Final+Report



media type="custom" key="19689034" width="340" height="340" []

media type="custom" key="19689222" width="132" height="132"



RUNNING HEAD: CHOICE, MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE The Effects of Choice on Student Motivation and Performance. Action Research Andreas Christodoulou, Jill Duncan, Gail Nelmes Buffalo State State University of New York Dr Susan Baum May 2012

Abstract Three classes of students from Qatar Academy (21 Grade One students (Early Years), 22 Grade Five students (Primary Years), and 22 Grade Nine and Ten Information Technology students (Upper Middle Years)) participated in an action research study investigating the question, “What is the effect of choice on students' motivation and performance?” A three group post-control and post-treatment test design was used, where the sample groups yielded both post control and post treatment data for motivation and performance. Motivation was measured using a Likert Scale Survey, Performance was measured using a common rubric. Post-control, all classes were assessed on a task where they had no choice of content or in how they presented their knowledge. The treatment was the introduction of content and presentation choice along with opportunities to develop understanding of personal learning styles. Students then chose the way they wanted to present their knowledge for another project and were again assessed at its completion. Post- treatment, paired T data analysis indicated that across the sample, there was an extremely significant increase in student motivation and performance.

Introduction

We are three experienced teachers who teach at an International Baccalaureate (IB) school with a high population of national students. Our school has actively embraced and encouraged the 21st Century approach to teaching and learning with emphasis towards differentiation, literacy and technology integration, which strives to promote motivation and success in our students.

The students in this study range from Early, Primary, and Upper Middle Years and we have noticed that some of them have a low level of motivation in the classroom situation. We suspect that this may be linked to poor performance and we wonder if the level of motivation and consequent performance of our students could be improved were they to be given more individual choice with their projects.

We feel that this is an area that needs addressing because as IB students, our children are expected to be self- motivated learners. Our school mission states that our students are expected to be “independent critical thinkers, lifelong learners, responsible citizens, (who) gain entrance to elite universities and colleges.” Bearing this in mind, we were interested in nurturing our students in an environment that would encourage them to “enjoy doing the kind of work for which (they) were best suited.” (Napoleon Hill, 1883) Our hope was to foster a richer learning environment that supported independent student project choice. We hoped that reflecting student preferences would result in heightened motivation which would, in turn, enhance performance.

While reviewing literature we found that there were conflicting arguments related to providing students with choices. In certain cases motivation and performance improved, but deteriorated under other circumstances. This led us to question what impact providing choice would have on our students. In this research, choice would encompass project content and presentation options.

Review of Literature

Researcher on success, Napoleon Hill (1883), stated that “Everyone enjoys doing the kind of work for which he is best suited.” This sentiment is echoed 119 years later by Powell and Powell (2011) who suggest that allowing students choice that relates to their personal learning styles allows for products that are “rich in conceptual understanding.” They state “We know the anxiety and stress of being compelled to work in one’s least preferred production-style can actually serve as an obstacle to cognition. The medium does affect the message.” This line of thought is also explored by Baum and Nichols (2009) when they suggest that providing choice is possibly a more powerful cognitive experience when students have an understanding of their personal learning styles and are sometimes allowed the option of aligning tasks to their learning-style strengths.

Whether choice is matched to learning styles or in some other area, there is much research that suggests that providing students with choice is a key to improving not only motivation, but also performance. When reviewing research in this field, Helen Moran (n.d) states that the results “…clearly show that more choice equates to greater enjoyment, and presumably more engagement” and that a number of previous researchers “found that student enjoyment is closely linked to engagement, which in turn is linked to levels of performance.”

Kohn (1993) also links choice and motivation when he asserts that students who are deprived of choice are also likely deprived of motivation. After citing a number of research projects which link student success and high level of motivation, he states “There is no question about it: even if our only criterion is academic performance, choice works.” Looking beyond academic performance and towards motivation, Stone and Madigan (2008) cite Becker who “suggested that a greater amount of choices available for the student promotes a greater sense of ownership and, consequently, higher levels of motivation and commitment.”

However, despite the assertions above, there is also a body of research that proposes that offering choice may not always enhance performance and motivation. Patall et al. (2010) suggest that “.... choice may not always be effective or that there are more effective strategies to support motivation.” Furthermore, Kohn (1993), supported by Starnes and Paris(2000), cautions that although choice is generally a desirable option, it also needs to be guided when he states “Nearly every essay on education by John Dewey, the father of progressive schooling, stresses the importance of adult guidance and derides the idea of ‘leaving a child to his own unguided fancies’.”

In fact, Barry Schwartz (2009), referring to Iyenger and Lepper (2000) and Iyenger et al. (2004) points out that “...too many options seemed to produce paralysis rather than liberation.” He expands upon this idea by stating “If one overcomes paralysis and choose, evidence suggests that the quality of performance deteriorates with increases in the number of options” and summarises the findings “...it now seems clear that whereas choice is good, more choice is not necessarily better.”

When Helen Moran asked students to reflect on their experience of choice in the classroom, most students indicated that “...they enjoyed the opportunities, but a small group said they preferred to be told what to do and when, as they had found it hard to manage themselves.” She highlighted the fact that some students might prefer more extrinsic motivation in the form of teacher direction. In contrast, Powell and Powell (2011) state that “Whenever you can link the classroom curriculum to student interest, you tap into internalized achievement motivation - where goals are personal, motivation comes from within, and achievement is deeply meaningful.”

Our goal was to enhance student motivation and performance. Bearing in mind that the “evidence on choice effects has not been ubiquitously positive” (Patall et al. 2010), we were keen to explore the effects of choice in our own classroom environments by conducting our own research by asking: “What is the effect of choice on students’ motivation and performance?”

Method Research Design In order to answer our research question we designed and implemented an action research treatment with a three group post-control and post-treatment test design for motivation and performance. A Likert Scale Survey was used at the end of the control group phase and at the end of the treatment group phase to assess changes in motivation (see example in Appendix 1).

A common rubric to assess performance was used to grade a project after the control phase, where students had very limited choice regarding project content and presentation options. The common rubric assessed student performance according to elements of the IB Learner Profile. The same rubric format was used to assess the students’ projects post-treatment (see example in Appendix 3).

A Learning My Way assessment (see Appendix 2) was administered prior to students making project choices and they revisited these after they made their choices. This assessment was not used to gather data, but rather, as a tool to act as a catalyst to get the students thinking about their personal learning styles and options of how to present. The intention was that students would make considered choices with an understanding either to follow perceived strengths or explore methods they might not normally choose. The 30 questions grouped answers into 6 areas of strength and interest: Performance, Multi-media, Oral, Artistic, Written, and Manipulative.

We hypothesized that post-treatment, student motivation towards the process of investigation, presenting knowledge, and the quality of product (performance) would increase. This hypothesis suggests a relationship between our two dependent variables, performance and motivation and our independent variable, project choices.

Intervention Across the sample, students reviewed prior levels of motivation and performance when they had very limited choice of content and presentation options.

In the Early Years, the students were introduced to 6 types of presentation choices (Voice Thread, Poster, Power Point, Information Report with Scribble Press, Models, and Performance). The students had some knowledge of some of the choices, but had not independently used any of them before to present their own knowledge. In the Primary and Upper Middle Years, the students had already been exposed to a variety of project choices and a short time was spent reviewing these particular project choices. In the Upper Middle Years, students conducted a discussion on an online forum (see Appendix 5) identifying the possible choices available for their projects evaluating the merits of one option against another.

The whole sample was then given the choice of content (within the boundaries of their current curriculum focus) as well as how they were going to present their knowledge, and understanding. They reflected on their personal learning styles and interests (referring to their Learning My Way assessment) and discussions were had about different types of presentation options, and how they might match or differ from stated preferences in the Learning My Way assessment.

Presentation choices were discussed with relation to the skills they required and students were encouraged to think about the motivation behind their choice e.g. choosing because they knew they could do something well, trying something new etc. At this point, the Early and Primary Years students had the option of changing their presentation choice. Some did and could give sound reasons for the change, related to the concepts that had been discussed. Others confirmed their choice, also giving pertinent reasons for why they felt their choice was right for them. However, a few students did not exercise this level of considered choice, preferring instead to follow the choices of others. This contrasts to the Upper Middle Years where it is a necessary requirement that students following the design cycle process, are expected to reconsider their choices after evaluating limitations in time, resources, and skill level.

Sample and Setting The 65 subjects for this study were taken from three classes across the school: Grade One (Early Years), Grade Five (Primary Years) and Grade Nine and Ten (Upper Middle Years). The type of sample is Convenience as this sample is a representation of the students that we teach each day, or in the case of the Upper Middle Years, two periods a week. They range in age from 6-8 years in the Early Years, 10-11 in the Primary, and 14-16 years in the Upper Middle Years. There are ten boys and twelve girls in the Early Years group, while the Primary Years Group has twelve boys and ten girls. There was an even distribution of boys and girls in the Upper Middle Years. The ethnic breakdown of the sample consisted of Qatari students in the Primary Years Group, while in the other two classes there is also a small portion of students from a variety of nationalities from around the world. The action research study was conducted at Qatar Academy which is located in Doha, Qatar.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

Data were collected using three group post-control and post-treatment tests to measure change in motivation and performance. At the end of the control phase all three groups completed a Likert Scale Survey (see Appendix 1) to measure their motivation with regard to a recently completed project where the students had very limited choice over content, and how they would present their knowledge. The same format was used at the end of the treatment phase to measure their motivation where they had choice over content and presentation options. This 12 item three point survey included statements such as, “I am motivated to do my work”, “I keep working when I really enjoy what I am doing”, and “I persist even when a project is challenging for me”. Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to these statements by choosing a happy, neutral or sad face to correspond with each statement. The total score was calculated with a weighting of x3 (happy), x2 (neutral), x1 (sad).

Student performance was graded using a common rubric (see Appendix 3). At the end of the control phase, this rubric was used to grade a project that was recently completed where the students had very limited choice over content and presentation options. The same format was used post-treatment to grade the project where the students were given choice. Areas of assessment were assigned grades of 1 (not at all), 2 (somewhat), 3 (proficient). They were broken into two parts, Process and Product, and each entry was listed under an IB Learner Profile heading. Areas being assessed in the Process category had six statements such as “Level of independence shown with project”, “Effectively communicates information / knowledge of subject”, and “Takes responsibility for own learning”. The Product category contained three statements such as “Content presented in a way that shows an understanding of how the presentation choice works” and “Quality of product”. The totals of the responses were weighted x1 (not at all), x2 (somewhat), x3 (proficient).

