The role of choice in reader engagement.

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement during reading. Both experiments compared college students who either selected what they read or were assigned the same story without being allowed to choose. Experiment 1 found that unrestricted choice heightened favorable affective perceptions of the reading experience compared with denied-choice and control groups but had no effect on cognitive measures of engagement. Experiment 2 replicated these findings when individuals within a single group were offered choice or were denied choice. The authors discuss the need for a more explicit theory of choice, which presently does not exist. Most people feel that choice plays an important role in their lives. Experts concur with this view, suggesting that choice is an important determinant of interest, cognitive processing, motivation, and even long-term health (Glasser, 1986; Langer, 1989). For example, Kohn (1993) claimed that choice among younger students positively affects activity level, enthusiasm, creativity, depth of comprehension , self-regulation, and rate of learning. Many recent accounts of effective instruction (Lepper, 1988; Stipek, 1997) and classroom motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Stipek, 1993) also support the positive effects of choice. It is surprising then that so few educational studies have examined the role of choice empirically, or postulated theoretical models that articulate the relationship between choice and various aspects of cognitive and affective engagement. Three current lines of research emphasize the role of choice in learning and motivation: self-determination theory, computerized testing theory, and reader response theory. Self-determination theory states that choice has a positive impact on cognitive and affective engagement because it increases intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Most studies within this framework have examined the role that controlling environments (e.g., teachers and structured classroom settings) play in autonomy and learning (Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990; Gromick & Ryan, 1987; Miserandino, 1996). These studies generally suggest that controlling environments reduce a sense of personal autonomy and intrinsic motivation, and result in decreased learning and poorer attitudes about school. A number of other studies have examined the role that perceived control (i.e., selfjudgments of personal competence or autonomy) plays in intrinsic motivation (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Skinner, Wellborn, & Cornell, 1990; Williams & Deci, 1996).