A Theory of Curiosity and How It Relates to Classroom Learning

With the growing number of assessments in our learning landscape, recently President Obama expressed concern at the increasing amount of time students spend on testing. On the one hand, we see funding flooding into assessments and testing in school, on the other, researchers are increasingly pointing to non-academic factors such as grit and growth mindset as contributors to individual success. We are at a crossroad flanked between a national movement focused on measuring learning in specific domains, and research pointing to unmeasurable characteristics that are as vital, if not more, for student success.

The intangible characteristics linked to success include intrinsic motivation and resilience. Students with this motivation are curious about learning, often enjoying the pursuit as much as the final answer.

Can this current movement of measurement-driven learning foster intrinsic curiosity in students? To answer this question, we need to look back at early research on the underpinnings of curiosity. One paper in particular points to intellectual conflict as the key driver towards knowledge. According to D.E. Berlyne’s paper on “A Theory of Human Curiosity”, curiosity is triggered by underlying forces reacting to the unknown. Similar to an emotion like fear, curiosity can be an emotional and immediate response. However, unlike fear, this drive is satisfied by a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Curiosity can arise when an incongruent question is posed, such as this example from Berlyne’s paper: “What crops do some ants grow on their farms?". First, this question may introduce incompatible concepts such as ants and farming. Second, there may be associative properties or thoughts relating to each of these concepts that conflict. Finally, you may have competing hypothesis and answers to this question which are equally likely. All of these steps may manifest in knowledge-seeking and exploration. And as one explores, more provocative questions may be uncovered.

Curiosity and motivation is a question-driven process, while assessments is an answer-driven end point. For this reason, we believe that learning, propelled by assessments, is contrary to curiosity. For a student to want to learn a subject, first they need to see a conflict between the subject matter and their existing field of knowledge. The right question could provoke an interesting sequence of intellectual conflict. We want students to form a thematic probe which takes them beyond a simple predefined answer.

At Chiasmus, we ask ourselves this question “How can we develop the right learning tools to foster curiosity in students?” We will further explore this topic in future posts.