Journal of Student Research at Saint Francis University Volume 8 (4) Spring 2018
SPECTRUM: Journal of Student Research at Saint Francis University Volume 8 Issue 4 Table of Contents Effects of Combination of Chewing Gum Influences on Memory Alicia M. Brown; Shannon T. McGinnis; Marnie L. Moist
10 Things I Hate About Man-Shrews Anna D. Baughman; Robin L. Cadwallader
The effect of acid mine drainage on the development of the C-Fern Mark A. Frank; Gail M. Drus
Contents of Spectrum Volume 8
Call for papers
(Student authors’ names underlined.)
Faculty Editors: Balazs Hargittai Professor of Chemistry firstname.lastname@example.org
Grant Julin Associate Professor of Philosophy email@example.com
Student Editorial Board: Gabrielle Beck Kayla Brennan Eric Horell ’13 Jonathan Miller ’08 Morgan Onink ‘17 Rebecca Peer ’14 Hannah Retherford Margaret Thompson ‘17
Managing Designer: Grace McKernan
Cover: Photo by Balazs Hargittai
Allison Bivens ’12 Hayden Elliott Emily Miller Steven Mosey ‘14 Shaelyn Parry Miranda Reed William Shee ‘17 Staci Wolfe
Effects of Combination of Chewing Gum Influences on Memory [Research conducted for PSYC 202 (Research Methods and Statistics II)] Alicia M. Brown Social Work Department School of Arts & Letters firstname.lastname@example.org
Shannon T. McGinnis Public Health Department School of Health Sciences email@example.com Marnie L. Moist, Ph.D. Psychology Department School of Arts & Letters firstname.lastname@example.org
The problem under investigation was determining the most important gum-related stimulus or stimuli combination to boost memory recall: herbs, chewing, and/or mint. Thirty-four college students (five males; twenty-nine females) with a mean age of 20.12 years participated in the study. Chewing on Think GumÂŽ, chewing on peppermint gum, sucking on peppermint gum, and chewing on a no gum control were compared to determine if there was an effect on the total number of words recalled. To test long-term memory recall, a distraction math test was used between word study and recall. The findings suggest that there is no significant difference in the mean number of words recalled based on the stimuli combination participants are exposed to during the study period and during the recall period. Therefore, based on the study results, it is unclear that any of these cognitive enhancers significantly increase oneâ€™s academic performance. The problem under investigation in this research study was to discover the most important stimuli or combination of stimuli are to boost long-term memory recall: caffeine herbs, chewing activity, and/or mint. In the school setting, teachers and professors often provide students with mints or mint flavored gum before an exam because it is thought that the mint flavor helps to stimulate the brain. Since this information can potentially improve academic performance, the goal of this study was to discover if this thought was in fact true or just a myth. The literature verifies the cognitive benefits related to gum remains controversial. For example, Allen and Smith (2015) state that chewing gum can enhance arousal, which is depleted by attention tasks. This suggests that vigorous chewing could have a greater effect on attention. Davidson (2011) further points out the following: Research has shown that standard chewing gum can affect aspects of both
attention and memory. The present study examined the effects of Think GumÂŽ, a caffeinated-herbal chewing gum, on both concentration and memory using a series of paper-based and online testing. Compared to standard chewing gum and a no-gum control, chewing caffeinatedherbal gum during testing improved aspects of memory, but did not affect concentration. The findings suggest that caffeinated-herbal chewing gum is an effective memory aid (p.303).
Hirano and Onozuka (2015) further highlight the controversy by arguing the following: The mechanisms of the beneficial effects of chewing on attention have been discussed for a long time, and they have been estimated as being derived from increases of cerebral blood flow and brain activity, cerebral blood flow, cardiovascular system, ascending
reticular activating system, glucose delivery, and flavors. Recently, Hasegawa et al. assumed that taste and odor can influence brain activation during chewing in sensory, cognitive, and motivational processes rather than in motor control, although some studies confirmed the beneficial effects on attention with tasteless and odorless gum base (p. 1).
Multiple sources have made claims on the controversy as to what was the most important aid in long-term memory recall. The most well-supported claim is the one made by Hirano and Onozuka (2015) stating that “chewing exerts a positive effect on attention...chewing could be useful as an easy method for modifying cognitive function on a daily basis and not be demanding physically and mentally” (p. 1.) Further adding to the controversy is that gum may influence short-term memory differently than long-term memory. A study conducted in 2012 by Kozlov, Hughes and Jones, was the first to state that chewing gum when involving short-term memory actually impairs memory rather than helping, thus contradicting other research on long-term memory. This goes against many previously cited research such as in Weijenberg and Lobbezoo (2015) which states that “working memory is positively affected by chewing a piece gum” (p. 1). Yet, the experiment conducted by Kozlov, Hughes, and Jones suggests that the action of chewing gum acts like tapping one’s finger, thus causing a disruption that could affect one’s performance on certain tasks, such as reading. During the research study, participants were asked to tap their fingers. The participants were asked to use their non-dominant hand and to tap with their fourth finger, then third, and then second finger at a pace of 3 taps per second. The results showed that tapping on a table decreased short-term memory recall. Following this finger-tapping study, Kozlov, Hughes, and Jones (2012) conducted a second follow-up experiment using flavorless gum. The participants were asked to chew gum while exposed to digit series either visually or auditory. Results of this experiment proved that manual finger-tapping produced similar patterns of distraction for
4 individuals as to those chewing gum in that both the actions of chewing and tapping equally showed impairments in tasks involving list item identity. These findings raise questions for further research to see how else the stimuli of jaw movement could impact an individual. In this study, researchers will imitate this idea by pairing a jaw movement stimuli with words visually presented. Hasegawa et. al. (2009) suggests that the brain is in fact impacted by this jaw movement stimuli and that the jaw movement stimuli could potentially be associated with one’s memory: Brain mapping studies during gum chewing, tapping, and clenching have shown that...the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex associated with memory are activated by jaw movement (p. 113).
Baker, Bezance, Zellaby, and Aggleton (2004) examined the action of chewing spearmint gum and its possible effects on the initial learning or subsequent recall of a list of words. The experiment focused on participants chewing gum during both study and recall periods. The experiment explored the differences between four different participant groups. Group one chewed gum while studying as well as when recalling data, group two did not chew gum while studying nor when recalling data, group three did not chew gum while studying nor when recalling data, and group four chewed gum while studying but did not chew gum while recalling data. The groups were given recall of tasks two minutes after study time as well as 24 hours after the study time to determine the effects of the different tasks performed by the participants in the four groups on long term memory. It was determined that the highest results in the number of words recalled for long term memory occurred for those who chewed gum during both study as well as recall when compared to the other three groups. This suggests that the chewing gum action does enhance cognitive performance, but could also have a contextual dependent effect. Allen and Smith (2015) discussed the chewing gum action and its effects on enhanced sustained attention performance with neuropsychological
data. The data confirms that there is an enhancement in sustained attention during the action of gum chewing. Frontal and temporal beta power were heightened by chewing gum following the performance of sustained attention tasks. Electroencephalography (EEG) is used to measure the electrical activity of the brain. Quantitative EEG effects of chewing gum without cognitive performance seem to be moderated by spearmint flavored gum, suggesting that alertness may be altered by chewing gum in the absence of cognitive performance. More specifically, the quickened reaction time on an adapted version of the attention network task was associated with increased activity in the motor regions for alerting and executing networks, as well as the anterior cingulate cortex and left frontal gyrus for the executive network. Alertness fell between pre- and post-test assessments on mood in this research study, and chewing gum was associated with higher alertness at posttest than pretest relative to participants who were chewing gum with no flavor. Chewing gum throughout the work day was self reportedly shown to enhance productivity both in university staff as well as university students. This has been shown through medical testing (EEG) as well as selfreporting by participants in the study. A study conducted in 2011 by Davidson provided the following information about Think Gum®. This experiment was conducted to see if Think Gum® could increase memory more than what normal gum can. Think Gum® is a chewing gum which contains caffeine and herbal supplements, which are thought to improve cognitive function. To test the Think Gum®, there were three different groups. The groups contained a control group, a bubble gum group, and the Think Gum® group. The participants were instructed to chew the gum for the duration of the study and were also asked to complete multiple cognitive tests. Results from this experiment showed that Think Gum® and just chewing gum did not increase one’s ability to concentrate. Think Gum® improved both short term and long term memory relative to both other groups, however, when looking at the results from test taken 24 hours later. Think Gum® retained
5 the most with only forgetting 7.9% of information. Whereas, regular gum forgot 22% and the control group forgot 25% of information. This experiment showed that Think Gum® affected memory. In addition, it also shows that regular gum can also have an effect on memory but not as much as what Think Gum® has. Since college students rely on long-term memory to pass exams and to remember information for their majors, the researchers, as college students, wanted to know if there was a way to improve longterm memory. Therefore, in this study they were interested in collecting long-term recall data. Four different groups were assigned based on the participant’s availability. The different groups consisted of chewing Think Gum®, chewing peppermint gum, sucking on peppermint gum, and a no gum control. This research study was similar to the other experiments because the researchers focused on gum chewing and cognition. What can be found differently in their study is the element of Think Gum® as well as the combination of stimuli to determine which individual stimulus or stimuli combination increases cognitive function. For example, would herbs, mint, chewing, or even sucking, alone or in combination cause an increase in cognition? The goal of this experiment was to better tease apart multiple possible influences on what causes an increase in cognitive function. This research study predicted there would be some mean difference in the long-term memory recall of words that were studied by actually chewing Think Gum®, by chewing regular peppermint gum, by sucking regular peppermint gum, and by receiving a no gum control. In this research study, the researchers predicted that the results would show the group actually chewing Think Gum® to have the best results for memory recall and the group who received no stimuli will have the lowest results on memory recall. “Chewing gum enhances cognition via enhanced glucose and oxygen transport to regions of the brain like the frontal-temporal regions that are known to play a role in memory” (Davidson, 2011, p. 303). It was unclear to the researchers which stimuli would be the most important influence on long term
memory recall given the contradictory past results found and given the lack of past attention to so many aspects of the separate stimulus elements. Therefore, results could occur in one of several combinations, each of which would indicate distinctive theoretical support (see Table 1 for a summary).
