Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience

Allchin, Douglas

doi:10.1023/b:sced.0000025563.35883.e9

Cited by 138 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Archer et al 2010;Archer et al 2012;Gurgel et al 2014) and the illustrative use of HOS (e.g. Allchin 2004;Höttecke and Silva 2011;Forato et al 2015), also generating qualitative information about how the introduction of HOS into school science is being made regarding curricular and pedagogical aspects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here this study agrees with Forato et al (2015), who argued that there is a danger in bringing HOS into science lessons as only an illustration (that is, emptied from its original context), because it can promote a naive view of the scientific endeavour, where HOS is only another memory-based practice developed inside the classroom. These reflections are closely connected with what Allchin (2003Allchin ( , 2004 called BPseudohistory^, an approach towards history that Buses facts selectively and so fosters misleading images^ (Allchin 2004, p. 179) and also involves a lack of respect for historical context (Whiggism).…”

Section: Knowing Scientists Versus Knowing About Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Allchin (2004) and Höttecke and Silva (2011) discuss the importance of paying specific attention to the context behind the historical narrative. They argue that science textbooks and other materials traditionally employed by science teachers usually contain accounts of HPS only in an illustrative, decontextualised way, and can end up misleadingly informing teachers' practices regarding these historical narratives.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wang and Marsh 2002;Allchin 2004;Clough 2011) have also argued about the extent to which this decontextualised (illustrative) approach towards HOS, with the sole mention of names and/or anecdotes, should be considered satisfactory in terms of science education and, more importantly, of advocating the introduction of HOS into school science. Thus, contextualised/in-depth historical cases can do more for school science than teaching a Bcomprehensive`greatest hits`survey course^ (Allchin 2004, p. 192), an approach that, according to the findings from this research, has clearly little impact on what students really know about science and scientists.…”

Section: Knowing Scientists Versus Knowing About Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This result raises a question of how young people have learned about the scientists' stories through school science, and also through mass media. Even though it should be recognised that asking students to name scientists can influence the type of recollections they will have to make (in terms of images of these scientists), there is a memory-based and superficial status of students' knowledge, which can be at least partially explained by an illustrative approach towards HOS and accounts of contemporary science (Allchin 2004;Höttecke and Silva 2011;Gandolfi 2017). …”

Section: Knowing Scientists Versus Knowing About Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Different People in Different Places

Gandolfi

2018

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of an exploratory study of students' knowledge about scientists and countries' contributions to science, aiming at answering two research questions: BIn which ways are students aware of the history of scientific development carried out by different people in different places of the world? What can be influencing and shaping their awareness?^Thus, this study aimed at depicting students' knowledge about History of Science (HOS), focusing on what they know about science being done by people and communities from different parts of the world and on how this knowledge is constructed through their engagement with school science. An exploratory research was carried out at two multicultural state secondary schools in London, UK, involving 200 students aged 12-15 (58.5% girls, 41.5% boys) and five science teachers. The method involved an initial exploration of students' knowledge about HOS through an open-ended survey, followed by classroom-based observations and semi-structured interviews with the participants. Results showed a disconnection between remembering scientists and knowing about their work and background, hinting at an emphasis on illustrative and decontextualised approaches towards HOS. Additionally, there was a lack of diversity in these students' answers in terms of gender and ethnicity when talking about scientists and countries in science. These findings were further analysed in relation to their implications for school science and for the fields of HOS, science education and public perception of science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowing Scientists Versus Knowing About Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowing Scientists Versus Knowing About Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowing Scientists Versus Knowing About Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Different People in Different Places

Gandolfi

2018

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Should the sociology of science be rated X?

Allchin

2004

Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Stephen Brush once asked, "Should the history of science be rated 'X'?" Well, times have changed. Now controversy reigns over the role of sociology in the science classroom. Here, I profile several dimensions of the sociology of science and survey recent efforts by philosophers to address its most radical claims. In respecting the opposing poles of this contentious debate, I contend that it is possible to chart a path between the Scylla of scientism and the Charybdis of relativism. Most notably, educators must differentiate between the normative and descriptive elements of the 'nature of science'-and teach both. Further, they must go beyond the rhetoric of tentativeness and fallibility in science by describing just when and how individual scientists and/or a scientific community can err-and how they identify and remedy their errors.

show abstract

Allchin's errors and misrepresentations and the H-D nature of science

Lawson¹

2006

Sci. Ed.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience

Cited by 138 publications

References 16 publications

Different People in Different Places

Different People in Different Places

Should the sociology of science be rated X?

Allchin's errors and misrepresentations and the H-D nature of science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About