how engineering students draw conclusions from lab reports
TRANSCRIPT
Paper ID #25557
How Engineering Students Draw Conclusions from Lab Reports and DesignProject Reports in Junior-level Engineering Courses
Dr. Dave Kim, Washington State University, Vancouver
Dr. Dave (Dae-Wook) Kim is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of Mechanical Engineering inthe School of Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. He has 20years of experience in engineering materials and manufacturing. His research area includes materials pro-cessing, structural integrity improvement, and hybrid composite manufacturing. He has been very activein pedagogical research and undergraduate research projects, and his research interests in engineeringeducation include writing pedagogy and engineering lab instruction.
Dr. Jong-Hoon Kim, Washington State University
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2019
HOW ENGINEERING STUDENTS DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM LAB
REPORTS AND DESIGN PROJECT REPORTS AT JUNIOR-LEVEL
ENGINEERING COURSES
Abstract
This case study investigates how engineering juniors draw engineering judgment and
conclusions. The scope of the study is student work from two courses: a materials laboratory
course and a circuit course offered in the Fall of 2018. The terms, engineering judgement and
sound conclusion, are defined using open sources in the context of this study. The materials
laboratory course had extensive experimental components, which required students to design and
conduct experiments on tensile testing, hardness testing, microstructure testing, etc. Individual
lab reports are required for all students. The circuit course had a term project, which require
student teams to write a final project report. Throughout the term project, student teams designed
and simulated circuits and constructed them on a breadboard to test their functions. Students’ lab
reports and project reports in these two courses are analyzed to investigate how students make
engineering judgement based on their design, development, analysis, interpretation, and/or
decisions. This case study also presents the engineering undergraduate students’ process of
drawing conclusion from the engineering experimental practices.
1. Introduction
Most US manufacturing, mechanical engineering and engineering technology programs offer
hands-on practices to undergraduate students. Courses with hands-on labs and/or design projects
were mainly related to three Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)
student outcomes: (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret data, (g) an ability to communicate effectively, and (k) an ability to use the techniques,
skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. This is mainly because
students need to conduct hands-on experiments and write reports to present the outcomes of the
experimentations and/or projects [1-5]. The ABET [6] recently updated the "student outcomes"
related to hands-on labs and/or design projects, such as outcome (3): “communicate effectively
with a range of audiences” and outcome (6): "develop and conduct appropriate experimentation,
analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgement to draw conclusions". Outcome (6)
creates a new requirement for engineering educators, when compared with old outcomes (b) and
(k), to assess students’ use of engineering judgement and their ability to conclude the outcomes
of the labs and/or projects.
This poses following research question for engineering educators looking to address the new
addition in ABET assessment: In the context of two junior-level engineering courses, how do
undergraduate students use engineering judgment and draw conclusions from their experimental
labs and design projects?
2. Literature Survey
2.1 Definition of engineering judgement
Multiple definitions exist for the term, “engineering judgment”, and those definitions are varied
by their rhetorical situations and contexts. We found four sources to define engineering
judgement and they are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Definitions of engineering judgement
Author Definition Context
Yasseri [7] Engineering judgment is the glue which binds the
best available evidence. Evidence could be research
based, empirical, peer assisted or lessons learned
synthesized using reasoning or by mathematical and
statistical methods.
In a technical journal
paper in the subsea
engineering field.
Department of
Transportation
[8]
The evaluation of available pertinent information,
and the application of appropriate principles,
provisions, and practices as contained in the manual
and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon
the applicability, design, operation, or installation of
a traffic control device.
In the use of Manual
on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.
L. D. Feisel
and A. J. Rosa
[9]
Use the human senses to gather information and to
make sound engineering judgments in formulating
conclusions about real-world problems.
In an engineering
education journal
paper.
Driscoll, W.
C. [10]
Engineering judgement about the resources
available, the time constraints to be met, and the
economic forces to be considered, etc., may result in
different assumptions being made, which in turn
lead to different designs.
In an engineering
education conference
paper.
After reviewing these four definitions, we could draw the definition of engineering judgement in
the context of junior-level engineering lab and design projects. In this study, engineering
judgement is an application of pertinent information (i.e. lab data and design) and engineering
principles for making decisions during the work (lab and design project).
2.2 Definition of sound conclusion
The definition of “sound conclusion” also varies across the disciplines as well as the genres. In
the context of junior-level engineering lab and design projects, we used sources related to
academic writing and technical writing. The summary of each source’s description about
conclusion writing is in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptions on conclusion writing.
Author/Source Description Context
Andrea A.
