Imagine if you went into a shoe store and every pair of shoes were the same color, the same style, same price, and same brand. It would be uncomfortable to see everyone walking around wearing the same shoes. It would also be frustrating for the individuals wearing the shoes because not all shoes fit the same. Our multitude of choices when it comes to shoe-shopping allows everyone to differentiate based on their foot type, which in turn, allows them to purchase shoes that fit their budget and needs. This same analogy applies to the learning which takes place in the classroom. Each learner brings unique learning characteristics to the classroom with a preference on how they learn the content. Just like having a choice when buying shoes, educators can provide choices in learning course content with assignment menus (Danley & Williams, 2020).
Student engagement is important in higher education. Higher education instructors want students to be active constructivists of knowledge, not passive participants. Providing choice in learning is one way to engage students in the content being taught. Allowing students the opportunity to select how they will learn the content is one way to increase engagement and boost student learning (Anderson, 2016). Assignment menus, which allow students to select from a menu of learning activities, offer a promising avenue for achieving this goal. Grounded in constructivism, self-determination theory, cognitive load theory, and intrinsic motivation theory, this excerpt presents evidence on the positive impact of assignment menus. A structured approach will provide educators with practical tools and advice for successful implementation of assignment menus.
Students enter the college classroom with diverse learning needs due to differences in life and educational experiences (Merriam et al., 2007). Assignment menus are a type of differentiation strategy that can be used for whole class assignments and projects as well as individual assignments. Assignment menus allow students to make decisions about how they will meet the assignment requirements. By offering built-in choices, students take a more active part in learning.
Assignment menus provide built-in flexibility so that students can work at their own level and help choose how they learn, using their strengths and individual learning styles. Assignment menus and choice boards are similar instructional tools that share the common goal of providing students with options and choices in their learning. They share the same purpose of offering students a degree of autonomy in selecting tasks or activities; however, there are differences between the two. Assignment menus typically present a list of varied assignments or tasks from which students choose. Tasks may differ in complexity, learning style, or content, allowing for differentiation. In contrast, choice boards typically present students a grid or board including different activities or tasks in separate squares or sections. Each square represents a different version of the same activity. Students choose an activity to complete based on their preferences or learning needs (Fletcher, 2020).
Assignment menus can be based on different themes or created in multiple formats. The potential benefits of offering student choice include enhancing student engagement and motivation, increasing alignment with students’ interests, fostering intellectual curiosity and a love of lifelong learning, and encouraging students to approach assignments as a process of discovery and exploration rather than “checking the boxes.” It also fosters inclusivity for students with a wide variety of interests and learning preferences.
Research by Deci and Ryan (2000) on self-determination theory has shown that when students feel a sense of autonomy and control over their learning, their motivation and engagement increase. Similarly, Jonassen’s constructivist theory (1991) emphasizes the importance of active learning and problem-solving. Assignment menus resonate with the constructivist theory of learning, which asserts that learners actively build their knowledge by constructing their understanding of the world. In a constructivist framework, learning is most effective when it is an active, hands-on process. Assignment menus encourage active learning by providing students with a menu of tasks or activities that require them to apply and build upon their existing knowledge. Learners construct their understanding by selecting and engaging with these activities.
Furthermore, cognitive load theory explains how the cognitive load produced by learning tasks can impede students’ ability to process new information and to create long-term memories. Research by Sweller (1998) on cognitive load theory suggests that effective learning occurs when the cognitive load is managed appropriately. Learners can focus on meaningful tasks when extraneous cognitive load (mental resources devoted to elements that do not contribute to learning and schemata acquisition) is minimized. Assignment menus help manage cognitive load by allowing students to select tasks that match their readiness and preferences. In essence, we reduce the working memory load experienced by learners as they interact with instructional materials (Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011). They avoid tasks that overwhelm them or does not lead to more efficient learning.
Assignment menus tap into intrinsic motivation, which is the motivation that comes from within the learner driven by personal interest, curiosity, and enjoyment. Intrinsic motivation is the spontaneous tendency “to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacity, to explore, and to learn” (Deci and Ryan, 2000, p.70). When intrinsically motivated, people engage in an activity because they find it interesting and inherently satisfying. When students are given the choice to engage in tasks that interest them, they are more likely to be intrinsically motivated to learn. Intrinsic motivation is associated with higher levels of engagement and a deeper understanding of content material. Assignment menus align with the above-mentioned theories by empowering students to make decisions about their learning journey.
In a study completed by Livingston (2006), assignment menus yielded positive results of 33 undergraduate preservice teachers. The students wrote about how they enjoyed the constructivist approach to teaching and being able to choose how to complete the assignments based on their own learning preferences. In a recent study by Smith et al. (2019), the use of assignment menus in undergraduate courses resulted in a significant increase in student engagement levels as measured by class participation and self-reported motivation. Furthermore, Long et al. (2021) found that students who had access to assignment menus consistently outperformed their peers in post-assessment scores.
Implementing assignment menus effectively in education requires careful consideration of various factors. Some key considerations for educators when incorporating assignment menus into their teaching include alignment with learning objectives, clear instructions, and the use of assessment rubrics (Blaschke, 2022). First faculty should ensure that the tasks and options within the assignment menu align with the specific learning objectives of the course. Each choice on the menu should contribute to the intended outcomes. Secondly, faculty need to provide clear and concise instructions for each task on the assignment menu, which can include expectations, due dates, and any specific resources or materials needed. Finally, faculty should clearly communicate how students will be assessed on their chosen tasks. Faculty need to define the assessment criteria, rubrics to be used, or grading system to maintain transparency and fairness. See Appendix #2 for examples of assignment menu rubrics.
A study by Brown and White (2018) outlines assessment strategies for assignment menus, including the use of rubrics and peer evaluation. These methods ensure a fair and consistent approach to grading while also promoting student self-assessment. Following these guidelines allow for customization of the assignment menu while maintaining academic rigor.
Research by Johnson and Smith (2020) emphasizes the role of technology in streamlining the creation and distribution of assignment menus. Platforms like Slidesmania have been successful in supporting assignment menu design and management. Like with many concepts in education, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, when implementing assignment menus, it is best to explore what will work best for the content area taught, the objectives covered, and acceptable evidence of learning. While templates and technologies can be useful, they are not required, and some may work better than others. Educators are encouraged to experiment with assignment menus, starting small and gradually expanding their use. Training and peer support can ease the transition and increase instructors’ confidence in implementing assignment menus effectively (Mitchell & Brown, 2019). See Appendix #1 for example assignment menus.
Researchers have noted some challenges with the implementation of assignment menus, such as potential resistance from traditional educators (Shaw & Green, 2017). Ernst and Ernst (2005) wrote that at the college level, few studies exist regarding differentiation and implementation of assignment menus for several reasons. First, class sizes are typically larger than in a K‐12 setting. Secondly, the number of contact hours with students is minimal. Third, designing varying assessments and assignment choices takes time and can present challenges for instructors, and finally, ethical concerns such as grading creates controversy. Addressing these challenges requires a shift in mindset, emphasizing the benefits of personalized learning and more student autonomy.
By drawing from research and theory, this excerpt underscores the potential of assignment menus in fostering student engagement and autonomy in higher education. Instructors can harness the power of assignment menus to create dynamic, student-centered learning environments. The theoretical frameworks mentioned collectively support the idea that assignment menus enhance student engagement, motivation, and learning as they align with principles of autonomy, active learning, and the recognition of individual differences in learning preferences. Assignment menus empower students to take ownership of their education and tailor their learning experiences, resulting in improved learning outcomes and a deeper understanding of content.
Drawing on over two decades in academia, Michele Poulos specializes in general psychology, social psychology, and human growth and development. Since 2017, she has been on the staff at East Coast Polytechnic Institute University, where she initially worked as an online program and faculty director for arts and sciences, after which she advanced to the post of dean of arts and sciences in 2019. Before embarking on her professional journey, Poulos attended Arizona State University, where she obtained a bachelor of arts degree in elementary education and teaching in 2001. In 2010, she earned a master’s of education degree in psychology and human relations from Northern Arizona University. She is a member of the American Psychological Association and was recognized by Marquis’s Who’s Who in America in 2022 and 2023.
References
Anderson, M. 2016. Learning to choose, choosing to learn. Association for supervision and curriculum. (January 2016). Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/Learning-to-Choose-Choosing-to-Learn-sample-chapters.pdf
Bell, Kacy. 2017. Tic tac toe choice menu: novel study. Shake Up Learning. Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://shakeuplearning.com/blog/interactive-learning-menus-choice-boards-using-google-docs/
Blaschke, L. M. 2022. Design and Implementation Considerations for Choice Boards in Higher Education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59, 2 (2022), 204-217.
Brown, S., and White, E. 2018. Assessing Learning with Choice Boards: A Comparative Analysis of Rubric and Peer Evaluation Methods. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43, 4 (2018), 617-633.
Danley, A., Williams, C. 2020. Choice in Learning: Differentiating Instruction in the College Classroom. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 15 (2020), 83-104.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 4 (2000), 227-268.
Ernst, H. R., & Ernst, T. L. (2005). The promise and pitfalls of differentiated instruction for undergraduate political science courses: Student and instructor impressions of an unconventional teaching strategy. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(1), 39‐59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1551216059090751 3.
Fletcher, J. (2020). Boards, Menus, and Choices: Oh My! Education on the Core. Retrieved from https://educationtothecore.com/2020/11/boards-menus-and-choices-oh-my/
Johnson, M., and Smith, R. 2020. Leveraging Technology for Choice Board Integration in Higher Education. International Journal of Educational Technology 15, 1 (2020), 23-36.
Jonassen, D. H. 1991. Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development 39, 3 (September 1991), 5-14.
Lesson Planet. 2023. Art history choice board. Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://www.lessonplanet.com/teachers/art-history-choice-board
Livingston, D. 2006. “Differentiated instruction and assessment in the college classroom.” Reaching Through Teaching: A Journal of the Practice, Philosophy, and Scholarship of College Teaching 16, 2 (2006), 17-31.
Long, P., White, J., and Davis, S. 2021. “The Impact of Choice Boards on Student Performance.” Educational Psychology Review 33, 2 (2021), 191-204.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, H., and Brown, K. 2019. “Supporting Educators in Transitioning to Choice Boards: A Peer-Based Training Approach.” Innovative Higher Education 44, 3 (2019), 267-283.
Shaw, L., and Green, J. 2017. “Overcoming Resistance to Change in Higher Education: A Case Study on Choice Boards.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 49, 5 (2017), 19-25.
Smith, A., Johnson, B., and Brown, C. 2019. “Enhancing Student Engagement in Higher Education through Choice Boards.” Journal of Educational Technology 26, 3 (2019), 149-167.
Spall, Tommy. 2017. Digital menu. Shake Up Learning. Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://shakeuplearning.com/blog/interactive-learning-menus-choice-boards-using-google-docs/
Spencer, John. 2018. General Rubric. taking choice menus to the next level for student ownership. https://spencerauthor.com/choice-menu/ Accessed Date (October 21, 2023).
Spencer, John. 2020. Book review choice menu. 4 Ways to Craft Choice Menus in Distance Learning Classes. Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://spencerauthor.com/choice-menus/
Spencer, John. 2020. Advanced choice menu. 4 Ways to Craft Choice Menus in Distance Learning Classes. Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://spencerauthor.com/choice-menus/
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. In J. Sweller, P. Ayres, & S. Kalyuga (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 57–69).
Visionary Teaching. n.d. How do I grade choice board submissions.? Choice Boards: A powerful way to engage and assess your students. Retrieved October 21, 2023 from https://visionaryteaching.com/choice-boards-a-powerful-way-to-engage-assess-your-students/
#OneSizeFitsAll #Harnessing #Assignment #Menus #Student #Choice #Learning #Faculty #Focus
