|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
I M P L E M E N T I N G
RANDOMIZED FIELD TRIALS
I N E D U C AT I O N
Report of a Workshop
Committee on Research in Education
Lisa Towne and Margaret Hilton, Editors
Center for Education
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were
chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. ED-00-CO-0088 between the National
Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Education, Grant No. 2002-7860
from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Grant No. 200200225 from the
Spencer Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations ex-
pressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the U.S. Department of Education, the William and Flora Hewlett Founda-
tion or the Spencer Foundation.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09192-6 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-53155-1 (PDF)
Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 500 Fifth
Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-
3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2004). Implementing Randomized Field
Trials in Education: Report of a Workshop. Committee on Research in Education. L.
Towne and M. Hilton, Eds. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon
the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a
mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical
matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of
the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers.
It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with
the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal govern-
ment. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed
at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the supe-
rior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy
of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sci-
ences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the ex-
amination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is
president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become
the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by
both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A.
Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH IN EDUCATION
2004
Lauress L. Wise (Chair), Human Resources Research Organization
(HumRRO), Arlington, VA
Linda Chinnia, Baltimore City Public School System
Kay Dickersin, Department of Community Health, Brown University
Margaret Eisenhart, School of Education, University of Colorado
Karen Falkenberg, Division of Educational Studies, Emory University
Jack McFarlin Fletcher, University of Texas-Houston Health Science
Center and Center for Academic and Reading Skills
Robert E. Floden, College of Education, Michigan State University
Ernest M. Henley (emeritus), Department of Physics, University of
Washington
Vinetta C. Jones, School of Education, Howard University
Brian W. Junker, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
David Klahr, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Barbara Schneider, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago
Joseph Tobin, College of Education, Arizona State University
Lisa Towne, Study Director
Margaret Hilton, Senior Program Officer
Tina Winters, Research Associate
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Preface
T he central idea of evidence-based education--that education policy
and practice ought to be fashioned based on what is known from
rigorous research--offers a compelling way to approach reform
efforts. Recent federal trends reflect a growing enthusiasm for such change.
Most visibly, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires that "scientifi-
cally based [education] research" drive the use of federal education funds at
the state and local levels. This emphasis is also reflected in a number of
government and nongovernment initiatives across the country. As consen-
sus builds around the goals of evidence-based education, consideration of
what it will take to make it a reality becomes the crucial next step.
In this context, the Center for Education of the National Research
Council (NRC) has undertaken a series of activities to address issues related
to the quality of scientific education research.1 In 2002, the NRC released
Scientific Research in Education (National Research Council, 2002), a re-
port designed to articulate the nature of scientific education research and to
guide efforts aimed at improving its quality. Building on this work, the
Committee on Research in Education was convened to advance an im-
proved understanding of a scientific approach to addressing education prob-
1Other NRC efforts--especially the line of work that culminated in the recent report
Strategic Education Research Partnership (National Research Council, 2003)--offer insights
and advice about ways to advance research utilization more broadly.
vii
OCR for page R8
viii PREFACE
lems; to engage the field of education research in action-oriented dialogue
about how to further the accumulation of scientific knowledge; and to
coordinate, support, and promote cross-fertilization among NRC efforts in
education research.
The main locus of activity undertaken to meet these objectives was a
year-long series of workshops designed to engage a range of education stake-
holders in discussions about five key topics:
· Peer Review in Federal Education Research Programs. This workshop
focused on the purposes and practices of peer review in federal agencies
that fund education research. Federal officials and researchers considered a
range of models used across the federal government to involve peers in the
review of proposals for funding and discussed ways to foster high-quality
scientific research through peer review.
· Understanding and Promoting Knowledge Accumulation in Education:
Tools and Strategies for Education Research. With a focus on how to build a
coherent knowledge base in education research, researchers and federal of-
ficials analyzed several elements of the research infrastructure, including
tools, practices, models, and standards. Fundamental questions about what
such a knowledge base might look like were also considered in this context.
· Random Assignment Experimentation in Education: Implementation
and Implications. The evidence-based education trend has brought to the
fore decades of debate about the appropriateness of randomized field trials
in education. Far less consideration has been devoted to the practical as-
pects of conducting such studies in educational settings; this workshop
featured detailed descriptions of studies using randomized field trials in
education and reflections on how the current trend to fund more of these
studies is influencing states, districts, and students.
· Journal Practices in Publishing Education Research. Following the
more general discussion of how to build a coherent knowledge base in
education in a previous workshop, this event took up the specific case of
journals that publish education research. Editors, publication committee
members, and others involved in the production and use of journal articles
considered ways to promote high-quality education research and to con-
tribute to the larger body of knowledge about important areas of policy and
practice.
· Education Doctoral Programs for Future Leaders in Education Re-
search. A final workshop focused on the professional development of edu-
OCR for page R9
PREFACE ix
cation researchers, with a specific emphasis on doctoral programs in schools
of education. Deans, graduate study coordinators, foundation officials, and
policy makers came together to share observations and chart potential paths
for progress.
