Next Article in Journal
Synergizing Knowledge Graphs and LLMs: An Intelligent Tutoring Model for Self-Directed Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Transformation of Vocational Schools in Switzerland: The Importance of Innovative School Management Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/educsci15091101
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Classroom Curiosity Affects College Students’ Creativity?

by
Jianfan Zeng
,
Haoqun Yan
and
Hongfeng Zhang
*
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao 999078, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 1101; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091101
Submission received: 2 August 2025 / Revised: 18 August 2025 / Accepted: 19 August 2025 / Published: 25 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In today’s rapidly evolving social and technological environment, college students’ creativity is increasingly recognized as a core competency essential for fostering future innovation and societal development. As a result, identifying effective strategies to cultivate creativity has become a pressing focus in educational research. This study explores the intrinsic relationship between classroom curiosity and creativity by constructing a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM). A total of 690 valid questionnaires were collected from students at several universities in Guangzhou and Macau. The respondents represented a diverse range of majors and academic levels. The results reveal a significant positive correlation between curiosity and situational interest, as well as between perceived teacher support, classroom curiosity, and knowledge-seeking behavior. These findings not only enrich our understanding of how creativity is fostered through classroom learning processes but also offer theoretical foundations and empirical support for optimizing educational practices.

1. Introduction

In today’s rapidly changing technological and social environment, creativity among college students is widely recognized as a vital competency for driving innovation and promoting social development (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2022). Educational psychology has increasingly focused on the role of motivation and emotional factors in learning, especially curiosity, a critical psychological mechanism that stimulates creative thinking and sustained learning motivation (Jirout et al., 2022; Kashdan & Fincham, 2002). As a core setting connecting cognition, emotion, and behavior, the classroom plays a crucial role in stimulating curiosity and fostering creativity (Grossnickle, 2016).
Research has shown that curiosity enhances problem recognition and information processing and serves as a powerful internal driver for continued exploration (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2018; Mumford et al., 1991; Shin et al., 2019). In particular, Jirout et al. (2022) under this theoretical framework, classroom curiosity is considered a psychological foundation for the development of creativity.
While curiosity is closely related to desire for knowledge, important differences exist: Curiosity is more exploratory and open-ended, responding to novel stimuli and representing a broad interest in the unknown. In contrast, the desire for knowledge is more goal-oriented, focusing on specific information gaps and driving targeted learning behaviors (Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Litman, 2005). Thus, the desire for knowledge may serve as a cognitive motivational state following classroom curiosity, potentially acting as a mediator in the path from curiosity to creativity.
However, curiosity does not automatically translate into creativity. Its influence may be shaped by mediating and moderating mechanisms. Theories suggest that situational interest and desire for knowledge—two key motivational components—may bridge curiosity and creativity in educational contexts. Situational interest is triggered by the classroom setting and plays a vital role in fostering creative tendencies (Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Litman, 2005; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Furthermore, a recent 2025 study published in Current Psychology found that teacher-directed support can significantly enhance students’ creativity through mechanisms such as positive emotions, self-regulated motivation, and classroom engagement. This aligns with previous findings on the role of teacher support in facilitating motivational shifts within the learning environment (Engel, 2015). In this context, perceived teacher support may serve as a key moderating variable, enhancing the effect of classroom curiosity on the desire for knowledge.
This study aims to explore how classroom curiosity influences college students’ creativity, with a focus on the mediating roles of desire for knowledge and situational interest. Additionally, it examines the moderating effect of perceived teacher support on the relationship between curiosity and the desire for knowledge.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Curiosity

Early theorists, such as Berlyne and Loewenstein (Berlyne, 1954, 1960; Loewenstein, 1994), defined curiosity as a basic, homeostatic drive similar to hunger or thirst; despite its long conceptual history, there remains no universally accepted definition of curiosity in academic papers (Kidd & Hayden, 2015; Markey & Loewenstein, 2014). Figure 1 presents the diverse definitions of curiosity from 1915 to 2020, underscoring the absence of a unified perspective (Huang et al., 2021).
Often, curiosity is conflated with related constructs such as interest, cognitive need, openness to experience, and intellectual engagement (Litman, 2005; von Stumm et al., 2011). Nonetheless, a common denominator across definitions is the individual’s drive to acquire knowledge and explore the unknown (Gruber et al., 2014; Kashdan & Steger, 2007).

2.2. Classroom Curiosity

Drawing from Berlyne’s drive theory as the core (Berlyne, 1960), the presence of knowledge uncertainty activates an internal drive, leading to exploratory behavior. Goffman (Goffman, 1974) further emphasized that an individual’s cognitive schema influences their motivations and behavioral responses. Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory highlights the optimal learning state—when challenge and skill levels are balanced—leading to heightened situational interest and deep learning (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).
This study defines classroom curiosity as a short-term psychological state of exploration triggered by internal drives and external pedagogical strategies when students face knowledge gaps in the classroom. This state is shaped not only by individual traits but also teaching design and teacher–student interaction. Research shows that techniques such as inquiry-based learning and thought-provoking questioning can effectively stimulate classroom curiosity (Engel, 2011; Jirout et al., 2022).

