Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wissenschaft kann endgültige und wahre Antworten liefern, oder nicht?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mythen, Fehlvorstellungen, Fehlkonzepte und Irrtümer in Schule und Unterricht

  • 6301 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Öffentlichkeit erwartet von Wissenschaft fundierte, verständliche und eindeutige Empfehlungen für Entscheidungen. Wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse sind aber immer vorläufig und häufig widersprüchlich. Daher offenbaren solche Erwartungen wissenschaftsbezogene Fehlkonzepte mit potenziell negativen Folgen von Unverständnis bis Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit. Eine besondere Herausforderung ist es, wenn Personen mit begrenzter wissenschaftlicher Expertise auf eher „weiche“ wissenschaftliche Informationen stoßen: Beispielsweise könnten Lehrkräfte bildungswissenschaftliche Evidenz als „gesunden Menschenverstand“ abwerten. Aus Perspektive der epistemischen Überzeugungen lassen sich solche wissenschaftsbezogenen Fehlkonzepte als „naiver“ Absolutismus oder „naiver“ Relativismus klassifizieren. Diese Einordnung bietet Ansätze dazu, wissenschaftsbezogene Fehlkonzepte nicht nur durch explizite Widerlegung, sondern auch durch Interventionen auf der Ebene des Wissenschaftsverständnisses zu revidieren.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Amsel, E., Baird, T., & Ashley, A. (2011). Misconceptions and conceptual change in undergraduate students’ understanding of psychology as a science. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amsel, E., Ashley, A., & Baird, T. (2014). Conceptual change in psychology students’ acceptance of the scientific foundation of the discipline. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 13(3), 232–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asberger, J., Thomm, E., & Bauer, J. (2020). Zur Erfassung fragwürdiger Überzeugungen zu Bildungsthemen: Entwicklung und erste Überprüfung des Questionnable Beliefs in Education-Inventars (QUEBEC). Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 67, 178–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., Thomm, E., & Shlomi-Elooz, T. (2020). Dealing with disagreement: The roles of topic familiarity and disagreement explanation in evaluation of conflicting expert claims and sources. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensley, D. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychological misconceptions: Recent scientific advances and unresolved issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(4), 377–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensley, D. A., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Powell, L. A. (2014). A new measure of psychological misconceptions: Relations with academic background, critical thinking, and acceptance of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 773–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Kienhues, D. (2017). Gewissheit und Skepsis: Wissenschaftskommunikation als Forschungsthema der Psychologie. Psychologische Rundschau, 68(3), 167–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartiff, B. M., Duke, R. F., & Greene, J. A. (2021). The effect of epistemic cognition interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(3), 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesario, J., Johnson, D. J., & Eisthen, H. L. (2020). Your brain is not an onion with a tiny reptile inside. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). Commentary: Advances in research on sourcing – source credibility and reliable processes for processing knowledge claims. Reading and Writing, 29, 1701–1717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grefte, J. (2021). Knowledge as justified true belief. Erkenntnis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00365-7

  • Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fähnrich, B., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Gesellschafts-, Wissenschafts- und Medienwandel. Publizistik, 65(4), 515–522.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. J. (2015). „Everybody knows psychology is not a real science“: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70(6), 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, S. (2013). Psycho? Logisch! Vorstellungen über das Wissen und die Wissenschaft der Psychologie. Dissertation. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Cartiff, B. M., & Duke, R. F. (2018). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8), 1084–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Disclose your flaws! Admission positively affects the perceived trustworthiness of an expert science blogger. Studies in Communication Sciences, 16(2), 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. D. (2014). Undergraduate psychology’s scientific identity dilemma: Student and instructor interests and attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 41(2), 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. D., & Beins, B. C. (2009). Psychology is a science: At least some students think so. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S., Lyddy, F., & Lambe, S. (2013). Misconceptions about psychological science: A review. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K., Muis, K. R., & Kendeou, P. (2019). Epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing of evidence: Developmental and domain differences. Journal of Experimental Education, 87(4), 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janda, L. H., England, K., Lovejoy, D., & Drury, K. (1998). Attitudes toward psychology relative to other disciplines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(2), 140–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C., Lockhart, K. L., & Schlegel, E. (2010). A bump on a bump? Emerging intuitions concerning the relative difficulty of the sciences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerwer, M., & Rosman, T. (2020). Epistemic change and diverging information: How do prior epistemic beliefs affect the efficacy of short-term interventions? Learning and Individual Differences, 80, 101886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2020). Sealing the gateways for post-truthism: Reestablishing the epistemic authority of science. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 144–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, D. J., & Pennycook, G. (2019). How the public, and scientists, perceive advancement of knowledge from conflicting study results. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 671–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2017). Reducing students’ misconceptions with refutational teaching: For long-term retention, comprehension matters. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Hrsg.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (S. 121–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langfeldt, H.-P. (1989). Das weiß doch jeder! – Oder etwa doch nicht? Befunde der Pädagogischen Psychologie in der Beurteilung von Pädagogen. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 36, 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassonde, K. A., Kolquist, M., & Vergin, M. (2017). Revisiting psychology misconceptions by integrating a refutational-style text framework into poster presentations. Teaching of Psychology, 44(3), 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67(2), 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menz, C., Spinath, B., Hendriks, F., & Seifried, E. (2021). Reducing educational psychological misconceptions: How effective are standard lectures, refutation lectures, and instruction in information evaluation strategies? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000269

