ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

This classroom-based study investigated the antecedents of epistemic curiosity among 25 Thai university students in an English oral communication course. Using a whole-class survey and focus group interview, we recursively asked the students to describe a time in class when they experienced epistemic curiosity and the reasons behind it. A modified version of constant comparative analysis suggested seven thematic factors as the antecedents of epistemic curiosity and positive affect linked to its experience. Utilizing descriptions of the lessons kept in the teacher's record, we provide contextualized accounts of how and why the students experienced epistemic curiosity in class. We conclude by offering pedagogical suggestions for creating learning environments that inspire language learners' epistemic curiosity.
1 3
Accepted: 5 January 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022
Sachiko Nakamura
sachiko.n@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
Hayo Reinders
info@innovationinteaching.org
Pornapit Darasawang
pornapit.dar@kmutt.ac.th
1 Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, 6 chome 1,
194-0041 Tamagawagakuen, Tokyo, Machida, Japan
2 Department of Languages, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha
Uthit Rd, Khwaeng Bang Mot, Khet Thung Khru, Krung Thep Maha Nakhon,
10140 Bangkok, Thailand
A Classroom-Based Study on the Antecedents of Epistemic
Curiosity in L2 Learning
SachikoNakamura1· HayoReinders2· PornapitDarasawang2
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09839-x
Abstract
This classroom-based study investigated the antecedents of epistemic curiosity among 25
Thai university students in an English oral communication course. Using a whole-class
survey and focus group interview, we recursively asked the students to describe a time in
class when they experienced epistemic curiosity and the reasons behind it. A modied ver-
sion of constant comparative analysis suggested seven thematic factors as the antecedents
of epistemic curiosity and positive aect linked to its experience. Utilizing descriptions
of the lessons kept in the teacher’s record, we provide contextualized accounts of how
and why the students experienced epistemic curiosity in class. We conclude by oering
pedagogical suggestions for creating learning environments that inspire language learners’
epistemic curiosity.
Keywords Epistemic curiosity · Emotion · Classroom-based study
Introduction
Epistemic curiosity is a type of epistemic emotion that learners can experience in relation
to knowledge-generating cognitive tasks (Pekrun et al., 2016). It motivates students to gain
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research2
1 3
new ideas, learn, and resolve intellectual problems (Litman, 2005, 2008; Litman & Jimer-
son, 2004; Litman & Spielberger, 2003; Markey & Loewenstein, 2014; Shin et al., 2019).
In recent years, epistemic curiosity has received increasing attention in the elds of general
education and educational psychology, showing its benecial roles in learning (Arnone et
al., 2011; Eren & Coskun, 2016; Gurning & Siregar, 2017; Kang et al., 2009; Rotgans &
Schmidt, 2014). In the eld of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) on the other hand, epis-
temic curiosity is an under-researched emotion. Despite an ongoing call for investigation
into a wider range of emotions (Nakamura, 2018; Dewaele, 2015; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015),
SLA has long limited emotion research to anxiety, and to a much lesser extent, enjoyment
(e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre 2014; Dewaele et al., 2018) and boredom (e.g., Nakamura et
al., 2021a; Pawlak et al., 2020).
Epistemic curiosity has been widely described as “the drive to know’” (Berlyne, 1954,
p. 187). Based on previous work on curiosity (e.g., Berlyne 1954; Loewenstein, 1994) and
a series of his own studies (Collins et al., 2004; Litman, 2005; Litman & Jimerson, 2004;
Litman & Spielberger, 2003). Litman has dened epistemic curiosity as “a desire for knowl-
edge that motivates individuals to learn new ideas, eliminate information gaps, and solve
intellectual problems” (Litman, 2008, p. 1586). Epistemic curiosity, based on contemporary
curiosity models, is a multifaceted construct consisting of distinctive yet highly correlated
dimensions. Berlyne (1960) initially proposed diversive and specic dimensions (see, e.g.,
Berlyne, 1966), which Litman & Spielberger (2003) later found to be highly correlated
(0.56). A year later Litman & Jimerson (2004) introduced a new dimension of epistemic
curiosity, the feeling of deprivation. Taken together, Litman (2005) proposed that epistemic
curiosity involves two dimensions, labeled as Interest-type (I-type) and Deprivation-type
(D-type). I-type epistemic curiosity, which corresponds to Berlyne (1960)’s diverse and
specic dimensions, refers to “a desire for new information anticipated to increase pleasur-
able feelings of situational interest,” whereas D-type epistemic curiosity involves “a motive
to reduce unpleasant experiences of feeling deprived of new knowledge” (Lauriola et al.,
2015, p. 202). Accordingly, epistemic curiosity should be distinguished from other types of
curiosity such as interpersonal curiosity (Litman & Pezzo, 2007), self-curiosity (Aschieri et
al., 2018), and social curiosity (Renner, 2006). We also subscribe to the notion that interest
and curiosity are two distinct phenomena (Eren & Coskun, 2016; Markey & Loewenstein,
2014). Interest can be dened as “a psychological state that involves a desire to become
engaged in an activity or know more, in general, about a subject” (Markey & Loewenstein,
2014, p. 231). This implies that interest most likely, but not necessarily, involves positive
aect. Curiosity on the other hand, could involve an aversive feeling generated by depriva-
tion of knowledge. Another feature that distinguishes curiosity from interest is that curiosity
often emerges from an information gap, whereas individuals can feel interest without such
a gap.
Educational studies have indicated a wide range of positive learning variables associated
with epistemic curiosity, including school performance (Eren & Coskun, 2016), engage-
ment (Arnone et al., 2011), perceived value (Rossing & Long, 1981), knowledge acquisition
(Rotgans & Schmidt, 2014), self-regulation, (Lauriola et al., 2015), memory enhancement
(Kang et al., 2009), and goal orientation (Eren, 2009). Furthermore, epistemic curiosity is
suggested to have the potential to reduce boredom (Berlyne, 1960; Eren & Coskun 2016;
Keller, 1987). In fact, a study by Eren & Coskun (2016) showed a mediating role of epis-
temic curiosity in the relationship between boredom and graded performance. This is a useful
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3
1 3
insight, as boredom is an increasingly recognized issue in L2 language learning (Nakamura
et al., 2021a, b; Pawlak et al., 2020). SLA research has also contributed a small number of
studies that have shown a positive role for epistemic curiosity in L2 learning, such as its
positive link to willingness to communicate, reading comprehension, L2 development in
linguistic, social-cultural, and pragmatic areas (Gurning & Siregar, 2017; Mahmoodzadeh
& Khajavy, 2018; Takkaç-Tulgar, 2018). These positive roles highlight the importance of
understanding what makes learners curious. Although there are limited data examining this
question, extant theories of curiosity and recent empirical work provide insights into the
antecedents of epistemic curiosity.
