
This study aims to examine whether pre-service teachers can distinguish between pseudoscience and science. A survey method was used in this study. Data were gathered from 307 pre-service teachers studying in various fields at a public institution. They were split into two categories: "Natural Science and Mathematics Teaching" and "Social Sciences and Art Teaching." A Likert scale was used, consisting of four factors: "Pseudoscience," "Scientific Methods," "Discrimination between Science and Pseudoscience," and "Pseudoscientific Beliefs." As a result, pre-service teachers have a poor understanding of pseudoscience. They also struggle to differentiate between pseudoscience and science. An adequate grasp of scientific technique does not contribute positively to their pseudoscientific ideas. It is especially evident among those in the Social Sciences and Art Teaching fields who have not received specialised training in the history and philosophy of science. However, no significant difference is found in terms of gender in all four factors.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
