At Cognitive Group last Friday, we watched the TED Talk of Sir Ken Robinson. In that talk, Robinson raises concerns about whether our educational system is designed in a way that kills creativity. The group discussed several of Robinson's ideas including different ways of learning, how assessment testing figures into the issue, specific experiences that "teach" students to avoid risking mistakes, and the tendency for us to think about our education in terms of "how to get an A" or "how to stand out for grad school." Our conversation ended with a consideration of what we can do as students and educators to return the focus back to the intrinsic value of education...learning for learning's sake. How do we recapture our childhood passion and curiosity?
Silvia (2008) shares some ideas regarding Interest: The curious emotion that might help shed some light on our discussion. Specifically, he would argue that interest plays a major role in how we acquire knowledge. For example, we engage more with material when we are interested and with this increased attention comes the potential for long-term learning. However, Silvia also points out that interest is a tricky emotion to define. He classifies interest as a knowledge emotion which also includes confusion, surprise, and awe (p. 57). What distinguishes interest is its function which is directly related to supporting the learning process. Silvia suggests that, "when interested, students persist longer at learning tasks, spend more time studying, read more deeply, remember more of what they read, and get better grades in their classes" (p. 58).
So how, specifically, does interest occur? Silvia describes what seems like a two-stage process. Initially, students should be given some general background knowledge regarding a topic. This general background then prepares them for the second step in the process in which the opportunity for novel and challenging experiences with the concept are offered. Silvia highlights the importance of the first step by offering an example--if two sets of students are taken on a field trip to a museum, one group with some background knowledge of art history and the other without, the group who has been "prepared" is more likely to engage with the experience and to take more from it (p. 58). In other words, curiosity is ignited by a challenge when the tools to "take on" that challenge are in place. Silvia also suggests that "curiosity is a way of managing arousal" in that we will look for new experiences when we are bored and that as we become more interested in a subject, we will begin to identify its complexities which, in turn, will re-energize our exploratory efforts (p. 59). The implied "feedback mechanism" of interest seems to argue that the main goal for educators should be to initiate student engagement and then to let that process unfold.
Still, I wonder how much of this process varies according to individual differences. I know that I am often confounded by the lack of enthusiasm some people display for topics that I find fascinating. And, I'm sure, this disconnect happens a lot between students just beginning in an area and professors who are passionate about it. How do we create a sense of "group interest"? How can we generate interest in students before they have the background of information necessary to be curious about a field? Is it possible to initiate interest in an unknown area before students become bored or frustrated by the field?
Identifying ways to generate interest in the classroom is not an easy task and researchers seem eager to revisit this challenge. Hmm...how does that work? Feel free to offer your ideas and suggestions!
Paul J. Silvia (2008). Interest—The Curious Emotion Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (1), 57-60 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x