毕业论文英文文献翻译学生姓名学生姓名: :姜海然姜海然系系 别别: :应用化学系应用化学系专专 业业: :化学化学年年 级级: :20112011 级专接本级专接本学学 号号: :1 1指导教师指导教师: :王建芬王建芬衡水学院教务处印制衡水学院教务处印制第 1 页 原 文题目：The influence of constructivism on nature of Science as an area of research and as a classroom subject Mehmet KARAKAS Science Teaching Department Artvin Coruh University Artvin Eigitim Fakultesi Cayagizi Mahallesi Artvin, TURKEY 08000 E-mail: mkarakas73yahoo.com Received 19 Mar., 2007 Revised 21 Sept., 2007AbstractThis paper is an general article about the influence of constructivism on nature of science Constructivism has influenced research on the teaching and learning of nature of science, as well as actual teaching of the nature of science ideas. In the area of research, a constructivist learning theory perspective has influenced researchers to shift from using quantitative research techniques to using qualitative research methods in investigating the nature of science in the science classrooms. In the area of promoting the teaching of the nature of science, a constructivist learning theory perspective has influenced science educators to shift from merely emphasizing the teaching of the history of science in science classrooms to sequencing in instruction in science lessons and promotion of better teacher preparation programs in the universities.Introduction Science curricula vary widely among countries, states, school districts, and individual schools. The most vivid differences are concerned with the particular science topics or concepts to be included. Such differences in course and curricular content are unavoidable, as each course must present only a small sample of the scientific generalizations and principles drawn 第 2 页 from a consistently and rapidly expanding discipline (Lederman, 1992). There is no consensus among science educators concerning the specific content to be included in contemporary science courses or even the methods and strategies of instruction to be used. However, there appears to be strong agreement on at least one of the objectives of science instruction. The development of an “adequate understanding of the nature of science” or an understanding of “science as a way of knowing” continues to be convincingly advocated as a desired outcome of science instruction (American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1989, Lederman, 1992). Although the “nature of science” has been defined in numerous ways, it most commonly refers to the values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman in the 1960s the objective was linked to the advocated emphasis on scientific process and inquiry (Welch, 1979); and most recently it has been included as a critical component of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; National Science Teachers Association, 1982). Clearly, science educators and scientists have been extremely persistent in their advocacy for improved student understanding of the nature of science. Indeed, Kimball (1968) has referred to this objective as one of the most commonly stated objectives for science education and Saunders (1955) went so far as to describe it as the most important purpose of science teaching.Research related to the nature of science can be conveniently divided into four related, but distinct, lines of research: (a) assessment of student conceptions of the nature of science; (b) development, use, and assessment of curricula designed to “improve” student conceptions of the nature of science; (c) assessment of, and attempts to improve, teachers conceptions of the nature of science; and (d) identification of the relationship among teachers conceptions, classroom practice, and students conceptions (Lederman, 1992).Although the belief in the importance of students understandings of the nature of science has persisted through the twentieth century as mentioned above, assessments of students conceptions did not start until 1954 (Wilson, 1954). Initial assessments of students conceptions indicated that students did not possess adequate understandings of NOS and led to the conclusion that science teachers must not be attempting to teach nature of science. A second line of research focusing around curriculum development and assessment was initiated by Cooley and Klopfer (1963). The results of this movement were ambiguous. That is, the same curriculum was effective for 第 5 页 one teacher with a particular group of students, but not for another teacher with different group of students. The appropriate conclusion was that the individual science teacher must make a difference. Predictably, a subsequent line of research focused on the assessment of teachers conceptions. Disturbingly, there was no attempt to focus on the behaviors and other classroom variables related to individual teachers. The assessment of teachers conceptions of the nature of science indicated that they did not possess the desired level of understandi