A Thesis. entitled. Rebecca L. Mays Dinwoodie. Master of Education Degree in Secondary Education

Transcription

1 A Thesis entitled Curiosity in the Lives of Non-science and Science Professors and Students by Rebecca L. Mays Dinwoodie Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Education Degree in Secondary Education Rebecca Schneider, Ph.D., Committee Chair Susanna Hapgood, Ph.D., Committee Member Revathy Kumar, Ph.D., Committee Member Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May 2011

2 Copyright 2011, Rebecca L. M. Dinwoodie This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

3 An Abstract of Curiosity in the Lives of Non-science and Science Professors and Students by Rebecca L. M. Dinwoodie Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Education Degree in Secondary Education The University of Toledo May 2011 There is a debate in the psychological and educational communities over the definitions of epistemic and diversive curiosity and their relative importance. Schmitt and Lahroodi (2008) propose epistemic curiosity is the drawing of one s attention to a topic and a motivationally original desire to know it. The purpose of this study is to support this definition, add a positive affective component, and characterize both types of curiosity in the lives of non-science and science professors and students using qualitative methods. A sample of eight college freshman and seven professors were interviewed using a questionnaire designed to take participants through an instance of epistemic curiosity they experienced and then explore curiosity s role in their life in general. The proposed definition of epistemic curiosity was supported and extended to include recursive motivation. Qualitative differences were found between the epistemic curiosity experiences of science and non-science participants. In addition, differences were found between professors and students approaches to investigating epistemic curiosity. All groups reported that curiosity played a large role in their lives. The author discusses how to use students epistemic curiosity to improve science education following Tinker s (1997) model, which should nurture students diversive curiosity and lead to more students pursuing science fields upon graduation. iii

4 For my dad, who always believes in me. iv

5 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the love, support, and encouragement I received from my husband, parents, and sister. As I learn more and more about educating children, I can only marvel at the skill and dedication my parents put forth to educate me and my sister from infancy to the present day. I can not imagine getting this far without their hard work, and I am eternally grateful. I would also like to specially thank my husband, who spent several days and many late nights proofreading the many versions of this work. I would also like to acknowledge my professors. I have benefited greatly from the mentoring I received from Rebecca Schneider and the comments I received from Revathy Kumar and Susanna Hapgood. Rebecca Schneider has shown me what an educator can be and has lead me in new directions. She has given me invaluable advice during my years as her student. Thank you all. v

6 Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables iii v vi ix I. Introduction 1 II. Literature Review 8 A. What is Curiosity? 8 a. A history 8 b. Lessons from children 10 c. Curiosity defined 11 d. Curiosity in the larger picture of educational motivation 13 e. Curiosity in science education 15 B. How Does One Measure Curiosity? 17 C. How Does Curiosity Change Throughout Adolescence? 19 a. Direct evidence 19 b. Lessons from motivation 21 D. Capitalizing on Past Research 23 III. Methods 26 A. Participants 26 B. Sampling Procedures 27 a. Sample size 29 C. Measures 31 vi

7 a. Questionnaire 32 D. Processing Data 35 E. Finding Codes in Data 35 F. Summaries 38 G. Group Comparisons 39 IV. Results 40 A. Most Common Descriptions 40 B. Group Differences 45 a. Non-science student group summary 46 b. Science student group summary 46 c. Non-science professor group summary 47 d. Science professor group summary 48 C. Other Patterns 50 a. Gender differences 50 b. Student vs. professor 51 c. Science vs. non-science 55 d. Positive vs. negative 57 e. Curiosity described: a recursive process 59 V. Discussion 61 A. Research Questions 61 B. Final Definition of Curiosity Compared to Other Definitions 63 C. Is Curiosity Different from Interest? 65 D. Bias 66 vii

8 E. External Validity 67 F. Implications for Teaching 69 G. Conclusion 71 References 73 A. Individual Summaries 76 viii

9 List of Tables Table 1. Codes and Sub Codes Table 2. Frequency of Sub Codes Table 3. Non-Science Student, Science Student, Non-Science Professor, and Science Professor Group Differences Table 4. Gender Differences Table 5. Students vs. Professors Table 6. Science vs. Non-Science Table 7. Curiosity as a Recursive Motivational Process Table A. Individual Summaries ix