Lunsford [11]
A good conclusion to a research project helps readers
know what they have learned. Its job is not to persuade
(the body of the essay or project should already have
done that) but to contribute the overall effectiveness of
your argument. Here are some strategies that may
help: 1) Refer to your thesis, and then expand to a
more general conclusion that reminds readers of the
significance of your discussion.; 2) If you have
covered several main points, you may want to remind
readers of them. Be careful, however, to provide more
than a mere summary.; 3) Try to end with something
that will have an impact – a provocative quotation or
question, a vivid image, a call for action, or a warning.
But guard against sounding preachy.
In a popular first-
year composition
course textbook.
Purdue Online
Writing Lab:
Argument
Papers [12]
Conclusions wrap up what you have been discussing in
your paper. After moving from general to specific
information in the introduction and body paragraphs,
your conclusion should begin pulling back into more
general information that restates the main points of
your argument. Conclusions may also call for action or
overview future possible research. The following
outline may help you conclude your paper: In a
general way, 1) Restate your topic and why it is
important, 2) Restate your thesis/claim, 3) Address
opposing viewpoints and explain why readers should
align with your position, and 4) Call for action or
overview future research possibilities.
In an online
academic writing
resource of a R1
university.
University of
Toronto
Engineering
Communication
Program [13]
Summary and looking forward (or showing future
directions for the work done in the paper) are actually
functions of the conclusion.
In an online
engineering
communication
resource of a R1
university.
University of
Minnesota
Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
Student Writing
Guide [14]
This section (conclusion/summary) is a summary of
the results and discussion from the report. It is still
discussion, where you insert your opinion of the
results. Report the key findings of the report here. It is
much like the results and discussion sections of the
abstract. Directly answer the report question here. Do
not be vague.
In an online lab
report writing
resource of a R1
university’s
mechanical
engineering
program.
Ringleb, S. I.,
& Ayala, O.
M., & Kidd, J.
[15]
Conclusions are logically tied to inquiry findings and
consider applications, limitations and implications.
In an engineering
education
conference paper.
As shown in Table 2, the definition of conclusion writing varies; however, we could pick up the
common components among those definitions. Most sources emphasize the restatement of
objective and process in the conclusion as well as a summary of the work. In the context of a
junior-level engineering lab and design project, we define sound conclusion as a summary of the
work overview (i.e. objective and process) as well as the key findings (i.e. the results of the work
and discussion) of the work (lab or design project).
3. About the cases
A junior-level Engineering Materials lab course and an Electric Circuit course at Washington
State University Vancouver were examined for this study. The Engineering Materials lab course
covers the structure of materials, phase equilibrium, phase transformations, mechanical failure,
and mechanical properties. It has six labs and their topics include material identification, elastic
deformation, tensile testing, material properties, metal strengthening, and heat treatment.
Individually written lab reports are required for each lab. The Electric Circuit course introduces
the basic circuit analysis methods to solve DC, AC, and simple transient circuit problems. It has
a term project, which requires each student team to design, build, and test a circuit prototype. It
is required to conduct computer simulations using a commercially available software package
when designing the circuit prototype. Student teams are assigned to compare the simulation
results with their experimental testing results. Team presentations and individual written project
reports are assigned.
3.1 Case 1: Lab 5 of the Engineering Materials lab course
Lab 5 metal strengthening aims to verify two metal strengthening mechanisms (strain hardening
and precipitation strengthening) out of four mechanisms (other two include strengthening by
grain size reduction and solid-solution strengthening) introduced in the lecture and
recrystallization mechanisms through experimental investigations. In Fall of 2018, it was one
150-minute lab consisting of three portions: strain hardening of brass 353, annealing of brass
353, and age hardening of aluminum 2024. Individual students conducted cold working and heat
treatment processes to obtain their own metal coupons and measure hardness values using the
Rockwell hardness tester. Lab 5 report genre was specified as a research paper for hypothetical
engineers as the audience. Each student should turn in the lab report three weeks after the lab
date. The instructor evaluated lab reports based on the assessment rubric attached in Table A of
the Appendix. No page limits or specific report format was assigned.
3.2 Case 2: Design project of the Electric Circuit course
Design project in the circuit course provides the following four learning goals: content learning,
design/creativity, hands-on skills, and collaboration. The class project includes designing
circuits, building them on a breadboard, and conducting measurements with a simple equipment
to verify functions of the prototype circuits. In Fall of 2018, a group of 4 to 5 students performed
the following activities: 1) design a circuit not taught in class (i.e. Electronic toy organ, Audio
amplifier, Taser Gun, Laser security system, Wheatstone bridge circuit for strain gauge, etc.), 2)
simulate the designed circuit using software (e.g., PSpice), 3) build a prototype (using simple
components available from Radio-Shack), 4) conduct testing to assess its performance, and 5)
compare the testing results with the simulation results. Each group needed to select their own
project topic. They were required to submit a PowerPoint file as a project final report. Each
individual student needs to submit his/her individual memorandum to describe individual
contributions to the project and learning strategies of new knowledge for the project. The
instructor evaluated project final reports and individual memorandum based on the assessment
instrument in Table B of the Appendix.
3.3 Research methodology
Three average-performance writing samples were collected from each case for further analysis.
We analyzed a total of six samples (n=6) consisting of three Lab 5 student samples from the
materials lab course and three design project reports from the circuit course. The definitions of
engineering judgement and conclusion in the context of junior-level engineering lab and design
projects were used to analyze how the undergraduate students use engineering judgment and
draw conclusions from their experimental labs and design projects.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Case 1: Lab 5 report samples from the materials lab course
The analysis results of three lab 5 report samples are presented in Tables 3 and 4. In this study,
engineering judgement is defined as an application of pertinent information (i.e. lab data and
design) and engineering principles for making decisions during the work (lab and design
project). In order to study each student’s process of making engineering judgement, we list 1)
pertinent information used, 2) engineering principles applied, 3) references used, and 4)
decisions made by the student and summarized them in Table 3.
Table 3. Engineering judgement processes from three student lab report samples
Student A’s Lab 5 report Student B’s Lab 5
report
Student C’s Lab 5
report
En
gin
eeri
ng
ju
dg
emen
t
Pertinent
information
used
Strain Hardening Data Table from
Al2024-T6; Strain Hardening
Data Figure from Al2024-T6;
Precipitation Hardening Data
Table for Al2024-T6; hardness vs
aging time figure for Al2024-T6;
Initial hardness values
of aluminum and brass
alloy coupons; hardness
value change data table
over cold working load
and extension for brass
alloy coupons; height
and diameter change
data table for brass
alloy coupons; cold
working % of each
coupon; brass coupon
hardness change data
table before/after
annealing; aluminum
coupon hardness
change data table over
precipitation times.
Diameter and Height
and hardness data table
of Aluminum and brass
alloy coupons; Data
tables for each
experimental condition.
Engineering
principles
applied
Definition and strengthening
mechanisms of strain hardening;
Definition of recrystallization;
Definition and strengthening
mechanisms of precipitate
hardening; Definition of metal
strength and ductility; and
Definition of annealing process.
Definition of annealing
process; Definition and
mechanisms of strain
hardening (or cold
working)
None (The student did
not apply any
engineering principles
to interpret the lab
data.)
References on
the report
Ten references: 1) Aluminum
2024-T6 ASM Data sheet, 2)
textbook, 3) Brass material data,
4) A journal article about Al2024-
T6 mechanical properties, 5) lab
manual, 6) A journal article about
cold working, 7) Online article on
precipitation hardening of Al
alloys, 8) online lecture materials
about strengthening mechanisms,
9) online article about age
hardening, 10) a digital image of
lab test equipment
Two references: 1)
textbook 2) web site
describing precipitation
hardening.
One reference: web site
introducing aerospace
materials.
Decisions
made
The student plotted height
reduction% vs hardness of brass
alloy coupons to show a trend and
conduct curve fitting.
The student plotted aging time vs
hardness of aluminum alloy
coupons to show the trend and
conduct curve fitting.
The student
computed % cold work
to quantify cold
working for brass
coupons.
Comparisons of
hardness value changes
due to annealing and
cold working.
None (No decisions
made in the report. The
student described only
the lab data.)
An engineering judgement made by student A was to plot a figure on height reduction (%) vs
hardness of brass alloy coupons. Using the plot, student A presented and analyzed the relation
between the coupon height reduction % and the hardness in the discussion section. Prior to this
section, student A defined strain hardening and summarized its mechanisms in the introduction
section. Also, the raw hardness data were presented in a table format in the results section. When
explaining the figure in the discussion section, it was used two reference sources (a journal
article about cold working and an online lecture about strengthening mechanisms) related to
strain hardening. The engineering judgement of plotting the figure might come from her reading
as well as the raw data analysis. The hardness data points of the figure were identical to those in
the raw data table. One of two reference sources used had a similar approach to relate the amount
of cold working and the hardness change when explaining strain hardening mechanisms.
