Reflections on difficulties with the theory

The two-dimensional representation of curiosity may be too limited. As I read the theory, I find I would like to see represented two topics not currently in the image—interest and personal/social contexts. These contexts may act as brakes, may act as accelerators, and probably always influence the expression of curiosity.

I don't really know how to depict these two characteristics. The closest I can come is to a color theory illustration such as the following (mmas.unca.edu) that uses three axes to explain the range of any particular color (or hue) from white to black. In terms of curiosity, as the interest became higher the person would move toward white, from which all colors can emerge, and as interest lowers, the person would move toward black where no activity occurs. Highest interest then would be the flat surface at the top and lowest would be the point at the bottom. But this illustration does not yet show a way that the brakes and accelerators work.

Returning to the classroom, a teacher of any topic will be confronted by a range of circles, arcs, and rates of rotation. The issue is to determine what to do. One question, one to ask to get this discussion going, is What strategies can a teacher (or a learner for that matter) use to expand the size of the arc?

Right now I don't know. I don't know how to make "curiosity expand" (if expand is the correct word). I don’t know why I am willing to be curious. I don't remember ever thinking "oh, that is how curiosity works, so now I can do this in that situation." But I have it, and I can turn it on or off. I can get myself interested to explore just about any topic or object. At this time in my life that seems to me to be one of the most interesting, satisfying, compelling actions I can engage in.

The only intellectual strategy that I can think of that appears to cause curiosity, or at least gives the impression of producing the results of curiosity, is the old journalism heuristic—Ask Who? What? Where? When? Why?

In another direction I am very aware that education is impeded by the lack of curiosity which can show up in ways that can seriously affect a group in a class. Consider this scenario. Years ago a colleague and I, both young relatively inexperienced teachers, were teaching literature to freshmen. A standard approach in such a course is the Socratic method of asking a question of a person, then following up with related questions. On this day my colleague had asked a student "What do you think of character X?" The student, demonstrating the stuck curiosity circle beautifully, said, "I would never think of that." End of discussion.

The emotional situation here is important. The student more or less "stuffed" the teacher. There is no place to go with that answer. Thus the student is off the hook. But in addition the student makes social points. She demonstrated that she was in control. The teacher could not force the student's circle to rotate. Furthermore the student illustrates a social pressure—thinking about literature is not a good thing to do, for who knows what reasons. Of course it could be that the student also acted in self-defense, not knowing the answer or wishing to give it, not willing to reveal herself in the situation. In terms of the curiosity wheel, this student's wheel is braked and the arc is a straight line. In short the teacher is now in the difficult position of getting out of the emotional bind and of getting this student's and all the other students' curiosity circles freed up.

Back then to the teaching/learning question. What do you do to free up the wheel and enlarge the arc?