User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
To summarize my experiment, I took samples of Achillea millefolium around the interior of British Columbia at different elevations and counted their flowers to see if there seemed to be a relationship between elevation and fitness. I completely changed my study goals when a brutal winter hit Merritt and the bunchgrass I was investigating was literally frozen solid.
To be tactful, my research was not well thought out. To be blunt, my research was garbage. I started with two sites in Chilliwack, 170 km from my home, then took samples at three sites in the Thompson-Okanagan, much closer to home, once the snow had melted enough. This may not have been a great idea, simply because there are significant differences in climate and plant life in those areas that I was not equipped to control. Were I to repeat this experiment, I would stick to one biogeoclimatic zone.
As I read through the literature related to my plant, I realized that I did not account for numerous confounding factors in my design. The best I could do by that point was point out the glaring flaws in my design in the final paper, as I am in no position to go traipsing through the snow again to recollect all of my data. I also figured out that I really need to brush up on statistics (it’s been a few years for me, and I am certain that I made errors in interpreting my results).
I will say that I found the initial field observations highly enjoyable. As a computer scientist, I have had almost no exposure to ecology or field techniques, but it was a wonderful experience to take control of my own learning and pay attention to the fine details of my local natural community.
Overall, the entire process was a valuable learning experience. Even if my design was not a complete success, I was able to identify where there existed weaknesses by looking at others’ experimental designs with a critical eye.