The post-control and post-treatment scores for motivation and performance were calculated using paired T-test via Graphpad.com.

Anecdotal observational records were also kept in order to provide triangulation for our quantitative measures of motivation and performance. Heightened motivation was observed in a number of ways. Firstly, there was evidence of ‘hard fun’ where students worked during break times and demonstrated that they had dedicated extra time to their projects in their own time. Students also enlisted family members and friends in their learning experiences by teaching them the skills they had learned and by including them as participants or clients in their projects. Secondly, feedback from colleagues interacting with students commented on their apparent raised levels of motivation. Students also more keenly observed what their peers were attempting and were emulating the creation of their products because they were interested in them.

Students were actively engaged in showing off and discussing their projects within their private social network, a domain distinctly separate from the school learning management systems. A number of students independently stated that they felt empowered and enjoyed the opportunity to make their own choices. Equally, a number of students expressed how they felt successful and were very keen to present their final product. There were some requests from students to repeat this form of project in the same way as they had enjoyed the experience so much and would like the opportunity to make different choices next time. In most instances, we all felt that the students’ performance by default also increased. Specifically to the Upper Middle Years, many of the students were independently driven to submit work ahead of deadlines, request feedback and post improvements.

Threats to Validity

Motivation: One of the greatest threats to validity across the sample was the conducting of the Likert Scale Survey. In the Primary and the Upper Middle Years the students were curious as to the reason why the survey was being conducted and they may have been influenced by the researcher stressing the importance of the survey //(Instrumentation)//. They could, possibly have suspected that they were part of a research project //(Hawthorn effect and researcher bias)//. While in the Early Years the students, being young and enthusiastic, are eager to please their teacher, and are already generally motivated //(Subject characteristics: Age).//

When the post-treatment Likert Scale Survey was conducted, the students in the Primary and the Upper Middle Years could have been influenced by what they had already answered in the post-control Likert Scale Survey //(Testing)//. For example, when the students first encountered the Likert Scale Survey, not a lot of emphasis was placed on the importance/ care required to complete it. After seeing the results of this first survey, it was felt that more context was required for a truer reflection, thus more emphasis was placed on the care and thought that should be given to answering the post-treatment Likert Scale Survey. The question to consider would be: Was it over emphasised? Specifically, in the Primary Years an additional teacher was present when they were completing the post-treatment survey. This teacher encouraged the students to think carefully about their honesty when completing the survey and should make sure not just to circle ‘happy faces’. This led to some students noticeably rating themselves more harshly than in the first survey (//Implementation).// Performance: A threat to validity where performance was concerned in the Primary and the Upper Middle Years was the ‘snowball effect’. In the excitement of having choices, the students shared ideas and in this way they influenced each other’s choices. In the Early Years, it was noted that while the groups were completing their projects, two of the groups had different teachers and were confronted with not only a new environment, but also with new and novel presentation options //(Intervention,// //Location and Technology Facilitator resources).// It was additionally observed that in the Primary and the Upper Middle Years, the performance of most competent students increased proportionally more than the less competent students, which contributed to a wider range of performance scores.

Minimising of Threats: The Learning My Way assessment was originally considered a threat to validity because the students would be able to spot the cyclically structured questions and manipulate their answers. To minimise this threat, students were strongly encouraged to respond to the questions sequentially.

It was felt that students excited by the new and exciting learning experiences would make impulsive choices. Providing the students in the Early Years with three different opportunities to review their choices allowed them to make considered decisions.