10 Chapter One Introduction Almost immediately when I began teaching high school biology I encountered a large barrier between me and what I hoped to accomplish in the students lives, namely the students themselves. When I was their age, I had a million questions about life and how it worked which studying biology answered. I was eager and excited to learn. Most of the students I had that first year in inner-city Columbus greeted biology with complete apathy. I honestly could not fathom it. That information was so important to understanding the world around them, to understanding bioethical and environmental issues the students would need to vote on in their adult life, for graduating from high school, and, for some of them, to going on to college. The kids did not care about any of it. I spent the next year thinking about the differences between this group of kids and myself and formulated an explanation. The presentation of science differed greatly between their childhoods and my own, leading to a difference in how they approached science: a difference in curiosity. Differences in teaching methods lead to a continuum of curiosity, with that group of inner-city kids on one end, with better-off high-needs kids I taught at different times and most suburban kids I went to school with toward the middle, and with myself and some of the friends I had in college far off on the other end. There were key differences in how we were exposed to science as kids. My parents were physicians. They felt science was important, used it daily in their careers, and did well in school. They conveyed to me these ideas: science is important, science is useful in daily life, science is understandable, and science is cool. They supported my education in science, before I 1

11 even started school, with large amounts of science books and toys. I spent endless hours exploring scientific concepts as part of play. My parents knew how to do well in school and knew most of the material covered in my classes, allowing them to help me as I went through formal schooling. As school changed from the fun explorations we did in elementary school to lecture punctuated by prescribed labs in high school and college, I was able to keep up my enthusiasm for science and my curiosity about science. In contrast, the kids in my inner-city class had no such luck. Many of their parents had bad experiences with schooling and science, possessed very different attitudes about science, and were unable to support their kids education financially through educational toys and books or by teaching educational skills they do not posses themselves. My classmates in suburban public schools, though probably having more support with educational skills, largely did not receive the benefits of science-loving parents and plentiful educational toys. And in both cases the public schools were not structured to promote curiosity, which is leading to the downfall of science in America. America has fallen behind in science compared to other countries. Its science curriculum is too broad and too shallow. There is a strong push to cover every science topic every year so the students can do well on standardized tests. This leads students to perceive science as a broad set of unconnected facts. American students do not perceive the big ideas behind all the facts and are unable to apply them in situations other than those they were directly taught. The older students get, the more their science classes consist of lecture and the occasional cookie-cutter lab. Teachers implicitly teach that science is a set of facts found by old dead white men. It is in the past. The students do not see the work currently being done in science or believe they can do meaningful work that 2

12 advances science. The cookie-cutter labs they do in class do not allow the students any real thinking or discovery, and they certainly do not advance science as a field. Young children are born curious. They ask a million questions and get dirty trying to explore the world around them. Early childhood education directs this curiosity so the children learn and enjoy themselves. But as educators of older children try to get children to learn greater and greater quantities of information at a faster and faster pace, the American education system has sacrificed curiosity for expediency. Student apathy about science, falling student achievement in science, and fewer students pursuing science as a career is the result. Yet, we as educators can change all of this. We should investigate curiosity and discover if it declines as students go through the American system of education. We can see if successful adults are curious and if they use it to advance humanity. Once curiosity is established as important and children s levels of curiosity are established to be falling, the way children are taught can be changed. Motivating students is more than just getting them excited. Motivation improves student effort, student time on task, and how they store knowledge. Curiosity is more than just motivation; it is also a way of looking at the world which provides the impetus for scientific discovery. Curiosity is a fundamental characteristic of young children and adults with active, intelligent minds, but the definition of what constitutes curiosity, if it is a trait, a state of being, or something else entirely, is still up for debate. Although the knowledge of curiosity is elusive, it holds much promise. It is a wellspring of motivation waiting for use and is especially apt in science education. All healthy young children posses it and some interesting and successful adults seem to have it almost as a trait, but what about the time between? How does curiosity change and develop into something useful for 3

13 adults, or is it lost entirely? What does curiosity look like in adolescents and successful adults? Is there a difference between individuals with science concentrations in school or career and those with non-science focuses? The first task that must be considered is a definition of curiosity. Curiosity is a wanting to find out about the world around oneself, but it so much more. It is an active process. If someone is truly curious, they will take action to satisfy their curiosity. It can even eat at a person like hunger or thirst. There is an implied positive affective component of curiosity. Satisfying one s curiosity produces joy or satisfaction. Curiosity speaks not only of being intrinsically motivated to learn, but also of actively making new knowledge part of one s schema. Through curiosity children evolve their conception of the world around them. Curiosity is a bit naïve as well. Children are curious before they have preconceptions about school, and particularly science, as being for geeks, being hard, or that it is simply not for them. The next question at hand is why consider curiosity across the lifespan? Even as children enter kindergarten, first, and second grade, they are still curious about the world around them and science. Curiosity is an active process where children want to find out more, get their hands dirty, and dive right in. Somehow, most students seem to lose their innate sense of curiosity. Motivation changes from how cool is that, tell me more, let me explore to what do I have to do to get an A, or just to pass? or even leave me alone, I don t need to know that for many adolescents. Why have adolescents lost their curiosity? Is it possible they have sated their curiosity through the rudimentary understanding of the world around them they have built? Perhaps they feel they have a working knowledge of most things and no longer hunger for more. Another explanation 4