Student B decided to compute % cold working to quantify the cold working applied to the brass
coupons. This method is introduced in the course textbook, which he used as a reference. This
judgement is simply to execute the analysis method introduced in the textbook. Student B
compared the hardness value changes due to annealing and cold working. Before this analysis in
the report, it was introduced extensively about the annealing process in the introduction section
of the report. This might mean student B was interested in the annealing process and conducted
research with a reference (the textbook in this case).
For student C, we could not find any significant engineering judgement in his lab report. Student
C only presented all the raw data from the lab. Only one reference was used in the introduction
section to support the argument about aluminum alloys being popular in the aerospace
manufacturers. In the report, student C did not introduce or apply any engineering principles;
therefore, analysis and interpretation of the lab data were very limited.
In Table 4, we list the summary of the work overview (i.e. objective and process) and the
summary of the key findings of Lab 5 from the conclusion sections of three samples. The
conclusion sections of three lab reports are included in Table C in Appendix.
According to the definition of a good conclusion described in this study, the conclusion drawn by
student A is very sound. Student A’s conclusion begins with the purpose of the lab, followed by
the summary of lab procedures. Then, the key lab results are summarized, followed by a
summary of discussion points. She even mentioned the relations of strengthening to ductility
from the view of machinability and temperature dependence, which demonstrated the student’s
interest in developing connection with ideas beyond the scope of the lab.
Student B also introduced the overview of the lab contents in the beginning of the conclusion;
however, he did not specify the lab objectives and summarize the lab procedures. He listed the
key results of his lab data and discussion. It is noted that his conclusion about the annealing
process is well written. This might be due to his consistent research and data analysis about the
annealing process for the lab report.
Conclusion written by student C is longer than any other samples collected. He begins with the
lab topics in the conclusion; however, his description is not clear. He used terms such as
‘multiple’, ‘different kinds’, and ‘some sort’, which are not clearly identified in the section. His
conclusion did not contain the lab objectives or the summary of lab procedures. Most of his
conclusion is describing the raw data of each test, which he might be interested in. He used more
than half the conclusion to explain the lab data. Then, he summarized the lab results on three
testing methods he conducted. The summary he made is not very concrete either. For example,
his conclusion about precipitation hardening is “the metal samples subject to precipitation
hardening ended increasing and decreasing in hardness”. This doesn’t generalize the trend on
hardness changes due to precipitation hardening. This is simply because he did not conduct any
additional study on precipitation hardening, so he was not aware of ‘overaging,’ which causes
the decrease of aluminum alloy’s hardness values with the increased aging time.
Table 4. Analysis results of conclusion from three student lab report samples
Student A’s Lab 5 report Student B’s Lab 5
report
Student C’s Lab 5 report
Co
ncl
usi
on
Summary of
the work
overview
The purpose of lab testing;
Summary of lab procedure(e.g.
Instron to strain hardening and
the furnace to age harden,
Rockwell Hardness)
One sentence to
introduce the
specific lab topics.
One sentence to introduce the
lab topics with unclear terms
(e.g. multiple different kinds
of tests, the various metals,
some sort).
Summary of
key findings
Comparison of hardness
improvement between strain
hardening and precipitation
hardening.
An alternative interpretation of
precipitation hardening as the
potential of a higher hardness
increase overall.
The relations of strengthening to
ductility from the view of
machinability and temperature
dependence, which is beyond the
scope of the lab contents.
An alternative
interpretation of
strain hardening as a
method of
decreasing ductility.
The relationship
between age
hardening and
temperature.
The limitation of
annealing process.
Presentation of brass alloy’s
hardness change due to cold
working and annealing.
Presentation of Al alloy’s
hardness change without
indicating their conditions.
The role of heat on metal
hardness.
Unclear statement about the
effect of precipitation
hardening on hardness.
4.2 Case 2: Design project report samples from the electric circuit course
Table 5 presents our analysis results on 1) pertinent information used, 2) engineering principles
applied, 3) references used, and 4) decisions made by the student in three design project report
samples.
Student team 1 used electric component datasheets, basic circuit theories, and multimeter
measurements for his engineering judgement of final circuit design and specification. They
studied the technical specifications of circuit components with the datasheets from a reference
and double-checked that information through the experimental measurements using a
multimeter. In addition, the human comfort zone was used as a guide for set points of fan
controls. This judgement might come from their reading of referencing websites, which have
similar information about the human comfort zone when designing automatic climate control.
