Curiosity and Learning

 

In the 1950s Daniel Berlyne was one of the first psychologists to offer a comprehensive model of curiosity. He argued that we all seek the sweet spot between two deeply uncomfortable states: understimulation (coping with tasks, people, or situations that lack sufficient novelty, complexity, uncertainty, or conflict) and overstimulation. To that end we use either what Berlyne called “diversive curiosity” (as when a bored person searches for something—anything—to boost arousal) or what he called “specific curiosity” (as when a hyperstimulated person tries to understand what’s happening in order to reduce arousal to a more manageable level). [HBR]

That got me thinking. Where does Curiosity and L&D intersect and how does curiosity motivate people to learn?

A lot of times in an org context, people seek learning when they are looking for something specific or when there is a desire for knowledge. It may also be exploration of a topic. So, my argument is that L&D falls largely in the bottom half of the above diagram - which is the Cognitive half - and it could be both - Diversive and specific.  

However, this is not to say L&D cannot be sensory. It may well be when we want to think of Sensory to ensure people learn. My argument is that sensory first does not get people to learn unless the basic need - the desire for knowledge and specificity is met. Sensory approaches can get you engagement, but not stickiness. For stickiness - the fundamental desire - the need of the respondent has to be tapped into. If they dont think they need it - they wont learn. 

So, how do we ensure that learners see the need that we see as a need that they truly want to satisfy? Or put it the other way round - how can we ensure that we are able to identify their need so well as to be able to satisfy it? Instead of rushing towards the sensory side of the matrix and trying to create a need that perhaps dont see at all?