When we were to select our project, we selected to experiment with Daphnia magna. Daphnia are crustaceans better known as water fleas. They are aquatic animals that live anywhere water is found. Daphnia are filter-feeders that reproduce parthenogenetically.

The purpose of this experiment was to find out if exposing Daphnia magna to a salt concentration altered their average heartbeat rate. The null hypothesis to our experiment was that the average heartbeat rate of the daphnia will not change when it is exposed to a salt concentrate; that is, the heartbeat rate of daphnia will remain identical even when the environment changes.

Before we started the experiment, we concocted our solution for our experiment. First we acquired and measured out five grams of salt. We then mixed it with 500mL of tap water. When thoroughly shaken, we let the solution sit while we did our first portion of our experiment.

To acquire data for our control, we captured three daphnia from their original habitat. Then, one-by-one, we placed the daphnia on a microscope slide containing enough water so the daphnia would be fully submerged. Then, using a compound light microscope, we observed the heartbeat of the daphnia. Using a finger clicker, we counted the heartbeat rate of the daphnia for fifteen seconds, multiplied that value by four, and recorded that number in Microsoft Excel. When the daphnia was used for five trials, we returned the daphnia to its original habitat and got a new daphnia. We repeated this process using three different daphnia, doing five trials for each daphnia which resulted in fifteen data points.

Next, for testing our salt concentration, we acquired a daphnia from its original habitat and submerged it in the one-percent salt concentration. After allowing the daphnia to swim around in the solution for five minutes, we took them out of the solution and placed them under a compound light microscope. Like before, we counted the heartbeat rate using the finger clicker and recorded five trials for each daphnia, recording the data in Microsoft Excel as we went along. When we completed five trials for three different daphnia, we had a total of fifteen data points for the one-percent salt concentrate.

Finally, after we completed our data-collection process, we combined and organized all the information in one spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel and ran some descriptive statistics on them. Furthermore, we performed a two-sample f-Test for variances. Upon receiving the results, we conducted a t-Test assuming unequal variances.

The results for the descriptive statistical analysis shown in Table 2 gave us background information on the data points for the control and salt solution groups shown in Table 1. The results of the two-sample f-Test for variances (F = 0.248, df = 14, P = 0.0135) lead us to our t-Test assuming unequal variances (T = -4.017, df = 21, P = 0.0006). Because the probability was less than 0.05, we rejected our null hypothesis, concluding that the average heartbeat rate of the Daphnia in both solutions were not equal. Results show that the heartbeat rate increases in salt concentrations when compared to the control, as shown in Figure 1.

The evidence concluded states that the heartbeat rate of Daphnia increases when exposed to a salt solution. A similar experiment was conducted at the Natural Science Department at Edgewood College. They concluded that the survival rate of Daphnia decreases as the salt solution increases, and this was predicted. However, this was predicted; they wanted to know what level was safe enough for Daphnia to survive before they start dying. If the salt concentration increases up to a specific level, the Daphnia survive fine; no Daphnia died when 2.5 grams of salt was added per liter of water. However, as the concentration increased beyond that, the Daphnia started to die at a rapidly increasing rate, potentially because of over excessive heartbeat rate. This provided a point where the students knew their watershed was no longer safe (Daphnia Bioassay for Salt Toxicity).

Another experiment on the condition of Daphnia upon the exposure of salt was conducted and concluded that salt up to a specific level will strengthen the Daphnia that is exposed. However, similar to the previous experiment mentioned, this also concluded that over exposure to salt is bad for the survival of the Daphnia. When Daphnia were exposed to a specified salt solution for a period of twenty-two hours, they either died rapidly or got stronger, depending on the previous condition of the Daphnia. This is linked to the increasing heartbeat rate either being too much for the Daphnia and causing it to die, or strengthening its cardiovascular system and providing a longer life for it (Reaction of Daphnia magna).

1. How well were you able to meet these two standards through this assessment and what evidence is there in your assessment that you met the standards? Be specific about evidence.

   When looking back to the previous assessment, I believe that I was able to meet these standards very well. The data that I collected was specific to the question that I decided to pursue for my experiment. After completing the procedure for completing the experiment, I documented the step-by-step process accurately. In addition, to better organize the data, I used tables to record the data points found from my experiment. With all this completed, I drew valid conclusions based on the data that I collected. There is evidence that supports this in the template that all students were required to use for the experimental design. The template provides some good guides to meeting all of the standards of significant learning.

2. Since this assessment, have you shown further growth toward meeting these standards? If so, where do you feel this is demonstrated? If not, what might have helped you move further along towards meeting these standards?

