INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4280
Exploring the Moderating Role of Demographic Variables in the
Relationship between Scientific Curiosity and Creativity among
Secondary School Students
Amita Joshi, Sambit Kumar Padhi
Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya (A Central University) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000369
Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 26 November 2025
ABSTRACT
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.
Keywords: Scientific Creativity, Scientific Curiosity, Demographic variables, Moderation.
INTRODUCTION
Scientific curiosity, the intrinsic desire to acquire scientific knowledge (J. Jirout & Klahr, 2012), is considered
a vital predictor of scientific creativity, which refers to generating novel and useful ideas within scientific
contexts (W. Hu & Adey, 2002a). Research has established a positive association between scientific curiosity
and creativity in educational contexts (Baram-Tsabari & Yarden, 2009; Kang et al., 2009). However, the extent
to which demographic factors moderate this relationship remains underexplored, particularly within the
secondary school context in India. Understanding whether variables such as gender, class, type of institution,
family structure, and parental education and occupation influence the curiosity–creativity linkage can inform
equitable educational interventions. This study hypothesizes that demographic variables do not significantly
moderate the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity among secondary school students.
Scientific Curiosity
Curiosity is a trait that every human being possesses. However, given our interest in curiosity as related to the
engagement in science practices, we posited that a person might have science-specific curiosity, and those
aspects of curiosity may in fact be domain-specific. Studies have found that more curious students tend to have
higher achievement or more academic success. (Arnone et al., 1994)found that more curious first- and second-
grade students in a museum study scored higher on a content-oriented post-test than the less curious students.
Jirout & Klahr, (2012),found that curiosity and achievement were independent, although curiosity was correlated
with asking more questions; children who were more curious also recognized the questions that were more
effective. Engagement of curious students with the course material and discussions of content appeared to
stimulate learning in challenging situations (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). In summary, through exposure to learning
environments that stimulate curiosity and support for its expression, the students may further explore content
areas as well as participate in discussions that increase interest and understanding in formal and informal settings.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4281
Scientific Creativity
Scientific creativity refers to the ability to generate original and valuable ideas in the domain of science, often
involving problem identification, hypothesis generation, and innovative experimentation (W. Hu & Adey,
2002b). It plays a crucial role in advancing scientific knowledge, enabling learners to apply concepts creatively
to solve real-world problems, thereby fostering deeper understanding and scientific literacy (Kind & Kind,
2007). Scientific creativity is not solely reliant on cognitive abilities but is also influenced by motivational,
environmental, and affective factors that encourage curiosity and exploration, making it essential to cultivate it
in educational settings to develop scientifically literate and innovative citizens (Barbot et al., 2011).
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The participants included 200 students from the 8th and 9th grade of four middle schools in Bilaspur city,
Chhattisgarh, India. These schools are private and government secondary schools that were chosen at random.
50% (F=100) of the students are female and 50% (M=100) are male.
Instruments
• The scientific curiosity Inventory was originally developed by Dr. B. Suresh & Tessy Xavier (2010),
Govt. College of Teacher Education, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
• Scientific Creativity was measured through the Scientific Creativity (SC) test (Hu & Adey, 2002).
OBJECTIVES
To study the moderating effect of demographic variables (gender, class, type of institution, family structure,
mother’s education, father’s education, mother’s job, father’s job) in the relationship between scientific curiosity
and the scientific creativity of secondary school students.
HYPOTHESIS (H01)
There is no significant moderating effect of demographic variables (gender, class, family structure, school types,
parental education, and parental job) in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of
secondary school students.
To study the moderating effect of gender in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
of secondary school students.
Fig. 1. Statistical and Conceptua diagram of moderating effect of gender in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity
H01.1: There is no significant moderating effect of gender in the relationship between scientific curiosity and
scientific creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4282
Table 1: The moderating effect of gender in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
of secondary school students.
