The Power of Interest For Motivation and Engagement 2015

loaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:25 26 April
THE POWER OF INTEREST FOR

MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:25 26 April 2017
The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement combines research from
educational psychology and neuroscience to explain the important role of
interest in academics and life success. Drawing on cases both in and out of the
classroom, the authors examine how interest is developed and sustained as well
as how it can be assessed and interpreted. This volume is written for people who
would like to know more about the power of their interests and how they could
develop them: students who want to be meaningfully engaged, educators and
parents wondering about how to facilitate motivation, business people focusing
on ways in which they could engage meaningfully their employees and associates,
policy-makers whose recognition of the power of interest may lead to changes
resulting in a new focus supporting interest development for schools, out-of-school
activity, industry, and business, and researchers studying learning and motivation.
It draws on research in cognitive, developmental, and social psychology, as well
as in the learning sciences, to demonstrate that there is power for everyone in
leveraging interest for motivation and engagement.
K. Ann Renninger is the Eugene M. Lang Research Professor at Swarthmore

College. She is the Chair of the Department of Educational Studies.
Suzanne E. Hidi is a Founding Fellow of the Senior College of the University

of Toronto, and an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology.
THE POWER OF
INTEREST FOR
MOTIVATION AND
ENGAGEMENT
K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne E. Hidi

First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor and Francis

The right of K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne E. Hidi to be identified as authors of
this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known
or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Renninger, K. Ann, author. | Hidi, Suzanne, author.
Title: The power of interest for motivation and engagement / K. Ann Renninger
and Suzanne Hidi. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2016. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015023516| ISBN 9781138779785 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781315771045 (e-book) | ISBN 9781138779792 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH: Motivation in education. | Interest (Psychology) | Engagement
(Philosophy) | Learning, Psychology of.
Classification: LCC LB1065 .R44 2016 | DDC 370.15/4–dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015023516
ISBN: 978-1-138-77978-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-77979-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-77104-5 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Out of House Publishing
We dedicate this book to our families. Their many interests and questions have
contributed significantly to our understanding of interest. Their humor, patient
explanations, and generous support of our interest in understanding interest have
been essential.
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations viii

Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
1 Defining Interest 8
2 Interest, Attention, and Curiosity 32
3 Measuring Interest 52
4 Interest, Motivation, Engagement, and Other

Motivational Variables 71
5 Interest and Content 96
6 Developing Interest 124
References 138
Author Index 167
Subject Index 173
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures
1.1 The Dual Meaning of Interest: A Psychological State and a
Motivational Variable. 9
5.1 Percentage of Students Responding with Identified Interest for
Each Subject, Cohort by Gender. 118
Tables
1.1 A Case Example of a Triggered Situational Interest
That Is Maintained. 10
1.2 The Four Phases of Interest Development. 13
3.1 A Case Example of the Triggering of Interest in Mathematics
and Its Development. 55
newgenprepdf
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We want to acknowledge the contributions that our many colleagues and students
have made to the field of interest research, our thinking, and this volume. We also
appreciate the thoughtful comments of Jessica E. Bachrach, Jocelyn G. Hidi, Rose
K. Pozos-Brewer, and J. Melissa Running on the chapters of this volume. We
gratefully acknowledge support for work on the volume from the Senior College
of the University of Toronto, the Swarthmore College Faculty Research and
Travel Funds, and the Constance C. Hungerford Faculty Support Fund. Finally,
we thank Rebecca Novack and the editorial support team at Routledge for their
work with us.
INTRODUCTION
Interest is powerful. The triggering of interest initiates productive engagement

and the potential for optimal motivation. A person is said to be interested in
some activity, such as writing, playing bridge, or fantasy football, if they voluntar-
ily engage in thinking about it, happily prioritize the problems that arise (e.g., a
paragraph that does not work, a bridge hand that did not make, or having your
first round draft pick be out for the season), and are willing to persevere to address
them.1 Until recently, it has not been clear that regardless of a person’s age or prior
experience, interests like these can be triggered and can be supported to develop.
A person’s interest makes persistence feel effortless and increases the possibility of
achievement and creative contribution.
Being interested in something—a school assignment, a work-related responsi-
bility, or a museum exhibit—has been repeatedly shown to benefit the interested
person. People who are interested in what they are doing are recognizable because
they tend to have positive feelings, be invigorated, and choose to reengage with
a particular object/activity/idea, or content, repeatedly. Their engagement with
the content is distinctive and appears to be self-sustaining; their interest positively
affects their attention, goal setting, comprehension, motivation, and learning, and
it can influence their ability to achieve and succeed in their careers.2 Although
having a more developed interest is optimal, any development of interest is ben-
eficial. Many people do well with having focused interests in only a few content
areas and less well-developed (but some) interest in others. The complications
set in if there is no interest for content to be learned and no supports to trigger
interest in the content to develop. As we will explain, evidence now exists that
demonstrates that those who lack interest can have their interest triggered and
can be supported to seriously engage content that previously was not of interest
to them.
2 Introduction
In his 1949 review of the history of interest, Berlyne pointed out that increas-
ing understanding of interest has been a serious pursuit of psychologists and edu-
cators for centuries. Berlyne wrote that conceptualizations of interest were inad-
equate in early studies as they neglected important meanings of the word. He
argued that many aspects of interest need clarification and that various aspects of
motivation such as curiosity were particularly in need of clarification. He sug-
gested that when such advances have been made:
we shall be in a better position to give a clear, precise, operational defini-

tion of “interest” in one or several senses. And it will be easier to discuss
such matters as: (a) the relation between different uses of the word; (b) the
development of adult interests out of the behavior of animals and children;
(c) the origins and progress of specific interests; (d) the measurement and
classification of interests.
(Berlyne 1949: 194)
Berlyne believed that, eventually, developments in research would make it possible

to provide clarity about the relations among different approaches to interest, the
development of interest in general and with regard to specific content, as well as
the measurement of interest.
Armed with a developmental model of interest that distinguishes between
earlier and later phases of development—the four-phase model of interest
development—we can now provide the conceptual framework that Berlyne called
for.3 The four-phase model describes phases in the development of a person’s
interest that apply both in and out of school. It provides a framework for explain-
ing how studies focusing on varying aspects of interest contribute to understand-
ing of interest as a developmental process. It also allows us to identify indicators of
different phases of interest that can be used by researchers and educators and posi-
tions them to address the power of the development of interest for motivation and
engagement. For example, individuals with little interest in history might be
encouraged to examine artifacts or documents and talk about what they notice.
An educator (parent, after-school staff person, or museum docent) should respond
to the connections that the individuals can make to the materials and/or provide
additional relevant content. On the other hand, those who already have a more
developed interest in history can draw on previously acquired knowledge and are
likely to prefer engaging in discussions or debates about the evidence or perspec-
tives provided by the artifacts. Having already made some connection to history,
they are ready to continue to stretch what they know, and this, in turn, leads to
the continuing development and deepening of their interests.
Only relatively recently have research findings demonstrated that inter-
est develops. Because interest is a common phenomenon, there is folk wisdom
that explains its origins and how it works. Although folk wisdom about interest
has some aspects of truth, it also contains a number of misunderstandings about
Introduction 3
interest that need to be recognized and addressed. Addressing these misconcep-

tions should allow the field of interest research to move forward and provide
practitioners with information about how interest can be supported to develop.
We briefly review some of these misconceptions here and address them in more
detail in the chapters of this volume.
A critical misunderstanding about interest is that it is static. It has been stud-
ied and conceptualized as if it were either present or absent. When people think
of interest, they often are not thinking about its potential to develop. They may
be thinking of the psychological state of interest (the way that they or another
person engages with interest) or of interest as a motivational predisposition (the
motivating qualities of interest). In this volume, we explain that interest always
includes both of these aspects, and, most importantly, that interest is dynamic. It
always has the possibility to develop. The development of interest occurs through
interactions with others (e.g., peers, educators, employers, and parents) and the
environment.
A related misunderstanding is the erroneous description of interest as a per-
sonal characteristic, trait, or propensity, something that a person is born with.4
This view of interest suggests that a person either has an interest in a particular
discipline, such as mathematics, or does not, and that if a person does not have an
interest in a particular school subject, business, or leisure time activity, etc., noth-
ing can be done about it. Some people still mistakenly operate with this view;
however, research findings suggest that this is not the case. Interest may be sup-
ported to develop, and, in fact, the support provided by the home environment
has been widely acknowledged to be critical in providing a foundation as well as
a language for engaging with particular disciplines (e.g., music, science). Given its
benefit for learning, and differences of early experience, it seems to be incumbent
on educators, in particular, to take responsibility for supporting the development
of their students’ interest.
Yet another misconception is that interest is always easily measured by simply
asking the person if they are interested or like the content. “Liking” does not pro-
vide enough information to distinguish among those with less and more devel-
oped interest. It is also essential to consider an individual’s value for and know-
ledge of content, and/or the behaviors to enable assessment of this information.
Another misconception is that a person who has more developed interest does
not need support; research shows that this assumption is not valid. Even when
a person’s interest is already developing, it is most likely to thrive when there is
support for its continued development. Without opportunities to continue to
deepen and develop, even a well-developed interest may go dormant or drop off.
Parents, educators, and employers play an important role in how interest develops
and whether it is sustained.
Finally, another misunderstanding about interest is the assumption that sup-
porting the development of a person’s interest is too complex and messy of a task
to deal with. The complexity is related to the fact that people tend not to have a
4 Introduction
clear definition of interest (for example, they do not know if and how interest dif-
fers from curiosity), and they often do not recognize the characteristics of interest
or its developmental trajectory. Interest that is in the process of being triggered
and has not yet developed differs in predictable ways from more developed inter-
est. Understanding the differences between earlier and later phases in the devel-
opment of interest can be a reliable and useful tool for supporting learning and
productivity. A person’s phase of interest provides information about how a task or
activity is likely to be experienced and can suggest ways that others could enable
the person to make connections to it and persevere.
Findings from research on interest confirm that the development of interest
contributes to a person’s readiness to identify with a discipline, as well as to think
and work with content. In fact, interest is used as an indicator in assessments of
flow and grit.5 There is mounting evidence that interest is instrumental in its rela-
tion to learning, and for motivation and engagement. For example, interest:
• predicts long-term growth in achievement;6

• is critical for learners’ expectations and motivation to succeed; their aware-
ness of the value of interest seems to precede their awareness of utility and
attainment value (importance);7
• leads to meaningful engagement, and appears to precede changes in students’
behavior and academic engagement.8
Moreover, evidence from neuroscience now confirms that people are hardwired
to be interested and to engage in seeking behavior that activates the brain’s reward
circuitry.9 This means that all persons can develop interest and also that, as inter-
est develops, a person is likely to voluntarily seek the information and resources
needed for continued learning.When interest is supported to deepen and develop,
motivation and engagement are most likely to be effectively cultivated.
In 1946, the psychologist Allport wrote that,“One of our greatest defects is our
lack of a consistent or adequate theory of interest” (1946: 341).10 He acknowl-
edged the power of interest and described the complications of not having enough
information to be able to explain and/or harness its possibilities. In the last thirty
years, research developments have begun to provide a basis for formulation and
development of such a theory. In this book, we describe the theory and findings
that now constitute the four-phase model of interest development.11 In this model,
interest is conceptualized as including affective and cognitive components that are
biologically grounded; that is, they have roots in a person’s physiological make-up.
Furthermore, interest is dynamic and has the potential to develop. It develops in
the interaction(s) of a person and the environment, or learning context.12
We open the volume by describing interest development as a trajectory that
unfolds in relation to a person’s interactions with the environment, whether these
interactions take place in or out of school. In each of the book’s six chapters,
we focus on issues that are important to educators, business people, parents, and
Introduction 5
various research communities. Policy-makers could also benefit from reading

the book.
In Chapter 1, we define interest. We acknowledge references to interest in
everyday conversation, and explain how interest is studied by academics con-
cerned with education and learning. We provide an overview and a case illustra-
tion of the four-phase model of interest development. We also explain the histor
ical context of educational and psychological studies of interest and the roots of
different approaches to the conceptualization of interest.

In Chapter 2, we review research on interest and its relation to learning, atten-
tion, and curiosity. We point to findings confirming the important role of interest
in learning, and we revisit differences in researchers’ interpretations of the relation
between attention and interest. We use evidence from neuroscience to further
clarify how learning, attention, and curiosity are related to interest, and to explain
why interest is rewarding and powerful. We also argue that interest and curiosity
should be conceptualized as related but distinct concepts.
In Chapter 3, we describe the process of triggering interest and how new
interests can be supported to develop.We address what counts as interest and how
interest can be identified and measured.We point to behaviors associated with the
development of interest, and explain how and also why these behaviors provide
reliable indicators for its measurement.
In Chapter 4, we define the terms “motivation” and “engagement” and dis-
cuss their relation to interest. Following this, we explain the links between inter-
est and different types of motivational variables such as goals, self-efficacy, and
self-regulation. We also explain that the ways in which they are related may
change as interest develops; for example, in earlier phases of interest, the variables
are distinct, and in later phases of interest, they are more likely to be coordinated
and mutually supportive.
In Chapter 5, we consider the paradox of declines in interest as learners advance
in schooling.We discuss how interest is related to content knowledge, the relation
between interest and identity, and the meaning of interest-driven learning.We also
report on research conducted both in and out of school to provide an overview
of interest research by domain.
In Chapter 6, we conclude by reviewing three major premises:
1. Interest is a variable that can be supported to develop and deepen, regardless

of a person’s age or prior experience.
2. In order for interest to develop, a person needs to make connections to the
content of interest.
3. Neuroscience provides evidence that people are hardwired to find the pur-
suit of their interest rewarding.
We review resources for supporting the development of interest, and we address

the implications of interest for subsequent research and for practice.
6 Introduction
We draw on research findings to inform the discussion in each chapter and to

identify what is not yet well understood. Because the principles of interest are
generally applicable across disciplines, we have included case materials that refer
to a wide variety of situations in order to provide context for readers. We have
designed the volume to include text written for a wide range of readers, not all
of whom specialize in motivation and learning; annotated notes are provided for
researchers.This organization is intended to increase ease of reading for those new
to the topic; it enables the chapters to be read without interruption by multiple

citations and additional details. The sequencing of the chapters and the use of
examples is intended to allow readers new to research on interest to develop their
understanding; key ideas are also reiterated in each chapter in case readers choose
to read chapters out of order.
Our goal is to provide readers with a research-informed follow-up to Dewey’s
now-classic essay that was published in 1913, Interest and Effort in Education.13 We
note that, like Dewey’s, our focus is on typical development and the role of inter-
est in learning. This volume does not address particular conditions, although we
recognize that both researchers and practitioners may benefit by attending to the
development of interests of those with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,
Asperger’s syndrome, or high-functioning autism.
Although not all of Dewey’s ideas were supported by subsequent research,
many of them were. Neuroscientific information was unavailable to Dewey. Now,
this research suggests that there are biological correlates of interest indicating that
interest is inherently rewarding. Recent findings suggest that interest is its own
reward and that the development of interest is even more powerful than Dewey
suggested.
Notes
1 Our focus throughout this volume is on individuals’ participation with interest. Interest
is both a psychological state and/or a motivational variable. We speak of a person hav-
ing an interest in some content (e.g., domain of knowledge [such as mathematics, or
playing tennis], object [such as trains or microscopes], or idea [such as leftist politics or
cooperation in peace-making]). However, we do not focus on the specifics of the object
of interest; rather, we describe the power of interest generally and its application across
different contents of interest.
2 See Barron et al. 2014; Edelson and Joseph 2004; Illeris 2007; Renninger 2000;
Renninger and Hidi 2002.
3 Hidi and Renninger 2006; Renninger and Hidi 2011; see also discussion in Renninger
and Su 2012.
4 This is not to deny that some individuals are born with major predispositions to develop
their individual interests such as in music, mathematics, or chess. However, the point we
are making is that even when no such strong predisposition is present, interest may be
developed, if triggered and supported.
5 Flow refers to the psychological state of engagement during which a person is
so focused on activity that they may lose track of time (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi
Introduction 7
1990; Jackson 2012). Grit refers to the determination to master content, especially
when interest and its facilitating effect on effort is not present (e.g., Duckworth
et al. 2007).
6 Murayama et al. 2013.
7 This is our interpretation of Wigfield et al.’s (2006) explanation that is described in
terms of prediction.
8 Reschly and Christenson 2012; see discussion in Renninger and Bachrach 2015.
9 Hidi 2006, 2015; see also Berridge 2012; Panksepp 1998.
10 cf. Berlyne 1949; Renninger and Hidi 2011.

11 The four-phase model describes phases in the development of a person’s interest, a pro-
cess that is initiated by triggering. Interest may then be sustained as a relatively endur-
ing predisposition to return over time to particular classes of content such as writing,
playing bridge, or cooking (Hidi and Renninger 2006; see also Renninger and Hidi
2011; Renninger and Su 2012).
12 Schiefele (1978) was among the first to emphasize that it was essential to study inter-
est as a significant component of motivation and to explain how and why students
become interested in particular content and how interest can be sustained.
13 The present volume also follows Silvia’s Exploring the Psychology of Interest, published in
2006. As we discuss in more detail later, Silvia’s research questions focus on cognitive
appraisals that result in the emotion of interest. Notably, Silvia is not focusing on inter-
est as a cognitive and affective variable that can be supported to develop. Rather he
focuses on the emotional component of interest as an aspect of personality. Whereas we
acknowledge that interest has an emotional component, we also maintain that interest
is the product of an interaction between a person and their environment and that it is
through this interaction that interest is supported to develop. Because Silvia focuses on
the pattern of cognitions, or appraisal structures, that lead to feelings of interest, he sug-
gests that evaluations (appraisals) of events, not the events themselves, result in emotional
experiences. Instead, we draw on research from neuroscience that describes seeking
behaviors as a biological root of interest (Panksepp 1998) and the interactions of the
person with the environment as the basis of interest development. As such, although we
do not deny that individual differences exist in the depth and breadth of interests of
individuals (see Ainley 1987), we do not presume that conscious cognitive evaluations
precede the psychological state of interest or that interests are necessarily stable aspects
of personality.
1
DEFINING INTEREST
What is interest and how has it been

conceptualized and studied?
What is the definition of interest? A momentary fixation, attraction, fascination,

or curiosity? A preference or an attitude? Love of learning or even a passion?
A motivational belief or a trait-like characteristic? Is it an emotion?1 Until recently,
academics have not been able to reach a consensus about how to define interest,
because so many of these ways of describing interest seem to be intuitively cor-
rect. In order to avoid confusion about our definition, we specifically focus on
interest and its development beginning with the initial triggering of attention
and extending through to the formation of a well-developed individual interest.
In the course of its development, interest is very likely to include or reflect all of
the above definitions.2
In our definition, interest has a dual meaning: it refers to the psychological
state of a person while engaging with some type of content (e.g., mathematics,
bass fishing, music) and also to the cognitive and affective motivational predisposi-
tion to reengage with that content over time. That is, interest is a psychological
state and a motivational disposition that exists in, or is the product of, the interac-
tion of people’s characteristics and their environment (see Figure 1.1).3 Much of
the research on interest focuses on one or the other of these two aspects of inter-
est, although they have been, and perhaps should be, considered together.
A Psychological State and a Motivational Variable

Interest as a psychological state is grounded in a person’s physiological/neuro-
logical reactions to a wide range of things, including other people, objects, and
tasks. Interest also describes a unique, content-specific, motivational variable that
is responsible for the processes underlying how people act, feel, engage, and learn.4
Defining Interest 9
Characteristics of
the person
Motivational Variable
(Triggered Situational
Interest, or
Psychological State Maintained Situational
Interest, or
Emerging Individual
Interest, or
Well-Developed
Individual Interest)
Characteristics of the
environment
FIGURE 1.1 The Dual Meaning of Interest: A Psychological State and a Motivational
Variable.
As a psychological state, interest is characterized by increased attention, effort,

concentration, and affect during engagement. As a motivational variable, the term
makes a distinction between shorter-term or situational interest and longer-term
or individual interest, which is characterized by reengagement over time.
Two children who are playing chess and are in different phases of interest may
be in the same psychological state but may differ in their predisposition to return
to playing chess another time. The child with less developed interest (triggered or
maintained situational interest) may or may not continue to seek opportunities
to play, depending on available and competing opportunities; whereas, the child
with more developed interest in chess (emerging individual or well-developed
individual interest) will be motivated to return to play: he will not want to be
called away from the game, and, if he is, he is likely to seek opportunities to play
chess again just as soon as he can.5
The two meanings of interest—as both a psychological state and as a moti-
vational disposition—are interrelated. On one hand, if the psychological state of
interest is generated or triggered repeatedly, it may support the development of
interest as a motivational variable. On the other hand, the level or phase of interest
as a motivational variable determines the types of environmental supports (e.g.,
from other people and/or the design of tasks or opportunities) that are needed
to enable the continued triggering and maintaining of the psychological state of
interest.
Integral to the development of interest as a motivational variable are two
types of interest: situational and individual.6 Linked, they describe the potential
10 Defining Interest
TABLE 1.1 A Case Example of a Triggered Situational Interest That Is Maintained.
Julia is in her last term of college. While nervously waiting for a medical appointment,
she picks up and flips through a magazine. Her attention is drawn to an article about
a man who is an engineer and who recently gave up his partnership in a successful
consulting practice to become a facilitator. A facilitator is a person who tries to help
people or groups resolve conflicts before they go to litigation. Julia likes the idea of
working with people and wants to read more even though she has never heard of the
occupation of facilitator before now. Meanwhile, she is called to meet the doctor. She
carefully marks the page she is reading and leaves the magazine on the table. Following
her appointment, she goes back to the table, finds the magazine, and sits down to finish
reading the article.
Source: Hidi and Renninger 2006: 116.
trajectory of interest development in which situational interest may trigger and

support the development of individual interest (see Table 1.1).
They have also been studied separately. We consider each briefly and explain
the links between them. We then provide detail about the four-phase model
of interest development, which describes phases in interest development as
including triggered situational, maintained situational, emerging individual, and
well-developed individual interest. Following this, we review conceptualizations
of interest in their historical contexts and discuss their implications for better
understanding interest as a variable that develops.
Situational, Individual, and Topic Interest

Situational interest—also referred to as an early phase of interest development,
or less developed interest—is a reaction to particular content or activity. It has an
affective component that frequently is positive but can also involve negative feel-
ings such as fear or disgust.7 Situational interest is characterized by focused atten-
tion to particular content and may be shorter-term (triggered situational inter-
est) or may be maintained over a somewhat longer period of time (maintained
situational interest).8 Two types of factors have been identified as characterizing
situational interest:
1. structural characteristics such as novelty, surprise, complexity, and ambiguity;9

2. content features such as human activity, life themes, intensity, and
personalization.10
These factors may naturally occur in the environment, can result from educa-
tors’ organization of school activities (e.g., hands-on activities)11 or, in the case
of older individuals, may be self-generated (e.g., with the intention of staying on
task).12 Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2010) have shown that different aspects of the
Defining Interest 11
mathematics classroom can provide triggers: the presentation of course materials

(triggered situational interest), students’ feelings about the materials as enjoyable
or engaging (maintained situational interest feeling), and students’ perceptions
of the materials’ importance (maintained situational interest value).13 Moreover,
they reported that situational interest promoted change in the students’ individual
interest over the school year.
Individual interest—also called a later phase of interest development, more
developed interest, and/or personal interest—is a relatively enduring predis-

position to reengage with particular content over time. The repeated experi-
ence of the psychological state of interest predicts the likelihood of contin-
ued self-sustained engagement14 when opportunity is available,15 as well as
the experience of flow.16 Typically, learners who have an emerging individual
interest are invested and excited by their developing knowledge. When learners
have a well-developed individual interest they are also likely to be concerned
with the relation between their understanding and what others have said or
may have figured out.17 Individual interest tends to develop slowly through
repeated triggers from the environment that can be provided by other people18
or may be self-generated.19 Individual interest is associated with positive feel-
ings as well as a recursive relation of knowledge and value for the content of
interest. The development of knowledge contributes to the deepening of value,
and, as value develops, it leads to continued engagement and yet more deepen-
ing of knowledge.20
In addition to situational and individual interest, some researchers have stud-
ied topic interest (e.g., space travel).21 Topic interest is triggered by the presenta-
tion of topics and themes.22 This type of interest was considered to be a form of
situational interest in some early studies,23 while other investigators referred to
topic interest as a form of individual interest.24 Subsequently, Ainley et al. (2002)
reported that topic interest can be influenced by both situational (e.g., a topic
such as space travel is mentioned and people want to know about it) and individ-
ual factors (e.g., people have an already developed interest in space travel). Their
research identified the contributions of both of these factors to the psychological
state of interest that was triggered by four expository topics.
It is now clear that situational interest can be triggered in earlier as well as later
phases of interest development. In fact, triggering occurs in each phase of interest,
and when triggers “take,” interest can develop.25 In earlier phases of interest, the
person needs triggering to support engagement with the content. In later phases
of interest, continued triggering of interest is necessary for the development of
interest to continue. For example, a person’s interest can be triggered by novelty in
early phases of interest development and also by novelty in later phases of interest
development,26 although what is novel or even comprehensible may be differ-
ent for persons with less and more developed interest in a discipline.27 Bergin
(1999: 89) provided some good illustrations of how individuals may differ in the
information they find novel and interesting:
What is an exciting filmed chase scene for most people, may be boring
to the jaded film critic who has seen too many chase scenes. A fascinat-
ing magazine account of a war escape may be old news, and inaccurate
to boot, to the teen war aficionado who has already read several detailed
book-length accounts of the escape.28
Initially, researchers studying interest did not see that situational and individual
interest were linked. They did not recognize that the psychological state of inter-
est could be the same for both situational and individual interest (as described in
the example of the boy playing chess) and that the phase of a person’s interest
would influence the level of his or her motivation. Rather, they thought that
situational and individual interest were two different forms of interest.29 However,
study findings emerged that led us to question the distinction between situational
and individual interest.30 Subsequently, based on a review of the empirical lit-
erature, we found that we could identify four phases of interest and proposed
the four-phase model of interest development, a proposition that has now been
validated empirically.
The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development

As its name implies, the four-phase model of interest development describes four
phases (not stages) in the development of interest: triggered situational, main-
tained situational, emerging individual, and well-developed individual interest
(see Table 1.2). These phases characterize interest development across age levels
and contexts, both in and out of formal settings such as the workplace or school.
The term “phase” is used rather than “stage” because the length and character
of a given phase may vary between and within individuals based on experience
and temperament, among other factors. Without self-generated or environmen-
tal support for continued engagement, it is also possible for a person’s interest in
something to decrease or drop off altogether.31
As depicted in Table 1.2, the first phase is a triggered situational interest. In this
phase, people’s feelings about their own interest may be positive or negative and
may or may not result in sustained engagement. Triggers in this phase are most
likely but not necessarily external to the individual. As Dewey (1902, 1913) pre-
dicted, whether a triggered interest is maintained depends on a person’s prior
experience, strengths, and needs, as well as the facilitation provided by others and
the features of available interest-related tasks and activities. The form of facilita-
tion, moreover, is likely to be informed by whether the person is aware that help
could be beneficial, asks questions, and/or takes advantage of potential input.32
If a triggered interest is sustained and people begin, and/or are supported to
begin, making connections between the content of interest and their own skills,
knowledge, and prior experience, this may lead to the second phase of interest
newgenrtpdf
TABLE 1.2 The Four Phases of Interest Development.
Phases of interest development
Less developed (earlier) More developed (later)
Phase I: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4:

Triggered situational interest Maintained situational interest Emerging individual interest Well-developed individual interest
Definition • Psychological state resulting • Psychological state that involves • Psychological state and the • Psychological state and
from short-term changes focused attention to a particular beginning of relatively a relatively enduring
in cognitive and affective class of content that reoccurs and/ enduring predisposition to predisposition to reengage a
processing associated with a or persists over time seek reengagement with a particular class of content over
particular class of content particular class of content time
over time
Learner • Attends to content, if only • Reengages content that previously • Is likely to independently • Independently reengages con-
character- fleetingly triggered attention reengage content tent
istics • May or may not be reflective- • Is developing knowledge of content • Has stored knowledge and • Has stored knowledge and value
ly aware of the experience • Is developing a sense of the con- stored value • Is reflective about the content
• May need support to engage tent’s value • Is reflective about the • Is likely to recognize others’
from others and through in- • Is likely to be able to be supported content contributions to the discipline
structional design by others to find connections to • Is focused on their own • Self-regulates easily to reframe
• May experience either posi- content based on existing skills, questions questions and seek answers
tive or negative feelings knowledge, and/or prior experience • Has positive feelings • Has positive feelings
• May not persevere when • Is likely to have positive feelings • May not persevere when • Can persevere through frustra-
confronted with difficulty • May not persevere when confronted confronted with difficulty tion and challenge in order to
• May simply want to be told with difficulty • May not want feedback meet goals
what to do • May want to be told what to do from others • Appreciates and may actively
seek feedback
Source: This is a revised version of a table originally presented in Renninger and Su 2012.
development: a maintained situational interest.When people have a maintained situ-

ational interest, they are likely to experience positive affect and to continue to
develop their knowledge of and value for the content of interest. However, much
of the support for the continued development and deepening of interest still
comes from features of the environment, including other people, activities, and
resources.
When people begin taking initiative by independently reflecting and reen-
gaging, seeking answers and/or identifying resources that allow their knowledge
to deepen, they can be said to have an emerging individual interest. In this phase,
people begin to self-generate interest, to self-regulate, and to prioritize further
understanding and involvement with the object of interest over other things.33
However, they are also primarily concerned with their own questions and may or
may not be responsive to feedback, even though they continue to need support to
develop skills and understanding of the content.
When an interest has developed into a well-developed individual interest, people
are able to focus on information about the content of interest beyond what is
immediately connected to their own questions.34 In this phase of interest, they
have positive feelings and voluntarily and independently reengage. People with a
well-developed individual interest have a long-range vision of their own partici-
pation and are able to overcome frustrations from needing to rework, or rethink,
issues that arise. They are able to recognize others’ contributions to the discip
line, may actively seek to understand those contributions, and are likely to seek
feedback.
For example, Harackiewicz et al. (2008: 118) provided empirical validation of
the model in their study of the situational interest, individual interest, and aca-
demic performance of 858 undergraduate students over seven terms:
Our results offer strong support for the four-phase model of interest devel-
opment recently advanced by Hidi and Renninger (2006), which iden-
tifies four phases of interest development and outlines the progression
from situational interest to individual interest. According to their model,
the first phase of interest development is a triggered situational interest, in
which attention, liking, or involvement is initiated by an external cue. Our
lecture-specific measures of catch correspond to this early phase of interest
development. If sustained over time or contexts, triggered situational inter-
est evolves into the second phase a maintained situational interest, and this
phase of interest may be reflected in our measures of hold, which assessed
interest in the course material. A third phase, characterized as an emerging
individual interest, may develop out of the second phase, if individuals begin
to value the object or topic beyond the situation that first stimulated their
interest. In this phase, individuals may be predisposed to seek out oppor-
tunities on their own to reengage with the topic of interest. This phase of
interest may be reflected in our behavioral measure of continued interest,

which examined students’ course choices after completion of the introduc-
tory course. The third phase of interest development can then lead to the
fourth, a well-developed individual interest, which is associated with personal
meaning, value, and knowledge (Renninger, 1990). Our psychology major
variable, which represents a student’s extensive experience with and invest-
ment in a domain of study, seems to correspond to a well-developed indi-
vidual interest.
Many studies have now been published that provide support for the model.35
A logical question about interest development concerns its relation to bore-
dom. Is boredom simply a lack of interest, or is it a more aversive state? In terms
of the four-phase model, we would expect that the reasons for boredom depend
on the phase of a person’s interest development (or lack of it). More specific
ally, it would be expected that those with no interest might not yet have made
connections to present content and therefore experience boredom.36 For those
with developing interest, on the other hand, boredom might be expected if their
existing connections to content are mismatched with the available tasks, infor-
mation, and/or opportunities for action. In each case, we would also expect that
boredom could be offset by appropriate opportunities to seriously engage with
content, whether these are provided through interactions with other people or are
self-generated through activities and tasks.
A Case Illustration of Interest Development

Consider, for example, the case of an adolescent whom we call Emma who
received a camera from her parents for her birthday. Within hours of receiving
it, she began using the camera to photograph the flowers in her garden. Her case
illustrates how interest can develop:
Emma’s situational interest in photography is triggered by the gift of the

camera. She is not aware that she is developing an interest in photogra-
phy; she thinks of herself as being interested in flowers. She takes pic-
tures of all sorts of flowers and decides to put the pictures in an album,
at which point, her interest in photography can be said to have shifted
from being a triggered to a maintained situational interest.37 As the sea-
son changes, her photos begin to include fading foliage. She begins to
distinguish between the photos that she thinks work and throws away
the others.
One day as she is putting her camera away, she sees directions in the
bottom of the case. She pulls them out and begins reading. She learns
about distance, focus, sharpness, exposure, and light. As such, her interest
in photography begins to shift from being a maintained situational interest

to an emerging individual interest because she begins applying her newly
acquired knowledge, and, as she does, her understanding of the possibilities
and the challenge of taking good pictures grows, as does her value for the
camera. She feels positive about photography, and, whether or not she is
aware that her value for the camera increases as she gains knowledge about
it, she begins to see the importance and the benefit, or utility, of using the
camera correctly.
She still describes herself to others as interested in flowers even though
her interest in photography has developed into an emerging individual
interest. In assembling an album of her photos, she sets goals to use light
and shadow as the grouping strategy rather than organizing them by flower
type. She feels proud of this decision and of her pictures and decides that
she should find out whether she could submit her photos to the school
talent fair and when the school camera club meets. At the club meet-
ing, she is very excited to find out that special workshops on how to
develop photos will be held and that she is welcome to join. She does, and
over the months, she learns that her original understanding of light and
shadow was not accurate. She prioritizes her time so that she can attend
the workshops and ask questions, follow recommendations for additional
resources, and invest time in practicing what she has learned. She is recep-
tive to the feedback she receives and is undaunted in her efforts to master
photography. At this point, she has clear goals, feels self-efficacious, and is
able to self-regulate. She also identifies as a photographer. She now has a
well-developed interest in photography and is presently working to better
understand light and shadow.
Characteristics of Interest
In addition to providing an example of how a new interest can develop, Emma’s
case illustrates key characteristics of interest. First, Emma’s interest is content,
or object-specific: She is interested in flowers, the camera, photography, light,
and shadows. Interest is always related to particular objects, events, activities,
or ideas. Second, Emma has numerous environmental supports for her initial,
continuing, and deepening engagement with the camera; she receives the cam-
era from her parents, reads directions that accompanied the camera, joins the
camera club, and, as a camera-club member, begins to develop her own photos.
Third, Emma enjoys both taking and looking at her pictures as well as figuring
out how to improve their quality. Interest includes both affect and cognition.
Emma is cognitively engaged in photographing the flowers and their parts in
the different seasons, ordering the photos by light and shadow, and perfecting
her ability to develop photos. She experiences positive affect, and she is able to
overcome the occasional negative experience such as pictures not coming out
as expected or finding out that she has a lot to learn in order to work effec-
tively with light and shadow. Fourth, Emma is so absorbed in her work with the
camera that she may not be aware that she is developing an interest in photog-
raphy until it has developed. Often, people are not aware that their interest is
triggered, or developing, because they are fully engaged in “doing” the interest.
A fifth characteristic of interest that is not explicitly illustrated by Emma’s case
is that the affective and cognitive components of interest have a physiological/
neurological basis (biological roots). In other words, Emma’s brain activation

when she is engaging in photography is different from when she is engaged with
other activities that she is not interested in.
In each phase of Emma’s developing interest in photography, she experiences
a psychological state of interest, although the triggers for her developing interest
in the earlier phases are not the same as in the later phases. In each phase, we see
some voluntary reengagement with the camera, although it is not until she begins
to change the way in which she interacts with it (e.g., using the information in
the directions to explore light and shadow) that she seems to be clear about what
she wants to learn. As she begins identifying with photography, her interest seems
to be self-sustaining, and she appears to be setting goals for herself.The shift in the
development of her interest in photography is related to her developing know-
ledge and increased value for photography.
Emma’s interest development could have been thwarted. For example, the
instructions for using the camera might have been too hard for Emma to under-
stand; she might have gone to an exhibit of a famous photographer and decided
that she could never take pictures that would be as good as those in the exhibit;
her camera could have been stolen; the album she assembled might have been
dismissed by the members of the camera club; or the school might not have had
a camera club. In earlier phases of her interest development, Emma might not
have made needed connections to using the camera (e.g., her use of the camera
to record types of flowers over time as they grew) and become bored; and, once
her interest in photography had begun to develop, she might have exhausted her
own abilities to do new and more challenging things with the camera. In this case,
she also might have become bored. Even though the development of interest is
sequential, interest can go dormant, meaning that it can fall off. The availability
and the nature of environmental supports inform the trajectory of interest devel-
opment during all phases.
Following publication of the four-phase model, studies of interest development
have begun to focus on distinctions between earlier and later phases of interest.38
Such studies provide research evidence of the positive role of interest on learn-
ers’ attention, motivation, engagement, strategy use, and goal setting.39 In them,
the researchers assume that interest develops and that its support includes the
interaction of the person, other persons, and the tasks of the environment. Their
findings point to the roles of early experiences for developing and maintaining
interest,40 interest as a support for learning,41 the organization and facilitation of
the classroom environment as supporting the development of interest, or not,42

and the importance of the teacher’s own interest in content to be taught.43
Studies have also established that interest has a reciprocal relation to other vari-
ables such as goals, self-efficacy, and self-regulation.44
Historical Context and Conceptualizations of Interest

Early discussions of interest and education recognized the impact of interest on
learning. For example, psychologists and educators such as Dewey (1913), Herbart
(1965), James (1890), and Pestalozzi (2004) each pointed to the centrality of
interest in supporting learning.They noted the importance of interest in support-
ing effort, focused attention, and persistence to understand and that the design
and/or sequencing of tasks was likely to promote learners’ interest in content to
be learned. Dewey (1913) described the presence of interest as rendering effort
effortless. He said that interest improved understanding and facilitated learning,
as well as personal involvement. He also pointed to the interaction of the person
and the environment as basic to interest and acknowledged that learning could
be influenced by personal interest as well as by the interestingness of tasks and
objects. Similarly, Herbart (1965) described interest and meaningful learning as
being closely related. He suggested that interest contributes to the accuracy of
understanding, the development of knowledge, and the motivation to learn. James
(1890) elaborated on these points, further noting the impact of interest on what
learners pay attention to, as well as what they have learned. In the context of social
reform, Pestalozzi (2004) argued that if the goal was to enable all students to learn,
pedagogical practices needed to be revised to address learner interests.
Psychologists such as Arnold (1910) and Claparède (1905) further suggested
that interest was a biological force that affected learning, although it is only
recently that neuroscientists have been able to demonstrate the biological roots
of interest.45 Arnold and Claparède were limited in their abilities to fully explain
the biological process and were instead challenged to make links to pedagogy
that practitioners could use. Importantly, Arnold described interest as an attitude
toward a situation that influenced feelings and future possibilities and attention
as a possible support for interest, but his insight about the role of biology was
considered shallow, and he was not able to provide information that practition-
ers desired.46 Similarly, Claparède (1905) was well-regarded for his recognition of
the failings of educational systems that were not centered on children and their
interests and wrote the introduction to Dewey’s (1913) volume, but he was later
described by Hameline (2000) as ill equipped to move beyond generalizations
about interest to its needed application. Hameline also observed that because
Claparède was not able to provide details about interest as a motivational variable,
he was repeatedly misunderstood as if he had suggested that the use of interest in
teaching was more about entertainment than rigor.
Even if particulars about the role of interest in learning were not well under-
stood, its power was recognized.This gave momentum to efforts to improve under-
standing of interest. There was a proliferation of inventories by educators wanting
to assess the strengths, needs, and interests of learners, as suggested by Dewey
(1913), and by psychologists to identify interests and their duration.47 Inventories
of topics that children found interesting were developed and used to identify texts
for use in teaching.48 In describing responses to inventories, Thorndike (1912)
suggested that interests developed early in a person’s life were related to later
experience and that such interests might be expected to be fairly permanent by
adulthood. However, Thorndike and other researchers also acknowledged that
their studies of the relation between interest and learning indicated that interest
was more complex than they had previously realized.They found that the strength
of interest might predict its endurance and that the environment made more of an
impact on interest when interest was not so strong; taken together, these findings
suggested that interest worked differently depending on both the person and the
environment.
According to Fryer (1931), surveys also began to be refined for use as a tool
in career and vocational guidance following World War I, during which the need
to classify enlisted persons suggested that surveys could be useful for matching
people to jobs. Moore (1921) was one of the first to employ methods of interest
assessment to distinguish the fit of potential engineers to different types of engi-
neering. The success of this effort quickly spread to other technical fields. Under
the leadership of Strong’s49 research group at Stanford University and Paterson’s50
at the University of Minnesota, vocational interest inventories expanded to
include other career paths.51 These researchers also pushed for methodologi-
cal advancements such as longitudinal study and the reliability and validity of
measures.
Concern about measurement increasingly characterized developments in
many academic fields as researchers became aware that their methods affected
their results. For interest researchers, as well as those in other fields, the objectiv-
ity of experimentation became a central concern.52 In order to ensure objectiv-
ity, many researchers began using invented nonsense words and objects in their
experiments on the assumption that if participants had prior experience with
the content being studied, its already acquired meaning would influence study
results.53 The concern for objectivity led to discrete studies that were focused on
the prediction and control of behavior, in terms of the relation between stimuli
and the responses that they elicited, an approach to the study of learning that
came to be associated with behaviorism and learning theory.54 Under the aegis of
behaviorism, study of internal mental states such as cognition, emotion, and mood
were considered too subjective for effective experimentation in learning, even
though researchers such as Bartlett (1932) stressed that interest played a major role
in what individuals remember, and that study of nonsense words was too simple
to make a significant contribution to understanding learning.
Adaptation of behavioral principles to teaching described (a) knowledge as a

repertoire of observable behaviors that could be learned (and unlearned) if stimuli
were targeted and appropriate reinforcement (or rewards) were provided, and
(b) teaching as a technology that involved use of appropriate stimuli in the trans-
mission of learning.55 In response, progressive educational thinkers such as Dewey
(1933) and his followers had begun to be placed on the defensive about their
recommendations for practice (e.g., using the interests of learners to help them
develop connections to the materials they needed to learn).56

There were behaviorists who recognized the limitations of focusing too
narrowly on either stimuli or responses, however. For example, Tolman (1932)
pointed to learning as occurring in the interaction with the environment and
as determined by an organism’s motivational state (e.g., expectations, beliefs).
McDougall (1932), another behaviorist, challenged prevailing discussions about
reinforcement, suggesting that even in animal research, the importance of instinct
and motivation should be recognized. By the 1940s and 1950s, distinctions were
being made among various categories of research in psychology, e.g., abnormal,
social, and so forth. Within different subfields, the push to better articulate the
measurement of constructs, decisions to employ one or another type of measure
or methodology, and ensuing scholarship along one rather than another line of
methods appear to have led to increasingly distinct lines of inquiry and sometimes
to parallel sets of constructs and analyses.57
The psychological studies of interest that followed tended to focus on one or
another particular aspect of interest (although some addressed combinations of
these aspects), including interest as emotion, interest as influenced by the experi-
ence of interest, interest as value, or interest as vocational interest. These studies
typically assessed interest at one point in time and in a single context. Sometimes
the studies assessed the interest of participants at different ages in order to consider
issues of development, but they did not consider how the interest of a person,
once triggered, might be supported to develop. Often, the indicators employed
focused solely on liking, and knowledge was not considered to be coordinated
with either feelings or value. These differing approaches to the study of interest
are reviewed briefly as each represents a contemporary conceptualization of inter-
est that also informs understanding of the four-phase model.
Interest as Emotion
Studies of interest as an emotion focus on the feelings experienced during
interested engagement rather than on either value or knowledge. A concern
in early studies was whether it was appropriate to consider interest as an affect
and, if so, whether it was distinct from joy and how to target it in investiga-
tions. Tomkins (1962) was one of the first to use facial expressions, and distin-
guished between interest and enjoyment as two primary positive affects.58 He
proposed that interest–excitement motivates exploration of what is novel and
intriguing, whereas enjoyment–joy is a sense of satisfaction and reward that is

generated through the activity. Izard (1977) elaborated on this position sug-
gesting that interest is a feeling of wanting to investigate, become involved, be
engaged and absorbed in an activity, as well as of being curious or fascinated.
Izard also considered enjoyment to be distinct from interest.59 More recently,
Izard (2007, 2009) pointed to the complementary and reciprocal functions of
interest and joy in the expansion of ideas and knowledge in constructive and
creative activities.
Ainley and Hidi (2014) have reviewed the literature on interest and enjoy-
ment and suggested that the relation between these constructs may vary based
on students’ developmental levels and past experience.They noted that feelings of
interest motivate exploration and information seeking, whereas feelings of enjoy-
ment manifest pleasure. They also concluded that the development of relatively
enduring individual interest that supports achievement is contingent on the indi-
vidual experiencing both interest and enjoyment in their learning. Reeve and
his colleagues (2015) have also noted the importance of understanding feelings
that are generated during engagement more generally, as these influence interest.
Silvia (2006) too has argued that interest is an emotion; he attributed the trigger-
ing of interest to inherently interesting features of the environment. He suggested
that the origins of interest lie in individuals’ cognitive processing, that is, in their
appraisals of events.60
Neural mechanisms have now been identified which indicate that emotions
can be activated without cognitive appraisals.61 Hetland and Vittersø’s (2012) study
of BASE jumpers, who parachute from fixed structures or cliffs, provides evidence
that this is the case and further suggests that one emotion may suppress another.62
Specifically, the BASE jumpers report enthusiasm at the time of the jump and joy
at the end of the jump; however, the camera captures the facial expression of
fear during the jump, an emotion that the participants do not report or seem to
be aware that they have had. The logical explanation of this is that the strength
of their interest, enthusiasm, and subsequent joy suppresses or renders uncon-
scious their fear. It also raises the likelihood that other emotions may be involved
when experiencing interest. The possibilities that a person may not be aware of
co-occurring emotions, and also that other emotions may be related to the exper
iencing of interest, are important for establishing the role of various emotions in
the development of interest.
No suggestions have yet emerged to explain how interest develops when
interest is conceptualized as an emotion. Neuroscientific findings showing the
separation of the psychological aspects of liking and wanting complicate con-
sideration of interest as only an emotion. For example, Berridge (2012) dem-
onstrated that liking (referred to as hedonic impact) and wanting (referred to as
incentive salience) are distinct psychological identities and have distinguishable
neural processes.This has direct implications for measuring and understanding the
developmental process of interest.63
Interest Based on Task Features or Interest Experience

Interest research addressing the influence of task features (e.g., characteristics such
as novelty, surprisingness, and so forth; topics; and activity structure) tends to
focus on situational interest.64 Studies that specifically examine the contribution
of the environment to task experience also address how the experience of interest
can maintain interest. Examples of this type of study include:
• inventories used to identify topics for assigned work and/or remediation;65

• questions generated by students;66
• the design of courses around examples (e.g., use of medical examples in phys-
ics lectures for pre-medical students) in order to optimize student engage-
ment and understanding.67
Investigations have also addressed the nature of seductive details that trigger inter-
est (e.g., interesting but irrelevant text segments) and the placement of informa-
tion on a page or in a presentation.68
Initially, these studies focused on how interest elicited when reading a text
(text-based interest) affected processing. Two hypotheses emerged about interest
in text-processing:
1. Increased interest resulted in better memory of text.69

2. Increased interest meant basic text-processing required fewer cognitive
resources, which would, in turn, make resources for higher-order processing
more available.70, 71
McDaniel et al. (2000) tested these hypotheses by conducting studies of under-

graduates reading stories that they rated as being of higher or lower interest.
McDaniel et al. found that fewer cognitive resources are required by more inter-
esting than by less interesting text, and that text-based interest results in qualitative
differences in the kind of information that is processed and encoded. In discussing
their findings, they suggested that level of interest for the text should be taken into
consideration in the assignment of study strategies. Task features that promoted
feelings of competence (e.g., flexibility) and extended time to explore have also
been found to provide support for interest and enhanced problem-solving.72
Studies that have referred to interest experience, the role of experiencing
interest as a support for interest, describe the psychological state of interest asso-
ciated with situational interest.73 They have pointed to particular features of the
environment that trigger and can serve to sustain activity, findings that are con-
sistent with the four-phase model. They indicate that the level of a participant’s
initial interest for a task or activity affects their ability to work with additional
information.74 Sansone and her colleagues (e.g., Thoman et al. 2007) have also
provided more specific information about the contribution of task features in the
context of group activity. They found that opportunities to talk together follow-
ing an activity promoted interest and influenced the quality of social interactions
(e.g., eye contact, verbalization). They also reported that listener responsiveness
influenced whether interest was maintained. Findings from other studies of par-
ticipants with less and more developed interest have similarly suggested that not
all learners respond to task characteristics or even to the same classroom context
in the same way.75
Interest as Value
Studies of interest as value consider interest to be a belief on which a person can
consciously report (e.g., “We are learning valuable things in math class this year.”
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. 2010: 19). Although these studies may address a per-
son’s feelings in addition to their value, they typically do not address the devel-
opmental aspects or the knowledge component of interest. Such studies range
from including conceptualizations of interest as a set of valence beliefs (positive or
negative appraisal)76 to interest as a source of value that together with importance,
utility, and cost, may be used to describe a person’s motivations, as described in
expectancy-value theory.77 Moreover, studies in which interest is conceptualized
as value may, or may not, be studies of interest, per se. They can also be studies of
other constructs (e.g., attitude, engagement, or grit) that build on or are informed
by interest.
Interest is considered to be a relatively enduring characteristic of a person
that is responsive to (a) the conditions of the environment (e.g., parental mod-
eling) and (b) the decisions made in responding to these (e.g., engaging in one
rather than another after-school activity).78 People are assumed to be conscious
of their decision-making, and their beliefs about interest are considered to inform
their decisions.79 Schiefele (1999, 2001, 2009), for example, has described interest
as a set of valences, or beliefs that, when activated, affect a person’s motivation.
Findings from his and his colleagues’ work with the Study Interest Questionnaire
suggested that value, feelings, and the choice to engage with content are all associ-
ated and are not independent factors.80
In developing expectancy-value theory, Eccles et al. (1983) pointed to two
sets of self- and task-related beliefs to explain school achievement. One set
of beliefs was related to individuals’ expectations of success, based on their
self-concept of ability. The second set was linked to subjective task value and
identified task interest by asking participants how much they liked particu-
lar content (e.g., “How much do you like mathematics?”).81 As Eccles et al.
(2015) noted, their model focuses on behaviors that are the result of explicit
(conscious) decisions associated with academic and career choices—behaviors
that are motivated by interest “represent a subset of potential patterns of motiv-
ational beliefs” (2015: 219).82
Interest as Vocational Interest

