About this website and ERCT Standard

The Challenge of Educational Research

Let's be honest: figuring out what really works in education is hard. Like, really hard. It's not like testing a new lightbulb – you can't just flip a switch and see immediate, clear results. We're dealing with complex human beings, diverse classrooms, and a million interacting factors.

Think of it like trying to understand why one plant grows taller than another in a tangled, overgrown garden – is it the soil? The sunlight? The whispered encouragement you give it every morning? (Okay, maybe not that last one... but you get the idea.)

The Promise and Pitfalls of RCTs

So, when I started digging deep into educational research, specifically Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), I was looking for solid ground. RCTs are supposed to be the "gold standard," the equivalent of a meticulously controlled lab experiment in the messy world of education. The idea is simple: take two groups, randomly assign them to either get an intervention (like a new teaching method) or not, and then compare the results. Sounds perfect, right?

Well... not always. I kept encountering RCTs that, while technically following the "rules," felt... flimsy. Maybe the intervention only lasted a week. Maybe they only tested for improvement in one very specific skill. Maybe the "control group" (the kids who didn't get the new thing) was barely described. It was like reading a recipe that said, "Bake until done." Helpful? Not so much.

My Need for a Practical Filter

I needed a way to quickly assess whether a study was designed in a way that made its findings, well, useful for my own research. Not necessarily "perfect" – because perfect is the enemy of good, especially in education research – but robust enough to give me some confidence. I wasn't looking to declare winners and losers, or to say whether an intervention "worked" in some absolute sense. I just wanted to know: was the study designed in a way that minimized the most common pitfalls?

Introducing the ERCT Standard

That's how the ERCT Standard was born. It's essentially a personal checklist, a set of 12 criteria organized into three levels, that I developed for myself. Think of it as a series of "sanity checks." Does the study last long enough to see real effects (Term/Year Duration)? Did they randomize at the classroom or school level to avoid kids influencing each other (Class/School-level RCT)? Did they look at the impact on all core subjects, not just the one they were focusing on (All-subject Exams)?

You can find find more detailed in the ERCT Standard Specification (LLM-friendly Markdown version).

Important Considerations and Disclaimers

I realized that this checklist might be helpful to others navigating the often-murky waters of educational research. So, I decided to share it. But I want to be crystal clear about a few things:

1. This is a humble tool.

It's not the ultimate authority on RCT quality. It's just a set of criteria I found helpful, designed with LLM evaluation in mind.

2. It's not about judging researchers.

Educational studies are incredibly difficult to conduct. Researchers are often working with limited resources, navigating complex school systems, and dealing with all the unpredictable variables that come with human learners. Often the researches know how to make the study better but have limited resources to do so. The studies evaluated here are valuable contributions, regardless of how they score on this particular standard. If anything, these studies deserve more funding to allow for more rigorous designs.

3. It's specifically for educational RCTs.

It doesn't apply to meta-analyses, qualitative studies, or research outside of education. It also doesn't tell you if an intervention was "effective" – that's for you to decide based on the study's findings and your own context.

4. Mistakes are possible.

While I've put a lot of effort into ensuring the accuracy of the evaluations (detailed prompts, multiple LLM checks, manual reviews, even using Deep Research mode), I'm human. If you spot an error, or disagree with an assessment, please let me know! I'll be happy to review and correct it promptly.

The ERCT Standard: A Lens, Not a Verdict

Think of the ERCT Standard like a pair of glasses. It might help you see the details of an RCT study a little more clearly. But it won't magically give you perfect vision, and it certainly won't tell you what to do with what you see. That part is up to you.

A Call for Better Educational Research

Ultimately, I hope this standard, and the evaluations based on it, contribute to a broader conversation about how we design, conduct, and interpret educational research. It's a conversation we need to have, because, like Semmelweis and his handwashing, sometimes the most impactful discoveries are the ones that challenge our assumptions and force us to rethink what we thought we knew. And remember, the goal is better, but it is always unachievable perfection, we should always remember it.

Your,
Vassili Philippov