I employed a variety of graphs for my portrait. To capture the features of my face with the most visually accurate graphs, I included more than required circles, ellipses, and hyperbolas, as well as other graphs we learned in previous chapters, and graphs that appears in the workbook but we didn’t have the chance to play around with. I not only used a huge amount of restrictions but also customized colors for the lines.

Tangent, sine and inverse sine functions were mostly used to represent my hair, with some hyperbolas and ellipses, as these graphs naturally produce the wavy texture that mimics my slightly curly hair fluidly and realistically. Radical and logarithmic functions and their distinctive shapes helped in creating my shoulders: The characteristics of a square root function effectively represent the gentle curve and transition of the shoulder line of my left side, while the log function exhibit shape of spreading out from the neck and having a level-off extend towards the arm on my right side. Straight lines were used to draw simpler and sharper edges such as my arms and the frame. A combination of a sine graph and parabolas were ideal for outlining the jawline, as their continuous curves naturally formed the rounded edges of the cheeks and chin. The nose was made using circles representing the nostrils and the tip and half of a hyperbola representing the nose bridge. The arc of hyperbolas was also perfect for making eyebrows. The eyes were circles. The eyelids and orbits were ellipses to ensure their elongated oval shape. It’s worth noting that I started with a smaller picture size because I directly used my selfie after uploading it without adjusting it. This choice caused some challenges when using sliders and setting restrictions, which required highly precise decimal numbers throughout the project.

The purpose of this essay is to explore the play, “The Crucible,” by Arthur Miller. In particular, the characters in the play whose actions may seem confusing. These behaviors can best be interpreted and understood by using Kohlberg’s moral precepts. Kohlberg described three distinct descriptions of perspectives that motivate individuals to behave in specific ways. These three categories are preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. All three categories include factors that influence individuals’ decision-making in given situation. By comprehending the consideration of their action, a deeper insight into the characters can be achieved.

Many characters demonstrate preconventional behavior in “the Crucible”. These individuals act with the primary aim of obtaining rewards or avoiding punishment. Tituba is a typical character with a preconventional mindset. As a slave of Reverend Parris from Barbados, she was threatened to be whipped to “death” to confess when she was accused of witchcraft. Despite her innocence, she confesses to be in league with the devil. Tituba prioritizes her own safety and survival by obeying to her slave master’s expectations instead of standing up for truth. This behavior aligns with the preconventional stage of moral development. Abigail Williams is another representative character exemplifying preconventional behavior in the play. Her manipulative actions during the witch trial illustrate a relentless drive for her personal interest, particularly her desire of removing any obstacles to her relationship with John proctor, including his wife, Elizabeth. John Procter’s assertion that Abigail thinks to dance with him on “[his] wife’s grave” emphasizes Abigail’s disregard for the lives and well-being of others in her single-minded pursuit for self-gratification. In addition, Ann Putnam serves as a typical example of someone who acts in a way to avoid punishment. Her statement, “for how else is she struck dumb now except some power of darkness would stop her mouth?” reveals her fervent belief that witchcraft caused the loss of her seven children. She deflects blame from herself and seek retribution against perceived culprits to ease her own grief. From the examples provided above, it is evident that many characters in The Crucible behave in a way to obtain reward or avoid punishment.