14 is adolescents have been fed a variety of messages that have killed their curiosity. Having been exposed to popular images of scientists as geeks, they have decided not to associate themselves with that image. We have presented science as a series of already discovered facts a person must learn and sucked all joy of discovery out of it. We have structured learning in school in a way that does not encourage curiosity. Some students have experienced failure in math, science, or both. Many have been told repeatedly science is hard and perhaps students do not want to spend their valuable time on something they feel they will not have success with. In short their affect for science has soured. Another theory about why adolescents may have less curiosity is the natural progression of interest selection as children age. Interest theory states young children have many general interests and their interests change over time based on gender, strengths and weaknesses, and socioeconomic outlook. Children do not bother to work hard on something in which they think people like them have no chance (Krapp 2002). Perhaps interest in general had trended away from science for most individuals, and their curiosity has followed. But curiosity remains in some adults. Many adults lead a rich intellectual life driven by curiosity. Professors, inventors, and some CEOs have made careers out of finding out answers and find joy in the process. There is clearly a change in curiosity before or during adolescence and also an advantage to being a curious adult, therefore it is pivotal we study students at this age. But is curiosity and interest the same thing? They seem so related that many modern educational psychologists consider them to be the same construct. A person would be more likely to be curious about something they are interested in, but does interest contain the same drive as curiosity? If a person is slightly to moderately 5

15 interested in something that person may be more likely to listen to a teacher or television program on that subject, but would they go out of their way to explore? Perhaps curiosity is a synonym for strong interest. But what about all of the emotion involved in curiosity? Does everybody experience anticipation and joy of discovery while exploring things they have an interest in? Also, curiosity implies the piece of information or topic is new, unexplored. People can maintain strong interest in a topic they know well. Interest also seems to usually encompass broader topics. There is a clearly an overlap, but both terms, curiosity and interest, describe slightly different constructs. I propose curiosity is a specific type of interest, with unique motivational potential, should be investigated in its own right. A final theory is curiosity may have undergone a qualitative, not quantitative, change through childhood and into adulthood. This should be explored. Researchers have established curiosity in younger children and that it has changed by young adulthood, but why consider engendering and sustaining it in the science classroom? What will curiosity gain for us? Some would argue it has outlived its usefulness by this age group and has no place in the classroom, but I argue it is a font of motivational reserve educators must find a way to tap into. If educators know about curiosity they may be able to use the knowledge to change young people s affect about science. Educators will be able to get students at the gut level of wanting to know about the world around them and circumvent their emotional baggage. Tapping into curiosity will greatly increase students motivation. It will increase their science performance, their time on task, and their effort. Because they were active in the gaining of the knowledge, they will incorporate new ideas and concepts into their present schemas more smoothly. The interconnections between pieces of information in their brains will increase because 6

16 they have spent more time actively wrestling with the information, both in school and even on their own. This will lead to more complete development of students as human beings. This study aims to characterize the curiosity in the lives of a sample of young adults and adults in both science and non-science fields. The two research questions which guide this study are: what is the role of curiosity in the lives of science and nonscience professors and students, and what do they describe curiosity to be? This study is a small, but important first step in finding out if children do lose their curiosity, if it changes qualitatively, and if curiosity is important in adults lives. This study will provide a base for cross-sectional studies aimed at finding out exactly when and why children lose their curiosity. If curiosity is lost as people go through American-style schooling and curiosity is also found to be helpful to adults, further studies and interventions could be aimed at helping children hold on to their curiosity in science and other domains. Interventions could include promoting curiosity as a trait or attitude through instructional style and the messages educators send about science and promoting curiosity as a state by restructuring curriculum to capitalize on students natural curiosity and allowing students to explore scientific concepts more freely. 7

