Fidelity and Replication: Modelling the Impact of Protocol Deviations on Effect Size
Cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience researchers have agreed that the replication of findings is important for establishing which ideas (or theories) are integral to the study of cognition across the lifespan. Recently, high-profile papers have called into question findings that were once thought to be unassailable. Much attention has been paid to how p-hacking, publication bias, and sample size are responsible for failed replications. However, much less attention has been paid to the fidelity by which researchers enact study protocols. Researchers conducting education or clinical trials are aware of the importance in fidelity – or the extent to which the protocols are delivered in the same way across participants. Nevertheless, this idea has not been applied to cognitive contexts. This seminar discusses factors that impact the replicability of findings alongside recent models suggesting that even small fidelity deviations have real impacts on the data collected.
From the Didactic to the Heuristic Use of Analogies in Science Teaching
Extensive research on science teaching has shown the effectiveness of analogies as a didactic tool which, when appropriately and effectively used, facilitates the learning process of abstract concepts. This seminar does not contradict the efficacy of such a didactic use of analogies in this seminar but switches attention and interest on their heuristic use in approaching and understanding of what previously unknown. Such a use of analogies derives from research with 10 to 17 year-olds, who, when asked to make predictions in novel situations and to then provide explanations about these predictions, they self-generated analogies and used them by reasoning on their basis. This heuristic use of analogies can be used in science teaching in revealing how students approach situations they have not considered before as well as the sources they draw upon in doing so.