Furthermore, some characters exemplify conventional behaviors in the play. They behave in a way to fit into a group and to gain group acceptance. The first example to be discussed is Mary Warren. This is shown through her sudden change in sides in the courtroom and her words to John Proctor “I go your way no more.” Despite Mary’s sincere attempt to help in the beginning, she is overwhelmed by her intense fear of Abigail. Mary eventually gives in to the girls when the girls claims that she is sending out spirit against them. By doing so, she chose to fit in with the girls rather than standing up for what is right. Her actions reflect a strong desire to gain acceptance within the group even at the expense of betraying her own principles. The next character who displays a desire to fit into a group is Reverend Parris. While previously supporting the witch hunt, now he wishes to postpone the execution out of his fear of potential “riot,” since the accused individuals are all highly valued by the people. Parris is deeply concerned with his reputation within the community and want to maintain his authority by conforming to societal expectation. The final examples are the girls. They show their conventional behavior when they start mimicking Mary’s words such as “Abby, you mustn’t” with Abigail to pretend to be controlled by witchcraft. This behavior stems from their worries of being ostracized from the group like Mary. To conclude, a lot of characters in the play are portrayed as having conventional mentality. People’s inclination towards conformity and their tendency to seek group acceptance play a considerable role in causing the witch trial to happen in Salem, where people’s fear of difference fueled the existence of chaos and injustices.

Last but not least, there are many characters found in the literature that demonstrates a postconventional mental state through their behaviors when having an internalized value that are not influenced by rewards, punishment, or group acceptance. One character who exhibit a significant postconventional quality is Giles Corey. His refusal to give any information about the person who revealed scheme of the Putnams to use witchcraft as cover to regain lands. Giles presents his defiance through his final words, “more weight,” and ultimately died being pressed with stone. In a town where many people lie to save their own skins, Giles stands apart as a reflection of nobility and braveness. His selfless determination gives a great example of adhering to one’s own moral compass while being oblivious to any forms of personal gain. John Proctor is another postconventional character. When Proctor declares, “because it is my name,” he signifies his choice to keep the truth of his character by refusing to falsely confess to witchcraft. This behavior symbolizes his commitment to his moral principle, even though his decision means facing serious consequences. The last to be discusses is Elizabeth Proctor. Her poignant acknowledgement, “He has his goodness now. God forbid I take it from him,” showcases her understanding and support of her husband’s decision. Elizabeth refuses to compromise her beliefs or to convince John into a false confession. She recognizes that preserving his integrity is more important than saving his life through deception. In essence, these characters reflect their commitment to their own ethical principles and are not influenced by reward, punishment, or group acceptance.

In conclusion, Kohlberg’s moral precepts have been a valuable tool in allowing the reader to better understand the characters in “The Crucible.” The preconventional, conventional, and postconventional stage offer a framework to understand people’s motivations and action: their behaviors can be driven by the desire for rewards and avoidance of punishment, the longing to be accepted by group, or to commit to their own values regardless. Through the application of these three stages, readers are able to achieve a profound understanding on the reason why the characters within the play behave the way they do when faced with certain situations.

In lab 19C, I demonstrated collaboration core competency when determining the solubility product constant. To effectively complete learning and tasks, I contribute to group work by cooperating with my partner and splitting up the tasks. For example, me and my partner measured and mixed the Pb(NO3)2, KI, and distilled water respectively. We also share responsibilities for stirring the contents and checking the precise temperature when heating the products to measure the temperature at which the precipitates dissolve.

Critical thinking

I showed critical and reflective thinking in the diffusion lab by using qualitative and quantitative observations to draw conclusion. By looking at the color change in the dialysis tubing that stimulates the semi-permeable membrane and the beaker which represent the surrounding environment of a cell, I can connect my previous learnings to the lab and recognize which way the molecules diffuse across the membrane according to the lab of diffusion. I considered different results that occurred in other groups and was able to examine the evidence from various perspectives to identify source of errors. I also demonstrated the ability to analyze, reflect, and improve in the conclusion writing through proposing new topics related to diffusion for future investigations.

Collaboration

I showed collaborating core competency skill by collaborating with my partner and another group. I share responsibilities of setting up the lab and recording data with my partner. We worked with another group to do separate parts of this lab. We share the results afterwards and analyse the results together. Me and my partner split up the roles. For, example, one got the correct amount of sucrose solution and the other prepared the tubing ready. We also worked together to ensure that the tubing is fully suspended in the beaker content by tying the string tightly. In addition, we share ideas to create effective hypotheses.