Theoretically, epistemic curiosity has by and large been argued to be evoked by dis-
crepant information perceived by individuals, originally suggested by the information gap
theory by Loewenstein (1994). At the same time, dierent aspects have been emphasized
by dierent theories. For example, drive theorists (e.g., Loewenstein 1994) argued that the
uncertainty arising from this information gap can be an unpleasant experience, the reduction
of which thus is rewarding. Optimal arousal theorists (e.g., Spielberger & Starr 1994) argued
that when this experience involves interest rather than uncertainty, curiosity induction is
rewarding. Reecting on these views, Litman & Jimerson (2004) proposed that individuals
experience epistemic curiosity when they perceive to have been deprived of information and
wish for the reduction or elimination of their ignorance as well as when they simply enjoy
learning new things without particularly experiencing the deciency of the information.
Boekaerts and Pekrun (2015) and Pekrun et al. (2016) also advocate the notion of discrep-
ant information while adding another construct, learner appraisal, as a proximal antecedent.
They postulate that students can experience epistemic curiosity when they are engaged in
cognitive tasks that are novel and non-routine, which contain unexpected information and
cognitive incongruity. They can also experience epistemic curiosity as a result of giving
positive appraisals of the cognitive tasks.
Contrary to the extensive theoretical arguments on what can evoke learners’ curiosity
(Arnone et al., 2011; Litman, 2005; Shin et al., 2019), empirical investigations into the
antecedents of epistemic curiosity are surprisingly scarce. One of few is a study by Rossing
(1981) with adult learners enrolled in community courses. His results showed a statisti-
cally signicant positive correlation between perceived value and epistemic curiosity. This
perceived value was also found in a study by Palmer (2018) who investigated curiosity
experience among 20 tertiary students enrolled in a teacher education program in Australia.
He used interviews and a questionnaire and found that personal interest in the topic, con-
dence for the subject, perceived value of the subject, liking the teacher, expected enjoyment,
expected understanding of the lesson, and expected interestingness of the lesson as factors
inuencing curiosity. Zhao et al., (2011) investigated the antecedents of curiosity among
high school students in China from the self-determination theory perspective using a survey.
Their structural equation modeling showed that teacher support, peer encouragement, and
self-ecacy had a signicant inuence on the students’ curiosity in using the Internet.
Curiosity in language learning has been investigated only recently by a handful of stud-
ies. In a study by Mahmoodzadeh and Khajavy (2018), antecedents of language learning
curiosity, dened as “an aective-cognitive variable specic to language learning which
reects an inquiry-driven interest and desire to learn and use a foreign language” (p. 13)
were investigated through a content analysis of the participants’ responses to an open-ended
item in the questionnaire. They thematized the ndings into three categories; self-related
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research4
1 3
(e.g., personally curious about learning L2 grammar and vocabulary), teacher-related (e.g.,
kind, encouraging, motivated, and interesting teachers), and peer-related (e.g., curious about
how peers processed L2 and made progress over time). Takkaç-Tulgar (2018) discussed
several elements of the learning situation that contributed to curiosity experiences. One of
them was the specic learning environment that oered exposure to the target language.
She reected that the participants were exposed to a number of opportunities to observe the
ways in which the target language was used both inside and outside the classroom, and this
environment raised their curiosity to learn more about the language. Another was the social
and cultural characteristics of the target community. She explained that the participants had
a great number of opportunities to learn about the social and cultural side of the community
while learning the target language, and this became a source for their curiosity to learn more
about these context-specic aspects of the target society.
What the above literature highlights is rstly the scarcity of research into epistemic curi-
osity in language learning despite its great potential benets indicated in research in educa-
tion. Secondly, it points to the importance of contextualized approaches to understanding
the antecedents of epistemic curiosity. Looking across the studies investigating antecedents
of epistemic curiosity (e.g., Takkaç-Tulgar, 2018), we can gain a richer and more compre-
hensive picture about how and why learners increase curiosity toward certain objects and
topics. This suggests the importance of delving into not only the subject of the curiosity
(e.g., what learners felt curious about) but also the reasons behind it (e.g., why learners have
become curious about the subject). Such insights can be of particular value in creating the
type of learning environment that generates learners’ epistemic curiosity. This article aims
to contribute to the further understanding of L2 learners’ epistemic curiosity by reporting on
a small-scale classroom-based study that investigated the antecedents of epistemic curiosity
among Thai university students studying in an English oral communication course. The fol-
lowing research question was addressed:
What antecedents of epistemic curiosity in the L2 classroom do learners report?
Methods
Context and Participants
This study was conducted as part of a two-phased, 15-week practitioner research project
to enhance the rst author’s students’ boredom regulation through strategy instruction in
her English oral communication (EOC) course. The students’ epistemic curiosity experi-
ences were investigated during the rst phrase (i.e., from Class 1 through Class 7), for
ethical, theoretical, and methodological reasons. By including epistemic curiosity, shown to
be associated with positive learning experiences (Eren & Coskun, 2016; Kang et al., 2009;
Lauriola et al., 2015), we sought to avoid exclusive discussions on boredom, which may
involve negative learning experiences (Pawlak et al., 2020; Zawodniak et al., 2017). Related
to this point, we aimed to create an environment where students could talk about both nega-
tive and positive aspects of the lessons associated with each emotion. Lastly, based on the
literature that epistemic curiosity has the potential to reduce boredom (Berlyne, 1960; Erena
& Coskun, 2016; Keller, 1987), we intended to utilize the information about epistemic curi-
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5
1 3
osity experiences to provide context-specic, personalized strategy instruction in the second
phase1. For the investigation in this second phase, see Nakamura et al. (2021b).
The students were second-year Thai university students (16 males and nine females)
majoring in Computer Science-Multimedia (n = 15) or Engineering (n = 10). Their L2 pro-
ciency was between B1 to B2 on the Common European Framework of Reference based on
the mastery skills of the English courses that the students had completed the previous year.
The EOC course was structured around the course textbook (Unlock Listening and Speak-
ing Skills Level 4, Cambridge, 2015) and a range of communicative tasks and projects. The
class met once a week for three hours.