2.3. Creativity

Creativity is generally defined as the ability to produce outputs that are both novel and appropriate to a given context (Guilford, 1950; Osborn, 1953; Parnes & Noller, 1972; Flaherty, 2005). It is often rooted in interest and curiosity, particularly the ability to identify and frame problems (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 2014). High levels of curiosity can activate reward circuits in the brain, particularly the striatum, enhancing the intrinsic reward of learning (Gruber et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2009). Thus, curiosity plays a foundational role in nurturing creativity—although the exact mechanisms within classroom environments remain under-explored.

3. Research Models and Hypotheses

Grounded in Berlyne’s (Berlyne, 1960) driving theory, knowledge uncertainty stimulates and activates individuals’ internal drive and promotes exploration. In classroom settings, curiosity reflects this drive and fosters creativity through two distinct pathways: desire for knowledge and situational interest. The desire for knowledge reflects the motivation to master information and supports deep cognitive processing (Shin et al., 2019). Situational interest involves emotional engagement in learning, enhancing motivation and focus (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Hidi and Anderson highlight that sustained classroom curiosity is key to developing situational interest, which facilitates knowledge construction and internalization (Hidi & Anderson, 1992). Moreover, external situational interventions can significantly improve cognitive ability (Hidi & Berndorff, 1998). This framework suggests that classroom curiosity, driven by both desire for knowledge and situational interest promotes students’ creativity. Accordingly, this study incorporates these two mediators into its theoretical model and proposes that perceived teacher support moderates the link between curiosity and the desire for knowledge.

3.1. Classroom Curiosity and Desire for Knowledge

In cognitive theory, curiosity serves as a key motivational mechanism that drives individuals to seek answers and facilitates deeper integration and retention of information (Shin et al., 2019). When students experience curiosity about a problem, they are more likely to actively explore related self-regulated learning behaviors (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). Fostering curiosity in the classroom enhances intrinsic motivation, which is central to the development of desire for knowledge. According to self-determination (SDT), when intrinsic motivation is fulfilled, learners exhibit greater spontaneity and persistence in their academic pursuits (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore, classroom curiosity not only boosts students’ interest and participation but also enhances memory retention through better feedback integration (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). Ultimately, cultivating curiosity can stimulate intrinsic motivation, increase students’ desire for knowledge, and strengthen their overall engagement in learning (Mullaney et al., 2014). We propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
Classroom curiosity has a significant positive impact on students’ desire for knowledge.

3.2. Situational Interest

Curiosity is widely acknowledged as a critical factor in eliciting stimulating situational interest, which prompts students to seek new information and deepen their engagement with learning content (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012). When curiosity is aroused, students demonstrate heightened focus and emotional involvement in classroom tasks. A learning design to stimulate curiosity can improve attention and promote sustained engagement with the material, enhancing situational interest by encouraging exploration of personally relevant topics (Ainley & Hidi, 2014). Over time, continued stimulation of curiosity may transform situational interest into enduring individual interest (Renninger & Hidi, 2011), leading to greater resilience and persistence when facing academic challenges, and ultimately improving learning outcomes. Based on this, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Classroom curiosity has a significant impact on situational interest.

3.3. Desire for Knowledge

A common thread in all curiosity related contexts is the individual’s cognitive drive to connect with their environment (Ma, 2021). In the course of continuous learning, curiosity enhances the desire for knowledge by exploration of the unknown and fostering divergent thinking—a key component of creativity. Divergent thinking involves generating multiple novel ideas and making connections between early and later concepts, thus transitioning cognitive curiosity into creative outcomes (Koutstaal et al., 2022; Liu, 2004). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
Students’ desire for knowledge has a significant positive impact on creativity.

3.4. Situational Interest

Situational interest refers to a temporary interest triggered by novel or appealing stimuli in the learning environment (Hagtvedt et al., 2019; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Krapp, 2002; Schmitt & Lahroodi, 2008). Cognitive curiosity often activates exploratory tendencies by responding to such environmental stimuli. Berlyn (Berlyne, 1974; Silvia, 2005) demonstrated that these stimuli can intensify situational interest, thereby increasing students’ attraction to the content. As illustrated in Figure 2 (author’s illustration based on Berlyne’s framework), environmental cues can activate curiosity and promote situational interest. Furthermore, teachers can deliberately design learning experiences that leverage these stimuli to enhance students’ enthusiasm and engagement (Ainley et al., 2002; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). 
Situational interest has a significant positive impact on students’ creativity.