   I believe that since this assessment, before that, and beyond, I have shown constant growth towards meeting all of the standards of significant learning. I feel that this is demonstrated in all of the laboratory work that I do, especially because we are provided with a template that guides us through the process of successful lab write-ups. There are many things other than the template that could help me towards meeting the standards; they include subtle things such as practicing the process repeatedly, and more considerable things such as reviewing lab work and adding as much accurate and organized information as possible before considering it to be complete.

3. As you prepare for your final assessment task in SI Physics (which is also lab-based and will also focus on these two SSLs), what strategies can you think of that might allow you to continue to grow in your ability to successfully address these SSLs?

   As mentioned repeatedly before, I believe that the template provides a very apparent and easy-to-use guide that can make anyone that uses it successful in following all the standards for significant learning. However, if this template was not provided, or even in addition to the template, continuous practice of meeting all the standards could assist in keeping all the work higher in level of ability. In addition, making the effort to keeping all the information put in the laboratory write-ups as accurate and ethical as possible will help in meeting the standards as well. I believe that if a student defeats his or herself, they will be able to provide an accurate, efficient result.

The narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas tells a story about a slave from Maryland in the 1800s. His life was a lot better than other slaves’. He was given the opportunity to be educated and learn how to read. Later, as a fugitive, he ran away up north to start his own family. When married, he changed his last name to mask his identity and continued to promote himself as an educated black.

However, before his life became better, he had to suffer through what almost every other slave has to survive. Similar to other slaves, Douglass did not know who he really was, why he was working for his named master, and what he could potentially do with his life. He obviously didn’t realize what was being done to him, and he didn’t realize what he could make of himself. He may have heard stories about other slaves attempting to escape from this prison, but instead losing their lives. He heard stories about things around him, but couldn’t comprehend them.

He received abuse, but he didn’t realize that he didn’t deserve it: “I did not, when a slave, understand the deep meaning of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. I was myself within the circle; so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear.” He felt as if everyone around him was equal, including his white master. He felt accepted, and that’s all that truly mattered to him in his heart.

Upon discovering the true reason that the slaves were there, things changed. Douglass finally concluded that he didn’t belong there: “In coming to a fixed determination to run away, we did more than Patrick Henry, when he resolved upon liberty or death.” Finally, he realized that the true meaning of living life was to be free and one one’s own with no white master controlling their every movement.

In Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” three major topics about individualism are covered: the importance of self-reliance, the role of self-reliance as an individual, and the contribution of self-reliance to the society. Together they form an overall impression of independence and nonconformity.

To begin, an example that was given that was a model of self-reliance was children. Because they are so young, they are not able to be questioning to the theories of life. They believe what they think, and they are not hesitant to do what they wish to do at whatever time they want. When compared to adults, children accomplish a lot more because they are less cautious; they do not delay their decisions of what they believe is the right thing to do.

Moving on, being self-reliant as an individual includes following your instincts. Emerson writes that spontaneity is what drives us to success: “The inquiry leads us to that source, at once the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct. We denote this primary wisdom as Intuition, whilst all later teachings are tuitions.” Secondary thoughts detract from our powerful instinctual ability, which would result in poorer choices being made in the future. When people are self-reliant, they believe in themselves to choose what is right from their soul; although wisdom is a factor, it would not alter the final outcome dramatically or significantly.

Finally, Emerson discusses the role self-reliance has in the society. He states that all fortunes are unnecessary. One must feel ashamed of having property instead of feeling more powerful than others. In an amplified view, if one acquired riches in a way that is not honest, he or she must feel guiltier. When life becomes a fight for the amount of property one has, corruption occurs and the true meaning of working in the community gets degraded. Instead, people should live with the bare minimums, obtaining only what they need to survive. The only necessary fortune: “The secret of fortune is joy in our hands.”

In summary, the suggestions of Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” provide the members of the society a better and more beneficial way to live by relying on one’s self over depending on others to do things for them.

You turn on the television to watch your favorite late-night television show when you’re instantly blinded by… a fuzzy screen? You look more closely at the television screen when you realize that you don’t need to renew your eyeglass prescription. Instead the television broadcasting company has chosen to censor what it is that they’re showing. Do we want portions of our television shows to be cut out? Research shows that 83% of cable programs not specifically meant for children had some form of sexual content in them. However, how much of this, if any, needs to be filtered from the viewers?

The government has come along and monitored what the citizens of the United States have been watching on television. The government has decided what is good and what is bad. The government has chosen what words we are allowed to hear and what words we cannot. The government has chosen what we can see and what we cannot. How much longer will this madness go on? Is the entire population of the United States so stupid that they cannot monitor their own television watching?

It is true that some children cannot control themselves from watching inappropriate material on television. However, most children have responsible parents for a reason. Some people are old enough to see this material and not get offended by it, but for the benefit of the children, the entertainment of their program gets degraded. If the parents become true parents, they will take enough caution to prevent their children from learning anything that the society shuns. And if the children do happen to see this inappropriate material on television, they learned something new; they were going to learn it eventually, so they might as well learn it now.

