Using moments of wonder in Science with pre-service teachers

Case Study

We chose to incorporate a case-study analysis to delve into the impacts of wonder on PST perceptions of science related content because as Baxter and Jack (2008) argued, case study is sensitive to the essential role context plays within the study. More specifically, context itself is an essential aspect of the study where PST’s involved in a university setting make up an important factor framing all the activities within the project. We further delineated this approach as an instrumental case study (Stake, 2000) where the question regarding the impact of wonder on perceptions of science was the paramount goal as opposed to understanding the case itself. Case study also offers flexibility for our interpretivist stance regarding meaning and behaviour (Creswell, 2005) and the associated subjectivity regarding social activity and interactions (Denscombe, 2007).

Context, Participants and Study’s Data Artefacts

Each week for weeks 2-6 of a semester, third year primary PSTs in a Science investigation unit were asked to think of science questions they wondered about, write them on a Post-it-Notes (PIN) and stick them onto the tutorial ‘wonderwall’(Appendix 5). The instructions were intentionally ambiguous in order to not influence the kinds of questions PSTs posed. At the conclusion of the 5 minutes allotted for students to write down their questions and stick it on the wonder wall, PINs were removed after class from the wonder wall by the researcher. PSTs were assured that it was a safe environment to ask any science-related question and students were reminded at the duration of each class to think about a wonder wall question they could write down for the upcoming week. The anonymity of any questions posted on the wonder wall was emphasised which may have catered for students who were too afraid to ask questions in front of their peers and as a strategy to elicit students’ ‘genuine wonder’. The researcher openly discussed the importance of not writing a question because they felt pressured to do so. Considering the importance of students’ ‘genuine wonder’, the teacher/researcher explicitly gave students the option of posting their note on the wonder wall or keeping it as an individual exercise. There were students who did not wish for their questions to be read by their peers or analysed in this study and the researcher discerningly respected students’ wishes. Subsequently, these PIN questions were thematically coded. Each question was transcribed with a unique identifier: (note_number). The process of analysis will be discussed shortly. Additionally, the researcher kept a reflective journal writing down his perceptions of the process and observations. Each week, the researcher wrote approximately a page reflecting on the questions posed by students in an attempt to notice patterns, trends and/or make observations. The researcher also wrote reflections during the thematic coding process. Each reflection was assigned a unique identifer: (trddmmyyyy). Reflective journals provide a valid method for researching teaching and learning (Phelps, 2005). Journals have the potential to provide key insights that can be difficult to document in other ways (Creswell, 2005). They provide an opportunity to challenge individuals to reflect on new ideas, concepts and theories and to engage in action (Phelps, 2005). Following completion of the Science unit, students were asked to fill in an online survey instrument as shown in Appendix 6. The population of interest in this study was third year primary PSTs . In total, the population size was n=52. Following several reminder emails about this study, 40% of students (n=21) completed the online survey. While gender information was not elicited from survey participates, there is considerable female gender bias in the population (87% (n=44). At the time of data collection, participates were in the final weeks of their second 12.5% primary science unit in their course.

The data artefacts of this project include 1) the PIN questions posed by PSTs, 2) reflective journal writing by the teacher/researcher and 3) the online survey sent to students following the completion of the Science unit. Three data sources (students’ questions, reflective journal, and student survey) are used in this project to achieve the aims of this research project. Triangulation of these data (Patton, 2001) facilitated deeper understanding of the research questions posed in this study. The three data sources are used interchangeably, in a non-linear fashion, considered most effective to answer the research questions posed. In order to give the reader a general sense of the confidence levels of PSTs to teach Science in this study, it is necessary to examine the students’ reported confidence to teach different curriculum areas.

Students’ Reported Confidence to Teach Curriculum Area

Table I. Mean rank of Subjects ordered according to students’ confidence to teach curriculum area

Subject	Mean
English	2.05
Maths	2.32
Social Sciences	3.38
Sciences	3.71
Digital Technologies	4.33
The Arts	4.90

Note: 5 point scale. Lower score indicates higher reported confidence.

The data from the online survey as indicated in Table 1, perhaps not surprisingly, participants reported a relatively low level of confidence to teach Science. Almost a quarter of the sample (24%) ranked Science as their least confident subject to teach. Compared to the mean average of English (M=2.05), students reported significantly less confidence to teach Science (M=3.71, p<.05). These results indicate similar results to a study asking a similar question with a larger sample (>150) (Cooper, Kenny & Fraser, 2012) and is perhaps representative of the generally low level of confidence in the cohort to teach Science.

Data Analysis

Stolberg’s (2008) typology of wonder framed the overarching analysis of student questions/wonderments. However, we also kept our minds open to new possibilities for what might emerge from the data itself as we coded and analysed data sets (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This study adopted Stolberg’s (2008) classification of wonder but expands and defines different kinds of wonder as stated below:

Physical wonder: Non- human related Phenomena or processes found in Nature are the stimuli of the wonderment;
Personal wonder: Human beings or their work are the stimuli of the wonderment;
Metaphysical wonder: Which is prompted by any interaction, but the wonder evoked goes beyond a reflection on the original stimulus.

This approach and the willingness to be open to new ideas was predicated on the existence of multiple realities and trying to make sense of human behaviour, thoughts and interactions are often only one aspect of multi-layered issue (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Consequently, we endeavoured to incorporate differing and creative sets of data to both create and sustain credibility (Patton, 1990). Following analysis of PSTs’ questions/wonderments using Stolberg’s (2008) typology of wonder, the analysis will widen to discuss more generally about the potential implications of using the wonder wall in a university teaching environment.