3.5. Classroom Curiosity, Desire for Knowledge, Situational Interest, and Creativity

The curriculum serves as a critical component in the learning process across disciplines (Franks, 2021). According to Schmitt & Lahroodi (Schmitt & Lahroodi, 2008), cognitive motivation to form connections with the environment underpins curiosity. Through thoughtful lesson design and observation of student behavior, teachers can stimulate curiosity and thereby foster a desire for knowledge (Shin et al., 2019). A supportive and stimulating learning environment encourages connection with content, and with proper guidance, helps build a strong knowledge base—the foundation for creative thought (Berlyne, 1954; Dewey, 1986; Kashdan & Fincham, 2002). Therefore, three hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 5a (H5a). 
Classroom curiosity has a significant positive impact on students’ creativity.
Hypothesis 5b (H5b). 
Desire for knowledge mediates the relationship between classroom curiosity on students’ creativity.
Hypothesis 5c (H5c). 
Situational interest mediates the relationship between classroom curiosity and creativity.

3.6. Perceived Teacher Support

A positive teacher–student relationship is fundamental to fostering active students’ engagement (Kidd & Hayden, 2015). Prior to entering society, students benefit significantly from adult support—emotionally, cognitively, and experientially (Schutte & Malouff, 2019). Support and encouragement from teachers fulfill students’ needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which in turn enhances classroom engagement (Zhang et al., 2024). Given this, perceived teacher support may moderate the relationship between classroom curiosity and desire for knowledge. Therefore, we set “Perceived teacher support” as a moderating variable and hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 6 (H6). 
Perceived teacher support moderates the relationship between classroom curiosity and desire for knowledge.
In summary, in order to explore the influence of curiosity and creativity in the classroom of college students, we constructed a theoretical model of this study (Figure 3). The hypotheses in the model will be validated by SmartPLS4 software in the methodology section.

4. Methodology

4.1. Instrumentation and Participation

This study employs a questionnaire-based survey combined with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to empirically examine the influence of classroom curiosity on college students’ creativity. Building on the Technology Acceptance Model, the research expands its scope by positioning classroom curiosity as a motivational cognitive variable. It investigates its effect on creativity through the mediating roles of desire for knowledge and situational interest, while incorporating perceived teacher support as a moderating factor—capturing the psychological path of creativity development within the higher education context.
The questionnaire comprises two sections: (1) demographic information (gender, grade, major); (2) a five-point Likert scale assessing five dimensions: classroom curiosity, desire for knowledge, situational interest, perceived teacher support, and creativity. The measurement items were adapted from established scales (Leung, 2013; Mahmoodzadeh & Gholam, 2019; Runco et al., 2001; Wong et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2015). To ensure contextual relevance, representative items were selected (Appendix A). The draft questionnaire was reviewed by experts for content validity (Appendix B). Reliability and validity tests confirmed good psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha and CR values above 0.70 and AVE values above 0.50 (Table 2). Participants rated their agreement from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5), based on their real classroom experiences.
For clarity, the following abbreviations are henceforth used throughout the study: classroom curiosity (AN), desire for knowledge (BN), situational interest (CN), perceived teacher support (DN), and creativity (EN).
The sample was drawn from 10 universities in Guangdong and Macao. To enhance transparency, several representative institutions are listed here (e.g., [Macao Polytechnic University], [Macao University of Science and Technology], [Guangzhou University], [Guangzhou Commercial School]. In line with requests for anonymity, the remaining universities are not named, but their inclusion ensures diversity across regions, majors (arts, science, management), and academic levels. Participants were asked to reflect on authentic classroom experiences to minimize response bias and capture self-perceived creative thinking.

4.2. Data Collection

Data collection was conducted online via the Questionnaire Star platform from 10 October to 14 October 2024, targeting class groups from 10 universities. A total of 720 responses were received. After eliminating invalid responses (e.g., straight-lining, random entries), 690 valid questionnaires were retained, yielding a high response rate of 95.8%.
Data analysis was carried out using SmartPLS 4.0 software for PLS-SEM modeling. Compared with traditional covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), PLS-SEM is better suited for handling complex models, small samples, and non-normal data. It offers strong predictive power and flexibility (Sarstedt et al., 2014), making it particularly appropriate for theory-building and formative model development (Sun, 2005).
In the following analysis, the constructs are referred to by their abbreviations: CC (classroom curiosity), DK (desire for knowledge), SI (situational interest), PTS (perceived teacher support), and CR (creativity).

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

The first section of the questionnaire collected participants’ background information, including gender, grade, major, place of origin, and location of the school. Among the 690 valid responses, 318 were from students enrolled in universities in Macao, and 372 were from Guangzhou. Place of Student refers to students’ place of origin, whereas School Location refers to the location of their current university. While there were variations in the number of responses across different majors, the differences were not substantial enough to affect the overall representativeness of the sample or the reliability of the subsequent data analysis. Detailed demographic statistics are presented in Table 1.

5.2. Measurement Model Evaluation Analysis

To assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were used to evaluate internal consistency and convergent validity, while discriminant validity was examined using the Fornell–Larcker criterion, cross-loadings, and the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio.
All constructs exhibited Cronbach’s Alpha and CR values above 0.70, as well as AVE values above 0.50 (Table 2). The Fornell–Larcker criterion (Table 3), cross-loadings (Table 4), and HTMT values below 0.90 (Table 5) confirmed discriminant validity.
In summary, the measurement scales used in this study met the established criteria for reliability and validity in PLS-SEM, indicating strong measurement quality.

