Jou nal o Indi idual Di e ences in Educa ion, 2024, 6(2), 102-114
To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.47156/ jide.1550120
P e-Se ice Teache s' Le els o Dis inguishing Science and
Pseudoscience
Hasan Şahin Kızılcık
Gazi Uni e si y, Gazi Facul y o Educa ion, Physics Educa ion Depa men , Anka a
ABSTRACT1
ARTICLE INFO
This s udy aims o examine whe he p e-se ice eache s can dis inguish
be ween pseudoscience and science. A su ey me hod was used in his
s udy. Da a we e ga he ed om 307 p e-se ice eache s s udying in
a ious ields a a public ins i u ion. They we e spli in o wo ca ego ies:
"Na u al Science and Ma hema ics Teaching" and "Social Sciences and A
Teaching." A Like scale was used, consis ing o ou ac o s:
"Pseudoscience," "Scien i ic Me hods," "Disc imina ion be ween Science
and Pseudoscience," and "Pseudoscien i ic Belie s." As a esul , p e-se ice
eache s ha e a poo unde s anding o pseudoscience. They also s uggle
o di e en ia e be ween pseudoscience and science. An adequa e g asp o
scien i ic echnique does no con ibu e posi i ely o hei pseudoscien i ic
ideas. I is especially e iden among hose in he Social Sciences and A
Teaching ields who ha e no ecei ed specialised aining in he his o y
and philosophy o science. Howe e , no signi ican di e ence is ound in
e ms o gende in all ou ac o s.
A icle His o y:
Recei ed:14.09.2024
Recei ed in e ised o m:31.10.2024
Accep ed:01.11.2024
A ailable online:30.12.2024
A icle Type: Resea ch A icle
To Ci e This A icle: Kızılcık, H.Ş. (2024).
P e-se ice eache s' le els o dis inguishing
science and pseudoscience. Jou nal o
Indi idual Di e ences in Educa ion, 6(2), 102-
114, DOI: 10.47156/ jide.1550120
Keywo ds: Pseudoscience, Pseudoscien i ic belie s, P e-se ice eache s,
Fields, Gende
1. In oduc ion
The e m "pseudoscience" e e s o belie s and a gumen s ha lack empi ical backing, con adic
accep ed scien i ic p inciples, and employ scien i ic language o appea au hen ic (She me , 2002).
When making c ucial o li e-al e ing decisions, aising awa eness o he dange s o pseudoscien i ic
belie s and he bene i s o science's na u e is c i ical. Ou s uden s oday diges a massi e amoun o
in o ma ion. They will o e on c i ical subjec s like clima e change, bio echnology, and o he scien i ic
phenomena in he u u e. S uden s mus comp ehend he science behind hese issues (MacKenzie,
2020). Acco ding o a su ey, 33% o Ame ican adul s belie e in einca na ion, 29% belie e in
as ology, and 42% belie e spi i ual ene gy may be ound in angible objec s (Gecewicz, 2018).
Acco ding o esea ch in he US, pseudoscien i ic belie s such as as ology, UFOs, lucky numbe s, he
six h sense, ghos s, elekinesis, and elepa hy a e widesp ead (Na ional Science Boa d, 2006). Hollins
College in Vi ginia su ey disco e ed ha 37% o s uden s belie ed in ghos s, 64% belie ed in
elepa hy, and 46% el ha alking o plan s would make hem g ow quicke (Woods, 1984). Ano he
s udy conduc ed in Mon eal e ealed ha 55% belie ed in as ology; 85% o s uden s belie ed in
ex asenso y pe cep ion (ESP), 49% in psychic healing, and 43% in ghos s (G ay, 1984). Such a i udes
pe sis in he b oade public (Sil a & Woody, 2022). Females a e mo e likely o ha e pseudoscien i ic
ideas, pa icula ly pa ano mal belie s, acco ding o a pa icula s udy (Gü gil, 2019; P eece & Bax e ,
1 Co esponding au ho ’s add ess: Gazi Üni e si esi, Gazi Eği im Fakül esi, Fizik Eği imi Ana Bilim Dalı, Emniye Mahallesi, Bandı ma Caddesi, He sek Binası, No: 6/32,
06560 Yenimahalle, Anka a Tü kiye
e-mail: h[email p o ec ed]
ISSN: 2667-8691
Jou nal homepage: h ps://de gipa k.o g. /en/pub/jide
Hasan Şahin Kızılcık
103
2000; Sjödin, 2002; Williams e al., 2007). Acco ding o P eece and Bax e (2000), emales a e less
scep ical o pseudoscien i ic claims. I could, howe e , be ied o he speci ic ype o pseudoscien i ic
no ions. Males, o example, a e mo e p one han emales o belie e in pseudoscien i ic asse ions,
such as he eali y o UFOs and aliens. Con e sely, emales a e mo e likely o us in pseudoscien i ic
claims such as o une elling and ho oscopes (P eece and Bax e , 2000).
