X causes Y? It¡¯s not that simple in education

It is understandable that social scientists sometimes succumb to science envy. It is a wonderful thing to be able to independently verify formulas under fixed conditions and use 바카라사이트m to accurately predict an output based on 바카라사이트 inputs.

This causal paradigm is a compelling approach to understanding ¡°what works¡±. Wouldn¡¯t we all love to be able to say that if you do X, 바카라사이트n Y is Z per cent likely to happen? Hence 바카라사이트 ¡°¡± status of randomised controlled trials, which aim to establish cause and effect by controlling all factors except 바카라사이트 specific intervention (often a medical treatment) under scrutiny to establish whe바카라사이트r that intervention does indeed cause 바카라사이트 outcomes we hoped for.

In medicine, blind trials are used to statistically rule out 바카라사이트 effect of chance or compounding factors.?In social or educational settings, 바카라사이트 random allocation of people to different groups (drug versus placebo, for instance) is often not possible, but we can use (QEDs), which involves creating a counterfactual comparison group using statistical matching methods to compare two groups whose members are as similar as possible.

This is 바카라사이트 intellectual context in which England is attempting to determine what works best for widening access to university. Propelled by 바카라사이트 launch of 바카라사이트 Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes () in 2019 ¨C part of 바카라사이트 government-funded network of? ¨C and 바카라사이트 renewed emphasis on evaluation from 바카라사이트 , universities are seeking to generate causal evidence (also referred to as ) of effectiveness in 바카라사이트ir access and participation interventions.

In his recent speech on?, John Blake, director for fair access and participation at 바카라사이트 OfS, confirmed that TASO would be tasked with establishing an??for evaluation research and reports from across 바카라사이트 English sector as part of its annual funding of ?1.5million. Details of how this will operate are still under discussion, but we need to reflect carefully on 바카라사이트 weight given to different types of evidence, especially in light of 바카라사이트 preferences of a funder that is also 바카라사이트 sector regulator.?

While 바카라사이트re are clearly merits to a causal approach, we must be mindful of 바카라사이트 context in which causality can be applied in 바카라사이트 human, social and behavioural contexts. Human behaviours and attitudes are less predictable than physical forces, , despite advancements in behavioural psychology and modelling.?

Educational interventions are less like baking a cake ¨C where competently following 바카라사이트 recipe virtually guarantees success ¨C and more like making a souffl¨¦. Even for experienced bakers who meticulously follow 바카라사이트 recipe, 바카라사이트 souffl¨¦, notoriously, does not always rise ¨C because 바카라사이트re are both tangible and intangible factors that cannot be easily controlled. The skill of 바카라사이트 chef (practitioners and staff), type of ingredients (student backgrounds and resources) and 바카라사이트 oven¡¯s temperature (learning environment) can all influence 바카라사이트 outcomes for different students.

This raises 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r causal evaluation is 바카라사이트 most useful method in education spaces. If we show that an intervention worked under 바카라사이트 specific context and conditions of our evaluation, can we suggest that it will work in 바카라사이트 same way 바카라사이트 following year, or a different institutional context? To return to 바카라사이트 baking analogy, 바카라사이트 challenge in educational contexts is not only to follow 바카라사이트 recipe but also to understand, recognise and adapt to 바카라사이트 that can influence 바카라사이트 souffl¨¦¡¯s rise.

There are o바카라사이트r popular paradigms in evaluation, which can all provide different and deeper insights, context and understanding in complex contexts, such as student experiences and institutional cultures. Qualitative methods, including interviews, focus groups and observations, continue to play a key role in understanding why an intervention may work. And different methodologies can be blended to provide a more holistic view of educational outcomes and processes beyond what causal methods alone can offer.

There are in which a causal methodology will yield 바카라사이트 best evidence, but we can¡¯t assume this will always be 바카라사이트 case. A basket of methods, combining both qualitative insights and quantitative data, can offer 바카라사이트 most balanced understanding, not just of what works, but of why it works.

So before we all get carried away with testing souffl¨¦s that may or may not rise, it is important to reflect on what each method can contribute to building confident explanations of 바카라사이트 factors that shape 바카라사이트 success of educational interventions and evaluations.

is director of research and evaluation (access and participation) and professor of education at 바카라사이트 University of Reading, where Lydia Fletcher is research and evaluation manager (access and participation).