SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Individual Differences in Education / 2024 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Pre-Service Teachers' Levels of Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

Hasan Şahin Kızılcık(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8622-0765
Pages
102–114
Publication Date
2024-12-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, no significant difference is found in terms of gender in all four factors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine whether pre-service teachers can distinguish between pseudoscience and science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were gathered from 307 pre-service teachers studying in various fields at a public institution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, no significant difference is found in terms of gender in all four factors.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Pseudoscience · Pseudoscientific beliefs · Pre-service teachers

Abstract

This study aims to examine whether pre-service teachers can distinguish between pseudoscience and science. A survey method was used in this study. Data were gathered from 307 pre-service teachers studying in various fields at a public institution. They were split into two categories: "Natural Science and Mathematics Teaching" and "Social Sciences and Art Teaching." A Likert scale was used, consisting of four factors: "Pseudoscience," "Scientific Methods," "Discrimination between Science and Pseudoscience," and "Pseudoscientific Beliefs." As a result, pre-service teachers have a poor understanding of pseudoscience. They also struggle to differentiate between pseudoscience and science. An adequate grasp of scientific technique does not contribute positively to their pseudoscientific ideas. It is especially evident among those in the Social Sciences and Art Teaching fields who have not received specialised training in the history and philosophy of science. However, no significant difference is found in terms of gender in all four factors.

Özet

This study aims to examine whether pre-service teachers can distinguish between pseudoscience and science. A survey method was used in this study. Data were gathered from 307 pre-service teachers studying in various fields at a public institution. They were split into two categories: "Natural Science and Mathematics Teaching" and "Social Sciences and Art Teaching." A Likert scale was used, consisting of four factors: "Pseudoscience," "Scientific Methods," "Discrimination between Science and Pseudoscience," and "Pseudoscientific Beliefs." As a result, pre-service teachers have a poor understanding of pseudoscience. They also struggle to differentiate between pseudoscience and science. An adequate grasp of scientific technique does not contribute positively to their pseudoscientific ideas. It is especially evident among those in the Social Sciences and Art Teaching fields who have not received specialised training in the history and philosophy of science. However, no significant difference is found in terms of gender in all four factors.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kızılcık, H. Ş. (2024). Pre-Service Teachers' Levels of Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.47156/jide.1550120