  • Molthagen-Schnöring, S. (2020). Wissenschaftskommunikation – Impulse in Zeiten der Corona-Krise. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://www.fes.de/themenportal-bildung-arbeit-digitalisierung/artikelseite/wissenschaftskommunikation-impulse-in-zeiten-der-corona-krise. Zugegriffen: 12. Juli 2021.

  • Munro, G. D. (2010). The scientific impotence excuse: Discounting belief-threatening scientific abstracts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(3), 579–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, G. D., & Munro, C. A. (2014). „Soft“ versus „hard“ psychological science: Biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly held political identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 533–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T. (2014). Gamers against science: The case of the violent video games debate. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 5, 602451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donohue, W., & Willis, B. (2018). Problematic images of science in undergraduate psychology textbooks: How well is science understood and depicted? Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, A., & Tullett, A. (2019). Open Science in data-intensive psychology and cognitive science. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S., & Sivyer, D. (2021). Secondary students’ epistemic thinking and year as predictors of critical source evaluation of internet blogs. Computers & Education, 160, 104038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S., Bromme, R., Porsch, T., & Stahl, E. (2008). Epistemological sensitisation causes deeper elaboration during self-regulated learning. International perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ting a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008 (Bd. 2, S. 2-213–2-220). Lulu Enterprises.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S., Budd, J., Thomm, E., & Archer, J. (2021). Effects of raising student teachers’ metacognitive awareness of their educational psychological misconceptions. Psychology Learning & Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725721996223

  • Popper, K. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L., & Lacroix, G. (2021). What do students think when asked about psychology as a science? Teaching of Psychology, 48(1), 80–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Providing instruction based on students’ learning style preferences does not improve learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge: Origins, issues, and future directions of research on epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education, 40, 457–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharrer, L., Rupieper, Y., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2017). When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 1003–1018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., & Krapp, A. (2014). Grundlagen der Pädagogischen Psychologie. In T. Seidel & A. Krapp (Hrsg.), Pädagogische Psychologie (6. Aufl., S. 21–36). Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29(4), 705–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, D. S., Landrum, A. R., Hamilton, J., & Weisberg, M. (2021). Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. Public Understanding of Science, 30(2), 120–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. A. (2018). Reducing pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs in university students through a course in science and critical thinking. Science & Education, 27(1–2), 183–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissenschaftsrat. (2021). Impulse aus der COVID-19-Krise für die Weiterentwicklung des Wissenschaftssystems in Deutschland. Positionspapier. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/2021/8834-21.html. Zugegriffen: 12. Juli 2021.

  • Wundt, W. M. (1862). Beiträge zur Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung. Winter’sche Verlagshandlung.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Deutschland

    Stephanie Pieschl & Nicola Glumann

Authors
  1. Stephanie Pieschl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicola Glumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Pieschl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Bildungswissenschaften, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland

    Gisela Steins

  2. Psychologisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Deutschland

    Birgit Spinath

  3. Institut für Psychologie in Bildung und Erziehung, Westfälsche Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Deutschland

    Stephan Dutke

  4. Institut für Psychologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Deutschland

    Marcus Roth

  5. Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland

    Maria Limbourg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pieschl, S., Glumann, N. (2022). Wissenschaft kann endgültige und wahre Antworten liefern, oder nicht?. In: Steins, G., Spinath, B., Dutke, S., Roth, M., Limbourg, M. (eds) Mythen, Fehlvorstellungen, Fehlkonzepte und Irrtümer in Schule und Unterricht. Psychologie in Bildung und Erziehung: Vom Wissen zum Handeln. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36260-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36260-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-36259-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-36260-7

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation