Contemporary STEM education frameworks emphasise fostering curiosity alongside scientific inquiry skills to cultivate evidence-based reasoning, intrinsic motivation, and lifelong scientific engagement. Curiosity in science manifests as a drive to explore phenomena, seek explanations, and tolerate uncertainty, while scientific inquiry skills include formulating investigable questions, constructing testable hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing evidence-based conclusions. These align with European priorities for inquiry-based science education (European Commission, 2021) and international benchmarks such as PISA scientific literacy. 

 In Kazakhstan, secondary STEM instruction often remains transmissive, prioritising algorithmic tasks and confirmatory labs over curiosity-driven exploration. This limits authentic inquiry, conceptual depth, and motivational persistence. National reforms advocate inquiry-oriented, competency-based approaches; yet, empirical evidence on their impact in fostering both curiosity and inquiry skills remains scarce, especially in innovative NIS settings piloting international curricula. 

 This quasi-experimental study addresses the research question: 

  To what extent does guided inquiry-based learning in 10th-grade chemistry lessons enhance students’ science curiosity, scientific inquiry skills (question formulation, hypothesis construction, data analysis), conceptual understanding, and engagement compared to conventional instruction?   

 Grounded in social constructivism, guided inquiry provides structured scaffolding to activate curiosity through authentic phenomena while progressively building autonomy (Pedaste et al., 2015). In chemistry, guided inquiry situates learning in real-world contexts (e.g., everyday material properties and reactions), sparking epistemic curiosity and procedural skills. 

 European and international meta-analyses confirm guided inquiry's positive effects on inquiry competencies, conceptual gains, and motivational outcomes, including curiosity (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Furtak et al., 2012). This study aligns with European Schoolnet inquiry principles while contextualising findings within Kazakhstan’s NIS innovation ecosystem, contributing evidence for inquiry reforms in Central Asian STEM education and transferable insights for post-Soviet systems. 

A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with nonequivalent control groups was implemented. The study took place during the first semester of the 2025–2026 academic year (September–December 2025) in Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Kazakhstan. Participants included 75 tenth-grade students from five parallel classes (experimental n=38; control n=37), assigned by intact classes. Groups showed equivalence in prior natural sciences achievement (NIS monitoring data) and gender distribution. Experimental group: 14 lessons (45–90 min) delivered via guided inquiry. Authentic driving questions structured cycles (e.g., “How do everyday materials interact with common substances, and what patterns can we discover?”). Students (teams of 4–5) engaged in: - posing investigable questions; - constructing testable hypotheses; - designing controlled experiments using basic lab equipment (e.g., simple reaction setups, pH indicators, conductivity testers); - collecting/analysing data; - evaluating evidence; - concluding and presenting with peer feedback. Activities drew from open educational resources and adapted inquiry protocols emphasising guided-to-open progression (e.g., structured observation of reactions, material testing). Control group followed standard curriculum: teacher-led explanations, textbook tasks, and confirmatory labs without structured inquiry. Instruments: 1. Scientific Inquiry Skills Assessment (pre/post; 12 open-ended + 10 structured items targeting question formulation, hypothesis construction, data analysis; validated by three experts; Cronbach’s α = 0.84 posttest). 2. Science Curiosity Scale (adapted Likert-based items from validated tools, focusing on epistemic curiosity in science contexts; reliability checked). 3. Inquiry Skills Rubric (4-level scale for question quality, hypothesis testability, data handling, evidence use; inter-rater reliability established). 4. Laboratory worksheets (scored via rubric). 5. Structured observation protocol (5-point Likert for curiosity/inquiry behaviours: questioning, hypothesising, data exploration, engagement). 6. Post-intervention motivation questionnaire (Likert; adapted validated scales). 7. Focus-group interviews (three per group, 7–9 students). Quantitative: paired/independent t-tests, Cohen’s d (SPSS v.28). Qualitative: thematic analysis. Ethical approval secured; informed consent/assent obtained; anonymity preserved.

Results showed significant gains in the guided inquiry group. Posttest scientific inquiry skills increased by 29 percentage points on average (from 57% to 86%; p < 0.001, d = 1.62), versus 12 points in control. Curiosity scores rose notably (28% gain vs. 8% in control), particularly in epistemic drive to explore chemical phenomena. Conceptual understanding improved substantially (35% gain vs. 9% in control). Rubric and observation data indicated +43% increase in curiosity-driven behaviours (questioning, hypothesising, data exploration). Questionnaire responses revealed 89% of inquiry students rated lessons as “highly engaging,” with enhanced intrinsic motivation and perceived relevance. Interviews highlighted greater willingness to pursue uncertain questions, confidence in independent exploration, and sustained interest in material interactions. Guided inquiry effectively fostered intertwined curiosity and inquiry competencies in chemistry. Limitations include modest sample size, single-site context, potential novelty/teacher effects, and short-term measurement of curiosity (state vs. trait). Findings affirm guided inquiry’s superiority over traditional methods for cultivating measurable curiosity and scientific inquiry skills in secondary STEM. The approach aligns with European inquiry-based priorities and provides a scalable model for Kazakhstani schools advancing competency reforms. Future research should explore longitudinal curiosity persistence, cross-subject transfer, and teacher scaffolding for broader adoption. This study is funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (AP26102613 "Development of methodological aspects of the application of virtual and augmented reality technologies in teaching chemistry and biology in the context of implementing an integrative approach in the educational process")

1.European Commission. (2021). *Promoting STEM education in Europe: Policy recommendations and best practices*. Publications Office of the European Union. 2.Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. *Review of Educational Research, 82*(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206 3.Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. *Review of Educational Research, 86*(4), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366 4.Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. *Educational Research Review, 14*, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003 5.Adal, S., Çepni, S., Akylbekova, T., Ibraimov, A., Dong, X., Tlesbaeva, D., & Korganbaeva, Z. (2025). Enhancing research skills in chemistry education via integrated project and inquiry-based learning in a STEM context. *Science Education International*. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.2025.36.4.5 6.Sesen, B. A., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Inquiry-based laboratory activities on understanding of electrochemistry and attitudes towards chemistry and laboratory work. *Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14*(3), 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012A