Your job is to identify the fallacies in scientific thinking for each of the research descriptions. You must describe the fallacy in the context of the research design. For example, do not simply state “confound” without identifying the specific confound for the particular research description. Similarly, do not simply state “flawed measurement without specifying what measure and why it was flawed.Design Problem Assignment
Scenario
Your job is to identify the fallacies in scientific thinking for each of the research
descriptions. You must describe the fallacy in the context of the research design. For example,
do not simply state “confound” without identifying the specific confound for the particular
research description. Similarly, do not simply state “flawed measurement without specifying
what measure and why it was flawed. You should be able to describe each fallacy in just a few
sentences.
There are one or two fundamental, over-riding fallacies in each of the research
descriptions. Don’t use the “shot-gun” approach and try to mention everything that might be a
possible problem. I am looking for only one fallacy per description, and you should be able to
figure it out from the information provided. If the issue is not mentioned in the description, then
you have not identified the fallacy. For example, if there is no mention of the reliability of
measures, then reliability is not the problem. I am looking for logical, clear descriptions of the
fallacies; the technical jargon (e.g., differential attrition) is less important.
Fallacies of Scientific Thinking
1. Conclusions about variables not studied
2. Inappropriate generalization – external validity threats
3. Cause inferred from correlation
4. Confounds in controlled experiments – internal validity threats
5. Flawed measurement (e.g., reliability and validity) or procedure
Tips
(1) First try to identify which of the five broad categories of fallacies best describes the
problem.
(2) Then provide a more specific description of the general fallacy in the context of the
research design.
(3) You can quickly eliminate one of the general categories by recognizing the kind of
research described. If the study is descriptive or correlational, then you know the
problem cannot be a “confound in a controlled experiment.” Conversely, if you know the
design is a controlled experiment, then you can rule out “cause from correlation.”
FOUN 611 – Educational Foundations and Leadership
© Copyright 2012, Old Dominion University. All rights reserved.
1
Design Problem Assignment
Scenario
Research Descriptions:
1. O’Connell (2011) studied the hypothesis that participation in Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
contributed to social and economic success later in life. In order to test the hypothesis
she measured 50 subjects at age 12 on the Participation in Scouting scale and at age 40
on the Uganabo Socioeconomic Success Scale. O’Connell found that the correlation
between the scores on these two measures was r = .50. On the basis of these results
O’Connell concluded that participation in scouting produced success in later life.
2. A researcher at Old Dominion University says that while science still doesn’t know if
plants appreciate kindness, it has learned that they don’t like to be yelled at. It has
nothing to do with tender feelings. Apparently loud noise increases the amount of water
normally given off by the leaves, causing the plants to wilt and grow at a slower rate.
The researcher, Dr. Petunia, and some of her students discovered this in an experiment
with coleus plants. In the first experiment a student grew two groups of 20 coleus plants
under the same greenhouse conditions, except that half of the plants were exposed to
about 100 decibels of white noise, approximately the same level as a person would hear
while standing on a busy subway platform. After one and a half weeks of continuous
exposure, the sound treated plants wilted. On the basis of this observation Dr. Petunia
recommended that the University no longer allow loud rock concerts to be conducted on
the campus because it would harm the plants.
3. A psychologist had a theory that as members of a group get to know each other the
productivity of the group will increase to a point and then will decrease slightly. This
decrease (“the honeymoon is over effect”) is a point at which members stop acting in a
highly cooperative manner and start jostling for power. To test this theory, he formed
two groups of individuals who were strangers and had them work a series of tasks.
There were five tasks, each taking 35 minutes to work, and he gave the groups a five
minute break between tasks up to the fifth task. For the fifth task there was a decrease
in student performance. On the basis of these results he considered his theory
confirmed.
FOUN 611 – Educational Foundations and Leadership
© Copyright 2012, Old Dominion University. All rights reserved.
2
Design Problem Assignment
Scenario
4. In this study a random sample of Latino children was drawn from the first grade of a
school located in a barrio area of Tuscan, Arizona. The children were all from Spanish
speaking homes and were in their first year of school (median age was 6.3 years). The
children were randomly assigned to one of two groups; each group included ten girls and
ten boys. Some children (those in the modeling group) were allowed to watch the
researcher transform an object from one shape to another. Those in the non-modeling
instructions group were not shown the transformation process, but were instead
presented with “before” and “after” objects. This group was told that the objects were
equivalent (“There is just as much wood now as there was before because they both had
the same amount in the first place.”) All children worked on a number of similar tasks
(conservations tasks).
Statistical analysis showed significantly significant differences between the two groups. ,
with the modeling group showing superiority on the conservation tasks. The researcher
concluded that any modeling opportunity will produce better learning of difficult concepts
than non-modeling learning procedures.
5. Recently, Barcardi and Company, Ltd.- one of the largest producers of rum- has
attempted to persuade the drinking public to use rum in martinis. A martini is usually
made with either vodka or gin. Barcardi’s full page ad in a national magazine contains a
picture of three classes filled with clear liquid and ice. One of the glasses is labeled
“rum” and one is labeled “vodka”, and one is labeled “gin”. Below the picture is the
following text:
“The ultimate martini test? It’s one in which there aren’t any olives, lemon twists, or
even the slightest amount of vermouth to change the basic liquor taste. It is just ice and
liquor. Which is how 550 drinkers in 21 cities tasted a leading gin, a leading vodka, and
Barcardi rum in an independent taste test. And without knowing which was which,
41.4% of them preferred Barcardi, 34.4% vodka, and 24.2% gin. Why Barcardi?
Smoothness and taste we are told. So put in your vermouth and your olive. And enjoy!”
This advertisement entitled “Barcardi Rum Tops Vodka and Gin in the Ultimate Martini
Test” givesthe impression that Barcardi rum brings about the “ultimate” martini. Martini
FOUN 611 – Educational Foundations and Leadership
© Copyright 2012, Old Dominion University. All rights reserved.
3
Design Problem Assignment
Scenario
drinkers what do you think? And even if you’re not a martini drinker yourself, would you,
based on this advertisement, begin to make martinis for your guests?
Reflection:
1. Think about a decision that was made in your workplace (i.e., longer lunch-hours, new
software system, online training). What research based evidence was used to make that
decision? What were the potential fallacies in scientific thinking associated with that
decision?
FOUN 611 – Educational Foundations and Leadership
© Copyright 2012, Old Dominion University. All rights reserved.
4
Design Problem Assignment
Scenario
5
Scoring Rubric
Criteria
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Mastered
Still Working
Missing
Correctly identifies fallacy,
describes contributors
Incorrectly identifies fallacy
or does not describe
Missing
Point Value = 2
Correctly identifies fallacy,
describes contributors
Point Value = 1
Incorrectly identifies fallacy
or does not describe
Point Value = 0
Missing
Point Value = 2
Correctly identifies fallacy,
describes contributors
Point Value = 1
Incorrectly identifies fallacy
or does not describe
Point Value = 0
Missing
Point Value = 2
Correctly identifies fallacy,
describes contributors
Point Value = 1
Incorrectly identifies fallacy
or does not describe
Point Value = 0
Missing
Point Value = 2
Correctly identifies fallacy,
describes contributors
Point Value = 1
Incorrectly identifies fallacy
or does not describe
Point Value = 0
Missing
Point Value = 2
Written reflection
Point Value = 1
Point Value = 0
Missing reflection
Total
Reflection
Point Value = 1
Point Value = 0
Total Possible
FOUN 611 – Educational Foundations and Leadership
© Copyright 2012, Old Dominion University. All rights reserved.
10
Points

Purchase answer to see full
attachment




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.