Choices and Options Enhance Motivational Benefits, but Only When Offered in a Noncontrolling Way

• In Event: Roundtable Session 124
  In Roundtable Session: The Motivational Benefits and Detriments of Choosing: Exploring the Complexity of Choice in Educational Contexts

Abstract

The most commonly used instructional strategy to promote students’ perceived autonomy and intrinsic motivation in the K-12 classroom is the provision of choices and options (Deci, 1995). The problem, however, is that teachers routinely provide “option choices” (teachers invite students to decide between teacher-prescribed alternatives) but rarely provide “action choices” (teachers afford students a recurring say in the initiation and regulation of their behavior). This is a problem because only action choices yield motivational benefits (Katz & Assor, 2007; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008; Schraw, Flowerday, & Reisetter, 1998; Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003). The conclusion from laboratory experimental research is as follows: Teacher-provided choices and options motivate when they allow students to proactively get out ahead of a forthcoming learning experience in terms of acting volitionally regarding the initiation and regulation of their behavior (e.g., “Do you want to read?”) whereas teacher-provided choices and options do not motivate when they take action for granted and reactively put students into a position of deciding between pre-determined alternatives (e.g.,. “Which book do you want to read—A or B?”).

The purpose of the study was to test the validity of the above conclusion using naturally-occurring, classroom-relevant choices and options. Students self-reported their frequency of choices (predictor #1) and the perceived motivating style of their teacher (predictor #2), because controlling teachers offer option choices whereas non-controlling teachers offer action choices (Reeve et al., 2003). For each dependent measure, it was hypothesized that the same interaction effect would emerge in which motivational benefits (perceived autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and agentic engagement) occurred only for the group of students who reported frequent choices offered in a non-controlling way.

Participants were 1,158 students taking a physical education class in one of 19 Seoul middle schools. Early (T1) and late (T2) in the semester students completed a questionnaire that assessed: perceived choice (i.e., “In this PE class, my teacher provides me with choice and options”; from the Learning Climate Questionnaire, Williams & Deci, 1996); Controlling Teaching Questionnaire (Jang et al., 2009); Perceived Autonomy Scale (Standage et al., 2006); Intrinsic Motivation scale from the PESRS (Goudas et al., 1994); and Voice Engagement scale (Reeve & Tseng, 2011). ICCs were low (< 2.7%), alphas were high (> .78), and baseline group differences were negligible.

Analyses involved three (one for each dependent measure) 2 (high choice, low choice) x 2 (controlling, non-controlling) ANCOVAs with students’ gender, grade level, and baseline (T1) perceived autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and agentic engagement serving as covariates. For perceived autonomy, the two-way interaction was significant, F(1, 1152) = 5.86, p < .01, as students in the high choice, non-controlling group reported greater T2 perceived autonomy than did students in the other three conditions, who did not differ (Ms, 5.00 vs. 4.57, 4.41, and 4.56 on a 1-7 scale). The same pattern of effects was observed for the T2 intrinsic motivation and T2 agentic engagement measures. Teacher-provided choices therefore need to be offered in non-controlling ways if they are to yield important student motivational benefits.

Author

• Johnmarshall Reeve, Korea University