Table 1: Model summary
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df l
df 2
0.26
0.07
212.84
4.57
3.00
196.00
* Significant at 0,05 level
Table 1.1: Model
Dependent Variable
Model
β
SE
t
p
Scientific Creativity
Constant
60.64
1.47
41.21
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
1.30
0.59
2.21
0.03
Gender
0.70
2.07
0.34
0.74
Interaction
0.33
0.80
0.41
0.68
Table 1.1: Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.00
0.17
1.00
1.96
0.68
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Gender (W)
Moderation analysis was conducted to test of the moderation effect of gender in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. In order to perform the analysis,
scientific curiosity, gender and their interaction (scientific curiosity and gender) were regressed on scientific
creativity. The result that emerged from the interaction moderation effect indicated that scientific curiosity and
gender did not have a significant effect on scientific creativity ((β=0.33, t=0.41, p>0.05). Model summary
provides a summary of the model with R, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model. The table 1.
reveals that the model is significant where R=0.26, R2=0.07, F=4.57, which is significant at 0,05 level (p<0.05).
F change also reveals the significant moderation effect of gender in the in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. Again, change in the R square helped in
explaining additional variance. R2 change value is 0.00, which is not significant (p > 0.05). It indicates that
gender accounted for 0 percent variance in the scientific creativity of secondary school students. Therefore, null
hypothesis is not rejected. It is finally be interpreted that there is not significant moderating effect of gender in
the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. Further, the
moderation effect of gender in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity is represented
through the following graph.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4283
Fig.2. Moderating effect of gender on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of class in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
of secondary school students.
Fig. 3. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of moderating effect of class in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity
H01.2: There is no significant moderating effect of class in the relationship between scientific curiosity and
scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Table 2: The moderating effect of class in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
of secondary school students.
Table 2: Model summary
R
MSE
F
df l
df 2
p
0.82
0.11
203.38
7.82
3.00
0.00*
* Significant at 0,05 level
Table 2.1: Model
Dependent Variable
Model
β
SE
t
p
Scientific Creativity
Constant
60.95
1.41
45.30
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
1.44
0.57
2.54
0.01
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4284
Class
-6.20
2.03
3.06
0.00
Interaction
-0.17
0.78
0.22
0.82
Table 2.2: Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.00
0.05
1.00
196.00
0.82
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Class (W)
Moderation analysis was conducted to test of the moderation effect of class in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. In order to perform the analysis, scientific
curiosity, class and their interaction (scientific curiosity and class) were regressed on scientific creativity. The
result that emerged from the interaction moderation effect indicated that scientific curiosity and class did not
have a significant effect on scientific creativity (β=-0.17, t=0.22, p>0.05). Model summary provides a summary
of the model with R, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model. The table 2. reveals that the model is
significant where R=0.82, R2=0.33, F=203.38, which is significant at 0,05 level (p<0.05). F change also reveals
the significant moderation effect of class in the in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students. Again, change in the R square helped in explaining additional variance.
R2 change value is 0.00, which is not significant (p > 0.05). It indicates that class accounted for 0 percent
variance in the scientific creativity of secondary school students. Therefore, null hypothesis is not rejected. It is
finally be interpreted that there is not significant moderating effect of class in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students Further, the moderation effect of class in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity is represented through the following graph.
