Blog Post 5: Design Reflections
Reflections on Initial Data Collection
In Module 3, I began collecting data using my initial sampling strategy focused on dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) growth across different environmental gradients in a forested park area near Mississauga, ON. However, I encountered several challenges that have led me to reassess my approach.
Difficulties Encountered: One significant issue was the presence of multiple confounding variables that I had not fully accounted for in my initial design. For instance, I observed that human activity levels varied slightly between locations, but the differences were not substantial enough to influence the dandelion growth patterns meaningfully. Additionally, I did not clearly define what constituted “human activity” in the context of my study, which made it difficult to draw consistent conclusions from the data collected.
Surprising Data Insights: The data I collected primarily showed the number of dandelions and basic observations about their physical characteristics. However, this information did not provide the detailed insights I was hoping for regarding the influence of environmental gradients. The results were somewhat expected, revealing that dandelions grew in all locations but did not correlate with the specific factors I was measuring, such as soil moisture or sunlight exposure.
Plan for Modification: Given these challenges, I have decided not to continue with the same data collection strategy. Instead, I plan to modify my approach to focus more specifically on the relationship between dandelion growth and soil moisture levels, which seemed to show more promise as a variable of interest. I will narrow down my study to compare dandelion growth in areas with distinctly different soil moisture conditions, such as near the water’s edge versus higher, drier ground.
By redefining my variables and focusing on a more targeted hypothesis, I believe I can gather more meaningful data. My new hypothesis is that dandelions will show greater growth (in terms of plant size and flower production) in areas with moderate soil moisture compared to areas with either very high or very low moisture levels.
This adjustment will allow for a clearer analysis and reduce the impact of confounding variables, leading to more accurate and insightful results. I will also take care to better define and measure any remaining variables, such as human activity, to ensure consistency in data collection.
Feedback on a Fellow Student’s Hypothesis
After reviewing one of my peer’s blog posts, I noticed that their hypothesis was clear but lacked specificity in defining the response and predictor variables. For example, they stated that “animal presence” would increase with “vegetation density,” but they did not clarify how these variables would be measured or what specific animals or vegetation types were being considered. I suggest they refine their hypothesis to include specific metrics for vegetation density (e.g., plant cover percentage or biomass) and specify the types of animals they expect to observe. This would make their hypothesis more testable and ensure that the response variables are measurable in the field setting. Additionally, they should consider any potential confounding factors, such as seasonal variations in animal behaviour, that might impact their results.