代写“COHORT CAPSTONE COURSE in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE\STU
100%原创包过,高质代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信：120591129
代写“COHORT CAPSTONE COURSE in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE\STUDIES”
1 Dr. MacLellan (UTSC)
University of Toronto at Scarborough
“COHORT CAPSTONE COURSE in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE\STUDIES”
ASSIGNMENT 1: ROUGE PARK KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS
INSTRUCTOR Dr. J. I. MacLellan
Phone: 416 208 2661
Office: ESCB-446
INTRODUCTION
WIKIs require minimal resource input from the perspective of a website provider, but allow for the emergence of an extensive repository of knowledge. Wikipedia.org has over 40 million articles in approximately 270 languages (Wikipedia 2016i) and is generally as reliable as an encyclopaedia (Giles 2005). Despite their great success, such technology is not always transferable. Waldrop (2008) points out that when they work, enormous amounts of information are created through a viral process that keeps growing and evolving, but when the community of information donors is too secretive, too small, too busy to cooperate, or too desperate in terms of expertise and skills, the magic fails to materialise.
Such technology offers an important new perspective into the nature of knowledge production and its’ underlying foundations (i.e. latent cognitive, psychological, and social tendencies which technology has enabled (Haythornthwaite 2002)). A WIKI allows the creation and editing of linked web pages that can cover any topic whether specific (i.e. www.eol.org) or general (i.e. wikipedia.org). They are essentially an editable online database that can be accessed with a web browser. Those whom edit, or contribute to wiki pages provide content under the Free Software Foundation’s Free Documentation License which permits individuals to freely copy, modify, and distribute WIKI content (Okoli 2009). In terms of authorship, the vast majority of contributions to Wikipedia are made by a small minority of users (i.e. only 0.02% to 0.03% percent of all visitors contribute to Wikipedia (Wikimedia 2009)). And, of those that do contribute, education level is the strongest predictor of Wikipedia use with 69% of users having at least a college degree (Zickuhr and Rainie 2011).
WIKIs provide a provocative subject for academics precisely because they appear to exist at the opposite end of the knowledge production spectrum (see Okoli (2009) for a review). The traditional image of scientific knowledge production suggests the pivotal role of individuals who master a field of knowledge, propose extensions to that field, and then submit their knowledge claims to be vetted by other members of the field. Currently manifest as the peer review process, it is a highly structured vetting system that certifies the quality of knowledge (i.e. separates it from speculation and opinion (Harnad 1999)). Units of knowledge (i.e. articles) are judged upon: validity, originality, methodology, findings, discussion, theoretical perspective, and whether the paper having sufficiently important findings worthy of publication (Black 2008).
Black (2008) contends that the peer review system “creates a hierarchical relation between a reviewer and an author .. [which] benefits neither and may keep innovative research from appearing in prestigious journals.” In this sense the process appears to hinder creativity (i.e. a limited number of scholars judging the worth of knowledge from within a particular paradigm (Kuhn 1962)), but it also dramatically slows the dissemination of knowledge. According to Black, the extraordinary amount of knowledge produced in today’s academic environment prevents the traditional peer-review system
2 Dr. MacLellan (UTSC)
from operating effectively (i.e. many journals take over a year to review and publish a paper). To make
up for the short comings of peer review, Black (2008) calls for a more open review process based upon
the advantages of a WIKI. This fundamentally ‘new archtype’ for academia would allow a much larger
community to participate in the vetting and debate of new ideas.
You will employ a hybrid of this methodology to augment and integrate knowledge that would not have
been available otherwise. For instance, WIKIs can augment academic knowledge by permitting a local
perspective on knowledge production and interpretation. An initiative in India (Economist 2011) is
hoping to foster greater orientation to the local for instance; a similar regional focus may also be
appropriate within the context of climate change adaptation (MacLellan 2008a). In our case we wish to
interpret and integrate locally biased knowledge sources (i.e. research undertaken at UTSC) and make it
available in the context of the Rouge National Park. Our hope is that by doing so, we will provide a
foundation for further research and education activities that are locally oriented (i.e. focused on
watersheds in the vicinity of the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus).
LITERATURE AND BIBLIOMETRICS
Bibliometric databases contain simple indicators (meta-data) of academic publications. Not only does
this information facilitate navigation of the ever increasing numbers of scientific publications, but it
permits the analysis of science as a process of knowledge production (MacLellan 2008). In other words
such databases allow us to identify and analyze specific groups of scientists\knowledge. Generally we
associate such groups with a particular field of study (e.g. knowledge about ‘black holes’ for instance),
but scientists\knowledge can also be grouped to identify temporal, spatial, or institutional trends
(MacLellan, 2008; MacLellan 2014a, 2014b).
Although there are a number of choices of online databases, the previous year’s classes have created
search algorithms specifically for the SCOPUS database. SCOPUS is a vast bibliometric dataset that
covers nearly 22,000 titles from over 5,000 publishers, of which 20,000 are peer-reviewed journals in
the scientific, technical, medical, and social sciences (including arts and humanities). This extensive
coverage allows searches on keywords, authors, author affiliations, and content. SCOPUS also tracks
references within each article. You will use this database to search for articles that are of functional
relevance to the object of study.
PROCESS
You task is to identify and effectively fill-in a knowledge gap that exists in the October 6th, 2016
Wikipedia entry for ‘Rouge Park’. The exercise essentially requires that you: 1) become aware of the
object of study (e.g. Rouge Park); 2) assess the wiki entry based upon an ideal of what a good wiki article
should look like; and then 3) rectify or amend the Rouge Park wiki article using the most relevant
information available. There are of course, endless ways in which you can improve the Rouge Park wiki
page, but we are looking for something that addresses the most critical shortcomings of the wiki article,
while illustrating your creative mastery of the subject matter. An added challenge will be to bias your
submission towards research, and\or education undertaken at UTSC campus. This local focus is a critical
dimension of environmental decision making (MacLellan 2008) and is increasingly changing the way we
envision universities (M’Gonigle, R. Michael, and Justine Starke 2006).