The first engineering judgement from student team 2 was to determine the multiple circuit
components for the basic circuit design based on the wiring diagram for a 1978 CB750F
motorcycle available on the net. The student team selected a few components from the reference
circuit diagram to design an updated circuit they can realize in the breadboard. Secondly, the
team decided to connect the circuit components in parallel, so the same voltage could be applied
to each component. This judgement is simply to repeat the circuit connection method introduced
in the textbook for his project.
Student team 3 decided to use several capacitors connected in parallel to deliver the current to
the inductor for their circuit design. The team might have used simple circuit theory they learned
in the course for their decision, but there is a lack of pertinent information about how they made
that decision.
Table 5. Engineering judgement processes from three student design project report samples
Student team 1’s design report Student team 2’s
design report
Student team 3’s design
report
En
gin
eeri
ng
ju
dg
emen
t
Pertinent
information
used
- The source of the basic
concept for circuit design:
https://circuitdigest.com/electr
onic-circuits/temperature-
controlled-dc-fan-using-
thermistor.
- The resistance of the
thermistor from the data sheet
and measurement
(approximately 10k Ohms at
25 ˚C)
- 25 ˚C is a reasonable
temperature comfortable for
humans.
- Multiple issues when
PSPICE to model the circuit
- The wiring diagram
for a 1978 CB750F
motorcycle for the
basic circuit design
- High powered
systems used basic 4-
terminal 30A relays
None
Engineering
principles
applied
- With the non-inverting input
of the op-amp, the output
voltage will not be changed.
- NPN transistor allows
current to flow through the
emitter when a positive
voltage is applied to its base.
- With parallel
connection, each load
system could be used
separately
- The equivalent capacitance
of capacitors attached in
parallel is the sum of their
respective capacitances.
- When current flows
through an inductor, a
magnetic field is induced.
Decisions
made
- The output of the op-amp is
connected to the base of the
transistor.
- The circuit functioning off
ambient temperature was
adequate.
- The circuit was analyzed
using an operating point for
temperatures above and below
25 ˚C.
- Each load system
would be
independently
connected in parallel.
- The fuse amperages
were taken from the
motorcycle circuit
diagram.
- An EL-32 style
flasher unit was
chosen.
- Build a coil gun.
- Use several capacitors
connected in parallel to
deliver the current to the
inductor.
The analysis results of each design project report sample’s conclusion are introduced in Table 6.
All samples contain summary of key findings from their projects, including the circuit’s
functionality, the key data from testing, the observation results, etc. However, only one team’s
(student team 1) conclusion begins with the purpose of the project. Conclusions written in design
project report samples are in Table D of the Appendix.
Table 6. Analysis results of conclusion from three student design project report samples
Student team 1’s design
report
Student team 2’s design report Student team 3’s design
report
Co
ncl
usi
on
Summary of
the work
overview
This project is to build a
temperature activated
DC fan.
N/A N/A
Summary of
key findings
- The results were not
quite in agreement with
the simulation results.
- Our first prototype
performs as expected.
- PSpice values differed from
measured
- Internal resistance in flasher
was calculated to be 1.67 ohms
- Couldn't measure
current/resistance for horn
- The circuit was able to
induce a small movement
of a staple.
- We have demonstrated
that a magnetic field is
induced when current
runs through an inductor.
4.3 Discussion
In the context of two junior-level engineering courses, we investigated the undergraduate
students’ process of drawing engineering judgment and conclusions from their experimental labs
and design projects.
For the lab reports, all students presented the raw data from their lab experiments. However,
students’ decisions depend on the engineering principles they studied and documented in the
report. Regardless of the source, disciplinary knowledge students obtained from different sources
might impact to their decision making when analyzing their raw data and interpreting them.
The students’ decision making might also be related to their own interests or inquiry. Lab 5 has
largely three topics, i.e. strain hardening, precipitate hardening, and recrystallization. Student A
wrote extensively about the principles and applications of cold working along with multiple cold
working data analyses and interpretations in the report, while student B focused on annealing and
recrystallization. Because the genre of Lab 5 report is a research paper, students need to identify
issues and questions to develop the contents for the report. According to the definition by Banchi
and Bell [7], the level of inquiry in this case may be close to Level 4 open/true inquiry, which
requires students to formulate their own research question(s), design and follow through with a
developed procedure, and communicate their findings and results. One of the downsides in this
approach could be found with student C. He did not formulate any research questions for his
own; therefore, he did not make any significant engineering judgement when writing his lab
report.
Lab samples show that each student’s conclusion is well related to their engineering judgements.
For example, student B decided to compare the hardness value changes due to annealing
conditions in the discussion section and summarize that in the conclusion. He even added the
limitation of annealing process in conclusion. It can be interpreted that students want to
summarize the findings, which they decided to investigate further according to their inquiry.
