MANAGING THE CURIOSITY GAP DOES MATTER: WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO ABOUT IT? Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 Managing the Curiosity Gap Does Matter: What Do We Need to Do About It? James W. Gentry University of Nebraska-Lincoln jgentry@unl.edu Alvin C. Burns Louisiana State University alburns@lsu.edu John R. Dickinson University of Windsor bjd@uwindsor.ca Sanjay Putrevu Brock University sputrev@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA Seungwoo Chun University of Nebraska schun@bigred.unl.edu Yu Hongyan Jilin University yuhong@public.cc.jl.cn Laura Williams Louisiana Tech University drlawra@yahoo.com Thomas Bare Lincoln East High School, Lincoln NE tbare@lps.org Ruth Ann Gentry Scott Middle School, Lincoln NE rgentry@lps.org 67 mailto:jgentry@unl.edu mailto:alburns@lsu.edu mailto:bjd@uwindsor.ca mailto:sputrev@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA mailto:schun@bigred.unl.edu mailto:yuhong@public.cc.jl.cn mailto:drlawra@yahoo.com mailto:tbare@lps.org mailto:rgentry@lps.org Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 ABSTRACT This paper investigates Loewenstein's Curiosity Gap Model systematically, using data from five universities in three countries and from a U.S. middle school and a high school as well. The data provide support for the model; specifically the results indicate that those with large curiosity gaps (who we assert are more prone to learned helplessness) are more likely to perform poorly in classes. Recommendations are made concerning how those using experiential exercises can attempt to narrow the curiosity gap for these students. INTRODUCTION At last year's ABSEL conference, Gentry et al. (2001) presented a preliminary study operationalizing Loewenstein's (1994) Curiosity Gap Model (CGM). Their operationalization extended research on the CGM by Burns and Gentry 1998; Gentry and Burns 1996, 1997; and Yakonich, Cannon, and Ternan 1997, among others. Gentry et al.'s (2001) pilot study analyzed a small sample of students, a precursor to the analysis of the much more substantial sample presented here. This more substantial sample represents three countries (Canada, China, and the US) and three levels of education (undergraduate, high school, and middle school). This paper presents a more comprehensive analysis, leading to the conclusion that concern about the magnitude of the curiosity gap is merited. Based on these empirical results, strategies for managing the student's curiosity gap are suggested. THE CURIOSITY GAP MODEL In the domain of education, curiosity is almost universally viewed in a positive light because it motivates students to learn. Loewenstein (1994) bases his definition of curiosity largely on the natural human need for understanding one's environment. Interestingly, humans actively seek uncertain situations in which they can solve problems, as evidenced by the popularity of puzzles and mysteries. The key, as noted by Hebb (1949), is that humans seek moderate levels of uncertainty, which are more pleasurable and less averse than either high or low levels of uncertainty. Loewenstein's model (1994) of curiosity is based on the notion of manageable gaps in one's knowledge. Motivation tends to increase as an individual realizes that a gap exists between the current knowledge level and a desired knowledge state. Furthermore, Loewenstein (1994) notes that the key to understanding curiosity seeking "lies in recognizing that the process of satisfying curiosity is itself pleasurable" (p. 90). Thus, students should find learning fun because closing manageable gaps is pleasurable. However, the operant term is manageable. "To stimulate curiosity, it is necessary to make students aware of manageable gaps in their knowledge" (Loewenstein 1994, p. 94). Gaps that are too great discourage learning: Students who consider the new learning level to be unattainable will be deterred from attempting to gain the new level. Similarly, when gaps are too small, learners are apathetic to the challenge. A failure to appreciate what one does not know would constitute an absolute barrier to curiosity (Loewenstein 1994, p. 91). The enlightened individual is one who knows what he or she does not know, a cognitive trait. A curious person is motivated to close the knowledge gap, a conative trait. Loewenstein's information gap perspective implies a wonderful circularity that curiosity should be related to one's knowledge in a particular domain. The more curious one is, the more knowledge one acquires, making other information gaps more manageable and thus creating higher levels of curiosity. OPERATIONALIZING THE "GAP" We attempted to measure the gap in terms of two constructs: "Confidence" and "Importance." Further, these issues were measured in the context of specific issues deemed to be those that the instructor wants students to take from the course. Confidence. "Confidence" captures the lower end of the gap, as it deals with what the student brings to the course. At the same time, it also captures some aspects of the "gap" itself, as awareness of the amount to be understood should restrict one's estimate of confidence. Importance. On the other hand, "Importance" would seem to capture the upper end of the gap, with "greater importance" being logically associated with more "need to know." Rather than "low importance" being associated with little knowledge coming in, it might be that prior knowledge would be represented by greater variance in the importance ratings. For example, the student who sees every topic as being extremely important may have no clue as to what is relevant to his/her personal growth. Difference Variable. A third operationalization of the "gap" is the difference in our proxy for what the student knows ("Confidence") and our proxy for what the student wants to know ("Importance"). As discussed earlier, neither operationalization deals solely with the particular end of the gap that it was intended to measure. Still, it is intuitive that the person who has high confidence in his/her knowledge and also sees the material as being somewhat important will have relatively less incentive to close that gap than someone with less confidence. On the other hand, the individual with relatively low confidence but high perceptions of importance may be prone to learned helplessness. The context in which these constructs were measured was that of specific knowledge. The instrument required the researcher to contemplate just what was desired in terms of what the student was to take away from the course. Twenty concepts were incorporated into "Confidence" and "Importance" contexts. For example, one item in a Consumer Behavior class was "How confident are you that 68 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 DATA COLLECTION IN FALL OF 2000 you understand the relationship between one's social class and one's price consciousness?" whereas the item dealing with the upper end of the gap was "How important to you is it that you understand the relationship between one's social class and one's price consciousness?" University of Nebraska n=16 University of Nebraska n=17 University of Nebraska n=38 Dependent Variables. One obvious problem with a diverse sample of classes is that an extremely wide variety of measures is used to evaluate student performance. The most common was overall grade. We view this as a stringent criterion in that a great deal can happen between the measurement of the individual's curiosity at the beginning of the semester and the final determination of the student's course grade. Clearly class dynamics can play a huge role in the motivation of the student during the intervening three or four months. Thus, we also chose to use the grades on the first exams in the classes and on the first non-exam assignment as dependent variables as well. Louisiana State University n=18 Brock University n=23 Jilin University n=53 Louisiana Tech University n=45 Lincoln East HS n=74 Scott Middle School n=113 Total N=397 RESULTS Relationships between Performance and the "Difference" Gap Measure. The primary operationalization of the curiosity gap was the difference between the Importance and Confidence ratings. No relationship was found between this measure of the gap and the performance on the first exam or on the first assignment. However, for the total class grade, a relationship (chi-square (1 df) = 3.77, p < .06) was found when those with a large curiosity gap were compared to those with moderate and small gaps. Those with large curiosity gaps were much more likely to be low performers (as can be seen in Table 1) than those with small or moderate curiosity gaps. [The sample sizes for the first exam and the first assignment are smaller because some instructors did not provide that level of detail.] SAMPLE Data were collected in a variety of classes across the United States, as well as at universities in Canada and the People's Republic of China. The university samples were all undergraduate classes, whereas data were also collected among ninth grade science classes at a high school and among seventh grade English classes at a middle school. Relationships between Confidence and Performance. The pattern of results (see Table 2) for the total class grade, the first test, and the first assignment were as expected by the CGM. In each case, the majority of the moderately confident group were high performers (55%, 56%, and 53%, respectively) whereas the majority of the low and high confidence groups were low performers in most instances. For the first assignment, the chi square statistic (6.54, p < .05) is