How should educational effects be communicated to teachers?

Research findings regarding the effects of educational interventions—typically reported in units of standard deviations (e.g., Cohen’s d)—are often translated into more intuitive metrics before being communicated to teachers. However, there is no consensus about the most suitable metric, and no study has systematically examined how teachers respond to the different options. We conducted two preregistered studies addressing this issue. We found that teachers have strong preferences concerning effect size metrics in terms of informativeness, understandability, and helpfulness. These preferences challenge current research reporting recommendations. Most importantly, we found that different metrics induce different perceptions of an intervention’s effectiveness—a situation that could cause teachers to have unrealistic expectations about what a given intervention may achieve. Implications for how educational effects should be communicated are discussed

The impact of creativity training on creative performance: a meta-analytic review and critical evaluation of 5 decades of creativity training studies

Creativity is widely considered a skill essential to succeeding in the modern world. Numerous creativity training programs have been developed, and several meta-analyses have attempted to summarize the effectiveness of these programs and identify the features influencing their impact. Unfortunately, previous meta-analyses share a number of limitations, most notably overlooking the potentially strong impact of publication bias and the influence of study quality on effect sizes. We undertook a meta-analysis of 169 creativity training studies across 5 decades (844 effect sizes, the largest meta-analysis of creativity training to date), including a substantial number of unpublished studies (48 studies; 262 effect sizes). We employed a range of statistical methods to detect and adjust for publication bias and evaluated the robustness of the evidence in the field. In line with previous meta-analyses, we found a moderate training effect (0.53 SDs; unadjusted for publication bias). Critically, we observed converging evidence consistent with strong publication bias. All adjustment methods considerably lowered our original estimate (adjusted estimates ranged from 0.29 to 0.32 SDs). This severe bias casts doubt on the representativeness of the published literature in the field and on the conclusions of previous meta-analyses. Our analysis also revealed a high prevalence of methodological shortcomings in creativity training studies (likely to have inflated our average effect), and little signs of methodological improvement over time—a situation that limits the usefulness of this body of work. We conclude by presenting implications and recommendations for researchers and practitioners, and we propose an agenda for future research

Silence is golden : the effect of verbalization on group performance

Contrary to the popular belief that collaboration brings better problem solutions, empirical studies have revealed that interacting groups often performed worse than noninteracting “nominal” groups. Past studies mainly examined how overhearing others’ ideas impacts group performance. This study investigated the impact of another essential but overlooked group communicative process—verbalizing ideas to others—on group performance. Participants (N = 156) solved 20 verbal puzzles either alone quietly, alone thinking-aloud, or in verbalizing pairs. Participants in the same working-alone condition were randomly paired to form nominal pairs and their pooled performance was treated as nominal group performance. Relative to the quiet nominal group, the performance of the thinking-aloud nominal and interacting groups were impaired to similar extents. These two groups also demonstrated a similar limited capacity to expand the search scope. The equivalency of the interacting and thinking-aloud nominal group results suggest that verbalization is a key factor in groups’ inferior performance

Replicating and Extending Hemispheric Asymmetries in Auditory Distraction: No Metacognitive Awareness for the Left-Ear Disadvantage for Changing-State Sounds

In two experiments investigating hemispheric asymmetries in auditory distraction, the spatial location of to-be-ignored sound was manipulated. Prior studies indicated a left-ear disadvantage for changing-state sequences during short-term serial recall but lacked a direct measure of the changing-state effect. Experiment 1 compared changing-state with steady-state sequences in a visual-verbal serial recall task, confirming that left-ear disruption resulted from the acoustically varying nature of the sound, emphasizing right hemisphere dominance for processing acoustic variation in unattended stimuli. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and explored participants' metacognitive awareness of auditory distractors' disruptive potential. While participants were aware that changing-state sequences were more disruptive than steady-state sequences, they lacked awareness of the left-ear disadvantage. The study suggests individuals have metacognitive awareness of the disruptive impact of changing-state over steady-state sound but not of the accompanying left-ear disadvantage, raising implications for theoretical accounts of auditory distraction