Introduction:

For a correct analysis of a report we must take into account 8 main parts that must be included in each one of them. These are:

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

When we know the main parts we can proceed to the analysis, in this case we have two reports: Team Based Engineering Design Thinking and Infusing Engineering Concepts.

We examine both of them separately in order to find and conceptualize if the sections of a scientific paper exist correctly within them.

After verifying their structure we proceed to make a comparison between the two scientific papers.

1. Team Based Engineering Design Thinking:

The title is very specific about the subject to be treated, it links you to the situation, it is correct since it is direct, attractive in the way that it describes the article in a specific, clear, exact, brief and concise way. Besides, it allows a precise indexing of the material.

The section called objective, shows a clear summary, but with a specific approach which is based on a general and objective question: How do teams of high school students allocate time through the stages of the design? This question is answered in a very schematic way in this same section, so that, when reading the whole document, it can be answered in a broader way within the methodology.

Next, we find the Statement of the problem, this part can be known as an introduction, since it introduces us into the subject, explaining the situation we want to examine and solve, first begins with a general explanation which is synthetic and explanatory. It gives us to understand that there is a lack of agreement between the dependence of society and technology, as well as the ability of human beings to understand these technological problems, this is where the use of engineering comes in to understand these problems more easily.

Then he gives us 2 more specific cases to analyze them through methodology and results, to finally draw conclusions about these problems:

• Playground problem
• The problem of street crossing design

To talk about Materials and Methodology, we must understand that this is perhaps the most important part to be able to evaluate the general quality of a research work, since here we explain the procedures, approaches, designs and treatments that are carried out in the same, which allows us to replicate studies, to have a good linearity between the objectives and the results obtained. This should always be clear and orderly. After understanding a correct way of having the materials and methodology, we go into this research, in which we have:

• Materials: Engineering design problems:

In this section, we pose the problem, for this case, there are 2 problems, which later will give us the methodology to solve them.

The first approach is the problem of the playground, in which through citations indicates that there were several studies, so we conclude that the materials are experiments and research already conducted previously, the same that will help us to have more clarity on this document, because thanks to these citations and research, we will get better results based on other experiments, in addition to this same as a clear and easy to determine hypothesis.

The second approach, the problem of the design of the street crossing, in the same way as the first one, this one is adapted from previous researches, but, this one contains some characteristics, which were extracted from a discussion of a group of experts that indicated the characteristics that the design must incorporate for its due excellence:

• Authenticity
• Personal and social relevance.
• Requires analytical thinking
• Involve group efforts
• Require practice in participation
• Are clearly structured but open-ended
• Encourage creative solutions
• Consider ethical issues
• Comply with applicable constraints
• Provide opportunities for modeling with replication.
• Consider the implications of the systems
• Are well documented
• Are self-evaluated and independently evaluated
• Enable communication between team members

After stating these characteristics, their materials are analyzed, i.e., the problem is solved with the previous research modified for this new research.

• Methods

The methodology tends to be a really important part, since it is the section where the method used to obtain the results is known, it must be clear and have the data treatment system, that is, the database or method used for data collection. Often past research can also be used.

In this research, a data collection in different institutions is used, that is, the method used is a comparative sampling, which chooses certain groups of participants in this case students, and the sampling was done by conventional methods which was video and audio recordings. This is followed by data analysis, which consists of a segmentation of the data sets, this is one of the final sections of the methodology.

Finally, a calibration process was carried out and everything was documented by means of a comparative table called Cohen’s Kappa:

This is where the Results section comes in since, knowing all the research data, we must present the key results in an objective manner, without interpretation, but with an orderly and logical sequence and of course we must use illustrative materials (tables and figures).

The results section of this document is ideal and well laid out, since it has a correct order of what was done in the methodology, in addition to the correct use of information in tables and illustrations.

When the results are obtained, the Discussion section is generated, in which it is important to discuss failures in the approach to the question, pondering whether or not it could be answered satisfactorily. Exposing the limitations of the study allows us to consider the opportunities for future research or clinical practice. Emphasis should be placed on what was found, not on what might have been expected. Occasionally, useful recommendations can 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 has no echo, leaves no trace, and is not useful.

In this text it is correct since it generates an open debate which concludes with many questions that generate more research in the future.

In this document, the Conclusions section receives the name of summary, which is poorly elaborated, since a conclusion should mainly review the main points, emphasize the importance of these, retake the results towards the main idea, and 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.

Finalizing this analysis we have the last but not least we have References, this section is composed of all previous research, which were cited in various parts of the document. This section changes according to the presentation standards, for example, APA, IEEE, etc. In this research it is correct since it has the specific order within the APA norms, which are: Author (last name and initials), year of publication – title of work, edition, place of publication, publisher.

• Infusing Engineering Concepts

As we have already reviewed each of the sections that should make up a good scientific investigation. We can review it more quickly and specifically.

The title Infusing engineering concepts: teaching engineering design, is striking, simple and concise so it is correct. In this document, it is not divided as we saw in the previous one, here we must intuit where each part is. So from the beginning we say that it is not a good research because it’s writing and editing does not have a good organization.

The research begins with a summary explaining the problem we are going to deal with which is mainly the problems and obstacles that exist in the learning of students in engineering, but in this same part gives the introduction following the problem statement.

The bad writing of this document generates that I do not know where the next section begins, in this case the section of materials and methodology, it begins in the section called Background, since here it shows us that a group meets for data collection, it begins talking about how the experts met and how they are divided for the research, in this case, past research is also used. Then we also have the data tables and their concepts.

This research has a great division in the part of materials and methodology, a very different one from the one we observed in the previous paper, because it has very distinct and separate parts which try to focus specifically on one topic and have an orderly process:

• Engineering infusion
• Approaches
• Challenges

At the end of this division is found in the same way within the methodology, it is the meeting of the focus group of experts, this as it indicates was made as a final part of the methodology which served to provide specific approaches for the development of the research. In this case it is an instructional design for the infusion of basic engineering concepts. In addition, it gives us some questions which gives us to understand that in this section there is also a discussion section, generating a debate among experts on the subject.

In this research we have a very poorly written and inconclusive results section, since 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. Even so, information should be obtained by means of some table or figure to make it more understandable and dynamic.

Almost at the end we have the conclusions section, which has an excellent writing and form since it gives us several conclusions of the work, besides it concludes talking about the challenges they had within the research and the obstacles they could face.

We finish analyzing the references section which is well written respecting the APA norms.

Conclusions:

We can conclude that our work helped us to identify the sections contained in a scientific paper, taking into account that many of them are not clearly divided, but one has to use intuition to know which part of the document we are reading.

It should also be emphasized that we must have a good writing and spelling when writing a scientific paper, and as we saw earlier, try to have an order, because if we do not maintain this order the document becomes boring, unintelligible and will not be appreciated by several people interested in our research.

References:

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

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