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Aarnio, K. & Lindeman, M. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, education, and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1227–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.009
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
  3. Afonso, A. S. & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudoscience: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903055758
  4. Ağlarcı, O. & Kabapınar, F. (2016). Developing prospective chemistry teachers' views of science and pseudoscience. Amasya Education Journal, 5(1), 248-286. https://doi.org/10.17539/aej.33301
  5. Altındağ, C., Tunç Şahin, C., & Saka, Y. (2012). An example activity for teaching the nature of science. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities (JIBA), 2(1), 1-9. https://www.ated.info.tr/ojs-3.2.1-3/index.php/ated/article/view/81
  6. Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Wineburg, S., Rapaport, A., Carle, J., Garland, M., & Saavedra, A. (2019). Students’ civic online reasoning: A national portrait. Stanford History Education Group & Gibson Consulting. https://purl.stanford.edu/gf151tb4868
  7. Çetinkaya, E., Turgut, H., Duru, M. K., & Ercan, S. (2015). The first step in scientific literacy: improving students’ academic knowledge in the context of science – pseudoscience demarcation. Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education Journal, 24, 446-476. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.546
  8. Gecewicz, C. (2018). ‘New Age’ beliefs common among both religious and nonreligious Americans. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/2NR7Bme
  9. George, D. & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
  10. Gray, T. (1984). University course reduces belief in the paranormal. The Skeptical lnquirer, 8, 247-251.
  11. Gül, Ş. (2016). Prospective biology, physics and chemistry teachers’ conceptions towards science-pseudoscience distinction. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 9(2), 177-197.
  12. Gürgil, F. (2019). An analysis of the discrimination made by pre-service social studies teachers between science and pseudoscience. Journal of History School, 42, 965-984. https://doi.org/10.29228/joh.30213
  13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
  14. Irez, S. (2008). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20305
  15. Jackson, S.L. (2011). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Approach, 4th edition, Cengage Learning.
  16. Keranto, T. (2001). The perceived credibility of scientific claims, paranormal phenomena, and miracles among primary teacher students: A comparative study. Science & Education, 10, 493–511. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011261132355
  17. Kızılcık, H. Ş. (2022). Pseudo-scientific beliefs and knowledge of the nature of science in pre-service teachers. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 8(4), 680-712. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.2899
  18. Kızılcık, H. Ş. (2024). Pseudoscientific beliefs and media literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 46(17), 1811-1825. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2300379
  19. Kızılcık, H. Ş., Temiz, B. K., Tan, M. & İngeç, Ş. K. (2007). Sözel bölüm öğretmen adaylarının fen bilimlerine, fen eğitimine ve teknolojiye karşı tutumlarının araştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim - Education and Science, 32(146), Ekim/October 2007, 80-88.
  20. Kirman-Çetinkaya, E. & Laçin-Şimşek, C. (2012, June). Knowledge levels of prospective teachers regarding scientific method: Science-pseudo-science distinction. Presentation in 10th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Niğde, Turkey.
  21. Kirman-Çetinkaya, E., Şimşek-Laçin, C. & Çalışkan, H. (2013). The adaptation study of science and pseudoscience distinction. Trakya University Journal of Education, 3(2), 31-43.
  22. Lundström, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Students' ideas regarding science and pseudoscience in relation to the human body and health. Nordic Studies in Science Education. 5(1), 3- 15. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.279
  23. MacKenzie, A. H. (2020). Scientific Media Literacy, The Science Teacher, 87(5), 6.
  24. Mencken, F. C., Bader, C. D., & Stark, R. (2008). Conventional Christian beliefs and experimentation with the paranormal. Review of Religious Research, 50, 194–205. https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_conventional-1.pdf
  25. Mencken, F. C., Bader, C. D., & Kim, Y. J. (2009). Round trip to hell in a flying saucer: the relationship between conventional Christian and paranormal beliefs in the United States. Sociology of Religion, 70, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srp013
  26. National Science Board (2006). Science and engineering indicators - 2006. National Science Foundation Press.
  27. Oothoudt, B. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure understanding of the nature of science as a process of inquiry in comparison to pseudoscience. Master Dissertation. Long Beach: California State University, Department of Science Education.
  28. Peltzer, K. (2003). Magical thinking and paranormal beliefs among secondary and university students in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1419–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00359-8
  29. Preece, P. F. W. & Baxter, J. H. (2000). Scepticism and gullibility: the superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs of secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1147-1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050166724
  30. Saka, M. & Sürmeli, H. (2017). Pre-service science teachers' use of NOS in pseudoscientific scenarios. Trakya Journal of Education, 7(2), 504-525. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.305999
  31. Shermer, M. (2002). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. Freeman and Company.
  32. Silva, T. & Woody, A. (2022). Supernatural sociology: Americans’ beliefs by race/ethnicity, gender, and education. Socius, 8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221084775
  33. Sjödin, U. (2002). The Swedes and the paranormal. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 17(1), 75-85, https://doi.org/10.1080/13537900120098174
  34. Snow, C. & Collini, S. (2012). The Two Cultures (Canto Classics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196949
  35. Şenler, B. & İrven, Ö. (2016). Primary pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs and pseudoscientific beliefs. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(2), 659-671. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.25364
  36. Turgut, H. (2007). Scientific literacy for all. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2), 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000176
  37. Turgut, H. (2009). Pre-service science teachers’ perceptions about demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Education and Science, 34(154), 50-69. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/548/36
  38. Uçar, M. B., & Şahin, E. (2018). Pre-service science teachers' discrimination level of science and pseudoscience. Science Education International, 29(4), 267-273.
  39. Williams, E., Francis, L.J., & Robbins, M. (2007). Personality and paranormal belief: A study among adolescents. Pastoral Psychology, 56, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-007-0094-x
  40. Wilson, J. A. (2018). Reducing pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs in university students through a course in science and critical thinking. Science & Education, 27, 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9956-0
  41. Woods, P. J. (1984). Evidence for the Effectiveness of a reading program in changing beliefs in the paranormal. The Skeptical Inquirer, 9(1), 67-70. https://skepticalinquirer.org/1984/10/evidence-for-the-effectiveness-of-a-reading-program/