Acco ding o one s udy o s uden s' online easoning skills, 96% o hem did no ealise why linkages
be ween a clima e change websi e and he ossil uel sec o may educe he c edibili y o ha websi e.
S uden s we e mo e conce ned wi h he si e's aes he ics, op-le el domain, o how i depic ed i sel on
he abou page han wi h who was behind i (B eaks one e al., 2019). These indings imply ha some
socie ies s uggle o disce n be ween scien i ic and non-scien i ic hinking.
Al hough mos scien is s g asp he na u e and limi a ions o science, s uden s who do no en i ely
comp ehend he Na u e o Science (NOS) may ind i mo e challenging o disce n scien i ic discou ses
om ac ual knowledge. Many s uden s alue science so highly ha hey a e unc i ical o iews ha
pu po o be "scien i ic" (Ke an o, 2001).
Nume ous s udies ha e been conduc ed on pseudoscience a a ious le els o educa ion and wi h p e-
se ice eache s (e.g. Ağla cı & Kabapına , 2016; Kızılcık, 2022; Kızılcık, 2024; Gül, 2016; Gü gil, 2019;
Ki man-Çe inkaya & Laçin-Şimşek, 2012; Lunds öm & Jakobsson, 2009; Şenle & İ en, 2016; Tu gu ,
2007; Tu gu , 2009; Uça & Şahin, 2018). Nume ous s udies, including hose conduc ed by Abd-El-
Khalick, Wa e s and Le (2008), Al ındağ, Tunç Şahin, and Saka (2012), and I ez (2008), ha e e ealed
ha educa ional ma e ials ound in ex books o en con ain nume ous misconcep ions and when
pseudoscien i ic belie s and misconcep ions a e combined, hey can mislead s uden s and hinde hei
abili y o unde s and na u e co ec ly. The e o e, add essing pseudoscien i ic belie s wi hin socie y
while s uden s a e s ill in school is c ucial.
Fi s , eache s should be able o co ec ly dis inguish be ween he scien i ic and he non-scien i ic o
guide s uden s. Whe he p e-se ice eache s hold pseudoscien i ic belie s is likely o impac he
scien i ic hinking skills o hei u u e s uden s. I is challenging o a eache wi h pseudoscien i ic
belie s o e ec i ely help s uden s dis inguish be ween scien i ic and non-scien i ic belie s. Teache s
should acqui e hese skills du ing hei p e-se ice aining. Conside ing his, his s udy aims o
examine whe he p e-se ice eache s can dis inguish be ween pseudoscience and science and he
ac o s a ec ing his.
The esea ch p oblem is as ollows: Wha ac o s a ec p e-se ice eache s' abili y o dis inguish
be ween science and pseudoscience?
The sub-p oblems o he esea ch a e as ollows:
Do p e-se ice eache s dis inguish be ween pseudoscience and science?
Is he e a ela ionship be ween p e-se ice eache s' pseudoscience unde s anding, knowledge o
he scien i ic me hod, abili y o dis inguish be ween pseudoscience and science, and he exis ence
o pseudoscien i ic belie s?
Is he e a di e ence be ween p e-se ice eache s' pseudoscience unde s anding, knowledge o
he scien i ic me hod, abili y o dis inguish be ween pseudoscience and science, and he exis ence
o pseudoscien i ic belie s acco ding o academic ields?
