Drafts

Many differences in the two figures may have resulted from lack of specifications in the original methods. Although the proportions between the two figures match, the individual image sizes may have not been specified enough in the methods, accounting for this difference. The arrow shape and size may not have been specified enough in the methods as well, resulting in a shape and thickness difference. The white square background of the letter labels may have also not been specified clearly enough in the methods. Dimensions should have been included to minimize this discrepancy.

The observational differences between the original and the replicate resulted from various factors. The differences in the appearance of figure layout could be that different softwares were used to create it. The instructions may also not have been explicit enough to produce an exact replicate. The lighting differences in the photographs taken is most likely due to the fact that they were taken on different days and different times. Therefore, they did not have the brightness exposure depending on the weather. The different frames were likely due to different zooms because the exact zoom was not specified since the cameras weren’t required to be the same. Lastly, the arrows on panel ‘C’ are not the same because details on the type and size arrow was not specified

    About 4 to 5 years ago, there was a passionate debate between the necessity of changing the study of STEM to STEAM. STEM as of right now, stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. It’s often used to refer to the general studies of science, generalizing all 4 fields and grouping it together. Yet the debate was to include an A, and change STEM to STEAM. The A stands for the Arts. The reason why this was proposed was because by studying science alone, we draw very little inspiration from the outside world besides what we’re concentrated on studying. By encompassing the arts and appreciating it, we are able to draw new ideas and become more innovative as we pursuit our fields. There’s a very interesting team of NASA engineers based in Pasadena, California who study origami in order to understand how to confine space better. The North Face also utilizes their team of scientists in order to study very hydrophobic leaves to better understand how to make water-proof clothing better. By utilizing the arts and the nature around them, we’re able to further pursuit these new ideas and engineer better items for consumer use, that may have been a lot more difficult to conclude to had we confined ourselves in our own fields alone. I personally like the idea of changing STEM to STEAM, and allowing the arts to play a role in our need of inspiration to create and innovate new ideas for the future.

    Correct parenting is one of the most subjective topics around. Everybody has their own unique approaches to parenting, and we’re only recently able to slowly have a better grasp as to what “correct” parenting looks like. We’ve only recently moved past negative reinforcement, and learning to utilize positive reinforcement as the benefits have recently under studies show to be a lot more positive. Yet this research and this knowledge is not always exposed to upcoming parents, and sometimes parents never learn such vital information ever. Instead, it’s heavily believed in most communities that listening to those who have parented before, are the experts. This causes a problem where methods that are scientifically proven to be problematic (such as hitting your children), are still utilized to this day because old methods and word of mouth tends to be the main source of information parents rely on. In places such as Osaka Japan, it’s culturally understood that the parents there are severely strict and very violent. Under western views, the parenting methods there are severe, but under Eastern views this is considered the norm. It’s important to be able to get the correct information out there so mentally (and even physically) speaking, our future generations are healthier in comparison to the generation before them.

My friend is sitting across from me and is on her phone. Her thumbs move rapidly, jabbing the brightly lit screen. She has three sliver rings on her left hand on her thumb, index, and middle fingers. She has two rings on her right hand on her middle and ring fingers, one of which has a green stone in the center of it. She raises one hand to her face, resting it on her chin as her right hand continues to support her phone. Her right thumb slides upward on the screen repeatedly. After a while, she places her phone down and flips up the screen of her laptop, which has a marble cover on it. Her forearms rest on the wooden table as her fingers dart across the laptop keyboard. She is wearing a long-sleeve gray zip-up hoodie with a heathered gray tank top underneath. The majority of her long, wavy dark brown hair falls to the right side of her face, which is angled downward to face her laptop screen. Her eyes are pointed downward at the screen, and her eyelids are exposed. She has brown eyeshadow on her lids. Her mouth is agape slightly, her lips close to a centimeter apart. She looks up as someone walks through the front door of the cafe. Her eyebrows angle slightly upward, and her mouth changes to a grin as she waves at her friend who just entered. Within seconds, her eyes fall back to her laptop screen. Now both of her hands are placed on her lap, and she raises her right hand to her mouth. She bites the nail of her right index finger while she stares at the screen. She rests her right elbow on the table, her forearm overlapping her phone, which is face-up on the table surface. Her phone screen lights up suddenly, and she quickly picks up the phone with her right hand. She stares at the screen for a second and places the phone back down, moving her hand back on the laptop keyboard. She hits the space bar and lifts both her hands to her head. She combs her fingers through her hair as she straightens out her back and takes a deep breath. 

