The Importance of Randomized Field Trials

Boruch, Robert F.; Snyder, Brooke R.; DeMoya, Dorothy

doi:10.1177/0011128700046002002

Cited by 93 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The eight theorists were purposefully selected to represent the widest range of theoretical positions possible, within reason, in the Alkin and House taxonomy. The method dimension includes Robert Boruch and Elliot Eisner; Boruch (see Boruch, Snyder, and DeMoya, 2000) is on the quantitative and Eisner (see Eisner, 1985) on the qualitative end of this continuum. The values dimension includes Ernest House, David Fetterman, and Huey Chen.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Boruch and Patton established the end points of Dimension 2, indicating that they were most different with respect to the extent that their evaluations are guided by a 20 THE PRACTICE-THEORY RELATIONSHIP The experimental research design is at the center of Boruch's evaluation approach. It involves the systematic application of rigorous randomized research designs with the goal of obtaining the least equivocal estimate of a social program's effects (Boruch, Snyder, and DeMoya, 2000). Randomized controlled experimental evaluations have essential, predetermined research steps.…”

Section: The Practice-theory Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Guides Evaluation? A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps onto Evaluation Theory

Christie

2003

New Drctns Evaluation

120

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Practice-theory Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Guides Evaluation? A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps onto Evaluation Theory

Christie

2003

New Drctns Evaluation

120

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…nous invitons le lecteur à se référer à l'étude pour de plus amples détails mais mentionnons que l'auteure considère les points de vue, d'une part, de huit théo -ri ciens (einer, 1985 ;chen, 1990 ;house, 1991 ;cousins & earl, 1995 ;Patton, 1997 ;Boruch, snyder & deMoya, 2000 ;Fetterman, 2001 de Fetterman (2001). nous tenons à souligner la cohérence des théoriciens entre les motifs invoqués pour impliquer les détenteurs d'enjeux et les perspectives adoptées.…”

Section: Comment Cette Contribution Se Traduit-elle Dans La Pratique ?unclassified

L’implication des détenteurs d’enjeux (stakeholders) au sein de la démarche d’évaluation de programme: problème et/ou solution ?

Hurteau

2014

mee

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considérant le peu d’articles publiés dans la revue Mesure et évaluation en éducation qui portent sur l’évaluation de programme, nous avons décidé de traiter de l’implication des détenteurs d’enjeux, compte tenu de l’intérêt qu’elle soulève. La première partie de l’article développe cette thématique, ce qui permet de distinguer deux problèmes, soit la sélection des participants et les modalités d’inclusion. La seconde partie consiste en une analyse des articles pertinents dans la revue en vue d’apporter des éléments de solution. Ainsi, si l’implication des détenteurs d’enjeux s’avère une solution que personne ne nie afin d’assurer la crédibilité de la démarche évaluative, il n’en demeure pas moins que son application pose plusieurs problèmes, ce qui nous amène à conclure qu’elle constitue certes une solution et aussi un problème.Considering that while there is currently an intense interest in program evaluation, actually it has been the object of few journal articles. We have chosen to develop one of the main issues in the field : the participation of stakeholders. The first part of the article allows the identification of two interrelated problems : the selection of participants and ways to involve them in the process. The second part is dedicated to the analysis of relevant articles which pose possible solutions. However, while it seems that participation of stakeholders is indeed required in order to give credibility to the evaluation process, such participation poses certain difficulties, leading to the conclusion that it, in itself, offers both solution and further problems.Considerando o pequeno número de artigos publicados na revista Mesure et évaluation en éducation sobre a avaliação de programas, decidimos tratar a implicação do público interessado (“stakeholders”), tendo em conta o interesse que suscita. A primeira parte do artigo desenvolve esta temática, o que permite distinguir dois problemas : a selecção dos participantes e as formas do seu envolvimento no processo. A segunda parte consiste numa análise de artigos pertinentes publicados na revista com o objectivo de encontrar soluções possíveis. No entanto, se a implicação do público interessado (“stakeholders”) se torna uma solução que ninguém nega para assegurar a credibilidade do processo de avaliação, não é menos verdade que a sua aplicação coloca muitos problemas, o que nos leva a concluir que ela constitui, simultaneamente, uma solução e um problema

show abstract

“…Untested educational initiatives can frequently be harmful for children (Boruch et al 2002). 'There are many examples of education interventions that have been widely disseminated on the basis that they are driven by good intentions, seem plausible and are unlikely to do any harm, yet when they have been rigorously evaluated have been found to be ineffective or positively harmful' (Gorard with Taylor 2004, pp.92-93 ).…”

Section: Literacy As An Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised controlled trial of the use of a piece of commercial software for the acquisition of reading skills

Khan

Gorard

2012

Educational Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractWe report here the overall results of a cluster randomised controlled trial of the use of computer-aided instruction with 672 year 7 pupils in 23 secondary school classes in the north of England. A new piece of commercial software, claimed on the basis of publisher testing to be effective in improving reading after just six weeks of use in the classroom, was compared over ten weeks (one term) with standard practice in literacy provision. Pupil literacy was assessed before and after the trial, via another piece of commercial software testing precisely the kinds of skills covered by the pedagogical software. Both the treatment group and the comparison group improved their tested literacy. In a sense the publisher's claim was justified. However, the comparison group improved their literacy scores considerably more than the treatment group, with a standardized improvement of +0.99 compared to +0.56 (overall 'effect' size of -0.37), suggesting that the software approach yields no relative advantage for improvements, and may even disadvantage some pupils.On this evidence, the use of software, of a kind that is in very common use across schools in England, was a waste of resource. This could be an important corrective finding for an area of schooling that has been the focus of intense policy and practice attention. Of course, the software used has now been superseded by the same and different publishers. But the paper discusses the implications of these results for the use of such software to teach literacy more widely, for the way in which publisher claims are worded, and for the research community in relation to the feasibility of conducting pragmatic trials in school settings. KeywordsRandomised controlled trial, literacy, reading skills, technology based instruction A randomised controlled trial of the use of a piece of commercial software for the acquisition of reading skills Abstract 2

show abstract

The Importance of Randomized Field Trials

Cited by 93 publications

References 10 publications

What Guides Evaluation? A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps onto Evaluation Theory

What Guides Evaluation? A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps onto Evaluation Theory

L’implication des détenteurs d’enjeux (stakeholders) au sein de la démarche d’évaluation de programme: problème et/ou solution ?

A randomised controlled trial of the use of a piece of commercial software for the acquisition of reading skills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About