Do he concep ion o p e-se ice eache s' pseudoscience, knowledge o scien i ic me hod, abili y o
dis inguish be ween pseudoscience and science, and he exis ence o pseudoscien i ic belie s di e
acco ding o gende ?
2. Me hodology
This s udy used he su ey app oach o measu e p e-se ice eache s' opinions abou pseudoscience.
The su ey me hod is "ques ioning indi iduals on a opic o opics and hen desc ibing hei
Jou nal o Indi idual Di e ences in Educa ion, 2024, 6(2), 102-114
104
esponses" (Jackson, 2011). Da a acqui ed om p e-se ice ins uc o s using a Like scale we e i s
examined desc ip i ely, and hen in e en ial s a is ics we e applied.
2.1. S udy G oup
The s udy g oup consis ed o 307 p e-se ice eache s selec ed andomly om he sophomo e class o
he Facul y o Educa ion a a public uni e si y in Anka a in Tü kiye. To ensu e andomness, he scale
was adminis e ed o s uden s aking andomly selec ed common cou ses andomly selec ed by p e-
se ice eache s om di e en depa men s. The sample was di e se, ep esen ing a ious ields o
s udy, including science eaching (N=35), ma hema ics eaching (N=74), social sciences eaching
(N=76), elemen a y school eaching (N=15), p eschool eaching (N=11), language eaching (N=67),
geog aphy eaching (N=2), music eaching (N=4), a eaching (N=6), special educa ion (N=5), and
psychological counselling and guidance (N=12). To acili a e analysis, he pa icipan s we e
ca ego ized in o wo g oups: Na u al Science and Ma hema ics Teaching (NSMT), which
encompassed science and ma hema ics eaching, and Social Sciences and A Teaching (SSAT), which
encompassed he emaining ields. A de ailed b eakdown o he sample demog aphics is p o ided in
Table 1.
Table 1. Demog aphics o he sample
Field / Gende
Female
Male
Unde ined
To al
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
NSMT
89
28.99
20
6.51
0
.00
109
35.50
SSAT
161
52.44
36
11.73
1
.33
198
64.50
To al
250
81.43
56
18.24
1
.33
307
100.00
As indica ed in Table 1, mos p e-se ice eache s a e emale (81.43%), while he emaining pe cen age
comp ises males. Addi ionally, 35.50% o p e-se ice eache s a e en olled in NSMT, whe eas 64.50%
a e pu suing s udies in SSAT.
2.2. Da a Collec ion and Analysis
The o iginal Like scale is he "Na u e o Science Su ey" de eloped by Oo houd (2008), wi h 32
i ems. I was adap ed in o Tu kish by Ki man-Çe inkaya, Şimşek-Laçin, & Çalışkan (2013), esul ing in
a 23-i em e sion named he "Science Pseudoscience Disc imina ion Scale." This Tu kish e sion o he
scale was used in his s udy. The scale had been alida ed by he adap e s wi h p e-se ice eache s
om di e en depa men s be o ehand. The scale is comp ised o ou ac o s: F1 "Pseudoscience," F2
"Scien i ic Me hods," F3 "Disc imina ion be ween Science and Pseudoscience," and F4
"Pseudoscien i ic Belie s." The scale i ems a e p esen ed in English in he appendix. The C onbach's
Alpha Coe icien was ound o be .747.
Da a we e assessed using compu e so wa e. Du ing he e alua ion, i ems ha ep esen ed nega i e
exp essions we e coded in e sely. In o he wo ds, o all i ems, a sco e o 1 ep esen s he lowes
scien i ic esponse, while a sco e o 5 ep esen s he highes scien i ic esponse. Responses we e
ca ego ized in o dis inc le els o in e p e desc ip i e s a is ics.