Possible Result Patterns for Mean Recall Scores
Cond. 1 = Think gum actually chewed (told all key ingredients; hard candy shell; cited research verifying) HERBS + CHEW + MINT
Cond. 2 = Peppermint gum actually chewed (told all key ingredients; hard candy shell; cited research verifying) CHEW + MINT
C1 > C2 = C3 > C4
C1 > C2 > C3 > C4
Option B: C1 > C2 > C3 = C4 Option C:
All 3 ingredients work â€“ herbs, chewing, and mint Herbs + chewing only work
Herbs + mint work mainly: chewing might help but with less effect
C1 = C2 > C3 > C4
Chewing + mint work together better than mint alone
Only herbs work
C1 > C2 = C3 = C4
Cond. 3 = Peppermint gum only sucked on (told all key ingredients; hard shell; cited research verifying) MINT Cond. 4 = No gum control NONE
C1= C2 > C3 = C4
Chewing works mainly; herbs and mint may help but with less effect
Only mint works
C1 = C2 = C3 > C4 Option H: C1 = C2 = C3 = C4
No cognitive long-term memory benefits of any 3 ingredients
Table 1. Possible Theoretical Effects of a Combination of Influences on Long-Term Memory
Methods Participants. Thirty-four college students (5 males; 29 females) with a mean age of 20.12 years participated in this study. 1 Multiracial, 1 Hispanic, and 1 Pacific Islander, and 31 Caucasian individuals participated in this study. 17 participants were freshman year, 2 were sophomore year, 10 were junior year, and 4 were senior year of undergraduate. In addition, the study also had 1 graduate school participant. All participants were entered into a random drawing to win one of two $50.00 Amazon gift card for participating. Because of the nature of this research study, the researchers asked participants with the following conditions to refrain from volunteering for this study: memory impairment; learning disabilities/reading difficulties; people who were unable to chew gum; people who donâ€™t like mint flavor; people with English as their second language (ESL); and people who were unable to consume caffeine. Materials. A word list typed in Times New Roman, 12-pt font (the standard font requirements) was printed on a standard sheet of white 8.5x11in computer paper for later recall (see Appendix 1.). This word list had twenty-five nouns. The nouns were all four-lettered, one syllable words. There were two versions of the word list with the words randomized differently on each version. The words were unrelated and from multiple categories. The words were at a 7th grade reading level. One response sheet was used per participant to write down the total number of words recalled from the word list. The response sheet was a standard sheet of 8.5 x 11 computer paper. The sheet did not have any lines. This was done to prevent participants from thinking that there was a certain number of words they should have recalled. Only instructions were typed on the top of the paper (see Appendix 2). A Distraction Math Test printed on a sheet of 8.5x11 white computer paper was used to distract the participants by preventing rehearsal of the word task (see Appendix 3.). This math test was originally created by Rocket Math, tests commonly used in elementary schools to teach students their
multiplication facts (Rocket Math, 2017). This distraction required participants to actually need to memorize the words rather than simply rehearse them and allowed the researchers to test long term memory recall. There were 80 single-digit multiplication questions in total. The distraction math test was created using www.rocketmath.com. This test was a randomly generated elementary-level Web Math Minute that included strictly single digit (0-9) multiplications. Once navigated to the website, researchers selected to include 80 math problems. At least forty papers (included some extras) were printed off for the participants. A demographics survey printed on 8.5x11 white computer paper was used to gather the characteristics of the study population (see Appendix 4). This data will then be statistically analyzed during data analysis to determine if participants’ characteristics influenced their performance in word recall. Gum with a hard, candy-coated shell was needed as stimuli to the participants. Gum with a hard, candy-coated shell was chosen because Think Gum® only came in a hard, candy coated shell and to prevent confounds, we decided to keep all gum alike. We had four conditions, three of which require gum, with 8-10 participants in each condition. 36 pieces of Think Gum® (Think Gum LLC, 2017) (4 per participant), 76 pieces of standard Peppermint mint Gum (4 per participant), as well as some extra (ex. If someone dropped their gum and needed a new piece) was needed for this study. Think Gum® was used in the condition that tested all three memory enhancing stimuli (caffeine, chewing, mint). All key ingredients for both gums related to our manipulation. Peppermint gum was used in two conditions when chewed or sucked only. Blank sheets of 8.5x11 in paper was also needed to include in the testing packet to separate the different tasks of this research study and to prevent looking back. Stopwatches were needed to time how long participants were given to study the word list and the amount of time participants had to recall as many words from the list as possible. This stopwatch was not projected on a screen to participants. Time was
7 kept from view of the participants to prevent confounds of stress as a result of time constraint. This stopwatch used was the Apple Clock app installed in Apple’s IPhone software. Pens were used to write down the words recalled, solve math problems, fill out the demographics survey, and sign the consent form. 34 pens (one per participant) were needed. There were extra available in case some of the pens did not write properly. The researchers concluded that they should use Eclipse peppermint gum as the regular mint gum for their study. It had a hard, candy coated shell, and the reported mean average of time for this gum to keep its flavor is 6 minutes and 33 seconds ("Wrigley.com: Eclipse", 2017). They wanted the study time to end before the gum lost its flavor to prevent floor effects. Researchers then instructed the participants to spit out their pieces of gum and to complete the distraction task because they tested long term memory. Following the distraction task, they provided participants with two more pieces of gum. Design and Procedure. This study was conducted to determine if the total number of words recalled depended on the type of gum stimuli participants were exposed to. When participants chewed on the Think Gum®, they were told by the researchers the ingredients and cited the research for Think Gum®. Participants were exposed to the herbs, mint, and chewing memory recall stimuli. Participants were exposed to the chewing and mint memory recall stimuli when they chewed the peppermint gum, were told they were chewing Think Gum®, and were provided with the ingredients and cited research verifying Think Gum®. Participants that sucked on the peppermint gum in their mouths rather than chewing it, were told that it was Think Gum®, and provided with its ingredients and cited research were exposed to the mint memory recall stimuli. The participants that chewed no gum throughout the experiment were not exposed to any gum related stimuli. The experiment used a randomized, betweensubjects design. Each testing time environment was
randomly assigned to one of the conditions. Having a between subjects design helped to prevent physical fatigue from chewing and mental fatigue from having to undergo more than one recall test. It also prevented participants from losing interest and becoming suspicious of the hypothesis. There were two versions of the identical word list used in this experiment with the words randomized in different orders to eliminate the order effects confound. The total list of students including both undergraduate and graduate was obtained from the registrar’s office. Four testing environments were scheduled at the Lower Level of the Library on October 31, 2017. Each environment was on the same date and but different time of day from the others so each could be tested individually. The times the experiments took place on this date were 6:15pm, 7:15pm, 8:15pm, and 9:15pm. With this method, the date was held constant among all participant groups. The list of names and emails was used to send out a mass campus-wide email to reach the maximum number of participants in the most cost effective way (see appendix 5). In this email, the experiment’s sensitivity criteria were included as well as the four dates/times available for the participants to volunteer to attend. In the email, the researchers also requested which of the times they were able to attend. Each dates testing environment was randomly assigned to one of the four participant groups. Because the researchers had not received enough responses from students from the campuswide email, we used Dr. Moist’s Psychology 101 students (after first asking her permission) as a convenient sample to fill the remaining participant spots. We did so by going into the beginning of one of her classes and passed around a signup sheet for students to sign up for a time slot that was compatible with their availability schedule. On testing day, researchers verified that they had all required instructions and materials for each specific testing group. A reminder email was sent to participants early that day reminding them they had volunteered to participate in the study later that day. Participants were checked in upon arrival and were instructed to sit in one of the desks in the testing room. When all participants had arrived, each
8 participant was handed a testing packet. Participants were instructed to turn to the consent form and were provided with a pen by the researcher. Participants were instructed to read over the consent form and sign if they were still willing to participate in the study. The next immediate step was different depending on the specific group of participants being tested in that environment. For the Think Gum® participants, each participant was provided with four pieces of Think Gum® in original wrapper. The participants were read out loud the claims of Think Gum® and mint had on memory recall by the researcher making sure to out loud cite identical sources and year for all gum groups and were then instructed to begin chewing only two of four pieces of Think Gum®. However, although this data was read to all gum participant groups, it was only accurately explained the effectiveness of Think Gum® on memory, not peppermint gum (Davidson, 2009; Davidson, 2011). Participants were also provided with a napkin to spit their gum into when requested by the researchers. The purposes of the gum being in the original wrapper was to remain sanitary and to convince all of the legitimacy of both gum types to prevent deception fears. The participants were instructed to turn in the packet to the page containing the word list instructions. Participants were told to read the instructions at the top of the paper, turn to their word list page, and then begin studying the list of 20 words. The timer was started by the researcher and participants had three minutes to study the word list. At the conclusion of the three minutes, participants were instructed to stop and turn to the next page (which was blank) to prevent further studying. Participants then spat their first piece of Think Gum® back into the wrapper they had saved before wadding it up. Because we were testing long term memory recall, a simple math test was used to take the participants’ minds off the words and prevent rehearsal of the words. The participants were instructed to turn the page to the math test located in their packets and to read the directions at the top of the paper. They used the pen they were given at the beginning of the experiment to complete the multiplications. The researcher
started the timer and instructed participants to begin the test. They had one minute to complete as many of the multiplications as possible. At the conclusion of the minute, participants were instructed to stop and flip to the next page in the packet (which was blank) to prevent further completion of problems. Participants were then instructed to begin chewing two new pieces of Think Gum, saving the wrapper same as before. Participants were instructed the second piece was needed for flavor freshness. All participants were instructed to turn to the response sheet instruction page in their packets and were told to read the instructions at the top of the response sheet. They were then instructed to turn to the next page of the packet which was the response sheet. The researcher started the timer and participants were given three minutes to recall and write down as many words as possible in any order from the word list they studied earlier on the response sheet. Participants used the pen to write down the words. At the conclusion of the three minutes, the researcher told the participants to stop and flip to the next page (blank page) of their packet to prevent them from writing down additional words outside the recall time frame. Participants were then instructed to spit the second piece of Think Gum back into the wrapper. Each participant was then instructed to turn to the demographics survey in their packet. They were instructed to read over the instructions and were given ample time to complete the survey items. When they finished the demographics survey, participants were instructed to leave their completed, paper clipped packet on their desks. Participants were then thanked for their participation and were free to leave the experiment. The procedure for the peppermint gum chewing was very similar, except for a few key differences. They were told this gum was Think Gum® and were read the claims Think Gum® had on memory recall by the researcher. The deception used here was reading aloud the identical cited research to verify its effectiveness; participants were later told the truth at debriefing about the importance of holding procedures constant across all groups. All other steps were held constant.
9 In the participant group exposed to only the mint stimuli, participants were given four pieces of peppermint gum at the start of the experiment. They were told this regular gum was Think Gum® and were read the deceptive cited claims Think Gum® had on memory recall by the researcher and were then instructed to only suck (not chew) two of four pieces of peppermint gum in their mouth throughout the study phase. Later in the experiment, they were instructed to suck (not chew) the two other pieces of peppermint gum before instructed to recall as many words as possible in any order. All other steps were held constant. In the participant group that was exposed to none of the memory stimuli, no gum was handed out to participants. No Think Gum® claims were read to participants nor were participants ever instructed to begin chewing/sucking their gum and then spit it out into the wrapper. All other steps were held constant. Results A 1-way ANOVA test was run using the SPSS Statistics software to analyze the total number of words recalled in this research experiment to compare across the different participant groups. In this experiment, alpha=0.05. The observed F value and degrees of freedom after running the 1-way ANOVA test for this data was F(3,30)=1.964. In addition, the p-value was 0.141. Therefore, based on the data collected, there appears to be no significant difference between the mean number of words recalled in any order among the four different gum participant groups were exposed to during the study period and then again during the recall period. In this research experiment, 2 participants’ data were dropped from analysis for various reasons. One of the participant’s data was dropped due to the participant not complying with the study’s stated specificities. The participant failed to comply with the specificity of not participating if English was one’s second language; this was the case for this individual as learned in the completed demographic survey for this participant. The second participant’s data was dropped due to the participant’s failure to follow instructions. For example, during the recall period, researchers noticed that this participant had
turned back to the word list page included previously in the study packet, an instruction explicitly instructed by the researchers to the participants not to do during the word recall period. A total of thirty-four participants participated in this research study. In the participant group chewing Think Gum, the mean total of words recalled among the nine participants was 13.43 words with a standard error of 1.53 (see Table 2). In the participant group chewing Eclipse peppermint gum, the mean total of words recalled among ten participants was 10.86 words with a standard error of 1.45 (see Table 2). In the participant group sucking Eclipse peppermint gum, the mean total of words recalled among 9 participants was 9.25 words with a standard error of 1.42 (see Table 2). In the participant group of no gum control, the mean total of words recalled was 12.55 words with a standard error of 1.60 words (see Table 2). Types of gum Mean Recall
Chewing Sucking Control Peppermint Peppermint
Table 2. Mean Word Recall as a Function of Type of Gum. [Note: N=34 participants]
The sample sizes used in this experiment for each participant group ranged from 8 to 10 participants. Therefore, data showed to be insufficient to obtain any of the three effect sizes. In order to find a small effect size, a sample size of 274 participants per condition would be needed. In order to find a medium effect size, a sample size of 45 participants would be needed. In order to find a large effect size, a sample of 18 participants would be needed. However, because our results were not significant, the power is reported. For the 1-Way ANOVA test, the observed power was 0.455. This power is insufficient for significant results in this experiment. Even after covarying out the participants’ selfreported GPA scores, based on the data collected, there appeared to be no mean difference in the mean
recall of words that were studied by the participant group chewing Think Gum, the participant group chewing peppermint gum, the participant group sucking on peppermint gum, and the no gum control. This data shows that participants’ GPA does not impact the number of words recalled by the participant. A 1-Way ANCOVA statistical analysis using the SPSS Statistics software was used for the data analysis of covarying out the variable of participant GPA. When covarying out the GPA variable, the following data was reported. In the participant group chewing Think Gum®, the mean total of words recalled among the nine participants was 13.63 words with a standard error of 1.24 (see Table 3). In the participant group chewing Eclipse® peppermint gum, the mean total of words recalled among ten participants was 11.89 words with a standard error of 1.82 (see Table 3). In the participant group sucking Eclipse® peppermint gum, the mean total of words recalled among 9 participants was 9.25 words with a standard error of 0.88 (see Table 3). In the participant group of no gum control, the mean total of words recalled was 13.44 words with a standard error of 1.41 words (see Table 3). The observed power was 0.317. This power is insufficient for significant results in this experiment. Types of gum Mean Recall
Chewing Sucking Control Peppermint Peppermint
Table 3. Mean Word Recall as a Function Type of Gum with GPA as a Covariate. [Note: N=34 participants]
Discussion Based on the results obtained from the main hypothesis, this study offers several theoretical interpretations. The results of the experiment showed that there was not a significant difference in the total mean number of words recalled between participant groups. Therefore, it can be interpreted that there may be no cognitive long-term memory benefits of any of the three ingredients (see Table 1,
option H). In addition, the insufficient power is 0.317. On the other hand, although there appeared to be no significant difference in the mean number of words recalled between participant groups, there was still a slight difference in the mean number of words recalled by each of these participant groups. For example, the group with the highest number of mean word recall was the population chewing Think Gum®, the population of the no gum control, then the population chewing peppermint gum, then the population sucking peppermint gum (see Table 2). These results may suggest that the herb stimuli alone worked to show cognitive long term memory benefits in participants while the other two stimuli appeared to serve as a distraction to participants, thus causing lowered performance in the word recall task. There were several flaws within our study that could have influenced that results of our experiment. First, the length of the study period (3 minutes) may have been too long compared to the number of words on the word list (25 words). For future experiments, it is suggested to possibly shorten the study period or increase the number of words on the word list. Second, it is possible that researchers placed too much trust in participants during the word recall period. For example, the word list was included in the testing packet which participants had access to during the length of the entire experiment. Although participants were instructed by the researchers to leave papers face down on the desk and not to refer back to previous pages in the testing packet, it is very possible that participants could have done so not to the knowledge of the researchers. For example, the researchers noticed this behavior of referring back to the word list during word recall period among one of the participants. Therefore, it could have been carried out by other participants. It is suggested in future experiments for researchers to collect the word list from participants before the word recall period to prevent this behavior. This research study’s results support, partially support, as well as contradict past research on the topic of cognitive long-term memory recall. As stated previously, the literature verified the
11 cognitive benefits related to gum remains controversial in this field. For example, our results contradicted the findings of Allen and Smith (2015) as well as those of Weijenberg and Lobbezoo (2015), in that our results, participants did not appear to experience enhanced arousal through gum chewing which is commonly depleted during attention tasks. Rather, our results showed no significant difference among participant groups when exposed to a stimulus or various stimuli combinations of cognitive enhancers, thus suggesting that chewing gum did not enhance arousal when participants may be experiencing depletion during attention tasks. This idea is interesting in that there may be individual differences across participants since the gum appeared to arouse some while impairing/distracting others. Similarly, the results of this experiment contradicted the cited research of Hirano and Onozuka (2015) which stated that chewing gum showed positive effects on attention vis associated sensory processes such as taste and odor rather than the actual motion of chewing (p. 1). This study’s results contradict these findings because the cited research suggests that only mint works in enhancing cognitive long-term memory benefits (see Table 2). However, these results instead suggested that there were no cognitive long-term memory benefits of any of the three ingredients. In addition, the cited research of Baker, Bezance, Zellaby, Aggleton (2004) was similar to that of Hirao and Onozuka (2015), however, it implemented the concept of performing a task during both study and recall with results showing that chewing gum during both study and recall periods enhanced cognitive performance. As mentioned previously, the research findings contradict that cited research. In a similar manner, Davidson 2011 also cited that standard chewing gum affects participants’ attention and memory. However, Davidson 2011 went even further to suggest that the caffeinatedherbal chewing gum known as Think Gum® is a more effective memory aid when compared to standard chewing gum and a no gum control (p. 303). Therefore, our results for this experiment
partially support this past cited research. The study’s findings of the highest mean for Think Gum® showed no significant difference among participant groups in the total mean number of words recalled by participants, thus contradicting the research cited by Davidson 2011 that standard chewing gum could have a greater effect on one’s attention. On the other hand, the results of this study supported the cited research of Kozlov, Hughes, and Jones (2012) which suggested that gum in fact impairs memory rather than helping. This study cites that the action of chewing gum resembles that of tapping one’s finger--it serves as a distraction to the main task at hand. This could have been partially explained as to why the chewing peppermint gum and sucking peppermint gum had lower total mean number recall of words during the recall task than the no gum control group. Both the actions of chewing and sucking could have served as a distraction to the participants from the task of word recall and/or word list study. It is possible that the herbs in Think Gum® compensated for the distraction participants experienced while chewing in the chewing Think Gum® participant group. Therefore, both the findings of this research study as well as those of Kozlov, Hughes, and Jones (2012) could suggest that the brain is in fact impacted by the jaw movement stimuli. Although similar to previous experiments in some aspects, this research study was unique in that it the element of Think Gum® as well as the combination of various supposed cognitive enhancing stimuli were used to research the effects of these individual stimulus or stimuli combinations on cognitive function. For example, many studies looked at the potential cognitive enhancers of herbs, chewing gum, and mint individually, however, our study looked to see if these individually as well as in various combinations could cause an increase in cognition. Although the research findings were not significant, the researchers found it interesting that the no gum control had a high total mean word recall number similar to that of the Think Gum® participant group while the chewing and sucking peppermint gum groups showed lower results. Although insignificant, it is possible that these
12 findings suggest the jaw movement stimuli does serve as a distraction to participants (Kozlov, Hughes, & Jones, 2012). For future research projects, various refinements could be done to this procedure to refine the experiment as a whole. First, future researchers could build off the results of this study and frame the next experiment to use the jaw movement stimuli to further test whether is serves as an enhancer or a distractor to the participant. This could be done by examining solely this cognitive stimulus rather than multiple stimuli like in this study, thus allowing for more in depth analysis of an individual stimulus. Second, in future experiments, it is suggested that a longer distraction test is carried out in between the study period and the recall period to truly test long term memory recall. This would allow for optimal long-term memory testing since participants would truly have had to have converted the words to their long term memory rather than exhibiting word rehearsal. In conclusion, the results of this experiment indicate that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest a correlation between the various stimuli or stimuli combinations participants are exposed to during both the study and recall period and the total number of words recalled by participants. There are a variety of interpretations for these findings in accordance to previous research. Therefore, additional research needs to be conducted to further analyze this association to make further conclusions.
On the next page you will see words to memorize. You will be given 3 minutes to study the words. In addition, please do not spit out gum (N/A for no gum) until the experimenter informs you to. When the experimenter informs you to begin please turn to the paper and start.
Directions: On the next page, you will see elementary-level
multiplication math problems. You will be given one minute to correctly complete as many of these math problems as possible. If you finish all problems before the time expires, please sit quietly and review your work. When the researcher informs you to begin, please turn the page and start.
Hour Clay Bone Teen Park Rain Nail Unit Town Hair Deal Navy Dice Calm Jury Edge Coat Bike Car Worm
On the next paper, you will see a blank page. You will be given 3 minutes to recall as many words from the word list as possible in any order. Please write down as many words you can in any order using the BIC pen provided. In addition, please do not spit out gum until the experimenter informs you to. When the experimenter informs you to begin please turn the paper and start.
Instructions: Please answer all of the questions honestly and to the best of your ability. 1. I am a (circle one): a. Male b. Female 2. How old are you in years? _________ 3. What race/ethnicity do you identify yourself as? _________________ 4. What is your current year in college? a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior e. Graduate Level
What is your GPA based on a 4.0 scale? _______ Do you drink coffee, tea, soda, or other sources of caffeine on a regular basis? a. Yes b. No, because I prefer not to or have been medically advised to avoid it. i. If yes, how many cups/serving do you drink per day? __________ Do you typically chew gum while studying? a. Yes b. No Do you typically chew gum during class? a. Yes b. No Please rate your preference of mint flavored gum on a 5pt scale. 1 2 3 4 5 Hate mint very much
Enjoy mint very much
Instructions: Please answer all of the questions honestly and to the best of your ability. 10. How much do you like to chew gum? 1 2 3 4 5 Hate
11. How well were you able to follow the instructions presented by experimenters during the study task today? 1 2 3 4 5 Very little
Dear Fellow Student, Our names are Alicia Brown and Shannon McGinnis. As students in PSYC 202 Research Methods and Statistics II, we are conducting an experiment in which we are looking for participants interested in participating. The experiment should not take any longer than 30 minutes to complete. However, please do NOT participate in this study if any of the following apply to you: ● Memory impairment ● Learning disability ● English as your second language ● Unable to consume caffeine ● Do not like mint flavor ● Unable to chew gum ● Are under the age of 18 This experiment will take place in the lower level of the library on Tuesday, October 31. The available time slots for this experiment are 6:15pm, 7:15pm, 8:15pm, and 9:15pm. Anonymity is guaranteed and should you participate in this study, you will be entered for a chance to win one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. If you are willing to participate in this study, please contact Alicia Brown (amb157) or Shannon McGinnis (stm107) for more information! Thank you, Alicia and Shannon
12. Are you fluent in another language aside from English? a. Yes b. No i. If yes, did you learn this language after you learned English? 1. Yes 2. No 13. How open-minded are you about alternative treatments for body and mind? 1 2 3 4 5 Not open
14. How many hours do you typically study before an exam? ____________________ 15. What learning style best describes you? a. Visual Learning b. Kinesthetic Learning (learning takes place by the students carrying out physical activities) c. Auditory Learning d. No preference
Appendix 6 Researcher Script Welcome to our experiment. This experiment is estimated to take around thirty minutes to complete. The experiment you are about to participate in is completely voluntary and if you for any reason do not want to complete the study, you are free to leave. Please turn off all cell phones and electronics at this time. First, we will be passing out a consent form and a pen. Please read the information and if you feel comfortable with continuing please fill out the required information. Please note that the consent form will be the only form with your name on it. When you are finished filling out the consent form, please put it face down on the corner of the desk. Please wait for next instructions. We will be passing out a packet to each of you. Please do not do anything with the packet until we instruct you. We will now start the experiment. Please listen closely to directions and do not work ahead or go back to previously finished assignments. If you see a stop sign on a page, please stop and do not flip forward. If you have a question, please feel free to raise your hand and wait for one of us to come to you.
Scripts For Individual Experiments ❏ Think Gum ❏We will now be passing out Think Gum. Think Gum is a sugar-free, candy-coated chewing gum carefully designed to enhance energy, brighten mood, to help breathing, and to improve mental clarity and memory. It contains potent herbs and herbal extracts. (i.e. Vinpocetine, Bacopa, Ginkgo Biloba, Guarana, Rosemary and Peppermint) that are scientifically demonstrated by Davidson in both 2009 and 2011 to improve concentration, increase alertness, reduce careless errors and enhance information recall. These claims have been researched in depth by the School of Medicine at Stanford University. Please keep the Think Gum in your mouth and continue to chew it until asked to spit it out in napkin.
At this time, please turn the page and read the instructions. (pause for them to read). When instructed to turn the page again, you will see a word list. Please try to memorize the words on this list for a later recall test until we instruct you to stop and turn the page. You may now turn the page again (wait 3 minutes). Stop. Please flip the page. Script For All Conditions Except Control ❏ Please spit out your gum into your napkin before the next task.
❏ Peppermint Gum (Chewed) ❏We will now be passing out Think Gum. Think Gum is a sugar-free, candy-coated chewing gum carefully designed to enhance energy, brighten mood, to help breathing, and to improve mental clarity and memory. It contains potent herbs and herbal extracts. (i.e. Vinpocetine, Bacopa, Ginkgo Biloba, Guarana, Rosemary and Peppermint) that are scientifically demonstrated by Davidson in both 2009 and 2011 to improve concentration, increase alertness, reduce careless errors and enhance information recall. These claims have been researched in depth by the School of Medicine at Stanford University. Please keep the Think Gum in your mouth and continue to chew it until asked to spit it out in napkin. ❏ Peppermint Gum (Sucked) ❏We will now be passing out Think Gum. Think Gum is a sugar-free, candy-coated chewing gum carefully designed to enhance energy, brighten mood, to help breathing, and to improve mental clarity and memory. It contains potent herbs and herbal extracts. (i.e. Vinpocetine, Bacopa, Ginkgo Biloba, Guarana, Rosemary and Peppermint) that are scientifically demonstrated by Davidson in both 2009 and 2011 to improve concentration, increase alertness, reduce careless errors and enhance information recall. These claims have been researched in depth by the School of Medicine at Stanford University. Please keep the Think Gum in your mouth and continue to never chew it until asked to spit it out in napkin.
Individual Script For Conditions ❏ Think Gum ❏We will now be passing out your second piece of Think Gum. Please keep the Think Gum in your mouth and continue to chew it until further instructions. ❏ Peppermint Gum(Chewed) ❏We will now be passing out your second piece of Think Gum. Please keep the Think Gum in your mouth and continue to chew it until further instructions. ❏ Peppermint Gum (Sucked) ❏We will now be passing out your second piece of Think Gum. Please keep the Think Gum in your mouth and continue to sucking it until further instructions.
On the next page you will turn to is instructions for a simple task to complete. Please turn the page. (pause for them to read) When instructed to turn the page again, you will see a set of math problems. You will be given 1 minute to complete as many math problems as you can. You may now turn the page again and begin the math problems. (wait 1 minute) Please stop and turn the page.
