c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 35 The Role of Wonder in Students’ Conception of and Learning About Evolution Bodil Sundberg* 1 and Magdalena Andersson 2 • Learning about evolution can be challenging for students, as a full un - derstanding may require them to see the world in new ways, to master a disciplinary language and to understand complex processes. Draw - ing on a long line of theoretically grounded arguments of philosophers and researchers for including wonder in science teaching, we report on the results of an empirical study with the primary aim of investigating the role of wonder in students’ learning about evolution. The study was carried out through a formative intervention in which two researchers in science education collaborated with a seventh-grade teacher. Over a period of six weeks, 45 students participated in lessons and workshops aimed at eliciting a sense of wonder in relation to concepts that are known to impact the learning of evolution. We incorporated four ‘trig - gers’ to elicit students’ wonder in the science class: aesthetic experiences, defiance of expectations, agency and awareness of a mystery within the ordinary . Logbook entries and interviews with student pairs provided empirical material for a qualitative analysis of the role of wonder in the students’ meaning-making about, learning of and engagement in evolu - tion. The results show that it is possible to design science teaching that triggers students’ wonder in relation to an intended learning object. The results also reveal that the participating students described their sense of wonder in qualitatively different ways and that they still struggled to make sense of the concept of evolution after six weeks of teaching. Keywords: evolution, formative intervention, lower secondary school, threshold concepts, wonder 1 *Corresponding Author. Science Education at the School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Sweden; bodil.sundberg@oru.se. 2 School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Sweden. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.1489 36 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Vloga čudenja pri učencih glede pojmovanja evolucije in učenja o njej Bodil Sundberg in Magdalena Andersson • Učenje o evoluciji utegne učencem predstavljati izziv, saj lahko od njih terja, da morajo za popolno razumevanje uvideti svet na nove načine, da obvladajo strokovni jezik in razumejo kompleksne procese. Na pod - lagi dolge vrste teoretično utemeljenih argumentov filozofov in razisko - valcev za vključevanje čudenja v poučevanje naravoslovja poročamo o izsledkih empirične študije, ki je bila osredinjena na vlogo čudenja pri učenju evolucije učencev. Raziskava je bila izvedena s formativno in - tervencijo, v kateri sta dva raziskovalca naravoslovnega izobraževanja sodelovala z učiteljico sedmega razreda. V obdobju šestih tednov je 45 učencev sodelovalo pri pouku in na delavnicah, katerih cilj je bil vzbudi - ti občutek čudenja v povezavi s koncepti, za katere je znano, da vplivajo na učenje evolucije. Vključili smo štiri »sprožilce«, s čimer smo med po - ukom naravoslovja pri učencih izvali čudenje: estetska doživetja, kljubo - vanje pričakovanjem, posredništvo in zavest o skrivnosti v običajnem. Dnevniški vnosi so skupaj s tandemskimi intervjuji učencev zagotovili empirično gradivo za kvalitativno analizo vloge čudenja pri oblikovanju pomenov, ki jih imajo učenci o evoluciji, učenju in o sodelovanju pri njej. Izsledki kažejo, da je mogoče poučevanje naravoslovja zasnovati tako, da bi pri učencih sprožilo čudenje v kontekstu zamišljenega učnega cilja. Prav tako izsledki nakazujejo, da so sodelujoči učenci to opisali na kvalitativno različne načine, pri čemer so stežka osmislili koncept evo - lucije tudi po šestih tednih poučevanja. Ključne besede: evolucija, formativna intervencija, nižja srednja šola, pragovni koncepti, čudenje c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 37 Introduction The theory of evolution is one of the key explanatory models in biology. An accurate understanding of evolution is therefore essential for understanding other areas of life sciences. However, decades of research has found that both teaching and learning about evolution can be very challenging, while numerous misconceptions and alternative beliefs have been documented among students (Gregory, 2009; Groß et al., 2019; Nicholl & Davies, 2019; Pobiner et al., 2019; Sinatra et al., 2008). A number of causes have been suggested to explain stu - dents’ difficulties in accurately understanding evolution, including both cogni - tive and emotional barriers. Cognitive barriers include conceptual difficulties, whereby evolution can be perceived as difficult because it describes complex phenomena and involves invisible and counterintuitive objects and processes (Barnes et al., 2017; Göransson, 2021). Emotional barriers, on the other hand, can arise from the human tendency to find it easier to accept things one wants to be true and more difficult to accept things one does not want to be true (Thagard & Findlay, 2010). Several studies have shown that students commonly construct teleological explanations, i.e., that changes are purpose driven, rather than using scientific explanations of evolutionary change (Gresch & Martens, 2019). In the literature, a number of sources for emotional barriers to learning about evolution have been described: students’ prior beliefs that conflict with the scientific perspective of biological change, religious orientation, biological worldviews and difficulties in accepting evolutionary theory (Demastes et al., 1995; Evans, 2001). Much of the research that addresses students’ difficulties in understanding evolution relies on a conceptual framework that emphasises the importance of students’ meaning-making of key and threshold concepts (Mey - er & Land, 2003; Tibell & Harms, 2017). Key concepts are discipline-specific theoretical descriptions that together can be used to describe scientific prin - ciples such as origin of variation , differential fitness and inheritance . Threshold concepts, on the other hand, describe general concepts such as randomness , probability , spatial scales , adaption and temporal scales (Tibell & Harms, 2017, p. 958). From an educational point of view, threshold concepts are important, as they are difficult to grasp. Once understanding is achieved, however, it rep - resents a radical and permanent change in the way the student makes meaning about a subject (Meyer & Land, 2003). In a recent study aimed at measuring students’ ‘threshold crossings’ , Walck- Shannon et al. (2019, p. 2) describe how students »can take multiple paths oscillating in and out of a liminal state of un - certainty as they approach, learn, and master a threshold concept«. 38 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution To summarise, helping students to understand evolution is not simply a matter of supporting the cognitive aspects of learning. Teaching about evolu - tion also needs to encompass thoughtful teaching that helps students to see the world in new and different ways. In the present study, we draw on literature that theoretically argues that wonder can make students open to this kind of transformative teaching and learning. Wonder is a so-called epistemic emo - tion, i.e., an affective phenomenon that is defined by a direct relation to (not) knowing and understanding (Candiotto, 2019; V aldesolo et al., 2017). W onder is triggered by objects and events that, in a profound way, make us aware of what we do not know and cannot explain. The trigger can be various sorts of objects: the sight of a star-filled night sky, a sound, an idea or a work of art. Regardless of what triggers the sense of wonder, this emotion is defined by how it makes us aware of the fact that there is more to be learned, of the beauty or complex - ity of a natural phenomenon, thus forcing us to question our worldviews and stretch our minds (Candiotto, 2019; Paulson et al., 2021). In the present article, we hypothesise that making room for wonder may be one way for teachers to support students to work through the complex process of understanding evolu - tion. We present the results from a formative classroom intervention in which a seventh-grade teacher, in collaboration with researchers in science education, developed, implemented and analysed the role of wonder as a pedagogical tool for students’ engagement in meaning-making of and learning about evolution. The aim of the study presented in this article was twofold. First, we wanted to empirically explore ways for teachers to make room for wonder in ordinary school science. Second, we wanted to investigate the ways in which such teaching might affect students’ engagement in learning about evolution. The following two questions were used to guide our study: 1. In what ways can teachers make room for wonder in their science classroom? 