EJ1323708
EJ1323708
EJ1323708
research-article20212021
EROXXX10.1177/23328584211052049Flunger et al.Promoting Homework Motivation With a Relevance Intervention
AERA Open
January-December 2021, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1–20
DOI: 10.1177/23328584211052049
https://doi.org/
Barbara Flunger
Utrecht University
Hanna Gaspard
Isabelle Häfner
Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen
Brigitte M. Brisson
DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt
Anna-Lena Dicke
University of California, Irvine
Cora Parrisius
Benjamin Nagengast
Ulrich Trautwein
Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen
Many students suffer from motivational problems when doing homework. To investigate whether an intervention that effec-
tively promoted value beliefs in mathematics promoted students’ homework motivation and behavior, we analyzed data from
a cluster randomized controlled study with two classroom-based relevance interventions (writing a text or evaluating quotes
from interviews) with 82 classrooms and 1,978 ninth-grade students. Students’ math-specific homework motivation and
behavior were assessed with homework diaries over a period of 4 weeks after the intervention. Latent growth curve analyses
revealed that students in the text condition reported higher triggered interest but also lower homework completion than stu-
dents in the control condition in the first week after the intervention. Students in the quotations condition reported higher
utility of homework for future life, and higher homework effort directly after the intervention. The study highlights the poten-
tial of classroom-based relevance interventions to foster homework-specific outcomes, when considering situational, behav-
ior-related measures.
Many students have trouble finishing their homework Students’ motivation can be promoted through interventions
(e.g., Markow et al., 2007) or put only a little effort toward that are aimed at helping students recognize the personal rele-
doing their assignments (e.g., Trautwein & Köller, 2003). vance of what they learn at school (e.g., Hulleman &
If students like doing their homework or find it useful, Harackiewicz, 2009). Relevance interventions are aimed at pro-
they are more likely to invest effort into completing it moting changes in students’ learning behavior such as their
(e.g., Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2009). Homework effort and homework effort. However, little is known about whether these
completion can be critical factors determining students’ interventions affect students’ learning behavior and motivation
academic achievement (e.g., Fan et al., 2017). However, in specific learning situations and outside the classroom.
students do not necessarily perceive homework as inter-
esting or useful (e.g., Katz et al., 2014; Warton, 2001). We thus conducted a multipurpose study on the effects
Motivational interventions could potentially boost home- of a relevance intervention on students’ homework motiva-
work motivation and behavior, which could be a mecha- tion and behavior. Our first purpose was to focus on a spe-
nism by which motivational interventions promote cific learning context (i.e., the homework situation) and to
students’ academic achievement. Hence, the question of consider behavior-based criteria to uncover further evi-
how to foster students’ homework motivation and behav- dence for the validity of findings concerning the effects of
ior is essential to ask in educational contexts. relevance interventions. Second, by studying the impact of
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open
Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Flunger et al.
motivational interventions on trajectories of students’ interventions can foster durable changes in motivation and
homework motivation and behavior in the period following academic achievement (self-determination theory: e.g.,
the intervention, we aimed to learn more about the short- Reeve & Cheon, 2014; implicit theories of intelligence:
term stability of such effects. We drew on data from the e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; attribution theory: e.g., Haynes
Motivation in Mathematics (MoMa) study (Gaspard et al., et al., 2006; expectancy-value theory: e.g., Harackiewicz
2021), in which two relevance interventions were imple- et al., 2012). Often, these studies employed a long-term pro-
mented in a cluster randomized controlled study design gram implementing several motivational strategies at once
with 82 German ninth-grade math classrooms (Brisson (e.g., Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2018). Our objective was to
et al., 2017; Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015) assess the effects of a one-time motivational intervention in
to investigate three research questions. We examined the classroom on students’ homework motivation and
whether the interventions affected students’ homework behavior across a time span of several weeks.
motivation and behavior directly after the intervention
(Research Question 1), and whether this effect remained Dimensions of Students’ Homework Motivation
stable over time (Research Question 2). Moreover, we
investigated whether the effect of the intervention on stu- In the homework model by Trautwein et al. (2006),
dents’ academic achievement was mediated through their expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983) is utilized to
homework motivation or homework behavior (Research conceptualize students’ homework motivation as encom-
Question 3). In order to investigate students’ motivation passing expectancy and subjective task value. Expectancies
directly in the homework situation, students were asked to are understood as subjective competence beliefs referring to
keep homework diaries for 4 weeks after the intervention. how students evaluate their own abilities (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). Subjective task values are defined as an
individual’s reasons for engaging in a learning behavior,
The Necessity to Foster Homework Motivation and
indicating its meaningfulness for that individual (Eccles
Behavior
et al., 1983). Four value components can be distinguished:
Homework is a task assigned by teachers with the pur- attainment, utility, intrinsic value, and cost. Attainment
pose of providing students with extra practice on their value refers to the importance of a task for oneself or one’s
schoolwork and thereby promoting their academic achieve- identity (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Utility value indicates
ment (Cooper, 1989). Even though students seem to be the perceived value of a task for future plans (e.g., Eccles &
aware that homework is an essential part of their school life, Wigfield, 2002). Students can perceive a task as useful for
they tend to experience homework as a task that needs to be achieving their short- or their long-term goals in different
done rather than one that can be enjoyed (Xu & Yuan, 2003). life domains (e.g., school or future life; Gaspard, Dicke,
Moreover, students do not necessarily complete homework Flunger, Schreier, et al., 2015). Intrinsic value refers to the
assignments on a regular basis (Markow et al., 2007) and enjoyment that originates from doing a task (Eccles &
tend to vary in their homework effort (e.g., Trautwein & Wigfield, 2002) and is conceptually similar to interest.
Köller, 2003). According to the homework model proposed Interest can be distinguished into individual interest (i.e., a
by Trautwein et al. (2006), both students’ domain-specific relatively enduring orientation toward certain contents or
and homework-specific motivation can predict their home- activities; Schiefele, 1991) and situational interest (an emo-
work behavior and later academic achievement. For exam- tional state, i.e., environmentally prompted; Mitchell,
ple, experiencing homework as unpleasant has been shown 1993). Situational interest is differentiated into triggered
to be negatively associated with homework effort, which situational interest, in which a person’s interest is aroused
negatively predicted later achievement in mathematics through a context, and maintained situational interest (e.g.,
(Dettmers et al., 2011). Students receiving an intervention in Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Triggered situational interest and
a domain might modify their behaviors in learning situations intrinsic value derived from a task are similar regarding the
in and outside the classroom, due to an increase in their affective component of positive emotions (Tsai et al., 2008).
motivation. Thus, there is a clear need to foster students’ Maintained situational interest implies repeated engage-
homework motivation and behavior, and to investigate ment with a task, content, or activity (Hidi & Renninger,
whether homework motivation or behavior can act as media- 2006). Accordingly, intrinsic value experienced while doing
tors transmitting the effects of motivational interventions to homework can encompass triggered (i.e., students enjoy
the promotion of students’ academic achievement (see doing their homework) and maintained situational interest
Figure 1). (e.g., through doing their homework, students get fasci-
So far, experimental research intervening on homework nated about a domain). Cost indicates the perceived nega-
motivation and homework effort is scarce (but see Patall tive consequences of engaging in a particular activity
et al., 2010). Yet, we know from earlier research grounded (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), such as homework (e.g., due to
in different theoretical frameworks that motivational high emotional costs).
2
Figure 1. Hypothesized mediation by students’ homework motivation and behavior.
Intervening on Students’ Homework Motivation With two approaches to promote the relevance of mathematics
Relevance Interventions (i.e., communicating and self-generating utility arguments;
see also Brisson et al., 2017), using a between-classrooms
Grounded in expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983),
design with 82 ninth-grade classrooms.
prior intervention research has shown that a potential power-
First, possible arguments for the relevance of mathemat-
ful tool to foster motivation, engagement, and achievement is
ics were presented in math classrooms by researchers; sub-
helping students find value in what they are learning through
sequently, students elaborated on how the relevance of
promoting the perceived utility or relevance (Hulleman &
mathematics applied to their own lives in two distinct condi-
Harackiewicz, 2021). This strategy implies highlighting why
tions. In the quotations condition, students worked with
an activity or a task is personally beneficial in terms of reach-
interview quotations that provided authentic information on
ing personal goals (e.g., Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009).
the utility of math. In the text condition, students were asked
Two approaches to foster perceived relevance have been
to write an essay about the relevance of math to their own
previously implemented: communicating (e.g., Durik &
lives.
