Observations

Submitted by srabbitt on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 20:52

The biggest difference between the original and the replicate is the actual plant. I did name the plant with the hope that whoever was going to attempt my methods would be able to find it. Future projects perhaps I will use a latitude and longitude plus a description of the plant not just the type of plant. Next glaring difference between the two is the size of the plants in the image. This may have been due to different cameras or the distance from the subject the picture was taken. I should have specified the distance from the subject the camera was held plus the type of camera that was used. The map sizes and subject area are also different. I suppose I could have described that in better detail too. The letters are different sized. The original was lower case while the replicate was upper case. I failed to mention this in my methods paper. The replicate is missing an arrow pointing at the area that the leafminer activity was observed. This was in the methods paper however it was overlooked for some reason. The font and color is the same for the image labels at least. The position of the dollar bill was not consistent between the original and replicate. This too was not clear in the paper describing how the images were selected. It is difficult to get someone to duplicate your pictures by simply describing how you did it. The paper had a lot of detail describing how the panel was made, but not enough detail about the where and how the images were produced. I think that a third set of eyes would have been beneficial to assist with the editing of the paper. The order that the panels were organized could have been better. After looking at it I think that it may have been better if I labeled the map as “a”, then the full plant as “b”, and the final close up as “C”. This would have given it a zooming in flow that would have been easier to describe. A better description of the positioning of the dollar bill would have eliminated the guesswork for that piece too. This was a great lesson on how much different individual perceptions really are.

Information Literacy

Submitted by riyjpatel on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 15:41

Today we looked websites of information literacy where we all had to report reliability, validity, and trustworthiness of the site. There are 14 groups. Group 1 is a Wikipedia site that I feel people can edit, yeah, the information is there but I feel that the information is edited. Eventually, you can look at the revision history to see who edits them. Group 2 is an .com website where maybe information can be reliable but I would prefer looking at .org websites. Group 3 looks precise. Group 4 is also a good resource for looking at articles. Group 5 is also interesting because it shows news that are currently around. Group 6 does look like it would have some good information but I feel if I am writing a journal or scientific publication I feel I wouldn’t use this website. Group 7 and 8 looks more of joining a club but I feel I would just call the company instead. Group 9 is awesome and definitely a trustworthy website. Group 10 seems like a kid’s section. Group 11, 13, and 15 are all .org websites so I feel that it would be precise. Group 12 seems a little hard to believe because the edits. People can edit websites but when it comes to academics I feel .org websites are a good to reference to. On top of all my observations, Wikipedia seems like a good starting point for a term of no understanding. Other sites seem like a good stepping point because you will get information out of them whether it be accurate or not. Although, cited information is always accurate more.

 

 

Information Literacy

Submitted by riyjpatel on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 15:36

Today we looked websites of information literacy where we all had to report reliability, validity, and trustworthiness of the site. There are 14 groups. Group 1 is a Wikipedia site that I feel people can edit, yeah, the information is there but I feel that the information is edited. Group 2 is an .com website where maybe information can be reliable but I would prefer looking at .org websites. Group 3 looks precise. Group 4 is also a good resource for looking at articles. Group 5 is also interesting because it shows news that are currently around. Group 6 does look like it would have some good information but I feel if I am writing a journal or scientific publication I feel I wouldn’t use this website. Group 7 and 8 looks more of joining a club but I feel I would just call the company instead. Group 9 is awesome and definitely a trustworthy website. Group 10 seems like a kid’s section. Group 11, 13, and 15 are all .org websites so I feel that it would be precise. Group 12 seems a little hard to believe because the edits. People can edit websites and stuffs so when it comes to academics I feel .org websites are a good to reference to.

 

New Copy of Methods

Submitted by srbuckley on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 13:36

Collecting the specimen:

 

Head over to the permaculture garden. On the far right side there are a row on lilies. Towards the center of the column of lilies, there is a plant with white drizzled looking tracks on it. Take 3 photos of the plant. The first should be a picture of the whole plant. The second should be a picture of just the affected leaf. The last photo should be a picture of the affected leaf with a penny for scale.

 

Upload your photos into inkscape. Shrink them to the size you want by using the shift key and the magnifying glass icon. Upload a map from openstreetmap.com. You can crop and shrink the map to the area you want. You want this cropped map to be a part of your multipanel figure. Arrange the 3 pictures and the map into a windowpane configuration. The lower right corner should be the map and the lower left should be the photo with a penny to scale. The upper left should be the whole plant and the upper right should just be a photo of the affected leaf. 

Arrange them so that there are five spaces between all of them.

 

You are going to want to create an arrow pointing to the affected leaf. Use the line tool to create a line and then add a marker to the tip of the line you created. You are also going to want to use the text tool to label each photo with a letter distinguishing each one. Use the text tool to do this. You are going to want to make the font big enough to be noticeable. You are also going to want to use fill and stroke to make the font stand out. Starting in the upper left hand corner and going in a clockwise direction, label the photos “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” respectively.

 

Use the “group” command to make the picture just a single image. Go into the file menu and select Document properties. Select the option to size the image to the page. Make sure to make the opacity 255.

 

Methods Draft 2

Submitted by ifernandez on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 13:34

This is how I made a multi-panel figure about leafminers. I found my specimen at the Franklin Permaculture Garden in the corner of the garden. I found my specimen specifically in a bush with long leaves at the corner of the garden. 