2. In what ways, if any, does making room for wonder impact students’ meaning-making, engagement in and learning about biological princi - ples and threshold concepts that are known to be important when learn - ing about evolution? Wonder – A scientific emotion? The idea of wonder being integral to learning about and understanding the world around us was suggested as early as by the ancient Greek philoso - phers. Plato stated that »wonder is the beginning of philosophy« and Socrates consistently urged his fellow citizens and students to consider strange new ways of looking at the world. Within the natural sciences, modern scientists such as c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 39 Richard Dawkins and Donna Strickland still highlight wonder as an indispen - sable dimension of the scientific endeavour (Dawkins, 2000; Strickland, 2020). In a recent study, Cuzzolino (2021) showed that epistemic emotions served as an important motivator to the »quest for understanding«, as well as a source of new perspectives on learners’ work and worldview. In general, researchers use the term wonder to address a whole range of emotions that describe not-knowing in relation to learning. For example, educational researchers refer to dichotomies such as inquisitive wonder vs. contemplative wonder, active wonder vs. passive wonder, childish wonder vs. self-reflexive wonder, and wondering about vs. wondering at (Egan et al., 2014; Hadzigeorgiou, 2011). In psychology research, where the interest in epistemic emotion has increased in the past two decades, the term awe is generally used (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Valdesolo et al., 2017) to describe emotions that over - lap with the term wonder as more commonly used in educational research. In relation to art/aesthetics, three dimensions of wonder have been described: the sensory dimension, the cognitive dimension and the spiritual dimension (Gess, 2019). Thus, in the literature referred to above, the definitions of different types of wonder sometimes overlap, but are sometimes described as distinctively dif - ferent. It is beyond the scope of the present article to engage in a detailed dis - cussion of the overlapping features and distinctions of these terms; however, to help the reader, we have summarised the main characteristics of and relation - ships between the common terms used to describe wonder in science education contexts (Figure 1). 40 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Figure 1 Model of the main characteristics of and relationships between the most common terms applied to describe emotions related to not-knowing in educational research. Note: Terms in bold are those used in the present article. Adapted from Valdesolo (2017), Wolbert and Schinkel (2021), Schinkel (2017), Egan et al. (2014) and Hadzigeorgiou (2011). In the present article, we use the terms curiosity , inquisitive wonder and contemplative wonder to make distinctions between the three main types of af - fective response to not-knowing described in educational research. In short, curiosity covers terms that relate to a cognitive explanation-seeking response to not-knowing. The trigger for curiosity always involves a dimension of novelty, that is, it is triggered by an object or process that the person has never encoun - tered before. Inquisitive wonder covers terms that describe experiences that are related to curiosity in that they are inquisitive, but in these cases the experi - ence involves a cognitive as well as a sensory and emotional dimension. The trigger for inquisitive wonder may involve the dimension of novelty, but it can c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 41 also involve something familiar that is seen from a new perspective (Schinkel, 2017). Contemplative wonder encompasses terms describing cognitive, emo- tional and spiritual experiences, i.e., when »we sense the utter mysteriousness of whatever we are contemplating« (Schinkel, 2017). The definitions of both inquisitive and contemplative wonder overlap with how the term awe is used within the literature. Contemplative wonder may appear to be less important for educational purposes, as it may just leave us lost for words; nevertheless, in relation to teaching and learning evolution, contemplative wonder may be of particular importance, as this type of wonder is supposed to make us stretch our minds and question our worldviews. Wonder in school science In line with the literature described above, arguments have been put for - ward to acknowledge wonder as an important dimension of school science, as well. Wonder is hypothesised to motivate students to explain and explore the physical world (Dewey, 1910; Valdesolo et al., 2017; Wolbert & Schinkel, 2021), to open an emotional relationship with nature and science content knowledge (Hadzigeorgiou & Schulz, 2014), and to predict a more accurate understand - ing of how science works, as well as a rejection of creationism and teleological explanations (Gottlieb et al., 2018). Despite the fact that wonder has repeatedly been hypothesised to be beneficial to science teaching and learning, there are very few empirically based studies informing teachers how to shape their science teaching to make room for wonder. Science curricula today lack both guiding instructions and motiva - tion for science teachers to make room for emotions (Fortus et al., 2022; Gilbert & Byers, 2017; Hadzigeorgiou, 2011; Wolbert & Schinkel, 2021). One explana - tion for the lack of empirical studies may be the complex and challenging de - mands that ‘teaching for uncertainty’ and making room for emotions imposes on teachers (Hadzigeorgiou, 2011; Gilbert & Byers, 2017; Wolbert & Schinkel, 2021). In making space for wonder, and therefore uncertainty, teachers need to abandon routine practices that place students’ ability to articulate correct answers in the foreground. Moreover, it may be difficult to inspire teachers to make room for wonder in the classroom because they doubt the place of such emotions in science education in the first place. In a study by Stolberg (2008), pre-service teachers expressed views on wonder as something that is part of being irrational, or connected wonder to spirituality, thus positioning it as unscientific. Another reason for the lack of empirically based studies is the methodological difficulties in identifying and describing students’ experiences of wonder in the ongoing reality of the science classroom. 