Examining for Whom the Utility Intervention Works: Moderation by Performance and Gender

• In Event: 65.058 - Moving Utility Value Research Forward: Examining Moderators, Mediators, and Context

Abstract

Objective
Students disengage from school, and eventually drop out, due to a number of factors, including lack of academic preparation, knowledge of effective learning strategies, and motivation (Allensworth & Easton, 2007). Poor performance in introductory and general education courses, especially those taken early in students’ academic career (e.g., middle school pre-algebra or college-level general education courses), can have an especially salient impact on their academic trajectories (e.g., Casillas et al., 2012). Interestingly, one group that has consistently underperformed in school has been boys. A recent meta-analyses demonstrated that females outperform males in school, and this performance gap cuts across grade-levels, subject areas, and publication year (Voyer & Voyer, 2014), indicating that this is not a recent phenomenon. A separate review indicated that gender differences in intelligence, personality, and motivation partially explained this performance gap (Spinath et al., 2014). In the current study, students’ perceptions of utility value were manipulated to improve course performance in an undergraduate psychology class.

Theoretical framework
Based on Eccles et al.’s (1983) expectancy-value framework, the utility value intervention targets students’ perceived relevance of the course material to their everyday and future goals. Prior studies manipulated students’ perceptions of utility value for psychology (Hulleman et al., 2010), statistics (Hulleman et al., 2007), science (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009), and STEM (Harackiewicz et al., 2012). Students were randomly assigned to either write about the utility value of the course material in their own lives or a summary of the material they were currently studying. The results demonstrate that the intervention boosted performance and interest, particularly for students who had low perceived or actual ability in the topic. Based on this prior research, we examined whether the utility value intervention increased course performance more effectively for students with low initial exam scores and gender.

Method
Undergraduate students in a general education psychology course were randomly assigned to either control writing (n = 123) or utility writing (n = 125). Students completed two intervention writing prompts, once after the first exam and again after the second exam.

Results
Analyses indicated that students who performed poorly on the first exam in the utility condition performed better on the final exam than control condition students. This effect was particularly true for low-performing males who scored higher on the final exam in the utility compared to the control condition (d = .75). There were no differences for high-performing males, or high- or low-performing females. When examining grade gaps between genders, the effects are especially striking. In the control condition, females slightly outperformed males on the first exam (d = .11) and this gap more than tripled by the final exam (d = .35). In contrast, in the utility condition the gender gap was reduced by 74% from the first exam (d = .27) to the final exam (d = .07).

Scientific Significance
The results extend prior research demonstrating that the utility value intervention boosts the performance of at-risk students, in this case low-performing male undergraduates.

Authors

• Chris S. Hulleman, University of Virginia

• Jeff John Kosovich, University of Virginia

• Kenn E. Barron, James Madison University

• David Daniel, James Madison University