The 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 "scientifically 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 consensus 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. In 2002, the NRC released Scientific Research in Education (National Research Council, 2002), a report 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 improved understanding of a scientific approach to addressing education problems; 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. This report is a summary of the third workshop in the series, on the implementation and implications of randomized field trials in education.

The 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 "scientifically 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 consensus 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. In 2002, the NRC released Scientific Research in Education (National Research Council, 2002), a report 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 improved understanding of a scientific approach to addressing education problems; 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. This report is a summary of the third workshop in the series, on the implementation and implications of randomized field trials in education.

Researchers use a variety of tools to determine their impact and efficacy, including sample surveys, narrative studies, and exploratory research. However, randomized field trials, which are commonly used in other disciplines, are rarely employed to measure the impact of education practice. Evidence Matters explores the history and current status of research in education and encourages the more frequent use of such trials.

Opinions about education programs and practices are offered frequently—by children, parents, teachers, and policymakers. Credible studies of the impact of programs on the performance of children are far less frequent. Researchers use a variety of tools to determine their impact and efficacy, including sample surveys, narrative studies, and exploratory research. However, randomized field trials, which are commonly used in other disciplines, are rarely employed to measure the impact of education practice. Evidence Matters explores the history and current status of research in education and encourages the more frequent use of such trials. Judith Gueron (Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation), discusses the challenges involved in randomized trials and offers practical advice drawn experience. Robert Boruch (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania), Dorothy de Moya (Campbell Collaboration Secretariat), and Brooke Snyder (University of Pennsylvania) explore the use of randomized field trials in education and other fields. David Cohen, Stephen Raudenbush, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball (all from the University of Michigan) review the history of progress in education over the past forty years and urge increased research on coherent instruction regimes. Maris Vinovskis (University of Michigan) examines the history and role of the U.S. Department of Education in developing rigorous evaluation of federal programs, and suggests a new National Center for Evaluation and Development. Thomas Cook and Monique Renee Payne (both from Northwestern University) take on the claim that randomized field trials are inappropriate in the U.S. education system. Gary Burtless (Brookings Institution) explores the political and professional factors that influence randomized field trials in economic programs, examining possible explanations for their lack of frequent use in education. Carol Weiss (Harvard University) provides a brief history of community studies in the

Abstract curricular program implementation in the context of randomized field trials Gloria Isabel Miller This study examined three cases of commercially available curricular program implementations to determine if a unified approach to measuring the level of implementation was possible (proof of concept). Further, the study investigated whether the level of curriculum and implementation plan specificity made a difference to the strength of implementation achieved in classrooms; and described the implementation evolution in different contexts. The study sample consists of a total of 163 teachers in eight school districts across the United States. In each case teachers were randomly assigned to using the curricular innovation or their currently used materials and processes. The three cases, HS-Math, NewScience, and MathIntervention, were purposely chosen to represent three different points of curricular and implementation specificity and two different subject areas, math and science. Each case features a commercially available program that also had opportunities for teachers to use "electronic" technology to enhance their learning or to engage their students. The cases represent differing student grade levels. The cases are different enough to provide a range that exercises the measurement techniques introduced in this study so results can begin to generalize across curricular programs and grades. However, the cases are similar enough in research design, instrumentation, and data collection methods to make them comparable. A key contribution of this investigation is the creation of a framework to measure the level of implementation (the extent to which the teacher and students display the actions, behaviors, and interactions expected by using the innovation). The unified conceptual framework arrived at by using an Activity Theory perspective together with the analytical methods employed provide a way to view the rich complex interaction of implementation as a system with the larger system of the school organization. Data from the analysis revealed that variations in the level of implementation were no different regardless of the level of specificity. A strong finding of this work is that implementation evolves slowly even when the curricular program is scripted and coaching support is provided to teachers. The paper concludes with implications for policy and future research.

Good research in education is defined as randomized experiments. For a study to be eligible to earn the highest possible rating from the What Works Clearinghouse (Meets WWC Standards without Reservations), the arbiter of what constitutes rigorous research within the U.S. Department of Education, it must use random assignment to determine group membership. Furthermore, the Every Student Succeeds Act, the successor to No Child Left Behind, defines strong evidence of an intervention's effectiveness as being demonstrated through experimental study (e.g., a randomized control trial). This case study provides a detailed look into the complexities of planning and carrying out a randomized control trial for a large-scale research project. In August 2010, the Smithsonian Science Education Center, a division of the Smithsonian Institution, received a grant of more than US$25 million from the U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation program for a 5-year matched-pair randomized control trial study to validate its Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) model in three very diverse regions of the United States: rural North Carolina, northern New Mexico, and the Houston Independent School District, in the 2011-2012 through 2013-2014 school years. From the selection and randomization of schools, to identifying an appropriate outcome measure, to the complications of data collection, to meeting a moving target of What Works Clearinghouse expectations, readers will come away with a hard-fought list of practical lessons learned and advice for carrying out rigorous research that meets high standards while being realistic in scope and execution.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. Before new interventions are released into disease control programmes, it is essential that they are carefully evaluated in field trials'. These may be complex and expensive undertakings, requiring the follow-up of hundreds, or thousands, of individuals, often for long periods. Descriptions of the detailed procedures and methods used in the trials that have been conducted have rarely been published. A consequence of this, individuals planning such trials have few guidelines available and little access to knowledge accumulated previously, other than their own. In this manual, practical issues in trial design and conduct are discussed fully and in sufficient detail, that Field Trials of Health Interventions may be used as a toolbox' by field investigators. It has been compiled by an international group of over 30 authors with direct experience in the design, conduct, and analysis of field trials in low and middle income countries and is based on their accumulated knowledge and experience. Available as an open access book via Oxford Medicine Online, this new edition is a comprehensive revision, incorporating the new developments that have taken place in recent years with respect to trials, including seven new chapters on subjects ranging from trial governance, and preliminary studies to pilot testing.