The e alua ion c i e ia we e de ised ollowing he scale s uc u e ou lined by Kızılcık e al. (2007). All
he scales employed in he s udy a e i e-poin Like scales. These measu es u ilize i e-poin Like
scales, so esponses we e ca ego ized in o i e le els. Responden s could gi e each i em a sco e
anging om 1 o 5. The possible sco e ange was ou . The e alua ion c i e ia we e calcula ed using
he ollowing o mula, and he assessmen c i e ia a e shown in Table 2 and Figu e 1 based on he
e alua ion ange.
E alua ion Range = (Sco e ange) / (Numbe o Ca ego ies) = (5-1) / 5 = 4 / 5 = 0.8 (Kızılcık e al., 2007)
Hasan Şahin Kızılcık
105
Table 2. Assessmen c i e ia
Le el Range
Le el
1.00 - 1.79
Ve y Low (VL)
1.80 - 2.59
Low (L)
2.60 - 3.39
Mode a e (M)
3.40 - 4.19
High (H)
4.20 - 5.00
Ve y High (VH)
Figu e 1. Visualisa ion o assessmen c i e ia (Kızılcık, 2022)
As shown in Table 2, sco es o 2.59 and below a e conside ed low and e y low, while sco es o 3.40
and abo e a e ega ded as high and e y high. Sco es alling be ween 2.60 and 3.39 a e conside ed o
ep esen a mode a e le el.
3. Resul s
This sec ion p esen ed desc ip i e s a is ics i s o da a analysis, ollowed by in e en ial s a is ics.
3.1. Dis inguishing Be ween Science and Pseudoscience
Ini ially, he analysis commenced by sc u inising p e-se ice eache s' esponses o he scale and he
a ious ac o s wi hin he scale and each i em. F equency s a is ics o he i ems can be ound in Table
3, while desc ip i e s a is ics o he scale, b oken down by g oups, a e p o ided in Table 4.
P e-se ice eache s appea o ha e a high knowledge o scien i ic me hods bu less abou wha
pseudoscience en ails. Acco ding o he c i e ia p esen ed in Table 2, mean sco es o F1 and F4 all
wi hin he Mode a e Le el. On he o he hand, mean sco es o F2, F3, and he o e all scale a e
ca ego ised as High Le el. Al hough p e-se ice eache s exhibi a high le el o knowledge ega ding
scien i ic me hods and he abili y o dis inguish be ween pseudoscience and science, i can be said ha
hei unde s anding o pseudoscience is somewha lacking, and hey hold some pseudoscien i ic
belie s. I em 2 (F2) has he highes mean, while I em 6 (F1) has he lowes . Based on p e-se ice
eache s' esponses, while hey ha e subs an ial knowledge o scien i ic me hods, hey may s ill ha e
gaps in hei unde s anding o pseudoscience. F2 has he highes means, while F1 has he lowes in all
g oups, ega dless o ield and gende .
Jou nal o Indi idual Di e ences in Educa ion, 2024, 6(2), 102-114
106
Table 3. F equency s a is ics o he scale
Fac o s
I em
No
N
1
2
3
4
5
Means
Le el
S d.
De .
Va .