5.3. Evaluating the Structural Model and Hypotheses

To evaluate the structural model, several key indicators were used, including the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to assess multicollinearity, the Coefficient of Determination (R2) to examine explanatory power, and the Predictive Relevance (Q2) to test the model’s predictive capability. The results showed that all VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 5 (Table 6), indicating that no serious multicollinearity issues were present in the model. Additionally, the Q2 values for all endogenous variables were greater than 0 (Table 7), suggesting that the model possesses adequate predictive relevance and indirectly supporting the sufficiency of the sample size. While the R2 values for some paths were relatively low, as Hattie (Hattie, 2008) has noted, models can still provide important theoretical and practical insights even when the explained variance is modest.
The PLS-SEM algorithm in SmartPLS 4 was employed to analyze the data, and the bootstrapping procedure was used to assess the significance of path coefficients. Based on the proposed research model (Figure 3), the structural relationships between the five latent variables (blue nodes) and their observed indicators (yellow nodes) were visualized using SmartPLS. The resulting structural model, including path coefficients and AVE values for each construct, is presented in Figure 4. The test results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 displays the hypothetical testing results, including the estimated path coefficients and their significance levels. The findings can be summarized as follows: classroom curiosity significantly predicts both desire for knowledge and situational interest (H1 and H2). Desire for knowledge and situational interest have a significant positive effect on students’ creativity (H3 and H4). There is a direct and significant relationship between classroom curiosity and creativity (H5a). Desire for knowledge and situational interest play significant mediating roles in the relationship between classroom curiosity and creativity (H5b and H5c). Additionally, although the effect was relatively weak, perceived teacher support was found to moderate the relationship between classroom curiosity and desire for knowledge (H6).

5.4. Robustness Test and Alternative Model

This study further investigated the mediating mechanism and moderating effect through which classroom curiosity influences creativity. Structural equation modeling results revealed that classroom curiosity indirectly affects creativity via desire for knowledge and situational interest, both showing significant partial mediation effects. Specifically, the indirect effect values were 0.018 and 0.089 (Table 9). Moreover, perceived teacher support was shown to significantly moderate the path from classroom curiosity to desire for knowledge (β = 0.139, p < 0.05, Table 10), confirming the presence of a moderated mediation model. Even after controlling for the mediators, the direct effect of classroom curiosity on creativity remained significant (β = 0.130, p < 0.05, Table 10), further confirming partial mediation. To assess the robustness of the proposed model, an alternative model excluding the mediators was constructed. The results indicated that this alternative model exhibited a lower explanatory power (R2) compared to the original model (Table 11), and its path structure did not fully account for the relationships among variables. These findings confirm the theoretical superiority and robustness of the proposed research model.

6. Discussion

6.1. Discussion

The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity, as reflected in high internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha and CR > 0.70), adequate convergent validity (AVE > 0.50), and strong discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion, cross-loadings, and HTMT < 0.90). These results confirm that the constructs were measured reliably, providing a solid basis for testing the structural model.
The results show that classroom curiosity has a significant positive impact on students’ creativity (H5a), and that this relationship is partially mediated by both desire for knowledge (H5b) and situational interest (H5c). As a core aspect of intrinsic motivation, curiosity stimulates students’ enthusiasm for knowledge exploration, which in turn promotes the development of innovative thinking (Dewey, 1902; Gruber et al., 2014). When students are exposed to novel or unfamiliar information, the brain’s reward system releases dopamine, enhancing cognitive processing and memory retention, thereby supporting higher-order thinking and creativity (Gruber et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2009) (H5b).
Curiosity also serves as the foundation for cultivating critical thinking (Deci & Ryan, 2000). It helps students develop unique thought pathways, encouraging them to think beyond traditional frameworks and tap into their creative potential. Teachers play a key role in designing stimulating classroom environments that transform curiosity into creative outcomes (Engel, 2015) and perceived teacher support provides an additional, though weaker, moderating effect (Reeve & Cheon, 2021) (H6).
Situational interest, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of the external environment in triggering curiosity (Chen et al., 2001). Meaningful content, engaging classroom activities, and high-quality interactions shift students from passive receivers to active participants, thereby enhancing creative output (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Hidi & Renninger, 2006) (H5c).
Moreover, perceived teacher support exerts a moderating effect on the relationship between classroom curiosity and desire for knowledge (H6), although its effect is relatively weaker compared to the mediating variables. This may be due to the fact that some teaching practices fail to adequately address students’ individual needs or foster meaningful classroom engagement, limiting the impact of perceived support on intrinsic motivation (Mitchell, 1993; Reeve & Cheon, 2021).

