A Case For Domain-Specific Curiosity in Mathematics

Educational Psychology Review (2019) 31:807–832
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09501-4
REVIEW ARTICLE
A Case for Domain-Specific Curiosity in Mathematics
Emily Grossnickle Peterson 1 & Jana Cohen

1
Published online: 19 August 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Epistemic curiosity is a desire for knowledge accompanied by positive emotions, increased
arousal, and exploratory behavior (Grossnickle, Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–
60, 2016). Although curiosity has typically been characterized as a domain-general construct,
domain-general conceptualizations do not acknowledge systematic changes in an individuals’
development (e.g., domain knowledge) as they advance within a domain. Moreover, a domain-
general conceptualization of curiosity stands in direct contrast to research on interest, given
that interest is typically described as domain-specific (e.g., interest for mathematics). Without a
domain-specific conceptualization of curiosity as it relates to development within academic
domains, comparisons between curiosity and interest will remain muddled. In the present
theoretical review, we put forward a conceptualization of curiosity as domain-specific and
examine how the components of curiosity develop within one academic domain: mathematics.
In doing so, we juxtapose conceptualizations of epistemic curiosity with literature related to the
development of other epistemic factors (i.e., knowledge, epistemic beliefs) in mathematics.
Specifically, we build on the knowledge gap theories of epistemic curiosity (Litman, Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 397–410, 2010; Loewenstein, Psychological Bulletin,
116(1), 75–98, 1994) to consider developmental shifts in (a) knowledge gaps, (b) heightened
arousal, and (c) exploratory behaviors within the domain of mathematics. Understanding the
domain-specific and developmental nature of curiosity is critical for distinguishing curiosity
from interest and for supporting motivation within mathematics classrooms.
Keywords Curiosity . Interests . Exploratory behavior . Information-seeking . Epistemology .

Knowledge level . Mathematics education . Mathematical ability
Although social psychologists and educational scholars have studied curiosity for decades
(Berlyne 1960; Dewey 1910), curiosity has recently garnered renewed attention within educa-
tional psychology (e.g., Grossnickle 2016; Jirout et al. 2018; Muis et al. 2015b; Park et al. 2017).
* Emily Grossnickle Peterson

epeterso@american.edu
1
School of Education, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20016, USA
808 Educational Psychology Review (2019) 31:807–832
Dewey (1910) described curiosity (as well as interest) as a necessary component for effective
learning, arguing that teachers should bootstrap lessons to students’ existing interests. There is
considerable evidence that students learn more when they are interested (Ainley et al. 2002;
Renninger and Hidi 2016). A smaller, but growing body of research suggests that curiosity has a
similar, positive impact on learning (Gruber et al. 2014; Kang et al. 2009; McGillivray et al. 2015;
van Schijndel et al. 2018). Students who report feeling curious more often (i.e., high trait curiosity)
have better academic outcomes than students who report lower overall curiosity (i.e., low trait
curiosity) (Reio and Wiswell 2000; Wavo 2004). Similarly, curiosity to learn specific pieces of
information has been associated with enhanced short-term and long-term recall of information
(Gruber et al. 2014; Kang et al. 2009). Additional benefits of curiosity include exploration and
persistence during learning tasks (Ainley and Ainley 2011; Grossnickle 2014; Litman et al. 2005),
setting achievable goals (Muis et al. 2018), engaging in inquiry-related scientific exploration (Wu
et al. 2018), and using strategic processing during self-regulated learning (Bowler 2010; Muis
et al. 2015b, 2018).
Most of the research on the effects of curiosity on learning has taken place in domain-
general contexts (e.g., learning trivia facts; McGillivray et al. 2015; Kang et al. 2009), or has
examined curiosity during text-based processing (Ainley and Ainley 2011; Bowler 2010;
Grossnickle 2014; Knobloch et al. 2004; Trevors et al. 2017). We do not dispute that
individuals vary in domain-general curiosity (i.e., curiosity as a personality trait), a finding
that has been well-substantiated in prior research (Kashdan et al. 2018; Litman 2008). Rather,
we argue that it is limiting to only examine curiosity as domain-general, as individuals bring
both domain-general and domain-specific individual differences to learning contexts (Cromley
et al. 2017; Muis et al. 2006).
In this review, we focus on a specific form of intrinsic motivation—epistemic curiosity—as
it manifests in mathematics. Mathematics was selected as the domain of investigation for
several reasons. For one, because students often report negative emotions and motivations in
mathematics (e.g., anxiety, boredom) (Foley et al. 2017; Lyons and Beilock 2011; Maloney
et al. 2013), we consider it particularly valuable to understand curiosity as a potential positive
motivation for mathematics learning. Second, a deeper understanding of curiosity in mathe-
matics can inform interventions. Given that curiosity is similar to other negative affective
experiences (e.g., confusion, frustration), understanding how curiosity manifests in mathemat-
ics may help students and teachers to differentiate these emotions. Moreover, evidence
suggests that negative emotions such as mathematics anxiety can be reframed as more positive
experiences (e.g., excitement) (Lyons and Beilock 2011; Maloney et al. 2013). A deeper
understanding of curiosity in mathematics will aid researchers and practitioners in determining
whether negative mathematics experiences can be successfully reframed as curiosity.
We are putting forward a theoretical description of the development of three major
components of curiosity: knowledge gaps, heightened arousal, and exploratory behaviors.
From this foundation, we compare curiosity to related experiences, namely interest,
confusion, and frustration. Then, we discuss the development of the components of
curiosity within the context of students’ development in mathematics. In particular, we
consider how the development of domain knowledge and epistemic beliefs shape how
individuals may experience and express aspects related to curiosity over the course of their
development in the domain. Throughout this review, we forward an argument for domain-
specific curiosity as unique from previously examined forms of curiosity, and we consider
the implications of the suggested domain-specific conceptualization of curiosity for
educational practice and future research.
Educational Psychology Review (2019) 31:807–832 809
Defining Curiosity
Curiosity is one of many internal, experiential forces that may motivate an individual to seek
knowledge or information. Other forces that fall within this category include interest and
confusion, each of which is distinct from, although related to, curiosity. The experience of
curiosity is a combination of cognitive and physiological factors and is characterized by the
following three attributes:
1. An awareness, based on prior knowledge, of an information gap and a belief that that one
can resolve that gap.
An information gap results from a perceived disparity between what one knows and what one
wants to know (i.e., the “reference point,” Loewenstein 1994, p. 84). The awareness of this gap
may occur either consciously or subconsciously (Iran-Nejad 1990; Iran-Nejad and Cecil 1992).
Gaps in knowledge or information may be triggered by characteristics such as novelty, discrep-
ancies, and surprise (Berlyne 1960; Ligneul et al. 2018), and curiosity increases when the
individual has some knowledge about the topic (Kang et al. 2009). If awareness of an informa-
tion gap is not matched by a confidence in one’s own ability to resolve that gap, curiosity is
unlikely to result (Silvia 2008). Rather, without the belief in the ability to resolve the gap, the
awareness of an information gap may be experienced as confusion, frustration, or anxiety.
2. Heightened arousal, generally perceived as a strong sense of urgency to resolve the gap.
Heightened arousal can be identified by physiological indicators such as changes in pupil