For the design reports, all student teams identified the problems they wanted to solve with their
circuit prototypes. We could observe the level of articulations for each team’s circuit function
specification varies. Student team 1 specified the circuit functions very clearly. For example,
they identified the resistance of the thermistor at approximately 10k Ohms for room temperature
conditions (25 ˚C). This technical information was originated from an internet source. Student
team 1 described various technical information and engineering principles to their design in the
report. In contrast, student team 3 did not identify any circuit functionalities. They did not
articulate technical information as needed; therefore, the reader, the instructor in this case, could
not fully understand their design process and engineering judgement making process. It might be
because student team 3 failed to specify clearly about the functions of the prototype circuit they
designed.
Quality and soundness of each student team’s engineering judgement seems to be proportional to
the number of sources they used for the project. For example, student team 1 used multiple
sources including electric component datasheets, basic circuit theories, and multimeter
measurements. With a wealth of technical information as well as well-defined circuit functions,
this team could build the circuit for the temperature-controlled fan, which was functioned
successfully. However, student team 3 didn’t provide enough technical information or
engineering principles about their circuit design. This might be caused by the lack of sources
they used during the design process. The circuit prototype could function in an extremely simple
level and the team’s analysis about the circuit functions was very limited.
Each student team’s conclusion in the design project reports is related to their engineering
judgements; however, the relation is not as strong as what we observed from the lab report
samples. Their conclusions are mostly the facts of what they achieved or some simple
observations from their project outcomes.
5. Conclusion
This case study aims to investigate the engineering undergraduate students’ process of making
engineering judgement and drawing conclusions from two hands-on engineering practices: a
materials lab and a circuit development project. We analyzed students’ lab report samples and
project report samples (n = 6) in terms of their engineering judgement process and conclusion
writing.
Regardless of the writing genres, disciplinary knowledge students obtained from the outside
sources might impact their engineering judgement process. For the lab reports, it is related to the
quality of their raw data analysis and interpretation. For the design reports, it contributes the
quality of analysis for the project outcomes.
For the lab reports, the students’ decision making is related to their own interests or inquiry.
Formations of research questions during the lab report writing process impacts students’
engineering judgement about raw data analysis and interpretation. For the design project, the
students’ engineering judgement is highly related to identifying design specifications, the circuit
functions in this case. When a team has well-defined design specifications, the team tends to
collect pertinent technical information and study engineering principles in depth.
It is defined that a sound conclusion is a summary of the work overview and the key findings of
the work. Regardless of the genres, student’s conclusion writing is well related to the engineering
judgements made. When students identified the inquiry or the design specification, they tend to
make sound engineering judgements. This allowed them to draw sound conclusions as a
summary of their findings from their labs or projects.
6. Acknowledgement
This project is partially supported by NSF (DUE #1505066).
7. Reference
[1] L. Feisel and G. Peterson, "A Colloquy on Learning Objectives For Engineering Education
Laboratories," in Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2002.
[2] B. Yalvac, H. D. Smith, J. B. Troy and P. Hirsch, "Promoting Advanced Writing Skills in an
Upper-Level Engineering Class," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 117-128,
2007.
[3] J. Parkinson, "The Student Laboratory Report Genre: A Genre Analysis," English for Specific
Purposes, vol. 45, pp. 1-13, 2017.
[4] A. Shapiro, "WAC and Engineering, or Why Engineers Can't Write," in The 42nd Annual
Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Boston, MA, 1991.
[5] D. Kim and P. Sekhar, "A Preliminary Study on Supporting Writing Transfer in an
Introductory Engineering Laboratory Course," in Proceedings of the 2016 American Society of
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 2016.
[6] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, “Accreditation Changes,” ABET,
[Online]. Available: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/accreditation-
changes/ [Accessed 22 November 2018].
[7] Banchi, Heather; Bell, Randy, The Many Levels of Inquiry, Science and Children, v46 n2
p26-29 Oct 2008.
[8] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Available: https://definedterm.com/engineering_judgment/63323
[9] L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa, "The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering
education," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 121-130, 2005.
[10] Driscoll, W. C., “Parametric Case Studies Closing The Loop”, in Proceedings of the 1997
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002.
