Over the course of my practicum experience, I have been exposed to a plethora of strategies to help develop a sound method of classroom management. One aspect of teaching that I have found to be particularly challenging is finding the appropriate techniques to operate a fair, experiential classroom setting, building on the interests of students to engage without enforcing authoritarian-like control. I have learned that providing choices to students has proved to benefit a student-centered context for learning- giving them a sense of autonomy in their educational development. However, I was curious to examine if there was any research available on findings contrary to advantages perceived with choice-making. Moreover, the article I touch on today tackles the perceived controversy that ties in to offering choices as a teaching practice (Katz & Assor, 2007).

According to Katz & Assor (2007), the benefits and drawbacks of offering choices in the classroom has intensified in recent years. There have been many inconsistent findings associated with choice, and researchers have come to realize that choice is a multifaceted phenomenon. Katz & Assor (2007) suggest that equating choice with autonomy may be erroneous. This concept has been evaluated in conjunction to the macro theory of human motivation- “Self-Determination Theory” (SDT), and the 3 psychological needs posited by it; the need for autonomy, relatedness, and the need for competence. Thus, choice is motivating when the options are relevant to that particular student’s interests and goals, are not too complex, and are congruent to the student’s cultural values (Katz & Assor, 2007). By viewing choice through the prism of SDT, findings suggest that in order for choice to have a beneficial, positive effect on the student (i.e. cognitively and emotionally motivational), all three needs must be met to a meaningful degree. Therefore, as a teacher, we must analyze the characteristics of the options that we are providing the student. What is the choice structure (i.e. what is the content, and how many choices/options are we providing)? In addition, we need to address the characteristics of the setting in which the choice is provided (i.e. atmosphere).

When motivating through choice in the classroom, teachers must consider the following:

• Autonomy-Enhancing Choice: If the choice is strongly connected to the student’s values, interests and goals, their choice will be closely related to their authentic self and identity. One study by Assor, Kaplan & Roth (2002) demonstrated that providing tasks that are strongly correlated with student’s individual interests brought forth greater autonomy and intrinsic motivation. However, when choice is separated from other aspects of autonomy support and self-realization (goals, interests, etc.), the act of choosing is not the motivator behind choice-making. If the choice provides an opportunity for self-realization, the student will become more self-motivated.

The issue of “picking” vs. “choosing:”

In a study conducted by D’Ailly (2004), Canadian and Chinese 11-year-old’s were given the opportunity to learn the names of animals, numbers, and colours in a foreign languages. Half of the participants were given the option to choose what names they wanted to learn, and the other half were chosen by the teacher or by a computer. D’Ailly (2004) determined that choice had no cognitive impact on the students. Thus, the results suggest that because the students reported that they had high level of interest in the task, that choice had no effect on on their learning. This proposes that picking does not necessarily have a substantial affect on motivation. However, in order for choice to have a positive impact on intrinsic motivation, the options must differ markedly in terms of their importance to the participants (i.e. so that each student will find at least one choice more engaging, interesting, and relevant to their personal values).

• Competence-Enhancing Choice: In decision-making literature, findings demonstrate that if students are given too many complex options, children will resort to random selection, rather than preference. Choosers may experience frustration, and therefore may feel less satisfied with the choice they make. Katz & Assor (2007) also explain that age may be a factor when considering the effect of choice on cognitive and affective variables.

• Relatedness-Enhancing Choice: The difference between Westernized views and those of Eastern individuals’ perspectives is considerably diverse. Western culture focuses on the individual and the importance of expressing unique attributes that enables them to stand a part and be distinct from others. On the contrary, Eastern perspectives perceive themselves as being interconnected and interrelated with others in a broader social context. Thus, providing choice to students will vary greatly, depending on their relatedness and sense of belonging to specific cultural groups. In a study conducted by Iyengar & Lepper (1999), choice was found to undermine students who were Bedouin (collectivistically oriented), compared to Jewish children (individualistically oriented). Thus, it is suggested that free choice situations may threaten a child’s need for relatedness in those who are part of hierarchical and collectivist cultures.

In summary, choice is not in itself motivating. When teachers provide choice for their students, they should construct options that meet their students’ needs; offered in a manner and context that does not threaten the child (i.e. in a non-controlling and accepting atmosphere). The choices should not be too complex, yet not too easy. Additionally, they should also be congruent with the students’ values and culture of origin. When these conditions are met, choice is likely to provide a positive influence to the students’ functioning and development (Katz & Assor, 2007).