Blogs

As a student in the Fall 2018 Writing in Biology class at University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project to practice scientific writing and replication. In this project, students find a spider web on campus and create a multi-panel figure illustrating the location of the spider web. Students then create methods explaining how the student found the spider web; these methods also describe the steps taken to format the photographs into a multi-panel figure. Upon completing the original methods, a students follows another classmate’s methods and replicates the multi-panel figure based on those instructions. The students then observe the differences between the original and replicated multi-panel figure and use factors to infer why the differences are present. The possible differences between the two figures include variations in the size of the objects in the photo, lighting, cropping of the image, and font formatting. The factors that could affect the creation of the multi-panel figure include the time of day, sunlight, weather, or discrepancies in the methods. Overall, the purpose of this project is to practice writing concise and descriptive methods of an experiment, as well as provide practice for explaining differences between the two multi-panel figures.

    In Fall of 2018, I conducted an experiment for the class Writing in Biology at the University of Massachusetts. The project was a demonstration of the importance of clear, concise methods writing. I located a spider web on the University of Massachusetts campus and created a figure displaying a spider web and its relative location. Once completed, I shared it with another student in the class for the purpose of recreation. The student tasked with recreation did not see the original figure until submitting their version of it. The replicate version of the figure had variation in the size and location of certain components, different photographic elements, as well as map localization. The methods section included dimensions for all of the markings on the figure, but did not include any units of measurement. This caused the differences in size of markings and font in the replicate figure. The localization of the markings were different in the replicate as well because of missing details in the methods. Furthermore, the angle and location at which the photographs were taken differed in the replicate because of missing details as well. Weather and resultant conditions were different, but this was a factor that could not be controlled. The map image used in the replicate was zoomed out further than the original since the area encompassed in the original map image was not described in enough detail.

This project was a done as a demonstration of the importance of clear, concise methods writing. Each participant was instructed to create a figure displaying a spider web and its location. Once completed, a methods section was written and shared with another student in the class for the purpose of recreation. The student tasked with recreation did not see the original figure until submitting their version of it. For this paper, the figure was recreated relatively faithfully, but due to a number of missing details in the methods section, differences were observed. This demonstrated the importance of including any details within the methods section and the necessity of writing clearly and concisely. Eliminating as much room for error as possible is critical when synthesizing a proper methods section for empirical research.

In the Fall of 2018, as a part of the Writing in Biology Class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project that used observation and inference skills to create a method that would be followed in order to recreate a multi-panel scientific figure. This project challenges the ability to examine and describe the procedure used to create a multi-panel scientific figure of a spider web found on campus. The description was detailed enough to direct the reader to recreate the figure as similar to the original as possible. I explained that the spider web used in the original figure was found on the third floor of the Morrill II building and how the pictures were taken. In addition, the methods section outlined how the figure was developed on the program, Inkscape. The replicate result had eight differences from the original figure. The replicate picture had been taken at a different location, at different angles and without flash. The map picture on the replicate had different navigation symbols. The lettered labels were different sizes, fonts, and were incomplete on the replicate. Lastly, the arrow was displayed differently between the two figures. I concluded that the different location was due to the unclear explanation of the location of the web. The variance in map symbols and size/font of the labels was a result of the absence of direction in the provided methods. The incomplete labels were a consequence of the reader not thoroughly reading the methods section. Ultimately, this project reveals how important precise observations and descriptions can be when explaining an experimental procedure. If clear directions are not given, the result may be different than the writer, or scientist, had intended.

In addition, I precisely described how to create the arrow label on the setting picture by using the marker feature on Inkscape. I can conclude that the arrow used in the replica was not constructed using this feature because it does not have the arrow marker at the end of a straight, bold line. Although the arrow was dissimilar, the reader angled the arrow in the appropriate direction. The changes I would make going forward would be to write a more precise description of the exact location the spider web, provide a more in depth explanation on the creation of the labels on the figure, and include every observation present on each picture in order to obtain an outcome similar to the original multi-panel scientific figure.

The differences observed between the two figures are partially due to the lack of detail explaining where the web was located, which symbols were present on the map, what font and size the lettered labels were. The differences among the arrow and lettered labels were due to the incomplete outcome based on the procedure given. The main difference between the two figures was that the web used by the reader was not the web used in the original figure. This may be due to the limited detail given in the methods section about the location of the web. The relative location on campus and the building was described in the methods section given to the reader. Yet, I could have explained which side of the hallway the groove of the wall was found depending on the staircase the reader approached from. This would have narrowed down the location of the web in the third floor hallway of Morrill II and reduced the chance of variability in the result. The specifications made in the Methods section as to what camera angle and settings, such as flash, were not very clear and may have led to some confusion for the reader when trying to recreate the figure.

The replicate figure, known as Figure 1, created by the reader had eight differences to the original multi-panel scientific figure, Figure 2. The main difference was that the reader did not find the exact location of the spider web I intended them to use. The reader took pictures in the same building and hallway, yet not the same corner/groove in the wall. Another difference is that the orientation of the web pictures in Figure 1 are different from the web pictures in Figure 2. The web pictures are slightly more offset to the right in Figure 1. The lighting in the web pictures of Figure 2 were brighter than those in Figure 1.

 One of the most important ways to credit a scientist’s work is through replication. Replicating a scientists’ work validates and reduces variability in experimental results. In the Methods project I conducted in the Writing in Biology Class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in the Fall of 2018, the process of replication was used to evaluate observation and inference skills. The goal was to have a reader recreate a similar multi-panel scientific figure to the one that the writer had created, only using a description of the process used to develop it. The multi-panel figure contained at least three pictures: a close up picture of a spider web, a picture of the relative location or setting of the web, and a map of the area on campus that the spider web was found.

The markings on the pictures of each figure are also different from the other figure.  In the original, the letters labeling the picture are in the bottom left corner, whereas they are in the top left corner in the replica.  The arrows pointing to the location of the spider web are on different pictures in each figure. The original has the arrows on the environment picture and the replica has them placed on the close-up picture.

The two map pictures varied.  The two maps show different areas of campus.  The replica map also has labels on the map already that the original map does not.  There are labels added to the original map, while all labels on the replica map are a part of the picture itself.  There is no circle showing the area of the map in which the spider web was found in the replica map, but there is on the original map.

The pictures themselves also differ from original to replicate.  Due to the quality of the pictures and lack of arrows on the environment picture of the replica, it is difficult to tell if the two spider webs are the same. The appearance of the stones relative to the spider web is different between the original and replicate in the close up picture.  In the environmental picture of the original figure, the curb and a blue building are visible in the background, but in the replica picture an orange building is visible and the curb is not. There is also a different number of posts on the fence visible in the replica vs. the original.

In the fall semester of 2018 in my Writing in Biology Class, I conducted a project where the purpose was to take a picture of a spider web, it’s habitat, and a map of the area.  Then I had to write a methods section being precise enough so that someone else could attempt to replicate my image exactly. After my procedure was followed there were many differences in the original vs the replica.  In Figure A and B they are entirely different as the spider web and the tree itself were different, most likely because of the foul weather all that week. The panel itself was also different in the text used and the shape and size of each picture in the collage.  Figure C, the map, also differed as the replica was the entire map and the original was zoomed in around the area searched. These differences can be attributed to lack of precision in the methods section. The overall panels were very different in the way they were presented and edited.