[Phys-L] Re: Should Randomized Control Trials Be the Gold Standard of Educational Research?

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 10:30 PM 4/17/2005, Richard Hake, you wrote:
> ///
> In response to my post "Should Randomized Control Trials Be the Gold
> Standard of Educational Research?" , Brian Whatcott
> wrote,
>
> I am surprised that anyone here would oppose this [Randomized Control
> Trial (RCT)] methodology, which is to my mind at least, a minimal
> level of ascent to a scientific basis for comparison of methods and
> appears to be the basis for upholding interactive participation as
> the only tutorial method that gives superior results consistently,
> over chalk n talk [also known as Direct Instruction]

Richard, you shouted in response:


> BRIAN, PLEASE GIVE US THE REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE CITED RESEARCH
> showing that "interactive participation as the only tutorial method
> that gives superior results consistently, over chalk n talk." I've
> never heard of it.


I hope Richard will not be affronted when I conceptualize the
Interactive methods he has advocated, as measured by the test
  measures he has detailed as consistent with the conception of
Randomized Control Trials. He measures an experimental
approach before and after its application.
The victims are not as far as I can see specially selected, and
  the folks who are tested with the same measures using conventional
teaching approaches are largely randomly selected too (I estimate)

What is the essential superiority of these comparative statistics
Richard holds out as showing unparalleled "gain" for the championed
approach over  RCT? Or are they inferior? Or just different?


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l