(Alannah) Shelby Rivers
Texas Woman's University
I recently attended Danny Oppenheimer’s excellent NITOP session “Choosing to learn: The importance of student autonomy in post-secondary education,” which discussed the benefits of offering student choices in assignments and course structure (e.g., allowing students to choose if attendance is part of their grade or not, or whether to complete a more challenging assignment compared to an easier alternative). After the talk, a new friend (another reason to love conferences!) turned to me and asked what I thought. I replied that that I already implemented several student choices in my courses, so I was very relieved to see that there was research being done to back up those “gut feelings.” I was half-joking, but it did make me realize how important my “gut feelings” about student autonomy and assignment choices are to my teaching practice more broadly. I had often thought about these as individual ideas and practices, but I realized I wanted to be more intentional about viewing student choice as a broader framework. It can be easy to say that I value giving my students choices, but what kinds of choices am I giving them?
Dabrowski and Marshall (2018) identified three key types of student choice in assignments. First, there is choice in content – for example, offering a choice in readings with similar themes or impact. Second, there is choice in product – allowing students to submit assignments in different mediums (podcast vs. website) or structures (application vs. critique). Finally, there is choice in process, such as choosing whether to collaborate and with whom, or what steps to complete and when. These types of choices are often combined (e.g., choosing both a modality and partners for a final project), but it was helpful for me to consider how I decide which choices to offer students, and I hope it is helpful for you as well.
I often offer content choices, especially in my lower-division courses such as Developmental Psychology (first-year level, 60-80 students). During many class sessions, we have what I call “Choose Your Own Adventure” activities, where students select a brief reading from a curated list representing a diversity of experiences related to the topic that may be unfamiliar. For example, when we cover middle childhood and the school transition, they may choose to read about experiences in Montessori schools, special education, homeschooling, or gifted & talented programs; when we cover birth, topics include planned c-sections, epidurals, doulas, and labor experiences from a variety of perspectives (e.g., Black women, trans men). Then, students share about the different perspectives they read (either in small groups, or using online responses), including why they chose that particular reading, and we come together in an open discussion to try to find common themes as well as areas of divergence across the perspectives.
Students have responded well to these choices and often ask for more of these activities. These content choices seem like the most intuitively easy form of choice to introduce, and that is borne out in the literature; a recent study (Harrington, 2024) that reviewed syllabi posted to STP’s website found that over half of the syllabi included content choices, compared to just 25% giving choices in product and 6% in process. Still, there may be circumstances where this form of choice is not appropriate for the pedagogical goals of the course. For example, in my graduate-level discussion seminar Advanced Developmental Psychology (10-20 students), I require everyone to read the same articles, both to ensure all students become familiar with some of the major theories and most recent research, and because this allows for deeper and more meaningful discussion during the three-hour class sessions.
I have also offered product choices in both lower- and upper-division courses, often in concert with content choices. For example, multiple courses include a “creative final project,” where students propose a method of sharing or implementing course content with a unique audience and appropriately creative way of reaching that audience (e.g., Instagram page for college students, picture book for young children, short video for busy medical professionals). This has been highly effective in my upper-level courses, but some first-year students have struggled with the scope of choices they have to make. For example, students may repeatedly ask for ideas from previous classes and may not consider content we will cover later in the class or ways to present the material outside of a paper or PowerPoint. As a result, I have begun implementing more scaffolding in these courses; in Developmental Psychology (60-80 students), I usually dedicate a full class day where I ask students to submit three project ideas to anonymously share with the full class, and I provide feedback (also to the full class). In smaller classes (e.g., Health Psychology, 30-40 students), I have sometimes formed small groups based on the themes of the project ideas so students can discuss their ideas with others who have similar interests. I also have three check-in dates throughout the semester that give students a chance to revisit their product selection.
More complex, and more uncommon in psychology syllabi (Harrington, 2024), are “cafeteria-style” assignments, where students can mix and match different assignment options in order to meet required credit. I have tried this in several of my classes by moving my lower-stakes assignments into a catch-all category of “Applications.” Each type of option has a set point value (e.g., 1 point for watching a documentary, 2 for reading an academic article, 3 for hands-on activities), and students earn points based on the combinations of assignments they have chosen up to the total amount of points available for the assignment category (usually 10). Some students will earn all of their credit in one category, such as by reading and annotating several articles, whereas others will pull a little from each category to have a variety of activities. This system can promote better performance and student satisfaction, but it can lead to greater burden on instructors who have to create more assignments to choose from (Arendt et al., 2016). To offload some of this work, I allow students to suggest their own Applications, vetted by me and with a cut-off date somewhat earlier in the semester. In most semesters, I add at least a few assignment options this way – for example, in my upper-level Addiction course (30-50 students), a student suggested a 3-point assignment where they reach out to a local treatment center to learn more about their therapeutic approach. I also find the system can be confusing (also reported in Arendt et al., 2016), so dedicating significant time to explaining and answering questions can be required.