Harackiewicz, 2007, Study 2) and self-generating utility
The effects of the interventions on students’ math-specific
arguments (Hulleman et al., 2010; Hulleman & Harackiewicz,
value beliefs, expectancy beliefs, and learning behavior were
2009), both in laboratory and natural learning settings (for a
investigated with student questionnaires at a posttest after 6
review, see Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). Both approaches
weeks and at a follow-up after 5 months. Both the quotations
have been shown to promote undergraduates’ perceived util-
and text condition showed positive effects on students’ utility
ity and interest in a specific task (Durik et al., 2015; Durik &
value at posttest and follow-up. Overall, the quotations con-
Harackiewicz, 2007; Hulleman et al., 2010; Shechter et al.,
dition had stronger effects than the text condition. The quota-
2011), which provides support for the assumption that rele-
tions condition promoted attainment value, intrinsic value (at
vance interventions may be beneficial for raising students’
the follow-up), self-concept (at the posttest), and teacher-
beliefs about the utility of homework and other aspects of
rated effort at the posttest and at the follow-up (see Brisson
students’ homework motivation.
et al., 2017; Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015).
Academic achievement in mathematics at the follow-up was
The MoMa Relevance Intervention and Prior Results
also promoted through the quotations condition (Brisson
Concerning its Efficacy
et al., 2017). Furthermore, the classroom-based relevance
Mathematics is a core school domain from preschool to intervention was effective in boosting students’ general
graduation. Although math courses in secondary education homework-related expectancies: In earlier analyses using
can influence students’ later career options (Watt & Eccles, data assessed with student questionnaires, homework self-
2008), several studies confirmed that students consider math efficacy was shown to be positively affected by the quota-
as less useful than other school domains and that the per- tions condition at the posttest and at the follow-up, and by the
ceived utility of math for students’ daily life decreases as text condition at the follow-up (Brisson et al., 2017).
they progress through secondary school (e.g., Gaspard et al., Taken together, the relevance intervention in the MoMa
2017; Jacobs et al., 2002). Therefore, in the MoMa study, intervention led students to considering mathematics as more
Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, et al. (2015) combined the useful and might have made them realize that practicing math
3
Flunger et al.
via homework is relevant. Empirical evidence suggests that found for the posttest and follow-up measures of domain-
motivational support in a domain can promote students’ specific motivation (Brisson et al., 2017; Gaspard, Dicke,
domain-specific motivation but can also translate to the out- Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015), we assumed that the mean
of-school context (i.e., transcontextual effects, Hagger et al., levels of students’ homework motivation and homework
2015), for example, the homework situation (e.g., Hagger behavior would be higher directly after the intervention (i.e.,
et al., 2016; Hagger & Hamilton, 2018). A classroom-based in the first week after the intervention) compared with the
relevance intervention might lead students to invest greater control group. Second, we explored whether the interven-
effort in their homework, which may promote their later tions led to a change in students’ homework motivation and
achievement (Dettmers et al., 2011). Therefore, it is impor- behavior in the subsequent period after the intervention
tant to investigate whether the relevance interventions also (Research Question 2). We expected that the positive effect
promoted students’ homework motivation and behavior of the relevance interventions would remain stable across
shortly after the intervention, and whether homework moti- the further weeks. Finally, we explored whether the effect of
vation or behavior mediated the effects of the relevance inter- the intervention on students’ academic achievement (as
ventions on students’ academic achievement. already established in Brisson et al., 2017) assessed 5 months
after the intervention was mediated by their homework moti-
The Present Study vation or homework behavior (Research Question 3).
We drew on data from a large cluster randomized con-
trolled study (the MoMa study) to investigate whether stu- Method
dents’ homework motivation and homework behavior could
Sample and Procedure
be enhanced through a classroom-based relevance interven-
tion. The present study focused on the short-term changes in The sample from the MoMa study consisted of 1,978 stu-
students’ homework motivation and behavior within the first dents with active parental consent from 82 ninth-grade
4 weeks after receiving a relevance intervention. The short classes in 25 academic track schools (Gaspard et al., 2021).
time frame after receiving an intervention can be considered The study took place in the German state of Baden-
as a critical period, in which students may still process the Württemberg from September 2012 to March 2013. We
new relevance information, which may initiate a chain of included 1,916 students (mean age at the beginning of the
effects (e.g., Goyer et al., 2017), for example, the awareness study = 14.62, agerange = 12.92–16.67 years, 53.5% female
of the usefulness of homework in mathematics may increase adolescents) in the analyses due to the absence of 62 students
and benefit homework-specific value beliefs and behaviors. on the day of the intervention. Because we surveyed students
Through explicitly focusing on the context of the home- from the highest educational track in Germany, our sample is
work situation with a homework diary, new, more situational not representative with respect to parents’ educational level
indicators of students’ motivation and behavior can be in the population of ninth-grade students. More precisely,
explored. Diary methods are optimally suited as an assess- there was a positive selection: 46.6% of mothers and 47.0%
ment method in the conditions that exist when students of fathers held a qualification for higher education (i.e.,
usually do homework because they enable ambulatory obtained the Abitur certificate) compared with 38.3% in the
assessments (Fahrenberg et al., 2007). In order to increase population (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2013). Yet, the sample
ecological validity (e.g., Schmitz & Wiese, 2006), students comprised students with parents from a broad range of edu-
were asked to complete the homework diary immediately cational backgrounds (mean socioeconomic status [SES]/
after they did their homework, as long as they had worked Highest International Social and Economic Index [HISEI]: M
on homework tasks. = 65.33, SD = 16.14). Concerning migration background,
Via latent growth curve analyses, we examined three 22.4% of students came from families with at least one parent
research questions. First, we examined whether the interven- born outside Germany (predominantly Western countries).
tions affected students’ homework motivation and behavior The data of the MoMa study are available upon request at
directly after the intervention (i.e., in the first week after https://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_MoMa_v1.
having received the intervention, Research Question 1). The measures were completed with pen and paper.
Because previous correlational studies had revealed close Students were administered questionnaires by trained
associations of students’ domain-specific motivation with research assistants before the intervention (pretest), an aver-
students’ homework motivation (e.g., Flunger et al., 2017), age of 6 weeks after the intervention (posttest), and an aver-
we expected that both intervention conditions would pro- age of 5 months after the intervention (follow-up). Directly
mote students’ homework motivation (perceived homework after the intervention, students received a homework diary
competence, utility of homework for future life and for which they were expected to complete on those days across
school, homework cost, triggered, and maintained interest) the subsequent 4 weeks on which they worked on math
and homework behavior (homework effort and completion). homework. To motivate the students to keep the homework
Because of the positive effects of the MoMa intervention diaries across the 4 weeks, students participated in a raffle to
4
Promoting Homework Motivation With a Relevance Intervention
win vouchers of up to €50 for an online retailer. Each com- diaries (without reinforcements) at the same time as the
pleted diary page corresponded to a raffle ticket. Given that classes in the intervention conditions. After the follow-up
the majority of students had mathematics classes twice a measurement, students in the control group received the bet-
week, most students received only two homework assign- ter working intervention (i.e., evaluating quotations; see,
ments per week (the range of homework assigned in Week 1 e.g., Brisson et al., 2017).