%
%
%
%
%
F1: Pseudo-
Science
1
302
15.64
22.48
28.01
20.52
11.73
2.90
M
1.24
1.55
6
305
13.03
27.69
25.73
24.76
8.14
2.87
M
1.17
1.37
9
306
14.98
27.69
19.87
24.10
13.03
2.92
M
1.28
1.64
11
305
10.42
21.82
29.32
24.10
13.68
3.09
M
1.20
1.43
14
304
12.05
20.52
33.22
21.82
11.40
3.00
M
1.17
1.38
17
305
13.03
19.87
31.60
26.06
8.79
2.98
M
1.16
1.35
19
307
6.84
19.54
24.43
32.90
16.29
3.32
M
1.16
1.35
Means
304.86
12.28
22.80
27.45
24.90
11.87
3.01
M
1.20
1.44
F2: Scien i ic
Me hods
2
305
3.58
1.63
1.30
28.99
63.84
4.49
VH
.90
.81
5
306
1.63
.65
3.58
43.00
50.81
4.41
VH
.74
.55
8
307
3.26
6.51
8.79
43.32
38.11
4.07
H
1.01
1.02
10
306
2.28
1.95
2.61
45.93
46.91
4.34
VH
.82
.67
12
304
1.95
3.58
8.79
54.07
30.62
4.09
H
.85
.72
13
304
2.28
2.93
12.70
44.95
36.16
4.11
H
.90
.81
22
307
22.48
39.09
9.12
11.73
17.59
2.63
M
1.41
1.98
Means
305.57
5.35
8.05
6.70
38.86
40.58
4.02
H
.95
.94
F3:
Disc imina ion
be ween
Science and
Pseudoscience
3
302
11.07
17.92
25.41
26.71
17.26
3.22
M
1.25
1.57
15
305
2.28
.65
2.93
30.29
63.19
4.52
VH
.79
.63
16
307
12.38
9.45
46.91
20.20
11.07
3.08
M
1.11
1.23
18
306
20.20
14.66
9.77
22.15
32.90
3.33
M
1.55
2.40
21
305
18.24
13.03
12.38
25.08
30.62
3.37
M
1.49
2.22
23
306
10.42
18.89
19.22
33.22
17.92
3.29
M
1.26
1.58
Means
305.17
12.43
12.43
19.44
26.28
28.83
3.47
H
1.24
1.60
F4:
Pseudoscien i ic
Belie s
4
304
12.70
24.76
31.27
17.26
13.03
2.93
M
1.21
1.46
7
306
16.94
16.61
18.89
25.73
21.50
3.18
M
1.39
1.94
20
307
6.51
11.07
35.50
35.18
11.73
3.35
M
1.04
1.08
Means
305.67
12.05
17.48
28.56
26.06
15.42
3.15
M
1.21
1.49
Gene al Means
305.26
10.18
14.91
19.19
29.66
25.49
3.46
H
1.13
1.34
Table 4. G oup Means
Fac o s
NSMT
SSAT
To al
To al
To al
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
NSMT
SSAT
F1
3.08
3.01
2.97
3.02
3.01
3.02
3.07
2.98
3.01
F2
3.97
3.95
4.05
4.03
4.02
4.00
3.97
4.05
4.02
F3
3.79
3.42
3.31
3.47
3.48
3.45
3.73
3.33
3.47
F4
3.16
3.12
3.15
3.23
3.15
3.19
3.15
3.16
3.16
To al
3.55
3.42
3.41
3.47
3.46
3.45
3.52
3.42
3.46
Table 5. Desc ip i e s a is ics o he scale
S a is ics
F1
F2
F3
F4
Scale
N
307
307
307
307
307
Mean
3.01
4.02
3.47
3.16
3.46
Median
3.00
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.48
Mode
2.71
4.14
3.67
3.00
3.43
S d. De ia ion
.44
.54
.83
.71
.35
Va iance
.20
.29
.69
.50
.12
Skewness
.020
-.870
-.476
-.316
-.510
S d. E o o Skewness
.139
.139
.139
.139
.139
Ku osis
-.118
1.900
-.760
.605
1.012
S d. E o o Ku osis
.277
.277
.277
.277
.277
Hasan Şahin Kızılcık
107
The assessmen o ku osis and skewness alues o he scale and i s ac o s can p o ide insigh s in o
he no mali y o he da a dis ibu ion. "A ku osis alue be ween 1.0 is conside ed excellen o mos
psychome ic pu poses, bu a alue be ween 2.0 is, in many cases, also accep able, depending on he
speci ic applica ion," w i e Geo ge and Malle y (2012). Hai , Black, Babin, Ande son, and Ta ham
(2013) also s a e: "Skewness is a measu e o he symme y o he dis ibu ion, o en compa ed o a
no mal dis ibu ion. Skewness alues alling ou side he ange o -1 o +1 indica e a signi ican ly
skewed dis ibu ion." Acco ding o Table 5, he da a has a no mal dis ibu ion. The mean and median
alues a e closely aligned, indica ing a no mal dis ibu ion. Figu e 2 depic s he scale's dis ibu ion
cu es.