Additional information on each of these events, including transcripts
of presentations and discussions, can be found at http://www7.
nationalacademies.org/core/.
This report is a summary of the third workshop in the series, on the
implementation and implications of randomized field trials in education.
Educators and researchers have debated the usefulness of these methods for
conducting research in education for decades. As many more of them are
being funded in education than ever before, our objective in convening this
workshop was to provide a venue for researchers and practitioners who
have been involved in this kind of study in educational settings to share
their experiences. The event took place on September 24, 2003, at the
National Academies' Keck Center in Washington, DC.
This report summarizes common issues and ideas that emerged from
the presentations and discussion during the workshop (see Appendix A for
the workshop agenda and Appendix B for biographical sketches of the com-
mittee members and speakers). These issues included why researchers use
randomized field trials, when such a design is appropriate for answering
questions about education, and how to implement this kind of research in
an educational setting. In discussing these issues, workshop speakers identi-
fied challenges to successfully carrying out randomized field trials in schools
and described strategies for addressing those challenges. Although investi-
gators conducting any type of research in schools would encounter many of
these challenges, some are unique to this research design.
While this report represents our synopsis of the key issues aired at the
workshop, it does not contain conclusions or recommendations. We will
issue a final report with recommendations for improving scientific research
in education based on the series of five workshops. In addition, because the
one-day workshop that is the subject of this report necessarily included
only a small number of practitioners and researchers, this summary cannot
be construed as representative of all experiences and views of those who
have been involved in randomized field trials in educational settings. We
did take care to invite individuals who were experienced and knowledge-
able about implementing this kind of research in social settings and believe
OCR for page R10
x PREFACE
that the insights they shared are useful. Our aim is to help investigators,
funders, and educators involved in the next generation of randomized field
trials in education to avoid common pitfalls and to carry out best practices.
This workshop report would not have been possible without the stellar
group of speakers who shared their expertise with the committee. We would
like to thank each of them for their contributions: Robert F. Boruch, pro-
fessor, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania; Wesley
Bruce, assistant superintendent, Indiana Department of Education; Linda
Chinnia, Area Academic Officer (Area 1), Baltimore City Public School
System; Donna Durno, executive director, Allegheny Intermediate Unit;
Olatokunbo S. Fashola, research scientist, Johns Hopkins University Cen-
ter for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk; Judith
Gueron, president, MDRC; Vinetta C. Jones, dean, Howard University
School of Education; Sheppard Kellam, public health psychiatrist, Ameri-
can Institutes for Research; Anthony (Eamonn) Kelly, professor of instruc-
tional technology, Graduate School of Education, George Mason Univer-
sity; Sharon Lewis, director of research, Council of the Great City Schools;
Loretta McClairn, family, schools, and communities coordinator, Dr. Ber-
nard Harris Elementary School, Baltimore City Public School System;
David Myers, vice president, Mathematica Policy Research; and Richard J.
Shavelson, professor, School of Education, Stanford University.
Of course, without the generous support of our sponsors, neither the
workshop nor this report would be possible. We extend our gratitude to the
former National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board and the
Institute of Education Sciences, the William and Flora Hewlett Founda-
tion, and the Spencer Foundation.
Finally, we thank each of the members of the Committee on Research
in Education. We especially appreciate the efforts of the workshop plan-
ning group, led by Kay Dickersin, who designed an outstanding event that
has made a unique contribution to an important debate. Finally, we wish to
acknowledge the contributions of Richard Nelson of Columbia University,
who participated in early planning for the event but later resigned from the
committee.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with proce-
dures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of
this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that
will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as pos-
sible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objec-
OCR for page R11
PREFACE xi
tivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review com-
ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of
the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for
their review of this report: Mark Dynarski, Education Research Depart-
ment, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey; Susan
Fuhrman, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania; Julia
Lara, Division of State Services and Technical Assistance, Council of Chief
State School Officers, Washington, DC; Patricia Lauer, Principal Re-
searcher, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora,
Colorado; and Jean Williams, Center for Research in Education, RTI In-
ternational, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions
or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its
release. The review of this report was overseen by Milton Hakel, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University. Appointed by the
National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully con-
sidered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution.
Lauress L. Wise, Chair
Lisa Towne, Study Director
Committee on Research in Education
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
Contents
1 WHAT IS A RANDOMIZED FIELD TRIAL? 1
2 WHY ARE RANDOMIZED FIELD TRIALS USED? 7
3 WHEN ARE RANDOMIZED FIELD TRIALS FEASIBLE? 12
4 HOW CAN RANDOMIZED FIELD TRIALS BE
CONDUCTED IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING? 27
REFERENCES 34
APPENDIXES
A Workshop Agenda 37
B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and
Workshop Speakers 40
xiii
OCR for page R14