significant, with those moderately confident more likely to be high TABLE ONE CROSS-TABULATIONS OF DIFFERENCE SCORE AND PERFORMANCE _________________________________________________________________________________ Performance Difference Score Level Construct Level Low Moderate High _________________________________________________________________________________ First Low 38 40 39 Test High 44 44 44 First Low 31 33 40 Assgnmt High 40 38 34 Low/mod High ChiSquare Overall Low 61 60 76 121 76 3.77 Grade High 63 67 52 130 52 p<.06 _____________________________________________________________________ 69 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 performers while those with high and low confidence being more likely to be low performers. The results for the first exam are interesting in that the majority of those in both the low and moderate confidence groups were high performers, while the majority of those initially very confident were low performers. Apparently, this high level of confidence was not an incentive to study very hard for the first exam. However, by the end of the semester, those initially high in confidence were just as likely to be high performers as those with moderate confidence, whereas those with low confidence were more likely to be low performers. TABLE TWO CROSS-TABULATIONS OF CONFIDENCE AND PERFORMANCE _______________________________________________________________________________ Performance Confidence Level Construct Level Low Moderate High ________________________________________________________________________________ Low/Mod High ChiSquare First Low 36 35 45 71 45 1.92 Test High 37 44 35 81 35 p<.20 ChiSquare First Low 65 43 65 6.54 Assgnmt High 43 56 49 p<.05 Low Mod/High ChiSquare Overall Low 72 59 69 72 128 2.97 Grade High 52 67 68 52 137 p<.10 _____________________________________________________________________ Relationships between Importance and Performance. The patterns of results (see Table 3) are consistent with that theorized by the CGM. In each case, the majority of those rating the course topics as moderately important were high performers in the class (55%, 62%, 59%). For the total grade, the results are significant (chi-square (2df)=7.6, p<.05). Those seeing the material as being more important were more likely to be low performers on the first exam (chi-square (1 df)=2.95, p<.10). One explanation might be that the higher perceived importance results in greater anxiety. Relationships between the Variance in Importance Ratings and Performance. As noted earlier, those possibly "clueless" about the course's content might well rate all content as being very important; thus those with limited variation in the importance ratings might be expected to perform less well. For the first assignment (see Table 4), this pattern of results occurred. For both the first test and the first assignment, the majority of those with moderate variation in their importance ratings were more likely to be high performers. That no relationship was found with the total class grade may indicate that the "cluelessness" originally demonstrated may disappear over time. TABLE THREE CROSS-TABULATIONS OF IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE _______________________________________________________________________ Performance Importance Level Construct Level Low Moderate High _____________________________________________________________________________________ Low/Mod High ChiSquare First Low 41 43 52 84 52 2.95 Test High 47 55 41 92 41 p<.10 First Low 34 34 44 Assgnmt High 41 56 48 ChiSquare Overall Low 72 51 71 7.58 Grade High 54 72 56 p<.05 ____________________________________________________________________ 70 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 TABLE FOUR CROSS-TABULATIONS OF STD. DEV. OF IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE ___________________________________________________________________ Performance Std. Dev. of Importance Level Construct Level Low Moderate High ________________________________________________________________________________ ChiSquare First Low 49 29 42 7.71 Test High 50 50 33 p<.05 First Low 48 19 35 12.3 Assgnmt High 35 45 32 p<.005 Overall Low 74 74 66 Grade High 55 52 63 _______________________________________________________________________________ WHAT TO DO Our results indicate that there is strong need to be concerned about those students who have large gaps between what they know and what they want to know. It is somewhat surprising that a pencil and paper instrument administered early in the semester on issues largely unknown to the students could predict low overall class performance for students with large gaps. Clearly these students do not merely display false modesty about what they know and exceptionally high levels of interest in the