The present study investigated the effectiveness of two short relevance interventions (writing a text or evaluating quotations about the utility of mathematics) using a sample of 1,916 students in 82 math classrooms in a cluster randomized controlled experiment. Short-term and sustained effects (6 weeks and 5 months after the intervention) of the two intervention conditions on students’ competence beliefs (self-concept, homework self-efficacy), teacher-rated individual effort, and standardized test scores in mathematics were assessed. Hierarchical linear regression analyses showed that students’ homework self-efficacy was higher in both intervention groups 6 weeks and 5 months after the intervention compared to the control condition. Students’ self-concept, teacher-rated effort, and achievement in mathematics were promoted through the quotations condition, partly in the long term.
AceeT. W.WeinsteinC. E. (2010). Effects of a value-reappraisal intervention on statistics students’ motivation and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(4), 487–512. doi:10.1080/00220970903352753
2.
BakkZ.VermuntJ. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 20–31. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.955104
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BanduraA. (1994). Self-efficacy. In RamachaudranV. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
5.
BaumertJ.GruehnS.HeynS.KöllerO.SchnabelK. U. (1997). Bildungsverläufe und psychosoziale Entwicklung im Jugendalter (BIJU). Dokumentation – Band 1: Skalen Längsschnitt Welle 1–4 [Learning processes, educational careers, and psychosocial development in adolescence and young adulthood (BIJU). Documentation–Volume 1: Scales of Data collections 1–4]. Berlin: Max-Plank-Institut für Bildungsforschung.
6.
BongM.SkaalvikE. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really?Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. doi:10.1023/A:1021302408382
7.
CanningE. A.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2015). Teach it, don’t preach it: The differential effects of directly-communicated and self-generated utility value information. Motivation Science, 1(1), 47–71. doi:10.1037/mot0000015
8.
ChouinardR.KarsentiT.RoyN. (2007). Relations among competence beliefs, utility value, achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 501–517. doi:10.1348/000709906x133589
9.
ChouinardR.RoyN. (2008). Changes in high-school students’ competence beliefs, utility value and achievement goals in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 31–50. doi:10.1348/000709907x197993
10.
CohenD. K.Loewenberg BallD. (2007). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In SchneiderB.McDonaldS.-K. (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle (Vol. 1, pp. 19–36). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
11.
ColeJ. S.BerginD. A.WhittakerT. A. (2008). Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 609–624. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.10.002
12.
CravenR. G.MarshH. W.DebusR. L.JayasingheU. (2001). Diffusion effects: Control group contamination threats to the validity of teacher-administered interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 639–645. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.639
13.
DavisM. H.McPartlandJ. M. (2012). High school reform and student engagement. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 515–539). New York, NY: Springer.
14.
DenissenJ. J.ZarrettN. R.EcclesJ. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78(2), 430–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01007.x
15.
DurikA. M.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597–610. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597
16.
DurikA. M.HullemanC. S.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2015). One size fits some: Instructional enhancement to promote interest. In RenningerK. A.NieswandtM.HidiS. (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning (pp. 49–62). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
17.
DurikA. M.ShechterO. G.NohM.RozekC. S.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2015). What if I can’t? Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on situational interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 104–118. doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9419-0
18.
EcclesJ. S. (2005). Subjective task values and the Eccles et al. model of achievement related choices. In ElliottA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
EcclesJ. S.AdlerT. F.FuttermanR.GoffS. B.KaczalaC. M.MeeceJ. L.MidgleyC. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In SpenceJ. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). New York, NY: Freeman.
20.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003
21.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
22.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121
24.
EnnemoserM.KrajewskiK.SchmidtS. (2011). Entwicklung und Bedeutung von Mengen-Zahlen-Kompetenzen und eines basalen Konventions-und Regelwissens in den Klassen 5 bis 9 [Development and importance of sets and numbers competencies and of a basic knowledge of conventions and rules in classes 5 through 9]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie / German Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 43(4), 228–242. doi:10.1026/0049-8637/a000055
25.
FinnJ. D.ZimmerK. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–132). New York, NY: Springer.
26.
FormanS. G.ShapiroE. S.CoddingR. S.GonzalesJ. E.ReddyL. A.RosenfieldS. A.. . . StoiberK. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. doi:10.1037/spq0000019
27.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
28.
GaspardH.DickeA.-L.FlungerB.BrissonB. M.HäfnerI.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2015). Fostering adolescents’ value beliefs for mathematics with a relevance intervention in the classroom. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1226–1240. doi:10.1037/dev0000028
29.
GaspardH.DickeA.-L.FlungerB.HäfnerI.BrissonB. M.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2016). Side effects of motivational interventions? Effects of an intervention in math classrooms on motivation in verbal domains. AERA Open, 2(2), 1–14. doi:10.1177/2332858416649168
30.
GaspardH.DickeA.-L.FlungerB.SchreierB. M.HäfnerI.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2015). More value through greater differentiation: Gender differences in value beliefs about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 663–677. doi:10.1037/edu0000003
31.
GaspardH.HäfnerI.ParrisiusC.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2017). Assessing task values in five subjects during secondary school: Measurement structure and mean level differences across grade level, gender, and academic subject. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 67–84. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.003
32.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
33.
HarackiewiczJ. M.HullemanC. S.RozekC. S.Katz-WiseS.HydeJ. S. (2010, March). Parents’ understanding of the utility value of STEM courses for high school students. Paper presented at the 2010 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Philadelphia, PA.
34.