Results

GRADE (1, 5, 9+10) || Post treatment phase: GRADE (1, 5, 9+10) || (21 students) || Motivation || MEAN 1 = 32.71 SD 1 = 3.21 || MEAN 2 = 34.38 SD 2 = 2.09 || ** t = 2.6947, df = 20, p = 0.0139 (Statistically Significant) ** || SD 1 = 5.56 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 24.76 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 3.39 || ** t = 4.2604, df = 20, p = 0.0004 (Extremely Statistically Significant) ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">(22 students) || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Motivation || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 30.27 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 1 = 3.1 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 30.68 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 2.83 || ** t = 0.7245, df = 21, p = 0.4768 (Not Statistically Significant) ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 1 = 3.58 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 20.45 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 3.74 || ** t = 4.1890, df = 21, p = 0.0004 (Extremely Statistically Significant) ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">(22 students) || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Motivation || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 28.64 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 1 = 4.27 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 30.77 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 3.15 || ** t = 3.2262, df = 21, p = 0.0040 (Very Statistically Significant) ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 1 = 2.69 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 20.91 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 3.93 || ** t = 4.7503, df = 21, p = 0.0001 (Extremely Statistically Significant) ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">(65 students) || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Motivation || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 30.51 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 1 = 3.9 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 31.91 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 3.2 || ** t = 3.8658, df = 64, p = 0.0003 (Extremely Statistically Significant) ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 1 = 4.15 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 2 = 22 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">SD 2 = 4.12 || ** t = 7.1569, df = 64, p = 0.0001 (Extremely Statistically Significant) ** || Table 1: Summary of data analysis; class-by-class motivation and performance paired t-testing results with consolidated ‘whole sample’ results (shaded grey). Data Anomalies: Both cases are addressed in ‘threats to validity’.
 * ** “What is the effect of choice on students' performance and motivation?” ** ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">[[image:http://xandreasx.wikispaces.com/site/embedthumbnail/placeholder?w=200&h=105 width="200" height="105"]] |||| <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Independent Variable: STUDENT CHOICES ||
 * ^  || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Post control phase:
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Dependent Variables || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">EARLY YEARS
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 1.67, Change in SD = - 1.12 **
 * ^  ||^   || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 19.95
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 4.81, Change in SD = - 2.17 **
 * ^  || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">PRIMARY YEARS
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 0.41, Change in SD = - 0.27 **
 * ^  ||^   || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 18.09
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 2.36, ** **Change in SD = + 0.16**
 * ^  || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">UPPER MIDDLE YEARS
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 2.13, Change in SD = - 1.12 **
 * ^  ||^   || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 17.73
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 3.18, ** **Change in SD = + 1.24**
 * ^  || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">All Grades
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 1.40, Change in SD = - 0.70 **
 * ^  ||^   || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">MEAN 1 = 18.57
 * ^  ||^   ||^   |||| ** Change in Mean = + 3.43, Change in SD = - 0.03 **
 * 1) While an increase in performance is measured in both the Primary Years and the Upper Middle Years samples, it is noted that a greater spread in performance scores (SD) is also recorded.
 * 2) An increase in the mean of the Primary Years students’ motivation exists, despite no statistical significance.

Chart 1: Post control motivation mean versus Post treatment motivation mean illustrating the increase in motivation grade by grade and thus also in the combined sample. Chart 2: Post control performance mean versus Post treatment performance mean illustrating the increase in performance grade by grade and thus also in the combined sample.

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">Discussion and Action Plan The results of this study showed that our hypothesis was correct. We observed extremely statistically significant improvement in both student motivation and performance during the project. There are many reasons for this improvement, some of which we noted occurring right from the beginning of the treatment phase. After the Learning My Way assessment was administered, the students became interested in how they could use their personal learning skills and were also intrigued about utilising and developing skills in an area they might not normally choose. An interesting observation was that many students across the sample identified preferences of multi-media, manipulative or performance activities to demonstrate their knowledge. This is quite a contrast to the volume of written or oral options that are more commonly available to students in teacher-led activities. By introducing students to the Common Performance Rubric, an environment was created where students felt they could take risks and try new things, and that these efforts would be recognized.

Once the concept of choice was introduced, students began to explore a variety of content and presentation options, open to the idea of trying new learning experiences. They were excited to choose their own project content. Prior to making their choice, the students held many animated conversations with their peers, exploring options, and sharing ideas which led them to invest and take ownership of their initial project choice.

At this point the students were encouraged to reflect on their choice in relation to their personal learning style, interests, skills, and personal objectives. This helped some students to confirm their choice, but also led others to alter their choice of content and / or presentation option. By providing a safe learning environment where changes would not be penalised, the students felt secure about navigating their way to a choice that they felt comfortable, enthusiastic, and motivated to explore.

Ongoing motivation was maintained through the students’ engagement in new and exciting learning experiences. This further developed their sense of ownership and independence. This momentum was further enhanced by the students’ developing sense of purpose as they recognized that their product was not just to gather grades, but would be used in real life contexts that would influence others. They seemed to enjoy being an active part of the learning process and began seeing their teachers as facilitators who would support their ongoing learning.

The level of student motivation had a domino effect on performance. Students took independent action in many ways. They worked on their projects in their own time, developed and applied their skills, practiced to enhance their level of performance, and taught their peers. This developed their feeling of success which led to increased confidence.

Generally, the final projects’ quality was higher than they had been on previous occasions. Where projects showed little or no improvement, it could possibly be because the student had taken a risk and tried skills, and strategies that were new to them but were unsuited to their personal learning styles. In their reflections, many of the students could identify this as an inhibitor to their performance. Some stated that in the future, they would like to revisit the same learning experiences in order to improve on them, and others could state why they would not like to revisit them, relating their reasons to their personal learning styles and preferences. However, by rewarding the taking of risks in the Common Performance Rubric, the risk takers were left feeling that their efforts were both acknowledged and justified. Overall, most of the students suggested that this had been an empowering and enjoyable experience and one that they would like to repeat. Based on the success of this project, this is an experience that all three teachers would also like to repeat after reflection and refinement.

As a team, we intend to routinely provide choice, opportunities for students to have discussions about their choices, and to review their choices. We will explore how to apply this strategy for learning across other areas of the curriculum. We want to make time to fully reflect on this experience and develop an implementation plan for applying refined elements of this project into our teaching programmes next year. Specifically, we would like to use the Learning My Way assessment near the beginning of the academic year, and also administer Likert Scales at times throughout the year, with an awareness of the importance of timing when administering it.

After receiving feedback from a number of sources, we recognize the value of the Common Performance Rubric. We will review and refine it as an assessment tool which can be used in a number of areas within the PYP and MYP. We hope that through this tool we can develop a common assessment language across the whole school, improving consistency in school wide assessment. We are already introducing this document to our teams, after refinement, we intend to share it with our wider school community, and if it is well received, present it to others through workshops and also to IB.