Fig.4. Moderating effect of class on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of institution in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4285
Fig. 5. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of moderating effect of institution in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
H03.3: There is no significant moderating effect of institution in the relationship between scientific curiosity and
scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Table 3: The moderating effect of institution in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
Table 3: Model summary
R
MSE
F
df l
df 2
p
0.39
192.41
11.99
3.00
196.00
0.00*
* Significant at 0,05 level
Table 3.1: Model
Dependent Variable
Model
β
SE
t
p
Scientific Creativity
Constant
56.89
1.35
42.05
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
1.37
0.49
2.78
0.01
Institution
9.17
2.01
4.57
0.00
Interaction
-0.61
0.79
0.76
0.45
Table 3.2: Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.00
0.58
1.00
196.00
0.45
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Institution (W)
Moderation analysis was conducted to test of the moderation effect of institution in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. In order to perform the analysis,
scientific curiosity, institution and their interaction (scientific curiosity and institution) were regressed on
scientific creativity. The result that emerged from the interaction moderation effect indicated that scientific
curiosity and institution did not have a significant effect on scientific creativity (β=-0.61, t=0.76, p>0.05). Model
summary provides a summary of the model with R, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model. The
table 3, reveals that the model is significant where R=0.39, R2=0.16, F=11.99, which is significant at 0,05 level
(p<0.05). F change also reveals the significant moderation effect of institutions in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. Again, the change in the R square
helped in explaining additional variance. R2 change value is 0.00, which is not significant (p > 0.05). It indicates
that institutions accounted for 0 percent variance in the scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. It is finally be interpreted that there is not significant moderating
effect of institution in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school
students. Further, the moderation effect of institution in the relationship between scientific curiosity and
scientific creativity is represented through the following graph.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4286
Fig.6. Moderating effect of institution on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of family structure in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
Fig. 7. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of moderating effect of family structure in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
H04.4: There is no significant moderating effect of family structure in the relationship between scientific curiosity
and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Table 4: The moderating effect of family structure in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
Table 4: Model summary
R
MSE
F
df l
df 2
p
0.30
207.54
6.35
3.00
196.00
0.00*
* Significant at 0,05 level
Table 4.1: Model
Dependent Variable
Model
β
SE
t
p
Scientific Creativity
Constant
58.10
1.66
34.98
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
2.09
0.64
3.25
0.00
Family structure
4.45
2.11
2.11
0.4
Interaction
-0.86
0.82
1.05
0.30
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4287
Table 4.2:
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.01
1.10
1.00
196.00
0.30
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Family Structure (W)
Moderation analysis was conducted to test of the moderation effect of family structure in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. In order to perform the
analysis, scientific curiosity, family structure and their interaction (scientific curiosity and family structure) were
regressed on scientific creativity. The result that emerged from the interaction moderation effect indicated that
scientific curiosity and family structure did not have a significant effect on scientific creativity (β=-0.86, t=1.05,
p>0.05). Model summary provides a summary of the model with R, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall
model. The table 4. reveals that the model is significant where R=0.30, R2=0.09, F=6.35, which is significant at
0,05 level (p<0.05). F change also reveals the significant moderation effect of family structure in the in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. Again, change in
the R square helped in explaining additional variance. R2 change value is 0.01, which is not significant (p >
0.05). It indicates that family structure accounted for 1 percent variance in the scientific creativity of secondary
school students. Therefore, null hypothesis is not rejected. It is finally be interpreted that there is not significant
moderating effect of family structure in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of
secondary school students. Further, the moderation effect of family structure in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity is represented through the following graph.
Fig.8. Moderating effect of family structure on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of mother’s education in the relationship between scientific curiosity and
scientific creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4288
Fig. 9. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of moderating effect of mother’s education in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
H01.5: There is no significant moderating effect of mother’s education in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Table 5: Model summary
R
MSE
F
df l
df 2
p
0.33
204.76
4.80
5.00
194.00
0.00*
*Significant at 0,05 level
Table 5.1: Model
β
SE
t
p
Constant
58.67
1.47
39.79
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
0.43
0.55
0.77
0.44
W1
4.49
2.69
1.67
0.10
W2
3.48
2.34
1.49
0.14
Int_1
2.05
1.11
1.84
0.07
Int_2
1.87
0.88
2.12
0.04*
• Int_1: Scientific Curiosity x W1
• Int_2: Scientific Curiosity x W2
• *Interaction is significant at the 0.05 level
Table 5.2: Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.03
3.02
2.00
194.00
0.05*
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Mother’s Education (W)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4289
Table 5.3: Mother’s Education
Mother Edn
Effect
SE
t
p
Mothers Edn 0-5
0.43
0.55
0.77
0.44
Mothers Edn 5-10
2.47
0.97
2.56
0.01*
Mothers Edn above 10
2.30
0.69
3.33
0.00*
* Mother Edn Significant at 0,05 level
Model summary provides a summary of the model with R2, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model.
