Curiosity, Interest, and Educational Practice

• In Event: Working With Demonstrated Differences Between Curiosity and Interest: A Panel Discussion of Implications

Abstract

What are the differences between educational practices that support curiosity and those that support interest? More specifically, what should educators do to promote them? Recent research points to differences between curiosity and interest, but the terms are often used interchangeably. As such, there is a potential for confusion among educators about the supports that are needed for the development of curiosity and interest.

Jirout, et al. (2018), as many others (e.g., Berlyne, 1960; Grossnickle, 2016; Lowenstein, 1994; van Schijndel et al., 2018), consider curiosity a desire to resolve uncertainty, or to close a knowledge gap. They suggested that promoting curiosity in the classroom requires optimal levels of uncertainty, which can be achieved by helping students to prefer and tolerate greater levels of the uncertainty, even if negative feelings are triggered. They specifically prescribed curiosity-promoting instructions in schools such as including modeling comfort with uncertainty and generation of questions. In another experiment, van Schijndel et al. found that designing and reflecting on performed experiments are distinct inquiry-based learning processes, and that curiosity was only linked to the latter. That is, curious children learned more, although they did not have a higher quality of exploration. In other words, the children closed their knowledge gap and learned, but their search for information was not qualitatively better than that of those who had less curiosity.

No study of curiosity, as far as we know, has focused on how to support voluntary and prolonged reengagement, which characterize interest development. We conceptualize interest as a cognitive and affective motivational variable that develops through four phases (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). The process of information seeking related to interest is a positive process of knowledge development that is coordinated with valuing. Whereas triggers for interest can include uncertainty, or even curiosity, they may also include a wide- array of other triggers (e.g., Renninger et al., 2019). These can be provided by other people, the nature of tasks, and importantly, they may be self-generated through the self-related nature of the connections that individuals make to the content (Renninger, Elias, et al., unpublished manuscript).

Neuroscientific findings now explain why self-related information search and processing is so beneficial (Hidi et al., 2018, 2019). Meaningful engagement is self-related—it refers to how the individual understands and connects to information to be learned. Interested engagements can be promoted by the type of materials provided, multiple opportunities created to engage with content, giving support to focus on particular aspects of the materials, and interactions that focus on the individuals’ connections to the content (Renninger, et al., 2014; Xu, et al., 2012). Current studies provide an explanation of why particular triggers work, and further distinguish between the support for interest development versus curiosity (Renninger, Barton, et al., unpublished manuscript; Renninger, Elias, et al., unpublished manuscript). The self-related quality of interested engagement is critical to individuals voluntarily continuing to reengage with content. Such reengagements provide opportunities for exploration, practice, and developing conceptual understanding.

Authors

• K. Ann Renninger, Swarthmore College

• Suzanne E. Hidi, University of Toronto