As educators, this experience has led to reflection of our practices. An area that we would like to further explore is that of ourselves in the role of facilitators to students who are given scope to work with more independence and responsibility, in a highly motivating environment.

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">References

Baum, S., & Nicols, H. (2009). //Your child's style//. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from []

Kohn, A. (1993, September). Choices for children: why and how to let students decide. //Kappan,// Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Wc1A9-8y29IJ:scholar.google.com/ giving elementary students choices&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Moran, H. (n.d.). //Personalised learning- engaging students by providing choice in the classroom//. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://kidspeak.wikispaces.com/Personalised Learning - Engaging Students by Providing Choice in the Classroom

Napoleon Hill. (n.d.). //BrainyQuote.com.// Retrieved February 19, 2012, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: []

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. //Journal of Educational Psychology//, //102//(4), 896-915. doi: 10.1037/a0019545,[]

Powell, P., & Kusuma-Powell, O. (2011). //How to teach now:five keys to personalized learning in the global classroom//. Alexandria, VA, USA: ASCD. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from []

Schwartz, B. (2009). Incentives, choice, education and well-being. //Oxford Review of Education//, //35//(3), 391-403.

Starnes, B., & Paris, C. (2000). Choosing to learn. //Kappan,// 81(5), 392. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from []

Stone, J. A., & Madigan, E. M. (2008). The impact of providing project choices in cs1. //ACM SIGCSE Bulletin ,// //40//(2), 65-68, Retrieved February 19, 2012, from []

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">Appendices __ Appendix 1**:** ____ Likert Scale __



__ Appendix 2 ____ : Learning My Way Assessment __

The Early Years version of this assessment is a 30 item, three point cyclical survey. This was considered more appropriate for the Early Years students. The remainder of the sample used the more age appropriate 30 item, five point cyclical survey. **__ Early Years version __**



**__ Primary and Middle Years version __**

__ Appendix 3 __ : Common Performance Rubric: Same form used for Post control Post treatment.

__ Appendix 4 __ : __Raw Data__ with paired t-testing results from graphpad. ( []) Raw Post-Control and Post-Treatment student motivation and performance data used for

paired t-testing data analysis. Data Analysis: Paired T-testing results Post-Control phase results versus Post-Treatment phase results. (Likert Motivation Scale : Common Performance Rubric) Data Analysis using []
 * ** Grade ** || ** Student # ** || ** Post-Control Motivation ** || ** Post-Treatment Motivation ** || ** Post-Control Performance ** || ** Post-Treatment Performance ** ||
 * Grade 1 || 1 || 33 || 35 || 27 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 2 || 32 || 36 || 18 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 3 || 29 || 35 || 12 || 20 ||
 * ^  || 4 || 35 || 35 || 14 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 5 || 36 || 35 || 18 || 24 ||
 * ^  || 6 || 25 || 29 || 11 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 7 || 36 || 36 || 27 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 8 || 36 || 36 || 27 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 9 || 34 || 34 || 18 || 26 ||
 * ^  || 10 || 30 || 33 || 13 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 11 || 34 || 33 || 27 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 12 || 31 || 36 || 15 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 13 || 29 || 35 || 22 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 14 || 34 || 36 || 18 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 15 || 36 || 36 || 25 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 16 || 32 || 31 || 20 || 26 ||
 * ^  || 17 || 32 || 30 || 20 || 13 ||
 * ^  || 18 || 27 || 35 || 27 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 19 || 36 || 36 || 24 || 27 ||
 * ^  || 20 || 35 || 36 || 13 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 21 || 35 || 34 || 23 || 26 ||
 * Grade 5 || 22 || 30 || 35 || 11 || 11 ||
 * ^  || 23 || 30 || 30 || 15 || 15 ||
 * ^  || 24 || 35 || 34 || 17 || 21 ||
 * ^  || 25 || 29 || 31 || 20 || 24 ||
 * ^  || 26 || 33 || 34 || 25 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 27 || 27 || 31 || 18 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 28 || 28 || 31 || 15 || 17 ||
 * ^  || 29 || 34 || 31 || 17 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 30 || 27 || 26 || 20 || 24 ||
 * ^  || 31 || 30 || 27 || 12 || 19 ||
 * ^  || 32 || 28 || 30 || 23 || 21 ||
 * ^  || 33 || 25 || 27 || 16 || 17 ||
 * ^  || 34 || 34 || 35 || 20 || 19 ||
 * ^  || 35 || 26 || 29 || 16 || 18 ||
 * ^  || 36 || 34 || 35 || 17 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 37 || 34 || 28 || 20 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 38 || 33 || 34 || 18 || 21 ||
 * ^  || 39 || 31 || 31 || 23 || 24 ||
 * ^  || 40 || 31 || 31 || 24 || 26 ||
 * ^  || 41 || 33 || 29 || 17 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 42 || 27 || 29 || 18 || 15 ||
 * ^  || 43 || 27 || 27 || 16 || 21 ||
 * Grade 9 + 10 || 44 || 28 || 34 || 15 || 15 ||
 * ^  || 45 || 25 || 27 || 19 || 16 ||
 * ^  || 46 || 36 || 35 || 15 || 17 ||
 * ^  || 47 || 30 || 34 || 15 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 48 || 21 || 23 || 23 || 26 ||
 * ^  || 49 || 27 || 33 || 16 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 50 || 32 || 31 || 18 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 51 || 21 || 29 || 16 || 22 ||
 * ^  || 52 || 29 || 31 || 16 || 15 ||
 * ^  || 53 || 32 || 31 || 20 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 54 || 30 || 28 || 20 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 55 || 28 || 33 || 22 || 25 ||
 * ^  || 56 || 29 || 30 || 18 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 57 || 30 || 28 || 17 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 58 || 20 || 25 || 13 || 16 ||
 * ^  || 59 || 31 || 32 || 18 || 24 ||
 * ^  || 60 || 32 || 33 || 18 || 18 ||
 * ^  || 61 || 31 || 34 || 22 || 23 ||
 * ^  || 62 || 29 || 29 || 19 || 21 ||
 * ^  || 63 || 23 || 31 || 15 || 17 ||
 * ^  || 64 || 33 || 32 || 20 || 24 ||
 * ^  || 65 || 33 || 34 || 15 || 15 ||

