All that glitters is not gold: Why randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are of limited value in judging the effectiveness of literacy interventions

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion and more considered reflection about an issue that has largely gone unquestioned in dyslexia scholarship and research, namely, the application of randomised control trials as the gold standard against which all research studies should be measured. The presentation is unashamedly polemical in attacking the foundations upon which the case for RCT is built, whilst at the same time identifying some fundamental issues which must be tackled if the positivist approach is to meet its own criteria. A research report which claims to be the largest UK-based randomised control study of information and communications technology (ICT) to teach reading and spelling to children of school age is subsequently analysed with reference to these criteria and found to be lacking on a number of counts. The case is then made for the need to take into account recent perspectives on the complexity of the learning process and to consider alternative paradigms. In particular, an action research approach based within the critical paradigm is suggested as one helpful way forward and a form of illuminative evaluation applying the ‘Spare Wheel’ model is offered as a potentially helpful alternative.