Data Collection
Before embarking on the data collection, we sought to develop a shared understanding of
epistemic curiosity. In order to achieve this, in Class 2 the rst author held a short session
on epistemic curiosity. She rst introduced epistemic curiosity, by using the general descrip-
tion, as the drive to know. Next, she illustrated the two dimensions (i.e., interest and depri-
vation) through visual aids (e.g., online information about popular comic books worldwide).
She and her students then agreed that epistemic curiosity is the drive to know which can rise
from interest or deprivation of knowledge. This served as a working denition of epistemic
curiosity, based on which data were collected.
We used three instruments, a whole-class survey, focus group interview, and teacher
record, to recursively collect data and triangulate them. The whole-class questionnaire was
used to collect data to generate patterns and salient themes as the antecedents of epistemic
curiosity. Focus group interviews were conducted to gain further insights into students’
experiences of epistemic curiosity. The teacher record was used to complement the stu-
dents’ reports referring to certain task names or textbook units. Each instrument is further
described below.
Whole-class Survey
In order to elicit students’ epistemic curiosity experiences in the classroom and the reasons
behind it, we administered a semi-structured questionnaire four times in Classes 3, 4, 6, and
7 by using Google Forms. At the end of each class, students were asked to think about a time
in class when they felt curious and describe the experience by lling in the following blanks:
In today’s class, I felt curious when ___ because ___ .
We sought to gain data sucient enough to be analyzed, and at the same time, we were
concerned with the burden on the students continuously responding to the questionnaire
after the three-hour class nished. Prior to the project, we had conducted a series of pilot
studies and settled on this particular prompt as being both succinct and accurate enough to
gain the information we sought. The students were encouraged to use whichever language
1 One such example was to show the contrasting experiences reported by students where positive appraisals
lead to the experience of epistemic curiosity, accompanied by positive learning experiences, as opposed to
where negative appraisals lead to the experience of boredom, resulting in disengagement from the learning
opportunity. This example was used when introducing the impact of appraisal and reappraisal strategies for
regulating boredom.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research6
1 3
(English, Thai) that they felt comfortable with. Except for a few cases, the reports were
written in English. Students were also reminded of an option to state that they did not
experience epistemic curiosity in class. The rst author read the students’ responses every
time the questionnaire was returned. Whenever she was uncertain about her understanding
of students’ descriptions, she went to talk to students in the following class and asked for
clarication or elaboration.
Focus Group Interview
The rst author conducted focus group interviews with ve (three males and two females)
of the students who volunteered to participate in the discussions. Three of them were from
the mechanical engineering department, and they had known each other for a year. Two of
them were from the chemical engineering department, and they had known each other for
a year. Five sessions were conducted after class. In the sessions, the rst author asked the
students to share their epistemic curiosity experiences, namely, when, how, and why they
experienced it during the particular class after which the interview was held. The discus-
sions were done in English, with the presence of an interpreter, a native Thai speaker, who
oered language support when there was a diculty in communication.
Teacher Record
After class every week, the rst author entered detailed information about the class into a
teacher record using a Google Doc. The record contained information such as classroom
activities, textbook sections, the use of supplemental materials. This information helped
to specify and provide further information to the tasks that students mentioned in their stu-
dents’ epistemic curiosity reports.
Data Analysis
A total of 91 responses (hereafter, quotations) were collected from the questionnaire. They
were entered into ATLAS.ti Version 8 for Mac, and a modied form of constant comparative
analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007) was used to analyze the data. Constant comparative
analysis is a qualitative data analysis method that uses data-driven approaches to gener-
ate a set of themes by coding and analyzing the data simultaneously. In our analysis, the
rst author read through the entire data set while retrieving the necessary information from
the classroom record when a particular classroom task was mentioned in the report. Next,
descriptive coding and in vivo coding (Saldaña, 2009) was used to assign each response
with as many codes as possible that represent ideas, elements, and concepts expressed in the
quotations. She went through this coding cycle several times and assigned as many codes
as possible to each quotation while discussing with the other authors. She also kept ana-
lytic memos (Saldaña, 2009) recording code choices and operational denitions; emergent
patterns, categories, and themes; possible networks; related existing theories; and related
concerns and questions. Next, the three authors discussed possible thematizations of these
codes. Using pattern coding (Saldaña, 2009), the rst author grouped the codes into themes
and constructs, discussed them with the two authors, and made modications until the three
authors reached an agreement on thematization. The memos were also utilized during the
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7
1 3
discussions. Code descriptors were then created for a reliability test. Twenty quotations
(20% > entire data set) were coded by an applied linguistics researcher who was familiar
with coding but not involved in this study. The agreement (Krippendor’s = 0.933) was
above the required value (Krippendor, 2004). Using the thematic factors emerged from
this questionnaire data analysis, the transcripts were read through and coded.
Results
The analysis of the survey data generated seven thematic factors as the antecedents of
epistemic curiosity (underlying desire, positive appraisal, peer, cognitive puzzle, novelty,
comprehensibility, exploration of the future self) and positive aect linked to it (liking
and positive emotions). Table 1 lists the seven factors together with their representative
quotations, maintaining students’ original wording. Occasionally, two or more factors were
mentioned in one quotation. Thus, frequency counts (i.e., the number of quotations that
mentioned the antecedent) as well as the number of students who mentioned the antecedent
are reported in the table. Description of the classroom activities and materials mentioned in
the quotations is provided in the table notes.
Underlying Desire
The analysis indicated that individual student’s desires, related to either L2 or communica-
tion, were the most frequently mentioned antecedent. L2 related desires included improving
L2 skills and performing well in class. For example, students reported that they felt curious
about what was presented to them in the lessons (e.g., textbook units, videos, PowerPoint
slides) because they wanted to gain more L2 knowledge and improve their L2 skills or
hoped to use the resources to perform well in class. Communication-related desires included
the desire to express and share feelings, opinions, and stories with peers, understand and
be understood, as well as choose appropriate responses. Students described, for example,
that they were curious about what their conversation partner was telling them because they
wanted to respond to the partner and tell their opinions.
Positive Appraisal
The second most frequently discussed factor was learners’ positive appraisal. Students
explained that they had become curious about the learning content that they found interest-
ing, useful, and self-relevant. For example, students reported being curious about the infor-
mation in a video because it was about tips on studying for exams. Students also reported
experiencing epistemic curiosity while studying with the textbook because they found the
content useful for their subsequent performance, such as useful phrases for debates.
