Identifying the Psychological Mechanisms of Utility-Value Activities to Inform Educational Research and Practice
Silverman, David M.; Hulleman, Chris S.; Tibbetts, Yoi (2023). British Journal of Educational Psychology, v93 n4 p960-977 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1399611
-
examining2,894Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Utility Value Intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final math grade |
Utility Value Intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
75.32 |
75.25 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 49% -
Race Asian 8% Black 24% Native American 0% Other or unknown 38% Pacific Islander 1% Two or more races 3% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 38% Not Hispanic or Latino 62% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 59% No FRPL 41%
Study Details
Setting
The participants were students in 23 different math classes in grades 9-12, in three high schools across the United States. The study authors do not provide additional information about the setting.
Study sample
The 2,894 students in grades 9 through 12 participated in the study. Roughly half (52%) were female. More than have (59%) were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. The author reports that 38% for students were Hispanic or Latino, 26% were White, 24% were Black, 8% were Asian, and less than 1% each were Pacific Islander or American Indian.
Intervention Group
Students engaged in one of three variants of a utility-value intervention via a 15-minute online module. In all variants, students were asked to reflect on and write about statements from prior students about how the prior students apply math concepts in their lives, hobbies, and careers. All three variants featured the same set of six quotations from prior students, however the variants provided different prompts for the written reflection. Students in the "evaluate" variant were asked to explain how they would improve the quotations. Students in the "rank" variant were asked to rank the quotations. And students in the "write" variant were asked to connect the topics in the quotations to their own lives.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition completed a 15-minute online module in which they reflected on and wrote about mathematics content they were learning. In their written responses, students were asked to summarize a specific math topic they were learning and then write and solve a math problem based on that topic.
Support for implementation
The intervention was administered in a single online module that took just over 15 minutes to complete. No additional support for implementation was provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).