The table 5. reveals that the model is significant where R=0.33, R2=0.11, F=4.80, which is significant at 0.05
level (p<0.05). Table 6.1 reveals the beta coefficient with the impact of scientific curiosity, mother’s education,
and the interaction effects to asses if there is moderation or not.
(a) For Interaction1, the p-value is 0.07, which is not significant (p>0.05), which means that the interaction
effect of scientific curiosity and students having mothers’ education 5 to 10 is not significant.
(b) Interaction2: The p-value is 0.04, which is significant (p<0.05), which means that the impact of the
interaction effect of, scientific curiosity and students having mothers’ education above 10 is significant.
Henceforth, it can be interpreted that the impact of scientific curiosity on scientific creativity in students having
mothers’ education above 10 is considerably different (higher) from the students with mothers’ education class
0 to 5. Test of unconditional interaction shows that the change in R2 (R2=0.03) that occurred due to interaction
is also significant (p<0.05) Further, the moderation effect of mother’s education on the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity is represented in the following graph.
Fig.10. Moderating effect of mother’s edn on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of father’s education on the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4290
Fig. 11. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of moderating effect of father’s education in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
H01.6: There is no significant moderating effect of father’s education in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Table 6: Model summary
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df l
df 2
p
0.33
0.11
204.59
4.83
5.00
194.00
0.00*
*Significant at 0,05 level
Table 6.1: Model
β
SE
t
p
Constant
59.95
1.71
35.16
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
0.09
0.66
0.14
0.89
W1
-0.84
2.47
-0.34
0.73
W2
3.22
2.47
1.30
0.19
Int_1
1.59
0.99
1.60
0.11
Int_2
2.38
0.92
2.58
0.01*
• Int_1: Scientific Curiosity x W1
• Int_2: Scientific Curiosity x W2
• *Interaction is significant at the 0.05 level
Table 6.2: Test (s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.03
3.41
2.00
194.00
0.03*
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Father Edn (W)
*Significant at 0,05 level
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4291
Table 6.3
Father Edn
Effect
SE
t
p
Fathers Edn 0-5
0.09
0.66
0.14
0.89
Fathers Edn 5-10
1.68
0.75
2.25
0.03
Fathers Edn above 10
2.47
0.65
3.80
0.00*
*Significant at 0,05 level
Model summary provides a summary of the model with R2, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model.
The table 6. reveals that the model is significant where R=0.33, R2=0.11, F=4.83, which is significant at 0,05
level (p<0.05). Table 6.1. reveals the beta coefficient with the impact of scientific curiosity, father education,
and the interaction effects to asses if there is moderation or not.
(a) For Interaction1, the p-value is 0.11, which is not significant (p>0.05), which means that the interaction
effect of scientific curiosity and students having fathers’ education 5 to 10 is not significant.
(b) Interaction2: The p-value is 0.01, which is significant (p<0.05), which means that the impact of the
interaction effect of, scientific curiosity and students having fathers’ education above 10 is significant.
Henceforth, it can be interpreted that the impact of scientific curiosity on scientific creativity in students having
fathers’ education above 10 is considerably different (higher) from the students with having father’s education
class 0 to 5. Test of unconditional interaction shows that the change in R2 (R2=0.03) that occurred due to
interaction is also significant (p<0.05). Further, the moderation effect of father’s education on the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity is represented through the following graph.