Peer
The third most frequently mentioned factor was peer. It was shown that the contents and the
L2 produced by peers generated epistemic curiosity. Students explained that they wanted
to know more about their peers, were curious to learn about peers’ ideas of given topics for
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research8
1 3
Table 1 Thematic factors as the antecedents of epistemic curiosity
Factor FC* n** Representative quotations
1 Underlying desire 27 21
1-1 L2 related 16 12 I felt curious when I write about my new innovation
about using English in daily lifea because I wanna prac-
tice to present in English and use in correct grammar
and good accent.
1-2 Communication
related
11 9 I felt curious when my friends are saying because I
want to know what my friends are saying and be able
to express my feeling.
2 Positive appraisal 16 11 I felt curious when I learn about elevator pitch because
it very interesting.
3 Peer 13 9
3-1 Contents 10 7 I felt curious when Before/during/after exams activityb
because I’m curious what my friends are going to
present.
3-2 L2 3 2 I felt curious when another student will speaking be-
cause I want to know how to speak uently in English.
4Cognitive puzzle 9 7 I felt curious when Unlock Unit 3c because I can’t
remember how to use the conjunction some words +
phase but some words + sentence/phase.
5 Novelty 7 7 I felt curious when elevator pitch because it was a new
topic to me.
6 Comprehensibility 4 4 I felt curious when I was watching video about 10
things we should do before examsd because the topic is
not too dicult and I can understand more than 60%.
7Exploration of the
future self
3 3 I felt curious when I was doing the speaking task which
the topic is Your Dream Jobe because I have a question
with myself. That is “what is my dream job actually?”
Note. FC* = Frequency Counts (i.e., the number of quotations that mentioned the antecedent)
n** = The number of students who mentioned the antecedent.
a This activity was to suggest means to improve L2 skills. Students were given preparation time to choose
one aspect of L2 learning (speaking, vocabulary, etc.) and present the idea in a way t hat their classmates
would be interested in trying.
b This activity was to learn about connecting events using t ime expressions (e.g., before, after). As the last
stage of this activit y, each student created sentences to describe what they usually do before, during, and
after a n examination and presented this in a group.
c This unit introduced how to use adverbs and connectors to describe events in sequence. The class rst
read the explanations with example sentences. The teacher also added that cer tain words can only be used
with noun phrases while others ca n be used to connect clauses. The st udents t hen completed a ll-in-the-
blank exercise in the textbook.
d This video was played as the introduction to the time expression activity discussed above. A speaker in
the video t alked about what students should and should not do before examinations.
e This activity i nvolved talking about dream jobs. St udents discussed in pairs what they would li ke to do
after g raduating from university.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 9
1 3
discussion. Students also reported that they wanted to study why the classmate could speak
so uently and learn from them, such as their word choice and grammar use. In such reports,
admiration for peers was often expressed. Students wrote that they wanted to “think like”
and “become like” their peers as the reasons for them to become curious about the peers’
output. Other times, students explained that they wanted to know how similar or dierent
their opinions were.
Cognitive Puzzle
The fourth factor was a cognitive puzzle, typically evoked from solving problems in the
textbook that contained unknown words or newly learned target language features. Students
reported that they wanted to gure out how to solve the quizzes in the textbook. Some
students more specically pinpointed that they felt epistemic curiosity when the class was
about to check the answers in the quizzes.
Novelty
Novelty was identied to have played an important role in the emergence of epistemic curi-
osity. Students wrote they experienced epistemic curiosity when they were presented with
topics, activities, and tasks, because they were new. They described such experiences as “I
have never done before” and “it makes me feel excited.”
Comprehensibility
Being able to understand given content (e.g., videos, audio, texts) was provided as the rea-
son to want to know more about it. For example, a student wrote that she felt curious while
watching a short video clip and explained it was because she was able to understand the
speaker’s language. Students also discussed comprehensibility while listening to their peers
and their teacher, such as “when I understand what teacher or friends talk” and “understand
the vocabulary or conversations.” They further explained that by being able to understand
the input, they would know how to respond.
Exploration of Future Self
An exploration of uncertain ideas, typically initiated by tasks, was shown to be the anteced-
ent of epistemic curiosity. Students described their epistemic curiosity arising when they
Table 2 Positive aect involved in epistemic curiosity experiences
Positive Aect FC* n** Representative quotations
Positive emotions 6 6 I felt curious when I was
debate with friends because
I feel excited.
Liking 5 5 I felt curious when listen the
short story and answer the
question because I like it
Note. FC* = Frequency Counts (i.e., the number of quotations that mentioned the antecedent)
n** = The number of students who mentioned the antecedent.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research10
1 3
were asked to think about topics that were relevant to them but that they had not yet formu-
lated clear ideas about, such as their future plans and dream jobs.
Positive Affect Involved in Epistemic Curiosity Experiences
It emerged from the analysis that positive aect was frequently expressed in the descrip-
tion of epistemic curiosity experiences. Such aect was composed of positive emotions and
liking, as shown in Table 2. Students explained that they experienced epistemic curiosity
during classroom activities or while performing tasks because they felt excited, happy, or
enjoyment. Similarly, liking a given topic or task was also mentioned as the reason for
experiencing epistemic curiosity.
These elements discussed above, except for the factor, exploration of the future-self,
also emerged from the analysis of group interview data. Two excerpts are presented here to
illustrate how these elements appeared in the students’ discussions. The rst one, in Table 3,
is from the interview session that took place after Class 7. The students all referred to one of
the speaking activities, debate, that they had engaged in the class, and expressed how they
experienced epistemic curiosity during this activity.
Table 3 Focus group interview students’ discussion about their epistemic curiosity during debates
Transcript Emerging factor
G: Debate in my class was my favorite. It was fun. Positive appraisal
Y: Me, too. I felt curious during the debate in the table.
P: [In the activity] we learned about persuasive language, and
we have to debate to each other in the class, so I want to
express the beautiful and perfect words to debate. And I L2 related desire
don’t have enough knowledge to express. So I searched in
the dictionary, not only the meaning of it but I also searched L2 related desire
how to use this word in a sentence.
N: For me, I love the debate. My friend besides me, he says Positive aect
everything he thinks about smartphone and talk everything. I Positive aect
love the scene. I love the argument with my friends. Talk
together. Oh it’s so much fun. Positive appraisal
N: I felt curious to know what he said, to agree or what Peers
should I say, to persuade. I didn’t do this before. This is my Communication-related desire
rst time to debate in English. It makes me curious. Novelty
T: I felt curious during debate because I really would like to
know what he thinks so much, so I try to listen and feel Peers
curious about my friends’ thinking. So all of the debate
makes me curious so much.
G: I love to hear other ideas and I love to share my ideas, too. Positive aect
I want to know others’ ideas. And I want to share mine, too. Peer
Y: For me the activity made me curious because in our table
we have to separate A and B, and I have to debate with other Communication-related desire
group, so I want to know what they come up with, so that I
can debate, so I feel more curious. Communication-related desire
Note. Alphabets are used as a replacement of the focus group interview students’ nicknames
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11
1 3
The discussion above captures students’ curiosity toward peers’ production, which was
generated by their desire to discuss, communicate, and debate with peers. This type of desire
also led a student to search for L2 words to use in her speech. Positive aect was also
expressed along with the experience of epistemic curiosity.
The second excerpt in Table 4 is from the interview session held after Class 6. Students
discussed their epistemic curiosity experiences while watching a video in which a speaker
discussed 10 things students should and should not do before the exam.
The discussion above captures the students’ epistemic curiosity toward the video, of
which they made positive appraisal for its usefulness, relevance, and novelty. The discussion
shows that these positive appraisals were linked to the experience of epistemic curiosity.
Discussion
This small-scale classroom-based study has demonstrated that students experience epistemic
curiosity in response to various characteristics of classroom activities and peers, by identify-
ing seven thematic factors as its antecedents. Such antecedents and students’ descriptions of
their epistemic curiosity experiences seem to largely reect extant theories of curiosity and
previous empirical work. For example, the nding that students felt curious about learning
materials that they appraised positively lends support to claims by Boekaerts and Pekrun
(2015) and Pekrun et al. (2016) that students can experience epistemic curiosity when they
are engaged in knowledge-generating tasks and that epistemic curiosity can emerge from
their positive appraisals of such tasks. Furthermore, this nding is in line with the control-
value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2007), according to
which learners’ control and value appraisals about their learning activities and outcomes
are the primary antecedents of achievement-related emotions. Although epistemic curiosity
is not included in the achievement emotions proposed by Pekrun (2006), this nding indi-
cates that the theory may apply to epistemic curiosity in the L2 classroom learning context.
Furthermore, the importance of usefulness and self-relevance in driving curiosity has been
recognized in extant theories of curiosity (Dubey & Griths, 2020) and been documented
in previous empirical work (Dubey et al., 2019; Rossing & Long, 1981). Students’ per-
Table 4 Focus group interview students’ discussion about their epistemic curiosity ehile watching a video
Transcript Emerging factor
N: The video was fun. Positive appraisal
Yeah <everyone agrees>
P: In video it presents many ways that we can learn from it Positive appraisal
and it’s concise and short. They have good present.
T: It’s a good presentation right.
Y: For me I like the content of the video because it contains Positive aect
the facts that I never know before and it makes me realize Novelty
the points that I never think about it before.
T: For me, too. It’s useful for me too because that time is Positive appraisal
coming to me soon.
N: It’s like your opinion. I see that’s something I do but the
video says we shouldn’t do.
Note. Alphabets are used as a replacement of the focus group interview students’ nicknames
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research12
1 3
ceived value as one of the primal antecedents also supports the recent research showing that
attribute-specic anticipatory utility determines individuals’ information-seeking behavior
(Kobayashi et al., 2019; Sharot & Sunstein, 2020).
The second most frequently mentioned antecedent, peers, seems to resemble I-type epis-
temic curiosity in the dual dimensions of epistemic curiosity proposed by Litman (Litman,
2005; Litman & Jimerson, 2004). Students explained, as the reasons for becoming curious,
that they were interested in learning more about peers’ ideas and L2 use. This nding further
corroborates recent empirical work on curiosity that has documented the social nature of
curiosity (Dubey et al., 2021; Paranjape et al., 2018). Through cognitive puzzles, typically
evoked by textbook exercises, students in this study appeared to have experienced D-type
epistemic curiosity. Interestingly however, their experiences seem to dier from the theoret-
ical description of D-type epistemic curiosity, which is viewed as an uncomfortably intense
“need-like” state involving unpleasant and aversive feelings of uncertainty (Lauriola et al.,
2015, p. 203; Litman 2008; Mussel, 2010). When students discussed their epistemic curios-
ity experiences in relation to wanting to know the answers in the textbook quizzes, their
provided reasons were that they liked or enjoyed learning English, that they were happy to
get correct answers, or that they wanted to improve their English skills. In other words, it
seems that their being deprived of knowledge was positively characterized by their general
interest in and positive feelings toward L2 learning.
The nding that comprehensibility was shown to be one of the antecedents, lends sup-
port to the self-determination theory perspective on epistemic curiosity (Zhao et al., 2011),
according to which epistemic curiosity can be enhanced by experiencing a sense of compe-
tence, i.e., being capable of performing a task. The nding about comprehensibility is also
consistent with theories of curiosity that consider the eect of task diculty on curiosity
(Dubey & Griths, 2020; Oudeyer et al., 2016) with empirical work showing that learners
are more curious about moderately dicult tasks (Geana et al., 2016; Ten et al., 2020).
This study appears to oer new insight into epistemic curiosity in L2 classroom learning,
that is, a striking role of individual students’ underlying desires behind the manifestation
of their epistemic curiosity. Toward the same object (e.g., a speaker) with which students
reported their epistemic curiosity experiences, they discussed varying reasons for becom-
ing curious. Some explained that they wanted to examine how a speaker was able to speak
so uently, while some explained that they wanted to compare their ideas with those of the
speaker. Some also elaborated that they wanted to fully understand what the speaker was
saying so that they could respond appropriately. This implies that it is not the unexpected
information or cognitive incongruity (Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2015; Pekrun et al., 2016) per
se that generates students’ epistemic curiosity, but it is the desire that individual students
hold for communication and their L2 development that drives them to learn more about
what they encounter in the L2 classroom. This further suggests the need to adopt more situ-
ated, context-specic approaches to understand ID factors (Ryan, 2020), inducing emotions.
