Frequently Asked Questions

The research: Psychologist Deanna Kuhn's work shows that critical thinking develops through practice—through structured dialogue—not through lectures about thinking. Matthew Lipman's Philosophy for Children demonstrated similar findings: students who regularly engage in guided inquiry develop stronger reasoning than those taught reasoning rules directly (Kuhn, 2005; Lipman, 2003).

Our design decision: Curiosity Coach never explains "how to ask good questions." Instead, the system creates conditions for students to discover effective questioning through their own inquiry. When we do offer guidance, it's in-the-moment and specific: "That was a mechanism question—you asked HOW, not just WHAT." This names a pattern the student just used, making implicit thinking explicit.

Why it matters: Direct instruction about questioning ("always ask why") produces shallow compliance. Students learn the words but not the thinking. By naming moves after a student makes them, we help them recognize what they're already capable of—and repeat it intentionally.

The research: Bloom's taxonomy (Remember → Understand → Apply → Analyze → Evaluate → Create) maps increasingly sophisticated cognitive operations. Higher-level questions require deeper processing and produce more durable learning (Bloom, 1956).

Our design decision: We don't just score questions by Bloom level—we use the taxonomy formatively to guide students toward their next level. When a student asks "what happens," we might prompt: "Now try: why does it happen that way?" We also recognize that expert inquiry cycles between levels. A student who asks a creative question, then drops to a factual question, may be grounding their idea—not regressing.

Why it matters: Many educational tools use Bloom's as an assessment rubric. We use it as a coaching compass. The difference: assessment tells students where they are; formative guidance shows them where to go next.

The research: Cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham's work demonstrates that thinking skills don't automatically transfer across domains. A student who learns to ask "how does this mechanism work?" about rockets won't spontaneously apply that pattern to history or relationships—unless the transfer is made explicit (Willingham, 2007).

Our design decision: Once per session, after a particularly strong question, we add a brief "transfer tag": "That mechanism question works anywhere—science, history, even friendships." In parent reports, we show the same question pattern applied to three different domains. We time this carefully—only after genuine high-quality questions, so it feels earned rather than formulaic.

Why it matters: Without explicit transfer bridging, students develop "islands" of skill that don't connect. A single sentence at the right moment can transform a domain-specific success into a portable thinking tool.

The research: The Delphi Report on critical thinking identified metacognition—thinking about one's own thinking—as the highest-leverage skill. Students who notice patterns in their own questioning improve faster than those who don't (Facione, 1990).

Our design decision: When a student shows metacognitive awareness ("Wait, I keep asking the same type of question..."), we override our normal response structure. We stop, name what happened ("You just caught yourself thinking about your thinking—that's metacognition"), and amplify its significance before continuing. These moments are rare; we never let them pass unmarked.

Why it matters: Metacognitive moments are fragile. If the system responds with a standard answer, the student learns that self-reflection doesn't matter. By explicitly prioritizing these moments, we signal that noticing your own thinking is the most valuable thing you can do.

The research: Learning science shows that constant correction creates cognitive overload and disengagement. Students need space to practice without feedback on every attempt.

Our design decision: We alternate between teaching and non-teaching responses. One response might name their question type or offer a new stem; the next simply answers and sparks curiosity. This rhythm is deliberate—without it, guidance becomes nagging. With it, students stay engaged while still receiving regular coaching.

Why it matters: The instinct is to help more by teaching more. But over-scaffolding produces dependency, not skill. Alternation creates breathing room while maintaining enough structure for growth.

The research: Curiosity is driven by "information gaps"—when something is incomplete or surprising, we're motivated to resolve it. Complete answers close inquiry; incomplete answers fuel it.

Our design decision: Every response ends with a "spark"—a deliberately incomplete thought using specific patterns: contrast ("Weirdly, the opposite is true for..."), exception ("Some species actually..."), mystery ("Scientists still don't know why..."), or unexpected connection ("Submarines solved this the same way whales do..."). These aren't random interesting facts—they're engineered to create the specific gap that pulls a next question.

Why it matters: If we answered questions completely, students would have nothing left to ask. The art is giving enough to satisfy while leaving enough open to spark the next inquiry.