42 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution The results of two of the few classroom-based studies of wonder are of interest for the present research. The first study, performed by Hadzigeor - giou (2011), describes a classroom intervention in which a ninth-grade phys - ics teacher and Hadzigeorgiou together designed teaching that could foster a sense of wonder. The results showed a positive effect on students’ learning of the scientific phenomena, and an increased understanding consistent with the principles of scientific methods. In the second study, Gilbert and Byers (2017) used wonder as a pedagogical tool to help primary student teachers overcome the negative associations with science that they had acquired from their own school science experiences. The results showed that the explicit use of the con - cept of wonder provided important insights, created a context for the students’ interest in science and gave them the courage to take on science teaching. These two classroom-based studies indicate that the pedagogical potential of wonder argued for in theory may be translated into classroom practice and demonstrat - ed how this may affect students’ learning and appreciation of science. However, there is a need for more empirical studies that thoroughly study the educational potential and limitations of wonder in specific school science subjects, which is why, in our opinion, the present study is important. Theoretical framework for wonder as a pedagogical tool in science education In designing our strategy for the present study together with a lower sec - ondary teacher, we were inspired by the works of Trotman (2014) and Wolbert and Shinkel (2021). Trotman (2014, pp. 36–38) draws on four biographical vi - gnettes and some examples of educational practices to theoretically discuss the educational possibilities of and barriers to wonder in school-based education. He suggests six prerequisites for the development of wonder-full teaching: 1) an environment where exploration, chance and serendipity are valued as neces - sary features of education, 2) a curriculum that generates vivid imaginative and emotional connection within and across subjects, 3) empathic teaching that includes imagination, emotion and affect, 4) reception and generation of mo - ments beyond the initial ‘wow’ of novelty, 5) education that is driven by neither pre-specified nor instrumental outcomes, and 6) education that includes op - portunities for projects of personal interests. The work of Wolbert and Schinkel (2021) builds on Trotman’s reasoning, but is adjusted to fit the restraints of school-based teaching. Like Trotman, they recommend teaching that makes room for improvisation, imagination and the students’ own interests. However, their suggestions emphasise the importance of the capacity of the teacher herself/himself to wonder, to recognise students’ c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 43 wonder and to see wonder in the ordinary. The Swedish context The education system in Sweden is based on a nine-year comprehensive school ( grundskola ), with mandatory attendance for students between seven and sixteen years of age. Secondary schooling is separated into the compulsory lower secondary (grades 7–9) and voluntary higher secondary (grades 10–12). The sample for this study comprised 45 students in one seventh-grade class (13–14 years of age). The national curriculum that was valid when the study was carried out, Lgr 11 (National Agency for Education, 2011), regulates the aims and guidelines for all aspects of education in the comprehensive school. With regard to teach - ing evolution, the curriculum states: »Through teaching, pupils should get an insight into the worldview of science with the theory of evolution as a founda - tion, and also get perspectives on how evolution as a scientific field has devel - oped and what cultural impact it has had« (National Agency for Education, 2011, p. 166). The core content to cover in relation to evolution is described in Table 1. Table 1 Core content related to evolution that biology teaching should cover in grades 7–9 Section Content to cover Body and health The body’s cells, organs and organ systems, and their structure, func- tion and interaction. Comparisons between man and other organisms from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary mechanisms and their outcomes, as well as heredity and the relationship between heredity and the environment. Biology and worldviews Scientific theories about the origins of life. The development of life and diversity from evolutionary theory perspectives. Biology, its methods and ways of working How organisms are identified, categorised and grouped, based on relationships between species and their evolution. Note. Adapted from National Agency for Education, 2011, pp. 169–170. 44 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Method The study setup The study was carried out through formative interventions. The main goal of formative interventions is to enable collaborative work between re - searchers and stakeholders of a specific profession in order to develop prac - tice (Penuel, 2014). In our case, two researchers (the authors) and one teacher collaborated over a period of six weeks to design and evaluate models for in - troducing wonder into teaching evolution. The role of the researchers was to articulate, support and sustain the expansive transformation process within the project team (Engeström & Sannino, 2010), and to document and analyse the empirical material. The role of the teacher was to contribute professional knowledge to the planning and evaluation process and to decide on the overall setup of the six weeks of teaching so that the implementation would fit her specific class and the frame factors of the school . Prior to the intervention, the teacher and the guardians of the students received written information about the project and were informed that participation was voluntary and could be cancelled. All of the guardians were asked for written consent for their chil - dren’s participation in the documented activities. The study was preceded by a pilot study in which researchers and teach - ers (including the teacher in the present study) met in workshops to discuss the concept of wonder and how it might be related to teaching and learning sci - ence. During these workshops, four ‘triggers’ that might elicit students’ wonder in the science class were jointly agreed on, drawing on theoretical frameworks suggested for teaching for wonder by Trotman (2014, pp. 37–38) and Wolbert and Schinkel (2021), as well as the participating teachers’ own experiences of students’ expressions of wonder in the classroom. The four triggers were: aes - thetic experiences , defiance of expectations, students’ agency and awareness of a mystery within the ordinary (Table 2). c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 45 Table 2 Descriptions of the four ‘triggers’ that guided the design of the workshop Triggers Description Examples Aesthetic experiences Sensory experiences and oppor- tunities for students to express themselves through different modes. Experiences in which mind and body are used to increase one’s understanding of an object or process. Touch a petal to sense its softness Watch the glistering body of an earthworm for a long time Draw a detailed picture of an earthworm Defiance of expectations Experiences of surprise when confronted with new aspects of something familiar, or new objects or processes in familiar settings. Discover that a small seed can grow into a huge sunflower Observing that insects have feet Agency Experiences of being able to achieve something on their own or in cooperation with others. Design a scientific experiment on your own Awareness of a mystery within the ordinary Experiencing a spiritual dimension. A feeling that ‘there is more to this than what I can observe and understand’. Appreciate a rainbow beyond the scientific explanation of it A feeling of being part of something greater Note. Adapted from Trotman (2014, pp. 37–38), Wolbert and Schinkel (2021) and teachers’ experi- ences of students’ expressions of wonder in the classroom. During the six-week period of the study, two lessons per week were planned covering evolution. Three of these twelve occasions were used for vari - ous workshops in which making room for wonder was explicitly planned for. In the present article, we describe the setup and results of the first workshop, which was entitled Three Things , and how the students responded to this inter - vention. The other two workshops focused on the concepts variety, competition and natural selection and evolutionary time . In the first workshop, the students were instructed to »‘play’ finches by using different types of ‘bird beaks’ (pliers) to pick food (seeds, nuts) of varying sizes and shapes«. In the next workshop, the students made a »deep time walk« along a 46 meter long string as a visual metaphor for 4.6 billion years. Key events were presented by the teacher along the way and discussed. The design of the workshop Three Things