Dataset Information

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jirout JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7419578 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity.

Jirout Jamie J JJ

Frontiers in psychology 20200805

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 ...[more]

PMID: 32849029

Similar Datasets

Project description:NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission, with its Curiosity rover, has been exploring Gale crater (5.4° S, 137.8° E) since 2012 with the goal of assessing the potential of Mars to support life. The mission has compiled compelling evidence that the crater basin accumulated sediment transported by marginal rivers into lakes that likely persisted for millions of years approximately 3.6 Ga ago in the early Hesperian. Geochemical and mineralogical assessments indicate that environmental conditions within this timeframe would have been suitable for sustaining life, if it ever were present. Fluids simultaneously circulated in the subsurface and likely existed through the dry phases of lake bed exposure and aeolian deposition, conceivably creating a continuously habitable subsurface environment that persisted to less than 3 Ga in the early Amazonian. A diversity of organic molecules has been preserved, though degraded, with evidence for more complex precursors. Solid samples show highly variable isotopic abundances of sulfur, chlorine, and carbon. In situ studies of modern wind-driven sediment transport and multiple large and active aeolian deposits have led to advances in understanding bedform development and the initiation of saltation. Investigation of the modern atmosphere and environment has improved constraints on the timing and magnitude of atmospheric loss, revealed the presence of methane and the crater's influence on local meteorology, and provided measurements of high-energy radiation at Mars' surface in preparation for future crewed missions. Rover systems and science instruments remain capable of addressing all key scientific objectives. Emphases on advance planning, flexibility, operations support work, and team culture have allowed the mission team to maintain a high level of productivity in spite of declining rover power and funding.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11214-022-00882-7.

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the scientific reasoning in basic science among undergraduate medical students, we established the National Medical Science Olympiad in Iran. In this Olympiad, the drawing of a concept map was used to evaluate a student's knowledge framework; students' ability in hypothesis generation and testing were also evaluated in four different steps. All medical students were invited to participate in this program. Finally, 133 undergraduate medical students with average grades ≥ 16/20 from 45 different medical schools in Iran were selected. The program took the form of four exams: drawing a concept map (Exam I), hypothesis generation (Exam II), choosing variables based on the hypothesis (Exam III), measuring scientific thought (Exam IV). The examinees were asked to complete all examination items in their own time without using textbooks, websites, or personal consultations. Data were presented as mean ± SE of each parameter. The correlation coefficient between students' scores in each exam with the total final score and average grade was calculated using the Spearman test.ResultsOut of a possible score of 200, the mean ± SE of each exam were as follows: 183.88 ± 5.590 for Exam I; 78.68 ± 9.168 for Exam II; 92.04 ± 2.503 for exam III; 106.13 ± 2.345 for Exam IV. The correlation of each exam score with the total final score was calculated, and there was a significant correlation between them (p < 0.001). The scatter plot of the data showed a linear correlation between the score for each exam and the total final score. This meant that students with a higher final score were able to perform better in each exam through having drawn up a meaningful concept map.The average grade was significantly correlated with the total final score (R = 0.770), (p < 0.001). There was also a significant correlation between each exam score and the average grade (p < 0.001). The highest correlation was observed between Exam I (R = 0.7708) and the average grade. This means students with higher average grades had better grades in each exam, especially in drawing the concept map.ConclusionsWe hope that this competition will encourage medical schools to integrate theory and practice, analyze data, and read research articles. Our findings relate to a selected population, and our data may not be applicable to all medical students. Therefore, further studies are required to validate our results.

Dataset Information

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity.

Publications

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets