Cullen, Simon, and Daniel Oppenheimer. “Choosing to Learn: The Importance of Student Autonomy in Higher Education.” Science Advances 10, no. 29 (July 19, 2024): eado6759. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ado6759.
Abstract
Despite strong evidence that autonomy enhances motivation and achievement, few interventions for promoting student autonomy in higher education have been developed and empirically tested. Here, we demonstrate how two autonomy-supportive policies effectively increase classroom attendance and subject mastery. First, in a randomized controlled field study, we explored the effect of allowing students to choose whether to make their attendance mandatory (i.e., a component of their course grades). We found that nearly all students used the opportunity as a pre-commitment device and were subsequently more likely to attend class than were students whose attendance had been mandated. Second, in a multi-year cohort study, we explored the effect of allowing students to opt out of a challenging, high-effort assessment stream, finding that students given greater autonomy invested more effort into their assignments and attained greater proficiency with the material. We discuss other opportunities for applying choice architecture to improve learning, motivation, and well-being in higher education.
Figures
Figure 1
Fig. 1. Students given greater autonomy attended class more reliably.
The probability of students attending class by week, overall (left) and disaggregated by teaching assistant (TA1 to TA3). Confidence intervals are 95%. Students in the mandatory groups—who were not allowed to choose whether to make attendance count toward their grades—became less likely to attend class as the semester progressed. But students in the optional-mandatory groups—90% of whom had chosen at the beginning of semester to make their attendance count toward their grades—maintained high attendance rates across the semester.
Figure 2
Fig. 2. Students given greater autonomy invested more effort into their work.
(A) Students in the mandatory cohort were forced to complete a demanding series of problem sets. In the free-to-switch cohort, students were allowed to switch to a less demanding assessment option at any point before the midterm essay deadline. All students spent less time on problem sets as the semester progressed. However, students in the free-to-switch cohort, who chose to complete the problem sets, consistently worked harder than students in the mandatory cohort, who were forced to complete the same assignments. (B) Probability of a submission being in each time category in the mandatory cohort: As the semester progressed, these students became far less likely to report spending 2 to 3 hours on their assignments and more likely to report spending less than 1 hour. (C) By contrast, students in the free-to-switch cohort were far more likely to report spending 2 to 3 hours and >3 hours than were students in the mandatory cohort.
Figure 3
Fig. 3. Students given greater autonomy attained greater proficiency with course materials.
Over the course of the semester, students in the free-to-switch cohort became more likely to earn a “2” on the problem sets. Students in the mandatory cohort did not improve significantly. The difference between the two cohorts’ trajectories may be partly explained by optional-mandatory students spending more time on their homework assignments (Fig. 2).