dilation and skin conductance response (Bradley et al. 2008; Lykken and Venables 1971). For
curiosity, this may include feelings of excitement, delight, or agitation (Litman and Jimerson
2004; Noordewier and van Dijk 2017). A curious individual feels driven to act on this
heightened arousal, to respond to restlessness by actively exploring the object of the curiosity
until the curiosity is resolved or attention becomes distracted (Berlyne 1960; Loewenstein
1994). The physiological indicators associated with curiosity, such as increased pupil dilation
(Kang et al. 2009), have been found for both positive and negative arousal (Bradley et al.
2008; van Steenbergen et al. 2011). However, in an instance of curiosity, the individual will
interpret these indicators either as generally positive states surrounding a knowledge gap or
will foresee the resolution of the gap as imminently positive1 (Grossnickle 2016; Litman
2010). Perceiving a more central locus of control is typical of positive achievement emotions
(Pekrun 2006), and we propose that a sense of agency is also critical for interpreting
heightened arousal as a positive experience of curiosity.
3. Curiosity often manifests through question-asking or exploratory behaviors.
Individuals experiencing curiosity may ask questions, form and test hypotheses, relate a
current question to prior knowledge and experiences, or engage in sensory exploration if
1
It is important to note that curiosity is not universally viewed as positive. Some researchers have argued that
curiosity has an aversive component, whereby individuals seek to reduce the discomfort of uncertainty (Berlyne
1960; Jepma et al. 2012; Litman and Jimerson 2004). However, more research is needed (see Murayama et al.
this issue).
applicable (Bowler 2010; Dewey 1910; Jirout and Klahr 2012; Luce and Hsi 2015). These
expressions of curiosity are generally self-determined and enacted autonomously by the
curious individual, similar to other forms of intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000),
although others, such as teachers or parents, can potentially play a role in guiding or directing
the exploration (Chak 2007; Engel 2015; Peters 1978).
Curiosity as a Multidimensional Construct
In his 1910 volume, How We Think, John Dewey argued that children are naturally curious,
and he described systematic changes in children’s curiosity across development. Specifically,
Dewey (1910) regarded curiosity as shifting through three stages, from curiosity about the
physical world, to curiosity as a means of engaging in the social world, and eventually, to
intellectual curiosity. In line with Dewey’s (1910) argument for qualitatively distinct types of
curiosity (e.g., physical, social, intellectual), much of the curiosity research during the latter
half of the twentieth century focused on identifying and evaluating the dimensionality of
curiosity (Ainley 1987; Boyle 1989; Byman 1993). A thorough review of the dimensionality
of curiosity is beyond the scope of this article (see Grossnickle 2016). However, certain
dimensions have permeated research on the topic and deserve discussion. In particular,
contemporary research often distinguishes between trait curiosity and state curiosity.
Trait curiosity describes the habits of mind, affect, and behavior displayed by individuals
considered to have generally curious personalities (Kashdan et al. 2009; Silvia 2008). Such a
personality may include a tendency toward or desire for information and understanding across
a range of settings, both social and academic, which transcends specific domains or scenarios.
Some researchers have further differentiated the personality trait of curiosity into the objects of
focus, such as social curiosity (Reio et al. 2006) and epistemic curiosity (Litman and
Spielberger 2003). Epistemic curiosity has been even further differentiated. For instance,
Litman (2010) identifies a qualitative distinction between interest-type epistemic curiosity
and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity. Interest-type curiosity is a positive affectual experi-
ence wherein an individual pursues information deemed intrinsically valuable (Litman 2005,
2010). In contrast, deprivation-type curiosity is a sense of needing to obtain information in
order to resolve the distinctly unpleasant experience of lacking certain knowledge (Litman
2008; Litman and Jimerson 2004). These personality theory approaches to curiosity tend to
emphasize the stability of curiosity over one’s lifespan (e.g., Giambra et al. 1992), with certain
predictable developmental shifts, such as a general decline in curiosity and related traits
(McCrea and Costa 1997; McCrae et al. 2000; Robinson et al. 2017).
In contrast to curiosity as a personality trait, state curiosity refers to the brief instances of
specific, directed intellectual stimulation during which one might experience curiosity when faced
with an unsolved question or puzzle and the opportunity to pursue its solution. Both historically
and in recent research, theorists have conceptualized state curiosity as a desire to reduce incon-
gruence between one’s current knowledge and one’s desired knowledge or understanding
(Berlyne 1960; Jirout and Klahr 2012; Loewenstein 1994). Loewenstein’s (1994) knowledge
gap theory of curiosity postulates that individuals feel curious when they perceive a well-defined
gap in their knowledge. According to the knowledge gap theory, individuals identify informational
“reference points,” a subjective measure of what they want to know (Loewenstein 1994, p. 84).
The process of identifying a gap is not sufficient for curiosity to occur. Curiosity arises when (a) a
disparity exists between the individuals’ objective knowledge and this subjective reference point,
(b) the individual perceives the disparity as resolvable, and (c) this disparity is accompanied by a
desire to close the gap. Loewenstein’s (1994) knowledge gap theory conceptualizes curiosity as
occurring when one is consciously aware of and wants to resolve that gap or disparity. A student
may know very little about a subject, but if they do not perceive a gap between their current
knowledge and what they could know, they will not feel curious. Alternatively, a student may
identify a gap (e.g., not knowing the solution to a problem) and may want to know the solution for
reasons other than curiosity (e.g., to study the solution for an upcoming exam). At the same time,
Loewenstein (1994) describes the actual resolution of curiosity as generally disappointing, arguing
that it returns the individual to a neutral, nondriven state, as opposed to elevating them to a positive
affectual state. State curiosity is regarded as both intense and transient, qualities that have led
researchers to describe its deprivation-driven nature, which may inspire impulsive behavior when
an individual feels compelled to resolve the gap (Berlyne 1960; Litman et al. 2005).
While trait and state theories of curiosity have described curiosity as a factor influencing
learning, these theories do not specifically address the manifestation of curiosity within
academic domains. In response to the need for conceptualizing curiosity as a domain-
specific motivational component, Alexander and Grossnickle (2016) describe potential shifts
in state and trait curiosity in relation to the development of knowledge, interest, and strategic
processing. They argue that changes in state curiosity track with changes in situational interest
as individuals develop within a domain. That is, momentary experiences of interest and
curiosity both become less important as individuals develop, as the power of domain-level
motivation increases. However, in line with personality theories, trait curiosity is likely to exert
a consistent influence across academic development but may have limited influence on the
specific domains students are curious about.
We contend that domain-specific curiosity shares features of both state and trait curiosity
but is demonstrably unique. To deepen the understanding of curiosity in educational contexts,
we propose that domain-specific curiosity is characterized by (a) an increased regularity of
instances of curiosity related to the domain and/or (b) an ongoing or recurring desire to self-
induce curiosity within the domain. Considering curiosity as domain-specific—much in the
same way that individual interest is domain-specific—recognizes that cognitive and motivation
development cannot be divorced from the domain in which the development occurs. In other
words, within a domain such as mathematics, students do not simply become more interested
in general; rather, they develop interest in mathematics specifically. We argue that domain-
specific curiosity is similar, but that the manifestation of curiosity in a domain includes both
domain-specific and domain-general aspects. A more apt analogy is the development of
epistemic beliefs (i.e., beliefs about knowledge). Epistemic beliefs have both domain-
specific and domain-general aspects (Muis et al. 2006, 2016; Schommer and Walker 1995).
That is, while beliefs about knowledge and knowing in mathematics (or any other domain)
may be influenced in part by an individual’s general epistemic stance, students’ beliefs can
vary across domains (Muis et al. 2006). While a student in mathematics class may be more or
less motivated by trait-level curiosity (i.e., domain-general curiosity), it is conceivable that
curiosity, like epistemic beliefs, is also domain-specific in nature.
Comparing Curiosity and Related Motivations
Whether curiosity can be distinguished as a unique experience relative to similar affectual

motivations (e.g., interest) is an open question and is one that guides this special issue. To examine
the extent to which curiosity is both distinct and overlapping with other constructs, we draw on
theoretical and empirical literature, recognizing that a limited empirical base has directly addressed
this question. First, we examine the overlap and distinction between curiosity and interest, and then,
we juxtapose curiosity with the related constructs of frustration and confusion.
Curiosity and Interest
As argued previously (Grossnickle 2016), curiosity and interest share similarities in cognitive,
affective, and behavioral qualities, yet, there are certain unique features that enable differen-
tiation. These include (a) the object of focus and (b) the frequency and duration of experience.
We address these factors in turn, paying attention to nuances across different types of curiosity
(i.e., state, trait, domain-specific) and types of interest (i.e., situational and individual). These
similarities and differences are summarized in Table 1.
Object of Focus Perhaps the most notable conceptual distinction between curiosity and interest is
the object of focus. In their work on academic emotions, Pekrun and colleagues (Pekrun 2006;
Pekrun et al. 2017) distinguish between academic emotions that focus on a given activity and those
that focus on an outcome. Emotions such as enjoyment and boredom relate to the academic activity
at hand, such as experiencing enjoyment while solving mathematics problems. In contrast, emotions
such as frustration and joy relate to the outcome of the academic task, such as feeling frustrated if
you cannot figure out the answer to a problem. While Pekrun (2006) does not specifically address
curiosity and interest within this framework, there is evidence that interest is more activity-focused
whereas curiosity is more outcome-focused. Further, curiosity and interest may differ in terms of
perceived control relative to the object of focus (Pekrun 2006). In particular, curiosity requires a high
level of perceived control to efficiently resolve the knowledge gap (Noordewier and van Dijk 2017).
In contrast, the triggering of situational interest does not require the learner to have control over an
outcome in the situation.
Interest has been described as object-focused (Krapp 2002; Schiefele 2009). For instance,
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.’s (2010) measure of situational interest requires participants to rate
their interest in relation to the domain of study, course content, and class lectures. Similarly,
individual interest can be differentiated in relation to domain content. For instance, interest in
mathematical calculations and interest in mathematical proofs, while related, can be meaning-
fully distinguished (Ufer et al. 2017). This contrasts with curiosity, where the focus is directed at
an outcome or resolution, such the end goal of resolving a particular knowledge gap (Grossnickle
2016; Loewenstein 1994). This is particularly true for state curiosity, which is tightly coupled
with the expectation of resolution of a specific knowledge gap (Kang et al. 2009; Loewenstein
1994). Individuals report more curiosity when they feel close to knowing an answer compared to
when they already know the answer or when they have no idea (Kang et al. 2009), suggesting
that the focus of curiosity is on the discrepancy in knowledge, rather than the enjoyment of what
is already known. It is this focus on a gap in knowledge, rather than the general desire to expand
knowledge, that meaningfully differentiates curiosity from interest (Grossnickle 2016). These
findings suggest that whereas interest involves an urgency to engage (e.g., to engage in
computation), curiosity can be characterized as an urgency to resolve (e.g., to know the solution).
Frequency and Duration Regarding the frequency of momentary experiences, states of

