Teachers' and Parents' Conceptions of Children's Curiosity and Exploration

International Journal of Early Years EducationVol. 15, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 141–159

ISSN 0966-9760 (print)/ISSN 1469-8463 (online)/07/020141–19© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09669760701288690

Teachers’ and parents’ conceptions of children’s curiosity and exploration

Amy Chak*Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong KongTaylor and FrancisCIEY_A_228773.sgm10.1080/09669760701288690International Journal of Early Years Education0966-9760 (print)/1469-8463 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis152000000June 2007Dr [email protected]

Although curiosity is a characteristic often observed in young children, it has not received muchacademic interest in recent years. Among its many dimensions, the epistemic nature of curiosity,or the quest for knowledge, deserves attention. To explore the potential application of ‘epistemiccuriosity’, it is important to understand how lay conceptions complement theoretical conceptual-izations. As people who are significant in organizing children’s environment, how teachers andparents view curiosity is essential to how they will respond to the manifestation of this characteris-tic in children. A questionnaire was developed to examine teachers’ and parents’ conception ofchildren’s curiosity and exploratory behavior and whether they value this characteristic. Theparticipants of this study were preschool teachers and parents with a preschool-age child. The find-ings indicated that the participants have a positive view toward curiosity and exploration and thatteachers are more willing than parents to encourage this characteristic in young children. A factoranalysis indicated that teachers’ and parents’ conceptualization of curiosity is multi-dimensional,showing some similarities with theoretical conceptualization.

Introduction

The research described in this paper was designed to explore the relationshipbetween parents’ and practitioners’ lay theories of the role of curiosity in children’sdevelopment and education compared with theoretical accounts in the research liter-ature. It is argued that this type of study can shed new light on our conceptualunderstanding of curiosity and offer insights as to whether or not parents and educa-tors see encouraging curiosity in young children as a legitimate educational goal.Curiosity is often described as a natural and notable characteristic of young children,yet it has not received much attention in the fields of child development andpedagogy. In everyday situations, teachers and parents are probably ambivalentabout signs of curious behavior, manifested through endless questions by preschool-

*Department of Early Childhood Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo PingRoad, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]

142 A. Chak

ers and by toddlers ‘getting into’ everything. As a characteristic that is encountereddaily, is curiosity worth encouraging? Being significant in organizing the environ-ment of children, the views that parents and teachers hold of curiosity are essentialto how they respond to the manifestation of this characteristic. Young children’scuriosity and exploration, which are expressions of their eagerness to know, ifnurtured, can be a key motivational force for the acquisition of knowledge. Althoughgenerally being neglected in pedagogy, attempts have been made to encouragecuriosity and exploration in the classroom and at home. Arnone (2003) suggestsvarious instructional design strategies, such as introducing conceptual conflict andcreating an atmosphere for questions, to foster children’s curiosity. Educators alsoencourage parents to promote children’s curiosity through everyday activities, bysupporting them to explore, experiment, discover and find out for themselves(Gaylen, 1998; Green, 2002).

Pioneered by Berlyne, whose work laid an important theoretical foundation for thestudy of curiosity, this concept received academic attention from the 1960s until themid-1980s. Perhaps due to its ambiguous nature, the interest in understanding curi-osity then waned. Lowenstein (1994) describes views of curiosity as polarizedbetween regarding it as a motivational force for scientific discovery and associating itwith non-sanctioned behaviors such as drug use. Berlyne’s (1960, 1978) identifica-tion of the different forms of curiosity—‘perceptual curiosity’, ‘epistemic curiosity’,‘specific curiosity’, and ‘diverse curiosity’1—indirectly supports this polarized view.Nonetheless, the potential educational value of curiosity, conceptualized by Berlyneas ‘epistemic curiosity’ or the quest for knowledge, is worth further enquiry.Building on Berlyne’s concept of ‘epistemic curiosity’ to analyze preschool children’splay behavior, Hutt (1970, 1979; Hutt et al., 1989) proposes a taxonomy whichdivides play into ‘ludic behavior’ and ‘epistemic behavior’. She further elaborates‘epistemic behavior’ to include the components of problem solving, exploration, andproductive activities. Hutt was a pioneer in drawing the attention of early childhoodeducators to the epistemic nature of play and its implication on the design of thelearning environment for preschool children.

Numerous studies in the 1970s were devoted to understanding and definingcuriosity. Researchers have come to conclude that curiosity is a multi-dimensionalconcept (Voss & Keller, 1983). Studies have theorized that there are two closelyintertwined features of curiosity: motivational force (Berlyne, 1960; Hunt, 1966;Keller, 1987) and behavioral manifestation in the form of exploration (Voss &Keller, 1983). Piaget’s (1936/1952) theoretical contribution to exploration stemmedfrom his discussion of the need for children to make sense of the world, which ismanifested through their innate ‘interest in novelty’. The motivation to explore isembedded in the emergence of more complex cognitive capacities and, for Piaget,this exploration is a cognitive process closely linked to the development ofintelligence (Voss & Keller, 1983). Another key theoretical contribution fromBerlyne (1960) was the identification of the collative properties of stimuli in arousingcuriosity, such as novelty and complexity. This work has stimulated the interest ofresearchers in investigating the conceptual similarity of curiosity with other qualities

Conceptions of children’s curiosity and exploration 143

such as creativity (Voss & Keller, 1983). Hence several dimensions of curiosity—as amotivational force, as expressed through exploratory behavior, the nature of stimuli,and conceptually similar qualities—may serve as a focus for understanding thecharacteristics of young children’s curiosity.

The research findings, although limited, have revealed some interesting patternsin the relationship between parental behavior and children’s curiosity. High parentalexploratory behavior was observed to be strongly related to high exploratory behav-ior in children (Endsley et al., 1979). In a study on the influence of the responsivebehavior of adults on curiosity, Henderson and Moore (1980) found that highlycurious children ask more questions of ‘responsive’ and ‘demonstrative’ adults thanof ‘unresponsive’ adults. These findings indicated that the affect and attitude ofadults influence the exploratory behavior of children. Further, as mediators criticalto maintaining the intrinsic motivation of children, adults introduce children to newand interesting events, provide them with opportunities to explore, help them todevelop a varied repertoire of exploratory behavior and support them by giving thema sense of emotional security when they are anxious or frustrated (Sussman, 1989;Grossmann et al., 1999).