Studies of vocational interest focus on the features of personality that align with
task demands of different disciplines and careers. Such studies of vocational inter-
est provide insight into how individuals may adjust their demands or expectations
in order to effectively pursue academic and/or career pathways, and related studies
of counseling psychology associate learners’ beliefs to their perceptions of the work-
place. However, studies of vocational interest do not address the origins of interest
or how the continued support of interest might enable interest to develop. Instead,
studies of vocational interest consider interests to be trait-like preferences that
have implications for course and career selection.83 Although it is acknowledged
that vocational interests may change over one’s life span, interests are considered
to be relatively stable. It is on the basis of their stability that they are used to guide
academic and career choices and can affect career development.84
Vocational interest is identified using surveys, and respondents are assumed to
be aware of these interests and in a position to describe them. Items on vocational
interest scales include both the potential content of interest and activities that
are associated with it, such as mathematics and problem-solving. Holland’s (1959,
1996) theory of vocational behavior, for example, identified types of people and
their environments in terms of one of six categories (realistic, investigative, artistic,
social, enterprising, and conventional). It suggested that the workplace can be
associated with personality traits on the basis of these assignments.85
Rounds and Su (2014) have distinguished among interests that include identity
and influences on the choices that are made in the school or workplace environ-
ment, and characteristics of the person (e.g., extroversion), or personality traits.86
A person is considered to be either making choices to engage with that are suited
to their interest or identity, or working to change the environment in ways that
are consistent with this identity.87 Rounds and Su (2014) provide evidence that
interest influences behavior and as a result also affects achievement. They also
report that interests can be even more powerful than either cognitive ability or
personality as predictors of fit to the environment when controlling for contribu-
tions of cognitive ability and personality; equally able individuals are seen to do
better or worse depending on their interests.
In their social cognitive career theory, Lent et al. (1994) provide a different
explanation of how career choices are made. From a counseling perspective,
they draw on Bandura’s social learning theory (1977) that people learn from
observing others to link workplace and career interests to a person’s beliefs.
They suggest that context, including opportunities to observe others, influ-
ences perceptions of probable success and consequently affects a person’s inter-
est. They find that if learners view themselves as successful and value available
compensation, they will continue to develop expertise and abilities; this, in
turn, reinforces feelings of self-efficacy and interest.88 In this model, interest is
considered to be an outcome of cognitive evaluation and similar to the con-
ceptualization and measurement of interest as value. Unexamined in approaches
to vocational interest is the possibility that career interest can be supported to

develop.
Concluding Thoughts
We began this chapter describing interest as having two meanings: It is both a
psychological state and a motivational variable that can develop. It is noteworthy

that, throughout history, interest has been recognized as a powerful influence on
motivation and engagement. Focusing on one or the other conceptualization of
interest did not diminish recognition of its impact. However, acknowledging that
interest can develop and that it needs support to develop is critical. It seems likely
that, without support to develop interest, some of the greatest achievements of
humans might not have been realized, such as Mozart’s interest in music, Einstein’s
interest in physics, Curie’s interest in medicine, Mitchell’s interest in writing and
the South, and Navratilova’s interest in tennis.
With the emerging understanding of interest as something that can be sup-
ported to develop, a number of previously held assumptions are no longer appro-
priate. Specifically:
1. Interest is not static, nor is it a trait, although it can have trait-like properties
when it is well developed. Because it emerges in relation to the support and
challenges of the environment, it can also fall off when this support is not
present. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that people with well-developed
interest no longer need support. To the contrary, because interest exists in
relation to the environment, continued support and challenges are needed,
and the nature of these differs depending on the person’s phase of interest.
2. Interest is not necessarily measured solely by asking people if they are inter-
ested, or if they like one or another content. Whereas such questions may
work to indicate some level of interest, they do not distinguish among phases
of interest.
3. Interest is not a genetic given. Although a person may have a biological,
social, psychological, or physical predisposition to develop interest, interest
can also be triggered and supported to develop.
4. Interest is not simply a cognitive appraisal or belief. For example, in early
phases of interest development, people are not in a position to provide either
a consistent cognitive appraisal or a belief, because they do not yet have
knowledge on which it could be based. In later phases of interest, people may
be more likely to be able to report on their interest, but they may also be too
involved to reflect on their engagement.
5. Interest is not too complex or messy to be dealt with. In fact, we would
argue that interest must be included in discussions of motivation, engage-
ment, and learning. Interest has the potential to drive effective educational
interventions.
Notes
1 Hidi and Ainley (2008) characterize these definitions of interest as ranging from a
motivational belief that is fundamentally a cognitive conceptualization to a frequently
experienced positive emotion (e.g., Panksepp 2000; Reeve et al. 2015; Silvia 2001;
Tomkins 1962; Zimmerman 2002). These various ways of defining interest include
differing amounts of cognition and affect.
2 We note that none of these definitions of interest describe interest as developing over
time; rather, other definitions of interest provide insight into one or another aspect of
interest development (see Renninger and Hidi 2011).
3 Figure 1.1 is a revision of Figure 1.1 in Krapp et al. (1992).We have intentionally omit-
ted use of the term “actualized” and replaced it with the term “psychological state of
interest” (e.g., Hidi 2000). At the time of the 1992 publication, it was not clear that
both situational and individual interest shared the same psychological state; however,
research has since indicated that this is the case.
4 It is instructive to note that items used to assess interest have been included in scales
that assess grit, flow, engagement, and motivation, suggesting that the critical role of
interest is recognized, even if it is not explicitly acknowledged by the researchers.
5 The more a child plays chess, the more likely that his interest in chess will continue to
develop. Once his interest develops, different supports are needed for it to be sustained.
For example, he will play given the opportunity but may need encouragement after
losing repeatedly or if he improves to the point where he no longer feels challenged by
weaker players. See Renninger 2000.
6 Silvia (2006) poses the only opposition that we know of to the use of our terms “situ-
ational interest” and “individual interest.” Although he acknowledged the similarity
between our terms and the terms he uses, he suggested that they be replaced with his
terms “interest” and “interests” (Silvia 2006: 184–189). Silvia stated that the distinction
between interest and interests is analogous to the classic distinction between states and
traits. He defined interest “as a part of emotional experience, curiosity, and momentary
motivation” (2006: 4), and interests “as a part of personality, individual differences and
people’s idiosyncratic hobbies, goals, and avocations” (2006: 4). Furthermore, his criti-
cism of our definition of interest was based on early publications. In a chapter from the
edited volume, The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, Krapp et al. (1992) used
the terms “individual,” “situational,” “actualized individual interest,” and “psychologi-
cal state of interest.” At that point, it was not clear that both situational and individual
interest shared the same psychological state.
In the same book, Hidi and Anderson (1992) noted that this was an important
question that had not been considered. Silvia’s criticism of the confusion created
by the use of four terms at that time was justified. However, a lot of research was
undertaken between 1992 and the time of his publication (2006), that clarified
the meaning and use of these terms. In addition, in the more than two decades
that passed between 1992 and 2015, research on situational and individual interest
burgeoned, resulting in a number of changes. First, the term “actualized interest”
was dropped and replaced unequivocally by the term “psychological state of inter-
est” (e.g., Hidi 2000; see also Renninger 2000). Second, it was argued that the
psychological state of interest could be the outcome of either situational or indi-
vidual interest (Renninger and Hidi 2002). Third, situational interest and individual
interest were linked in a developmental continuum (Hidi and Renninger 2006;
Renninger and Hidi 2011). As a result of empirical support for these changes, situ-
ational and individual interest are now among the most frequently used concepts
in interest research.
7 Researchers have pointed out that whereas interest has been associated with positive
feelings in most of the interest literature, something that elicits a negative reaction may
also be a trigger for interest (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000; Iran-Nejad 1987).To support
this, Hidi (2000) provided the example of a student who is not interested in science but
happens to watch a television show that demonstrates how black holes can “suck up”
things. Although somewhat frightened, the student’s interest is triggered and her atten
tion is focused. Her negative emotion may be driven by fear as to what might happen
to the world in her lifetime. Should the interest described in this episode be maintained
and the student become interested in astronomy, we would expect the negative emo-
tions to disappear and positive feelings to become associated with the subject.
8 In an early investigation, Schank (1979) identified conditions that elicit readers’ interest
in story-processing and argued that they played an important role in what inferences
readers drew. He also postulated that certain concepts such as death, danger, power,
and sex are “absolute interests,” and that certain characteristics such as unexpectedness
and personal relatedness are “relative operators” when linked to these concepts. For
example, as Hidi and Baird (1986) noted, the death of an eighty-two-year-old man
from a heart attack would not be as interesting as if he died from a blow on the head.
If the man were an uncle rather than a stranger, this relationship would even further
amplify the level of interest. Around the same time that Schank published his paper on
interestingness, Kintsch (1980) similarly addressed the issue of how interest is produced
by various forms of discourse. He emphasized the cognitive aspects of interest and sug-
gested that they were different from emotional interest.
Subsequently, studies that focused on isolated sentences indicated that text-based
interest could be generated by segments such as “the huge gorilla smashed the bus with
its fist” (Anderson 1982: 300), “when a fly moves its wings about 200 times in a second,
you hear a buzzing sound” (Garner et al. 1989: 46), and “adult wolves carry food home
in their stomachs and bring it up again or regurgitate it, for the young cubs to eat—the
wolf version of canned baby food” (Hidi 1990: 555). Moreover, when children were
given an expository text that included scientific information about the gorilla, the
best-remembered idea was that the leader of the group was called the silverback
because of grey hair that ran down his back. Researchers also found that more inter-
esting sentences tended to be recalled more often and included four types of fac-
tors: character identification, novelty, life themes, and activity level.
In addition, they concluded that the term “situational interest” should be adopted
to describe environmentally triggered interest of which text-based interest is one
sub-type. Furthermore, they noted that situational interest, once triggered, may or
may not have a long-term effect on the learner. As research on situational interest
progressed, investigators demonstrated that in addition to text features, interest can be
triggered by a visual stimulus such as viewing a picture or a play object, an auditory
stimulus such as hearing a conversation, or a combination of visual and auditory stimuli
as found in a film or television show.
9 See Berlyne 1960.
10 Anderson et al. 1987; Hidi and Baird 1988; Mayer et al. 2008; Renninger et al. 2002;
Walkington 2013; Walkington and Bernacki 2014; Walkington et al. 2013.
11 See, for example, Renninger and Bachrach 2015.
12 See, for example, Azevedo 2011, 2015.
13 Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.’s (2010) Situational Interest Survey (SIS) reliably distin-
guished among factors of situational interest and has been frequently used in subse-
quent studies. For example, O’Keefe and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2014) reported that
self-regulatory resources were optimized when both affect and value-related interest
were high.They concluded that different levels of value and enjoyment interact, result-
ing in differing self-regulation and performance outcomes.
14 See extended discussion of self-sustained, interest-driven learning in Barron et al. 2014.
We add to this consideration that although more developed interest can appear to be
self-sustained, it is the product of the interaction between the person and the environ-
ment. As such, for interest to continue to be self-sustained, opportunities to continue
engagement must be present (see discussion in Renninger 2000).
15 Silvia (2001) has described this phase as magnification. Although he did not develop
the use of this term in his 2006 volume, we agree with his notion that reengaging with
particular content has the potential to explain the consolidation of and development
of interest.
16 As noted earlier, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) defines flow as a state of focused motivation.
In our opinion, flow describes one aspect of the psychological state of developed
interest.
17 Lipstein and Renninger 2007a; Renninger 2009.
18 For example, in the organization of tasks (Hidi and Baird 1986, 1988; Hidi and Berndorff
1998) or from activity (e.g., Renninger and Bachrach 2015; Swarat et al. 2012).
19 See Renninger 2000, 2010; Sansone et al. 1992.
20 Another conceptualization of value is provided by Eccles et al. (1983) and will be dis-
cussed later in the chapter.
21 Bathgate et al. (2013) report a strong correlation between interest assessment based on
topic (e.g., cells) and domain (e.g., biology).They describe the utility to practitioners of
working with specific topics such as animals and plants and the benefits to researchers
of considering the more general domain of science.
22 Ainley et al. 2002; Hidi 2000, 2006.
23 Hidi and McLaren 1990, 1991.
24 Schiefele 1996; Schiefele and Krapp 1996.
25 It should be noted that triggers may not take (Renninger and Bachrach 2015;
Renninger and Su 2012). This issue is addressed in Chapter 3.
26 See Renninger and Bachrach 2015.
27 In Chapter 2, we describe the importance of novelty as it relates to the physiological
functioning of the reward circuitry.
28 See Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000: 155.
29 Hidi 1990; Hidi and Baird 1986; Renninger 1990.
30 These discussions were initially undertaken with Andreas Krapp. However, Krapp’s
(2002b) publication of the Learning and Instruction article, “Structural and Dynamic
Aspects of Interest Development: Theoretical Considerations from an Ontogenetic
Perspective,” in which three phases of interest were mentioned, did not acknowledge
our joint efforts to describe the developmental model of interest. Krapp had also begun to
be increasingly focused on the development of identity and its relation to the psycho-
logical needs described in self-determination theory, whereas we undertook a review
of existing empirical literature on which we based the four-phase model.
31 See related discussion in Hidi and Renninger 2006; Renninger and Riley 2013;
Renninger and Su 2012.
32 See discussions in Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger 2010; Renninger and
Su 2012.
33 This use of the term “initiative” is similar to that discussed by Larson 2000.
34 See discussion in Renninger 2000.
35 Nolen (2007b), for example, reported on a three-year longitudinal study of children’s
reading and writing in two classrooms from Grades 1 through 3. Content analysis of
interviews with the children and their teachers was complemented by class observation.
Findings indicated that situational interest developed into individual interest. While the
importance of mastery goals peaked at Grade 2 when the children had acquired basic
skills in reading and writing, interest was the salient motivator in both reading and writ-
ing over time.
Cabot (2012) has developed a survey that reliably allows her to distinguish among
learners in the first three phases of interest for learning English as a second language.
Maintaining situational interest was found to enable the development of emerging
individual interest.
Lipstein and Renninger (2007b) used a combination of surveys and in-depth
interviews to create portraits (composite cases based on survey and interview data)
of middle-school-aged language-arts students in each of the four phases of interest.

Findings allowed description of differences among the learners in each phase based on
the goals that they set for themselves and their conceptual competence (disciplinary
understanding), strategies, self-efficacy, effort, and feedback preferences.
36 There are many definitions of boredom in the literature, and these researchers do
not typically cite each other. For example, Pekrun et al. (2010) defined boredom as a
negative emotion that is associated with students’ perceptions that they lack control
over their activities and lack value for them. Goetz and Hall (2014: 312) further
noted that: “whereas lack of interest can reasonably be assumed to be an important

antecedent of boredom, it is clear that the two constructs are not identical in that
lack of interest is affectively neutral, whereas boredom is prototypically negative in
valence (e.g., ‘the torments of boredom,’ Berlyne, 1960, p. 192).”
Gerritsen et al. (2014) suggested that three cognitive causes predict boredom pro-
pensity: inattention, hyperactivity, and executive dysfunction, and Eastwood et al.’s
(2012) definition of boredom could be related to predictions of the four-phase
model. Eastwood et al. argued that boredom is the aversive experience of wanting
satisfying activity but being unable to engage in it. More specifically, they deter-
mined that boredom—an aversive state—occurs when an individual is not able to
pay attention to internal (e.g., feelings or thoughts) or external (stimuli) informa-
tion necessary to participate in a satisfying activity.
37 The fact that Emma continues to reengage with the camera and continues with related
activities is an indication that her interest is maintained; it is not the cause of the shift.
She may or may not be meta-aware of her actions.
38 Durik and Harackiewicz 2007; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. 2010; Renninger, Kensey et al.
2015.
39 See Potvin and Hasni 2014; Renninger and Hidi 2011. These studies are being con-
ducted by researchers from a wide number of fields, not just in the area of motivation.
40 Ainley and Ainley 2015; Alexander et al. 2015; Crowley et al. 2015.
41 Crouch et al. 2013; Reber et al. 2009; Renninger et al. 2014; Walkington and
Bernacki 2014.
42 Pressick-Kilborn 2015; Turner et al. 2015; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015.
43 Pressick-Kilborn 2015; Turner et al. 2015; Xu et al. 2012.
44 These variables and their relation to different phases of interest are addressed in more
detail in Chapter 3.
45 Gruber et al. 2014; Hidi 2006, 2015; Kang et al. 2009.
46 In reviewing Arnold’s (1910) volume, Baldwin (1910) suggested that more attention to
developmental processes in the volume would have benefited practice. In particular, con-
sideration was needed: the nature of children’s interests at different stages, “how dormant
interests might be awakened, and how sustained interest may be developed” (Baldwin
1910: 120). It is important that it was Baldwin, an educator, who pointed to these as essen-
tial questions to be addressed.
47 See discussion in Fryer 1931.
48 For example, Bell and Sweet 1916; Whitley 1929.
49 For example, Strong 1925.
50 Paterson et al. 1930.
51 Fryer (1931) noted that the scope and work to standardize Strong’s Vocational Interest
Blank and Patterson et al.’s (1930) Minnesota Interest Inventory were among the most
successful. He also pointed to the proliferation of inventories being developed at this time.
52 Claparède (1905) and Thorndike (1912) were among those calling for objectivity.
53 Ebbinghaus 1885; see also Bartlett 1932.
54 For example, Skinner 1935, 1976; Thorndike 1905; Watson 1913.
55 See discussion in Skinner 1976.
56 Private schools that had been started on the basis of Dewey’s writings and that followed
his philosophy continued to thrive as sources of child-centered education; however,
public schools were caught between Dewey’s and his followers’ suggestions that chil-
dren should be supported to develop their interests and principles from behavioral
learning theory that became the basis of most teacher training and promoted the
transmission of information to children without considering the role of the child in
this process (see Zilversmit 1993).
57 Bruner (1966) extended Dewey’s (e.g., 1913) discussion to identify four principles for
learning: personalizing instruction through interest, attending to the structure of the
content to be taught and learned, the need to appropriately sequence information for
learning, and recognizing the role of rewards, the reward that real learning represents.
58 See Ainley and Hidi 2014.
59 Although Izard (1977) acknowledged that the two emotions may occur together, he
also foreshadowed subsequent neuroscientific developments suggesting that increases
in information corresponded to increases in interest.
60 This suggests that the experience of interest may change or end as appraisals of a situa-
tion are discontinued. However, this does not address how interest develops. Once the
novelty that triggers engagement, or engagement of one or another type, ceases, the
description of the coping potential does not distinguish between an interest that does
and does not develop, nor explain the process of an individual continuing to search for
new information.
61 Berridge 2012.
62 BASE is an acronym that refers to fixed sites from which a person can jump: Buildings,
Antennas, Spans, and Earth.
63 Neuroscientific findings are further discussed in Chapter 2.
64 Berlyne (1960) identified five perceptual features (novelty, surprisingness, incongru-
ity, uncertainty, and complexity) as collative variables of tasks. As Konecni (1978)
explained, Berlyne called these variables collative to explain their effect was based on
discrepancies between a person’s experiences in the past and their present response, and
also to distinguish this form of perceptual response from the ecological and psycho-
physical characteristics of tasks.
65 For example, Bathgate et al. 2013; Dawson 2000; Flippo 2014.
66 Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2011.
67 Crouch et al. 2013; see related discussion in Walkington and Bernacki 2014.
68 Garner et al. 1989; Mayer et al. 2008.
69 For example, Anderson 1982.
70 For example, Hidi and Baird 1988; see Hidi 1990, 1995.
71 The role of interest in making resources available and their role in attention has been
widely debated (e.g., Shirey and Reynolds 1988) and will be discussed further in
Chapters 2 and 4.
72 Azevedo 2006.
73 Sansone and Thoman 2005; Sansone et al. 2011; Sansone et al. 2015; Tsai et al. 2008.
74 cf. Sansone et al. 2011.
75 See Durik et al. 2015; Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger 2010; Renninger
et al. 2015.
76 Schiefele 2001, 2009.
77 Expectancy-value theory is a motivational theory developed by Eccles et al. (e.g., 1983;
Wigfield and Eccles 2000; Wigfield et al. 2006 ) to explain the relation of behaviors
and decision-making in relation to a person’s value for and expectancies about goals. See
Eccles et al. 1983; Eccles et al. 2015; see also discussion in Sansone 2009.
78 See Barron et al. 2014; Simpkins et al. 2015.
79 It should be noted that this line of study does not describe how interest can be sup-
ported to develop, but rather focuses on interest once it has developed.
80 Schiefele et al. 1993.
81 More specifically, the authors hypothesized that subjective task value has four com-
ponents: task interest (enjoyment one gets or expects to get from engaging in an
activity), utility value (the instrumental value towards fulfilling one’s goal), attain-
ment value (linking the task to one’s sense of self and identity), and cost associated
with a particular choice.
Valuing more specifically refers to the components (task interest, task value or
importance, task utility, and cost) of Eccles’ (e.g., 1983) expectancy-value theory.
However, expectancy-value theory assumes that a person is aware of the process
or fact of changed valuing, a point on which interest theory and expectancy-value
theory differ, in part because expectancy-value theory does not assess interest alone,
nor its development from an earlier to a later phase (see discussion in Eccles et al.
2015). From the perspective of interest theory, the development of the knowledge
and value components of interest contribute to the deepening or development of
interest.
82 In an extension of the expectancy-value model, Harackiewicz and Hulleman and their
colleagues (e.g., Harackiewicz et al. 2014; Hulleman and Harackiewicz 2009) have
demonstrated that interest can be supported by helping the learner connect to the
value, relevance, or utility of new information. This type of intervention has been
found to support learners with low interest to better connect with the content to be
learned, and to encourage learners with little interest to enroll in additional mathemat-
ics and/or science coursework.
83 For example, Fryer 1931; Lent et al. 1994; Nye et al. 2012; Strong 1943; Walsh and
Osipow 1986.
84 Rounds and Su 2014.
85 See McCrae and Costa 1990; Schinka et al. 1997.
86 Rounds and Su 2014.
87 Low et al. 2005.
88 For example, Lent et al. 2013.
2
INTEREST, ATTENTION, AND
CURIOSITY
What explains the power of interest?
Why are students who have an interest for the

disciplinary content that they are to learn more
likely to continue to reengage and develop more
conceptual sophistication?
Over 100 years ago, Dewey (1913) published Interest and Effort in Education. He
pointed out that the presence of interest makes learning feel effortless, but he
was not in a position to explain why. Dewey did not distinguish between less and
more developed phases of interest, nor did he understand how earlier phases of
interest could be triggered even though he pointed to the importance of catch-
ing learners’ attention.Years later, Hidi (1990) explained that interest not only has
a profound facilitative effect on cognitive functioning but is central to how we
select and persist in processing information. She also suggested that the psycho-
logical and physiological processes associated with learning interesting informa-
tion have unique aspects and suggested the possibility that individual interest may
develop from situational interest.1
Research has now demonstrated such development2 and has shown that the
process involves a sequence of increasingly complex phases.3 Investigations have
also provided evidence that there are physiological processes associated with the
experience of interest, indicating that interest involves seeking or searching for
information that is inherently rewarding.4 In other words, interest is its own
reward, and because of this, the development of interest is even more powerful
than Dewey suggested.5 There is also solid evidence that interest develops in rela-
tion to a person’s interactions with the environment; and that interest is a tool
that educators, parents, employers, etc., can harness.6 Of particular importance in
this regard is the fact that interest has a facilitating effect on learning at any age,
whether in or out of school.
In this chapter, we describe how interest affects learning, and interest’s associ-
ation with attention and the brain’s reward circuitry. We explain that developing
an interest may not require external incentives because it is inherently reward-
ing to seek or search for information relating to the content of interest. In order
Interest, Attention, and Curiosity 33
to further clarify the power of interest for practice, we also address the relation
between interest and curiosity, since each involves seeking information.
Interest and Learning

The benefits of interest to learning are many. Interest has been found to posi-
tively affect learning outcomes as well as learning processes.7 Support for people
to develop interest enables them to make personal connections to their learn-

ing8 and improves their performance.9 It engages them in developing conceptual
understanding,10 leads to subsequent course enrollment,11 and provides them with
knowledge that they can do the work of the discipline.12 When individuals have
an interest in a task to be accomplished or subject matter to be learned, they have
focused attention,13 goals,14 and learning strategies;15 they are more likely to feel
self-efficacious16 and be able to self-regulate.17 Depending on how developed
their interests are, they persevere to understand more.18 They can be expected to
expend effort without it feeling effortful, seek feedback, make an effort to find
additional resources, and create opportunities for themselves that allow them to
more fully engage their interests.19
Interest must be triggered, however, in order for it to develop and continue to
deepen.20 “Triggering interest” refers to the capture of attention in response to
the environment (which includes other people; e.g., Emma receiving the cam-
era from her parents), which is likely to result in continued engagement. After a
person’s attention is triggered, the activities of others as well as the conditions of
the environment may (or may not) support continued focus and development of
interest. In later phases of interest, triggers can also be self-generated. Thus, for
example, once Emma learns about light and shadow and begins to apply what
she has learned, she begins to self-generate triggers: she wants to read more about
light and shadow, find people to talk to about light and shadow, and use what she
learns to produce better pictures.
Through the process of triggering, shifts between phases of interest may occur.
For example, Andre and Windschitl (2003) reported on challenge as a trigger
for students’ developing interest when conflicting findings from experimenta-
tion with electrical circuits challenged what the students thought they already
knew. When challenged, the students’ interest developed and their understanding
of circuits improved. Andre and Windschitl (2003) described student interest as
enabling this conceptual change.21 Out-of-school programming in music, science,
or sports that provide opportunities for individuals to explore can serve a similar
function.22 It can call attention to various additional ways in which a content
of interest might be engaged, prompting new forms of participation, as well as
searching for new information.
However, when people are new to content and interest has yet to develop,
the triggering process needs to focus their attention on the key elements of
the content. Renninger et al. (2014), for example, found that when youth with
34 Interest, Attention, and Curiosity
little to no experience with formal science were supported to focus their atten-
tion by reflecting and then elaborating on project activity (a mink dissection),
they developed their interest and their understanding of science. In this study,
the youth were encouraged to focus their attention by reflecting and then elab-
orating on project activities (e.g., a mink dissection) as they completed ICAN
probes in their laboratory notebooks, e.g., “I can use a microscope to under-
stand a cell”; “I can create and fill in a chart to predict the possible genotypes
for the offspring of a species”; “I can use a model to explain the cell cycle.”
The researchers found that even though the target and control groups both
reported experiencing fun and excitement during the project-based work, only
those who had been supported to reflect on their activity by writing responses
to the ICAN probes developed their science interest and understanding. For
these learners, the triggering of interest provided by project activity would
have been a missed opportunity for science learning without support to reflect
on it.23
In summary, learners with a less developed interest may or may not continue
to engage with content, and are likely to need support from others and/or from
the design of the environment (e.g., the use of probes in their lab notebook,
activities, programming, etc.) to continue to engage. Without support for con-
tinued engagement with the content, such a learner may enjoy the experience
of triggering but may not recognize opportunities or try to create opportunities
that would sustain engagement.24 Learners with a more developed interest, by
contrast, are likely to continue to engage or to independently seek reengagement
with content. Because their attention is focused, they can develop or continue to
develop their ability to see and seize opportunities that are available and/or seek
out opportunities to reengage that deepen their interest and also their under-
standing. We now turn to the fundamental question of why interest is such a
powerful motivator and facilitator of learning.
Interest and Attention

The strong association that exists between interest and attention is one of the
reasons that interest is considered to have such an important facilitating effect
on learning. Historically, researchers maintained that attention and factors that
contribute to attention (attentional factors) make a critical contribution to the
effect that interest has on human performance and learning.25 However, there
was a debate among researchers about this link as some questioned its valid-
ity. Developments in neuroscience now provide confirmation of the association
between attention and interest in learning. In the discussion that follows, we draw
on relevant research findings from the fields of psychology and neuroscience to
describe how attention is linked to interest.
Psychological Investigations of Links between Interest and

Attentional Processes
James (1890) described interest as schooling, or focusing, attention and many cur-
rent researchers continue to subscribe to this position. Renninger and Wozniak
(1985) provided confirmation for this effect in their study of young children at
ages three and four. Memory researchers had previously considered this age group
to be too young to detect differences in recognition and recall.26 Using a combi-

nation of naturalistic and experimental techniques, they found that the children
they tested were more likely to shift their focal attention to the toys (e.g., trains,
dolls) they were interested in than to those that were not of interest. The children
also shifted their attention to the toys that were of interest to them first and did
so more frequently.27 Importantly, similar effects were found for both recognition
(ability to identify items in an array) and recall (ability to remember) memory,
demonstrating that interest influences even young children’s attention, engage-
ment, and memory.
However, some researchers questioned this association.28 For example,
Anderson and his colleagues wondered whether attention explained the facil-
itative role of interest in reading text segments.29 They based their studies on
the selective attention model, which was originally developed to explain why
structurally important text segments resulted in superior recall. They adopted the
model to explain the processing of interesting text segments. The original model
assumed that when readers begin a passage they process text elements at some
minimal level and rate them for importance. As they continue to read, they selec-
tively allocate more attention to the processing of important information, result-
ing in longer reading times, slower reactions to other stimuli, and better recall.30
Assuming that interesting text segments are processed the same as impor-
tant text segments, Anderson and his colleagues predicted that increased atten-
tion would result in slower reading and secondary reaction times and better
recall. However, research demonstrated that interest actually reduced the read-
ing and secondary reaction times of adults. On the basis of causal modeling,
the researchers further concluded that attention did not mediate the effect of
interest on recall and that attention and better recall were independent effects
of interest.
Hidi and colleagues questioned the applicability of the selective attention
model for the processing of interesting information.31 They pointed to a criti-
cal distinction between importance and interest in text-processing and argued
that the attentional processes involved in reading important text differ from
those involved in reading interesting text. They maintained that in order to
establish importance, readers have to evaluate text segments relative to previ-
ously processed, stored, and retrieved information or to self-generated stand-
ards. Once such rated importance is established, readers can selectively focus
their attention on what has been judged to be important information. Both of

these operations require allocation of attention that should add significantly to
reading and secondary reaction times. Consequently, longer reading times and
secondary reaction times can be assumed to indicate more attention allocation
to the passages.
However, establishing interestingness of text does not require the same kind of
evaluation and decision-making process as establishing importance. Readers tend
to seek out and instantly recognize interesting information and are likely to sponta-
neously allocate attention as they process it.Therefore, the processing of interesting
information should be more efficient and faster than less interesting information.
In fact, Shirey and Reynolds’ (1988) finding that adults read interesting sentences
significantly faster than less interesting ones supports this hypothesis.32
In a related study, McDaniel et al. (2000) examined how interest influences pro-
cessing of more and less interesting stories. They hypothesized that reaction times
would not differ at the beginnings of the stories when all stories tended to be
equally interesting to all readers. As the storylines developed, however, differences
in secondary reaction times could be expected, based on a reader’s level of interest.
To test this hypothesis, the authors presented secondary task probes at various points
in the stories, predicting differences in processing due to the level of interest that
emerged as the stories unfolded. The results showed that readers’ reaction times did
indeed significantly vary only during the second half of the more and less interest-
ing narratives. Compared to readers with more interesting stories, moreover, readers
of less interesting stories had significantly longer reaction times to the secondary
probes when reading the second half of the stories. In addition, readers’ reaction
times were significantly slower while reading later parts of less interesting narratives
than during earlier parts. No such differences were found for the more interesting
narratives. These findings indicated that readers consciously allocated more atten-
tion to the latter half of the low-interest stories. McDaniel et al. concluded that the
data supported Hidi et al.’s hypothesis that interest can generate spontaneous (auto-
matic) attention, resulting in more efficient and faster processing of information.33
Silvia (2006) also argued that attention does not mediate the effects of inter-
est on learning. He reached his conclusion based on interpreting Anderson and
colleagues’ studies as proof that attention is not a critical factor in the facilitative
effect of interest on learning. However, it should also be noted that Silvia (2006)
misunderstood the evidence refuting this position. He stated that Hidi (1990,
1995) provided an alternative, counterintuitive view that suggests that interest
reduces the amount of attention devoted to text. The point made by Hidi and
colleagues was not that interest reduces the amount of attention devoted to read-
ing but that the spontaneous attention allocated to text segments should result in
shorter reaction times. He similarly misunderstood empirical evidence provided
by McDaniel and his colleagues.
In another study that has implications for understanding attention, Schraw
and Dennison (1994) reported three experiments in which assigned purposes
for reading led to changes in both ratings of interestingness and recall of texts.
In each of the experiments readers were asked to read a neutral story from three
perspectives. The material consisted of a five-page story that centered on two
boys who skip school and spend their afternoon at one boy’s “opulent house.”
The story was embellished with a number of details that were of varying interest
to readers, depending on their assigned perspectives, which were burglar, home-
buyer, and neutral. Interesting information from the burglar perspective included
the location of valuable objects, the presence of security alarms, and access to
the house. Interesting information from the homebuyer perspective referred to
the size of the house and its salient features. In the control condition, interesting
information included skipping school, drinking beer, and playing loud music.The
findings showed that interestingness of the text segments indeed varied as a func-
tion of readers’ perspectives and that the perspective-relevant segments not only
were more interesting but were also recalled better. Notably, these finding were
replicated when perspectives were provided after the initial reading of the text.
The authors concluded that providing perspectives for readers (read this story “as
if you were found to be thinking about robbing this house,” or read this story “as
if you were interested in buying this house”) increased the interestingness of text
information that Schraw and Dennison referred to as purpose-driven interest.
We would argue that the novelty of the perspectives triggered and maintained
situational interest and led to focused attention and searches for relevant informa-
tion that were rewarding as they activated the reward circuitry.34 Developments
in neuroscience to be discussed next, substantiate this discussion and clarify the
importance of the relation between interest and attention in learning. In other
words, neuroscience provides substantive triangulation for psychological research
findings.
Neuroscientific Investigations: Attention, the Reward Circuitry,

and Its Links to Interest
Developments in neuroscientific research point to connections between interest,
attention, and the reward mechanism in the brain. Panksepp (1998) was the first
neuroscientist to identify the physiological basis of the psychological state of inter-
est. In his seminal Affective Neuroscience, he presented empirical research to propose
that there are multiple emotional and motivational systems that all mammals share.
More specifically, he argued that the brain contains a seeking system that is char-
acterized by foraging, exploration, investigation, curiosity, interest, and expectancy.
He called the brain a harmoniously operating neuroemotional system that drives
and energizes “many mental complexities that humans experience as persistent
feelings of interest, curiosity, sensation seeking, and, in the presence of a sufficiently
complex cortex, the search for higher meaning” (Panksepp 1998: 145). He iden-
tified dopamine, one of the important neurochemicals of the brain, as critical for
feelings of engagement and excitement. Panksepp suggested that without dopa-

mine, “human aspirations remain frozen, as it were, in an endless winter of discon-
tent” (1998: 144) and the potential of the brain cannot be realized.
Since the publication of Affective Neuroscience, neuroimaging studies have pro-
vided evidence for the existence of a dopamine-fueled reward circuitry in the
brain.35 These studies show the association of interest and rewards.36, 37, 38 Findings
indicate that the reward circuitry is activated when individuals participate in cer-
tain activities such as anticipating, searching for information, and/or receiving

rewards, and that these activities facilitate memory formation39 and are critical to
learning.40 Importantly, all types of rewards activate the reward circuitry, includ-
ing information seeking and continued experiences of developing understanding
that characterize interested engagement.41 Finally, rewards have been found to
have three components that can be distinguished both psychologically and physi-
ologically: liking, wanting, and learning.42 These components may or may not
co-occur, and have implications for how we measure interest.43
Studies have also shown that novelty acts as a bonus when a person is respond-
ing to reward anticipation or a reward itself. For example, Bunzeck et al. (2010)
argued for the existence of a common mechanism for evaluating reward and
novelty, and suggested that novelty is a fundamental signal that is associated with
attracting attention, promoting memory encoding, and modifying goal-directed
behavior. Neuroscientific studies such as Fenker et al. (2008) have also indicated
that rewards have a strong influence on individuals’ attention allocation. Hickey
et al. (2011) demonstrated that objects associated with rewards become visually
salient. In a related investigation, Anderson et al. (2011) found that inconspicu-
ous, task-irrelevant items, previously associated with monetary rewards, slowed
down visual search of these items. They called this type of reward-related sig-
nificant distraction “value-driven attentional capture,” suggesting that a person’s
previous associations with rewards are an involuntary influence on the attention
required for a visual search.
Much of the early research in neuroscience focused on extrinsic rewards
and showed many benefits of the activation of the reward circuitry to attention
and memory.44 More recently, neuroscientists have started to examine intrinsic
rewards such as curiosity and interest.45 The impetus for these investigations
came from questions about the underlying mechanisms of exploring, seeking,
and obtaining information without extrinsic rewards, as if learning was reward-
ing in and of itself.46 This work provides evidence for the association between
interest and rewards. Interestingly, neuroscientists have tended to conflate curi-
osity and interest or use the terms interchangeably, without recognizing their
similarities and differences (a point that is further discussed in the next section
of this chapter). Since both interest and curiosity involve information-seeking
and do not require extrinsic rewards, their conflation can be easily understood.
Whereas we argue that the two concepts should be considered distinct, it is also
the case that the psychological state of each during the seeking of information
is similar, and, thus, their relation to reward circuitry can be expected to be

similar, as well. Therefore, neuroscientific findings related to curiosity can fre-
quently be expected to apply to interest.
For example, in examining computational and neural mechanisms of
information-seeking, curiosity, and attention, Gottlieb et al. (2013: 2–3)
reported that “information seeking can also be intrinsically motivated, that
is, a goal in and of itself. The fact that animals, and particularly humans, show
intrinsic curiosity and seem to avidly seek out information without appar-
ent ulterior motive suggests that the brain generates intrinsic rewards … that
assign value to information.” Like Berlyne (1960), these researchers further
concluded that intrinsic rewards may be based on uncertainty, surprise, and
learning progress and that such rewards may be learned or innate. Gottlieb
et al. explained the benefits of information-seeking as motivation for learning
for its own sake. They also pointed out that information-seeking is evolution-
arily adaptive as it maximizes long-term evolutionary fitness in rapidly chang-
ing environmental conditions.
In a relatively early study, Kang et al. (2009) examined the underlying neural
mechanism of curiosity.47 They used functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) of changes in blood flow to assess the brain activity of individuals reading
trivia questions that elicited varying levels of curiosity. Their data demonstrated
that the level of individuals’ curiosity while reading was correlated with the acti-
vation of the reward circuitry.48 They also reported on imaging and behavioral
data indicating that curiosity enhanced memory for novel information, pointing
to its cognitive benefits. Kang et al. linked their findings to those of Adcock et al.
(2006); together, the studies provide evidence that curiosity (internal reward) and
anticipated monetary reward (external reward) activate similar neural circuits and
have similar facilitative effects on memory.
Gruber et al.’s (2014) study of curiosity replicated and expanded on the find-
ings of Kang et al., both with respect to the activation of the reward circuitry and
its benefits on memory.49 In the Gruber et al. study, curiosity, interest, and intrin-
sic motivation appear to be used interchangeably, and, therefore, we refer to their
work as curiosity/interest. They reported that curiosity/interest activated the
reward system and facilitated learning. They also found that (a) the benefit to
memory was driven by the anticipation of activity (the seeking of information),
not level of interest in the answers themselves; and (b) there were benefits to inci-
dental learning. They further concluded that these findings may even underesti
mate the effects of curiosity/interest in everyday situations.
Curiosity and Interest

The relation between the constructs of curiosity and interest has not been
addressed in the above-mentioned neuroscientific investigations. This state of
affairs may be related to the fact that the terms “curiosity” and “interest” are often
used interchangeably in everyday speech.50 For example, one could say either “I
am curious who is going to be the next mayor of our city” or “I am interested to
find out who is going to be the next mayor of our city.”
By contrast, two relatively distinct literatures have developed in psychological
research on curiosity and interest, suggesting that they are conceptualized as two
different constructs. However, researchers have not agreed on their similarities and
differences. Without clearly defining their relation, confusions in research designs

and interpretations of results may emerge. In the following section(s), we review
various conceptualizations of curiosity and their relation to individual differences
and consider how curiosity and interest are comparable.
Conceptualizations of Curiosity
This discussion of curiosity reflects a parsimonious selection of an extensive lit-
erature. Conceptualizations of curiosity are based on the premise that once curi-
osity is triggered, a form of information-seeking occurs. However, a range of
definitions and categories of curiosity exist. For example, perceptual curiosity
has been identified as the search for information elicited by novel, ambiguous
stimuli related to sensory experience; whereas epistemic curiosity is considered
to be a uniquely human search to gain knowledge that motivates inquisitive-
ness underlying intellectual development and achievements.51 Another important
conceptualization of curiosity has centered on how specific or general a person’s
search for information is. Berlyne (1949), whose work was seminal in the area of
curiosity research, originally distinguished between specific exploration (when an
animal is disturbed by lack of information) and diversive exploration (when an
animal searches for optimal stimulation). As Markey and Lowenstein (2014) point
out, however, Berlyne in his later papers (1966, 1978) only considered specific
exploration as curiosity when it was based on having received partial information.
Markey and Lowenstein further quote Berlyne (1966) who wrote that diversive
exploration is not due to having received partial information; it seems to be moti-
vated by factors quite different from curiosity. In addition, Berlyne and associates
viewed curiosity as a drive that motivates the search for information. This drive
was assumed to initially be associated with negative feelings; positive affect would
result once the desired information was acquired.
Some of the research that followed focused on incongruity theories, the types
of stimuli that arouse drive. The underlying assumption of incongruity theories
was that curiosity was triggered by violations of expectations such as collative
variables: stimulus characteristics that produce incongruity (e.g., uncertainty,
surprise, etc.).52 These collative variables vary along lines such as familiar-novel,
simple-complex, and clear-ambiguous and affect the psychological state of indi-
viduals by eliciting uncertainty and conflict.
Other related theories, also based on Berlyne’s work, were curiosity-drive

theories. These focused on affective states associated with curiosity. The most
prominent curiosity-drive theory is Lowenstein et al.’s knowledge-gap theory.53
According to this formulation, a curious person is motivated to search for a miss-
ing piece of information in order to reduce an aversive state of deprivation, and
such reduction in the knowledge gap is enjoyable. These researchers further sug-
gested that the magnitude of the gap determines the extent of individuals’ sense
of deprivation and the triggering of their curiosity.54

It is noteworthy that neuroscientists Jepma, Verdonshot, van Steenbergen,
Rombouts, and Nieuwenhuis (2012) reported empirical findings that were con-
sistent with Berlyne’s and Lowenstein’s conceptualizations that curiosity both
triggers an aversive state whose termination is rewarding and facilitates memory.
They investigated the neural correlates of human perceptual curiosity and found
that:
• Induction of perceptual curiosity through the presentation of ambiguous

visual input activated brain regions sensitive to conflict and arousal (anterior
insula and anterior cingulate cortex).
• The termination of the aversive state by new information (visual disambigu
ation) activated a region of the brain (the striatum) that has been related to
reward processing.
• The relief of perceptual curiosity with the activation of the reward circuitry
was also associated with enhanced incidental memory.
To address the question of whether curiosity should be perceived as feelings of dep-

rivation or as feelings of interest, Litman et al.55 subsequently proposed the interest/
deprivation model (the I/D model),56 which suggests that feelings of deprivation
and feelings of interest could reflect two different forms of curiosity.These research-
ers argued that interest-type curiosity involves anticipated pleasure from new dis-
coveries, whereas the deprivation type of curiosity is concerned with reduction of
uncertainty and the elimination of an undesirable state of ignorance. The research-
ers further maintained that more intense expressions of curiosity and exploration
are associated with experiencing deprivation than with feelings of interest.57
More specifically, I-type epistemic curiosity is concerned with adding new
ideas to one’s knowledge base; it motivates diversive exploration and involves pos-
itive feelings related to improving intellectual understanding. On the other hand,
D-type epistemic curiosity reflects a need that energizes specific exploration
aimed at problem-solving and is associated with setting performance-oriented
learning goals. Similarly in his book, Curious, Leslie (2014) did not distin-
guish between curiosity and interest, nor did he consider that they might not
be interchangeable terms. However, like Litman, he recognized that there
are different types of content that people are curious about or interested in.
More specifically, he noted that the desire to know more about the religious
rituals of the Mayan civilization is not the same as wanting to know how Ryan
Gosling looks without his clothes. Leslie also had problems conceptualizing seek
ing. Like Lowenstein (1994), he described answers as closing a knowledge gap.
Instead of distinguishing curiosity from interest as suggested by Markey and
Lowenstein (2014), he talked about two types of curiosity, a position similar to
Litman et al.’s description.
Given that Litman et al.’s description of epistemic curiosity of the I type cor-
responds to the way in which interest is described in the interest literature, we

suggest that rather than identifying two types of curiosity, the D type should be
considered curiosity, given its consistency with Berlyne (1966) and Markey and
Lowenstein’s (2014) work, and the I type should be considered interest. We dis
cuss this suggestion further when we consider similarities and differences between
curiosity and interest later in this chapter.
Curiosity and Individual Differences

A significant number of researchers have considered curiosity to be a personal
characteristic or trait that is stable, varied across individuals, and related to differ-
ences in cognitive functioning and learning goals.58 Although we do not review
the earliest work on curiosity already reviewed by Silvia (2006), we acknowledge
the work of Ainley (1987), who distinguished between depth and breadth of curi-
osity in the approach to novelty,59 two factors for which a number of subsequent
and independent studies provided verification.60
Litman et al. have conducted the most extensive and continuing investiga-
tions on the topic of individual differences in trait-curiosity since Silvia’s (2006)
review.61 These researchers hypothesized that the I/D distinction not only des
cribes two types of curiosities but that individual differences can be established
on the basis of this distinction as well. More specifically, they reported that the
degree to which the two types of curiosities are experienced and behaviorally
expressed varies according to individual differences in relatively stable I- and
D-type epistemic curiosity traits. Using assessment tools that have been shown
to provide valid and reliable measures of individual differences, they found that
people who prefer diversive exploration and learning completely new infor-
mation can be distinguished from those who focus on specific exploration
aimed at reducing uncertainty.62 They have further linked the two categories
to mastery-oriented learning and performance-oriented learning, respectively.
Notably, the scales for adults (including college students and nonstudents) and
versions appropriate for adolescents and young children have been validated
by investigations that were conducted in the United States, Germany, and the
Netherlands.
Despite this evidence for categorizing individuals based on the two types of
curiosity, we argue for distinguishing between the two constructs of curiosity and
interest. As interest researchers, we have noticed that some people are more likely
to develop individual interest than others. Perhaps this is due to the same types of
individual differences that explain why some people’s curiosity focuses on filling
knowledge gaps while others search and seek more diverse information.
Disambiguating Curiosity and Interest

Consider Ekeland and Dahl’s (2015) description of tourists who arrive in Norway
and want to see the Northern Lights.63 They studied 400 people who waited for
four days on a tourist boat to be able to see the Northern Lights; the weather was
difficult, there was cloud cover. The tourists are eventually told that, given the
weather, if they were going to see Northern Lights they would see them in the
next three hours:
They wait on the bow of the ship; there is silence, and finally when they do
see the Northern Lights, there is exclamation and awe. An hour later, the
tourists complete surveys indicating that sighting the Northern Lights was a
peak experience.Twenty hours later, when interviewed about the trip, none
of them mention the Northern Lights.
We would suggest that this is an example of having had a curiosity; the tourists
wanted to see the Northern Lights, but once the experience of the psychological
state of interest was fulfilled, the phenomenon was no longer of interest to them. In
other words, consistent with the Jepma et al. (2012) findings, curiosity triggered
an aversive state the termination of which was rewarding and facilitated incidental
memory. Because the knowledge gap was closed at the sighting of the Northern
Lights, for this group of people, the Northern Lights may have only been a curios-
ity and not a triggered interest that might develop. On the other hand, had there
been a physicist on board who brought to the sighting some understanding of the
role of the cloud cover in what could be seen, and who in seeing the Northern
Lights had some residual questions that he resolved to take back to his laboratory
to study, for that person the opportunity to see the Northern Lights might have
been both a curiosity and a question related to their individual interest.64
Markey and Lowenstein (2014) are among the investigators who have pointed
to curiosity and interest as different constructs.65 Curiosity, in their view, only
results from a desire to close an information gap. It is distinct from interest, defined
as a psychological state that involves engagement in order to learn more about
a subject generally. More specifically, they suggested that curiosity differs from
interest in three ways:
We define interest as a psychological state that involves a desire to become

engaged in an activity or know more, in general, about a subject. If an
individual is interested in pottery, for example, that person may want to sit
down and throw pots, or that person may want to know more about the
technique, the materials, and the history. Curiosity, in contrast, according to
our definition, only arises when a specific knowledge gap occurs, such as,
“What is the difference between high and low fire pottery?”Thus, curiosity
and interest differ by their objects of desire (specific knowledge vs. gen-
eral knowledge/activity engagement). Furthermore, while interest is often
subdivided based on its causal source—situational interest is generated by

particular conditions in the environment, and individual interest is gener-
ated by relatively enduring predispositions—curiosity is agnostic about its
origin. A final distinction is phenomenology, which refers to what each
state feels like. Interest is often, though not always, associated with positive
affect (Hidi, 2000: 312). In contrast, while the satisfaction of curiosity pro-
vides pleasure, curiosity itself is an aversive state associated with deprivation
(e.g., Day, 1982; Litman and Jimerson, 2004; Lowenstein, 1994; Todt and
Schreiber, 1998).
(Markey and Lowenstein 2014: 231)
Reeve (1996) similarly argued that curiosity and interest are distinct; curiosity
is associated with an aversive state and interest with a positive state. In contrast,
Silvia (2006), while acknowledging that the distinction between curiosity and
interest is complex and tricky, stated that equating the two constructs is justified
as no convincing evidence has been presented that would support the distinction
between them.66
Many other researchers simply have used the terms “curiosity” and “interest”
interchangeably, as if they were synonymous.67 For example, Rotgans and Schmidt
(2014) described three studies in which situational interest and epistemic curios-
ity were considered interchangeable terms. Lack of clarity about the definitions
of these two terms led to conclusions about the role of knowledge in interest
development that contradict published research and may be a source of confu-
sion.68 More specifically, in the case of curiosity, knowledge acquisition results in
a resolution and reduced motivation; in the case of interest, increased knowledge
is likely to lead to further seeking and increased motivation.
We maintain that although the psychological states and the physiological
responses of curiosity and interest have common elements, they should be consi
dered related but not interchangeable concepts. Whereas they both involve seek-
ing or searching for information, they have different types of triggers, different
affective markers, and different durations.69 Curiosity involves specific kinds of
searches that are triggered by knowledge gaps and tend to involve collative vari-
ables.70 By contrast, interest researchers have identified many different triggers for
interest.71
The affective markers of interest also differ from those of curiosity. Whereas
curiosity is described as involving an aversive psychological state that is replaced
by positive feelings as curiosity is satisfied, interest might be initiated by either

positive or negative feelings.72 Finally, inherent in the definition of curiosity is a
relatively short-term psychological state, in as much as it lasts only until the infor-
mation gap is closed or the conflict is resolved. The psychological state of interest,
on the other hand, has no such limitations and often continues as interest devel-
ops. An early observation of Hidi and Anderson (1992) illustrates this point: read-
ers of a mystery are curious to find out who committed the crime, but, once the
identity of the killer is known, uncertainty is reduced, and they stop reading as the
book loses most of its appeal. By contrast, readers of an essay might initially think
that the essay is boring but then become interested because the ideas are original
and well presented. These readers may eagerly continue reading the essay in order
to acquire more information; their interest is situational, triggered by the text, and
may develop into an enduring interest.
Let us return briefly to Emma’s initial experience with the camera. At the
moment that Emma first picks up the instructions to the camera, we would be
hard-pressed to decide whether she is curious or interested to see the instruc-
tions. However, as Emma’s interest develops, it informs her activity. It drives her to
search for information about how she might organize her pictures and also how
she could join the camera club at the school. But these searches are not limited to
looking for specific information. Although the searches may seem like they stem
from a desire to close knowledge gaps, they are driven by her developing know
ledge and valuing of photography, and result in continued longer-term engage-
ment. Therefore, they are not limited by the expectation of specific answers and
are not type-D curiosity as defined in the literature. Rather, they are searches that
support subsequent engagement and the development of her interest. That is, as
Emma finds answers, she generates further questions and searches for information
with no apparent external incentives.
Although research has demonstrated that the factors that trigger curiosity are
not the same as those that trigger situational interest, and that the affective state in
the triggering phase and the duration of the two motivational states are distinct,73
neuroscience does suggest that the psychological states experienced by both curi-
ous and situationally interested individuals are likely to involve the activation
of the reward circuitry.74 However, it is important to note that once individuals
have emerging or well-developed interest for the related content, their search
for information may be different from both situational interest and curiosity in
several ways.
First, even if a person with individual interest in a topic or subject area is looking
for specific information, negative feelings do not necessarily accompany the search.
That is, the underlying emotional tone of this type of information search is likely to
be positive, unless serious problems are encountered. Second, once this individual
finds the specific information, the reduction of uncertainty is unlikely to result in
the termination of engagement with that content. It is more likely that they will
continue to engage in a search for related information, leading to reflection that, in
turn, may result in self-triggering.75 For example, consider a student whose passion
is mathematics and who is trying to find a solution for a mathematical problem.This
search may not feel like deprivation or an aversive condition, and, once a solution
is found, the student might continue the so-called exploration to find more related
problems to solve, cherishing the challenge of the activity. This type of exploration
cannot be classified simply as either diversive or specific as the individual has devel-
oped knowledge of and value for the content. In this case, we suggest that it is new,
situationally interesting triggers for which the student is searching.76
Concluding Thoughts
Interest has repeatedly been shown to be beneficial to learning processes and
outcomes. In this chapter, we have explained that the presence of interest enables
learners to make connections to the learning that they are doing, which is reward-
ing and impacts conceptual understanding. The association of interest with atten-
tion contributes to the power of interest in learning. Triggers for interest serve to
direct learners to particular content, and interventions that require reflection have
been shown to positively influence learners’ interest development and understand-
ing. Although we have presented an argument for distinguishing curiosity from
situational interest, we acknowledge that once an individual closes a knowledge
gap (e.g., finds out who the candidates for the mayoral election are), it is possible
that when curiosity is satisfied it will lead to a triggering of interest (e.g., one of
the mayoral candidates is exciting and champions issues that feel personally rele
vant, leading to a decision to become involved in the following administration).
There is also a question to be posed about how curiosity is related to existing
individual interest: how is a knowledge gap closed when it is related to an exist-
ing individual interest?
Notes
1 See also discussion in Hidi 2006.
2 For example, Harackiewicz et al. 2008; Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Nolen 2007a,
2007b; Pressick-Kilborn 2015.
3 See Lipstein and Renninger (2007b) for portraits of learners in each phase of interest
development.
4 For example, Berridge et al. 2009; Gottlieb et al. 2013.
5 Dewey (1913) specifically suggested that teachers should not try to trigger interest,
because he makes the assumption that such triggering would be superficial. This is a
point that is also made by Reeve et al. (2015).
6 See Azevedo 2006, 2013a, 2013b, 2015; Harackiewicz et al. 2008; Lipstein and Renninger
2007b; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015; Renninger and Hidi 2002; Sansone et al. 2011.
7 Dewey 1913; Renninger 2003; Lipstein and Renninger 2007b.
8 For example, Alexander et al. 2015; Azevedo 2015; Crowley et al. 2015; Nieswandt
and Horowitz 2015; Pressick-Kilborn 2015; Pugh et al. 2015; Renninger, Kensey et al.
2015; Turner et al. 2015.
9 Hulleman and Harackiewicz 2009; Hulleman, Godes et al. 2010; Renninger et al. 2014.
10 Conceptual understanding, or sophistication, refers to both the organization and
processing of information, its accuracy, and its productivity. See discussions, for
example, in Andre and Windschitl 2003; Renninger et al. 2014; Renninger, Kensey
et al. 2015; Schiefele 1999, 2001.
11 Harackiewicz et al. 2002.
12 Bong et al. 2015; Durik et al. 2015; Renninger et al. 2014.
13 Ainley et al. 2002; Hidi 1995, 2000; McDaniel et al. 2000; Renninger and Wozniak 1985.
14 Harackiewicz et al. 2000; Durik and Harackiewicz 2003; Pintrich and Zusho 2002;
Sansone and Smith 2000; Senko and Harackiewicz 2002.
15 Alexander 1997; Alexander and Murphy 1998; Azevedo 2013a, 2013b; Hoffmann
2002; Köller et al. 2001; Krapp and Fink 1992; Renninger 1989, 1990; Renninger et al.
2002; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015; Renninger and Hidi 2002; Sadoski 2001; Schiefele
1999; Schiefele and Krapp 1996; Schraw and Dennison 1994; Wade et al. 1999.
16 Bong et al. 2015; Durik et al. 2015; Hay et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2015;
Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015; Sansone et al. 2015.
17 Renninger and Hidi 2002; Sansone et al. 1992; Sansone et al. 2012; Sansone et al. 2015.
18 Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger and Hidi 2002.
19 Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015.
20 Although some people use “catch” to refer to a trigger, Hidi (2000) pointed out that
“trigger” and “catch” do not necessarily describe the same thing. Triggering could be
associated with differing sources including a state of boredom, whereas catching sug-
gests that an already existing interest is being captured or diverted in the situation.
21 Conceptual change refers to change in existing conceptions (e.g., understanding,
beliefs, ideas, and so forth) regarding, for example, nature, that are changed through
learning (e.g., Duit and Treagust 2003; Sinatra and Pintrich 2003). Changes in a learn-
er’s understanding may be facilitated by conditions in the environment that can enable
the learner to recognize the discrepancy between previous and new understanding.
22 Ainley and Ainley 2015; Alexander et al. 2015; Barron et al. 2014; Crowley et al. 2015;
Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015.
23 Presumably because of the open-ended yet directed nature of the probes, this interven-
tion worked for those with less and those with more developed interest. (See also Zhu
et al. 2009.)
24 Renninger 2010; see also related discussions in Durik et al. 2015.
25 Berlyne 1960; Dewey 1913; James 1890; Simon 1967; Thorndike 1935.
26 For example, Myers and Perlmutter 1978; Perlmutter and Lange 1978; Perlmutter and
Myers 1974, 1976.
27 Renninger and Wozniak 1985; see also related discussion in Renninger 1990.
28 For example, Silvia 2006.
29 Anderson 1982; Reynolds and Anderson 1992; Shirey and Reynolds 1988; see also
related discussion in Hidi 1995.
30 The measurement of attention by secondary task reaction time is based on the assump-
tion that cognitive capacity is limited. Because performance on primary and secondary
tasks draws on the same limited resources, allocation to one task may reduce availability
for the other task. Thus, if participants are reading and also have to respond to a tone
that sounds intermittently, their response time to the tone reflects the intensity of
attention paid to reading (Hidi 1995).
31 Hidi 1995, 2001; Hidi and Anderson 1992.
32 In the subsequent phase of text-processing when information has to be integrated with
previously read text segments, reading speed may also depend on how the interesting
text segments fit in with preceding materials. If text includes unimportant and possibly
distracting information on new topics (seductive details: e.g., Garner et al. 1989; Wade
and Adams 1990), reading requires particular focus of attention for the integration of
text elements, and slower reading times can be expected. Wade’s (1992) finding, that
readers spent 50 percent more time reading seductive details than other interesting
text segments, provided confirmation of this assumption and suggested the need to
acknowledge differences in the facilitating effects of attention on various types of text
segments.
33 Another issue with reaction time as a reflection of attention has to do with the way in
which attention influences new learning as opposed to skilled performance. Hidi and
Berndorff (1998) note that both reading times and secondary task reaction times may
be inadequate performance measures of attention.They pointed out that distinguishing