curiosity and situational interest are indistinguishable, as they both rely on the interaction
between individual and contextual factors. Long-term individual interest is defined as a
Table 1 Definitions and comparison of epistemic curiosity and interest
Epistemic curiosity Interest
State curiosity Trait curiosity Domain-specific curiosity Situational interest Individual interest
Educational Psychology Review (2019) 31:807–832
Definition Momentary feeling or desire to Personality trait characterized Recurring experience of the Momentary feeling or desire Continual desire to re-engage
resolve a knowledge gap by frequent experiences of feeling or desire to resolve to engage with content with a particular topic or
triggered by internal or curiosity across a range of knowledge gaps within a triggered by internal or domain over a period of
external factors settings or by frequently domain, reflective of external factors days, months, or years
seeking opportunities to be domain-specific develop-
curious ment
Object of focus Knowledge gap/question Knowledge gap/question Knowledge gap/question Object Object
Frequency of Varies by context and Varies by individual Varies by domain and Varies by context and Varies by domain and
experience individual individual individual individual
Duration of Fleeting Fleeting or long-term Fleeting or long-term Fleeting Long-term
experience
813
continual desire to re-engage with a particular topic or domain over a period of days, months,
or years (Alexander 1997; Schiefele 2009). For an individual, ongoing interest in a particular
domain may fluctuate, but there is an underlying tendency to re-engage with the content
(Krapp 2002; Renninger 2000). The frequency of individual interest, therefore, varies as a
function of the interaction between the individual and the domain (Alexander 1997; Hidi and
Renninger 2006). In contrast, individuals with higher trait curiosity are typically characterized
as experiencing curiosity more frequently across contexts by being more receptive to curiosity-
inducing experiences and by seeking opportunities to experience curiosity (Kashdan et al.
2004; Litman 2008). Similarly, we contend that curiosity may also manifest with more or less
regularity within any given domain. Akin to individual interest, we argue that the frequency of
domain-specific curiosity varies by the interaction between the individual and the domain.
Turning now to the duration, additional points of distinction emerge. It is clear from prior
experimental studies of state curiosity that this form of curiosity is short-lived, much like situational
interest, which involves a feeling of short-lived intensity/enlivenment (Hidi 1990; Schraw and
Lehman 2001). For instance, feeling curious to know the answer to a trivia question is quickly
resolved (Kang et al. 2009), similar to the fleeting nature of situational interest (Hidi and Renninger
2006; Renninger and Hidi 2016). Whereas situational interest is relatively short-lived and fleeting,
individual interest is characterized as long-term (Alexander 1997; Hidi and Renninger 2006).
Unlike interest, it is not clear whether different forms of curiosity can be differentiated by the
duration of the experience. There is evidence that curiosity is characterized by a sense of
immediacy (Loewenstein 1994; Noordewier and van Dijk 2017). This sense of immediacy may
be particularly important for defining state curiosity. Trait curiosity, on the other hand, has been
characterized both as having a generally curious disposition (Kashdan et al. 2018), as well as
frequently experiencing feelings or states of curiosity, which may be short or long in duration
(Ainley 1987; Litman and Jimerson 2004). Even short-lived states of curiosity—whether due to
experiences (i.e., state curiosity), a curious personality (i.e., trait curiosity), or domain-specific
development (i.e., domain-specific curiosity)—may spark or bolster more enduring forms of
situational interest or long-term interest by acting as high-intensity catalyst moments within a
certain domain (Bowler 2010; Hidi and Renninger 2006). Conversely, interest may serve as a
catalyst for curiosity, such as by narrowing one’s attention to knowledge gaps related to objects of
interest (Loewenstein 1994). Long-term, an individual may develop recurring states of curiosity
within a domain or even with respect to a particular ongoing question.
Curiosity, Confusion, and Frustration
Although the topic of this special issue is differentiating curiosity and interest, curiosity bears
similarities to other motivations and emotions that deserve discussion. In the identification of
an information gap, an individual develops awareness (consciously or subconsciously) of a
particular cognitive disequilibrium. While such an awareness may lead to curiosity, several
other internal states also stem from similar types of dissonance. In particular, one may feel
confused or frustrated, rather than curious, when faced with a significant disparity between
what one knows and what one wants to know.
Confusion results when an individual identifies the presence of an information gap but
cannot see a path to its resolution (D’Mello and Graesser 2012; Silvia 2005). An individual
experiencing confusion may know that they are missing information, but fail to identify a
specific, well-defined question. They may lack the ability to parse the present situation into
manageable parts or to identify specific knowns and unknowns in relation to the scenario.
When confused, however, one maintains the sense that a solution or answer is within reach;
one may perceive potential for solvability but is currently lacking control in reaching a solution
(Muis et al. 2015b). Ultimately, confusion, like curiosity, can lead to deep processing strate-
gies, which positively impact learning (Muis et al. 2015a).
Thwarted attempts to resolve confusion or the perception of mathematics as difficult can
lead to frustration (D’Mello and Graesser 2012; Larkin and Jorgensen 2016). If an individual
tries and fails to identify a path to resolution, their sense of frustration increases (Sierpinska
et al. 2008). Frustration results from a perception of low control, a sense of failure and/or
helplessness (“I don’t understand because I cannot understand”), and a lack of value (Baker
et al. 2010; Muis et al. 2015b). In the context of cognitive disequilibrium, a frustrated
individual sees no immediate or potential path to resolution of an information gap and no
way of “backing up” or breaking the problem into its constituent parts.
Both confusion and frustration may present as heightened arousal with manifestations
similar to those that characterize curiosity (Baker et al. 2010; D’Mello and Graesser 2012).
Feelings of high energy, agitation, restlessness, or a drive to act may result from any of these
states (Baker et al. 2010). Thus, the primary distinctions between curiosity, confusion, and
frustration lie in an individual’s own perception of control and their identification of a path to
resolution. Curiosity requires a strong sense of both agency and direction on the part of the
individual. Confusion and frustration, on the other hand, result from a perceived external locus
of control and a distinct lack of direction (Pekrun 2006).
The Importance of Curiosity for Learning in Mathematics
At its core, mathematics centers around the identification, application, and expansion of
patterns, rules, and axioms, requiring logical reasoning and symbolic notation to make sense
of tangible and intangible qualities such as numbers, shape, and spatial relations (Bôcher 1904;
Gray 2006). The central nature of problems in mathematics highlights important aspects of
mathematical thinking, namely, the identification of questions, individual valuing of questions,
and the exploration of mathematical ideas in search of solutions. The importance of engaging
students in mathematical thinking—not simply memorization and application of rules—has
been central to mathematics education research and interventions (Boaler and Selling 2017;
DeVilliers 1999; NRC 2001). Indeed, many recent efforts in mathematics education center
student thinking during problem-solving, including encouraging multiple solution methods
and student-generated problems (e.g., Boaler 2008; Silver 1994). These efforts counter beliefs
that mathematics involves producing quick, accurate calculations, which offer a limited range
of ideas to be curious about, and instead assist students in posing questions, developing
mathematical models, and testing their ideas (Boaler 2008, 2015). Consistent with these
practices is an emphasis on students developing a growth mindset toward mathematics, that
is, a self-belief that they can improve in mathematics with effort (Boaler 2015; Good et al.
2003; Yeager and Dweck 2012).
In 2001, the National Research Council’s (NRC) landmark report, Adding It Up, summa-
rized what mathematics proficiency should look like from pre-Kindergarten to 8th grade, and
provided recommendations for how to teach mathematics in ways that support the develop-
ment of student proficiency. Mathematical proficiency, they argued, consists of five intercon-
nected strands:
• Conceptual understanding—comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations,