17 Chapter Two Literature Review What is Curiosity? A history. There has been much confusion as to what curiosity is. Ancient Greeks knew about it. Pandora was charged with protecting a box full of horrors and not opening it, but her curiosity got the better of her. Odysseus was so curious about the siren s song he had himself tied to the mast so he could listen and not be seduced while his men had their ears stuffed with cotton. From the late 1950s to the present, small waves of researchers have tried to understand curiosity. There is much disagreement about its exact nature and where it fits into psychology and education. Berlyne (1954) was the first to do modern research on curiosity. He found the everyday use of curiosity really described two different constructs. The first, which he called diversive curiosity, is a general attitude, later described as a trait, to go out in the world and experience new things or generally explore for new information. The second, which eventually received the name specific or epistemic curiosity, is an arousal state brought on by a conceptual conflict. It starts a quest for knowledge, with the arousal state being relieved when the sought-for information is found. Berlyne (1960) later found subjects experiencing epistemic curiosity were more likely to remember answers to questions they were curious about than to those questions about which they were not curious and one can raise epistemic curiosity by questioning the subject before giving them the information. W. Maw and Maw (1964, 1966, 1968) did a series of experiments and papers where they described curiosity as an arousal state with a desire to know more about oneself or the environment. They also found children high in curiosity asked more 8

18 questions. Day (1968) bought into Berlyne s work on specific and diversive curiosity and investigated the link amongst their measure of curiosity, IQ, and teacher evaluation of curiosity. He found teacher ratings were a good match with his measure of curiosity and it was not correlated to IQ. Day, however, used visual images of varying degrees of complexity and asked students to rate their preference for them. He argued this was a good measure of curiosity, but I feel in light of later work he may have been focusing in on sensation seeking as a personality trait more than on curiosity. Beswick and Tallmadge (1971) believed curiosity had to do with an individual's readiness or predisposition to seek, maintain, and resolve conceptual conflicts. They also correlated curiosity to scientific interest. Little research was done on curiosity during the 1980s. In 1994, Lowenstein did a comprehensive review where he clarified how easy it was to ask questions about curiosity and key in to either the state (specific or epistemic) or the drive (diversive). He also showed how asking a question negatively could even key into boredom instead of curiosity. Lowenstein added to the drive idea of curiosity by saying it was spurred on by the subject perceiving an information gap which would lead them to pursue knowledge. He saw curiosity as a reference point phenomena, people would be curious when they were aware of their ignorance through comparison with someone else s knowledge. Lowenstein incorporated a bit of homeostatic sensation seeking in his idea of curiosity, defining it as stimulated by both external and internal factors. He also saw curiosity as aversive. Lowenstein compared curiosity to the sex drive and said the fulfilling of curiosity was usually disappointing, 9

19 In 1994, Arnone, Grabowski, and Rynd looked at curiosity again as a personality variable, but at the same time looked at how to apply it to education. They found children could be low, middle, or high tonus level for curiosity and this level dictates how they interact with various levels of unknown in a lesson. Each child, given their tonus level, has a zone of disinterest, a zone of curiosity, and a zone of anxiety based on the amount of control they have over a lesson. Matching students to the appropriate level of control leads to approach, exploration, excitement, and interest. In 2005, Byman attempted to link diversive curiosity to sensation seeking and put it firmly in place as a personality variable. In 2008, Schmitt and Lahroodi theorized on the epistemic value of curiosity and found it requires the drawing of one s attention to a topic and a motivationally original desire to know the topic. They draw a distinction between curiosity and wonder. Wonder involves awe, requires cognitive conflict, decays rapidly, and does not require a person to satisfy it. Wonder may be kept around for its own sake, as in religion. Schmitt and Lahroodi went on to say curiosity can be a desire to know for oneself, not just to know the information through outside sources. They compared curiosity to Dewey s various stages of inquiry. They also theorized young children were incapable of curiosity because they do not have a concept of knowledge. In their logic if one does not understand knowledge one cannot desire it. Lessons from children. People interested in the development and education of young children would most likely take exception to Schmitt and Lahroodi s claims young children cannot experience curiosity and to Lowenstein s claims curiosity is aversive. Perry (2001) called curiosity the fuel of development in his writings on young children. He said: 10

20 Curiosity results in exploration. Exploration results in discovery. Discovery results in pleasure. Pleasure results in repetition. Repetition results in mastery. Mastery results in new skills. New skills result in confidence. Confidence results in self-esteem. Self-esteem results in a sense of security. A sense of security results in more exploration. In 2003, Perry went on to write that educators and parents must encourage young children and help them to feel safe. It is unclear whether Perry writes of diversive or epistemic curiosity. Perhaps the lines are not as clear in young children, but I believe it is clear young children do experience curiosity. This positive view of curiosity as a trait of children is extended to gifted children at 10 and 11 years old by Shumakova (1992). Continuing on in a positive, modern view of curiosity are Kang et al. (2009). They performed an elegant series of studies involving trivia questions, fmri, pupil dilation, and people s self ratings of curiosity. They found when people were epistemically curious about a trivia question, the reward circuitry in their brains was activated. The subjects then better remembered the answer to those questions about which they were curious. Their research showed uncertainty about one s knowledge of the subject increased curiosity. They suggest a small amount of knowledge about a topic can prime the hunger for knowledge, much as an olfactory or visual stimulus can prime a hunger for food. They suggested using curiosity as a way for educators to ignite the wick in the candle of learning. Curiosity defined. After reviewing the research conducted over the past six decades, I have determined there are two types of curiosity. The first type of curiosity is specific epistemic curiosity. This is the drawing of attention to a topic and a 11