So, not only is the government depriving adults of full entertainment, but they are potentially depriving children from their full education. What the kids could learn from television is possibly being filtered by the government. Of course, the government can’t be that idiotic. They would never censor out something that would be beneficial for the children. But who likes Barney these days? Children need a better form of modern education. They need to learn more about the real world. What they learn from educational kids programs doesn’t happen in the real world anymore! It has become a violent community, with over half a million people murdered in only one year.

Of course, this concept is not foreign to anybody that is truly alive today. Everyone has experienced a time when the program they were watching has been filtered by some sort of higher power. It isn’t the government, you say? The government doesn’t directly sift through the programs, but the television broadcasting corporations does. If millions of people see something they shouldn’t, the broadcasting corporation experiences millions of dollars of losses. This frustration that both television viewers and providers experience is unbearable. Is this ever going to stop?

In one way, it is the society’s fault that censorship happens in the first place. The censorship is bringing down the society; however, it is the society that’s causing the censorship. If nobody considered any part of the English language offensive, they would not have to be censored out. If these words replaced by short beeps were not considered offensive, they would not have to be censored out. If we did not consider portions of our own form of communication offensive, nothing would have to be censored out.

So simply, a solution would be to change our own language. This is easier said than done, however. The English language has evolved throughout the centuries that the language has been around. The language is constantly being “modernized,” with new words and phrases added to it all the time. Slang is being constructed as we speak, with new insults being created by the minute. Do we really have the power to stop this?

Together we can change the way the government views the United States population as a whole. Little by little, we can make changes of the aspects the government considers when censoring our material. When we prove that we are mature enough, the censoring may stop. But until then, don’t expect the fuzzy screens to go away.

The comforts of life and their necessities are questioned. Is it true that humans can live with no luxuries in their habitats? With support from Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” and Melville’s “Bartleby,” it can be concluded that tangible object are not needed for life’s happiness. Instead, it is what a human feels within them that is important. Individualism brings out the true inner self of all the humans. It allows the humans to see what is truly vital in their lives and what is something that just exists for comfort.

However, upon further investigation, differences can be found even between Emerson and Melville. Their individualistic points of views contrast in numerous ways, and their views on necessities are not the same. As one person’s definition of individualism is different from another’s, these two documents contradict in specific details of true individualism. However, both define individualism as the best way to live life.

In Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” three major topics about individualism are covered: the importance of self-reliance, the role of self-reliance as an individual, and the contribution of self-reliance to the society. Together they form an overall impression of independence and nonconformity.

The importance of self-reliance comes when someone is faced with a tough decision to make. Many adults that are well educated may contradict their own thoughts and think them over multiple times before they ever choose to follow them. However, when children make decisions, they do not know enough to question their thoughts and do what their instinct tells them to. According to Emerson, this instinct or gut feeling is the best way that someone could make a choice. This way, he ensures that a person will be lead to success in all aspects.

When looking at Melville’s “Bartleby,” the overall idea of the story is seen as being selfish towards others in a considerate way. Bartleby refuses to do anything for other people, giving the excuse of “I prefer not to.” Although it is a polite and undemanding way of responding, the effects are firm and powerful. Instead of disrespecting others in the society, he declines others’ requests of favors in a passive way. Instead of giving into other people’s requests, he follows by his own, individualistic decision.

Turning back to Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” it states that one should feel ashamed of owning lots of property instead of feeling better than others. He believes that having lots of property or lots of luxuries in one’s life gives birth to corruption and dishonesty towards other people. In addition, people may attempt to defeat other people’s statuses by gaining this property or wealth in dishonesty ways. In this case, Emerson believes that one should feel guilt for all the property that they own due to the possibility that they could have cheated systems or broken laws to be able to get the property.

Comparing to Emerson’s point of view of feeling ashamed of having lots of property, Melville greatly contrasts. Bartleby shows no signs of being ashamed for anything that he does; instead, his views towards society only reflect that he does not care about others. There is no mention at all about how much property he owns, or how much this status makes him more socially advanced than others.

Instead of worrying about how much property he owns, Bartleby goes about his own business, not minding about his luxuries or anything that is self-comforting. He purchases what he needs to be able to live his life without any troubles. However, he does not embellish himself with technologies that may induce his laziness. He limits himself and his comforts to what is necessary and a little bit more. Although he is contributing to society when he purchases these products from retailers, he does not think very significantly of it. He uses his money when it is necessary to improve his individualistic lifestyle. He only contributes to society when it is necessary for himself. When others request for his additional contribution to the society, he politely says “I prefer not to,” and declines their request.