and relations
• Procedural fluency—skill in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently,
and appropriately
• Strategic competence—ability to formulate, represent, and solve mathematical prob-
lems
• Adaptive reasoning—capacity for logical thought, reflection, explanation, and justi-
fication
• Productive disposition—habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful,
and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy (National
Research Council 2001, p. 5)
Although curiosity is not mentioned explicitly within the report, the potential importance of
curiosity for mathematical learning is present across these strands. One example of this importance
occurs at the intersection of strategic competence and productive disposition. Formulating prob-
lems that can be solved using mathematics and subsequently engaging in creative problem-solving
is central to developing strategic competence. Modern mathematics standards regard creative
problem-solving as an integral mathematical and critical thinking skill (Common Core State
Standards 2018; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2018). The flip side of problem-
solving, problem posing—wherein a student develops a question that they can answer using
mathematics—has also been gaining attention among mathematics educators and researchers
(Brown and Walter 2004; Knuth 2002; Silver 1994). If strategic competence is considered in
isolation, it is possible to imagine a student generating and solving problems for reasons other than
curiosity (e.g., teacher direction, examination). However, developing a productive disposition
requires the students develop a sense of agency and utility surrounding mathematics. In this sense,
a student who is confident in their ability as a mathematical problem solver may be more inclined
to use curiosity as a starting point for engaging in mathematical problem-solving.
Informally, mathematics educators acknowledge the significance of student curiosity in encour-
aging student attention, participation, and retention. Through teacher blogs and forums, educators
express their own perceptions of curiosity within their classrooms, and many tout specific
pedagogical practices that they believe increase mathematics-related curiosity among students.
However, the vast majority of this attention relies on anecdotal evidence or untested hypotheses
about student curiosity for mathematics. Limited empirical research has examined the measurable
effects of specific classroom activities and practices on student curiosity within the mathematical
domain. The same dearth of empirical evidence exists in the discussion of students’ affectual and
measurable reactions to curiosity-inducing situations in the mathematical realm. Indeed, curiosity
has infrequently been investigated as a domain-specific construct (for exceptions in the domain of
science, see Jirout and Klahr 2012; Weible and Zimmerman 2016; Wu et al. 2018).
To our knowledge, Muis et al. (2015b) are the only researchers to explicitly examine
student curiosity during mathematical learning and problem-solving. Situated within a model
of multiple epistemic emotions (e.g., curiosity, confusion, frustration, enjoyment, boredom),
they found that curiosity during mathematical problem-solving supported mathematics
achievement through its positive impact on strategic processes and metacognitive strategies
during problem-solving (Muis et al. 2015b). However, the challenge of differentiating curiosity
from interest is apparent, as this study used the Epistemically Related Emotion Scale (Pekrun
et al. 2017) which includes two items to measure curiosity rated for their emotional intensity:
curious and interested. Given the combined measurement of curiosity and interest, it is
therefore not possible to discern whether the findings relate uniquely to curiosity during
mathematical problem-solving, or to interest more generally.
The development of an empirically testable developmental model for curiosity may lay the
foundation for researchers to explore how students develop, both quantitatively and qualita-
tively, as learners and question-askers within the mathematical domain. Such a framework may
also provide a new perspective within the ongoing discussion of student motivation and the
aversive effects of widespread math anxiety, which plagues classrooms in the USA and
globally (Foley et al. 2017).
Characteristics of Students’ Development in Mathematics
Although research has rarely accounted specifically for the development of curiosity within
academic domains (for exceptions, see Alexander and Grossnickle 2016; Jirout and Klahr
2012; Wu et al. 2018), decades of research on domain-specific development in general and the
development of mathematics proficiency in particular provides insight into the systematic
changes that occur over the course of students’ development within an academic domain. In
this section, we overview two, of many, factors related to development in mathematics:
knowledge and epistemic beliefs. Other factors such as meta-cognition and motivation have
important changes over development in a domain and may have critical implications for the
development of mathematical curiosity. However, in order to narrow the scope of this review,
we specifically focus on epistemic factors (i.e., knowledge and epistemic beliefs), given their
direct associations with the object of epistemic curiosity (i.e., knowledge gaps) and their
overarching relation to the strands of mathematical proficiency (NRC 2001).
Mathematical Knowledge
Mathematical competence involves the development of both conceptual and procedural knowledge
within the mathematical field (Rittle-Johnson 2017; Rittle-Johnson and Alibali 1999), as well as the
ability to apply this knowledge in ways that demonstrate fluency and competence (NRC 2001). We
conceptualize knowledge to include conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge, as well as
conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and strategic competence (NRC 2001). As individ-
uals progress within any domain, their conceptual knowledge increases in both breadth (i.e., domain
knowledge) and depth (i.e., topic knowledge) (Alexander 1997; Murphy et al. 2018). Well-
developed knowledge and schemas enable pattern recognition, which supports transfer of knowl-
edge or strategies across different problem types in mathematics (Kellman et al. 2010). Studies of
analogical reasoning more generally, and mathematical reasoning specifically, indicate that early in
mathematical development students often focus on superficial, surface features of problems rather
than the deep, structural relations between problems (Chi and VanLehn 2012; Richland et al. 2012).
As students develop as mathematical thinkers, they gain more well-organized and deep-seated
conceptual knowledge that enables reasoning about relational similarities across problems and
scenarios (Richland et al. 2012). For instance, a deep conceptual understanding of slope as “rate
of change” (a fundamental notion introduced in early Algebra) enables one to recognize that
phenomena such as speed, population growth, and radioactive decay can all be understood both
graphically and numerically in the language of slope. Such an understanding forms the core of
derivative calculus. However, students in mathematics classrooms, especially in the USA, tend to
spend little time working on generating these types of connections (Richland et al. 2007, 2012), and
even students who have successfully completed K-12 mathematics education may struggle to
identify conceptual similarities among disparate scenarios and contexts (Richland et al. 2012).
Alongside conceptual knowledge, the development of procedural knowledge (e.g., how to
calculate surface area, how to find the least common denominator) is essential for students to
progress toward competence in mathematics (Common Core State Standards 2018; National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2018). In particular, procedural flexibility, the ability to
adaptively apply procedures across problem types and to apply multiple procedures to
converge on a single solution (Rittle-Johnson 2017), is particularly central to mathematical
development. Traditional K-12 education, however, often prioritizes rote procedural knowl-
edge and memorization above procedural flexibility or conceptual knowledge (Boaler and
Selling 2017). As such, students often associate procedural knowledge, including rote mem-
orization of rules to be applied, with mathematics (Givvin et al. 2011; Richland et al. 2012).
More advanced development in the domain is associated with a tendency to emphasize
conceptual understanding and generalized reasoning skills as central to the practice of math-
ematics (Weber et al. 2014).
Mathematics differs from domains such as history and psychology in that much of the
knowledge must be learned in a well-defined sequence, since more complex mathematical
understanding necessarily relies upon prior knowledge and skills (Common Core State
Standards 2018; Hansen et al. 2015). For instance, developing conceptual and procedural
knowledge of whole numbers and the number line supports the conceptualization of fractions,
which later serve as a “gateway” to learning more advanced concepts within algebra (Booth
and Newton 2012; Siegler et al. 2013). Moreover, early mathematical skills and growth in
mathematics in elementary school have been shown to predict later mathematical ability
(Jordan et al. 2009; Watts et al. 2014). For instance, Watts et al. (2014) found that preschool
and early-elementary school mathematics achievement predicted mathematical achievement at
age 15, even when controlling for other academic skills, cognitive ability, and family back-
ground. Additionally, other cognitive skills are foundational for both conceptual and proce-
dural knowledge in mathematics, including intelligence (Skagerlund and Träff 2016), spatial
skills (Cromley et al. 2017; Verdine et al. 2014; Young et al. 2018), number line estimation
(Gunderson et al. 2012; Hansen et al. 2015), deductive reasoning (Morsanyi et al. 2018), and
working memory (Beilock and Carr 2005; Raghubar et al. 2010).
Epistemic Beliefs in Mathematics
Epistemic beliefs—the assumptions held by learners regarding the nature of knowledge and
knowing—are particularly relevant for understanding epistemic curiosity because epistemic beliefs
act as a lens shaping how we see our world (Peterson et al. 2016). Epistemic beliefs are
multidimensional and follow general developmental trajectories (Hofer and Pintrich 1997). Fre-
quently identified dimensions include the following (Hofer and Pintrich 1997; Schommer 1990):
& Certainty of knowledge: ranging from the belief that knowledge is fixed and unchanging to
the belief that knowledge is tentative and evolving
& Source of knowledge: ranging from the belief that knowledge is handed down by authority
(e.g., teachers, textbooks) to the belief that knowledge is individually constructed through
logic and reason
& Simplicity of knowledge: ranging from the belief that knowledge is isolated facts and bits of
information to the belief that knowledge is made up of integrated and organized concepts
& Justification of knowledge: ranging from the belief that knowledge does not need to be
questioned to the belief that knowledge should be evaluated through empirical, logical, or
rational consideration
Developmental shifts in epistemic beliefs occur as individuals become more well-versed in a

domain. In their 1997 review, Hofer and Pintrich documented three categories of epistemic beliefs
that captured developmental shifts: absolutism, subjectivism, and evaluativism. Absolutism reflects
a tendency to view knowledge as fixed, certain, and unchanging. At this stage, individuals express
the belief that knowledge is objective and reflects the true nature of the world. Subjectivism
involves the tendency to view knowledge as relative, abstract, and tentative, with no objective truth
by which to evaluate the veracity of knowledge. Absolutism and subjectivism reflect different ends
of a spectrum from complete certainty to complete uncertainty. Evaluativism falls in between,
where an individual emphasizes the relative quality of justifications to balance multiple, subjective
understandings. It is not always prudent to view knowledge in a more “sophisticated” way; rather,
matching beliefs about knowledge to the nature of the domain, context, and task (i.e., epistemic
competence) may reflect a deeper understanding of the domain (Peterson et al. 2016). For instance,
in mathematics, it is possible to identify some problems as having fixed, objective solutions (e.g.,
solving a set of equations) while viewing other knowledge as tentative and evolving (e.g.,
identifying the largest possible prime number).
Muis et al. (2016) found that students from secondary level through graduate school (non-
mathematics majors) consistently held absolutist views about mathematics but viewed psychology
as subjective/multiplist. Students frequently perceive mathematics as emphasizing the memoriza-
tion of rules handed down by mathematicians and as always having right and wrong answers
(Givvin et al. 2011; Muis 2004; Muis et al. 2016). These beliefs extend beyond K-12 education.
For instance, in a review of the mathematical understandings of community college students,
Richland et al. (2012) cite evidence that more than three-quarters of students considered mathe-
matics to be “a collection of procedures to be applied” (Givvin et al. 2011, p. 7).
These different ways of conceptualizing the mathematical domain have implications for the
type of evidence that is used by students at different points of development in the domain.
Rather than prioritize deductive reasoning (i.e., proofs) and empirical evidence (i.e., testing
multiple values), students tend to value authoritative evidence (i.e., answers provided by
experts) as the most compelling (Weber et al. 2014). Students, therefore, less frequently rely
on empirical evidence and deductive reasoning—types of evidence that are valued more as
individuals advance within the domain (Weber et al. 2014). Weber et al. (2014) argue that this
is due at least in part because deductive reasoning and empirical evidence are more challenging
ways of establishing evidence, and deductive reasoning via proofs is particularly challenging
for students. However, it is worthwhile to note that authoritarian sources, such as trusting a
proof published within a reputable journal, can be necessary across all levels of mathematical
development as gaining knowledge by trusted others is a more efficient way of increasing
one’s own knowledge than relying solely on deductive reasoning (Weber et al. 2014).
Developing the Components of Domain-Specific Curiosity

in Mathematics
Given what we discussed above about students’ development in mathematics, we now

examine how the development of knowledge and epistemic beliefs have the potential to shape
curiosity in the domain. Given the lack of research on curiosity in academic domains, we focus
on three of curiosity’s defining components: knowledge gaps, heightened arousal, and explor-
atory behaviors (Grossnickle 2016).
Development of Knowledge Gaps
The framework put forward in the present review builds on the knowledge gap theories of
epistemic curiosity (Litman 2010; Loewenstein 1994). As in other domains, the awareness of a
knowledge gap as a problem that can be solved within the domain and perceptions of the size
and solvability of the gap interact with individuals’ knowledge and epistemic beliefs to impact
whether individuals are aware of gaps, and, importantly, whether they want to resolve these
gaps. The developmental shift is not a change in the curiosity state; rather, it is an evolution of
what constitutes the object of curiosity. In other words, we are examining how developing
mathematical proficiency changes what students are curious about.
Awareness of Gaps Increased conceptual knowledge and epistemic competence provides