21 motivationally original desire to know it. It does not necessarily involve a conceptual conflict. One may find something interesting and be curious without it being opposed to his or her previous knowledge. It is a natural and beneficial state of human existence. Babies exhibit this behavior when they explore their hands for the first time. This type of curiosity continues to be practiced through childhood and into adulthood, but it appears to decrease with age and vary by the individual. Specific epistemic curiosity may be stimulated by the perception of a gap in one s knowledge, an unfamiliar stimulus, or by simply seeing something one is familiar with in a new light. The second type of curiosity is diversive curiosity. This type can be described as a trait or drive. Diversive curiosity is the desire to know and understand the world around us or ourselves in a more general sense. It is a predisposition to be more often curious in a specific epistemic way about more topics, to search out new information even when one does not perceive a small, manageable gap in one s knowledge but rather a gaping hole. It could be described as being more comfortable when wrestling with the unknown or having more learner choice. I make no attempts in this paper to place curiosity within the complex realm of personality variables, although it probably does belong there. It is important to distinguish diversive curiosity from sensation seeking. I propose this is a different construct and studies researching it have not been about curiosity at all. One can have a desire to know more about the world around oneself but not be a thrill seeker. It is unlikely someone who is only comfortable with small amounts of sensation would be highly diversively curious, but an individual with a moderate level of sensation seeking could be very highly curious. Likewise, a person could be very highly into sensation seeking and not be motivated to understand the world around them. They could 12

22 enjoy simply the experience and the rush without making any attempt to organize and use their sensations to better their lives or the lives of others. An important aspect of both types of curiosity, in opposition to several of the earlier researchers, is positive affect. Most people experience curiosity, and its satisfaction, as a pleasant sensation. Children experience the pure joy of discovery. Scientists, journalists, and detectives (careers which require large amounts of curiosity) also arguably enjoy the process of discovery. I have never heard anyone, upon feeling the first urgings of curiosity, exclaim Oh, crap. Now I have to go look into that. Sometimes we as humans find out information we wish we did not know or find that the information was not as useful to us as we had hoped when setting out to find it. But in general, curiosity includes a positive affect. People experiencing curiosity second hand may have a negative affect. If a person is low in diversive curiosity and is not comfortable with situations in which their lack of knowledge is apparent, they may experience situations which normally elicit curiosity as aversive. However, he or she did not experience curiosity and therefore curiosity is not aversive. If you have a friend, relative, coworker, or schoolmate is very curious you may find the time they spend engaged in satisfying their curiosity, which you spend waiting, as boring, wasteful, or agitating. When they share with you the product of their curious endeavor you may have a negative affect, but I believe research will show the person actually experiencing the curiosity had a positive affect. Curiosity in the larger picture of educational motivation. Curiosity is a form of intrinsic motivation (Beswick & Tallmadge, 1971). The larger picture of motivation is neatly described by Ryan and Deci (2000) in their Self-Determination Theory. People can 13

23 be amotivated, extrinsically motivated, or intrinsically motivated. Amotivated people do not act or act without intent. Intrinsically motivated people are driven from within to learn or excel. Extrinsically motivated people are driven by some outside force, but there is a spectrum of behavior and belief. At one side of the spectrum people are driven by punishments and external rewards. As a person develops towards intrinsic motivation they begin to have self control and are driven by internal rewards and punishments, then move on to valuing the behavior or knowledge, and finally synthesize the behavior or knowledge as part of their self-concept. Although Ryan and Deci do not suggest it is possible to make someone become intrinsically motivated, they believe educators can help people develop along the continuum of extrinsic motivation, towards integrated regulation, by fulfilling the three basic needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Competence is the need to feel capable. Relatedness is the need to feel like one belongs and is connected with others. Autonomy is the need for independence. Therefore to motivate students, educators must first fulfill these basic needs. Curiosity in young children, as described by Perry (2001), builds competence and autonomy as long as the child is supported in his or her efforts to explore. I argue that through the process of inquiry which is ignited by curiosity, children also feel more related to the subject they are exploring and the world as a whole. The goal of curiosity is to understand and master the material, and as such it can fit into Goal Theory, which conceptualizes motivation as goal directed behaviors. There are two types: mastery goals and performance goals. Mastery goals are described as striving to learn or to master the task whereas performance goals are more complicated and can be positive or negatively valenced. Positively valenced performance goals are 14