The workshop entitled Three Things was performed during a morning session when the class of 45 students were divided into three groups of 15 stu - dents who circulated between three different classrooms to enable small-group teaching in different subjects. The workshop was therefore repeated three times with three different groups, each workshop taking one hour. The workshop was 46 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution introduced by the teacher, who presented three famous scientists who all had a major impact on evolutionary science: Carl von Linné (1707–1778), Mary Anning (1799–1847) and Charles Darwin (1809–1882). All three were presented in rela - tion to their specific knowledge contribution to the field of evolution, while also highlighting how the sense of wonder was a driving force for their scientific en - deavour. After this, three biological objects were presented to the students by the researchers: a tray of assorted lichens ( Cladónia spp., Cetrária islándica, Cladina spp.), a small trilobite fossil, and otoliths from whiting ( Merlangius merlangus) (Figure 2). These three objects were carefully chosen for three reasons. Figure 2 The three biological objects used in the teaching model Three Things: assorted lichens (Cladónia spp., Cetrária islándica, Cladina spp.), a trilobite, and otoliths from whiting (Merlangius merlangus) First, these objects had been important triggers for the participating re - searchers’ own wonder early in their careers, thus providing the students with a first-hand story of how the sense of wonder can be a driving force for scientists. Second, the objects were hypothesised to trigger the students’ wonder through aesthetic experiences , defiance of expectations and awareness of a mystery within the ordinary . Although all of the objects were probably unfamiliar to the stu - dents, they were still expected to be perceived as ordinary (i.e., without spec - tacular features) at first glance. Third, all of the objects were judged to represent specific concepts that are central to learning about evolution and yet difficult to grasp: evolutionary time (the trilobite), diversity (the lichens) and organism (all three). In addition, all of the objects were reasonably accessible for a teacher and easy to handle in an ordinary classroom. The students were divided into subgroups with five members, and each subgroup was assigned a table on which one of the objects was displayed. The students were then asked to reflect together about what they were observing when examining the object. Although the students had access to magnifying glasses during the workshop, they requested a stereo microscope, which the c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 47 teacher provided for each group. After about five minutes, when the discussions seemed to be subsiding, the subgroups were asked to rotate to the next table. This procedure was repeated so that everyone had observed and examined all of the objects by the end of the workshop. The teacher and the researchers cir - culated among the subgroups to listen to the discussions, encourage further discussion and answer students’ questions. Students’ logbook entries In the last ten minutes of the workshop, the students were asked to re - flect individually by making logbook entries on the Google Classroom learning platform. They were guided by two questions/instructions. The first instruction was: Tell us as much as you can about what you thought about when you saw the fossil, the mushrooms/lichens, and the otoliths today . Noteworthy here is that the teacher used the terms mushrooms and lichens interchangeably, which in - fluenced the terms the students later used in their logbook entries. The second question was: Do you often experience a sense of wonder? If so, what triggers this? The students had one more opportunity to complete their reflection task. Three of the students did not attend the workshop and so only made entries corre - sponding to the second question. Student interviews At the end of the six-week period, we performed six semi-structured in - terviews with student pairs (Table 3). Each interview lasted about 13–16 minutes and followed an interview guide that was divided into three themes: a) the stu - dents’ interpretation of the concept of wonder, b) the students’ interpretation of the concept of evolution, and c) the students’ experience of science teaching in general and in the three workshops of the intervention. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis Thematic content analyses were made of the logbook entries and the transcribed interviews (Table 3). Methodologically, thematic content analysis can be applied to both describing and interpreting qualitative data (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). A central premise is that the same data material can be interpreted in several different ways. In our case, the analysis was aligned with our two research questions and made in collaboration between the authors in an iterative process for each research question, whereby we alternated between individual analyses and joint analyses of the empirical material. 48 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Table 3 Empirical material analysed in the study Empirical source Description Empirical material Analysis Logbook entries Student reflections on the lesson, guided by two questions 45 digitally written individual entries Thematic content analysis Semi-structured and audio-recorded interviews Student interviews in pairs, guided by thematic questions 6 audio recorded interviews with 12 students, (6 girls and 6 boys), approximately 15 minutes each Thematic content analysis Logbook entries An important part of the first round of analysis was to establish how the students’ expressed themselves when describing their experiences of wonder, as this would guide us in the next step, in which we wanted to analyse the stu - dents’ expressions of wonder in relation to concepts connected to evolutionary processes. In order to establish how the students’ expressed themselves when describing their experiences of wonder, we analysed the vocabulary they used in their entries in relation to the question: Do you often experience a sense of wonder? If so, what triggers this? We found a set of words that were used repe - atedly by the students when they described what triggers their sense of wonder. Most commonly, the students used the words cool (47%) and awesome (36%). Other frequently used words were: interesting , fascinating , wow!, weird and ‘ new to me ’ . For example: » I feel a sense of wonder // when I see something that is cool or interesting« (Student 26). After we had established how to guide our judgement of the students’ expressions of wonder, we conducted a joint analysis of the entries that the students had made in response to the instruction: Tell us as much as you can about what you thought about when you saw the fossil, the mushrooms/lichens, and the otoliths today . First, both of the researchers read all of the entries and highlighted key features of the data set in relation to research question 2. The key features were then coded individually into tentative themes. In the next step, the two sets of themes were compared and negotiated in order to consolidate them, but also to provide an opportunity for new insights into what the material could reveal in relation to the research question. This process was continued until the themes were considered stable by both researchers. Two overarching results emerged. The first comprised themes that together described what triggered the students’ sense of wonder (T able 4), while the second set of themes described the fact that c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 49 the students expressed three qualitatively different types of wonder (Table 5). Student interviews In order to create an overview and an overall picture of the material, the transcripts were analysed by repeated read-throughs. We then marked the sentence units, i.e., the statements in which the students’ conversations were di - rected towards the role of wonder and learning about evolution. Other episodes