an expanded sense of what mathematics is and the types of problems that can be addressed
through mathematics (Richland et al. 2012; Weber et al. 2014). For students who believe
that mathematics is about memorizing rules and applying procedures to problems that
mathematicians (or their textbook) have the answer (Muis 2004; Givvin et al. 2011), gaps
between what is known and what is unknown foreseeably center around not knowing a
formula or not understanding how to apply a procedure. The emphasis on mathematics as
having to do with numbers and computation (Givvin et al. 2011; Schoenfeld 1988)
constrains the types of gaps that students might identify in mathematics. However, as
students develop an understanding of mathematics as the scientific study of patterns that
can be represented through numbers, there is the potential for a broadening awareness of
the types of possible gaps. There is evidence that grounding the importance of student
thinking in mathematics instruction can support students’ understanding of mathematics as
problem-solving (e.g., Boaler 2008; Imm and Stylianou 2012). For example, Imm and
Stylianou (2012) found that student discourse in middle school mathematics classrooms is
powerful as a tool to help students process challenging problems.
Being able to identify not only the existing gaps but to also narrow down which gaps are
worth pursuing is a skill honed over time (Misfeldt and Johansen 2015). There are many
examples of how mathematics can be used to identify problems that bare limited resemblance
to the conceptualization of mathematics as the application of rules and procedures. For
instance, Goodman (published under the pseudonym Dweighter) famously posited the pancake
problem after recognizing that it was easier to flip stacks of objects of different sizes (e.g.,
pancakes) by flipping subsets of the stack with the largest object on the bottom. Describing this
problem in American Mathematics Monthly, Dweighter (1975) wrote:
The chef in our place is sloppy, and when he prepares a stack of pancakes they come out
all different sizes. Therefore, when I deliver them to a customer, on the way to the table I
rearrange them (so that the smallest winds up on top, and so on, down to the largest on
the bottom) by grabbing several from the top and flipping them over, repeating this
(varying the number I flip) as many times as necessary. If there are n pancakes, what is
the maximum number of flips (as a function of n) that I will ever have to use to rearrange
them? (p. 1010).
He identified a gap in knowledge, recognizing that a numerical pattern did not currently exist,
but could be created. This differs qualitatively from gaps in one’s own knowledge, such as not
knowing the formula to calculate the area of an oval, or wondering how that formula differs
from the formula to calculate the area of a circle. In these cases, the knowledge gap is not
known by the individual, despite being known in the field of mathematics. In the case of these
problems (i.e., the pancake problem, wanting to know how formulas differ), we contend that if
curiosity is present it would exist in relation to the knowledge gap and the feeling of a desire to
close the gap. Interest, on the other hand, would underlie the sustained inquiry to engage in
problem-solving that was initiated due to curiosity.
Although humans have a propensity for seeking out and identifying patterns, the identifi-
cation of patterns in mathematics may be particularly challenging (Richland et al. 2012). For
one, identifying patterns requires drawing on prior knowledge to compare structurally dispa-
rate situations and contexts (Dumas et al. 2013; Gentner 2010). Increasing mathematical
knowledge provides schemas and well-organized knowledge structures that individuals can
draw on to more successfully engage in reasoning about patterns (i.e., relational reasoning),
particularly comparisons related to deep, structural features (Gentner 2010; Gick and Holyoak
1983). Students with a limited conceptual understanding are limited in their ability to reason
about structural patterns and to transfer their knowledge across problems, domains, and
contexts. Additionally, mathematical patterns emphasize different types of relations than those
sought in everyday life or in other domains. For instance, the propensity to seek out cause–
effect relations in everyday life does not match the structure of mathematics (Richland et al.
2012).
Size and Solvability of Gaps Prior research on the relation between knowledge and curiosity
has described an inverse U function (Baranes et al. 2015; Kang et al. 2009; Loewenstein
1994). Studies of curiosity for trivia questions have found that reported curiosity is strongest at
a moderate level of knowledge (e.g., Baranes et al. 2015; Kang et al. 2009). At both low levels
and high levels of knowledge, individuals report less curiosity, presumably because at low
levels they are not fully aware of what they do not know, and at high levels, they already know
the answer. What constitutes moderate knowledge in a students’ mathematics development is a
perpetually moving target. What is unknown to a student at one point in development can be
learned, closing one specific gap and revealing potentially more complex knowledge gaps. It is
worth noting that studies of trivia questions have examined curiosity for preselected questions
(rather than other types of self-generated or other-generated questions). Moreover, they have
measured self-reported feelings of knowing rather than directly assessing an individual’s
factual, conceptual, or procedural knowledge. To our knowledge, no studies have directly
examined relations between domain knowledge (conceptual or procedural) and curiosity.
However, preliminary findings from domain-general studies of trivia questions suggest that
it is important to consider student knowledge about specific gaps when investigating curiosity.
As individuals develop within the domain of mathematics, larger gaps become worthy of
pursuit and can be investigated in tandem with knowledge gaps that can be quickly resolved.
Students frequently have lots of experience solving mathematics problems in a short time
frame and often espouse beliefs that they should be able to solve problems quickly, or not at all
(Givvin et al. 2011; Muis 2004; Schoenfeld 1988). In a study of high school geometry
classrooms, Schoenfeld (1988) found that students solved thousands of problems over the
course of their K-12 education and that students expected to spend no more than 2 min on
average per homework problem. This expectation of speed is not unfounded, as tests such as
the SAT require students to solve 58 problems in 80 min, allowing an average of approxi-
mately 1.4 minutes per problem (College Board 2018). When asked how long they would
spend on a problem before deciding that it was unsolvable, high school students reported being
willing to give up after just 11.7 min on average (Schoenfeld 1988). Results from studies of
epistemic beliefs support the idea that early on in domain development, students tend to
espouse the view that individuals who are good at mathematics are those who can solve
problems quickly (Muis 2004; Schoenfeld 1988). With further development, it becomes more
evident that it sometimes takes significant time and effort to work through problems (Boaler
2015; Misfeldt and Johansen 2015). The perceived importance of effort can be cultivated
within students, such as by praising students’ effort and emphasizing the importance of failure
in learning (Boaler 2015; Mueller and Dweck 1998; Yeager and Dweck 2012).
Interpretation of Heightened Arousal
Appraisal theories of achievement emotions, such as Pekrun’s (2006) control-value theory of

emotions and Silvia’s (2005) appraisal theory of interest, provide evidence that the way in
which an individual interprets physiological (e.g., heart rate) sensations plays an important role
in determining the specific emotion that an individual reports feeling in response to heightened
arousal. Although there are some features that characterize emotions generally (e.g., facial
expression, heart rate), the specific features that characterize discrete emotions are interpreted
by the individual (Barrett 2006). That is, whereas one individual may interpret raised eyebrows
as surprise, another may interpret the same raised eyebrows as confusion.
In addition to interpretations of physiological responses, the control-value theory of
emotions considers two cognitive appraisals—subjective control and subjective value—as
integral to which emotion is experienced (Pekrun 2006). Most positive emotions are contin-
gent upon the individual feeling a sense of agency or control over the activity or outcome
(Pekrun 2006). Similarly, in his appraisal model of interest, Silvia (2005) suggests that the
emotional experience of interest occurs when an object is appraised as novel and complex, and
the individual perceives themselves as sufficiently competent to cope with the complexity.
Developing a productive disposition toward mathematics involves understanding mathematics
as having value and seeing oneself as agentic and efficacious (Boaler 2008; NRC 2001). As
students develop a productive discipline, they are developing the markers of positive
emotions—subject control and subjective value (Pekrun 2006). Therefore, rather than
interpreting their emotions toward mathematics as negative emotions such as confusion or
frustration, they may be more likely to report positive emotions such as curiosity or interest.
States of curiosity are accompanied by increased attention and activation of neural circuitry
associated with reward processing and arousal (Baranes et al. 2015; Gruber et al. 2014; Jepma
et al. 2012; Kang et al. 2009). The intense, yet positive quality of heightened arousal associated
with curiosity bears similarities with other outcome-oriented emotions (Pekrun 2006). That is,
curiosity is targeted toward the outcome of resolving a specific gap in knowledge that would
result in decreased arousal (Loewenstein 1994; Litman 2010). Feelings of agency in one’s
ability to resolve the gap—through exploration on one’s own or by appealing to an expert—
support the appraisal of heightened arousal as positive, given the subjective perception of
control (Pekrun 2006). Interest, according to Pekrun (2006), falls into the category of object-
oriented emotions, where the focus of the emotion is positive feelings surrounding an object
(e.g., task, domain) without a specific end goal or outcome.
At the start of schooling, students have high levels of perceived competence across
academic domains, but over time, particularly in mathematics, perceived competence tends
to decrease (Jacobs et al. 2002; Muenks et al. 2018; Watt 2004). These changes in perceived
competence and control may cause subsequent shifts in emotional experiences, as a low sense
of control during physiological sensations of arousal may be interpreted as frustration or
anxiety (Berlyne 1960; Boehme et al. 2017). However, individual differences exist regarding
the importance of specific appraisals. For more curious individuals (i.e., high trait curiosity),
relative to less curious individuals, appraisals of complexity have been shown to be more
important than perceived competence in predicting feelings of interest (Silvia et al. 2009). This
suggests that perceived competence may be an important antecedent of curiosity, but that its
importance is not equal for all individuals.
Younger students attribute interest in mathematics more to their emotional responses,
whereas older students think about their interest in mathematics in a more cognitive way
(Frenzel et al. 2012). This could be problematic for younger students if they are thinking in
emotional ways and attribute heightened arousal as negative (e.g., anxiety) rather than as
positive (e.g., curiosity). There are also systematic changes in emotion differentiation across
development that might impact whether students in mathematics recognize multiple simulta-
neous emotions (e.g., feeling curious and anxious at the same time). Nook et al. (2018) found
that from ages 5 to 25, the ability to differentiate emotions decreased from childhood to
adolescence, as adolescents report experiencing more simultaneous emotions than children.
The tendency for children to report experiencing emotions one at a time may make it
challenging for them to understand the complex experience of curiosity. In particular, upon
feeling heightened arousal when working on a mathematics puzzle, young children may begin
to label that emotion as anxiety or curiosity and may have difficulty understanding that these
may be experienced simultaneously. Adults, however, tend to learn how to differentiate
emotions even when they simultaneously occur (Nook et al. 2018). If this ability to differen-
tiate simultaneous emotions occurs with the development of mathematical knowledge and
epistemic beliefs, students may be more apt to interpret their cognitive and physiological
arousal as curiosity.
Development of Question-Asking and Exploratory Behaviors
Question-asking and exploration—considered critical behavioral markers of curiosity (Jirout

