General interest (d = 0.22) and career interest (d = 0.40) show significant positive effects; other attitude subscales do not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i1 Separate meta-analyses per attitude subscale found significant positive effects for general interest (d = 0.22, 20 studies) and career interest (d = 0.40, 4 studies), but not for relevance, self-efficacy, or normality of scientist. → Savelsbergh 2016

Evidence¶

Savelsbergh 2016¶

Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B. E., Draijer, J. M., & Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19, 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.003

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r?

Separate random-effects meta-analyses per subscale (Table 4), with Prokop et al. removed as outlier. The authors report "The effects for General Interest and Career Interest are signi ﬁcant and positive" (printed effect sizes d = 0.22 and d = 0.40), while general relevance (d = 0.15), self-efficacy (d = 0.12), and normality of scientist (d = 0.16) were nonsignificant.

"The effects for General Interest and Career Interest are signi ﬁcant and positive. However, there are no signiﬁcant differences between any of the subscales, so there is no ground to declare one of the effects larger than the others."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Interest — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Motivation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Innovative teaching approaches produce significant positive effects on overall attitude toward science and mathematics (d = 0.35 after outlier removal) — a broader claim this one bears on

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`attitude-subscale-effects-general-career-interest`
`title`	`General interest (d = 0.22) and career interest (d = 0.40) show significant positive effects; other attitude subscales do not`
`description`	`General interest (d = 0.22) and career interest (d = 0.40) show significant positive effects; other attitude subscales do not`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`weak`
`newest_evidence`	`2016`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-21`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-21`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `savelsbergh-2016`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.