教育随机对照试验(rct):它们对教育教学理论的贡献是什么?

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Education Pub Date : 2023-01-10 DOI:10.17159/2520-9868/i89a01
Yael Shalem, Francine De Clercq
{"title":"教育随机对照试验(rct):它们对教育教学理论的贡献是什么?","authors":"Yael Shalem, Francine De Clercq","doi":"10.17159/2520-9868/i89a01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) have become one of the most sought-after approaches to impact evaluations of large-scale educational interventions in developed and developing countries. In this paper, we examine the contribution of RCT-based evaluations of large-scale early grade interventions to education theory about teaching. After a brief introduction of the development context of RCT-based evaluations, we examine the research model of RCTs in education and some of the knowledge claims made by RCT scholars, with specific attention to their claims about changing modes of teaching. We then introduce, briefly, five multi-pronged interventions to improve early grade reading in three developing countries (India, Kenya, and South Africa). Finally, we discuss two key educational ideas about teaching supported by these early grade interventions and locate them in education theory about teaching. Our argument is that these ideas about teaching are not new; they are debated by education researchers and because RCTs' evaluation research does not provide empirical analysis of these ideas, it cannot be integrated by teacher educators and education researchers into knowledge about teaching and teacher education and development. Teaching is not seen as an empirical object to be theorised by this massive growing research field. If collaboration and dialogue were to emerge between development economists, education researchers, and teacher educators, RCTs' findings of educational interventions could contribute to what is already known in educational theory about teaching.","PeriodicalId":15568,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized control trials in education (RCTs): What is their contribution to education theory about teaching?\",\"authors\":\"Yael Shalem, Francine De Clercq\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/2520-9868/i89a01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) have become one of the most sought-after approaches to impact evaluations of large-scale educational interventions in developed and developing countries. In this paper, we examine the contribution of RCT-based evaluations of large-scale early grade interventions to education theory about teaching. After a brief introduction of the development context of RCT-based evaluations, we examine the research model of RCTs in education and some of the knowledge claims made by RCT scholars, with specific attention to their claims about changing modes of teaching. We then introduce, briefly, five multi-pronged interventions to improve early grade reading in three developing countries (India, Kenya, and South Africa). Finally, we discuss two key educational ideas about teaching supported by these early grade interventions and locate them in education theory about teaching. Our argument is that these ideas about teaching are not new; they are debated by education researchers and because RCTs' evaluation research does not provide empirical analysis of these ideas, it cannot be integrated by teacher educators and education researchers into knowledge about teaching and teacher education and development. Teaching is not seen as an empirical object to be theorised by this massive growing research field. If collaboration and dialogue were to emerge between development economists, education researchers, and teacher educators, RCTs' findings of educational interventions could contribute to what is already known in educational theory about teaching.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Education\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i89a01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i89a01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在发达国家和发展中国家,随机对照试验(rct)已成为大规模教育干预影响评估最受欢迎的方法之一。在本文中,我们研究了基于随机对照试验的大规模早期年级干预评估对教育教学理论的贡献。在简要介绍RCT评估的发展背景之后,我们考察了RCT在教育中的研究模式和RCT学者提出的一些知识主张,特别关注他们关于改变教学模式的主张。然后,我们简要介绍了五个多管齐下的干预措施,以提高三个发展中国家(印度、肯尼亚和南非)的早期阅读水平。最后,我们讨论了这些早期年级干预所支持的两个关键教育理念,并将它们定位于教育教学理论中。我们的观点是,这些关于教学的想法并不新鲜;由于随机对照试验的评价研究没有对这些观点进行实证分析,因此教师教育者和教育研究者无法将其整合到有关教学和教师教育与发展的知识中。教学并没有被这个庞大的研究领域看作是一个可以理论化的经验对象。如果发展经济学家、教育研究人员和教师教育者之间出现合作和对话,随机对照试验关于教育干预的发现可能有助于教育理论中关于教学的已知知识。
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
Randomized control trials in education (RCTs): What is their contribution to education theory about teaching?
Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) have become one of the most sought-after approaches to impact evaluations of large-scale educational interventions in developed and developing countries. In this paper, we examine the contribution of RCT-based evaluations of large-scale early grade interventions to education theory about teaching. After a brief introduction of the development context of RCT-based evaluations, we examine the research model of RCTs in education and some of the knowledge claims made by RCT scholars, with specific attention to their claims about changing modes of teaching. We then introduce, briefly, five multi-pronged interventions to improve early grade reading in three developing countries (India, Kenya, and South Africa). Finally, we discuss two key educational ideas about teaching supported by these early grade interventions and locate them in education theory about teaching. Our argument is that these ideas about teaching are not new; they are debated by education researchers and because RCTs' evaluation research does not provide empirical analysis of these ideas, it cannot be integrated by teacher educators and education researchers into knowledge about teaching and teacher education and development. Teaching is not seen as an empirical object to be theorised by this massive growing research field. If collaboration and dialogue were to emerge between development economists, education researchers, and teacher educators, RCTs' findings of educational interventions could contribute to what is already known in educational theory about teaching.
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
Journal of Education
Journal of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
26
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊最新文献
Adverse Childhood Experiences and Academic Performance Among U.S. Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Effectiveness of Picture Concept Activity on Improving the Cognitive Proficiency Skill and Reading Performance of Nigerian Pupils with Dyslexia Influence of Nurturing Creativity in Education on Student’s Academic Performance in Selected Private Nursery and Primary Schools in Rwanda: A Case of Rubavu District Measuring Text-Focused Reading Instruction Validation of the Risk Factor Screen for Reading (RiFS-Reading) Screening Tool for the Early Identification of Reading Problems
×
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