Get stories like these straight to your inbox. Sign up for our 74 newsletter
In a recent interview published by 74, LeanLab founder Katie Boody Adorno said that randomized controlled trials could be “an outdated research mode.” I sincerely disagree.
RCT remains the gold standard for effective research for good reasons. They reduce the source of bias that bothers other designs by taking into account unobserved and unobserved characteristics between the study groups. It can often be done quickly and provides the most powerful evidence of whether the impact of the product differs based on student race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background. Most importantly, RCT answers important questions about ED technology products. Does it work? This does not mean that RCTs are always appropriate. For example, it is infeasible to use to evaluate programs used from elementary to high school. However, when feasible, RCT is the best approach to determining whether a product or program works as intended.
Ed Tech is a fast-growing $150 billion industry and shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, it could double or triple the size over the next decade. It is absolutely essential for ED technology companies to work with researchers throughout the development process to ensure that their products are effective for educators and students, as the marketing materials claim. Various research designs, including RCT, are necessary to ensure that the product functions as intended in the courses in which it was created and in the classroom.
Randomized controlled trials are uniquely constructed to determine whether the impact of a product is the result of the product itself or of other factors. This is important. Products where teachers work with enthusiastic students may not be effective when teachers are not very familiar or interested. In RCT, products are randomly assigned to groups over a period of time, and the comparison group continues normal activity. The group has similar characteristics, including the degree of interest in the product.
This means that RCTs can ensure that they can identify which interventions are working. This is especially important in efforts to strengthen the success of the most vulnerable students. For example, a randomized controlled trial of Tennessee's statewide public kindergarten programs found that they actually exacerbate the academic growth of primary schools in the future for low-income children. They manage the fact that families who self-select to public pre-K are different from those who do not. Only through randomised control could it be determined whether the program produced the desired outcomes for all students, regardless of family economic situations, or whether it focused on early education.
Besides generating rigorous evidence of shock, RCTs also have other advantages over various designs.
First of all, they are simple and transparent. Because we compare two similar groups where the only difference is product use, RCT clearly and directly demonstrates whether children in Group A tend to be superior to children in Group B. Or the type of non-plural “insights” that can be obtained from classroom observations.
Second, implementing RCT requires as much statistical training as it involves a typical master's programme that includes mathematics and statistics such as finance and economics, and is therefore easy to do by state and local educational institutions. can be set to This frees local leaders from relying on research conducted in other schools and districts where students have different demographics and where communities serve different communities, and that “it is a global one. Does it work? You can ask. “Is this working for my students?”
Third, RCTs can enhance research carried out to help shape the final product. If an ED Tech product is present at the start of the development process, it is often unclear whether version A or B will work better. Suppose you want to build a fraction-focused app and see if one visual representation produces more students than another. Randomly assigning students in the classroom to see either version A or B creates better information than allowing students to decide what they want to see themselves.
Fourth, RCT eliminates inherent bias. Many districts and schools pilot programs and products with volunteers before deciding whether to scale more widely. RCT provides a more realistic image of the implementation, as the group testing the product is randomly assigned, not because the members have already expressed interest.
It is undeniable that the RCT takes a little time to complete, but it is a cost associated with rigor, and developers, educators and students all value to benefit from the most rigorous research methods available. I will. Ed Tech Cemetery is being attacked by products that have failed to fulfill their promises. Children and educators of the nation deserve educational tools backed by the strongest possible evidence to support learning and academic success. RCTs provide better evidence of that than any other method.
Get stories like these straight to your inbox. Sign up for our 74 newsletter