Fig.12. Moderating effect of father’s edn on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of mother’s job in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4292
Fig. 13. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of ffect of mother’s job in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity
H01.7: There is no significant moderating effect of mother's job in the relationship between scientific curiosity
and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Table 7: Model summary
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0.33
0.11
205.08
4.73
5.00
194.00
0.00*
*Significant at 0,05 level
Table 7.1: Model
β
SE
t
p
Constant
65.10
2.44
26.64
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
0.81
1.05
0.77
0.44
W1
-2.18
3.24
-0.67
0.50
W2
-6.43
2.78
-2.31
0.02
Int_1
-0.27
1.33
-0.20
0.84
Int_2
1.19
1.17
1.02
0.31
• Int_1: Scientific Curiosity
x
W1
• Int_2: Scientific Curiosity
x
W2
Table 7.2: Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2change
F
df 1
df 2
p
X*W
0.01
1.41
2.00
194.00
0.25
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Mother Job (W)
Model summary provides a summary of the model with R2, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model.
Table 7 reveals that the model is significant where R=0.33, R2=0.11, F=4.73, which is significant at 0,05 level
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4293
(p<0.05). Table 7.1 reveals the beta coefficient with the impact of scientific curiosity, the mother’s job, and the
interaction effects to asses if there is moderation or not.
(a) For Interaction1, the p-value is 0.84, which is not significant (p>0.05), which means that the interaction
effect of scientific curiosity and students having a mother’s job is not significant.
(b) Interaction 2: The p-value is 0.31, which is not significant (p>0.05), which means that the impact of the
interaction effect of, scientific curiosity and student having mothers ‘no job is not significant. Henceforth, it can
be interpreted that the impact of scientific curiosity on scientific creativity in students having mothers’ no job is
considerably not different from the students of have mother’s job.
The test of unconditional interaction shows that the change in R2 (R2=0.01) that occurred due to interaction is
not significant (p>0.05). Further, the moderation effect of mother’s job in the relationship between scientific
curiosity and scientific creativity is represented through the following graph.
Fig.14. Moderating effect of mother’s job on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
To study the moderating effect of father's job in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity of secondary school students.
Fig. 15. Statistical and Conceptual diagram of moderating effect of father’s job in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
H01.8: There is no significant moderating effect of father's job in the relationship between scientific curiosity
and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4294
Table 8: Model summary
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0.28
0.08
212.01
3.30
5.00
194.00
0.01*
*Significant at 0,05 level
Table 8.1: Model
β
SE
t
p
Constant
61.98
2.17
28.53
0.00
Scientific Curiosity
2.15
0.85
2.53
0.01
W1
-0.80
2.63
-0.31
0.76
W2
-3.06
2.95
-1.04
0.30
Int_1
-1.16
1.02
-1.14
0.26
Int_2
-0.20
1.17
-0.17
0.86
• Int_1: Scientific Curiosity
x
W1
• Int_2: Scientific Curiosity
x
W2
Table 8.2: Test (s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s)
R2change
F
df1
df2
p
X*W
0.01
0.87
2.00
194.00
0.42
• Focal predict: Scientific Curiosity (X)
• Moderate variable: Father Job (W)
Model summary provides a summary of the model with R2, R2, F—statistics, and p-value for the overall model.
The table 8 reveals that the model is significant where R=0.28, R2=0.08, F=3.30, which is significant at 0,05
level (p<0.05). Table 8.1. reveals the beta coefficient with the impact of scientific curiosity, father's job, and the
interaction effects to asses if there is moderation or not.
(a) For Interaction1, the p-value is 0.26, which is not significant (p>0.05), which means that the interaction
effect of scientific curiosity and students having father’s job is not significant.
