A collection of thoughts, findings, and projects
Teachers have the ability to create environments that encourage curiosity. However, even in environments that encourage curiosity, some students may struggle to interact with stimuli that evokes curiosity. This issue may not be due to a lack of curiosity on the part of the student, but a lack of skills that prevent students from noticing interesting phenomena. The use of cognitive strategies, such as utilizing prior knowledge to comprehend complex texts, may result in students engaging in more exploratory and inquisitive behaviors.
Curiosity may generally be described as “the desire for new knowledge, information, experiences, or stimulation to resolve gaps or experience the unknown” (Grossnickle, 2016). In quantitative studies, it has been measured by observing how frequently students demonstrate a desire to know about something in their learning environment. Curiosity is theorized as being a cause of intrinsic motivation (Reeve, 1989) and Goodwin (2014) found that “studies have linked curiosity to better job performance (Reio & Wiswell, 2000); greater life satisfaction and meaning (Kashdan & Steger, 2007); and even longer lives (Swan & Carmelli, 1996).”
Curiosity is used by instructors to engage students in instructional activities. Keller (2000) writes that,"First, a lesson must gain the learner's attention. Tactics for this can range from simple unexpected events (e.g. a loud whistle, an upside-down word in a visual) to mentally stimulating problems that engage a deeper level of curiosity, especially when presented at the beginning of a lesson." Engel (2011) argues that teachers can create conditions for student curiosity by being encouraging. Her 2011 article provides summaries of experiments that found that students were more likely to explore unfamiliar phenomena when teachers smiled, encouraged exploration, and were willing to stray from a scripted lesson. Although the studies cited by Engel are unpublished (and therefore their methodology may not be scrutinized), other studies support the conclusion that children are more likely to explore their surrounding environment when in the presence of adults who are either familiar or encourage exploration (Salter Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Henderson & Moore, 1980).
Pedagogical techniques may also result in an increase of student behavior that is indicative of curiosity. Lowry and Johnson (1981) demonstrated that the use of controversy can result in heightened curiosity in students. In their study, they found that students who learned using texts with conflicting positions (whether economic interests were superior to environmental interests) were more likely to be observed engaging in information seeking behaviors than students who used texts that did not have conflicting positions. This study supports the claim that teachers are able to successfully encourage curiosity in a classroom setting.
Even with conditions that encourage curiosity, students still might face obstacles to expressing their curiosity. For instance, Keller (2008), raises the issue of cognitive load. Even in a welcoming environment with stimulating materials that present a gap in knowledge, there may be too much extraneous load for a student to interact with materials in a meaningful way. This may prevent students from gaining an awareness of stimuli that they may find to be enticing in such a way that would otherwise cause curiosity.
The use of cognitive strategies on the part of the student may provide a way around such obstacles to curiosity. Deimann and Keller (2006) found that the use of implementation intentions (a volitional strategy) can reduce extraneous load in the working memory. This could allow for students to engage with curiosity provoking stimuli without feeling cognitive overload. For example, a student in Lowry and Johnson’s 1981 study on controversy with limited reading comprehension may not engage in knowledge seeking behavior despite reading texts that highlight a controversy due to cognitive overload. The student may be so focused on vocabulary, names, and unfamiliar concepts that they are not able to notice that there is a controversy. The use of implementation intentions could free up space in their working memory so that they can comprehend the texts thoroughly enough to appreciate the controversies and possibly feel stimulated to engage in autonomous knowledge seeking behavior related to the text. It should be noted that Diemann and Keller’s 2006 article also highlighted issues that might arise from curiosity -- students may lose sight of their original task due to fits of short lived curiosity. In such cases, implementation intentions can also help students focus on more substantial goals without necessarily limiting their curiosity. Other cognitive strategies may also play a role. For instance, utilizing prior knowledge may allow for students to not only comprehend a text but also become more curious about the content of a text. Loewenstein (1994) argued that "the general prediction that curiosity should increase with knowledge has already received some empirical support."
In Berlyne's (1954b) experiment reviewed earlier, for example, questions about more familiar animals evoked greater curiosity. A similar finding was obtained by S. Jones (1979), who … [observed] a significant correlation (.51) between self-evaluated knowledge of a particular item and curiosity about that item. He concluded that "subjects were more curious toward items about which they already had some knowledge than toward those about which they had little or no knowledge" (S. Jones, 1979, p. 640). Therefore, teaching and encouraging the use of assessing prior knowledge about subjects within readings may boost curiosity as well as comprehension. These findings do not necessarily indicate that the use of cognitive strategies will result in more curiosity on the part of the student. An ability to read, comprehend, and connect with a text does not necessarily result in a desire to learn more about aspects of the text. However, such abilities may make it more likely that students will engage in knowledge seeking behavior, which is indicative of curiosity.
Curiosity has numerous benefits to people of all ages (Goodwin, 2014) and empirical evidence suggests that teachers can have an impact on student curiosity (Hackmann & Engel, 2002; Lowry & Johnson, 1981; Henderson & Moore, 1980; Salter Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). However, the presence of students and engaging stimuli may not result in curiosity on the part of the student if students lack the skills necessary to engage with the stimuli. Cognitive strategies may provide a pathway for these students to exercise their curiosity in productive ways in class activities. Current studies provide an indirect link between the use cognitive strategies and knowledge seeking behavior. Future research may focus on finding a direct link between these two constructs.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954b). An experimental study of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 256-265.
Deimann, M., & Keller, J. M. (2006). Volitional aspects of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(2), 137-158.
Engel, S. (2011). Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 625–645.
Goodwin, B. (2014). Curiosity is fleeting, but teachable. Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 22-26.
Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23-60.
Henderson, B. B., & Moore, S. G. (1980). Children’s responses to objects differing in novelty in relation to level of curiosity and adult behavior. Child Development, 51(2), 457–465.
Jones, S. (1979). Curiosity and knowledge. Psychological Reports, 45, 639-642.
Kashdan, T., & Steger, M. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31(3), 159–173.
Keller, J. M. (2000). How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model approach. VII Semanario, Santiago, Cuba, 1-13.
Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6(2), 79-104.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychology Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.
Lowry, N., & Johnson, D. W. (1981). Effects of controversy on epistemic curiosity: Achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 115(1), 31–43.
Reeve. J, (1989), The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 13 (2). 83-103.
Reio, T. G., & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly,11(1), 5–30.
Salter Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41(1), 49–67.
Swan, G. E., & Carmelli, D. (1996). Curiosity and mortality in aging adults: A 5-year follow-up of the western collaborative group study. Psychology and Aging, 11(3), 449–453.
© Copyright Clayton Spencer 2024