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>