Preservice Science Teachers' Discrimination Level of Science and Pseudoscience

Murat Berat Uçar; Elvan Sahin

Murat Berat Uçar Department of Mathematics and Science Education, M. R. Faculty of Education, Kilis 7 Aralik University, Kilis, Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9479-7142
Elvan Sahin Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

This quantitative study aimed to examine Turkish pre-service science teachers’ beliefs regarding the demarcating between science and pseudoscience. Participants completed the Science and Pseudoscience Distinction Scale. Data collected from the 123 pre-service science teachers were examined based on the dimensions of the instrument, namely science as a process of inquiry (SCI), demarcating between science and pseudoscience, and pseudoscientific beliefs (PS). This study found that these pre-service science teachers generally did not hold strong beliefs on distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Their beliefs regarding SCI were not highly favorable. Moreover, this study revealed that they had some PS. Considering the role of gender and year in the program, the results of two-way MANOVA indicated that there was no statistically significant difference on the related belief constructs for these pre-service science teachers. Thus, the present study intended to shed light on pre-service science teachers’ mindsets about identifying accurate scientific information rather than pseudoscientific confusions that could aid preparing scientifically literate students. It was shown that their teacher education program did not facilitate favorable beliefs. This study highlights some potential areas for further exploration of addressing pre-service science teachers’ discrimination skills of science and pseudoscience.

References

Afonso, A.S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009). Pseudo-science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of ScienceEducation. 32(3), 329-348

Aristoteles, Orgonon IV: Ä°kinci Analitikler,(H. R. Atademir, Trans.). Ankara: KÃ¼ltÃ¼r BakanlÄ±ÄŸÄ± (1996)

AyvacÄ±, H. Åž., & BaÄŸ, H. (2016). SÄ±nÄ±f Ã¶ÄŸretmeni adaylarÄ±nÄ±n bilim sÃ¶zde-bilim ayrÄ±mÄ±na iliÅŸkin gÃ¶rÃ¼ÅŸlerinin incelenmesi. Amasya Ãœniversitesi EÄŸitim FakÃ¼ltesi Dergisi, 5(2), 539-566.

Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 279.

Citation [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionaries Online, Retrieved November 4, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science

Garrett, B. M., & Cutting, R. L. (2017). Magical beliefs and discriminating science from pseudoscience in undergraduate professional students. Heliyon, 3(11).

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Kant, I. (1855). Critique of Pure Reason. (J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Trans.) London.

Kaplan, A. O. (2014). Research on the pseudo-scientific beliefs of preservice science teachers: a sample from astronomy-astrology. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 381-393.

Kirman Ã‡etinkaya, E., LaÃ§in ÅžimÅŸek, C. ve Ã‡alÄ±ÅŸkan, H. (2013). Bilim ve sÃ¶zde-bilim ayrÄ±mÄ± iÃ§in bir Ã¶lÃ§ek uyarlama Ã§alÄ±ÅŸmasÄ±. Trakya Ãœniversitesi EÄŸitim FakÃ¼ltesi Dergisi, 3, 31â€“43.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 1-23.

Lakatos, I. (1981). Science and pseudoscience. In Stuart C. Brown, John Fauvel and Ruth H. Finnegan (eds.), Conceptions of Inquiry: A Reader, pages 114â€“121, London, UK: Methuen.

Lambert, K., & Brittan, G. G. (1992). An introduction to the philosophy of science. 4th ed.. Atascadero, CA: Ridgview Publishing.

Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell, & N.G. Lederman, (Editors), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sims, V., & Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 617-625.

Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Science & Education, 3(4), 357-371.

Metin, D., & Ertepinar, H. (2016). Inferring pre-service science teachersâ€™ understanding of science by using socially embedded pseudoscientific context. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(4), 340-358.

Oothoudt, B. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure understanding of the nature of science as a process of inquÄ±ry in comparison to pseudoscience. Unpublished master thesis, California State University, Department of Science Education

Popper, K. (1957). Philosophy of science. British Philosophy in the Mid-Century (ed. CA Mace). London: George Allen and Unwin.

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, London.

Sagan, C. (2011). Demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. Ballantine Books.

Åžeyda, G. (2016). Prospective Biology, Physics and Chemistry Teachersâ€™ Conceptions towards Science-Pseudoscience Distinction. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 9(2), 177-197.

Thagard, P. (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1978, 223-234

Turgut, H. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji Ã¶ÄŸretmen adaylarÄ±nÄ±n bilimsel, sÃ¶zde-bilimsel ayrÄ±mÄ±na yÃ¶nelik algÄ±larÄ±. EÄŸitim ve Bilim. 34(154), 50-68.