Available: https://peer.asee.org/6725
[11] Andrea A. Lunsford, The everyday writer (First-year composition course textbook)
[12] “Argument Papers”, Purdue University, Purdue Online Writing Lab, Argument Papers,
Available:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/argument_papers/con
clusions.html
[13] University of Toronto Engineering Communication Program Available:
https://ecp.engineering.utoronto.ca/resources/online-handbook/components-of-
documents/conclusions/
[14] “Student Writing Guide”, University of Minnesota Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Available: http://www.me.umn.edu/education/undergraduate/writing/MESWG-Lab.1.5.pdf
[15] Ringleb, S. I., & Ayala, O. M., & Kidd, J., “Implementing Peer-Review Activities for
Engineering Writing Assignments”, in Proceedings of the 2017 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference, Columbus, Ohio, 2017. Available:
https://peer.asee.org/28483
Appendix
Table A. Lab 5 Report Assessment Rubric
Your lab report score (130 max) = (AA score + CCT score + TC score)×5 + 70
Novice (1) Competent (2) Proficient (3) Exemplary (4)
Audience
Awareness
(AA)
The writer establishes
no purpose or clear
objective for the lab
report. The writer is
unaware of audience
and employs an
inappropriate style,
tone and/or voice. The
writer even shows
personal emotion on
the report.
The writer is
somewhat effective
in establishing a
purpose or objective
for the lab report;
however it is unclear.
The writer is
occasionally aware of
audience but veers
inappropriately from
the purpose, style and
target audience.
The writer mentions
objectives of the report
targeted to an
engineering audience.
The report employs
appropriate strategies
to prove the objectives
using data and credible
sources and deliver
meaningful
conclusions to the
audience.
The writer clearly outlines
the objectives of the report
targeted to an engineering
audience. The writer
develops context calling for
purposeful shifts in structure
(intro, body, conclusion)
when using appropriate
voice/tone (passive voice,
neutral stands) and level of
formality (extremely high
level of clarity) for an
engineering audience.
Computation,
Critical
thinking
(CCT)
The writer fails to
include required data -
OR- provides data with
excessive margins of
error.
Critical errors on
computation.
No additional research
was conducted.
The writer provides
some, but not all,
required data to
support analysis -OR-
provides data that is
moderately flawed.
Critical errors on
computation.
In addition, research
with secondary
sources is limited, so
only limited
interpretations are
provided.
The writer provides
the required and
elaborative data to
inform analysis. Minor
or minimal errors on
computation. The
writer discusses and
analyzes each task
with some technical
details. The
interpretations are
limited. Claims are
occasionally supported
by either primary
(data) or secondary
(outside reference)
sources.
The report contains the
required and elaborative data
analysis to inform the
findings with error-free
computation. The writer
extensively discusses and
analyzes each task,
explaining in technical detail
the significance of
observations and results to
the concepts being explored.
The writer should provide
multiple interpretations for
the test results (primary
source) through conducting
research with outside
reference sources (secondary
source).
Technical
Convention
(TC)
The writer fails to
include required data -
OR- provides data with
excessive errors in
formatting. Multiple
errors in conventions
such as typos, grammar
errors, no page
number, multiple fonts
in one paragraph, etc.
Referencing errors.
Figures, tables,
graphs, and
calculations are not
labeled or formatted
in an accurate, proper
and/or meaningful
fashion. Minor
formatting errors.
Referencing doesn’t
follow ASME
publication standard.
Figures, tables, graphs,
and calculations are
labeled and formatted
in an accurate, proper
and meaningful
fashion. Referencing
follows ASME
publication standard.
The lab report is of
professional caliber in
appearance and formatting as
an engineering document.
Tables, graphs, and/or
calculations are created with
superior attention, so the
audience can treat them as
stand-alone information.
Referencing follows ASME
publication standard.
Table B. Assessment instrument of design project
Group project Novice (6 point) Competent (8 point) Proficient (10 point)
Design and
Simulation
circuit
- Credible sources have not
been used to document the
design process
- Circuits include only power
sources, electric loads, and
connectors.
- Students do not provide any
simulation results.
- Credible sources have been
used to document most of the
design process
- Circuits contain multiple
components including some
energy storage elements and
amplifiers.
- Students partially simulate
their circuit.
- Credible sources have been
used to document truth tables,
logic expressions, and design
decisions
- Circuits contain some
components to transform
electrical energy into other
forms of energy such as
motion, light, heat, and
sound.
- Students fully simulate their
circuit.
Prototyping
and testing
circuit
Circuit is not functional. Circuit is functional, but
produces the incorrect output.
Circuit is fully functional.
Analysis and
discussion
No analysis and discussion The prototype’s functions are
partially analyzed and
discussed without in-depth
technical information.
The prototype’s functions are
well analyzed and discussed
with in-depth technical
information.