3.2. Rela ionship be ween Fac o s
Gi en he no mal dis ibu ion o he da a, me ic s a is ical me hods we e employed o conduc
in e en ial analyses o es hypo heses. The da a we e examined independen ly and comp ehensi ely,
conside ing ields o s udy and gende s as sepa a e ca ego ies.
The Pea son Co ela ion Coe icien was u ilized o explo e po en ial ela ionships be ween he
a iables. The esul s o he co ela ions be ween he componen s, ca ego ized by ield o s udy, a e
p esen ed in Table 6. No ably, he mos signi ican indings ha e been highligh ed in bold.
Figu e 2. The dis ibu ion cu e o he scale
Table 6. Co ela ions be ween he ac o s o he scale by ields (P<0.5)
F1
F2
F3
F4
NSMT
SSAT
To al
NSMT
SSAT
To al
NSMT
SSAT
To al
NSMT
SSAT
To al
F1
1
1
1
p
*
*
*
N
109
198
307
F2
.090
-.057
-.019
1
1
1
p
.354
.425
.739
*
*
*
N
109
198
307
109
198
307
F3
.229
.209
.228
-.011
-.192
-.158
1
1
1
p
.017
.003
.000
.906
.007
.005
*
*
*
N
109
198
307
109
198
307
109
198
307
F4
.212
.191
.196
-.135
.027
-.017
.490
.341
.368
1
1
1
p
.027
.007
.001
.162
.705
.769
.000
.000
.000
*
*
*
N
109
198
307
109
198
307
109
198
307
109
198
307
Jou nal o Indi idual Di e ences in Educa ion, 2024, 6(2), 102-114
108
Acco ding o Table 6, o al F2 is no co ela ed wi h F1 and F4. All o he ac o s a e co ela ed wi h
each o he . The indings highligh ed ha knowledge o scien i ic me hods is no ela ed o
pseudoscience and ha ing pseudoscien i ic belie s. On he o he hand, ela ionships ha e been ound
be ween he knowledge o pseudoscience and he educ ion o pseudoscien i ic belie s and be e
disc imina ion be ween science and pseudoscience. In he ield SSAT and o al, indings a e simila .
Howe e , in he ield NSMT, he e is no ela ionship be ween F2 and F3.
While he e a e s ong ela ionships be ween wha pseudoscience is and ha ing pseudoscien i ic
ideas, he e a e none be ween knowing scien i ic p ocedu es and hem. Fu he mo e, a subs an ial
posi i e associa ion was disco e ed be ween awa eness o pseudoscience and science p ejudice and
holding pseudoscien i ic belie s.
A nega i e subs an ial connec ion was disco e ed be ween scien i ic me hod knowledge,
pseudoscience, and science disc imina ion in SSAT and o al. NSMT, on he o he hand, has no such
ela ionship. Table 7 displays he gende -speci ic co ela ion indings. The mos impo an ones a e
highligh ed in bold.
Table 7. Co ela ions be ween he ac o s o he scale by gende (P<0.5)
F1
F2
F3
F4
Female
Male
To al
Female
Male
To al
Female
Male
To al
Female
Male
To al
F1
1
1
1
p
*
*
*
N
250
56
307
F2
-.002
-.118
-.019
1
1
1
p
.980
.388
.739
*
*
*
N
250
56
307
250
56
307
F3
.223
.255
.228
-.154
-.165
-.158
1
1
1
p
.000
.057
.000
.015
.224
.005
*
*
*
N
250
56
307
250
56
307
250
56
307
F4
.205
.133
.196
-.011
-.062
-.017
.394
.261
.368
1
1
1
p
.001
.328
.001
.861
.652
.769
.000
.052
.000
*
*
*
N
250
56
307
250
56
307
250
56
307
250
56
307
Acco ding o Table 7, no signi ican ela ionship was ound in males in any ac o . Howe e , i is seen
ha all ac o s ha a e signi ican in o al a e also signi ican in emales. I can be said ha he
signi icance in o al is due o emales.
3.3. Di e ence be ween Fields
The g oup means ba ely di e om one ano he in any no iceable ways. Howe e , i is essen ial o
conside whe he he changes a e signi ican . A - es is pe o med be ween ields. Table 8 displays he
- es esul s o each ield.