and Klahr 2012)—are importantly interwoven with changes in the understanding and percep-
tion of knowledge gaps. Moreover, “curiosity questions” emerge as interest becomes more
well-developed (Hidi and Renninger 2006). As individuals develop mathematical proficiency,
they gain the skills that enable them to pursue a wide range of question types, and they develop
value for themselves as question-generators capable of creating knowledge.
Whether mathematics education emphasizes calculation-focused tasks or emphasizes cre-
ative problem-solving has implications for the development of students’ question-asking and
exploration. In early mathematics learning, block play and numerical games provide opportu-
nities for students to explore mathematical ideas even before formal mathematics education
(e.g., Ramani and Eason 2015). This early type of exploration can evolve over time to include
activities such as solving puzzles and working on open-ended projects (Boaler and Selling
2017).
Another type of exploration to consider is proofs. In a study of undergraduates, Ufer et al.
(2017) found that mathematics majors were more interested in formal-deductive mathematical
proofs—typical of university-level mathematics curricula—and teacher education majors were

more interested in mathematical computation—typical of secondary-level education. Although
both calculation and proofs can range in length and complexity, they represent different types
of exploration in mathematics. Moreover, although mathematics majors and education majors
did not differ in overall trait curiosity, epistemic trait curiosity was positively correlated with
interest in mathematical proving but not with computation. However, in the case of formal
proofs, there is a high threshold of procedural and conceptual knowledge necessary in order to
engage in exploration (Weber et al. 2014). Moreover, students do not necessarily view proofs
as mathematical exploration (Schoenfeld 1988). Schoenfeld’s (1988) research on high school
geometry classes indicates that this may be due to teachers emphasizing proofs as requiring
exactness, a “strict protocol,” and memorization, which contrasts with views of proofs as
flexible in format (p. 157). There is, however, evidence that proof can be reconceptualized as a
means of discovery, rather than as a process of confirming something that is already known
(DeVilliers 1999).
Developmental changes in epistemic beliefs have implications for question-asking and
exploration as a means to resolve knowledge gaps. Specifically, the belief that knowledge is
handed down via authority may lead to question-asking behaviors that are directed toward the
source of expert knowledge. In mathematics classes, this authority is often teachers or
textbooks. In contrast, the belief that knowledge is constructed by the individual may manifest
in more self-directed exploration. Coupled with adequate conceptual and procedural knowl-
edge, deductive reasoning via proofs provides a prime opportunity for extended exploration of
mathematical ideas.
Epistemic competence—the ability to evaluate problem context in order to determine
necessary evidence and justification—is a characteristic of domain-specific development
(Peterson et al. 2016). As students develop higher levels of mathematical proficiency, they
may be more apt to recognize value both in questions that can be solved quickly and questions
whose solutions require extended engagement. Indeed, we would not expect that curiosity for
problems that can be quickly solved to disappear as one develops in a domain. Our own
personal experiences in classes, colloquia, and conferences have revealed the tendency, even at
the expert level, to ask questions involving gaps that can be resolved quickly by the presenter
(although we acknowledge that curiosity is not the only reason individuals ask questions in
these situations), as well as for these moments to lead to the awareness of large knowledge
gaps that can result in a new line of research.
Whether students in K-12 mathematics education have opportunities to ask questions that
stem from curiosity differs based on the pedagogical approach. There have been attempts to
more systematically introduce the practices of question-asking and exploration into mathe-
matics classrooms by valuing student thinking (Boaler 2008; Imm and Stylianou 2012). One
example that has gained traction is that of problem-posing, which serves as a method of
introducing nonexperts to the process of discovery in mathematics (Brown and Walter 2004;
Knuth 2002; Silver 1994). Problem-posing suggests that question-asking behaviors can be
learned and provide students with opportunities to pose questions that spark their curiosity
about mathematics, rather than questions that they feel like they need to resolve for other
motivational reasons (e.g., to relieve confusion). Jirout et al. (2018) highlight the importance of
teachers in promoting curiosity. Specifically, they recognize that teachers can supply prompts
and opportunities for question-asking and exploration, serve as models, scaffold explorations,
and provide encouragement. There are many other examples of routines designed to support
exploration in mathematics classrooms (e.g., Open Middle, Mathalicious). For instance, Open
Middle (www.openmiddle.com) is an online resource providing interesting mathematical

problems that have a single answer but many possible solution methods. The database
includes problems for students in Kindergarten through high school that align with Common
Core State Standards and encourage teachers and their students to explore mathematical
problems in more complex ways. These types of routines, combined with providing more
time to engage, can support exploration (Jirout et al. 2018; Sher et al. 2019).
Conclusion
The aim of this review was to synthesize empirical literature related to curiosity and to
examine how the defining components of curiosity may manifest in domain-specific and
developmental ways, particularly within the domain of mathematics. We have considered
knowledge and epistemic beliefs as two possible antecedents that have the potential to shape
the quantitative and qualitative experience of the defining components of curiosity (i.e.,
knowledge gaps, heightened arousal, and question-asking or exploration). Building on the
findings of this review, we describe implications that conceptualizing curiosity as a unique,
domain-specific construct has for educational practice and future research.
Implications for Educational Practice
Identifying curiosity as a unique motivational state that can be characterized in domain-

specific ways has important implications for supporting students’ development as mathemat-
ical thinkers. Curiosity, relative to interest, is an intense affectual experience that shares
overlaps with negative affective states including confusion, frustration, and anxiety (D’Mello
and Graesser 2012; Pekrun 2006). When experiencing heightened arousal surrounding a
knowledge gap, students may interpret this state as curiosity. Alternatively, they may interpret
it as another negative state with similar patterns of heightened arousal (e.g., anxiety, confu-
sion). For students who interpret heightened arousal as curiosity, they may be more apt to
engage in deeper learning strategies and pursue other opportunities to be curious in mathe-
matics (Muis et al. 2015b). However, for students who interpret their heightened arousal as
confusion or anxiety, they may be less likely to seek opportunities that may lead to the
experience of these negative emotions, including the avoidance of mathematics. Interest, on
the other hand, shares limited overlap with negative affective states. Interest is generally
positive in emotional experience (Hidi and Renninger 2006; Schiefele 2009) and is, therefore,
less likely to be interpreted negatively. Given the overlaps between curiosity and negative
states, but not between interest and negative states, it is critical for educators to be able to
identify instances of curiosity in their students, and to recognize antecedent signals (e.g.,
knowledge gap, heightened arousal) where students may either experience curiosity or fall into
patterns of negative affective states.
Identifying points at which students may be on the brink of experiencing curiosity is
important given that curiosity is associated with improvements in learning (e.g., Kang et al.
2009). In some instances, self-regulation of motivation may occur spontaneously, but in other
cases, it may be necessary to directly teach strategies for the self-regulation of curiosity. There
are models of self-regulation of motivation that can be used as starting points, such as
Sansone’s work on the regulation of interest (Sansone and Thoman 2006; Sansone et al.
1992) and cognitive reappraisal interventions for mathematics anxiety (Lyons and Beilock
2011; Maloney et al. 2013). While there have been interventions to teach students question-
asking, asking questions that stem from curiosity is different from asking questions that stem
from confusion. Research on curiosity-related question-asking should examine how to teach
students to attach emotional relevance and meaning to question-asking and mathematical
exploration. This has implications for future research, such as whether it might be easiest for
teachers to model curiosity when the students and teachers have overlapping areas of curiosity
on a topic, or whether teachers can learn to model curiosity for students even if they do not
genuinely feel curious themselves.
There is preliminary evidence regarding interventions to support curiosity in the classroom,
although there are many challenges to doing so (see Jirout et al. 2018 for a discussion of how
performance-based approaches in schools discourage curiosity). In a study of middle school
science classes, students were more curious during the lesson when uncertainty (i.e., with-
holding solution methods until after students engage in problem-solving) was used as a
pedagogical technique compared to direct instruction (Lamnina and Chase 2019). This finding
supports ongoing evidence that uncertainty triggers curiosity (Berlyne 1960; Loewenstein
1994; Knobloch et al. 2004). In mathematics, many classroom routines (e.g., “I Notice, I
Wonder,” Which One Does Not Belong, Visual Patterns) have been developed by mathematics
educators to engage students, support them as question-askers, and maintain interest. These
routines offer promise for supporting curiosity, an impact that should be directly investigated in
future studies.
Implications for Future Research
Much more research is needed to understand curiosity as a complex construct that unfolds
within complex environments such as classrooms (Jirout et al. 2018). Given the scarcity of
research on curiosity within academic domains, many of the hypothesized relations in the
present study need to be empirically tested. Importantly, we acknowledge that due to limited
prior research on domain-specific curiosity, we took a componential view of curiosity, focusing
this review on three major components of curiosity (i.e., knowledge gaps, heightened arousal,
exploratory behavior). Future research has the potential to examine curiosity as a holistic
construct rather than examining the components independently. For instance, although math-
ematical proficiency allows students to generate questions that demonstrate awareness of both
small and large knowledge gaps, whether they express similar levels of curiosity for gaps that
can be resolved quickly as for gaps that will take a long time to resolve is yet to be empirically
tested. Similarly, whether changes in epistemic beliefs—such as the shift from a focus on
mathematical knowledge justified by authority to knowledge justified by deductive
reasoning—have a measurable impact on how curiosity is experienced, expressed, and
enacted, is testable, but has yet to be directly investigated. Relatedly, there is a need for
research on interventions designed to support curiosity in mathematics classrooms.
In writing this review, we repeatedly turned to the question of whether this framework of
curiosity development can be extended to domains other than mathematics. There are certain
characteristics about the structure of mathematics and how it is taught in schools that
distinguish it from domains such as history, languages, social sciences, or fine arts. In
particular, mathematics is often described as a well-structured domain, where problems are
more well-defined. It may be worth considering whether this classification is due to the actual
nature of mathematics, or whether the psychologists and educators who put forward the ideas
of mathematics as a well-structured domain hold epistemic beliefs that do not reflect the actual
complexities of mathematics (Resnick 1988). Further, relative to other domains, mathematics

