The Effectiveness of a Utility-Value Intervention in Math Classrooms: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

• In Event: 67.047 - Motivation Interventions Proven to Work in K–12 Classrooms: Improving Students' Value, Confidence, Self-Regulation, and Satisfaction

Abstract

Objective
Utility-value interventions have shown a high potential to foster motivation and achievement (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). Yet, further research is warranted to test how such interventions can be successfully implemented in the classroom setting. In this study, we therefore tested the effectiveness of a utility-value intervention in ninth grade mathematics classroom.

Theoretical Framework
Utility-value interventions are based on expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983) and aim at fostering the perceived relevance of the course materials to their lives. In this study, we tested a utility-value intervention in the classroom context. This intervention was previously shown to have positive effects on students’ value beliefs, competence beliefs, effort, and achievement when implemented by researchers. We therefore wanted to test whether the positive effects of the intervention can be replicated when the intervention is implemented by master’s students or by the regular math teachers.

Method
78 ninth-grade classrooms (N = 1744) were randomly assigned to one of two intervention conditions or a waiting control condition. In the intervention conditions, the utility-value intervention was either implemented by master’s students or by the regular math teachers. The intervention consisted of a psychoeducational presentation and an individual task to evaluate quotations. Both the presentation and the individual task focused on the relevance of mathematics, with identical materials in the two conditions. The master’s students were trained as part of a two-semester class and the math teachers received a three-hour training on the content of the intervention. The quality of the implementation in the classroom was rated by two observers each.

Data Sources
A pretest-posttest-follow-up design was used to evaluate the effects of the intervention. Students’ filled out questionnaires assessing their value beliefs (i.e., intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, cost), competence beliefs (i.e., self-concept, self-efficacy), and effort in math at all time points.

Results
Multilevel regression analyses showed that students in both intervention conditions reported higher utility value at the posttest compared to the control condition. Unexpectedly, students in both intervention conditions also reported higher cost compared to students in the control condition. At the follow-up, classes in which the intervention was implemented by master’s students still reported higher utility value and higher cost compared to classes in the control condition. No significant intervention effects were observed for attainment value, intrinsic value, competence beliefs, and effort.

Significance
Compared to the previous study testing the efficacy of this intervention, the intervention was shown to have less positive effects and some unintended effects on students’ motivation when it was implemented by trained master’s students or the regular math teachers instead of researchers. Such findings should be considered when it comes to implementing interventions in practice. They could potentially be explained by a lower implementation fidelity when the intervention is not implemented by persons also involved in the development of the intervention. We therefore plan to conduct in-depth analyses of implementation quality and to examine whether the effects of the intervention varied depending of the degree of implementation quality in the two intervention conditions.

Authors

• Hanna Gaspard, University of Tübingen

• Cora Parrisius, Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen

• Heide Piesch, University of Tuebingen

• Eike Wille, University of Tuebingen

• Benjamin Nagengast, University of Tübingen

• Ulrich Trautwein, University of Tubingen

• Chris S. Hulleman, University of Virginia