to Week 4 in the text condition: Mrange = 1.55–1.72; quota-
tions condition: Mrange = 1.33–1.85; control condition: Mrange Reinforcements. In the intervention conditions, the home-
= 1.48–1.95). Students in the participating classes received work diary contained two reinforcements, which were to be
different, but similar homework assignments. Their home- completed on the first day of the second week after the inter-
work referred to solving tasks on exercise sheets, math vention, and on the first day of the third week after the inter-
books, or drawing a graph. The topics they exercised in their vention. Although the reinforcement required only very
homework were, for instance, multiplication and potentia- short answers, few students (232 students in the text condi-
tion, the sentence of Pythagoras, symmetry, or the theorem tion and 143 students in the quotations condition) had com-
of intersecting lines. pleted both reinforcements as intended (for details, see
The teachers (along with their classrooms) had been ran- online Supplemental Material).
domly assigned to one of two intervention conditions or a As a consequence of the small fraction of students who
waiting control group, resulting in the following distribution worked seriously on the two reinforcements and the lack of
of classes: quotations condition: 25 classes; text condition: randomization of the reinforcements, studying the effects of
30 classes; control condition: 27 classes. As nine participat- the reinforcements on students’ homework motivation and
ing teachers had two classes each, and their classes had been behavior is not informative about the processes at play in the
assigned to the same condition, the different conditions had whole sample. Given that we did not identify variations in
unequal numbers of classes. the descriptive data on students’ homework motivation and
behavior after completing the reinforcements in Week 2 and
Intervention Conditions. From October to November 2012, Week 3, we did not analyze the effects of the reinforcements
the intervention was delivered in the two intervention condi- further.
tions by five trained female researchers (Brisson et al., 2017;
Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015). The inter-
Measures
vention encompassed both a psychoeducational presentation
for the whole class and relevance-inducing tasks for students Student Questionnaire (Pretest). Pretest measures were
in a 90-minute lesson. The psychoeducational presentation assessed either as domain-specific or homework-specific
was the same in both intervention conditions and consisted self-reports in math.
of two main parts. First, students received information about
research findings on the importance of effort, interpretations Value beliefs. Utility for future life (e.g., “I will often
of achievement-related experiences, and the impact of need math in my life”; α = .79) and utility for school (e.g.,
frame-of-reference effects on achievement in school class- “Being good at math pays off because it is simply needed
rooms (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2009). Subsequently, students at school;” α = .52) were assessed with two items each
received information about the utility of mathematics for (Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Schreier, et al., 2015). The util-
future education, career opportunities, and leisure time ity of homework was measured with four items (e.g., “The
activities. Next, students in both conditions worked on indi- homework tasks help me to get a better understanding of
vidual tasks that triggered them to reflect on the relevance of the content learned in class,” α = .71), which were adapted
mathematics for their personal lives. In the quotations condi- from Trautwein and Köller (2003). Regarding cost, both
tion, students received six quotations from older students or emotional cost of math and homework-specific cost were
young adults on the personal relevance of mathematics to considered. Emotional cost of math was assessed with four
their lives and were asked to evaluate these quotations (see items (e.g., “When I deal with math, I get annoyed,” α =
Supplemental Material, available in the online version of .87; see Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Schreier, et al., 2015).
this article, and Brisson et al., 2017, for further details). In Homework-specific cost was assessed with four items (e.g.,
the text condition, the task was to make arguments for the “Math homework is a real burden to me,” α = .84), adapted
personal relevance of mathematics to students’ lives (cur- from the scales developed by Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Sch-
rently and in the future) and to write an essay explaining reier, et al. (2015).
these arguments.
Interest and intrinsic value. Both the intrinsic value of
Wait List Control Group. Classes in the wait list control math and math interest were considered. Intrinsic value was
condition followed regular instructions before the last mea- measured with four items (e.g., “I like doing math,” α =
surement at the follow-up. They completed the homework .93; Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Schreier, et al., 2015). Math
5
Flunger et al.
interest was measured with six items (e.g., “I’m interested measures. Single-item measures have been shown to yield
in math,” α = .86), using a scale from Frenzel et al. (2010). valid data (e.g., Gardner et al., 1998) and to have similar
associations with external criteria compared with longer
Homework self-efficacy. Homework self-efficacy was measures (Gogol et al., 2014). Information on the validity
measured with four items (e.g., “When I try hard, I can tests of the diary measures is provided in the online
solve my math homework correctly,” α = .76), which were Supplemental Material.
adapted from Ramm et al. (2006). The math teachers received a one-page questionnaire in
which they were asked to report whether they had assigned
Homework effort. Homework effort was measured with homework and to specify which homework was assigned.
four items (e.g., “I always try to finish my math homework The maximum number of homework assignments per week
completely,” α = .83), adapted from Trautwein and Köller was four. Because students had only a few math classes per
(2003). week, they were able to decide on which day they worked on
their math class and the specific days could vary within
Family background. We measured migration back- classroom. To consider deviations in students’ homework
ground, 0 (none) and 1 (immigration) if at least one parent completion from the days when they were given homework
had immigrated from another country. Moreover, we used and the resulting missing data, the daily responses during the
the HISEI indicator, which considers several aspects of par- 4 weeks were aggregated into four weekly measures. At the
ent’s socioeconomic position, namely parents’ occupation, end of each week, the teachers collected the homework dia-
income, and education, as an index of SES. The HISEI refers ries in closed envelopes.
to the status of the occupation and indicates parents’ socio-
economic position within the societal hierarchy. Homework-specific utility value. We measured the per-
ceived utility of homework for future life (“What I worked
Academic achievement. At the beginning of Grade 9, on today in my math homework can be of great value to me
the students participated in a curriculum-based standard- later on”) and utility of homework for school (“The math
ized math test in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, homework helped me get a better understanding of the mate-
assessing students’ math proficiency concerning numbers rial”) with one item each adapted from the scales for math-
and algorithms, space and shapes, linking and modeling. specific utility value beliefs by Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger,
At the follow-up, a 3-minute normed speed test was imple- Schreier, et al. (2015).
mented, which assessed students’ fluency of solving typical
mathematical operations. The validity of the speed test has Homework-specific situational interest. Triggered situ-
been confirmed in earlier studies revealing substantial corre- ational interest was measured with the item “I had fun doing
lations with standardized, curriculum-based math tests (e.g., my math homework,” which was adapted from Pekrun et al.
Schmidt et al., 2013). The reliability of the test was good (2002). Maintained situational interest was measured with
(Cronbach’s α = .89). the item “By doing today’s homework, I got interested in
learning more about this topic,” which was adapted from
Homework Diary Measures. The homework diary entailed Lewalter and Willems (2009).
seven assessments for 4 weeks. The assessment consisted of
a one-page questionnaire with a total of 12 items that were Homework-specific cost. Homework-specific cost was
identical each day (see Figure 2). First, students were ques- assessed with the item “When dealing with my math home-
tioned about their math homework (i.e., “Did you receive work, I got very annoyed,” which was adapted from the
new math homework today?” “Did you work on math home- emotional cost scale developed by Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger,
work today?” “Did you save parts of your homework for Schreier, et al. (2015).
another day?”) with a nominal response format (yes/no).
In case students had worked on math homework, they Homework-specific competence beliefs. Perceived
were asked to complete measures on their homework moti- homework competence was measured with the item “It was
vation and effort immediately after doing homework (simi- hard for me to solve all tasks correctly today,” which was
lar to the experience-sampling method but without a adapted from the Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh,
reminder). To this end, eight items with a 4-point Likert-type 1990).
scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely
agree) were used (see below for details). The negatively Homework effort. Homework effort was measured with
worded items were recoded for ease of interpretation. The the two items “Today, I diligently worked on each home-
measures of the homework diary were assessed with one to work task” and “Today, I did not take the homework tasks
two items, referring to the homework task on the respective seriously,” which were adapted from Trautwein and Köller
day, which we selected and adapted from the pretest (2003). The reliabilities of the generated homework effort
6
Figure 2. Example of the daily measurement (translated).
7
Flunger et al.
scale were satisfactory (αΤ1 = .74; αΤ2 = .77; αΤ3 = .78; comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of
αΤ4 = .81) approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR).
