Pedagogical Formation Students’ Science-Pseudoscience Beliefs

Abstract

The concept of pseudoscience is generally defined as claims offered for scientific views but lack any supportive evidence or are hardly reasonable. Although it is necessary to examine the science-pseudoscience beliefs of all individuals in general terms, it is seen that the teacher candidates are included as participants in the studies carried on in Turkey with respect to the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Yet, the pseudoscience beliefs of pedagogical formation students having the potential to become a teacher in the future should be examined as well. From this point of view, this paper aims at determining the beliefs of formation students on distinction between science and pseudoscience. Mixed method has been preferred in the paper. The participants cover a group of 107 individuals who continue their education of formation at a state university of Turkey. The data have been collected from the participants through open-ended questions and using the “Science-Pseudoscience Distinction Scale”. Descriptive and statistical analyses as well as content analysis have been applied on the relevant data. The relevant analysis results have indicated that pseudoscience beliefs of the formation students are high. It has been suggested at the end of the study to perform implementations of discussed science activities with the formation of students.

Keywords

• Pedagogical formation
• Pseudoscience
• Science

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
2. Afonso, A.S., & Gilbert, J.K. (2010). Pseudo-science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329-348.
3. Alkış Küçükaydın, M., & Gökbulut, Y. (2020). Beliefs of teacher candidates toward science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 134-150.
4. Allchin, D. (1996). Points east and west: Acupuncture and comparative philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 63, 107–115.
5. Altınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K., & Erol, E. (2014). Pedagojik formasyon programı öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik motivasyonları [Pedagogic formation program students’ motivations for teaching profession]. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 48-62.
6. Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Bağ, H. (2016). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilim sözde-bilim ayrımına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of elementary teacher candidates’ views on pseudoscience distinction]. Amasya Education Journal, 5(2), 539-566.
7. Bakaç, E., & Özen, R. (2017). Pedagojik formasyon öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik öz-yeterlik inançları ile tutumları arasındaki ilişki [Relationship between pedagocical certificate program students’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs towards teacher profession]. Kastamonu Education Jounal, 25(4), 1389-1404.
8. Beyerstein, B. L. (1996). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University. Prepared for The Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Victoria, B.C., Canada. Downloaded 13. 10. 2020 from https://www.dcscience.net/beyerstein_science_vs_pseudoscience.pdf

9. Camci-Erdogan, S. (2019). How do prospective elementary and gifted education teachers perceive scientists and distinguish science from pseudoscience? Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 5(1), 119-133.
10. Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications.
12. Çepni, S. (2019). Kuramdan uygulamaya fen ve teknoloji öğretimi[Science and technology teaching from theory to practice]. S. Çepni (Ed). In Bilim, fen, teknoloji kavramlarının eğitim programlarına yansımaları [Reflections of science, science and technology concepts on educational programs] (pp.2-12). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
13. Çocuk, H. E., Yokuş, G., & Tanrıseven, I. (2015). Pedagogical formation students’ self-efficacy and metaphoric perceptions related to teaching profession. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 12(32), 373-387.
14. Demircioğlu, E., & Özdemir, M. (2014). Pedagojik formasyon öğrencilerinin çok kültürlü eğitime yönelik tutumlarının bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [Analysis of pedagogical formation students’ attitudes toward multicultural education]. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 211-232.
15. Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24(1), 17-42.
16. Eraslan, L., & Çakıcı, D. (2011). Pedagojik formasyon programı öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları [Pedagogical formation program students’ attitudes towards teaching profession]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 19(2), 427-438.
17. Es, H. & Turgut, H. (2018). Candidate classroom teachers’ perceptions about being scientific in the context of pseudoscience. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 4(2), 142-154.
18. Jones, J. P. (2002). Ultrasonic acupuncture and the correlation between acupuncture stimulation and the activation of associated brain cortices using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 22, 362–370.
19. Kallery, M. (2001). Early-years educators' attitudes to science and pseudoscience: The case of astronomy and astrology. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(3), 329-342.
20. Kirman Çetinkaya, E., Laçin Şimşek, C., & Çalışkan, H. (2013). Bilim ve sözde-bilim ayrımı için bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması [The adaptation study of science and pseudoscience distinction]. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 31-43.
21. Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Lundström, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Students’ ideas regarding science and pseudo-science in relation to the human body and health. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 3-17.
23. Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Science & Education, 3(4), 357-371.
24. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In The nature of science in science education (pp. 3-39). Dordrecht: Springer.
25. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Science course curriculum (Primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)] Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Temel Eğitim Genel Müdürlüğü.
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. Özdemir, T. Y., & Erol, Y.C. (2015). Pedagojik formasyon eğitimi alan öğretmen adaylarının okul, öğretmenlik ve öğrenci kavramlarına ilişkin algıları [The perceptions of prospective teachers having pedagogic formation education about the notions of school, teaching and student]. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 215-244.
29. Özgelen, S.(2013). Development of nature of science scale. Journal of Kastamonu Faculty of Education, 21(2), 711-736.
30. Popper, K. R. (1963). Science as falsification. Conjectures and Refutations, 1, 33-39.
31. Preece, P. F. W., & Baxter, J. H. (2000). Scepticism and gullibility: The superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs of secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1147-1156.
32. Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York, NY: Random House.
33. Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
34. Smith, M. U., & Scharman, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493-509.
35. Süral, S., & Sarıtaş, E. (2015). Pedagojik formasyon programına katılan öğrencilerin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik yeterliklerinin incelenmesi [The investigation of the students of pedagogical formation the towards teaching profession qualifications]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11(1), 62-75.
36. Şenler, B., & İrven, Ö. (2016). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının epistemolojik inançları ile sözde-bilimsel inançları [Primary pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs and pseudoscientific beliefs]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(2), 659-671.
37. Topuz, İ., (2012). Gençlerde normatif, popüler ve paranormal inançlar üzerine bir araştırma: SDÜ örneği [A research on normative, popular and paranormal beliefs in youth: SDU example]. Review of the Faculty of Divinity University of Süleyman Demirel, 29, 13-40.
38. Turgut, H. (2009). Pre-service science teachers' perceptions about demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Education and Science, 34(154), 50-68.
39. Turgut, H., Eş, H., Bozkurt Altan, E., & Öztürk Geren, N. (2016). Pre-service pre-school teachers’ perceptions of science and pseudoscience. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 150-169.
40. Uçar, M. B., & Sahin, E. (2018). Pre-service science teachers' discrimination level of science and pseudoscience. Science Education International, 29(4), 267-273.
41. Uluyol, Ç., & Şahin, S. (2018). Pedagojik formasyon öğrencilerinin öğretmen kimliği ve mesleki kaygı durumlarının incelenmesi [Investigation of pedagogical formation students’ teaching identity and professional loss conditions]. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 22(4), 1051-1071.