On the next page is a set of instructions for the recall task. Please turn the page and read the instructions. (pause for them to read). When instructed to turn the page again, there will be a blank page which will be for you to write down as many words as you can recall in any order from the original word list asked for you to study. You will be given 5 minutes to complete this task. Please do NOT refer back to the page with the study words! Please use the full time to try to recall the words. You may turn the page and begin. (wait 5 minutes) Please stop and turn the page. Script For All Conditions Except Control ❏ At this time, you may spit out your gum into your napkin or you may keep the gum and continue chewing. On the next page, there will be a survey. Please take as much time as needed to complete the survey to the best of your ability and be as honest as possible.
When finished, please place the packet face down on top of the desk. When finished, please remain seated and remain quiet until next instructions are given. Please turn the page and begin the survey Please avoid discussing tasks and details with others who may volunteer soon but have not yet been tested. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Alicia Brown or Shannon McGinnis. This concludes our experiment. Thank you very much for participating. You are free to leave.
Works Cited Allen, A., & Smith, A. (2015). Chewing Gum: Cognitive Performance, Mood, Well-Being, and Associated Physiology. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-16. doi:10.1155/2015/654806 Baker, J., Bezance, J., Zellaby, E., & Aggleton, J. (2004). Chewing gum can produce context-dependent effects upon memory. Appetite, 43(2), 207-210. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2004.06.004 Davidson, M. (2009). Stanford Student Awarded $50,000 to Market Think Gum, a Brain-Boosting Chewing Gum. Biotech Business Weekly. Retrieved April 9, 2017 from PROQUEST database. Davidson, M. (2011). Herbal-caffeinated chewing gum, but not bubble gum, improves aspects of memory. Appetite, 57(1), 303-307. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.019 Hasegawa, Y., Ono, T., Sakagami, J., Hori, K., Maeda, Y., Hamasaki, T., & Nokubi, T. (2009). Influence of voluntary control of masticatory side and rhythm on cerebral hemodynamics. Clinical Oral Investigations, 15(1), 113118. doi:10.1007/s00784-009-0338-5 Hirano, Y., & Onozuka, M. (2015). Chewing and Attention: A Positive Effect on Sustained Attention. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-6. doi:10.1155/2015/367026 Kozlov, M., Hughes, R., & Jones, D. (2012). Gummed-up memory: Chewing gum impairs short-term recall. The
16 Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 65(3), 501-513. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.629054 Rocket Math. (2017). Rocket Math. Retrieved 10 April 2017, from https://www.rocketmath.com/ Think Gum (2017). Think Gum--12 Blister Packs. Think Gum LLC. Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Think-Gum-6-BlisterPacks/dp/B005P5UBUO/ref=sr_1_2_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1 516742666&sr=8-2&keywords=think+gum. Weijenberg, R., & Lobbezoo, F. (2015). Chew the Pain Away: Oral Habits to Cope with Pain and Stress and to Stimulate Cognition. Biomed Research International. 1-7. doi:10.1155/2015/149431 Wrigley.com:Eclipse. (2017). Wrigley.com. Retrieved December 11, 2017, from http://www.wrigley.com/global/brands/eclipse.aspx#panel-2
Alicia Brown ('19) is a Social Work major with a minor in American Sign Language and Psychology. She is a member of the Social work honor society and secretary of the social work club. On campus, Alicia works as a swim lesson instructor, and desk staff at the Center for Academic Success. After graduation, Alicia plans to work towards getting her Masters in Social work and continuing on to get her Clinical License for Social work. Shannon McGinnis ('19) is a Public Health major with a minor is Psychology. She is a member of the honors program and the Women's Soccer team. She is also involved in SAMs, SAAC, Flash Focus, and the APPLE Leadership Team. After graduation, Shannon plans to receive her Master's in Nutrition and Dietetics to become a Registered Dietitian.
10 Things I Hate About Man-Shrews [Research conducted for ENGL 407 (Principles of Literary Research, Theory, and Practice)] Anna D. Baughman Literature & Languages Department School of Arts & Letters email@example.com
Women who are not afraid to voice their opinions, do not allow men to treat them badly, and stand up for themselves and others are commonly referred to as “bitches.” In the time of Shakespeare, these confident and unafraid women were referred to as “shrews.” According to the Dictionary by Merriam-Webster, a shrew is “an unpleasant, badtempered woman”; a bitch, “a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman.” Despite the substitution of select adjectives, one fact rings true: women are specifically designated for these words with unpleasant connotations. Women who fit such descriptions can be found in The Taming of the Shrew, written by William Shakespeare, and 10 Things I Hate About You, directed by Gil Junger, as the latter is loosely based on the former. Katherine, the shrew, and Kat, the bitch, take their respective insults and make them something different: compliments. Both lead female characters take the personal qualities that turn people away and own them as powerful attributes. Moreover, the women use their strengths to tame the men opposite them. Therefore, in the words “shrew” and “bitch,” readers and viewers find strengths that enable such characters to control their destines and their men, as shown in The Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You. Why did Shakespeare write the original play, which had heavy themes of gender inequality? Critic Sherri Thorne argues for Shakespeare’s objectivity, declaring, “Shakespeare does not support this violent treatment of women, nor does he walk through the streets of London campaigning for their better treatment” (53). Thorne believes that Shakespeare wrote this play to create a commentary
Robin L. Cadwallader, Ph.D. Literature & Languages Department School of Arts & Letters firstname.lastname@example.org
on the relationships of men and women of his time and offers the following historical context for Shakespeare’s tale: Religious leaders created contradictory views of women by simultaneously condemning Eve and revering the Virgin Mary. In the secular arena, Neoclassical scholars embraced the tenets of humanism, which proclaimed women inferior to men. The average couple, who lived during the Renaissance, incorporated bits and pieces of all the popular ideals, but the strong influence of the church and the embedded traditions of society supported a patriarchal position. Men exerted strong control over the women in their lives, and if these women resisted or complained, men labeled them shrews. Physically subdued, often a woman’s voice was her only weapon of defense, but her cries for help seldom reached sympathetic ears. (53)
Whether Shakespeare’s commentary was in support of or an argument against these patriarchal ideals is unclear. However, his choice of a comedy with such radical displays of gender oppression can be viewed as satirical, highlighting the hilarity of the preposterousness that these beliefs entailed. Thorne presumes that Shakespeare wrote this play to “[cajole] the audience into reconsidering its ideas about and its treatment of women” (54). The exact reason Shakespeare wrote the story, though, will most likely never be known. Despite this, the finished text inspired 10 Things I Hate About You four hundred years later. The character names—Katherine and Bianca—and the use of Padua (as a city in Taming and a school in 10 Things) are not where the similarities end. The characters of Katherine and Kat are strikingly
similar in their lack of interest in marrying/dating, indifference to what others think of them, and bitterness toward their sisters. Too, the Biancas— the sisters—are both shallow, praised by any man who comes across them, and unable to marry/date until their older sisters do. Petruchio and Patrick— the lovers—are both changed in the end, moving from a focus on money and taming to love. Within these stories are characters commonly seen throughout literature, or archetypes. These kinds of characters have the same fundamental qualities. Critic Northrop Frye emphasizes the importance of archetypes when studying intertextual works, or works that mirror each other. Katherine and Kat are shrews: abrasive and terrifying women. The Biancas are the perfect princess characters. Themes of change, love, and acceptance are apparent in both. Typically, The Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You are regarded as antifeminist texts. As the female characters are tamed or controlled by the men, the play and the movie are thought of as repressive. Erica Hateley, who does a gendered educational analysis on both of these stories, quotes Melissa Jones, who argues, “What the play teaches . . . is that social disruptors are sweetest when bullied into submission and silenced in a patriarchal embrace” (131). Because Katherine ends the play completely devoted to Petruchio—her new husband—it is deduced that she is giving into this patriarchal embrace. However, this is a very superficial reading of the story, which demands more thought and analysis. Michael Friedman, when looking at the stories from a feminist point of view, offers that 10 Things I Hate About You is a feminist version of The Taming of the Shrew. While this is a step in the right direction, there can still be a feminist reading of the play, which Friedman does not attempt. Monique Pittman has looked at the story from a readerresponse perspective using multiple teenage interpretations—her students’—on the play compared to the movie. Her students thought that the characters in 10 Things I Hate About You “were given more freedom to choose and decide for themselves” (144). Moreover, Rachel De Wachter offers that “directors have convincingly interpreted
18 the play in many different, even contradictory, ways,” which adds the element of artistic license to this argument, showing that The Taming of the Shrew has been transformed in many ways throughout the years. While directors today may not find the original text to be feminist, they have the power to create a Katherine who is more obviously feminist. While I appreciate these attempts to understand Katherine’s submission, I argue that a feminist understanding of the original text is possible, but only if one can appropriate and empower the definition of a shrew. The feminist, though apparent in both Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You, is represented differently in each. In the former, the feminist is subtle: Katherine is tamed in the end but only because she has allowed herself to be tamed. The latter shows an obviously strong woman in Kat, who finds love but is not necessarily tamed by the one she loves. In fact, she, like Katherine, seems to tame her supposed tamer. Both women embody the stereotypical feminist, as they are screaming, manhating, and blunt characters. Katherine is commonly referred to as a “fiend from hell” and “Curst Katarina,” while Kat is called a “bitter, selfrighteous hag” and “heinous bitch.” These adjectives are typically used when describing feminists, or “femi-nazis” as they are affectionately nicknamed by society. Critic Josephine Donovan determines that in Western culture “female stereotypes symbolize either the spiritual or the material, the good or evil” (228). Using stereotypes about feminists, Shakespeare and Junger create characters who are openly perceived as evil. What makes these characters feminist is not their negative qualities, but their ownership of these qualities as foundations of their strength. Though men try to use these qualities to lessen the value of these women, it is not always successful. For instance, when Petruchio first mentions Katherine to her father, he says, “Pray, have you not a daughter / Call'd Katharina, fair and virtuous?,” to which her father, Baptista, replies, “I have a daughter, sir, called Katharina” (2.1.42-43). The insinuation here is that Katherine is not beautiful or virtuous. However, Baptisa’s children