Epistemic curiosity is an object-focused emotion, meaning that individuals experience epis-
temic curiosity to a certain object (i.e., information). At the same time, investigations should
not focus merely on the objects; they need to take into account why learners have experi-
enced epistemic curiosity toward the object in the rst place if the goal of the research is to
inform practice and suggest pedagogical implications to generate epistemic curiosity in the
L2 classroom.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13
1 3
Several limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. First, the antecedents were
generated from a small number of participants. Although we employed repeated data collec-
tion to capture various situations in the L2 classroom, some of the factors can be attributed
to the characteristics of the course in which this study was conducted. A bigger sample size
or longer data collection period may conrm the ndings from this study. It would also
be useful to attempt to replicate these ndings in another classroom and potentially with
another instructor. We also recognize the impact of the rst author’s dual teacher-researcher
roles in this study. Although we believe that the rst author was able to cultivate an open
relationship with the students, we recognize the possibility that students’ reports may not
be entirely bias-free. We also acknowledge the possible bias on the part of the rst author,
which may have aected the interpretation of the data, despite various means (e.g., repeated
discussions with the other authors, inter-rater reliability checking) taken to question her
viewpoints and enhance conrmability of the data interpretation. Despite its limitations, this
study oers several pedagogical implications. The antecedents identied in this study indi-
cate a range of approaches to creating learning environments that inspire students’ epistemic
curiosity. For example, teachers can provide tasks and topics that students nd interesting,
relevant, or useful for them, or present content in a way that generates cognitive puzzles.
Various communicative tasks that oer students opportunities to share and discuss ideas and
learn from each other can be a locus of epistemic curiosity, as indicated by this study. It is
also useful to be aware that individual learners’ motivation toward their L2 improvement
can play an important role in the emergence of epistemic curiosity. This implies that nding
out students’ goal orientations can be a good starting point to create a curiosity-generating
classroom.
Conclusions
This study has oered contextualized accounts of how and why L2 learners experience epis-
temic curiosity in the classroom. The analysis of students’ reports on their epistemic curios-
ity experiences demonstrated how a range of factors in the L2 classroom such as tasks and
peers come into play in the emergence of epistemic curiosity and how individual learners’
desire for communication and L2 improvement fueled their curiosity. While a positive role
of epistemic curiosity has been researched in the elds of general education and educational
psychology, investigations into epistemic curiosity in L2 learning are scarce. We hope that
this study will generate interest in and further explorations of this positive emotion in the
eld of SLA.
List of Abbreviations
L2 Second/foreign language.
I-type Interest-type.
D-type Deprivation-type.
EOC English oral communication.
Authors’ Contributions This research was designed collaboratively by the three authors. Sachiko Nakamura
collected the data and took the leading role in the data analysis, and was a major contributor in writing the
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research14
1 3
manuscript. Pornapit Darasawang and Hayo Reinders contributed to the data analysis, from the initial coding
development to the nalization of the coding. All authors read and approved the nal manuscript.
Funding This study was part of a larger project, for which we received funding, titled “Research funding
for postgraduate student projects” from School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s university of Technology
Thonburi. The funding was used for hiring an interpreter/translator for focus group interviews.
Availability of Data and Material NA.
Code Availability NA.
Declarations
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in
technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 59(2), 181–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9190-9
Aschieri, F., Durosini, I., & Smith, J. D. (2018). Self-curiosity: Denition and measurement. Self and Iden-
tity, 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1543728
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180–191. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill
Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153, 25–33
Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic settings. In L, Corno & E,
Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 90–104). New York: Routledge
Collins, R. P., Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2004). The measurement of perceptual curiosity. Person-
ality and Individual Dierences, 36, 1127–1141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00205-8
Dewaele, J. M. (2015). On emotions in foreign language learning and use. The Language Teacher, 39(3),
13-15. Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/12944
Dewaele, J. M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign
language classroom. Studies in second language learning and teaching, 4(2), 237–274
Dewaele, J. M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The
eect of teacher and learner variables. Language teaching research, 22(6), 676–697. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168817692161
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge
Dubey, R., & Griths, T. L. (2020). Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curi-
osity. Psychological Review, 127(3), 455–476. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000175
Dubey, R., Griths, T., & Lombrozo, T. (2019). If it’s important, then I am curious: A value intervention to
induce curiosity. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mon-
treal, QC: Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from https://cognition.princeton.edu/publications/
if-it%E2%80%99s-important-then-i-am-curious-value-intervention-induce-curiosity
Dubey, R., Mehta, H., & Lombrozo, T. (2021). Curiosity is contagious: A social inuence intervention to
induce curiosity. Cognitive science, 45(2), e12937. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12937
Eren, A. (2009). Examining the relationship between epistemic curiosity and achievement goals. Egitim
Arastirmalari - Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 129–144
Eren, A., & Coskun, H. (2016). Students’ level of boredom, boredom coping strategies, epistemic curiosity,
and graded performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 574–588. doi: https://doi.org/1
0.1080/00220671.2014.999364
Geana, A., Wilson, R., Daw, N. D., & Cohen, J. D. (2016). Boredom, information-seeking and exploration.
Cognitive Science
Gurning, B., & Siregar, A. (2017). The Eect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement
in Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 10(11), 191–198
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 15
1 3
Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T. Y., & Camerer, C. F.
(2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances
memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–973. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instruc-
tional Development, 10(3), 1–10
Kobayashi, K., Ravaioli, S., Baranès, A., Woodford, M., & Gottlieb, J. (2019). Diverse motives for human
curiosity. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(6), 587–595. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0589-3
Krippendor, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommenda-
tions. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.3.411
Lauriola, M., Litman, J. A., Mussel, P., De Santis, R., Crowson, H. M., & Homan, R. R. (2015). Epistemic
curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Dierences, 83, 202–207. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: a call for data analysis
triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557
Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition
and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation dimensions of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 44, 1585–1595. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 82, 147–157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 43(6), 1448–1459. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.021
Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specic com-
ponents. Journal of personality assessment, 80(1), 75–86. 0.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin,
116, 75–98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
Mahmoodzadeh, M., & Khajavy, G. H. (2018). Towards conceptualizing language learning curiosity in SLA:
An empirical study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(2), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10936-018-9606-3
Markey, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2014). Curiosity. In R. Pekrun & L Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.),
International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 238-255). Routledge. doi: https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203148211
Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Per-
sonality and Individual Dierences, 49(5), 506–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
Nakamura, S. (2018). How I see it: An exploratory study on attributions and emotions in L2 learning. Studies
in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 553–574
Nakamura, S., Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2021a). The antecedents of boredom in L2 classroom learn-
ing. System, 98, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102469
Nakamura, S., Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2021b). A practitioner study on the implementation of strat-
egy instruction for boredom regulation. Language Teaching Research. (Online view rst), 1–23. https://
doi.org/10.1177/13621688211010272
Oudeyer, P. Y., Gottlieb, J., & Lopes, M. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and learning: Theory and
applications in educational technologies. Progress in Brain Research, 229, 257–284. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.05.005
Palmer, D. (2018). Positive and negative curiosity experiences among tertiary students. Global Journal of
Education Studies, 4(1), 90–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.5296/gjes.v4i1.13226
Paranjape, B., Bai, Z., & Cassell, J. (2018). Predicting the Temporal and Social Dynamics of Curiosity in
Small Group Learning. In: Penstein Rosé C. et al. (Eds) Articial Intelligence in Education (pp. 1-31).