3 Dr. MacLellan (UTSC)
EXERCISE: Please follow the STEPS below.
1. The perfect Wikipedia article (about national parks): The simple purpose of this STEP is to explore the use of wikis as a means of integrating various mediums of information that are relevant to national parks. Mediums of information can include anything from diagrams and popular videos, to scientific literature.
1.1. Begin by simply reading the wiki entry for Rouge Parkii (2500 words) taking note of the type of information it provides.
1.2. Next, access other wiki pages for popular national parks, like Banffiii (9200 words) and Yellowstoneiv (13,400 words). Take note of the type of information they provide.
1.3. Try to ascertain what’s missing in the Rouge Park article by comparing it to the other articles (i.e. compare the different Table of Contents for instance). Keep in mind that even very popular wiki articles are not perfect. The question we should ask is what sort of information should be on the wiki site given:
1.3.1. the general nature of parks,
1.3.2. our specific example of a park,
1.3.3. and our bias towards the UTSC community (Section 3).
2. Identify the purpose of parks with reference to Canada: Whether conscious of it or not, it is very likely that each of us has an implicit ideal of what we think parks are for. By accessing the literature on this topic, we are given an opportunity to compare our ideals to the body of thought that actually influences the development and operation of ‘parks.’ This is not to say that this literature is definitive, but it should contain descriptions of major trends (e.g. historic overviews, but also theoretical treatises) guiding the development and operation of parks. It is therefore important to learn and use this language if we are to make a contribution to this field of thought, which includes editing a wiki page.
2.1. Access SCOPUS database from the UTSC library and search for peer reviewed articles that best describe, review, or outline the purpose or function of parks.
2.2. Using no more than 3 articles, identify what are generally considered the key functions (role, purpose) of parks. Does the literature identify ‘types’ (i.e. a typology) of parks? Are urban parks explicitly identified in this typology?
2.3. Use the information identified above (Section 2.2) to guide your contribution (i.e. your edits to the web page) to the Rouge Park Wikipedia article (Section 4).
2.4. In your final report you will explicitly justify your contribution (Section 4) as based upon the 3 articles you have identified (Section 2.2). For example, if your chosen topic is ‘biodiversity conservation’, you would edit (or create) the section within the Rouge Park wiki that describes the biodiversity of the park, and ‘justify’ this contribution by referring to the articles you have identified in Section 2.2.
3. Identify research at UTSC that is relevant to the Rouge National Park:
3.1. Access the excel spreadsheet developed by Melissa Scozpa from last year’s class. In it she has identified functional categories related to ecosystem health, of the peer reviewed articles that have been written by researchers at UTSC. Familiarize yourself with the database and her typology.
3.2. Using simple search methods (e.g. search the titles and abstracts fields in Melissa’s database for terms like ‘park’ or ‘ecosystem health’, or ‘urban’ as guided by your results in Section 2) identify 3 articles that you think are relevant to the development and operation of the Rouge Park. Try to use at least one of these articles to support your contribution to the Rouge Park wiki page (Section 4), but don’t worry if you can’t.
4 Dr. MacLellan (UTSC)
4. Contribute to the Rouge Park Wikipedia Article (dated October 6th 2016): Wiki’s provide up-to-date, relevant information about particular topics based upon a dynamic vetting process that is supported by a community of editors. In this section we seek to become part of this viral process.
4.1. You will ‘edit’ the Wikipedia article for Rouge Parkv with corrections, and\or information that reflects the current state of knowledge regarding National Parks in Canada, and the Rouge Park more specifically.
4.1.1. These edits should reflect the ideal as manifest by other Wikipedia articles (Section 1)
4.1.2. These edits should reflect what is understood as the fundamental purpose or functional role of parks (Section 2)
4.1.3. These edits should reflect information or knowledge that has been produced at UTSC (Section 3).
4.2. Your edits should include a core entry that is minimally 250 words in length. In addition, you can include other edits throughout the body of the wiki article.
4.2.1. These additional changes may be required to support your core contribution (i.e. minimally you may need to reference material from UTSC at the end of the Wiki article);
4.2.2. or because your information contradicts other entries within the wiki article you may have to change those sections;
4.2.3. or your entry may replace other entries;
4.2.4. or the changes you propose may simply represent corrections you’ve discovered within the Oct 6th wiki article.
5. Deliverables:
5.1. Please reproduce the Wikipedia article for Rouge Park, and then clearly highlight the changes you have made (Section 4).
5.2. Write a two page, single spaced essay justifying your contribution to the Wikipedia article. This justification must make direct reference to the information you have identified in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above. Cite references you have used using the APA citation style (Zotero can help you with this).
ASSESSMENT
• The student has appropriately interpreted the knowledge requirements associated with the course project. 20%
• The student has identified credible information that is of relevance to the object of investigation. 20%
• The student has demonstrated his or her own thinking and analysis by integrating ideas or examples from the literature. 20%
• The information is presented in a clear, interesting, and dynamic way. Good written assignments have clear paragraphs with topic sentences, logical progression of ideas, and concluding statements. And the student uses correct grammar, spelling, and word choice in their written work. Words specific to a certain discipline are defined. 20%
• All sources are fully cited in a consistent format, and the report including tables and figures are appropriately labeled. Acronyms are defined (written out in full) when first used. 20%
i Literature cited in this introduction is available upon request.
ii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_Park
iii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banff_National_Park
iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park
v https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_Park
代写“COHORT CAPSTONE COURSE in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE\STUDIES”
