Dear Gloria, I embed a post that points out the four stages of curiosity and how they may be addressed in education. This, of course, only reflects one person's view. The second post suggest that our existing knowledge guides our curiosity. The final post suggests that it is advisable 'to teach ignorance'. This sounds somewhat harsh, but it just means that we should point out to our students that not everything is known in a particular field.

http://www.teachthought.com/critical-thinking/inquiry/4-stages-of-curiosity/

http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/curiosity-depends-on-what-you-already-know

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/opinion/the-case-for-teaching-ignorance.html?emc=edit_th_20150824&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=67610610&_r=2

Dear Gloria,

Let me begin by noting that curiosity is NOT always good . . . remember the cat!!

As I have seen many times, over 40+ years as a professor/professor emeritus, curiosity can be stimulated in ourselves and others by means of rewards (and threats of punishment) such as "publish or perish", new ideas required to obtain continuing research funding, or simply to obtain a graduate degree (at least in the "old days").

That being said, I have observed that the best curiosity (i.e., the naturally curious brain) is an innate characteristic (i.e., predominantly inheritied and genetically controlled) and highly correlated with IQ. Conversely, the opposite (e.g., the pedantic brain) is also predominantly genetically controlled. A significant portion, albeit rather small, of the associated variance (i.e., in terms of "brain curiosity") is due to (modified by) the environment, both social and learning. However, when you get right down to it, you cannot escape the truth in the old maxim that "you cannot make a silk purse out of a pig ear".

I hope that my response is of some assistance. Your question is good and I trust that I have not waxed and waned too philosophical . . . 

Sincerely,

Lou Pagliaro

In my view (and this is an old debate of course!), curiosity is socially constructed and so anything that assists us in developing questions, answering them and moving on to further questions is helpful.  

Dear Gloria, I embed a post that points out the four stages of curiosity and how they may be addressed in education. This, of course, only reflects one person's view. The second post suggest that our existing knowledge guides our curiosity. The final post suggests that it is advisable 'to teach ignorance'. This sounds somewhat harsh, but it just means that we should point out to our students that not everything is known in a particular field.

http://www.teachthought.com/critical-thinking/inquiry/4-stages-of-curiosity/

http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/curiosity-depends-on-what-you-already-know

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/opinion/the-case-for-teaching-ignorance.html?emc=edit_th_20150824&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=67610610&_r=2

Many Thanks Leona.They are much appreciated! Years ago I remember reading about Ignorance Logs medical  Interns were required to keep because they were rushing to a patient's diagnosis. Their log entries forced them to identify what they didn't know, what they still needed to find out; to listen to the patient rather than react.  

Lovely entries and some great reading! Thanks for your curiosity and generosity!

How do you foster curiosity?

1. Learn with a sense of the now

In Buddhist thought humans need to be open to the unfolding potentiality of the moment and to what arises out of temporality. Each new moment is a chance for discovery, evaluation and personal growth or enlightenment. 

I think that this is a clue to what makes one fresh, open and every learning, which is at the heart of curiosity. As a person invests in the now, in the arisings of thought, feeling and new learning, there is often innovative engagement with ideas and an openness to change and repositioning of old thinking.

The problem with being stuck in the old and not fresh in the new is that there is a cycle of just being in the past and in how it has always been done and always been thought. Being in the now brings focus to the new.

2. Be open to novelty 

I also like the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead, and his book Process and Reality. He theorised that all new phenomena are a collision or a collocation of entries that come into novel relationship with each other. I suppose it is the case that phenomena need to be able to come  (have a context for coming) into novel relationships, but it is more important that we are open (curious) to apprehend novelty. It is in the open looking for the new, the novel that is significant.

3. Practice creativity

Academics can get caught up in a particular discourse that may not facilitate creative or innovative thinking. Perhaps it is good to practice creativity and to make it part of our routines and knowledge practices. I write a lot of poetry and I also love to map ideas and do provocative/daring writing that is not exactly academic in style and tone. But for me it has led to some original thinking and explorations.

Edwin, Many, many thanks for your contribution. I wonder if you are practising creativity in your poetry and provocative writing or rather working to disrupt routine practices as you are being further educated by surprises. All academics should stir this pot and its discomfort.   Attention to novel ideas and slowing down ( both the noise and the information bombarding us) can I believe assist this thinking. I feel provocation is essential in my learning and in my teaching. It's important; to constantly question my assumptions and have my students question assumptions. Maxine Greene and Jerome Bruner's notion of possible worlds. Green's Salon of imagination, possibility and wide awaken (ness) is a space worth entering.  

Thanks Gloria. Yes, you are right that what I do is a disruptive set of practices. to add to your excellent list of thinkers in this space might be Michel Foucault. His notion that epistemological change occurs in those points of disruption after a period of stability and normalisation. He is writing about large social and historical forces for sure, but the same notion could also be applied at the personal level of knowledge practice.

Edwin provided a way he is fostering curiosity in himself. I wanted to share a story told or read long ago (memory diminishes my reality) that I may well embellish about a teacher who fostered curiosity in his students.

This Secondary history teacher had a class of very competitive learners who were far more interested in getting high grades than in learning. The teacher gave his first test and all the students failed. The students were outraged. The teacher explained that everything he was feeding them and they were feeding back were lies. So from that point forward the students would need to be on their toes as to when he was sharing historical 'truths' and when he was sharing nonsense. While we can quibble about his extreme measure and what we deem an historical 'truth', this teacher was witness to those  students, reading, researching, questioning...

There is a story told about the Buddha. He was sitting with his disciples and one was fully praising him and say how much truth he had. Then the Buddha responded by telling him how does he know that he hasn't been lied to all these years. Why should he believe anything that he is taught? The point of the story is that one must not only be curious about things but also critical of all things.