When Student Choice Backfires

More choice is good, right?

We’d all rather have more items in the Taco Bell menu than fewer.  People prefer to be, or at least feel like they are, in control of their destiny (just ask the anti-maskers of the pandemic!) and it seems likely that our students are no different.  

Theoretically, when students perceive or exercise control over decision-making during learning, situational interest will be stimulated (Høgheim & Reber, 2017) and motivation and performance will increase due to the enjoyment and inherent satisfaction of having ownership over one’s actions (Leotti & Delgado, 2011; Patall et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Empirically, under certain conditions, the act of exercising control has led to improved outcomes compared to external control, such as enhanced memory (Murty et al., 2019) and motor performance (Lewthwaite et al., 2015).

While some researchers have argued that learners should be trusted to make more decisions in their learning (Byrne et al., 2016), others have produced evidence of learners being poor judges of their own abilities (Bjork et al., 2013; Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Nugteren et al., 2018) and having inaccurate opinions of teaching and learning effectiveness (Carpenter et al., 2020; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013). Others, still, have questioned whether choices and options may impose an additional cognitive burden on learners that can impede learning (Carolan et al., 2014; Swaak & de Jong, 2001; Sweller et al., 2007; Vandewaetere & Clarebout, 2013). Despite the undeniable appeal of embedding choices in instruction, research in this area has led to rather disappointing results (e.g., mixed or negative; Carolan et al., 2014; DeMink-Carthew & Netcoh, 2019; Karich et al., 2014; Mozgalina, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017). Further research on the precise boundary conditions for the provision of choice is still needed in order to develop better prescriptions for teachers.

Choosing “how” I learn

I recently came across a study by Foster et al. (2018) that gave me some clarity around the choice conundrum I’ve faced in my own practice as a teacher. It is well known that providing guidance during initial instruction, such as in the form of worked examples, is superior to having learners try to problem-solve independently (Baars et al., 2014; Hoogerheide & Roelle, 2020; Renkl, 2014; Sweller, 1988, 2020; Wittwer & Renkl, 2010). While the so-called “worked example effect” is overwhelmingly accepted as fact amongst instructional designers, Foster et al. (2018) were curious what would happen if students were given the choice of studying a worked example or skipping to solve a problem. In my experience as an elementary teacher, this can be seen as a test of the effectiveness of a commonly-used choice strategy during “Centers” or “The Daily 5”, where learners can pick between “Learn with a teacher” or “Learn independently.”

Proponents of choice would say that the responsibility of choosing how one learns should fall on the student because it is assumed that the learner is the best judge of their learning needs (Byrne et al., 2016; Hannafin, 1984; Merrill, 1975). From the perspective of cognitive load theory, a theory with a strong evidence base that has produced a growing number of practical instructional strategies for teachers, a worked example should precede problem solving for learners dealing with novel information, and guidance should be faded and replaced with problem solving for learners dealing with familiar information (Kalyuga & Singh, 2016; Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller et al., 2019). If giving students the choice between studying worked examples or bypassing worked examples to solve problems results in students matching themselves to the correct form of instruction according to their expertise (novices choose to study worked examples, experts choose to problem-solve) then us teachers should consider offering this sort of choice more often in our classrooms.

What were Foster et al.’s (2018) findings?

When given the choice of “how” they learned; between worked examples or problem solving; the participants, all of whom were classified as novices at probability problems by the pre-test, chose overwhelmingly to start their sequence of learning by attempting to solve a problem. During their second trial, a high number of learners, but certainly not all, chose to study a worked example, presumably because they figured out that they needed guidance. As you can imagine, this is not the most efficient way to go about learning math. The authors suggested in their theoretical framework that this behavior is to be expected; Most of us, when faced with a problem we’re meant to solve, will try to have a go at solving the problem rather than choosing the more effective option of undergoing guided instruction. In addition, Foster et al. found that participants highly preferred problem solving throughout the trials and consistently underutilized worked examples.

I see two implications that result from this research: 1. We should teach students to always begin their learning sequence by electing guided instruction; that is, to learn with the teacher, watch the Khan Academy video, or read the textbook’s example, and 2. We should use our position as the pedagogical expert in the room to match our students to instruction that is based on their level of knowledge rather than giving them unconditional choice during learning.  

While both implications are important, I’m more and more inclined to emphasize the latter.

References

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823

Brom, C., Stárková, T., Bromová, E., & Děchtěrenko, F. (2019). Gamifying a simulation: Do a game goal, choice, points, and praise enhance learning? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1575–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118797330

Byrne, J., Rietdijk, W., & Cheek, S. (2016). Enquiry-based science in the infant classroom: ‘letting go.’ International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2015.1135105

Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56(5), 999–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813517710

Carpenter, S. K., Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2020). On students’ (mis)judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.12.009

DeMink-Carthew, J., & Netcoh, S. (2019). Mixed feelings about choice: Exploring variation in middle school student experiences with making choices in a personalized learning project. RMLE Online, 42(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2019.1693480

Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1345

Høgheim, S., & Reber, R. (2017). Eliciting mathematics interest: New directions for context personalization and example choice. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1268085

Karich, A. C., Burns, M. K., & Maki, K. E. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 392–410. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314526064

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMM.2011.2173980

Lee, S., & Lee, Y. H. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.83.4.491

Leotti, L. A., & Delgado, M. R. (2011). The inherent reward of choice. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1310–1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417005

Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: The motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22(5), 1383–1388. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0814-7

Meehan, M., & McCallig, J. (2019). Effects on learning of time spent by university students attending lectures and/or watching online videos. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12329

Merrill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communication Review, 23(2), 217–226. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30217835

Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99–105. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1992-04146-001&site=ehost-live

Mozgalina, A. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task engagement. System, 49, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.004

Murty, V. P., DuBrow, S., & Davachi, L. (2019). Decision-making increases episodic memory via postencoding consolidation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn

Nugteren, M. L., Jarodzka, H., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2018). Self-regulation of secondary school students: Self-assessments are inaccurate and insufficiently used for learning-task selection. Instructional Science, 46(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9448-2

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (2001). Learner vs. system control in using online support for simulation-based discovery learning. Learning Environments Research, 4(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014434804876

Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426

Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Cognitive load of learner control: Extraneous or germane load? Education Research International, 2013, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902809 Zhang, M., Yin, S., Luo, M., & Yan, W. (2017). Learner control, user characteristics, platform difference, and their role in adoption intention for MOOC learning in China. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2722