The Paradox of Choice

Schwartz, Barry

doi:10.1002/9781118996874.ch8

Cited by 64 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Values are inherent in engineering design; so just as the technical content of an engineering program is (hopefully) carefully scaffolded, "the same intentionality and evaluation should be undertaken for the liberal component of a student's undergraduate experience." 6 Though some choice is necessary, too much choice can be detrimental; 29 thus, providing choice in a balanced manner is essential. Engineering educators must be mindful when integrating course choice opportunities into degree programs, alert to the psychologically paralyzing consequences of providing too much choice 29 while supporting students' psychological need for autonomy via carefully constructed choice opportunities that nurture intrinsic motivation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit Bias? Disparity in Opportunities to Select Technical versus Non-Technical Courses in Undergraduate Engineering Programs

Forbes

Bielefeldt

Sullivan

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit Bias? Disparity in Opportunities to Select Technical versus Non-Technical Courses in Undergraduate Engineering Programs

Forbes

Bielefeldt

Sullivan

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To develop Prototype 3, PTD staff translated all potential transportation investments that had been presented to the CCFPT into an investment table with explanations and projected costs (Appendix A). Each line item in the table was discussed to make sure that it would be easily understood by the CCFPT, and that only the most logical options were included, to limit the cognitive complexity of the decision-making process and avoid "choice paralysis" [47]. Each line item then became a piece, displaying a transportation option's title, cost, and visualization on the front, and a justification on the back (Figure 1).…”

Section: Prototypementioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering Sustainability Transitions by Designing for the Convergence of Policy Windows and Transition Arenas

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transition arenas that do not converge with policy windows to achieve structural or institutional change often fail to achieve their stated transformative goals. For their part, policy windows often lead to only incremental change. On their own, transition management and the multiple streams approach seem inadequate to the challenges facing cities. However, in combination, they can be transformative, as exemplified by the Citizens Committee for the Future of Phoenix Transportation. In 2015, this committee in Phoenix, AZ passed a~USD 31.5 billion 2050 transportation plan funded by a sales tax increase from 0.4 to 0.7%. This plan's development realized a policy window in a transition arena through an instrumental boundary object workshop with innovative facilitation. This article sets out to explore, based on this in-depth, applied transition arena process, how to combine transition management and the multiple streams approach to increase the transformative potential of transition arenas. The multiple streams approach and transition management have rarely been used simultaneously or had their integration planned. However, this case from Phoenix, AZ illustrates the potential for boundary objects and facilitation processes in designing for the convergence of policy windows and transition arenas.

show abstract

“…7 The psychologically paralyzing effect of an overload of meaningless choices is evident in countless increasingly complex consumer decisions. 7 However choice has been shown to be motivating in educational settings and can also enhance learning and well-being 4,5,8,9 when "the options are relevant to the students' interests and goals (autonomy support), are not too numerous or complex (competence support), and are congruent with the values of the students' culture (relatedness support)." 6 Thus, promoting a sense of choice is central to self-determination, which is not only an important developmental goal, but also the "avenue to attaining outcomes such as creativity, cognitive flexibility, selfesteem," 5 increased engagement and higher-quality learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 "When people have no choice, life is almost unbearable." 7 But, providing choices for students can be either motivating or demotivating; in order to realize the benefits of choice, it must be done right. 7 The psychologically paralyzing effect of an overload of meaningless choices is evident in countless increasingly complex consumer decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 But, providing choices for students can be either motivating or demotivating; in order to realize the benefits of choice, it must be done right. 7 The psychologically paralyzing effect of an overload of meaningless choices is evident in countless increasingly complex consumer decisions. 7 However choice has been shown to be motivating in educational settings and can also enhance learning and well-being 4,5,8,9 when "the options are relevant to the students' interests and goals (autonomy support), are not too numerous or complex (competence support), and are congruent with the values of the students' culture (relatedness support)."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Choice Opportunity Disparity: Exploring Curricular Choice Opportunities for Engineering vs. Non-Engineering Majors

Forbes¹,

Bielefeldt²,

Sullivan³

2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a doctoral candidate in civil engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder with an engineering education research focus. She previously taught middle school science and engineering and wrote K-12 STEM curricula while an NSF GK-12 graduate engineering fellow at CU. With a master's degree in civil engineering she went on to teach advanced placement and algebra-based physics for the Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), where she also created and taught a year-long, design-based DSST engineering course for seniors. Before beginning her PhD work, Marissa returned to CU, where she supervised K-12 fellows and worked with educators engaged in the creation of K-12 engineering curriculum for the TeachEngineering digital library. Dr. Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, BoulderAngela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She serves as the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education in the CEAE Department, as well as the ABET assessment coordinator. Professor Bielefeldt is the faculty director of the Sustainable By Design Residential Academic Program, a living-learning community where interdisciplinary students learn about and practice sustainability. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt's research interests in engineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, and diversity. Dr. Jacquelyn F. Sullivan, University of Colorado, BoulderJacquelyn Sullivan is founding co-director of the General Engineering Plus degree program in the University of Colorado Boulder's College of Engineering and Applied Science. The newly-launched, designbased, "design-your-own" flexible GE+ engineering degree was initially created as the "home" for CU Teach Engineering, a unique initiative to produce secondary science or math teachers through a designbased engineering degree. With the aim of enhancing curricular choice as a means to broaden participation among who chooses to attend engineering college, the GE+ degree was quickly expanded to provide a strong analytical, engineering-based platform for students driven to chart their own educational path.

show abstract

The Paradox of Choice

Cited by 64 publications

References 65 publications

Implicit Bias? Disparity in Opportunities to Select Technical versus Non-Technical Courses in Undergraduate Engineering Programs

Implicit Bias? Disparity in Opportunities to Select Technical versus Non-Technical Courses in Undergraduate Engineering Programs

Fostering Sustainability Transitions by Designing for the Convergence of Policy Windows and Transition Arenas

The Choice Opportunity Disparity: Exploring Curricular Choice Opportunities for Engineering vs. Non-Engineering Majors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About