considered to be ** statistically significant. ** || Equals -1.67 ||  || From -2.96 to -0.38 || considered to be ** extremely statistically significant. ** ||  ||   ||||   || Equals -4.81 ||   ||   ||||   || From -7.16 to -2.45 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * |||||| ** Grade 1: Likert Motivation Scale ** ||  ||
 * Paired t test results ||  ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||  ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0139 ||  ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is
 * Confidence interval: ||  ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||  ||
 * t = 2.6947, df = 20, Standard error of difference = 0.618 ||  ||
 * Data Review: ||  ||
 * Group || Group One. || Group Two. ||  ||
 * Mean || 32.71 || 34.38 ||  ||
 * SD || 3.21 || 2.09 ||  ||
 * SEM || 0.7 || 0.46 ||  ||
 * N || 21 || 21 ||  ||   ||   |||||| ** Grade 1: Common Performance Rubric ** ||   ||   ||||   ||
 * Paired t test results ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0004 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0004 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is
 * Confidence interval: ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * t = 4.2604, df = 20, Standard error of difference = 1.129 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * Data Review: ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * Group || Group One. || Group Two. ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * Mean || 19.95 || 24.76 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * SD || 5.56 || 3.39 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * SEM || 1.21 || 0.74 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * N || 21 || 21 ||  ||   ||||   ||   ||
 * SEM || 1.21 || 0.74 ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * N || 21 || 21 ||  ||   ||||   ||   ||

Equals -0.41 || -1.58 to 0.77 || Equals -2.36 || -3.54 to -1.19 ||
 * |||||| ** Grade 5: Likert Motivation Scale ** ||
 * Paired t test results ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.4768 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be ** not statistically significant. ** ||
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference: From
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||
 * t = 0.7245, df = 21, Standard error of difference = 0.565 ||
 * Data Review: ||  ||   ||
 * Group || Group One. || Group Two. ||
 * Mean || 30.27 || 30.68 ||
 * SD || 3.1 || 2.83 ||
 * SEM || 0.66 || 0.6 ||
 * N || 22 || 22 ||  ||   |||||| ** Grade 5: Common Performance Rubric ** ||
 * Paired t test results ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0004 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be ** extremely statistically significant. ** ||
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference: From
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||
 * t = 4.1890, df = 21, Standard error of difference = 0.564 ||
 * Data Review: ||
 * Group || Group One. || Group Two. ||
 * Mean || 18.09 || 20.45 ||
 * SD || 3.58 || 3.74 ||
 * SEM || 0.76 || 0.8 ||
 * N || 22 || 22 ||  ||
 * SEM || 0.76 || 0.8 ||
 * N || 22 || 22 ||  ||

Data Analysis: Paired T-testing results Post-Control phase results versus Post-Treatment phase results. (Likert Motivation Scale : Common Performance Rubric) Data Analysis using []

to be ** very statistically significant. ** || Equals -2.14 || From -3.51 to -0.76 || to be ** extremely statistically significant. ** || Equals -3.18 || From -4.57 to -1.79 ||
 * |||||| ** Grade 9+10: Likert Motivation Scale ** ||
 * Paired t test results ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0040 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||
 * t = 3.2262; df = 21; Standard error of difference = 0.662 ||
 * Data Review: ||
 * Group || Group One || Group Two ||
 * Mean || 28.64 || 30.77 ||
 * SD || 4.27 || 3.15 ||
 * SEM || 0.91 || 0.67 ||
 * N || 22 || 22 ||  ||   |||||| ** Grade 9+10 Common Performance Rubric ** ||
 * Paired t test results ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0001 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0001 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||
 * t = 4.7503; df = 21; standard error of difference = 0.670 ||
 * Data Review: ||
 * Group || Group 1 || Group 2 ||
 * Mean || 17.73 || 20.91 ||
 * SD || 2.69 || 3.93 ||
 * SEM || 0.57 || 0.84 ||
 * N || 22 || 22 ||  ||
 * SEM || 0.57 || 0.84 ||
 * N || 22 || 22 ||  ||

