Advances in Physical Education, 2015, 5, 84-93 Published Online May 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ape http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2015.52011 How to cite this paper: Zach, S., & Yanovich, E. (2015). Autonomy, Choice, and Pupils’ Motivation—Are They Really Related? Advances in Physical Education, 5, 84-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2015.52011 Autonomy, Choice, and Pupils’ Motivation—Are They Really Related? Sima Zach, Einat Yanovich School of Education, The Zinman College of Physical Education & Sport Sciences at the Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel Email: simaz@wincol.ac.il Received 9 February 2015; accepted 9 April 2015; published 14 April 2015 Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract Purpose: Examining the differences in motivation between learners in schools with a choice-based physical education (PE) curriculum and those with a non-choice-based curriculum, and identifying which sport activities these students prefer, using SDT as a conceptual framework. Method: Par- ticipants were 536 pupils from grades 10 - 12 from eight schools. Four schools offered a choice- based curriculum in PE and the other operated according to a teacher-based curriculum. A ques- tionnaire examined their PA habits in leisure time, their motives for activity in PE lessons, and their preferred activities in these lessons. Results showed that pupils in classes with no choice- based curricula reported higher levels of motives then pupils in classes with choice-based curri- cula. Girls reported higher level of motives than boys. Preferred areas of activity illustrated the traditional-social difference between boys and girls. Conclusion: Schools that offer choice-based curricula should sharpen the answer to the question-what constitutes a worthwhile or true choice. Keywords Curricula of Choice, Motives for Physical Activity, Physical Education Lessons 1. Introduction Deci & Ryan’s (2012) self-determination theory (SDT) presents three innate needs which, if satisfied, affect a person’s motivational state: competence-the individual’s need to demonstrate ability, autonomy-the individual’s need for independence, and relatedness-the need to feel that one belongs to a place and/or to others. In this theory, pupils’ behaviors can be distributed along a continuum ranging from lack of motivation to intrinsic mo- tivation, with various levels of extrinsic motivation between them. Moreover, learners will be motivated to en- gage in activities from which they derive enjoyment, activities that they can choose independently, activities that