Nicole Lewis’s research while affiliated with University of the Virgin Islands and other places

This poster is a complement to the article referenced below. It reports data from a study of 64 preservice elementary teachers aimed at soliciting their conceptions of Western Modern Science as compared to science in other cultures. The purpose is to identify affordance and hindrances that can be used to help move preservice teachers towards more critical perspectives of science. Mutegi, J. W., Smith-Mutegi, D. & Lewis, N. (in press). Fostering critical perspectives of science among preservice elementary teachers: An empirical identification of affordances and hindrances. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2015531

Although the Next Generation Science Standards and the National Science Education Standards prioritize the production of critical consumers of science as an overarching goal, there is relatively little science education research aimed at fostering critical perspectives among science teachers. The purpose of this theory-generative study is to identify ideas that might serve as affordances or hindrances to the development of critical perspectives of science. Data were collected from 64, preservice elementary-level teachers, over the course of three semesters, using an open-ended survey. In these data, we identified three affordances and five hindrances that might influence our ability to foster critical perspectives. Among the affordances for fostering critical perspectives, we found that students (a) have a clear sense that cultural difference does not suggest inferiority, (b) have a clear sense that human bias influences science work, and (c) regard opinion as a factor shaping the work of scientists. Among the hindrances to fostering critical perspectives we found that students (d) regard Western science as superior to non-Western science, (e) do not have a strong working knowledge of the concept of “culture,” (f) regard science as an objective enterprise, (g) do not have a strong working knowledge of the concept of “objective,” and (h) have a one-sided view of scientific advancement. We conclude with suggestions for future research and for practice.