 I used my phone to take a couple pictures, the first one being the main plant with the affected area being visible, and a second one where I had a close up shot of the affected leaf with an object held right next to it for size comparison. I ended up taking six picture from which I only used two. I first tried the close up picture by holding my phone in one hand and using my other hand to lightly pull the leaf making sure the affected area was as visible as possible. I then tried taking a picture of the main plant but I only took one step back from the plant so the picture didn’t show much. I took another two steps back and took another picture which is the one I ended up using for the figure. A classmate was kind enough to lend me a mechanical pencil to use as the object for size comparison, so I took another close up photo where my hand held both the mechanical pencil and the leaf while making sure the pencil was close to the leaf and it was near the affected area.

I used the program Inkscape to make my multi-panel figure. I imported the first picture ( the main plant with the visible affected area) and locked it to keep the scale. I then shrank it down and aligned its top left corner to the left corner of what will eventually be the multi-figure panel. Next, I used a drawing tool to draw an arrow to point to the affected area, and I paint it yellow since it was hard to see if it was a black arrow. The next picture ( the close up shot on the leaf with an object for size comparison) followed a similar process but this time the top right corner of the picture will be aligned to the top right corner of the multi-panel figure. *Only do this if the two pictures are different sizes* Unfortunately, my two pictures where different sizes and to fix that I increased the overall size of the second picture until the height aligned itself with the height of the first one. However, this caused the second picture to overlap over the first one. In order to fix this I brought the first picture up a layer so that it would overlap the second picture instead. Finally, I used a website to download a picture of the area on campus where I found my subject and I imported it to Inkscape. I repeated what I did with the previous pictures and fit the map into the bottom of the multi-panel figure aligning the top edge of the map picture to the bottom edge of the two other pictures. As final touches, I used the same drawing tool as before to make an X to mark roughly where I found my specimen; I also added the letters A, B, and C to boxes which I placed at the top left corner of each picture in the added order.

 

Methods Project Introduction Rough Draft

Submitted by rmegarry on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 13:22

SAMPLE INTRODUCTION 1

Scientific writing requires a certain level of specificity in order to be properly understood and replicated. Science has maintained that in order for a study to be valid, the work must be able to be replicated with the same results. This facet of scientific research puts an incredible amount of importance on the record of how the research in any paper was performed. The goal of this paper is to write a record of the documentation of leaf miners and to compare the recreation based upon the procedure reported and to analyze what factors may have been successful or led to an imperfect result.

Methods Very Rough Draft

Submitted by ifernandez on Tue, 07/16/2019 - 12:57

Notes for METHODS:

  • 1st I found my specimen that has leafminers on it

  • I took a couple pictures with my phone, the first one being the main plant with the affected area being visible, and a second one where I had a close up shot on the affected leaf with an object held right next to the leaf for size comparison

  • Created a folder on the desktop where I stored all documents regarding the project 

  •  I used my phone to email the pictures I took to myself so I could download them to the computer

  • I downloaded the pictures and moved them to the designated folder on my desktop

  • I used Inkscape to make my multi-panel figure

  •  Imported pictures from my phone to the computer by emailing the photos to myself on my phone and opening up the email on the computer and then downloading

  • First I imported the picture of the main plant with the affected area being visible and locked it to keep the scale

  • I then shrank it down and aligned its top left corner to the left corner of what will eventually be the multi-figure panel

  • I then used a drawing tool to draw an arrow to point to the affected area, I painted the arrow yellow to make it visible and to make it stand out

  • Next I imported the picture of the close up on the leaf with an object (mechanical pencil 15 cm) for size comparison

  • Again I locked the scale and aligned the top right corner to the top right corner of the multi-panel figure page

  • Since my two pictures where different sizes I matched the height of the second picture to the height of the first one. (Only do this if the two pictures have different scales when fit into the page)

  • Making the second picture bigger caused it to overlap over the first one, to fix this I brought the first picture up a layer

  • Finally, I used a website to download a picture of the area on campus where I found my subject and I imported it to Inkscape

  • One more time, I locked the scale and fit it into the picture

Difficulties in conveying information

Submitted by srbuckley on Mon, 07/15/2019 - 23:44

I did an exercise similar to our current activity of the multipanel figure in one of my engineering classes. I believe it was an engineering graphics course I took. The final project for that class included writing an instructional piece on how to replicate a simple shape or object in terms of words. It didn't seem like it should be that hard of an activity when it was first proposed to us, but it ended up being more difficult than I anticipated. What can feel so obvious to one person can be totally lost on another. I feel like simplifying what you are saying is a good approach. I tend to go about explaining things by overly trying to describe a situation or the appearance of something. I feel like "putting my foot in my mouth" (in a sense) will serve me well. I feel like using factual terms will help too. If I speak in terms that people can understand but that are technical enough to convey the message I have with across the board results. That's probably the real trick behind this stuff, I would imagine. I guess knowing the audience is pretty helpful, as well. If you are writing a peer reviewed journal piece it will be different than writing a piece for Popular Science. The good thing about writing this METHODS section is the fact that we are all basically on a similar level in our understanding of insects and more specifically leafminers.

 

Pages

Subscribe to CNS Junior Writing RSS