Curiosity has an almost mythical status in education. We want to spark it, stimulate it, and place it at the centre of learning. That makes sense. If you are curious, you want to know, you seek information, and you learn. A lot of research supports that idea. But, as is often the case, the story is a bit more complex.

A recent study by Emin and colleagues examines the relationships among epistemic curiosity (the desire to acquire and understand knowledge), mind wandering, and learning performance. And you can probably see where this is going. Curiosity is not only associated with better learning, but also with more mind wandering. And that mind wandering is generally not good news.

Let’s start with the simple part. Both as a stable trait and as a momentary state, curiosity is positively related to learning performance. Students who are more curious tend to perform better. That fits perfectly with what we already know: curiosity drives learning.

At the same time, however, the study shows that curiosity is also associated with more mind wandering. In other words, curious individuals are more likely to let their thoughts drift towards other ideas, questions, or associations, sometimes deliberately. And that is where the tension lies.

Both intentional and unintentional mind wandering are negatively related to learning performance. Especially when this mind wandering is deep or frequent, the negative effects become quite clear. In some analyses, mind wandering accounts for a substantial portion of the variation in learning outcomes.

So how can these findings coexist? The key lies in the distinction between two levels.

At the trait level, more curious individuals are more likely to engage in mind wandering. That is not surprising. Curiosity also means being open to new ideas and connections, including those that are not directly related to the task at hand. This openness can lead to distraction and, consequently, hinder learning.

But during the learning process itself, something different happens. In the experimental study, in which students watched video lectures, curiosity was associated with less mind wandering. Or more precisely, with less deep mind wandering. And it is exactly this “depth” of mind wandering that turns out to be an important predictor of learning performance.

In other words, when we direct our curiosity towards the task, it helps us to keep our attention focused. When it is not, it increases the likelihood of distraction. As so often, context makes the difference.

Another interesting nuance in the study is that not all forms of mind wandering are the same. The extent to which someone is mentally “away” from the task (its depth) seems to matter more than how often it occurs. This aligns with a broader trend in research: attention is not an on/off switch, but a continuum. It sounds obvious, but reading the study made me realise how often I still forget this myself.

Finally, the researchers also tested a practical intervention: giving students a choice. Students who could choose the topic they wanted to learn about showed higher curiosity and performed better on a knowledge test, both immediately and one week later. The effect on mind wandering itself was less clear, but the direction is promising.

So, back to the question in the title: Is curiosity always good for learning?

Yes, but not automatically.

Curiosity can be a powerful driver, but it is no guarantee. Without direction, it can lead to distraction. In a well-designed learning environment, it can help sustain attention and deepen learning.

Or put differently: curiosity works. But it does not work in isolation from the task, the context, and the way learning is organised. That may be less spectacular than some slogans, but it is a lot closer to reality.