6.2. Theoretical Contributions

Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this study explores the mechanism through which classroom curiosity influences creativity. The study findings highlight that curiosity, as a form of intrinsic motivation, not only increases students’ classroom engagement but also significantly contributes to the development of innovative thinking. While TAM originally focused on technology adoption through “perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease of use”, these concepts are equally applicable to teaching task design and student engagement strategies, offering a theoretical basis for enhancing curiosity and self-directed learning.
This study further emphasizes the essential role of teachers in sparking students’ curiosity and fostering classroom interaction. Through thoughtful task design and timely feedback, teachers can promote deeper engagement and creative thinking. By integrating TAM into educational research, this study contributes to a theoretical framework for instructional innovation and personalized learning. Future research should expand this framework by incorporating students’ behavioral traits, cognitive styles, and emotional responses to enhance the accuracy and practical relevance of teaching strategies.

6.3. Actual Contribution

This study creates a framework showing how classroom curiosity acts as a driving force behind students’ desire for knowledge, situational interest, and creativity. The findings suggest that by designing engaging learning environments and fostering interactive classrooms, teachers can significantly enhance students’ intrinsic motivation and creative potential. Moreover, timely support and constructive feedback are crucial for maintaining a positive attitude toward learning. Therefore, teachers should develop student-centered lesson plans that not only stimulate curiosity but also incorporate emotional engagement to foster both cognitive and affective motivation. This dual emphasis is essential for advancing students’ creative thinking and overall classroom participation.

7. Research Conclusions and Prospects

7.1. Conclusions

Drawing on data from university students in Guangdong and Macao, this study validates a theoretical model of how classroom curiosity influences creativity. The findings indicate that curiosity significantly enhances creativity, with desire for knowledge and situational interest serving as mediators in this process. Perceived teacher support further moderates the link between curiosity and knowledge-seeking, though to a lesser degree. Together, these results underscore that both internal motivation (desire for knowledge) and external stimuli (situational interest) are central drivers of creative outcomes (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Litman & Jimerson, 2004).
This research aligns with the student-centered educational paradigm, highlighting the importance of classroom questioning, situational design, and teacher support in stimulating curiosity and fostering creative expression (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010).

7.2. Limitations and Future Prospects

This study relies on self-reported questionnaire data, which reflects students’ subjective perceptions rather than direct observations of their actual classroom behaviors. As such, the results may be influenced by factors such as social desirability bias or self-awareness limitations, and they cannot fully capture how curiosity is enacted in real classroom settings. Future studies could complement self-report measures with classroom observations, behavioral data, or experimental designs to validate and enrich the findings.
Methodologically, longitudinal or experimental designs could clarify causal mechanisms, while classroom observations or experience-sampling would provide richer insights into the dynamic processes of curiosity. In addition, expanding the sample across more diverse institutions and demographics would strengthen external validity and enhance the applicability of results to innovative teaching practices in higher education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Z. and J.Z.; methodology, H.Z. and J.Z.; software, H.Z. and J.Z.; validation, H.Z., H.Y. and J.Z.; formal analysis, H.Z. and H.Y.; investigation, H.Z., J.Z. and H.Y.; resources, H.Z. and J.Z.; data curation, J.Z. and H.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Z.; writing—review and editing, H.Z., J.Z. and H.Y.; visualization, H.Z. and J.Z.; supervision, H.Z. and H.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was funded by Macao Polytechnic University (RP/FCHS-01/2023).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Macao Polytechnic University (protocol code 009/Verification-DEI/2024 and date of approval 26 March 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

This study involves participants’ personal information and survey responses. To protect participant privacy and in accordance with institutional ethical requirements, the original data are not publicly available. Anonymized summary results are reported in the article, and additional details may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to institutional approval.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Dear Participants:
Hello! We are launching a survey on college students’ perceptions of the quality of teaching and learning in order to find out how college students feel about, experience, and comment on the content of classroom instruction. Your answers will be kept completely confidential. The questions in the questionnaire are multiple choice, so click on the one that best describes your situation. It may take you a few minutes to complete this questionnaire. Thank you very much for your support and co-operation!
Questionnaire each question can only choose an answer, can not be selected or not selected, you just click on the most suitable for your actual situation answer can be (where 1 = not at all, 2 = basically do not meet, 3 = not sure, 4 = basically in line with the 5 = fully compliant) Thank you for your cooperation!
  • Your Gender
    ○
    Male
    ○
    Female
  • Your Grade
    ○
    Freshman year
    ○
    Sophomore year
    ○
    Junior year
    ○
    Senior year
    ○
    Other
  • Your Major
    ○
    Philosophical Sciences
    ○
    Economics Sciences
    ○
    Law
    ○
    Education
    ○
    Literature
    ○
    History
    ○
    Natural Sciences
    ○
    Engineering
    ○
    Agronomy
    ○
    Medicine
    ○
    Management
    ○
    Arts
  • Your School Location
    ○
    Macao
    ○
    Guang Zhou
    ○
    Others
  • Your Place of Origin
    ○
    Macao
    ○
    Guang Zhou
    ○
    Others
Classroom Curiosity (AN)
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeUncertainAgreeStrongly Agree
1. I am able to be active in the classroom and learn from my knowledge.
2. I enjoy the challenge of complex or challenging puzzles.
3. I see challenging questions in the classroom as learning opportunities.
4. In the classroom, I enjoy being exposed to unfamiliar knowledge.
5. I often look for opportunities to challenge myself in the classroom.
Desire for knowledge (BN)
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeUncertainAgreeStrongly Agree
6. I will give examples to help myself understand some of the important points in the class.
7. I will try to find answers to problem solving.
8. In classroom learning, I try to connect old and new knowledge.
9. Not only do I want to learn what I learnt in the classroom, but I am also more than willing to learn something about it after school.
Perceived Teacher Support (CN)
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeUncertainAgreeStrongly Agree
10. When I doubted my ability to learn, my teachers often encouraged me to believe in myself.
11. My teacher instilled hope in me when I wanted to give up on the difficult task.
12. My teacher believes I can competently and well handle learning difficulties in the classroom.
13. My teacher said I should have a higher level of learning because I am capable.
14. Teachers are encouraging to me and can motivate me to think about new learning goals.
15. Teachers are encouraging to me and can motivate me to think about new learning goals.
Situational Interest (DN)
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeUncertainAgreeStrongly Agree
16. I will be actively involved in the new activities my teacher is doing in the classroom.
17. There is a phenomenon in life that I can explain with what I have learnt in class.
18. I think it’s more interesting to learn classroom content through relevant knowledge.
19. I think it’s more interesting to learn classroom content through relevant knowledge.
Creativity (EN)
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeUncertainAgreeStrongly Agree
20. I can usually come up with a lot of solutions to problems.
21. I like to mull over my ideas and have fun with them.
22. Sometimes I get so interested in a new idea that I forget about all the other things I should be doing.
23. Sometimes I get so interested in a new idea that I forget about all the other things I should be doing.