Sternberg (1994) claims that mediators, such as teachers and parents, whorespond to children’s questions at higher levels by encouraging them to find andexplore explanations, instead of rejecting their questions, are better at fostering theirintellectual development. In spite of continuous emphasis on the value of child-initiated discovery learning, the learning and teaching process still very muchstresses the dissemination of information. It has been observed that between kinder-garten and late elementary school, the proportion of curiosity-type questions raisedby students drops by half (Lindfors, 1991).

Teachers and parents, as people who are significant in organizing the environmentfor young children, play a crucial role in promoting or hindering their curiosity andexploratory behavior. What guides their choice? A point of entry is to understand theimplicit conceptions or beliefs held by people. Heider (1958) argues that, regardlessof whether a person’s beliefs and assumptions are valid according to scientific theo-ries, they are valid to the person and thus ‘must be taken into account in explainingcertain of his or her expectations and actions’ (p. 5). Sternberg (1985) states thatstudying the implicit theories of laypeople is useful to knowing what people meanwhen they employ frequently used terms in everyday discourse, since they makeevaluations and judgments based on such conceptions. Most important is how aperson’s implicit theories or beliefs are related to his or her actions. Furnham (1988)notes that lay beliefs have behavioral consequences. As an example, he points to thevast body of psychological literature linking the complicated yet subtle relationshipbetween attitude and behavior and cites teachers’ expectations and parental beliefsas illustrations of lay theories of education.

What are the potential effects of the implicit theories or beliefs of adults on inter-actions between adults and children and on the subsequent performance of the chil-dren? Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) provocative study on self-fulfilling prophesiesin the classroom illustrates the potential effect that the expectations of teachers,

144 A. Chak

expressed through their beliefs about the abilities of students, have on the students’performance. The potential effect is mediated through the interactions between theteacher and the students, manifested via the quality of verbal contacts, and instruc-tional and motivational strategies (Good & Weinstein, 1986; Rosenthal, 2002). Theliterature on parenting also contains many discussions about how the beliefs of parentspermeate their actions, spanning from child-rearing practices to teaching strategies(Goodnow, 1984; Sigel, 1992; Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002). However,research on finding a direct connection between one’s beliefs and actions has shownmixed results, indicating that the relationship is complex and far from linear. Wilcox-Herzog (2002) suggests that both methodological issues and the dynamic influencesof various mediating or situational factors may account for this lack of consistency.Nonetheless, the influence of the beliefs of adults on the interaction between the adultsand children is evident, and the subsequent effect of the interaction on the child’sdevelopment is of prime concern to both theorists and practitioners.

Since it is argued that beliefs are derived from cultural and personal experiences(Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002), a prerequisite to understanding the adult–child interaction is to first comprehend the theories and beliefs implicitly held byadults. The present study has two aims. First, in order to understand what kinds ofenvironment teachers and parents may provide for children to explore in, it is mean-ingful to first investigate what teachers and parents believe about curiosity and theexploratory behavior of children, and whether they value such characteristic in chil-dren. As this study takes place in a Chinese context, where society in general valuesacademic achievement highly and adults usually prefer an adult-directed styletoward learning, it is interesting to note possible cultural influences on teachers’ andparents’ views of curiosity and exploration. The second aim of this study is tocompare the views of parents and early childhood education practitioners and thoseof researchers on the characteristics of curiosity, as a means to initiate dialoguebetween theorists and practitioners and to see whether these views may complementeach other in contributing to future conceptual development.

Method

Participants

This study consisted of two phases, a pilot study and a main study, conducted inHong Kong, China, involving preschool teachers and parents with a preschool-agechild. The pilot study involved 84 participants, of which 64 were preschool teachersenrolled in an in-service training program,2 and 20 were parents, who had beensolicited by 20 preschool teachers.

The main study involved 321 participants, 195 preschool teachers (237 teacherswere initially recruited with a response rate of 82%) and 126 parents (210 parentswere initially recruited with a response rate of 60%). Of the 195 preschool teachers,155 were recruited from 12 preschools and 40 were recruited from an in-servicetraining program. The parents were recruited from 7 of the 12 preschools. The


preschools consisted of both kindergartens and childcare centers located mainly inmiddle-class and lower-class neighborhoods.

All of the preschool teachers were female with a mean working experience of 8.5years (SD = 5.6 years). Of the parents, 28% were male and 72% were female. Themajority of the parents (72%) had received a secondary school education with 12%having received a primary school education and 16% a tertiary education. Since theparents had been recruited from the preschools, all had at least one child ofpreschool age.

Materials and procedure

A questionnaire composed of two parts, a quantitative section and a qualitativesection, was designed to explore the conceptions of curiosity and exploratory behav-ior held by teachers and parents. The quantitative section explored the participants’conceptions of the characteristics of curiosity and their valuation of the characteris-tics, specifically whether they felt a characteristic to be worth encouraging inpreschool-age children and whether it was important to the learning process ofpreschool-age children. Beyond learning about how adults conceptualize curiosity,understanding whether they value certain characteristics will provide a crucialconnection to seeing whether adults will promote or hinder the expression of curiousbehavior by children. This section of the questionnaire was modified from Stern-berg’s (1985) multi-stage method of studying implicit theories of various concepts.A list of the characteristics of curiosity was constructed. The participants were askedto rate on a 5-point scale whether each characteristic is typical of curiosity inpreschool-age children, whether it is worth encouraging and whether it is importantto learning. The characteristics would then be factor analyzed.

The qualitative section, consisting of two open-ended questions, aimed at under-standing how adults utilize the concept of curiosity in context. The questionsincluded eliciting (a) the perceptions of participants on the development of curiosity,specifically to explain whether they think children’s curiosity decreases with age, and(b) the circumstances in which they would or would not encourage exploratorybehavior in children.