HarackiewiczJ. M.RozekC. S.HullemanC. S.HydeJ. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906. doi:10.1177/0956797611435530
35.
HellerK. A.PerlethC. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klasse [Cognitive Ability Test for Grades 4 through 12]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
36.
HowellD. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
37.
HullemanC. S.CordrayD. S. (2009). Moving from the lab to the field: The role of fidelity and achieved relative intervention strength. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 88–110. doi:10.1080/1934574080253925
38.
HullemanC. S.GodesO.HendricksB. L.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895. doi:10.1037/A0019506
39.
HullemanC. S.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067
40.
HullemanC. S.KosovichJ. J.BarronK. E.DanielD. B. (2017). Making connections: Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 387–404. doi:10.1037/edu0000146
41.
HusmanJ.HilpertJ. (2007). The intersection of students’ perceptions of instrumentality, self-efficacy, and goal orientations in an online mathematics course. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie / German Journal of Educational Psychology, 21(3–4), 229–239. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.21.3.229
42.
JacobsJ. E.LanzaS.OsgoodD. W.EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73(2), 509–527. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00421
43.
KorendijkE. J. H.HoxJ. J.MoerbeekM.MaasC. J. M. (2011). Robustness of parameter and standard error estimates against ignoring a contextual effect of a subject-level covariate in cluster-randomized trials. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 1003–1013. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0094-8
44.
LazowskiR. A.HullemanC. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640. doi:10.3102/0034654315617832
45.
MarkusH.NuriusP. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
46.
MarshH. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 129–149. doi:10.3102/00028312023001129
47.
MarshH. W. (2005). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie / German Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(3), 119–129. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.19.3.119
48.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.TrautweinU.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O.NagengastB. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(6), 764–802. doi:10.1080/00273170903333665
49.
MarshH. W.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.KöllerO.BaumertJ. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397–416. doi:10.2307/3696511
50.
McMillanJ. H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20–32. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00055.x
51.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
52.
O’MaraA. J.MarshH. W.CravenR. G.DebusR. L. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 181–206. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4103_4
53.
OsborneJ.DillonJ. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
54.
OysermanD.DestinM. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 1001–1043. doi:10.1177/0011000010374775
55.
PeetsmaT.van der VeenI. (2011). Relations between the development of future time perspective in three life domains, investment in learning, and academic achievement. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 481–494. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.001
56.
PrenzelM.BaumertJ.BlumW.LehmannR.LeutnerR.NeubrandM.. . . SchiefeleU. (2006). Pisa 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [Pisa 2003: Documentation of assessment instruments]. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
57.
RaudenbushS. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 173–185. doi:10.1037//1082-989x.2.2.173
58.
ReschlyA. L.ChristensonS. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer.
59.
RoeserR. W.EcclesJ. S.SameroffA. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443–471. doi:10.1086/499650
60.
RosenzweigE. Q.WigfieldA. (2016). STEM motivation interventions for adolescents: A promising start, but further to go. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 146–163. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1154792
61.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
62.
SchmidtS.EnnemoserM.KrajewskiK. (Eds.). (2013). Deutscher Mathematiktest für 9. Klassen [German mathematics test for Grade 9]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
63.
SchuitemaJ.PeetsmaT.van der VeenI. (2014). Enhancing student motivation: A longitudinal intervention study based on future time perspective theory. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(6), 467–481. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.836467
64.
ShechterO. G.DurikA. M.MiyamotoY.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2011). The role of utility value in achievement behavior: The importance of culture. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 303–317. doi:10.1177/0146167210396380
65.
StevensJ. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
66.
SüdkampA.KaiserJ.MöllerJ. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. doi:10.1037/a0027627
67.
TrautweinU.LüdtkeO. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: The role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 243–258. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001
68.
TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.KastensC.KöllerO. (2006). Effort on homework in grades 5–9: Development, motivational antecedents, and the association with effort on classwork. Child Development, 77(4), 1094–1111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x
69.
TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.RobertsB. W.SchnyderI.NiggliA. (2009). Different forces, same consequence: Conscientiousness and competence beliefs are independent predictors of academic effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1115–1128. doi:10.1037/a0017048
70.
TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.SchnyderI.NiggliA. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 438–456. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438
71.
TrautweinU.NagengastB.MarshH. W.GaspardH.DickeA.-L.LüdtkeO.JonkmannK. (2013). Expectancy-value theory revisited: From expectancy-value theory to expectancy-valueS theory? In McInerneyD. M.MarshH. W.CravenR. G. (Eds.), Theory driving research: New wave perspectives on self-processed and human development (pp. 233–249). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
72.
TymmsP. (2004). Effect sizes in multilevel models. In SchagenI.ElliotK. (Eds.), But what does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research (pp. 55–66). London: National Foundation for Educational Research.
73.
WaltonG. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82. doi:10.1177/0963721413512856
74.
WigfieldA.CambriaJ. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35. doi:10.1016/J.Dr.2009.12.001
75.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.SchiefeleU.RoeserR. W.Davis-KeanP. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In EisenbergN. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933–1002). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
76.
WoolleyM. E.RoseR. A.OrthnerD. K.AkosP. T.Jones-SanpeiH. (2013). Advancing academic achievement through career relevance in the middle grades: A longitudinal evaluation of CareerStart. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1309–1335. doi:10.3102/0002831213488818
77.
YeagerD. S.WaltonG. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999
78.
ZimmermanB. J.KitsantasA. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(4), 397–417. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