course material. Our results suggest that students with very little curiosity, the underachievers, need not be the primary focus of educators. They will perform nearly as well as those with manageable gaps, although they may do more poorly on the first exam. But those with very large gaps, who are more prone to learned helplessness, consistently underperform. This finding is especially disconcerting for those who use experiential exercises, as these pedagogies often serve, in the short run at least, to increase the curiosity gap. What one knows is of less relevance in the simulation framework and the value of what can be learned from the experience is more fuzzy. Golden, Burns, and Gentry (1984), in a study involving the communication barriers associated with a wide variety of pedagogies, found that simulation games and other forms of experiential exercises are seen as threatening by students accustomed to lecture-style classes. While those in ABSEL may tend to be overly positive about the benefits of hands-on learning, it is important to note that many out there, including many of our students, may be intimidated by experiential learning. Following is a discussion of strategies for managing the curiosity gap, focusing on moving the two extremes to the middle. The basic issues are familiar to experiential pedagogues. Here, though, strategies are derived from the theoretically-based and empirically-supported framework of the CGM. Raising the Lower End of the Gap. As noted earlier, all students can be expected to encounter reduction in what one knows as the experiential exercise (for ease of presentation and visualization, we will use the context of a simulation game to represent the larger domain of experiential exercises from here on) presents new frameworks that must be learned. The simulated world and the real will have limited overlap and, to the extent that the student has a representation of the real world fixed in memory, deviation from the real world may cause high levels of frustration (Gentry and Brown 1973). Before the student can learn what is intended to be learned, s/he must first learn the game's rules. This barrier is a material one. From their own perspective, educators might consider the sometimes prohibitive learning curve and other start-up costs of adopting a new simulation game. Nevertheless, there are standard procedures that are useful in moving the lower end of the gap in the desired direction. While the students will have a well-written player's manual that they have all read carefully, lectures on the key aspects of the game still serve to crystallize their perceptions of the simulated world. Further, a quiz over the game prior to the start of play does increase greatly the likelihood that they will read the manual. Finally, the often recommended trial run of period one (a "just for fun" decision) provides students with experience in the decision making process without having to dig their way out of a hole created by possible unpreparedness to play the game. The overriding message here is to make certain that students are prepared to begin game play. Some will read the manual and get it; others will be clueless. The results of this study suggest that alienating the former group is of modest consequence compared to enhancing the latter group. Lowering the High End of the Gap. While it is not clear where students are starting from, even more vague is what they want to obtain. As instructors, we have a goal in terms of their learning, though most of us would have some 71 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 difficulty in articulating that to an educated third party. Lecturing has the advantage of allowing the instructor the perception that a set amount of material will be learned; in reality, a set amount is taught and who knows what is learned. When using a simulation game, there is more ambiguity as to what is being taught, as well as much ambiguity as to what is being learned. The most common advice concerning the use of any experiential exercise is to debrief students very systematically after the exercise is over. Hopefully, debriefing will help the students crystallize what they have learned. Some at ABSEL have suggested that debriefing should also be done midstream during the game play. We support that recommendation strongly, as we believe there is need for directional guidance during a fairly free-form learning experience. A second issue deals with the exercise's reward structure. How much weight should be placed on an exercise is a much-discussed but little-settled issue. Clearly, though, some grade weight needs to be assigned to the exercise in order to get the students' attention. The basis for the grade is also a bone of contention. There are those who argue that game performance represents