Appendix B

Variable NameSubjectSource
Classroom Curiosity (AN)1. I am able to be active in the classroom and learn from my knowledge.
2. I enjoy the challenge of complex or challenging puzzles.
3. I see challenging questions in the classroom as learning opportunities.
4. In the classroom, I enjoy being exposed to unfamiliar knowledge.
5. I often look for opportunities to challenge myself in the classroom.		Ye et al. (2015) Curiosity and Inquiry Scale—Version 2 (Ye et al., 2015)
Desire for Knowledge
(BN)		1. I will give examples to help myself understand some of the important points in the class.
2. I will try to find answers to problem solving.
3. In classroom learning, I try to connect old and new knowledge.
4. Not only do I want to learn what I learnt in the classroom, but I am also more than willing to learn something about it after school.		Mahmoodzade and Gholam (LLCS, Language Learning Curiosity Scale) (Mahmoodzadeh & Gholam, 2019)
Perceived Teacher Support (CN)1. When I doubted my ability to learn, my teachers often encouraged me to believe in myself.
2. My teacher instilled hope in me when I wanted to give up on the difficult task.
3. My teacher believes I can competently and well handle learning difficulties in the classroom.
4. My teacher said I should have a higher level of learning because I am capable.
5. Teachers are encouraging to me and can motivate me to think about new learning goals.		Wong et al. (2019) Teacher Encouragement Scale (Wong et al., 2019)
Situational Interest (DN)1. I am attracted to novel content when the teacher demonstrates other knowledge.
2. I will be actively involved in the new activities my teacher is doing in the classroom.
3. There is a phenomenon in life that I can explain with what I have learnt in class.
4. I think it’s more interesting to learn classroom content through relevant knowledge.		Leung, T. (2013). The effects of instruction of creative invention on students’ situational interest in physics lesson. (Leung, 2013)
Ingenuity (EN)1. I often have a lot of novel ideas.
2. I can usually come up with a lot of solutions to problems.
3. I like to mull over my ideas and have fun with them.
4. Sometimes I get so interested in a new idea that I forget about all the other things I should be doing.		Runco (2001) 《Runco Conceptual Behavior Scale》 (Runco et al., 2001)

