Utility Value Connections¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 3 studies (1 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 1 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

Utility value connections make the personal relevance of academic content explicit: learners are prompted to explain how material relates to their own lives, future careers, or interests, or instructors embed that relevance directly in tasks and examples. The strategy derives from expectancy-value theory, in which task value — particularly utility value, the perceived usefulness of a task for future goals — is a direct determinant of motivation and engagement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). It is carried out through brief writing assignments, relevance-infused course materials, or discussion prompts.

Design Implications¶

Utility value interventions raise interest, perceived value, and course performance, with the strongest effects when learners generate the connections themselves rather than merely reading them Utility-value interventions improve interest and performance. [+M]. Self-generated connections are more effective than provided ones because they draw on the learner's own goals and prior knowledge, producing deeper processing and more durable value beliefs. The strategy aligns with Self-Determination Theory: perceived relevance supports the sense of autonomy and meaning that sustains intrinsic motivation Autonomy support fosters intrinsic motivation. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Content that plausibly connects to learners' lives or futures — the connection must be genuine, not contrived
• A structured prompt asking learners to explain relevance in their own words (e.g., "How does this apply to something in your life or career?")
• Sufficient time and psychological safety for honest reflection; forced or graded relevance writing can backfire

Constraints¶

• Provided relevance statements are weaker than self-generated ones and can feel preachy or coercive, reducing autonomy Autonomy support fosters intrinsic motivation. [-M]
• Ineffective when learners cannot find authentic connections — forcing relevance for arbitrary content produces shallow, resentful responses
• Effects are strongest for students with low initial expectations of success; for already-motivated students the intervention adds little and can occasionally depress performance by implying the content is boring [~M]
• One-shot interventions fade; value beliefs erode without reinforcement across the course

Implementation Variability¶

• Self-generated writing: learners write brief essays connecting topics to their own goals (the classic Hulleman & Harackiewicz format)
• Instructor-embedded relevance: examples, problems, and cases drawn from learners' likely fields or daily life
• Choice-based: offering options among topics or tasks so learners select what they find useful, pairing utility value with autonomy
• Career-anchored: discipline-specific versions (e.g., connecting statistics to health-science careers)

Target Learners¶

• Students with low expectations for success or low initial interest in a subject — the group showing the largest gains [+M]
• First-generation and underrepresented students in gatekeeper courses (e.g., introductory math and science), where value interventions have narrowed achievement gaps [+M]
• Less effective for students already high in interest or confidence, for whom the intervention is redundant [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Motivational: increasing interest, engagement, and persistence in a domain
• Affective: building positive attitudes toward disciplines learners might otherwise avoid
• Indirectly supports conceptual learning by increasing time on task and engagement with Practice

Instructions¶

1. Identify the genuine applications of the target content for your learner population (career, daily life, civic life).
2. Design a brief writing prompt asking learners to state, in their own words, how the material is useful to them — avoid supplying the answer.
3. Embed relevance in the surrounding instruction: use authentic cases (Case-Based Learning), authentic audiences (Authentic Audiences & Purposes), and real-world problems.
4. Repeat the connection activity at multiple points in the course rather than once.
5. Pair with autonomy-supportive framing — choice of topics or tasks — so relevance feels discovered, not imposed.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — relevance prompts also surface what learners already know, serving both motivational and cognitive functions
• Goal Setting — utility value is most powerful when tied to learners' explicit personal goals
• Choice Boards — structural autonomy support that complements relevance framing

Examples¶

• Hulleman & Harackiewicz (2009) science writing intervention: high school students wrote ~1-paragraph essays connecting science topics to their own lives at several points in a semester; students with low success expectations raised grades and interest in science careers.
• Gaspard et al. (2015) math utility essays: German ninth-graders wrote about the usefulness of mathematics for their careers and daily lives, improving value beliefs and career aspirations in math.
• Khan Academy — frames lessons with real-world application contexts (e.g., "Why is this useful?") before practice exercises.
• Project Lead The Way — K-12 STEM curriculum built around authentic engineering and biomedical problems, embedding utility value in task design rather than in separate prompts.

Key Sources¶

• Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067
• Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Schreier, B., Häfner, I., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2015). More value through greater differentiation: Gender differences in value beliefs about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 187–204. doi:10.1037/edu0000003
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. 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
• Canning, E. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2019). Communicating and synthesizing the relevance of STEM: The utility-value intervention. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 801–819.