24 called performance-approach and have to do with striving for positive evaluation, extrinsic rewards, or to best others. Negatively valenced performance goals are called performance-avoid and have to do with avoiding a negative outcome or not looking stupid. There is debate as to whether or not all performance goals are bad, and if they are bad as to what they do and do not affect, but the evidence is clear mastery goals are good. Mastery goals are correlated with increased deep processing, increased achievement, increased effort in the face of challenge, increased active coping, sustained motivation, and intrinsic motivation (Grant & Dweck, 2003). Drawing from this perspective, perhaps increased epistemic and or diversive curiosity could serve to move students towards intrinsic motivation and better performance. Curiosity in science education. Epistemic curiosity can be described as noticing something, forming a question about it, and then answering the question; in this way it is the cornerstone of science. This can be found in historical scientific discoveries. In the classic, though fictional, tale of how Isaac Newton discovered gravity, an apple fell on his head, he questioned why apples fall at all, he investigated, and he came up with the theory of gravity. Darwin traveled the world on the Beagle, noticed similarities and differences amongst the birds on distant islands, and questioned how they were related. He investigated and created the idea of natural selection and the Theory of Evolution. Many other scientific discoveries have been made in a similar fashion, therefore curiosity, and the scientific questions it develops, should be developed in science education. Curiosity has been identified as a basic scientific attitude (Flegg & Hukins, 1973). Therefore the idea of science instruction capitalizing on curiosity is a natural progression. 15

25 The National Research Council (2007) writes that science instruction in grades K-8 should focus on four strands of proficiency: 1) know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the world; 2) generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; 3) understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and 4) participate productively in scientific practices and discourse. Students whose curiosity is engaged and supported from infancy will have already begun to know and use scientific explanations as well as generating and evaluating evidence and explanations. As educators, if we help students transition from curiosity into inquiry, strands 1-3 will be naturally engaged. With scaffolding of students thinking and their inquiry skills, strand 4, participating in scientific practices and discourse, will easily be met as well. Tinker (1997) suggested the shift to inquiry a decade before the National Research Council put it in writing, but he suggested taking inquiry even farther. Tinker believed much of science class should be centered on students acting like scientists. Students should spearhead large investigations into questions and topics they are interested in. Answering one question will lead to other questions which can then be pursued. In his model, even the most inane subject leads students more and more deeply into a web of interconnected science knowledge. Whether this type of instruction is done as individuals, group, or class projects designed around students epistemic curiosity, the teacher can provide off-topic examples of the scientific concepts the students explore to help them generalize their findings to the larger world. Teachers will need to scaffold students in this process of open inquiry. Highly diversively curious students do better in open inquiry environments than less diversively curious students (Zion & Sadeh, 2007). 16

26 Teachers encouragement to and support of students as they explore and learn will help them feel safe and learn new skills (Perry, 2003). In addition to increasing the use of inquiry in science instruction, educators can capitalize on curiosity in other ways. Educators can prime the hunger for knowledge (Kang et al., 2009) by introducing a small amount of information about a topic and then questioning students. They can highlight students conceptual conflicts and knowledge gaps. These techniques raise epistemic curiosity and improve students memory about the answers to those questions they are curious about (Berlyne, 1960). So whether it is in the finer points of how teachers present a topic, or at the level of massive changes in curriculum and instruction, teachers can influence epistemic and perhaps even diversive curiosity. To cultivate diversive curiosity further, teachers need to be on message. They need to constantly present science as being important, science as being useful in daily life, science as being understandable, and as science being cool. Through curiosity, educators can ignite the wick in the candle of learning (Kang et al., 2009). How Does One Measure Curiosity? Researchers have tried many methods to measure curiosity, but due to the confusion about the construct itself, there are multiple methods measuring multiple things. First, this paper will examine the measurement of diversive curiosity. Diversive curiosity can be measured to examine the differences between groups of children, how it correlates to other traits and behaviors, or how it changes through development or an intervention of some kind. Questionnaires have been used by many researchers including Flegg and Hukins (1973) who found their measure of curiosity correlated with scientific interest. Lowenstein (1994) went into depth on how questions could be asked either about 17