Cham, Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_31
Pawlak, M., Kruk, M., Zawodniak, J., & Pasikowski, S. (2020). Investigating factors responsible for bore-
dom in English classes: The case of advanced learners. System, 91, 1–10
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implica-
tions for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value of achievement emotions: An
integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in Educa-
tion (pp. 13–36). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning
and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2),
91–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research16
1 3
Pekrun, R., Vogl, E., Muis, K. R., & Sinatra, G. M. (2016). Measuring emotions during epistemic activities:
the Epistemically-related emotion scales. Cognition and Emotion, 31(6), 1268–1276. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1204989
Renner, B. (2006). Curiosity about people: The development of a social curiosity measure in adults. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 305–316. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_11
Rossing, B. E., & Long, H. B. (1981). Contributions of curiosity and relevance to adult learning motivation.
Adult Education, 32(1), 25–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200102
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge. Learning and
Instruction, 32, 37–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.002
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage
Sharot, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (2020). How people decide what they want to know. Nature Human Behaviour,
4(1), 14–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0793-1
Shin, D., Lee, H., Lee, G., & Kim, S. (2019). The role of curiosity and interest in learning and motivation. In
K. Renninger, & S. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Motivation and Learning (pp. 443–464).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.020
Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F. O’Neil Jr., & M. Drill-
ings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and Research (pp. 221–243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Takkaç-Tulgar, A. (2018). The eects of curiosity on second language learning in terms of linguistic, social-
cultural and pragmatic development. Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2), 59–72
Ten, A., Kaushik, P., Oudeyer, P. Y., & Gottlieb, J. (2020). Humans monitor learning progress in curiosity-
driven exploration, PsyArXiv Preprints, 1-30. doi: 0.31234/osf.io/7dbr6
Zawodniak, J., Kruk, M., & Chumas, J. (2017). Towards conceptualizing boredom as an emotion in the EFL
academic context. Konin Language Studies,5(4), 425–441
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Huang, W. (2011). What makes them happy and curious online? An empirical
study on high school students’ Internet use from a self-determination theory perspective. Computers &
Education, 56(2), 346–356
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
... e main function of this module is to establish identities for users in the system, and it is necessary to establish a unique identity address so that identities can be differentiated among users. And in order to protect the user's privacy, the user's identity address information cannot relate to the real identity [13]. Secondly, the user identity establishment function needs to realize how the user proves that his identity is real and detects whether the identity of others is real to prevent impostor users. ...
Article
Full-text available
With the increasing trend of globalization, English, as the most widely used language in the world, has become a subject that many people must learn. English for special purposes is mainly applied to some specialized occupations or English in specific professional skill fields. Due to the increasing national demand for professional compound talents, the status of English for special purposes is also getting higher and higher. However, there are still many problems in the curriculum setting of English for special purposes, for example, outdated teaching mode, lack of oral language skills training, lack of students’ ability to cope with actual situations, weak teaching awareness of teachers, and lack of analysis of students’ needs for English for special purposes, resulting in poor students’ enthusiasm for learning and so on. With the support of blockchain technology, combined with consensus algorithm, hash function algorithm, and smart contract, this paper analyzes English for special purposes, establishes an ESP management system and a corpus of spoken English for special purposes, and analyzes the integrity of the corpus data. The test found that when the number of error data blocks is 10, the total number of damaged data blocks and verification accuracy data blocks is about 4% in order to achieve 99% accuracy. Therefore, the integrity of the system is higher when the damage ratio is lower. The system integrity test finds that, with the number of wrong data being larger, when the wrong data block is at 100, 50% of the data blocks of the system integrity are about 1%. The database is complete, which is more helpful for students to study systematically.
Article
Full-text available
Our actions and decisions are regularly influenced by the social environment around us. Can social cues be leveraged to induce curiosity and affect subsequent behavior? Across two experiments, we show that curiosity is contagious: The social environment can influence people's curiosity about the answers to scientific questions. Participants were presented with everyday questions about science from a popular on-line forum, and these were shown with a high or low number of up-votes as a social cue to popularity. Participants indicated their curiosity about the answers, and they were given an opportunity to reveal a subset of those answers. Participants reported greater curiosity about the answers to questions when the questions were presented with a high (vs. low) number of up-votes, and they were also more likely to choose to reveal the answers to questions with a high (vs. low) number of up-votes. These effects were partially mediated by surprise and by the inferred usefulness of knowledge, with a more dramatic effect of low up-votes in reducing curiosity than of high up-votes in boosting curiosity. Taken together, these results highlight the important role social information plays in shaping our curiosity.
Article
Full-text available
Immense amounts of information are now accessible to people, including information that bears on their past, present and future. An important research challenge is to determine how people decide to seek or avoid information. Here we propose a framework of information-seeking that aims to integrate the diverse motives that drive information-seeking and its avoidance. Our framework rests on the idea that information can alter people’s action, affect and cognition in both positive and negative ways. The suggestion is that people assess these influences and integrate them into a calculation of the value of information that leads to information-seeking or avoidance. The theory offers a framework for characterizing and quantifying individual differences in information-seeking, which we hypothesize may also be diagnostic of mental health. We consider biases that can lead to both insufficient and excessive information-seeking. We also discuss how the framework can help government agencies to assess the welfare effects of mandatory information disclosure. Sharot and Sunstein propose a framework of information-seeking, whereby individuals decide to seek or avoid information based on combined estimates of the potential impact of information on their action, affect and cognition.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Curiosity is considered essential for learning and sustained engagement , yet stimulating curiosity in educational contexts remains a challenge. Can people's curiosity about a topic be stimulated by evidence that the topic has potential value? In two experiments we show that increasing people's perceptions about the usefulness of a scientific topic also influences their curiosity and subsequent information search. Our results also show that simply presenting interesting facts is not enough to influence curiosity, and that people are more likely to be curious about a topic if they perceive it to be directly valuable to them. Given the link between curiosity and learning, these results have important implications for science communication and education more broadly.
