Fostering Adolescent Intellectual Curiosity: Student and Teacher Perspectives on Indirect and Direct Methods of Enculturation

• In Event: 56.042 - Intellectual Character Development in Adolescents: Promoting Learning and Success

Abstract

Intellectual curiosity, the “urge to know more” (Engel, 2011, p.627), has been associated with a host of positive youth outcomes, including academic achievement (e.g. Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992), academic engagement (Ainley, Corrigan, & Richardson, 2005), and the use of deeper learning strategies, such as increased time on task (Richards, Litman, & Roberts, 2013). Yet, scholars agree that adolescents display little curiosity—Engel (2015) reported an average of .48 “curiosity episodes” per two hours in a fifth grade classroom, whereas Dillon (1988) found that high school students collectively ask an average of two information-seeking questions per hour. Thus, continued research is needed investigating how to foster adolescent intellectual curiosity in the classroom.

Although scholars have proposed several different methods for fostering students’ intellectual curiosity (Baehr, 2013; Ritchhart, 2015), a common method highlighted within educational psychology and intellectual virtues philosophy literatures is the “enculturation method.” Enculturation “emphasizes the full educational surround” and draws on both indirect and direct/explicit instruction in order to foster intellectual character strengths such as curiosity (Tishman et al., 1993, p.150). To date, relatively little extant “on-the-ground” research has empirically examined how enculturation happens in-practice, and how teachers and students make sense of this practice’s impact on adolescents’ curiosity.

Drawing from a larger ongoing longitudinal study of intellectual character growth in adolescents, the present qualitative study analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with five faculty and six adolescents attending Bright Ideas Middle School (BIMS), a charter school with an express mission of developing its students’ curiosity and associated character strengths. Specifically, the objective of this study was to consider these adolescents’ and teachers’ perceptions of their school’s enculturation programming and practices on students’ intellectual curiosity growth. We also engaged in 13 days of field observations dedicated to further understanding BIMS’ enculturation practices. The interviews and field notes were analyzed using a flexible inductive/deductive approach drawn from the thematic analysis approach to qualitative analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

Preliminary analysis of our qualitative data provides insights into which practices students and teachers find most promising for fostering adolescent intellectual curiosity. Three primary themes emerged in the student data: 1) teacher appreciation of student questioning; 2) creating a culture of error (Lemov, 2015); and 3) the importance of fun. For example, one student noted, “as I came here and we started learning new stuff, I like got more interested… cause I think here it's a little bit more funner (sic) when they teach…” Likewise, two themes emerged in the faculty data: 1) giving time to students’ questions; and 2) explicitly teaching curiosity (e.g. thinking routines). Thus, whereas teachers focused more on ways of explicitly fostering curiosity, sixth grade students felt more indirect methods (i.e. no “right answer”) allow for curiosity. Both most strongly agreed, though, on the importance of appreciating and taking time out for student questioning. In all, we believe these data provide educators with useful insights regarding the importance of both indirect enculturation methods and explicit teaching methods in fostering adolescents’ intellectual curiosity.

Authors

• Shelby Clark, Boston University

• Tenelle Porter, University of California - Davis

• Scott Clifford Seider, Boston University