27 the state (epistemic curiosity) or trait (diversive curiosity) depending on the wording. He also stated researchers must be careful not to ask questions in the negative because statistically these questions loaded into boredom instead of curiosity. Shumakova (1992) used a questionnaire and picture booklet with children, then counted the number of questions children asked about the pictures, and then analyzed the questions for the number of separate ideas they contained. Day (1968) used a measure he called the Test of Specific Curiosity (TSC) which consisted of showing children graphics of varying complexity and having the children rate their preference for them. Day asserted high curiosity children would prefer more complex images. Future researchers should carefully consider using this method because it confuses curiosity with sensation seeking. Although I found no research which employs this method, I think a strong case could be made for putting subjects into a room with a choice of activity, some of which expanded their knowledge into the world and some of which went over familiar material, and measure the amount of time spent on tasks expand knowledge. Measuring specific epistemic curiosity is another matter altogether. First one must make a decision as to whether one is trying to find out if (a) the material (or presentation of the material) is curiosity inducing to most individuals, (b) if the particular individual is curious about this particular material, or (c) if the particular individual has epistemic curiosity about many subjects. The first type of measurement can help educators capitalize on curiosity. The second type of measurement can be used at the same time as measures of other constructs such as knowledge retention or interest to find out more about the construct of epistemic curiosity and how it may help education. The third type 18

28 of measurement may instead be measuring diversive curiosity, thus it is important to be clear as to what is being measured. Methods for measuring epistemic curiosity have ranged from straight forward to high tech. The simplest method is to present the material or subject and then ask the participant to rate how curious they are about the item or ask them how likely he or she is to try to find out the answer. Kang et al. (2009) used this direct method along with a functional MRI with contrast showing blood flow to various parts of the brain. They also measured pupil dilation and correlated it to the expected reward of finding out the answer to an item of curiosity. Because they have correlated blood flow to reward centers of the brain and pupil dilation with curiosity, researchers could now use these techniques to measure curiosity. More studies should be done in this vein to support or reject the findings of Kang et al. s, but in general it is easier and much cheaper to ask subjects if they are curious about a particular thing. Small children, infants, and animals cannot give us reliable ratings of their curiosity, but it would also be difficult to get them to stay still enough for fmri and pupil dilation testing, so the point is moot. Arnone, Grabowski, and Rynd (1992) measured the number of questions a child would ask about the subject and also the number of things they would show a friend about the subject. Time spent on a task and the choice of activity can give a researcher clues about the epistemic curiosity generated by the topic or presentation of a topic. How Does Curiosity Change Throughout Adolescence? Direct evidence. As babies develop into toddlers and then preschoolers their curiosity expands. Curiosity declines as children enter primary school, and then again 19

29 declines more dramatically as they enter middle school. Schmitt and Lahroodi (2008) state: The effervescent curiosity of childhood recedes with maturity. Dewey suggested, plausibly, curiosity degenerates or evaporates and is replaced by indifference, flippancy, or dogmatism unless the child develops into a firsthand inquirer. Schooling is sometimes blamed for the evaporation of curiosity, but the mounting practical concerns accompany maturation may take the larger toll on curiosity, discouraging firsthand inquiry not instrumental to those concerns. It is clear the constant questioning and exploring of early childhood does not continue into adulthood for most people. Shumakova (1992) states children appear to ask fewer questions from ages six to eight on, but this is true only at school and because the types of questions they ask change. She found curiosity actually peaks from age eleven to twelve. In truth, researchers have not yet begun to really study how curiosity evolves as children mature or what impact various forms of schooling have on curiosity. It is possible curiosity exists at higher levels in adolescents than previously believed, but it has changed forms much as their questioning has. Shumakova also found Russian gifted children participating in a specific curriculum were more curious in two of her three measures than American gifted children participating in the same curriculum. It is possible an element of culture or an element of the educational system has an effect on the curiosity of children as they age. Research is needed into the natural development of curiosity as children age and into the benefits of curiosity. Early research suggests curiosity helps in the retention of 20

30 information, but other benefits of curiosity must be researched. Curiosity is thought of as a scientifically desirable attitude (Flegg & Hukins, 1973) and high curiosity students do better in open inquiry learning environments (Zion & Sadeh, 2007), which are more like the conditions scientists face on a daily basis. Therefore, to promote learning, both scientific and non-scientific, we as educators and researchers should find out if we can raise the level of diversive curiosity in children through educational intervention. Lessons from motivation. Although not much is known about curiosity as children age, much more research has been done into motivation and interest. This radical drop-off in science motivation and performance, and in fact in all subject areas, is thought to happen around the time of the transition from elementary school to middle school or junior high. There are at least two explanations for this phenomenon. The first, which has received much attention, is that middle school classrooms are fundamentally different from those of elementary school. In elementary school, students spend most of the day with one teacher and one classroom of peers. Teachers tend to focus on every student mastering the same material and lessons flow from one subject to another. In middle school, students march in ever changing groups to different classrooms where they work solely on one subject. Grades are more emphasized and students are tracked into different levels of classes which publicly announce the students competence. These changes are thought to shift students goals from masterybased to performance-based and decrease intrinsic motivation (Eccles et al., 1993, Midgley & Edelin, 1998). Since curiosity serves as a prototypical example of intrinsic motivation (Beswick & Tallmadge, 1971) and the goal of curiosity is mastery of the 21

