Using moments of wonder in Science with pre-service teachers

As discussed, each week for four weeks of a semester, third year primary PSTs were asked to think of science questions they wondered about, write them down and stick them onto the class wonderwall. Subsequently, Stolberg’s framework was used to place students’ wonders into thematic categories. During the analysis, it was clear that in addition to Stolberg’s typologies, Pedagogical wonders manifested into its own distinct theme. A pedagogical wonder is defined in this paper as questions where science pedagogical perspectives, teaching and learning are stimuli of the wonderment. Hence, the first section of these findings examines students’ Physical, Personal, Metaphysical and Pedagogical wonder.

As discussed, the researcher kept a reflective journal writing down his perceptions and observations students as they are asked to state their wonder by writing a science-related question. Moreover, students were asked to fill in an online survey following the completion of the Science unit. In sum, students asked a total of (n=72) different questions.

Type of Wonder	n	≈%
Physical	31	43
Personal	28	37
Metaphysical	6	8
Pedagogical	8	11

Note: All Questions shown in Appendix 1, 2, 3 & 4

As shown in Table 2, 43% questions related to physical wonder. These are the questions related to wonderment regarding non- human related phenomena or processes found in Nature. As shown below, the wonders ranged in complexity from Why doesn’t water and oil mix? (note_66) to Are we alone in the universe? Is there any other planets we can live on? (note_72). 43% of all unique questions were classified in into nature wonder. Of the 31 wonder questions in this category, 10 questions (31%) could be classified as having strong links and themes to celestial objects and astronomy, for example:

“The number of astronomy-related questions makes me think that it is a particularly good way to get PSTs excited about Science….that there is a strong innate need for humans to make sense of their place and the formation of our universe… there is something uniquely special about astronomy that manages to motivate even the most unmotivated student to learn about it” (tr11062015). These data suggest that university teaching programs may be able to tap into the apparent high levels of wonder relating to Earth and space sciences by focusing on such concepts (e.g. stars, galaxies, planets). Tapping into the sciences that excite and motivate PSTs should be viewed as a priority for science educators, as these moments may act as the catalyst for further learning of Science. PSTs need opportunities to develop their understanding of concepts in contemporary astronomy with particular emphasis on the links between knowledge and practical investigations, including the utilisation of information technology (Watters ’ Ginns, 2000). In addition, science educators need to be explicitly modelling hands-on, student-centred pedagogies that compliment such knowledge.

The results indicated that 37% (Table 2) of questions related to Personal wonder. In this category, human beings or their work are the stimuli of the wonderment. This category was rather difficult to categorise because a wonder such as What is consciousness? (note_24) could be interpreted as a possible wonder about the physiology and anatomical elements that underpin what a medical professional may define as consciousness verses, for example, a sociologist’s or a philosopher's definition of this phenomena. Students had a range of questions about how humans have developed or manipulated machines/materials/symbols to overcome problems or barriers they have faced, for example:

While the questions in the category above indicate some interest in exploring the human endeavour of science and solutions to the barriers faced by mankind, it was clear that many of the questions in this category focused on the different biological questions about humans. (n=18/67%) of the questions in this section were strongly related to the structure and function of the human body. For example:

These data suggest that: “University teaching programs may be able to tap into the apparent levels of wonder in relation to the human body by planning learning tasks exploring the different physiology and anatomy of the human body” (tr19062015). As many primary education cohorts have a gender bias towards females, it is interesting to note that, girls’ out-of-school experiences are more commonly associated with biology, such as watching birds or planting seeds (Jones, Howe, & Rua, 2001). Conversely, boys continue to have more extracurricular experiences that are related to the physical sciences, including the use of electric toys and pulleys (Jones, Howe, & Rua, 2001). Hence, these data suggest that university teaching stakeholders may effectively use this apparently oft high level of PST wonder by exploring the biological sciences.

Only 8% (Table 2) questions were classified as wonderment about metaphysical phenomenon. These data strongly support the idea that many PSTs view the discipline of science from a predominately positivist paradigm. In other words, they view science as a way to uncover absolute truth, to understand the world in order to predict and control it. For example:

These types of questions indicate the capacity of students and highlight a great opportunity for science educators to foster and promote this complexity of thought. These questions show that some students, albeit a small number, have the ability to explore such ideas in their teaching degree. From my own informal observations and anecdotal accounts, I fear that few, if any, programs effectively allow preservice teachers to explore such complex ideas in their teaching degree programs. While beyond the scope of this paper, more research needs to be done into how teaching programs foster and develop such thinking in their degree programs.

