Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers' Conceptions About Science and Pseudoscience

Distinguishing Astronomy from Astrology

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The demarcation problem as one of the most prominent topics in the philosophy of science deserves a higher profile in science education literature as a part of the discussions about the instruction of the nature of science (NOS) concepts to generate a scientifically literate society. In this qualitative survey research study, the views of the practicing elementary, physics, and science teachers were investigated in regard to the demarcation of science from pseudoscience within the specific context of astronomy and astrology. The content analysis approach was employed in the study to analyze the open-ended responses of a total of 780 participant teachers. The teachers utilized the following six distinct dimensions in order to distinguish science from pseudoscience: universality, source, verification, methodology, aims, and progressiveness. The teacher responses about the demarcation of science from pseudoscience and non-science included the several elements of the logical positivism as a dominant philosophical framework. The conceptions of many teachers about science were not necessarily aligned with the contemporary representations of NOS in science education. In professional development programs, teachers should be allowed to refine their NOS conceptions by examining a pluralistic view of science reflecting the perspectives of multiple scholars from different disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

source of scientific knowledge

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education s (pp. 389–425). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aflalo, E. (2014). Advancing the perceptions of the nature of science (NOS): Integrating teaching the NOS in a science content course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 298–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, Brian J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P

  • Anelli, C. (2011). Scientific literacy: What is it, are we teaching it, and does it matter. American Entomologist, 57(4), 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolou, A., & Koulaidis, V. (2010). Epistemology and science education: A study of epistemological views of teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(2), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2014). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of NOS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1083–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backhus, D. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2006). Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1286–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzul, J. (2017). From orthodoxy to plurality in the nature of science (NOS) and science education: A metacommentary. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550

  • Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25, 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, G. W. (2018). Identifying pseudoscience: A social process criterion. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(3), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Chen, D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, E. M. V. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fasce, A. (2020). Are pseudosciences like seagulls? A discriminant metacriterion facilitates the solution of the demarcation problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 32(3–4), 155–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Beanato, D. (2020). The multicriterial approach to the problem of demarcation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 51(3), 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Verso. (Original work published 1975)

  • Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, S. (2001). What makes sciences “scientific”? In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 21–35). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasson, G. E., & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84(4), 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, S. (1982). A note on the nature of science: Its meaning to social and physical scientists. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 23(3–4), 249–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. (2012). Why the study of pseudoscience should be included in nature of science studies. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 97–106). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Good, R., & Shymansky, J. (2001). Nature-of-science literacy in benchmarks and standards: Post-modern/relativist or modern/realist? Science & Education, 10, 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra-Ramos, M. T., Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2010). Ideas about the nature of science in pedagogically relevant contexts: Insights from a situated perspective of primary teachers’ knowledge. Science Education, 94(2), 282–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2015). Pedagogical reflections by secondary science teachers at different NOS implementation levels. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

  • Hodson, D. (2006). Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 6(3), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(2) 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1450.

  • Kallery, M. (2001). Early-years educators’ attitudes to science and pseudo-science: The case of astronomy and astrology. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(3), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)

  • Lakatos, I. (1968). Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (Vol. 69, pp. 149–186). Blackwell Publishing.

  • Lakatos, I. (1977). Science and Pseudoscience. Philosophical Papers, 1, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1989). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis (pp. 111–127). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Kim, B. S., & Ko, E. K. (2012). Teaching and learning of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Building capacity through systematic research-based professional development. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 125–152). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A. S. L., & Yung, B. H. W. (2014). Understandings of nature of science and multiple perspective evaluation of science news by non-science majors. Science & Education, 24(7), 887–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losh, S. C., & Nzekwe, B. (2011). The influence of education major: How diverse preservice teachers view pseudoscience topics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2009). History, philosophy, and science teaching: The new engagement. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Nouri, N. (2020). Nature of science and classroom practice: A review of the literature with implications for effective NOS instruction. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 67–111). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Metin, D., Cakiroglu, J., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2017). Perceptions of eight graders concerning the aim, effectiveness, and scientific basis of pseudoscience: The case of crystal healing. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9685-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murcia, K., & Schibeci, R. (1999). Primary student teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1123–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E. (2016). Scientists taking a nature of science course: Beliefs and learning outcomes of career switchers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(3), 148–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E., & Baynard, L. R. (2013). Network analysis of beliefs about the scientific enterprise: A comparison of scientists, middle school science teachers and eighth-grade science students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2801–2837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1934)

  • Posnanski, T. J. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for inservice elementary teachers: Project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 589–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2000). A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 31(2), 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American Scientist, 63(3), 265–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, S. A., Golden, B., & Enderle, P. (2012). The bounded nature of science: An effective tool in an equitable approach to the teaching of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 75–96). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C., Shein, P.P., Jack, B.M., Wu, K., Chou, C., Wu, Y.,…Huang, T. (2012). Effects of exposure to pseudoscientific television programs upon Taiwanese citizens’ pseudoscientific beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(2), 175-194

  • White, E. (2014). Science, pseudoscience, and the frontline practitioner: The vaccination/autism debate. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11(3), 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, D. Y. (2006). Using history to promote understanding of nature of science in science teachers. Teaching Education, 17(2), 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaboski, B. A., & Therriault, D. J. (2020). Faking science: Scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educational Psychology, 40(7), 820–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey

    Ayhan Karaman

Authors
  1. Ayhan Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayhan Karaman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karaman, A. Teachers' Conceptions About Science and Pseudoscience. Sci & Educ 32, 499–528 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00312-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00312-0

Search

Navigation