Homework completion. We created an index on the The intervention effects were estimated with multiple-indi-
relative amount of the homework completed by individual cator multiple-cause (MIMIC, e.g., Jöreskog & Goldberger,
students in each week (for more details, see online Supple- 1975) models. In eight MIMIC models, multiple indicators
mental Material). A student’s report on completed home- (i.e., the observed weekly homework diary indicators across
work was divided by the amount of homework assigned by the four measurement occasions) were modelled to reflect the
the teacher in the respective week to calculate the relative two latent intercept and slope factors of each respective home-
amount of completed homework. work outcome (see Figure 3). The latent factors were regressed
on the intervention conditions and covariates. Research
Question 1 was assessed by evaluating the effects of the text
Statistical Analyses
and quotations conditions on the latent intercept factors.
Latent Growth Curve Analyses. Via latent growth curve anal- Research Question 2 was assessed by evaluating the effects of
yses, we examined whether the intervention had effects on the text and quotations conditions on the latent growth
students’ homework motivation and behavior. The nesting of factors.
students in classes was considered via a design-based correc- To yield intervention effects that were as precise as pos-
tion of standard errors with the analysis option type is complex sible (Raudenbush, 1997), the models included the respec-
in Mplus 8.5 (L. K. Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). tive math-specific measure, homework-specific utility value,
First, we modeled eight unconditional growth models and, if available, a homework-specific indicator assessed at
without predictors to evaluate the model fit and the variabil- the pretest as covariates. Because gender differences have
ity in change in students’ homework motivation and behav- been found for both homework effort and homework moti-
ior. In the latent growth model, a growth process is assumed vation (see, e.g., Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2009), gender also
to underlie students’ levels across the weekly measures of was included as covariate. Given that several studies
homework motivation and behavior (see Table 1). This revealed that students’ study behaviors can be conditional on
growth process is reflected by two underlying latent factors: their family background (e.g., students with higher SES tend
the latent intercept and latent slope factor (see Figure 3). to show higher effort than students with lower SES; Kuehn
Latent growth curve models enable to disentangle effects at & Landeras, 2014; Lasso De La Vega et al., 2020), students’
the first measurement, directly after the intervention, and the migration background and parents’ SES were included as
change across time. The latent intercept factor reflects stu- further covariates. All continuous pretest measures were
dents’ mean level in a specific homework variable and its z-standardized prior to the analyses.
variance in the first week. The latent slope factor represents To obtain effect sizes, we used the Glass estimator
the change over time and the variance thereof. We fitted lin- (Hedges, 1981). That is, the raw coefficients of the interven-
ear as well as nonlinear shape functions (Sterba, 2014) to tion effects were divided by the standard deviation of the
explore which type of trajectory was most appropriate for outcome measures in the control group at Week 1, and thus
the homework diary data. The four time-specific factor load- represent the adjusted differences between the intervention
ings of the latent intercept factor were fixed to 1. Concerning conditions and the control condition.
the linear growth curve, as depicted in Figure 3, the mea-
surement paths of the growth factors were constrained to Equality constraints. The correlations of the auxiliaries
reflect the linear time trend: the factor loadings of the latent with the covariates and the indicators of the latent factors
growth factor were fixed to 0 at Week 1, 1 at Week 2, 2 at were constrained to be equal across time. An annotated
Week 3, and 3 at Week 4. The means of the linear latent example input can be found in the online Supplemental
growth factors indicate the amount of predicted change, Material.
referring to a 1-unit change on the specified time scale.
Regarding the nonlinear shape functions, the measurement Missing data. Because the homework diary was not
paths at Weeks 2 and 3 were allowed to be estimated freely, consistently completed by all students or because of non-
while the first measurement path (fixed to 0) and the fourth responses to single items, missing data ranged from 24.1%
measurement path (fixed to 3) were chosen as anchor load- to 63.4% for the homework diary measures (see Table 1).
ings. Therefore, the nonlinear growth factors in these models All models were estimated using full information maxi-
indicate a change proportional to the anchor loadings, and mum likelihood estimation, which has been shown to pro-
the means of the nonlinear growth factors represent the vide valid estimates for structural equation models under
change from the first week to the last week divided by three, the missing at random assumption (e.g., Enders, 2010). We
which corresponds to the average change per week over the had tested whether missing data were conditional on pre-
3 weeks. Model fit was evaluated by considering the test variables and further potential correlates of missingness
8
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Homework Diary Measures in the Three Conditions
Triggered interest Week 1 374 2.23 0.91 456 2.33 0.88 379 2.16 0.83
Week 2 271 2.35 0.92 354 2.36 0.90 361 2.13 0.88
Week 3 227 2.24 0.96 292 2.25 0.89 314 2.21 0.93
Week 4 207 2.23 0.91 288 2.30 0.89 268 2.26 0.89
Maintained interest Week 1 370 1.91 0.82 440 1.86 0.74 375 1.80 0.68
Week 2 273 1.93 0.86 334 1.94 0.81 360 1.75 0.73
Week 3 228 1.89 0.83 270 1.85 0.78 313 1.85 0.79
Week 4 206 1.91 0.85 267 1.90 0.82 266 1.89 0.82
Utility of homework for school Week 1 371 2.75 0.83 453 2.67 0.89 377 2.75 0.77
Week 2 270 2.87 0.86 355 2.74 0.85 361 2.62 0.84
Week 3 229 2.71 0.83 291 2.71 0.85 313 2.64 0.87
Week 4 208 2.80 0.83 286 2.75 0.89 267 2.64 0.86
Utility of homework for future life Week 1 374 2.42 0.86 453 2.26 0.79 379 2.28 0.81
Week 2 268 2.48 0.85 353 2.35 0.83 360 2.23 0.85
Week 3 225 2.42 0.87 287 2.36 0.79 311 2.35 0.88
Week 4 206 2.46 0.89 286 2.35 0.84 266 2.44 0.84
Homework competence Week 1 349 3.20 0.74 435 3.20 0.70 365 3.07 0.71
Week 2 254 3.20 0.69 342 3.22 0.73 337 3.12 0.68
Week 3 204 3.25 0.66 275 3.21 0.70 290 3.17 0.73
Week 4 196 3.23 0.72 274 3.23 0.69 248 3.19 0.72
Homework cost Week 1 374 1.84 0.85 453 1.77 0.80 377 1.94 0.84
Week 2 270 1.87 0.88 352 1.81 0.86 361 2.06 0.88
Week 3 230 1.96 0.93 290 1.90 0.87 314 2.00 0.90
Week 4 207 1.88 0.92 284 1.84 0.84 266 1.98 0.91
Homework effort Week 1 376 3.32 0.69 456 3.29 0.62 380 3.20 0.69
Week 2 272 3.29 0.68 357 3.26 0.69 364 3.20 0.72
Week 3 229 3.21 0.73 292 3.18 0.75 314 3.20 0.75
Week 4 208 3.26 0.73 289 3.22 0.71 268 3.21 0.75
Homework completed (%) Week 1 469 0.89 0.27 536 0.79 0.34 450 0.88 0.27
Week 2 380 0.81 0.33 478 0.75 0.38 399 0.72 0.36
Week 3 280 0.62 0.39 365 0.64 0.42 380 0.75 0.37
Week 4 209 0.64 0.39 370 0.74 0.40 275 0.60 0.41
(following Collins et al., 2001, see online Supplemental Mediational Analyses. A precondition of mediation is that
Material). Lower scores on many variables were found for the effects of the independent variable on the mediator are
students with missing data compared with students with significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We examined mediation
observed data. Therefore, we assumed that the data were in case we found a statistically significant intervention effect
missing at random. on students’ homework motivation or behavior. We specified
To substantiate the missing at random assumption, auxil- latent growth curve models for the homework-specific vari-
iary variables (i.e., variables that are associated with the ables in which we considered academic achievement as an
missingness or the variable with missing data; Schafer, outcome and entered the two intervention conditions as pre-
1997) can be used. We incorporated four auxiliary variables dictors of the latent intercept and slope factors of the home-
via saturated correlates models (“spider” models; Graham, work variables as well as students’ math test score. In
2003, see online Supplemental Material), to improve the separate models, we estimated the indirect effects of the
chances to satisfy the missing at random assumption (fol- intervention on academic achievement at the follow-up
lowing Enders, 2010) and to reduce estimation bias due to through the latent intercept factors of a homework-specific
missingness (e.g., Collins et al., 2001). variable, implementing the default in Mplus, with the model
9
functions in the analyses for these two homework variables.
