Framing Statement:
In this piece of writing for Biology Lab I was able to use the English 110 Learning Outcome regarding integrating ideas and summarizing. In the writing, I summarized the lab exercise and explained how to complete the assignment without sounding too methodical. I made sure to include important details, steps and overarching ideas regarding the purpose of the lab. When writing this piece, it would have been helpful to utilize the Learning Outcome of peer evaluation and review. I will use this technique in future writing pieces so I can receive feedback and suggestions on how to make my writing better. In this writing example, I also limited my grammatical errors that were present in my writing during the beginning of the semester and in Essay 1, such as comma splices and run-on sentences. The techniques I have learned in English 110 have improved my ability to summarize and synthesize ideas, which is beneficial when writing not only in English class, but in other classes as well.
Tetrahymena Lab Write-Up:
Control Group:
Three 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes were labeled: C3, C6 and C9, filled with 100 μl of 2% Lugol’s iodine and placed in Nalgene microcentrifuge racks. One more 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube was labeled: Control. 450 μl of Tetrahymena culture and 450 μl of the carbon solution (10% India ink) were then added to the Control tube. The Control tube was swirled and a timer was started.
After three minutes, 100 μl of the control solution was transferred into the C3 tube. At six minutes, 100 μl of the Control solution was transferred into the C6 tube. At nine minutes, 100 μl of the Control solution was transferred into the C9 tube. Before each transfer, a new pipettor tip was used. Using a wax pencil, three glass slides were labeled: C3, C6 and C9. A wet mount of 50 μl was then made for the C3, C6 and C9 tubes. Using a compound microscope, the number of food vacuoles were counted in the first 10 Tetrahymena cells that were seen.
Experimental Group:
Three 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes were labeled: 3X-U, 6X-U and 9X-U, filled with 100 μl of 2% Lugol’s iodine and placed in the Nalgene microcentrifuge racks. One 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube was labeled: X-U, filled with 200 μl of the .8 g NaCl/ 100 ml Tetrahymena Medium solution and 200 μl of the carbon solution (10% India ink) and shook well. 200 μl of the Tetrahymena culture was added to the X-U tube and a timer began.
After 3, 6, and 9 minutes, 100 μl were transferred into the 3X-U, 6X-U and 9X-U tubes and were shook well. A wet mount was made of 50 μl for each microcentrifuge tube. Using a compound microscope, the number of food vacuoles were counted in the first 10 Tetrahymena cells that were seen.
Results:
Mean number of vacuoles found in the Control group of Tetrahymena were 1.4 ± 0.07 at 3 mins, 2.7 ± 0.28 at 6 mins and 3.1 ± 0.71 at 9 mins (Figure 1). The mean number of vacuoles found in the Experimental group of Tetrahymena were 1.6 ± 0.35 at 3 mins, 2.3 ± 0.57 at 6 mins and 2.6 ± 0.21 at 9 mins. No significant effect was observed on the three samples. The mean at 3 mins increased by 0.2. At 6 mins the mean number decreased by 0.4 and the mean number at 9 mins decreased by 0.5 (Figure 1).