Article
Full-text available
Curiosity is considered to be the essence of science and an integral component of cognition. What prompts curiosity in a learner? Previous theoretical accounts of curiosity remain divided-novelty-based theories propose that new and highly uncertain stimuli pique curiosity, whereas complexity-based theories propose that stimuli with an intermediate degree of uncertainty stimulate curiosity. In this article, we present a rational analysis of curiosity by considering the computational problem underlying curiosity, which allows us to model these distinct accounts of curiosity in a common framework. Our approach posits that a rational agent should explore stimuli that maximally increase the usefulness of its knowledge and that curiosity is the mechanism by which humans approximate this rational behavior. Critically, our analysis show that the causal structure of the environment can determine whether curiosity is driven by either highly uncertain or moderately uncertain stimuli. This suggests that previous theories need not be in contention but are special cases of a more general account of curiosity. Experimental results confirm our predictions and demonstrate that our theory explains a wide range of findings about human curiosity, including its subjectivity and malleability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
Curiosity—our desire to know—is a fundamental drive in human behaviour, but its mechanisms are poorly understood. A classical question concerns the curiosity motives. What drives individuals to become curious about some but not other sources of information?¹ Here we show that curiosity about probabilistic events depends on multiple aspects of the distribution of these events. Participants (n = 257) performed a task in which they could demand advance information about only one of two randomly selected monetary prizes that contributed to their income. Individuals differed markedly in the extent to which they requested information as a function of the ex ante uncertainty or ex ante value of an individual prize. This heterogeneity was not captured by theoretical models describing curiosity as a desire to learn about the total rewards of a situation2,3. Instead, it could be explained by an extended model that allowed for attribute-specific anticipatory utility—the savouring of individual components of the eventual reward—and postulates that this utility increased nonlinearly with the certainty of receiving the reward. Parameter values fitting individual choices were consistent for information about gains or losses, suggesting that attribute-specific anticipatory utility captures fundamental heterogeneity in the determinants of curiosity.
Article
This article recounts my experience in enhancing my students' boredom regulation by designing, implementing, and evaluating a strategy instruction project. The project was undertaken with 25 Thai university students enrolled in my English oral communication course for 15 weeks. The project began with exploring how and why my students experienced boredom in my classroom and their habitual boredom coping strategies while examining and modifying the initial design of my strategy instruction. Between weeks 8 and 12, I implemented five boredom regulation strategy sessions by using reappraisals and boredom coping as key components. Students engaged in guided practice, developed their own boredom regulation strategy toolkit, shared their ideas with peers, and reflected on their strategy use. Triangulating data from whole-class surveys, focus group interviews, and the toolkits, I illustrate the positive impact of the project shown on my students' boredom regulation and on my teacher-researcher development, despite the challenges associated with the complex nature of boredom regulation in an authentic instructional setting. This study sheds light on the ways that students and their teacher can work together to cope with boredom in second language (L2) classroom learning.
Article
This classroom-based study investigated the antecedents of boredom among Thai university students enrolled in an English oral communication course. The primary data collection tool was a whole-class survey (n = 25) eliciting the learners’ boredom experiences in a particular class over the course of seven weeks. Concurrently, focus group interviews (n = 5) were conducted five times to gain in-depth views about boredom and its antecedents in the L2 learning context in general, as well as the learners’ boredom experiences in the class. A modified version of constant comparative analysis of the survey data yielded nine thematic factors as the antecedents of boredom, which were supported by the interview findings. Activity mismatch, lack of comprehension, insufficient L2 knowledge/ability, task difficulty, input overload, and lack of ideas were shown to create conditions under which internal learner factors and external classroom factors were ill-balanced or mismatched, resulting in the emergence of boredom. Learners’ physical fatigue, unfavorable appraisals of classroom tasks, and negative behaviors of classmates were also identified as the antecedents of boredom. Adopting a situated approach to exploring L2 learners’ boredom, this study sheds light on the situated, context-dependent view of how and why learners experience boredom through an emic perspective.
Preprint
Curiosity-driven learning is foundational to human cognition. By enabling humans to autonomously decide when and what to learn, curiosity has been argued to be crucial for self-organizing temporally extended learning curricula. However, the mechanisms driving people to set intrinsic goals, when they are free to explore multiple learning activities, are still poorly understood. Computational theories propose different heuristics, including competence measures (e.g. percent correct, or PC) and learning progress (LP), that could be used as intrinsic utility functions to efficiently organize exploration. Such intrinsic utilities constitute computationally cheap but smart heuristics to prevent people from laboring in vain on random activities, while still motivating them to self-challenge on difficult learnable activities. Here, we provide empirical evidence for these ideas by means of a novel experimental paradigm and computational modeling. We show that while humans rely on competence information to avoid easy tasks, models that include an LP component provide the best fit to task selection data. These results provide a new bridge between research on artificial and biological curiosity, reveal strategies that are used by humans but have not been considered in computational research, and provide new tools for probing how humans become intrinsically motivated to learn and acquire interests and skills on extended time scales.
Article
Although boredom is among the most commonly experienced emotions in the foreign and second (L2) language classroom, it has so far been given little empirical attention compared to other learner variables, such as anxiety, joy or interest. This paper provides an overview of previous research examining various aspects of boredom in L2 learning and reports the results of a study which aimed to identify factors underlying boredom in the L2 classroom, also looking into the mediating effects of general boredom proneness and attainment. Participants were 107 Polish-speaking English majors who completed the Boredom in Practical English Language Classes Questionnaire (BPELC). The Boredom Proneness Scale and end-of-the-year examination grades were used to divide the participants into less and more prone to boredom as well as high- and low-achievers. Exploratory factor analysis and independent samples t-tests were used to analyze the data. Two factors underlying boredom were extracted: (F1) disengagement, monotony and repetitiveness, and (F2) lack of satisfaction and challenge. Statistically significant differences were revealed between students who were less and more prone to boredom for both factors, and between low- and high-achievers for F1.