An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science

The purpose of this study was to test a taxonomy of seven proposed responses to anomalous data. Our results generally supported the taxonomy but indicated that one additional type of response should be added to the taxonomy. We conclude that there are eight possible responses to anomalous data: (a) ignoring the data, (b) rejecting the data, (c) professing uncertainty about the validity of the data, (d) excluding the data from the domain of the current theory, (e) holding the data in abeyance, (f) reinterpreting the data, (g) accepting the data and making peripheral changes to the current theory, and (h) accepting the data and changing theories. We suggest that this taxonomy could help science teachers in two ways. First, science teachers could use the taxonomy to try to anticipate how students might react to anomalous data so as to make theory change more likely. Second, science teachers could use the taxonomy as a framework to guide classroom discussion about the nature of scientific rationality. In addition, the taxonomy suggests directions for future research. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 623–654, 1998.     

An Australian Looks at the ICEF

A few years ago Dr. Lefranc, in a stimulating survey of the impact of picture materials on modern education, used the pungent metaphor that audio-visual specialists had possibly achieved a scratching of the carapace of the pedagogical tortoise. Many centuries ago the sacred tortoise of Chinese mythology emerged from the devastating floods of the Yellow River to teach the people there the arts of levee building, to control the annual tragedy of the waters and hence to survive to live in harmony with their fertile farmlands. Perchance a link does exist between the teaching and the tortoise.     

Application of Adjunct Auto-Instruction to Teaching Computer Programming

An N of 105 fifth and sixth grade Ss was randomly assigned to one of three groups: high level questioning (HQ), low level questioning (LQ), or control (C). Instructionally, the geographical themes for HQ and LQ were identical. However, in implementing instruction, higher (than recall) questions were predominately employed in the HQ and low level questions prevailed for LQ. Observers monitored the number and nature of the student responses to the questions. Analyses of variance indicated that HQ and LQ outperformed C Ss in terms of low as well as high level achievement for both post- and retention test situations (p < .01). The results, when compared to a previous study by the investigator, indicate the instructional importance of considering not only the level of questions posed but also the level of student involvement with those questions, as reflected in the response patterns.