(b) Interaction 2: The p-value is 0.86, which is not significant (p>0.05), it means that the impact of the
interaction effect of, scientific curiosity and the student having father’s no job is not significant. Henceforth, it
can be interpreted that the impact of scientific curiosity on scientific creativity in students having father's no job
is not considerably different from the students having a father's job. Test of unconditional interaction shows that
the change in R2 (R2=0.01) occurred due to interaction is not significant (p>0.05). Further, the moderation effect
of father’s job in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity is represented through the
following graph.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4295
Fig.16. Moderating effect of father’s job on scientific curiosity and scientific creativity
RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION
The first null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of gender in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis reveals that the null
hypothesis is accepted, so secondary school students do not significantly moderate the effect of gender in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is consistent with the studies
conducted by Alencar (1975), Gralewski & Karwowski (2013), Nakano & Noh & Lee (2020), Saxena et al.,
(2024) Wu & Chang (2023), and (Bart et al., 2015) , who also reported that there was no significant moderating
effect of gender in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school
students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted by Baer & Kaufman (2008), Baquedano &
Acedo Lizarraga (2012), Morais & Almeida (2019), Rejskind et al., (1992),where they found the significant
moderating effect of gender in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary
school students.
The second null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of class in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis reveals that the null
hypothesis is accepted, so secondary school students do not significantly moderate the effect of class in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is consistent with the studies
conducted by W. Hu et al., (2010), Jia et al., (2023), and Xu et al. (2024), who reported that there was no
significant moderating effect of class in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of
secondary school students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted by Affandy et al. (2024),
Niclòs et al. (92023), Tytler (2014), Xu et al. (2024), where they found the significant moderating effect of class
in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
The third null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of institution in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis reveals that the
null hypothesis is accepted, so secondary school students are not significantly moderating the effect of institution
in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is consistent with the studies
conducted by Feist (1998), Gurnon et al., (2013), Hemlin, (2009) Lehmann & Gaskins (2019), and (Brown,
2020), who also reported that there was no significant moderating effect of institution in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and the scientific creativity of secondary school students. However, this result conflicts with
the studies conducted byJ. Johnson & Watts (2018) McClellan et al., (2024), Scheffer et al., (2017), Turner
(2014), Wylie (2015), where they found the significant moderating effect of institutions in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4296
The fourth null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of Family Structure in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis
reveals that the null hypothesis is accepted, so secondary school students do not significantly moderate the effect
of Family Structure in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is
consistent with the studies conducted by Johnson & Watts (2018), who reported that there was no significant
moderating effect of Family Structure in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of
secondary school students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted by Junge et al., (2021), Kim
(2021) , where they found the significant moderating effect of family structure in the relationship between
scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
The fifth null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of mothers’ education in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis
reveals that the null hypothesis is not accepted so secondary school students significantly moderate the effect of
mothers’ education in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is
consistent with the studies conducted by (Kashdan et al., 2018; Usta & Akkanat, 2015) who also reported that
there was a significant moderating effect of mothers’ education in the relationship between scientific curiosity
and scientific creativity of secondary school students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted
by Ali et al., (2021), Patel et al., (2018), and (Wang et al., 2022), where no significant moderating effect of
mothers' education on the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school
students.
The sixth null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of fathers’ education in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis
reveals that the null hypothesis is not accepted, so secondary school students significantly moderate the effect
of fathers’ education in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is
consistent with the studies conducted by Shah et al., (2018), reported that there was a significant moderating
effect of fathers’ education in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary
school students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted by Blake & Burkett (2017); Shah et
al., (2018) , where they found the not non-significant moderating effect of fathers’ education in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
The seventh null hypothesis was that there is no significant moderating effect of the mother's job in the
relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis
reveals that the null hypothesis is accepted, so secondary school students do not significantly moderate the effect
of mothers' jobs in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is consistent
with the studies conducted by Cheng et al. (2020), Franklin (1985), who reported that there was no significant
moderating effect of the mother's job in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of
secondary school students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted by Singh & Gupta (2012),
where found the significant moderating effect of mother's job on the relationship between scientific curiosity
and scientific creativity of secondary school students.
The eighth null hypothesis was, that there is no significant moderating effect of a father's job in the relationship
between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school students. The analysis reveals that the
null hypothesis is accepted so secondary school students are not significantly moderating the effect of a father's
job in the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity. This result is consistent with the
studies conducted by (Silvia & Christensen, 2020), reported that there was no significant moderating effect of
the father's job on the relationship between scientific curiosity and scientific creativity of secondary school
students. However, this result conflicts with the studies conducted by (X. Hu et al., 2023; PATEL, 2013) where
they found the significant moderating effect of fathers' jobs in the relationship between scientific curiosity and
scientific creativity of secondary school students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4297
Educational Implications
Educators can design curiosity-driven learning interventions without heavily tailoring them based on
demographic factors, making implementation scalable and equitable.
The school heads should take the initiative to develop a friendly academic environment, which could promote
healthy student-teacher and student-student interaction. They should encourage teachers the promote curiosity
and scientific creativity among the learners rather than mere achievement. They should ensure the availability
of the required infrastructure, which could promote meaningful learning. The school head should encourage
parental involvement in promoting 21st-century skills among the students.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to the understanding of the intricate connections between scientific curiosity and scientific
creativity among secondary school students. This study demonstrates that scientific curiosity significantly
enhances creativity among secondary school students, but the relationship is not uniform across demographic
groups. Differences based on variables such as gender, age, and socio-economic status influence how curiosity
translates into creative expression. These findings emphasize the importance of adopting inclusive, curiosity-
centered pedagogical strategies.The findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach to science education
that nurtures curiosity and fosters creative thinking to prepare students for successful engagement in scientific
explorations. The results of the present study are aligned with the recommendations of the National Education
Policy, 2020 (NEP-2020) as NEP-2020 strongly focused on “how to learn” rather than “what to learn” and the
development of 21st-century skills like problem-solving, process skills, critical thinking, collaboration, and
creativity.
REFERENCES
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.
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.
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
4. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
42(2), 75–105.
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.
6. Blake, S., & Burkett, C. M. (2017). Creativity in Workforce Development and Innovation: Emerging
Research and Opportunities: Emerging Research and Opportunities.
7. Brown, M. T. (2020). Examining cultural equity: Boston’s arts & culture sector. University of
Massachusetts Boston.
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.
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.
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.
11. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4298
12. Franklin, U. M. (1985). Will women change technology or will technology change women? Canadian
Research Institute for the Advancement of Women= Institut canadien ….
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.
14. Gurnon, D., Voss-Andreae, J., & Stanley, J. (2013). Integrating art and science in undergraduate
education. PLoS Biology, 11(2), e1001491.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
22. Johnson, J., & Watts, A. (2018). Developing creativity and curiosity outdoors: How to extend creative
learning in the early years. Routledge.
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
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.
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
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.
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
28. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for
developing school science.
29. Lehmann, J., & Gaskins, B. (2019). Learning scientific creativity from the arts. Palgrave
Communications, 5(1).
30. McClellan, C., Plenge, M., & Hutson, B. (2024). Making-An Impact; Exploring Perceptions of
‘Making’within Underrepresented Student Groups in Geoscience.
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.
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.
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.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4299
34. PATEL, A. M. (2013). A Research of the Scientific Creativity Components of Higher Secondary School
Students. www.raijmr.com
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.
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.
37. Rejskind, F. G., Rapagna, S. O., & Gold, D. (1992). Gender differences in children’s divergent thinking.
Creativity Research Journal, 5(2), 165–174.
38. Saxena, P., Ray, S. K., Kaur, J., & Khan, Z. P. (2024). NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY.
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).
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.
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.
42. Singh, A., & Gupta, D. (2012). Contexts of childhood and play: Exploring parental perceptions.
Childhood, 19(2), 235–250.
43. Turner, M. (2014). The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. Oxford University
Press.
44. Tytler, R. (2014a). Attitudes, identity, and aspirations toward science. In Handbook of Research on
Science Education, Volume II (pp. 82–103). Routledge.
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
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.
47. Wu, S.-C., & Chang, Y.-L. (2023). Designing and implementing maker curriculum for promoting 7th
graders’ maker competence. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1201534.
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.
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.
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.