Some subscribers to
Math-Teach might be interested in a recent post "Randomized
Control Trials: The Strange Case of the Contradictory Graphs (was In
Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education')" [Hake
(2012)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************************
ABSTRACT: Susan
Skidmore at <http://bit.ly/Uov4sU> alerted the Math-Teach list
to her valuable articles with Bruce Thompson in the June/July 2012
issue of the "Educational Researcher": (a) "Propagation
of Misinformation About Frequencies of RFTs/RCTs in Education: A
Cautionary Tale" [Skidmore & Thomson (2012a)] at
<http://bit.ly/SPN361>, and (b) "Things (We Now Believe) We
Know" [S&T (2012b)] at <http://bit.ly/ZSQ5v5>.
S&T (2012a)
discuss the CONTRADICTORY GRAPHS of cumulative numbers of Randomized
Control Trials (RCT's) vs time for Criminology, Education, Psychology,
and Social fields (showing education first, tied for second, and
last) presented by influential scholars in prominent settings [that,
along with the attendant sequence of events] "may have
gratuitously damaged the already fragile reputation of education
research as a field."
After reviewing the
history, S&T (2012b) conclude: "We believe that the errors were
unintentional . . . . . . "But the history as recounted
by S&T (2012a)
[and in the same "Educational Researcher" issue
by Robinson (2012)
at
<http://bit.ly/WHhdiU> and Petrosino (2012) at
<http://bit.ly/SU3K3O>] seems to contradict S&T's conclusion.
Thomas
Cook submitted an
article with the title "A critical appraisal of the case against using
experiments to assess school (or community) effects" [Cook (2001a)] at
<http://bit.ly/Uyd3CY> with NO GRAPH to the Hoover Institution's
"Education Next" <http://educationnext.org/>.
Evidently without Cook's knowledge, his academic article was heavily
edited and published as "Sciencephobia: Why education researchers
reject randomized experiments" [Cook (2001b)] at
<http://bit.ly/SQox50> WITH A GRAPH of cumulative numbers of Randomized Control
Trials (RCT's) vs time for Criminology, Education, Psychology, and
Social fields
showing education LAST, consistent with the provocative new title. The
graph was erroneously attributed to Boruch, De Moya, & Snyder
(2001) - the data should have been 2002) - at
<http://bit.ly/UoX3sA>, despite the fact that the Boruch et al.
graph showed education tied for second, not last. Are we to believe
that Education Next's degradation of the accurate academic Cook
(2001a) to the inaccurate hooverized Cook (2001b) was
unintentional?
A side issue: to those who regard RCT's as the "gold standard"
of education research, the higher the curve of cumulative numbers of
Randomized Control Trials (RCT's) vs time for a field, the higher the
merit of research in that field. But not everyone would agree -
see e.g., "A
Summative Evaluation of RCT Methodology: & An Alternative Approach
to Causal Research" [Scriven (2008] at
<http://bit.ly/93VcWD>, "Seventeen Statements by
Gold-Standard Skeptics #2" [Hake (2010)] at
<http://bit.ly/TNpTR9>, and the present signature quote of
Thomas Cook and Monique Payne.
**************************************************
To access the
complete 46 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/TQdfhX>.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs:
<http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
Twitter:
<http://bit.ly/juvd52>