between those who are simply performing an already-learned task from those whose
task involves new learning may help distinguish the outcome of attentional factors in
tasks.They provide an example to illustrate this point: “If one pays attention to sorting
a deck of cards into four suits, the task is achieved faster than if one daydreams while
sorting,” in contrast, if the task of sorting cards into suits includes having to learn new
information (e.g., remembering unfamiliar faces of the Kings), the relation between
attention and speed of performance might be reversed; more attention in this case
should result in slower performance. Correspondingly, although competent adult read-
ers’ reading speed should increase with attention, the reverse might be true when the
task also includes learning important information” (Hidi and Berndorff 1998: 84–85).
34 In discussing attention, Csikszentmihalyi (2014) pointed to the primacy of two crucial
psychological processes, consciousness and attention. More specifically, he described
consciousness as information, and attention as the form of psychic energy that controls
what information gets processed, and thus regulates consciousness. Csikszentmihalyi
explained this difference by presenting an analogy to approaches used in the bio-
logical sciences to study animal behavior. One approach describes animals’ anatomy,
biochemistry, etc., of the species, whereas the other approach focuses on observing
animals in their natural habitat. Csikszentmihalyi further noted that there are two ways
to study attention, which he considers the central question of psychology. One way to
establish how attention functions is to focus on the physiologically established atten-
tional processes. The other way, which Csikszentmihalyi said he prefers, is to explore
how attention, as a process, can be observed by studying individuals interacting in their
usual environments. That is, Csikszentmihalyi chose to focus on behaviors associated
with attention such as flow without addressing the underlying biological mechanisms.
35 These findings have been made possible by developments in neuroscientific tech-
niques that continue to revolutionize the way in which human brain activation can
be researched. One of the most frequently used of these relatively new methods is the
noninvasive functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which records changes
in blood oxygenation and reflects neural activities in various brain regions (Ernst and
Spear 2009; Fareri et al. 2008; Gunnar and de Haan 2009; Hidi 2015; Knutson and
Wimmer 2007).
36 Berridge 2012; Martin-Soelch et al. 2001; Schultz 1998.
37 A very interesting and important new study showed that expectations of reward,
motivation, and response to novelty increased dopamine production in patients
with Parkinson’s Disease (PD), an illness that affects nerve cells in the brain involved
in planning and controlling body movements. Dopamine is the chemical (neuro-
transmitter) that is required for normal functioning of this system. When a substan-
tial percentage of dopamine-producing nerve cells in the brain (more specifically, in
the substantia nigra) die off, PD symptoms (tremor, stiffness, slow movements, etc.)
start to occur. Research on drugs designed to improve the symptoms has shown a
strong placebo effect. That is, a pharmacologically inactive substance administered
as a drug can result in improvements due to PD patients’ raised expectations. Espay
et al. (2015) showed that the placebo effect can be increased by patients’ belief that
they are being administered a more expensive ($1,500 a shot) versus a less expensive
($100 a shot) injection. Espay et al. concluded that people who receive the injec-
tions thinking they received the more effective drug appear to have even greater
expectations of a reward response, which is normally associated with release of
dopamine, similar to the response to an actual reward. Thus, this study demonstrates
how increased belief, novelty, and the expectation of rewards can underlie the pla-
cebo effect.
38 Bunzeck et al. (2009) conducted an investigation relevant to this topic. They meas-
ured how long it took humans to distinguish novel from familiar items and compared
the results to primates performing the same task. Findings indicated that neural novelty
signals were detected by humans significantly more slowly than by primates. They
hypothesized that the difference between species may have been due to the provision
of reinforcement only in the animal studies. Subsequently, Bunzeck et al. found that
under the contextual influence of reward motivation, humans detected behaviorally
relevant novelty signals much faster than had been previously reported. The findings
that rewards can accelerate novelty detection support the idea that rewards motivate
attention and energize behavior leading to decreased response time and increased vigor
(Hidi 2015).
39 For example, Adcock et al. (2006) showed that anticipated monetary rewards also
modulate activation of the reward circuitry and promote memory formation prior to
learning.
40 For example, Fareri et al. 2008.
41 Similar patterns of activation are found for primary rewards (which are necessary for
the survival of the species, such as food or sexual contact) and secondary rewards (which
derive their value from primary rewards, such as money) (see, e.g., Schultz 2007).
42 Berridge et al. 2009.
43 Further discussion of this point is undertaken in Chapter 3.
44 See Hidi 2015.
45 Other researchers who study intrinsic motivation mechanisms have focused
on curiosity- driven seeking and learning within systemic and multidisciplinary
approaches, and have developed models with algorithmic and robotic tools (e.g. the
First Interdisciplinary Symposium on Information Seeking, Curiosity, and Attention
[November 2014] organized by P.Y. Oudeyer, J. Gottlieb, and M. Lopes). Although
artificial systems and robotics are not topics that we discuss in this book, the emphasis
these researchers place on curiosity, information-seeking, and attention is supportive of
our position on the importance of seeking behavior and its link to neural mechanisms,
as well as on the physiological activities underlying the psychological state of interest.
46 Gottlieb et al. (2013) referenced Berlyne (1960) and noted that exploration-searching/
seeking information alters the observers’ epistemic state without external rewards, and
concluded that this type of behavior and the high degree of motivation associated with
it generates intrinsic rewards in the brain and assigns value to information or learning.
47 They referred to “curiosity” rather than “early phases of situational interest” even
though, as Ainley and Hidi (2014) have pointed out, their findings are similarly appli-
cable to interest and curiosity, as each can be described as an internally driven search
for more information.
48 More specifically, the caudate in the striatum that has been previously associated with
anticipated rewards.
49 Later in this chapter, we address these potential distinctions. Here we report their find-
ings referring to “curiosity/interest.” Gruber et al. (2014) asked participants to rate
their level of curiosity about the answer to a trivia question (extremes of scale; 1 = “I
am not interested at all in the answer,” and 6 = “I am very much interested in the
answer”) (2014: 9).
50 For example, Leslie (2014: 46 and 47) referred to both interest and curiosity when he
measured a baby’s activities.
51 Berlyne 1960.
52 Berlyne 1960.
53 For example, Lowenstein 1994; Markey and Lowenstein 2014.
54 Silvia (2006) criticized the theory on a number of issues, most importantly on the
premise that the subjective experience involves both negative and positive affective
states. He concluded that this prediction requires empirical support, as it contradicts
findings that people rate curiosity as a positive affective state.
55 For example, Litman 2005, 2008, 2010; Litman and Jimerson 2004; Litman and Mussel
2013; Litman et al. 2010; Piotrowski et al. 2014; Richards et al. 2013.
56 Litman (2005) has suggested that the I/D model maps onto the neuroscience of liking
and wanting (Berridge and Robinson 1998), and that there are two neural systems that
can be assumed to underlie motivation and affective experience. However, this interest-
ing suggestion has not been further examined (personal communication, Litman, July
16, 2014).
57 Litman (2008) reported on four studies that examined interest and deprivation factors
of epistemic curiosity and their relations to diversive and specific curiosity. He con-
cluded that the “concepts of I- and D-type curiosity extend beyond those of diversive
and specific exploration” (2008: 1594).
58 Self-reports, trait inventories, and teacher reports are some of the tools researchers have
used to measure curiosity as a trait.
59 In earlier work, Ainley used the terms “depth” and “breadth of interest curiosities”; she
has clarified that these were categories of curiosity rather than interest (personal com-
munication, October 15, 2014).
60 For example, Byman 2005; Fulcher 2008; Reio et al. 2006.
61 For example, Litman 2005, 2008; Litman and Jimerson 2004; Litman and Mussel 2013;
Piotrowski et al. 2014.
62 For example, Litman 2008; Litman and Mussel 2013; Piotrowski et al. 2014; Richards
et al. 2013.
63 We use Ekeland and Dahl’s (2015) example (with their permission) to provide an illus-
tration of the distinction between curiosity and interest; however, it should be noted
that their work addresses the emotions of the tourists in this context and emotions in
the development of interest.
64 Personal communication with Christian Ekeland (May 11, 2015) further indicated that
there was a tourist who reported having waited much of her life to see the Northern
Lights. However, given that she did not continue to focus on them following the sight-
ing, we suggest that she had only a long-standing curiosity to see them, not a develop-
ing interest.
65 Lowenstein 1994; Markey and Lowenstein 2014.
66 Based on his consideration of curiosity as being the equivalent of interest, Silvia (2006)
criticized Lowenstein’s conceptualization, not realizing that he was talking about curi-
osity and not interest (see Silvia 2006: 51). Whereas Silvia is correct in saying that
interest theory should cover triggers other than uncertainty and knowledge gaps, this
criticism of Lowenstein is in our opinion inappropriate since Lowenstein’s is a clearly
defined theory of curiosity.
67 For example, Izard 1977, 2007; Panksepp 1998.
68 Rotgans and Schmidt (2014: 37) investigated how situational interest is related to
knowledge acquisition, and defined situational interest as a “motivational response
to a perceived knowledge deficit.” They suggest that interest is triggered in situa-
tions when a knowledge deficit becomes manifest, such as in confrontation with
a problem (Rotgans and Schmidt 2014: 37). This definition is in essence identical
to Lowenstein and his colleagues’ definition of curiosity (e.g., Lowenstein 1994).
Using this conceptualization, Rotgans and Schmidt reported that situational interest
decreased with increasing knowledge of a given problem and concluded that their
findings supported a knowledge-deprivation account of situational interest. They

further claimed that the results were at variance with the commonly held assumption
that situational interest and knowledge are positively associated.
Rotgans and Schmidt (2014) interpret their findings as suggesting that once the
knowledge gap is closed, curiosity is satisfied and interest falls off. The problem with
their conclusion is that the authors are working with their own definition of situ-
ational interest, one that others have used to describe curiosity: “Situational interest
is construed as a motivational response to a perceived knowledge deficit” (Rotgans
and Schmidt 2014: 37). Second, though their findings are consistent with findings
on curiosity, they not only are working with their own definitions of interest but
argue that published research about the role of knowledge in interest development
is incorrect: according to interest theory, knowledge is an increasingly significant
component of interest as it develops.
69 More specifically, we accept both Lowenstein et al.’s definition of curiosity and Litman
et al.’s definition of D-type curiosity, as both argue that curiosity is triggered by a desire
to close a knowledge gap and reduce uncertainty.
70 Hidi and Berndorff 1998.
71 For example, some concepts like power, death, and sex have been shown to be uni-
versally interesting (Schank 1979). They also have pointed to factors that produce
interesting text segments, such as traditional story elements, goal-directed activities,
human factors, novelty, life themes, character identification, and intensity (Anderson
et al. 1987; Hidi and Baird 1986, 1988). Furthermore, interest triggers that work for
one person may not work for the next, depending on individual characteristics (see
Renninger and Bachrach 2015). For example, group work is not a trigger for interest
for an individual who is low on sociability, whereas a person who is high on sociability
is likely to have their interest triggered by group work.
72 Leslie (2014: 80) also recognized that although closing a knowledge gap has an aversive
aspect, this does not apply to all types of information search: “...when we come up on
a field of knowledge that we feel sure will occupy us for a long time to come, whether
it’s neuroscience or languages, it’s because we know we’ll never get to the end of our
ignorance. That feeling isn’t uncomfortable or, as the psychologists say, ‘aversive’.”
73 It should be noted that situationally interested individuals may include those in earlier
or later phases of interest development.
74 Ernst and Spear 2009; Hidi 2015; Knutsen and Wimmer 2007.
75 We point to reflection, rather than the terminology of “curiosity questions” which
have previously been referenced (e.g., Renninger 2000, 2010) because reflection pro-
vides a more accurate description of the process (see Renninger et al. 2014).
76 Leslie (2014) explained the distinction between what he referred to as two types of
curiosity by pointing to qualities of the content that elicited it: puzzles that have def-
inite answers and mysteries that posed questions that cannot be answered definitely.
Such answers according to Leslie may depend on a complex and interrelated set of
factors, some known and others unknown. Whereas this conceptualization focuses on
the object of interest, the four-phase model is focused on the interaction of the person
and the environment.
3
MEASURING INTEREST
What is known about assessing existing interest?
How do new interests develop?
How can the phase of a person’s interest be

identified and measured?
People are hardwired to have interest(s) and to continue to develop new interest(s)
throughout their lives. It is rewarding to have an interest triggered, to figure some-
thing out, to engage in seeking behavior, and to find relevant information. This
involvement is something that characterizes all typically functioning individuals.1
The triggering of interest initiates engagement and the possibility of interest devel-
opment. Interest is sustained when a person begins to engage and has the ability as
well as the opportunity to continue participation. In this chapter we consider how
a person’s existing interest(s) can be assessed, how new interests can be supported
to develop, and how the phase of a person’s interest can be identified and measured.
Existing Interest(s)
Some of the first assessments of existing, or already developed, interest(s) used
inventories of topics.2 For educators of school-age students, these provided
insights about possible topics (e.g., dogs, sports, writing) that were the focus of
their instruction. For counselors of young adults, similar assessments could be
used to provide advice about course selection and career options. Findings from
studies of such inventories reveal that people typically have four to five developed
interests at one time,3 and that the focus of interest for one person is likely to vary
from that of the next person, even if they have an interest in the same domain
(e.g., a child might be interested in training dogs for show, whereas another may
be interested in breeding and raising puppies, and yet another may be interested
in teaching their dog tricks).4
Findings from Bathgate et al.’s (2013) study of ten- to twelve-year-old children’s
science motivation are instructive. They reported on the roles of setting (e.g., in or
out of school, formal or informal context), manner of interaction (e.g., working
Measuring Interest 53
with new information, analysis, activity type such as hands-on activities), and topic
(e.g., physics, biology, earth science) in science motivation. The researchers were
particularly interested in exploring the role of the topic, in contrast to the role of
the more general domain (e.g., science), as influencing children’s perceptions.They
found little variation when their analyses focused on the settings or the manner
of interaction, and few differences based on topic. Bathgate et al. reported a high
correlation (r =.84) between participants’ responses to individual topics (e.g., cells,
animals, plants) and responses to more basic domains (e.g., biology, science). They
interpreted these findings to suggest that use of information should determine
whether specific topics or domain information should be the basis of assessment.
They explained that having specific topic information could be useful to the edu-
cator (the person developing museum exhibits and so forth); however, for those
whose needs include only a more general reading on science, referencing the sim-
pler category is appropriate and has fewer methodological constraints (e.g., requires
use of fewer items, less time to administer the survey).
There are a range of approaches to identifying existing interest in topics,
including:
• lists of topics that respondents are asked to rate;5

• surveys such as the O*Net Interest Profiler Short Form (Rounds et al. 2010),
which include items that identify existing interests based on personality
characteristics;6
• Häussler and Hoffmann’s (2002) Interest Scale, which has items reflecting
three dimensions of student interest in physics (individual interest for the
domain, interest in particular topics, and interest in activity types);
• Ely et al.’s (2013) My Interests Now for Engagement online tool that allows
exploration of the topics prior to selection.
These surveys all assume that the person is aware of their interest, a hypothesis that
may or may not be accurate.7 As Bathgate et al.’s findings indicated, even though
the “what” of existing interests may vary, existing interests can be expected to
(a) be present in both in- and out-of-school contexts and (b) continue to develop,
provided that the kinds of interactions a person has are positive and enable con-
tinued engagement.
The Development of a New Interest
Research on intrinsic interest has centered primarily on how extrinsic

incentives affect high interest when it is already present rather than on how
to develop it when it is lacking. It is the latter problem that presents major
challenges.8
(Bandura and Schunk 1981: 596)
54 Measuring Interest
As Bandura and Schunk (1981) pointed out, a critical question is how to

support people to find potential contents of interest rewarding. As discussed,
findings from neuroscience indicate that the process of seeking, or wanting to
figure something out, is linked to the reward circuitry. This explains why those
whose engagement is associated with interest do not need additional rewards
as discussed by Deci and Ryan (e.g., Ryan and Deci 2000) and also suggests
that persons who are new to content that could potentially be of interest, may
need external support from others or from the design of the environment (e.g.,
activities, software) to begin experiencing the process of making connections
to content rewarding.9
In other words, the situational interest of those with little to no present interest
needs to be triggered, by using a number of options (e.g., through pointers to its
relevance or utility, personalizing the content by including a topic of already exist-
ing interest, etc.). Once interest is triggered, attention is piqued, and support from
the environment can enable individuals to continue to develop interest, because
of connections that they can make to their prior experiences and the new content
due to relevance, utility, personalization, etc. (See a case illustration of the develop-
ment of an interest in mathematics provided in Table 3.1.)
Active participation is critical for interest to develop.10 It is rewarding for
mathematics students with developed interest to work on and then discuss
problem-solving, because such forms of engagement extend their understanding;
this type of activity characterizes the high interest to which Bandura and Schunk
referred in the excerpt above. It is likely to involve wondering and thinking with
other people, but might also characterize independent exploration of related ideas
outside of the class context. Bandura and Schunk (1981) asked how a person with
little, if any, present interest in particular content could be supported to seriously
engage with that content. Research evidence has since indicated that the answer
to their question has two parts:
1. A person needs to make a connection to the content and then be able to

sustain this through active participation.
2. Enabling engagement by others involves understanding what the person in
question already knows about the content.
When a person picks up a magazine and starts reading an article that leads him
or her to seek additional information, or he or she finds out that a friend is tak-
ing some new class at the gym and decides to give it a try, he or she is engaged in
ways that characterize the development of a new interest. However, new interests
do not always develop. Sometimes, a person’s existing interests can be so intense
that they may interfere with the development of potential new interests. It is also
possible that the learning environment is not presently supporting the develop-
ment of a new interest, although it could. To illustrate how new interests may or
newgenrtpdf
TABLE 3.1 A Case Example of the Triggering of Interest in Mathematics and Its Development.
During high school, Eva developed an interest in mathematics and completed seven levels of mathematics in four years. However, when she began high school, her
only goal was to complete calculus for college applications, and she had little, if any, interest in mathematics.
Eva was the youngest child in a home where she played games that involved problem-solving, such as chess and sliding-block puzzles, and engaged in a lot of
open-ended Lego construction. She liked school mathematics assignments when she was working on them but did not look forward to mathematics. She did
not realize she was off track in learning mathematics until she was in sixth grade and her parents and a number of the parents of other students got together and
demanded that the school teach their children the mathematics they needed for middle school.
In seventh grade, the students were given sixth- and seventh-grade-level textbooks and were expected to work independently to complete them. They were to finish
one section of the textbook per week, and could work on any section that they wanted at any time. Eva recalls that her teacher checked to see that students
completed the sections assigned the first month and did not check the homework after that. However, Eva’s mother would sit with her every day after school and
help her to work through problems in the textbooks.
Eva remembers being a little excited when her mother used colored blocks to help her learn positive and negative numbers, but she also reports that any excitement
she experienced was short-lived. She was just doing what she was told to do. She did not do any extra work on problems that she did not understand, nor did she
think about mathematics in her free time.
In ninth grade, Eva’s counselor told her that she needed to take a course in algebra, and preferably a course in trigonometry, in order to go to college. She was initially
placed in the second half of algebra, but was dropped back into the first half of the course because she struggled and did not put very much effort into learning the
concepts. The first half of algebra was a good fit to Eva’s mathematics abilities and the teacher was very welcoming and receptive of her timid questions. In fact, the
support and encouragement that she felt led her to enroll in the second half of the course right away, even though she had not planned to take the second half of
algebra until the following year.
The next term was pivotal. Eva describes this teacher as making the concepts of algebra “come alive.” She appreciated that he provided clear explanations and she
knew he liked teaching algebra. He was also the AP Calculus BC teacher, and in the course of teaching, he provided examples of how algebra was used in calculus.
Eva describes herself as fascinated by algebra and excited to go to class every day. She also reports that she began feeling confident about her mathematical abilities.
By the end of the year, Eva was determined to work her way up to AP Calculus BC. She was curious about calculus, and had come to love the challenges of math-
ematics. By the time Eva enrolled in trigonometry, she was voluntarily spending extra time on her mathematics homework and thinking about other ways to
approach the problems assigned. Outside of school, she started reading articles about mathematics (e.g., about Fibonacci sequences in nature, such as the spirals in
pinecones) and played with making circular arcs like the spirals in her artwork. Mathematics had become fun to think about. She observes that she ‘sort of forgot’
that she was supposed to be completing mathematics classes in order to go to college; it was only on hindsight that she realized that to someone else her interest in
mathematics, and the number of courses she completed, might seem extraordinary.
Source: Renninger and Pozos-Brewer 2015: 379–380.

Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.
may not develop, consider the examples of an engineer and his job situation, a
middle-school student and her writing assignment, and children at a hands-on
museum exhibit.
The Engineer
The engineer works at a firm and has a job with two main components. The first
involves solving technical problems and the second is “selling,” that is to bring in
work for the firm.
This engineer loves solving technical problems and enjoys the subsequent
analysis and testing to determine whether his solutions work. He is willing
to work late and independently on these problems and often reaches ele-
gant and cost-effective solutions. He undertakes his work with the high-
est professional skill, conscientiously, and on time. However, he does not
involve himself in selling the services of the company and bringing in cli-
ents. Selling involves skills that do not necessarily come with an engineer-
ing degree, and he feels he was not prepared for this part of the job. In fact,
it is a major challenge for the company to figure out how to interest engin-
eers in the business side of their job. If the engineer is not interested in the
development of the firm’s business, how can his interest in selling be trig-
gered and maintained? What kind of reward structure needs to be in place?
A simple solution would be to help the engineer understand the signifi-
cance of selling to the firm’s success and to his continued opportunity to
work with challenging problems. He may not realize that he will only have
work if new projects can be brought into the company, that others in the
company do both problem-solving and selling, and that clients enjoy talk-
ing with the engineers about their projects and hearing about the kinds of
solutions they are considering.
If the engineer were to develop his understanding of the relation between
selling and his interest in problem-solving, he might develop a new inter-
est in selling, and this new interest could be its own reward. However, until
this new interest develops, it may be that a monetary reward—one that
recognizes even incremental efforts to contribute to the selling side of the
business—might be appropriate.
The Middle-School Student

Consider another case, this time of a middle-school student who lives in a city
and is given an assignment to write an essay about either living in a city or about
space travel.11
The student chooses to write about space travel but does not write very
much. She does not know very much about space travel and does not have
much to say. Her interest was triggered by the opportunity to choose a topic
for the assignment, and writing about space travel seemed more attractive to
her than writing about living in the city.
The problem is that she sees the assignment as writing about one or
another topic and does not recognize that if she does not have enough
information to write about the topic she picks, she needs to do some
research for this assignment before she can successfully complete it. What
might have made a difference for her?
The idea of space travel triggered this student’s interest. Her situation
illustrates the complexity of providing choice when a student does not have
enough knowledge of the topic.12 The teacher who makes the assignment
needs to understand this, and so do any adults who oversee her homework
completion. If the student had been supported to recognize that she needed
more information to focus her writing assignment, she might have searched
and found information to include in her essay, or have chosen another topic.
Children at the Museum

Consider now ten-year-old children visiting a hands-on electronics exhibit at a
museum.
One of the children edges ahead of his classmates to grab the empty seat
at a table with a boy and a girl from another school; they are already work-
ing with connective and insulating dough, piles of batteries, light emitting
diodes (LEDs), and motors. There are no directions; the exhibit is intended
to give museum visitors a chance to explore electronics and make squishy
circuits.
The child first glances at the boy seated across from him who is sys-
tematically trying out the different LEDs. He then watches the girl who
is working to light an LED by touching the positive and negative leads to
corresponding sides of the battery. The child picks up one of the LEDs in
front of him, looks back at what the boy and the girl are each doing, puts
the LED down, gets up and leaves the table. The girl and the boy continue
working.
The girl and the boy are focused, purposeful, and happily engaged. Their
science teacher had previously involved them in similar project-based work
at school. When they sat down at the table, they recognized the materi-
als and knew that they could use them to make squishy circuits. They not
only had some knowledge of what was possible, but had also had previous
opportunities to ask questions, get answers, and explore the same types of
materials. They are able to generate challenges for themselves while at the
exhibit.
The child who joined them briefly also had his interest triggered by
the materials, but he had no prior experience with circuits. Because he
really did not know what he could do with an LED or why the other chil-
dren were doing what they were doing, he got up and left the table. Even
though the other children provided models of what could be done at the
table, the child who had no previous experience could not make use of this.
He needed somehow to learn about the possibilities for working with the
materials. If a museum docent or a teacher or one of the children at the
table had asked him what he was thinking and shared their own thoughts
about the activity, this might have given him some ideas about what he
could be doing. Without a set of directions or support from other people,
the triggered interest that led him to sit down at the table had fallen off.13
Each of these cases illustrates potential difficulties in the development of a new

interest. The engineer has a strong existing interest in problem-solving and does
not understand the need for selling.Thus, his interest in selling could be triggered
and then maintained; however, he needs help to understand the relation of selling
to problem-solving and to find it rewarding. The middle-school student writer
and the child at the museum each have a triggered interest that is not supported
and so falls off. The middle-school student has her interest triggered by the topic
of outer space but does not understand that even though she would like to write
about the topic, she does not have enough information about space unless she
does additional research.The child who sits down at the museum electronics pro-
ject table has a triggered interest in the activity that is not supported by anyone
with information about how to participate.
As the cases demonstrate, people need to have enough content knowledge
relating to whatever about the content is triggering their attention in order to
make a connection and possibly develop a new interest.14 The cases also illus-
trate that existing interests (e.g., the engineer’s interest in problem-solving, the
two children’s interest in squishy circuits) are characterized by the frequency and
depth of individuals’ engagement and by the possibility that they may voluntarily
pursue their interest with or without other people.
If the engineer, the middle-school student, or the child with no background in
circuitry were determined to learn new content as part of the process of devel-
oping a new interest, it would be relatively easy to support them to do so. They
would be asking for help and seeking opportunities to think and talk with others.
They also could be encouraged to participate in an activity and to develop their
knowledge and skills. In such a situation, it is likely that they would also be feeling
that they can do the activity (they are self-efficacious), would understand at least
implicitly the value of their continued effort, and would be self-regulating, or

prioritizing, their activities in order to allow the new interest to develop.
If, on the other hand, these individuals did not think that they needed, wanted,
or were capable of developing a new interest (e.g., the engineer does not want
to do selling) and/or were missing critical information (e.g., the engineer does
not understand the relation between having projects to work on and selling; the
middle-school student does not understand that in order to write about a topic
she needs to have sufficient content knowledge and that she needed to do some
research; the child at the circuit table with no relevant background informa-
tion does not recognize his need for directions), they would be unlikely to seek
relevant knowledge and develop their skills by themselves, and they would need
external supports to do so. They are also unlikely to have felt capable of seeking
information themselves, nor would they be able to self-regulate because they do
not have a clear sense of what they are doing.
In addition to active participation, a person needs to be able to find connec-
tions between prior experience and the new interest, as well as to continue to
deepen this understanding, so that a new interest can be maintained and devel-
oped. Moreover, although another individual such as an employer, educator, or
parent could change the learning environment and support engagement, it is
the person who must be ready to develop their knowledge, although this is not
necessarily something of which they may be aware. It is not sufficient (or likely
to be effective) to simply tell the engineer that selling is important, or to tell the
child all that he might need to know about options at the table on circuitry. An
intervention that involves rewards may be effective, but only if it motivates active
participation.15
The process of triggering interest and enabling a person to engage with new
content requires providing opportunities for seeking information and participa-
tion in activity. Providing appropriate support requires knowledge about a per-
son’s phase of interest. Whether a new interest has been triggered and has begun
to develop can be determined by paying attention to changes in at least four
behavioral indicators: the person’s frequency of engagement with the new con-
tent, depth of engagement, voluntary reengagement (wants to reengage and does),
and capacity for independent reengagement (does not necessarily need input
from others or for others to be involved). These indicators provide the basis for
identifying the phase of a person’s interest as well as the measurement of interest.
Identifying and Measuring the Phase of a Person’s Interest

In our 2011 review of the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of
interest, we conclude that conceptualizations of interest need to be aligned with
their measurement if they are to be generally applicable and able to inform prac-
tice. Here, we describe indicators and measures that have been used to assess
interest. Identifying what needs to be assessed (indicators of interest) is an essential

first step in the measurement process. Only with clarity about which indicators
are relevant is it possible to determine what type of measurement will best address
study questions. In most situations, researchers need indicators of interest that
are behavioral (e.g., observed frequency of engagement), in addition to direct
measures (e.g., a question such as “How interested are you in mathematics?”).16
Direct measures assume that a person is in a position to respond to questions; we
may assume that most individuals can respond to a question about their interest,
but such responses without behavioral confirmation are not likely to distinguish
among phases of interest.
Because people engage with their interests similarly, behavioral indicators are
simple enough that they can be tools for the researcher and the educator alike.
Compared to their other activities, people reengage with their more developed
interests:
1. frequently;17
2. with understanding or depth of knowledge;18
3. voluntarily;19
4. independently.20, 21
Together, these four behaviors provide reliable information.22 A person who is

interested in something is likely to reengage with it frequently and to do so with
increasing depth of understanding, voluntarily, and independently.23, 24
The information these four indicators provide may not exactly correspond to
what people explain when asked about their engagements. The development of a
person’s interest is marked by increases in one or more of the four behaviors set
out above and not necessarily represented by whether and how much they like the
activity. As Ginzberg et al. (1966) observed, interest describes investment (e.g., col-
lecting stamps) rather than preference or liking (e.g., which bowtie to wear): “the
individual gains the satisfaction only as a result of effort and output … Interests
imply more differentiation and complexity than preferences” (1966: 244–245 as
cited in Hidi and Ainley 2002: 264).
Liking: Only a Rough Gauge of Interest

In everyday use and in some research studies, how much a person likes an activity
is considered to be evidence of interest. To some extent, liking may indicate that
interest has been triggered.25 However, evidence from interest research and neu-
roscience suggests that it is insufficient to measure interest solely on the basis of
positive feelings.26 As mentioned earlier, negative affect may be associated with the
experience of interest, especially in early phases of development.27 In later phases
of interest, a person has positive feelings generally and may also have negative affect
(e.g., frustration associated with completing a challenging project). However, nega-

tive affect for the person with a more developed interest is overcome by the focus
and engagement that accompanies well-developed individual interest.28
Liking does not necessarily distinguish between less and more developed inter-
est, since liking may characterize both earlier and later phases of interest develop-
ment. Take, for example, two students who “like” their educational psychology
course: there could be differences between a student who likes first-year psychol-
ogy but has never thought much before about how and why a person learns and
another student who also likes the course, has a lot of prior experience working
with children, is able to compare what is being explained in the lectures to these
past experiences, and has plans for studying psychology in the future. Differences
in the two students’ phases of interest in psychology can be assessed by looking at
their behaviors: How frequently does each of the students involve themselves in
psychology, either by seeking additional readings on topics covered or by engag-
ing the professor and peers in discussions about psychology, etc.? How much does
each of them know and understand about psychology? Do they each seek addi-
tional information because they have to or because they want to? Will they seek
information regardless of whether others are also seeking information? Because
interest is a variable that develops through phases, its measurement needs to focus
on indicators that can recognize interest in each phase.
In neuroscience, liking, wanting, and learning have been identified as distinct
physiological correlates of reward processing that may or may not co-occur.29 This
suggests that whether a person likes an activity does not necessarily mean that the
person also wants to further engage or learn. Therefore, liking is not a sufficient
indicator of interest.
Measuring Interest as a Variable That Develops

There is no one method for assessing interest and its development.30 Many data
sources have been used to collect data on interest. They include:
• facial expressions;31
• neuroscientific techniques;32
• chronicles of observations (e.g., using continuous or ongoing records such as
written notes or video to track activity, questioning, etc.);33
• artifact analysis (e.g., student classroom work, responses to ICAN probes);
• class-enrollment data (e.g., whether students elect to reenroll in a psychology
course);
• descriptive information about the context (e.g., whether a course that is
taken is required of majors);
• descriptive information about participant engagement (e.g., log data from
online activity that tracks frequency and depth of resource use in relation
to whether resources were required, patterns of use relative to others in a

cohort);34
• self-reports (e.g., surveys, interviews).
The most commonly used data source for assessing interest is the self-report. Self-
reports may include questions that complement other data sources (e.g., asking
participants to rate how much they like science followed by a question that asks
what they like about it); surveys that include questions that provide data about
behaviors (e.g., forced-choice, Likert ratings asking “How likely are you to do
mathematics problems that are not assigned?”35); and open-ended free response
items (e.g., “Name at least two activities such as tap dancing or reading that you
have done for at least three years that you do just because you want to, not because
you have to”).36
Despite the frequency of their use, surveys have potential complications when
they are the only source of data employed. Frenzel et al. (2012) pointed to the
need for researchers to appreciate that younger and older students may interpret
the same survey items differently.37, 38 They found that younger students tended
to respond to items asking about mathematics (e.g., “I like to read books and
solve brainteasers related to mathematics,” Frenzel et al. 2012: 1082) as addressing
experience and value, whereas older students’ responses suggested that they inter-
preted the questions as addressing their desire for more knowledge and autonomy
in working with mathematics. These results raise a more general question about
how respondents interpret questions on surveys and the benefits of confirming
that their responses address the indicators the researcher intends to measure.39
Another complication of surveys is that respondents in an early phase of
interest development may not be in a position to respond to questions about the
level of their interest; they may not be conscious that their interest has been trig-
gered, and, as such, they are not in a position to report on it. In such instances,
triangulation of results may be advisable (e.g., by comparing survey responses
to data that capture engagement such as that provided by observations or log
files).40 In contrast, people who have had prior experience with a content of
potential interest (e.g., undergraduates who declare their intention to major in
a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) discipline in college, stu-
dents who are taking advanced literature courses, members of a law review, an
ice-skating club, or a design team of a software company) are likely to knowingly
prioritize their interest and are in a position to report on their interested activ-
ity when asked about it. Collecting additional data from sources that can pro-
vide confirmation for survey responses (e.g., open-ended items in a large-scale,
forced-choice survey, or interviews with a subsample of those surveyed) can be
used to offset potential complications, as participants may vary in their abilities
to respond to surveys. They can vary in their meta-awareness of their interest,
and consequently in their readiness to work with survey items that ask them
about their interest.
If one recognizes that interest is a variable that develops, then measurement

needs to use indicators that reflect the potential for interest to develop and/or
address participants’ activity with the content of interest over time. However, the
four behavioral indicators described above may need to be modified based on
factors such as the content, the context of activity, and the age of participants.41, 42
Two additional and distinct issues that are frequently raised in relation to meas-
uring interest as a variable that can develop include (1) how long it might take
interest to develop and (2) when researchers can simply focus on relatively earlier
and later (less and more developed) interest, as opposed to identifying all four
phases of interest.
The development of interest is idiosyncratic, and, as mentioned at the begin-
ning of this chapter, people have multiple interests. In measuring the develop-
ment of interest, assessment needs to address characteristics that are common
across types of interest and responsive to differences among people in the focus,
breadth, and depth of their interest(s) at the time of measurement. Thus, although
people are all similarly hardwired to develop interest (even multiple interests), the
content that is of interest to one person is often different from what is of interest
to the next (e.g., mathematics versus bridge). In addition, people who share the
same interest may connect to different aspects of that content. For example, two
people with an interest in bridge may differ such that the first will look for and
read books describing bids and how hands can be played, whereas another may
instead spend time playing and rethinking how bids were made and/or could have
been made. It is these idiosyncrasies that can make interest appear to be complex.
However, it is the regularity of the rewards that accompany seeking and related
positive feelings that make interest predictable.
The development of interest may involve slow and steady change (research
has recorded as many as four years for a shift from a triggered to a maintained
situational interest) or it may be relatively quick to develop, given repeated oppor-
tunities to engage.43 It is very unlikely that the initial triggering of interest will
become fully developed in a single sitting, however.Take a young girl’s heightened
excitement at being included in a critical moment that involves saving some-
one’s life during an after-school program’s visit to a hospital emergency room.
Her excitement may appear to include the forms of developing knowledge and
valuing that are characteristics of more developed forms of interest. One visit to
an emergency room could be a powerful trigger that could result in sustained
engagement. However, whether the girl’s interest goes beyond the heightened
excitement of initial triggering relative to her other activities must also be con-
sidered. In order for the girl to move from an initial triggering through the phases
of interest development, she would need to make connections to the disciplinary
content that then lead her to seek related activities and opportunities that would
enable the deepening of her content knowledge.
It is easy to distinguish between this girl’s developing interest in health care
and another student who, although he also experienced the hub of activity in the
emergency room, only wanted to get back to his video game, once the excite-
ment waned. The girl might be described as having more developed interest than
the boy. We do not have enough information to begin to map out whether the
girl had a maintained, an emerging, or a well-developed interest, but we do have
enough information to recognize that the two youths’ interest levels differ and to
know that they would need different supports in order to seriously reengage with
emergency room care in the future.
In such a case, it would be most useful for the after-school coordinator to focus
on whether the youths’ interest is developing by looking for indicators that can
be observed and by using the two broad categories of earlier and later or less and
more developed interest. Working with the broader categories to describe phases
of interest development can also be useful for researchers who are conducting
large-scale studies with a very large sample size; in such cases more precise con-
sideration of the interest trajectory may not be needed (depending on the research
questions), and/or it may not be possible to collect enough sources that could
validate survey responses because additional data would be too difficult to collect.
For some research purposes, more fine-grained tracking of interest is war-
ranted.44 Efforts to identify all four phases of interest prospectively have been
undertaken in domains as far reaching (and specific) as second-language learn-
ing of challenged college learners,45 the extracurricular interests of juven-
ile delinquents,46 engineering students’ work with a discrete task,47 developing
STEM interest in middle-school students in a community-supported context,
and middle-school student writers.48 For example, in order to target sources of
second-language learning remediation for challenged college-age students, Cabot
(2012) used Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) description to develop survey items
specific to each of the four phases of interest. These items were vetted by two
external judges with expertise in motivation and then distributed to ninety-eight
students.The items were found to reliably identify learners in the first three phases
of interest development but not the fourth, well-developed individual interest.
Given the characteristics of the learners studied (the students are in remedial
classes and the second language is challenging for them), it is not surprising that
she was not able to use the survey to identify students with a well-developed
interest. They may not have existed in the populations studied.
Phases of interest were identified using the indicators of frequency, depth, vol-
untary engagement, and independent engagement in studies of writing and sci-
ence, two of which are described briefly here. Both of these studies provided data
about various phases in the development of interest, allowed consideration of the
development as well as the falling off of interest, and provided insight about the
students’ perceptions of their experiences working with particular content. In
each, an initial between-person analysis of all data sources was used to provide
baseline understanding of what might be generally expected of participants at the
given age, in the given context. Following this, within-person analysis of partici-
pants’ individual activity was undertaken.
In the first study, Lipstein and Renninger (2007b) studied seventy-two

middle-school students (thirty-eight boys, thirty-four girls) and their interest in
writing, using a combination of forced-choice and open-ended survey items.The
survey data together with the students’ responses to in-depth unstructured inter-
views was then used to develop composite portraits of students in each phase
of interest. Each portrait represented the data of multiple students and provides
representative detail about students in each phase of interest, including their dis-
ciplinary knowledge, goals, strategies, effort, self-efficacy as writers, and feedback

preferences.49 In addition, the retrospective interviews enabled changes in interest
to be tracked and linked to the students’ perceptions of their experiences in work-
ing with the content.50
In the second study, Renninger and Riley (2013) used behavioral indicators
to identify interest and changes in eight (three male and five female) participants’
interest over four years. Coding of continuous written records collected daily
during the five weeks of an out-of-school workshop provided the basis of this
multi-year assessment and enabled the tracking of change over time. Interviews
with participants at three time points each year (pre-, post-, and five weeks fol-
lowing conclusion of the workshop) were used to confirm findings from analysis
of the written records.
Concluding Thoughts
People are hardwired to have interests and to be able to develop new interests.
Existing interests can be studied either as particular topics (e.g., plants, cells) or
more generically at the level of the domain (e.g., science), depending on how
this information is to be used. For new interest(s) to develop, a person needs to
have enough knowledge of or value for a domain to find seeking information
rewarding. People who have more developed interest can be recognized by their
repeated engagement with particular content, the depth of this engagement, and
the likelihood that they will opt to engage with that content voluntarily and
independently. Those with less developed interest do not reengage with content
in this way.
Notes
1 Travers (1978) suggested that it is a sign of pathology (e.g., depression) when a person
does not have an interest. It should be noted that there is a distinction between Travers’
assessment and the tendency of a young person to report boredom. In such cases, the
young person is likely to have an interest in other contexts (e.g., videogames).
2 Fryer 1931.
3 See Renninger 1992.
4 See Krapp and Fink 1992.
5 For example, Bathgate et al. 2013.
6 See www.onetcenter.org/reports/IPSF_Psychometric.html (accessed August 28, 2015).

7 Assessing interest using an inventory that is limited to a listing of topics is subject to
complications, such as what the rating means and whether it means the same thing for
each participant (Frenzel et al. 2012), whether the participant has had prior experience
with the topics that they rate highly, and so forth. (This will be discussed later in this
chapter.)
8 Since Bandura and Schunk’s (1981) publication, the term “intrinsic interest” has been
recognized as misleading, as it sets up an expectation of “extrinsic interest,” which is a
nonexistent term (see discussion in Hidi 2000). Instead, we refer to interest.

9 See also, Deci 1975; Ryan and Deci 2012.
10 Bjork and Hommer’s (2007) and Zink et al.’s findings (e.g., Zink et al. 2003; Zink et al.
2004) point to the connection between active participation and rewards.
11 Hidi and Anderson 1992; Hidi and McLaren 1990, 1991.
12 Flowerday and Schraw (2003) found that knowledge development is important for the
ability to make a choice; with the development of knowledge, feelings, and value for a
given subject, people are better able to work with the choices they are offered within
that subject. Without some knowledge of the content(s) about which they are offered
choice, people are not able to make informed choices and can only pick haphazardly
(see review in Katz and Assor 2007).
13 Kirschner et al. (2006) discuss the needs of learners in open-ended situations; Maltese
and Harsh (2015) suggest that the structure of open-ended, project-based settings such
as the LED table at the museum might need to differ depending on the phase(s) of
interest of the participant(s).
14 It is possible to have enough knowledge of the content triggering attention to develop
interest without being reflectively aware of that knowledge.
15 For example, Bjork and Hommer 2007; Zink et al. 2003; Zink et al. 2004.
16 Interest differs from most other motivational variables in that a person may not be in
a position to accurately report on their interest in the earliest phases of interest devel
opment, when they may not even know that their interest has been triggered. Interest
is not a belief; rather, in our conceptualization, interest is a psychological state during
an engagement and also a cognitive and an affective motivation to reengage with par-
ticular content. Direct measures of interest, such as asking a person how interested they
are in something, do not provide information about the distinction between different
phases of interest.
17 Frequency of engagement can be assessed in a number of ways—for example using
running records (e.g., that allow consideration of consecutive and distributed engage-
ment over time), log files of participant work online (e.g., that allow tracking types and
frequency of participation), and surveys that include ratings of a participant’s activities
in relation to each other (see Renninger and Pozos-Brewer 2015).
18 Depth of participant engagement can refer to comprehensive reading of a text (e.g.,
Schiefele 1999, 2001), or exploration (e.g., exploration associated with problem solving,
such as a preschooler working to figure out when a block will slide down the roof of a
building she is constructing), accuracy, and/or complexity (e.g., sophistication of strat-
egies employed in problem-solving) (see Renninger and Pozos-Brewer 2015).
19 Voluntary engagement as a behavioral indicator refers to the choice to engage with the
activity when it is possible, but not required. Such data can be collected using running
records, log files (e.g., tracking participant engagement in discussions, or their use of
online resources), and on surveys asking questions about how likely they are to engage
in [or with] particular activity outside of school, etc. (see Renninger and Pozos-Brewer
2015).
20 If a person is interested in a collaborative activity, this clearly changes the ease of assess-
ing independent engagement. If, on the other hand, the interest is in mathematics,
which can be undertaken collaboratively or independently, the choice to work math-

ematics problems independently some of the time would be useful confirmation of
developing interest, because it would distinguish the more intensely interested from
those for whom it was more of a social endeavor.
21 Independent reengagement can be assessed using video and running written records
of free play (e.g., by identifying consecutive and distributed instances of engage-
ment with different play objects), and online using log files that allow tracking
the type of engagement (e.g., discussion, use of resources, etc.). On surveys, inde-
pendent reengagement can be determined by using Likert-scale or open-ended

questions that ask about study contents (e.g., for a study of undergraduate students
using an online environment to write mathematics, it might be useful to ask an
open-ended question about the different types of software with which they are
familiar; whereas, for middle-school students in an integrated social-studies, sci-
ence, and language arts program, asking about extracurricular activities could help
to clarify what they are doing in addition to the work that they are assigned in
school) and also about contrasting activities, and/or direct inquiry about whether
the respondent is likely to engage with the activity independently (see Renninger
and Pozos-Brewer 2015).
22 Collecting data on as many indicators as possible is recommended, although sometimes
not all of the indicators are able to be assessed. The number of times a person does
something does not provide enough information to be an indicator of interest.
23 See Renninger and Pozos-Brewer 2015; Renninger and Schofield 2014; Renninger
and Su 2012; Renninger and Wozniak 1985.
24 Evidence for this assertion is provided by Renninger et al.’s (2011) study of 741 teach-
ers’ work with an online professional-development module focused on teaching math-
ematics. Using multiple methods, they found that rate of participation based on logfile
data did not predict either interest or learning. Continued participation was dependent
on the way in which the teachers worked with the structure and content of the mod-
ules. Some teachers engaged in thinking with others about approaches to setting up
problems in the online discussions, whereas others did not discuss mathematics at all
and instead talked about management problems such as whether everyone got to class
on time.
25 Liking is an indicator of positive affect that may or may not be related to an interest.
26 Berridge et al. 2009; Ernst and Spear 2009; Harackiewicz et al. 2002; Silvia 2006.
27 Ainley 2007; Bergin 1999; Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000.
28 Kim et al. 2009; Renninger 2000.
30 See Murphy and Alexander 2000.
31 As Ainley and Hidi (2014) point out, using facial expressions as behavioral measures of
interest is complicated because of variations across individuals, social groups, and cul-
tures. More specifically, whether facial expressions can be used to reliably identify inter-
est has produced contradictory findings. Some findings indicated that facial expressions
have to be monitored for several seconds to provide information on interest association
(Reeve 1993) and that coherent clusters of interest-indicating facial displays may in fact
not exist (Reeve and Nix 1997). According to Scherer (2009), the facial expressions
associated with specific feelings reflect a dynamic process of reappraisal. Subsequently,
Mortillaro et al. (2011) investigated four positive affective states: pride, joy, interest, and
sensory pleasure. Importantly, they provided specific definitions for each affect. For
example, interest was described to the actors as “being attracted, being fascinated, or
having one’s attention captured,” and joy was described as having a “feeling of great
happiness caused by an unexpected event” (Mortillaro et al. 2011: 263; cf. Ainley and
Hidi 2014). Although judges were able to classify the set of expressions reliably, the
findings indicated that expressions of interest and joy were both specific and over-
lapped and pointed to the need to focus on the temporal sequence of facial expressions.
32 The most frequently used neuroimaging technique by psychologists is the fMRI scan-
ner. The scanner uses blood flow and oxygen metabolism to track signals throughout
the brain. Typically, the participant lies in the scanner and is presented with either
auditory or visual stimuli that induce brain activity. fMRI scanning is not invasive and
does not involve radiation. It has excellent spatial and good temporal resolution. (See
Gruber et al. 2014.)
33 Renninger and Hidi (2011) reviewed methods of collecting observational data on

interest, noting a range of data types, including ethological running records (e.g.,
Renninger and Bachrach 2015; Renninger and Wozniak 1985) and video footage that
allows micro-analysis (e.g., Azevedo 2006; Barron et al. 2009; Pressick-Kilborn 2015;
Pressick-Kilborn and Walker 2002). They point out that a combination of observa-
tion and self-report has been used in learning environments such as museums and
classrooms. For example, Falk and Adelman (2003) used entry-exit interviews and
unobtrusive tracking to assess visitors’ interactions with exhibits at an aquarium. In
classroom research, Nolen (2007b) used self-report data, observation, and artifact analy-
sis to track interest in a short-term longitudinal study of primary-school children in
two classrooms. The multiple data sources in this study allowed description of peda-
gogical variations that contributed to or hampered the children’s developing inter-
est for writing. Similarly, Pressick-Kilborn and Walker (2002; see also Presick-Kilborn
2015) mapped individual trajectories of interest development using a combination of
field notes, informal interviews during lessons, and semi-structured interviews with
selected students at three points.
34 Online assessment of interest has included studies of participation in coursework and
software specifically designed to allow monitoring of participant behavior. Sansone
et al. (2011), for example, studied anticipated interest for beginner-level learning in
modules for a computer-science course, and its relation to participants’ patterns of
engagement (e.g., total frequency of accessing an optional example and exercise links,
or incidental recognition of words appearing on those pages) and patterns in self-reported
interest for learning.
The Between the Lines software developed by Ainley and her colleagues (e.g.,
Ainley et al. 2002; Graham et al. 2008) captures participants’ responses during their
work with tasks. This method archives information about participants’ choice of text,
their perseverance, and goals, as well as their responses to questions asking them to rate
their affect.
Ely et al.’s (2013) MINE tool has been used with troubled adolescents who might
not take traditional self-report measures seriously. It provides respondents with a pool
of sixty potential interests and collects information about the cognitive and affective
dimensions of their interest experience using an interactive interface. Preliminary find-
ings support the validity of the MINE tool and also indicate that it allows participants
to explore, trigger, and discover new interests.
35 This item is an adaptation of an item employed by Renninger and Schofield 2014.
36 This item comes from a survey distributed to middle-school students (Renninger
et al. 2002).
37 Examples of surveys that either focus on or include items used to assess interest
include those developed by Bathgate et al. 2013; Chen et al. 1999; Dawson 2000;
Eccles et al. 1993; Ely et al. 2013; Haüssler and Hoffmann 2002; Jenkins and Pell
2006; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. 2010; Marsh et al. 2005; OECD 2007; Rotgans and
Schmidt 2011; Schiefele et al. 1993;Vollmeyer and Rheinberg 2000.
38 In their review of interest measures, Renninger and Hidi (2011) explain that self-report
measures include tools such as questionnaires, interviews, and reporting from
experience-sampling (in which participants are asked to rate or comment on the level
of interest that they experience at particular times, or in a given situation). Items vary
from asking about interest (e.g., “How interested are you in mathematics?”) to asking
about components of interest (e.g., “How likely are you to do a mathematics problem
that is not assigned by the teacher?”). As Renninger and Hidi also noted, the content of
items used to assess interest in self-reports tends to vary. Researchers who consider the
affective component central tend to employ items that address feelings (e.g., Alexander
et al. 1995; Tobias 1994) or value (e.g., Chen et al. 1999; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.
2010; Schiefele et al. 1993). Those who include knowledge as a component of interest
use assessments of feelings and value and add items assessing knowledge (e.g., Haüssler
and Hoffmann 2002; Renninger and Schofield 2014), or they make use of existing
items to create a knowledge assessment. In their study of data from the Programme for
International Learner Assessment survey (OECD 2006), Ainley and Ainley (2011) used
items in the assessment that allowed them to assess learners’ interest in finding out
more about specific topics as well as learners’ reactions to the specifics of the topic on
which they were working.
For purposes of understanding the relation of interest to other motivational varia-
bles, or understanding the trajectory of interest development, multiple sets of items can
provide more information. For example, Haüssler and Hoffmann (2002; see also note
10) administered their survey of twenty-one items to study three dimensions of inter-
est (individual interest for the domain of physics, interest in the topic, and interest in
the activity with the topic) at three times. Data from each allowed tracking of change
in each type of interest. In their work with MINE, Ely et al. (2013) were able to track
individual students’ varying levels of interest for different activities, providing interest
profiles. Multiple sources of input can also provide useful information. (See interviews
with participants and parents in McHale et al. 2009; see also OECD 2007; Renninger
et al. 2008.)
Varying forms of in-depth retrospective interviews with individuals (e.g., Azevedo
2013b; Barron et al. 2014; Fink 1998; Gisbert 1998) and experience sampling methods
(e.g., Krapp and Lewalter 2001; Schiefele and Csikszentmihalyi 1994; Shernoff 2010;
Shernoff et al. 2003) also provide rich sources of information about interest.
39 Frenzel et al. (2012) point to the importance of cognitive validation, that is, confirma-
tion that the questions posed by the researcher are the same as the questions answered
by a respondent. See also discussion in Karabenick et al. 2007.
40 See discussions in Renninger and Bachrach 2015; see also Renninger et al. 2011.
41 It is expected that behavioral indicators are appropriate for differences among studies
based on content and context of the activity and age of participants. See related discus-
sion in Renninger and Pozos-Brewer 2015.
42 Renninger and Hidi (2011) point to gaps between conceptualizations of interest and
methods that are used to study it (Krapp and Prenzel 2011). The mismatch is attribut-
able to a number of factors, among them differences in conceptualizations of interest
that are not recognized, and research questions that may address interest as both a
dependent and an independent variable. Unfortunately, empirical reporting does not
typically include description of the relation between the conceptualization and the
choice of measures.
43 See Renninger and Riley 2013.
44 In such cases, it would be useful to distinguish a person’s interest in terms of the
four phases in order to map the trajectories of individuals being studied. Such an
undertaking ideally would involve considering how the four behavioral indicators
of interest (frequency, depth, voluntary, and/or independent participation) apply in
the settings and for the population of students being studied.
For example, in order to study developing interest in STEM-related professions
such as emergency-room care, it would be important to know about the kinds of
behavioral data that could realistically be collected in that setting. A person whose
interest in emergency-room care was triggered by a visit to the emergency room

might or might not be able to return to the hospital to watch, assist, and ask ques-
tions that allowed addressing frequency, voluntary, and/or independent behaviors.
Alternatively, how might a person with developing interest in emergency-room
care gather such information? Are there resources (e.g., online) that can provide
them with information and/or resources about emergency care—and, if so, do they
voluntarily seek to use them? In addition, in order to assess the depth of knowledge
(and possibly the focus of interested engagement) a researcher needs to consider
the nature of relevant content knowledge and what its consolidation and develop-
ment would look like. What type of activity is a person able to do? It probably is
not possible for youths to voluntarily go to the emergency room to observe and
ask questions. If a person from the hospital is slated to give a talk at a local library,
does the youth opt to attend? What is the quality of their attention? What does the
participant notice and wonder about? What would participants at this age and with
the same background notice and wonder more generally?
45 Cabot 2012.
46 Ely et al. 2013.
47 Michaelis and Nathan 2015.
48 Dierking et al. 2014.
49 Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015 reported similar findings in a cross-sectional, short lon-
gitudinal study of middle- and high-school students in which students were identified
as having more or less developed interest in science. The study included quantitative
and qualitative data and provides portraits of two students in the same science class, one
with less and one with more developed interest in science.
50 These data were reported in Renninger and Lipstein 2006.
4
INTEREST, MOTIVATION,
ENGAGEMENT, AND OTHER
MOTIVATIONAL VARIABLES
What is the relation between the development of
interest and other motivational variables?
Interest is always motivating and engaging; the presence of a developing interest

ensures that motivation and engagement are meaningful.1 However, the presence
of motivation and/or engagement does not necessarily indicate that a person
has interest, or that engagement is meaningful. How interest develops, as well as
whether it develops, depends on the alignment between a person’s learner charac-
teristics (e.g., prior experience, personality) and the triggers that the environment
or other people provide (either knowingly or unconsciously). This alignment sets
the stage for motivation and engagement to potentially develop. For example, as
Emma’s interest in photography develops, her goals are modified, her feeling of
self-efficacy (knowledge that she can engage and learn) improves, and her ability
to self-regulate (initiate and moderate engagement) increases.2
In this chapter, we first clarify what the terms “motivation” and “engagement”
mean and consider their links to interest. Following this, we describe findings
from research on interest suggesting that in earlier phases of interest, interest and
different types of motivational variables (goals, self-efficacy, and self-regulation)
are distinct, whereas in later phases of interest they are more likely to be coordi-
nated, develop reciprocally, and be mutually supportive.3
Motivation and Engagement, and Their Links to Interest