is often associated with high levels of anxiety (Foley et al. 2017; Lyons and Beilock 2011) as
well as a strong dissociation between what students and mathematicians think mathematics is
(Schoenfeld 1988; Weber et al. 2014). As such, within different domains, the proposed
framework in this review may follow a different time course with qualitatively different shifts.
Closing Thought
In this review, we examined three defining components of curiosity–knowledge gaps, height-

ened arousal, and exploration. For each of these factors, we described evidence of quantitative
and qualitative shifts as students develop in mathematics, particularly focusing on evidence
about epistemic factors (i.e., how knowledge and epistemic beliefs develop). Given that there
has been limited research on the development of curiosity, it was necessary to examine the
defining components individually. It is our hope that by bridging these divergent empirical
findings, this review sparks new examinations of how curiosity manifests in domain-specific
ways. By providing a framework for curiosity as distinct from interest within domains, we
hope to provide future researchers with greater clarity in theoretical and empirical
examinations.
References
Ainley, M. D. (1987). The factor structure of curiosity measures: breadth and depth of interest curiosity styles.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 53–59.
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: the contribution of
enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
36(1), 4–12.
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their
relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561.
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: the interplay of cognitive,
motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Positioning interest and curiosity within a model of academic
development. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 188–208).
New York: Routledge.
Baker, R. S., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: the
incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three
different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
68(4), 223–241.
Baranes, A., Oudeyer, P. Y., & Gottlieb, J. (2015). Eye movements reveal epistemic curiosity in human observers.
Vision Research, 117, 81–90.
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 20–46.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: working memory and “choking under
pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101–105.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boaler, J. (2008). What’s math got to do with it?: helping children learn to love their most hated subject—and
why it’s important for America. New York: Viking.
Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring
messages and innovative teaching. San Francisco: Wiley.
Boaler, J., & Selling, S. K. (2017). Psychological imprisonment or intellectual freedom? A longitudinal study of
contrasting school mathematics approaches and their impact on adults’ lives. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 48(1), 78–105.
Bôcher, M. (1904). The fundamental conceptions and methods of mathematics. Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society, 11(3), 115–135.
Boehme, K. L., Goetz, T., & Preckel, F. (2017). Is it good to value math? Investigating mothers’ impact on their
children’s test anxiety based on control-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 11–21.
Booth, J. L., & Newton, K. J. (2012). Fractions: could they really be the gatekeeper’s doorman? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 37(4), 247–253.
Bowler, L. (2010). The self-regulation of curiosity and interest during the information search process of
adolescent students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7),
1332–1344.
Boyle, G. J. (1989). Breadth-depth or state-trait curiosity? A factor analysis of state-trait curiosity and state
anxiety scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(2), 175–183.
Bradley, M. M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M. A., & Lang, P. J. (2008). The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and
autonomic activation. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 602–607.
Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2004). The art of problem posing. New York: Psychology Press.
Byman, R. (1993). From two-dimensional to three-dimensional curiosity: a reanalysis of depth-breadth factor
model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 155–160.
Chak, A. (2007). Teachers’ and parents’ conceptions of children’s curiosity and exploration. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 15(2), 141–159.
Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational
Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188.
College Board (2018). Compare SAT specifications. Retrieved 10 September from https://collegereadiness.
collegeboard.org/sat/inside-the-test/compare-old-new-specifications
Common Core State Standards (2018). Standards for mathematic practice. Retrieved 10 September 2018 from
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/
Cromley, J. G., Booth, J. L., Wills, T. W., Chang, B. L., Tran, N., Madeja, M., Shipley, T. F., & Zahner, W.
(2017). Relation of spatial skills to calculus proficiency: a brief report. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
19(1), 55–68.
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and
Instruction, 22(2), 145–157.
DeVilliers, M. (1999). Rethinking proof with the Geometer’s sketchpad. Berkeley: Key Curriculum Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York: D. C. Heath & Company.
Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the
educational context: a systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25(3), 391–427.
Dweighter, H. (1975). Elementary problem E2569. The American Mathematical Monthly, 82, 1010.
Engel, S. (2015). The hungry mind: the origins of curiosity in childhood. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2017). The math anxiety-
performance link: a global phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(1), 52–58.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Dicke, A. L., & Goetz, T. (2012). Beyond quantitative decline: conceptual shifts in
adolescents’ development of interest in mathematics. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1069–1082.
Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5),
752–775.
Giambra, L. M., Camp, C. J., & Grodsky, A. (1992). Curiosity and stimulation seeking across the adult life span:
cross-sectional and 6- to 8-year longitudinal findings. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 150–157.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–
38.
Givvin, K. B., Stigler, J. W., & Thompson, B. J. (2011). What community college developmental mathematics
students understand about mathematics, part II: the interviews. The MathAMATYC Educator, 2(3), 4–18.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: an
intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
24(6), 645–662.
Gray, J. (2006). A history of prizes in mathematics. In J. Carlson, A. Jaffe, & A. Wiles (Eds.), The millennium
prize problems (pp. 3–30). Providence: The American Mathematical Society.
Grossnickle, E. M. (2014). The expression and enactment of interest and curiosity in a multiple source use task
(Doctoral dissertation).
Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in
educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60.
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent
learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496.
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial skill and
early number knowledge: the role of the linear number line. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1229–1241.
Hansen, N., Jordan, N. C., Fernandez, E., Siegler, R. S., Fuchs, L., Gersten, R., & Micklos, D. (2015). General
and math-specific predictors of sixth-graders’ knowledge of fractions. Cognitive Development, 35, 34–49.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research,
60(4), 549–571.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist,
42, 111–127.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and
knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
Imm, K., & Stylianou, D. A. (2012). Talking mathematically: an analysis of discourse communities. The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 130–148.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review of Educational
Research, 60(4), 573–602.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Cecil, C. (1992). Interest and learning: a biofunctional perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi,
& A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 297–332). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-
competence and values: gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child
Development, 73(2), 509–527.
Jepma, M., Verdonschot, R. G., Van Steenbergen, H., Rombouts, S. A., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2012). Neural
mechanisms underlying the induction and relief of perceptual curiosity. Frontiers in Behavioral
Neuroscience, 6(5), 1–9.
Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: in search of an operational definition of an elusive
concept. Developmental Review, 32(2), 125–160.
Jirout, J., Vitiello, V. E., & Zumbrunn, S. K. (2018). Curiosity in schools. In G. Gordon (Ed.), The new science of
curiosity (pp. 243–265). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: kindergarten number
competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867.
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.
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective
experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 291–305.
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F.
(2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: development, factor structure, and psychometrics.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987–998.
Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The
five-dimensional curiosity scale: capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups
of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130–149.
Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: enhancing
students’ pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 285–305.
Knobloch, S., Patzig, G., Mende, A. M., & Hastall, M. (2004). Affective news: effects of discourse structure in
narratives on suspense, curiosity, and enjoyment while reading news and novels. Communication Research,
31(3), 259–287.
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Fostering mathematical curiosity. The Mathematics Teacher, 95(2), 126–130.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an
ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 383–409.
Lamnina, M., & Chase, C. C. (2019). Developing a Thirst for Knowledge: How Uncertainty in the Classroom
Influences Curiosity, Affect, Learning, and Transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 1–13.
Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). ‘I hate maths: why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to
investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944.
Ligneul, R., Mermillod, M., & Morisseau, T. (2018). From relief to surprise: dual control of epistemic curiosity in
the human brain. NeuroImage, 181, 490–500.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A., &
Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647–671.
Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: wanting and liking new information. Cognition &
Emotion, 19(6), 793–814.
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44(7), 1585–1595.
Litman, J. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need
for closure: an initial test of the wanting-liking model of information seeking. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(4), 397–410.
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–157.
Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific
components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–86.
Litman, J. A., Hutchins, T. L., & Russon, R. K. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing, and exploratory
behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 559–582.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.
Luce, M. R., & Hsi, S. (2015). Science-relevant curiosity expression and interest in science: an exploratory study.
Science Education, 99(1), 70–97.
Lykken, D. T., & Venables, P. H. (1971). Direct measurement of skin conductance: a proposal for standardization.
Psychophysiology, 8(5), 656–672.
Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Mathematics anxiety: separating the math from the anxiety. Cerebral
Cortex, 22(9), 2102–2110.
Maloney, E. A., Schaeffer, M. W., & Beilock, S. L. (2013). Mathematics anxiety and stereotype threat: shared
mechanisms, negative consequences and promising interventions. Research in Mathematics Education,
15(2), 115–128.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sánchez-
Bernardos, M. L., Kusdil, M. E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture:
temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1),
173–186.
McCrea, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates to openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J.
A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 826–848). San Diego:
Academic.
McGillivray, S., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2015). Thirst for knowledge: the effects of curiosity and interest
on memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 835–841.
Misfeldt, M., & Johansen, M. W. (2015). Research mathematicians’ practices in selecting mathematical
problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3), 357–373.
Morsanyi, K., McCormack, T., & O'Mahony, E. (2018). The link between deductive reasoning and mathematics.
Thinking & Reasoning, 24(2), 234–257.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52.
Muenks, K., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2018). I can do this! The development and calibration of children’s
expectations for success and competence beliefs. Developmental Review, 48, 24–39.
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: a critical review and synthesis of research. Review
of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.
Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal
epistemology research: philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical frame-
work. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54.
Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., Azevedo, R., Trevors, G., Meier, E., & Heddy, B. C. (2015a). The
curious case of climate change: testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and
complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 39, 168–183.
Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S. P., Di Leo, I., & Chevrier, M. (2015b). The role of epistemic emotions in
mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 172–185.
Muis, K. R., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Ranellucci, J., & Foy, M. J. (2016). Testing the TIDE: examining the nature
of students’ epistemic beliefs using a multiple methods approach. The Journal of Experimental Education,
84(2), 264–288.
Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and
self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 3, 165–184.
Murayama, K., FitzGibbon, L., & Sakaki, M. (this issue). Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-
learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review.
Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., & Li, M. (2018). Knowledge and the model of domain learning. In H. Fives & D.
L. Dinsmore (Eds.), The model of domain learning: understanding the development of expertise (pp. 19–36).
New York: Routledge.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2018). Standards and positions: process. Retrieved 10 September
2018 from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/Process/
National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J.
Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nook, E. C., Sasse, S. F., Lambert, H. K., McLaughlin, K. A., & Somerville, L. H. (2018). The nonlinear
development of emotion differentiation: granular emotional experience is low in adolescence. Psychological
Science, 19(80), 1346–1357.
Noordewier, M. K., & van Dijk, E. (2017). Curiosity and time: from not knowing to almost knowing. Cognition
and Emotion, 31(3), 411–421.
Park, D., Tsukayama, E., Goodwin, G. P., Patrick, S., & Duckworth, A. L. (2017). A tripartite taxonomy of
character: evidence for intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intellectual competencies in children. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 48, 16–27.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications
for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.
Pekrun, R., Vogl, E., Muis, K. R., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). Measuring emotions during epistemic activities: the
epistemically-related emotion scales. Cognition and Emotion, 31(6), 1268–1276.
Peters, R. A. (1978). Effects of anxiety, curiosity, and perceived instructor threat on student verbal behavior in the
college classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 388–395.
Peterson, E. G., Alexander, P. A., & List, A., (2016). The argument for epistemic competence. In B. Moschner,
A. Anschütz, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Wissen und Lernen: Wie epistemische Überzeugungen Schule, Universität
und Arbeitswelt beeinflussen (Knowledge and learning in the perspective of learners and instructor: how
epistemic beliefs influence school, university, and the workplace). Berlin: Waxmann Verlag.
Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: a review of
developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning and Individual Differences,
20(2), 110–122.
Ramani, G. B., & Eason, S. H. (2015). It all adds up: learning early math through play and games. Phi Delta
Kappan, 96(8), 27–32.
Reio, T. G., Jr., & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace
learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(1), 5–30.
Reio, T. G., Jr., Petrosko, J. M., Wiswell, A. K., & Thongsukmag, J. (2006). The measurement and conceptu-
alization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(2), 117–135.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C.
Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the search for optimal motivation
and performance (pp. 373–404). New York: Academic.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and learning. New York: Routledge.
Resnick, L. B. (1988). Treating mathematics as an ill-structured discipline. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.),
The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving: research agenda for mathematics education
series (Vol. 3). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics
classroom. Science, 316(5828), 1128–1129.
Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics.
Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 189–203.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Developing mathematics knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 184–
190.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: does one
lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189.
Robinson, O. C., Demetre, J. D., & Litman, J. A. (2017). Adult life stage and crisis as predictors of curiosity and
authenticity: testing inferences from Erikson’s lifespan theory. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 41(3), 426–431.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2006). Maintaining activity engagement: individual differences in the process of
self-regulating motivation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1697–1720.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a
self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 379–390.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York: Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of well-taught mathematics
courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of
Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.
Sher, K. B. T., Levi-Keren, M., & Gordon, G. (2019). Priming, enabling and assessment of curiosity. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 931–952.
Siegler, R. S., Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: the new frontier for theories of numerical
development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 13–19.
Sierpinska, A., Bobos, G., & Knipping, C. (2008). Sources of students’ frustration in pre-university level,
prerequisite mathematics courses. Instructional Science, 36(4), 289–320.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5(1), 89–102.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Appraisal components and emotion traits: examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity.
Cognition and Emotion, 22(1), 94–113.
Silvia, P. J., Henson, R. A., & Templin, J. L. (2009). Are the sources of interest the same for everyone? Using
multilevel mixture models to explore individual differences in appraisal structures. Cognition and Emotion,
23(7), 1389–1406.
Skagerlund, K., & Träff, U. (2016). Processing of space, time, and number contributes to mathematical abilities
above and beyond domain-general cognitive abilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 143, 85–
101.
Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Muijselaar, M. M. (2017). Exploring the relations
between epistemic beliefs, emotions, and learning from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48,
116–132.
Ufer, S., Rach, S., & Kosiol, T. (2017). Interest in mathematics = interest in mathematics? What general measures
of interest reflect when the object of interest changes. ZDM, 49(3), 397–409.
van Schijndel, T. J., Jansen, B. R., & Raijmakers, M. E. (2018). Do individual differences in children’s curiosity
relate to their inquiry-based learning? International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 996–1015.
van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2011). Threat but not arousal narrows attention: evidence from
pupil dilation and saccade control. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(281), 1–5.
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Filipowicz, A. T., & Chang, A. (2014).
Deconstructing building blocks: preschoolers’ spatial assembly performance relates to early mathematical
skills. Child Development, 85(3), 1062–1076.
Watt, H. M. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions according to
gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development, 75(5), 1556–1574.
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). What’s past is prologue: relations
between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher, 43(7), 352–
360.
Wavo, E.-Y.-T. (2004). Honesty, cooperation, and curiosity achievement of some schools on Nanjing (China).
IFE PsychologIA, 12, 178–187.
Weber, K., Inglis, M., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2014). How mathematicians obtain conviction: implications for
mathematics instruction and research on epistemic cognition. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 36–58.
Weible, J. L., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2016). Science curiosity in learning environments: developing an attitudinal
scale for research in schools, homes, museums, and the community. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(8), 1235–1255.
Wu, P. H., Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2018). Learning benefits of secondary school
students’ inquiry-related curiosity: a cross-grade comparison of the relationships among learning experi-
ences, curiosity, engagement, and inquiry abilities. Science Education, 102(5), 917–950.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal
characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.
Young, C. J., Levine, S. C., & Mix, K. S. (2018). The connection between spatial and mathematical ability across
development. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(755), 1–17.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