A pilot study was conducted to generate in the quantitative section of the question-naire the list of the characteristics of curiosity. Since the manifestation of some char-acteristics of curiosity may change with age (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1986), the list focusedspecifically on the characteristics of preschool-age children. To generate the initial listfrom laypeople, the participants were asked to write down as many characteristics ofa curious child as they could think of, and 393 responses were generated. Theresponses were analyzed qualitatively, and then were sorted and integrated with char-acteristics identified in the literature. A final list of 23 characteristics was compiled.

The characteristics were grouped into four categories: those that acted as a moti-vational force (three items), those that manifested through exploratory behavior (10items), those that were related to the stimulus (seven items), and those that wererelated to personal qualities (three items) (see Table 1). There was agreement in both

146 A. Chak

the lay expression and in the literature (Berlyne, 1960; Voss & Keller, 1983) that curi-osity should be conceptualized as a motivational force. Although researcherscommonly acknowledge the motivational dimension of curiosity, it is not well defined.Thus, all of the following three items derived under this category were from the layexpression: adventurous, takes the initiative and has a strong desire to know. Layexpression and the literature both also conceptualized curiosity as manifestingthrough exploratory behavior. Three sub-categories were further differentiated underexploratory behavior, namely manipulation (two items), perceptual exploration (fiveitems), and epistemic behavior (three items). These sub-categories were based oncommon features of exploratory behavior identified in research on curiosity in

Table 1. List of characteristics of curiosity

Category 1: Motivationadventurous*takes the initiative*has a strong desire to know*

Category 2: Exploratory behavior(a) Manipulation

Likes to touch things*+Manipulates to find out answers*+

(b) Perceptual explorationObserves attentively+Is visually aware of things around+Detailed observation*+Is aware of sound around+Listens carefully+

(c) Epistemic behaviorAsks questions frequently*+Continuously searches for answers*+Uses different methods to search for answers*+

Category 3: Nature of and response to stimulusIs interested in novelty*+Is interested in unknown+Is interested in complexity+Is eager to get answers quickly+Is easily attracted+Intensity of arousal declines quickly*+Persistence*+

Category 4: Personal qualities related to curiosityActive*Creative*+Imaginative*+

* Items identified by laypeople; generated by participants (teachers and parents) in the pilot study.+ Items based on the literature.


children (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1986; Trudewind & Schneider, 1994; Voss & Keller,1983; Nunnally & Lemond, 1973; Day, 1971). The arousal of curiosity cannot existwithout the presence of a stimulus; Berlyne’s (1960) identification of the collativeproperties or the nature of a stimulus is the most widely adopted one in studies oncuriosity. Three properties most frequently studied in relation to children, namelynovelty, the unknown, and complexity (Kreitler et al., 1974; Henderson, 1984;Trudewind & Schneider, 1994), were included in the list of characteristics (threeitems). Of the three properties, laypeople identified only novelty. Four items weregenerated from various types of responses to a stimulus. Both laypeople and research-ers agreed with the impression that a curious person is quickly aroused (Lowenstein,1994; Trudewind & Schneider, 1994). There was varied opinion among both laypeo-ple and researchers on the duration of the arousal: from fleeting and transient(Lowenstein, 1994) to persistence in exploration (Henderson, 1984; Kreitler &Kreitler, 1986). Researchers were more interested in the latter. Both descriptionswere included in the list of characteristics. Finally, three items on personal qualitiesrelated to curiosity were included. Both laypeople and researchers (Voss & Keller,1983; Goerlitz & Wohlwill, 1987) cite the relationship of creativity and imaginationto curiosity. A quality often identified by laypeople—being active—was also included.

In the main study, the questionnaire was distributed to teachers enrolled in an in-service training program and to teachers in 12 preschools. Seven of these preschoolswere invited to distribute the questionnaire to parents of the children of one class,which was randomly selected by the preschool’s principal or supervisor. Thecompletion of the questionnaire was voluntary. The principals or supervisors of thepreschools helped to collect and return the questionnaires completed by bothparents and teachers.

Results and discussion

Conceptions of the characteristics of a curious child: comparison between teachers and parents; laypeople and theorists

The overall mean ratings of the characteristics were relatively high and fell within anarrow range: the lowest mean rating was 3.16 (intensity of arousal quickly declines)and the highest was 4.37 (is interested in novelty). Teachers gave higher ratings thanparents to all characteristics, indicating that they were more likely to consider the listas comprising the characteristics of curiosity.

For the combined group of teachers and parents, the items with the highest ratingwere ‘is interested in novelty’ (M = 4.37, SD = 0.72), ‘has a strong desire to know’(M = 4.34, SD = 0.75), ‘asks questions frequently’ (M = 4.25, SD = 0.72), and ‘isvisually aware of things around’ (M = 4.24, SD = 0.76). For teachers, the highestratings were ‘has a strong desire to know’ (M = 4.45), ‘is interested in novelty’ (M =4.42), and ‘continuously searching for answers’ (M = 4.32). Parents rated ‘interestin novelty’ (M = 4.30) and ‘asks questions frequently’ (M = 4.22) the highest.Teachers and parents viewed the above items as characteristics typical of

148 A. Chak

curiosity. Both teachers and parents rated the item ‘intensity of arousal quicklydeclines’ (M = 3.16, SD = 1) the lowest, which may indicate that they were unsurewhether it was a characteristic of curiosity.

There was a considerable discrepancy between teachers and parents on a numberof characteristics. Teachers rated the following characteristics more highly thanparents: ‘uses different methods to search for answers’ (t = 4.73, df = 317, p < 0.001),‘manipulates to find out answers’ (t = 3.92, df = 317, p < 0.001), ‘makes detailedobservations’ (t = 2.76, df = 319, p = 0.006), ‘is visually aware of things around’ (t =3.01, df = 317, p = 0.003), ‘has a strong desire to know’ (t = 3.45, df = 317, p =0.001), ‘adventurous’ (t = 4.62, df = 319, p < 0.001), and ‘persistence’ (t = 3.39, df= 317, p = 0.001). The parents gave ‘active’ a higher rating (t = 3.51, df = 317, p <0.001) than the teachers. As these items were mainly about various types of explor-atory behavior and the motivational aspect of curiosity, it appeared that teachers havea better understanding than parents of the characteristics of these aspects of curiosity.

To understand whether the conceptions of teachers and parents revealed anypattern in the structure of the characteristics of curiosity, the list was subjected to aprincipal component factor analysis. Considering the possibility of a correlationamong the factors, an oblimin rotation with a Kaiser normalization was used. Theteacher sample and the parent sample were analyzed separately. For the teachersample, four factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 were extracted. The factorsaccounted for 29%, 11%, 8% and 6% of the variance in the data, for a total of 55%of the variance explained. Table 2 lists the factors with item loadings greater than0.50. The factors that emerged were labeled: interest in knowledge, personal quali-ties related to curiosity, exploratory behavior, and focused attention. Items thatloaded heavily onto Factor 1 (average mean = 4.03) and Factor 3 (average mean =4.13) had the highest average mean scores, indicating that teachers regarded ‘inter-est in knowledge’ and ‘exploratory behavior’ as the main characteristics of curiosity.

For the parent sample, six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 wereextracted. The factors accounted for 30%, 10%, 7%, 6%, 5% and 5% of the vari-ance in the data, for a total of 63% of the variance explained. Table 2 lists the factorswith item loadings greater than 0.50. The factors that emerged were labeled: explor-atory behavior—perceptual focus, nature of arousal, personal qualities related tocuriosity, interest in knowledge, exploratory behavior—mixed mode, and risk taking.Items that loaded heavily onto Factor 3 (average mean = 4.08), Factor 4 (averagemean = 3.96), and Factor 5 (average mean = 4.14) had the highest average meanscores, indicating that parents regarded ‘personal qualities related to curiosity’,‘interest in knowledge’, and ‘exploratory behavior—mixed mode’ as the main char-acteristics of curiosity.

Teachers and parents had some common conceptions of the characteristics ofcuriosity. Three common dimensions, namely ‘interest in knowledge’, ‘personalqualities’, and ‘exploratory behavior’, were extracted from both the teacher and theparent samples. Teachers and parents conceptualized the dimensions ‘interest inknowledge’ and ‘exploratory behavior’ somewhat differently. On the dimension of‘interest in knowledge’, on top of the items cited by both teachers and parents, the

Conceptions of children’s curiosity and exploration 149T

able

2.

Fac

tor

stru

ctur

e of

tea

cher

s’ a

nd p

aren

ts’ c

once

ptio

ns o

f th

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

cur

iosi

ty

Tea

cher

s’ c

once

ptio

nsP

aren

ts’ c

once

ptio

ns

Item

sL

oadi

ngM

ean

Item

sL

oadi

ngM

ean

Fac

tor

1: i

nte

rest

in

kn

owle

dge

4.03

Fac

tor

1: e

xplo

rato

ry b

ehav

ior—

per

cep

tual

foc

us

3.79

Det

aile

d ob

serv

atio

ns0.

793.

91U

ses

diff

eren

t m

etho

ds t

o se

arch

for

ans

wer

s0.

813.

59Is

inte

rest

ed in

com

plex

ity

0.78

3.69

Lis

tens

car

eful

ly0.

773.

56C

onti

nuou

sly

sear

chin

g fo

r an

swer

s0.

774.

32Is

aw

are

of s

ound

aro

und

0.54

3.81

Per

sist

ence

0.73

3.91

Obs

erve

s at

tent

ivel

y0.

514.

19M

anip

ulat

es t

o fi

nd o

ut a

nsw

ers

0.66

4.19

Fac

tor

2: n

atu

re o

f ar

ousa

l3.

64H

as a

str

ong

desi

re t

o kn

ow0.

604.

45A

ctiv

e0.

673.

80T

akes

the

init

iati

ve0.

593.

99Is

eas

ily a

ttra

cted

0.60

3.95

Is e

ager

to

get

answ

ers

quic

kly

0.56

3.79

Inte

nsit

y of

aro

usal

dec

lines

qui

ckly

0.55

3.18

Fac

tor

2: p

erso

nal

qu

alit

ies

rela

ted

to

curi

osit

y3.

78F

acto

r 3:

per

son

al q

ual

itie

s re

late

d t

o cu

rios

ity

4.08

Imag

inat

ive

0.93

4.01

Cre

ativ

e0.

823.

98C

reat

ive

0.90

3.92

Imag

inat

ive

0.81

4.17

Act

ive

0.58

3.40

Fac

tor

3: e

xplo

rato

ry b

ehav

ior

4.13

Fac

tor

4: i

nte

rest

in

kn

owle

dge

3.96

Is a

war

e of

sou

nd a

roun

d0.

783.

93C

onti

nuou

sly

sear

chin

g fo

r an

swer

s0.

724.

10L

ikes

to

touc

h th

ings

0.70

4.26

Is e

ager

to

get

answ

ers

quic

kly

0.69

3.81

Obs

erve

s at

tent

ivel

y0.

654.

18M

anip

ulat

es t

o fi

nd o

ut a

nsw

ers

0.65

3.83

Is in

tere

sted

in n

ovel

ty0.

554.

42H

as a

str

ong

desi

re t

o kn

ow0.

584.

16A

sks

ques

tion

s fr

eque

ntly

0.54

4.26

Is e

asily

att

ract

ed0.

533.

74

150 A. ChakT

able

2.

Con

tinue

d

Tea

cher

s’ c

once

ptio

nsP

aren

ts’ c

once

ptio

ns

Item

sL

oadi

ngM

ean

Item

sL

oadi

ngM

ean

Fac

tor

4: f

ocu

sed

att

enti

on3.

36F

acto

r 5:

exp

lora

tory

beh

avio

r—m

ixed

mod

e4.

14In

tens

ity

of a

rous

al d

eclin

es q

uick

ly−0

.58

3.14

Ask

s qu

esti

ons

freq

uent

ly−0

.77

4.22

Lis

tens

car

eful

ly0.

513.

57L

ikes

to

touc

h th

ings

−0.7

34.

11Is

vis

ually

aw

are

of t

hing

s ar

ound

−0.5

34.

09

Fac

tor

6: r

isk-

taki

ng

3.52

Adv

entu

rous

0.78

3.49

Is in

tere

sted

in c

ompl

exit

y0.

543.

54


teacher sample also included items such as ‘persistence’ and ‘takes the initiative’,which may be interpreted as features of attitude. The teachers’ inclusion of theseattitudinal items, illustrating the process of seeking knowledge, portrayed a richerconceptualization of the interest and search for knowledge. On the dimension of‘exploratory behavior’, one factor was extracted from the teachers’ sample, includingitems of manipulation, perceptual exploration, and epistemic behavior, whereas twofactors were extracted from the parents’ sample, making it difficult to interpret theirconception of exploratory behavior. As indicated by the factor ‘nature of arousal’,parents separated out the fleeting characteristic of curiosity.

The conceptualizations of teachers and parents in the present study coincidedsomewhat with those of theorists. Both laypeople and theorists shared a multi-dimensional conceptualization of curiosity. As indicated in Table 1, the dimensionsof ‘exploratory behavior’ (category 2) and ‘personal qualities’ (category 4) were alsorepresented and in line with theoretical conceptions. While theorists clearly identi-fied the motivational component of curiosity, this was not separated out in the layview. Instead, the dimension of ‘interest in knowledge’ combined two aspects ofcuriosity: the motivational aspect, represented by the item ‘has a strong desire toknow’, and the goal of seeking knowledge, represented by the items ‘continuouslysearching for answers’, ‘manipulates to find out answers’, and ‘is eager to getanswers quickly’. This lay conceptualization shared some similarities with Piaget’s(1936/1952) view that children’s interest in novelty stems from the need to makesense of the world. Influenced by Berlyne’s work, the literature on curiosity focusesmuch attention on the nature of stimulus (category 3); however, this emphasis couldnot be observed among lay conceptions.

The participants also rated whether each characteristic is worth encouraging andwhether it is important to learning. Items that were considered worth encouragingwere also perceived as important to learning, which indicated a correspondence inthe ratings between encouraging and learning. Teachers rated all items of bothaspects higher than parents. The mean rating of the teachers on 50% of the itemswas 4.3 or above, while the mean rating of the parents on only 25% of the items was4.3 or above. Both teachers and parents rated the following items the lowest: ‘inten-sity of arousal declines quickly’ (M = 2.79, SD = 1.09), ‘easily attracted’ (M = 3.46,SD = 0.9), and ‘is eager to get answers quickly’ (M = 3.46, SD = 0.89), indicatingthat they shared the view that these items represent undesirable characteristics ofcuriosity. Once the negative aspects of curiosity were separated out, teachers weremore positive than parents on the overall characteristics of curiosity and were morewilling to encourage them.

Conceptions of the development of curiosity

Participants were asked whether the curiosity of children decreases with age and toexplain their point of view. Of the participants (N = 316), 39% indicated that curios-ity would decrease with age, 59% indicated it would not decrease with age, and 2%(all were teachers) indicated both. The Pearson chi-square test indicated that there

152 A. Chak

was no significant difference between teachers and parents. Two hundred and elevenparticipants (62%) explained their viewpoints and a total of 259 reasons were gener-ated, with each participant giving one or two reasons. The explanations weresubjected to a content analysis and two main categories were developed. Teachersand parents identified environmental and personal factors as contributing to whethercuriosity would decrease with age (see Table 3). These factors corresponded withthe age-old nature verses nurture debate. A coding scheme of six sub-categories wasfurther generated from each category, giving a total of 12 sub-categories.Thirty percent of the responses (N = 78) were randomly selected and subjected toan inter-rater reliability assessment by two raters. Cohen’s Kappa was applied toassess inter-rater agreement; the overall mean of agreement was 0.85 and the overallmean of kappa was 0.82.3

Of the participants who indicated that curiosity decreases with age, theoverwhelming majority of the explanations given represented a conditional ratherthan an absolute view of the relationship between age and curiosity. For example,environmental influences rather than biological factors were given as reasons fordecline. Since, regardless of whether the participants agreed or disagreed that

Table 3. Major explanations given on whether the curiosity of children does or does not decrease with age

Percentage of responses

Explanations Teacher Parent Total

External environmentAdult’s responses, expectations, influence 21 13.5 19Education system (e.g. school work) 3 1.5 3Stimulation from the environment—presence or attraction ofa stimulus (e.g. novelty)

13.5 9 12

Influenced by the environment: general, unspecified 11 7.5 10Prior experience in exploration 3 –a 2

Person’s characteristicsAlternative ways of expressing curiosity/exploratory behavior(e.g. less observable)

9 6 8

Attitude toward a stimulusb 15 36 20no longer aroused (58)c (67)continues to be aroused (41) (33)

Focused/specific interest 9 15 11Personal characteristics 11 5 10

aIndicates less than 1%.bThis response was further divided into two sub-categories. Some participants felt that as knowledge, experience and cognition increased, a person would become less aroused by stimuli. Other participants held the opposite view that the more one knows, the more one wants to know.cThese percentages represent the breakdown of the sub-categories.


curiosity decreases with age, they shared similar views of the explanations, all of theexplanations were combined for analysis.

On environmental factors, both teachers and parents stated that the ‘responses,expectations and influence of adults’ are key to promoting or hindering curiosity inchildren (19% of the total responses). The participants explained that, on the posi-tive side, the encouragement of adults could help to maintain or increase the curios-ity of children, while on the negative side, control by adults could suppress it.Teachers were more concerned than parents about the adults’ responses (21%versus 13.5%), and some also pointed out that school pressure, such as too muchhomework, also has a potentially negative effect on exploration by children. Asexpected, more teachers than parents were aware of the role of the environment, interms of the presence and attractiveness of a stimulus, in encouraging curiosity inchildren. Some teachers also noted the role of prior experience in exploration, andexpressed the opinion that if a child’s curiosity is being satisfied, it is likely to besustained, and vice versa.

On personal factors, participants who believed that curiosity does not decreasewith age were more likely to reason that a person only changes the form by which heor she expresses curiosity or manifests exploratory behavior. For example, as achild’s cognitive ability improves, his or her exploratory behavior shifts from externalmanifestations to become more implicit. They also reasoned that interests becomemore focused and specific, and that at different ages people are interested in differ-ent things. More teachers than parents (11% versus 5%) were aware of curiosity as atrait; that is of the fact that some people are more curious than others. Opinion wasdivided on the relationship between knowledge and curiosity. Some participantsconsidered that curiosity declined with age due to an increase in knowledge, whileothers were of the opinion that the more one knows, the more one wants to know.These divided views deserve further investigation because although all observed adecline in the external manifestation of exploratory behavior, those who believe inthe former view might play a different mediating role in encouraging explorationthan those who believe in the latter view.

Conceptions of the circumstances in which exploratory behavior in children would (not) be encouraged

The participants were asked under what circumstances they would or would notencourage exploratory behavior in children. Two hundred and seventy-fiveparticipants (86%) responded to this question and a total of 567 explanations weregenerated. Teachers gave more explanations than parents, with 74% of the teachersgiving two or three explanations and 83% of the parents giving one or two explana-tions. The explanations were subjected to a content analysis and three main catego-ries were developed: child-focused, adult-focused, and situation-focused (see Table4). On the whole, the categories that were identified agreed with the main factorsdescribed in theories on the interaction between person and context (e.g. Lewin,1951/1997; Magnusson & Stattin, 1998). The three categories were by no means

154 A. Chak

mutually exclusive; they represented different emphases given in the explanations.An explanation with a child-focused consideration implied that the child was theprimary actor. The emphasis was primarily on the child’s perspective and onresponding to the child’s characteristics and needs at a particular moment. Explana-tions with an adult-focused consideration implied that the adult was the primaryactor, assessing concerns and making judgments on issues such as the child’s ability,the content of exploration, and his or her role. Explanations with a situation-focusedconsideration included an evaluation by the adult of the situational and environmen-tal factors. A coding scheme of five sub-categories was generated from the categoryof child-focused considerations, six sub-categories from adult-focused consider-ations and six sub-categories from situation-focused considerations, for a total of 17sub-categories. Thirty percent of the responses (N = 170) were randomly selectedand subjected to an inter-rater reliability by two raters. Cohen’s kappa was appliedto assess inter-rater agreement; the overall mean of agreement was 0.91 and theoverall mean of kappa was 0.9.

The participants considered child, adult and situational factors in determiningwhether to encourage a child’s exploratory behavior at a particular moment. Teachersand parents agreed unanimously that the primary consideration is to provide a safeenvironment for preschoolers to explore (35% of total responses). This was probablybecause the focus of this study was on preschool-age children. Both groups also consid-ered it important to attend to a child’s interest in furthering his or her exploration(18% of total responses). Some of the participants noted the need to observe the child’sresponse to a stimulus. The appropriateness of the timing was another consideration

Table 4. Major considerations about the circumstances that will or will not encourage exploratory behavior in children

Percentage of responses

Circumstances Teacher Parent Total

Child-focused considerationsChild’s interest/observe child’s response to stimulus 19 15.5 18Child’s physical/cognitive/emotional state 3 2 2.5Child misbehaves 1.5 1 1

Adult-focused considerationsWhether the stimulus is (in)appropriate 10 16 11.5For learning and development 3.5 6 4Whether it interferes with/disturbs/affects other children 5 –a 3.5Whether it requires adult supervision/guidance 2 5 3

Situation-focused considerationsSafety 35 35 35Timing: adequate/appropriate/designated time 13 13 13

aIndicates less than 1%.


of both teachers and parents (13% of total responses). Teachers were concerned aboutthe adequacy of time for exploration. The teachers held diverse views on when explo-ration could take place; some felt that exploration should occur during designatedactivities, while others believed it could occur anytime and during any activity.

On adult-focused considerations, it appeared surprising that more parents thanteachers voiced their concerns about the following: the appropriateness of thecontent of the stimulus being explored, in terms of its value and meaningfulness andwhether it is age appropriate (10% versus 16%); on whether the exploration shouldbe related to learning (3.5% versus 6%); and the requirement of adult supervision orguidance (2% versus 5%). This may be explained by the difference in the context inwhich teachers and parents interact with children. The factors that parents wereconcerned about would already have been taken into account by teachers in design-ing and implementing the learning activities. Adult supervision is not an issue inschool settings. However, outside of the school setting, parents need to be vigilantabout the variety of stimuli to which young children are exposed in this informationage, and they need to play an active role in screening and selecting the sources ofstimulation appropriate for preschoolers.

Concluding remarks

I have argued that in order to understand whether adults encourage children to becurious and to explore, it is essential to first comprehend their implicit conceptionsof curiosity. Furthermore, as mediators of the environment of children, it isimportant to take into consideration the views of teachers and parents. Asrepresentations of lay expressions, they are an important complement to theoreticalconceptualizations.

Overall, the participants in this study held positive views about curiosity andexploration, with teachers even more positive than parents in their willingness toencourage curiosity in children. Such a positive view, especially on the part of theteachers, may be related to the participants’ primary involvement with children ofpreschool age. In general, the professional training of preschool teachers emphasizesa constructivist view of learning and advocates discovery learning and exploration.The greater awareness of teachers compared with parents of environmentalinfluences on the exploration of children may also be due to the internalization ofbeliefs adopted from their professional training. Such a professional orientationwould likely have an impact on the positive view that teachers hold of curiosity andexploration.

Although the preschool teachers in this study were generally willing to encouragechildren’s curiosity and valued its importance to learning, some of them alreadynoted their concern about the effect of academic pressure on curiosity. This mayimply teachers’ concern about whether they are able to put their beliefs into practice.Compared with the primary school curriculum, the less structured preschoolcurriculum may pose less of a dilemma for teachers to exercise their professionalbeliefs in allowing children more time to explore. With the current emphasis of

156 A. Chak

‘child-centeredness’ as the core value of Hong Kong’s pre-primary education(Education Department and Social Welfare Department, 2001; CurriculumDevelopment Council, 2006), it is timely to promote discussions on the value ofnurturing young children’s curiosity and exploration in early childhood settings.However, as academic pressure is already significant in primary school and with themounting tension of the downward extension of the primary curriculum to the earlyyears, such discussion needs to be extended to involve the whole education sector. Itwould also be worthwhile to determine whether primary school and secondaryschool teachers share the positive view of preschool teachers on curiosity andexploration, and on possible relationship between academic pressure and teachers’encouragement of exploration.

From the participants’ expression of their views on the development of curiosityand on when to encourage children to explore, there was some indication that theirconsiderations were multi-faceted, including both personal and environmentalconsiderations, and that they held a relational view on the expression of their beliefsin action. For example, some parents considered that given that the setting is safe, achild could explore whatever he or she was interested in. Such a dynamic relation-ship supports Furnham’s (1988) contention that beliefs are expressed differently indifferent situations and that the relationship between belief and behavior is non-linear. Schneider and Unzner’s (1994) research also illustrates the influence of thesocial context and of situational goals of parents on parental behavior and a child’sexploration.

Beyond the possible interaction between beliefs and situational factors, Furnham(1988) also notes the influence of culture on a person’s beliefs and practices. Suchinfluence, reflected in the degree of control exercised over a child’s exploration,may be manifested at various levels. At the macro level, some teachers wereconcerned that pressure from school would lead to a decline in curiosity in chil-dren. At the micro level, some parents who believed that there was a need to decidewhich stimuli were worthwhile for children to explore might be influenced by theChinese tradition of adult-directed behavior. These findings shed some light on therelationship between the beliefs of adults and contextual factors, including theimmediate context and the cultural context, which appears to support taking aperson-context theoretical view to understand the connection between beliefs andbehavior.

The findings from this study revealed considerable similarities between lay andtheoretical conceptions of the characteristics of curiosity. Comparable to theconceptualization of theorists, the lay conception of curiosity was multi-dimensional.Theorists have identified two key features of curiosity: that it is a motivational forceand a behavioral manifestation. After separating out exploratory behavior, the layconception further reflected that behavioral manifestation was intertwined with themotivational aspect of curiosity and with the goal of seeking knowledge. However,researchers have focused primarily on understanding and differentiating betweenvarious types of exploratory behavior and have paid less attention to the motivationalaspect of curiosity. This apparent skewed attention may lead to an imbalance in the


theoretical development of this concept. The lay view of incorporating bothmotivational and behavioral components in its conception may enhance theorists’attention to possible relations between them. Researchers on curiosity have beengreatly influenced by the collative properties identified by Berlyne (1960); however,apart from ‘novelty’, the lay conception appears not to be very discerning about theproperties of curiosity. Further, in line with the conceptualization of theorists (Voss& Keller, 1983; Goerlitz & Wohlwill, 1987), teachers and parents perceived personalqualities such as creativity and imagination as related to, but clearly differentiatedfrom, curiosity. In recent decades, although few researchers have shown much inter-est in curiosity as a concept for investigation, early childhood educators have contin-ued to promote its educational value. Dialogue among laypeople and theorists notonly can enhance the theory and practice link, but is also mutually enriching andmay push forth theoretical conceptualizations. For example, Berlyne’s analysis of thecollative properties of curiosity can inform practice by extending early childhoodeducators’ view on the variety of stimuli that can arouse children’s curiosity.Furthermore, with current educational emphasis on developing children’s creativityand imagination, researchers and practitioners can jointly investigate possiblelinkages of these concepts with curiosity, in particular as a motivational force and asexpressed in exploratory behavior.

The present study has illustrated that it is meaningful to consider lay concep-tions of curiosity to complement scientific research. This approach is especiallyrelevant in exploring the potential application of the epistemic nature of thisconcept in educational settings. This study is exploratory in nature and the scopeof investigation is limited. It cannot present a comprehensive understanding of theimplicit theories held by adults on this concept. Some speculations have beenmade in linking various views together; however, a deeper and more comprehen-sive investigation would better reveal the dynamics among systems of belief embed-ded in and related to the conception and expression of curiosity. For example,teachers may be faced with conflicting beliefs between allowing children’s freedomto explore and the expectation to fulfill certain required educational curricula orgoals. In facilitating children’s exploration, teachers and parents may be jugglingbetween the role of adults in providing guidance and direction, and child-centeredvalues. Further, the list of the characteristics of curiosity identified in this studyneeds to be extended and modified beyond young children to other age groups.Finally, the views of teachers and parents of children of different age groups andcultural and demographic backgrounds would also be meaningful themes forfurther investigation.

Notes

1. Perceptual curiosity is aroused by novel stimuli and subsequently reduced by continuousexposure to such stimuli. Epistemic curiosity is motivated by the quest for knowledge or infor-mation. Specific curiosity is aroused when a person desires a particular piece of information,and diverse curiosity is related to a person’s search for stimuli for entertainment or for relieffrom boredom (Berlyne, 1960, 1978).

158 A. Chak

2. The in-service training program was a three-year part-time associate degree program offeredby a local university. Student teachers enrolled in this program were qualified early childhoodeducation teachers with at least two years’ working experience.

3. The overall mean of agreement is the proportion of agreement between raters. The overallmean of kappa is the proportion of agreement corrected for chance.

References

Arnone, M. (August, 2003) Using instructional design strategies to foster curiosity, ERIC Digest,3–4.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960) Arousal, conflict and curiosity (New York, McGraw-Hill).Berlyne, D. E. (1978) Curiosity and learning, Motivation and Emotion, 2(2), 97–175.Curriculum Development Council (2006) Guide to the pre-primary curriculum (Hong Kong, Hong

Kong Government Printer).Day, H. I. (1971) The measurement of specific curiosity, in: H. I. Day, D. E. Berlyne & D. E.

Hunt (Eds) Intrinsic motivation: a new direction in education (Toronto, Holt, Rinehart, &Winston), 99–101.

Education Department and Social Welfare Department (2001) Performance indicators (pre-primaryinstitutions): domain on learning and teaching (2nd edn) (Hong Kong, Hong Kong GovernmentPrinter).

Endsley, R. C., Hutcherson, M. A., Garner, A. P. & Martin, M. J. (1979) Interrelationshipsamong selected maternal behaviors, authoritarianism, and preschool children’s verbal andnonverbal curiosity, Child Development, 50, 331–339.

Furnham, A. (1988) Lay theories: everyday understanding of problems in the social sciences (Oxford,Pergamon Press).

Gaylen, N. (1998) Encouraging curiosity at home, Science and Children, 35(4), 24–25.Goerlitz, D. & Wohlwill, J. (Eds) (1987) Curiosity, imagination, and play (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence

Erlbaum).Good, T. & Weinstein, R. (1986) Teacher expectations: a framework for exploring classrooms, in:

K. Zumwalt (Ed.) Improving teaching: the ASCD 1986 yearbook (Alexandria, VA, TheAssociation), 63–85.

Goodnow, J. (1984) Parents’ ideas about parenting and development: a review of issues in recentwork, in: M. Lamb, A. Brown & B. Rogoff (Eds) Advances in developmental psychology (vol. 3)(Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 193–242.

Green, M. (2002) Teachers helping parents to raise the level of curiosity in young children (ERICDocument ED467754).

Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K. & Zimmermann P. (1999) A wider view of attachment andexploration, in: J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds) Handbook of attachment: theory, research andclinical applications (New York, Guilford Press), 760–786.

Heider, F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations (New York, John Wiley).Henderson, B. (1984) Parents and exploration: the effect of context on individual differences in

exploratory behavior, Child Development, 55, 1237–1245.Henderson, B. & Moore, S. G. (1980) Children’s responses to objects differing in novelty in

relation to level of curiosity and adult behavior, Child Development, 51, 457–465.Hunt, J. M. (1966) The epigenesis of intrinsic motivation and early cognitive learning, in: R. H.

Haber (Ed.) Current research in motivation (New York, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston), 355–370.Hutt, C. (1970) Curiosity in young children, Science Journal, 6(2), 68–71.Hutt, C. (1979) Exploration and play (#2), in: B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.) Play and learning (New

York, Gardner Press), 175–194.Hutt, S. J., Tyler, S., Hutt, C. & Christopherson, H. (1989) Play, exploration and learning: a natural

history of the pre-school (London, Routledge).


Keller, J. (1987) Motivational aspects of exploratory behavior, in: D. Goerlitz & J. F. Wohlwill(Eds) Curiosity, imagination, and play (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 24–38.

Kreitler, S. & Kreitler, H. (1986) Types of curiosity behaviors and their cognitive determinants,Archives of Psychology, 138, 233–251.

Kreitler, S., Kreitler, H. & Zigler, E. (1974) Cognitive orientation and curiosity, British Journal ofPsychology, 65(1), 43–62.

Lewin, K. (1951/1997) Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science (Washington, DC,American Psychological Association).

Lindfors, J. (1991) Children’s language and learning (2nd edn) (Needham Heights, MA, Allyn &Bacon).

Lowenstein, G. (1994) The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation, PsychologicalBulletin, 16(1), 75–98.

Magnusson, D. & Stattin, H. (1998) Person–context interaction theories, in: R. M. Lerner & W.Damon (Eds) Handbook of child psychology (vol. 1, 5th edn) (New York, John Wiley), 685–760.

Nunnally, J. C. & Lemond, L. C. (1973) Exploratory behavior and human development, in: H. W.Reese (Ed.) Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 8) (New York, Academic Press),59–109.

Piaget, J. (1936/1952) The origins of intelligence in children (New York, International UniversitiesPress).

Rosenthal, R. (2002) The Pygmalion effect and its mediating mechanisms, in: J. Aronson (Ed.)Improving academic achievement: impact of psychological factors on education (San Diego,Academic Press), 25–36.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupil’sintellectual development (New York, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Schneider, K. & Unzner, L. (1994) Preschoolers’ exploratory behavior: the influence of the socialand physical context, in: H. Keller, K. Schneider & B. Henderson (Eds) Curiosity and explora-tion (Berlin, Springer), 177–197.

Sigel, I. E. (1992) The belief–behavior connection: a resolvable dilemma?, in: I. E. Sigel, A. V.McGillicuddy-DeLisi & J. J. Goodnow (Eds) Parental belief systems: the psychological conse-quences for children (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 433–456.

Sigel, I. E. & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V. (2002) Parental beliefs are cognitions: the dynamicbeliefs system model, in: M. H. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of parenting: being and becoming aparent (vol. 3, 2nd edn) (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 485–508.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985) Implicit theories of intelligences, creativity, and wisdom, Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–627.

Sternberg, R. J. (1994) Answering questions and questioning answers, Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2),136–139.

Sussman, R. (1989) Curiosity and exploration in children: where affect and cognition meet, in: K.Field et al. (Eds) Learning and education: psychoanalytic perspectives (Madison, InternationalUniversities Press), 245–266.

Trudewind, C. & Schneider, K. (1994) Interindividual differences in the development of explor-atory behavior: methodological considerations, in: H. Keller, K. Schneider & B. Henderson(Eds) Curiosity and exploration (Berlin, Springer), 151–176.

Voss, H. G. & Keller, H. (1983) Curiosity and exploration: theories and results (New York, AcademicPress).

Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2002) Is there a link between teachers’ beliefs and behaviors?, Early Educationand Development, 13(1), 81–106.

Documents

Teachers' and Parents' Conceptions of Children's Curiosity and Exploration