In what manifested into its own distinct theme, Pedagogical wonder was a salient theme underpinning PSTs’ questions. Pedagogical wonder is defined here as teaching and learning perspectives and/or possibilities as the stimuli of the wonderment. As shown in Table 2, 11% (n=8) of questions involved Pedagogical wonders, for example:

“The questions certainly imply a desire to learn more about Science and how to teach it effectively. Although these questions certainly show encouraging aspirations to know more about how to teach good Science, I fear it is not presently enough.” (tr24062015).

There are two important points to make here. First, these data certainly make a case for expanding the categories of wonder from Stolberg’s original framework, particularly when working with PSTs. Second, these results arguably hint at students’ desire for the ‘secret recipe’ to teaching Science. In the hope that class will somehow enlighten students how to be effective teachers of Science. This desire by students to know the ‘secret recipe’ speaks, in part, to the systemic problems in Australian Science education.

This section of the paper concludes analysis of PSTs’ questions/wonderments. Below, the analysis widens to discuss more broadly observations made during use of the wonder wall.

The following questions highlight the potential of the wonder wall to bring genuine laughter and fun into the Science classroom:

“Every week at the conclusion of ‘wondering time’, I had a quick scan of the questions posed by students. I attempted to read out a broad spectrum of questions covering a range of science concepts and at the beginning, questions I considered to be appropriately funny and witty in order to promote a sense of ease and comfortableness with the questioning. While not everyone took the opportunity to pose ‘serious science questions’, I felt that even the students who wrote a funny/witty question still contributed to the Science discussions. By this I mean that the class and I genuinely laughed at some of the questions posed and considering the PSTs’ common negative attitudes/experiences/memories of learning Science, I think these moments contributed to a warm, friendly and non-threatening learning climate” (tr18062015).

From the experiences of this semester, strategies such as a wonder wall have the potential to bring fun and laughter into the Science classroom. An important consideration for university educators is the importance of laughter and fun in the Science classroom as a metaphorical cultural bridge that may be the impetus students need to see the how learning about the sciences may enrich their own lives as well as their future students.

One of the biggest benefits of using a wonder wall may be its potential to foster and promote a visible ‘science learning culture’. Science learning culture is defined here as students’ discussions of scientific issues, research, asking questions and generally engaged in the sciences. This scenario is not unlike a field of scientists collaborating, communicating ideas and trying to overcome the problems they face. “University educators know that the space allocated to science teaching is limited in teacher education programs. Seemingly modest techniques such as a weekly wonder wall may have a considerable effect on giving preservice teachers a valuable learning experience in their degree where they feel more confident to go and teach Science” (tr23062015). The author acknowledges that it will take a lot more than a wonder wall to develop and grow the science learning culture that needs to be developed. However, a weekly wonder wall may be a step in the right direction towards promoting a vibrant and budding science learning culture.

Following the completion of the science unit, students were asked to anonymously report what they thought of the wonder wall initiative. A sample of 21 students completed an online survey: PSTs confidence to ask science-related questions.

There is evidence to suggest that PSTs may feel a strong sense of embarrassment about not knowing what some may consider being very basic science content knowledge (Van Driel, Jong & Verloop, 2002). Pedagogical strategies that give PSTs the opportunity to ask science questions without the risk of shame or embarrassment from peers or lecturers sounds appealing. The following statements infer a greater confidence to ask science questions without feeling awkward or inferior in some way:

Pre-service teacher education programmes are central in preparing graduates to become effective teachers equipped with the necessary pedagogical practices that will serve the needs of their future students (Cochran-Smith, Feiman-Nemser & McIntyre, 2008). Use of the wonder wall is an effective model of a constructivist-teaching strategy PSTs may implement in their future classrooms. There was evidence from the surveys that PSTs were thinking about the potential benefits of using a wonder wall with primary-aged students:

Although the class had approximately 10 minutes each week to discuss some of the science questions posed it was certainly not enough time to explore (or answer) students’ questions with any considerable depth. This apparently frustrated some students in class:

As stated previously, the intention was never to answer all of the students’ questions, rather to get them tapping into their innate curiosity and wonder. Perhaps these reported student frustrations tap into broader concepts and questions regarding the structure of education in general. What is it about how we teach science that slowly diminishes students’ curiosity and wonder? If we are to have a scientifically literature community, what role does curiosity and wonder have to play? What role should curiosity and wonder have in teacher education programs?

Thematic analysis of PSTs’ wonders