本研究以一群非科學主修之大學生(N=43)為對象，令其針對溫室效應，臭氧層破壞侑酸雨等三項全球性環境問題，以撰文之方式蒐集其成因之認知。本研究並運用(1)敘述之結構分析，(2)發展量化評分標準，以及(3)事後確認性訪談等方式，藉以綜評其相關議題之科學素養程度。研究結果顯示：受試者整體在三項環境問題的得分與總分相較屬於偏低的情況；對於三項問題的得分間有顯著差異發生。在所敘述的內容方面，有較多的受試者在溫室效應有整體概念架構偏離的現象(N=17)；其模式為「臭氧層破壞以致紫外線射入地表量增多，使得地球溫度上升」。在酸雨問題上則有「地面水受污染後，經蒸發作用進入大氣中形成酸雨」的說法，惟人數並不多(N=2)；另有一位受試者認係「臭氧層破壞使酸雨在大氣中形成後降下所致」。相形之下，則無人在臭詳層破壞敘述中有整體概念架構偏離的現象。此外受試者在回答三項問題時，均呈現出以「模糊概括性之不確定詞彙」取代專有之關鍵名詞的現象。在提出特定的關鍵詞時，雖指陳出正確的項目，但卻又附帶加述若干錯誤的項目。至於空氣污染、工業及汽機車所產生的廢氣在三項問題中均廣泛的被提侑。本研究中亦報導受試者在三項環境問題中所顯現的迷思概念。本文末了並綜評受試者對三項全球性環境問題的呈現概況，僅符合Bybee界定「名義科學素養」的程度。亦即「知曉一個名詞或主題屬於科學範疇的一部份，對於該名詞或主題的解答中，學習者試圖與科學及技學的相關概念發生關聯，但其對該名詞或主題的相關了解中則顯現出迷思概念」之定義。據此，對於非科學主修學生科學素養之提升顯為當務之急，本研究乃列舉實務與未來研究之可行方向以供參考。

　　　　　This study used a writing strategy to collect data on the understandings of greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain from a group of non-science majors in college (N=43). Qualitative methods such as the establishment of a coding system, and formation of rating criteria were adopted for analyzing the narratives. This study also used follow-up interviews to assure correct interpretation of meaning provided by respondents. The results revealed revealed that the understandings of respondents about three global environmental issues was low if compared with desired responses. Statistical data also showed that respondents' mean score on ozone layer depeletion was significantly higher than that on greenhouse effect. There were several misconceptions noted on three issues. More respondents (N=17) presented a misleading framework. They said: "Greenhouse effect caused by the extra UV light approaching the earth due to the ozone layer depletion." Only two students indicated the surface water was contaminated first, and then such water evaporvated to become acid rain in the atmosphere. Another kind of misleading framework was that ozone layer depletion made the rain acidified (N=1). Comparatively, there was no misleading framework showed by the respondents about ozone layer depletion. Moreover, respondents usually used ambiguous words as substitute for special terms with which they were not sure familiar. When using some correct items, they, unfortunately, added some other incorrect ones. Furthermore, air pollution and the gases expelled by factories and vehicles were looked as common caused of the three environmental issues. If judged according to Bybee's definition of scientific literacy, the respondents' level of understanding about these three global environmental issues is on the level of nominal scientific literacy. Therefore, this study suggests several educational strategies and future research to improve scientific literacy of non-science students.