to be ** extremely statistically significant. ** || From -2.12 to -0.68 || to be ** extremely statistically significant. ** || From -4.39 to -2.47 ||
 * |||||| ** All Students: Likert Motivation Scale ** ||
 * Paired t test results ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value equals 0.0003 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two equals -1.40 ||
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||
 * t = 3.8658; df = 64; standard error of difference = 0.362 ||
 * Data Review: ||  ||   ||
 * Group || Group One || Group Two ||
 * Mean || 30.51 || 31.91 ||
 * SD || 3.9 || 3.2 ||
 * SEM || 0.48 || 0.4 ||
 * N || 65 || 65 ||  ||   |||||| ** All Students: Common Performance Rubric ** ||
 * Paired t test results ||
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * P value and statistical significance: ||
 * The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001 ||
 * By conventional criteria, this difference is considered
 * Confidence interval: ||
 * The mean of Group One minus Group Two equals -3.43 ||
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * 95% confidence interval of this difference:
 * Intermediate values used in calculations: ||
 * t = 7.1569; df = 64; standard error of difference = 0.479 ||
 * Data Review your data: ||
 * Group || Group One || Group Two ||
 * Mean || 18.57 || 22 ||
 * SD || 4.15 || 4.12 ||
 * SEM || 0.51 || 0.51 ||
 * N || 65 || 65 ||  ||
 * SEM || 0.51 || 0.51 ||
 * N || 65 || 65 ||  ||

__ Appendix 5 __ : __Examples of Work__ Early Years
 * 1) ** The process of initial choice. Then After reflection, students were given the opportunity to change their minds. **
 * 1) ** The students actively engaged in research. **
 * 1) ** The students involved themselves in making presentations. **


 * 4. The students presenting to buddies before presenting to the class. **

After exploring various concepts about weather and how it can influence us, the students each chose a Wild Weather to investigate. Prior to beginning this investigation, the students took research they had done on one of the seasons and had the opportunity to learn how to present the same information in six different ways (model, poster, information report, power point, voice thread, performance). Throughout the process, the students were encouraged to think about how appropriate each presentation option would be for them if they chose it to present their Wild Weather. After this process, the students could reflect on their choice of weather and their choice of presentation and change their minds if they wished. They then browsed through books about their weather. Following that, students were given the final chance to change their minds about their weather and/ or presentation. Students then researched their chosen Wild Weather, took notes, organized their information according to their presentation option, presented their information to a buddy and then to the class.
 * Significant Concept / Central Idea: ** Weather influences our way of life.
 * Unit Question / Lines of Inquiry: **
 * What is weather and what causes it
 * Predicting and measuring weather
 * How weather changes can affect us (compare and contrast)
 * Overview of Project: **


 * Assessment Tools: ** anecdotal records / self-assessment sheet / Common Performance Rubric

Primary Years
 * Significant Concept / Central Idea: ** Senses are used in the appreciation of creativity.
 * Unit Question / Lines of Inquiry: **
 * What are the different ways of expressing ourselves?
 * How do the senses work?
 * How do the elements of creativity appeal to the senses?
 * Overview of Project: ** The students were given the opportunity to explore the ways we reflect on, extend, and enjoy their creativity. They could present their knowledge of how the five senses worked or they could use more than two of their senses when presenting their creativity.





Upper Middle Years
 * Assessment Tools: ** anecdotal records / self-assessment sheet / Common Performance Rubric and a mini-rubric that the students used to judge each other’s creativity and effort.

__ Upper Middle Years: GRADE 9 __ The projects are designed such that student choices are embedded and multilayered in terms of the content, tools and product platforms chosen for their information systems. As such, the project addresses all the learner profiles ( inquirers, thinkers, communicators, risk-takers, knowledgeable, principled, caring, open-minded, well-balanced and reflective).
 * Significant Concept / Central Idea: ** My ideas, knowledge and experience can raise awareness and gather support to influence a positive change in society when shared.
 * Unit Question / Lines of Inquiry: ** What role do information systems play in bringing about a positive change in society?
 * Overview of Project: ** The learner chooses an area in their immediate or extended environment in which they want to bring about a positive change (identify problem). The learner uses the design cycle process (investigation, design, plan, create and evaluate) to guide the creation of a blended information system. The function of the information system is to raise awareness of the issue, gather support for change and finally to propose to and influence the implementation of the change (solution).


 * Assessment Tools: ** anecdotal records / self-assessment sheet / Common Performance Rubric

__ Upper Middle Years: GRADE 10 __
 * Significant Concept / Central Idea: ** Lifelong learning is not confined within classroom walls.
 * Unit Question / Lines of Inquiry: ** What role do information systems play in breaking my lifelong learning free?
 * Overview of Project: ** The learner chooses an area of expertise or passion that he or she can teach and that has a practical purpose, (identifying the problem). The learner uses the design cycle process (investigation, design, plan, create and evaluate) to guide the creation of a blended content and learning management system. The function of the CLMS is to provide a course made up of a series of lessons to a real audience, (solution).

