Toward the development of a children's science curiosity measure

Abstract

Based on the need for, suggestions about the construction, and existing measures serving as models found in the literature both inside and outside of science education, the “Children's Science Curiosity Scale” has undergone six versions using four different samples of fifth graders. Respectable internal consistency (alpha) and test‐retest reliabilities have been calculated. Concurrent validity has been demonstrated by significant positive correlations with another recognized curiosity measure, and by way of significant differences between students who were interested in science and students uncertain about interest in science. Somewhat weak predictive validity has been decided by way of significant positive correlations with students' semester science grades. Construct validity has been described and established by eight judges using six criteria, and supported through the use of factor analysis where four underlying factors were hypothesized as characteristics of science curiosity. Sex differences were also explored where significant differences were not found between the genders. Suggestions have been made concerning future attempts at instrument refinement, establishing conceptual validity, future research involving other variables, and classroom use in a variety of contexts.

Children's ideas about the solar system and the chaos in learning science

“…The test was administered in accordance with the manual at times when the children were interviewed. Science curiosity was measured using a technique developed for American fifth graders (Harty & Beall, 1984; see also Gardner, 1987). In essence, the Harty -Beall measure of science curiosity is derived from a 30-statement questionnaire to which children respond using a Likert-type scale.…”

Effects of Outdoor School Ground Lessons on Students’ Science Process Skills and Scientific Curiosity

“…Curiosity has often been highlighted as an important attribute and influencing factor with respect to students' learning (Borowske, 2005). Literature studies showed that higher curious students probably achieve better than lower curious students (Harty & Beall, 1984) because of their exploration of events and objects for longer periods time and their use of many more senses. Curious youngsters will recall experiences longer, comprehend better and achieve a more complete learning (Harty & Beall, 1984).…”

“…However, there has been little research presented concerning the effects of school ground lessons on scientific curiosity. Internal inspiration that drives students to know more about science as what Harty and Beall (1984) defined as scientific curiosity is affected by the factors of novelty, lack of clarity, complexity of stimuli and surprise or bafflement. Unfortunately these factors have little been researched among primary school students in school ground lessons.…”

“…This study used intact four classes which consisted of 119 students and randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 63) and control groups (n = 56). Students' science process skill was measured by a self-developed Science Process Skills Test and students' scientific curiosity was measured using Children Scientific Curiosity Scale adapted from Harty and Beall (1984). The results showed a significant difference in post-test mean scores between students in "eco-hunt" group and control group in both students' science process skills and scientific curiosity.…”

VAK or VAK‐uous? Towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship

“…Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000). To the uninitiated, this is perhaps the driest and most off-putting yet essential aspect of learning styles research (see Harty and Beall 1984, 1987and Gardner 1987 for a good example of argument and counter-argument associated with the development of a children's attitude measure). Establishing face validity (that the instrument actually measures what it reports to measure, literally taken at face value), construct validity (that any measurement produced by the instrument is fairly explained by appropriate learning styles constructs or concepts), predictive validity (that any measurement produced by the instrument …”