were set aside. The sentence units were then analysed by condensing, coding, categorising and thematising them in the manner described above for the log - book entries (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Results Taken together, our results suggest that it is possible to design science teaching that triggers students’ wonder in relation to an intended learning ob - ject. Our results also reveal that the students described their sense of wonder in qualitatively different ways, and that they still struggled to make sense of the concept of evolution after six weeks of teaching. These results are described in more detail below. Expressing wonder associated to key and threshold concepts Except for the three students who were absent that day, all of the stu - dents made logbook entries in which they described their experiences during the intervention. In most of the entries (25 of 42), the students’ sense of wonder was triggered by one or more of the objects. On closer analysis of how the stu - dents expressed themselves, however, it was revealed that this sense of wonder could in fact be delineated into concepts that describe evolutionary or scientific processes rather than to the objects themselves. As shown by the quotes in Table 4, the students, in their own words, associate the three objects with aspects that can be linked to evolutionary con - cepts such as temporal scale, variation , diversity and interplay between organ - isms and habitat. 50 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Table 4 Students’ expressions of wonder associated with evolutionary concepts Object Concept Quotes Number of entries Lichen Variation/ diversity The mushrooms were cool to look at with magnifying glasses; imagine how it is possible that they can look so different and still grow in the same places (log, Student 3). 26 The mushrooms [lichens] looked very differ- ent. Some looked very much like a mushroom and some really didn’t look like a mushroom (log, Student 31). Trilobite Temporal scale I thought the fossil [trilobite] was the coolest because it was about 500 million years old and yet it [the trilobite] still exists today (log, Student 15). 25 It was exciting, it was a bit difficult to think that you can see something that existed be- fore dinosaurs existed (log, Student 36). Otolith Variation/ diversity Then the one with the fish [the otolith] that you could see how long they had been alive and if they had been swimming in salt water or fresh water (log, Student 41). 22 The scientific process The otoliths were the coolest because there can be so much information in a tiny white blob (log, Student 34). The otoliths were a bit weird, [I] didn’t really know what it was used for when it was in the fish, / / the fact that you can tell the age just by looking at it was really cool, but you wonder how, too (log, Student 5). Note. In some cases, the student expressed wonder at more than one object. The words in bold denote the vocabulary that the students used in relation to wonder (see methods section). The most common triggers for the students’ wonder were aspects that can be related to variation (26 of 42 entries). As the students do not use dis - cipline-specific language, and since their entries are rather short, it was not always possible to discern whether they were referring to variation on the in - dividual level within one species or variation between different species. Nev - ertheless, the quote from Student 3 is an example of how many of the students wondered at the variation of characteristics among lichens. Student 3 remarks on the fact that the lichens looked very different even though they were all picked in the same forest. We interpret this as an emerging realisation of how variations in characteristics of an organism may, or may not, be connected to variations in the surrounding environment. Such an emerging awareness of the interplay between physical characteristics of organisms and the characteristics c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 51 of the habitat in which they live is a recuring observation among the students. In several of the entries related to the otoliths, the students specifically won - dered at how it was possible that the interplay between an individual and its environment could leave physical traces at a small part inside an organism. Many of the students also wondered at the magnitude of the amount of time that has passed since the trilobites roamed the earth, and that they could nonetheless hold a specimen of this creature in their hand today. We interpret this as wonder connected to the temporal scale of evolutionary time, as the stu - dents explicitly describe how they find it hard to grasp the time span and fit it into their existing worldview. Somewhat unexpectedly, our results also show that the students wonder at the scientific process itself. Student 5’s comment that » the fact that you can tell the age [of the fish] just by looking at it [the otolith] was really cool, but you wonder how, too « was just one of several remarks that expressed wonder at how a biological object can carry information that can be interpreted and used by researchers to understand more about an individual. Taken together, the results show that the setup of the intervention seems to have enabled most of the students to confront their own ‘not-knowing’ in relation to important concepts of evolutionary processes. This discovery of not-knowing was not induced by direct questions from the teacher; rather, it emerged within the students as they tried to make sense of what they were experiencing. The experience was, however, framed by an introduction that included a presentation of the concepts of both evolution and wonder. Our interpretation is that this introduction was enough to inspire most of the stu - dents to wonder about how and why the physical characteristics of species and individuals vary, as well as about the vastness of evolutionary time and the sci - entific process. Three types of responses to not-knowing When focusing our analysis on how the students described their expe - riences during the workshop, examples of the qualitatively different types of affective responses to not knowing described in Figure 1 emerged from the ma - terial (Table 5). The students described curiosity, inquisitive wonder and con - templative wonder, which we have interpreted as reflections of differences in their cognitive or/and emotional involvement. 52 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Table 5 Types of not-knowing expressed by the students in relation to learning about evolution Description Quotes Number of entries Curiosity Refers to a cognitive experience. Defined by a desire to receive ‘right answers’. There was a lot to see today, but with few answers, which was a shame (log, Student 5). 10 I would really like to learn more about what we learned today (log, Student 22). It’s like a new world that you enter and there were so many questions that came up in your head (log, Student 24). Inquisitive wonder Refers to a cognitive, sensory and emotional experience. Defined by the student’s full attention to the object of wonder and the use of both mind and body (senses) to make sense of the experience. When I saw the fossils it wasn’t so cool – I’ve seen a lot of fossils before – but it was still nice that you could touch them, because last time I was in a place where there were fossils that you couldn’t touch, but now you could (log, Student 18). 17 Everything felt and smelt different. Some things had patterns on them, so it was kind of neat (log, Student 20). / / when I looked with the magnifying glasses it looked much cooler and I wanted to look a lot. It was kind of a neat pattern and it was cool to be able to see the eyes (log, Student 23). The most fun was when you got to touch them [the lichens], because they didn’t feel like I thought they would, far from what I thought they would feel like (log, Student 24). Contemplative wonder Refers to a cognitive, emotional and spiritual experience. Defined by shifts in perspective (scales, complexity), and/or imagination. When we looked at the lichens under the magnifying glass, it was very interesting; it was like looking into another world. Everything looks so different when it’s magnified (log, Student 1). 17 It [the lichens] reminds me of when you were a little kid in the woods playing and seeing things like that; it was just cool and everything was awesome (log, Student 24). I thought the fossils were cool; the lichens were cool and looked like inspiration for children’s movies with enchanted forests in them (log, Student 30). It was exciting; it was a little hard to think that you can see something that existed before dinosaurs existed (log, Student 36). In the first category, curiosity , we gathered the students’ entries describ - ing a state of not-knowing that can be resolved if, for example, someone (the teacher) gives them an answer or more information. The message conveyed by these entries corresponds in many ways with how curiosity is described in the c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 53 literature. In some of the entries, we can sense frustration at the lack of infor - mation. This type of experience was the least common one. The second category, inquisitive wonder , we interpret as a state of not- knowing that is simultaneously connected to cognitive, sensory and emotional qualities. The log entries reveal that the students responded to their experience of not-knowing by using both their mind and their senses to learn more. The students used sight, smell and touch to resolve their not-knowing rather than asking for information. This in turn resulted in an opportunity for sensory and emotional experiences. The entries that were sorted into the third category, contemplative wonder , all reflect an emotional state in which the students let the mind wander and imagine new worlds or perspectives. Interestingly, most of these entries refer to experiences of viewing the objects through the magnifying glass or stereo microscope that the teacher provided. These devices seem to have sharpened the students’ sight in a way that allowed them to enter new imaginary worlds (Students 1 and 30), but also to make way for free associations and existential thinking (Student 24). Struggling to make sense of evolution Learning about evolution can be challenging for students, as a full un - derstanding may require them to see the world in a new and different way, as well as requiring a mastery of a disciplinary language and an understanding of complex processes. Accordingly, the interview transcripts revealed that, even after experiencing six weeks of teaching about evolution (encompassing ap - proximately two lessons each week), many of the students were still struggling with how to conceptualise the main features of the evolutionary process. Our analysis of the interview transcripts reveals that the students are, as Walck- Shannon et al. (2019) put it, still in a liminal state where they are approaching and learning to master threshold concepts and a disciplinary language. When encouraged to describe what evolution is about, most of the students’ descrip - tions were constructed by various relevant concepts, but stacked on top of each other without coherence. For example, in one of the interviews (Group 6) two students explain evolution together as follows: Student 1: How species have changed over time to adapt more. Student 2: Yes, adapted better. Adaptation and evolution. And species. Even the students who specifically expressed that they perceived evolu - tion to be logical struggled: That like sea and land come before vertebrates in water or something like that. It’s quite logical. It was quite difficult though (Group 4, Student 1) 54 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution Our interpretation of the interview data is that, at the end of the teach - ing period, the students had learned that there are specific concepts that should be used when describing the process of evolution. In the logbook entries made at the very beginning of the teaching period, none of the students used disci - plinary concepts. Later, in the interviews, they used concepts such as adaption , species and vertebrates . The precision and accuracy of how to position these concepts in relation to each other and in a coherent context is, however, not yet fully developed. We suggest that this can be described as an emerging discipli - nary language , and that the students are still struggling to master it. In some cases (Group 5), the interview data also show, in a very explicit way, how the students were struggling with their awareness of not-knowing: Student 1: We got to learn what came first, the atmosphere or this cell stuff and such. What else was there? We learned that humans, although we all know that from before, humans were monkeys. Or was it? Or did we bring it up? No, it wasn’t that. Student 2: No Interviewer: Yes, what about that? Student 2: I was told by somebody, // that you were a monkey first and then you evolved into a human being. Then more and more humans come along. In summary, the results indicate that the full teaching period seems to have positioned the students in a liminal state where they were beginning to develop a disciplinary language but were still confused and uncertain in their understanding of evolution. Discussion and Implications Below we will discuss the educational implications that we identified in relation to our findings. I. Mental guidance and providing material portals: Teachers tools for making room for wonder? One purpose of the present study was to investigate whether it is pos - sible to design teaching that trigger students’ wonder in relation to predeter - mined science content. Our findings suggest that this is possible, as most of the students expressed a sense of wonder that could be connected to evolutionary concepts such as temporal scale, variation, diversity and the interplay between c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 55 organisms and habitat . In previous literature, it has been suggested that the lack of empirical studies of wonder in science classrooms may be connected to the complex and challenging demands that ‘teaching for uncertainty’ and making room for emotions impose on teachers (Gilbert & Byers, 2017; Hadzigeorgiou, 2011; Wolbert & Schinkel, 2021). With this in mind, we were careful to plan the ‘wonder workshops’ based on the theoretical suggestion made by Trotman (2014) and Wolbert and Shinkel (2021) in close collaboration with the teacher who was going to perform the teaching. This teacher also had the last word on how the theoretical suggestions should be translated into teaching in her classroom. Drawing on the results of Stolberg (2008), who showed that it may be difficult to inspire teachers to make room for wonder because they doubt the place of such emotions in science education, we also placed particular empha - sis on negotiating how the term wonder can be interpreted together with the teacher. This resulted in teaching in which the triggers aesthetic experiences , defiance of expectations, agency and awareness of a mystery within the ordinary were carefully planned for. Based on our results, we now suggest that our setup can be used by teachers as a mental tool for making room for wonder in ordi - nary science classrooms. In our results, we also see examples of physical tools that directly trig - gered the students’ sense of wonder. Since these tools seemed to instantly trans - fer the students to a sense of wonder, we have called them portals . The first portal was the carefully chosen objects (the lichens, the fossil and the otolith), which were hypothesised to trigger the students’ wonder through aesthetic ex - periences , defiance of expectations and awareness of a mystery within the ordi - nary . In the results, there are several examples of how these objects did indeed trigger the students to express thoughts, questions and wonder. All of these objects were considered as coming from the ‘real world’ by the students; at the same time, the students had not experienced them in real life. It can therefore be argued that the objects made the students aware of unexpected aesthetic and mysterious qualities within something ordinary, which