For the other six outcomes, we continued with the linear
latent growth curve, given that there was no significant
improvement by a nonlinear model.
The means of the latent intercept factors indicate the level
of students’ homework measures and the variances reflect
students’ individual differences in the first week after the
intervention (T1). The means of the linear latent growth fac-
tors indicate the amount of predicted change, referring to a
1-unit change on the specified time scale. Concerning the
nonlinear latent growth curves for maintained interest and
homework cost, the means of the nonlinear latent growth
factors indicate the average change from the first week to the
last week divided by three (i.e., the average change per
week).
The parameter estimates in Table 3 show that the means
and variances of the latent intercept factors were statistically
significant. The means of the latent growth factors were sig-
nificant for three measures. Students’ homework effort and
completion decreased over time on average, whereas home-
Figure 3. MIMIC (multiple-indicator multiple-cause) model
work cost increased across the 4 weeks on average.
with latent intercept and latent slope factor.
Note. Effects of covariates are not depicted. The model also incorporated Regarding the other homework measures, on average, there
auxiliary variables, which were correlated with the dummy variables indi- was only slight change over time.
cating the two intervention conditions, the covariates, and the residuals of
the indicator variables for the latent intercept and latent slope factors (i.e.,
the weekly homework diary measures). Intervention Effects on Students’ Homework Motivation
and Behavior
ind command, which uses the Delta method (e.g., MacKin- To investigate the intervention effects, we estimated
non et al., 2002). Using a bootstrap estimation approach with MIMIC models with covariates separately for each con-
10.000 samples, confidence intervals and standard errors for struct, which yielded an acceptable fit regarding all out-
the indirect effect were estimated. Furthermore, the curricu- comes (CFIrange = 0.989–1.000; RMSEArange = .000–.021;
lum-based standardized math test conducted at the pretest SRMRrange = .014–.019). The effects of the covariates on the
was specified as predictor of the math test score to control latent intercept and latent growth factors of all outcomes are
for potential pretest differences. reported in Table 4, the effect sizes are shown in Table 5.
10
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables in the Three Conditions
Variables N M SD N M SD N M SD
Pretest
Intrinsic value 515 2.31 0.84 675 2.29 0.86 602 2.18 0.84
Interest 514 1.95 0.63 673 1.95 0.61 606 1.87 0.61
General utility for future life 505 2.74 0.74 665 2.69 0.72 599 2.70 0.76
Utility for school 513 3.13 0.58 672 3.10 0.60 603 3.13 0.58
Emotional cost 517 1.98 0.77 675 2.02 0.80 605 2.05 0.77
Homework utility 451 2.69 0.60 626 2.62 0.61 539 2.70 0.59
Homework self-efficacy 427 2.80 0.62 599 2.72 0.62 514 2.71 0.65
Homework cost 451 2.36 0.74 626 2.42 0.81 538 2.52 0.76
Homework effort 443 2.94 0.69 616 2.96 0.66 527 2.99 0.65
HISEI 456 65.37 15.45 552 65.81 15.92 483 64.47 16.29
Follow-up
Test score 516 32.59 7.51 634 31.85 8.55 559 30.74 8.24
Note. In a randomization check on mean differences between the two intervention groups and the control group in the pretest measures, only homework
cost did not demonstrate balance (for further information, see online Supplemental Material); HISEI = Highest International Social and Economic Index.
Table 3
Parameter Estimates and Model Fit Statistics From Latent Growth Curve Models of the Homework Diary Measures
Note. The unconditional latent growth curve models were estimated with auxiliary variables, N = 1,916. Intercept loadings across Week 1 to Week 4 =
1; slope loadings for Week 1 = 0, Week 2 = 1, Week 3 = 2, Week 4 = 3. For maintained homework interest and homework cost, shape functions were
estimated for the latent growth factors; the slope loadings of Week 2 and Week 3 were freely estimated (slope loadings for Week 1 = 0, Week 4 = 3). s2 =
variance; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00.
homework cost. There were no statistically significant dif- statistically significantly lower levels on the latent intercept
ferences between the study conditions regarding maintained factor of homework completion than students in the control
interest, utility of homework for school, and homework condition (b = −0.09; p = .039; ES = −0.33).
competence.
Regarding homework behavior, students in the quota- Intervention Effects Across Time (Research Question 2). To
tions condition reported statistically significantly higher examine whether the interventions affected the change in
values on the latent intercept of homework effort than stu- students’ homework motivation and behavior across the 4
dents in the control condition (b = 0.13; p = .014; ES = weeks after the intervention (Research Question 2), we
0.19). Moreover, students in the text condition reported inspected the intervention effects on the latent growth
11
Table 4
Effects of the Relevance Interventions and Covariates on the Latent Intercept and Slope Factors of Students’ Homework Motivation
Predictors b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
Intervention
Text 0.15* 0.07 −0.05 0.03 −0.00 0.11 0.02 0.04 −0.01 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 −0.03 0.03
Quotations 0.09 0.08 −0.03 0.03 0.08 0.13 −0.00 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.17** 0.07 −0.05 0.04
Pretest variables
Gender −0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 −0.01 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.04 −0.03 0.02 −0.04 0.05 0.05* 0.02
Interest 0.20*** 0.03 −0.02 0.02 0.19** 0.05 0.00 0.02
Intrinsic value 0.24*** 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.11*** 0.04 −0.01 0.01
Utility of homework 0.09** 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.12*** 0.03 −0.01 0.01 0.17*** 0.02 −0.01 0.01 0.09*** 0.02 0.01 0.01
Utility for school 0.06*** 0.02 0.02† 0.01
Utility for future life 0.20*** 0.03 0.00 0.01
Immigration status −0.06 0.05 0.05† 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.05 −0.02 0.05 −0.01 0.03 −0.06 0.06 0.01 0.03
HISEI −0.05† 0.02 0.01 0.01 −0.04† 0.03 0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 −0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01
Note. Students’ end-of-year math grade in Grade 8, scores on a standardized math achievement test, conscientiousness, and homework effort were incorporated into the models as
auxiliary variables. Significant effects associated with the relevance interventions are presented in boldface. b = unstandardized regression coefficient; Gender: 0 = female, 1 =
male; Immigration status: 0 (none), 1 (immigration); HISEI = Highest International Social and Economic Index.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed p values).
Effects of the Relevance Interventions and Covariates on the Latent Intercept and Slope Factors of Students’ Homework Motivation and Behavior
Competence Cost Homework effort Homework completion
Predictors b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
t
Text 0.12 0.07 −0.03 0.03 −0.16 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.06 −0.03 0.03 −0.09* 0.04 0.05* 0.03
Quotations 0.11 0.08 −0.03 0.03 −0.10 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.13* 0.05 −0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 −0.02 0.03
Gender 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.05 −0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 −0.02 0.02 −0.04 0.02 −0.00 0.01
Utility of homework −0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 −0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 −0.00 0.01 −0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Self-efficacy 0.19*** 0.02 −0.01 0.01
Emotional cost 0.10** 0.04 0.00 0.01
Homework cost 0.27*** 0.04 −0.01 0.01
Homework effort 0.26*** 0.02 −0.00 0.01 0.04*** 0.01 0.01 0.01
Immigration status −0.07 0.05 0.05† 0.03 0.03 0.05 −0.01 0.02 −0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 −0.01 0.01
HISEI −0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.02 0.02* 0.01 −0.00 0.01 −0.00 0.01
Note. Students’ end-of-year math grade in Grade 8, scores on a standardized math achievement test, conscientiousness, and homework effort were incorporated into the models
predicting homework competence and homework cost as auxiliary variables. In the models predicting homework effort and homework completion, homework effort was included
as a covariate, and homework persistence served as the fourth auxiliary variable. Significant effects associated with the relevance interventions are presented in boldface. b =
unstandardized regression coefficient; Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male; Immigration status: 0 (none), 1 (immigration); HISEI = Highest International Social and Economic Index.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed p values).