are described as “two fair daughters” (2.1.44). Her beauty is one thing the patriarchy cannot take from her, despite its attempts to do so. The same applies to her virtue, which is firmly intact. In addition to these positive qualities is Katherine’s intelligence. Katherine, after being starved, denied sleep, and abused mentally, seems to have an awakening in her knowledge of herself. This is more clearly seen in live versions of the play, rather than the written word. For this purpose, I watched the movie adaptation of the play from 1983, which shows a thoughtful Katherine as Petruchio attempts to convince her to say that the sun is the moon. Though she originally disagrees with this obvious fallacy, she takes a moment to consider her options. Petruchio will not take her home for her sister Bianca’s wedding unless she agrees with everything he says. There is a clear moment of revelation that results in Katherine agreeing with Petruchio. From this moment on, Katherine listens to and agrees with Petruchio explicitly. Here, we see Katherine allowing herself to be tamed, a true feminist act. Though Katherine undoubtedly has the ability to continue to be a shrew, she wisely decides to stay alive and live a peaceful life. Kat, though similar in personality, presents a different case. She starts the movie with a peaceful life. As an overt, rather than covert, feminist, Kat does not believe in living to please others. On the contrary, she lives for herself and does not let anyone influence her decisions. After Patrick comes into her life, she attends a party and prom, both of which are completely out of character for her. However, in the end, she is the same Kat she always was. In a way, Kat tames herself; she allows herself to be the young woman she was meant to be, her own awakening in knowledge of herself. Though the women are seen as tamed, the men, too, go through a taming process. While Katherine and Petruchio finish their story as a married couple, Kat and Patrick end as a couple dating in high school. The couple is together and believed to be entering a happily-ever-after life when the movie ends, as many Hollywood films do. This assumed fairy-tale ending leaves viewers to believe that Kat and Patrick eventually end up married, as Katherine
19 and Petruchio do. These two men, now husbands, have been tamed in the most obvious way: they are married. Marriage is the ultimate form of taming for men, who are commonly afflicted with commitment issues. Petruchio starts out in The Taming of the Shrew searching for money in the form of a dowry. He finds, marries, and “tames” Katherine. However, by the end, he is no longer concerned with the money (granted, he already has it); instead, he is as in love with Katherine as she is with him. Too, Petruchio is an abusive husband for the majority of the play but becomes caring and loving at the end. Furthermore, the idea of a woman taming a man is subtly shown in Katherine’s sister Bianca throughout the story. Bianca has the ability to make any man fall in love with her. It is clear that these men would do anything for Bianca, proven when men wear disguises to try to win her over. One, Hortensio, has his friend, Petruchio, marry her sister, who we know is described in primarily awful adjectives. Hortensio, a bitter and unpleasant man, puts aside years of friendship for his love of Bianca, showing Bianca’s power over men and, thus, representing the tamed man-shrew. Perhaps more obvious is Patrick, a stereotypical bad boy. He often is seen smoking, skipping class, and hanging out in pool halls with less-thanreputable company. When courting Kat, the first thing he learns about her is her hatred of smoking. Thus, we see Patrick smoking only once more. Patrick and Kat have one class together, which he walks into—and directly out of—in one of the first scenes. In the end, when Kat is reading a sonnet written by her to Patrick, he is in this very class. In other words, Kat has inspired him to attend class. Additionally, Patrick appears less and less with his disreputable friends, who represent his past debauchery. In fact, he is seen more with Cameron (Bianca’s love interest) and his friend Michael, two of the most innocent characters in the film, as the story progresses. Moreover, Patrick begins courting Kat because he is paid to do so. In the end, he does not want to take the money anymore. Instead, he uses the money he already has to buy Kat a guitar and hire her favorite band to play at prom. Technically speaking, Kat remains a static character
throughout the story, and Patrick is the protagonist. Patrick evolves into what every woman wants, a tamed man-shrew. The image of the bad girl evolves from The Taming of the Shrew, written in the 1500s, to 10 Things I Hate About You, produced in the 1990s. In Shakespeare’s time, being a shrew was disgraceful. Women were typically beautiful, silent, obedient, and innocent; essentially, they were dolls. While Bianca fits this description quite well, Katherine clearly does not. In fact, a man tells Katherine’s father that she is too “rough” for him and tells her she would be more likely to find a husband if she were “milder and gentler” (1.1.55, 61). Clearly, Bianca was a more desirable woman, while Katherine was atypical. She was likely a surprising character in this time, and the shock value Katherine offered undoubtedly added to the comedy. In 1999, 10 Things I Hate About You featured Kat, who represented a more contemporary type of woman. She preaches about feminism and the importance of women often throughout the movie. Had Katherine done this during in her role, it would have been out of place, and it is clear that Kat is out of place in her setting, if not in her historical context. The other students are all obsessed with popularity and sex, while Kat abhors these things. When Kat is first seen in her car, the song “Bad Reputation” by Joan Jett is playing. The title alone proves that Kat does not fit in with her fellow classmates. Automatically, this makes people think she is a bitch; her own sister even calls her a bitch when criticizing her for not fraternizing with her peers. While Katherine is an obvious shrew in the way she acts, both in what she says and what she does physically, Kat is a more realistic and toned-down shrew. Despite this, both have attributes that make them the stereotypical bad girl. Arielle Pardes explores the evolution of the word bitch, which I think applies to both of these stories. “[Bitch is] the original insult,” Pardes begins her analysis; “It needs no introduction, no following; it works as a standalone slur for just about any scenario” (par. 1). When originally used, bitch was a highly offensive insult. However, Pardes notes that later “‘Bitch’ it seemed, was turning its face toward feminism,” and it was (par. 8). Nowadays, people
20 think of a bitch as a strong, independent woman. This is because of women like Katherine and Kat, who are unapologetically themselves, good or bad. Not only has the shrew evolved, but the taming has also changed. As mentioned before, Patrick is clearly tamed in 10 Things I Hate About You, which embodies the evolution in taming. The definition of taming clearly altered from 1590 to 1999. In Shakespeare’s time, the taming was literal: Petruchio stops feeding Katherine and does not allow her to sleep, making her listen to what he says. Like a blinded bird, she obeys everything he tells her to do: “My falcon now is sharp and passing empty; / And till she stoop she must not be full-gorged, / for then she never looks upon her lure” (4.1.125-26). In the case of Kat and Patrick, the taming is less recognizable. At the end of the movie, when Patrick and Kat are making up, he cuts her off with a kiss every time she tries to speak. Erica Hateley observes the action in this part of the movie, saying, “This moment of silencing should be disturbing, whether viewed with Shakespeare's play in mind or not” (132). Her interpretation of this scene is that Patrick is taming and silencing Kat. However, if this is the taming of the shrew in 10 Things I Hate About You, it is quite a mild and farfetched subduing, as Kat in the rest of the film does not let Patrick talk over her or say anything inappropriate. The belief that this behavior would suddenly stop does not follow the pattern of the movie or its characters. Patrick likes Kat’s sharp tongue and witty repertoire; he would not want to tame that out of her. While it is safe to assume that the couple ends up happily-ever-after, it is also safe to assume that Kat begins to talk once more when the camera is turned off. The viewers know Kat would not let Patrick have the last word. Therefore, the question remains, how is Kat tamed? And it can be argued that she never is. Katherine and Kat are two strong female characters; in other words, they are two shrews and bitches, two women who know their own minds and are not afraid to show it. They take these descriptors and let them become their identities. Despite their oppressors, who come in the form of men in love, they prevail as strong, smart, and independent characters. They redefine the original conceptions of
a shrew or a bitch, creating forces to be reckoned with. The apparent feminism that accompanies this appropriation invents an interesting and refreshing archetype: the woman who is not afraid to be herself, in spite of society’s opinions of what that might mean.
21 Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 2, 2004, pp. 144-52. Proquest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/226997408/fulltextPDF/4F8 4ADBEF12B461DPQ/1?accountid=4216. Accessed 3 Dec.
2017. Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew. 1590-92. Sheba Blake Publishing, 2014. “Shrew.” Dictionary by Merriam-Webster, n.d. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrew?src=searchdict-hed. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.
Works Cited “Bitch.” Dictionary by Merriam-Webster, n.d. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bitch. Accessed 3
Dec. 2017. De Wachter, Rachel. “Power and Gender in The Taming of the Shrew.” Discovering Literature: Shakespeare and Renaissance Writers, 15 Nov. 2016, https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/power-and-gender-in-thetaming-of-the-shrew. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.
Donovan, Josephine. “Beyond the Net: Feminist Criticism as a Moral Criticism.” 1983. Contexts for Criticism, edited by Donald Keesey, Mayfield, 1998, pp. 224-33. Friedman, Michael D. “The Feminist as Shrew in 10 Things I Hate about You.” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 2, Summer 2004, pp. 45+. Literature Resource Center, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?u=lore16537&v=2.1&it=r&id=G ALE%7CA120044805&p=GLS&xp=&authCount=1#. Accessed
3 Dec. 2017. Hateley, Erica. “A Gendered Educational Agenda: What’s Wrong with 10 Things I Hate About You?” Screen Education, no. 57, 2010, pp. 129-35. Proquest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/880483307/fulltextPDF/606 3D1151BDB4335PQ/1?accountid=4216. Accessed 3 Dec.