Table 8 demons a es ha he e is a sizable dis inc ion be ween F3 and o al. The e is no signi ican
di e ence in o he ac o s. The di e ences a e in a ou o NSMT. The NSMT g oup has a
signi ican ly highe mean in F3 and o al. Tha is, he NSMT g oup can disc imina e be ween
pseudoscience and science be e . Howe e , he e is no signi ican di e ence be ween he ields
ega ding knowledge o scien i ic me hods, wha pseudoscience is, and pseudoscien i ic belie s.
Hasan Şahin Kızılcık
109
Table 8. T- es esul s be ween by- ield g oups (P<0.5)
Le ene's Tes
o Equali y o
Va iances
- es o Equali y o Means
F
Sig.
d
Sig. (2-
ailed)
Mean
Di .
S d. E o
Di e ence
95%
Con idence
In e al o he
Di e ence
Lowe
Uppe
F1
Equal a iances
.342
.559
1.621
305
.106
.08552
.05274
-.01826
.18930
No Equal
a iances
1.628
225.432
.105
.08552
.05252
-.01797
.18900
F2
Equal a iances
5.186
.023
-1.260
305
.209
-.08101
.06429
-.20752
.04550
No Equal
a iances
-1.342
265.186
.181
-.08101
.06037
-.19987
.03786
F3
Equal a iances
24.063
.000
4.067
305
.000
.39409
.09690
.20341
.58477
No Equal
a iances
4.381
272.659
.000
.39409
.08996
.21699
.57119
F4
Equal a iances
2.183
.141
-.146
305
.884
-.01237
.08474
-.17912
.15438
No Equal
a iances
-.152
251.440
.879
-.01237
.08120
-.17229
.14756
To al
Equal a iances
3.675
.056
2.497
305
.013
.10301
.04125
.02184
.18417
No Equal
a iances
2.565
240.437
.011
.10301
.04016
.02389
.18213
3.4. Di e ence be ween Gende s
An independen sample - es is pe o med o compa e gende s. Table 9 displays he - es esul s by
gende .
Table 9. T- es esul s be ween gende g oups (P<0.5)
Le ene's Tes o
Equali y o
Va iances
- es o Equali y o Means
F
Sig.
d
Sig. (2-
ailed)
Mean
Di .
S d. E o
Di e ence
95% Con idence
In e al o he
Di e ence
Lowe
Uppe
F1
Equal a iances
.733
.393
-.141
304
.888
-.00928
.06576
-.13868
.12013
No Equal
a iances
-.152
89.151
.879
-.00928
.06096
-.13041
.11185
F2
Equal a iances
.105
.746
.176
304
.861
.01403
.07995
-.14329
.17135
No Equal
a iances
.188
88.145
.852
.01403
.07477
-.13456
.16262
F3
Equal a iances
.373
.542
.235
304
.815
.02891
.12324
-.21361
.27143
No Equal
a iances
.223
77.237
.825
.02891
.12992
-.22978
.28759
F4
Equal a iances
4.933
.027
-.392
304
.695
-.04122
.10518
-.24820
.16577
No Equal
a iances
-.486
110.382
.628
-.04122
.08484
-.20934
.12691
To al
Equal a iances
1.292
.257
.084
304
.933
.00435
.05173
-.09744
.10613
No Equal
a iances
.089
87.401
.929
.00435
.04870
-.09245
.10115
Jou nal o Indi idual Di e ences in Educa ion, 2024, 6(2), 102-114
110
Table 9 shows no signi ican di e ence in all ac o s and o al by gende . No signi ican di e ence can
be ound be ween knowledge o scien i ic me hods, wha pseudoscience is, disc imina ion be ween
science and pseudoscience, and pseudoscien i ic belie s. I can be said ha gende makes no
signi ican di e ence in ac o s.