factors. The different trajectories for each outcome are the quotations and text condition reported similar levels of
shown in Figure 4. The expected stability in the intervention triggered and maintained interest, utility of homework for
effects over time was not confirmed. Although the different future life, and homework competence over time, while stu-
trajectories seem to show differences between the slopes in dents in the control group exhibited an increase in these
the distinct conditions, most of these differences were not measures across the 4 weeks (see also Table 1 on the descrip-
statistically significant and an inspection of the trend sug- tive statistics of the weekly homework measures). Students’
gests that the differences between the two intervention con- homework effort seemed to decrease in all study conditions.
ditions and the control condition became smaller over time. One statistically significant effect was found for homework
More specifically, the trajectories suggest that students in completion: The amount of homework completed decreased
12
Table 5
Effect Sizes of Intervention Effects
Effects on latent intercept Effects on latent slope Effects on latent intercept Effects on latent slope
HW variables ES ES ES ES
Note. Significant effects are presented in bold. HW = homework; ES = effect size measure (Glass estimator).
in all three conditions over time, but the decrease in the text motivation and behavior and ultimately students’ academic
condition was statistically significantly slower than the achievement. The results showed that students in the text
decrease in the control condition (b = 0.05; p = .039; ES = condition reported higher triggered interest and lower home-
0.19). work cost but lower homework completion than students in
the control condition in the first week after the intervention.
Mediation of Intervention Effects on Academic Achievement Students in the quotations condition conveyed higher utility
Through Homework (Research Question 3) of homework for future life, and higher homework effort in
the first week after the intervention. There was no further
To investigate whether students’ homework motivation or increase in students’ homework motivation and behavior
homework behavior mediated the effect of the relevance over the course of the 4 weeks but inspections of the trajec-
interventions on students’ academic achievement (Research tories over time suggest that in the intervention conditions,
Question 3), we considered the homework-specific variables homework motivation remained fairly stable, while students
for which we had found statistically significant intervention in the control condition exhibited an increase in homework
effects when analyzing Research Questions 1 and 2. We esti- motivation across time. Concerning homework behavior, the
mated four distinct analyses for homework-specific trig- trajectories suggested a decrease in homework effort and
gered interest, utility for future life, homework effort, and homework completion in all study conditions.
homework completion (evaluating indirect effects via the The effect sizes ranged from d = 0.18 to d = 0.21 for the
latent intercept factors) as potential mediating variables. indicators of homework motivation. Regarding homework
We did not reveal statistically significant indirect effects behavior, the effect sizes ranged from d = −0.33 to d = 0.19.
of the text condition on students’ academic achievement at Considering conventional standards (Cohen, 1988) and edu-
the follow-up through the latent intercept factors of the cational benchmarks proposed for randomized field trials
homework diary measures (triggered interest: b = 0.01; p = (Kraft, 2020; Yeager et al., 2019), the effects of the relevance
.472, 95% CI [−0.012, 0.025], homework completion: b = interventions on students’ homework-specific outcomes can
−0.02; p = .953, 95% CI [−0.448, 0.077]). Moreover, we did be interpreted as small to medium. However, the interven-
not find statistically significant indirect effects of the quota- tion was delivered in one 90-minute session in the class-
tions condition on students’ academic achievement at the room, with two small reinforcements. Thus, our study is one
follow-up through the latent intercept factors of the home- of the first to show that minimal classroom-based relevance
work diary measures (utility for future life: b = −0.02; p = interventions can extend to positive effects on students’
.223, 95% CI [−0.067, 0.002], and homework effort: b = interest and utility beliefs in learning situations outside the
−0.01; p = .606, 95% CI [−0.067, 0.019]). classroom.
13
14
Figure 4. Trajectories of students’ homework motivation and behavior in the three study conditions.
Note. Growth curve plots of students’ homework motivation and behavior. The y-axis depicts the adjusted means of the homework-specific outcome measure, on a scale from 1 to 4 (for homework comple-
tion from 0 to 1). The x-axis reflects the time-points, and the slope shows the rate of change across the 4 weeks. Each line represents the average growth trajectory in a study condition. Shades of gray
represent the sampling error estimates.
Promoting Homework Motivation With a Relevance Intervention
motivation and was primarily effective in promoting math- compared with other learning activities (e.g., Dettmers et al.,
specific utility values (Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, 2011). Moreover, low homework motivation has been found
et al., 2015), which can also be observed regarding students’ to be associated with undesirable effects, such as homework
homework-specific outcomes. The effects of the relevance procrastination (Katz et al., 2014) and low homework effort
intervention were found for interest in the homework tasks (e.g., Flunger et al., 2017), which can negatively affect stu-
and the utility associated with the gain in mathematical dents’ academic achievement (Dettmers et al., 2010).
knowledge that comes from doing homework. Prior experi- Our study revealed many null results, and the effects of
mental studies have indicated that interest and utility are the relevance interventions on students’ academic achieve-
closely related: Relevance interventions have been found to ment were not mediated by students’ homework motivation
promote situational interest in a task (e.g., Durik et al., 2015). and behavior. These null results can be meaningful in several
Working with quotations from young adults who offered new respects (Jacob et al., 2019). A classroom-based motivation
information about the utility of mathematics in the future intervention might have greater proximity to domain-spe-
might have created a different perspective on the meaningful- cific outcomes than to homework motivation and behavior,
ness of mathematical knowledge for students’ lives (see for which its impact might be smaller. The homework situa-
Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015). tion is likely to be sensitive to contextual factors, which can
Furthermore, we found positive effects of the quotations weaken the effect of a classroom-based intervention.
condition on students’ homework effort in the first week Students can decide on the time they begin and end home-
after the intervention. According to expectancy-value the- work, the resources and strategies they use (e.g., Xu, 2010)
ory, utility value can be expected to be a driving factor of the and the study environment. Moreover, students’ homework
effort that students put toward a given task (Wigfield & motivation and behavior can be influenced by the homework
Eccles, 2002). In the present study, we found that the previ- assignment itself (e.g., the interestingness of the material),
ously identified positive effects on effort during math les- and teachers’ homework objectives and implementation
sons (see Brisson et al., 2017) extended to situations outside practices (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2009). Particularly, if teach-
the classroom: Students who worked on quotations about the ers do not see homework as a means to promote academic
utility of math put more effort into their math-related home- achievement, or do not control students’ homework regu-
work activities compared with students who did not receive larly in class, this could lead to disengagement in homework
information about the utility of math. (e.g., Flunger et al., 2021), and may reduce the impact of
Concerning the effects of the text condition, a positive homework on students’ academic achievement. Ultimately,
effect was found on students’ triggered interest and negative this might undermine the effects of a motivation intervention
effects were found on homework cost and homework com- on students’ homework behavior, and impede the mediation
pletion in the first week after the intervention. The negative of the effects of motivational interventions on students’ aca-
effect on homework behavior contradicts interest theory demic achievement via homework motivation or behavior.
(e.g., Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000), which would suggest that However, if a motivation intervention could foster students’
situational interest is accompanied by increased engage- homework motivation and behavior, the positive effects of a
ment. Nevertheless, regarding the development of home- motivation intervention on students’ academic achievement
work completion across the 4 weeks, homework completion might be (even) greater.
decreased in all conditions. The positive effect of the text Therefore, further research is needed to investigate how
condition on the latent slope of homework completion homework motivation and behavior can be promoted in a
showed that the decrease in the text condition was slower more sustained way. Cooper et al. (2012) pointed to a num-
than the decrease observed in the quotations and control ber of factors that could help improve the homework situa-
conditions. Hagger et al. (2015) found that students’ home- tion, such as demographic factors, assignment characteristics,
work-specific intrinsic motivation predicted their intentions classroom follow-up strategies or home–community factors.
to do mathematics homework. Accordingly, this finding Moreover, (perceived) competence in the homework situa-
could suggest that the increase in triggered situational inter- tion has been shown to be malleable through autonomy (e.g.,
est directly after the intervention buffered students in the text doing homework without help, Fernández-Alonso et al.,
condition from becoming behaviorally disengaged over 2015), or the provision of choices by teachers (e.g., Patall
time, compared with students in the quotations and control et al., 2010). Through testing combinations of various
condition. approaches, homework research could get an idea about
which method works best in the homework situation.