2017. Pardes, Arielle. “The Evolution of the Bitch.” Vice, 9 Sept. 2014, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppmx3m/theevolution-of-the-bitch-905. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Pittman, Monique L. “Taming 10 Things I Hate About You: Shakespeare and the Teenage Film Audience.”
The Taming of the Shrew. Directed by John Allison, performances by Karen Austin and Franklyn Seales, Century Home Video, 1983. 10 Things I Hate About You. Directed by Gil Junger, performances by Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger, Buena Vista Pictures, 1999. Thorne, Sherri. “Shakespeare: Advocate for Women in The Taming of the Shrew.” Henderson State U, 2003-04, pp. 5377, http://www.hsu.edu/academicforum/2003-2004/20034AFShakespeare.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.
Anna Baughman ('19) is an English Literature major, with minors in Communications and Writing. She is a member of Sigma Tau Delta (English) and the Secretary of Alpha Psi Omega (Theater). On campus, Anna is a tutor at the Writing Center, a Student Ambassador, and a work study student for the Literature and Languages Department. Additionally, she is the President of the Literary Club and the Editor-in-Chief of the SFU newspaper, The Troubadour. After graduation, Anna plans to go into the field of editing, with hopes of eventually editing books.
the summary The effect of an interesting of acid point. mine You can position the text box Mark A. Frank anywhere in the document. Use the Biology Department Drawing Tools tab to change the School of Sciences formatting of the pull quote text email@example.com box.]
drainage on the development of the C-Fern Gail M. Drus Biology Department School of Sciences firstname.lastname@example.org
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a prevalent problem in Pennsylvania and other areas in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The effects of acid mine drainage are an active area of research, but still little is known in regard to the effects these pH changes have on the growth, reproduction, and development of pteridophytes, such as ferns. To determine if AMD has an impact on the development of ferns, spores of Ceratopteris richardii were suspended in AMD and inoculated on agar plates containing basic C-Fern medium. By observing the development of these spores at 40x magnification, it was found that individuals raised within AMD-treated media afforded less sporophytes compared to their peers in the control. In addition, a higher proportion of hermaphrodites was observed in the control relative to AMD. In the absence of chemotaxis data, the discrepancy in sporophyte proportion was attributed to a limitation of fertilization events in AMD as a consequence of smaller proportions of hermaphrodites in the AMD treatment. Introduction Ferns are ecologically valuable plants that can serve purposes as diverse as ecological filtration (e.g., removing arsenic from soil) and prevention of soil erosion (Rathinasabapathi et al., 2006; George and Bazzaz, 1999) . Ceratopteris is a genus of subtropical aquatic ferns that contains two species: Ceratopteris thalictroides and Ceratopteris richardii (Dong et al., 2005). The latter, commonly referred to as C-Fern, has been a long-serving model organism for plant biology due to its structural and developmental simplicity, and its relatively rapid life cycle (Chatterjee and Roux, 2000). These ferns follow an alternation of generations life cycle, featuring a haploid gametophyte that arises from a spore and that ultimately develops into a diploid sporophyte. The C-Fern gametophyte can be found in two forms, which correspond to two distinct sexual phenotypes: meristematic hermaphrodites and ameristematic males. The presence of a notch meristem confers a distinctive heart-shape upon hermaphrodites, whereas the lack of a meristem endows male gametophytes with a smaller, more compact appearance (Atallah and Banks, 2015). The sex of a gametophyte is determined after germination and is dependent on the social environment of the gametophyte (Cheruiyot and
Schwartz, 2007). The social environment of a gametophyte consists of neighboring individuals, which can release antheridiogen. In a wild-type population of C-Ferns, males arise after hermaphrodites in response to antheridiogen, a hormone that promotes the development of antheridia. Fertilization gives rise to a diploid sporophyte, which dominates the overall life cycle of C-Fern (Atallah and Banks, 2015). By virtue of its status as a model organism, much work has been done to investigate how various stimuli affect the growth and development of the C. richardii gametophyte(Vogelien et al., 1996; Sayers and Hamilton, 1995; Atallah and Banks, 2015). Notable biochemical investigations include the control of sexual development in the gametophyte using abscisic acid and antheridiogen by Atallah and Banks (2015), and the differential effects of metal cations and osmotic stress on wild-type and mutant strains of C. richardii by Vogelien, Hickok, and Warne (1996). This work seeks to build upon these biochemical investigations by examining the effects of acid mine drainage (AMD) on the development of the C. richardii gametophyte in the hopes of eventually elucidating the effect of this pollution on native Pennsylvania fern species. C. richardii is being used in this experiment for ease of
experimental set-up and because much more is known about growing C-Fern in a laboratory setting than ferns from temperate regions. AMD is a pollutant associated with coal mining that forms when carbonic acid reacts with sulfur-rich minerals such as pyrite, which affords sulfuric acid and iron sulfates (Hoffert, 1947; Akcil and Kodas, 2005). AMD is of particular interest in areas such as Pennsylvania where generations of mining have created an extensive network of AMD-polluted rivers and streams. The discharge of AMD into bodies of fresh water lowers the pH of the water body, devastating aquatic organisms by releasing metals into the water, which occurs as a consequence of increased solublity in high [H+] (Warner, 1971; Gray, 1997; Chuan et al, 1996) Despite much research being done on C-Fern, no papers have been published regarding its tolerance to AMD. Thus, it is hoped that exposing C-fern spores to AMD will provide a first step to understanding the effects of AMD on the life cycles of ferns in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US.
Materials and Methods RWNT1 unsterilized C. richardii spores were purchased from Carolina Biological Supply Company. These spores were suspended in sterile water for the control group and in a solution of synthetic AMD for the experimental group. Each group was then inoculated onto sterile 60x15 mm petri dishes containing basic C-Fern medium. The experimentâ€™s control consisted of a suspension of the spores in 4-mL of sterile water; 1.000 mL of this suspension was used to inoculate four plates containing basic C-Fern media. A solution of synthetic AMD was prepared from ferrous sulfate heptahydrate, to a concentration of 99.56 mg/L, and sulfuric acid, of which 116 ÎźL was added to the solution (P. Smyntek, Personal Communication, January 28, 2016). The pH of the treatment was then adjusted to 2.54 to simulate that of naturally occurring acid mine drainage. The final solution was then sterilized in an autoclave. The experimental treatment consisted of C-Fern spores in 4 mL of the synthetic AMD solution; 1.000 mL of this treatment was delivered to four plates each containing basic CFern media. After inoculation, the plates containing C-Fern spores were placed on a growth cart at 28oC under a 20-watt wide spectrum light source. Upon
23 germination, C-Fern specimens were observed every two days at 40x magnification using a bifocal microscope and the number of spores, germinating spores, gametophytes, males, hermaphrodites, and sporophytes was recorded. On each plate, observations were consistently taken at representative growth regions every two days for a total of ten samplings. JMP version 11 (SAS Institute) was used for statistical analysis. A 0.05 critical value was used, but values between 0.05 and 0.1 were reported as trends. Two-factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effect of treatment (AMD vs. Control) on the proportion of C. richardii life stages over time. Studentâ€™s t multiple comparisons was used to determine differences among means. Proportional data were arcsine-square root transformed to meet normality assumptions. Results The proportion of life stages changed significantly over time (F3,12 = 8.41, p= 0.0028, Fig. 1). The life stages consisted of males, hermaphrodites, and sporophytes after sexual differentiation. At sampling time 1, four days after seeding, spores were just beginning to germinate. The data from this sampling time show that there was higher proportion of germinating spores (~ 15%) in the control relative to the AMD. This difference in development was also true at sampling time 2 (F5,18 = 123.04, p< 0.0001), where a higher proportion (~8.8%) of gametophytes were found in the control relative to the AMD. At sampling time 3, the proportion of life stages continued to diverge (F2,18 = 323.32, p< 0.0001); gametophytes began to mature into males and hermaphrodites. A higher proportion of hermaphrodites was found in the control than in the AMD at times 3 and 4; at time 3 there were 16.4% more, and at time 4 there were 22% more hermaphrodites in the control treatment. The first sporophytes were observed in the AMD at sampling time 4, but by sampling time 6, 46% more sporophytes were present in the control (F7,24 = 16.4, p< 0.0001). At the final sampling time (sampling time 10, F5,18 = 2.95, p= 0.0221), the proportion of sporophytes in the control was 54% higher than in
the AMD. It is notable that at no time during the experiment was the proportion of males found to vary between the control and AMD-treated C-Fern populations. Results It was found that individuals raised in the AMD treatment were overall less likely to develop into hermaphrodites, as seen by the data in Figure 1. The proportion of males was found to be stable between the control and AMD, suggesting that the treatment with AMD did not directly influence sexual differentiation. At sampling times 3 and 4, hermaphrodites were more prevalent in the control compared to AMD, suggesting that the proportion of hermaphrodites in AMD did not increase as rapidly as that of the control. One possibility is that AMD interfered with the antheridiogen signaling. Antheridiogen is a hormone that stimulates gametophytes to differentiate into male gametophytes. If true, males would not necessarily develop in response to antheridiogen, meaning the proportion of hermaphrodites, not the sheer number, would be artificially greater. This is consistent with what was observed. It is important to note that this does not mean more hermaphrodites developed, so much as that fewer males did. Contrary to this explanation, there were no significant differences observed between the proportion of males at any point in the experiment. However, it could still be possible that an increase in hermaphrodite proportion is a function of fewer individuals in other categories. This might be plausible since males are typically very numerous in relation to hermaphrodites (Cheruiyot and Schwartz, 2007; Atallah and Banks, 2015). The sexual phenotype of Ceratopteris depends on its social environment and is primarily mediated through antheridiogen, which is released by the hermaphrodite to promote the development of male gametophytes (Sayers and Hamilton, 1995). The trend observed in the sporophyte life stage corroborates this conclusion. The first sporophytes were observed in AMD at time 4; however, the control had a notably higher proportion of sporophytes by sampling time 6. At sampling time