Motivation and engagement each describe the way in which a person inter-
acts with the environment. In everyday conversation, the terms “motivation” and
“engagement” are often used interchangeably with interest, even though this is
not always accurate. Motivation refers to the desire or will to do something and
may or may not be due to a developing interest. Engagement refers to a person’s
72 Interest, Motivation, Engagement
or a group’s involvement in a particular context (e.g., the classroom, the family)

that also may or may not include interest.4
Motivation and Interest

Motivation is beneficial or productive when it is accompanied by developing
interest. However, motivation and interest are distinct concepts. Goals,5 achieve-
ment motivation,6 expectancy-value,7 self-efficacy,8 self-regulation,9 flow,10 and
grit11 may be called motivational variables12 that could be but are not necessarily
studied in relation to interest and a particular content such as learning Hungarian,
mathematics, etc.13, 14 When studied in relation to particular content, being moti-
vated to seriously engage is something that a person is believed to be aware of
and, as such, to be able to describe well enough to answer questions on surveys
or in interviews. It is also expected that a person’s motivation reflects decisions
about how to engage with the content and that these decisions can be changed
or reversed.
To illustrate the potential distinction between motivation and interest, consider
a person who is motivated to learn Hungarian in order to honor the request
of a beloved grandmother, although he has no interest in actually knowing
the language. For this grandson, given the amount of time it requires, learning
Hungarian is a very difficult task. It would require a great deal of self-regulation,
and learning Hungarian would be more difficult for him than it would be for a
linguist who is interested in establishing relations among various language groups,
such as Hungarian and Finnish. The person with nothing more than the support
of someone’s wish may be motivated to engage, but is unlikely to be in the pos
ition to think about the similarities and differences between his native language
and Hungarian, to pay attention to the role of inflection and its meaning, and
so forth. The linguist might still be challenged by the difficult task of learning
Hungarian, but would be differently energized by the challenge because her goal
was informed by her existing interest in languages.15
Interest is not a belief. Instead, interest refers to the psychological state of a
person during engagement as well as the cognitive and affective motivational dis-
position of that person to reengage with particular content (e.g., Hungarian) over
time. Although people are likely to have beliefs about their interest(s), they are not
necessarily conscious of their interest during engagement. More specifically, those
in the earlier phases of developing an interest may not recognize that their inter-
est was triggered or be in a position to address this. They might not even think
that they could develop such an interest at any point in time.Those in later phases
of interest development, on the other hand, might be able to acknowledge and
describe their interest or their intention to pursue their interest, although they
also may be caught up in the activity that this involves and not be in a position to
reflect on their behaviors.
Interest, Motivation, Engagement 73
Differences between motivation and interest may seriously affect the experi-
ence of practitioners: educators, employers, and the like. It is a problem when
those working with learners who are high in one type of motivation (e.g., goals
to achieve) do not recognize when some of these learners’ interest is low. Students
who have low interest need a different kind of support than those with developed
interest.16 Students who want to achieve and get good grades but have little inter-
est in learning Hungarian, understanding mathematics, and so forth need support
to start making connections to the disciplinary content of Hungarian, mathemat-

ics, etc., if interest is to develop.
Ideally, through the triggering process a student with little interest will be sup-
ported to start making connections to the content that she is expected to learn.
This is essential for interest to develop.When learners have no prior experience or
formal training in a discipline, the triggering of interest may involve the educator,
parent, or employer sharing the connections that they have made to the content.
In this way, they can provide learners with an understanding of the possibilities
for making connections, in turn encouraging them to want to know more about
content.17 This type of triggering can lead learners to generate, find, and see the
relation between what they already know and the knowledge and skills of the
content to be learned.
If educators or the environment (e.g., software or tasks) provide support for
continued and deepening engagement through triggers that are aligned to learn-
ers’ present understanding, they optimize the likelihood that interest is supported
to develop.18 The process of triggering interest and supporting learners to make
connections needs to enable them to develop enough knowledge about the con-
tent to be learned to lead to engagement.19 Sansone et al. (e.g., 1992) have demon-
strated that external supports to trigger interest may not always be required; they
found that learners themselves can generate their own support to even engage
in boring tasks. As Renninger et al. (2004) noted, it is also likely that this type
of self-generated triggering of interest can be expected of learners once they are
young adults. Children can only be expected to self-generate triggers for content
that is already a developing interest.20
In order to support learners to make connections to mathematics, for exam-
ple, working on a project such as raising money to build a tree house could be
used. Such a project involves multiple opportunities for students to make con-
nections between what they already know about mathematics and project work.
In particular, students would identify calculations that are needed and “matter.”21
Once the students decided to sell cookies as a fundraiser (a decision which has
already involved discussion and tallying of ideas and votes for one or another
money-raising strategy), recipes could be gathered and tested, for which the pro-
portions need to be calculated, the ingredients need to be bought at the best
price, and the cooking needs to be organized and executed. At the same time, the
students might be planning the tree house, including its design and construction,
length and size of needed boards, numbers of nails, any preassembled windows,
and so forth. Another example of support for mathematical connection-making

is a class assignment that asked students to identify all of the types of mathematics
in one of the activities that they had been engaged in for at least three years and to
share this with their classmates.22 A student who had been doing English country
dancing provided the following example: the geometric figures and formations
of the steps, the symmetry or parity of turn-taking, the need to fit a standard fig-
ure to different tempos or meters (dances in three beats or footfalls per measure
instead of two or four), and the permutations of sets and progression through
the dance.
Possibly the most important step in the process of supporting learners to make
connections is the expectation that they will think about the connections they are
making. They also need to be given time to do so.23 Reflecting on what they are
learning and opportunities to explore new ideas are critical—what differs may be
the nature of the connections that a learner can be expected to make: in earlier
phases of interest these may focus on the learner’s experiences outside the given
discipline and on the discipline, such as making connections between cooking
and mathematics; whereas for learners with more developed interest, the con-
nections are more likely to be more specifically about the content itself, such as
making connections between addition and multiplication.24 Reflection provides
learners with a basis for subsequent knowledge development and the possibility of
identifying the value of it. A context that engages the learner in reflecting is one
in which interest can be supported to develop.
When a teacher, parent, tutor, employer, etc., incorrectly assumes that a per-
son’s motivation also includes interest (e.g., due to eye contact or head nodding,
or inquiry about performance), they may respond to questions or feedback that
would be more appropriate for a person with developed interest (e.g., suggest-
ing another way to approach the problem or explaining the way in which the
mathematics that they are working on is related to an advanced mathematics
concept that the student has not heard of). If, on the other hand, teachers cor-
rectly identify that students have a developing interest in mathematics, they
can provide support by encouraging them to think about how the problems
could be related to other problems—see the case presented in Table 3.1. In such
a case, the trajectory of the students’ developing interest would be similar to that
of Emma’s developing interest in photography.25 Interested students would be
likely to ask questions if they do not fully understand the links that their teachers
are making. They would increasingly have the ability to set goals for developing
understanding and might work on these independently and voluntarily outside
of class assignments.26
For the students who have not yet had their interest triggered by mathematics,
having to think about more than the problem to be solved and how to approach it
could be overwhelming, and may intensify feelings that they cannot complete the
work at hand or engage with mathematics more generally. In such a case, they may
only return to doing more mathematics if required to do so.27 If, instead of providing
information and expecting students to ask questions, the teacher were to ask them
what they noticed about the problem (explicitly about how it could be solved),
the teacher and the student could together use what they noticed to then begin
talking about how to approach solving the problem.28 In this case, the teacher
would lead the explanation, facilitating the discussion to draw on the students’
contributions and underscoring those ideas that the students need for further
developing their understanding. Facilitation of this sort is likely to lead students
to ask questions, enable them to begin making connections to the mathemat-

ics, and could trigger their interest. Project work and conversations that involve
thinking together can provide support for continued and deepened thinking
about content for all learners.
Engagement and Interest

Engagement, like motivation, is beneficial and productive when it is accompanied
by interest. A person whose interest is developing is a person who is meaningfully
engaged.29 However, it is possible for a person to be engaged but not interested
(as in the case of the student who is only striving for a grade). It is not possible to
have a developing interest and not be engaged given the opportunity, unless there
are competing motives (e.g., when you want to continue reading a book but have
a chemistry test the next day).
The research literatures on engagement and on interest are almost completely
distinct, although they each consider cognitive and affective involvement in some
context.30 Whereas earlier discussions and research on engagement focused on
cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects as distinct from each other, more recent
discussions have begun to point to overlaps among them.31 They also point to the
critical importance of the learning environment, or context, as influencing the
quality of the person’s activities.
Engagement research was initially undertaken to address disengagement that
can lead students to drop out and not complete school, and disengagement, rather
than interest, continues to be a focus of engagement research.32 Nevertheless, as
Azevedo (2015) notes, engagement can be overgeneralized.33 We suggest that
articulating the synergy between interest and engagement could be particularly
useful for researchers and practitioners alike. Interest research foregrounds the
psychological state and motivational disposition of a person in order to better
understand “how,” “why,” and “when” engagement persists and makes an impact.
As such, these studies typically target the impact of interest on a discrete set of var-
iables (interest as an independent variable34), although some interest research con-
siders how interest can be elicited (interest as a dependent variable35). In contrast,
studies of engagement typically focus on detailed examination of the “what” of
engagement and “for whom” it makes a difference (engagement as a depend-
ent variable). They describe the school environment, or context (including the
family, classroom, teacher, and/or peers), in relation to the students’ cognitive (e.g.,
perceived relevance of school work, goals), affective (e.g., autonomy, school con-
nectedness), and/or behavioral (e.g., attendance, participation in school activities)
activities.36, 37
On the basis of extensive study of students in classrooms, and using experience-
sampling methods,38 Shernoff et al. (2003; see also Shernoff 2013)39 have reported
that when students experience both academic intensity (challenge, concentration,
and interest) and positive emotional responses (enjoyment, esteem, and intrin-
sic motivation), engagement was meaningful. However, Shernoff (2013) was also
careful to note that academic intensity and positive emotional responses are inde-
pendent of each other, and that student experiences often lack one or both. Based
on his work in schools, the educator Schlechty (2011) has suggested that mean-
ingfully engaging tasks:
• are novel and authentic;

• provide affirmation and choice;
• include provisions for students to learn what they need to know to effectively
complete assignments;
• include opportunities for collaboration and/or consultation with others;
• involve students in working with substantial content;
• are organized to enable the student to engage in making a product;
• have clear standards for task completion.40
Interventions such as Christenson and colleagues’ (e.g., Appleton et al. 2008)41

Check and Connect Intervention42 enable schools to support disengaged K-12
students to develop adaptive behaviors.43 Check and Connect is used to target and
then provide support to grade K-12 students who show signs of disengagement
(e.g., poor attendance, behavioral issues, low grades) and who may be at risk for
dropping out. Students are identified for support on the basis of their behaviors in
school (e.g., attendance) and their responses to a survey with items asking about
feelings about and goals in school. The interventions are carefully sequenced and
individualized. A Check and Connect trained mentor collaborates with individual
students, their teachers, and parents to identify changes needed for school success
and to monitor each student’s progress.
Implicit in this type of intervention is the expectation that the students receiv-
ing it are or can be made aware of their challenges, the need for changed behav-
ior, and the importance of setting goals. In other words, the students need to be
committed to do what is necessary to change their behaviors. In addition, there
is an expectation that the mentor and other adults will be involved in ongoing
monitoring and recognition of students’ successes. The design of the intervention
draws on findings from studies of motivation generally, and more specifically from
research on goals, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (reviewed in relation to interest
in the next section of this chapter).44 The intervention also emphasizes the impor-
tance of social relatedness (the connection to the mentor and to other adults who
are collaborators), and the students’ feelings of competence and autonomy.45
Research on engagement has focused almost exclusively on how the envir-
onment can be made to support engagement, with little direct consideration of
how and what interest may be contributing to this process.46 However, there
are some notable exceptions. Larson (2000), for example, did not cite inter-
est specifically but described initiative as including behaviors that characterize

interest development, as well as positive outcomes that are also associated with
studies of interest: improved attention, strategy use, and learning. Other work has
pointed to interest as emerging in studies of engagement. For example, Shernoff
(2013) summarized his and his colleagues’ findings as having identified interest
as a characteristic of meaningful engagement. On the strength of these findings,
Larson (2014a) drew on the four-phase model of interest development to provide
a basis for sustaining engagement in literacy activities.
Both interest and engagement focus on the processes of a person’s engage-
ment with the environment.47 However, in interest research, affect and cog-
nition are considered to be coordinated in their development, meaning that
one does not occur without the other,48 whereas engagement research typ-
ically lists cognition and affect as two of the different (and distinct) dimen-
sions of engagement.49 Reschley and Christenson (2012) described the relation
among the dimensions of engagement (affect, cognition, behavior, academic
engagement) and suggested that cognition and affect might be considered pri-
mary and coordinated: “We speculate that … engaging or disengaging students
cognitively and affectively precedes changes in students’ behavior and academic
engagement” (2012: 9; as cited in Renninger and Bachrach 2015: 59). Their
hunch, as Renninger and Bachrach (2015) pointed out, has now been con-
firmed by interest research. Research on interest always presumes the coordi-
nation of affective and cognitive components and provides explanations about
which characteristics make a task “engaging” and why meaningful engagement
includes intensity as well as positive enjoyment.50
Given Larson’s (2014a, 2014b) findings, it seems likely that clarifying the
contribution that student interest makes to engagement, and, in particular, to
the ability to benefit from an engagement intervention, could inform under-
standing of engagement more generally.51 For example, information about stu-
dents’ phase of interest for a given discipline would allow those implement-
ing interventions to distinguish among students who could benefit from being
supported to begin developing their interest and those who have already done
so. Use of information about the phase of students’ interests in designing and
implementing interventions might result in students being positioned to be
actual partners in interventions instead of being recipients who are supposed
to be partners.
Interest, Goals, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulation

In earlier phases of interest development, interest may be triggered, and it may
or may not be sustained. However, if a triggered interest is supported to develop
and is sustained, then as interest continues to develop, the person will be both
motivated and meaningfully engaged. In later phases of its development, interest
involves a more sophisticated form of seeking, one that involves substantive or
deep engagement, wanting to understand and learn.52, 53 More developed interest

of this type has been found to be coordinated with other motivational variables,
such as goals,54 self-efficacy,55 and self-regulation.56 As interest develops, its rela-
tions to these motivational variables are increasingly mutual. These relations can
also be referred to as reciprocal. For example, interest development can influence
how self-efficacious one becomes, and self-efficacy can influence interest devel-
opment. It is only in later phases of development that goals, self-efficacy, and
self-regulation become coordinated with interest. Moreover, the relations between
phases in the development of interest and motivational variables such as goals,
self-efficacy, and self-regulation have received substantial attention from motiva-
tion researchers.57 This research indicates that persons in earlier phases of interest
may not have enough experience or knowledge to be in a position to set goals,
feel self-efficacious, or self-regulate and prioritize work on content that could
develop into an interest, because they do not have enough experience or knowl-
edge to do so.58
For example, encouragement and a mandate for the engineer to learn how to
“sell” his services to potential clients could provide him with enough information
to understand the need for selling, as well as support for acting on this new infor-
mation that, in turn, would support the development of his feelings of self-efficacy
and his self-regulation. These developments would help him to become involved
in selling and, possibly, he would come to understand that selling is an element
of the problem-solving that has been his interest all along at the firm. Similarly,
Emma’s noticing and then reading the directions that were in the bottom of the
camera case enabled her to continue to develop her interest in photography and,
subsequently, her ability to set goals for herself, to feel self-efficacious, and to
self-regulate. Importantly, the variables of interest, goal setting, self-efficacy, and
self-regulation are each distinct concepts that become increasingly coordinated as
interest develops. In this section of the chapter, we review findings that provide a
basis for describing interest as having a reciprocal relation with other motivational
variables.
Interest and Achievement Goals

Both interest and goals have energizing effects on learning.59 Whereas interest
refers to both a psychological state and also to a motivational predisposition to
reengage with particular content, goals refer to the object of engagement. Many
investigations of each of these variables have been undertaken independently;60

some researchers have also suggested that interest and goals may not be separate
entities and should, instead, be viewed as related concepts.61
Achievement goals have been the focus of an extensive literature.62 Ames
(1992) defined achievement goals as integrated patterns of beliefs or attribu-
tions that reflect the purpose of achievement behavior (to succeed: to do well
compared to other people) and influence individuals’ responses to achievement
tasks. Accordingly, goals have been presumed to guide people’s thoughts, feel-
ings, and performance as they approach academic activities.63 Here we focus on
the relation between interest and two of the most frequently studied achieve-
ment goals: mastery and performance-approach goals.64 Students with mas-
tery goals aim to develop new knowledge and skills. In contrast, students with
performance-approach goals strive to demonstrate their competence relative to
others. Researchers have tended to consider interest to be more aligned with
mastery goals than with performance goals, presumably because when they use
the term “interest,” they are focused on interest that has already been developed,
rather than interest that could be developed or that is in the process of developing.
However, Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000), among others, have pointed out that
“successful” students hold both types of goals.65
In their review, Hidi and Harackiewicz further noted that the relation between
interest and mastery goals could be elaborated.They argued that, on the one hand,
learners who are interested in a particular subject or topic are especially likely to
adopt mastery goals in courses that address that subject or topic and that, on the
other hand, learners who enter a course with a more general mastery orienta-
tion are also likely to develop interest as they work on improving their knowl-
edge and skills. Harackiewicz et al. (2002) reported on a longitudinal investigation
that examined the dynamics of college students’ individual and situational interest
in conjunction with their achievement goals and academic performance. Seven
semesters following enrollment in an introductory psychology course, the num-
ber of psychology courses the participants took, their recorded major, and two
long-term academic performance measures were collected. Study findings con-
firmed that interest and mastery goals were reciprocally related over time. Interest
at the beginning of the course was found to predict mastery goal adoption and
situational interest during the course, as well as interest measured seven semesters
later. Moreover, the effect of initial interest on continued interest was partially
mediated through mastery goals, suggesting that a mastery-goals approach facili-
tates interest development as students become more engaged with course material.
Subsequently, many achievement goal researchers have reported that whereas
performance-approach goals have positive effects on grades at high school and
college levels, mastery goals have positive effects on these students’ interest.66
Harackiewicz et al. (2008) concluded that these findings support a multiple goal
perspective according to which both mastery and performance-approach goals
can promote beneficial but distinct educational outcomes.67 They also reported
that in studies that demonstrated positive association between mastery goals and
interest, the results indicated that adoption of mastery goals in courses predicted
subsequent interest—findings that led to the assumption that interest was an out-
come of mastery goals.68 However, Harackiewicz et al. further noted that goal
researchers have not examined how initial levels of interest predict the adoption
of mastery goals and that, rather than a one-directional causality between mas-
tery goals and interest, we must consider a reciprocal effect of mastery goals and
interest.They concluded that mastery goals could be viewed as both products and
predictors of interest. In their words:
When individuals enter a situation with interest in the topic, they may be
motivated to learn more about it (i.e., adopt a mastery goal), and they may
develop more interest when they approach a task with a mastery goal. …
Our findings suggest that interest must be conceptualized as an ongoing
process and studied over time to elucidate the processes through which
initial interest affects goal adoption and continued interest, as well as the
processes through which goal adoption influences the development and
deepening of interest.
(Harackiewicz et al. 2008: 117–118)
Harackiewicz et al. (2008) also reported on the reciprocal effects of interest and
performance: early interest predicted exam performance and grades, and early
exam performance predicted subsequent interest.69 The researchers interpreted
these findings as demonstrating both that students perform well on tasks that
they find interesting and that they become more interested in activities as they
perform well.
Renninger et al. (2008) provide further details about differences between the
goals of learners in earlier and later phases of interest. They observed that even
though the middle-school-age learners they studied in both earlier and later
phases of developing science interest could be excited, attentive, and asking ques-
tions, only those in later phases of interest were likely to have the kind of goals
that might be considered to reflect achievement motivation—conscious goals
to achieve success by meeting other people’s expectations about what school
success involves, such as completing assigned work to receive high grades. They
found that the learners who had less developed interest were not mastery oriented
because they had little, if any, knowledge of and value for science.
Renninger et al. (2008) found that learners with less developed interest are
not yet in a position to independently set domain-based goals for themselves
that can be realized. Instead, opportunities to experience setting and realizing
present goals (e.g., looking inside a worm) triggered their interest.They described
such experiences as potentially essential for developing the kinds of connections
to science that could eventually lead to asking questions, reflecting, and seeking
answers. They also suggested that coupling this type of experience with proximal
goals that could support the learners to feel successful might trigger continued
development of their interest in science.
In a set of follow-up studies, Renninger et al. (2014) described differences
in the goals, or purposes, of those with more developed interest and those with
less developed interest; for example, they reported differences in the behaviors of
participants during a mink dissection:
At the beginning of the session that included the mink dissection, AR, a par-
ticipant whose initial interest in science was more developed, immediately
began working to identify different organs, wanting help to use the scalpel,
and asking focused questions about topics such as whether the thickness of
the mink’s neck helped it wrestle with and tear apart prey. In contrast, N, a
participant with less developed initial interest in science, excitedly ran from
table to table to see what the minks at the other lab tables looked like. He
was one of the first to get a probe and to ask to see the mink’s brain. During
the dissection he identified many similarities between the mink’s body and
a human’s body. AR’s interest appeared to be triggered by the novelty of the
connections she made first in identifying organs and getting a closer look
at them, and consideration of the mink’s physical characteristics and their
implication for its survival, whereas N seemed to respond to the novelty of
the dissection activity itself.
(Renninger et al. 2014: 120)
The researchers found that AR, the participant representative of those with more
developed interest, had more knowledge to work with and was also more focused
in her approach to dissecting, and that N, the participant with less developed
interest, sought to inform himself about dissections at a more general level, before
he was ready to focus on the activity. The researchers also raised a question about
whether either of the participants had articulated goals for their workshop engage-
ment, and concluded that the participants’ behaviors suggested that the goals that
they set and reset for themselves were related to their respective phase of interest.70
Lipstein and Renninger (2007b) similarly reported differences in the goals
of middle-school writers and their phase of interest in writing and pointed
to the implications of these differences for instruction. Based on survey and
semi-structured in-depth interview data, they confirmed that the learners’ phase
of interest was reciprocally related to their goals, and noted that the relation
between the learners’ interest and their goals pointed to forms of feedback on
writing with which the students were ready to work.71 Those with less developed
interest often simply wanted to finish assignments and/or to please their teachers,
and needed discrete information that supported them to think about their writ-
ing, whereas writers with more developed interest wanted to know what others
thought about their ideas and were in a position to consider feedback on their
writing and engage in a discussion about it.
In two different studies of undergraduate students in STEM majors, Renninger

and her colleagues (Renninger and Nam 2012; Renninger and Tibbetts 2010) further
suggested that those with less developed interest had more pronounced achievement
goals than those with more developed interest.They found that with more developed
interest in their STEM major, undergraduate students were likely to be more focused
on content and less encumbered by the need to achieve than were those with less
developed interest. Although students with more developed interest achieve, they do
not focus on achievement. Instead, because of their developed interest, they focus
on continuing to develop their disciplinary content knowledge, and thus they also
achieve.These findings support the association of interest and mastery goals.
Based on survey data and follow-up semi-structured interviews, Renninger
and colleagues reported that the undergraduates with a developed interest assumed
that they would be pursuing graduate work and did not worry about their grades
as long as they were doing well enough in their courses (80 percent or better).
When involved in summer research, the students were animated in talking about
the content of the research on which they were working (e.g., for a person con-
ducting research in a physics lab: what they were learning about heat shock) and
made no mention of its importance for subsequent pursuits such as graduate
school. By contrast, students with a less developed interest in their majors were
concerned more about their performance in the same courses as those with more
developed interest (wanting grades of 92 percent or better). Moreover, when these
individuals were involved in a summer research program, they described summer
research as essential for developing their résumés so that they could go to gradu-
ate school. If the particulars of their research program were mentioned, they were
not detailed.
In describing the reciprocity of interest and goals, Harackiewicz et al. (2008)
noted that when students perform well in exams, their increased sense of
competence—self-efficacy—may also lead them to increasingly value and enjoy
the activity. In other words, they pointed to the reciprocity of the relation between
interest and self-efficacy, the topic that we consider next.
Interest and Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a cognitive construct that refers to individuals’ beliefs about their
ability to successfully produce outcomes,72 and is typically linked to perceptions of
ability for the task generally (e.g., how well you can throw darts), rather than the
skills it may require (e.g., the skill of throwing a dart).73 The term “self-efficacy”
is sometimes referred to as ability beliefs,74 self-concept of ability,75 or compe-
tence.76 We use the term “self-efficacy” to refer to individuals’ beliefs about their
own abilities, because this is the term most often used in the research on this topic
as it relates to interest. We acknowledge and appreciate that there are differences
of emphasis represented by the other definitions.77
People who have high self-efficacy for a task are more willing to engage, work
harder, persist longer, and have fewer adverse reactions when they encounter dif-
ficulties than people who doubt their own capabilities.78, 79 Both self-efficacy and
interest are domain-specific and draw on similar information about a person’s
participation; however, self-efficacy is a motivational variable that is based on a
belief and is therefore different from interest. As with goals, self-efficacy and inter-
est are distinct in earlier phases of interest and are reciprocally coordinated in later
phases. There is also evidence suggesting that interest needs to be triggered in

order for the reciprocal relation of interest and self-efficacy to unfold.80
Hidi et al. (2002) were among the first to note that interest and self-efficacy
ratings are correlated in tasks across a variety of domains, for example mathemat-
ics tasks,81 motoric learning tasks (dart-throwing),82 writing revision tasks,83 and
science-related expository writing tasks.84 The link is particularly strong in the
domains of science and mathematics.85 Interested engagements were found to lead
to improved performance when accompanied by increased self-efficacy. Research
findings from these studies have demonstrated that interest-driven learning tends
to be focused and persistent and to include positive affect, especially when indi-
viduals perceived themselves as being capable of working on a task.86 As Bandura
(1997) explained, individuals’ self-efficacy can be improved though feedback
from their own activity or from others. Thus, once interest has begun to develop,
engaging in interesting activities can naturally provide individuals with the feed-
back that they need to persevere in their work with tasks even when the tasks are
challenging.
Bandura and Schunk’s (1981) study of proximal goal-setting was one of the
first studies to investigate the link between goals and interest, and pointed to their
importance for self-efficacy.87 They hypothesized that proximal goals would serve
as an effective mechanism for cultivating a student’s competence, self-efficacy,
and interest. Study participants were elementary-school children who displayed
gross deficiencies and had low interest in mathematics. Children were randomly
assigned to one of four treatment conditions: proximal goals (they should work
to complete six pages of problems during each session), distal goals (they should
complete all forty-two pages of the problems by the end of the seven sessions), no
goals (they should finish as many problems as they could), and no treatment (no
intervening work with goals). The results showed that children in the proximal
goal condition made substantial improvements in mathematics, relative to the
children in the other conditions. They developed both self-efficacy and interest
in the activities for which they had initially had little interest. Subsequent studies
have demonstrated that proximal goals are most easily accomplished, and also that
the development of interest can lead to changes in a person’s goals.
Not surprisingly, Renninger et al. (2014) also found that the development of
interest and self-efficacy were coordinated in their studies, when the middle-school-
age youth they were studying were asked to respond to prompts in their lab notebooks
that began with I can (ICAN). For example, they found that participants identified
as having little interest and low self-efficacy became animated when dissecting owl
pellets, or working on surface tension (e.g., a child accidently spilled a water droplet
on the table and realized that it looked different than the water on the wax paper
he was using, and then proceeded to put a few more drops on the table).The youth
wanted to share their discoveries with their lab group, did so repeatedly, and, even
if they did not get attention (because the others were similarly captivated by their
own experimentation), they continued to work independently. In their lab note-
books, the participants’ ICAN responses also reflected increasing attention to what
they were learning and what they wanted to figure out. The researchers reported
that all participants (those with more and those with less developed interest)
achieved when they worked with prompts encouraging them to reflect on science
content. Moreover, the more ICAN prompts the youths responded to, the more
they learned and the more their interest and self-efficacy developed, regardless of
the level of their initial interest at the beginning of the workshop.
Renninger et al.’s (2014) findings further suggested that increases in learn-
ing and self-efficacy were heightened when the tasks of the workshop were
retooled to provide the youth with additional opportunities to make connec-
tions to the science content. For example, while participating in a mink dis-
section, the youths calculated the length of the mink’s intestine relative to the
length of its body and compared this proportion to projects about the length of
the human intestine relative to the length of the human body. They were sup-
ported to see this information in their thinking about the intestine’s function. In
contrast, youth in a control group merely observed the locations and discussed
the functions of various organs. In this example, changing the characteristics of
the tasks through integrating disciplinary content in a teacher-guided inquiry
context enhanced the workshop participants’ ability to make connections to the
activities and could do so at the level of challenge that they were each ready to
work with. This resulted in gains for both interest and self-efficacy for all work-
shop participants—those with less as well as those with more developed interest.
Bong et al. (2015) have also reported a critical link between interest and
self-efficacy. In a cross-sectional and longitudinal study of over 7,000 Korean
secondary-school students across subject areas, they found that there was a signifi-
cantly stronger association of interest and self-efficacy in mathematics and science
than in language arts.88 In addition, their findings indicated that mathematics
interest was considerably more stable than mathematics self-efficacy89 and, con-
trary to previous predictions,90 prior interest was a more powerful determinant of
subsequent self-efficacy than prior self-efficacy was of subsequent interest. Their
data also suggested that interested engagements led to the development of com-
petence. They concluded that the strong tie between interest and self-efficacy in
mathematics and science, along with the stronger predictive power of prior inter-
est for subsequent self-efficacy than vice versa in mathematics, indicated that at
least in these domains, it may be critical for students to become and stay interested
in order for them to feel competent.91
Kim et al.’s (2015) studies of interest and perceived competence among Korean
students provide additional insight. They tested the relations among interest, util-
ity value (perception of usefulness), engagement, and academic achievement in
mathematics for a total of 18,907 students in 6th, 9th, and 10th grade. Their
results indicated that across all three grades, interest was a stronger predictor than
utility value of both classroom engagement and achievement. Moreover, the dif-
ference in predictive power of interest and utility value became even more pro-
nounced as students moved into higher grades. The predictive power of inter-
est for classroom engagement and achievement increased as the grade level rose,
whereas the predictive power of utility value decreased. Multiple group com-
parison further revealed that the predictive power of utility value decreased only
among those who had low perceived competence and remained significant for
those with high perceived competence. Taken together, these results suggested
that it may be more helpful for educators to facilitate students’ interest in math-
ematics than to emphasize its utility value, especially when students lack math-
ematical competence.
In other words, students lacking in self-efficacy may need to have their interest
in a discipline triggered in order to begin to develop feelings of self-efficacy. The
work of Hulleman and his colleagues (e.g., Hulleman and Harackiewicz 2009)92
has suggested that a value affirmation intervention can provide this type of trig-
ger.93 They reported that when students were asked to explain the utility of the
tasks on which they were working, students with less initial interest developed
interest and made gains in performance. Especially for students with less devel-
oped interest, it may be critical that the students themselves generate the utility of
the content to be learned.
A number of studies have also considered the effect of directly explaining
the importance of information (communicated utility) to participants, the way
in which such information is typically provided in classrooms.94 For example,
Durik and Harackiewicz (2007) studied the benefit of providing participants in an
experimental study with utility-value information about a new approach to solv-
ing mathematics problems, and found that participants who had more developed
interest benefited from the information, whereas those with less developed inter-
est did not. This is another instance of the reciprocity of interest and motivational
variables—in this case, utility value.
Taken together, these studies indicate that there is a close relationship between
interest and self-efficacy, and that differences in this relation can be introduced by
the nature of the task and its context (whether performance is stressed). However,
studies have also shown that self-efficacy may be increased or decreased in relation
to increases and decreases in interest,95 and that high levels of self-efficacy may not
always be associated with high levels of interest.96 The two variables do differ; it
is possible for them to be mismatched and/or for the process of their coordina-
tion during development to be gradual. Renninger et al. (2011), for example,
reported that mathematics teachers who had high self-efficacy and low interest
for mathematics appeared unable to engage in discussions of mathematics even

when online teacher professional development modules with which they were
working provided support for them to do so at a level that they could manage.
Figuring out how to support the development of coordination between interest
and self-efficacy appears to be needed. For example, for the teachers who were
challenged learning online, Renninger et al. (2011) pointed to the possibility of
retooling the design of the teachers’ initial work online to enable them to choose
the level of problem difficulty with which they would work, in turn also pro-
viding them with a cohort of teachers with whom to work who were ready to
engage at the same levels of challenge.
Self-efficacy is a belief and, as such, is based on cognitive evaluation, and may be
influenced by the feelings and valuing that accompany developing competence.97
Interest is not a belief; rather, it is a psychological state as well as a motivational
variable with affective and cognitive components. The development of interest
includes three components: feelings, value, and knowledge. These together are
considered to provide a basis for developing feelings of competence.98 Evidence
points to reciprocal development of interest and self-efficacy. However, given that
interest has a physiological basis, it is also assumed, as suggested by the study of
Korean students in mathematics, science, and language arts classes (Bong et al.
2015) and the data from study of science workshop participants (Renninger et al.
2014), that the initial development of interest typically precedes the development
of self-efficacy, following which there is a continued reciprocal relation between
the two.99
Interest and Self-Regulation

As Sansone et al. (2015) pointed out, self-regulation is only a problem in learn-
ing, in the workplace, on the playing field, and so forth, when a person does not
have interest. Self-regulation refers to the way in which individuals control their
own thoughts and actions. More specifically, self-regulation of learning refers to
those self-generated actions that focus on acquisition of academically relevant
knowledge and skills.100 Research on self-regulation has included investigations
of the relation between goal attainment and interest development, as well as of
individuals’ abilities to be active participants in their own behavioral, cognitive,
and motivational processes, in order to regulate affect.101
Most of the earlier empirical investigations of self-regulation and interest con-
sidered either one or the other of these variables; more recent work has pointed
to several links between the two variables. On the one hand, findings from inter-
est research have demonstrated that self-regulation is an integral part of inter-
est development.102 On the other hand, a number of investigators who focused
on self-regulation have concluded that interest can be a motivational factor that
facilitates development and maintenance of self-regulation.103
In their self-regulation of motivation model, Sansone and her colleagues (see

Sansone et al. 2015 for an overview) have described how the experience of interest
is linked to self-regulation.104 In ground-breaking research, Sansone et al. (1992)
demonstrated that interest can be enhanced by intrapersonal (intra-individual)
self-regulation.They found that as individuals start to participate in an activity, they
make judgments about their level of interest in the activity, and these judgments
determine whether they continue their participation. A person might decide to
discontinue the activity if his or her interest level is low. Alternatively, that person
might try to generate more interest by modifying the activity or related goals,
and such modifications require self-regulation. In their research, Sansone et al.
focused on the kind of self-regulatory mechanism that may be required for such
activities. In two of three related studies, they compared college students’ responses
to novel tasks that had to be performed repeatedly but that varied in how inter-
esting they were. In a third study, the students’ beliefs about motivating strategies
for everyday and leisure activities were examined. The combined results of the
three studies indicated that the students recognized regulatory processes that could
increase their interest and contribute to their continued engagement.
In addition to focusing on how individuals are able to self-regulate to increase
their interest, interest researchers have argued that as interest develops in an
activity, self-regulation also develops as an integral aspect of performance, and
that interest is a mediator of self-regulatory processes.105 More specifically, as
described in the four-phase model of interest development, self-regulation, accu-
mulation of more information, and increased valuing lead to self-generated reen-
gagement, which is an important aspect of both emerging and well-developed
interest.106
As noted above, Renninger et al. (2004) have pointed to the ability of chil-
dren to self-regulate when they are interested; they also explained the difficulties
associated with teaching self-regulation to youth. For example, Renninger and
Leckrone (1991) described children’s persistent and focused reengagement that
only occurred with toys that the children were interested in. Nolen (2001) noted
that children as young as kindergarten may attempt to regulate their interest to
avoid boredom, and Meyer and Turner (2002) found that fifth graders intention-
ally increased the challenge of writing tasks to make them more interesting.
Similarly, Renninger and Hidi (2002) described Sam, a middle-school-age
student, and his self-regulation of his more and less developed interests. Sam
was identified as having a well-developed interest in soccer (football) and was
observed to self-regulate related activities. He could be found juggling balls
with his feet around the house, and if there were a possible game, that was where
he wanted to be. He regularly sought out opportunities to play and even rigged
his own lighting so that he could practice his kicks after dark with his father
after he returned from work. He clearly self-regulated his activities related to
soccer. His interest for science was less developed, and so was his self-regulation
of activities related to science. That is, he only did what he needed to do on
science assignments until his interest was triggered by the presumed death of
the turtle (the turtle was hibernating because of the cold weather) that he
was to care for and observe over a weekend as part of his science assignment.
His triggered interest led him to attend to the turtle, and to begin developing
assessments of the turtle’s abilities to move forward (not unlike a soccer player).
As Sam’s case illustrates, interest is a mediator of self-regulatory processes.107
The development of interest is accompanied by the activity of self-regulation
that is integral to performance.

Zimmerman (2002) has described self-regulatory processes as including three
successive phases, of forethought, performance, and self-reflection, and each of
these phases as characterized by sub-processes. The forethought phase has two
major categories, one of which includes variables that self-regulation research-
ers have referred to as self-motivational beliefs. The constructs included in this
category are self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goal orientation, and inter-
est.108 Zimmerman concluded that when there is interest, activities or skills are
valued for their inherent properties, and that students who are interested in an
activity are more likely than those without interest to become motivated to
plan and use learning strategies than persons without interest in the activity.
Similarly, Pintrich and Zusho (2002) reported that individuals who were more
interested in an activity or task perceived the task to be more valuable, import
ant, or useful, and so were more likely to use self-regulatory strategies.
Concluding Thoughts
We have explained that the presence of a developing interest indicates that a
person’s abilities to set and meet goals, feelings of self-efficacy, and abilities to
self-regulate are also likely to develop and become increasingly coordinated. Once
interest begins to develop, a person’s motivation and engagement also are both
positive and beneficial and will lead to developed understanding and achievement.
The learning environment and tasks or activities more specifically can be adjusted
to support people to make connections to them. Moreover, it can be expected
that different things will trigger interest in each phase of interest. Triggers for
interest that are aligned with the level of a person’s interest (e.g., the possible death
of the turtle was aligned with the low level of Sam’s interest) might be expected to
support the development of associated motivational variables (e.g., self-regulation
to monitor the turtle’s needs).
Notes
1 As we saw in the last chapter, curiosity defined as a knowledge gap is also motivating.
2 Lipstein and Renninger 2007b.
3 Reciprocal, as it is used here, is not a mathematical reference but rather a description

of the different relation that exists between variables at different points in their devel-
opment. Thus, as Harackiewicz et al. (2008) point out, for example, learners with less
developed interest are not as able to set goals and follow through to realize them, as are
those with more developed interest. This relation is explained in more detail later in
this chapter, and other examples of the reciprocal relation between interest and moti-
vational variables are provided.
4 Christenson et al. 2012b; Fredricks et al. 2004. In explaining the relation of these
three components of engagement, Reschly and Christenson (2012) speculated that

changes in student behaviors are linked to changes in their cognitive and affective
engagement—we describe this as interest (see Renninger and Bachrach 2015 for fur-
ther discussion of the links between interest and engagement).
5 Goals describe plans for activity and can include either longer range (distal) or
shorter-term (proximal) outcomes (see Senko et al. 2011).
6 Achievement motivation refers to the motivation to be successful (see Wigfield
et al. 2006).
7 Expectancy-value refers to the appraisal of possibility (e.g., Eccles et al. 1983; Wigfield
and Eccles 2000, 2002).
8 Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief about their capacities. Various research groups
have studied this variable somewhat differently; see, for example, Bandura 1997; Eccles
et al. 1993; Schunk and Usher 2012.
9 Self-regulation refers to the ability to follow through to accomplish planned goals (e.g.,
Hidi and Ainley 2008; Zimmerman and Cleary 2009).
10 Flow refers to the psychological state of engagement during which a person is so
focused on an activity that they may lose track of time (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi 1990;
Jackson 2012).
11 Grit refers to the determination to master content, especially when interest and its
facilitating effect on effort is not present (e.g., Duckworth et al. 2007).
12 Assessments of expectancy-value, flow, and grit include ratings for interest; goals,
achievement motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation do not, although each of
these variables has a reciprocal relation to interest, described in more detail later in this
chapter.
13 Motivation is usually studied more generally, not in relation to particular content,
although calls for this focus have been made (e.g., Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006).
14 On the other hand, Ainley (1998) has pointed to interest as also having a more general
aspect. Her discussion is similar to discussions of “openness,” one of the factors of the
Big Five personality traits described in social psychology (McCrae and Costa 1992).
15 Hidi et al. 2002; see also Walkington and Bernacki 2014.
16 Durik et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2015; Renninger 2010; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015;
Sansone et al. 2015.
17 See example provided by Larson (2014a) in the context of ninth-grade students’ lan-
guage and vocabulary learning.
18 See related discussion in Järvelä and Renninger 2014.
19 See Azevedo 2006; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Patall et al. 2012; Renninger 2010.
20 There are a number of studies in which the triggering process has been documented.
Renninger and Hidi (2002) provide examples and discussion of the triggers of a
middle-school student’s interest for three different domains (reading, science, and soc-
cer). Pressick-Kilborn (2015) describes the changing triggers that characterize the
developing interest of a middle-school student’s interest in science over time. Azevedo
(2013a, 2013b) provides detailed discussions of the role of triggers as supports for the
continuing engagement of a person who has a well-developed interest.
21 This is a project that Lisa Morenoff and Grade 5/6 students at the School in Rose
Valley (Rose Valley, Pa.) took on one spring. Other examples of projects such as this
include those described in Levy’s (1996) Starting from Scratch. The interested reader
is pointed to integrated-science, social-studies, and language-arts curricular content
described in Mark Springer’s (1994, 2006) descriptions of the Watershed and the
Soundings classrooms.
22 This is an assignment that Art Mabbott, a teacher in a Seattle public school, has pro-
ductively used for years with his students. See also Chazan (2000).
23 See Azevedo 2006.
24 Support for reflection is basic to learning (Boscolo and Mason 2001; Bruner 1966;
Chi et al. 1989; Chi et al. 1994) and is frequently the one aspect of pedagogy that edu-
cators (parents, employers) overlook in their planning either because of time it may
take, and/or the assumption that the learner is doing this reflection. As will be dis-
cussed later in this chapter, when learners with little prior knowledge and no formal
experience with science are supported to reflect as part of the ICAN Intervention, the
amount of reflection that they do predicts changes in their learning during inquiry
activities as well as in the development of their interest in science (see also Renninger
et al. 2014).
25 See Renninger and Pozos-Brewer (2015) for additional discussion of case material
presented in Table 3.1 about the development of interest in mathematics.
26 As will be discussed later in this chapter, students’ feelings of self-efficacy and
self-regulation would also continue to develop along with their interest. See related
discussion in Renninger 2010.
27 As will be discussed later in this chapter, such a student is also likely to have low
self-efficacy and little ability to self-regulate.
28 Noticing and wondering are techniques for engaging learners in mathematics that
have been developed and refined by members of the Math Forum (see http://math-
forum.org/workshops/universal/documents/notice_wonder_intro.pdf). See also Ray
2013.
29 Shernoff (2013) built on the work of Rathunde (1998), Dewey (1913), and
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) to describe meaningful engagement as including elements
of work and play; he also explicitly acknowledged the role of interest in this type of
engagement. In identifying responses to learning tasks, Schlechty (2011) also pointed
to meaningful engagement as a goal for educators, and further clarifies that other
less-productive forms of engagement include strategic compliance, ritual compliance,
retreatism, and rebellion.
30 The interested reader is pointed to Ainley’s (2012) chapter in the Handbook of Research
on Student Engagement in which she pointed to the importance of person and envi-
ronment alignment and to shared concerns of research on engagement and research
on interest. Shernoff (2013) also included a section on interest in his volume, Optimal
Learning Environments to Promote Student Engagement. He explained that interest con-
ceptualized as a variable that develops focuses on the interaction between the person
and the environment and noted that because of this, interest is a motivational vari-
able that is particularly relevant to discussions of engagement. However, he did not
elaborate on the implications of research on interest for engagement research or on
the relation between studies of interest and studies of engagement. In his research, he
and his colleagues (Shernoff et al. 2003; Shernoff and Hoogstra 2001; Shernoff and
Schmidt 2008) pointed to interest as an emergent aspect of meaningfully engaged
behavior.
31 Christenson et al. 2012a; Fredricks 2014; Fredricks and McCloskey 2012; Shernoff 2013.
32 See Christenson et al. 2012b; Fredricks et al. 2004.
33 It is useful to note Azevedo’s (2015) observation that the research on engagement
is wide, varied, and of differing levels of granularity. He wrote that “engagement is
one of the most widely misused and overgeneralized constructs found in the educa-
tional, learning, instructional, and psychological sciences” (2015: 84). We add to these
comments that the concerns of engagement researchers are those of practice, and it
may be for this reason that the literature draws on multiple constructs. Furthermore,
we suggest that articulating the synergy between interest and engagement would be
particularly useful for researchers and practitioners alike.
34 In research, an independent variable is a variable that is examined as a possible influ-
ence on some other variable. For example, interest might be studied as an influence on
learning, in which case interest would be the independent variable and learning would
be the dependent variable.
35 In research, a dependent variable is the target variable under study. Interest or change
in interest could be a dependent variable in studies of interest.
36 See Christenson et al. 2012b; Fredricks et al. 2004.
37 In the engagement literature, the notion of “changed engagement” has begun to be
extended beyond indicators such as student attendance and grades to include com
mitment, investment, identification, and belonging (http://checkandconnect.umn.edu/
model/engagement.html).
An example of items related to workplace (as opposed to school) engagement can
be found at http://thebuildnetwork.com/team-building/employee-engagement-tool.
38 Experience sampling is a research method in which participants systematically report
on their behavior at requested intervals.
39 See also Shernoff and Hoogstra 2001; Shernoff and Schmidt 2008.
40 See discussions and models in Fredricks 2014; Schlechty 2011; and Shernoff 2013.
41 See also Appleton 2012; Christenson and Reschley 2010.
42 See checkandconnect.umn.edu.
43 Another approach to counteracting student disengagement is provided by organized
programming to promote positive youth development (PYD). Positive youth develop
ment refers to the supports (resources, opportunities) for young adults to develop
the knowledge and skills (the ability to assume leadership, to take initiative) that are
needed in order to make positive transitions to adulthood. It is expected that commu-
nities and organizations have a critical role in providing such supports. See Heck and
Subramanian 2009; Lerner et al. 2005; Small and Memmo 2004.
PYD focuses on organized support (e.g., from the community or government agen-
cies) to encourage the “5 Cs”—competence, confidence, connection, character, and
caring—which, when in place, enable youth to be in a position to make positive contri-
butions (Lerner et al. 2005; McKay et al. 2011). For example, Larson (2000: 170) pointed
to the need to support youth to take initiative (being “motivated from within to direct
attention and effort toward a challenging goal”) and suggested that supports for taking
initiative may be most effectively provided in structured voluntary activities outside of
school (e.g., sports, arts, organizations such as 4-H and scouting; see also Fredricks and
Simpkins 2013 for a review of out-of-school activities and programming).
44 Shernoff (2013) describes each of these motivational variables as contributing to
engagement; he also describes interest as contributing to engagement, although he
does not go on to discuss the implications of these contributions.
45 Feelings of competence and autonomy are tenets of self-determination theory.
Self-determination theory is a theory of motivation developed by Deci and Ryan (see
Ryan and Deci 2012) that focuses on a person’s personal growth and fulfillment.
46 For a review of measures to assess engagement, see Fredricks et al. 2011. Studies in
which interest is conceptualized as a value, belief, or propensity generally locate interest
in the person (e.g., Deci and Ryan 2000; Eccles et al. 1983; Schiefele 1991). In such
studies, interest is often assessed on the basis of liking, or positive emotion, although, as
indicated in Chapter 3, these measures alone are no longer adequate for explaining the
motivating power of interest. In some of these models, value and feelings are sole indica-
tors; in others, such as the expectancy-value model, interest is one source of value that
is analyzed along with importance, utility, and cost (see discussion in Sansone 2009).
Eccles et al. (2015) have pointed out that studies of expectancy have not focused
on the development of interest but rather on its presence (or absence) and its implica-
tions for student decision-making at a given time.They suggested that expectancy–value
theory provides a complement to the four-phase model because it provides infor-
mation about the beliefs (particularly expectancies) that are associated with interest.
Further work to understand when and under what conditions expectancies do develop
could be particularly important for purposes of practice, in particular (see discussion in
Renninger and Hidi 2011).
In their theoretical work on self-determination theory, Ryan and Deci (2012) also
consider interest to be a value, and describe interests along with proclivities and curi-
osities as examples of intrinsic motivations that interact with “social pressures, con-
straints, and reward contingencies” (2012: 227) beginning at an early age. Rather than
focusing on the implications of beliefs, however, they focus on the conditions that can
support interest development and maintenance; they describe autonomy, competence,
and social relatedness as necessary. Ryan and Deci (2000) refer to Krapp (2002a) as sug-
gesting early experiences are important to the development of later, career-related
identities (see also Krapp 2007).This conceptualization of interest differs from research
findings that informed development of the four-phase model.
In the four-phase model, it is understood that interest can develop at any age. Thus,
rather than conceptualizing interest to be an outcome of autonomy, competence, or
social relatedness, the relation between interest and each of these is considered to be
reciprocal. As Hidi and Renninger (2006) point out, engaging content that is of interest
may lead to an increased sense of competence and/or autonomy.
47 See discussions of engagement research in Gresalfi 2009, as well as discussions of
the focus of interest research in Renninger and Su 2012. See also Renninger and
Bachrach 2015.
48 See Renninger 1990, 2000; Renninger and Su 2012. As interest develops, so does
knowledge and value. Just as knowledge enables the development of value, so develop-
ments in value lead to search for additional knowledge (or understanding).
49 For example, Reschley and Chistenson 2012; Fredricks et al. 2004; Fredricks and
McCloskey 2012.
50 See discussion in Renninger 2000.
51 Such suggestion is consistent with Larson et al.’s (2015) description of directions for
future study of effective practices in youth development.
53 We intentionally do not use “meaningful” here, although it certainly could also be used as
a descriptor. However, in earlier phases of interest, as a person is developing their under-
standing of a content, their present understanding may be already meaningful to them,
however much more substantive and deep it will be as their interest continues to develop.
54 For detailed reviews and discussion of the achievement goal literature, see Harackiewicz
et al. 2008; Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000; Senko et al. 2011.
55 Bong et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2015; Nieswandt 2007.
56 Hidi and Ainley 2008; Sansone 2009; Sansone and Thoman 2005.
57 Harackiewicz et al. 2002; Harackiewicz et al. 2008; Hidi and Ainley 2008.
58 See related discussion in Renninger 2010.
59 Tobias 1994.
60 Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000.
61 Murphy and Alexander 2000.
62 See discussions in Harackiewicz et al. 2002; Harackiewicz et al. 2008; Senko et al. 2011.
63 Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000; Hulleman, Schrager et al. 2010.
64 Senko et al. (2011) noted that achievement-goal theory has been one of the most prom-
inent theories of motivation in educational research. Originally, the theory focused on
mastery goals aimed at developing one’s competence, and performance goals aimed
at demonstrating such competence by outperforming others (e.g., Ames and Archer

1988; Dweck 1986). Furthermore, the prevailing assumptions were that mastery goals
had more educational benefits than performance goals. More specifically, as Hidi and
Harackiewicz (2000) summarized, “Mastery goals are predicted to orienting people
toward acquiring new skills, trying to understand their work, and improving their level
of competence. Other positive aspects of behavior attributed to mastery goals have
been persistence in the face of difficulty or failure, the achievement of self-referenced
standards, and the recognition that effort and risk-taking are elements of achieving suc-
cess. In contrast, performance goals are postulated to lead individuals to seek positive
evaluations of their ability and avoid negative ones, to try to outperform others, and
to consider ability, rather than effort, the cornerstone of successful performance” (Hidi
and Harackiewicz 2000: 160–161).
Whereas research in the 1980s and 1990s supported positive consequences of mas-
tery goals and maladaptive consequences for performance goals, with the publica-
tion of an article by Harackiewicz and Elliot (1993), a shift in perspectives occurred.
The researchers emphasized that both mastery and performance goals can have posi-
tive outcomes. Eventually, the two-goal model developed into a multiple-goal model,
including approach and avoidance aspects to both goals.
65 Dweck 2002.
66 See Harackiewicz et al. 2008.
67 For example, Harackiewicz et al. 2008; Pintrich 2000.
68 Tanaka and Murayama (2014) investigated the relations among situational interest,
boredom, task-specific perceptions (expectancy, utility, and difficulty), and achievement
goals. They conceptualized interest and boredom as achievement-related emotions.
The study used within-person interest, boredom, and perception measurements—an
important and not frequently used methodology—and hierarchical linear modeling.
The researchers reported several findings on how individual differences in approach
goals influence emotions and perceptions of participants. More specifically, the findings
showed that higher interest and lower boredom were associated with higher percep-
tions of expectancy and utility and lower perceptions of difficulty. In addition, achieve-
ment goals influenced the within-person measures.
69 Harackiewicz et al. (2008) distinguished between two phases of situational interest as
“catch” and “hold.” These terms were first formulated by Dewey (1913) and were sub-
sequently used by Mitchell (1993). We have suggested using the terms “triggered” and
“maintained situational interest” to describe situational interest, corresponding to catch
and hold. As Hidi (2000) explained,“catching” suggests the interpretation that the inter-
est has already been elicited and is then diverted to a stimulus or activity; the term “trig-
gering” can describe interest that is being newly elicited, even from a state of lacking
interest.
70 See related discussion in Renninger et al. 2008.
71 See also Lipstein and Renninger 2007a, and Renninger and Lipstein 2006.
72 Bandura 1977; Zimmerman 2000.
73 Zimmerman and Kitsantas 1996, 1997, 2002; Zimmerman and Schunk 2004.
74 See discussions in Dweck 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2002; and Wigfield et al. 2012.
75 See Bong et al. 2015; Bong and Skaalvik 2003; Denissen et al. 2007; Durik et al. 2015.
76 See Harackiewicz and Sansone 1991; Sansone et al. 2015.
77 See discussions in Bong and Skaalvik 2003; Pintrich 2003; Wigfield et al. 2012.
78 See reviews in Bandura 1997; Pajares 1996.
79 Both general ability and age have been reported to influence the accuracy of learners’
perceptions of their likelihood of success. Ability seems to be positively correlated with
the accuracy of judgments, whereas age is a negative factor. That is, younger children
tend to have more positive perceptions of their ability to achieve than older children.
(See discussions in Dweck 2002 and Wigfield et al. 2012.)
80 For example, Zimmerman (2000) reported evidence that self-efficacy was predictive
of whether students would choose to engage in challenging academic tasks, as meas-
ured by their rate of performance and expenditure of energy as well as by the quality
of their performance, implying that self-efficacy develops prior to interest.
81 For example, Bandura and Schunk 1981; Bong et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2015.
82 For example, Zimmerman and Kitsantas 1996, 1997, 1999.
83 For example, Schunk and Zimmerman 2007; Zimmerman and Kitsantas 2002.
84 For example, Bandura and Schunk 1981; Hidi et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2015; Zimmerman
and Kitsantas 1997, 1999.