learning, just as there are many who argue that, in many cases, it is the student who digs himself/herself out of a hole (though very rarely all the way to the top of the competition) who learns the most in the experience. At the first ABSEL conference, Ralph Day made the observation that simulation games are the only approach that makes students live with their decisions. A student can do a poor job on one case, and then start over fresh on the next one. A poor simulation decision leaves the student facing an extremely different (and more difficult) set of conditions. The learning experience across students in the context of a simulation game is not controlled nor is it at all constant. Good first decisions may be the result of good planning, but they can also have random elements as well as carryover (from previous classes) effects. For instance, Smead (1979) noted that the selection of a nearly optimal component mix for the soft drink in the Day and Ness Marketing in Action game put students in a commanding position that few would relinquish. Students with poor early decisions may not have a chance to win the game, yet turning the firm around may be a wonderful learning experience. The question becomes "How should we reward students for game play?" Business focuses on the "bottom line," so those who support performance as the proper criterion have a real-world analog to rely on. However, using simulation games in class is not done to instill competitiveness (our culture already has more than its share of that), but rather as a vehicle for learning. The bottom-line orientation may provide strong disincentive to learn among those getting off to a rocky start. Or, in terms of the curiosity gap model, the upper level may change such that the gap is not manageable. Dickinson (2001a, 2001b) and Thavikulwat (2001) have provided much thought as to alternative reward systems, including methods based on period-to-period change. Dickinson's work has been empirically based using data based on hypothetical simulation play in a game with a bottom-line reward system. Had a learning-oriented reward system actually been used, very different performances might have been observed. The logic of the curiosity gap model argues for such a learning-based reward system. More work is needed to interface between reward systems and the size of the curiosity gap. Anecdotal evidence certainly supports the existence of a relationship. Dick Teach years ago discussed a reward system in which only the losing team each week had to contribute to a pot that went for a keg of beer at the end of the semester. Students played in such a way as to avoid losing, rather than attempting to win. Performance levels differed greatly when Dick succumbed to political correctness and dropped the end of the semester keg party. SUMMARY This paper completes the story that was presented partially at last year's conference. We report a more systematic analysis of the data obtained from a broad-scale study, and then discuss approaches that we recommend to reduce the magnitude of the curiosity gap, a goal which our results indicate will help improve student performance. REFERENCES Burns, Alvin C. and James W. Gentry (1998), "Motivating Students to Engage in Experiential Learning: A Tension-to-Learn Theory," Simulation & Games, 29 (No. 2), 133-151. Dickinson, John R. (2001a), "An Alternative View to Scoring Selected Simulation Games and Experiential Exercises," ABSEL Conference Proceedings. Dickinson, John R. (2001b), "A new Perspective on the Scoring of Objective Tests," in Ram Krishnan and Madhu Viswanathan (Eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol 12, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 347-348. Dweck, Carol S. and E. S. Elliott (1983), "Achievement and Motivation," in P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 4, New York: Wiley and Sons, 643-691. Gentry, James W. and Thomas L. Brown (1974), "Simulation: A Frustration, A 'Game,' or a Meaningful Learning Experience," Proceedings, ABSEL, Oklahoma City, 182-185. Gentry, James W. and Alvin C. Burns (1996), "Experiential Learning's Role in Motivating Students: A Model Based on Curiosity," Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Vol 23, 97. Gentry, James W. and Alvin C. Burns (1997), "Thoughts about the Learning of Learning: The Case of Guided Learning and Associated Measurement Issues," Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Vol 24, 241-246. 