24 10, sporophytes were 54% more prevalent in the control compared to the AMD. The fact that the proportion of sporophytes in the presence of AMD was much reduced suggests that the lower proportion of hermaphroditic individuals limited the number of fertilizations that could occur. It is widely accepted that only hermaphrodites possess the archegonia in Ceratopteris. Thus, it is logical that the number of hermaphroditic individuals is a limiting factor in the number of potential sporophytes. By definition, a fern hermaphrodite is that which has a notched meristem, antheridia, and archegonia, and hence it possesses male and female characteristics. However, the lack of significantly different results for males and hermaphrodites between sampling times 5 through 10 adds uncertainty to this conclusion. Disregarding statistics, the raw data in Figure 1 suggest that the proportion of males and hermaphrodites became roughly equal during these sampling times, with occasional oscillation between the two life stages in regard to prevalence. Another problem is that if the null hypothesis is assumed for sampling times 5 through 10, then somehow the discrepancies at sampling times 3 and 4 were sufficient to account for lopsided sporophyte proportions at sampling time 10. The temperature was closely monitored throughout the experiment. Plants were grown under a 20W wide spectrum light source on a grow cart. Over the course of the experiment, the temperature of the growth cart was noted to fluctuate between 25oC and 32oC. Being a subtropical species, C. richardii should not have been stressed under these conditions. For the majority of the experiment, the temperature was between 26-28oC. The relatively stable temperature is attributed to keeping the petri dishes within a sealed growth cart instead of under the light source directly; however, as indicated by temperature observations, further refinement of the experimental set-up is advisable for future work. In addition to temperature variability, a second source of uncertainty lies in the inability to sample similar, representative regions on the petri dishes. In early experiments, individuals tended to cluster in particular areas as a consequence of inoculation;
however, later work used a sterile spore spreader to distribute spores over the petri dish more evenly. Early in the experiment, spores would occasionally drift in response to the movement of the suspension; however, this was not observed once individuals established themselves into the medium. From this investigation, it was found that acid mine drainage alters the sexual differentiation of C. richardii gametophytes, specifically in the proportion of hermaphrodites. Spores raised in media containing acid mine drainage showed a drastic decrease in the proportion of sporophytes, suggesting that acid mine drainage may hinder fertilization within C-Fern. Future work should investigate whether the observations reported here are true for temperate fern species and whether the synthetic AMD used here successfully approximates samples from the field. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dr. Peter Smyntek for his AMD synthesis protocol and the School of Sciences at Saint Francis University for a School of Sciences Research Award, which funded this project.
25 potential and pH. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 90(3), 543556. Dong, Y., Gituru, R.W., Chen, J., and Wang, Q. 2005. Effect of Habitat Modification on the Distribution of the Endangered Aquatic Fern Ceratopteris thalictroides (Parkeriaceae) in China. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 20(4), 689-693. George, L.O. and F.A. Bazzaz. 1999. The Fern Understory as an Ecological Filter: Growth and Survival of Canopy-Tree Seedlings. Ecology. 80(3), 846-856. Gray, N. F. 1997. Environmental impact and remediation of acid mine drainage: a management problem. Environmental Geology 30, 62â€“71. Hoffert, J. R. 1947. Acid Mine drainage. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 39, 642â€“646. Sayers, A., and Hamilton, R. G. 1995. The Effect of Neighbors on Gametophyte Development in Ceratopteris richardii. American Fern Journal, 85(2), 47-53. Rathinasabapathi, B., Ma, L.Q., and Srivastava, M. 2006. Arsenic Hyperaccumulating Ferns and their Application to Phytoremediation of Arsenic Contaminated Sites. Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology. 3, 304311. Vogelien, D.L., L. G. Hickok, and T. R. Warne. 2006. Differential effects of Na+, Mg2+, K+, Ca2+ and osmotic stress on the wild type and the NaCl-tolerant mutants stl1 and stl2 of Ceratopteris richardii. Plant, Cell, and Environment. 19(1), 17-23. Warner, R. 1971. Distribution of Biota in a Stream Polluted by Acid Mine drainage. Ohio Journal of Science. 71(4), 202215.
Works Cited Akcil, A. and Koldas, S. 2005. Acid Mine drainage (AMD): causes, treatment, and case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14, 1139-1145. Atallah, N. M., and Banks, J. A. 2015. Reproduction and the pheromonal regulation of sex type in fern gametophytes. Frontiers in Plant Science 6. Chatterjee, A., and Roux, S. J. 2000. Ceratopteris richardii: A productive model for revealing secrets of signaling and development. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 19(3), 284-9. Cheruiyot, D.J. and B.W. Schwartz. 2007. Conversion of male gametophytes to hermaphrodites in the fern Ceratopteris richardii. BIOS. 78(2), 58-61. Chuan, M.C., Shu, G.Y., and Liu, J.C. 1996. Solubility of heavy metals in a contaminated soil: Effects of redox
Mark Frank ('17 B.S., Chemistry; B.S., Biology) is a graduate student at the Pennsylvania State University pursuing his Ph.D. in Biochemistry. His current research is a continuation of previous work that seeks to construct a model explaining how ATP binding and hydrolysis, mediated by an AAA+ ATPase, perform mechanical work on bacterial RNA Polymerase.
Figure 1. The arcsine-transformed proportion of each life stage versus time is graphed above. Solid lines represent the control and Dashed lines represent the development of individuals in the presence of AMD. Plotted are the life stages non-germinated spore (blue), germinating spore (red), gametophyte (Brown), male (purple), hermaphrodite (green), and sporophyte (orange). Error bars represent standard error.
Contents of SPECTRUM Volume 8 Issue 1 Shelbie L. Jamison; Jill M. Cavalet: The State of Mental Health for Residents in West Central Pennsylvania Tara L. Fritz; Kirk Weixel: A Burning House: An Experiment in the Cell Phone Novel Genre Danae L. Peters; Kelly L. Garanich: Using Case Studies as Instructional Material to Influence Introductory Anatomy and Physiology Students’ Learning and Attitudes
Issue 2 Abstracts of the Seventh Annual Saint Francis University Research Day
Issue 3 Michaela K. Hicks; Sara King: Carbon footprint analysis related to household size Megan E. Reilly; Lauren E. White; Cassandra J. Wolowic; Marnie L. Moist: Effects of Surprise Attention Switching between Challenge Tasks and Correctly Recalled Lyrics Harry J. Olafsen; Robin L. Cadwallader: “Over and over, forever and ever”: A Child’s Search for Freedom from the American Working Class
Issue 4 Alicia M. Brown; Shannon T. McGinnis; Marnie L. Moist: Effects of Combination of Chewing Gum Influences on Memory Anna D. Baughman; Robin L. Cadwallader: 10 Things I Hate About Man-Shrews Mark A. Frank; Gail M. Drus: The effect of acid mine drainage on the development of the CFern
(Student authors’ names underlined.)
Call for papers Submission Guidelines The purpose of SPECTRUM is not merely to disseminate new results, but also to inform and enlighten. Our readership is a general and multidisciplinary audience who may not be an expert in your field of study. Consequently, please explain all pertinent concepts essential to understanding your article as well as any concepts that might not be common knowledge. Please submit your file in Microsoft Word format as an attachment to the following email address: email@example.com. The text should be single spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font. Please use italics, rather than underlining, for emphasis. Organization of Manuscripts SPECTRUM is an interdisciplinary journal accepting submissions from the natural sciences, the humanities, as well as the professional schools (health sciences and business), therefore, the structure and style of each manuscript will differ from discipline to discipline. Regardless, all submissions must provide a cover sheet, a thorough introduction of the problem your research addresses, the conclusion(s), result(s) or findings of your research, as well as some form of bibliographic citation. Below are the general guidelines for these requirements, some of which may not apply to your area of research. Cover Sheet Title Names and departments of undergraduate researcher(s) and faculty advisor(s) Abstract (200 â€“ 300 words) Introduction Include general background of the relevant field and the larger problem your research addresses as well as its relevance within the field. In addition, explain what prompted your investigation, a summary of previous findings related to your research problem and what contributions your project brings (or was expected to bring) to the issue. Methods and Materials (If applicable) Summarize important methods and materials used in your research. Results/Conclusions Give detailed report of the results and or conclusions reached through your research. Discussion Results should be evaluated in the context of general research problem, the implications of which should be explained with conclusions, predictions or suggestions (if applicable) for further study. Tables (if applicable) Create tables in Microsoft Word format and insert into general text accompanied by a table legend. Each table needs a number based on its appearance in the paper, where it is referenced. Figures (if applicable) Please submit figures at the end of the article, one image per page; we will fit these in as we organize the manuscript. Each figure needs a number (the figures shall be numbered consecutively in the order of their appearance in the paper) and a title. SPECTRUM will be printed black and white, but there will be an online version where figures submitted in color will appear in color. References You may use any referencing style you choose so long as it is a standard format or your discipline (IEE, APA, ACS, PubMed) and that you use it consistently and to the appropriate bibliographical standards.
Volume 8 (4) Spring 2018