The projects are designed such that student choices are embedded and multilayered in terms of the content, tools and product platforms chosen for their information systems. As such, the project addresses all the learner profiles ( inquirers, thinkers, communicators, risk-takers, knowledgeable, principled, caring, open-minded, well-balanced and reflective).
 * Assessment Tools: ** anecdotal records / self-assessment sheet / Common Performance Rubric

Project Choice: Discussion between students taken from our online class forum activity to introduce choices at the start of the treatment phase. __ Writing __ In the past, personally I haven't had an issue with writing up my project. Although, at times I find that I am lost for words or struggle to express exactly what I want to say. Therefore, my first choice would be to use Word and write up my Investigation, but I would also try to combine voice notes, as this would allow me to not only show my examples and comments but also explain in my own words. I find that when I type up my work, I sometimes confuse my readers as writing is not my strongest point, therefore to be able to explain by talking would allow them to understand where I am coming from. In conclusion, I would choose to present my work using Voice notes/comments and Word (showing my examples and notes). I completely agree with this as we have all pretty much got used to writing investigations though we do face some struggles that can be solved by adding other things to the word document. Do you think that even though Word would be better for you, it might be harder for someone else to read? (Because it's boring) ;) To be honest, if I were given the choice to do my investigation in any format, I would probably choose to do it in Word. I have never had an issue writing my investigation on Word and it would be much less time-consuming to do so rather than making a video or presentation. Another reason is that I feel more comfortable writing up my investigation and discussing it with my own words rather than editing and including multimedia, which I'm not better at. __ Presentation __ Although it is not the most creative choice, I think I would write up my investigation and plan, this is because I think that I am not exactly very good at editing videos and stuff like that and I personally find writing things up much easier and not as time consuming, like if I were to make a video to the best of my ability and take 2 hours, I don't think it would be nearly as good as if I wrote it up in just 1 hour, but maybe a good idea would be a keynote or a Prezi. But as for the design I think that it wouldn't be too hard to use a Prezi or a Powerpoint. I think you should use Prezi, it is new and interesting, and you can still write up your investigation on a word document, then dissect it into parts, and transfer it onto a Prezi, you should also add pictures too, and transferring it will also give you an opportunity to go over your work and make last minute changes. I have the same problem as I'm not that good with editing videos as well, but I think you should go with a keynote or Prezi because this will allow you to combine text and some forms of animation, which will make you investigation more interesting. Another good way to present my Investigation would be by using Prezi, because it is a virtual Mind Map, and I have found that using mind maps really help to organize what you want to say. You are also able to add voice notes and videos to Prezi as well as text. __ Video and Audio __ Also, another way that I might choose to present my investigation would be by creating an iMovie. This can be a good choice because I can incorporate and combine a number of medias as well as text, which would make my investigation a lot more interesting than a normal word document. I agree with your idea, and IMovie is also easy to use, since we are very familiar with it, also you can do a lot with it. But one issue is that when it comes to text, on IMovie, it only gives you one that acts like credits rolling, and sometimes its going too fast for people to read, and so they don’t fully understand your presentation. I think that it's a great idea to make a video, but putting a link on word isn't. I think it would be better embedded to your E-portfolio, that way you have something in your E-portfolio from IT, and you have a better way of presenting your video. __ Web site as a project portfolio __ There are many ways I can present my Investigation, Design, and Plan:

Power Point, Poster, Word Document, Movie, Key Note, Prezi, Audio (Voice), E-Portfolio, Survey

As of how to put it all together ... I can either make a page on my e-portfolio and include all my multi media, or ... even more interesting is to make my own website where I can put all the above, and maybe more if I ever think of anything else. I think that you have a lot of new ideas that haven't been mentioned before which is very good. I especially like the idea of using your e-portfolio and creating a website I think that there is not enough time to make a website because I once made a website and it took me the whole school year and I don’t think its a good idea to make a whole website just for an Investigation. Making a website is actually only slightly more difficult that making a PowerPoint. You just need to find pictures, video, music, write your text and organize it on pages. It can be a little trickier to use because it's on the Internet, but it's not that difficult and doesn't take that long. Although I think that a website would be an easier way to view and read things, it can also be boring if there isn't enough colour and media. __ Poster __ Maybe I could do a digital poster? I could maybe draw out the designs, take a picture of it and upload it to my digital poster? But I am not sure if it would take up too much time or if the pictures would be clear. I agree with you that Prezi's are overused. And it is always good to do something new; I think you should try to do something outside the computer. Maybe a poster ? It would be a good change. I choose to do a website because our generation is so tech savvy, so I thought the best way to be able to connect with people all over the world, would be through the internet. Also a lot of today’s youth spend their time on social networks, and surfing the internet, so posting a website online, will get more of their attention than a poster hung around streets. Not only will I just throw the website into the Internet, I will also raise awareness by posting it on my ‘facebook’, or posting it on my friends walls, sharing the links to other people. And a website can easily store all your information, and you get to choose what template’s you want, making your website more eye-catching and creative. I really like the idea that everything is in one place, and you can access all of it in one website. __ Student to Student Advice Comments __ I think that you’re right, maybe in your case expressing your thought through text is easy. If it is then I think you should go with what you feel best about. Although I encourage creativity I also must take into account the short period of time we have. With this tight schedule I would advise you and everyone else to stick with what their most comfortable with.

I personally think that next year when we will be taking one course throughout the whole year is when we should take some risks and try out some new things. I think it's good that you want to do your investigation in the way you find easiest. Work isn't really fun when it's hard.