This study describes the development and implementation of a model for accommodation of preferences for alternative instructional environments. The study was stimulated by the existence of alternative instructional modes, and the absence of a procedure for accommodation of individual student differences which utilized these alternative modes. The Choice Model evolved during a series of pilot studies employing three instructional modes; individual (JM), small group (SGM), and large group (LGM). Three instructors were each given autonomy in designing one learning environment, each utilizing her/his preferred instructional mode. One section of a mathematics course was scheduled for one hundred students. On the first day the class was divided alphabetically into three orientation groups, each assigned to a separate class room. During the first week, the instructors described their respective environments to each group, using video taped illustrations from a previous semester. Environmental preferences were then assessed using take-home student questionnaires. In the final pilot, fifty-five students were oriented to all three environments. Each student was then assigned to his/her preferred learning environment. The distribution of environmental preferences was 24% for IM, 44% for SGM, and 33% for LGM. The following student characteristics were also investigated: 1)sex, 2)age, 3)academic background, 4)mathematics achievement, 5)mathematics attitude, 6)mathematics interest, 7)self-concept, 8)communication apprehension. and 9)interpersonal relations orientation. This investigation revealed several suggestive preference patterns: 1)Females and students with weak academic backgrounds tended to prefer the SGM environment. 2)Students with higher levels of communication apprehension tended to avoid the SGM environment. 3)New college students and students with negative mathematics attitudes tended to avoid the IM environment. 4)Students with higher grades in high school tended to prefer the LGM environment. Student preferences were successfully accommodated, and student evaluations of the Choice Model were generally positive. The literature suggests that opportunities to experience choice in education tend to enhance student growth and development; adaptation and institutionalization of the Model were addressed from this perspective. Additional studies with larger samples were recommended to further investigate environmental preferences with respect t o student and instructor characteristics of gender, age, race, socioeconomic background, academic background, and learning style.