Middle-school students who read a mostly science-fiction book set alongside the science curriculum gained significantly in science curiosity, in a study whose groups already differed at pre-test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Experimental-group students who read 12 books (9 science fiction, 3 non-science-fiction) alongside the science curriculum showed a significant increase in science curiosity scores from pre-test to post-test (p = 0.002); the control group's smaller gain was not statistically significant (p = 0.204). → Karadeniz 2020 q2 i? Post-test science curiosity scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group (p = 0.004), but the experimental group had already scored significantly higher at pre-test (p = 0.021), and the post-test comparison does not adjust for that. → Karadeniz 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Karadeniz 2020¶

Karadeniz, E. & Degirmencay, Ş. A. (2020). The Effect of the Science-Fiction Books on Arousing Curiosity about Science in Secondary School Students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(2), 225-241. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.23

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Paired samples T-test on the experimental group (N=30) comparing pre-test and post-test Science Curiosity Scale scores after reading 12 books alongside the regular science lessons: 9 science-fiction books and 3 non-science-fiction books (Catalhoyuk Stories series) chosen to alternate the genre. The control group (N=30) had a smaller rise that was not statistically significant (p=0.204). The article reports "a significant relationship between pre-test and post-test of the experimental group (p=0.002; p<0.05)"; no effect size is printed.

"According to T -test results, there is a significant relationship between pre-test and post-test of the experimental group (p=0.002; p<0.05). With reference to this, the increase in the students’ science curiosity po int average after they read the science -fiction books, is not accidental but substantive."

Karadeniz 2020 (2)¶

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Mann Whitney U-test comparing post-test Science Curiosity Scale scores of the experimental group (N=30) and control group (N=30). The article reports "a significant difference between the final post -test science curiosity point averages" with the experimental group higher; no effect size is printed. The groups were not equivalent at the start: the experimental group's pre-test scores were already significantly higher (Mann Whitney U, p=0.021), and the post-test comparison does not adjust for that.

"As seen in Table 8, there is a significant difference between the final post -test science curiosity point averages of control group and the experimental group (p= 0,004; p<0.05). When the mean rank is taken into consideration, it is determined that the final post-test point average of the experimental group is higher."

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-01`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.