Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Context of Demarcation in Nature of Science Teaching: The Case of Astrology

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of developing students’ understanding of the nature of science [NOS] has been considered an important aspect of science education. However, the results of previous research indicate that students of various ages and even teachers possess both inaccurate and inappropriate views of the NOS. Such a failure has been explained by the view that perceptions about the NOS are well assimilated into mental structures and resistant to change. Further, the popularization of pseudoscience by the media and the assimilation of pseudoscience into previously established scientific fields have been presented as possible reasons for erroneous popular perceptions of science. Any teaching intervention designed to teach the NOS should first provoke individuals to expose their current ideas in order to provide them the chance to revise or replace these conceptual frameworks. Based on these assumptions, the aim of this study was to determine whether a teaching context based on the issue of demarcation would provide a suitable opportunity for exposing and further developing the NOS understandings of individuals enrolled in a teacher education course. Results indicate that a learning intervention based on the issue of demarcation of science from pseudoscience (in the specific case of astrology) proved an effective instructional strategy, which a majority of teacher candidates claimed to plan to use in their future teachings.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ‘ideas about science’: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, H. H. (2002). Pathological science is not scientific misconduct nor is it pathological. International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 8(1), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, A. A. (2004). Methodology and politics: A proposal to teach the structuring ideas of the philosophy of science through the pendulum. Science & Education, 13, 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, A. A., Merce, I., & Anna, E. (2001). A characterisation of practical proposals to teach the philosophy of science to prospective science teachers. Paper Presented at the IOSTE Symposium, Paralimni, Cyprus.

  • Bunge, M. (1989). The popular perception of science. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 5(4), 269–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelao, T. (2002). Epistemology of science, science literacy, and the demarcation criterion: The nature of science (NOS) and informing science (IS) in context. Paper Presented at the Informing Science & IT Education Joint Conference: InSITE ‘Where Parallels Intersect’, Cork, Ireland.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, C. (2006). The metaphysics of science: An account of modern science in terms of principles, laws and theories (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Hani, C. N., & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 657–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauch, H. G. (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Science & Education, 18, 667–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, R. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, D. (1998). Philosophy of science in the 20th century: Four central themes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammrich, P. L. (1997). Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irez, S., & Cakir, M. (2006). Critical reflective approach to teach the nature of science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing science: The case against creationism. MIT-Press: Cambridge, MA.

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J. (2007). Ontological, epistemological and methodological positions. In T. A. Kuipers (Ed.), General philosophy of science: Focal issues (pp. 303–376). Nort Holland: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1981). Science and pseudoscience. In S. Brown, et al. (Eds.), Conceptions of inquiry: A reader (pp. 114–121). Methuen: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs and instructional strategies in science; Pushing analysis further. Science Education, 81(3), 277–294.

    Article  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). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. (2004). Teaching psychology students to distinguish science from pseudoscience: Pitfalls and rewards. In B. K. Saville (Ed.), Essays from excellence in teaching (pp. 26–32). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., & Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in science and pseudoscience of psychology: Useful resources. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 182–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from nonscience. In T. A. Kuipers (Ed.), General philosophy of science: Focal issues (pp. 515–576). Nort Holland: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mats, L. (2007). Students’ beliefs in pseudoscience. Paper Presented at ESERA, Malmö, Sweden.

  • Matthews, M. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2000). Time for science education: How teaching the history and philosophy of pendulum motion can contribute to science literacy. NY: Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on students views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case studies application in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data and analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morier, D., & Keeports, D. (1994). Normal science and the paranormal: The effect of a scientific method course on students’ beliefs in the paranormal. Research in Higher Education, 35, 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickles, T. (2006). Problem of demarcation. In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeifer (Eds.), The philosophy of science an Encyclopedia (pp. 188–197). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking? In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 283–294). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, P. F., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. (2003). Kuhn’s philosophy of scientific practice. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 101–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design & umbrellology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchting, W. (1995). The nature of scientific thought. Science & Education, 4(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted curriculum. Science & Education, 6(4), 335–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesp, R., & Montgomery, K. (1998). Developing critical thinking through the study of paranormal phenomena. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 275–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to appreciate helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper from Michael Matthews, Serhat Irez, and anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ataturk Faculty of Education, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Halil Turgut

Authors
  1. Halil Turgut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Halil Turgut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turgut, H. The Context of Demarcation in Nature of Science Teaching: The Case of Astrology. Sci & Educ 20, 491–515 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9250-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9250-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation