Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Problem of Pseudoscience in Science Education and Implications of Constructivist Pedagogy

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The intrusion of pseudoscience into science classrooms is a problem in science education today. This paper discusses the implications of constructivist pedagogy, which relies on the notions of viability and inter-subjectivity, in a context favourable to the acceptance of pseudoscience. Examples from written statements illustrate how prospective science teachers in Turkey readily accept pseudoscientific explanations of the origin of species. Constructivist pedagogy underestimates, if not ignores, the difficulty of holding rational discussions in the presence of pseudoscientific or absolute beliefs. Moreover, it gives a higher priority to learners’ exposure to alternative constructions through social negotiation than to furthering their appreciation of science. Under these circumstances, self-confirmation and social pressure to accept existing pseudoscientific beliefs may be unanticipated consequences of social negotiation. Considering the aim of science education to foster an appreciation of science, the implications of constructivist pedagogy are, or should be, of great concern to science educators.

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

  • Beike, D. R., & Sherman, S. J. (1994). Social inference: Inductions, deductions, and analogies. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 209–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the classroom. Science, 331, 404–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernal, P. J. (2006). Addressing the philosophical confusion regarding constructivism in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(2), 324–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon J. (2013). Science insider.http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/07/turkish-scientists-see-new-evidence-governments-anti-evolution-bias. Accessed 30 Nov 2013.

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (2011). Knowledge: Genuine and bogus. Science & Education, 20(5–6), 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish-Bowden, A., & Cardenaz, M. L. (2007). The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology. Biological Research, 40, 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440, 757–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devilly, G. J. (2005). Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(6), 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, E., Turic, K., Milasowszky, N., van Adzin, K., & Hergovich, A. (2011). The relationship between paranormal belief, creationism, intelligent design and evolution at secondary schools in Vienna (Austria). Science & Education, 20(5–6), 517–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987). http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html. Accessed Nov 30, 2013.

  • Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality (pp. 165–192). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1981). Realism and instrumentalism: Comments on the logic of factual support in realism, rationalism, and scientific method. Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, Cambridge: U.P. Cambridge.

  • Gee, H., Howlett, R., & Campbell, P. (2009). 15 evolutionary gems. Nature,. doi:10.1038/nature07740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, R., & Slezak, P. (2011). Editors’ introduction. Science & Education, 20(5–6), 401–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R. E. (1998). Constructivism and objectivity: Disentangling metaphysics from pedagogy. In M. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination (pp. 113–124). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: ‘What is strong objectivity?’. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herron, D. (2008). Advice to my intellectual grand children. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(1), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G. (2001). Back to basics: A philosophical critique of constructivism. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20(2), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005). 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005. http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2013.

  • Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen (Ed.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis: Essays in honour of Adolf Grünbaum, Boston studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 111–127). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lebo, L. (2008). The devil in the Dover. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, M. (1998). Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 257–265. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Constructivism and science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.), Science Teaching (pp. 137–161). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (1998). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (1999). Social constructivism and mathematics education: Some comments. Philosophy of Education, pp. 330–341.

  • Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Smith, J., & Mitchell, I. (1997). Teaching about constructivism using approaches informed by constructivism. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education (pp. 129–153). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(11), 765–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (MEB) (2005). Primary science and technology curriculum for grades 6,7,8. [İlköğretim fen ve teknolojidersi (6-7-8. sınıflar) öğretim program ve kılavuzu]. Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü, Ankara.

  • Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2001). Radical constructivism in science education. Unpublished master thesis. Bogazici University, Istanbul.

  • Mugaloglu, E.Z. & Erduran, S. (2012). Prospective science teachers' appreciation of science: the case of evolution vs. intelligent design. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 Conference: Science learning and Citizenship. Part 5 (L. Maurines & A. Redfors), (pp. 100–105) Lyon, France: European Science Education Research Association. ISBN: 978-9963-700-44-8

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. Boston: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M., & Ahlberg, P. (2010). Tetrapod track ways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature, 463(7227), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and in science education: A philosophical critique. Science & Education, 6(1–2), 55–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurse, P. (2001).The common genetic code. PBS 2013. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/l_044_02.htl. Accessed 19 May 2013.

  • Peker, D., Cömert, G. G., & Kence, A. (2010). Three decades of anti-evolution campaign and its results: Turkish undergraduates’ acceptance and understanding of the biological evolution theory. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 739–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (2002). Should creationism be taught in the public schools? Science & Education, 11(2), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (2010). The postmodern sin of intelligent design creation. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quale, A. (2008). Radical constructivism: A relativist epistemic approach to science education. Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the World. Princeton U.P: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayers, Z., & Özcan, Z. (2013). Attitudes towards teaching evolution in Turkey. APSNews, 22(6), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(5), 468–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. (2010). Response to Taber on chemical constructivism. New Zealand Journal of Chemical Education, Nov 15–18.

  • Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2003). Evolution: what’s wrong with ‘teaching the controversy’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(10), 499–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shubin, N. H., Daeschler, E. B., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). The pectoral fin of Tiktaalikroseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb. Nature, 440, 764–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. (2013). The role of authority in science and religion with implications for science teaching and learning. Science & Education, 22(3), 605–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchting, W. A. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed. Science & Education, 1(3), 223–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2010). Straw men and false dichotomies: Overcoming philosophical confusion in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatto, M. T. (1999). Improving teacher education in rural Mexico: The challenges and tensions of constructivist reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thewissen, J. G. M., Cooper, L. N., Clementz, M. T., Bajpai, S., & Tiwari, B. N. (2007). Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India. Nature, 450, 1190–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toprak, Z. (2012). From Darwin to Dersim: Republic and anthropology [Darwin’den Dersime cumhuriyet ve antropoloji]. Istanbul: DoganYayinlari.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steirer (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 12–29). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Washington: AAA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995a). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995b). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Galei (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3–15). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Constructivism reconstructed: A reply to Suchting. In M. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination (pp. 11–30). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ebru Z. Mugaloglu

Authors
  1. Ebru Z. Mugaloglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebru Z. Mugaloglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mugaloglu, E.Z. The Problem of Pseudoscience in Science Education and Implications of Constructivist Pedagogy. Sci & Educ 23, 829–842 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9670-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9670-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation