Question

True experiments are often considered the gold standard of research, mainly because it is the only way to truly show cause and effect. However, true experiments are costly and lengthy to conduct, and in many way infeasible to conduct in an educational setting. Some have argued then “Why bother?” If experiments are so difficult to conduct, and often times can’t be conducted in educational settings, then why are they considered the gold standard? Should we just do away with experimental research or, at least, do away with the notion that they are the gold standard?

Answer 1

The experiments which are considered gold standard are basically difficult to conduct in an educational system. The gold standard is mainly used in the Randomised control designs to know how the treatment or the experiments work.

The experiments are gold standard is such that they are proven to have the results which are appropriate and accurate. That doesnot depends on the cost factor because the results should be good. The experiments can be conducted in an educational setting unless the funds matter. And most of the experiments are tough and the time factor is more which is an other matter. So here even though we cannot do the experiment as such in an educational settiy we can go with the notion that they are gold standard.

Thankyou