplinary and social science. Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, 1-3. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7
Chi, M. T. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 21-30.
Chopyak, J., & Levesque, P. (2002). Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future. Technology in Society, 24(1), 155-166. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00051-3
Claessens, M. (2008). European trends in science communication.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, Social Media, and Self- Regulated Learning: A Natural Formula for Connecting Formal and Informal Learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917.
Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 680-689. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11.
Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility Assessments of Online Health Information: The Effects of Source Expertise and Knowledge of Content. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 6(4), 0-0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x
Eperen, L. V., & Marincola, F. M. (2011). How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9(1), 199.
Eveland Jr, W. P., Marton, K., & Seo, M. (2004). Moving beyond “just the facts” the influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research, 31(1), 82-108.
Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744-778.
Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455-469.
Faraj, S. (2005). WHY SHOULD I SHARE? EXAMINING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND KNOWLEDGE CONTRIBUTION IN ELECTRONIC NETWORKS OF PRACTICE1. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57. doi:10.2307/25148667
Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and public policy, 35(7), 489-499.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science: Routledge.
Gantz, W., Fitzmaurice, M., & Fink, E. (1991). Assessing the active component of information-seeking. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 630-637.
Gastel, B. (1983). Presenting Science to the Public. The Professional Writing Series: ERIC.
Gazan, R. (2006). Specialists and synthesists in a question answering community. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-10.
Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental research, 80(2), S230-S245.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy And Discursive Power. London: London : Taylor and Francis.
Hay, P. J., & Katsikitis, M. (2001). The ‘expert’in problem‐based and case‐based learning: necessary or not? Medical Education, 35(1), 22-26.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling: University of Kansas, KS.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational research, 60(4), 549-571.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational psychology review, 13(3), 191-209.
Hidi, S., & McLaren, J. (1991). Motivational factors and writing: The role of topic interestingness. European journal of psychology of education, 6(2), 187-197.
Hoffman, R. R. (1998). How can expertise be defined? Implications of research from cognitive psychology Exploring expertise (pp. 81-100): Springer.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.
Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2).
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (2001). Handbook of science and technology studies: Sage publications.
Jowett, G., & O'Donnell, V. (1986). Propaganda and persuasion. Beverly Hills: Beverly Hills : Sage.
Jurczyk, P., & Agichtein, E. (2007). Discovering authorities in question answer communities by using link analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management.
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature nanotechnology, 4(2), 87.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.
Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 559-573.
Ladwig, P., Dalrymple, K. E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science & Public Policy, 39(6), 761-774.
Lewenstein, B. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.
Li, Y., Ma, S., Zhang, Y., & Huang, R. (2012). Expertise network discovery via topic and link analysis in online communities. Paper presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on.
Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163.
Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395-405.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and social psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9.
Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. Emerging technologies in distance education, 177-193.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1).
McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communication theories: London: Sage Publication.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203-223.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115-120.
Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 601-614.
Numally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Panem, S. (1987). Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. Science, 236, 973-975.
Park, C. W., Gardner, M. P., & Thukral, V. K. (1988). Self-perceived knowledge: Some effects on information processing for a choice task. The American Journal of Psychology, 401-424.
Patil, S., & Lee, K. (2016). Detecting experts on Quora: by their activity, quality of answers, linguistic characteristics and temporal behaviors. Social network analysis and mining, 6(1), 5.
Pearce, J. (2010). Co-Producing Knowledge Critical Reflections on Researching Participation Participation and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century City (pp. 34-50): Springer.
Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161. doi:10.1002/asi.10017
Russell, N. (2009). Communicating science: Professional, popular, literary: Cambridge University Press.
Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature nanotechnology, 4(11), 752.
Schäfer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475-505.
Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 3, 14040. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 23-52.
Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450-452.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1-44.
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in Society: Re- Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes (Vol. 13, pp. 55-74).
Su, L. Y.-F., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36(3), 352-378.
Suleski, J., & Ibaraki, M. (2010). Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: a quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 115-125. doi:10.1177/0963662508096776
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
Tobey, R. C. (1971). The American ideology of national science, 1919-1930: University of Pittsburgh Pre.
Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing Science Communication: A Survey of Science Communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310-322.
Unger, P. (1968). An analysis of factual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(6), 157-170.
van der Sanden, M. C. A., & 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. doi:10.1177/0963662506067376
Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments (Vol. 2006, pp. 815-816).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge, U.K. ; New York : Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Beauvoir, P., Milligan, C., Johnson, M., & Sharples, P. (2006). Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems.
Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 99-110.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
Zhu, Z., Bernhard, D., & Gurevych, I. (2009). A multi-dimensional model for assessing the quality of answers in social Q&A sites.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
105464067
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105464067
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
406701.pdf5804KbAdobe PDF555View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing