CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN

Curiosity is the natural instinct that implies

wanting to know more about something through
research and interaction.
It encourages people to seek new information,
interact with their environment and the people
who surround them. This instinct also
stimulates personal growth.
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
 Childrenare little explorers. They’re born with
innate curiosity.
 They try to interact with everything by touching,
looking and observing the objects and people
around them.
 Byasking questions such as “why?” or
“how?” they’re able to obtain useful information.
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
 Main characteristics of curiosity in children
 It’simportant for us to care for and enhance our children’s
curiosity. By taking these steps we’ll be able to help them
learn more efficiently. Don’t let children lose any of the
following characteristics:
 Interest Motivation
 Desire Restlessness
 Passion
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
 3 ways to motivate the brain to learn
 Curiosity about a subject makes it much easier to learn, retain and
assimilate information about it. The expectation generated by curiosity
motivates the brain to assimilate knowledge better because:
 It activates dopamine, which is a chemical messenger or neurotransmitter
to achieve objectives. It also promotes the retention of information.

 Curiosity provides benefits for the hippo-campus, which is one of the

brain’s centers. The hippo-campus is fundamental for the formation and
consolidation of both long and short-term memory.

 The tandem or reward system facilitates learning and the reception of

information.
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
 The importance of stimulating curiosity in children
 It’svery important to stimulate curiosity in children
because it sparks interest which is necessary for them to
learn and develop their thoughts. Children who aren’t
curious may be:
 Less sociable.
 Read fewer books.
 Difficult to inspire, motivate and enthuse.
 Show little interest in learning new things.
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
 Benefits of curiosity in children
 As soon as they start talking, children start to ask questions. The fact
that they keep their curious eyes wide open to the world to learn
new things brings about many benefits including:
 Strengthening their relationships with others.

 Protecting their brains.

 Helping them grow.

 Helps them overcome anxiety.

 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
3 negative habits that affect curiosity (negatively)
 Fear is the enemy
 Fear is the number one enemy of curiosity.
Overprotecting your child will only generate more fear.
It will also produce feelings of incompetence.
 Avoid using phrases such as: “Don’t touch that
because you’re going to get hurt” or “Don’t run, you’re
going to fall.” Allow your child to get interested in
exploring new things.
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
3 negative habits that affect curiosity (negatively)
 Disapproval represses
 Children always want to play and explore. It’s not wise
to constantly say “don’t do that”, “don’t get dirty” or
“be quiet.”
 These phrases hold them back and inhibit them from
being curious. It’s okay for you to use some of these
phrases from time to time as long as they’re justified
and you explain your reasoning to them.
 CURIOSITY OF CHILDREN
3 negative habits that affect curiosity (negatively)
 Absence produces insecurity
 Your children feel safe when you’re by their side. Feeling safe will
help them develop their curiosity even more. By being with them
give them the opportunity to share what they learn.
 In conclusion, to stimulate curiosity in children, you have to
dedicate time to them. Listen to them and reinforce their behavior
positively. Curiosity will help them face their challenges in the
future. Helping them develop their curiosity also help them
develop great self-esteem.
 A Place of Science in the School
 Wilson Canon, a famous educationist in 1867, in
support of inclusion of science as a School subject
wrote”, “Science teaches what evidence is, what
proof is.
 1.Science provides unique training in observation
and reasoning. Science students reason from
definitely ascertained facts and form clear
concepts. It makes one systematic and enables
him to form an objective judgment.
 A Place of Science in the School
 2. The discoveries have added to the prosperity of
human race with vast increase of knowledge.
Herbert Spencer in his, “What Knowledge is of
Most Worth” gives information which study of
Science furnishes. According to him, Science
learning is incomparably more useful for our
guidance in life. Other chief subjects too provide
an intellectual training not inferior to that of
Science. Practically, we live in a world of scientific
discoveries.
 A Place of Science in the School
 3. Prof. H.E. Armstrong says that Science is taught
to provide training in and knowledge of Scientific
method, which is useful in the life pursuits. So this
needs a School base of Science education.
 4. Science has its cultural value. It has a literature
of its own. The Scientific discoveries of Galileo,
Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Pasteur, Kelvin, Bose,
Armstrong and others are treasures of mankind.
So, Science has won the first rank of humanistic
studies.
 A Place of Science in the School
 5. Science has utilitarian value. It trains
child to use his leisure properly. These are
clearly illustrated in scientific hobbies.
 6.Modern knowledge of Science provides
great intellectual pleasure. An educated
person is under very great disadvantage if
he is not familiar with that knowledge.
 A Place of Science in the School
 7. Knowledge of the methods of observation and
experiment in the different branches of Science helps
pupils to develop a logical mind, a critical judgment
and a capacity for methodical organization.
 8. Science is useful in that it remedies some of the
defects of the ordinary school education. It is found to
be the most valuable element in the education of those
who show special aptitude. Science provides discipline
of mind.
 Organizing Science for Understanding
 "what to teach"
 content, process, meta-content and process, representational
competence, and discourse and membership
 Content concerns science concepts that students need to
acquire. Content is of two different types: (1) central, difficult to
learn ideas; and (2) concepts that are more peripheral and
more amenable to straightforward instruction.
 Conceptual change describes learning that involves substantial
recrafting of prior ideas.
 Organizing Science for Understanding
 Process. The process of doing science is the traditional
complement to content. For example, introspection of
scientists and textbook descriptions of what scientists do
led to the introduction of the scientific method as part of
science instruction. Scientists supposedly (a) define
problems carefully; (b) generate hypotheses; (c) design
experiments to select among hypotheses; and (d) carry
out those experiments to determine results.
 Organizing Science for Understanding
 Meta-content and process. (change)
 Starting about 1990 research focused increasingly on students' conceptions
of knowledge, or, more specifically, scientific knowledge. Students have
naive assumptions about the nature of knowledge, in somewhat the same
way that they have naive conceptions about the content of science.
Students may believe (falsely) that their own sense of what is sensible is
irrelevant to science–they must be told everything that is true and should
not expect to figure anything out on their own. Students may also believe
(falsely) that knowledge of science is embodied in small, simple chunks
(e.g., sentences or equations) that can be memorized and do not form a
larger fabric. Researchers refer to this knowledge as student
epistemologies (theories of knowledge).
 Organizing Science for Understanding
 Meta-content and process.
 Unlike most versions of science process, it appears in
theory and practice that improving student epistemologies
also improves science-content learning. However, the
precise nature of student epistemologies is unsettled. Some
researchers hold closely to epistemological ideas that
characterize professional science, such as: "Scientific
knowledge is contingent and always subject to revision."
 Organizing Science for Understanding
 Representational competence. A comparative newcomer to the repertoire of
potential knowledge goals is representational competence. Representation
competence entails knowing: How do representations (like pictures, graphs,
or algebra) work? What are qualities of good representations? and How does
one design effective, new, scientific representations?
 Promising characteristics of this new conception of representational
competence are (a) students appear to have strong and productive intuitive
ideas to build on; (b) concern for it parallels the broader move toward more
authentic frames for action, rather than a focus on isolated skills; and (c) the
rapid computerization of science evidently requires a more flexible
representational competence than previously.
 Organizing Science for Understanding
 Discourse and membership. Among the instructional
trends in science learning is an increased reliance on
social, rather than individual, methods, such as whole-
class or small-group discussion. The parallel theoretical
move is the realization that science is, in essence, a social
process. Ways of speaking and interacting, and one's
feeling of affiliation to various groups (membership), are
not only means to an end, but are, in fact, vital to scientific
competence.
 The Nature of Science
 The World Is Understandable
 Science presumes that the things and events in the universe
occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible
through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that
through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of
instruments that extend the senses, people can discover
patterns in all of nature.
 The Nature of Science
 Scientific Ideas Are Subject To Change
 Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on
making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for
making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable
because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how
well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory
may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations. In
science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories,
whether new or old, go on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is
no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate
approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works.
 The Nature of Science
 Scientific Knowledge Is Durable
 Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and
accept some uncertainty as part of nature, most scientific knowledge
is durable. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright
rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to
survive and grow more precise and to become widely accepted. For
example, in formulating the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein did
not discard the Newtonian laws of motion but rather showed them to
be only an approximation of limited application within a more
general concept Continuity and stability are as characteristic of
science as change is, and confidence is as prevalent as tentativeness.
 The Nature of Science
 Science Cannot Provide Complete Answers to All Questions
 There are many matters that cannot usefully be examined in a scientific way.
There are, for instance, beliefs that—by their very nature—cannot be proved
or disproved (such as the existence of supernatural powers and beings, or the
true purposes of life). In other cases, a scientific approach that may be valid is
likely to be rejected as irrelevant by people who hold to certain beliefs (such as
in miracles, fortune-telling, astrology, and superstition). Nor do scientists have
the means to settle issues concerning good and evil, although they can
sometimes contribute to the discussion of such issues by identifying the likely
consequences of particular actions which may be helpful in weighing
alternatives.
 The Nature of Science
 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
 Science Demands Evidence
 Sooner or later, the validity of scientific claims is settled by referring to observations of
phenomena. Hence, scientists concentrate on getting accurate data. Such evidence is
obtained by observations and measurements taken in situations that range from natural
settings (such as a forest) to completely contrived ones (such as the laboratory). To make
their observations, scientists use their own senses, instruments (such as microscopes) that
enhance those senses, and instruments that tap characteristics quite different from what
humans can sense (such as magnetic fields). Scientists observe passively (earthquakes, bird
migrations), make collections (rocks, shells), and actively probe the world (as by boring into
the earth's crust or administering experimental medicines).
 Because of this reliance on evidence, great value is placed on the development of better
instruments and techniques of observation, and the findings of any one investigator or group
are usually checked by others.
 The Nature of Science
 Science Is a Blend of Logic and Imagination
 Although all sorts of imagination and thought may be used in coming up
with hypotheses and theories, sooner or later scientific arguments must
conform to the principles of logical reasoning—that is, to testing the
validity of arguments by applying certain criteria of inference,
demonstration, and common sense. Scientists may often disagree about
the value of a particular piece of evidence, or about the appropriateness
of particular assumptions that are made—and therefore disagree about
what conclusions are justified. But they tend to agree about the
principles of logical reasoning that connect evidence and assumptions
with conclusions.
 The Nature of Science
 Science Explains and Predicts
 Scientists strive to make sense of observations of phenomena by
constructing explanations for them that use, or are consistent with, currently
accepted scientific principles. Such explanations—theories—may be either
sweeping or restricted, but they must be logically sound and incorporate a
significant body of scientifically valid observations. The credibility of
scientific theories often comes from their ability to show relationships
among phenomena that previously seemed unrelated. The theory of moving
continents, for example, has grown in credibility as it has shown
relationships among such diverse phenomena as earthquakes, volcanoes, the
match between types of fossils on different continents, the shapes of
continents, and the contours of the ocean floors.
 The Nature of Science
 Scientists Try to Identify and Avoid Bias
 When faced with a claim that something is true, scientists respond by asking
what evidence supports it. But scientific evidence can be biased in how the
data are interpreted, in the recording or reporting of the data, or even in the
choice of what data to consider in the first place.
 Bias attributable to the investigator, the sample, the method, or the instrument
may not be completely avoidable in every instance, but scientists want to know
the possible sources of bias and how bias is likely to influence evidence.
Scientists want, and are expected, to be as alert to possible bias in their own
work as in that of other scientists, although such objectivity is not always
achieved. One safeguard against undetected bias in an area of study is to have
many different investigators or groups of investigators working in it.
 The Nature of Science
 Science Is Not Authoritarian
 It is appropriate in science, as elsewhere, to turn to knowledgeable sources of
information and opinion, usually people who specialize in relevant disciplines.
But esteemed authorities have been wrong many times in the history of science.
In the long run, no scientist, however famous or highly placed, is empowered to
decide for other scientists what is true, for none are believed by other scientists
to have special access to the truth. There are no preestablished conclusions that
scientists must reach on the basis of their investigations.
 Theories are judged by their results: When someone comes up with a new or
improved version that explains more phenomena or answers more important
questions than the previous version, the new one eventually takes its place.
Science a Process Approach
Science a Process Approach
Science a Process Approach
Science a Process Approach
Science a Process Approach