驯服教育中的随机对照试验:探索关键主张、问题和辩论

IF 2.3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research and Evaluation Pub Date : 2020-02-17 DOI:10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089
E. Pogorskiy
{"title":"驯服教育中的随机对照试验:探索关键主张、问题和辩论","authors":"E. Pogorskiy","doi":"10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Keith Morrison’s Taming Randomized Controlled Trials in Education provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical overview of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as a source of evidence in education. This book is an important and timely contribution to the topic of evidence-based education, offering a provocative and challenging position while paying careful attention to detail and weighting key arguments for and against RCTs in educational research. Making informed and evidence-based decisions is, naturally, central to the methods of scientific investigation, and RCT as the result of an interdisciplinary effort to evaluating interventions includes practices and assumptions from and across various interacting fields. For instance, “evidence-based education” emerges from “evidence-based medicine”, as noted by Coe et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trial research design, in turn, emerged from experimental research in education and psychology (Oakley, 1998), and RCTs in medical and educational research have a range of similarities and differences, as noted by Morrison (p. 103). In the last 2 decades, attention to RCTs in education has surged. This particular research design has been implemented across a broad range of studies, including those concerned with improving learning (Elliott, 2001; C. J. Torgerson & Torgerson, 2001), supporting evidence-based policy in education (Gorard et al., 2017; Katsipataki & Higgins, 2016), and studies focusing on eliminating global poverty (Banerjee et al., 2015; Tollefson, 2015). In recent years, the superiority of RCTs has often been taken for granted and considered to be a methodological “gold standard”. Morrison, however, challenges this habitual assumption in his new book, at least when it comes to considering results from RCTs in an educational context. This book is an important contribution to resources on randomised control trials, such as those authored by D. J. Torgerson and Torgerson (2008) and Glennerster and Takavarasha (2013), which provide introductions to the topic, alongside practical advice on planning, conducting, and evaluating RCTs. Morrison’s newly published book, however, offers a unique critical perspective on RCT research design and its role","PeriodicalId":47025,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research and Evaluation","volume":"26 1","pages":"119 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taming randomized controlled trials in education: exploring key claims, issues and debates\",\"authors\":\"E. Pogorskiy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Keith Morrison’s Taming Randomized Controlled Trials in Education provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical overview of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as a source of evidence in education. This book is an important and timely contribution to the topic of evidence-based education, offering a provocative and challenging position while paying careful attention to detail and weighting key arguments for and against RCTs in educational research. Making informed and evidence-based decisions is, naturally, central to the methods of scientific investigation, and RCT as the result of an interdisciplinary effort to evaluating interventions includes practices and assumptions from and across various interacting fields. For instance, “evidence-based education” emerges from “evidence-based medicine”, as noted by Coe et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trial research design, in turn, emerged from experimental research in education and psychology (Oakley, 1998), and RCTs in medical and educational research have a range of similarities and differences, as noted by Morrison (p. 103). In the last 2 decades, attention to RCTs in education has surged. This particular research design has been implemented across a broad range of studies, including those concerned with improving learning (Elliott, 2001; C. J. Torgerson & Torgerson, 2001), supporting evidence-based policy in education (Gorard et al., 2017; Katsipataki & Higgins, 2016), and studies focusing on eliminating global poverty (Banerjee et al., 2015; Tollefson, 2015). In recent years, the superiority of RCTs has often been taken for granted and considered to be a methodological “gold standard”. Morrison, however, challenges this habitual assumption in his new book, at least when it comes to considering results from RCTs in an educational context. This book is an important contribution to resources on randomised control trials, such as those authored by D. J. Torgerson and Torgerson (2008) and Glennerster and Takavarasha (2013), which provide introductions to the topic, alongside practical advice on planning, conducting, and evaluating RCTs. Morrison’s newly published book, however, offers a unique critical perspective on RCT research design and its role\",\"PeriodicalId\":47025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research and Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"119 - 122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1874089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

