Only Boring Students Get Bored? A New Perspective on Academic Boredom

• In Event: Motivation and Learning: What Is Provocative and/or Novel?

Abstract

Research on academic boredom has increased substantially over the past decade (see Figure 1), with boredom having consistently been defined as a dispositional trait held by students (Vodanovich, 2016) and an unidimensional, unpleasant emotional state of relatively low negative valence (e.g., Perkins & Hill, 1985). However, recent research suggests a considerably more complex picture of this emotional experience. First, whereas the idea that “only boring students get bored” may be intuitively appealing to instructors, findings consistently show student boredom to vary significantly across instructors and subject areas (Goetz et al., 2011). Existing research thus shows boredom to be highly domain-specific, and further, highly dependent on motivational variables (e.g., perceived value; Pekrun et al., 2010) and teaching practices (e.g., value enhancement; Frenzel, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2007). Second, despite empirical support for understanding boredom as a uniformly negative experience (e.g., Goetz, Frenzel, & Pekrun, 2007), there exists an ongoing debate as to the arousal dimension of boredom (the extent to which it activates behavior; Pekrun et al., 2010) with some classifying it as low-arousal (e.g., Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993) and others as a high-arousal experience (e.g., Berlyne, 1960). Moreover, recent findings also indicate the existence of varied subtypes of boredom that differ in both valence and arousal. In a recent empirical study by Goetz et al. (2014) utilizing in vivo assessments with both undergraduates (N = 63) and high-school students (N = 80), five such subtypes were clearly observed (see Figure 1) including: (1) “indifferent boredom” (relaxed, withdrawn, indifferent); (2) “calibrating boredom” (uncertain, receptive to change/distraction); (3) “searching boredom” (somewhat restless, active pursuit of change/distraction); (4) “reactant boredom” (highly restless and motivated to leave the situation for specific alternatives); and (5) “apathetic boredom” (highly aversive). Overall, recent findings on academic boredom suggest that it is a considerably more complex emotional experience than stereotypically perceived in terms of it being not only highly variable, domain-specific, and situationally dependent, but also consisting of multiple “boredoms” that vary in both valence and arousal.

Authors

• Thomas Goetz, University of Konstanz

• Nathan C. Hall, McGill University

• Maike Krannich, Universität Konstanz