Exploring the Moderating Role of Demographic Variables in the Relationship Between Scientific Curiosity and Creativity Among Secondary School Students

This research investigates how considering demographic factors that may moderate the connection between Scientific Curiosity and Scientific Creativity among secondary school students. Factors such as gender, grade level, type of school, family structure, parental education and occupation influence Scientific Curiosity and Scientific Creativity independently and may affect the strength of their relationships. The aim is to analyze these relationships among 8th and 9th graders using structural regression analysis, with data collected from 200 students in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India, who were surveyed using standardized scales for scientific curiosity (Xavier 2010) and scientific creativity (W. Hu & Adey, 2002a) Moderation analysis reveals that demographic variables significantly moderate the relationship between scientific creativity and scientific curiosity, indicating that students are better at turning curiosity into innovative scientific work. The findings emphasize the universal importance of fostering curiosity to enhance creativity in science education, irrespective of demographic factors. This underscores the need for the paper to discuss implications for curriculum design and teaching practices, along with suggestions for future research.

Scientific Creativity, Scientific Curiosity, Demographic variables, Moderation.

1. Affandy, H., Sunarno, W., & Suryana, R. (2024). Integrating creative pedagogy into problem-based learning: The effects on higher order thinking skills in science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 101575. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ali, A., Al-Sulaiman, F. A., Al-Duais, I. N. A., Irshad, K., Malik, M. Z., Shafiullah, M., Zahir, M. H., Ali, H. M., & Malik, S. A. (2021). Renewable portfolio standard development assessment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from the perspective of policy networks theory. Processes, 9(7), 1123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arnone, M., Grabowski, B., & Rynd, C. (1994). Curiosity as a personality variable influencing learning in a learner controlled lesson with and without advisement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bart, W. M., Hokanson, B., Sahin, I., & Abdelsamea, M. A. (2015). An investigation of the gender differences in creative thinking abilities among 8th and 11th grade students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Blake, S., & Burkett, C. M. (2017). Creativity in Workforce Development and Innovation: Emerging Research and Opportunities: Emerging Research and Opportunities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brown, M. T. (2020). Examining cultural equity: Boston’s arts & culture sector. University of Massachusetts Boston. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cheng, H., Wang, W., Wang, S., Li, Y., Liu, X., & Li, Y. (2020). Validation of a Chinese version of the parental burnout assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. de Acedo Baquedano, M. T. S., & de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L. S. (2012). A correlational and predictive study of creativity and personality of college students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 1081–1088. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. de Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1975). Efeitos de um programa de criatividade em alunos de 4. a e 5. a séries. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia Aplicada, 27(4), 3–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Franklin, U. M. (1985). Will women change technology or will technology change women? Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women= Institut canadien …. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gender moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(4), 290–304. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gurnon, D., Voss-Andreae, J., & Stanley, J. (2013). Integrating art and science in undergraduate education. PLoS Biology, 11(2), e1001491. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Habig, B., Gupta, P., & Adams, J. D. (2021). Disrupting deficit narratives in informal science education: Applying community cultural wealth theory to youth learning and engagement. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16, 509–548. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hemlin, S. (2009). Creative knowledge environments: An interview study with group members and group leaders of university and industry R&D groups in biotechnology. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 278–285. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002a). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hu, W., Shi, Q. Z., Han, Q., Wang, X., & Adey, P. (2010). Creative scientific problem finding and its developmental trend. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 46–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hu, X., Li, W., Geng, X., & Zhao, L. (2023). Exploring the effects of different interventions of the problem-oriented teaching model on students’ creativity in STEM education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jia, L., Jalaludin, N. A., & Rasul, M. S. (2023). Design thinking and project-based learning (DT-PBL): A review of the literature. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(8), 376–390. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jirout, J. J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s Scientific Curiosity: In Search of an Operational Definition of an Elusive Concept. Developmental Review, 32, 125–160. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:10816804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Johnson, J., & Watts, A. (2018). Developing creativity and curiosity outdoors: How to extend creative learning in the early years. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Junge, K., Schmerse, D., Lankes, E.-M., Carstensen, C. H., & Steffensky, M. (2021). How the home learning environment contributes to children’s early science knowledge—Associations with parental characteristics and science-related activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 56, 294–305. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.04.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–973. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and Interest: The Benefits of Thriving on Novelty and Challenge. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9552148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kim, K. H. (2021). Creativity Crisis Update: America Follows Asia in Pursuing High Test Scores Over Learning. Roeper Review, 43(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1840464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Lehmann, J., & Gaskins, B. (2019). Learning scientific creativity from the arts. Palgrave Communications, 5(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. McClellan, C., Plenge, M., & Hutson, B. (2024). Making-An Impact; Exploring Perceptions of ‘Making’within Underrepresented Student Groups in Geoscience. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Morais, M. F., & Almeida, L. (2019). “I would be more creative if...”: Are there perceived barriers to college students’ creative expression according to gender? Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 36, e180011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Nakano, T. C., & Wechsler, S. M. (2012). Criatividade: definições, modelos e formas de avaliação. Avanços Em Avaliação Psicológica e Neuropsicológica de Crianças e Adolescentes II, 327–361. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463–484. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. PATEL, A. M. (2013). A Research of the Scientific Creativity Components of Higher Secondary School Students. www.raijmr.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Patel, R., Singh, A. K., Chandra, M., Khanna, T., & Mehra, S. (2018). Is mother’s education or household poverty a better predictor for girl’s school dropout? Evidence from aggregated community effects in rural India. Education Research International, 2018(1), 6509815. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Pont-Niclòs, I., Martín-Ezpeleta, A., & Echegoyen-Sanz, Y. (2023). The Turning Point: Scientific Creativity Assessment and Its Relationship with Other Creative Domains in First Year Secondary Students. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 12(2), 221–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Rejskind, F. G., Rapagna, S. O., & Gold, D. (1992). Gender differences in children’s divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 5(2), 165–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Saxena, P., Ray, S. K., Kaur, J., & Khan, Z. P. (2024). NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Scheffer, M., Baas, M., & Bjordam, T. K. (2017). Teaching originality? Common habits behind creative production in science and arts. Ecology and Society, 22(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Shah, P. E., Weeks, H. M., Richards, B., & Kaciroti, N. (2018a). Early childhood curiosity and kindergarten reading and math academic achievement. Pediatric Research, 84(3), 380–386. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Silvia, P. J., & Christensen, A. P. (2020). Looking up at the curious personality: Individual differences in curiosity and openness to experience. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Singh, A., & Gupta, D. (2012). Contexts of childhood and play: Exploring parental perceptions. Childhood, 19(2), 235–250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Turner, M. (2014). The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Tytler, R. (2014a). Attitudes, identity, and aspirations toward science. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 82–103). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Usta, E., & Akkanat, Ç. (2015). Investigating Scientific Creativity Level of Seventh Grade Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1408–1415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Wang, L.-H., Chen, B., Hwang, G.-J., Guan, J.-Q., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Wu, S.-C., & Chang, Y.-L. (2023). Designing and implementing maker curriculum for promoting 7th graders’ maker competence. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1201534. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wylie, C. D. (2015). ‘The artist’s piece is already in the stone’: Constructing creativity in paleontology laboratories. Social Studies of Science, 45(1), 31–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Xavier, T. (2010). Effectiveness of an Instructional Material in Biological Science based on Discovery Learning Model for Fostering Science Process Skills Scientific Creativity and Science Curiosity in Higher Secondary Students. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Xu, S., Reiss, M. J., & Lodge, W. (2024a). Comprehensive Scientific Creativity Assessment (C-SCA): A New Approach for Measuring Scientific Creativity in Secondary School Students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Development of a CODE-Based Teaching Guide on the Central Dogma in Biochemistry: A Study in the Philippines