教育经济学研究中的实验设计与方法综述

H. Keskin, Mehmet Levent Yilmaz
{"title":"教育经济学研究中的实验设计与方法综述","authors":"H. Keskin, Mehmet Levent Yilmaz","doi":"10.14784/marufacd.785236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The field of economics of education has been receiving constant attention with the advent of growth theories stating how education can produce sustainable long-run economic growth and increase people’s skills (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015; Mincer, 1974). Despite its universal relevance, educational research has not been placed on the same scale with fields such as medicine due to seldom usage of robust quantitative research and the dearth of causal inferences (Creemers, Kyriakides, & Sammons, 2010). Given this, leading countries in educational research such as the United States (Scimago Journal & Country Rank, 2018) have been initiating “repeated calls for education policy to rely on a foundation of scientifically based research” (Angrist, 2003, para. 1) to nudge the field of education towards using rigorous and innovative methodological methods and experiments (Murnane & Willett, 2011). Using an experimental method is most suitable when the research aims to test the impact of intervention within the respected field of research (Beach & Pedersen, 2016). Henceforward, this paper addresses the opportunities and challenges of using experimental methods in educational interventions, particularly randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-experiments that test the impact of financial incentives to increase student outcomes. The first section is an overview of experimental designs, followed by sections delineating on RCTs and quasi-experiments, and discussing empirical studies that employ such methods. It should be noted that this paper argues in favor of neither quantitative nor qualitative research methods as both methods can produce quality research if implemented rigorously (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010).","PeriodicalId":440701,"journal":{"name":"Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS AND METHODS IN ECONOMICS OF EDUCATION RESEARCH\",\"authors\":\"H. Keskin, Mehmet Levent Yilmaz\",\"doi\":\"10.14784/marufacd.785236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The field of economics of education has been receiving constant attention with the advent of growth theories stating how education can produce sustainable long-run economic growth and increase people’s skills (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015; Mincer, 1974). Despite its universal relevance, educational research has not been placed on the same scale with fields such as medicine due to seldom usage of robust quantitative research and the dearth of causal inferences (Creemers, Kyriakides, & Sammons, 2010). Given this, leading countries in educational research such as the United States (Scimago Journal & Country Rank, 2018) have been initiating “repeated calls for education policy to rely on a foundation of scientifically based research” (Angrist, 2003, para. 1) to nudge the field of education towards using rigorous and innovative methodological methods and experiments (Murnane & Willett, 2011). Using an experimental method is most suitable when the research aims to test the impact of intervention within the respected field of research (Beach & Pedersen, 2016). Henceforward, this paper addresses the opportunities and challenges of using experimental methods in educational interventions, particularly randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-experiments that test the impact of financial incentives to increase student outcomes. The first section is an overview of experimental designs, followed by sections delineating on RCTs and quasi-experiments, and discussing empirical studies that employ such methods. It should be noted that this paper argues in favor of neither quantitative nor qualitative research methods as both methods can produce quality research if implemented rigorously (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010).\",\"PeriodicalId\":440701,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14784/marufacd.785236\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14784/marufacd.785236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着增长理论的出现,教育经济学领域一直受到关注,这些理论阐述了教育如何产生可持续的长期经济增长并提高人们的技能(Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015;说话吞吐,1974)。尽管教育研究具有普遍的相关性,但由于很少使用强有力的定量研究和缺乏因果推论,教育研究并没有与医学等领域放在相同的规模上(Creemers, Kyriakides, & Sammons, 2010)。有鉴于此,美国等教育研究的主要国家(sciago Journal & Country Rank, 2018)一直在发起“反复呼吁教育政策依赖于科学研究的基础”(Angrist, 2003,第6段)。1)推动教育领域使用严格和创新的方法论方法和实验(Murnane & Willett, 2011)。当研究旨在测试在受人尊敬的研究领域内干预的影响时,使用实验方法是最合适的(Beach & Pedersen, 2016)。因此,本文探讨了在教育干预中使用实验方法的机遇和挑战,特别是随机对照试验(RCT)和准实验,以测试经济激励对提高学生成绩的影响。第一部分是对实验设计的概述,随后是对随机对照试验和准实验的描述,并讨论了采用这些方法的实证研究。应该指出的是,本文既不赞成定量研究方法,也不赞成定性研究方法,因为如果严格执行,这两种方法都可以产生高质量的研究(Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS AND METHODS IN ECONOMICS OF EDUCATION RESEARCH
The field of economics of education has been receiving constant attention with the advent of growth theories stating how education can produce sustainable long-run economic growth and increase people’s skills (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015; Mincer, 1974). Despite its universal relevance, educational research has not been placed on the same scale with fields such as medicine due to seldom usage of robust quantitative research and the dearth of causal inferences (Creemers, Kyriakides, & Sammons, 2010). Given this, leading countries in educational research such as the United States (Scimago Journal & Country Rank, 2018) have been initiating “repeated calls for education policy to rely on a foundation of scientifically based research” (Angrist, 2003, para. 1) to nudge the field of education towards using rigorous and innovative methodological methods and experiments (Murnane & Willett, 2011). Using an experimental method is most suitable when the research aims to test the impact of intervention within the respected field of research (Beach & Pedersen, 2016). Henceforward, this paper addresses the opportunities and challenges of using experimental methods in educational interventions, particularly randomized control trials (RCT) and quasi-experiments that test the impact of financial incentives to increase student outcomes. The first section is an overview of experimental designs, followed by sections delineating on RCTs and quasi-experiments, and discussing empirical studies that employ such methods. It should be noted that this paper argues in favor of neither quantitative nor qualitative research methods as both methods can produce quality research if implemented rigorously (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信