Math Forum Discussions

Richard Hake

Posts: 1,108
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04

Randomized Control Trials: The Strange Case of the Contradictory
Graphs (was In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research in Education')
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 7:13 PM

Plain Text

att1.html (5.5 K)

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>