triggered a sense of wonder. However, our interpretation is that the pedagogical framing by the teacher was crucial for making way for their wonder. The teacher made it pos - sible for the students to explore these objects at will, without the pressure of a predetermined learning goal. This in turn made it possible for the students to manifest agency , another of the theoretical prerequisites for making room for wonder. In addition, these explorations were framed by a short introduction about wonder, which may have made the students receptive to perceiving open questions and expressions of wonder as legitimate aspects of a science class. The second portal was the stereo microscope. In our empirical material, we have 56 numerous examples of how the students were transferred to new worlds by looking through a stereo microscope and we believe that it has many functions that support this ‘transfer’ . First, looking through a microscope helps one to fo - cus on an object by shielding off the classroom environment. Second, the mag - nification makes the details and colours of an ordinary object appear in new and unexpected ways, allowing possibilities for aesthetic experiences , defiance of expectations and awareness of a mystery within the ordinary. Third, the mag - nification provides a change in perspective related to scale, a feature previously described as an elicitor for wonder (Cuzzolino, 2021; Keltner & Haidt, 2003). Our results exemplify how teachers can introduce objects or equipment that can function as portals for wonder in their science classroom. Most impor - tantly, these objects and equipment do not have to be spectacular or involve ad - vanced technology. All of the objects that were introduced in the present study are available for a teacher to bring into the classroom. Likewise, magnifying glasses and stereo microscopes can be considered to be common equipment in an ordinary classroom. This is an important result, as it exemplifies the fact that introducing wonder into the classroom can be accomplished with relatively simple means. In fact, there might be intrinsic value in choosing ordinary ob - jects and equipment: it may serve as a strategy for ensuring that students keep their focus on the science learning object (Anderhag et al., 2016). However, us - ing everyday equipment and ordinary objects to trigger students to wonder at our physical world requires a teacher who is able to identify the wonder within the ordinary (Wolbert & Schinkel, 2021) and who feels comfortable with intro - ducing the concept of wonder into the science classroom (Stolberg, 2008). It is therefore important to bear in mind that the role of the teacher is crucial. In our example, the teacher not only provided ‘portals’ , but did so in combination with explicit guidance that introduced the concept of wonder and demonstrat - ed how this emotion is valid in science. The results can thus be related to the conclusions of a study by Gilbert and Byers (2017) in which the explicit use of the term wonder in connection with science teaching was described as working as a catalyst for early childhood student teachers’ interest in and understanding of the scientific endeavour. II. Students respond in different ways to teaching for wonder Our results show that ‘wonder-infused’ teaching evoked students’ curiosity , inquisitive wonder and contemplative wonder (Table 5). Based on the results, we suggest that teachers need to be sensitive towards the differ - ent ways in which students respond to teaching that makes room for wonder. Some students responded with curiosity , which contrasts with inquisitive and the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 57 contemplative wonder in that it is primarily focused on a cognitive striving for answers. This response therefore lacks the sensory, emotional and spiritual dimensions that wonder encompasses. Curiosity is nevertheless an expected response to teaching that makes room for students’ own explorations and open questions. According to Lindholm (2018), inquisitiveness for facts and classical knowledge is especially predominant in prepuberty, which is a phase that the students of the present study were just leaving. Teachers trying to elicit wonder in their lower secondary science classes should therefore also be prepared to support students who ask for more information. In the case of learning about evolution, facts and examples of diversity among species and animal anatomy, which the teacher is able to provide, can in the long run be sources of wonder. In our material, the students predominantly expressed inquisitive won - der . Based on how the students expressed themselves, we conclude that their inquisitive wonder was mainly triggered because they were able to engage with the objects without a predetermined protocol . As discussed in the previous sec - tion, the students were empowered to pursue explorations of their own design. This resulted in physical explorations in which they used several of their senses. A number of the students noted in their logbooks that it was unusual to actually be able to touch and smell the objects that they encountered in science educa - tion. The sensory experiences seem to have opened the possibility of emotional responses towards the object in a way that a picture in a book or displayed in a PowerPoint presentation cannot accomplish. However, the students were also given an opportunity to experience authentic moments of discovery, which are common triggers for wonder (awe) for professional scientists (Cuzzolino, 2021). A few of the students in our study also expressed contemplative wonder in their logbook entries. At first sight, this type of wonder might appear to be anti-educational, because, as Schinkel (2017 , p. 538) remarks, »it is not inherent - ly inquisitive like active [inquisitive] wonder and, as a response to mystery, may leave us lost for words«. However, we agree with Schinkel’s conclusions that contemplative wonder may still have an important function in science teach - ing, as this emotion can make students receptive to discussions about different perspectives and the limits of our understanding. In relation to teaching and learning about evolution, such discussions can make way for the transformative experience that is necessary in order to fully understand evolutionary process - es. We therefore propose that this type of wonder might be a specifically help - ful tool for teachers to support students to accomplish the threshold crossing described by Walck-Shannon et al. (2019). 58 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution III. Crossing a threshold of learning requires support for disciplinary lan- guage acquisition As previously described in the literature, threshold concepts are funda - mental concepts that, once understood, transform a student’s perception of an entire subject and enable access to a previously inaccessible way of thinking, understanding or interpreting something (Meyer & Land, 2003; Walck-Shan - non et al., 2019). It is therefore interesting to note that the students involved in the present study independently wondered at concepts that are considered as key or threshold concepts for thinking about and understanding evolution. When doing so, the students did not use the specific concepts of evolution, but rather described the phenomena in their own words. This is not surprising, as the written reflections were made at a time when the students had not yet learned any of the relevant concepts. At the end of the teaching period, they nevertheless tried to use the concepts, but were still unsure of how to do so cor - rectly. According to Walck-Shannon et al. (2019, p. 2), »the process of crossing a threshold of learning is accompanied with disciplinary language acquisition that is bounded and specific to the threshold concept«. We therefore suggest that making room for wonder when teaching evolution be combined with sup - port for the student’s development of a disciplinary language. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Professor Christina Ottander for her valuable input to the manuscript and the teacher at the ‘wonder school’ for fruitful col - laboration. We would also like to thank the Municipality of Örebro, the Swed - ish Research Council and the Faculty of Business, Science and Engineering at Örebro University for providing funding for the project. References Barnes, M. E., Evans, E. M., Hazel, A., Brownell, S. E., & Nesse, R. M. (2017). Teleological reasoning, not acceptance of evolution, impacts students’ ability to learn natural selection. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-017-0070-6 Candiotto, L. (2019). Epistemic emotions: The case of wonder. Revista de Filosofia Aurora , 31(54). https://doi.org/10.7213/1980-5934.31.054.DS11 Cuzzolino, M. P . (2021). »The awe is in the process«: The nature and impact of professional scientists’ experiences of awe. Science Education , 105(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21625 Dawkins, R. (2000). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder . HMH. Demastes, S. S., Settlage Jr., J., & Good, R. (1995). Students’ conceptions of natural selection and its c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 59 role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 32(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320509 Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science , 31(787), 121–127. Egan, K., Cant, A. I., & Judson, G. (2014). Wonder-full education: The centrality of wonder in teaching and learning across the curriculum . Routledge. Engeström, Y ., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review , 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology , 42(3), 217–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0749 Fortus, D., Lin, J., Neumann, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2022). The role of affect in science literacy for all. International Journal of Science Education , 44(4), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384 Gilbert, A., & Byers, C. C. (2017). Wonder as a tool to engage preservice elementary teachers in science learning and teaching. Science Education , 101(6), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21300 Göransson, A. C. (2021). Crossing the threshold: Visualization design and conceptual understanding of evolution . http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-173337 Gottlieb, S., Keltner, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2018). Awe as a scientific emotion. Cognitive Science , 42(6), 2081–2094. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12648 Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today , 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 2(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1 Gresch, H., & Martens, M. (2019). Teleology as a tacit dimension of teaching and learning evolution: A sociological approach to classroom interaction in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 56(3), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21518 Groß, J., Kremer, K., & Arnold, J. (2019). Evolution learning and creationism: Thinking in informal learning environments. In U. Harms & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Evolution education re-considered: Understanding what works (pp. 285–305). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_16 Hadzigeorgiou. (2011). Fostering a sense of wonder in the science classroom. Research in Science Education , 42(5), 985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9225-6 Hadzigeorgiou, & Schulz, R. (2014). Romanticism and romantic science: Their contribution to science education. Science & Education , 23(10), 1963–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9711-0 Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion , 17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297 Lindholm, M. (2018). Promoting curiosity?: Possibilities and pitfalls in science education. Science & Education , 27(9–10), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0015-7 Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. ISL10 Improving student learning: Theory and 60 the role of wonder in students’ conception of and learning about evolution practice ten years on , 412–424. National Agency for Education. (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011. Fritze distributör. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2575 Nicholl, J., & Davies, P . (2019). Participating in an object-based learning project to support the teaching and learning of biological evolution: A case study at the grant museum of zoology. In U. Harms & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Evolution education re-considered: Understanding what works (pp. 307–330). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_17 Paulson, S., Shiota, M. »Lani«, Henderson, C., & Filippenko, A. V . (2021). Unpacking wonder: From curiosity to comprehension. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1501(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14317 Penuel, W . R. (2014). Emerging forms of formative intervention research in education. Mind, Culture, and Activity , 21(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.884137 Pobiner, B., Watson, W . A., Beardsley, P . M., & Bertka, C. M. (2019). Using human examples to teach evolution to high school students: Increasing understanding and decreasing cognitive biases and misconceptions. In U. Harms & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Evolution education re-considered: Understanding what works (pp. 185–205). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_11 Schinkel, A. (2017). The educational importance of deep wonder. Journal of Philosophy of Education , 51(2), 538–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12233 Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S. K., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 1(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0037-8 Stolberg, T. L. (2008). Wither the sense of wonder of pre-service primary teachers’ when teaching science?: A preliminary study of their personal experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education , 24(8), 1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.005 Strickland, D. (2020). »Science is about wondering why.« Nobel Media AB . https://www.nobelprize.org/donna-strickland-science-is-about-wondering-why/ Thagard, P ., & Findlay, S. (2010). Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to accepting evolution by natural selection. Science & Education , 19(6–8), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9204-8 Tibell, L. A. E., & Harms, U. (2017). Biological principles and threshold concepts for understanding natural selection. Science & Education , 26(7), 953–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9935-x Trotman, D. (2014). Wow! What if ? So what?: Education and the imagination of wonder: Fascination, possibilities and opportunities missed. In Wonder-Full Education . Routledge. Valdesolo, P ., Shtulman, A., & Baron, A. S. (2017). Science is awe-some: The emotional antecedents of science learning. Emotion Review , 9(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916673212 Walck-Shannon, E., Batzli, J., Pultorak, J., & Boehmer, H. (2019). Biological variation as a threshold concept: Can we measure threshold crossing? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18(3), ar36. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0241 Wolbert, L., & Schinkel, A. (2021). What should schools do to promote wonder? Oxford Review of Education , 47(4), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1856648 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 61 Biographical note Bodil Sundberg, PhD, is an associate professor in Science Education at the School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Sweden. Her re - search focuses on teachers’ professional development, early-year science educa - tion, and the role of wonder in science practices. Magdalena Andersson is a science teacher and licentiate student at the School of Science and Technology, Örebro University. She also works as development manager for teacher training at the Municipality of Örebro. Her research focuses on the role of wonder for students’ meaning-making in science.