4. Discussion
P e-se ice eache s ha e nai e belie s abou pseudoscience. Al hough hey be e unde s and he
scien i ic me hod, hey ha e di icul y dis inguishing be ween pseudoscience and science. Gü gil
(2019) disco e ed ha p e-se ice social science eache s had inadequa e and inconsis en belie s
abou science and pseudoscience. The e is no signi ican ela ionship be ween knowing scien i ic
me hods and pseudoscien i ic belie s. Addi ionally, a subs an ial posi i e associa ion was disco e ed
be ween knowledge o pseudoscience, bias owa ds science, and holding pseudoscien i ic belie s.
Non-scien i ic in o ma ion can also impac p e-se ice eache s’ e e yday li e (Saka & Sü meli, 2017).
As ology is ega ded as a science by he majo i y o p e-se ice eache s (Şenle & İ en, 2016).
Simila ly, mos high school s uden s belie e in pseudoscien i ic no ions such as mind- eading,
elepa hy, and he capaci y o he luna cycle o impac people's beha iou (Lunds öm & Jakobsson,
2009).
Ha ing pseudoscien i ic ideas is s ongly co ela ed wi h wha pseudoscience is. Acco ding o s udies,
he dis inc ion be ween science and pseudoscience is di icul o indi iduals o make (e.g., A onso &
Gilbe , 2010; Çe inkaya, Tu gu , Du u, & E can, 2015; Tu gu , 2009). When people know wha
pseudoscience is, hey can di e en ia e i om science mo e e ec i ely. Teache s and p e-se ice
eache s in he ields o science, he social sciences, languages, and ma hema ics, as well as a a ious
le els, a e equen ly undecided abou pseudoscience and pseudoscien i ic belie s and may ha e
di icul y dis inguishing be ween wha is scien i ic and wha is pseudoscien i ic (Ağla cı & Kabapına ,
2016; Gül, 2016; Gü gil, 2019; Ki man-Çe inkaya & Laçin-Şimşek, 2012; Şenle & İ en, 2016; Tu gu ,
2009; Uça & Şahin, 2018). Be o e s a ing hei ca ee s as eache s, p e-se ice educa o s should be
able o ell he di e ence be ween science and pseudoscience (Tu gu , 2007).
The NSMT g oup can disc imina e be ween pseudoscience and science be e . Howe e , he e is no
signi ican di e ence be ween he ields ega ding knowledge o scien i ic me hods, wha
pseudoscience is, and pseudoscien i ic belie s. Acco ding o Snow and Collini (2012), he NSMT and
SSAT cul u es ha e di e en pe spec i es on science. Cou ses in Philosophy o Science may be gi en
sepa a ely in some NSMT depa men s. The e o e, i may be expec ed ha NSMT depa men s will
be e unde s and science. Howe e , hey a e simila ega ding pseudoscien i ic belie s because hey
ha e no been su icien ly wa ned abou pseudoscience.
No signi ican di e ence is ound be ween knowledge o scien i ic me hods, wha pseudoscience is,
disc imina ion be ween science and pseudoscience, and pseudoscien i ic belie s by gende . I can be
said ha gende makes no signi ican di e ence in ac o s. Simila ly, some s udies s a e ha gende
does no a ec pseudoscien i ic belie s (Kızılcık, 2022; Pel ze , 2003). Gende in luences he ypes and
le els o pseudoscien i ic iews, acco ding o pa icula s udies (e.g., Gü gil, 2019; P eece & Bax e ,
2000; Sjödin, 2002; Williams, F ancis, & Robbins, 2007). S udies ha e shown ha women a e mo e
likely han men o hold pa ano mal belie s in hings like psychic abili ies, wi chc a , p ecogni ion,
and al e na i e medicine (Aa nio & Lindeman, 2005; Mencken, Bade , S a k, 2008; Mencken, Bade ,
Kim, 2009; Wilson, 2018). In con as , men a e mo e likely o belie e in ex a e es ial li e (Wilson,
2018). The esul s o his inqui y challenge his idea.
5. Limi a ions and Sugges ions
The esea ch is limi ed o he ac o s speci ied in he scale con en used. The esea ch is limi ed o he
pa icipan s' s a emen s and he i ems' con en due o he na u e o he Like scales. In addi ion, he
esea ch is limi ed o p e-se ice eache s. The ac ha he numbe o males is less han emales is one
