Team Based Engineering Design Thinking & Infusing Engineering Concepts

A laboratory report has 8 main elements which will be useful for our analysis.

• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Materials y methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusions
• References

We must understand that not all the reports follow these elements in an orderly manner and some even bring their own and original elements in certain reports, in this case of analysis we have one that follows the structure to the letter and another that does not contain the 8 elements in an orderly manner which are: “Team-based engineering design thinking” and “Infusing engineering concepts: teaching engineering design”.

First, as theory tells us, a title of a laboratory report should express the text in an interesting way so that the reader is attracted to it [3]. The first title is not very long so it does not give us a clear understanding about the content contained in that report, besides being unattractive [1]; on the other hand, the second report is more attractive because apart from giving us a main idea it gives us a secondary one which in this case would be the teaching of engineering design [2].

A summary of the lab report has to summarize the report and end with an explanation of 3 main ideas: a question, the results and finally the conclusion [3]. In the first report, we have a general question. How do teams of high school students allocate time through the stages of the design? In addition to this we have about 3 main ideas which try to encourage us to discover that after the results we will have clear answers about the objective of assigning teams to students and how this generates a successful design within the research [1]. Within the second report we have a longer abstract with more ideas which makes it a heavy and uninteresting report, furthermore the abstract does not provide an essence of the topic and a main focus of the article, but makes it very convoluted and confusing, still, it gives us a question. What are the implications of infusing engineering concepts into instruction? [2], which according to our supporting material is correct for us to present in order for us to find a conclusion to this report.

An introduction of a laboratory report should explain why the topic is important, why we are so focused on solving it, re-emphasize the question and explain the important terms of such research for a clear idea as we go into the methodology [3]. Within the first text we emphasize the idea and focus clearly on a resolution to the “lack of agreement between the dependence of society and technology, as well as the ability of human beings to understand such technological problems, this is where the use of engineering comes in to understand such problems more easily.” [1]. And he gives us a brief introduction to 2 cases that can be used as materials within the research: “The playground problem and the street crossing design problem.” [1]. In the second report we have a good introduction because it gives the reader a better understanding of the topic, as it highlights main ideas such as “the problems and obstacles that exist in student learning within engineering.” [2]. Besides giving us a brief entry to the planning of the problem, to solve it within the methodology.

After the introduction we would have the Materials and Methods section, which explains what was used to conduct the research, step by step and how the research was executed so that in the future it can be recreated by other researchers [3]. A good methodology should be described in a meticulous way so that if one wishes to experiment it by oneself with one’s own data, but following this orderly process and clearly explaining the procedures, approaches, designs and treatments that are performed in it. Within the first report we have a methodology that starts with different approaches, in which by means of citations it indicates that after these approaches we go to a base of previous studies to solve it. It generates approaches such as: “Problem of the playground and the problem of the design of the street crossing” [1].  In which he makes a comparison through a study of several characteristics of each of his approaches, after raising these characteristics, his materials are analyzed, i.e., it is about solving the problem with the previous research modified and thus reach a clearer methodology. In which a data collection is used in different institutions, in which certain groups of participants are chosen, in this case students, and the sampling was carried out by conventional methods, which were video and audio recordings. This is followed by data analysis, which consists of a segmentation of the data sets [1].

In the second report, it shows us that a group meets for data collection, it begins by talking about how the experts met and how they are divided for the research, and in this case, past research is also used. Then we also have the tables of the data and their respective concepts [2]. In this division we observe that it focuses on an orderly process with approaches, challenges and a group of experts which generates us several final points of view about the infusion of engineering. [2]

It is here when the Results section comes in since, knowing all the research data, it is up to us to present in an objective way the key results, without interpretation, but with an orderly and logical sequence and of course we must use illustrative materials (tables and figures). [3]

The first report clearly shows us the findings of this research, which are presented in tables that generate a better visual understanding of the facts. This influences the relevance of the text and the general topic, making both experienced and novice readers to be attracted to generate more research in the future.

In the second report, we have a very poorly written and inconclusive results section, as it does not contain a single table or figure, although there are always works in which they are not clearly necessary, i.e., when one does not perform sampling and data collection. But this is not the case, since some table or figure is needed to make it more understandable and dynamic. [2]

When the results are presented, the experts and researchers generate a discussion of everything gathered in their experiments and make known their interpretations of them [3]. Emphasis should be placed on what was found, not on what might have been expected to be found. Occasionally, useful recommendations may also be made for those who want to replicate the study. A study confirmed or discussed by others acquires greater relevance; a study without replication is not echoed, does not leave a trace, and is not useful.

Within the first report, there is a fluid discussion as it generates an open debate of several experts with different points of view where they talk more about the general lack of evaluation and that is related to the lack of alternatives to be considered within the methodology [1]. It concludes with many questions that generate more research in the future.

In the second report, the discussion takes place with a group of experts who discuss several questions, which the participants were asked to write down: How should the infusion process be carried out to ensure adequate coverage and evaluation of the content, what concepts should be infused and how should these be selected, can engineering concepts be infused in all lessons or should they be of a certain type (e.g. a design scenario), what is the interrelation between the infused engineering concepts and the content and experiences included in the lesson, what is the interrelation between the infused engineering concepts and the content and experiences included in the lesson, what is the interrelation between the infused engineering concepts and the content and experiences included in the lesson, and what is the interrelation between the infused engineering concepts and the content and experiences included in the lesson? [2]. Having the questions posed the group discusses coming to a conclusion in a general way, the discussions in the focus group meeting were documented through observation notes and meeting artifacts. In addition to the researcher, three participants agreed to take notes during the meeting to ensure adequate coverage of the discussion. Three other participants were designated to act as rapporteurs, who presented their summaries and impressions of the discussions at the end of the session. These summaries were also captured to complete the record of the discussions. [2].

Almost at the end of the reports we have the conclusion part where the authors must eloquently conclude their research without introducing novelties and disclosing all the implications of their results. [3]

In the first report, it is poorly elaborated since a conclusion should mainly, review main points, emphasize the importance of these, resume the results towards the main idea, always keep motivated to continue with the topic and thus generate future research. This document is not well elaborated since it shows a summary at the end, only clarifying what was done in the research. Therefore, within the discussion section it could be said that the conclusions section is included. [1]

In the second report, which has a concise explanation of the experiments in terms of brevity and relevance to the information given, they do a great job in persuading the definition of the results and the discussions given previously. [2]

Finishing this analysis we have the last but not least we have References, this section is composed by all the previous researches, which were cited in several fragments of the document. This section changes according to the presentation standards such as, for example, APA standards, IEEE, etc. In this research it is in the correct way since it has the specific order within the APA norms, which are:

Author (last name and initials), year of publication- title of the work, edition, place of publication, publisher.

In both texts the references are correct and well written.

Conclusions:

Many laboratory reports do not comply with the 8 elements in an orderly manner or some of them skip the methodology and many other things, which makes them less attractive to the reader, as we saw in the second report where it did not even have tables or striking and informative figures. Therefore, one should reflect that when we want to carry out a research we should do it in the most attractive way for the reader, but also not make it too heavy. We must also have a good order when doing it, because a disorderly research generates confusion and is not very well appreciated. This work helped me to realize that there are several poorly written reports that should not be accepted, they should always follow an order and be more attractive not only for the author, but also for readers and future researchers to want to read it and thus conduct more future research using that report as a basis.

Also know the different formats in which it can be written, in these cases were with APA standards, which are the most common, but there are others such as the IEEE format, etc…

Self-Reflection:

I was excited to do this work, since reading and reviewing both reports in the way they were written, motivated me to someday do research like this in the field of engineering, which as you know is a branch that never stops that always advances with the pace of modern technology, encourages me to always be reading scientific journals where there are always new developments which someday I would like to participate in them, for and with society. When reading these reports there is something that I realized that one as a reader discourages the fact that a report does not follow an order or that is incomplete, this was because when reading the 2 reports one of them was in a different order and did not have results in tables or figures, so, one learns that when I am the author I do not want this to happen with my reports, so I will try to follow the order learned and also the results to make them easier to understand, through graphs, figures, tables and illustrations that make it more dynamic and more striking, because that will make many researchers in the future use my work as a reference and follow my work more closely, that they appreciate it more, that they like it and talk about it.

In short, I liked it very much and I felt very good to learn about this, it helps me as a professional to have a better recognition, so that I am not just another researcher, but a great researcher and professional.

In the future I hope to do more work like this to be able to enrich my knowledge and little by little understand the importance of research.

And I hope that other people understand and understand the importance of research in science, engineering or medicine, in any branch, as I learned with this work.

References

[1] Nathan Mentzer. (2012), Team Based Engineering Design Thinking. Purdue University.

[2] Jenny Daugherty (2012), Infusing Engineering Concepts: Teaching Engineering Design. Purdue University.

[3] Markel, M., & Selber, S. A. (2018). Technical communication (12^th ed). Boston: Macmillan Education/Bedford/St. Martin’s.