【導讀】Lederman,1992).Althoughthe“natureofscience”hasbeendefinedin. workingsdidtoo(Abd-El-Khalick&Lederman,1998).However,attheend,

　　

【正文】 ning theory in the mid to late 1980s, science educators shifted their emphasis to helping students construct stronger and more generalized cognitive models of scientific ideas. Science educators also appeared to emphasize sequencing in instruction to help students for better construction of scientific models and improving teacher educational programs for better facilitating students in their constructivist classrooms. To illustrate these points, this paper discusses two articles on teaching the nature of science. In an article Lawson (1999) argued that “sequencing instruction that focuses on scientific reasoning pattern first in observable context and then in nonobservable context helps students better understand the nature of science and use scientific reasoning in and beyond the science classroom” (p. 第 13 頁 401). To the question “How can we help students develop theoretical reasoning patterns and acquire an accurate understanding of the nature of science?” asked by Lawson, he himself answered with the following statement, “If intellectual development is truly stagelake, then for “descriptive” students it would appear that we need to immerse them in “hypothetical” contexts and provide lots of opportunities for direct physical experience, for social interaction with others, and for equilibration. Once these students develop hypothetical reasoning patterns, we then need to repeat the process in theoretical contexts. In other words, teachers need to: 1) know where their students are in their intellectual development, 2) be aware of the intellectual demands that instructional tasks place on students reasoning abilities, 3) correctly match instructional contexts with students abilities, and 4) sequence contexts in a way that moves from description and classification, to casual hypothesis testing in familiar contexts, to casual hypothesis testing in notsofamiliar contexts, and then to theory testing (where theories are defined as general explanatory systems that postulate the existence of unseen entities and/or processes) (p. 407). In another article McComas (2021) argued that “misconceptions about science are most likely due to the lack of philosophy of science content in teacher education programs and the failure of such programs to provide real science research experiences for preservice teachers while another source of the problem may be the generally shallow treatment of the nature of science in the textbooks to which teachers might turn for guidance” (p. 53). The “myths of science” monly included in science textbooks, in classroom discourse, and in the minds of adult Americans, which are incorrect representations of the nature of science, are described by McComas as follows: ![endif] Hypothesis bee theories that in turn bees laws Scientific laws and other such ideas are absolute 第 14 頁 A hypothesis is an educated guess ![endif] A general and universal scientific method exists ![endif] Evidence accumulated carefully will result in sure knowledge Science and its methods provide absolute proof Science is procedural more than creative Science and its methods can answer all questions ![endif] Scientists are particularly objective Experiments are the principal route to scientific knowledge Scientific conclusions are reviewed for accuracy Acceptance of new scientific knowledge is straightforward Science models represent reality Science and technology are identical Science is a solitary pursuit McComas warns that “both students and those who teach science must focus on the nature of science itself rather than just its facts and principles, school science must give students an opportunity to experience science and its processes, free of the legends, misconceptions and idealizations inherent in the myths about the nature of the scientific enterprise” (p. 68). These two articles illustrate the major difference between articles promoting the teaching of the nature of science from cognitive science learning theory perspective from that of a constructivist learning theory perspective. That difference is the shifting of the emphasis on the teaching 第 15 頁 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. Conclusion and implications It seems clear from examining both the research and the teaching literature that constructivism has influenced research on the teaching and learning of the 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. Implications for classroom teaching could be formation of cooperative learning groups and letting student in these groups to talk freely about issues of nature of science among themselves and share these ideas with the whole class, so that they can explore more indepth their misconceptions. Another implication could be giving students in these groups homework where they will explore the life of a famous scientist and act his life in front of the class or present it as a slide show. 第 16 頁 譯 文 題目： 在 建構(gòu)主義的影響 下以 課堂 為 主體 對 自然科學領(lǐng)域的研究 收到： 2021 年 3 月 19 日， 修改： 2021 年 9 月 21 日 摘要 本文 大體上是關(guān)于 建構(gòu)主義對 自然 科學 的影響， 建構(gòu)主義 對