BIOL368/F14:Class Journal Week 4: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page and added my answer)
 
(added Isabel Gonzaga response)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
[[User:Nicole Anguiano|Nicole Anguiano]] 19:35, 17 September 2014 (EDT) <br>
[[User:Nicole Anguiano|Nicole Anguiano]] 19:35, 17 September 2014 (EDT) <br>
{{Template:Nicole Anguiano}}
{{Template:Nicole Anguiano}}
==Chloe Jones==
#<b>Did the in-class discussion of the journal article enhance your understanding of the article? Why or why not?</b>
#*The in class discussion of the journal article definitely enhanced my understanding of the article. I think it mainly helped with my understanding of the figures and the discrepancies of the article.  Before having the discussion I hadn’t really observed how the different groups were broken up wasn’t a direct reflection of the conclusion. There were subjects that fell into multiple categories based on, but that was not distinguished or noted within the article. I assumed that it being a scientific article that all the data would be clearly presented. Also, I hadn’t noticed that for the phylogenetic trees that all the subjects were chosen from the moderate progressor group. I think overall the discussion allowed me to see that the article was as not sound as I had assumed. 
#<b>Have your views about what it means to do original research in biology changed as a result of discussing this article? Why or why not?</b>
#*My views on what it means to do original research hasn’t changed, because I always viewed original research as “original” and therefore I always assumed that the papers that followed provided more accurate information. More studies that are performed with prior knowledge provides for an article with more evidence and a better understanding. Because it is the first time examining the topic I just learned that original research needs to be observed more closely, because it is original and hasn’t had the opportunity to observe some of the mistakes made from previous studies.  So , the article by Markham did not alter my viewpoint on original research, because I do expect or am more accepting of original research being flawed.
[[User:Chloe Jones|Chloe Jones]]
{{Template:Chloe Jones}}
==Isabel Gonzaga==
#<b>Did the in-class discussion of the journal article enhance your understanding of the article? Why or why not?</b>
#*I found the in-class discussion of the article very helpful in developing my understanding of the article. In particular, the background information section was useful in understanding the various components of the disease and breaking down the difficult vernacular used in the article. I think that having this foundation solidified (or by having read the Review Article prior to completing the assignment), I would have been able to gain deeper insights on the article. Additionally, going over each of the figures individually helped me to gain a better understanding of the results and methods involved, especially in Figure 1, as I had not noticed some of the trends displayed within the graphs, as they were explained in the article.
#<b>Have your views about what it means to do original research in biology changed as a result of discussing this article? Why or why not?</b>
#*I don't think my views on 'original research in biology' has changed, as the research methods did not seem too far different from other articles I have seen. The thing that surprised me most about this study was how quickly the authors were able to classify outliers in their data sets (along with subjects from previous studies) as 'extreme cases' or anomalies. I would have expected that they would offer an alternative explanation for this event, so perhaps my understanding of research has changed a little in that aspect. This article does bring to light, however, the difficulties in conducting research on the topic of HIV. With a limited population available, the chance to make people commit to meaningful, longitudinal studies becomes even more difficult. In addition, it shows the difficulty of researching a topic where limited research and information is available.
[[User:Isabel Gonzaga|Isabel Gonzaga]] 20:40, 22 September 2014 (EDT)<br>
{{Template:Isabel Gonzaga}}

Revision as of 17:40, 22 September 2014

Nicole Anguiano

  1. Did the in-class discussion of the journal article enhance your understanding of the article? Why or why not?
    • The in-class discussion of the journal article did enhance my understanding of the article. While I mostly understood the article, the article was so dense that it was difficult to become clear on each part of it, especially the parts concerning dS/dN and the phylogenetic trees. Also, simply discussing the concepts and having them explained by another person helped to concretize the information that I had gotten from the article, and open up new questions that could be asked and discussed regarding the article.
  2. Have your views about what it means to do original research in biology changed as a result of discussing this article? Why or why not?
    • My views on what it means to do original research in biology haven't really changed as a result of the article, though it did show me that small data sets can be worked with at times (though they are not ideal). I had a pretty good understanding of what it meant to do original research before discussing the article, as I had done original research in the past. Discussing the methods Markham used in his paper didn't introduce any new insights into what it meant to do original research, simply supported that original research opens up many more questions that can be answered with more original research. I still did find it strange that such a small data set was being worked with and manipulated. In many ways, it helped me realize that while it can be done, there is an amount of doubt that must accompany smaller data sets, as it is unknown if the trend for 15 subjects will be the same as the trend for 1500.

Nicole Anguiano 19:35, 17 September 2014 (EDT)
Nicole Anguiano
BIOL 368, Fall 2014

Assignment Links
Individual Journals
Class Journals

Chloe Jones

  1. Did the in-class discussion of the journal article enhance your understanding of the article? Why or why not?
    • The in class discussion of the journal article definitely enhanced my understanding of the article. I think it mainly helped with my understanding of the figures and the discrepancies of the article. Before having the discussion I hadn’t really observed how the different groups were broken up wasn’t a direct reflection of the conclusion. There were subjects that fell into multiple categories based on, but that was not distinguished or noted within the article. I assumed that it being a scientific article that all the data would be clearly presented. Also, I hadn’t noticed that for the phylogenetic trees that all the subjects were chosen from the moderate progressor group. I think overall the discussion allowed me to see that the article was as not sound as I had assumed.
  1. Have your views about what it means to do original research in biology changed as a result of discussing this article? Why or why not?
    • My views on what it means to do original research hasn’t changed, because I always viewed original research as “original” and therefore I always assumed that the papers that followed provided more accurate information. More studies that are performed with prior knowledge provides for an article with more evidence and a better understanding. Because it is the first time examining the topic I just learned that original research needs to be observed more closely, because it is original and hasn’t had the opportunity to observe some of the mistakes made from previous studies. So , the article by Markham did not alter my viewpoint on original research, because I do expect or am more accepting of original research being flawed.

Chloe Jones

Electronic Lab Notebook

Weekly Assignments

Class Journals


Chloe Jones 03:46, 15 October 2014 (EDT)Chloe Jones

Isabel Gonzaga

  1. Did the in-class discussion of the journal article enhance your understanding of the article? Why or why not?
    • I found the in-class discussion of the article very helpful in developing my understanding of the article. In particular, the background information section was useful in understanding the various components of the disease and breaking down the difficult vernacular used in the article. I think that having this foundation solidified (or by having read the Review Article prior to completing the assignment), I would have been able to gain deeper insights on the article. Additionally, going over each of the figures individually helped me to gain a better understanding of the results and methods involved, especially in Figure 1, as I had not noticed some of the trends displayed within the graphs, as they were explained in the article.
  2. Have your views about what it means to do original research in biology changed as a result of discussing this article? Why or why not?
    • I don't think my views on 'original research in biology' has changed, as the research methods did not seem too far different from other articles I have seen. The thing that surprised me most about this study was how quickly the authors were able to classify outliers in their data sets (along with subjects from previous studies) as 'extreme cases' or anomalies. I would have expected that they would offer an alternative explanation for this event, so perhaps my understanding of research has changed a little in that aspect. This article does bring to light, however, the difficulties in conducting research on the topic of HIV. With a limited population available, the chance to make people commit to meaningful, longitudinal studies becomes even more difficult. In addition, it shows the difficulty of researching a topic where limited research and information is available.

Isabel Gonzaga 20:40, 22 September 2014 (EDT)

Weekly Assignments

Class Journals

Electronic Lab Notebook

Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=BIOL368/F14:Class_Journal_Week_4&oldid=822450"