The National Science Foundation sponsors a ton of STEM programs across the US, but far too rarely does it include a randomized evaluation of whether anything actually works. This is unfortunate, because the fact is that around 90% of education programs don’t work
I disagree. This debate has been going ever since Hargeaves' speech some quarter century ago. IMHO RCTs in education are much less relevant than in e.g. medicine because the intervention usually doesn't target the individual but a social group of learners. So a study that does an intervention in two classes of students, where one was the control, is best thought of as having N=1 in both.
Hence, doing a sufficiently powered RCT is incredibly difficult and likely has to draw its sample from beyond the local context where the investigated curriculum is even relevant.
To be clear, I'm not saying we should throw out RCTs in education. But I certainly do not see them as the same kind of golden tool that they are in other disciplines.
I disagree. This debate has been going ever since Hargeaves' speech some quarter century ago. IMHO RCTs in education are much less relevant than in e.g. medicine because the intervention usually doesn't target the individual but a social group of learners. So a study that does an intervention in two classes of students, where one was the control, is best thought of as having N=1 in both.
Hence, doing a sufficiently powered RCT is incredibly difficult and likely has to draw its sample from beyond the local context where the investigated curriculum is even relevant.
To be clear, I'm not saying we should throw out RCTs in education. But I certainly do not see them as the same kind of golden tool that they are in other disciplines.