On the effect of chess training on scholastic achievement

This selective integrative narrative review article examines creativity awareness as a critical cognitive state and highlights its intentional development in teaching and learning as part of essential 21st-century skill building. The article is organized around three interconnected themes: (1) Creativity as a 21st-century skill; (2) Exploring the journey to promoting creativity awareness in education: A multi-dimensional focus; and (3) Enhancing creativity awareness through research and science communication. Grounded in established and emerging research in the field, this review provides research-informed insights and practical recommendations for educators, researchers, and school counselors to recognize, appreciate, and promote creativity awareness in ways that contribute to more adaptive, innovative, and equitable educational environments.

Although student evaluations of teaching (SET) in higher education have recently gained considerable interest, little is known about whether course level influences these evaluations. Accordingly, two datasets, obtained from a large public university in the U.S. Midwest, were analyzed to investigate whether course level makes a difference in SET. The first dataset included 25,306 evaluations across eight course levels collected using the SET questionnaire. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), was conducted to test whether course level makes a difference in SET scores. To cross-validate the results and ensure generalizability, the same analyses were conducted using a second, smaller dataset (N = 444). MANOVA results revealed a statistically significant effect for course level on the combined SET dimensions across both campuses. All univariate ANOVAs were also significant across both campuses. Follow-up post hoc comparisons, with level 1 as the reference group, were statistically significant, especially for level 8. Overall, these results underscore the importance of accounting for course level when interpreting SET and encourage researchers to include key covariates (e.g., class size, discipline, instructor experience, and student composition) to identify the factors driving course-level differences.