Curiosity, Growth Mindset, and Science Achievement: The Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy in PISA 2022 Data from Kosovo

Science is often taught as a collection of facts to be memorized, but true scientific literacy is about something deeper: the ability to reason with evidence, ask questions, and solve problems in unfamiliar situations. For students around the world, the capacity to engage with these challenges is not just about how smart they are or how much money their families have; it is also about how they feel about their own minds. Psychologists have long studied two specific traits that seem to drive learning: curiosity, which is the natural urge to explore and find answers, and the belief that intelligence can grow with effort. Another crucial piece of the puzzle is creative self-efficacy, a student's confidence that they can come up with original ideas and solve problems in their own unique way. While we know these traits matter, we do not fully understand how they work together, especially in schools that struggle with limited resources and traditional teaching methods.

A new study looks at these questions through the eyes of students in Kosovo, a nation where science education faces significant hurdles. For years, students there have scored well below the average of developed nations on international tests, a gap equivalent to more than three years of schooling. The challenges are structural: many schools operate on split shifts, meaning students attend for only half a day, and teaching often relies heavily on lectures rather than hands-on investigation. In such an environment, researchers wondered if a student's internal drive—specifically their curiosity and their confidence in their creative abilities—could act as a powerful engine for learning, even when the system itself is constrained. To find out, the researchers analyzed data from nearly 4,000 fifteen-year-old students who took part in the 2022 international science assessment. They built a model to see how curiosity, beliefs about intelligence, and creative confidence connect to actual test scores, looking for the hidden pathways that link a student's mindset to their performance.

The study confirmed that curiosity is a remarkably strong force. Students who reported being naturally inquisitive about the world, who liked to ask questions and seek explanations, scored significantly higher in science. This was true even after accounting for their family's wealth and gender. The researchers found that curiosity works in two ways: it helps students learn directly by keeping them engaged with the material, and it also boosts their creative self-efficacy. When a student is curious, they are more likely to try new things and tackle difficult problems, which builds a sense of confidence in their own creative abilities. This confidence, in turn, leads to better science scores. It appears that curiosity sets off a chain reaction: the desire to know leads to the belief that one can create, and that belief helps the student succeed.

However, the story of how students view their own intelligence was more complicated than expected. In many Western studies, believing that intelligence can grow with effort is seen as a clear path to success. In Kosovo, the data told a different, more nuanced story. The researchers found that students who believed their intelligence was fixed and unchangeable actually scored slightly higher on the science test than those who believed it could grow. This seems to contradict the usual advice given to students everywhere. The explanation lies in the cultural context. In Kosovo, as in many other places, there is a strong social value placed on hard work and academic diligence. A student might believe their intelligence is fixed, yet still work incredibly hard because they feel a deep social or familial pressure to succeed. This hard work leads to better test scores. Yet, that same belief that intelligence is fixed had a negative side effect: it lowered the student's creative self-efficacy. Students who thought their minds were unchangeable were less confident in their ability to generate original ideas. This lack of confidence indirectly hurt their science performance, creating a tug-of-war where the drive to work hard pushed scores up, but the lack of creative confidence pulled them down.

When the researchers put all the pieces together, they found that a student's family background remained the single strongest predictor of science achievement. Students from wealthier families, with more educational resources at home, consistently outperformed their peers. This factor explained more of the difference in scores than any mindset or personality trait. Nevertheless, the study showed that curiosity and creative confidence are not just nice-to-have qualities; they are measurable assets. The model suggested that for every unit increase in curiosity, science scores rose, and for every unit increase in creative confidence, scores also went up. The researchers estimated that these factors, combined with family background, explained about 12 percent of the differences in student scores. While this leaves much of the picture unexplained, it highlights that even in a system with deep structural challenges, a student's internal world matters.

The findings offer a clear message for educators and policymakers, particularly in regions where resources are scarce. The study suggests that trying to simply tell students to "believe they can grow" might not work if the cultural context values hard work over the belief in malleability. Instead, the most promising path forward is to cultivate curiosity and build creative confidence. By designing lessons that encourage students to ask questions, explore phenomena, and generate their own ideas, teachers can help students develop the confidence to tackle scientific problems. This approach does not require expensive new equipment or a complete overhaul of the school day; it requires a shift in how students are invited to think. The research indicates that when students feel confident in their ability to be creative, they are better equipped to learn science, regardless of whether they believe their intelligence is fixed or fluid. In a world where science education is often a struggle for many, understanding these internal drivers provides a practical roadmap for helping students succeed.