Pseudo-science: A Meaningful Context for Assessing Nature of Science Ana Sofia Afonso, John K. Gilbert To cite this version: Ana Sofia Afonso, John K. Gilbert. Pseudo-science: A Meaningful Context for Assessing Natureof Science. International Journal of Science Education, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2010, 32 (03), pp.329-348. 10.1080/09500690903055758. hal-00559601 HAL Id: hal-00559601 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00559601 Submitted on 26 Jan 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. International Journal of Science Education For Peer Review Only Pseudo-science: A Meaningful Context for Assessing Nature of Science Journal: International Journal of Science Education Manuscript ID: TSED-2008-0426.R2 Manuscript Type: Research Paper Keywords: nature of science, scientific literacy, university Keywords (user): pseudo-science, nature of science URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected] Page 1 of 35 International Journal of Science Education 1 1 2 3 Pseudo-science: A Meaningful Context for Assessing Nature of Science 4 5 6 7 8 Abstract 9 10 11 Although an understanding of nature of science is a core element in scientific literacy, there is 12 13 considerable evidence that school and university students hold naïve conceptions about it. It 14 15 is argued that, whilst the failure to learn about nature of science arises from its neglect in 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 formal science education, a major reason is the adherence to the precepts of pseudo-science, a 19 20 set of beliefs that have wide cultural currency in the general population. University science 21 22 and non-science students were interviewed about their beliefs in and explanations for ‘water 23 24 25 dowsing’, a pseudo-scientific approach to finding groundwater. The demarcation criteria 26 27 between science and pseudo-science and students’ research designs into ‘water dowsing’ 28 29 were also enquired into. The results show that many students believed in the working efficacy 30 31 32 of water dowsing and stated pseudo-scientific explanations for it. Furthermore, they were 33 34 unaware of the demarcation criteria between science and pseudo-science, and designed naïve 35 36 37 research studies to enquire into ‘water dowsing’. 38 39 40 41 Introduction 42 43 44 Nature of Science 45 46 Education for scientific literacy has emphasised the development of an understanding of 47 48 nature of science (NOS, henceforth) (Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Brown, 49 50 51 Reveles, & Kelly, 2005; DeBoer, 2000; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). Generally, 52 53 it refers ‘to the methods of science, the nature of scientific knowledge, and its institutions and 54 55 social practices’ (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003, p. 717). Scientific 56 57 58 knowledge is characterised by the following: it is tentative; it results from scientists’ 59 60 imagination and creativity; it is based on empirical evidence; it aims to be general and URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected] International Journal of Science Education Page 2 of 35 2 1 2 3 universal; it is socially constructed and it is influenced by current accepted paradigms, 4 5 6 scientists’ values, knowledge and prior experiences (Osborne et al., 2003). In order to study 7 8 the world, scientists use a diversity of methods and ways of thinking, which are commonly 9 10 11 referred to as scientific enquiry (SE, henceforth) (Lederman, 2007). Although each discipline 12 13 has its own SE, there are common aspects across disciplines. These enquiry skills identify 14 15 questions that can be answered by science, involve the design and conduct of scientific 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 investigations, use adequate techniques to gather, analyse and interpret data, use evidence to 19 20 generate models, and recognise and analyse alternative models. There are a number of 21 22 aspects to be considered within SE: different kinds of questions suggest different kinds of 23 24 25 scientific investigation; a range of types of models guide research; mathematics is an 26 27 important tool in SE; experiments are used to test ideas; technology is used to gather data 28 29 which enhances accuracy and allows scientists to quantify results; measurements are 30 31 32 associated with uncertainty; and causation and correlation are separate but associated ideas 33 34 (Bybee, 2004; Osborne et al., 2003). 35 36 37 Over the last 40 years, many studies have shown that there is a widespread weakness of 38 39 understanding of NOS amongst school students, pre-service science teachers and science 40 41 teachers (see Lederman, 1992, 2007). More recently, similar results were also found amongst 42 43 44 university students engaged in science and engineering areas (Ibrahm, Buffler, & Lubben, 45 46 2009; Palmer & Marra, 2004; Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999; Thoermer & Sodian, 2002). 47 48 In the light of these results, systematic and sustained efforts have been made to teach 49 50 51 NOS. Implicit and explicit teaching approaches have been designed. In the implicit teaching 52 53 approach, the effective understanding of NOS is the outcome of guided hands-on enquiry- 54 55 oriented activities. In the explicit teaching approach, the diverse dimensions of NOS are 56 57 58 overtly addressed and reinforced by reflective practical experience of their use (Bell, 2004; 59 60 Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Khishfe & Lederman, 2006). URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected] Page 3 of 35 International Journal of Science Education 3 1 2 3 Research with students and science teachers suggests that the implicit approach has had a 4 5 6 limited outcome, whilst the explicit approach seems to be more successful (Abd-El-Khalick 7 8 & Lederman, 2000; Bell, 2004; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Khishfe & Lederman, 9 10 11 2007). Evidence for the success of explicit approaches in the context of SE was also reported 12 13 in studies with university science students (Ryder et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 2004) and with 14 15 high-ability secondary science students (Bell et al., 2003). Ryder et al. reported that final-year 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 university science students improved their images of science after engaging in a 5-8 month- 19 20 long science project in which discussions on NOS occurred spontaneously and routinely. 21 22 Factors enhancing this understanding were: 1) the nature of the research projects undertaken, 23 24 25 for they involved an epistemological focus rather than only experimental practical work; 2) 26 27 the explicit instructional approach on NOS that accompanied the projects; and 3) students’ 28 29 exposure to a culture of research practice in a research laboratory. Similarly, Schwartz et al. 30 31 32 (2004) found that pre-service secondary science teachers, enrolled in a 5-year MA in science 33 34 teaching, improved their understanding of NOS after a research internship course which 35 36 37 included a research component, seminars and journal assignments. Some factors enhanced an 38 39 understanding of NOS: 1) the opportunity for reflection on NOS; 2) the context of the 40 41 interns’ research, even though their role was peripheral; and 3) the interns’ perspective on the 42 43 44 research. 45 46 In spite of the promising effectiveness of explicit approaches of several kinds, they seem 47 48 to be of limited success because students disregard the creative and imaginative aspect of 49 50 51 NOS (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002) or its subjective, social and cultural dimensions 52 53 (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Solomon, Duveen, Scot, & McCarthy, 1992). 54 55 The relative failure of attempts to teach NOS relates to the tenacity of individuals’ views on 56 57 58 NOS and/or to the content and context of teaching NOS (Akerson et al., 2000; Khishfe & 59 60 Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). These authors suggest that this relative limitation of the explicit URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected] International Journal of Science Education Page 4 of 35 4 1 2 3 approach can be overcome by integrating the explicit reflective instruction within a complete 4 5 6 conceptual change approach. In that, the learner must feel dissatisfied with the explanatory 7 8 value of existing knowledge (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gerzog, 1982) and needs both a 9 10 11 personal emotional drive and a socially-supportive context for successful conceptual change 12 13 to take place (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). The belief, widespread throughout all 14 15 communities in all countries, in what is often called ‘pseudo-science’, seems to be a suitable 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 context for learning NOS because it appeals to students’ interest. Also, it is socially and 19 20 personally relevant as individuals often have to deal with pseudo-scientific information in 21 22 their everyday life, e.g. the use/non-use of complementary alternative medicines (CAM). 23 24 25 Moreover, it provides a window into the individuals’ epistemological perspectives, since a 26 27 good grasp of NOS is essential to differentiate science from pseudo-science (Martin, 1971; 28 29 Matthews, 1998). On the other hand, we suggest that the adherence to the precepts of pseudo- 30 31 32 science may restrict the use of arguments based on NOS and constrain its full understanding.