Further open research questions refer to how motiva-
Implications for Homework Research
tional interventions affect day-to-day fluctuations in stu-
Clearly, homework motivation and behavior is in need for dents’ homework motivation and behavior across domains.
improvement: Many students show lower enjoyment and Students need to navigate their homework in different sub-
higher boredom and frustration regarding homework jects. Completing only part of the math homework could be
15
Flunger et al.
attributable to students’ overall time resources that day con- of students’ homework motivation and behavior, a method
sidering homework in all school domains, or by contrast to that can be considered to have high ecological validity (e.g.,
low interest in that specific assignment. Side effects of the Fahrenberg et al., 2007). Second, the study followed stu-
relevance interventions were revealed concerning negative dents’ trajectories in homework motivation and behavior,
effects on the general value of German 5 months after the relying on a considerably large sample of students across a
intervention (Gaspard et al., 2016). To investigate spillover 4-week period. Third, the study yielded new findings on the
effects, future research should study the homework behavior practical significance of relevance interventions for a diverse
in distinct domains, for example, in order to identify whether set of outcomes in a real-world setting and provided evi-
students invest less effort in their homework in verbal dence for the generalizability of the effects of relevance
domains, after they received a relevance intervention in a interventions for students’ homework motivation.
STEM-related domain.
Acknowledgments
Limitations This research was funded in part by German Research Foundation
Grant TR 553/7-1 awarded to Ulrich Trautwein, Oliver Lüdtke,
Although our results were in line with the assumptions and Benjamin Nagengast and by German Research Foundation
derived from expectancy-value theory and empirical evi- Grant FL 867/1-1 awarded to Barbara Flunger, Ulrich Trautwein,
dence from homework research, this study has several limi- Oliver Lüdtke, and Benjamin Nagengast. Brigitte M. Brisson,
tations that need to be kept in mind. First, the relevance Isabelle Häfner, and Hanna Gaspard were members of the
intervention in the MoMa study was designed specifically Cooperative Research Training Group of the University of
for the domain of math and ninth-grade students. In order to Education, Ludwigsburg, and the University of Tübingen, which
explore whether a classroom-based relevance intervention is was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts
effective in further domains and for other target groups, the in Baden-Württemberg. This research was supported as part of the
LEAD Graduate School & Research Network [GSC1028], a proj-
relevance intervention needs to be adapted to students’ age
ect of the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state
group and the domain under study. Second, although the governments, and by the Postdoc Academy of the Hector Research
sample size was carefully selected based on a power analysis Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, Tübingen, funded
for a cluster randomized trial with a classroom-based inter- by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Education and
vention (Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Brisson, et al., 2015), we the Arts. We are also indebted to the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung
had not determined the power and sample size necessary for for the financial support of this research project by the
identifying indirect effects, which consequently can be Eliteprogramme for Postdocs. We thank Katharina Allgaier and
underpowered. Third, our study relied on different sources Evelin Herbein for their help in conducting this research. The data
of retrospective and ambulatory self-reports as we used a for this article are available upon request at https://doi.org/10.5159/
student questionnaire prior to the intervention and a student IQB_MoMa_v1.
diary. Future intervention research could benefit from digital
tools that enable researchers to assess students’ behavior ORCID iDs
more directly, such as the online tool ASSISTments (e.g., Barbara Flunger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8111-1228
Roschelle et al., 2016). Digital tools also offer opportunities Cora Parrisius https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1277-6028
for manipulating contextual factors in intervention studies
Benjamin Nagengast https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9868-8322
(Roschelle et al., 2016). Fourth, in homework research,
Ulrich Trautwein https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0647-0057
attainment value is typically not assessed. For example,
Warton (2001) summarized: “attainment value (. . .) has not
References
been considered with regard to homework. Ungraded home-
work in particular gives little opportunity for the student to Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–medi-
assess task-attainment value” (p. 160). Future research ator variable distinction in social psychological research:
should assess how doing homework offers students opportu- Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://
nities to deal with identity-related questions, such as con-
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
firming aspects of the self. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007).
Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an
Conclusion adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention.
Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/
The current research showed that classroom-based rele- j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
vance interventions can have effects in real-life settings out- Brisson, B. M., Dicke, A.-L., Gaspard, H., Häfner, I., Flunger,
side the school context, when students are working on their B., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2017). Short inter-
homework. The study is characterized by a number of vention, lasting effects: Promoting students’ competence
strengths. First, the study capitalized on diary measurements beliefs, effort, and achievement in mathematics. American
16
Promoting Homework Motivation With a Relevance Intervention
Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1048–1078. https://doi. Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A.,
org/10.3102/0002831217716084 & Schnyder, I. (2017). A person-centered approach to home-
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci- work behavior: Students’ characteristics predict their home-
ences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. work learning type. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison 48, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.07.002
of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A.,
procedures. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 330–351. https://doi. & Schnyder, I. (2021). Using multilevel mixture models in
org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330 educational research: An illustration with homework research.
Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Journal of Experimental Education, 89(1), 209–236. https://doi.
Leadership, 47(3), 85–91. org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1652137
Cooper, H., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Dent, A. L. (2012). Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. M. (2010).
Homework. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. G. Bus, Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences
S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), APA educational psychol- of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on
ogy handbook, Vol. 3: Application to learning and teaching Adolescence, 20(2), 507–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
(pp. 475–495). American Psychological Association. https:// 7795.2010.00645.x
doi.org/10.1037/13275-019 Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales:
& Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological
mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and Measurement, 58(6), 898–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131
achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64498058006003
36(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001 Gaspard, H., Brisson, B., Häfner, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger,
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M., & Baumert, B., Parrisius, C., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2021).
J. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: Using Motivationsförderung im Mathematikunterricht (MoMa)
multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement [Promoting motivation in mathematics lessons (MoMa)]
in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), (Version 1) [Data]. IQB–Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im
467–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453 Bildungswesen. https://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_MoMa_v1
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Brisson, B. M., Häfner, I.,
different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2015). Fostering adolescents’
of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational value beliefs for mathematics with a relevance intervention in
Psychology, 99(3), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- the classroom. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1226–1240.
0663.99.3.597 https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000028
Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Häfner, I., Brisson, B. M.,
Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I can’t? Success expec- Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2016). Side effects of motiva-
tancies moderate the effects of utility value information tional interventions? Effects of an intervention in math class-
on situational interest and performance. Motivation and rooms on motivation in verbal domains. AERA Open, 2(2),
Emotion, 39(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031- https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416649168
014-9419-0 Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Schreier, B., Häfner, I.,
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2015). More value through
M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values greater differentiation: Gender differences in value beliefs
and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 663–
achievement motives (pp. 74–146). W. H. Freeman. 677. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000003
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, Gaspard, H., Häfner, I., Parrisius, C., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast,
and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https:// B. (2017). Assessing task values in five subjects during second-
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 ary school: Measurement structure and mean level differences
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford across grade level, gender, and academic subject. Contemporary
Press. Educational Psychology, 48, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fahrenberg, J., Myrtek, M., Pawlik, K., & Perrez, M. (2007). cedpsych.2016.09.003
Ambulatory assessment-monitoring behavior in daily life set- Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U.,
tings. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(4), Fischbach, A., & Preckel, F. (2014). “My questionnaire is too
206–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.206 long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with
Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., & Fan, X. (2017). Homework and three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational
students’ achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta- Psychology, 39(3), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced-
analysis, 1986–2015. Educational Research Review, 20, 35–54. psych.2014.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003 Goyer, J. P., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Binning, K. R., Cook,
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2015). J. E., Reeves, S. L., Apfel, N., Taborsky-Barba, S., Sherman, D.
Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and K., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Self-affirmation facilitates minority
science: Personal factors and teaching practices. Journal of middle schoolers’ progress along college trajectories. Proceedings
Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1075–1085. https://doi. of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(29), 7594–7599. https://
org/10.1037/edu0000032 doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617923114
17
Flunger et al.
Graham, J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant vari- Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield,
ables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values:
Equation Modeling, 10(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/ Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve.
S15328007SEM1001_4 Child Development, 73(2), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Hagger, M. S., & Hamilton, K. (2018). Motivational predictors of 1467-8624.00421
students’ participation in out-of-school learning activities and Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a
academic attainment in science: An application of the trans- model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single
contextual model using Bayesian path analysis. Learning and latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
Individual Differences, 67, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 70(351), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1975.104
lindif.2018.09.002 82485
Hagger, M. S., Sultan, S., Hardcastle, S. J., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. Katz, I., Eilot, K., & Nevo, N. (2014). “I’ll do it later”: Type of moti-
(2015). Perceived autonomy support and autonomous motiva- vation, self-efficacy and homework procrastination. Motivation
tion toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of- and Emotion, 38(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-
school contexts is related to mathematics homework behavior 013-9366-1
and attainment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education inter-
111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.002 ventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.
Hagger, M. S., Sultan, S., Hardcastle, S. J., Reeve, J., Patall, E. org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
A., Fraser, B., Hamilton, K., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2016). Kuehn, Z., & Landeras, P. (2014). The effect of family background
Applying the integrated trans-contextual model to math- on student effort. BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,
ematics activities in the classroom and homework behavior 4(4), 1337–1403. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48950/
and attainment. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, Lasso De La Vega, C., Lekuona, A., & Orbe, S. (2020). Reexamining
166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.017 the inequality of opportunity in education in some European
Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. countries. Applied Economics Letters, 27(7), 544–548. https://
(2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathemat- doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2019.1638495
ics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value inter- Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation inter-
vention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906. https://doi. ventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of
org/10.1177/0956797611435530 Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/
Haynes, T. L., Ruthig, J. C., Perry, R. P., Stupnisky, R. H., & Hall, 0034654315617832
N. C. (2006). Reducing the academic risks of over-optimism: Lewalter, D., & Willems, A. S. (2009). Die Bedeutung des motiva-
The longitudinal effects of attributional retraining on cognition tionsrelevanten Erlebens und des individuellen Fachinteresses
and achievement. Research in Higher Education, 47(7), Article für das situationale Interesse im Mathematikunterricht [The pre-
755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9014-7 dictive effect of basic need satisfaction and individual subject
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s esti- interest on situational interest in the mathematics classroom].
mator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 56(4), 243–257.
Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Perez, T., Barger, M. M., Wormington,
10769986006002107 S. V., Godin, E., Snyder, K. E., Robinson, K., Sarkar, A.,
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the aca- Richman, L. S., & Schwartz-Bloom, R. (2018). Repairing
demically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. the leaky pipeline: A motivationally supportive intervention
Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179. https://doi. to enhance persistence in undergraduate science pathways.
org/10.3102/00346543070002151 Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 181–195. https://
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of inter- doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.03.001
est development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G.,
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods,
M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), Markow, D., Kim, A., & Liebman, M. (2007). The MetLife Survey
880–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506 of the American Teacher: The homework experience. https://
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500012.pdf
interest and performance in high school science classes. Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model
Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci- of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification.
ence.1177067 Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 77–172. https://doi.
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2021). The utility-value org/10.1007/BF01322177
intervention. In G. M. Walton, & A. J. Crum (Eds.), Handbook Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted struc-
of wise interventions: How social psychology can help people ture in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal
change (pp. 100–125). Guilford Press. of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436. https://doi.
Jacob, R. T., Doolittle, F., Kemple, J., & Somers, M. A. (2019). org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424
A framework for learning from null results. Educational Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heteroge-
Researcher, 48(9), 580–589. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X neous populations. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585. https://doi.
19891955 org/10.1007/BF02296397
18
Promoting Homework Motivation With a Relevance Intervention
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide pay off: The role of self-regulatory strategies in homework
(8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. execution]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(3),
Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1024//1010-0652.17.34.199
Implications for intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motiva-
38(7), 1001–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010374775 tion and homework effort in six school subjects: The role of
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effective- person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school
ness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal track. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 243–258. https://doi.
of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001
org/10.1037/a0019545 Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., & Nagy, G. (2009).
Pekrun, R., Götz, J., Julien, S., Zirngibl, A., Hove, R., & Blum, Within-school social comparison: How students perceive the
W. (2002). Skalenhandbuch PALMA: 1. Messzeitpunkt (5. standing of their class predicts academic self-concept. Journal
Klassenstufe) [Scale documentation PALMA: 1. Measurement]. of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 853–866. https://doi.
Universität München, Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie. org/10.1037/a0016306
Porter, A. C., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Analysis of covari- Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006).
ance: Its model and use in psychological research. Journal Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, mul-
of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 383–392. https://doi. tilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology,
org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.383 98(2), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438
Ramm, G., Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R., Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M., & Lüdtke,
Leutner, R., Neubrand, M., Pekrun, R., Rolff, H.-G., Rost, O. (2009). Chameleon effects in homework research: The home-
J., & Schiefele, U. (2006). Pisa 2003: Dokumentation der work–achievement association depends on the measures used
Erhebungsinstrumente [Pisa 2003: Documentation of assess- and the level of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational
ment instruments]. Waxmann Verlag. https://www.iqb.hu-ber- Psychology, 34(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
lin.de/fdz/studies/PISA-2003/PISA_Skalen_160.pdf 2008.09.001
Raudenbush, S. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R.
for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2(2), M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situ-
173–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.2.173 ational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2014). An intervention-based program of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 460–472. https://doi.
of research on teachers’ motivating styles. Advances in moti- org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.460
vation and achievement, 18, 293–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of
S0749-742320140000018008 students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155–165. https://doi.
Roschelle, J., Feng, M., Murphy, R. F., & Mason, C. A. (2016). Online org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_2
mathematics homework increases student achievement. AERA Watt, H. M. G., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2008). Gender and occupa-
Open, 2(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416673968 tional outcomes: Longitudinal assessment of individual, social,
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. and cultural influences. American Psychological Association.
CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11706-000
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of compe-
Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461 tence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement val-
520.1991.9653136 ues from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield, &
Schmidt, S., Ennemoser, M., & Krajewski, K. (Eds.). (2013). J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation
Deutscher Mathematiktest für 9. Klassen [German mathematics (pp. 91–120). Academic Press.
test for Grade 9]. Hogrefe. Xu, J. (2010). Predicting homework time management at the
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evalu- secondary school level: A multilevel analysis. Learning and
ation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series Individual Differences, 20(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, lindif.2009.11.001
31(1), 64–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.02.002 Xu, J., & Yuan, R. (2003). Doing homework: Listening to stu-
Shechter, O. G., Durik, A. M., Miyamoto, Y., & Harackiewicz, J. dents’, parents’, and teachers’ voices in one urban middle
M. (2011). The role of utility value in achievement behavior: The school community. School Community Journal, 13(2), 25–44.
importance of culture. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265324186_Doing_
37(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210396380 Homework_Listening_to_Students’_Parents’_and_Teachers’_
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2013). Statistisches Jahrbuch [Statistical Voices_in_One_Urban_Middle_School_Community
yearbook]. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S.,
Sterba, S. K. (2014). Fitting nonlinear latent growth curve mod- Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman,
els with individually varying time points. Structural Equation C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., Paunesku, D., Romero, C., Flint, K.,
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 630–647. https:// Roberts, A., Trott, J., Iachan, R., Buontempo, J., Man Yang, S.,
doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919828 Carvalho, C. M., . . . Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experi-
Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003). Was lange währt, wird nicht ment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement.
immer gut: Zur Rolle selbstregulativer Strategien bei der Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-
Hausaufgabenerledigung [Time investment does not always 019-1466-y
19
Flunger et al.
20