Recipients
Elena Neiterman, School of Public Health and Health Systems
Reem Mulla, School of Public Health and Health Systems
Martin Holmes, School of Public Health and Health Systems
Project Summary
Offering students choices is generally applauded in pedagogy, but some students may find choices too overwhelming. In Winter 2020, students enrolled in a course in the Faculty of Health were required to complete a written assignment exposing them to a number of choices: they had to choose one type of assignment out of three potential options; they could work alone or in pairs; and, after receiving a grade for their assignment, they could resubmit it for a higher mark. This project explored how exposure to this set of compounded choices shaped students’ learning experiences and engagement with the course. Utilizing mixed-methods approach, we examined positive and negative reactions students had about having the compounded choice and identified supports students sought to improve their learning experiences. We also developed a guide for instructors interested to introduce more choices into their courses and a video capturing students’ experiences of making course-related choices.
Research Questions
- What are students’ positive and negative experiences of working on the course assignment which incorporates a set of compounded choices
- What personal and contextual factors shape students’ experiences when making these choices?
- Do students feel that their ability to choose from a set of options when working on their written assignment improves their engagement with the course material or becomes too overwhelming and confusing?
- What challenges do students experience while navigating their choices and what supports they need from their instructors?
Findings
Invitation to participate in the study was sent to all students enrolled in the class in Winter 2020. Students had an option to complete a short 5-minute survey about their experiences with the choices they had been given in the course and/or to take part in 15-20 minutes semi-structured interviews. The reported findings are based on the responses from 84 surveys (24.5% response rate) and nine semi-structured interviews. We also interviewed two graduate students who worked as teaching assistants, asking them to comment on their perceptions about students’ experiences. Among the survey respondents, 86.9% self-identified as women and close to 90% were in the age group of 18-20 years and in their first or second year of study. All interviewees, including TAs, self-identified as women.
Goal 1: Students’ experiences with the guided set of choices
We found that, overall, students enjoyed the compounded choice in their course assignment. All but one participant 98.8% (n=83) felt that being able to choose which type of assignment they want to submit was beneficial for their learning. Most participants (88%, n=74) thought the flexibility in the assignment choices suited their needs, a finding that was consistent with the interview data. Qualitative interviews revealed that students appreciated the flexibility in the type of the assignment they could submit because it allowed them to hone their existing skills or, if desired, to learn the new ones. For instance, some students said they chose a more creative option because they wanted to capitalize on their artistic skills while others made a choice strategically, thinking about the experience that can help them in the future co-op term.
Students also appreciated the ability to decide if they are working alone or with a partner. Among the survey respondents 75% (n=63) chose to work with another student. Students who opted to work alone said they did it because it better worked for their schedule, because the type of the assignment they chose was better fitted for an individual work, or because they did not know anyone in class. Interview participants who worked with a partner thought the collaboration enhanced their learning experience.
Our findings showed, however, that while 94% (n=79) of students appreciated an opportunity to resubmit their assignment for a higher mark, 20% (n=17) felt bad opting out of resubmitting, knowing that it could, potentially, improve their mark. Given a choice to resubmit earlier in the term was proposed as a better option to enable students to pursue this option during a time where they had less deadlines and due dates from other courses.
Goal 2: Guide development
Based on the data that we generated from this project we created a guide that can be utilized by instructors interested in introducing a compounded choice in course assignments (see below). We also created a video, narrated from the student’s viewpoint, to encourage instructors to implement differentiated assessment and choice in their courses along with tips on how to do that effectively.
Resources
References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy- enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.
Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and
orientations. Higher Education, 33, 71-84.
Birenbaum, M. (1994) Toward adaptive assessment—the students’ angle, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 239–255
Biggs, J., B. (1987). Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Boud, D.,& Walker, D. Making the most of experience, Studies in Continuing Education, 12, 61-80.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T.
Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (p. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231-254.
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 634-645.
Gargiulo, R. M., Metcalf, D., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in today s inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Gibbs, G. (1999) Using assessment strategically to change the way students. Assessment Matters in Higher Education 41, 20-22.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Pp. 37-54. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hardway, C. L., & Stroud, M. (2014). Using Student Choice to Increase Students’ Knowledge of Research Methodology, Improve Their Attitudes Toward Research, and Promote Acquisition of Professional Skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26, 381-392.
Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). The Role of Student Characteristics and Teacher Behaviors in Students’ Learner Empowerment. Communication Education, 58, 35-53.
Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79, 995-1006.
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798-811.
Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12, 1-14.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British journal of educational psychology, 46, 4-11.
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, 270-300.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. . Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 896-915.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. . Educational Psychologist, 50, 1-13.