*Individual memo will also be graded for content, quality, and individual contribution to the
class project.
Table C. Conclusions from each student lab report sample
Lab 5 conclusion by student A
“Expanding on the results found in this lab, a clear relationship between hardness, tensile strength, and ductility
can be drawn. The purpose of testing these mechanical processes was to study the effects of heat treatment and
cold working on two well known mechanical properties (strength and ductility). From the data collected using
the Instron to strain hardening Al2024-T6 and the furnace to age harden the same material, these hardness values
found using the Rockwell Hardness scale can be compared to show how these processes affect the targeted
properties. Analysis of the data has shown that hardness increases more rapidly through strain hardening than
through precipitation hardening. Conversely, precipitation hardening has the potential to have a higher hardness
increase overall. The results show that at the gain of strengthening a material comes the cost of losing ductility
and placing the metal at a higher chance of experiencing brittle fracture. Based on the specific properties that are
necessary for the application of these alloys, such as machinability and temperature dependence [3], strength and
ductility can be manipulated by employing these mechanisms to affect the properties of desired metals and better
suit them for the job.”
Lab 5 conclusion by student B
“In conclusion, it can be said that after completing the two different material strength mechanisms, strain
hardening and precipitation hardening, there was an overall increase in the hardness level. In the strain
hardening procedure, there was also a decrease in plastic deformation with each trial, meaning that there was a
decrease in ductility of the material as each trial went on. With precipitation hardening it was also possible to
show the relationship between age hardening and temperature. The longer the material was in the furnace the
lower the value of hardness that the material experienced. In regards to the annealing process, the data shows
that the annealing method does in fact reverse the material back to the original properties of before strain
hardening.”
Lab 5 conclusion by student C
“Having performed multiple different kinds of tests on the various metals, it can be determined that each of the
metal coupons went through a transformation of some sort. The Brass IV coupon shifted in size each time a load
was applied, and also increased in hardness as well. When it was placed inside the furnace, the hardness
decreased from 41.6HRA to 21.8 HRA. As for the aluminum coupons, one showed significant change in
hardness after being placed in the furnace and the other showed little change. The aluminum IV coupon
experienced a small change in hardness going from 11.6 HRA to 12.5 HRA, while the Aluminum 4 coupon
experienced a significant change by going from 10.4 HRA to 18.6 HRA. Based on the data collected, it can be
determined that applying a significant amount of heat can play a role in changing the overall hardness of a metal
depending on what that metal is. It can also be said that the metal subject to strain hardening ended up increasing
in hardness, while the metal samples subject to precipitation hardening ended increasing and decreasing in
hardness while another stayed relatively constant.”
Table D. Conclusions from each student design project report sample
Project conclusion by student team 1
- Group 6’s project is a temperature activated DC fan.
- Because of the issues we had with the software, I decided to try another simulation package to verify the results
we received in PSPICE. LTSPICE is a similar circuit simulation program, the downside to it is that it does not
have nearly as many component models. In order to more accurately model the circuit using LTSPICE, some
research was done to find the LTSPICE equivalents of the MJE3055 transistor and the LM358 op-amp. Two
operational point analyses were then performed, using the same technique employed in PSPICE. Surprisingly
the results were not quite in agreement, however, because of the issues with PSPICE and our own unfamiliarity
with the program, it’s difficult to say if that was because either model was inaccurate, it was due to an incorrect
analysis method, or the result of a software error.
- Our first prototype didn’t perform as expected, but it’s resolved by using a different breadboard. In order to
verify, I used the same components, a 400 pin power supply, and an Arduino to rebuild the circuit and test it
successfully, using both an LED as a visual indicator and testing it with a multimeter to verify that an acceptable
voltage was present where our fan would be placed in the circuit.
Project conclusion by student team 2
- Turn Signal Current: 3.9A, Turn Signal Resistance: 0.7ohm/bulb
- Headlight Current: 140mA, Headlight Resistance: 1 ohm/bulb
- PSpice values differed from measured.
- Based on the amperage measured in the turn signal circuit, the internal resistance in the Flasher was calculated
to be 1.67ohm.
- Physically impossible to measure resistance to of Horn
Project conclusion by student team 3
- The prototype uses a relatively thick copper wire, which did not allow for many turns in the inductor. The
magnetic field in an inductor, which may be treated as a solenoid, is directly proportional to the number of turns
in the wire, so this limited the magnetic field we were able to induce.
- The circuit was able to induce a small movement of a staple when the switch was flipped.
- We have demonstrated that a magnetic field is induced when current runs through an inductor.