85 Bong et al. 2015.
86 See discussions in Barron et al. 2014; Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger 2010.
87 Task-related goals are examples of proximal goals, whereas the longer-range goal to
understand mathematics is a distal goal.
88 The findings also showed that boys had significantly higher mean levels of interest and
self-efficacy in mathematics and science than did girls.
89 The stability coefficients of interest ranged between .62 and .65 from Year 1 to Year 4,
whereas those of self-efficacy ranged between .37 and .40 for the same period.
90 Bong et al. (2015) noted that a number of researchers’ work (e.g., Bandura and Schunk
1981; Bergin 1999; Eccles and Wigfield 1995; Harter 1982) indicated the presumption
that perceived competence (self-efficacy) precedes interest.
91 Moreover, girls tend to rate their competence lower than boys (e.g., Bong et al. 2015;
Eccles et al. 2015).
92 See also Hulleman, Godes et al. 2010.
93 For an overview of the intervention, see discussion in Harackiewicz et al. 2014.
94 In follow-up work, Durik et al. (2014) further explored the impact of participants’ self-
assessment of competence, or perceived competence, on communicated utility in two
studies. They replicated results that were earlier reported by Durik and Harackiewicz
(2007) but found that the moderating effect of interest was weaker. They attributed
this to the strong relation only between more developed interest and perceived com-
petence. Participants who had lower perceived competence about mathematics and
received directly communicated utility information showed less interest in the new
technique once they learned of its utility whereas participants with higher levels
of perceived competence had increased interest in the mathematics technique after
receiving the utility intervention. They also solved more math problems correctly. In
a second study, the researchers also established that expectancies have a critical role
in how participants responded to communicated utility value. They found that with
additional encouragement about their expectancy (an expectancy boost), those with
lower perceived competence had improved performance and those with higher levels
of expectancy did not. This set of studies underscores the differences among individ-
uals in their readiness to work with tasks as well as the importance of how they under-
stand themselves in relation to tasks that they are assigned. It also points to the role of
task perceptions in participants’ perceptions of their own abilities (see Durik et al. 2015).
In an earlier study of the effects of competence and interest on how people receive
feedback, Sansone (1986) had addressed the relation between students’ perceptions
of the task and their perceptions of their abilities. She reported that interest in the
task deepened when competence was not a salient characteristic of the feedback they
received.
95 For example, Niemivirta and Tapola 2007.
96 For example, Carmichael et al. 2010; Renninger et al. 2011.
97 Renninger 2010.
98 Renninger 1990, 2000.
99 Hidi and Ainley 2008.
100 Schunk and Zimmerman 1994, 2007; Zimmerman and Bandura 1994.
101 Boekaerts 1997, 2006; Pintrich and Zusho 2002; Sansone et al. 2015; Zimmerman
and Bandura 1994.
102 For example, Sansone and Thoman 2005.
103 For example, Pintrich and Zusho 2002.
104 See also Sansone and Harackiewicz 1996; Sansone and Smith 2000; Sansone and
Thoman 2005.
105 See Sansone 2009; Sansone et al. 2015.
106 See Hidi and Renninger 2006; Renninger and Hidi 2011.
107 See Sansone 2009: Sansone and Thoman 2005; Sansone et al. 2015.
108 It should be noted that in Zimmerman’s work (e.g., Zimmerman 2000), interest has
been defined as a belief—primarily a cognitive evaluation. If interest is defined as a
belief, it is presumed that a person needs information that can be evaluated before
interest can develop. Research such as that describing Sam indicates that he is not in a
position to describe his triggered interest in the turtle. He would not, if asked, express
a belief that he had interest in the turtle, or in science more generally. However, his
behaviors suggested that his interest was triggered, and developing, and that he was
increasingly self-regulated as a result.
5
INTEREST AND CONTENT
Is it a paradox that interest declines as subject

matter gets more developed?
What is “interest-driven learning”?
Does it matter if interests are taken up in rather

than out of school?
How different is an interest in one versus another

subject matter or domain?
Given that content knowledge is essential to the development of interest, it could

seem paradoxical that declines in student interest are repeatedly chronicled as
students move into secondary school, a time when disciplinary content typically
becomes the focus of academic work. Similar declines in interest have also been
noted in out-of-school settings, beginning when children are about eight to ten
years of age and their social development leads them to begin comparing their
own abilities to those of others.1
In this chapter, we provide a context for thinking about declines in interest.
We first consider how interest is related to content knowledge as well as the
relation between interest and identity. We clarify the meaning of interest-driven
learning and explain that interest can be supported to develop in a variety of set-
tings.2 Following this, we review findings from studies of interest conducted both
in and out of school, organized by subject matter, or domain: reading, writing,
second-language learning, history, science, mathematics, art, music, and physical
education. In concluding the chapter, we suggest that declines in interest may not
be paradoxical even though they may appear to be so.
Interest and Content Knowledge

The development of content knowledge is essential for interest development and
is also an outcome of interest development. Leslie (2014) also recognized the
Interest and Content 97
importance of content knowledge that can be provided to learners by parents and

teachers. He noted that “knowledge gives curiosity power” (Leslie 2014: 180), and
recognized the role of knowledge in initiating and maintaining the search for
more information, an explanation which is consistent with the coordination of
developing interest (and knowledge) in the four-phase model.3
Consider briefly the following comments from Steve, who stopped working
on a research proposal he was writing in order to figure out how to unstick the
blade in his kitchen blender. In this case, the content is mechanical and the prob-
lem is concrete: the alignment of a blade either needs adjustment or the blender
needs to be replaced. Asked in an email how he would describe his interest in
fixing the blade and his decision to work on it, he responded:
In some ways working on the stuck blade is similar to those metal manipu-
lation puzzles. It
• is a problem to work on that is mechanical/physical;
• provides the satisfaction of figuring out something about how
things work;
• also gives me the opportunity to be clever and have an insight.
He continues:
But it is also different from those puzzles. I’d be more likely to work on
something that needed to be fixed than one of those puzzles because it:
• involves doing something worthwhile, so it allows me to do some-
thing that otherwise would feel indulgent;
• allows understanding how the systems around us work and not feeling
out of touch, ignorant, and dependent;
• might be the quickest way to having a working device, and I don’t like
having things that don’t work. I like to have things in good working
order and to contribute to that;
• saves money.
Then, reflecting further, Steve observed:
I will avoid tinkering if it:

• seems too difficult or dangerous and I don’t have a readily available
way to figure it out, or I am worried about irreparably breaking it;
• doesn’t seem like there is anything interesting to be figured out or
learned and the fix isn’t that useful or effective or important (gluing
stuff we don’t really care about, etc.).
Steve has a developed interest in what he variously describes as “metal manip-

ulation puzzles,” “mechanical/physical” things, and, more generally, “how things
98 Interest and Content
work.” In his response, one can hear the expectancies he weighed (e.g., previous
experiences working with similar problems, an appreciation for the present prob-
lem and its potential complications, a desire for time invested to be worthwhile),
as well as a question about whether he stands to gain more content knowledge
(i.e., learn more about how things work) by working to unstick the blade.4 His
behavior and self-description point to his having a developed interest in this type
of problem: he has prior experience, deep knowledge, and a willingness to inde-
pendently engage. He also thinks the misaligned blade represented an opportunity

to learn something new. It would be rewarding to further develop his under-
standing of this type of problem. Despite his interest, he says he would not have
interrupted what he was doing to work on the blade without the promise of new
understanding.
Emma’s developing interest in photography (see Chapter 1) provides another,
slightly different, look at interest and content knowledge. Recall that when she
first received the camera, she was not told much (if anything) about how to use it,
and she did not look for instructions. She had some basic understanding that peo-
ple take pictures with cameras and began taking pictures of flowers. However, she
read the directions when she found them, which happened to have coincided with
some spare time to explore and practice using the camera. The camera directions
contained specific information about considering light and shadow when shoot-
ing pictures. She already had some sense that this was something she wanted to
know more about; it corresponded to the way she had been organizing the photos
in her album. Emma read the directions carefully and then began attending pho-
tography club meetings so that she could learn more.The continued development
of her interest in photography reflected the opportunities she both saw and took
advantage of. As Emma’s interest in photography developed, the opportunities
to develop her understanding of photography increasingly informed her activity.
Further insight about the relation between interest and content knowledge is
provided by the data from the study of the undergraduate students doing summer
research in STEM disciplines (described in Chapter 4). Whereas these data sug-
gest that content knowledge alone is not an adequate indicator of interest, they
also indicate that interest supports the acquisition of more content knowledge.
Students with less developed interest had sufficient skills and content knowledge
to continue to major in a STEM discipline; however, they differed from students
with more developed interest in their purpose, focus, and in the content of their
skills and knowledge.5 Those with less developed interest in their STEM major
described the summer research as necessary for their résumé, whereas those stu-
dents with more developed interest described their summer research experience
in terms of the specific information they were acquiring (e.g., a physics student
talked about what he was learning about heat shock and what he was trying to
figure out). Those with less developed interest were concerned about their per-
formance and about getting into graduate school. Those with more developed
interest assumed that they would be pursuing graduate study and were focused
instead on continuing to deepen already existing content knowledge. This meant

that the summer research experience was preparing them for subsequent research
opportunities, including graduate study, and it was also enabling them to deepen
their understanding of disciplinary content. Those with less developed interest
were acquiring skills and content knowledge, but had not yet made connec-
tions to the content of the research questions being addressed in the laboratory
research.
It is possible that the experience of the students with less developed interest
could have been different, especially since interest can be supported to develop.
The students’ professors might have helped them to develop their interest in the
work of the laboratory. If the students with less developed interest had an under-
standing that developing their own interest was both possible and beneficial, they
also might have worked to focus more specifically on developing connections to
the content of the research themselves.6
To recap, the above examples highlight continued development of new under-
standing as rewarding. In the first, Steve was willing to invest time because fixing
the blade offered the opportunity to continue to learn; otherwise, he was not
interested in the activity. In the second, Emma was ready to take on additional
information when she found, read, and then acted on the directions; she had
enough content knowledge to make use of the more specific information about
light and shadow and was ready to work with this new information. In the third
example, the undergraduate students differed in their phase of interest for their
STEM majors and in the opportunities they saw in their summer research; these
differences affected the way in which they participated and gained experience
from the summer research. Of note, the students with less developed interest
had sufficient content knowledge of the discipline; however, because they had
less developed interest, they would have benefited from support to meaningfully
engage with the content of their work in the laboratory.7
Interest and Identity

People typically associate themselves as well as others with the content of their
existing interest(s) (e.g., I am a mathematician; she is a bridge player), meaning
that in everyday discussion interest is often used to describe identity. However,
the association of interest and identity only applies to people in relation to their
developed or known interest(s) and does not hold for interests that are in the
process of developing, the potential of new interests to develop, or the malle-
ability of interest (i.e., an existing interest may develop further, decrease, or go
dormant).8
As people develop their interest in a particular content, they increasingly come
to associate themselves with that content.9 Conversely, early in the development
of an interest, it is unlikely that a person would identify with that object (event
or idea) as an interest, even when interest has been triggered. Take Emma, for
example. When Emma first received her camera, it is unlikely that she expected
to develop an interest in photography, join a photography club, or identify as a
photographer. Similarly, the students with less developed interest in their STEM
majors harbored doubts about whether they would be admitted to graduate
school, and did not yet associate graduate study with the pursuit of disciplinary
questions like those undertaken in laboratory research. Rather, they explained
their participation in summer research as necessary for admittance to graduate

school, and implied that this would determine whether they continued in the dis-
cipline. Despite the fact that the two groups of students had similar achievement
profiles on entering college, students with less developed interest did not make
the same connections to the content as their peers with more developed interest,
and so they were not in a position to work with content in the same ways as their
more interested counterparts.
Interest-Driven Learning
Interest-driven learning typically refers to learning driven by interest that has
already developed; it is most often used to describe the kinds of involvements
that are possible in online environments in which learners make a decision to
continue to work, play, etc., and their interest can be said to fuel their reengage-
ment.10 Curwood et al. (2013) describe fan-based affinity groups that, for exam-
ple, use movies such as The Hunger Games as a basis for writing and role-playing
that is shared with, and informed by, others, their interests, and their participation.
Similarly, in massively multiplayer online games, participants might be involved in
helping to construct a world in which they have a role that they develop in rela-
tion to their interest(s) and on which others come to rely (e.g., World of Warcraft).11
Interest can be triggered and supported to develop both in and out of school,
and advanced training in a sport, music, art, drama, or writing is an example of
interest-driven learning that when undertaken outside of school can comple-
ment, provide enrichment, or even be a replacement for schooling. Renninger,
Kensey, et al. (2015), for example, cite the example of a high-school student who
explained that participation in the extracurricular Science Olympiad program
made the difference for her; Science Olympiad made it possible for her to sustain
her interest in science and to plan to pursue it in college, even though she found
her high-school coursework wanting.
Out-of-school (or extracurricular) activities can have similarities to the formal
instruction of schools in that they (a) often include designed or programmed
activity, (b) may have clear bars for achievement, and (c) are explicitly designed
to be opportunities for participants to continue to develop new skills and under-
standing. However, out-of-school contexts also typically differ from the school
context in at least one critical way. Participants in out-of-school settings usually

have or want to have a developed interest in the setting; if they did not, they
would not be participating. There could be exceptions to voluntary participation,
for example, if a parent enrolls his or her child in piano lessons or a robotics club
without consent.
The quality of teaching/facilitation/coaching in schools and in out-of-school
contexts can vary, and it may or may not support the development of students’ or
participants’ interest.12 An educator who understood the power of interest could

adjust the learning environment for participants by providing different amounts
of structure (e.g., specific feedback about what needs to be done rather than more
general admonitions such as not using so many words when writing). Students/
participants with less developed interest are likely to need more structure, whereas
students/participants with more developed interest may need less.13 Providing
more structure for a student/participant also involves considering the person’s
potential to implement change and what needs to be said, modeled, and/or prac-
ticed in order for change to occur. A basketball player who has a less devel-
oped interest may not implement the techniques learned during practices and
get blocked during a game, whereas players with more developed interest are
more able to figure out what could be different and to draw on the techniques
they have learned as a repertoire of strategies during games. The player with less
developed interest is also by definition a person whose interest has the potential to
develop; he or she can be supported to make use of the strategies learned during
practice and become a more effective player but may need support from other people
to do so.
Educators wishing to support interest to develop in a topic, activity, or domain
need to determine whether those with whom they are working understand the
related content and, if so, what kinds of connections they have made to it. Armed
with this information, they can then support continued and meaningful engage-
ment by facilitating the development of additional connections or by providing
opportunities for reflection and practice.14
As Järvelä and Renninger (2014) noted, interactions with content and support
from others (or the design of the environment, exhibit, text, etc.) to engage with
content in new ways is essential for the triggering and sustaining of interest, and
can be expected to positively influence motivation and engagement. Both in- and
out-of-school contexts can incorporate design elements that explicitly support stu-
dents to make connections to content and develop their interest. Such connections
will support them to continue to reengage, to do so with increasing depth, to opt
to engage when they have the opportunity, and to do so whether they are working
independently or with others. Pressik-Kilborn (2015) highlights the teacher’s role
in this process of structuring the environment. She notes that the decisions that
the teacher makes—whether or not they are intentional—either contribute to or
limit the development of student interest. Such decisions include the focus of the
content covered, the types and sequencing of tasks, the opportunity for group and
individual work, the inclusion of bulletin boards that display related content, and
the allocation of time.
Similarly, Azevedo (2006) pointed to software features and the flexibility
of the environment as enabling participants in a computer-based visualiza-
tion project to develop feelings of confidence, and as meeting the students’
additional needs to have enough time to think on and explore ideas they were
generating. In another study detailing a participant’s developing interest in
model rocketry, Azevedo (2011) further explained that the nature of the activ-
ity, or practice, is not simple repetition but rather an incremental and recursive
process through which people both reinforce and stretch their present under-
standing based on what they bring to situations and the presenting charac-
teristics of the situation. It is a process that involves a succession of ongoing
triggers for interest, many of which are self-generated once the learner has a
more developed interest. However as Turner et al. (2015) reported, teachers
(and educators more generally) sometimes need to be reminded or helped to
understand why motivation is important, and that their role in triggering and
supporting interest to develop is critical. Hidi (2000) has further suggested
the importance of recognizing that interests, extrinsic motivation, and perfor-
mance goals have complementary roles in making tasks more rewarding for
those who are unmotivated.15
Students need to know that they can work with content. They need the
kind of repeated activity (practice) that enables them to extend what they
know in new ways and also positions them to develop value for the content,
feelings of self-efficacy, and abilities to self-regulate. In addition, they need
activities or opportunities that are discrepant enough that they are forced to
take stock of what they have known and are supported to work with it in new
ways.16
Interest by Domain
In this section, we summarize a selection of relatively recent studies of interest that
have been conducted both in and out of school, and we consider their implica-
tions for supporting learners to build their understanding of and value for con-
tent.17 In a few cases, earlier studies have been included in this review because of
the perspective they provide. We have also made an effort not to repeat the pres-
entation of studies that have already been described in this volume. We primarily
draw on studies in which less developed and more developed interest have been
clearly distinguished, because the way in which interest is assessed influences how
the findings can be interpreted.18 Differences based on identifiable demographic
characteristics are noted.
Reading and Text Features

Studies of reading date back to the early 1900s when educators began using inter-
est inventories to determine which topics might be most effective for supporting
their students’ engagement in reading texts,19 not only for reading instruction,
but also for instruction in other subject matter domains as well.20 Findings from
these studies pointed to demographic differences such as gender and geographic
location (e.g., rural farming communities, cities) as indicators of which topics are
likely to be of interest to students.
Importantly, giving a story about baseball to students who are interested in
baseball may increase the likelihood that they will read the story.21 However, pro-
viding the students with a single text about baseball is not likely to immediately
support them to develop interest in reading without repeated work with texts
that are interesting and/or instruction to develop their skills as readers.22 Rather,
providing learners with texts that address their interests can provide an effec-
tive context for supporting them to read, and for providing them with reading
instruction.
Even if reading materials are challenging, students may want to continue to
read about topics that are of interest to them.23 For example, Larson (2014a,
2014b) used information about phases of learner interest as a basis for motivating
literacy instruction in biology classes and found that it was positively associated
with developments in students’ conceptual understanding. Similarly, when par-
ticipants engage with content that triggers their interest such as reading/writing
fan fiction, listening to podcasts, remixing video, or engaging in digital activities
with other participants who have similar interests, their understanding has been
shown to develop.24
In addition to the role of topics as a source of interest, research on reading has
addressed: (a) the features and structure of texts,25 multimedia presentations,26
and games27 that can trigger and possibly sustain interest,28 as well as (b) the rela-
tion between interest and other variables in learning from text. Findings from
such studies were reviewed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this book. To recap briefly,
high-interest stories have been found to lead to more effective and longer-term
recall than low-interest stories.29 Readers can be expected to immediately recog-
nize that information is interesting without having to compare it to prior under-
standing; thus, for example, asking them whether a task is of interest to them is
different than asking them whether the task is important. A reader is likely to find
it relatively easy and fast to attend to and process information that is of interest,
but it is a different task if the person is also working to learn new information
and/or to determine its importance. In the latter case, the learner may need to
take more time with the task.30
In a related line of analysis, it has also been found that although the features
and structure of text typically enhance learning, seductive details,31 also described
as distractors or decorative illustrations,32 can enhance presentation of text and
possibly learning from it, but also may derail learners. For example, placing a
picture of a frog in the lower corner of a science textbook page may mean that
the reader pays attention to the frog rather than to the information on the page.
In fact, as Wade (1992) pointed out, students in the United States often know the
seductive details about their former president, Abraham Lincoln. They tend to
know that he had a top hat and a beard but, despite the fact that texts address his
role in the emancipation of all slaves following the Civil War, this information is
not readily recalled. Magner et al. (2014) subsequently reported similar differences
depending on the phase of learner interest. Decorative illustrations triggered situ-
ational interest but did not maintain it, and, for students with less developed inter-
est, they derailed learning.33, 34
Consistent with findings from the studies of interest and other motivational
variables reported in Chapter 3, moreover, studies of interest in reading suggest
that interest has a mediating effect on reading comprehension, recall, and motiv-
ation. For example, Unsworth and McMillan (2013) found that high topic interest
was correlated with lower rates of mind-wandering and thus also improved read-
ing comprehension.
Writing
Although frequently considered together in academic settings, writing and read-
ing are different in their relations to interest. Writing involves generating both
content and written text, and the writer may have interest in one but not the
other. When reading, the content is provided and the reader may or may not have
an interest in reading and/or in the topic of the text.
Individuals who have an interest in writing are likely to be predisposed to want
to write and to receive feedback—to engage in conversation about their writing
and the ideas that are being expressed—that will allow them to develop their
texts.35 Learners with less developed interest may be able to make connections to
writing instruction if the topic is one in which they are interested; being inter-
ested in the topic, however, does not mean that a learner has already developed an
interest in writing.36 As a result, feedback to writers with less developed interest is
more likely to be valuable when it is brief, specific, and constructive.37
For learners with less developed interest in writing, the possibility of writing
about topics of interest to them does appear to make the work more manage-
able and meaningful. McCarthey et al. (2004) reported that the second-language
learners they studied were (with one exception) resistant to writing but success-
fully worked within a structured and not entirely supportive writing curriculum
by writing about topics that were of interest to them: their holidays, families,
and activities outside of school.38 For participants in online affinity groups who
collaborate together to write, edit, and/or design and share information about
their interests, writing is the means for communicating, and they do a lot of it; as
Curwood et al. (2013) have suggested, teachers who are not making use of this
type of digital opportunity to engage their students in writing should consider
this evidence.39
Nolen (2007a, 2007b) has detailed the positive ways in which the classroom
community can support the development of children’s writing, as well as some
of the unintended consequences of teachers’ behavior. As her research indicated,
whether interest was supported to develop in the classrooms studied depended
both on what the children brought to the classroom, and on the kind of support
that they found for developing their interest in writing.
Consider again the example (presented in Chapter 3) drawn from Hidi and
McLaren’s (1990) studies of middle-school students who were given the choice of
writing about space travel or life in the city.40 The students with a triggered inter-
est in space travel chose to write about this topic even though they had almost no
knowledge about space travel and lived in the city. This instance demonstrates that
students may not have enough content knowledge to write about a chosen topic
of triggered interest; this may affect how developed and/or effective the writing
can be. From the students’ perspectives, it may seem sufficient if they write about
what they are interested in. However, if a developed essay is the expectation, stu-
dents who write about a triggered interest without doing additional research to
acquire more knowledge are at a disadvantage. The choice may affect not only
their grades on an assignment but also their sense of identity as developing writ-
ers. Another finding from these studies pointed to the increased ease of writing
when a person has related knowledge.
Given that the interestingness of themes and topics is found to influence com-
prehension in reading, it had been initially hypothesized that interest would be a
positive influence on writing. It can be. That is, for interest to be a positive influ-
ence on writing, sufficient knowledge about the topic is necessary. Findings such
as those from the Hidi and McLaren’s (1990) study just described, together with
those that indicated that interest in writing was complex, have pointed to the role
of developed knowledge about writing as a positive influence on the production
of content associated with writing.41 Findings have also demonstrated the benefits
of instruction on interest in specific genres, including argumentation, narration,
and reporting, as these are related to meaningful classroom activity.42
Second-Language Learning
As with the studies described in the sections on reading and writing,
second-language learners have been found to draw on their own interests as
a way to make tasks meaningful. To date, there have been only a few research
studies of interest and second-language learning. Cabot (2012) provided insights
about the triggering and sustaining of interest in French language learning using
an interdisciplinary intervention. She drew on materials from a psychology of
sexuality course in order to trigger the interest of a group of native English

speakers, and studied their work to learn French as a second language in rela-
tion to their phase of interest in learning French. A control group of students
worked with traditional course materials. Those who received the intervention
were found to have higher levels of situational interest than the control group,
higher school engagement (more student–student interactions, use of reference
materials, and class participation), and higher achievement. She also reported
that relative levels of engagement and achievement of target group participants

reflected expected differences based on their phases of interest. In other words,
those with less developed interest were outperformed by those with more devel-
oped interest. However, compared to the control group, Cabot also found that
even those with less developed interest in the target group continued to pursue
and be successful in subsequent course work, suggesting that just the triggering
of situational interest in the target group predicted increased continued enroll-
ments and success in subsequent course work.
Technology can be a forum for triggering and supporting interest in second-
language learning. A number of studies have been undertaken in which web-based
or computer-based instruction has been used to support learners’ interest in learn-
ing English as a second language, for example in China43 and Saudi Arabia.44 These
studies reveal positive effects on both the development of interest and achieve-
ment.45 Some examples of this type of intervention include multi-sensory deliv-
ery of instruction that involves participants in simultaneously seeing, hearing, and
doing work with the second language,46 computer-assisted language learning that
uses software to support vocabulary building,47 blended learning in which in-class
learning is supplemented with a web-based teaching platform,48 and blog writ-
ing.49 In these studies, other research questions have also considered the role of
stories50 and dramatization51 as effective entry points for English language learning.
History
The role of triggering an interest in historical reasoning has been examined.
Logtenberg et al. (2011), for example, conducted a study to examine the basis
of students’ abilities to “problem find,” or question, in historical reasoning. Not
surprisingly, they found that those in the high-interest/knowledge group did the
most historical reasoning and made the most connections to the text, while those
in the low-interest/knowledge group did the least historical reasoning and made
the fewest connections to the text. They also found that although the middle
interest/knowledge group asked more content questions, there were no differ-
ences between the groups in terms of the topic or type of questions posed, sug-
gesting that all groups were in a position to ask questions if so supported. The
researchers pointed to the importance of supporting students to contextualize, or
make connections, to what they have read.
Other studies have assessed the effect of activity type as a support for student
interest in history. Examples include digital mapping of local history,52 integrated
curricula,53 and simulations to support students’ developing abilities to engage in
social perspective taking (e.g., represent one country and take another country’s
perspective during a treaty negotiation).54 In studying social perspective taking in
the GlobalEd simulation, for example, Gehlbach et al. (2008) found that increased
interest was related to greater ability in social perspective taking. However, in the
Gehlbach et al. study, they found that whereas the use of the simulation to trigger
interest for social studies increased interest, it did not extend to developing inter-
est for social studies more generally. It seems that additional scaffolding to sustain
the initial triggering of interest was needed.
Science
Understanding student interest has been a particular concern in the sciences (gen-
eral science, biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, and/or physics55)
for several reasons.56 Science education has taken on greater importance as devel-
opments in advanced technologies have become the standard in research and its
application. For example, if students are planning to pursue biomedical research
or medicine, it is not enough for them to simply complete prerequisite courses;
they need to be able to deeply understand the information so that they can apply
their knowledge in the workforce.57 This situation points to the importance of
supporting students to develop enough interest so that they retain what they have
learned for subsequent use. Those with less developed interest in physics have
been found to succeed in developing their interest and improve their perfor-
mance when the physics they are learning is embedded in life-science content
(e.g., optics of vision, cell-membrane potential).58
Another reason that student science interests are important to the sciences is that
attrition rates from the sciences are very high, even among students whose scores,
classroom performance, and original intention to pursue a science major suggest
that they should be successful.59 As school subjects, the sciences are demanding
at least in part because the hierarchical structure of their content means that
missed or misunderstood coursework needs to be mastered before students are
ready to learn new content.60, 61 Becher and Trowler (2001) have observed that
clarifying ways in which students can be supported to make connections to sci-
ence is essential, as is the need to support them to sustain these.62
Studies of interest and science have most often addressed which science
topics are of interest to students’ instructional practices as supports for interest,
and the relation of interest to other variables, in particular the development of
self-efficacy.63 Specific science topics (e.g., owl pellets and the food chain) have
also been studied as a potential source of interest in studies of reading64 and/or
writing.65
As described in Chapter 3, Bathgate et al. (2013) reported that an interest in

specific science topics (e.g., cells, plants) is highly correlated with an interest in
science more generally. As such, depending on the question to be addressed, it
might be appropriate to focus on specific topics and/or the more general category
of science when assessing interest.66 Information about topics that can be used
to trigger the interest of students, and ways in which information about topics
of interest might be used to provide the context of instruction, have particular
relevance for practice. Details about individual students’ development of interest

in science, on the other hand, can provide a nuanced understanding of how the
process of interest development unfolds.
Gender differences in science interest have been repeatedly identified,67
although it should also be noted that Randler and Bogner (2007) reported that
when a topic of study such as ecology is of interest to both males and females,
this negates the effect of gender on achievement. Renninger, Kensey et al. (2015)
also found that when females had more developed interest in science, there were
few gender differences in their sense of their possibilities to pursue science.
Whereas when females had less developed interest in science, gender differences
were more pronounced. With the exception of biology in which females are
overrepresented, males are more likely to continue to pursue coursework in the
sciences.68 Hagay and Baram-Tsabari (2011) have described a general disconnect
between students’ interests in biological topics and the topics addressed in their
biology curriculum. They suggested that schools use students’ interests and infor-
mation to retool the curriculum.69
Out-of-school opportunities to engage in science have been used to provide
support and access to science content.70 They have been found to support interest
development through projects, exploration of media, structured learning oppor-
tunities, and mentoring.71 Out-of-school science opportunities have also been
found to predict continued coursework in the sciences.72
A number of interventions have been undertaken with mixed results. These
include:
• Out-of school summer STEM programs and extracurricular activities that

provide particular benefits to underrepresented groups and have been found
to close the gender gap.73
• Increasing the relevance of content (e.g., by introducing scientists through
their struggles rather than just their achievements, or using life-science
examples in physics courses for nonmajors), which has proven to increase
achievement for students with less interest.74
• A laboratory intervention during the electromagnetism section of a trad-
itional introductory course that resulted in positive changes in topic inter-
est but had no effect on general physics interest or gender differences in
interest.75
• An after-school computer-science program for low-income Latino students

that supported the development of language proficiency and technological
fluency.76
• An after-school club designed to use gaming, specifically World of Warcraft, as
a basis for helping adolescent males develop an interest in effective school-
related behaviors. This failed; the males’ disinterest in game-related instruc-
tion led to what the researchers referred to as the “Let me know when she
stops talking problem”—in other words, the youth wanted to be able to play
the game, were not paying attention to the information that they were being
given, and were just waiting until the information stopped so that they could
play.77
In discussing students’ likely situational interest in technology in general, and its

potential use in classroom learning, Philip and Garcia (2013: 316) cautioned that:
The just-add-technology-and-stir fallacy is especially problematic …

When teachers and administrators explore the use of technologies in
the classroom, they must be doubly cautious that they are not assuming
that student interest is inherent to a gadget like a smartphone or that the
instrument will transform learning and schooling to more equitable ends,
particularly for students in urban schools. Relevance and transformation
emerge through the interaction of texts, tools, and talk. Supporting teachers
in these interactions to enable rich learning is a difficult task, layered at the
classroom, institutional, and societal levels.
Technology can trigger interest; however, as Philip and Garcia (2013) have sug-
gested, more support needs to be in place for triggered interest to enable learning.
Specifically, learners need time invested in the work (e.g., the work of the teacher
to scaffold instruction based on students’ strengths and needs, as well as the work
of the student on tasks and with text) and interactions that enable learners to seri-
ously engage with content.
Hoffmann and Häussler and their colleagues (e.g., Häussler and Hoffmann
2002) have suggested that it may be not the topic of interest, per se, but the con-
text (e.g., the curriculum, the instructional practice, the gender composition of the
classroom) that warrants our attention.78 In a series of studies, they have reported
that 80 percent of the variation between males’ and females’ interest in physics
was due to the context in which physics was introduced. For example, females
were more interested in learning about how pumps move blood through an arti-
ficial heart than they were in learning about how pumps extract gasoline from
great depths. Häussler and Hoffmann (2002) found that females were interested
in natural phenomena, mankind, social issues, and practical applications. They also
found that all of these topics were of interest to males as well, although not all of
the topics that were of interest to males were of interest to females. Additionally,
their findings indicated that the best predictor of interest in physics was the stu-
dents’ confidence in their own performance.
On the basis of these findings, Hoffman and her colleagues designed and
developed a comprehensive intervention to support seventh-grade students to
develop their confidence and increase their general interest in physics. They
developed curricular materials that were structured to support females’ interest

in physics by focusing on the context in which the physics concepts were taught,
provided teacher training sensitive to females’ needs, and explored promotion of
potential gains for females in different classroom configurations (e.g., partial and
whole classes of single-sex instruction and coeducational classrooms, half ver-
sus whole-class instruction). Hoffmann (2002) reported that the new curriculum
positively influenced the achievement of both males and females, and that stu-
dents (especially the females) in the part-time single-sex half classes experienced
the greatest gains. Their findings indicated that when supports for interest and
self-concept were provided, learning occurred and interest could be expected to
develop.
In the context of a ninth-grade chemistry classroom, Nieswandt (2007)
reported on the relation among situational interest, self-concept, and attitude in
the development of conceptual understanding. She found that initial situational
interest positively influenced self-concept and conceptual change. She also sug-
gested that initial interest had only short-term effects on conceptual change, and
that situational interest that goes beyond the initial triggering of interest was
needed in order to promote longer-term conceptual change. In related work
focused on engineering, Dohn (2013) pointed to the potential that sources of
situational interest, together with addressing students’ needs for self-efficacy, pro-
vide as supports for learning. Dohn described inventions as a source of situational
interest for middle-school students, and pointed to trial-and-error experimenta-
tion, the invention’s functionality (whether it worked), and collaboration as either
contributing to or possibly derailing students’ interest. He reported that although
students’ interest was triggered during the design phase, and some students were
able to self-regulate and sustain interest when their designs did not work, it was
essential to provide instruction and guidance for sustaining student interest for
students who were not yet ready to provide this for themselves.
Nieswandt’s findings that suggested a complex relation between con-
ceptual change and interest were subsequently supported and explained by
Linnenbrink-Garcia, Pugh et al.’s (2012) study of ninth and tenth graders’ under-
standing of natural selection. In their study, Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. studied changes
in students’ conceptual understanding of natural selection in relation to their inter-
est for biology, academic self-efficacy, and prior knowledge of evolution. Grouping
students based on their levels of interest, self-efficacy, and prior knowledge, they
found that patterns in the students groups’ conceptual understanding indicated that
for both males and females, interest and self-efficacy were reciprocally related.Those
with more developed interest also had more developed self-efficacy and experi-
enced more change in understanding than those with less developed interest.79
Mathematics
Interest has been studied as a variable that can support mathematics learning and
for addressing concerns that many students (especially females and underrepre-
sented minorities) do not pursue advanced mathematics coursework.80 Unlike in the
sciences, the topics of interest identified in mathematics are typically not directly
related to the content of mathematics. They focus on topics such as basketball
and music rather than fractals or nonroutine challenge problems. For example,
Walkington et al. (2013) reported that students with less ability improved their
performance on more difficult problems when the algebra problems they received
had their out-of-school interests inserted as problem contexts.81 However, they
also found that this type of personalization served to distract more able students
when they worked on easier problems. Findings from their work further sug-
gested that students thought that the more interesting contexts enabled improved
engagement and attention.
In a related, earlier study, Renninger et al. (2002) had found that level of inter-
est for mathematics was not necessarily correlated with standardized achieve-
ment scores.They also reported that the individualized insertion of topics of more
developed interest into mathematics word problems could increase student com-
prehension (even for learners with less developed interest). Because the prob-
lems also accounted for individual students’ level of ability in problem solving,
the researchers further determined that it is likely that even if students with less
developed interest in mathematics do not get the problems correct, when the
problem addresses their interests they are led to thinking about mathematics. The
Renninger et al. findings suggested that although interesting problem contexts
may feel distracting to the student as Walkington et al. (2013) indicated, they actu-
ally challenged the more able students to focus on the meaning of the problem
(the relation between the content and the problem context), rather than simply
applying an algorithm.
Interest as the context for problems has also been used in intelligent tutoring
systems such as those that allow middle-school students to personalize aspects of
instruction to their own interests (e.g., Carnegie Learning Systems’ Grade 6–8
MATHia software).82 In fact, Walkington and Bernaki (2014) observed that use
of individual interests as problem contexts may be most effective for individual-
ized scaffolding in tutoring situations, whereas more generic age-related or shared
interests are more effective for online tutoring systems and in classrooms where
individualizing problems could be a challenge for the teacher.
Research has also examined influences on the relation between interest and
other motivational variables (e.g., self-efficacy) in mathematics learning. Upadyaya
and Eccles (2014), for example, reported that teachers’ beliefs about children’s effort
and potential performance positively predicted children’s interest in mathematics

in primary school. They suggested that the teachers’ beliefs influence the feedback
that children receive and the way in which teachers work with them.These findings
complement those describing moderate to strong correlations between early math
skills and interest, and that this early interest was sustained over time.83 Harackiewicz
et al. (2012) also demonstrated that perceptions of mathematics could be influenced
by the type of information and interactions that students received.84 They found that
when parents of students in grades 8, 9, and 10 were provided with (a) an understand-
ing that mathematics and science courses were useful in everyday life and for career
opportunities, as well as (b) suggestions about how to talk about these topics with
their children, this had a beneficial impact on the students’ interest and performance.
The intervention increased the parents’ perceptions of the usefulness of mathematics
and science, promoted more discussions between parents and their children about
the importance of mathematics and science, and resulted in the children enrolling in
significantly more (and advanced) mathematics and science courses.
Information that is provided to students based on the structure of assign-
ments has also been found to vary in its effect on student interest in mathemat-
ics depending on the students’ level of interest. Schukajlow and Krug (2014)
reported that prompting students to construct multiple solutions (as opposed to
single solutions) for real-world problems increased their interest. In contrast to
the research-ers’ expectations, however, only a tendency for competence to influ-
ence interest was identified, and there was no influence of autonomy on interest.
They speculated that this could be because of the different levels of experience
and achievement in the participant group; students’ achievement levels may influ-
ence the amount of autonomy they want or are ready for. The researchers’ find-
ings could be interpreted as pointing to the kind of reciprocal relation for both
competence and autonomy that characterizes the relation between interest and
both self-efficacy and self-regulation. In other words, asked to construct multiple
solutions, students with more developed interest were likely to have more com-
petence and ability to work autonomously, whereas students with less developed
interest were likely to have less competence and readiness for autonomy. These
results point to the association of competence and autonomy development with
interest development, as suggested by Hidi and Renninger (2006).
A number of studies have more specifically explored interest in mathematics
in relation to other motivational variables. Durik and Harackiewicz (2007), for
example, determined that participants with differing levels of interest for mathemat-
ics responded to triggers for interest differently. Those with less developed interest
responded to more superficial “interest-enhancing” triggers involving color, whereas
those with more developed interest were more likely to respond to challenge.
Seemingly consistent with these findings,Tulis and Fulmer’s (2013) study of changes
in affect during work with a challenging mathematics problem revealed that students
who persisted with the tasks even through failure exhibited no decreases in interest,
whereas those who did not persist reported lower levels of interest in the task.
In a short-term study of changes in students’ interest and self-efficacy while

working on a complex computer task, Niemivirta and Tapola (2007) found that
interest and self-efficacy profiles varied, levels of interest and self-efficacy were
associated, and changes in each were related to changes in the other (a reciprocal
relation). They found that (a) prior mathematics achievement predicted initial
levels of interest and task-related self-efficacy, but had no effect on change in
these variables during the task; (b) final task performance was predicted jointly
by initial self-efficacy and degree of change in interest; and (c) positive change in
interest had an independent effect on performance.
Music
Research on music and interest has addressed problems of school instruction (e.g.,
music at home being associated with enjoyment and music at school being asso-
ciated with information)85 and conditions that can promote positive perceptions
of opportunities to listen to and make music.86 In their study of Australian six- to
seventeen-year-olds’ perceptions of participating in music, Barrett and Smigiel
(2007) identified five characteristics that were found to sustain participation
in music:
1. love of performance;
2. shared purpose;
3. a desire for challenge and professionalism;
4. quality in the relationships developed;
5. opportunities for growth.
Sosniak (1990) further elaborated on the conditions that characterize and may
influence the development of an interest in music in his study of the development
of musical talent.87 He described the process of developing an interest in music as
including shifts from more external to more internal forms of support over time.88
He noted that such shifts unfolded through three “periods” and that the process
was idiosyncratic in that it varied in its rate and details. In the first period, early
opportunities to explore music without the need to be particularly systematic or
skilled were typical. Often the initial triggering of interest in music was a natural
part of living with a family member who valued and had an interest in music.
Sosniak described those with early talent as listening to music and learning to
identify composers and pieces as early as they could remember. He reported that
they recalled their first teachers as enthusiastic, warm, and aware of their early and
undeveloped interests in and involvement with music.
In what Sosniak (1990) labeled a second period, musicians’ relationships to
their teachers could be described as shifting from love to respect. Their instruc-
tion at this time was characterized by the need to build skills and attend to detail.
In the third period, moreover, their relationship with their teacher could become
strained because their teachers often did not know what to do when their pupils’
interest wavered. In this period, music students were expected to: begin to iden-
tify as musicians, to consider music a field of expertise, and to make adjustments to
fit music into their lives. Sloboda (1990), who has also described the development
of interest in music, detailed a very similar trajectory. He added, however, that if
students felt uncomfortable or threatened, they were unlikely to be capable of
experiencing and developing interest.

In their study of 625 eighteen-year-old black South African male and female
students, Marjoribanks and Mboya (2004) corroborated and extended Sosniak’s
(1990) and Sloboda’s (1990) findings, indicating the critical role that caring and
supportive teachers play in the development of an interest in music. They have
also added more explicit information about the role of the learners’ goals and
needs for support from the learning environment to this finding; they found that
when differences of family background and goals were controlled, students’ per-
ceptions of the school learning environment (e.g., the care and support provided
by teachers) predicted their interest in music.89
Other research relating to music interest has reported that adults tend to pre-
fer receiving instruction in piano, voice, and guitar; performing as members of
choral organizations; and taking coursework in music history or aural analysis.90
Such information is not available about children’s preferences. Redundancies
in rhythmic sequences have also been studied as influences on interest in
composition.91
Art
The research literature has included relatively few studies of the development of
interest as it relates to art (in contrast to studies of appraisal). Descriptions of art
education echo Sosniak’s (1990) descriptions of music education, with a period
of initial exploration followed by expectations for attention to detail (Gardner
1990; Read 1958), and declines in interest in art as children move into middle
school have been documented.Two approaches to art with implications for inter-
est development have been described: manga (a highly artistic form of Japanese
comics) and the maker movement. Toku (2001) has explained that Japanese chil-
dren typically deviate from what might be the expected declines in an interest in
art because of manga; they continue to develop their visual narrative skills as they
produce manga. As evidence of their interest, Toku pointed to the numbers of
Japanese youth involved in the creation of manga, comic books that are developed
graphic narratives, and their related involvement in amateur publishing ventures
to distribute them.92 Toku cited their complex representations of the inner and
outer self and the role of manga in Japanese culture (they may date to the twelfth
century) as two likely explanations of why Japanese youth, in contrast to youth in

other countries, are positioned to continue developing their interest in art.
Halverson and Sheridan (2014: 496) described the maker movement broadly
as including anyone who “is engaged in the creative production of projects such
as making books, or wearable electronics, or squishy circuits in their daily lives
and who find physical and digital forums to share their processes and products
with others.” (See the case of children at the museum project table in Chapter 3.)
The researchers distinguished between the process of making as activity, maker-

spaces as locations (e.g., museums, libraries, schools) and communities in which
making takes place, and makers, those who identify as engaged in making. The
New York Hall of Science (NYSCI) (2013) symposium, Making Meaning (M2),
for example, provides case studies of young makers indicating that they come
from a wide range of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. All of the
youth had a developed interest in what they were making. Their interviewers
noted that even among children who had been retained in elementary school,
their abilities to collaborate, use effective strategies, and respond to feedback in
the context of the making space were superior. The descriptions also pointed to
ways in which the opportunity to participate in maker activity was seeding the
development of an interest in one or more of the sciences.
Physical Education
Chen et al. (2014) described the goal of physical education to develop “physic
ally literate individuals” who are positioned to have an active lifestyle. Research
on physical education and interest has addressed the topics in which participants
are interested, as well as the role of situational interest in triggering and then
supporting the development of interest in some aspect of physical education.
Kahan (2013), for example, reported on a study of the interests of 701 urban
seventh-grade students that suggested differences based on gender and ethnicity.
He found that males were more interested in football than were females; females
were more interested in volleyball, yoga, and jump rope. Hispanic students were
more interested in soccer than were Asian students; and Hispanic, Black, and Asian
students were also interested in ethnocentric games and dance activities.
Savage and Scott (1997), on the other hand, studied a total of 722 rural stu-
dents and found that both males and females reported preferences for active team
sports such as volleyball, football, softball, as well as individual activities such as
weight training, biking, and swimming. Christiana et al. (2014) provided further
detail about the interests of rural youth who have low levels of fitness and less
developed interest in physical activity. These youth were more interested in non-
competitive activities and selected activities based on the availability of equip-
ment, previous participation in an activity, parental and peer influences, time spent
out of doors, and enjoyment.
Zhu and his colleagues (e.g. Zhu et al. 2009) have worked to clarify how
students can be supported to seriously engage with their interest in physical
activity. They have verified five sources of situational interest in elementary and
middle-school physical education:
1. novelty;
2. challenge;
3. attention demand;
4. exploration;
5. instant enjoyment.93
The studies suggest that situational interest can be short-lived,94 may have a posi-
tive effect on physical activity,95 and may be dependent on the expectations of the
student and the type of tasks with which they are engaged.96
One way in which Zhu and his colleagues (e.g., Zhu et al. 2009) have explored
supporting sustained student interest in physical education involved using a work-
book as part of instructional practice. The idea was that the workbook would
provide students with the expectation that they were learning during instruction
in physical education: “Using the workbooks as a curricular intervention cre-
ated a learning environment in which students expected learning to take place
with physical movement. This integrated learning experience contributed to
their overall fitness knowledge” (Zhu et al. 2009: 227). Furthermore, Zhu et al.
(2009) reported that skipped workbook tasks contributed to decreases in students’
knowledge gains. In discussing the ICAN intervention in Chapter 3, we described
similar findings in the use of written reflection in an out-of-school science work-
shop. We have suggested that this kind of written reflection may be essential for
participants to consolidate their learning. It may be that using the workbooks in
the physical education context enabled students to understand that what they
were learning was significant content that they should remember; it may also be
that the process of writing provided an opportunity for students to reflect on this
information and to consolidate their understanding.
Summary
The research reviewed reveals that although individuals may differ in their
interests across domains, interest functions in the same way regardless of the
domain. Interest can be developed in or out of school and in various settings.
Interest-driven learning occurs when a person continues to reengage. Interest
has a uniformly beneficial effect on motivation, engagement, and learning.
However, interest needs support from other people or available tasks, activities,
or opportunities in order to be triggered and continue to develop, even though
individuals may or may not be aware that they are receiving support, such as
living in a home with a musician, or having received problem contexts that are
matched to their level of difficulty and interest. Triggers that are simply situ-
ational, such as personalizations, might not enable a person to seriously engage
with the content of a discipline.
Declines in Interest
Students’ declining interest in school subjects as they move into secondary school
has been repeatedly noted,97 particularly in mathematics and science.98 Similar
declines have also been reported in out-of-school contexts such as piano instruc-
tion.99 As Hidi (2000), Krapp and Prenzel (2011), and Potvin and Hasni (2014)
have noted, there are many reasons that declines in interest could be expected.
Explanations have included:
• The increasing complexity and hierarchical nature of the content to be

learned (e.g., disciplines may become more difficult, and are particularly dif-
ficult if students are missing one or another core concept).100
• Changes in instructional practice associated with advanced work (e.g.,
project-based work is replaced by demonstrations and lectures).
• Increases in pressure to be successful and to have strong records.101
• The onset of adolescence and accompanying physical and social changes,
including awareness of other people’s opinions.
• The need of older students to recognize the connections between course
work and their possible career pathways.
On teacher recommendations and school profiles, Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993)

explained that they identified 208 outstanding students to track as “talented”
youth. They observed that a large number of them abandoned pursuit of their
talent during high school; they considered this as wasted talent. They noted that
it was possible that the youth went on to use their talents in other pursuits, but
did not have an explanation for this effect.102 Based on their data, they pointed
to a number of factors that allowed the talent of the students they studied to be
realized, factors that echo the data presented in our overview of interest research.
Csikszentmihalyi et al. reported the following as necessary for talented individuals
to realize their talent:
• recognition of talent;
• ability to concentrate and be open to new experiences and habits, or
self-regulation to think ahead, persist, and experience the rewards;
• support and challenge from families and teachers;
• resulting optimal experiences, or flow.
They implied that without the presence of most of these factors, it was likely that
talent would be wasted.103
(a) Grade 6 School Subject Interest
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
Males
40
Females
30
20
10
0
Art English Math Music Physical Science Social
Education Studies
School Subject
(b) Grade 9 School Subject Interest

100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
Males
40
Females
30
20
10
0
Education Studies
School Subject
(c) Grade 12 School Subject Interest

100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
Males
40
Females
30
20
10
0
Education Studies
School Subject
FIGURE 5.1 Percentage of Students Responding with Identified Interest for Each
Subject, Cohort by Gender. Bars Depict Second Year Interest for Each Cohort.
Source: Renninger, Kensey, et al. (2015: 99).
Csikszentmihalyi et al.’s (1993) findings point to the importance of interac-

tions with others and the environment more generally (e.g., the nature of the
tasks, resources for learning), interactions that interest researchers have described
as supports for triggering and sustaining interest.104 Consider the data presented
in Figure 5.1. They describe declines in the interests of students in grades 6, 9, and
12 from one working-class school district, as reported in Renninger, Kensey, et al.
(2015). They showed the expected declines in interest in each of the different
subjects from grade 6 through 12; however, they also indicated that within grade
level, these declines vary by subject matter.This finding suggested that the students
responded to their different classes on a subject-by-subject basis and that interest
in some subjects increased; in other words, the students’ interactions with each of
the different subject matters varied and there were increases as well as decreases
in their interest for the different subjects. The researchers’ analysis of these data
pointed to student perceptions of their classroom experiences (including instruc-
tional practices) as influencing their level of interest for their different subjects.
Kunter et al. (2007) also described students’ perceptions of their classrooms as
accounting for whether students’ interest increases or decreases. They suggested
that students’ responses to classrooms were related to their experiences—for
example, whether they felt they understood what was expected of them or had a
teacher who was responsive.105 Renninger, Kensey, et al. (2015) reported similar
findings in the case analyses that accompanied the presentation of Figure 5.1.
They also noted that students with different levels of interest—even when
matched on achievement—would describe the same flaws in instructional prac-
tices (e.g., a dry lecture), but they responded to them differently. The student
with more developed interest focused on all of the information that was being
addressed, whereas the student with less developed interest was not willing to
even try to pay attention.
Concluding Thoughts
Given that interest requires some form of support, it may be that declines in
interest are to be anticipated and are not paradoxical.The development of interest
involves work on the part of the individual as well as others, such as the edu-
cator, parent, or employer. That is, a person needs support to want to work, to
understand content, and to find working with content rewarding.This can involve
interactions in which they think together with others about the content and/or
the design and provision of tasks, activities, and opportunities.
Notes
1 Renninger (2009) has linked Harter’s (2006) detailing of age-related shifts in the devel-
opment of children’s perceptions of others to the development of their identification
with and phase of interest for particular content.
2 Interest-driven learning describes learning that is driven by interest that has already
developed; it is most often referenced in online environments in which learners make a
decision to continue to engage (see Barron et al. 2014; Gee 2004; Illeris 2007, Ito et al.
2010; Lammers et al. 2012).
In their Interest-Driven Design Framework, Edelson and Joseph (2004) conceptualized
interest as a value, or belief, and the importance of utility in designing to support inter-
est to develop, by which they meant supporting triggered and developed interest to
continue to be sustained. This point is one Bergin (1999) made as well.
3 In discussing the educational role of the internet, Ben Greenman (September 16, 2010;
www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19lives-t.html) concluded that in supplying
answers to questions with ruthless efficiency, the Internet interrupted the “productive
frustration” that results when questions ripen into genuine interest via deferral.Whereas
Greenman did not explicitly discuss the distinction between curiosity and interest, he
implicitly acknowledged the developmental aspect and importance of interest.
4 Steve’s comments provide an example of how expectancies play an important role once
a person has a developed interest, as described by expectancy-value theory in terms of
utility, importance, task interest (liking) and its cost in relation to its benefit (see Eccles
et al. 1983; Wigfield and Eccles 2002).
5 Renninger and Tibbetts 2010.
6 Interest in disciplinary content should not be confused with an interest in the grades
associated with learning (or performing) the content, or with the potential of the
content in question to garner entry to graduate study, a better job, and so forth. Such
associated attainments may accompany the development of interest, but interest itself is
content-specific.
7 It should be noted that support could also come from the way in which the laboratory
experience was structured. Students with less developed interest in the discipline may
need a more structured experience such as described in Chapter 4. In Chapter 6, we
further discuss the importance of content for interest development.
8 Bergin 1999; see Renninger and Lipstein 2006, for description of data specific to this;
see also Azevedo 2011, 2013a, 2013b.
9 Renninger 2009. See also discussions of the development of identification provided by
Krapp (2005, 2007).
10 See Barron 2014; Gee 2004; Illeris 2007; Ito et al. 2010; Lammers et al. 2012; Renninger
and Bishop in press.
11 Curwood et al. (2013) describe the fan-inspired writing and role-playing as transforming
or extending elements of the movie (e.g., its characterization, themes, plot, and so forth).
12 See discussion in Bevan and Michalchik 2012.
13 Although they do not specify differences among students/participants based on interest
as a consideration in describing how minimal guidance and/or inquiry is facilitated,
both Kirschner et al. (2006) and Furtak et al. (2012) have provided analyses supporting
the benefits of providing curricular structure based on student need; we would argue
that interest research provides an explanation of why there are differences in students’
needs. We note that Maltese and Harsh (2015), Renninger et al. (2014), and Renninger
and Riley (2013) have specifically pointed to interest as a basis for this kind of curricular
adjustment.
14 See Dohn 2011, 2013; Palmer 2004, 2009; Pressick-Kilborn 2015; Renninger 2010;
Zahorick 1996.
15 See Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000; see also Illeris’ (2007) discussion of the role and
potential of resistance in learning.
16 Pugh and his colleagues (e.g., Pugh et al. 2010; Pugh et al. 2015) detail this type of
transformational education and conceptual change in a series of papers. They attribute
this kind of triggering to educator activity, although, as Renninger, Kensey et al. (2015)
pointed out, it also can be provided either by the design of an exhibit, text, or task and/or
the self-generated triggering of interest based on a person’s continued reflection on earlier

trigger(s).
17 This overview does not duplicate but is intended to extend earlier reviews provided by
Hidi and Renninger 2006; Hidi et al. 2015; Renninger and Hidi 2011; Renninger and
Pozos-Brewer 2015; and Renninger and Su 2012.
18 We include findings from studies in which prior knowledge is studied together with
value, or in which interest has been assessed as value.
19 For example, Bell and Sweet 1916. See more recent considerations in Fink 2015;
Flippo 2014.
20 Baram-Tsabari 2015; Bathgate et al. 2013; Gutherie et al. 2006; Larson 2014a, 2014b.
21 Renninger et al. 2002; Schiefele 1999; Schiefele and Krapp 1996.
22 Tulis and Fulmer (2013) reported that perceived difficulty and reading fluency were
predictors of declines in motivation to read and were particularly pronounced when
participants began to read a text that they expected to be of interest based on its topic
but found that it was difficult.
23 See discussions in Renninger 1992; Renninger et al. 2002; Larson 2014a, 2014b; Paige 2011.
24 For example, Jenkins 2009; see also New London Group 1996; Reid 2011.
25 For example, Hidi and Baird 1986, 1988.
26 For example, Mayer et al. 2008.
27 For example, Magner et al. 2014.
28 See reviews by Hidi 2001; Hidi and Berndorff 1998; and discussion in Magner
et al.2014.
29 For example, Dixon and Bortolussi 2013.
30 See reviews in Hidi 1995; Hidi and Berndorff 1998; Hidi 2001.
31 Garner et al. 1989; Garner et al. 1992; Wade 1992.
32 Magner et al. 2014.
33 Magner et al. (2014) studied interest as a value; however, they also included a measure
of knowledge in their study. For purposes of the present discussion, we consider the
students on whom they are reporting to have less developed interest if they have low
interest and low prior knowledge, and those with high interest and more prior knowl-
edge as having more developed interest.
34 Magner et al. (2014) continue to explain that by including an assessment of knowledge,
they may be in a position to explain the mixed findings of seductive details described
by Rey (2011). They write: “The appearance of the seductive details effect seems to be
moderated by the level of the learners’ prior knowledge. If students have a high prior
knowledge level seductive details might not increase their working memory load to a
critical level that hinders learning processes” (Magner et al. 2014: 149).
35 See Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger and Lipstein 2006.
36 Boscolo et al. 2007.
37 See Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Renninger and Lipstein 2006.
38 See also Lenhart et al. 2008; Lipstein and Renninger 2007b; Magnifico 2012.
39 See Black 2008; Chandler-Olcott and Mahar 2003; Curwood et al. 2013; Lammers
2013; Thomas 2007.
40 See also Hidi and McLaren 1991.
41 Albin et al. 1996; Benton et al. 1995; Lipstein and Renninger 2007b.
42 Boscolo and Cisotto 1997.
43 Shao 2012; Zhang and Han 2012.
44 Aljumah 2012.
45 It should be noted that Zhang and Han (2012) employed a control group to demon-
strate this effect; other studies have more typically focused only on participants’ retro-
spective accounts.
46 Azmi 2013.
47 Shao 2012.
48 Zhang and Han 2012.

