Brainstorming Topics of Interest¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (2 for, 1 mixed) · 6 studies (3 review, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 2 of 6 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Brainstorming an ongoing class list of topics learners want to know about and are interested in—a phenomenon, an event, or a law, for example. If teaching science, math, or history, require topics to be about the field, but also encourage general topics (and then find connections to content later). The list functions as a shared, evolving resource that anchors later instruction, projects, and inquiry to learner-generated relevance.

Design Implications¶

Brainstorming topics of interest leverages situational interest as an entry point for developing individual interest, which research links to deeper engagement and persistence Interest supports attention, engagement, and learning. [+M]. Because the topics come from learners themselves, the activity also supports autonomy, a core condition for intrinsic motivation Autonomy support fosters intrinsic motivation. [+S]. The brainstorm is only the first move: its value depends on whether the generated topics are actually used in subsequent tasks, not merely collected.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Clear guidelines and boundaries for topic selection (e.g., topics must connect to the discipline) so the list stays usable for instruction
• A classroom climate that supports open sharing and respect for diverse interests (Class Discussion)
• A mechanism for capturing and revisiting the list over time — a visible anchor chart, shared document, or course wiki
• Follow-through: instruction, projects, or Case Studies that draw on the list

Constraints¶

• Learners with limited background knowledge may struggle to identify interests or connect them to academic content; prompting with examples and category scaffolds is needed Prior knowledge shapes what learners find interesting and can pursue. [~W]
• Unfacilitated brainstorming can drift off-topic or be dominated by a few voices; structured turn-taking or written-first brainstorming mitigates this
• Interest alone does not guarantee learning — topics must still be sequenced and scaffolded against content demands, or engagement may not translate into achievement Situational interest can distract from learning goals when it is not tied to the target content. [~M]
• If the list is generated but never used, learners perceive the activity as token consultation, which can undermine perceived autonomy Autonomy support fosters intrinsic motivation. [-M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Written-first (silent brainstorming on sticky notes or a shared doc) before oral sharing, to equalize participation
• Category-constrained brainstorming (e.g., "a phenomenon," "an event," "a law") to keep the list discipline-relevant
• Ongoing "parking lot" lists revisited at the start of each unit, rather than a one-time event
• Digital backchannels or anonymous submission for learners reluctant to voice interests publicly

Target Learners¶

• Applicable across all learner levels, including K-12, higher education, and adult learners
• Especially valuable for learners low in task value or perceived relevance, for whom connecting content to personal interest raises engagement Task value increases motivation and engagement. [+M]
• Emerging readers and adolescents benefit when interest-based selection is paired with Authentic Audiences & Purposes [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Motivation and engagement: building task value and situational interest as a foundation for sustained inquiry
• Question-posing and inquiry skills: converting interests into researchable questions
• Ownership and self-regulation: learners who choose topics take more responsibility for their learning Autonomy support fosters intrinsic motivation. [+S]

Instructions¶

1. Open with an Activation prompt — a provocative image, event, or question — to surface what learners already wonder about.
2. Elicit topics through Whole-Class Sharing or silent written brainstorming; record every contribution on a visible shared list.
3. Apply selection boundaries: require discipline relevance but allow general topics, then model finding connections to course content.
4. Cluster and prioritize the list with learners, converting high-interest items into driving questions for Case Studies, projects, or research tasks.
5. Revisit the list at the start of each unit, adding new topics and marking ones that have been addressed — the list is ongoing, not one-shot.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — surfacing what learners already know and wonder about is the natural precursor to a topic brainstorm
• KWL — the "W" (want to know) column is a structured, individual version of the same move
• Embed the KWL strategy across inquiry phases to guide question generation and question-quality monitoring

Related Elements¶

• Activation — the opening move that surfaces interests and curiosity
• Class Discussion — the sharing format that makes the list a collective product
• Case Studies — a common destination for high-interest topics once selected

Tools¶

• Shared documents (Google Docs, Padlet) for persistent, collaboratively editable topic walls
• Sticky-note or silent-brainstorm protocols for equalizing participation before discussion

Examples¶

• Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) — Guthrie's reading program generates theme and topic choices from learner interests, then binds them to strategy instruction; interest-driven theme selection is a core design feature (http://www.corilearning.com)
• Project-Based Learning units (e.g., PBLWorks exemplars) — entry events elicit a "need to know" list from students that drives the project's research questions (https://www.pblworks.org)
• A secondary science class maintaining an ongoing "phenomena wall" of student-proposed phenomena (a strange cloud, a viral video of a physics stunt), revisited each unit to anchor Anchored Instruction lessons

Key Sources¶

• Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
• Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52. doi:10.1023/a:1009004801455
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement. In S. L. Christenson et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 603–623). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_29