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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
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.
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.
Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158.
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.
Bensley, D. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychological misconceptions: Recent scientific advances and unresolved issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(4), 377–382.
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.
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.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.
Bromme, R., & Kienhues, D. (2017). Gewissheit und Skepsis: Wissenschaftskommunikation als Forschungsthema der Psychologie. Psychologische Rundschau, 68(3), 167–171.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer.
Fähnrich, B., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Gesellschafts-, Wissenschafts- und Medienwandel. Publizistik, 65(4), 515–522.
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.
Fischer, S. (2013). Psycho? Logisch! Vorstellungen über das Wissen und die Wissenschaft der Psychologie. Dissertation. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
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.
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.
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.
Holmes, J. D. (2014). Undergraduate psychology’s scientific identity dilemma: Student and instructor interests and attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 41(2), 104–109.
Holmes, J. D., & Beins, B. C. (2009). Psychology is a science: At least some students think so. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 5–11.
Hughes, S., Lyddy, F., & Lambe, S. (2013). Misconceptions about psychological science: A review. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 20–31.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
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.
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.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
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.
Pieschl, S., & Sivyer, D. (2021). Secondary students’ epistemic thinking and year as predictors of critical source evaluation of internet blogs. Computers & Education, 160, 104038.
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.
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.
Richardson, L., & Lacroix, G. (2021). What do students think when asked about psychology as a science? Teaching of Psychology, 48(1), 80–89.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
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)