Finally, I have been experimenting with process choices pertaining to deadlines, sequencing, and collaboration. Often these choices overlap with content and product choices, leading to the most flexible assignments. For example, in my creative final projects described above, I have been more recently offering the option to complete the project either alone or in a small group (up to three students total), instead of my previous default to group work. Students responded very positively to this decision; I observed less conflict and greater group cohesion among the large percentage of students who ultimately chose to collaborate. However, it is important to consider what might be lost with these choices; as Nichols (2023) notes, allowing extensive student choice in product and processes may lead to areas of weakness (e.g., collaboration) going unaddressed. There may also be practical consequences; in Developmental Psychology (60-80 students), even my usual “three-minute thesis” style project presentations would take more than a week if students worked alone, so I ended up cutting them entirely.
Compared to group work decisions, worries about the consequences of giving students choices related to deadlines and sequencing may be more obvious – what if students wait until the last minute and work is late, incomplete, or missing? In my view, these fears are not unfounded. In the Applications described above, students have almost the entire semester to turn in their selected assignments. Although I encourage students to turn the Applications in as they go, reliably, a small percentage of the class will not begin to work on these assignments until the very end and will come up short against my at-that-point unforgiving late policy. Moreover, as Nichols (2023) found, while most students will turn in the work on time and report an increase in interest, this approach tends to lead to a large amount of concentrated grading for faculty, which can be especially difficult at the end of the semester. Perhaps it is better to compromise; I have found some success with a semi-flexible strategy in Applied Statistics (sophomore-level). A large part of the coursework in this class comprises SPSS labs, and students often need repeated practice and hands-on support (from me or from our statistics tutors) to really master the skills. As such, I allow resubmissions and late assignments until the exam where the material is covered. This neatly breaks up the class into a few digestible chunks and prevents students from waiting until the very end to submit, while still giving choices and opportunities for recovery.
Ultimately, making choices about student choices is not easy, but it is full of exciting possibilities that can lead to more engaging and meaningful experiences. When making these decisions, it can be helpful to keep in mind that some types of choices may be more unfamiliar to your students. More choice is not always perceived as positive, and you may need to budget more time than you expect to help students understand their options and feel prepared to take on new challenges. Therefore, it may be wise to start small. Content choices can be highly impactful and may be more familiar to students and less burdensome to instructors. Consider choices that can be included in just one assignment or in-class activity and expand as needed. Finally, just like with any pedagogical decision, it can be very helpful to explain to students why you are offering these particular choices. For example, while I now use it in other classes, I developed the Applications assignment for my Addiction class because there was such a range of student goals in taking the class. Many students are interested in clinical or counseling careers working with clients who may have substance use disorders, while others come from biology or neuroscience and are more interested in the mechanics of individual substances. Another contingent of students have a more personal interest in the topic, based on their own experiences or those of their loved ones. I wanted to offer all of these students the chance to do further exploration of what mattered most to them. Explaining this to students seemed to help address lingering questions about the assignment and even opened up broader conversations about what choices I do not offer and our course learning goals. Not all choices will be the right fit for every class, but I believe being more intentional about the choices I give students will make my teaching more effective – no matter the course.
References
Arendt, A., Trego, A., & Allred, J. (2016). Students reach beyond expectations with cafeteria style grading. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2014-0048
Dabrowski, J., & Marshall, T. R. (2018). Motivation and engagement in student assignments: The role of choice and relevancy. The Education Trust, 1-14. https://edtrust.org/resource/motivation-and-engagement-in-student-assignments/
Harrington, C. (2024). How much assignment choice do students have? A descriptive study of syllabi. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 6-12.
Nichols, G. (2023). Assignment choices in an upper level biology course increase engagement and course satisfaction. The American Biology Teacher, 85(6), 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.6.351
Oppenheimer, D. (2025, January). Choosing to learn: The importance of student autonomy in post-secondary education. Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology.