References

  1. Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoyment. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 205–227). Taylor & Francis. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203148211-13/interest-enjoyment-mary-ainley-suzanne-hidi (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  2. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A Theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. viii, 340). Hemisphere. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-07344-000 (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  6. Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2001). An examination of situational interest in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(2), 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creaticity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Available online: https://mpi-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1l067cv/MPI_ALEPH005051454 (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (2014). Culture, time, and the development of talent. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity: The collected works of mihaly csikszentmihalyi (pp. 27–46). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. The University of Chicago Press. Available online: https://books.google.co.jp/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=VoKOEJTNxGEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA97&dq=The+child+and+the+curriculum+Dewey&ots=WRg5f9w7sq&sig=u-fnQle-WtmY6wGgmqXhVQ_GiEM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20child%20and%20the%20curriculum%20Dewey&f=false (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  11. Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Engel, S. (2011). Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 625–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Engel, S. (2015). The hungry mind: The origins of curiosity in childhood and its role in education. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Flaherty, A. W. (2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493(1), 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Franks, K. (2021). Secondary music educators’ curiosity dimensions and perceptions of curiosity in the classroom [Ph.D. thesis, University of Missouri]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2018). Reflections on positive emotions and upward spirals. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar]
  18. Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hagtvedt, L. P., Dossinger, K., Harrison, S. H., & Huang, L. (2019). Curiosity made the cat more creative: Specific curiosity as a driver of creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, IPN, Kiel, Germany (pp. 74–90). IPN. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Situational%20interest%20and%20learning&pages=74-90&publication_year=1998&author=Hidi%2CS.&author=Berndorff%2CD (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  26. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st Century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, Q., Chen, C., Luo, Y., & Wu, H. (2021). The mechanism and function of curiosity. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(4), 723–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jirout, J. J., Zumbrunn, S. K., Evans, N. S., & Vitiello, V. E. (2022). Development and testing of the curiosity in classrooms framework and coding protocol. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 875161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2002). Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. American Psychologist, 57(5), 373–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(2), 170–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31(3), 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88(3), 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Koutstaal, W., Kedrick, K., & Gonzalez-Brito, J. (2022). Capturing, clarifying, and consolidating the curiosity-creativity connection. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 15300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 383–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leung, T. (2013). The effects of instruction of creative invention on students’ situational interest in physics lesson [Ph.D. thesis]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Available online: https://mpu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www-proqt-com.mpu.idm.oclc.org/dissertations-theses/effects-instruction-creative-invention-on/docview/1465437673/se-2 (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  38. Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, J. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, Y. Y. (2004). Research on the development of curiosity in young children and its educational promotion [Southwest Normal University]. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CDFD9908&filename=2004085327.nh (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  41. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The role of curiosity in learning and motivation. In The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp. 1–29). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ma, M. C. (2021). A study on the correlation between middle school students’ curiosity in English learning and learning engagement [Jilin International Studies University]. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD202201&filename=1021056250.nh (accessed on 23 January 2025).
  43. Mahmoodzadeh, M., & Gholam, H. K. (2019). Towards conceptualizing language learning curiosity in SLA: An empirical study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Markey, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2014). Curiosity. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 228–245). Taylor & Francis. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203148211-14/curiosity-amanda-markey-george-loewenstein (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  45. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted nature and development. Educational Psychology Review, 5(2), 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mullaney, K. M., Carpenter, S. K., Grotenhuis, C., & Burianek, S. (2014). Waiting for feedback helps if you want to know the answer: The role of curiosity in the delay-of-feedback benefit. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1273–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Available online: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6138374M/Applied_imagination (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  49. Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project. Part III—The curriculum. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014). On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47(3), 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schmitt, F. F., & Lahroodi, R. (2008). The epistemic value of curiosity. Educational Theory, 58(2), 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schutte, N., & Malouff, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relationship between curiosity and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 940–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shin, D.-J. D., Lee, H. J., Lee, G., & Kim, S. (2019). The role of curiosity and interest in learning and motivation. In K. A. Renninger, & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Motivation and Learning (pp. 443–464). Cambridge University Press; Cambridge Core. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Silvia, P. J. (2005). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sun, L. R. (2005). Principles and operations of structural equation modeling (SEM). Journal of Ningbo University (Educational Science Edition), 2, 31–34. Available online: https://mpi-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_cass_nssd_15937346&vid=MPI&search_scope=ils_pc&tab=default_tab&context=PC (accessed on 18 August 2025).