31 material, it would follow that a shift toward extrinsic motivation and performance goals would mean a shift away from curiosity. Another explanation for students decrease in subject area interest is developmental. Interest development is thought to go through stages much like Piaget s (Krapp 2002). Very young children are thought to share universal interests. Around age four children develop collective interests based on gender. The third stage which occurs between the ages of 11 and 13, around the transition to middle school, is when children take stock of their place in the hierarchical arrangement of society (based on that of their parents ) and their abilities and match their interests accordingly. These interests are called personal interests. During adolescence young people enter a fourth stage where they develop their interests more into what are called specific interests. With each stage interests which are not selected weaken over time as the child devotes their attention to their new set of interests. The specification of the fourth stage may recur whenever an individual undergoes a change in status or situation. Therefore by the time an individual reaches high school they are in an environment that limits motivation and their interest in most school subjects has lessened considerably as they now have personal, if not specific, interests of their own. Since interest primes the pump for curiosity (Lowenstein, 1994), it would follow that students curiosity would fall at this time or at least change over to follow their specific interests. Students enter science classrooms turned off to science. Most students do not see how subjects like chemistry and physics apply to their lives. They no longer find joy in exploring the world around them through science. 22

32 In addition to no longer feeling science, students grades drop from the end of elementary school on (Midgley & Edelin, 1998). Therefore interest and motivation are no longer simply affective or experiential variables, but are of utmost importance in ameliorating the loss of valuable educational potential. How do educators bring the joy and wonder of science back to adolescents and young adults? The key is to help them rediscover their immature curiosity. Capitalizing on Past Research Despite the negative experiences of Odysseus and Pandora, the cultural wisdom that curiosity killed the cat, and the musings of some early researchers, it is clear curiosity is an important characteristic of young children, and it can continue on as a virtue into adulthood. Fisher (2000) extols curiosity as a virtue of thought. Loewy (1998) argues curiosity and reason are central to the problems of ethics and science but they are discouraged or narrowly channeled in our society. Looking at the preponderance of evidence about curiosity, it is clear there are two types: diversive and epistemic, and more research is needed. Diversive curiosity is a trait which can drive behavior. It is the desire to know and understand the world around oneself. It has important implications for education because students with high levels of diversive curiosity are internally motivated, and internally motivated people achieve more. Large cross-sectional and longitudinal work needs to be done to understand how diversive curiosity develops from infancy through adulthood. Research which attempts to directly link achievement and well-being to diversive curiosity should be undertaken. If diversive curiosity pans out as a wellspring of motivation and achievement, then researchers should research if educational or parental 23

33 interventions can raise the level of diversive curiosity in children and adults. In the shortterm, educators can use students diversive curiosity level to tailor learning environments to students, helping to create zones of proximal development. Science teachers can use this technique to scaffold students into more open inquiry and scientific practices. Specific, or epistemic curiosity, also holds much promise. Epistemic curiosity is the drawing of attention to a topic and a motivationally original desire to know it. This type of curiosity is subject specific or even object specific, but holds much promise as research has shown it helps improve knowledge retention. Achievement, motivation, and interest in science all decrease as children become adolescents. Common knowledge tells that adolescents are less curious about educational topics than smaller children. Cross sectional and longitudinal research is needed into the epistemic curiosity of children, adolescents, and adults. Educators need to know if curiosity in adolescents even looks similar to curiosity in young children. Even though little is known about the epistemic curiosity of children, adolescents, and young adults, educators are already doing some of the interventions suggested by curiosity research. Research suggests educators prime children for learning by giving them small introductory amounts of knowledge, questioning them, and by creating or showcasing conceptual conflict and knowledge gaps. A sound body of research into topics covered by science benchmarks and standards could help educators organize and pace science courses to keep curiosity aroused and students motivated. Though curiosity research has come a long way, much research is still needed. Some aspects of curiosity, such as the delineation into two types, are now agreed upon. Cross sectional and longitudinal studies are needed to find out more about the nature and 24

34 development of curiosity. Studies of educational interventions are also needed to understand if educators can impact students curiosity. As research continues educators will gain insight into how people are attracted to ideas and knowledge, how that attraction is maintained, how people yearn for knowledge, and how they satisfy that yearning. This will allow educators to capitalize on a primal human instinct to help students deal with the high intellectual demands of the twenty-first century. 25