A Case For Domain-Specific Curiosity in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Case For Domain-Specific Curiosity in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Case For Domain-Specific Curiosity in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Psychology Review (2019) 31:807–832

A Case for Domain-Specific Curiosity in Mathematics

Emily Grossnickle Peterson 1 & Jana Cohen

Published online: 19 August 2019

Keywords Curiosity . Interests . Exploratory behavior . Information-seeking . Epistemology .

* Emily Grossnickle Peterson

Heightened arousal can be identified by physiological indicators such as changes in pupil

3. Curiosity often manifests through question-asking or exploratory behaviors.

Curiosity as a Multidimensional Construct

Comparing Curiosity and Related Motivations

Whether curiosity can be distinguished as a unique experience relative to similar affectual

Curiosity and Interest

Frequency and Duration Regarding the frequency of momentary experiences, states of

Epistemic curiosity Interest

Curiosity, Confusion, and Frustration

The Importance of Curiosity for Learning in Mathematics

• Conceptual understanding—comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations,

Characteristics of Students’ Development in Mathematics

Epistemic Beliefs in Mathematics

Developmental shifts in epistemic beliefs occur as individuals become more well-versed in a

Developing the Components of Domain-Specific Curiosity

Given what we discussed above about students’ development in mathematics, we now

Development of Knowledge Gaps

Awareness of Gaps Increased conceptual knowledge and epistemic competence provides

Interpretation of Heightened Arousal

Appraisal theories of achievement emotions, such as Pekrun’s (2006) control-value theory of

Development of Question-Asking and Exploratory Behaviors

Question-asking and exploration—considered critical behavioral markers of curiosity (Jirout

proofs—typical of university-level mathematics curricula—and teacher education majors were

Middle (www.openmiddle.com) is an online resource providing interesting mathematical

Implications for Educational Practice

Identifying curiosity as a unique motivational state that can be characterized in domain-

Implications for Future Research

complexities of mathematics (Resnick 1988). Further, relative to other domains, mathematics

In this review, we examined three defining components of curiosity–knowledge gaps, height-

You might also like