The methods project requires students to construct a multi-panel scientific figure of an interspecific interaction on the UMass Amherst campus and write a detailed methods section describing how it will be made. The goal of the project is to be as specific as possible so that another student can replicate the figure, because a primary goal of science is replication. The multi-panel scientific figure was constructed of three pictures of an interaction between a tree and moss. The differences observed between each of the three photos consisted of color, size, number, background, and contrast. These differences may have resulted from the weather, differences in distance from the tree, and differences in angle of the camera.

The image quality also differs between the two figures and images are clearer in the original figure than the replicate. The images in the original figure also take up most of the frame whereas in the replicate, there is more background space. The background setting of the images in each figure also differs slightly. In the original figure, the individual goose is standing on snow, the individual duck is standing on ice, and the interaction shows both species half swimming on water and half standing on ice. In the replicate figure, the individual goose is standing on snow, but there is a tree and other geese in the background. The individual duck is standing in a muddy terrain, and the interaction depicts both species swimming in the water and standing on snow with two benches in the foreground.

There are also subtle differences between the two compilations that become apparent upon closer examination. In the replicated figure, the letter labels are not centered within each white square like in the original. There is also a black line running in the center portion close to the top edge of the interaction image in the replicate figure, a marking that the original figure does not have. A third quality the replicated figure possesses that the original figure does not have includes green borders around each white square label.

Symbiosis is often mistaken to mean a mutually beneficial relationship, but it is actually a general interaction between two organisms. Symbiosis includes  mutualism, along with commensalism and parasitism. Mutualism is an interaction in which both organisms benefit. An example of mutualism is oxpeckers and zebras. Oxpeckers perch on the backs of zebras and eat ticks off of them. The zebras benefit because they are rid of pests, and the oxpeckers benefit by eating. Commensalism is an interaction in which one organism benefits and the other is fairly unaffected. An example of commensalism is trees and lichens. Lichens grow on the trunks of trees, using them for support, while the trees are not affected. The trees are not benefited or hurt. On the other hand, parasitism is an interaction in which one organism is benefited and the other is harmed. Examples include all parasites and their hosts. Just one example is the common head lice and humans. Lice attach to people's heads and feed on human blood, harming them. 

          The differences of the placement of the letters within the white boxes are likely due to my stating in my methods only that I “arranged each text object so that they were in the center of a white square.” I did not indicate a specific action I took within inkscape to ensure the letters were actually centered, leaving how to achieve the centering to the reader’s discretion and therefore producing different results. The fact that the “a” and “b” labels were wider and the “c” label was narrower in Figure 2 than their counterparts in Figure 1 were likely a result of the creator of Figure 2 using the handles of the text objects to disproportionately resize the letters. These two factors together likely caused the different size spaces between the letters and the edges of the white boxes. The differences in the placement of the arrows relative to the edge of the images was probably due to me describing the location of the arrows in my methods not as being a specific distance from the edges, but located relative to objects depicted in the photographs, and the photographs being framed differently so that those components were in slightly different positions. The differences between the arrow heads in each figure was a result of me and my partner picking different styles, likely due to me not specifying which style I chose in my methods. 

          There were differences in the framing of each of the three photos which comprise the figures. Image “a” of Figure 2 diverged from the original in that it was framed such that the edge of the koi pond was not visible near the bottom of the frame, while more of the roof was visible near the top of the frame. Image “b” was also framed differently between each figure, with Figure 2 displaying a different side of the trunk of Species 1, more of the south-facing windows of the greenhouse on the right, and less of the concrete walkway along the bottom of the frame than did Figure 1. The leaves of Species 2 in Figure 2 appeared larger than in the same image in Figure 1, and are presented at a different angle. In addition, the koi pond was not visible in the background of image “c” of Figure 2 the way it was in image “c” of Figure 1.