Motivation Interventions in Education: A Meta-Analytic Review
Abstract
This meta-analysis provides an extensive and organized summary of intervention studies in education that are grounded in motivation theory. We identified 74 published and unpublished papers that experimentally manipulated an independent variable and measured an authentic educational outcome within an ecologically valid educational context. Our analyses included 92 independent effect sizes with 38,377 participants. Our results indicated that interventions were generally effective, with an average mean effect size of d = 0.49 (95% confidence interval = [0.43, 0.56]). Although there were descriptive differences in the effect sizes across several moderator variables considered in our analyses, the only significant difference found was for the type of experimental design, with randomized designs having smaller effect sizes than quasi-experimental designs. This work illustrates the extent to which interventions and accompanying theories have been tested via experimental methods and provides information about appropriate next steps in developing and testing effective motivation interventions in education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Intervention efforts that target motivational systems show great promise.
“Though relatively little attention has been paid to supporting the full range of motivation processes key to learning and achievement (Clark & Saxberg, 2018), intervention efforts that target motivational systems show great promise (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016;Paunesku et al., 2015;Yeager & Walton, 2011).”
From Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context<sup>1</sup> (2019) · cites this paper as Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 174 · Cited by 607
- Authors
- Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S.
- Affiliations
- James Madison University (US)
- University of Virginia (US)
- ORCID
- Hulleman, Chris S.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2016-06
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 602-640
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2273590095
- Cited by
- 607
- References
- 174
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 44.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- motivational interventions, motivation theories, educational intervention, intervention effectiveness, effect size, experimental design, intervention moderators
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review