This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chatterji, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Evidence on "What Works": An Argument for Extended-Term Mixed-Method (ETMM) Evaluation Designs

Teachers College, Columbia University, Box 68, 525 W. 120th St., New York, NY 10027; mb1434{at}columbia.edu. Her areas of specialization are evaluation methods and theory, instrument design and construct validation using classical and Rasch measurement models, and standards-based reforms

Federal policy tools for gathering evidence on "What Works" in education, such as the What Works Clearinghouse’s (WWC) standards, emphasize randomized field trials as the preferred method for generating scientific evidence on the effectiveness of educational programs. This article argues instead for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) designs. Emphasizing the need to consider temporal factors in gaining thorough understandings of programs as they take hold in organizational or community settings, the article asserts that formal study of contextual and site-specific variables with multiple research methods is a necessary prerequisite to designing sound field experiments for making generalized causal inferences. A theoretical rationale and five guiding principles for ETMM designs are presented, with suggested revisions to the WWC’s standards.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. C. Dowd Dynamic Interactions and Intersubjectivity: Challenges to Causal Modeling in Studies of College Student Debt Review of Educational Research, June 1, 2008; 78(2): 232 - 259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]