Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Multifaceted Role of Self‐Generated Question Asking in Curiosity‐Driven Learning

Kedrick, Kara, Schrater, Paul, Koutstaal, Wilma·2023·Cognitive Science
DOI 10.1111/cogs.13253

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Curiosity motivates the search for missing information, driving learning, scientific discovery, and innovation. Yet, identifying that there is a gap in one's knowledge is itself a critical step, and may demand that one formulate a question to precisely express what is missing. Our work captures the integral role of self‐generated questions during the acquisition of new information, which we refer to as active‐curiosity‐driven learning. We tested active‐curiosity‐driven learning using our “Curiosity Question & Answer Task” paradigm, where participants ( N =135) were asked to generate questions in response to novel, incomplete factual statements and provided the opportunity to forage for answers. We also introduce new measures of question quality that express how well questions capture stimulus and foraging information. We hypothesized that active question asking should influence behavior across the stages of our task by increasing the probability that participants express curiosity, forage for answers, and remember what they had thereby discovered. We found that individuals who asked a high number of quality questions experienced elevated curiosity, were more likely to pursue missing information that was semantically related to their questions, and more likely to retain the information on a later cued recall test. Additional analyses revealed that curiosity played a predominant role in motivating participants to forage for missing information, and that both curiosity and satisfaction with the acquired information boosted memory recall. Overall, our results suggest that asking questions enhances the value of missing information, with important implications for learning and discovery of all forms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cogs.13253

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Fox J., 2019, An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.)
  2. 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643 · DOI · Paper page
  3. RStudio Team, 2020, RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R

Cited by

See all 29

Metadata

Authors
Kedrick, K., Schrater, P., & Koutstaal, W.
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-04
Volume
47
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0364-0213
  • 1551-6709
DOI
10.1111/cogs.13253
Cited by
29
References
60
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (vor, 2 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.