Keith Morrison的《驯服教育中的随机对照试验》提供了随机对照试验作为教育证据来源的全面理论和实践概述。这本书对循证教育这一主题做出了重要而及时的贡献,提供了一个具有挑衅性和挑战性的立场,同时在教育研究中仔细关注细节并权衡支持和反对随机对照试验的关键论点。做出知情和循证的决策自然是科学调查方法的核心,而随机对照试验作为评估干预措施的跨学科努力的结果,包括来自各个相互作用领域的实践和假设。例如,Coe等人(2000)指出,“循证教育”源于“循证医学”。随机对照试验研究设计反过来又出现在教育和心理学的实验研究中(Oakley,1998),正如Morrison所指出的,医学和教育研究中的随机对照试验有一系列相似之处和差异之处(第103页)。在过去的20年里,随机对照试验在教育中的关注度激增。这一特定的研究设计已在广泛的研究中实施,包括那些与改善学习有关的研究(Elliott,2001;C.J.Torgerson和Torgerson,2001),支持教育中的循证政策(Gorard等人,2017;Katsipataki和Higgins,2016),以及专注于消除全球贫困的研究(Banerjee等人,2015;Tollefson,2015)。近年来,随机对照试验的优越性往往被认为是理所当然的,并被认为是一种方法上的“黄金标准”。然而,Morrison在他的新书中挑战了这一习惯性假设,至少在教育背景下考虑随机对照试验的结果时是这样。这本书对随机对照试验的资源做出了重要贡献,例如D.J.Torgerson和Torgerson(2008)以及Glennerster和Takavarasha(2013)撰写的随机对照试验,这些随机对照试验介绍了该主题,并提供了关于随机对照试验规划、实施和评估的实用建议。然而,Morrison最新出版的书对随机对照试验的研究设计及其作用提供了独特的批判性视角
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Taming randomized controlled trials in education: exploring key claims, issues and debates
Keith Morrison’s Taming Randomized Controlled Trials in Education provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical overview of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as a source of evidence in education. This book is an important and timely contribution to the topic of evidence-based education, offering a provocative and challenging position while paying careful attention to detail and weighting key arguments for and against RCTs in educational research. Making informed and evidence-based decisions is, naturally, central to the methods of scientific investigation, and RCT as the result of an interdisciplinary effort to evaluating interventions includes practices and assumptions from and across various interacting fields. For instance, “evidence-based education” emerges from “evidence-based medicine”, as noted by Coe et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trial research design, in turn, emerged from experimental research in education and psychology (Oakley, 1998), and RCTs in medical and educational research have a range of similarities and differences, as noted by Morrison (p. 103). In the last 2 decades, attention to RCTs in education has surged. This particular research design has been implemented across a broad range of studies, including those concerned with improving learning (Elliott, 2001; C. J. Torgerson & Torgerson, 2001), supporting evidence-based policy in education (Gorard et al., 2017; Katsipataki & Higgins, 2016), and studies focusing on eliminating global poverty (Banerjee et al., 2015; Tollefson, 2015). In recent years, the superiority of RCTs has often been taken for granted and considered to be a methodological “gold standard”. Morrison, however, challenges this habitual assumption in his new book, at least when it comes to considering results from RCTs in an educational context. This book is an important contribution to resources on randomised control trials, such as those authored by D. J. Torgerson and Torgerson (2008) and Glennerster and Takavarasha (2013), which provide introductions to the topic, alongside practical advice on planning, conducting, and evaluating RCTs. Morrison’s newly published book, however, offers a unique critical perspective on RCT research design and its role
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Research and Evaluation
Educational Research and Evaluation EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: International, comparative and multidisciplinary in scope, Educational Research and Evaluation (ERE) publishes original, peer-reviewed academic articles dealing with research on issues of worldwide relevance in educational practice. The aim of the journal is to increase understanding of learning in pre-primary, primary, high school, college, university and adult education, and to contribute to the improvement of educational processes and outcomes. The journal seeks to promote cross-national and international comparative educational research by publishing findings relevant to the scholarly community, as well as to practitioners and others interested in education. The scope of the journal is deliberately broad in terms of both topics covered and disciplinary perspective.
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ effects on student achievement in the United States from a cumulative perspective The impact of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning strategies on students’ achievements in STEM disciplines Distributed leadership, self-awareness, democracy, and sustainable development: towards an integrative model of school effectiveness Does formal teacher competence matter for students’ mathematics achievement? Results from Swedish TIMSS 2019 Case study of the use of learner-centered assessment in the math school of a large university in the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1