49 Aljumah 2012.
50 Mart 2012.
51 Rothwell 2011.
52 Mitchell and Elwood 2012; the interested reader is also pointed to Kayali’s (2009) finding
that students are positioned to learn about their own regions as a basis for instruction
in geography.
53 See Lee 2007.
54 Gehlbach et al. 2008.

55 A more developed review of interest in each of the science domains is provided in
Renninger and Talian (in press). For present purposes, the sciences are considered
together, with acknowledgment that each differs from the other in addition to having
overlap.
56 See Renninger, Nieswandt et al. 2015.
57 For example, Crouch and Heller 2014; Meredith and Redish 2013.
58 Crouch et al. 2013.
59 See Maltese and Tai 2010; Ohland et al. 2011.
60 Hannover and Kessels 2004; Kessels et al. 2006.
61 Bøe and Henriksen (2013) suggested that physics as a field takes pride in being
interest-driven and also in being perceived as difficult and demanding. They observed
that this circumstance has served to perpetuate a curricular structure and culture that
could be retooled to enable access.
62 See related discussions in Hidi et al. 2015; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015.
63 For example, Bong et al. 2015; Hoffmann 2002; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Pugh et al. 2012;
Nieswandt 2007; see also review by Beier and Rittmayer 2008.
64 For example, Gutherie et al. 2006.
65 Larson 2014a.
66 See Bathgate et al. 2013.
67 For example, Baram-Tsabari 2015; Eccles et al. 1998; Glynn et al. 2015; Hoffmann
2002; Holstermann et al. 2012; Katz et al. 2006; Papastergiou 2008.
68 Hagay and Baram-Tsabari 2011.
69 See also Baram-Tsabari 2015.
70 See Dierking and Falk 2003; Geyer, et al. 2013; Marsh and Kleitman 2002; Schwan
et al. 2014.
71 See Barron 2006; Barron et al. 2014; Ito et al. 2010; Lewalter et al. 2014.
72 Sahin 2013.
73 See Dierking and Falk 2003; Marsh and Kleitman 2002; Naizer et al. 2014.
74 Crouch et al. 2013; Hong and Lin-Siegler 2012; see also Reber et al. 2009.
75 Barrett et al. 2012.
76 Zimmerman et al. 2011.
77 Steinkuehler et al. 2011.
78 Hoffmann 2002.
79 It should be noted that interest in this research was studied using the Linnenbrink-Garcia
et al. (2010) assessment of feelings and value.The clusters reported couple prior knowl-
edge with this assessment of interest, suggesting that interpreting these findings as
reflecting the reciprocity of interest and self-efficacy is appropriate.
80 An overview is also provided in Renninger, Nieswandt et al. 2015.
81 See also Cordova and Lepper 1996.
82 See www.carnegielearning.com (accessed August 20, 2015).
83 Fisher et al. 2012.
84 See also discussion in Harackiewicz et al. 2014.
85 Boal-Palheiros and Hargreaves 2001; Lamont et al. 2003.
86 Lamont et al. 2003.
87 See also Sloboda 1990, 2004; Sloboda and Davidson 1995; Sosniak 1985.
88 See also Bowles 1991; Marjoribanks and Mboya 2004; Sloboda 1990.
89 In this study, family background was defined in terms of both family social status and
parents’ aspirations.
90 Bowles 1991.
91 McMullen and Arnold 1976.
92 Manga address themes that may, for example, be political, religious, historical, or cul-
tural. In contrast to the two-dimensional characteristics of the visual story in the
comic books of other countries, manga includes elements that each have a set of rules
concerning descriptions of an inside of the head and an outside of the head story.
93 Sun et al. 2008.
94 Chen et al. 2014.
95 Chen et al. 2001; Chen et al. 2006.
96 Zhu et al. 2009.
97 See discussions in Frenzel et al. 2012; Hidi 2000; Wigfield and Eccles 2002;
Zimmerman and Kitsantas 1999.
98 See Bong et al. 2015; Frenzel et al. 2012.
99 Sloboda 1990, 1996, 2004; Sloboda and Davidson 1995.
100 See, for example, discussions in Hidi 2000; Frenzel et al. 2012; Wigfield and Eccles
2002; Zimmerman and Kitsantas 1999.
101 See Bouffard et al. 1998; Jacobs et al. 2002; Wigfield and Cambria 2010.
102 Barron et al. (2014) reported similar drift, or attrition, in the Digital Network
Project, but it was limited and not on the same scale as that reported by Csikszentmihalyi
et al. 1993.
103 See also Lamont et al. 2003.
104 Renninger and Hidi 2011.
105 See related discussions in Frenzel et al. 2010; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015; Tsai
et al. 2008.
6
DEVELOPING INTEREST
What can we now say about interest, its

generation, and development?
What are the implications of knowing that interest

can be developed?
What could further research help us to

understand?
In this book we have explained that interest develops and that it needs sup-
port to develop. The research literature now allows us to provide the coherent
explanation that earlier researchers like Allport (1946) and Berlyne (1949) were
seeking, but one that was not yet within their reach. We focus on the dynamic
and malleable aspects of interest and its potential to change in relation to a
person’s interactions with environment. Interest is grounded physiologically/
neurologically and has both affective and cognitive components. Research
demonstrates that experiencing interest activates the reward circuitry and is
therefore rewarding.
In describing Steve’s willingness to work to unstick the blade in his kitchen
blender (see Chapter 5), we explained that he saw an opportunity to continue to
develop his understanding of how things work. This means that Steve needed no
rewards other than acquiring new knowledge to work on unsticking the blade.
We note, too, that Steve also had an interest in this type of problem-solving.
When interest is triggered and sustained, people continue to seek information to
develop their understanding.This helps explain the power of interest, not only for
motivating engagement, but also for directing and sustaining attention, improving
memory, and facilitating learning. Interest invigorates and is beneficial. It makes
persistence feel effortless and increases the possibility of achievement and creative
contributions. We have discussed how interest differs from other motivational
variables. Our discussion confirms that the following three premises are essential
to understanding the power of interest:
Developing Interest 125
1. Interest is a psychological state, and it is also a motivational predisposition to

reengage with particular content that can develop.
2. Making connections to content is essential for such development.
3. The search for content, which is the basis of interest development, is
rewarding.
The first premise is that interest is not a trait, a belief (although learners may
have beliefs about their interests), or an emotion that results from cognitive
appraisal. Interest is a motivational variable that can develop and is associated with
a physiologically/neurologically grounded psychological state.1 Interest has both
emotional and cognitive components and is the outcome of interactions between
a person and their environment. Affect is of particular importance in the trigger-
ing process, especially in the earlier phases of interest development. We note also
that either negative or positive affect can trigger interest in these earlier phases. In
later phases of interest development, affect is primarily positive and supports the
corresponding development of knowledge and value.
It is critical to recognize that interest is not static but malleable, that it can
be less or more developed, and that its development may need external support.
Focusing on development allows us to also attend to and support the develop-
ment of interest for those individuals who may presently have little interest. This
approach differs from other approaches to research on interest that do not focus
on its developmental aspects.2
The second premise is that connections between the individual and content
are essential for interest to develop. Content supplies information that provides the
basis for further information-seeking/searching to take place. Such connections
are basic to interest development and, provided that they are sustained and devel-
oped, they lead to knowledge acquisition and the development of value. They
have a strong impact on conceptual understanding, and result in increased learn-
ing.3, 4 Azevedo (2015), in his studies of interest-driven participation across formal
and informal scientific settings, concluded that it is through sustained participa-
tion that a person finds “hooks” that enable them to continue to self-trigger
and sustain their involvement. Such hooks for subsequent engagement can only
develop when a person makes connections to content.
Risconscente (2014) demonstrated that focusing instructional practice on the
development of content knowledge yields beneficial outcomes for students’ inter-
est, self-efficacy, and achievement. Based on extensive research, Durik et al. (2015)
also concluded that learners have to focus on task content in order to develop
interest. Perhaps no study in the field of interest research has shown the power of
content-related interest more than Fink’s (1998) investigation of prominent dys-
lexic professionals and Nobel Laureates. She reported that despite their perceptual
disabilities, the well-developed interests of these individuals enabled them to per-
sist in accurately comprehending difficult text, and to eventually achieve outstand-
ing academic and professional success.
126 Developing Interest
Finally, the third premise links searching for interesting information to the
activation of the reward circuitry. It allows us to conclude that searching for con-
tent is intrinsically rewarding, a conclusion that does not undermine the role that
interventions can play in supporting interest development, especially in its ear-
lier phases. The link between interest and reward circuitry helps us explain why
interest has a strong association with attention and memory, as neuroscientific
researchers have demonstrated that rewards positively influence attention and
memory processes. Investigations also have linked novelty to the activation of the
reward circuitry, providing an explanation of why novelty is such an important
aspect of triggering interest.5
Underlying the information that we have presented about the importance
and beneficial effects of interest is the critical question of how to trigger and
support interest to develop. Although interest development varies across domains
and is idiosyncratic across individuals (see Chapter 5), there are at least six
emerging issues and themes to which interest research points. We review each
of these and provide some examples for purposes of illustration. Many of these
examples are drawn from the classroom, as this is where much of the research
has been conducted. However, as it should now be clear, these findings are
likely to have implications that extend to other settings, because the presence
of interest enhances the learning of all persons similarly, regardless of learning
environment.
Emerging Issues and Themes

The Importance of Triggering and Maintaining Situational Interest
Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) argued that one of the most critical issues in
education concerns how interest can be generated to motivate academically
unmotivated students. They urged educators and researchers to recognize the
potential benefits of externally triggered situational interest.6 This position is
in contrast to the argument that “interest is not a quality waiting around to be
excited from the outside.”7 Situational interest is not only relevant to academic
interest development but also for interest development related to a wide range
of other activities.
One of the first researchers who recognized the importance of situational
interest was Mitchell (1993), who investigated how situational interest could be
supported in classrooms. He reported that group work, computers, and puzzles
triggered adolescents’ situational interest in mathematics, whereas meaningful-
ness (personal relevance of the content) and involvement (the extent to which
students were actively participating in the activity) tended to maintain situational
interest. Another researcher who has acknowledged the importance of situational
interest is Palmer (2004, 2009). He emphasized that multiple experiences of situ-
ational interest can develop into long-term interest. In his earlier study,8 he found
evidence that repeated experiences of situational interest in a college-level, sci-

ence teaching methods class (e.g., hands-on activities, novelty, surprise, and group
work) had positive effects on students’ enjoyment of and motivation in science.9
Subsequently, Palmer (2009) examined the sources of situational interest in
ninth-grade biology classrooms and reported that the main source of interest
was novelty, although choice, physical activity, and social involvement were also
implicated in the generation of interest. Similarly, Chen and colleagues’ studies
(e.g., Chen et al. 2001) of the cognitive demands in physical-education classes

demonstrated that increased situational interest was related to learners’ experi-
ences of novelty, challenge, high attention demands, and exploration.10 A web
quest application in mathematics11 and a web-based simulation in social studies12
provide further confirmation of the central role of novelty in triggering and
maintaining interest over time.
Flowerday and colleagues (e.g., Flowerday et al. 2004) have also documented
the educational benefits of situational interest. In one study, their findings showed
that situational interest fostered deeper learning, as indicated by better memory
for main ideas as well as a more global understanding.13 Based on a subsequent
investigation, the researchers concluded that readers’ situational interest—rather
than topic interest or choice—promoted their engagement.14 Furthermore,
Baram-Tsabari (2015), whose studies demonstrate that information-seeking is
an outcome of the triggering of situational interest, has explained that when
students generate questions to which they expect answers, they are engaged and
their interests develop.15
Educational interventions have begun to demonstrate how individual inter-
est can be used to promote engagement and learning.16 They also underscore
that it is interest in the content that needs to be triggered and sustained, not
just superficial connections to the content of one or another task or problem.
For the plethora of academically unmotivated students, having support for
triggering and maintaining situational interest may prove an effective solu-
tion.17 However, the use of triggers should not simply elicit curiosity that is
resolved by the closing of a knowledge gap, but instead should be related to
content that yields ongoing inquiry and information search. Such triggers for
interest (and complementary supports to increase self-efficacy) would enable
learners to make the critical connections to content that are needed for inter-
est to develop. For example, if a person is trying to support an unmotivated
learner to start making connections to reading, and the trigger selected is a
detective story, the student with less developed interest is likely to stop reading
the moment that the killer’s identity is revealed. In other words, the reader’s
knowledge gap is closed. If, instead, the trigger for reading involves a com-
prehensible (for that reader) and complex storyline with multiple characters,
such as in the Harry Potter series, its age identification, intricate themes, and
multiple complications of the plot are likely to lead to continued reading of
the related text.
The Relevance of Early Childhood Experiences and Parental Support

Several chapters in Renninger et al.’s (2015b) edited volume Interest in
Mathematics and Science Learning pointed to the importance of early childhood
experiences for triggering and maintaining interest in the STEM disciplines.18
Even though researchers who contributed to the volume were looking at
mathematics and science education in particular, their findings have relevance
for understanding supports for the development of interest in other domains.

These investigators concluded that when young children’s experiences include
opportunities to engage and reengage with potential contents of interest and
when there is support in the family (or the community) for taking up such
opportunities, interest is likely to develop.19 Alexander et al. (e.g., 2015) noted
that as early as elementary school, children begin to self-regulate their interest in
science in the course of their play.20 The shift from adults assuming responsibility
for young children’s interest development to the children themselves beginning
to seek out opportunities and resources is an important step in the development
of interest.
As Renninger (2009) explained, developing interest prior to eight to ten
years of age has benefits that include beginning to develop language related to
content and experience working with it, before the person begins to start com-
paring the quality of his or her engagement with others’. Once such self–other
comparisons begin to occur, educators, employers, and so forth should be aware
that although interest can still be supported to develop, it is likely that a person
will be engaging in self–other comparisions and will need additional support to
develop a new interest. For example, support may be needed to discourage com-
parisons of the work involved in developing a new interest to the effortlessness
that can characterize the continued development of already existing interests.
Unaddressed, such comparison may preclude a new interest from developing.
This situation has led some researchers to suggest that if domain-specific aca-
demic interests do not begin to develop by middle school, they become more
difficult to trigger and sustain. However, there is always the possibility that a
new or even an earlier interest that had waned can be triggered and supported
to develop.21
The Facilitative Role Teachers Can Play in Supporting Interest

Development
During the school years, teachers take over some of the support that parents
provide for interest development in early childhood.22 Triggering and maintain-
ing interest in classrooms can be especially critical since students’ motivation,
interests, and attitudes toward school in general and towards specific subjects
often decline (see Chapter 5). Teachers can make significant contributions to the
motivation of their students. An educator’s style, instructional technology, and

organization of materials may all contribute to learners’ interest and perfor-
mance. For example, they can arrange tasks to actively engage learners, and such
enhanced participation is likely to increase students’ levels of interest.23 Teachers
can make required content personally meaningful and relevant; they can also
include information that is novel, surprising, and complex. Since teachers plan
and program curricula, they can improve instruction by sequencing and select-
ing tasks that enable learners to make and continue to develop their connec-
tions to content.24 Researchers have also reported that human aspects, ethically
controversial concepts, suspense, and choice may lead to more sustained student
interest.25
Weighing the content that might be included to trigger and sustain student
interest in relation to the content that has to be taught is often a central concern
for educators. Lipstein and Renninger (2007a) summarized conditions that could
support students to develop or deepen their interest and abilities to write, and
concluded that classroom practices needed to balance the amount/type of guid-
ance students “want” from their teachers with students’ “needs” based on teach-
ers’ observations.26 Furthermore, Lipstein and Renninger recommended that in
addition to whole-class instruction, writing practices should include individual-
ized feedback and small-group activities that are based on each student’s phase of
interest in writing.
A number of researchers have pointed to the important facilitating role teach-
ers can have in supporting the development of their students’ interest. For exam-
ple, in interviews with over 250 musicians, Sloboda (1990; see also Chapter 5)
found that their first music teacher was similarly described as a person who was
friendly, encouraging, and able to convey their love of music (e.g., through mod-
eling or playing an instrument well). Long and Murphy (2005) reported similar
findings. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, they reported on the sub-
stantial impact of teachers’ interests in both the subject matter they taught and
in their students as individuals on their students’ interest development. Xu et al.
(2012) found that among the characteristics that distinguished the performance
of the eight exemplary African American teachers they studied, three were related
to interest: the teachers had a genuine interest in teaching, in their subject matter,
and in providing scaffolds for their students’ interest.
In the college classroom, Harackiewicz et al. (2008) found that when situ-
ational interest was triggered during an introductory psychology course, course
selection seven semesters later could be predicted, regardless of whether the stu-
dents had an interest in psychology before they started the introductory class.
As the researchers noted, the effects of early situational interest and subsequent
situational interest point to the importance of external supports for interest. They
suggest that educators can influence performance and support interest develop-
ment through situational interest. Finally, on the basis of a three-year study, Turner
et al. (2014) reported that even though teachers can be facilitators of their stu-
dents’ engagement, they may need support themselves to recognize this.
The Benefits and Drawbacks of Working with Peers

With the increase of self–other comparisons that accompany the transition to
adolescence, peer influence becomes an important factor. The role of group work
has been found to contribute to interest development in several studies.27 For

example, Cartun et al. (2014) examined how peers shape interest development
for youth in five geographically distributed sites of interest-powered learning: a
youth program for documentary film-making; a school-based community ser-
vice program; a school where students take such courses as game design, critical
research, and entrepreneurship; an after-school program that offers work in the
arts and humanities; and a teen program working on designing a new library space
rich in technology. They found that peers facilitated access to the learning spaces
and also that friendships were important in sustaining interest in activities.
Hidi et al. (1998) used a modified version of a cooperative learning tool called
the Jigsaw technique to examine students’ activities across formal and infor-
mal science education settings.28 In a Jigsaw, students who are in small groups
have opportunities to learn and become experts on a topic. Subsequently, they
are encouraged to teach other students by sharing the knowledge they have
acquired. The researchers predicted that the Jigsaw method would elicit situ-
ational interest in science exhibits in a science center by focusing students’ atten-
tion and creating a social setting. The participants were sixth-graders, and the
exhibits dealt with the topic of gravity. The results revealed dramatic differences
between the Jigsaw and non-Jigsaw groups, both in time spent at various exhibits
and in the students’ emotional responses. Many children at this age have been
reported to spend less than a minute per exhibits of this type; however, follow-
ing the Jigsaw, the children spent ten minutes or more trying to become experts
at their designated exhibits. In addition, the children provided positive, unique,
and affective descriptions of their participation, suggesting that the activity had
triggered and maintained their situational interest and had provided them with
a sense of empowerment.
However, differences among students’ phases of interest can complicate class-
room teachers’ plans, depending on the objective for the group work. For example,
in their investigation of students’ interest for writing, Lipstein and Renninger
(2007a) found widespread dislike for peer conferences among students with more
developed interest in writing if they were paired with students with less devel-
oped interest. Although some teachers had apparently grouped their students
with good intentions (so that the students with more developed interest could
help those with less developed interest), interviews with the students led the
researchers to conclude that grouping in this way was “an unproductive strategy
because students in different phases of interest conceive of writing differently

and are not likely to be able to discuss their writing in a mutually beneficial way”
(Lipstein and Renninger 2007a: 82). Lipstein and Renninger further suggested
that pairing students in the same phase of interest for group work might have
been more beneficial, as students paired in this way would be able to address each
other on an equal level. Such a pairing would also allow the teacher to provide
additional support to those with less developed interest in writing. These find-
ings complicate thinking about the use of grouping for academic activities. They
also suggest that consideration of students’ phase of interest could help maximize
the benefits of peer interactions.
The Shift from External to Internal Control and

the Self-Generation of Interest
Age may be a critical factor in determining to what extent learners need external
support to trigger and sustain their interest; however, the learners’ phase of inter-
est is also an important consideration. In their observations of Sam (who was
briefly described in Chapter 4)—a middle-school student whose more developed
interests included reading, soccer, and his friends—Renninger and Hidi (2002)
described Sam’s sustained abilities to work at and be challenged by situations that
involved his interests. He did not need target goals to be set for him; rather, he
seemed to be fluid in his abilities to set challenges for himself. He also reported
that these activities felt effortless. However, Sam’s involvement with a science
project on the box turtle was unrelated to his interests and required support from
others including his teacher, peers, and parents. Triggering and maintaining Sam’s
situational interest in science required considerable external effort and might not
have succeeded at all if the turtle had not begun to hibernate, which caused Sam
to think it had died under his watch. A major difference between Sam’s developed
interests and his triggered interest in keeping the turtle alive was his ability to
generate questions and consider opportunities for improved performance; despite
the triggering of his interest in the turtle, he was not able to engage in this kind
of activity for the science project. As this study revealed, differences in Sam’s abili-
ties to self-regulate across activities are due to differences in his phase of interest,
not his age.
As individuals move into adolescence and adulthood, it can be expected that they
are increasingly able to self-generate or seek out ways for making connections to
content to be learned. Sansone and colleagues have demonstrated that undergradu-
ates were able to recognize their own boredom and develop strategies to make ini-
tially uninteresting tasks more interesting.29 Subsequently, Sansone (2009) reported
that such self-generation of interest was predictive of continued engagement. Others
have also reported on the conditions that may facilitate the self-generation of inter-
est (e.g., making connections to content, having time to explore).30
Harackiewicz et al. (2014) have pointed out that it is not always possible to
support interest to develop by changing the content or the nature of the task
or activity, but it is possible to alter the way students think about subjects such
as mathematics or science, and this can lead to beneficial outcomes. That is, by
changing student perceptions of the value (utility, relevance, importance) of the
activities in which they engage, it may be possible for educators to increase stu-
dents’ interest. To investigate this position, Hulleman and Harackiewicz (2009)
designed a study in which students were asked to write about the value of the
content they are going to be learning.31 More specifically, students were asked to
provide explanations of how the course they were taking could be valuable for
them, essentially asking them to self-generate interest by making connections
between their own lives and the content of the course. Not surprisingly, this
approach made an impact on interest in the course as well as student performance,
especially for those who entered the course with less developed interest and low
expectations of success. Future research might address how individuals could be
trained to self-generate their interest in various academic subjects.
It is important that individuals can be supported to develop interest in content
by having their interests triggered and maintained, even if no such interest has
existed previously. It should also be noted that students whose interest is already
developing may not need external intervention to the same degree as those with
less interest; however, learners with more developed interest can benefit from
challenge and opportunities to continue to develop what they know.
Choice and Interest Development

To evaluate choice as a source of interest development is not a simple matter.32
On the one hand, choice has been viewed as the triggering of positive processes
such as interest development. When individuals are allowed to make choices, they
do not feel controlled and instead experience a sense of autonomy.33 Some evi-
dence even indicates that choice is rewarding.34 On the other hand, individuals
need to have enough knowledge to make informed choices, and lack of knowl-
edge and uncertainty may negate any positive effect that choice would have on
individuals’ interest development.35 Neuroscientific research also suggests that
negative outcomes may occur when individuals are asked to make choices with-
out relevant information; the brain may be alerted that such choices could have
unknown and potentially dangerous outcomes.36 Thus, it seems that choice can
be either beneficial or detrimental depending on the conditions of the activity.37
Patall (2012) has provided a review of studies demonstrating that offering
choices about aspects of tasks is most beneficial when individuals feel initial inter-
est for the activity or when tasks are such that they can benefit from opportuni-
ties to build interest. However, giving learners choices about whether to engage
in activities when they do not have enough content knowledge may impede
the possibility that their interest could be triggered and may have detrimental
consequences for the potential of developing their interest. For example, as Hidi
et al. (2015) argued, it may be problematic to give students choices about whether
they will continue taking subjects such as physics when they have had no prior
formal exposure to physics. If students were required to take courses that they
would not have chosen on their own, then their interest would have the pos-
sibility of being triggered by their instructors, the curriculum materials, and/or
through interaction with others, resulting in beneficial outcomes.38
Future Research
We have provided information about how interest can be supported to develop
through interactions with others and through the design of the environment. We
have noted that interest can be developed for learners of all ages, across domains
both in and out of school. However, such development is contingent on individu-
als making connections to the content of the domain.
We are now in a position to think about Berlyne’s (1949) concerns regarding
the measurement of interest and the distinction between interest and curios-
ity. Neuroscience enables us to clarify that interest and curiosity differ. We have
proposed using these two terms in a way that meaningfully distinguishes them.
Although the experiences of curiosity and of interest may both be rewarding,
interest—unlike curiosity—is malleable, can be supported to develop, and is likely
to lead to longer-term engagement. The experience of curiosity is triggered by
a knowledge gap that once filled is unlikely to result in further searches of infor-
mation, unless it is related to the person’s individual interest. Being interested in
a topic is not limited to looking for a specific answer, and typically involves con-
tinued information-seeking. Furthermore, description of curiosity as an aversive
state does not characterize individuals who seek more information because they
have an interest and want to know more about the content.
Interested individuals may also experience curiosity related to knowledge gaps,
and knowledge gaps may lead to the triggering of interest. At the present time,
we do not know what the differences are in how people experience curiosity if
they have more or less interest for a question, idea, etc., related to their know-
ledge gap. Clarification of such differences could point to more effective ways for
practitioners to work with both curiosity and interest in order to support interest
to continue to develop. Future neuroscientific research could target the com-
parison of brain activation when seeking information to close a knowledge gap,
when undertaking a more open-ended search for information related to earlier
and later phases of interest, or when the two are related. Such comparisons would
allow us to establish with certainty how curiosity and interest are related at the
neurological level.
The developmental trajectory of the four-phase model provides behavioral
indicators that can be used in the classroom, the workplace, or the office to
identify (or assess) levels of interest. Recognizing (and assessing) the differences
between earlier and later phases of a person’s interest supplies information about
how various activities may increase motivation and engagement in learning. If
they have not already identified the phase of their students’ (players’, employees’,
etc.) interest, those responsible for facilitating learning and/or participation in
many situations may find it beneficial to do so. The potential complication lies in
ensuring the mapping of the indicators to different learning environments in such
a way that researchers can compare findings.

Identifying the phase of a person’s interest and then supporting it to develop
can make the difference in terms of what is learned or accomplished. However, if
the phase of a person’s interest is misgauged, the teacher, parent, coach, employer,
etc., could provide too much or too little information.Without enough informa-
tion, a person may not ask questions that could provide clarification and con-
tinued triggering of an interest; the person could be overwhelmed by the task
and frustrated, and it is possible that whatever interest the person did have would
fall off. Similar problems would result if a person were provided with too much
unrequested information (e.g., such as in lectures that are inappropriately organ-
ized, training sessions that are mismanaged, and staff meetings that are badly
structured).
We have explained that as interest develops it is increasingly coordinated
with other variables, such as self-efficacy, self-regulation, flow, grit, and iden-
tity. We suggest that each of these fields of motivational research might benefit
from considering how the variables on which they focus could be affected by
information about whether the participants they are studying have more or less
developed interest. Not only would information from such studies help clar-
ify the links between the different motivational variables and interest research
theoretically, but it may also serve to explain anomalies in data. Recognizing
the role (and potential implications) of phases of interest in these fields would
benefit applications to practice. For example, Duhigg (2012) has suggested that
people who want to change their habits must self-regulate: they need to identify
the patterns in their behaviors that comprise their habits, if they want to change
them. We have shown that being able to self-regulate is related to (and perhaps
even contingent upon) the development of interest. If the educator, parent, or
employer would like to support changed habits, considering whether the person
with the habit has any interest in changed behavior, and/or determining how to
first support the development of an interest, is likely to be improve the chances
of success.
Similarly, Duckworth et al. (2007) developed a scale to assess the consistency
of individuals’ interest and their perseverance of effort, but they have not con-
sidered, for example, why students have grit in some contexts but not in others.
According to the predictions of the four-phase model, we would expect grit to
be significantly correlated with interest development. That is, as interest emerges,
people persevere in their activities and develop related goals, suggesting that the
link between grit and phases of interest could provide useful information about
how grit develops and can be supported. That is, information about whether a
person has more or less interest in a specific subject matter would suggest how
grit might be most effectively supported to develop.
Flow is another, more focused, aspect of a person’s experience whose pre-
cise relation to interest has not yet been established. In our conceptualization,
flow is a possible outcome of a developing or well-developed interest. There
is very little information about how the experience of flow could be sup-
ported to develop in academic settings. It does appear that if Csikszentmihalyi
et al.’s (1993) study of talent development (discussed in Chapter 5) included
a measure of students’ interest following their identification of talent, and if
the students’ teachers had understood how to work with interest, the teach-
ers might have been able to offset the observed “waste” of talent. The teachers
would have needed to appreciate that a number of the students were very likely
to have less developed interest for their area of identified talent initially. With
support to develop their interest, it is likely that more of the students would
have persevered.
The potential role of interest as a support for meaningful engagement has
begun to be recognized, but no work has yet considered the implications of
how interventions such as Check and Connect might work for learners with
more or less interest for one or another field of study, or what the implications
of starting with what the student is interested in as a basis of an intervention
might be. Theoretically, this type of information would further develop under-
standing of interactions between the person and the environment, specifically
the kinds of adjustments that can be made for learners who have differing
levels of interest for disciplinary content, and their responses to features of the
intervention.
There is also research on activation, affect, appraisal, personalization, play, pur-
pose, relevance, and value in which the triggering and maintaining of interest
could be targeted. The relation between interest and each of these variables is not
fully understood, but would benefit both theory and practice.
Concluding Thoughts
In concluding, we note that we wrote this book for a wide range of individ-
uals: researchers studying learning and motivation; individuals wanting to know
more about the power of their own interests and how to develop them; edu-
cators and parents wondering how to facilitate motivation in students; business
people focusing on ways to meaningfully engage their employees and associates;
and policy-makers searching for ways to effect change in schools, out-of-school
learning environments, industries, and businesses. We are certain that given the
wide-ranging benefits of developing and/or developed interest, there is power for
everyone in leveraging interest for motivation and engagement.
Notes
1 As we explained in the introduction, we acknowledge that the word “interest” is
widely used to connote interest as an object (e.g., I have interest in mathematics, play-
ing bridge, etc.). However, this meaning is not the focus of this book.We focus on how
such interests develop and how they motivate individuals’ activities, engagements, etc.
2 See discussion in Renninger and Hidi 2011.
3 See also Glynn et al. 2015.
4 In an important and controversial article that was cited close to 3,000 times, Kirschner
et al. (2006) argued that minimally guided instruction (such as in discovery or con-
structivist learning) does not work for novice to intermediate learners because reject-
ing instruction based on facts, laws, principles, etc., that is, on the content of the subject
matter, ignores human cognitive architecture in general and the importance of mem-
ory in specific. Although Kirchner et al. focused on the cognitive aspects of instruction,
their argument corresponds to our position in considering the motivational aspects of
instruction. Without exposure to content, interest may not develop.
5 See Hidi 2015 for a review of the neuroscientific literature related to the benefits of
rewards, as well as their link to novelty.
6 Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000), in addition to pointing to the benefits of situational
interest, argued for the potential benefits of extrinsic motivation and performance goals.
7 This quotation (cf. Schraw and Dennison 1994: 3) was attributed to Dewey by Garner
et al. (1991).
8 Palmer 2004.
9 See Schraw and Dennison (1994) who described how various sources of situational
interest in text affected perceived interest that, in turn, influenced recall.
10 Chen et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2001.
11 Halet 2008.
12 Gehlbach et al. 2008.
13 Flowerday and Schraw 2003.
14 Flowerday and Schraw 2003; Flowerday and Shell 2015.
15 Baram-Tsabari (2015) described a complex set of studies focusing on learners’ ques-
tioning, which were conducted in the biology classroom, the online Ask-A-Scientist
site, and through Google searches.
16 Barron et al. 2014; Knogler et al. 2015; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Patall et al. 2012; Paige
2012; Palmer 2009.
17 Flowerday and Shell (2015) noted that situational interest has been shown to increase
reading comprehension, computer performance, and learning but does not affect shal-
low processing.
18 Ainley and Ainley 2015; Alexander et al. 2015; Crowley et al. 2015. See also Hidi et al.
2015.
19 Ainley and Ainley (2015) described young children’s development of science interest
as influenced by family support for opportunities to engage and reengage with contents
of interest. Pinkard and Austin (2014) also provide detail about the context of learn-
ing that is the basis for the Digital Youth Network, and supports interest development.
20 Alexander et al. (2015) conducted a longitudinal study of young children’s science
interests. They reported shifting roles of parents and children in the development of
science-related interests between pre-school and elementary school. The researchers
concluded that parents exert greater influence earlier on, and that their values about the
importance of education, science, etc., may create the foundation for their children’s
science interests to develop. During elementary-school years, however, children take
on more responsibility by self-regulating for the maintanance of their science-related
interests.
21 Maltese and Harsh 2015; Renninger, Kensey et al. 2015.
22 Wigfield et al. (1997) pointed to an association between children’s interests and those
of their teachers, across domains.
23 See Durik et al. 2015; Harackiewicz et al. 2014; Pressick-Kilbourn 2015.
24 Pressick-Kilbourn (2015) noted that teachers can make content personally meaningful
and relevant by building in surprise, novelty, and complexity; they can also model both
a sense of wonder about the content and ways to engage with it.
25 See Glynn et al. 2015; Neiswandt and Horowitz 2015.
26 See also Renninger and Lipstein 2006.
27 Mitchell 1993; Palmer 2004.

28 Slavin 1983, 1991.
29 Sansone et al. 1992; Sansone and Smith 2000.
30 Azevedo 2006; Harackiewicz et al. 2014; Renninger et al. 2014.
31 See also Hulleman, Godes et al. 2010.
32 See Patall et al. (2008) for a very competent meta-analysis of the effects of choice on
various aspects of motivation.
33 Ryan and Deci 2012.
34 Leotti and Delgado (2011) reported that choice was associated with increased activity
in part of the reward circuitry (ventral striatum), suggesting that choice may function
as a reward. However, Murayama et al.’s (2015) findings did not replicate these results
as in their study the activation of the prefrontal cortex rather than the striatum was
associated with choice.
35 Hidi et al. 2015; Katz and Assor 2007.
36 Hsu et al. 2005; Hidi 2015.
37 See Iyengar and Lepper 1999; Patall 2012; Patall et al. 2008.
38 Azevedo (2015) descibes tailored practice as resulting from the presence of structures
that are in place to support development. Requirements for course participation may
be necessary to support development.
REFERENCES
Adcock, R. A., A. Thangavel, S. Whitfield-Gabrieli, B. Knutson, and J. D. E. Gabrieli (2006)

“Reward-Motivated Learning: Mesolimbic Activation Precedes Memory Formation,”
Neuron, 50 (3): 507–517.
Ainley, M. (1987) “The Factor Structure of Curiosity Measures: Breadth and Depth of
Interest Curiosity Styles,” Australian Journal of Psychology, 39 (1): 53–59.
Ainley, M. (1998) “Interest in Learning and the Disposition of Curiosity in Secondary
Students: Investigating Process and Context,” in L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger,
and J. Baumert (eds), Interest and Learning, Kiel, Germany: IPN, pp. 257–266.
Ainley, M. (2007) “Being and Feeling Interested: Transient State, Mood, and Disposition,” in
P. Schutz and R. Pekrun (eds), Emotion in Education, New York, NY: Elsevier, pp. 141–157.
Ainley, M. (2012) “Students’ Interest and Engagement in Classroom Activities,” in S.
L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 283–302.
Ainley, M., and J. Ainley (2011) “Learner Engagement with Science in Early
Adolescence: The Contribution of Enjoyment to Learners’ Continuing Interest in
Learning about Science,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (1): 4–12.
Ainley, M., and J. Ainley (2015) “Early Science Learning Experiences: Triggered and
Maintained Interest,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest in
Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association, pp. 17–31.
Ainley, M., and S.Hidi, (2014) “Interest and Enjoyment,” in R. Pekrun and L.
Linnenbrink-Garcia (eds), The International Handbook of Emotions in Education,
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, pp. 205–227.
Ainley, M., S. Hidi, and D. Berndorff (2002) “Interest, Learning, and the Psychological
Processes that Mediate Their Relationship,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 94
(3): 545–561.
Albin, M. L., S. L. Benton, and I. Khramtsova (1996) “Individual Differences in Interest and
Narrative Writing,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21 (4): 305–324.
Alexander, J. M., K. E. Johnson, and M. E. Liebham (2015) “Emerging Individual Interest
Related to Science in Young Children,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S.
References 139
Hidi (eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association, pp. 261–279.
Alexander, P. A. (1997) “Mapping the Multidimensional Nature of Domain Learning: The
Interplay of Cognitive, Motivational, and Strategic Forces,” in M. L. Maehr and P. R.
Pintrich (eds), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10 vols., Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, vol. X, pp. 213–250.
Alexander, P. A., and P. K. Murphy (1998) “Profiling the Differences in Students’ Knowledge,
Interest, and Strategic Processing,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (3): 435–447.

Alexander, P. A., T. L. Jetton, and J. M. Kulikowich (1995) “Interrelationship of Knowledge,
Interest, and Recall: Assessing a Model of Domain Learning,” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87 (4): 559–575.
Aljumah, H. F. (2012) “Saudi Learner Perceptions and Attitudes Towards the Use of Blogs
in Teaching English Writing Course for EFL Majors at Qassim University,” English
Language Teaching, 5 (1): 100–116.
Allport, G. W. (1946) “Effect: A Secondary Principle of Learning,” Psychological Review, 53
(6): 335–347.
Ames, C. (1992) “Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation,” Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84 (3): 261–271.
Ames, C., and J. Archer (1988) “Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students’ Learning
Strategies and Motivation Processes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (10): 260–267.
Anderson, B. A., P. A. Laurent, and S. Yantis (2011) “Value-Driven Attentional Capture,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108 (25): 10367–10371.
Anderson, R. C. (1982) “Allocation of Attention during Reading,” in A. Flammer and
W. Kintsch (eds), Discourse Processing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland,
pp. 292–335.
Anderson, R. C., L. L. Shirey, P. T. Wilson, and L. G. Fielding (1987) “Interestingness of
Children’s Reading Material,” in R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (eds), Aptitude, Learning, and
Instruction, vol. III: Cognitive and Affective Process Analyses, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 287–299.
Andre, T., and M. Windschitl (2003) “Interest, Epistemological Belief, and Intentional
Conceptual Change,” in G. Sinatra and P. Pintrich, (eds), Intentional Conceptual Change,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 173–193.
Appleton, J. J. (2012) “Systems Constellation: Developing the Assessment-to-Intervention
Link with the Student Engagement Instrument,” in S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and
C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, New York, NY: Springer,
pp. 725–741.
Appleton, J. J., S. L. Christenson, and M. J. Furlong (2008) “Student Engagement with
School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct,” Psychology in
the Schools, 45 (5): 369–386.
Arnold, F. (1910) Attention and Interest: A Study in Psychology and Education, New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Azevedo, F. S. (2006) “Personal Excursions: Investigating the Dynamics of Student
Engagement,” International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11 (1): 57–98.
Azevedo, F. S. (2011) “Lines of Practice: A Practice-Centered Theory of Interest
Relationships,” Cognition and Instruction, 29 (2): 147–184.
Azevedo, F. S. (2013a) “The Tailored Practice of Hobbies and Its Implication for the
Design of Interest-Based Learning Environments,” The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
22 (3): 462–510.
Azevedo, F. S. (2013b) “Knowing the Stability of Model Rockets: An Investigation of
Learning in Interest-Based Practices,” Cognition and Instruction, 31 (3): 345–374.
140 References
Azevedo, F. S. (2015) “Sustaining Interest-Based Participation in Science,” in K. A.

Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning,
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 281–296.
Azmi, N. (2013) “Multi-sensory Delivery in EFL ‘Smart’ Classrooms: Students’ Perceptions
of Benefits, Limitations and Challenges,” Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3 (1):
33–41.
Baldwin, B. T. (1910) “Review of the Book Attention and Interest: A Study in Psychology and
Education, by F. Arnold,” The Elementary School Teacher, 10 (10): 519–520.

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory, New York, NY: General Learning Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A., and D. H. Schunk (1981) “Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic
Interest through Proximal Self-Motivation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41 (3): 586–598.
Baram-Tsabari, A. (2015) “Promoting Information Seeking and Questioning in Science,”
in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science
Learning, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 135–152.
Barrett, M. S., and H. M. Smigiel (2007) “Children’s Perspectives of Participation in
Music Youth Arts Settings: Meaning,Value and Participation,” Research Studies in Music
Education, 28 (1): 39–50.
Barrett, S. E., Z. Hazari, B. Fatholahzadenh, and D. M. Harrison (2012) “Electromagnetism
Unit of an Introductory University Physics Course: The Influence of a Reform-Based
Tutorial,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 41 (6): 40–46.
Barron, B. (2006) “Interest and Self-Sustained Learning as Catalysts of Development:
A Learning Ecology Perspective,” Human Development, 49 (4): 193–224.
Barron, B. (2014) “Advancing Research on the Dynamics of Interest-Driven Learning,”
in B. Barron, K. Gomez, N. Pinkard, and C. K. Martin (eds), The Digital Youth
Network: Cultivating Digital Media Citizenship in Urban Communities, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, pp. 285–296.
Barron, B., K. Gomez, N. Pinkard, and C. Martin (2014) The DigitalYouth Network: Cultivating
Digital Media Citizenship in Urban Communities, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barron, B., C. Kennedy-Martin, L. Takeuchi, and R. Fithian (2009) “Parents as Learning
Partners in the Development of Technological Fluency,” International Journal of Learning
and Media, 1 (2): 55–77.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. London,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bathgate, M. E., C. D. Schunn, and R. Correnti (2013) Children’s Motivation toward Science
across Contexts, Manner of Interaction, and Topic, Pittsburgh, PA: Wiley.
Becher, T., and P. R. Trowler (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and
the Cultures of Disciplines, 2nd edn, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/SRHE.
Bell, J. C., and I. B. Sweet (1916) “Communications and Discussions: The Reading Interests
of High School Pupils,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 7 (2): 39–45.
Benton, S. L.,A. J. Corkill, J. M. Sharp, R. G. Downey, and I. Khramtsova (1995) “Knowledge,
Interest, and Narrative Writing,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (1): 66–79.
Bergin, D. (1999) “Influences on Classroom Interest,” Educational Psychologist, 34 (2):
87–98.
Berlyne, D. E. (1949) “Interest as a Psychological Concept,” British Journal of Psychology, 39
(4): 184–195.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960) Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
References 141
Berlyne, D. E. (1966) “Curiosity and Exploration,” Science, 1: 25–33.

Berlyne, D. E. (1978) “Curiosity and Learning,” Motivation and Emotion, 2 (2): 97–175.
Berlyne, D. E. and J. L. Lewis (1963) “Effects of Heightened Arousal on Human Exploratory
Behaviour,” Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 17 (4): 398.
Berridge, K. C. (2012) “From Prediction Error to Incentive Salience: Mesolimbic
Computation of Reward Motivation,” European Journal of Neuroscience, 35 (7):
1124–1143.
Berridge, K. C., and T. E. Robinson (1998) “What Is the Role of Dopamine in

Reward: Hedonic Impact, Reward Learning, or Incentive Salience?” Brain Research
Reviews, 28 (3): 309–369.
Berridge, K. C., T. E. Robinson, and J. W. Aldridge (2009) “Dissecting Components of
Reward: ‘Liking,’‘Wanting,’ and Learning,” Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9 (1): 65–73.
Bevan, B., and V. Michalchik (2012) “Out-of-School Time STEM: It’s Not What You
Think,” in B. Bevan, P. Bell, R. Stevens, and A. Razfar (eds), LOST Opportunities: Learning
in Out-of-School Time, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 201–217.
Bjork, J. M., and D. W. Hommer (2007) “Anticipating Instrumentally Obtained and
Passively-Received Rewards: A Factorial FMRI Investigation,” Behavioural Brain
Research, 177 (1): 165–170.
Black, R. W. (2008) Adolescents and Online Fan Fiction, New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Boal-Palheiros, G. M., and D. J. Hargreaves (2001) “Listening to Music at Home and at
School,” British Journal of Music Education, 18 (2): 103–118.
Bøe, M. V., and E. K. Henriksen (2013) “Love it or Leave it: Norwegian Students’
Motivations and Expectations for Postcompulsory Physics,” Science Education, 97 (4): 550–573.
Boekaerts, M. (1997) “Self-Regulated Learning: A New Concept Embraced by
Researchers, Policy Makers, Educators, Teachers, and Students,” Learning and Instruction,
7 (2): 161–186.
Boekaerts, M. (2006) “Self-Regulation and Effort Investment,” in R. Lerner and
W. Damon (eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, 4 vols., 6th edn, New York, NY: Wiley,
vol. IV, pp. 345–377.
Bong, M., and E. M. Skaalvik (2003) “Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How
Different Are They Really?” Educational Psychology Review, 15 (1): 1–40.
Bong, M., S. K. Lee, and Y.-K. Woo (2015) “The Role of Interest and Self-Efficacy in
Pursuing Mathematics and Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi
(eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning,Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association, pp. 33–48.
Boscolo, P., and L. Cisotto (1997) “Making Writing Interesting in Elementary School,”
paper presented at the 7th bi-annual meeting of the European Association for Research
on Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece.
Boscolo, P. and L. Mason (2001) “Writing to Learn, Writing to Transfer,” in P. Tynjälä, L.
Mason, and K. Lonka (eds), Writing as a Learning Tool: Integrating Theory and Practice,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 83–104.
Boscolo, P., L. Del Favero, and M. Borghetto (2007) ”Writing on an Interesting Topic: Does
Writing Foster Interest?” in S. Hidi and P. Boscolo (eds), Writing and Motivation, New
York, NY: Elsevier, pp. 73–91.
Bouffard, T., H. Markovits, C. Vezeau, M. Boisvert, and C. Dumas (1998) “The Relation
between Accuracy of Self-Perception and Cognitive Development,” British Journal of
Bowles, C. L. (1991) “Self-Expressed Adult Music Education Interests and Music
Experiences,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 39 (3): 191–205.
142 References
Bruner, J. S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Bunzeck, N., P. Dayan, R. J. Dolan, and E. Duzel (2010) “A Common Mechanism for
Adaptive Scaling of Reward and Novelty,” Human Brain Mapping, 31 (9): 1380–1394.
Bunzeck, N., C. F. Doeller, L. Fuentemilla, R. J. Dolan, and E. Duzel (2009) “Reward
Motivation Accelerates the Onset of Neural Novelty Signals in Humans to 85
Milliseconds,” Current Biology, 19 (15): 1294–1300.
Byman, R. (2005) “Curiosity and Sensation Seeking: A Conceptual and Empirical
Examination,” Personality and Individual Differences, 38 (6): 1365–1379.

Cabot, I. (2012) “Le Cours collégial de mise à niveau en français: l’incidence d’un disposi-
tive pédagogique d’interdisciplinarité,” doctoral thesis, University of Montreal.
Carmichael, C., R. Callingham, I. Hay, and J. Watson (2010) “Measuring Middle School
Students’ Interest in Statistical Literacy,” Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22
(3): 9–39.
Cartun, A., B. Kirshner, E. Price, and A. J. York (2014) “Friendship, Participation, and
Site Design in Interest-Driven Learning among Early Adolescents,” paper presented
at the Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences,
Boulder, CO.
Chandler-Olcott, K., and D. Mahar (2003) “Adolescents’ Anime-Inspired ‘Fanfictions’: An
Exploration of Multiliteracies,” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46 (7): 556–566.
Chazan, D. (2000) Beyond Formulas in Mathematics and Teaching: Dynamics of the High School
Algebra Classroom, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Chen, A., P. W. Darst, and R. P. Pangrazi (1999) “What Constitutes Situational Interest?
Validating a Construct in Physical Education,” Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science, 3 (3): 157–180.
Chen, A., P. W. Darst, and R. P. Pangrazi (2001) “An Examination of Situational Interest
and Its Sources,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (3): 383–400.
Chen, A., C. D. Ennis, R. Martin, and H. Sun (2006) “Situational Interest: A Curriculum
Component Enhancing Motivation to Learn,” in S. N. Hogan (ed.), New Developments
in Learning Research, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 235–261.
Chen, S., H. Sun, X. Zhu, and A. Chen (2014) “Relationship between Motivation and
Learning in Physical Education and After-School Physical Activity,” Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 85 (4): 468–477.
Chi, M.T. H., M. Bassok, M.W. Lewis, P. Reimann, and R. Glaser (1989) “Self-Explanations:
How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems,” Cognitive
Science, 13 (2): 145–182.
Chi, M. T. H., N. De Leeuw, M. H. Chiu, and C. Lavancher (1994) “Eliciting Self-
Explanations Improves Understanding,” Cognitive Science, 18 (3): 439–477.
Christenson, S. L., and A. L. Reschly (2010) “Check and Connect: Enhancing School
Completion through Student Engagement,” in B. Doll, W. Pfohl, and J. Yoon (eds),
Handbook of Youth Prevention Science, London and New York, NY: Routledge,
pp. 327–348.
Christenson, S. L., A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (2012a) “Epilogue,” in S. L. Christenson,
A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement,
New York, NY: Springer, pp. 813–817.
Christenson, S. L., A. L. Reschly, and C.Wylie (eds) (2012b) Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement, New York, NY: Springer.
Christiana, R. W., M. Davis, and M. Freeman (2014) “‘I’d Rather Dance Outside’:
A Phenomenological Examination of Youth Experiences in Outdoor, Noncompetitive
Physical Activity,” The Qualitative Report, 19 (46): 1–16.
References 143
Claparède, E. (1905) Psychologie de l’enfant et pétagogie expérimentale, Geneva, Switzerland:

Kundig.
Cordova, D. I., and M. R. Lepper (1996) “Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of
Learning: Beneficial Effects of Contextualization, Personalization, and Choice,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 88 (4): 715–730.
Costa, P. T., and R. R. Mccrae (1992) “Four Ways Five Factors Are Basic,” Personality and
Individual Differences, 13 (6): 653–665.
Crouch, C. H., and K. Heller (2014) “Introducing Physics in Biological Context: An

Approach to Improve Introductory Physics for Life Science Students,” American Journal
of Physics, 82 (5): 378–386.
Crouch, C. H., P. Wisittanawat, and K. A. Renninger (2013) “Initial Interest, Goals, and
Changes in CLASS Scores in Introductory Physics for Life Sciences,” in P. Engelhardt
(ed.), Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, Melville, NY:AIP, pp. 105–108.
Crowley, K., B. J. Barron, K. Knutson, and C. Martin (2015) “Interest and the Development
of Pathways to Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest
in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014) Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected
Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, New York, NY: Springer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., K. Rathunde, and S. Whalen (1993) Talented Teenagers: The Roots of
Success and Failure, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Curwood, J. S., A. M. Magnifico, and J. C. Lammers (2013) “Writing in the Wild: Writers’
Motivation in Fan-Based Affinity Spaces,” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56
(8): 677–685.
Dawson, C. J. (2000) “Upper Primary Boys and Girls Interests in Science: Have They
Changed Since 1980?” International Journal of Science Education, 22 (6): 557–570.
Day, H. I. (1982) “Curiosity and the Interested Explorer,” Performance and Instruction, 21
(4): 19–22.
Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan (2000) “Motivation, Personality, and Development within
Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory,” in R. M.
Ryan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, pp. 85–107.
Denissen, J. H., N. R. Zarrett, and J. S. Eccles (2007) “I Like to Do It, I’m Able, and I Know
I Am: Longitudinal Couplings between Domain-Specific Achievement, Self-Concept,
and Interest,” Child Development, 78 (2): 430–447.
Dewey, J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1913) Interest and Effort in Education, Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think, New York, NY: D. C. Heath.
Dierking, L. D., and J. H. Falk (2003) “Optimizing Out-of-School Time: The Role of
Free-Choice Learning,” New Directions for Youth Development, 97: 75–88.
Dierking, L. D., J. H. Falk, N. Status, W. Penuel, J. Wyld, and D. Bailey (2014) “Measuring
Children’s STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Interest
Development Longitudinally: The Synergies Understanding and Connecting STEM
Learning in the Community Project,” poster presented at Current Approaches to
Interest Measurement: Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
April, Philadelphia, Pa.
144 References
Dixon, P., and M. Bortolussi (2013) “Construction, Integration, and Mind Wandering in
Reading,” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67 (1): 1–10.
Dohn, N. B. (2011) “Situational Interest of High School Students Who Visit an Aquarium,”
Science Education, 95 (2): 337–357.
Dohn, N. B. (2013) “Situational Interest in Engineering Design Activities,” International
Journal of Science Education, 35 (12): 2057–2078.
Duckworth, A. L., C. Peterson, M. D. Matthews, and D. R. Kelly (2007) “Grit: Perseverance
and Passion for Long-Term Goals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92
(6): 1087–1101.
Duhigg, C. (2012) The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business,
New York, NY: Random House.
Duit, R., and D. F. Treagust (2003) “Conceptual Change: A Powerful Framework for
Improving Science Teaching and Learning,” International Journal of Science Education, 25
(6): 671–688.
Durik, A. M., and J. M. Harackiewicz (2003) “Achievement Goals and Intrinsic
Motivation: Coherence, Concordance, and Achievement Orientation,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (4): 378–385.
Durik, A. M., and J. M. Harackiewicz (2007) “Different Strokes for Different Folks:
How Individual Interest Moderates the Effects of Situational Factors on Task Interest,”
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3): 597–610.
Durik, A. M., S. Hulleman, and J. M. Harackiewicz (2015) “One Size Fits Some: Instructional
Enhancements to Promote Interest,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi
Durik, A., O. G. Shechter, M. Noh, C. S. Rozek, and J. Harackiewicz (2014) “What If
I Can’t? Success Expectancies Moderate the Effects of Utility Value Information on
Situational Interest,” Motivation and Emotion, 39 (1): 104–118.
Dweck, C. S. (1986) “Motivational Processes Affecting Learning,” American Psychologist, 41
(10): 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S. (2002) “The Development of Ability Conceptions,” in A.Wigfield and J. Eccles
(eds), Development of Achievement Motivation, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 57–88.
Eastwood, J. D., A. Frischen, M. J. Fenske, and D. Smilek (2012) “The Unengaged
Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7
(5): 482–495.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885) Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology, New York,
NY: Dover.
Eccles, J. S., and A. Wigfield (1995) “In the Mind of the Achiever: The Structure of
Adolescents’ Academic Achievement Related Beliefs and Self-Perceptions,” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (3): 215–225.
Eccles, J. S., T. F. Adler, R. Futterman, S. B. Goff, C. M. Kaczala, J. Meece, and C. Midgley
(1983) “Expectancies,Values and Academic Behaviors,” in J. T. Spence (ed.), Achievement
and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches, San Francisco,
CA: Freeman, pp. 75–146.
Eccles, J. S., J. A. Fredricks, and A. Epstein (2015) “Understanding Well-Developed Interests
and Activity Commitment,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest
Eccles, J. S., A. Wigfield, R. D. Harold, and P. Blumenfeld (1993) “Age and Gender
Differences in Children’s Self-and Task Perceptions during Elementary School,” Child
Development, 64 (3): 830–847.
References 145
Eccles, J. S., A.Wigfield, and U. Schiefele (1998) “Motivation to Succeed,” in W. Damon and
N. Eisenberg (eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th edn, vol. III: Social, Emotional, and
Personality Development, New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 1017–1095.
Edelson, D. C., and D. M. Josephs (2004) “The Interest Driven Learning Design Framework:
Motivating Learning Through Usefulness,” ICLS 2004: Embracing Diversity in the
Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences:
166–173.
Ekeland, C. B., and I.T. Dahl (2015) “Hunting the Light Tourism on Board the Coastal Steamer
Hurtigruten: A Cross-Disciplinary Triangulation Approach to the Dynamics of Interest,”
unpublished manuscript, Department of Tourism, Uit the Arctic University of Norway.
Ely, R., M. Ainley, and J. Pearce (2013) “More Than Enjoyment: Identifying the Positive
Affect Component of Interest that Supports Student Engagement and Achievement,”
Middle Grades Research Journal, 8 (1): 13–32.
Ernst, M., and L. P. Spear (2009) “Reward Systems,” in M. De Haan and M. R. Gunnar (eds),
Handbook of Developmental Social Neuroscience, New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 324–341.
Espay, A. J., M. M. Norris, J. C. Eliassen, A. Dwivedi, M. S. Smith, C. Banks et al. (2015)
“Placebo Effect of Medication Cost in Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Double-Blind
Study,” Neurology, 84 (8): 794–802.
Falk, J. H., and L. M. Adelman (2003) “Investigating the Impact of Prior Knowledge
and Interest on Aquarium Visitor Learning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40
(2): 163–176.
Fareri, D. S., L. N. Martin, and M. R. Delgado (2008) “Reward-Related Processing in
the Human Brain: Developmental Considerations,” Development and Psychopathology,
20 (4): 1191–1211.
Fenker, D. B., J. U. Frey, H. Schuetze, D. Heipertz, H. J. Heinze, and E. Duzel (2008) “Novel
Scenes Improve Recollection and Recall of Words,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20
(7): 1250–1265.
Fink, R. (1998) “Interest, Gender, and Literacy Development in Successful Dyslexics,”
in L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, and J. Baumert (eds), Interest and
Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, Kiel, Germany: IPN,
pp. 402–408.
Fink, R. (2015) Reading, Writing, and Rhythm: Content Area Literacy Strategies, Huntington
Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Fisher, P. H., J. Dobbs-Oates, G. L. Doctoroff, and D. H. Arnold (2012) “Early Math Interest
and the Development of Math Skills,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3): 673–681.
Flippo, R. (2014) Assessing Readers: Qualitative Diagnosis and Instruction, London and
New York, NY: Routledge.
Flowerday, T., and G. Schraw (2003) “Effect of Choice on Cognitive and Affective
Engagement,” Journal of Educational Research, 96 (4): 207–215.
Flowerday, T., and D. F. Shell (2015) “Disentangling the Effects of Interest and Choice
on Learning, Engagement, and Attitude,” Learning and Individual Differences, 40
(May): 134–140.
Flowerday, T., G. Schraw, and J. Stevens (2004) “The Role of Choice and Interest in
Reader Engagement,” Journal of Experimental Education, 72 (2): 93–114.
Fredricks, J. A. (2014) Eight Myths of Student Disengagement: Creating Classrooms of Deep
Learning, London, UK: Corwin.
Fredricks, J. A., and W. McCloskey (2012) “The Measurement of Student Engagement:
A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-Report Instruments,”
in S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 763–782.
146 References
Fredricks, J. A., and S. D. Simpkins (2013) “Organized Out-of-School Activities and Peer
Relationships: Theoretical Perspectives and Previous Research,” New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 140: 1–17.
Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris (2004) “School Engagement: Potential
of the Concept, State of the Evidence,” Review of Educational Research, 74 (1): 59–109.
Fredricks, J. A., W. McCloskey, J. Meli, J. Mordica, B. Montrosse, and K. Mooney (2011)
“Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School:
A Description of 21 Instruments,” Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, Issues and

Answers. REL 2011-No. 098.
Frenzel, A. C., T. Goetz, R. Pekrun, and H. M. Watt (2010) “Development of Mathematics
Interest in Adolescence: Influences of Gender, Family, and School Context,” Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 20 (2): 507–537.
Frenzel, A. C., R. Pekrun, A.-L. Dicke, and T. Goetz (2012) “Beyond Quantitative
Decline: Conceptual Shifts in Adolescents’ Development of Interest in Mathematics,”
Developmental Psychology, 48 (4): 1069–1082.
Fryer, D. (1931) The Measurement of Interests, New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Fulcher, K. H. (2008) “Curiosity: A Link to Assessing Lifelong Learning,” Assessment
Update, 20 (2): 11–13.
Furtak, E. M., T. Seidel, H. Iverson, and D. C. Briggs (2012) “Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis,”
Review of Educational Research, 82 (3): 300–329.
Gardner, H. (1990) Art Education and Human Development, Santa Monica, CA: The Getty
Center for Education in the Arts.
Garner, R., P. A. Alexander, M. G. Gillingham, and R. Brown (1991) “Interest and Learning
from Text,” American Educational Research Journal, 28 (3): 643–659.
Garner, R., R. Brown, S. Sanders, and D. J. Menke (1992) “ ‘Seductive Details’ and Learning
from the Text,” in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest in
Learning and Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 239–254.
Garner, R., M. G. Gillingham, and C. S. White (1989) “Effects of ‘Seductive Details’
on Macroprocessing and Microprocessing in Adults and Children,” Cognition and
Instruction, 6 (1): 41–57.
Gee, J. P. (2004) Situated Language and Learning, London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Gehlbach, H., S. W. Brown, A. Ioannou, M. A. Boyer, N. Hudson, A. Niv-Solomon et al.
(2008) “Increasing Interest in Social Studies: Social Perspective Taking and Self-Efficacy
in Stimulating Simulations,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (4): 894–914.
Gerritsen, C. J., M. E. Toplak, J. Sciaraffa, and J. Eastwood (2014) “I Can’t Get No
Satisfaction: Potential Causes of Boredom,” Consciousness and Cognition, 27: 27–41.
Geyer, C., K. Neubauer, and D. Lewalter (2013) “Public Understanding of Science Via
Research Areas in Science Museums: The Evaluation of the EU Project Nanototouch,”
in L. Locke and S. Locke (eds), Knowledges in Publics, Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 50–74.
Ginzberg, E., S. W. Ginsburg, S. Axelrad, and J. L. Herma (1966) Occupational Choice: An
Approach to a General Theory, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Gisbert, K. (1998) “Individual Interest in Mathematics and Female Gender Identity:
Biographical Case Studies,” in L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, and J. Baumert
(eds), Interest and Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, Kiel,
Germany: IPN, pp. 387–401.
Glynn, S. M., R. R. Bryan, P. Brickman, and N. Armstrong (2015) “Intrinsic Motivation,
Self-Efficacy, and Interest in Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi
References 147

Goetz, T., and N. C. Hall (2014) “Academic Boredom,” in R. Pekrun and L. Linnenbrink-
Garcia (eds), International Handbook of Emotions in Education, London and New York,
NY: Routledge, pp. 311–331.
Gottlieb, J., P.-Y. Oudeyer, M. Lopes, and A. Baranes (2013) “Information Seeking, Curiosity
and Attention: Computational and Neural Mechanisms,” Trends in Cognitive Science, 17
(11): 585–596.
Graham, J., R. Tisher, M. Ainley, and G. Kennedy (2008) “Staying with the Text: The
Contribution of Gender, Achievement Orientations, and Interest to Students
Performance on a Literacy Task,” Educational Psychology, 28 (7): 757–776.
Gresalfi, M. S. (2009) “Taking Up Opportunities to Learn: Constructing Dispositions in
Mathematics Classrooms,” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (3): 327–369.
Gruber, M. J., B. D. Gelman, and C. Ranganath (2014) “States of Curiosity Modulate
Hippocampus-Dependent Learning Via the Dopaminergic Circuit,” Neuron, 84
(2): 486–496.
Gunnar, M. R., and M. De Haan (2009) “Methods in Social Neuroscience Issues in Studying
Development,” in M. De Haan and M. R. Gunnar (eds), Handbook of Developmental
Social Neuroscience, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 13–37.
Gutherie, J. T., A. Wigfield, N. H. Humenck, K. C. Perencevich, A. Taboada, and P. Barosa
(2006) “Influences of Stimulating Tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension,”
Journal of Educational Research, 99: 232–247.
Hagay, G., and A. Baram-Tsabari (2011) “A Shadow Curriculum: Incorporating Students’
Interests into the Formal Biology Curriculum,” Research in Science Education, 41 (5): 611–634.
Halet, E. (2008) “The Effect of Designing Webquests on the Motivation of Pre-Service
Elementary School Teachers,” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 39 (6): 793–802.
Halverson, E. R., and K. Sheridan (2014) “The Maker Movement in Education,” Harvard
Educational Review, 84 (4): 495–504.
Hameline, D. (2000) “Édouard Claparède,” Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative
Education, 13 (1/2): 159–197.
Hannover, B., and U. Kessels (2004) “Self-to-Prototype Matching as a Strategy for Making
Academic Choices: Why High School Students Do Not Like Math and Science,”
Learning and Instruction, 14 (1): 51–67.
Harackiewicz, J. M., and A. J. Elliot (1993) “Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (5): 904–915.
Harackiewicz, J. M., and C. Sansone (1991) “Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: You Can Get
There from Here,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7: 21–49.
Harackiewicz, J. M., K. E. Barron, J. M. Tauer, S. M. Carter, and A. J. Elliot (2000)
“Short-Term and Long-Term Consequences of Achievement Goals: Predicting Interest
and Performance over Time,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2): 316–330.
Harackiewicz, J. M., K. E. Barron, J. M. Tauer, and A. J. Elliot (2002) “Predicting Success
in College: A Longitudinal Study of Achievement Goals and Ability Measures as
Predictors of Interest and Performance from Freshman Year through Graduation,”
Harackiewicz, J. M., A. M. Durik, K. E. Barron, L. Linnenbrink, and J. M.Tauer (2008) “The
Role of Achievement Goals in the Development of Interest: Reciprocal Relations
between Achievement Goals, Interest, and Performance,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
100 (1): 105–122.
148 References
Harackiewicz, J. M., C. S. Rozek, C. S. Hulleman, and J. S. Hyde (2012) “Helping Parents

to Motivate Adolescents in Mathematics and Science: An Experimental Test of a
Utility-Value Intervention,” Psychological Science, 20 (10): 1–8.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Y. Tibbetts, E. Canning, and J. S. Hyde (2014) “Harnessing Values to
Promote Motivation in Education,” in S. A. Karabenick and T. C. Urdan (eds), Advances
in Motivation and Achievement, vol. XVIII: Motivational Interventions, Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp.71–107.
Harter, S. (1982) “The Perceived Competence Scale for Children,” Child Development, 53
(1): 87–97.
Harter, S. (2006) “The Self,” in N. Eisenberg (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. III:
Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 505–570.
Häussler, P., and L. Hoffmann (2002) “An Intervention Study to Enhance Girls’ Interest,
Self-Concept, and Achievement in Physics Classes,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
39 (9): 870–888.
Hay, I., R. Callingham, and C. Carmichael (2015) “Interest, Self-Efficacy, and Academic
Achievement in a Statistics Lesson,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi
Heck, K. E., and A. Subramaniam (2009) Youth Development Frameworks, Davis, CA: 4-H
Center for Youth Development, University of California Davis.
Herbart, J. F. (1965) “Allgemeine Pädagogik, aud dem Zweck der Erziehung Abgeleitet,”
in J. F. Herbart (ed.), Pädagogische Schriften, 2 vols., Düsseldorf: Kupper, vol. II,
pp. 1–114.
Hetland, A., and J. Vittersø (2012) “The Feelings of Extreme Risk: Exploring Emotional
Quality and Variability in Skydiving and BASE Jumping,” Journal of Sport Behavior, 35
(2): 154–180.
Hickey, C., L. Chelazzi, and J. Theeuwes (2011) “Reward Has a Residual Impact on Target
Selection in Visual Search, but Not on the Suppression of Distractors,” Visual Cognition,
19 (1): 117–128.
Hidi, S. (1990) “Interest and Its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning,” Review
of Educational Research, 60 (4): 549–571.
Hidi, S. (1995) “A Re-examination of the Role of Attention in Learning from Text,”
Educational Psychology Review, 7 (4): 323–350.
Hidi, S. (2000) “An Interest Researcher’s Perspective: The Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Factors on Motivation,” in C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz (eds), Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance, New York, NY: Academic,
pp. 311–342.
Hidi, S. (2001) “Interest, Reading and Learning: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,”
Educational Psychology Review, 13 (3): 191–210.
Hidi, S. (2006) “Interest: A Unique Motivational Variable,” Educational Research Review, 1
(2): 69–82.
Hidi, S. (2015) “Revisiting the Role of Rewards in Motivation and Learning: Implications
of Neuroscientific Findings,” Educational Psychology Review, pp. 1–33.
Hidi, S., and M. Ainley (2002) “Interest and Adolescence,” in M. Pajares and T. Urdan (eds),
Adolescence and Education, Greenwich, CT: IAP, vol. 2, pp. 247–275.
Hidi, S., and M. Ainley (2008) “Interest and Self-Regulation: Relationships between
Two Variables that Influence Learning,” in D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (eds),
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Application, Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 77–109.
References 149
Hidi, S., and V. Anderson (1992) “Situational Interest and Its Impact on Reading and
Expository Writing,” in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest
in Learning and Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 215–238.
Hidi, S., and W. Baird (1986) “Interestingness: A Neglected Variable in Discourse
Processing,” Cognitive Science, 10 (2): 179–194.
Hidi, S., and W. Baird (1988) “Strategies for Increasing Text-Based Interest and Students’
Recall of Expository Texts,” Reading Research Quarterly, 23 (4): 465–483.
Hidi, S., and D. Berndorff (1998) “Situational Interest and Learning,” in L. Hoffman, A.
Krapp, K. A. Renninger, and J. Baumert (eds), Interest and Learning: Proceedings of the
Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, Kiel: IPEN, pp. 74–90.
Hidi, S., and J. M. Harackiewicz (2000) “Motivating the Academically Unmotivated: A Critical
Issue for the 21st Century,” Review of Educational Research, 70 (2): 151–179.
Hidi, S., and J. McLaren (1990) “The Effect of Topic and Theme Interestingness on the
Production of School Expositions,” in H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennet, and H. F. Friedrich
(eds), Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, 2 (2): 295–308.
Hidi, S., and J. McLaren (1991) “Motivational Factors and Writing: The Role of Topic
Interestingness,” European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6 (2): 187–197.
Hidi, S., and K. A. Renninger (2006) “The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development,”
Educational Psychologist, 41 (2): 111–127.
Hidi, S., M. Ainley, D. Berndorff, and L. Del Favero (2007) “The Role of Interest and
Self-Efficacy in Science-Related Expository Writing,” in S. Hidi and P. Boscolo
(eds), Studies in Writing, vol. XIX: Writing and Motivation, Oxford, UK: Elsevier,
pp. 241–255.
Hidi, S., D. Berndorff, and M. Ainley (2002) “Children’s Argument Writing, Interest and
Self-Efficacy: An Intervention Study,” Learning and Instruction, 12 (4): 429–446.
Hidi, S., K. A. Renninger, and A. Krapp (1992) “The Present State of Interest Research,”
in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest in Learning and
Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 433–444.
Hidi, S., K. A. Renninger, and M. Nieswandt (2015) “Emerging Issues and Themes in
Addressing Mathematics and Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi
Hidi, S., J.Weiss, J., D. Berndorff, and J. Nolan (1998) “The Role of Gender, Instruction and
a Cooperative Learning Technique in Science Education across Formal and Informal
Settings,” in L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. Renninger, and J. Baumert (eds), Interest and
Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, Kiel, Germany: IPN,
pp. 215–227.
Hoffmann, L. (2002) “Promoting Girls’ Learning and Achievement in Physics Classes for
Beginners,” Learning and Instruction, 12 (4): 447–465.
Holland, J. L. (1959) “A Theory of Vocational Choice,” Journal of Counseling Psychology,
6: 35–45.
Holland, J. L. (1996) “Exploring Careers with a Typology: What Have We Learned and
Some New Directions,” American Psychologist, 51 (4): 397−406.
Holstermann, N., M. Ainley, D. Grube, T. Roick, and S. Bögeholz (2012) “The Specific
Relationship between Disgust and Interest: Relevance during Biology Class Dissections
and Gender Differences,” Learning and Instruction, 22 (3): 185–192.
Hong, H., and X. Lin-Siegler (2012) “How Learning about Scientists’ Struggles Influences
Students’ Interest and Learning in Physics,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (2):
469–484.
150 References
Hsu, M., M. Bhatt, R. Adolphs, D. Tranel, and C. F. Camerer (2005) “Neural Systems
Responding to Degrees of Uncertainty in Human Decision Making,” Science, 310:
1680–1683.
Hulleman, C. S., O. Godes, B. L. Hendricks, and J. M. Harackiewicz (2010) “Enhancing
Interest and Performance with a Utility Value Intervention,” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102 (4): 880–895.
Hulleman, C. S., S. Schrager, S. Bodmann, and J. M. Harackiewicz (2010) “A Meta-Analysis
Review of Achievement Goal Measures: Different Labels for the Same Constructs or
Different Constructs with Similar Labels?” Psychological Bulletin, 136 (3): 422–449.
Hulleman, C., and J. Harackiewicz (2009) “Promoting Interest and Performance in High
School Science Classes,” Science, 326 (5698): 1410–1412.
Illeris, K. (2007) How We Learn, London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1987) “Cognitive and Affective Causes of Interest and Liking,” Journal of
Ito, M., S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, d. boyd, R. Cody, B. Herr-Stephenson, H. A. Horst, P. G.
Lange, D. Mahendran, K. Z. Martinez, C. J. Pascoe, D. Perkel, L. Robinson, C. Sims, and
L. Tripp (2010) Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning
with New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Iyengar, S. S., and M. R. Lepper (1999) “Rethinking the Role of Choice: A Cultural
Perspective on Intrinsic Motivation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 349–366.
Izard, C. E. (1977) Human Emotions, London and New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Izard, C. E. (2007) “Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds, Emotion Schemas, and a New
Paradigm,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (3): 260–280.
Izard, C. E. (2009) “Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions,
and Emerging Issues,” Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 1–25.
Jackson, S. A. (2012) “Flow,” in R. M. Ryan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation
XX, London and New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 127–148.
Jacobs, J. E., S. Lanza, D. W. Osgood, J. S. Eccles, and A. Wigfield (2002) “Changes in
Children’s Self-Competence and Values: Gender and Domain Differences across Grades
One through Twelve,” Child Development, 73 (2): 509–527.
James, W. (1890) The Principles of Psychology, London, UK: Macmillan.
Järvelä, S. and K. A. Renninger (2014) “Designing for Learning: Interest, Motivation, and
Engagement,” in D. K. Sawyer (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd
edn, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 668–685.
Jenkins, E. W., and R. G. Pell (2006) The Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) in
England: A Summary of Findings, Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics
Education, University of Leeds.
Jenkins, H. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the
21st Century, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jepma, M., R. G. Verdonschot, H. Van Steenbergen, S. A. Rombouts, and S. Nieuwenhuis
(2012) “Neural Mechanisms Underlying the Induction and Relief of Perceptual
Curiosity,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 6 (5): 1–9.
Jones, B. D., C. Ruff, and J. W. Osborne (2015) “Fostering Student’s Identification with
Mathematics and Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest
Kahan, D. (2013) “Here Is What Interests Us! Students’ Reconceived Physical Education
Activity Offerings in an Inner-City Middle School,” Physical Educator, 70 (3):
243–261.
References 151
Kang, M. J., M. Hsu, I. M. Krajbich, G. Loewenstein, S. M. McClure, J. T. Wang, and C. F.

Camerer (2009) “The Wick in the Candle of Learning: Epistemic Curiosity Activates
Reward Circuitry and Enhances Memory,” Psychological Science, 20 (8): 963–973.
Karabenick, S. A., M. E.Woolley, J. M. Friedel, B.V. Ammon, J. Blazevski, C. R. Bonney et al.
(2007) “Cognitive Processing of Self-Report Items in Educational Research: Do They
Think What We Mean?” Educational Psychologist, 42 (3): 139–151.
Katz, I., and A. Assor (2007) “When Choice Motivates and When It Does Not,” Educational
Psychology Review, 19 (4): 429–442.

Katz, S., D. Allbritton, J. Aronis, C. Wilson, and M. L. Soffa (2006) “Gender, Achievement,
and Persistence in an Undergraduate Computer Science Program,” SIGMIS Database,
37 (4): 42–57.
Kayali, H. (2009) “Effects of Near-to-Far Principle and Other Factors on Learning and
Teaching Some Geography Subjects in the Social Studies Course,” Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 36 (2): 175–182.
Kessels, U., M. Rau, and B. Hannover (2006) “What Goes Well with Physics? Measuring and
Altering the Image of Science,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (4): 761–780.
Kim, S., Y. Jiang, and J. Song (2015) “The Effect of Interest and Utility on Mathematics
Engagement and Achievement,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds),
Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington, DC: American Educational
Kim, S., M. J. Lee, and M. Bong (2009) “FMRI Study on the Effects of Task Interest and
Perceived Competence during Negative Feedback Processing,” paper presented at the
Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, April, San Diego, CA.
Kintsch, W. (1980) “Learning from Text, Levels of Comprehension; or, Why Anyone Would
Read a Story Anyway?” Poetics, 9: 87–98.
Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark (2006) “Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction
Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching,” Educational Psychologist, 41 (1): 75–86.
Knogler, M., J. M. Harackiewicz, A. Gegenfurtner, and D. Lewalter (2015) “How Situational
is Situational Interest? Investigating the Longitudinal Structure of Situational Interest,”
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43: 39–50.
Knutson, B., and G. E.Wimmer (2007) “Reward: Neural Circuitry for Social Valuation,” in
E. Harmon-Jones and P. Winkielman (eds), Social Neuroscience: Integrating Biological and
Psychological Explanations of Social Behavior, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 157–175.
Köller, O., J. Baumert, and K. Schnabel (2001) “Does Interest Matter? The Relationship
between Academic Interest and Achievement in Mathematics,” Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 32 (5): 448–470.
Konecni, V. J. (1978) “Daniel E. Berlyne: 1924–1976,” The American Journal of Psychology,
91 (1): 133–137.
Krapp, A. (2002a) “An Educational-Psychological Theory of Interest and Its Relation to
SDT,” in E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (eds), Handbook of Self-Determination Research,
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Krapp, A. (2002b) “Structural and Dynamic Aspects of Interest Development: Theoretical
Considerations from an Ontogenetic Perspective,” Learning and Instruction, 12
(4): 383–409.
Krapp, A. (2005). “Basic Needs and the Development of Interest and Intrinsic Motivational
Orientations,” Learning and Instruction, 12: 383–409.
Krapp, A. (2007) “An Educational-Psychological Conceptualization of Interest,” Inter
national Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7 (1): 5–21.
152 References
Krapp, A., and B. Fink (1992) “The Development and Function of Interests during the
Critical Transition from Home to Preschool,” in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A.
Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.
397–431.
Krapp,A., and D. Lewalter (2001) “Development of Interests and Interest-Based Motivational
Orientations: A Longitudinal Study in Vocational School and Work Settings,” in S.Volet
and S. Järvela (eds), Motivation in Learning Contexts: Theoretical Advances and Methodological
Implications, New York, NY: Elsevier, pp. 209–232.

Krapp, A., and M. Prenzel (2011) “Research on Interest in Science: Theories, Methods
and Findings,” International Journal of Science Education, 33 (1): 27–50.
Krapp, A., S. Hidi, and K. A. Renninger (1992) “Interest, Learning, and Development,”
in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest in Learning and
Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 3–25.
Kunter, M., J. Baumert, and O. Köller (2007) “Effective Classroom Management and the
Development of Subject-Related Interest,” Learning and Instruction, 17 (5): 494–509.
Lammers, J. C. (2013) “Fangirls as Teachers: Examining Pedagogic Discourse in an Online
Fan Site,” Learning, Media and Technology, 38 (4): 368–386.
Lammers, J. C., J. S. Curwood, and A. M. Magnifico (2012) “Toward an Affinity Space
Methodology: Considerations for Literacy Research,” English Teaching: Practice and
Critique, 11 (2): 44–58.
Lamont, A., D. J. Hargreaves, N. A. Marshall, and M. Tarrant (2003) “Young People’s Music
In and Out of School,” British Journal of Music Education, 20 (3): 229–241.
Larson, R. W. (2000) “Toward a Psychology of Positive Youth Development,” American
Psychologist, 55 (1): 170–183.
Larson, R. W., K. C. Walker, N. Rusk, and L. B. Diaz (2015) “Understanding Youth
Development From the Practitioner’s Point of View: A Call for Research on Effective
Practice,” Applied Developmental Science 19 (2): 74−86.
Larson, S. C. (2014a) “Exploring the Roles of the Generative Vocabulary Matrix and
Academic Literacy Engagement of Ninth Grade Biology Students,” Literacy Research
and Instruction, 53 (4): 287–325.
Larson, S. C. (2014b) “Using a Generative Vocabulary Matrix in the Learning Workshop,”
The Reading Teacher, 68 (2): 113–125.
Lee, M. (2007) “Spark Up the American Revolution with Math, Science, and More: An
Example of an Integrative Curriculum Unit,” The Social Studies, 98 (4): 159–164.
Lenhart, A., S. Arafeh, A. Smith, and A. Macgill (2008) “Writing, Technology, and Teens,”
Pew Internet and the American Life Project, available online at http://www.pewinternet.
org/2008/04/24/writing-technology-and-teens/ (accessed October 20, 2015).
Lent, R. W., S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett (1994) “Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive
Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance,” Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 45 (1): 79–122.
Lent, R. W., M. J. Miller, P. E. Smith, B. A. Watford, R. H. Lim, K. Hui et al. (2013) “Social
Cognitive Predictors of Adjustment to Engineering Majors across Gender and Race/
Ethnicity,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83 (1): 22–30.
Leotti, L. A., and M. R. Delgado (2011) “The Inherent Reward of Choice,” Psychological
Science, 22 (10): 1310–1318.
Lerner, R. M., J. V. Lerner, J. Almerigi, and C. Theokas (2005) “Positive Youth
Development: A View of the Issues,” Journal of Early Adolescence, 25 (1): 10–16.
Leslie, I. (2014) Curious: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends On It, London:
Anansi.
References 153
Levy, S. (1996) Starting from Scratch: One Classroom Builds Its Own Curriculum, Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Lewalter, D., C. Geyer, and K. Neubauer (2014) “Comparing the Effectiveness of Two
Communication Formats on Visitors’ Understanding of Nanotechnology,” Visitor
Studies, 17 (2): 159–176.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., A. M. Durik, A. M. Conley, K. E. Barron, J. M. Tauer, S. A.
Karabenick, and J. M. Harackiewicz (2010) “Measuring Situational Interest in Academic
Domains,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70 (4): 647–671.

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., E. A. Patall, and E. E. Messersmith (2012) “Antecedents and
Consequences of Situational Interest,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83
(4): 591–614.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., K. J. Pugh, K. L. Koskey, and V. C. Stewart (2012) “Developing
Conceptual Understanding of Natural Selection: The Role of Interest, Efficacy, and
Basic Prior Knowledge,” The Journal of Experimental Education, 80 (1): 45–68.
Lipstein, R., and K. A. Renninger (2007a) “Interest for Writing: How Teachers Can Make
a Difference,” English Journal, 96 (4): 79–85.
Lipstein, R., and K. A. Renninger (2007b) “‘Putting Things into Words’: 12–15-Year-Old
Students’ Interest for Writing,” in P. Boscolo and S. Hidi (eds), Motivation andWriting: Research
and School Practice, New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, pp. 113–140.
Litman, J. A. (2005) “Curiosity and the Pleasures of Learning: Wanting and Liking New
Information,” Cognition and 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): 397–402.
Litman, J. A., and T. L. Jimerson (2004) “The Measurement of Curiosity as a Feeling of
Deprivation,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 82: 147–157.
Litman, J.A., and P. Mussel (2013) “Validity of the Interest- and Deprivation-Type Epistemic
Curiosity Model in Germany,” Journal of Individual Differences, 34 (2): 59–68.
Litman, J. A., H. M. Crowson, and K. Kolinski (2010) “Validity of the Interest- and
Deprivation-Type Epistemic Curiosity Distinction in Non-Students,” Personality and
Individual Differences, 49 (5): 531–536.
Logtenberg, A., C. A. M.Van Boxtel, G. L. J. Schellings, and B. H. A. M.Van Hout-Wolters
(2011) “The Onset of Students’ Questioning in History,” paper presented at the
European Association on Learning and Instruction, Exeter, UK.
Long, J. F., and P. K. Murphy (2005) “Connecting through Content: The Responsiveness of
Teacher and Student Interest in a Core Course,” paper presented at the Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, April, Montreal, Canada.
Low, K. D., M. Yoon, B. W. Roberts, and J. Rounds (2005) “The Stability of Vocational
Interests from Early Adolescence to Middle Adulthood: A Quantitative Review of
Longitudinal Studies,” Psychological Bulletin, 131: 713–737.
Lowenstein, G. (1994) “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation,”
Psychology Bulletin, 116 (1): 75–98.
Magner, U. I., R. Schwonke, V. Aleven, O. Popescu, and A. Renkl (2014) “Triggering
Situational Interest by Decorative Illustrations Both Fosters and Hinders Learning in
Computer-Based Learning Environments,” Learning and Instruction, 29: 141–152.
Magnifico, A. M. (2012) “The Game of Nepean Writing,” in E. R. Hayes and S. C. Duncan
(eds), Learning in Video Game Affinity Spaces, New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 212–234.
154 References
Maltese, A. V., and J. A. Harsh (2015) “Student’s Pathways of Entry into STEM,” in K. A.
Maltese, A. V., and R. H. Tai (2010) “Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of Early Interest in
Science,” International Journal of Science Education, 32 (5): 669–685.
Marjoribanks, K., and M. Mboya (2004) “Learning Environments, Goal Orientations, and
Interest in Music,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 52 (2): 155–166.
Markey, A., and G. Lowenstein (2014) “Curiosity,” in R. Pekrun and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia

(eds), International Handbook of Emotions in Education, London and New York,
NY: Routledge, pp. 246–264.
Marsh, H., and S. Kleitman (2002) “Extracurricular School Activities: The Good, the Bad,
and the Nonlinear,” Harvard Educational Review, 72 (4): 464–515.
Marsh, H. W., U. Trautwein, O. Lüdtke, O. Köller, and J. Baumert (2005) “Academic
Self-Concept, Interest, Grades, and Standardized Test Scores: Reciprocal Effects Models
of Causal Ordering,” Child Development, 76 (2): 397–416.
Mart, G.T. (2012) “Encouraging Young Learners to Learn English through Stories,” English
Martin-Soelch, C., K. L. Leenders, A.-F. Chevalley, J. Missimer, G. Künig, S. Magyar, A.
Mino, and W. Schultz (2001) “Reward Mechanisms in the Brain and Their Role in
Dependence: Evidence from Neurophysiological and Neuroimaging Studies,” Brain
Research Reviews, 36 (2): 139–149.
Mayer, R. E., E. Griffith, I. T. N. Jurkowitz, and D. Rothman (2008) “Increased Interest
ingness of Extraneous Details in a Multimedia Science Presentation Leads to Decreased
Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14 (4): 329–339.
McCarthey, S. J., A. M. López-Velásquez, G. E. García, S. Lin, and Y. H. Guo (2004)
“Understanding Writing Contexts for English Language Learners,” Research in the
Teaching of English, 38 (4): 351–394.
McCrae, R. R., and P. T. Costa (1990) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory
Perspective, London, UK: Guilford Press.
McDaniel, M. A., P. J. Waddill, K. Finstad, and T. Bourg (2000) “The Effects of Text-Based
Interest on Attention and Recall,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (3): 492–502.
McDougall, W. (1932) The Energies of Men, London and New York, NY: Routledge.
McHale, S. M., J. Y. Kim, A. M. Dotterer, A. C. Crouter, and A. Booth (2009) “The
Development of Gendered Interests and Personality Qualities from Middle Childhood
through Adolescence: A Biosocial Analysis,” Child Development, 80 (2): 482–495.
McKay, C., M. Sanders, and S.Wroblewski (2011) “Positive Youth Development and School
Capacity Building,” School Social Work Journal, 36 (1): 16–25.
McMullen, P. T., and M. J. Arnold (1976) “Preference and Interest as Functions of
Distributional Redundancy in Rhythmic Sequences,” Journal of Research in Music
Education, 24 (1): 22–31.
Meredith, D. C., and E. F. Redish (2013) “Reinventing Physics for Life-Science Majors,”
Physics Today, 66 (7): 38–43.
Meyer, D. K. and J. C. Turner (2002) “Discovering Emotion in Classroom Motivation
Research,” Educational Psychologist, 37 (2): 107–114.
Michaelis, J. E. and M. J. Nathan (2015) “The Four-Phase Interest Development in
Engineering Survey,” paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,
Seattle, Washington.
Mitchell, K., and S. Elwood (2012) “Engaging Students through Mapping Local History,”
Journal of Geography, 111 (4): 148–157.
References 155
Mitchell, M. (1993) “Situational Interest: Its Multifaceted Structure in the Secondary

School Mathematics Classroom,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3): 424–436.
Moore, H. T. (1921) “The Comparative Influence of Majority and Expert Opinion,”
American Journal of Psychology, 32: 16–20.
Mortillaro, M., M. Mehu, and K. R. Scherer (2011) “Subtly Different Positive Emotions
Can Be Distinguished by Their Facial Expressions,” Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 2 (3): 262–271.
Murayama, K., M. Matsumoto, K. Izuma, A. Sugiura, R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, and K.

Matsumoto (2015) “How Self-Determined Choice Facilitates Performance: A Key
Role of the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex,” Cerebral Cortex, 25: 1241–1251.
Murayama, K., R. Pekrun, S. Lichtenfeld, and R. Vom Hofe (2013) “Predicting Long
Term Growth in Students’ Mathematics Achievement: The Unique Contributions of
Motivation and Cognitive Strategies,” Child Development, 84 (4): 1475–1490.
Murphy, P. K., and P. A. Alexander (2000) “A Motivated Exploration of Motivation
Terminology,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1): 3–53.
Myers, N. A., and M. Perlmutter (1978) “Memory in the Years from Two to Five,” in P. A.
Ornstein (ed.), Memory Development in Children, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 191–218.
Naizer, G., M. J. Hawthorne, and T. B. Henley (2014) “Narrowing the Gender Gap: Enduring
Changes in Middle School Students’ Attitude toward Math, Science and Technology,”
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15 (3): 29–34.
New London Group (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures,”
Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1): 60–92.
New York Hall of Science (2013) Making Meaning (M2), Queens, NY: New York Hall of
Science.
Niemivirta, M., and A. Tapola (2007) “Self-Efficacy, Interest, and Task Performance:
Within-Task Changes, Mutual Relationships, and Predictive Effects,” Zeitschrift Für
Pädagogische Psychologie, 21 (3): 241–250.
Nieswandt, M. (2007) “Student Affect and Conceptual Understanding in Learning
Chemistry,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (7): 908–937.
Nieswandt, M., and G. Horowitz (2015) “Undergraduate Students’ Interest in
Chemistry: The Roles of Task and Choice,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and
S. Hidi (eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington, DC: American
Nolen, S. B. (2001) “Constructing Literacy in the Kindergarten: Task Structure,
Collaboration, and Motivation,” Cognition and Instruction, 19 (1): 95–142.
Nolen, S. B. (2007a) “Young Children’s Motivation to Read and Write: Development in
Social Contexts,” Cognition and Instruction, 25 (2): 219–270.
Nolen, S. B. (2007b) “The Role of Literate Communities in the Development of Children’s
Interest in Writing,” in S. Hidi and P. Boscolo (eds), Writing and Motivation, Oxford,
UK: Elsevier, pp. 241–255.
Nye, C. D., R. Su, J. Rounds, and F. Drasgow (2012) “Vocational Interests and Performance:
A Quantitative Summary of over 60 Years of Research,” Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 7 (4): 384–403.
O’Keefe, P. A., and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (2014) “The Role of Interest in Optimizing
Performance and Self-Regulation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53: 70–78.
OECD (2006) Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA
2006, Paris, France: OECD.
OECD (2007) PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, vol. I: Analysis, Paris,
France: OECD.
156 References
Ohland, M. W., C. E. Brawner, M. M. Camacho, R. A. Layton, R. A. Long, S. M. Lord,

and M. H. Wasburn (2011) “Race, Gender, and Measures of Success in Engineering
Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, 100: 225–252.
Paige, D. D. (2011) “Engaging Struggling Adolescent Readers Through Situational Interest:
A Model Proposing the Relationships Among Extrinsic Motivation, Oral Reading
Proficiency, Comprehension, and Academic Achievement,” Reading Psychology, 32:
395-425.
Pajares, F. (1996) “Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings,” Review of Educational Research,

66 (4): 543–578.
Palmer, D. H. (2004) “Situational Interest and the Attitudes towards Science of Primary
Teacher Education Students,” International Journal of Science Education, 26 (7): 895–908.
Palmer, D. H. (2009) “Student Interest Generated during an Inquiry Skills Lesson,” Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (2): 147–165.
Panksepp, J. (1998) Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotion,
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. (2000) “The Riddle of Laughter: Neural and Psychoevolutionary
Underpinnings of Joy,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9 (6): 183–186.
Papastergiou, M. (2008) “Online Computer Games as Collaborative Learning
Environments: Prospects and Challenges for Tertiary Education,” Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 37 (1): 19–38.
Patall, E. A. (2012) “The Motivational Complexity of Choosing: A Review of Theory and
Research,” in R. M. Ryan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 248–279.
Patall, E. A., H. Cooper, and C. J. Robinson (2008) “The Effects of Choice on Intrinsic
Motivation and Related Outcomes:A Meta-Analysis of Research Findings,” Psychological
Bulletin, 134 (2): 270−300.
Paterson, D. G., R. M. Elliott, L. D. Anderson, H. A. Toops, and E. Heidbreder (1930)
Minnesota Mechanical Ability Tests, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Pekrun, R., T. Goetz, L. M. Daniels, R. H. Stupnisky, and R. P. Perry (2010) “Boredom
in Achievement Settings: Exploring Control-Value Antecedents and Performance
Outcomes of a Neglected Emotion,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3): 531–549.
Perlmutter, M., and G. Lange (1978) “A Developmental Analysis of Recall-Recognition
Distinctions,” in P. A. Ornstein (ed.), Memory Development in Children, Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 243–258.
Perlmutter, M., and N. A. Myers (1974) “Recognition Memory Development in Two- to
Four-Year-Olds,” Developmental Psychology, 10 (3): 447–450.
Perlmutter, M., and N. A. Myers (1976) “Recognition Memory in Preschool Children,”
Developmental Psychology, 12 (3): 271–272.
Pestalozzi, J. H. (2004) Letters on Education, Syracuse, NY: C. W. Bardeen.
Philip,T. M., and A. D. Garcia (2013) “The Importance of Still Teaching the iGeneration: New
Technologies and the Centrality of Pedagogy,” Harvard Educational Review, 83 (2): 300–319.
Pinkard, N., and K. Austin (2014) “The Digital Youth Network Learning Model,” in
B. Barron, K. Gomez, N. Pinkard, and C. K. Martin (eds), The Digital Youth Network:
Cultivating Digital Media Citizenship in Urban Communities, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
pp. 17–40.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) “Multiple Goals, Multiple Pathways: The Role of Goal Orientation
in Learning and Achievement,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (3): 544–555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003) “Motivation and Classroom Learning,” in I. B.Weiner (ed.), Handbook
of Psychology, vol.VII, New York, NY: Wiley.
References 157
Pintrich, P. R., and A. Zusho (2002) “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation:

The Role of Cognitive and Motivational Factors,” in A. Wigfield, and J. S. Eccles (eds),
Development of Achievement Motivation, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 249–284.
Piotrowski, J. T., J. A. Litman, and P.Valkenburg (2014) “Measuring Epistemic Curiosity in
Young Children,” Infant and Child Development, 23 (5): 542–553.
Potvin, P., and A. Hasni (2014) “Interest, Motivation and Attitude towards Science and
Technology at K–12 Levels: A Systematic Review of 12 Years of Educational Research,”
Studies in Science Education, 50 (1): 85–129.

Pressick-Kilborn, K. (2015) “Canalization and Connectedness in the Development
of Science Interest,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest in
Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Pressick-Kilborn, K., and R. Walker (2002) “The Social Construction of Interest in
a Learning Community,” in D. M. McInerney and S. Van Etten (eds), Research on
Sociocultural Influences on Learning and Motivation, Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishers, pp. 153–182.
Pugh, K. J., L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, K. L. Koskey, V. C. Stewart, and C. Manzey (2010)
“Motivation, Learning, and Transformative Experience: A Study of Deep Engagement
in Science,” Science Education, 94 (1): 1–28.
Pugh, K., L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, M. Phillips, and T. Perez (2015) “Supporting the
Development of Transformative Experience and Interest,” in K. A. Renninger, M.
Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 369–383.
Randler, C., and F. X. Bogner (2007) “Pupils’ Interest Before, During, and After a
Curriculum Dealing with Ecological Topics and Its Relationship with Achievement,”
Educational Research and Evaluation, 13 (5): 463–478.
Rathunde, K. (1998) “Undivided and Abiding Interest: Comparisons across Studies of
Talented Adolescents and Creative Adults,” in L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger,
and J. Baumert (eds), Interest and Learning, Kiel, Germany: IPN, pp. 367–376.
Ray, M. (2013) Powerful Problem-Solving: Activities for Making Sense with the Mathematical
Practices, Portsmith, NH: Heinemann.
Read, H. (1958) Education through Art, 3rd edn, New York, NY: Pantheon.
Reber, R., H. Hetland, W. Chen, E. Norman, and T. Kobbeltvedt (2009) “Effects of
Example Choice on Interest, Control, and Learning,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18
(4): 509–548.
Reeve, J. (1993) “The Face of Interest,” Motivation and Emotion, 77 (4): 353–375.
Reeve, J. (1996) Motivating Others: Nurturing Inner Motivational Resources, Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Reeve, J., and G. Nix (1997) “Expressing Intrinsic Motivation through Acts of Exploration
and Facial Displays of Interest,” Motivation and Emotion, 27 (3): 237–250.
Reeve, J., W. Lee, and S. Won (2015) “Interest as Emotion, Affect, and Schema,” in K. A.
Reid, J. (2011) “ ‘We Don’t Twitter, We Facebook’: An Alternative Pedagogical Space
that Enables Critical Practices in Relation to Writing,” English Teaching: Practice and
Critique, 10 (1): 58–80.
Reio, T. G., J. M. Petrosko, A. K. Wiswell, and J. Thongsukmag (2006) “The Measurement
and Conceptualization of Curiosity,” The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167 (2):
117–135.
158 References
Renninger, K. A. (1989) “Individual Patterns in Children’s Play Interests,” in L. T. Winegar

(ed.), Social Interaction and the Development of Children’s Understanding, Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 147–172.
Renninger, K. A. (1990) “Children’s Play Interests, Representation, and Activity,” in R.
Fivush and J. Hudson (eds), Knowing and Remembering in Young Children, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–165.
Renninger, K. A. (1992) “Individual Interest and Development: Implications for Theory
and Practice,” in K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest in
Learning and Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 361–395.
Renninger, K.A. (2000) “Individual Interest and Its Implications for Understanding Intrinsic
Motivation,” in C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz (eds), Intrinsic Motivation: Controversies
and New Directions, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 373–404.
Renninger, K. A. (2003) “Effort and Interest,” in J. Guthrie (ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Education, 2nd edn, New York, NY: Macmillan, pp. 704–707.
Renninger, K. A. (2009) “Interest and Identity Development in Instruction: An Inductive
Model,” Educational Psychologist, 44 (2): 1–14.
Renninger, K. A. (2010) “Working with and Cultivating Interest, Self-Efficacy, and
Self-Regulation,” in D. Preiss and R. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology:
Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development, New York, NY: Springer, pp.
107–138.
Renninger, K. A., and J. E. Bachrach (2015) “Studying Triggers for Interest and Engagement
Using Observational Methods,” Educational Psychologist, 50 (1): 58–69.
Renninger, K. A. and A. L. Bishop (in press) “Interest, and Interest-Driven Learning,” in K.
Peppler (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-of-School Learning, New York, NY: Sage.
Renninger, K. A., and S. Hidi (2002) “Student Interest and Achievement: Developmental
Issues Raised by a Case Study,” in A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles (eds), Development of
Achievement Motivation, New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 173–195.
Renninger, K. A., and S. Hidi (2011) “Revisiting the Conceptualization, Measurement, and
Generation of Interest,” Educational Psychologist, 46 (3): 168–184.
Renninger, K. A., and T. Leckrone (1991) “Continuity in Young Children’s Actions:
A Consideration of Interest and Temperament,” in L. Oppenheimer and J. Valsiner
(eds), The Origins of Action: Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives, New York, NY:
Springer Verlag, pp. 205–238.
Renninger, K. A., and R. Lipstein (2006) “Come si sviluppa l’interesse per la scrittura; cosa
volgliono glistudenti e di cosa hannobisogno? [Developing Interest for Writing: What
Do Students Want and What Do Students Need?]” Età Evolutiva, 84: 65–83.
Renninger, K. A., and M. W. Nam (2012) “Interest and Achievement among Those Who
Continue in STEM,” paper presented as part of the symposium, Interest Development
and Its Relation to Academic Motivation, at the Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April,Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Renninger, K. A., and R. K. Pozos-Brewer (2015) “Interest, Psychology of,” in J. D. Wright
(ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences: Motivation, 2nd edn,
Oxford: Elsevier, UK, vol. XII, pp. 378–385.
Renninger, K. A., and K. R. Riley (2013) “Interest, Cognition and Case of L- and
Science,” Cognition and Motivation: Forging an Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 352–382.
Renninger, K. A., and L. S. Schofield (2014) “Assessing STEM Interest as a Developmental
MotivationalVariable,” poster presented at Current Approaches to Interest Measurement,
American Educational Research Association, April, Philadelphia, PA.
References 159
Renninger, K. A., and S. Su (2012) “Interest and Its Development,” in R. Ryan (ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
pp. 167–187.
Renninger, K. A., and M. E.Talian (in press) “Interest and School Subject Matter: What Do
We Know? What Still Needs to Be Figured Out?” in A. M. O’Donnell (ed.), Handbook
of Educational Psychology, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Renninger, K. A., and C.Y. Tibbetts (2010) “Triggers for Interest and Naturally Occurring
Reconfiguration of Knowledge,” paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for

Research on Adolescence, March, Philadelphia, PA.
Renninger, K. A., and R. Wozniak (1985) “Effect of Interest on Attentional Shift,
Recognition, and Recall in Young Children,” Developmental Psychology, 21 (4): 624–632.
Renninger, K. A., L. Austin, J. E. Bachrach, A. Chau, M. S. Emmerson, R. B. King et al.
(2014) “Going Beyond Whoa! That’s Cool! Achieving Science Interest and Learning
with the ICAN Intervention,” in S. Karabenick and T. Urdan (eds), Motivation-Based
Learning Interventions, Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp. 107–140.
Renninger, K. A., J. E. Bachrach, and S. K. Posey (2008) “Learner Interest and Achievement
Motivation,” Social Psychological Perspectives, 15: 461–491.
Renninger, K.A., M. Cai, M. Lewis, M.Adams, and K. Ernst (2011) “Motivation and Learning
in an Online, Unmoderated, Mathematics Workshop for Teachers,” Special Issue: Motivation
and New Media. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 59 (2): 229–247.
Renninger, K.A., E. Ewen, and A. K. Lasher (2002) “Individual Interest as Context in Expository
Text and Mathematical Word Problems,” Learning and Instruction, 12 (4): 467–491.
Renninger, K. A., C. C. Kensey, S. J. Stevens, and D. L. Lehman (2015) “Perceptions of
Science and Their Role in the Development of Interest,” in K. A. Renninger, M.
Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds), Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning, Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 93–110.
Renninger, K. A., M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (2015a) “On the Power of Interest,” in K. A.
Renninger, K. A., M. Nieswandt, and S. Hidi (eds.) (2015b) Interest in Mathematics and
Science Learning, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Renninger, K. A., C. Sansone, and J. L. Smith (2004) “Love of Learning,” in C. Peterson
and M. E. P. Seligman (eds), Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–179.
Reschly, A. L., and S. L. Christenson (2012) “Jingle, Jangle, and Conceptual
Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct,” Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 3–19.
Rey, G. D. (2011) “Seductive Details in Multimedia Messages,” Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20 (3): 283–314.
Reynolds, R. E., and R. C. Anderson (1992) “Influence of Questions on the Allocations of
Attention during Reading,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (5): 623–652.
Richards, J. B., J. A. Litman, and D. H. Roberts (2013) “Performance Characteristics of
Measurement Instruments of Epistemic Curiosity in Third-Year Medical Students,”
Medical Science Educator, 23 (3): 355–363.
Risconscente, M. M. (2014) “Effects of Perceived Teacher Practices on Latino High School
Students’ Interest, Self-Efficacy, and Achievement in Mathematics,” The Journal of
Experimental Education, 82 (1): 51–73.
Rittmayer, M. A., and M. E. Beier (2008) “Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM,” A Product of
SWE-AWE (www.AWEonline.org) and NAE CASEE (www.nae.edu/casee-equity).
160 References
Rotgans, J. I., and H. G. Schmidt (2011) “Situational Interest and Academic Achievement in
the Active-Learning Classroom,” Learning and Instruction, 21 (1): 58–67.
Rotgans, J. I., and H. G. Schmidt (2014) “Situational Interest and Learning: Thirst for
Knowledge,” Learning and Instruction, 32: 37–50.
Rothwell, J. (2011) “Bodies and Language: Process Drama and Intercultural Language
Learning in a Beginner Language Classroom,” Research in Drama Education: The Journal
of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16 (4): 575–594.
Rounds, J., and R. Su (2014) “The Nature and Power of Interests,” Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23 (2): 98–103.
Rounds, J., R. Su, P. Lewis, and D. Rivkin (2010) O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form
Psychometric Characteristics: Summary. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET
Development.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci (2000) “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist, 55
(1): 68–78.
Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci (2012) “Multiple Identities Within a Single Self: A
Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization within Contexts and
Cultures,” in M. R. Leary and J. P.Tangney (eds), Handbook of Self and Identity, New York,
NY: The Guilford Press, pp. 224–246.
Sadoski, M. (2001) “Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, comprehension, and
learning important ideas from text,” Educational Psychology Review, 13: 263–281.
Sahin, A. (2013) “STEM Clubs and Science Fair Competitions: Effects on Post-Secondary
Matriculation,” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14 (1): 5–11.
Sansone, C. (1986) “A Question of Competence: The Effects of Competence and Task
Feedback on Intrinsic Interest,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5):
918–931.
Sansone, C. (2009) “What’s Interest Got to Do with It? Potential Trade-Offs in the
Self-Regulation of Motivation,” in J. P. Forgas, R. Baumiester, and D. Tice (eds),
Psychology of Self-Regulation: Cognitive, Affective, and Motivational Processes, New York,
NY: Psychology Press, pp. 35–51.
Sansone, C., and J. M. Harackiewicz (1996) “I Don’t Feel Like It: The Function of Interest
in Self-Regulation,” in L. Martin and A. Tesser (eds), Striving and Feeling: The Interaction
of Goals and Affect, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 203–228.
Sansone, C., and J. L. Smith (2000) “Interest and Self-Regulation: The Relation between
Having to and Wanting to,” in C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz (eds), Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance, New York, NY:
Academic, pp. 342–371.
Sansone, C., and D. B.Thoman (2005) “Interest as the Missing Motivator in Self-Regulation,”
European Psychologist, 10 (3): 175–186.
Sansone, C., T. Fraughton, J. Zachary, J. Butner, and C. Heiner (2011) “Self-Regulation
of Motivation When Learning Online: The Importance of Who, Why and How,”
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59 (2): 199–212.
Sansone, C., J. L. Smith, D. B. Thoman, and A. Macnamara (2012) “Regulating Interest
When Learning Online: Potential Motivation and Performance Trade-Offs,” The
Internet and Higher Education, 15 (3): 141–149.
Sansone, C., D. Thoman, and T. Fraughton (2015) “The Relation between Interest and
Self-Regulation in Mathematics and Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and
References 161
Sansone, C., C. Weir, L. Harpster, and C. Morgan (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.
Savage, M. P., and L. B. Scott (1998) “Physical Activity and Rural Middle School
Adolescents,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 27 (2): 245–253.
Schank, R. C. (1979) “Interestingness: Controlling Inferences,” Artificial Intelligence, 12
(3): 273–297.
Scherer, K. P. (2009) “The Dynamic Architecture of Emotion: Evidence for Component

Process Model,” Cognition and Emotion, 23: 1307–1351.
Schiefele, H. (1978) Learnmotivation Und Motivlernen [Learning Motivation and Learning of
Motives], 2nd edn, Munich: Ehrewirth.
Schiefele, U. (1991) “Interest, Learning, and Motivation,” Educational Psychologist, 26
(3–4): 299–323.
Schiefele, U. (1996) “Topic Interest, Text Representation, and Quality of Experience,”
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12 (1): 3–18.
Schiefele, U. (1999) “Interest and Learning from Text,” Scientific Studies of Reading, 3
(3): 257–280.
Schiefele, U. (2001) “The Role of Interest in Motivation and Learning,” in J. M. Collis and
S. Messick (eds), Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement,
Schiefele, U. (2009) “Situational and Individual Interest,” in K. Wentzel and A. Wigfield
(eds), Handbook of Motivation at School, London and New York, NY: Routledge,
pp. 197–222.
Schiefele, U., and M. Csikszentmihalyi (1994) “Interest and the Quality of Experience in
Classrooms,” European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9 (3): 251–270.
Schiefele, U., and A. Krapp (1996) “Topic Interest and Free Recall of Expository Text,”
Learning and Individual Differences, 8 (2): 141–160.
Schiefele, U., A. Krapp, K.-P. Wild, and A. Winteler (1993) “Eine Neue Version des
Fragebogens zum Studieninteresse (FSI) Untersuchungen zur Reliabilität und
Validität [A New Version of the Study Interest Questionnaire (SIQ)],” Diagnostica, 3
(4): 335–351.
Schinka, J. A., D. A. Dye, and G. Curtiss (1997) “Correspondence between Five-Factor and
RIASEC Models of Personality,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 68 (2): 355–368.
Schlechty, P. C. (2011) Engaging Students: The Next Level of Working on the Work, San
Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Schraw, G., and R. S. Dennison (1994) “The Effect of Reader Purpose on Interest and
Recall,” Journal of Reading Behavior, 26 (1): 1–18.
Schukajlow, S., and A. Krug (2014) “Do Multiple Solutions Matter? Prompting Multiple
Solutions, Interest, Competence, and Autonomy,” Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 45 (4): 497–533.
Schultz, W. (1998) “Predictive Reward Signal of Dopamine Neurons,” Journal of
Neurophysiology, 80 (1): 1–27.
Schultz, W. (2007) “Reward,” Scholarpedia, 2 (3): 1652.
Schunk, D. H., and E. L. Usher (2012) “Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation,” in R. M.
Ryan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, pp. 13–27.
Schunk, D. H., and B. J. Zimmerman (1994) “Self-Regulation of Learning and
Performance: Issues and Educational Applications,” in S. Hidi and P. Boscolo (eds),
Writing and Motivation, Oxford, UK: Elsevier, pp. 241–255.
162 References
Schunk, D. H., and B. J. Zimmerman (2007) “Influencing Children’s Self-Efficacy and

Self-Regulation of Reading and Writing through Modeling,” Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 23 (1): 7–25.
Schwan, S., A. Grajal, and D. Lewalter (2014) “Understanding and Engagement in Places
of Science Experience: Science Museums, Science Centers, Zoos, and Aquariums,”
Senko, C., and J. M. Harackiewicz (2002) “Performance Goals: The Moderating Role
of Context, Achievement Orientation, and Feedback,” Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 38 (6): 603–610.
Senko, C., C. S. Hulleman, and J. M. Harackiewicz (2011) “Achievement Goal Theory
at the Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions,”
Shao, J. (2012) “A Study of Multimedia Application-Based Vocabulary Acquisition,” English
Shernoff, D. J. (2010) “Engagement in After-School Programs as a Predictor of Social
Competence and Academic Performance,” American Journal of Community Psychology,
45 (3–4): 325–327.
Shernoff, D. J. (2013) Optimal Learning Environments to Promote Student Engagement,
New York, NY: Springer.
Shernoff, D. J., and L. Hoogstra (2001) “Continuing Motivation beyond the High School
Classroom,” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 93: 73–87.
Shernoff, D. J., and J. A. Schmidt (2008) “Further Evidence of an Engagement-Achievement
Paradox among US High School Students,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36
(5): 891–903.
Shernoff, D. J., M. Csikszentmihalyi, B. Schneider, and E. Steele Shernoff (2003) “Student
Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory,” School
Psychology Quarterly, 18 (2): 158–176.
Shirey, L. L., and R. E. Reynolds (1988) “Effect of Interest on Attention and Learning,”
Silvia, P. J. (2001) “Interest and Interests: The Psychology of Constructive Capriciousness,”
Review of General Psychology, 5 (3): 270–290.
Silvia, P. J. (2006) Exploring the Psychology of Interest, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Simon, H. A. (1967) “Motivational and Emotional Controls of Cognition,” Psychological
Review, 74 (1): 29–39.
Simpkins, S. D., J. Fredricks, and J. S. Eccles (2015) “Parent Beliefs toYouth Choices: Mapping
the Sequence of Predictors from Childhood to Adolescence,” Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 80 (2): 1–169.
Sinatra, G. M., and P. R. Pintrich (eds) (2003) Intentional Conceptual Change, London and
New York, NY: Routledge.
Skinner, B. F. (1935) “The Generic Nature of the Concepts of Stimulus and Response,” The
Journal of General Psychology, 12 (1): 40–65.
Skinner, B. F. (1976) About Behaviorism, New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Slavin, R. E. (1983) Cooperative Learning, New York, NY: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1991) Student Team Learning: A Practical Guide to Cooperative Learning,
Washington, DC: National Education Association Professional Library.
Sloboda, J. (1990) “Musical Excellence: How Does It Develop?” in M. J. A. Howe (ed.),
Encouraging the Development of Exceptional Skills and Talents, London, UK: Wiley, pp. 165–178.
Sloboda, J. (1996) “The Acquisition of Musical Performance Expertise: Deconstructing the
‘Talent’ Account of Individual Differences in Musical Expressivity,” in K. Ericsson (ed.),
References 163
The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports,
and Games, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 107–126.
Sloboda, J. (2004) “The Acquisition of Musical Performance Expertise: Deconstructing the
‘Talent’ Account of Individual Differences in Musical Expressivity,” in K. Ericsson (ed.),
The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports,
and Games, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 107–126.
Sloboda, J. A., and J. W. Davidson (1995) “The Young Performing Musician,” in I. Delidge
and J. A. Sloboda (eds), The Origins and Development of Musical Competence, Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–190.
Small, S., and M. Memmo (2004) “Contemporary Models of Youth Development and
Problem Prevention: Toward an Integration of Terms, Concepts, and Models,” Family
Relations, 53 (1): 3–11.
Sosniak, L. A. (1985) “Learning to Be a Concert Pianist,” in B. Bloom (ed.), Developing
Talent in Young People, New York, NY: Ballantine, pp. 19–67.
Sosniak, L. A. (1990) “The Tortoise, the Hare, and the Development of Talent,” in M. Howe
(ed.), Encouraging the Development of Exceptional Skills and Talents, Leicester, UK: British
Psychological Society, pp. 149–164.
Springer, M. (1994) Watershed: A Successful Voyage into Integrative Learning, Westerville,
OH: National Middle School Association.
Springer, M. (2006) Soundings: A Democratic, Student-Centered Education, Westerville,
OH: National Middle School Association.
Steinkuehler, C., E. King, E. Alagoz, G. Anton, S. Chu, J. Elmergreen et al. (2011) “Let Me
Know When She Stops Talking: Using Games for Learning Without Colonizing Play,”
in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Games+ Learning+ Society Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, pp. 210–220.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1925) The Psychology of Selling and Advertising, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1943) Vocational Interests of Men and Women, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Sun, H., A. Chen, C. D. Ennis, R. Martin, and B. Shen (2008) “An Examination of the
Multidimensionality of Situational Interest in Elementary School Physical Education,”
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79 (1): 62–70.
Swarat, S., A. Ortony, and W. Revelle (2012) “Activity Matters: Understanding Student
Interest in School Science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (4): 515–537.
Tanaka, A., and K. Murayama (2014) “Within-Person Analyses of Situational Interest and
Boredom: Interactions between Task-Specific Perceptions and Achievement Goals,”
Thoman, D.B., Sansone, C., and Pasupathi, M. (2007) “Talking about Interest: Exploring
the Role of Social Interaction for Regulating Motivation and the Interest Experience,”
Journal of Happiness Studies, 8 (3): 335−370.
Thomas, A. (2007) Youth Online: Identity and Literacy in the Digital Age. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Thorndike, E. L. (1905) “Measurement of Twins,” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and
Scientific Methods, 2 (20): 399–406.
Thorndike, E. L. (1912) “Measurement of Educational Products,” The School Review, 20
(5): 399–406.
Thorndike, E. L. (1935) “The Interests of Adults: I. The Permanence of Interests,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 26 (6): 401–410.
Tobias, S. (1994) “Interest, Prior Knowledge, and Learning,” Review of Educational Research,
64 (1): 37–54.
164 References
Todt, E., and S. Schreiber (1998) “Development of Interests,” in L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K.

A. Renninger, and J. Baumert (eds), Interest and Learning, Kiel, Germany: IPN, pp. 3–11.
Toku, M. (2001) “What Is Manga? The Influence of Pop Culture in Adolescent Art,” Art
Education, 54 (2): 1–17.
Tolman, E. C. (1932) Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men, New York, NY: Century.
Tomkins, S. (1962) Affect, Imagery Consciousness, vol. I: The Positive Affects, London: Tavistock.
Travers, R. M. W. (1978) Children’s Interests, Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,
College of Education.
Tsai, Y. M., M. Kunter, O. Lüdtke, U. Trautwein, and R. M. Ryan (2008) “What Makes
Lessons Interesting? The Role of Situational and Individual Factors in Three School
Subjects,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2): 460–472.
Tulis, M., and S. M. Fulmer (2013) “Students’ Motivational and Emotional Experiences
during Academic Challenge in Mathematics and Reading,” Learning and Individual
Differences, 27: 35–46.
Turner, J. C., A. Christensen, H. Z. Kackar-Cam, M. Trucano, and S. M. Fulmer (2014)
“Enhancing Students’ Engagement Report of a 3-Year Intervention with Middle
School Teachers,” American Educational Research Journal, 51 (6): 1–32.
Turner, J. C., H. Z. Kackar, and M. Trucano (2015) “Teachers Learning How to Support
Student Interest in Mathematics and Science,” in K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, and
Educational Research Association, pp 243–257.
Unsworth, N., and B. D. McMillan (2013) “Mind Wandering and Reading Comprehension:
Examining the Roles of Working Memory Capacity, Interest, Motivation, and Topic
Experience,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39 (3):
832–842.
Upadyaya, K., and J. S. Eccles (2014) “How Do Teachers’ Beliefs Predict Children’s Interest
in Math from Kindergarten to Sixth Grade?” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60 (4): 403–430.
Urdan, T., and E. Schoenfelder (2006) “Classroom Effects on Student Motivation: Goal
Structures, Social Relationships, and Competence Beliefs,” Journal of School Psychology,
44 (5): 331–349.
Vollmeyer, R., and F. Rheinberg (2000) “Does Motivation Affect Performance Via
Persistence?” Learning and Instruction, 10 (4): 293–309.
Wade, S. E. (1992) “How Interest Affects Learning from Text,” in K. A. Renninger, S.
Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds), The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 255–277.
Wade, S. E., and R. B. Adams (1990) “Effects of Importance and Interest on Recall of
Biographical Text,” Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 22 (4): 330–353.
Wade, S. E.,W. Buxton, and M. Kelly (1999) “Using Think-Alouds to Examine Reader-Text
Interest,” Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (2): 194–216.
Walkington, C.A. (2013) “Using Adaptive Learning Technologies to Personalize Instruction
to Student Interests: The Impact of Relevant Contexts on Performance and Learning
Outcomes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (4): 932–945.
Walkington, C. A., and M. L. Bernacki (2014) “Motivating Students by ‘Personalizing’
Learning around Individual Interests: A Consideration of Theory, Design, and
Implementation Issues,” in S. A. Karabenick and T. C. Urdan (eds), Advances in Motivation
and Achievement, vol. XVIII: Motivational Interventions, Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp.
139–177.
Walkington, C. A., A. Petrosino, and M. Sherman (2013) “Supporting Algebraic Reasoning
through Personalized Story Scenarios: How Situational Understanding Mediates
Performance,” Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15 (2): 89–120.
References 165
Walsh, W. B., and S. H. Osipow (eds) (1986) Advances in Vocational Psychology, vol. I: The
Assessment of Interests, London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Watson, J. B. (1913) “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It,” Psychological Review, 20
(2): 158–177.
Whitley, M. T. (1929) “Children’s Interest in Collecting,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
2 (3): 249–261.
Wigfield, A., and J. Cambria (2010) “Students’ Achievement Values, Goal Orientations,
and Interest: Definitions, Development, and Relations to Achievement Outcomes,”

Developmental Review, 30 (1): 1–35.
Wigfield, A. and J. S. Eccles (2000) “Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation,”
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1): 68–81.
Wigfield,A. and J. S. Eccles (2002) “The Development of Competence Beliefs, Expectancies
for Success, and Achievement Values from Childhood through Adolescence,” in A.
Wigfield and J. S. Eccles (eds), Development of Achievement Motivation, San Diego,
CA: Academic Press, pp. 249–284.
Wigfield, A., J. Cambria, and J. S. Eccles (2012) “Motivation in Education,” in R. C. Ryan
(ed.), Oxford Handbook of Motivation, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 463–478.
Wigfield, A., J. Eccles, U. Schiefele, R. Roeser, and P. Davis-Kean (2006) “Development
of Achievement Motivation,” in R. Lerner and W. Damon (eds), Handbook of Child
Psychology, 6th edn, vol. III: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, New York,
NY: Wiley, pp. 933–1002.
Wigfield, A., J. S. Eccles, K. S. Yoon, R. D. Harold, A. J. Arbreton, C. Freedman-Doan, and
P. C. Blumenfeld (1997) “Change in Children’s Competence Beliefs and Subjective
Task Values across the Elementary School Years: A 3-Year Study,” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89 (3): 451–469.
Xu, J., L.T. Coats, and M. L. Davidson (2012) “Promoting Student Interest in Science: The
Perspectives of Exemplary African American Teachers,” American Educational Research
Journal, 49 (1): 124–154.
Zahorik, J. A. (1996) “Elementary and Secondary Teachers’ Reports of How They Make
Learning Interesting,” The Elementary School Journal, 96 (5): 551–564.
Zhang, W., and C. Han (2012) “A Case Study of the Application of a Blended learning
Approach to Web-based College English Teaching Platform in a Medical University in
Eastern China,” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (9): 1961–1970.
Zhu, X., A. Chen, C. D. Ennis, H. Sun, C. Hopple, M. Bonello, M. Bae, and S. Kim, (2009)
“Situational Interest, Cognitive Engagement, and Learning Achievement in Physical
Education,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 (3): 221–229.
Zilversmit, A. (1993) Changing Schools: Progressive Education Theory and Practice, 1930–1960,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000) “Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn,” Contemporary
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002) “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview,” Theory into
Practice, 41 (2): 64–70.
Zimmerman, B. J., and A. Bandura (1994) “Impact of Self-Regulatory Influences on
Writing Course Attainment,” American Educational Research Journal, 31 (4): 845–862.
Zimmerman, B. J., and T. J. Cleary (2009) “Motives to Self-Regulate Learning,” in
K. Wentzel, A. Wigfield, and D. Miele (eds), Handbook of Motivation at School, London
and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 247–264.
Zimmerman, B. J., and A. Kitsantas (1996) “Self-Regulated Learning of a Motoric
Skill: The Role of Goal Setting and Self-Monitoring,” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
8 (1): 60–75.
166 References
Zimmerman,B.J.,andA.Kitsantas (1997)“Developmental Phases in Self-Regulation: Shifting

from Process Goals to Outcome Goals,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (1): 29–36.
Zimmerman, B. J., and A. Kitsantas (1999) “Acquiring Writing Revision Skill: Shifting
from Process to Outcome Self-Regulatory Goals,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 91
(2): 241–250.
Zimmerman, B. J., and A. Kitsantas (2002) “Acquiring Writing Revision and Self-
Regulatory Skill through Observation and Emulation,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
94 (4): 660–668.
Zimmerman, B. J., and D. H. Schunk (2004) “Self-Regulating Intellectual Processes and
Outcomes: A Social Cognitive Perspective,” in D. Dai and R. Sternberg (eds), Motivation,
Emotion, and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development,
Zimmerman, T. G., D. Johnson, C. Wambsgans, and A. Fuentes (2011) “Why Latino High
School Students Select Computer Science as a Major,” TOCE, 11 (2): 1–17.
Zink, C. F., G. Pagnoni, M. E. Martin-Skurski, J. C. Chappelow, and G. S. Berns (2004)
“Human Striatal Responses to Monetary Reward Depend on Saliency,” Neuron, 42
(3): 509–517.
Zink, C. F., G. Pagnoni, M. E. Martin-Skurski, M. Dhamala, and G. S. Berns (2003)
“Human Striatal Response to Salient Nonrewarding Stimuli,” Journal of Neuroscience,
23 (22): 8092–8097.
AUTHOR INDEX
Adcock, R. A. 39, 49n39 Bandura, A. 24, 53–4, 66n7, n8, 83, 89n8,
Adelman, L. M. 68n33 93n72, n78, 94n81, n84, n90,
Ainley, J. 29n40, 69n38, 136n18, n19 95n100, n101
Ainley, M. 7n13, 11, 14, 21, 26n1, 28n22, Baram-Tsabari, A. 30n66, 108, 121n20,
29n40, 30n58, 42, 47n13, 49n47, 50n59, 122n67, n68, n69, 127, 136n15
60, 67n27, n31, 68n34, 69n38, 89n9, Barrett, M. S. 113
90n30, 92n56, n57, 95n99, 136n18, n19 Barrett, S. E. 122n75
Albin, M. L. 121n41 Barron, B. 6n2, 27n14, 30n78,
Alexander, P. A. 29n40, 46n8, 47n15, 69n38, 94n86, 120n10, 122n71,
67n30, 69n38, 92n61, 128, 136n18, n20 123n102, 136n16
Aljumah, H. F. 121n44, 122n49 Bartlett, F. C. 19, 29n53
Allport, G. W. 4 Bathgate, M. E. 28n21, 30n65, 52, 53,
Ames, C. 79 65n5, 68n37, 108, 121n20, 122n66
Anderson,V. 26n6, 27n8, n10, 30n69, 35, Becher, T. 107
36, 38, 45, 47n29, n31, 66n11 Beier, M. 122n63
Andre, T. 33, 47n10 Bell, J. C. 29n48, 121n19
Appleton, J. J. 76 Benton, S. L. 121n41
Arnold, F. 18, 29n46, 123n91 Bergin, D. 11–12, 67n27, 94n90,
Assor, A. 137n35 120n2, n8
Austin, K. 136n19 Berlyne, D. E. 2, 7n10, 27n9, 30n64, 39, 40,
Azevedo, F. S. 27n12, 30n72, 46n6, 47n25, 49n46, 50n51, n52, 133
n8, 47n15, 69n38, 75, 89n19, n20, Bernacki, M. L. 27n10, 29n41, 30n67,
90n23, n32, n33, 102, 120n8, 125, 89n15, 111
137n30, n38 Berndorff, D. 28n18, 48n33, 51n70,
Azmi, N. 121n46 121n28, n30
Berridge, K. C. 7n9, 21, 30n61, 46n4,
Bachrach, J. E. 7n8, 27n11, 28n18, n25, 48n36, 49n42, 50n56, 67n26, n29, 92n52
n26, 69n40, 77, 89n4, 92n47 Bevan, B. 120n12
Baird, W. 27n8, n10, 28n18, n29, Bishop 120n10
30n70, 121n25 Bjork, J. M. 66n10
Baldwin, B. T. 29n46 Black, R. W. 121n39
168 Author Index
Boal-Palheiros, G. M. 122n85 Dixon, P. 121n29

Boekaerts, M. 95n101 Dohn, N. B. 110, 120n14
Bøe, M.V. 122n61 Duckworth, A. L. 7n3, 89n11, 134
Bogner, F. X. 108 Duhigg, C. 134
Bong, M. 47n12, n16, 84, 86, 92n55, Durik, A. M. 29n38, 30n75, 47n12, n14,
93n75, n77, 94n81, n84, n85, n90, n91, n16, n24, 85, 89n16, 93n75, 94n94, 112,
122n63, 123n98 125, 137n23
Bortolussi, M. 121n29 Dweck, C. S. 93n65, n74, 94n79
Boscolo, P. 121n36, n42

Bouffard, T. 123n101 Eastwood, J. D. 29n36
Bowles, C. L. 123n88, n90 Ebbinghaus, H. 29n53
Bruner, J. S. 30n57 Eccles, J. S. 23, 28n20, 30n77, 31n81,
Bunzeck, N. 38 47n15, 68n37, 89n7, n8, 91n46, 92n46,
Byman, R. 50n60 93n74, 94n90, n91, 111–12, 120n4,
122n67, 123n97, n100
Cabot, I. 28n35, 64, 70n45, 105 Edelson, D. C. 6n2, 120n2
Cambria, J. 123n101 Ekeland, C. B. 43, 49n63, 50n63, n64
Carmichael, C. 94n96 Elliot, A. J. 93n64
Cartun, A. 130 Elwood, S. 122n52
Chandler-Olcott, K. 121n39 Ely, R. 53, 68n34, n37, 69n38, 70n46
Chen, A. 68n37, 69n38, 115, 123n94, n95, Ernst, M. 51n74, 67n26
127, 136n10 Espay, A. J. 49n37, n38
Christenson, S. L. 7n8, 76, 77, 89n4, 90n31,
n32, 92n49 Falk, J. H. 68n33, 122n70, n73
Christiana, R. W. 115 Fareri, D. S. 49n40
Cisotto, L. 121n42 Fenker, D. B. 38
Claparède, E. 18, 29n52 Fink, R. 47n15, 65n4, 69n38, 121n19,
Cleary, T. J. 89n9 125
Cordova, D. L. 122n81 Fisher, P. H. 122n83
Costa, P. T. 31n85, 89n14 Flippo, R. 30n65, 121n19
Crouch, C. H. 29n41, 30n67, 122n57, Flowerday, T. 66n12, 127, 136n13, n14,
n58, n74 n17
Crowley, K. 29n40, 46n8, 136n18 Fredricks, J. A. 89n4, 90n31, n32,
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 6n5, 28n16, 48n34, 91n46, 92n49
69n38, 89n10, 90n29, 117, 119, Frenzel, A. L. 62, 66n7, 69n39, 123n97,
123n102, 135 n98, n100, n105
Curwood, J. S. 100, 104–5, Fryer, D. 19, 29n47, n51, 31n83, 65n2
120n11, 121n39 Fulcher, K. H. 50n60
Fulmer, S. M. 112, 121n22
Dahl, I. T. 43, 49n63, 50n63 Furtak, E. M. 120n13
Darst, P. W. 123n95, 136n10
Davidson, J. W. 122n87, 123n99 Garcia, A. 109
Dawson, C. J. 30n65, 68n37 Gardner, H. 114
Day, H. L. 44 Garner, R. 27n8, 30n68, 121n31, 136n7
Deci, E. L. 54, 66n8, 91n45, n46, Gee, J. P. 120n10
92n46, 137n33 Gehlbach, H. 106, 122n54, 136n12
Delgado, M. R. 137n34 Gerritsen, C. J. 29n36
Denissen, J. H. 93n75 Geyer, C. 122n70
Dennison, R. S. 36–7, 47n15, 136n7, n9 Ginzberg, E. 60
Dewey, J. 6, 12, 18, 19, 20, 29n56, Gisbert, K. 69n38
30n57, 32, 46n5, n7, 47n25, 90n29, Glynn, S. M. 122n67, 136n3, 137n25
93n69, 136n7 Goetz, T. 29n36
Dierking, L. D. 70n48, 122n70, n73 Gottlieb, J. 39, 46n4, 49n45, n46
Author Index 169
Greenman, B. 120n3 Hulleman, C. 31n82, 47n9, n23, 85, 92n63,

Gresalfi, M. S. 92n47 94n92, 132, 137n31
Gruber, M. J. 29n45, 39, 49n49
Guthrie, J. T. 121n20, 122n64 Illeris, K. 6n2, 120n10, n13
Iran-Nejad, A. 26n7
Hagay, G. 30n65, n66, 108, 122n68 Ito, M. 120n10, 122n71
Halet, E. 136n11 Iyengar, S. S. 137n37
Hall, N. C. 29n36 Izard, C. E. 21, 30n59, 50n67
Halverson, E. R. 115
Hameline, D. 18 Jackson, S. A. 7n5, 89n10
Han, C. 121n43, n45, n48 Jacobs, J. E. 123n101
Hannover, B. 122n60 James, W. 18, 35, 47n25
Harackiewicz, J. M. 14, 26n7, 28n28, Järvelä, S. 89n18, 101
31n82, 46n1, n2, n6, 47n1, n9, n11, Jenkins, E. W. 68n37, 121n24
n14, n23, 67n26, n27, 79, 80, 82, 85, Jepma, M. 41, 43
89n3, 92n54, n60, n62, n63, 93n64, Jimerson, T. L. 44, 50n55, n61
n66, n67, n69, n76, 94n93, n94, 95n104, Jones, B. D. 47n16, 89n16
111, 120n15, 122n84, 126, 128–9, 132, Joseph, D. M. 6n2, 120n2
136n6, 137n23, n30
Hargreaves, D. J. 122n85 Kahan, D. 115
Harsh, J. A. 66n13, 120n13, 136n21 Kang, M. J. 29n45, 39
Harter, S. 94n90, 119n1 Karabenick, S. A. 69n39
Hasni, A. 29n39, 117 Katz, S. 122n67, 137n35
Häussler, P. 53, 68n37, 69n38, 109 Kayali, H. 122n52
Hay, I. 47n16 Kessels, U. 122n60
Heller, K. 122n57 Kim, S. 47n16, 67n28, 85, 92n55,
Henriksen, E. K. 122n61 94n81, n84
Herbart, J. F. 18 Kintsch, W. 27n8
Hetland, A. 21 Kirschner, P. A. 66n13, 120n13, 136n4
Hickey, C. 38 Kitsantas, A. 93n73, 94n82, n83, n84,
Hidi, S. 6n2, n3, 7n9, n10, n11, 10, 14, 123n97, n100
21, 26n1, n2, n3, n6, n7, 27n8, n10, Kleitman, S. 122n70, n73
28n18, n22, n23, n28, n29, n31, 29n39, Knogler, M. 136n16
n45, 30n58, n70, 32, 35, 36, 45, 46n1, Knutsen, B. 51n74
n6, 47n13, n15, n17, n18, n20, n29, Köller, O. 47n15
47n31, n33, 49n44, n47, 51n70, n74, Konecni,V. J. 30n64
60, 64, 66n8, n11, 67n27, n31, 69n38, Krapp, A. 26n3, n6, 28n24, n30, 47n15,
n42, 79, 83, 87, 89n9, n15, n20, 92n46, 65n4, 69n38, 91n46, 92n46, 117,
n54, n56, n57, n60, n63, 93n64, n69, 120n9, 121n21
94n84, 95n99, n106, 102, 105, 112, Krug, A. 112
117, 120n15, 121n17, n25, n28, n30, Kunter, M. 119
n40, 122n62, 123n97, n100, n104,
126, 130, 131, 133, 136n2, n5, n18, Lammers, J. C. 120n10, 121n39
137n35, n36 Lamont, A. 122n85, n86, 123n103
Hoffman, L. 47n15, 53, 68n37, 69n38, 109, Lange, G. 47n26
110, 122n63, n67, n78 Larson, S. C. 28n33, 77, 89n17, 91n43,
Holland, J. L. 24 92n51, 103, 121n23, 122n65
Holstermann, N. 122n67 Leckrone, T. 87
Hommer, D. W. 66n10 Lee, M. 122n53
Hong, H. 122n74 Lenhart, A. 121n38
Hoogstra, L. 90n30 Lent, R. W. 24, 31n83, n88
Horowitz, G. 46n8, 137n25 Leotti. L. A. 137n34
Hsu, M. 137n36 Lepper, M. R. 122n81, 137n37
170 Author Index
Leslie, I. 41–2, 49n50, 49n50, 51n72, n76, Murphy, P. K. 47n15, 67n30, 92n61, 129
96–7 Mussel, P. 50n55, n61, n62
Levy, S. 90n21 Myers, N. A. 47n26
Lewalter, D. 69n38, 122n70, n71
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. 10–11, 23, 27n13, Naizer, G. 122n73
29n38, 68n37, 69n38, 89n19, 110, Nathan, M. J. 70n47
122n63, n79, 136n16 Neiswandt, M. 137n25
Lin-Siegler, X. 122n74 Neubauer, K. 122n70
Lipstein, R. 28n17, n32, n35, 30n75, New London Group, The 121n24
46n2, n3, n6, n7, 47n18, n19, 65, 70n50, Niemivirta, M. 94n95, 113
81, 88n2, 93n71, 94n86, 120n8, Nieswandt, M. 46n8, 92n55, 110,
121n35, n37, n38, n41, 129, 130–1 122n56, n63, n80
Litman, J. A. 41, 42, 44, 49n56, n57, Nieuwenhuis, S. 41
50n55, n56, n57, n61, n62, 51n69 Nix, G. 67n31
Logtenberg, A. 106 Nolen, S. B. 28n35, 46n2, 87, 105
Long, J. F. 129 Nye, C. D. 31n83
Lopes, M. 49n45
Lowenstein, G. 40, 41, 42, 43–4, Ohland, M. W. 122n59
50n53, n65, n66, 50n68, n69 O’Keefe, P. A. 27n13
Low, K. D. 31n87 Osipow, S. H. 31n83
Oudeyer, P.Y. 49n45
Mabbott, A. 90n22
McCarthey, S. J. 104 Paige, D. D. 136n16
McCloskey, W. 90n31, 92n49 Pajares, F. 93n78
McCrae, R. R. 31n85, 89n14 Palmer, D. H. 120n14, 126–7, 136n8,
McDaniel, M. A. 22, 36, 47n13 n16, 137n27
McDougall, W. 20 Pangrazi, R. P. 136n10
McHale, S. M. 69n38 Panksepp, J. 7n9, n13, 26n1, 37–8,
McLaren, J. 28n23, 66n11, 105, 121n40 50n67
McMillen, B. D. 104 Papastergiou, M. 122n67
McMullen, P. T. 123n91 Patall, E. A. 132, 136n16, 137n32, n36
Magner, U. I. 104, 121n27, n28, n32, Paterson, D. G. 19, 29n50, n51
n33, n34 Pekrun, R. 29n36
Magnifico, A. M. 121n38 Pell, R. G. 68n37
Mahar, D. 121n39 Perlmutter, M. 47n26
Maltese, A.V. 120n13, 122n59, 136n21 Pestalozzi, J. H. 18
Marjoribanks, K. 114, 123n88 Philip, T. 109
Markey, A. 40, 42, 43–4, 50n53, n65 Pinkard, N. 136n19
Marsh, H. W. 68n37, 122n70, n73 Pintrich, P. R. 47n14, 88, 93n67, n77,
Mart, G. T. 122n50 95n101, n103
Martin-Soelch, C. 48n36 Piotrowski, J. T. 50n55, n61, n62
Mayer, R. E. 27n10, 30n68, 121n26 Potvin, P. 29n39, 50n61, 117
Mboya, M. 114, 123n88 Pozos-Brewer, R. K. 66n17, n18, n19,
Meredith, D. C. 122n57 67n21, n23, 69n41, 90n25, 121n17
Meyer, D. K. 87 Prenzel, M. 117
Michaelis, J. E. 70n47 Pressick-Kilborn, K. 29n42, n43,
Michalchik,V. 120n12 46n2, n8, 68n33, 89n20, 101, 120n14,
Mitchell, K. 122n52 137n23, n24
Mitchell, M. 24, 93n69, 126, 137n27 Pugh, K. 46n8, 120n16
Moore, H. T. 19
Morenoff, L. 89n21 Randler, C. 108
Mortillaro, M. 67n31 Rathunde, K. 90n29
Murayama, K. 7n6, 93n68, 137n34 Ray, M. 90n28
Author Index 171
Read, H. 114 Schlechty, P. C. 76, 90n29

Reber, R. 29n41, 122n74 Schmidt, H. G. 44, 50n68, 68n37, 90n30
Redish, E. F. 122n57 Schoenfelder, E. 89n13
Reeve, J. 21, 26n1, 44, 46n5, 67n31 Schofield, L. S. 67n23, 68n35, 69n38
Reio, T. G. 50n60 Schraw, G. 36–7, 47n15, 66n12, 136n7, n9,
Renninger, K. A. 6n2, n3, 7n8, n10, n11, n13, n14
10, 14, 26n2, n3, n5, n6, 27n10, n11, Schreiber, S. 44
n14, 28n17, n18, n19, n25, n26, n29, Schukajlow, S. 112
n31, n32, n34, n35, 29n38, n39, n41, Schultz, W. 48n36

n42, 30n75, 33–4, 35, 46n2, n3, n6, n7, Schunk, D. H. 53–4, 66n7, n8, 83, 89n8,
n8, 47n9, n10, n12, n13, n15, n16, n17, 93n73, 94n81, n83, n84, n90, 95n100
n18, n19, n23, n24, n27, 51n75, 64, 65, Schwan, S. 122n70
65n3, 66n17, n18, n19, 67n21, n23, n24, Scott, L. B. 115
n28, 68n33, n35, n36, 69n38, n40, n41, Senko, C. 47n14, 89n5, 92n54, n62, n64
n42, n43, 70n49, n50, 73, 77, 80, 81, 82, Shao, J. 121n43, n47
83–4, 85–6, 87, 88n2, 89n4, n16, n18, Shell, D. F. 136n17
n19, n20, 90n25, n26, 92n46, n47, n48, Sheridan, K. 115
n50, n58, 93n70, n71, 94n86, n96, n97, Shernoff, D. J. 69n38, 76, 77, 90n29, n30,
n98, n106, 100, 101, 108, 111, 112, 119, n31, 91n44
119n1, 120n5, n8, n9, n10, n13, n14, n16, Shirey, L. L. 30n71, 36, 47n29
121n17, n21, n23, n35, n37, n38, n41, Silvia, P. J. 7n13, 21, 26n1, n6, 28n15,
122n55, n56, n62, n80, 123n104, n105, 36, 42, 44, 47n28, 49n54, 50n54,
128, 129, 130–1, 136n2, n21, 137n31 n66, 67n26
Reschly, A. L. 7n8, 77, 89n4, 92n49 Simon, H. A. 47n25
Rey, G. D. 121n34 Simpkins, S. D. 30n78
Reynolds, R. E. 30n71, 36, 47n29 Skaalvik, E. M. 93n75, n77
Rheinberg, F. 68n37 Skinner, B. F. 29n54, n55
Richards, J. B. 50n55, n62 Slavin, R. E. 137n28
Riconscente, M. M. 125 Sloboda, J. 114, 122n87, 123n88, n99, 129
Riley, K. R. 28n31, 65, 69n43, 120n13 Smigiel, H. M. 113
Rittmayer, A. 122n63 Smith, J. L. 47n14, 95n104, 137n29
Robinson, T. E. 50n56 Sosniak, L. A. 113, 114, 122n87
Rombouts, S. A. 41 Spear, L. P. 51n74, 67n26
Rotgans, J. I. 44, 50n68, 68n37 Springer, M. 90n21
Rothwell, J. 122n51 Steinkuehler, C. 122n77
Rounds, J. 24, 31n84, n86 Strong, E. K. 19, 29n49, 31n83
Ryan, R. M 54, 66n8, 91n45, n46, Sun, H. 123n93
92n46, 137n33 Su, S. 6n3, 7n11, 24, 28n25, n31, n32,
31n84, n86, 67n23, 92n47, n48, 121n17
Sadoski, M. 47n15 Swarat, S. 28n18
Sahin, A. 122n72 Sweet, I. B. 29n48
Sansone, C. 22–3, 28n19, 30n73, n74,
n77, 46n6, 47n14, n16, n17, 68n34, 73, Tai, R. H. 122n59
86, 87, 89n16, 91n46, 92n56, 93n76, Talian, M. E. 122n55
94n94, 95n101, n102, n104, n105, n107, Tanaka, A. 93n68
131, 137n29 Tapola, A. 94n95, 113
Savage, M. P. 115 Thoman, D. B. 22, 30n73, 92n56, n57,
Schank, R. C. 27n8 95n102, n104, n107
Scherer, K. P. 67n31 Thomas, A. 121n39
Schiefele, U. 7n12, 23, 28n24, 30n76, Thorndike, E. L. 19, 29n52, n54, 47n25
n80, 47n10, n15, 66n18, 68n37, 69n38, Tibbetts, C.Y. 120n5
91n46, 121n21 Tobias, S. 69n38, 92n59
Schinka, J. A. 31n85 Todt, E. 44
172 Author Index
Toku, M. 114 Walsh, W. B. 31n83

Tolman, E. C. 20 Watson, J. B. 29n54
Tomkins, S. 20, 26n1 Whitley, M. T. 29n48
Travers, R. M. W. 65n1 Wigfield, A. 7n7, 89n6, n7, 93n74,
Trowler, P. R. 107 n77, 94n79, n90, 120n4, 121n20,
Tsai,Y. M. 30n73, 123n105 123n97, n100, n101,
Tulis, M. 112, 121n22 136n22
Turner, J. C. 29n42, n43, 46n8, 87, Wimmer, G. E. 51n74
102, 129–30 Windschitl, M. 33, 47n10

Wozniak, R. 35, 47n13, n27,
Unsworth, N. 104 67n23
Upadyaya, K. 111–12
Urdan, T. 89n13 Xu, J. 29n43, 129
Usher, E. L. 89n8
Zahorick, J. A. 120n14
van Steenbergen, H. 41 Zhang, W. 121n43, n45, n48
Verdonschot, R. G 41 Zhu, X. 47, n23, 116, 123n96
Vittersø, J. 21 Zilversmit, A. 30n56
Vollmeyer, R. 68n37 Zimmerman, B. J. 26n1, 88, 89n9,
93n72, n73, 94n80, n82, n83,
Wade, S. E. 47n15, 47n32, 104, 121n31 n84, 95n100, n101, n108,
Walker, R. 68n33 122n76, 123n97, n100
Walkington, C. A. 27n10, 29n41, 30n67, Zink, C. F. 66n10
89n15, 111 Zusho, A. 47n14, 88, 95n101, n103
SUBJECT INDEX
Note: figures are denoted by italicised references, tables by the suffix ‘t’, notes by the
prefix ‘n’.
achievement: and curiosity 40; goals biology: domain of 28n21, 53, 103, 107,
78–82, 92n54, 93n64, n68; and interest 108, 110, 127, 136n15; role in interest 4,
1, 4, 21, 23, 24, 106, 124; mathematics 6, 7n13, 18, 25, 125 see also neuroscience
85, 111, 112, 113; motivation 72, 89n6, boredom 15, 17, 29n36, 47n20, 65n1, 87,
n12; science 110 93n68, 131
“actualized” interest 26n3, n6
ADHD 6 career guidance 19, 23, 24–5, 52, 112, 117
art 114–15, 118 Carnegie Learning Systems’ Grade 6–8
Ask-A-Scientist site 136n15 MATHia software 111
Asperger’s syndrome 6 Check and Connect Intervention 76, 135
attainment value 4, 31n81 see also chemistry 110 see also science
importance chess 9
attention 13t, 14, 18, 34–9, 124, choice 23, 57, 66n12, n19, n20, 127, 129,
126; mathematics 111; physical 132–3, 137n31, n33 see also voluntary
education 116, 127; science 130; engagement
and text-processing 35–6; triggering collative variables 30n64, 40, 44
8, 10t, 27n7, 32, 33 see also individual competence see self-efficacy
interest computer science 68n34, 109 see also
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder 6 science
autism 6 content 1, 6n1, 8, 10, 11, 13t, 15, 63, 73;
and choice 132–3; decline of interest
BASE jumpers 21 117; and interest development 32–4, 45,
behavioral indicators see indicators of 58–9, 96–123, 125–6 see also knowledge
interest control 131–2 see also external versus
behaviorism 19–20 internal, self-regulation
belief: interest as 23, 91n46, 95n108, curiosity 2, 4, 5, 32–51, 88n1, 97;
120n2; interest is not 25, 66n16, 72, 86, definition 39–40, 44, 51n68,
125 see also self-efficacy 133; epistemic 40, 41, 42, 44;
Between the Lines software 68n34 perceptual 40, 41
174 Subject Index
decline of interest 12, 17, 58, 96, 112, 114, (science, technology, engineering,
117–19, 118, 121n22 and math)
deprivation 41, 44, 51n68 see also I/D enjoyment 20–1, 27n13, 30n81, 34, 41, 76,
model (interest/deprivation model) 77, 113, 115, 116
depth of engagement 59, 60, 65 epistemic curiosity 40, 41, 42, 44
development of interest 1, 2, 8–12, 9, ethnic differences 115
10t, 17–18, 24, 86, 124–37; case study Eva (mathematics case study) 55t
15–16; and content 32–4, 45, 58–9, expectancy-value 23, 31n81, n82, 89n12,
96–123, 125–6; measuring 59–60, 92n46, 120n4

61–5; and motivational variables 71–95 exploration: and art 114; and deprivation
see also four-phase model of interest 41; diversive 4, 41, 42, 50n57; interest
development motivates 20–1; motivates interest
Digital Network Project 123n102 22, 33, 49n46; and music 113; and
distal goals 83, 89n5, 94n87 neuroscience 37, 38; and physical
domains 15, 28n21, 53, 65, 80, 83, 89n20, education 116, 127; specific 4, 41,
102–16, 118, 122n55, 129 42, 50n57
dopamine 37–8, 49n37 see also reward extra-curricular (out-of-school) activities 33,
circuitry of brain 65, 67n21, 91n43, 96, 100–1, 108, 117
D-type curiosity 45, 50n57, 51n69 extrinsic rewards 38, 39, 49n46, 53, 102
see also I/D model (interest/deprivation
model) facial expressions 20, 21, 61, 68n31
dyslexia 125 feelings 7n13, 11, 12, 13t, 21, 23, 41, 86;
negative 10, 27n7, 40, 45, 60–1; positive
early experiences 3, 17, 92n46 1, 11, 26n7, 41, 45, 60–1, 63 see also
early phases of interest development 10, emotion; liking; self-efficacy
11, 13t, 17, 24, 51n73, 61, 66n16, 74, flow 4, 11, 26n4, 48n34, 72, 89n12, 117,
125; consciousness of interest 62, 72; 134, 135; definition 6n5, 28n16, 89n10
measuring 63, 64; and motivational fMRI scanning 39, 48n35, 68n32
variables 78, 80, 83 four-phase model of interest development
educators 2, 3, 52, 59, 90n29, 101, 113–14, 2, 4, 9, 12–15, 13t, 29n36, 51n76, 64,
129–30, 132, 134; and interest triggers 69n44, 87, 92n46, 133–4 see also early
10, 73, 85, 102, 120n16, 126; and phases of interest development; later
reflection 90n24, 101; and technology phases of interest development
109; and topics 19, 53, 103 frequency of engagement 7n11, 59, 60,
emerging individual interest 9, 11, 13t, 65, 67n22
14–16, 45, 64, 87 see also individual
interest gaming 100, 109
Emma (pseudonym) - case study 15–16, gender differences 94n88, n91, 108, 109,
33, 45, 71, 78, 98, 99, 100 110, 111, 115, 118
emotion: interest as 7n13, 8, 20–1, 26n6, geography 122n52 see also social studies
30n59, 37, 50n63, 93n69, 125; negative GlobalEd simulation 107
27n7, 29n36; positive 76, 91n46 see also goals 5, 72, 76, 78–82, 83, 89n12; distal
boredom; enjoyment; feelings 83, 89n5, 94n87; mastery 42, 79–80;
employers 3, 32, 59, 73, 74, 90n24, 119, performance 42, 79–80, 102, 136n6;
128, 134 proximal 83, 89n5, 94n87
engagement: definition 71–2; depth of 59, grit 23, 26n4, 72, 89n12, 134–5; definition
60, 65; frequency of 59, 60, 65, 67n22; 7n5, 89n11
interest and 1, 2, 4, 5, 75–7; meaningful
4, 71, 75, 76, 77, 90n29, n30, 101, Harry Potter series 127
135; voluntary 59, 60, 64, 65 see also hedonic impacts 21 see also liking
meaningful engagement; reengagement history, domain of 2, 106–7
engineering: case study 56, 58, 59, 78; history of interest research 2, 18–20, 25
domain 19, 64, 92, 110 see also STEM Hunger Games,The 100
Subject Index 175
ICAN probes 34, 61, 83–4, 90n24, 116 maintained situational interest 9, 10,
identity 24, 28n30, 31n81, 96, 99–100, 10t, 11, 13t, 14, 15–16, 93n69,
105, 134 126–7; mathematics 126; science 131
I/D model (interest/deprivation model) see also four-phase model of interest
41, 42, 49n57, 50n57, 51n69 development; situational interest
importance and interest 4, 16, 18, 35–6 maker movement 114, 115
indicators of interest 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, manga 114–15
67n22, 69n44, 98 mastery goals 42, 79–80
individual interest 9, 9–10, 10t, 11, 12, mathematics: decline of interest 117, 118;
14, 21, 26n3, n6, 28n35, 32, 43–4, 127; development of interest 54, 55t, 67n20,
mathematics 111; science 53 see also later 83, 90n25; and gender 94n88; The Math
phases of interest development Forum 90n28; and self-efficacy 83,
interest, definition 1, 5, 6n1, 8–31, 66n16, 84, 85–6, 89, 111–12, 113; supporting
67n31, 86, 125, 136n1 connections 73–4, 75; and surveys 62,
interest development see development of 67n21, 69n38; teacher training 67n24,
interest 85–6; triggering interest 10–11, 45–6,
interest-driven learning 27n14, 83, 100–2, 74–5, 112, 126, 127 see also STEM
116, 120n2 (science, technology, engineering,
interest experience 22–3, 68n34 and math)
Interest Scale 53 meaningful engagement 4, 71, 75, 76, 77,
interviews for measuring interest 28n35, 78, 90n29, 90n30, 101, 135
62, 65, 68n33, 69n38, 72, 81, 82, measuring interest 2, 3, 5, 19, 24,
129, 130–1 38, 52–70
memory 19, 22, 26, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43,
Jigsaw technique 130 126, 127
joy 20–1, 67n31 see also enjoyment MINE tool (My Interest Now for
Julia - case study 10t Engagement) 53, 68n34, 69n38
mink dissection 33–4, 81, 84
knowledge 96–9; and choice 66n12, 132; Minnesota, University of 19, 29n51
definition 20; and history 106; and motivation: definition 71–2; interest as 3,
individual interest 11, 13t, 14, 15, 46, 82; 8–10, 18, 25, 26n6, 125; in mathematics
as interest component 69n38, 86; and 111, 112; in reading 28n35, 104,
physical education 116; and science 110; 121n22; in science 52–3, 103, 127; in
and situational interest 12, 13t, 14, 25, writing 28n35
51n68, 78; and writing 105 see also value motivational variables 71–95 see also goals;
knowledge gaps 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50n66, self-efficacy; self-regulation
51n68, n69, n72, 127, 133 museum exhibits, case study 57–8
music 113–14, 118, 129
language learning see second language
learning neuroscience 5, 6, 7n13, 17, 18, 21, 30n60,
later phases of interest development 11, 34, 37–9, 54; and choice 132; and
13t, 17, 25, 33, 51n73, 60–1, 72, 74, curiosity 133; and liking 60, 61 see also
125; measuring 63, 64; and motivational reward circuitry of brain
variables 78, 80, 83 see also individual Nobel Laureates 125
interest Northern Lights 43
learning: interest and 3, 4, 18–20, 32, 33–4, novelty 27n8, 38, 42, 49n38, 81, 126;
36, 39, 46; interest-driven 100–2; and and situational interest 10, 11, 22, 37,
rewards 38, 39 116, 127
LEDs 57–8
Likert ratings 62 O*Net Interest Profiler Short Form 53
liking 3, 14, 20, 21, 38, 50n56, 60–1, online environments 67n24, 100, 104–5,
67n25, 91n46, 120n4 120n2, n3, 127, 136n15; gaming 100,
log data for measuring interest 61–2, 109; mathematics 111, 127; and second
66n17, 67n21, n24 language learning 106
176 Subject Index
out-of-school (extra-curricular) activities Science Olympiad 100

33, 65, 67n21, 91n43, 96, 100–1, science topics 107–8; LEDs 57–8; mink
108, 117 dissection 33–4, 81, 84; turtle project 88,
95n108, 131
parental influence 23, 112, 115, 123n89, second language learning 28n35, 64,
128, 136n20 see also educators 104, 105–6
Parkinson’s Disease 48n37 seductive details 22, 48n32, 103, 104, 121n34
peers 115, 130, 131 self-concept see self-efficacy
perceptual curiosity 40, 41 self-determination theory 28n30, 91n45

performance goals 42, 79–80, 102, 136n6 self-efficacy 33, 58, 71, 72, 76, 78, 90n26,
personality 7n13, 9, 24, 89n14 n27, 122n79; definition 86, 89n12; and
photography case-study 15–16, 33, 45, 71, interest 82–6; mathematics 111–12, 113;
78, 98, 99, 100 science 110–11; in writing 65
physical education 115–16, 118, 127 self-generation: of interest 10, 11,
physics 22, 53, 69n38, 82, 98, 107, 108, 131–2; of triggers 33, 45–6, 73, 102,
109–10, 122n61, 133 see also science 121n16, 125
physiological processes 28n27, 32, 37, 38, self-other comparisons 128, 130
44, 48n34, 49n45 self-regulation 27n13, 33, 59, 86–8, 90n26,
PISA (Programme for International n27, 128, 131; definition 89n9; and
Learner Assessment) survey 69n38 individual interest 13t, 14, 16, 112; and
proximal goals 83, 89n5, 94n87 motivational variables 18, 71, 72, 76,
psychological state 6n1, 7n13, 8–10, 9, 11, 78–82, 89n12, 134 see also self-efficacy
12, 13t, 22, 26n3, 26n6, 44, 125 situational interest 9, 9–12, 10t, 14,
PYD (positive youth development) 91n43 26n6, 27n8, 44, 51n68, 110, 126–7;
mathematics 126; physical education
reading 22, 28n35, 35–7, 45, 89n20, 103–4, 115, 116, 127; science 127, 130, 131;
107, 121n22, 127 see also text-based second language learning 105–6;
interest seductive details 103–4; and technology
reengagement 1, 8, 17, 28n15, 59, 60, 65, 109 see also maintained situational
78, 101, 128; individual interest 9, 11, interest; triggered situational interest
13t, 14, 34, 87 Situational Interest Survey (SIS) 27n13
reflection 74, 90n24 social cognitive career theory 24
reward circuitry of brain 4, 28n27, 32, social learning theory 24
37–9, 45, 49n39, 54, 124, 126, 137n33 social studies 67n21, 90n21, 107, 118, 127
rewarding nature of interest 5, 6, 21, STEM (science, technology, engineering,
30n57, 32, 46, 52, 54, 63, 65, 99, 125 and math) 62, 64, 69n44, 82, 98–9,
reward motivation 20, 30n57, 38, 48n37, 100, 108, 128 see also engineering;
49n38, n39, n41, 56, 59, 102 mathematics; science
rewards: extrinsic 38, 39, 49n46, 53, 102; Steve (mechanical case-study) 97–8,
intrinsic 38, 39, 49n46 99, 124
Strong Vocational Interest Bank 29n51
Sam (middle-school case-study) 87–8, Study Interest Questionnaire 23
95n108, 131 surveys for measuring interest 19, 24,
science: chemistry 110; computer science 28n25, 62, 64, 65, 66n17, n19, 67n21;
68n34, 109; decline of interest 107, 117; O*Net Interest Profiler Short Form
engineering 19, 62, 64, 110; gender 53; PISA 69n38; Situational Interest
differences 94n88, 108, 109, 110; Survey 27n13
interest and content 107–11; physics
22, 53, 69n38, 82, 98, 107, 108, 109–10, talent and interest 113, 117, 119, 135
122n61, 133; and self-regulation 128; task features 22–3, 24, 30n64, n81
and situational interest 126–7, 130, 131; task reaction time 47n30, 48n33
triggers 80–1, 89n20, 131 see also STEM task value 23, 30n81
(science, technology, engineering, teacher influences see educators
and math) teacher interest 18, 85–6, 129
Subject Index 177
technology: gaming 100, 109; online utility value 4, 23, 31n81, n82, 54, 85,
environments 100, 104–5, 106, 109 92n46, 93n68, 94n94, 120n2, n4, 132
see also computer science
text-based interest 22, 27n8, 35–6, 48n32, value 27n13, 31n81, 46, 69n38, 74,
103–4 see also reading 88, 91n46, 92n48, 102, 125, 132;
The Math Forum 90n28 expectancy-value 23, 31n81, n82,
topic interest 11–12, 19, 22, 52–4, 57; 89n12, 92n46, 120n4; task value 23,
history 106; mathematics 111, 112; 30n81 see also utility value
physical education 115; reading 103–4; value, interest as 20, 23, 86,
sciences 107–9; writing 104–5 120n2, 121n33
triggered situational interest 9, 10–11, vocational interest 19, 20, 24–5
12, 13t, 14, 15, 22, 63, 64, 93n69, Vocational Interest Blank 29n51
126–7, 129; history 104; mathematics voluntary engagement 59, 60, 64, 65
126; science 131 see also situational see also choice
interest
triggers 1, 4, 5, 9, 10t, 11, 33–4, 44, 89n20, wanting 21, 29n36, 38, 43–4, 50n56, 54,
126–7; case studies 55t, 56, 57, 58, 61, 119
88; and choice 132–3; and curiosity well-developed individual interest 3, 9, 11,
45; mathematics 55t, 112; music 113; 13t, 14, 15, 16, 25, 45, 61, 64, 87, 125,
novelty 126; second language learning 135 see also individual interest
105–6; self-generation of 33, 45–6, 73, World of Warcraft 100, 109
102, 121n16, 125 writing 28n35, 57, 65, 68n33, 81, 83, 87,
turtle project 88, 95n108, 131 104–5, 129, 130–1, 137n25

The Power of Interest For Motivation and Engagement 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Power of Interest For Motivation and Engagement 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

The Power of Interest For Motivation and Engagement 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

loaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:25 26 April

THE POWER OF INTEREST FOR

K. Ann Renninger is the Eugene M. Lang Research Professor at Swarthmore

Suzanne E. Hidi is a Founding Fellow of the Senior College of the University

K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne E. Hidi

© 2016 Taylor and Francis

ISBN: 978-1-138-77978-5 (hbk)

List of Illustrations viii

2 Interest, Attention, and Curiosity 32

4 Interest, Motivation, Engagement, and Other

5 Interest and Content 96

6 Developing Interest 124

Interest is powerful. The triggering of interest initiates productive engagement

we shall be in a better position to give a clear, precise, operational defini-

Berlyne believed that, eventually, developments in research would make it possible

interest that need to be recognized and addressed. Addressing these misconcep-

• predicts long-term growth in achievement;6

various research communities. Policy-makers could also benefit from reading

different approaches to the conceptualization of interest.

1. Interest is a variable that can be supported to develop and deepen, regardless

We review resources for supporting the development of interest, and we address

We draw on research findings to inform the discussion in each chapter and to

to the topic; it enables the chapters to be read without interruption by multiple

10 cf. Berlyne 1949; Renninger and Hidi 2011.

What is interest and how has it been

What is the definition of interest? A momentary fixation, attraction, fascination,

A Psychological State and a Motivational Variable

As a psychological state, interest is characterized by increased attention, effort,

TABLE 1.1 A Case Example of a Triggered Situational Interest That Is Maintained.

trajectory of interest development in which situational interest may trigger and

Situational, Individual, and Topic Interest

1. structural characteristics such as novelty, surprise, complexity, and ambiguity;9

mathematics classroom can provide triggers: the presentation of course materials

developed interest, and/or personal interest—is a relatively enduring predis-

The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development

TABLE 1.2 The Four Phases of Interest Development.

Phases of interest development

Less developed (earlier) More developed (later)

Phase I: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4:

development: a maintained situational interest.When people have a maintained situ-

interest may be reflected in our behavioral measure of continued interest,

A Case Illustration of Interest Development

Emma’s situational interest in photography is triggered by the gift of the

in photography begins to shift from being a maintained situational interest

neurological basis (biological roots). In other words, Emma’s brain activation

the classroom environment as supporting the development of interest, or not,42

Historical Context and Conceptualizations of Interest

Adaptation of behavioral principles to teaching described (a) knowledge as a

develop connections to the materials they needed to learn).56

intriguing, whereas enjoyment–joy is a sense of satisfaction and reward that is

Interest Based on Task Features or Interest Experience

• inventories used to identify topics for assigned work and/or remediation;65

1. Increased interest resulted in better memory of text.69

McDaniel et al. (2000) tested these hypotheses by conducting studies of under-

Interest as Vocational Interest

to vocational interest is the possibility that career interest can be supported to

psychological state and a motivational variable that can develop. It is noteworthy

of middle-school-aged language-arts students in each of the four phases of interest.

noted that: “whereas lack of interest can reasonably be assumed to be an important