72 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 29, 2002 Gentry, James W., Alvin C. Burns, Sanjay Putrevu, Yu Hongyan, Laura Williams, Thomas Bare, and Ruth Ann Gentry (2001), "Motivating Students: An Initial Attempt to Operationalize the Curiosity Gap Model," Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Vol. 28. Golden, Steven P., Alvin C. Burns, and James W. Gentry (1984), "An Analysis of Communication Barriers in Five Methods of Teaching Business Subjects," The Journal of Business Communication, 21 (Summer), 45- 52. Hebb, D. O. (1949), The Organization of Behavior, New York: John Wiley. Loewenstein, George (1994), "The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation, Psychological Bulletin, 116 (No. 1), 75-98. Smead, Raymond J. and David W. Finn (1979), "Discovering the Majority Fallacy," Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Vol. 6, 178-181. Thavikulwat, Precha (2001), "The Tournament Concept: Extending the Idea of Using Simulations as Instruments of Assessment," Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Vol 28, 225-233. Yakonich, B. A., Hugh M. Cannon, and A. Ternan (1997), "The Energy Factor: Building Motivation in the Simulation Gaming Environment," Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Vol 24, 329-335. 73 Table of Contents Volume 29, 2001 Threshold Marketer A Family Of Marketing Simulations: Basic Marketer And Advanced Marketer Team Mode And Solo Mode Globalization As An Extended Experiential Exercise The Benefits And Planning Considerations Of Short Term Study Abroad Programs How 2 Setup Your Office Computer To Run Linux For Teaching E-Commerce Without Messing Everything Else Up Incorporating Cosmopolitan-Related Focus-Group Research Into Global Advertising Simulations Demonstration Of Advanced Features In Computer-Assisted Gaming Of International Business A Comparison Of Discrimination-Based Versus Conventional Simulation Game Scoring A Universal Mathematical Law Criterion For Algorithmic Validity The Impact Of Public Policy On Innovation: A Simulation Project For Research And Teaching Participant Identification Of Competitors In A Marketing Simulation Competition Simulation Research In The Hospitality Industry "Computer Simulation, Games And Roleplay: Drawing Lines Of Demarcation" Simulation Distribution Alternatives: Author/User Considerations Managing The Curiosity Gap Does Matter: What Do We Need To Do About It? Use Of External Interventions In A Computer Based Simulation Putting Service Learning Into Orbit It's A Wonderful Life: Simulating The Golden Years Adventures In Creating An Outdoor Leadership Challenge Course For An Emba Program Vbotz: A Pedagogical Cross-Disciplinary, Multi-Academic Level Manufacturing Corporate Simulation Use Of Computer Modeling In Management Accounting Is Simulation Performance Related To Application? An Exploratory Study Learning Cooperatively May Not Be Learning Collaborately! Perception Is Reality: Sharing Frames International Management Virtual Teamwork: A Simulation Financial Plan For Your Life And Career Goals Using Project-Based Experiential Learning Groups In The Principles Of Marketing Course Futures Course: Learning How To Anticipate The Future Of Business Interactive Online Strategic Market Planning With The Web-Based Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix Graphics Package Strategy Learning In A Total Enterprise Simulation Investigation Of The Impact Of Decision Parameters For A Dutch Auction Simulation For Ipo Issues Integrating In-Class Learning With Out-Of-Classroom Experiences Through A Managerial Competency Development Framework War And Peace: Managing Students Learning Experience In A Competitive Simulation Game Virtually Experiential Classrooms Exercise: Conducting Role Plays Using Student Generated Cases Procedural Justice And Acceptance In Group Decision Making The E-Commerce Game: A Strategic Business Board Game Does Student Preparation Matter In A Simulation? A Comparison Of Pedagogical Styles The Game Of Business - A Weekend MBA Course Volume-Dependent Money Exchange Model For Gaming Simulations Implementing Service Learning For Accountants: The Not For Profit Project To Teach Vikings To Behave Among Mandarins: Lessons From Teaching With A Simulation Model Of Applied Business Ethics In International Management Maze Bright Teachers In The Classroom The Validity Investigation Of A Test Assessing Total Enterprise Simulation Learning What Makes Strategy Possible: An Illustration Using Paper And Scissors Learning Micro-OB Skills While Making Top Management Decisions In A Multinational Industrial Firm The Absel Research Heritage And The Bkl: Leveraging Their Value For Future Research New Product Development (Npd) Simulations: Some Challenging Questions And Tough Modeling Issues The Biofeedback Stress Test The Power Circle Exercise Total Enterprise Simulation Learning Compared To Traditional Learning In The Business Policy Course A Business Game Distance Education Application: Learning Outcomes And Experiences Is the Tobin's Q a good Indicator of a Company's Performance? A Critical Examination of the "Experiential" Premise Underlying BUsines Simulation Usage