Do individual differences in children’s curiosity relate to their inquiry-based learning?

Schijndel, Tessa J.P. van; Jansen, Brenda R.J.; Raijmakers, Maartje E. J.

doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1460772

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, focusing on the process of "figuring out" something children do not know, modeling and explicitly prompting exploration and question asking, and supporting metacognitive and creative thinking are all ways to promote curiosity and support effective cognitive engagement during learning. These methods are consistent with inquiry-based and active learning, which both are grounded in constructivism and information gaps similar to the current operationalization of curiosity (Jirout and Klahr, 2012;Saylor and Ganea, 2018;van Schijndel et al, 2018). Emphasizing performance, such as academic climates focused on teaching rote procedures and doing things the "correct" way to get the right answer, can suppress or discourage curiosity.…”

Section: Promoting Curiosity In Young Childrenmentioning

confidence: 71%

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity

Jirout

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Curiosity and curiosity-driven questioning are important for developing scientific thinking and more general interest and motivation to pursue scientific questions. Curiosity has been operationalized as preference for uncertainty (Jirout and Klahr, 2012), and engaging in inquiry-an essential part of scientific reasoning-generates high levels of uncertainty (Metz, 2004; van Schijndel et al., 2018). This perspective piece begins by discussing mechanisms through which curiosity can support learning and motivation in science, including motivating information-seeking behaviors, gathering information in response to curiosity, and promoting deeper understanding through connection-making related to addressing information gaps. In the second part of the article, a recent theory of how to promote curiosity in schools is discussed in relation to early childhood science reasoning. Finally, potential directions for research on the development of curiosity and curiosity-driven inquiry in young children are discussed. Although quite a bit is known about the development of children's question asking specifically, and there are convincing arguments for developing scientific curiosity to promote science reasoning skills, there are many important areas for future research to address how to effectively use curiosity to support science learning.

show abstract

Section: Promoting Curiosity In Young Childrenmentioning

confidence: 71%

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity

Jirout

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second answer is that researchers from both domains may learn from each other's methods. For instance, epistemic curiosity researchers sometimes use behavioral or neuroscientific measures (Jirout and Klahr 2012;Kang et al 2009;Lowry and Johnson 1981;van Schijndel et al 2018) approaches virtually unknown in the situational interest domain (Hidi and Renninger 2019). A third answer is that such attempt may help reduce the plethora of questionnaires in use in the field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) frequency of use of a special information station containing books, pictures, and filmstrips and (2) frequency of attendance of an optional film screening. Jirout and Klahr (2012) andvan Schijndel et al (2018) found in either title or topic and (2) whether a measure of situational interest was reported in full detail. Initially, 398 articles were retrieved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Curiosity and Situational Interest: Distant Cousins or Identical Twins?

Schmidt

Rotgans

2020

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent are epistemic curiosity and situational interest different indicators for the same underlying psychological mechanism? To answer this question, we conducted two studies. In Study 1, we administered measures of epistemic curiosity and situational interest to 158 students from an all-boys secondary school. The data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis to find out whether a one-factor or a two-factor solution provides the best fit to the data. The findings supported a one-factor solution. A twofactor solution was only satisfactorily supported if one accepted that the two latent constructs were correlated .99. Study 2 was an experiment in which we experimentally manipulated the amount of prior knowledge 148 students had about a particular thermodynamic phenomenon. Epistemic curiosity and situational interest were each measured four times: before a text was studied, before and after a problem was presented, and after a second text was read. The treatment group studied a text explaining the problem after the problem was presented, whereas the control group read it before the problem was presented. The control group, in other words, gained prior knowledge about the problem. In the treatment group, both epistemic curiosity and situational interest significantly increased while being confronted with the problem. This was not the case in the control group. In addition, only in the treatment group scores on both measures significantly decreased after the text explaining the problem was studied. These findings support a knowledge gap account of both situational interest and epistemic curiosity, suggesting an identical underlying psychological mechanism.

show abstract

“…The key dimensions identified in the framework for curiosity include: focus of curiosity (with four factors of physical, perceptual, social, and epistemic), scope of curiosity (breadth vs. depth), cause of curiosity (diversive vs. specific or interest vs. deprivation), and consistency of curiosity across situational contexts (state vs. trait) [9]. Curiosity is positively linked to inquiry-based learning [10]. Questions are artifacts of curiosity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%