Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel, sözde-bilimsel ayrımına yönelik algıları

Bilime olan ilginin artışıyla birlikte medyada daha çok teori, iddia gündeme getirilmeye başlanmıştır. Ancak bu iddiaların barındırdığı sözde-bilimsel anlatımlar, yanlış algılamalara yol açabilmektedir. Bu araştırmada, bu sorundan yola çıkılarak bireylerin bu tür tartışmalara hazırlanmasında en etkin bağlam olduğu düşünülen fen ve teknoloji dersi için yetiştirilen öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel, sözde-bilimsel ayrımına yönelik algıları, yeterlikleri inceleme konusu yapılmıştır. 57 birinci sınıf öğretmen adayı ile yürütülen araştırmanın veri kaynaklarını açık uçlu sorular, bir örnek olay metni ve rasgele seçilmiş on bir aday ile yapılan görüşmelerin kayıtları oluşturmuştur. Araştırma sonuçları adayların büyük çoğunluğunun eleştirel bir tavır içinde olmadığını, bir uçta ispatlanabilirlik üzerine kurulu, diğer uçta ise her şeyin inceleme konusu yapıldığı bir bilim anlayışı sergilediklerini ve bilimsel, sözde-bilimsel ayrımında büyük oranda yetersiz kaldıklarını göstermiştir.

Pre-service science teachers' perceptions about demarcation of science from pseudoscience

Due to increasing interest in science, theories and claims are placed in the media. However, theories and claims involving pseudoscientific expressions mislead individuals and cause some misconceptions about science. By taking that problem into consideration, evaluating the perceptions and competencies of teacher candidates about the issue of demarcation becomes a need simply because they are educated for science classes that are assumed to be the most proper contexts to prepare the individuals for such discussions. With this in mind, this demarcation is taken as the problem of this research. Open ended questions, a sample case and interviews performed by randomly selected 11 candidates constituted the data sources of the research in which 57 freshman candidates participated. Results showed that most of the participants perceive science as being provable on one hand and as a discipline that examines everything on the other. Also, they seem to lack skills necessary to examine science-pseudoscience difference critically which results in deficiencies in such an important demarcation.

PDF

___

[AAAS] American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving Science Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Critical Review of the Literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
Akçay, B. (2006). The Analysis of How to Improve Student Understanding of the Nature of Science: A Role of Teacher. Asia-Pasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-13. [Online]: Retrieved on 30-August-2009, at URL: http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt.
Anderson, P. F. (1983). Marketing, Scientific Progress and Scientific Method. Journal of Marketing, 47, 18- 31.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655-682.
Bauer, H. H. (2001a). Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena and Other Heterodoxies. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Bauer, H. H. (2002). Pathological Science is not Scientific Misconduct nor is it Pathological. International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 8(1), 5-20.
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.
Carnap, R. (1953). Testability and Meaning. In H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 47-92). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
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.
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining “Science” in a Multicultural World: Implications for Science Education. Science Education, 85(1), 50-67.
Curd, M., & Cover, J. A. (1998). Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: Norton.
Derry, G. N. (1999). What science is & How it works. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1988). Abandoning the Scientistic Legacy of Science Education. Science Education, 72, 51-62.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso.
Gardner, M. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: Dover Publications.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and Disciplinary Differences in Personal Epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific Literacy: New Minds for a Changing World. Science Education, 82(3), 407–416.
Irez, S. (2009). Nature of Science as Depicted in Turkish Biology Textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422- 447.
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.
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.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1981). Science and Pseudoscience. In S. Brown et al. (Eds.), Conceptions of Inquiry: A Reader. London: Methuen.
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.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., & Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology: Useful resources. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 182-191.
List, C. J. (1982). Science and Pseudoscience: Criteria of Demarcation. Reason Papers, 8, 49-58.
Lundström, M. (2007). “Students’ Beliefs in Pseudoscience.” Paper presented at ESERA conference, Malmö, Sweden.
Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the Paranormal, and Science Education. Science & Education, 3, 357-371.
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.
Matthews, M. (2000). Time for Science Education: How Teaching the History and Philosophy of Pendulum Motion can Contribute to Science Literacy. New York: Plenum Publishers.
May, D. B., & Etkina, E. (2002). College Physics Students’ Epistemological Self-Reflection and Its Relationship to Conceptual Learning. American Journal of Physics, 70(12), 1249-1258
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). Kluwer, Dordrecht.
MEB (2007). İlköğretim Medya Okuryazarlığı Dersi Öğretim Programı ve Taslağı, Ankara.
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.
Munby, H. (1982). “What Is Scientific Thinking?”. A Discussion Paper, Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
[NRC] National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Nickles, T. (2006). Problem of Demarcation. In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeifer (Eds.), The Philosophy of Science an Encyclopedia (pp. 188-197). New York: Routledge.
Park, R. L. (2000). Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Basic Books.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Physics Students’ Epistemologies and Views About Knowing and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 114-139.
Ruse, M. (1983). Creation-Science is not Science. In M.C. LaFollette (Ed.), Creationism, Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case (pp. 150-160). Cambridge: MA.
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.
Strauss, A. ve Corbin, J.(1990). Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Suchting, W. A. (1995). The Nature of Scientific Thought. Science & Education, 4, 1-22.
Thagard, P. (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience.In I. Hacking & P. Asquith (Eds.), PSA (pp. 223-234). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
Turgut, H. (2009). “The Nature of Science Teaching in the Context of Demarcation Issue.” Paper presented at the 10. IHPST Bienal Conference, Indiana, USA.