  60. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2022). Re|Shaping policies for creativity: Addressing culture as a global public good (Nos. 978-92-3-100503-9; 3rd ed., p. 74). UNESCO Publishing; UNESCO Digital Library. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380476 (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  61. von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wong, Y. J., Cheng, H.-L., McDermott, R. C., Deng, K., & McCullough, K. M. (2019). I believe in you! Measuring the experience of encouragement using the academic encouragement scale. Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(6), 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ye, S., Ng, T. K., Yim, K. H., & Wang, J. (2015). Validation of the curiosity and exploration inventory-II (CEI-II) among Chinese university students in Hong Kong. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(4), 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, H., Li, F., & Yan, H. (2024). Causal mechanisms of the psychological needs for online gamified learning and the impact on learning engagement among college students. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(3), 2597–2618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01101 g001
Figure 1. The concept of curiosity.
Figure 1. The concept of curiosity.
Education 15 01101 g001
Education 15 01101 g002
Figure 2. Use stimulus characteristics to enhance sheep’s situational interest.
Figure 2. Use stimulus characteristics to enhance sheep’s situational interest.
Education 15 01101 g002
Education 15 01101 g003
Figure 3. Theoretical model.
Figure 3. Theoretical model.
Education 15 01101 g003
Education 15 01101 g004
Figure 4. Graphical output.
Figure 4. Graphical output.
Education 15 01101 g004
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
CategoryFrequenciesPercentages (%)
GenderMale26538
Female42562
GradeFreshman14020
Sophomore14120
Junior20130
Senior12017
Other8813
MajorEconomics6910
Law487
Education11517
Literature11817
Management15722
Other18327
Place of Student SourceMacao22432
Guangdong42662
Other406
School LocationMacao31846
Guangdong37254
Table 2. Assessment of reflective measurement models.
Table 2. Assessment of reflective measurement models.
ConstructsIndicatorsFactor
Loadings		Cronbach’s
Alpha		Composite
Reliability (rho_A)		AVE
ANAN10.6960.7870.8540.54
AN20.757
AN30.766
AN40.692
AN50.760
BNBN10.7430.7410.8360.561
BN20.700
BN30.817
BN40.730
CNCN10.7510.8390.8840.604
CN20.835
CN30.751
CN40.755
CN50.792
DNDN10.7180.7030.8160.526
DN20.732
DN30.745
DN40.706
ENEN10.7110.7140.8230.538
EN20.697
EN30.767
EN40.757
Table 3. Fornell-Larcker criterion.
Table 3. Fornell-Larcker criterion.
AN BN CN DN EN
AN 0.735
BN 0.320 0.749
CN 0.427 0.454 0.777
DN 0.430 0.421 0.601 0.725
EN 0.257 0.246 0.319 0.312 0.734
Table 4. Cross loadings.
Table 4. Cross loadings.
AN BN CN DN EN
AN1 0.6960.2340.3340.3210.178
AN2 0.7570.2120.3010.3130.229
AN3 0.7660.2180.3090.3120.201
AN4 0.6920.2100.2500.2710.171
AN5 0.7600.2930.3630.3560.167
BN1 0.3780.7430.3840.3970.186
BN2 0.2470.7000.2560.2720.131
BN3 0.1880.8170.3680.2860.214
BN4 0.1170.7300.3300.2850.196
CN1 0.2870.2850.7510.3780.217
CN2 0.3450.4770.8350.5110.270
CN3 0.2920.2830.7510.4890.253
CN4 0.3760.3390.7550.4950.259
CN5 0.3530.3200.7920.4480.236
DN1 0.2770.3130.4630.7180.172
DN2 0.2610.2520.4530.7320.293
DN3 0.3900.3640.4240.7450.236
DN4 0.3030.2840.4100.7060.195
EN1 0.1720.2100.2350.1860.711
EN2 0.2180.1650.2510.2570.697
EN3 0.1950.1800.2190.2320.767
EN4 0.1640.1680.2290.2360.757
Table 5. HTMT.
Table 5. HTMT.
AN BN CN DN EN CN × AN
AN
BN 0.403
CN 0.5180.544
DN 0.5670.5670.778
EN 0.3410.3340.4090.432
CN × AN 0.1590.0640.3060.0970.132
Table 6. VIF value.
Table 6. VIF value.
VIF
AN11.363
AN21.567
AN31.603
AN41.402
AN51.532
BN11.316
BN21.366
BN31.754
BN41.571
CN11.707
CN21.801
CN31.756
CN41.589
CN51.849
DN11.395
DN21.322
DN31.259
DN41.331
EN11.322
EN21.208
EN31.486
EN41.476
CN × AN1.000
Table 7. Coefficient of determination (R2 value) and predictive relevance (Q2 value).
Table 7. Coefficient of determination (R2 value) and predictive relevance (Q2 value).
R2Q2
BN0.2570.243
DN0.1850.179
EN0.1270.077
Table 8. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 8. Results of hypothesis testing.
HypothesisRelationshipPath CoefficientHypothesis Testing Relationship
H1AN -> BN0.000 ***Support
H2AN -> DN0.000 ***Support
H3BN -> EN0.007 **Support
H4DN -> EN0.000 ***Support
H5aAN -> EN0.002 **Support
H5bAN-BN-EN0.025 **Support
H5cAN-DN-EN0.000 ***Support
H6CN × AN -> BN0.000 ***Support
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; N: Not significant.
Table 9. Specific indirect effects.
Table 9. Specific indirect effects.
OriginalSample MeanStandard
Deviation		T Statisticsp-Value
AN -> BN -> EN 0.0180.0190.0082.2470.025
AN -> DN -> EN 0.089 0.093 0.021 4.324 0.000
CN × AN -> BN -> EN 0.0160.0160.0062.5040.013
Table 10. Interaction items.
Table 10. Interaction items.
Interaction Items (β)Standard DeviationT-Valuep-Value
AN -> BN -> EN0.01870.0082.250.024
AN -> DN -> EN0.08900.0194.520.000
CN × AN -> BN 0.139 0.137 5.3030.000
AN -> EN 0.130 0.041 3.1590.002
Table 11. No mediating effect R2.
Table 11. No mediating effect R2.
R Variance Adjusted R Square
EN 0.068 0.067
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zeng, J.; Yan, H.; Zhang, H. How Classroom Curiosity Affects College Students’ Creativity? Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091101

AMA Style

Zeng J, Yan H, Zhang H. How Classroom Curiosity Affects College Students’ Creativity? Education Sciences. 2025; 15(9):1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091101

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zeng, Jianfan, Haoqun Yan, and Hongfeng Zhang. 2025. "How Classroom Curiosity Affects College Students’ Creativity?" Education Sciences 15, no. 9: 1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091101

APA Style

Zeng, J., Yan, H., & Zhang, H. (2025). How Classroom Curiosity Affects College Students’ Creativity? Education Sciences, 15(9), 1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091101

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop